|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 13, 2020 12:06:58 GMT -5
………...bumped for ….. ……………. It seems that only a few here (ST's) get that there is significant differentiation in Wholeness, that I can be a non-dualist, but only with qualification, that there are significant 'reasons' for ~separation~. I'll try to give some quotes as further explanation. edit: The bold concerns the Whole, and that in relation to man, emphasis sdp. Glimpses of Truth, excerpts: ...I will refer to the formula you know from the Emerald Tablets: 'As above, so below'. It is easy to start to build the foundation of our discussion from this. ...Truth speaks for itself in whatever form it is manifested. You will understand this fully only in the course of time, but I wish to give to you today at least a grain of understanding. ...I begin with the formula because I am speaking to you. I know you have tried to decipher this formula. I know that you 'understand' it. But the understanding you have now is only a dim and distant reflection of the divine brilliance. ...we will only take it as a starting point for our discussion. And to give you an idea of our subject, I may say that I wish to speak about the overall unity of all that exists--about unity in multiplicity. ...I know you understand about the unity of the laws governing the universe, but this understanding is speculative--or rather is theoretical. It is not enough to understand with the mind, it is necessary to feel with your being the absolute truth and immutability of this fact; only then you will be able, consciously and with conviction, to say 'I know'. .. ..We started with man, and where is he? But great, and all-embracing is the law of unity. Everything in the universe is one, the difference is only one of scale; in the infinity small we shall find the same laws as in the infinitely great. As above, so below. ... Again I repeat, all in the world is one; and since reason is also one, human reason forms a powerful instrument for investigation. ... ...No ordinary reason is enough to enable a man to take the Great Knowledge to himself, and make it his inalienable possession. Nevertheless it is possible for him. But first he must shake the dust from his feet. ...You see, Mr. Gurdjieff went on, that he who possess a full and complete understanding of the system of octaves, as it might be called, possesses the key to the understanding of Unity, since he understands all that is seen--all happenings, all things in their essence--for he knows there place, cause and effect. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 14, 2020 10:31:39 GMT -5
............bumped............ It seems that only a few here (ST's) get that there is significant differentiation in Wholeness, that I can be a non-dualist, but only with qualification, that there are significant 'reasons' for ~separation~. I'll try to give some quotes as further explanation. edit: The bold concerns the Whole, and that in relation to man, emphasis sdp. Glimpses of Truth, excerpts: ...I will refer to the formula you know from the Emerald Tablets: 'As above, so below'. It is easy to start to build the foundation of our discussion from this. ...Truth speaks for itself in whatever form it is manifested. You will understand this fully only in the course of time, but I wish to give to you today at least a grain of understanding. ...I begin with the formula because I am speaking to you. I know you have tried to decipher this formula. I know that you 'understand' it. But the understanding you have now is only a dim and distant reflection of the divine brilliance. ...we will only take it as a starting point for our discussion. And to give you an idea of our subject, I may say that I wish to speak about the overall unity of all that exists--about unity in multiplicity. ...I know you understand about the unity of the laws governing the universe, but this understanding is speculative--or rather is theoretical. It is not enough to understand with the mind, it is necessary to feel with your being the absolute truth and immutability of this fact; only then you will be able, consciously and with conviction, to say 'I know'. .. ..We started with man, and where is he? But great, and all-embracing is the law of unity. Everything in the universe is one, the difference is only one of scale; in the infinity small we shall find the same laws as in the infinitely great. As above, so below. ... Again I repeat, all in the world is one; and since reason is also one, human reason forms a powerful instrument for investigation. ... ...No ordinary reason is enough to enable a man to take the Great Knowledge to himself, and make it his inalienable possession. Nevertheless it is possible for him. But first he must shake the dust from his feet. ...You see, Mr. Gurdjieff went on, that he who possess a full and complete understanding of the system of octaves, as it might be called, possesses the key to the understanding of Unity, since he understands all that is seen--all happenings, all things in their essence--for he knows there place, cause and effect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2021 16:05:46 GMT -5
............bumped............ It seems that only a few here (ST's) get that there is significant differentiation in Wholeness, that I can be a non-dualist, but only with qualification, that there are significant 'reasons' for ~separation~. I'll try to give some quotes as further explanation. edit: The bold concerns the Whole, and that in relation to man, emphasis sdp. Glimpses of Truth, excerpts: ...I will refer to the formula you know from the Emerald Tablets: 'As above, so below'. It is easy to start to build the foundation of our discussion from this. ...Truth speaks for itself in whatever form it is manifested. You will understand this fully only in the course of time, but I wish to give to you today at least a grain of understanding. ...I begin with the formula because I am speaking to you. I know you have tried to decipher this formula. I know that you 'understand' it. But the understanding you have now is only a dim and distant reflection of the divine brilliance. ...we will only take it as a starting point for our discussion. And to give you an idea of our subject, I may say that I wish to speak about the overall unity of all that exists--about unity in multiplicity. ...I know you understand about the unity of the laws governing the universe, but this understanding is speculative--or rather is theoretical. It is not enough to understand with the mind, it is necessary to feel with your being the absolute truth and immutability of this fact; only then you will be able, consciously and with conviction, to say 'I know'. .. ..We started with man, and where is he? But great, and all-embracing is the law of unity. Everything in the universe is one, the difference is only one of scale; in the infinity small we shall find the same laws as in the infinitely great. As above, so below. ... Again I repeat, all in the world is one; and since reason is also one, human reason forms a powerful instrument for investigation. ... ...No ordinary reason is enough to enable a man to take the Great Knowledge to himself, and make it his inalienable possession. Nevertheless it is possible for him. But first he must shake the dust from his feet. ...You see, Mr. Gurdjieff went on, that he who possess a full and complete understanding of the system of octaves, as it might be called, possesses the key to the understanding of Unity, since he understands all that is seen--all happenings, all things in their essence--for he knows there place, cause and effect. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jan 3, 2021 17:11:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2021 17:50:35 GMT -5
The cliches are not my responsibility. I offered Pilgrim the link because in it, Ra talks of Octaves. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 27, 2021 20:39:37 GMT -5
People keep on thinking of self-remembering, but they do not do it. It is necessary to stop the chain of automatic associations every day. This can be done by inner stop--that is, stopping everything, all thoughts etc. This is the beginning of self-remembering. But people, as I say, keep on thinking of remembering themselves, but never do. To remember oneself one must stop everything and lift oneself into total silence and total loss of all ordinary sense of self. This takes a little time. But most people cannot spare even one minute to do it because they are slaves to their machines, so they are bound and glued to the ceaseless and useless flow of mechanical thoughts, negative emotions, personal accounts, etc. It is a great pity, especially today, when the external hypnotism of life is so strong that people even think such thoughts as the war will make everything better... (written Dec. 13, 1941) pg 90
Volume 1 Psychological Commentaries on the Teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky by Maurice Nicoll copyright 1952, 1975, 1980, 1984, 1996
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2021 12:10:59 GMT -5
The facts of what is seen can have different interpretations...(Of course when Nicoll says men, he also means women).
"You go into life according to the shape of your personality (note sdp, personality = "ego", conditioning, small s self). You encounter life, people, and so on, through your personality, not directly. Is that clear? Now you do not see your personality. It is not conscious to you. So perhaps you blame life or people, or feel disappointed, and so on. The trouble is that you have acquired a certain mechanical device for making contact with life called personality that renders life to you according to its shape, as it were. And so here you are, always carrying about with you, your personality, your apparatus for experiencing life, and always hoping perhaps, if you had a new environment, new people, a new house, new clothes, etc. that everything would be utterly different. How can that be? You are carrying about your apparatus for contacting life-that is, your personality. You may pack your bags and fill them with new clothes and go to the Antipodes-but you carry your personality with you, with all its acquired habits of mind, habits of emotion, habits of behavior, habits of talking, habits of finding fault, habits of movement, habits of health, and so on. Now this Work is about how to get away from oneself (note sdp, that is, from living through personality), not from life. You do not get away from yourself by changing your outer scene. For this reason it is necessary to observe oneself and see what one's personality is like and study it and see what one's apparatus is like. We all have all sorts of dreams about a new life-about ideal circumstances, marvelous people, etc. But such dreams are idle because even if we are placed in exceptional and beautiful conditions, such as are said to obtain in Paradise, we would react to them through our personalities and very soon be turned out as quite unsuitable, I fancy. The trouble really is that none of us know how to live, because none of us sees that the problem lies in the personality-that is, the receptive-reactive machine we use to contact life. And we shall never learn how to live even a little aright if we do not work on personality in us, and see what it is in us in each case and what troubles arise from ourselves and not merely from others and from life.
All this Work is about becoming Conscious Man. But if we do not work on personality, we remain mechanical men. Then it will act. The machine will speak. It will get angry. It will take charge of everything. And even if you begin to be aware that there is something else in you, something deeper, that does not want to act, to speak, to feel, to think, in the way that you do, you will not be able to alter anything-at least for a long time. But even so, if you see this, you are in a far better position than that of a person who does not perceive that something is always taking charge of him and spoiling everything. In the Work we have to realize that we are at the mercy of something called personality in us and that this is a machine that controls us. You may lie in bed in the morning in a half-sleep state and see quite clearly what you should say or think or feel or do, but immediately you get up and something takes charge of you. It takes charge of you and it begins to act and speak in a way quite contrary to what you perceived and planned. What takes charge of you? It is personality. And in a short time-in a moment-you are fully under its sway and everything you thought and planned when you were more awake, more free, that is, from personality, seems far away, or even nonsense. So you behave in exactly the same way as yesterday. Something grips you and you fall asleep in its grip. This is our tragedy, that we cannot change, and we even forget that we should change, for a whole day, or a week, or even more. Once we are in personality, everything goes by machinery. Only, once in the grip of personality, we do not see it as machinery. (note sdp, that's the meaning of sleep, in Gurdjieff's sense). One thing leads to another by the easy paths of association and habit and so to-day is like yesterday and to-morrow is like to-day. And it seems to us to be all logical, all reasonable, all justifiable, all natural. But when a man begins to awaken a little-that is, to be more free from personality-he has moments of seeing this machine to which he is attached, and whose power he is in. He sees he is in prison. He may even be afraid of this smooth, powerful, self-acting machine, that insists upon controlling him, which life has gradually created in him without his knowledge. And then he begins to understand what work on himself means and what his task is, and what he must struggle with for the rest of his life. This externally-created thing in him, this personality fashioned by outer life, this machine, whatever form it takes, is the dragon that is to be overcome, in the language of mythology. This Work, which is done in the midst of life, is about making personality passive, by self-study, by means of self observation, by not identifying with oneself, by inner separation. The beginning of the Work is about this.
And through this, instead of the man he had supposed himself to be, he will see quite another man. This 'other' man is himself and at the same time not himself.
In this Work you must learn to know the real from the invented and later to separate them. And to begin self-study and self-observation it is necessary to divide oneself into a real and an invented side. So long as a man takes himself as one person he will never move from where he is. His work on himself starts from the moment he begins to feel two men in himself. One is passive and the most it can do is to register or observe what is happening to it. The other, which calls itself 'I', is active, and speaks of itself in the first person, is in reality only an invented unreal person".
from Psychological Commentaries on the Teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky by Maurice Nicoll, Vol. 1, pages 278-280, a few sentences paraphrased. Date of paper and commentary, April 20, 1943.
Note point of agreement, we can't do anything. Nicoll (from Gurdjieff) says this is because who we really are is in the grip of personality, which is a mechanical apparatus. Thus to even begin to move from our present life we have to see we are two, this invented unreal person which the Work calls personality, which is active, and OTOH, who we really are, which has become passive. Through attention and awareness, through self-study and self-observation, who we really are can begin to become active, and so can this process make personality passive. Thus the process whereby personality was formed and covered over essence, is reversed. When personality is active and we take ourselves to be our conditioning, this is called sleep. When we can begin to see we are not the conditioning, not the personality, not the mechanical apparatus, and this is only via attention and awareness, self-study and self-observation, then this is the beginning of waking up. Again: "But so long as a man takes himself as one person he will never move from where he is". And through making personality passive and who we really are active (as when we were a little child), again, this is waking up. It's not a one-time realization, it's a process.
As the mechanical apparatus, as long as it is active, (psychologically) mediates everything that enters the organism, there is the appearance of oneness of inner and outer. There is in a sense 'one door' whereby everything enters and exits, giving the appearance of not-twoness. It's exceptionally difficult to see that the unreal and invented non-person is this distorting door. But this is why everyone can be right in their own eyes. People think when they look out, the world agrees and validates their view. But what's occurring is they are seeing in the world their own view of reality, they are only validating their own view.
~You~ have a different view as to why we can't do anything. And I know all of you (almost all), even if you read this, will just say upon reading, that's [just] wrong. I can't do anything about that, I know I can't do anything about that. But that's the 'one door' mechanical apparatus operating.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 25, 2021 15:51:51 GMT -5
The facts of what is seen can have different interpretations...(Of course when Nicoll says men, he also means women). "You go into life according to the shape of your personality (note sdp, personality = "ego", conditioning, small s self). ... Interesting read. Thanks. Many people get a glimpse of the reality, intuitively, then they try to rationalize it and go astray. It is better for everyone to start their quest on an intuitive path, than to start from another's distortions, as in the latter case they'll have no chance to re-approach reality. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 28, 2021 1:30:23 GMT -5
This is intriguing, and it makes sense:
There is more at work in correcting health problems mentally than just attitude and relaxation. Subjective communication plays a big part.
Cleve Backster, a polygraph expert, was the first to demonstrate scientifically and publicize the subjective connection that exists between humans and plants.
In 1966 Backster conducted an experiment with a dragon tree plant in his office one night. Its large leaves made it easy to attach electrodes to measure changes in the resistance to a small electrical current.
''For whatever reason," he explained, "it occurred to me that it would be interesting to see how long it took water to get from the root area of this plant, all the way up this long trunk and out and down to the leaves."
He was surprised at what he saw on the polygraph. Backster explained, "[The plant] had the contour of a human being tested, reacting when you are asking a question that could get him in trouble. So I forgot about the rising-water time and thought, Wow, this thing wants to show me people-like reactions. What can I do that will be a threat to the well being of the plant, similar to the fact that a relevant question regarding a crime could be a threat to a person taking a polygraph test if they're lying?"
Next, he got some matches to bum the leaf. Suddenly there was a big reaction on the polygraph reading not when he burned the plant, but when he thought about burning the plant!
"I thought, Wow! This thing read my mind! It was that obvious to me right then," he said.
This startling observation started Backster on a new career. Since 1966 he has continued to conduct experiments with plants and with humans' white blood cells. They continue to react to his emotions and to his thoughts.
It is a new kind of research. It might not work if you are not serious and not a believer.
''When my partner in the polygraph school came in," he explained, "he was able to do the same thing also, as long as he intended to burn the plant leaf. If he pretended to burn the plant leaf, it wouldn't react."
According to Backster, living cells can tell the difference between pretend and intend. This has major implications for our subjective work.
Backster's work was featured in the book The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird (Harper and Row, 1973) and is the focus of the book by Robert B. Stone, The Secret Life of Your Cells (Whitford Press, 1989).
"The work that we've done in hundreds of hours of testing of the white cells is just absolutely fascinating," he said. "There's no doubt about it, that your thoughts can permeate every cell of your body, without going through any of the conventional communications systems."
"In other words," he continued, "if your thoughts, when your cells are separated from your body and being tested, under glass or in vitro, if they can react to your emotions when you are separated from them, you know in your body that they are going to react to emotional changes, particularly the negative emotions."
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 12, 2021 11:00:09 GMT -5
The following are Ouspensky's attempts at self-remembering, without specific instructions, except: "Try to remember yourselves", and some discussion (given in the previous post, Nov 23, 2015 5:12pm). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The first impression was that attempts to remember myself or to be conscious of myself, to say to myself, I am walking, I am doing, and continually to feel this I, stopped thought. When I was feeling I, I could neither think nor speak; even sensations became dimmed. Also, one could remember oneself in this way for a very short time. I previously made certain experiments in stopping thought which are mentioned in books on Yoga practices. ...And my first attempts to self-remember reminded me exactly of these, my first experiments. Actually it was almost the same thing with the one difference that in stopping thoughts attention is wholly directed towards the effort of not admitting thoughts, while in self-remembering attention becomes divided, one part of it is directed towards the same effort, and the other part to the feeling of self. This last realization enabled me to to come to a certain, possibly a very incomplete, definition of "self-remembering", which nevertheless proved to be very useful in practice. I am speaking of the division of attention which is the characteristic feature of self-remembering. I represented it to myself in the following way: When I observe something, my attention is directed towards what I observe. ...When at the same time, I try to remember myself, my attention is directed both towards the object observed and towards myself. Having defined this I saw that the problem consisted in directing attention on oneself without weakening or obliterating the attention directed on something else. Moreover this "something else" could as well be within me as outside me. The very first attempts at such a division of attention showed me its possibility. A the same time I saw two things clearly. In the first place I saw that self-remembering resulting from this method had nothing in common with "self-feeling', or 'self-analysis". It was a new and very interesting state with a strangely familiar flavor. And secondly I realized that moments of self-remembering do occur in life, although rarely. Only the deliberate production of these moments created the sensation of novelty. Actually I had been familiar with them from early childhood. They came either in new and unexpected surroundings, in a new place, among new people while traveling, for instance, when suddenly one looks about one and says: How strange! I and in this place; or in very emotional moments, in moments of danger, in moments when it is necessary to keep one's head, when one hears one's own voice and sees and observes oneself from the outside. I saw quite clearly that my first recollections of life, in my own case very early ones, were moments of self-remembering. This last realization revealed much else to me. That is, I saw that I really only remember those moments of the past in which I remembered myself. Of the others I know only that they took place. I am not able wholly to revive them, to experience them again. But the moments when I had remembered myself were alive and in no way different from the present. I was still afraid to come to conclusions. But I already saw that I stood upon the threshold of a very great discovery. I had always been astonished at the weakness and inefficiency of our memory. So many things disappear. For some reason or other the chief absurdity of life for me consisted in this. Why experience so much in order to forget it afterwards? Besides there was something degrading in this. A man feels something which seems to him to be very big, he thinks he will never forget it; one or two years pass by-and nothing remains of it. It now became clear to me why this was so and why it could not be otherwise. If our memory keeps alive only moments of self-remembering, it is clear why our memory is so poor. All these were the realizations of the first days. ... pages 118, 119, 120 In Search of the Miraculous, 1949, PD Ouspensky emphasis sdp "Man can serve the universal need willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously. ...Until a man sees that he does not exist, the choice of life and death has no meaning for him. He cannot even understand that to exist is to work, and to work is to choose". JG Bennett pg 107 "Attention is the most two-edged of weapons. It is both the key to freedom and the cause of slavery. When I do not work on my attention, it always identifies itself with something and I become the slave of that something with which I am identified. But when I work with it, is enables me to pass through an inner transformation by which I become conscious of myself. ...It is this that makes attention so important: that either I master it, or it masters me. Either there must be in me a directing force which will ensure that the energy of my attention is used for the purpose of my own inner transformation, or it will at once identify me with whatever happens to attract it". JG Bennett quoted in The Attention Paradox by Bob Hunter pg 114 ..."So when the work teaches that when a man or woman comes to the point of realizing his or her own nothingness, then this nothingness attracts Real I. ...So Self-Remembering can never be based on your self-merit, but only on a gradual feeling--profoundly emotional--and by this is meant the inner perception of the truth about yourself--of your own unreality which hitherto you have taken as yourself. So the work talks of Imaginary 'I' or false personality, and teaches in so many ways that this Imaginary 'I', with which people advance into life and which continually they suffer from, must be made passive..." pg 1065 Psychological Commentaries on the Teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky Vol 3, 1952 Maurice Nicoll the full quote post Sept 14, 2017 at 6:46pm |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 12, 2022 18:18:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 3, 2022 22:07:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 23, 2022 21:20:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 24, 2022 9:02:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 26, 2023 14:30:00 GMT -5
Very often, almost at every talk, G. returned to the absence of unity in man. "One of man's important mistakes," he said, "one which must be remembered, is his illusion in regard to his I. " Man such as we know him, the 'man-machine,' the man who cannot 'do,' and with whom and through whom everything 'happens,' cannot have a permanent and single I.His I changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a
profound mistake in considering himself always one and the same person; in reality
he is always a different person, not the one he was a moment ago." Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every
desire, every sensation, says 'I.' And in each case it seems to be taken for granted that
this I belongs to the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foundation whatever for this assumption. Man's every thought and desire appears and lives quite separately and independently of the Whole. And the Whole never expresses itself, for the simple reason that it exists, as such, only physically as a thing, and in the abstract as a concept. Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of
separate small I's, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking 'I.' And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion. "The alternation of I's, their continual obvious struggle for supremacy, is controlled by accidental external influences. Warmth, sunshine, fine weather, immediately call up a whole group of I's. Cold, fog, rain, call up another group of I's, other associations, other feelings, other actions. There is nothing in man able to control this
change of I's, chiefly because
man does not notice, or know of it; he lives always in the last I. Some I's, of course, are stronger than others. But it is not their own conscious strength; they have been created by the strength of accidents or mechanical external stimuli. Education, imitation, reading, the hypnotism of religion, caste, and traditions, or the glamour of new slogans, create very strong I's in man's personality, which dominate whole series of other, weaker, I's. But their strength is the strength of the 'rolls' in the centers. And
all I's making up a man's personality have the same origin as these 'rolls'; they are the
results of external influences; and both are set in motion and controlled by fresh external influences. "Man has no individuality. He has no single, big I. Man is divided into a
multiplicity of small I's."And each separate small I is able to call itself by the name of the Whole, to act in the name of the Whole, to agree or disagree, to give promises, to make decisions, with which another I or the Whole will have to deal. This explains why people so often make decisions and so seldom carry them out. A man decides to get up early beginning from the following day. One I, or a group of I's, decide this. But getting up is the business of another I who entirely disagrees with the decision and may even know absolutely nothing about it. Of course the man will again go on sleeping in the morning and in the evening he will again decide to get up early. In some cases this may assume very unpleasant consequences for a man. A small accidental I may
promise something, not to itself, but to someone else at a certain moment simply out
of vanity or for amusement. Then it disappears, but the man, that is, the whole
combination of other I's who are quite innocent of this, may have to pay for it all his
life. It is the tragedy of the human being that any small I has the right to sign checks
and promissory notes and the man, that is, the Whole, has to meet them. People's
whole lives often consist in paying off the promissory notes of small accidental I's. In Search of the Miraculous PD Ouspensky 1949 pages 59,60 (Gurdjieff speaking) Emphasis sdp Note: As this information came from the years 1914-1924, rolls were the first recording device, on a wax cylinder (pictured in link, click on Phonograph Cylinder, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonograph_cylinder) was etched a groove during sounds, and played back with a needle, the original sound was reproduced. Later this was turned into a record, with grooves. So rolls are just an analogy for connections made between neurons. |
|
It seems that only a few here (ST's) get that there is significant differentiation in Wholeness, that I can be a non-dualist, but only with qualification, that there are significant 'reasons' for ~separation~. I'll try to give some quotes as further explanation. edit: The bold concerns the Whole, and that in relation to man, emphasis sdp.
