The Magic Of The 'One' - The 'One' As The Regulator Of Unity And Diversity

THE MAGIC OF THE ONE

THE ONE AS THE REGULATOR OF UNITY AND DIVERSITY

Diversity is a design principle of the world. It has been captured in the Mandelbrot set: an equation in which a changing number and a fixed number provide a result which is fed into the changing number slot and iterated. The graphic representation of the equation displays a spiraling dynamic which produces patterns that are continuous, repetitive and self-replicating as well as chaotic. Many biological and natural systems display this fractal feature. The mathematical principle behind it is always one and the same: one principle leads to infinite variations. The endless kaleidoscope of variations is held together by one principle. One could say that the very law behind diversity is Oneness which integrates a continuum consisting of universalist and particularist tendencies, of unity and diversity.

To be as diverse as the world is, there needs to be a unifying principle behind it, a centripetal agent that holds together the centrifugal forces. They need to be in balance. And the stronger the centrifugal forces, the stronger the centripetal forces will have to be to maintain the balance. In Ancient China it has already been recognized and formulated as the yin-yang principle, where the centrifugal or yin forces need to be and actually are polarized by the centripetal yang forces and vice versa. Together they constitute Dao, the one and highest principle. Here we have another principle of Oneness, that of Dao or the Way, which depending on its two aspects or arms to make it more concrete, i.e. the interplay of yin and yang forces, leads to an endless transformation and changes of forms

Both the Mandelbrot principle and Dao are unitary. In each case one principle with two arms, metaphorically speaking, is the one way of nature, framed in differing cultural terms to cause the myriads of diversity of the visible world, which puzzles the observer and which he finds hard to reconcile at the level of forms because they display similarities as well as dissimilarities among each other. The only way to reconcile them, when their reconciliation at the dialectical level does not yield the desired results is to return to the level of the unitary principle or Oneness which produces the diverse forms. The method may be likened to the exploration of the root cause of symptoms or a syndrome. - The solution may consist in the return the oneness of the principle which engendered the diverse variations which are at odds which each other. If that was feasible, one would hold the key to the reconciliation and integration of the myriad forms of diversity. - The research in the laboratory of the human mind, however, is more of an explorative undertaking then research in a natural science laboratory with specifics, protocols and replicable procedures. It’s a lonesome pioneering effort of the exploration of new terrain, which is not yet systematized and therefore, as any pioneering work, may result in more questions than conclusive answers. Yet questions in the right direction are the requisite for the right answers. Nobody can pretend to own the wisdom of Salomon. A humble approach to overarching questions of such magnitude and relevance as cultural diversity questions have at the threshold of the third millennium is therefore required.

We can take the referred to physiological metaphor literally and bring it very close to us: the two arms of the body are naturally integrated by the brain. If properly synchronized and coordinated by the integrating principle behind, which is the brain, they can synergize to produce a world of myriad forms and artifacts. If they are not integrated by the “oneness principle” which governs the two arms they might not be able to boil and egg. Disconnected from the integrative oneness principle which governs the “dialectic” of the two arms, they can become destructive rather than creative.

Variations have occurred in time and are difficult to reverse. They seem to be irreversible. To make them reversible, time in which the variations have occurred would also have to be reversible. And this does not seem to be the case in the material world. Although, the question of time, whether it is an a priori or whether it is manufactured by human consciousness as well as the question of its reversibility is a matter of debate among scientists.

The question that arises is therefore whether time, in which the many variations and diversifications have occurred can be “reversed in the mind”, in other words, whether the material diversification can be reversed or transcended at the mental or consciousness level. Then one could achieve their unification by a detour.

The problem of ending psychological time has been discussed by enlightened minds like J. Krishnamurti in his talks with leading scientists of the transdisciplinary scientific community for fifty years across the globe. It is also thematized by various religions as the master key in view of liberation as such.

There are the physicists’ approaches to time beginning with geniuses like Einstein, Ilya Prigogine and others that seem to be non-conclusive and there are the enlightened intellectual approaches which use it as a lever to solve the riddle of existence and a consciousness revolution. There are the religious approaches to time which also see liberation in its mastery. And finally the modern samurai of the “budo tradition” at its more sophisticated level declare that in their very concrete experience neither time nor space exist. This applies to Sensei Morihei Ueshiba, the creator of aikido. The physicist’s, the philosopher’s, the spiritualist’s and the samurai’s approaches to time highlight its relevance when one enquires into the deeper layers of existence. But, although time cannot be ignored it is not the major focus of this exploration. It seems to be clear that fully understanding time and transcending psychological time and therefore the mind (which largely seems to be a product of time) in order to reach unconditioned awareness can be an approach to the One and its transformatory magic. Here we want to follow a more conventional Western cultural tradition:

Based on the unity-diversity, centrifugal-centripetal balance there should also be one principle that holds together the totality of the diverse creation. From a monotheistic standpoint, the underlying unitary principle of the dialectic of the unity-diversity continuum of creation and its integrative polarization is the Creator. Therefore the totality of the diverse creation can be explained by the superordinate logic of oneness of the all encompassing Creator. In other words the correct understanding of monotheism which presides over the centrifugal and the centripetal forces of creation, those of diversification and integration, of diversity and unity which both together are aspects of the one principle behind creation should enable a path to the integration of the diversity of the manifested forms. And what stands behind the principle as well as the manifestation is the creator of both, the principle and its activity. This is the biggest One and true magic of the one imaginable.

If one accepts that man is made in the image of God, as a replication of his Creator, he contains the oneness principle as well as the unity-diversity principle and therefore the ability to naturally balance centrifugal forces of diversity and centripetal forces of unity and also the integration of the two forces in an absolute ONE, which simply is and by virtue of its being what it is, constitutes the master key to all diversity resolution dilemmas. It appears as a gift of the wisdom of the Creator that has been bestowed on him a priori for dilemma resolution in the periphery of his being. As a gift it brings the obligation of its operationalization with it. The Bible is full of metaphors that go beyond the assumption of a oneness principle behind dualistic principles and dialectics. One can even detect a total BIG ONE of the oneness of the totality of what is, has ever been and will ever be. As the religious aspects of diversity challenges threaten mankind as a whole today, comparable to a sword of Damocles, religious intelligence and sensitivity should no longer be banned from academia as unfashionable or unscientific. There is increasing evidence that religious and even pseudo-religious determination can outlast a coalition of mighty armies. And, after all, the academic world of the 21st century hinges on centuries of monastic tradition. Should this evidence and the roots be ignored? - Misperception of the oneness, the all encompassing oneness which means acceptance, love and solidarity with the human family as a whole without excluding those who manifest the oneness in a diverse form should be corrected so as to honour the principle of oneness beyond diversity. The root of the fundamentalist problem lies in the misperception of the oneness principle. Love of God, of oneself and of one’s neighbour are oneness in action. They are one, indivisible and all encompassing.

The expansion of awareness so as to encompass the totality and based on the monotheistic Christian assumption of man being made in the image of God, the integrity of the total is an a priori fact and actual determinant of human nature as a whole. Due to his/her lack of awareness or oblivion of this a priori fact which underpins his/her existence, antagonistic diversity issues can arise. Therefore, if evolution seems to be materially irreversible, memory of the origin can effect the magic of integration. It is the magic of the one. It is so self-evident that man forgets it. This forgetfulness underlies the struggle of the diverse forms. Through the reminiscence of his/her Creator man can in a way reverse and transcend time at the level of consciousness and always return to the totality and oneness without giving up an inch of his individual uniqueness, evolutionary “acquis” and modern sophistication. Through his aware memory he has access to the one, which is always there in a latent form together with the diversifying and integrating forces. It is so close to him that it eludes him. But when it slips outside the horizon of his awareness he puts it in an unreachable distance which makes it unavailable as a natural integrative function of diversity.

With the premise of man being made in the image of God, he can not only reconcile unity and diversity but he can completely transcend this dialectic as he partakes, based on the premise of him being a replication of his Creator, not only in the dialectical but also in the oneness principle behind it. It is truly marvellous how man can - in consciousness - transform anything he encounters from duality into underlying unity without dissolution. While maintaining the outer status quo and not giving up anything of his uniqueness he can fully integrate diversity by virtue of consciousness, awareness or reminiscence of his true nature. It appears that in spirit or consciousness man can reverse time while remaining in time and in the mind.

Unity and diversity together constitute the continuum of totality. In order to integrate it a mediator is required that contains the two. Although diversity can be polarized by unity it is no sustainable solution to the diversity challenge, because unity and diversity interact dialectically. The true diversity solution only resides in the transcendence of this continuum which is the transcendence of time, the psychological reversal of time. It is not a simple reconciliation in dilemma theory terms, because the synergy formula of the two poles will probably remain in the domain of duality, whereas the true transcendence of the dualistic plane can only be achieved by the non-dualistic dimension or plane of oneness itself. However, the clearance of the dualistic unity-diversity plane, its integration can be a stepping stone towards the higher non-dualistic plane of oneness, where the true, irreversible, unconditioned essential One resides, that is no longer subject to the dance of alliances of the dualistic plane with its ephemeral reference criteria for human solidarity: There is a difference in quality between the two levels. The dualistic plane is cultural and reversible, whereas the non-dualistic dimension is essential and irreversible. If man can think it and if true spirituality has been teaching about this absolute plane for eons and enjoins moral codes of behaviour for its realization one may assume that it actually exists and that it is not a projection of an ideal state as a response to the actual state of the affairs of the world. Whether it can be achieved also depends on man’s development on levels 3 and 4 of the transcultural management model or profiler below which are Ethics and Evolution. It also depends on a shift of priorities in human potential enhancement from idiocentric to allocentric finalities which expand the reference criterion for human solidarity to encompass more of the whole. And obviously, as has been pointed out, it can be derived from a number of world views, first and foremost those which merit the attribute religious as well as scientific and philosophical analysis. The enhanced reality can be discovered through grace, revelation, analysis or ethical effort, sensitization and awareness and last but not least also through learning. And that is where our age of information and communication and the age of knowledge, which are both built on learning, have to play a role. As such it becomes an issue of a sustainable universal socialization, locally, regionally and globally and moves from the esoteric in the exoteric domain of politics, which in the long-term is a major beneficiary of a socialization towards a geopolitical oneness principle, because it tends to be the panacea against domestic, intercultural and international conflict: the path of peace and the fulfillment of human cravings since time immemorial, probably unfulfilled because various contextual factors and conditioning kept him on the plane of duality and dialectics. But with human affairs gravitating towards wholeness and integration in every respect, man could also realize the corollary of his whole potentiality, the awareness of natural, unconditional essential oneness as a complement and a solution to frequently unnatural, conditioned, peripheral diversity conceptions. Is such a perspective not a corner stone of a blueprint for the future of the world?

[...]