Our beliefs about this world, and how Newton is presented to us, are founded on a philosophy called rationalism, which denies the existence of "higher" dimensions of Consciousness and Being. Rationalism is ultimately characterized by studying the surface level world by breaking the parts down into their basic essence. Thus the function of rationalism is to ration or divide up reality.
Unfortunately, many claim rationalism as being an "objective" way of thinking and perceive it as the only means to Truth. The term "objective" is in itself interesting, since it ultimately breaks down into object-afying reality. It is more about things, or objects, then processes.
The difference between rationalism and wholistic thinking is metaphorically the difference between an ant's view of the world and that of a bird. The ant sees only parts and pieces of the world, where as the bird is able to get a more panaramic view, or one of the greater whole in terms of how things relate to each other and blend together as one tapestry.
Rationalism denies the metaphorical and mystical journey to the "mountaintop" where the holistic view is obtained. Thus, the rationalist sees parts more so than seamless wholes. Yet the journey has been taken by many throughout the ages, ranging from Moses to Martin Luther King, both of whom went to the mountaintop to gleam the truth of the "bigger picture".
Indeed, seeing the similarities of King and Moses is but another variant of seeing the wholistic pattern unfolding from within the two different men. There are others, including some Apollo astronauts, that have seen this wholistic pattern to life. Darwin was also reported as talking about an "overseeing eye" to the process of evolution.
In truth, our rationalism is itself holistic in that we see everything through that same lens and use it in all aspects of our lives. What is partialed out and divided is whole.
Rationalism gives credence to an objective view of the universe, which is often stated to mean that the scientist is able to gaze upon the universe in a detached way. Thus he or she is more able to "objectively" get to the grain of truth that is held within the matter that is being studied.
Yet, when it comes down to it, rationalism is simply a way of looking at the world and in and of itself is not an objective way of looking at anything. Rationalism and objectivity are simply ways of seeing the world and those ways are simply ways and not the way . Indeed to call it "the way" is to be as arrogant as any theological guru saying his or her spiritual text and his or her interpretation of that text defines the only way one gets to Heaven.
Thus, this divisional mentality of scientific rationalism has also dominated religious institutions that claim a self-righteous arrogance to the truth of their particular way of seeing things. Science and religion mirror one another. For example, some Christians might say that if you don't put your money into a particular brand of Christianity, you are going to be doomed to Hell. This is no different than those that arrogantly hold onto a scientific theory of looking at life and arguing to the point of coming to blows over the correctness of that way. The problem is our attachment to points of view. It is through the self-righteous attachment to our way that we are able to legitimaze the destruction of other cultures because they see things differently (or, more appropriately, have something we want to steal).
The function of such dualism is to keep us warring and to keep us warring makes us easier to control. For example, the upper 1% purposely kindle conflict between groups in order to maintain control. If we Americans began seeing ourselves in the faces of the taken over Muslims in the Middle East, perhaps we could then identify and confront the "man behind the curtain" that is pulling our puppet strings?
What if Christ were right when He states that we need to "love our neighbor as our self?" This means the Mulims alongside the Christians. What if we began to realize that our neighbor, or our oppositions, were reflections of ourselves?
This state would be predicted by a theory of Isaac Newton who, according to a PBS documentary, claimed that the function of a prism is to separate all the colors inherent in white light. Thus, in the one is many and the many are in the one. This view has been supported by modern scientists such as physicist David Bohm and neurologist Karl Pribram. Both of these scientists independently and without knowledge of each other came to state that the universe and brain operate in a way that is reflective of the process of holographic photography.
In holographic photography, an image is projected on a plate. If that plate is fractured, then interestingly, each piece of the plate contains the entire picture. It may not be as clear. Yet, each part contains the whole.
Thus, as Newton realized, white light contains all colors. This is easy enough to observe in Nature. Every time one sees a rainbow, one is gazing upon the variety of colors contained in the rays of the sun. In the one is many and in the many one.
What this means on a psychological and epistemological way of looking at the world is that the self-righteous arrogance of science and religion are in fact one. They are but different colors inherent in the one light. Our lives, are reflections of the One. Or, as the Christian Meister Eckhart states, "all things are within me."
Isaac Newton is not one that many associate with this kind of mystical idealism. Yet, according to a PBS documentary on Newton, this is not as true as we are led to believe. Indeed, it has been reported that Newton wrote more on alchemy and theology than he did on science and math combined.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
