上面讨论的观点在某些关键方面与一些古希腊人的观点相似。通过考虑亚里士多德的因果关系概念，可以得出这种相似性。亚里士多德区分了四种原因：

物质 动力 形式 目的

我们可以通过一个很好的例子来理解这种区别，那就是考虑一些有生命的东西，比如一棵树或一只动物。那么，物质因就是所有其他原因发挥作用的物质，事物就是由这些原因构成的。因此，就植物而言，物质因就是土壤、空气、水和阳光，它们构成了植物的物质。动力因是指某种作用，这种作用外在于所讨论的事物，它使整个过程得以展开。例如，就树而言，播种可以被视为动力因。

在此背景下，理解形式因的含义至关重要。不幸的是，在其现代含义中，“形式”一词往往指不太重要的外在形式（例如“正式服装”或“仅仅是形式”）。然而，在古希腊哲学中，“形式”一词首先意味着一种内在的形成活动，它是事物生长以及各种基本形式发展和分化的原因。例如，在橡树的情况下，“形式因”一词所指的是树液、细胞生长、树枝、树叶等的整个内在运动，这是这种树的特征，与其他种类的树不同。用更现代的语言来说，最好将其描述为形成因，以强调所涉及的不仅仅是一种从外部强加的形式，而是一种有序、结构化的内部运动，这是事物存在的本质。

任何这样的形式因显然都必须有一个至少是隐含的目的或结果。因此，不可能在不同时提及由该运动产生的橡树的情况下，提及从橡子产生橡树的内部运动。因此，形成因总是意味着目的因。

当然，我们也知道目的因是设计，是通过思想有意识地牢记在心的（这一概念被延伸到上帝身上，上帝被认为是按照某种宏伟的设计创造了宇宙）。然而，设计只是目的因的一种特例。例如，人们常常在思想上以某种目的为目标，但他们的行动所产生的实际结果通常与他们的设计不同，而这种不同是隐含在他们所做的事情中的，尽管参与其中的人并没有意识到。

在古代观点中，形式因的概念被认为对于心灵来说本质上与对于生命和整个宇宙来说具有相同的性质。事实上，亚里士多德认为宇宙是一个单一的有机体，其中每个部分在与整体的关系中生长和发展，并在其中有其适当的位置和功能。关于心灵，我们可以通过将注意力转向意识的流动运动来用更现代的术语来理解这种概念。如前所述，人们首先可以辨别出此流程中的各种思维模式。这些通过由习惯和条件决定的关联相对机械地相互遵循。显然，这种联想变化是所讨论的思想内部结构的外部因素，因此这些变化就像一系列有效的原因。然而，了解某件事的原因并不是这种性质的机械活动：相反，一个人意识到每个方面都被同化为一个整体，其所有部分都是内在相关的（例如，身体的器官）身体）。在这里，我们必须强调，理性行为本质上是一种通过心灵的感知，在某些方面类似于艺术感知，而不仅仅是已知原因的联想重复。因此，一个人可能会对各种各样的因素、互不相容的事物感到困惑，直到突然灵光一闪，人们就会看到所有这些因素作为一个整体的各个方面是如何相互关联的（例如，考虑牛顿对万有引力）。这种感知行为无法得到适当的详细分析或描述。相反，它们应被视为心灵形成活动的各个方面。那么，一种特定的概念结构就是这种活动的产物，而这些产物是由一系列在普通联想思维中运作的有效原因联系起来的——正如前面指出的，在这种观点中，人们认为形成活动是主要的自然界中的产物形式也存在于心灵中，因此自然界中的产物形式也是由有效原因联系在一起的。

显然，形式因的概念与流动运动中不可分割的整体性观点相关，这种观点已在现代物理学的发展中得到体现，尤其是相对论和量子论。因此，正如已经指出的那样，每个相对独立和稳定的结构（例如原子粒子）不应被理解为独立和永久存在的东西，而应被理解为在整个流动运动中形成的产物，最终将重新融入这一运动。因此，它如何形成和维持取决于它在整体中的位置和功能。因此，我们看到，现代物理学的某些发展意味着一种对自然的洞察，这种洞察与形式因和目的因的概念有关，本质上类似于早期常见的观察方式。

然而，在当今物理学界的大多数工作中，形式因和目的因的概念并不被认为具有首要意义。相反，定律仍然普遍被认为是一种自决的动力因系统，在宇宙的一组最终物质成分中运作（例如，受相互作用力影响的基本粒子）。这些成分不被视为在一个整体过程中形成的，因此它们不被视为任何适合其在整体中的位置和功能的元素（即它们将在这个整体中服务的目的），相反，它们往往被认为是具有固定性质的独立存在的机械元素。

因此，现代物理学的主流反对任何将流动运动的不可分割整体中的形成活动置于首位的观点。事实上，相对论和量子理论中确实表明需要这种观点的那些方面往往被淡化，事实上大多数物理学家几乎没有注意到，因为它们主要被视为数学微积分的特征，而不是事物真实性质的指示。当谈到物理学中非形式的语言和思维方式时，它们会激发想象力并激发对真实和实质性的感受，大多数物理学家仍然以对真理的坚信不疑的方式谈论和思考，即宇宙是由基本粒子构成的，而基本粒子是构成一切的“基本构件”。在其他科学领域，如生物学，这种信念更加坚定，因为这些领域的研究人员很少意识到现代物理学发展的革命性。例如，现代分子生物学家普遍认为，通过对 DNA 分子结构和功能的研究进行某种扩展，最终可以用或多或少机械的方式理解整个生命和精神，类似的趋势已经开始在心理学中占据主导地位。因此，我们得出了一个非常奇怪的结果：在生命和精神的研究中，正是在经验和观察中最能体现以不分割、不间断的流动运动方式发挥作用的形式因的领域，现在却最相信以碎片的原子论方式来看待现实。

当然，科学界普遍存在的以碎片化自我世界观来思考和感知的倾向，是多年来不断发展的、几乎渗透到当今整个社会的更大运动的一部分：但反过来，这种思考和观察科学研究的方式又会非常强烈地强化普遍的碎片化方法，因为它给人们描绘了一幅整个世界只由独立存在的“原子构件”组成的画面，并提供了实验证据，从中可以得出结论，即这种观点是必要的和不可避免的。这样一来，人们就觉得碎片化只不过是“一切事物的真实状态”的一种表达，任何其他东西都是不可能的。因此，人们很少会去寻找相反的证据。事实上，正如已经指出的那样，即使确实出现了这样的证据，比如在现代物理学中，人们的普遍倾向是尽量减少其重要性，甚至完全忽略它。事实上，人们甚至可以说，在当今的社会状态下，以及在作为这种社会状态的一种体现的当今一般的科学教学模式中，一种倾向于碎片化的自我世界观的偏见被培育和传播（在某种程度上是明显的和有意识的，但主要是以隐含的和无意识的方式）。

然而，正如已经指出的那样，从长远来看，受这种碎片的自我世界观指导的人，除了试图在自己的行动中将自己和世界分裂成符合他们一般思维方式的碎片之外，别无他法。首先，由于分裂是一种试图将对世界的分析扩展到适合这样做的领域之外的独立部分，因此它实际上是试图分裂真正不可分割的东西。进一步，这种尝试还将导致我们试图统一那些实际上无法统一的东西。这一点在社会群体（政治、经济、宗教等）方面尤其明显。组建这样一个群体的行为本身往往会产生一种分裂感，使成员与世界其他地方分离，但由于成员与整体实际上是相连的，所以这是行不通的。事实上，每个成员都有一种略有不同的联系，迟早这会导致他与群体其他成员之间的差异。每当人们脱离整个社会并试图通过群体认同来团结起来时，很明显，该群体最终必然会产生内部冲突，从而导致其团结的破裂。同样，当人们试图在实际技术工作中分离自然的某些方面时，也会出现类似的矛盾和不团结状态。当个人试图脱离社会时，也会发生同样的事情。个人、人与自然以及人与人之间的真正团结，只有在一种不试图分裂整个现实的行动形式中才能产生。

我们碎片化的思维、观察和行为方式显然影响着人类生活的方方面面。也就是说，具有相当有趣的讽刺意味的是，碎片化似乎是我们生活方式中唯一普遍的东西，它贯穿于整个生活，没有边界或限制。这是因为碎片化的根源非常深厚和普遍。正如所指出的，我们试图将不可分割的事物分开，这意味着下一步我们将试图识别不同之处。

因此，碎片化本质上是对差异和相同（或“一”）问题的混淆，但清晰地认识这些范畴在生活的每一个阶段都是必要的。对不同和相同感到困惑，就是对一切都感到困惑。因此，我们碎片化的思维方式导致个人和整个社会出现如此广泛的社会、政治、经济、生态、心理等危机，这并非偶然。这种思维方式意味着无休止地发展混乱和毫无意义的冲突，其中所有人的能量往往会因对抗或相互矛盾的运动而丧失。

显然，消除这种渗透到我们整个生活的深刻而普遍的混乱是十分重要且极其紧迫的。如果我们的思想陷入一种混乱的状态，总是在区分没有区别的东西，认同不相同的东西，那么试图采取社会、政治、经济或其他行动又有什么用呢？这种行动充其量是无效的，最坏的情况是真正具有破坏性。

试图将某种固定的整合或统一的“整体”原则强加于我们的自我世界观也毫无用处，因为如前所述，任何形式的固定自我世界观都意味着我们不再将我们的理论视为洞察或观察方式，而是将其视为“对事物真实情况的绝对真实知识”。因此，无论我们是否喜欢，每种理论（即使是“整体”理论）中不可避免地存在的区别都会被错误地视为分歧，这意味着被区分的术语是独立存在的（因此，相应地，没有以这种方式区分的东西将被错误地视为完全相同）。

因此，我们必须保持警惕，认真注意并考虑这样一个事实：我们的理论不是“对现实本身的描述”，而是不断变化的洞察形式，它可以指向或表明一种隐含的、无法整体描述或指定的现实。这种警惕的需要甚至适用于本章中所说的内容，因为这不应被视为“关于碎片和整体性质的绝对真实知识”。相反，它也是对这个问题洞察的理论。读者需要自己去判断这种洞察是否清晰或不清晰，以及它的有效性的限度是什么。

那么，怎样才能结束普遍存在的碎片状态呢?乍一看，这似乎是一个合理的问题，但仔细研究就会发现，这个问题的前提并不明确。

一般来说，如果有人问如何解决某个技术问题，那么就假定我们一开始不知道答案，但我们的头脑仍然足够清晰，可以找到答案，或者至少可以识别出别人发现的答案。但如果我们的整个思维方式都被碎片化所渗透，这就意味着我们无法做到这一点，因为碎片化感知本质上是一种很大程度上无意识的习惯，围绕什么是不同的，什么不是不同的问题产生混淆。因此，在我们试图探索如何解决碎片化问题的过程中，我们会继续保持这种习惯，从而倾向于引入更多形式的碎片化。

当然，这并不意味着完全没有出路，但确实意味着我们必须停下来，不要再用惯常的碎片化思维方式去寻找现成的解决方案。碎片化和整体性的问题是一个微妙而困难的问题，比那些导致科学领域全新发现的问题更微妙、更困难。问如何结束碎片化并期望几分钟内得到答案，这甚至比问如何发展像爱因斯坦在研究时那样新颖的理论，并期望有人用公式或方案的形式来告诉你该怎么做更不合理。

这个问题最困难和最微妙的一点就是要澄清思维内容和产生这种内容的思维过程之间的关系。造成分裂的一个主要原因实际上是普遍接受的假设，即思维过程与其内容充分分离和独立，使我们能够进行清晰、有序、理性的思考，从而正确地判断这种内容是正确还是不正确、合理还是不合理、零碎还是完整等等。实际上，正如我们所看到的，自我世界观所涉及的分裂不仅存在于思维内容中，而且存在于“进行思考”的人的一般活动中，因此，它既存在于思维过程，也存在于内容中。事实上，内容和过程并不是两个独立存在的东西，而是整个运动的两个方面。因此，零碎的内容和零碎的过程必须一起终结。

我们在这里要处理的是思维过程及其内容的统一性，这在关键方面类似于观察者和被观察者的统一性；这已在相对论和量子论中讨论过。当我们有意或无意地陷入一种思维模式时，这种思维模式试图根据假定的思维过程与思维内容（即其产物）之间的分离来分析自身，就无法正确处理这类问题。通过接受这种假设，我们下一步就会导致幻想，认为通过动力因寻求某种行动，从而结束内容上的碎片，同时不触及思维实际过程中的碎片。然而，我们需要以某种方式把握碎片的整体形成原因，在这种分裂中，内容和实际过程被视为整体。

这里，我们可以想象一下河流中湍流漩涡的形象。漩涡的结构和分布构成了运动描述的一种内容，它们与流动的河流的形成活动密不可分，而河流的形成活动会创造、维持并最终瓦解整个漩涡结构。因此，试图在不改变河流形成活动的情况下消除漩涡显然是荒谬的。一旦我们对整个运动的意义有了正确的认识，我们显然就不会再尝试这种徒劳无功的方法。相反，我们会审视整个情况，并保持警惕，努力了解它，从而发现真正适合整体的行动，以结束湍流漩涡结构。同样，当我们真正掌握了我们正在进行的思考过程的同一性的真理，以及作为这一过程的产物的思想内容时，这种洞察力将使我们能够观察、看清和了解整个思想运动，从而发现与整个思想运动相关的行动，这将结束运动的“漩涡”，而这是生命每个阶段碎片化的本质。

当然，这种学习和探索需要大量的细心关注和辛勤工作。我们愿意在科学、经济、社会、政治等广泛领域给予这种关注和努力。然而，迄今为止，我们还很少或根本没有对思维过程产生洞察，而所有其他方面的价值都取决于思维过程的清晰度。我们最需要的是越来越多的人认识到，继续进行碎片化的思维过程是极其危险的。这样的认识将使探究思维如何实际运作的产生紧迫感和能量，以应对我们目前面临的碎片化的真正困难。

原文：

The point of view discussed above is similar, in certain key ways, to that held by some of the Ancient Greeks. This similarity can be brought out by considering Aristotle’s notion of causality. Aristotle distinguished four kinds of causes:

Material Efficient Formal Final

A good example in terms of which this distinction can be understood is obtained by considering something living, such as a tree or an animal. The material cause is then just the matter in which all the other causes operate and out of which the thing is constituted. Thus, in the case of a plant, the material cause is the soil, air, water and sunlight, constituting the substance of the plant. The efficient cause is some action, external to the thing under discussion, which allows the whole process to get under way. In the case of a tree, for example, the planting of the seed could be taken as the efficient cause.

It is of crucial significance in this context to understand what was meant by formal cause. Unfortunately, in its modern conno- tation, the word ‘formal’ tends to refer to an outward form that is not very significant (e.g. as in ‘formal dress’ or ‘a mere formality’). However, in the Ancient Greek philosophy, the word form meant, in the first instance, an inner forming activity which is the cause of the growth of things, and of the development and differentiation of their various essential forms. For example, in the case of an oak tree, what is indicated by the term ‘formal cause’ is the whole inner movement of sap, cell growth, articula- tion of branches, leaves, etc., which is characteristic of that kind of tree and different from that taking place in other kinds of trees. In more modern language, it would be better to describe this as formative cause, to emphasize that what is involved is not a mere form imposed from without, but rather an ordered and structured inner movement that is essential to what things are.

Any such formative cause must evidently have an end or product which is at least implicit. Thus, it is not possible to refer to the inner movement from the acorn giving rise to an oak tree, without simultaneously referring to the oak tree that is going to result from this movement. So formative cause always implies final cause.

Of course, we also know final cause as design, consciously held in mind through thought (this notion being extended to God, who was regarded as having created the universe according to some grand design). Design is, however, only a special case of final cause. For example, men often aim toward certain ends in their thoughts but what actually emerges from their actions is generally something different from what was in their design, something that was, however, implicit in what they were doing, though not consciously perceived by those who took part.

In the ancient view, the notion of formative cause was con- sidered to be of essentially the same nature for the mind as it was for life and for the cosmos as a whole. Indeed, Aristotle con- sidered the universe as a single organism in which each part grows and develops in its relationship to the whole and in which it has its proper place and function. With regard to the mind, we can understand this sort of notion in more modern terms by turning our attention to the flowing movement of awareness. As indicated earlier, one can, in the first instance, discern various thought patterns in this flow. These follow on each other relatively mechanically, through association determined by habit and conditioning. Evidently, such associative changes are external to the inner structure of the thoughts in question, so that these changes act like a series of efficient causes. However, to see the reason for something is not a mechanical activity of this nature: Rather, one is aware of each aspect as assimilated within a single whole, all of whose parts are inwardly related (as are, for example, the organs of the body). Here, one has to emphasize that the act of reason is essentially a kind of perception through the mind, similar in certain ways to artistic perception, and not merely the associative repetition of reasons that are already known. Thus, one may be puzzled by a wide range of factors, things that do not fit together, until suddenly there is a flash of understanding, and therefore one sees how all these factors are related as aspects of one totality (e.g. consider Newton’s insight into universal gravitation). Such acts of perception cannot prop- erly be given a detailed analysis or description. Rather, they are to be considered as aspects of the forming activity of the mind. A particular structure of concepts is then the product of this activity, and these products are what are linked by the series of efficient causes that operate in ordinary associative thinking – and as pointed out earlier, in this view, one regards the forming activity as primary in nature as it is in the mind, so that the product forms in nature are also what are linked by efficient causes.

Evidently, the notion of formative cause is relevant to the view of undivided wholeness in flowing movement, which has been seen to be implied in modern developments in physics, notably relativity theory and quantum theory. Thus, as has been pointed out, each relatively autonomous and stable structure (e.g., an atomic particle) is to be understood not as something independ- ently and permanently existent but rather as a product that has been formed in the whole flowing movement and that will ultimately dissolve back into this movement. How it forms and maintains itself, then, depends on its place and function in the whole. So, we see that certain developments in modern physics imply a sort of insight into nature that is in respect to the notions of formative and final cause, essentially similar to ways of looking that were common in earlier times.

Nevertheless, in most of the work that is being done in phy- sics today the notions of formative and final cause are not regarded as having primary significance. Rather, law is still gen- erally conceived as a self-determined system of efficient causes, operating in an ultimate set of material constituents of the uni- verse (e.g. elementary particles subject to forces of interaction between them). These constituents are not regarded as formed in an overall process, and thus they are not considered to be anything like organs adapted to their place and function in the whole (i.e. to the ends which they would serve in this whole). Rather, they tend to be conceived as separately existent mechanical elements of a fixed nature.

The prevailing trend in modern physics is thus much against any sort of view giving primacy to formative activity in undivided wholeness of flowing movement. Indeed, those aspects of relativity theory and quantum theory which do sug- gest the need for such a view tend to be de-emphasized and in fact hardly noticed by most physicists, because they are regarded largely as features of the mathematical calculus and not as indica- tions of the real nature of things. When it comes to the informal language and mode of thought in physics, which infuses the imagination and provokes the sense of what is real and substan- tial, most physicists still speak and think, with an utter convic- tion of truth, in terms of the traditional atomistic notion that the universe is constituted of elementary particles which are ‘basic building blocks’ out of which everything is made. In other sci- ences, such as biology, the strength of this conviction is even greater, because among workers in these fields there is little awareness of the revolutionary character of development in modern physics. For example, modern molecular biologists generally believe that the whole of life and mind can ultimately be understood in more or less mechanical terms, through some kind of extension of the work that has been done on the struc- ture and function of DNA molecules. A similar trend has already begun to dominate in psychology. Thus we arrive at the very odd result that in the study of life and mind, which are just the fields in which formative cause acting in undivided and unbroken flowing movement is most evident to experience and observation, there is now the strongest belief in the fragmentary atomistic approach to reality.

Of course, the prevailing tendency in science to think and perceive in terms of a fragmentary self-world view is part of a larger movement that has been developing over the ages and that pervades almost the whole of our society today: but, in turn, such a way of thinking and looking in scientific research tends very strongly to re-enforce the general fragmentary approach because it gives men a picture of the whole world as constituted of nothing but an aggregate of separately existent ‘atomic build- ing blocks’, and provides experimental evidence from which is drawn the conclusion that this view is necessary and inevitable. In this way, people are led to feel that fragmentation is nothing but an expression of ‘the way everything really is’ and that any- thing else is impossible. So there is very little disposition to look for evidence to the contrary. Indeed, as has already been pointed out, even when such evidence does arise, as in modern physics, the general tendency is to minimize its significance or even to ignore it altogether. One might in fact go so far as to say that in the present state of society, and in the present general mode of teaching science, which is a manifestation of this state of society, a kind of prejudice in favour of a fragmentary self- world view is fostered and transmitted (to some extent explicitly and consciously but mainly in an implicit and unconscious manner).

As has been indicated, however, men who are guided by such a fragmentary self-world view cannot, in the long run, do other than to try in their actions to break themselves and the world into pieces, corresponding to their general mode of thinking. Since, in the first instance, fragmentation is an attempt to extend the analysis of the world into separate parts beyond the domain in which to do this is appropriate, it is in effect an attempt to divide what is really indivisible. In the next step such an attempt will lead us also to try to unite what is not really unitable. This can be seen especially clearly in terms of groupings of people in society (political, economic, religious, etc.). The very act of forming such a group tends to create a sense of division and separation of the members from the rest of the world but, because the members are really connected with the whole, this cannot work. Each member has in fact a somewhat different connection, and sooner or later this shows itself as a difference between him and other members of the group. Whenever men divide themselves from the whole of society and attempt to unite by identification within a group, it is clear that the group must eventually develop internal strife, which leads to a break- down of its unity. Likewise when men try to separate some aspect of nature in their practical, technical work, a similar state of contradiction and disunity will develop. The same sort of thing will happen to the individual when he tries to separate himself from society. True unity in the individual and between man and nature, as well as between man and man, can arise only in a form of action that does not attempt to fragment the whole of reality.

Our fragmentary way of thinking, looking, and acting, evi- dently has implications in every aspect of human life. That is to say, by a rather interesting sort of irony, fragmentation seems to be the one thing in our way of life which is universal, which works through the whole without boundary or limit. This comes about because the roots of fragmentation are very deep and pervasive. As pointed out, we try to divide what is one and indivisible, and this implies that in the next step we will try to identify what is different.

So fragmentation is in essence a confusion around the question of difference and sameness (or one-ness), but the clear perception of these categories is necessary in every phase of life. To be confused about what is different and what is not, is to be confused about everything. Thus, it is not an accident that our fragmentary form of thought is leading to such a widespread range of crises, social, political, economic, ecological, psychological, etc., in the individual and in society as a whole. Such a mode of thought implies unending development of chaotic and meaningless conflict, in which the energies of all tend to be lost by movements that are antagonistic or else at cross-purposes.

Evidently, it is important and indeed extremely urgent to clear up this deep and pervasive kind of confusion that penetrates the whole of our lives. What is the use of attempts at social, political, economic or other action if the mind is caught up in a confused movement in which it is generally differentiating what is not different and identifying what is not identical? Such action will be at best ineffective and at worst really destructive.

Nor will it be useful to try to impose some fixed kind of integrating or unifying ‘holistic’ principle on our self-world view, for, as indicated earlier, any form of fixed self-world view implies that we are no longer treating our theories as insights or ways of looking but, rather, as ‘absolutely true knowledge of things as they really are’. So, whether we like it or not, the distinctions that are inevitably present in every theory, even an ‘holistic’ one, will be falsely treated as divisions, implying separate existence of the terms that are distinguished (so that, correspondingly, what is not distinguished in this way will be falsely treated as absolutely identical).

We have thus to be alert to give careful attention and serious consideration to the fact that our theories are not ‘descriptions of reality as it is’ but, rather, ever-changing forms of insight, which can point to or indicate a reality that is implicit and not describable or specifiable in its totality. This need for being thus watchful holds even for what is being said here in this chapter, in the sense that this is not to be regarded as ‘absolutely true know- ledge of the nature of fragmentations and wholeness’. Rather, it too is a theory that gives insight into this question. It is up to the reader to see for himself whether the insight is clear or unclear and what are the limits of its validity.

What, then, can be done to end the prevailing state of frag- mentation? At first sight this may seem to be a reasonable ques- tion but a closer examination leads one to ask whether it is in fact a reasonable question, for one can see that this question has presuppositions that are not clear.

Generally speaking, if one asks how one can solve some technical problem, for example, it is presupposed that while we begin not knowing the answer, our minds are nevertheless clear enough to discover an answer, or at least to recognize someone else’s discovery of an answer. But if our whole way of thinking is penetrated by fragmentation, this implies that we are not capable of this, for fragmentary perception is in essence a largely unconscious habit of confusion around the question of what is different and what is not. So, in the very act in which we try to discover what to do about fragmentation, we will go on with this habit and thus we will tend to introduce yet further forms of fragmentation.

This does not necessarily mean, of course, that there is no way out at all, but it does mean that we have to give pause so that we do not go with our habitual fragmentary ways of thinking as we seek solutions that are ready to hand. The question of fragmenta- tion and wholeness is a subtle and difficult one, more subtle and difficult than those which lead to fundamentally new discoveries in science. To ask how to end fragmentation and to expect an answer in a few minutes makes even less sense than to ask how to develop a theory as new as Einstein’s was when he was working on it, and to expect to be told what to do in terms of some programme, expressed in terms of formulae or recipes.

One of the most difficult and subtle points about this question is just to clarify what is to be meant by the relationship between the content of thought and the process of thinking which pro- duces this content. A major source of fragmentation is indeed the generally accepted presupposition that the process of thought is sufficiently separate from and independent of its con- tent, to allow us generally to carry out clear, orderly, rational thinking, which can properly judge this content as correct or incorrect, rational or irrational, fragmentary or whole, etc. Actu- ally, as has been seen, the fragmentation involved in a self-world view is not only in the content of thought, but in the general activity of the person who is ‘doing the thinking’, and thus, it is as much in the process of thinking as it is in the content. Indeed, content and process are not two separately existent things, but, rather, they are two aspects of views of one whole movement. Thus fragmentary content and fragmentary process have to come to an end together.

What we have to deal with here is a one-ness of the thinking process and its content, similar in key ways to the one-ness of observer and observed; that has been discussed in connection with relativity theory and quantum theory. Questions of this nature cannot be met properly while we are caught up, con- sciously or unconsciously, in a mode of thought which attempts to analyse itself in terms of a presumed separation between the process of thinking and the content of thought that is its prod- uct. By accepting such a presumption we are led, in the next step, to seek some fantasy of action through efficient causes that would end the fragmentation in the content while leaving the fragmentation in the actual process of thinking untouched. What is needed, however, is somehow to grasp the overall formative cause of fragmentation, in which content and actual process are seen together, in their wholeness.

One might here consider the image of a turbulent mass of vortices in a stream. The structure and distribution of vortices, which constitute a sort of content of the description of the movement, are not separate from the formative activity of the flowing stream, which creates, maintains, and ultimately dis- solves the totality of vortex structures. So to try to eliminate the vortices without changing the formative activity of the stream would evidently be absurd. Once our perception is guided by the proper insight into the significance of the whole movement, we will evidently not be disposed to try such a futile approach. Rather, we will look at the whole situation, and be attentive and alert to learn about it, and thus to discover what is really an appropriate sort of action, relevant to this whole, for bringing the turbulent structure of vortices to an end. Similarly, when we really grasp the truth of the one-ness of the thinking process that we are actually carrying out, and the content of thought that is the product of this process, then such insight will enable us to observe, to look, to learn about the whole movement of thought and thus to discover an action relevant to this whole, that will end the ‘turbulence’ of movement which is the essence of fragmentation in every phase of life.

Of course, such learning and discovery will require a great deal of careful attention and hard work. We are ready to give such attention and work in a wide range of fields, scientific, economic, social, political, etc. As yet, however, little or none of this has gone into the creation of insight into the process of thought, on the clarity of which the value of all else depends. What is primarily needed is a growing realization of the extremely great danger of going on with a fragmentary process of thought. Such a realization would give the inquiry into how thought actually operates that sense of urgency and energy required to meet the true magnitude of the difficulties with which fragmentation is now confronting us.