modes of creating and fragmenting

creating and fragmenting: the fundamental polarity

note: the videos include much more than the text below, as I am actually delivering this content to a live “audience,” so I occasionally simplify, clarify, and elaborate the content.

Fragmenting, as in the sense of a physical object, is the dis-assembling or decomposing of a singular, composite system of organic

This image was selected as a picture of the we...

Image via Wikipedia

integrity into independent components. In social or interpersonal contexts, fragmenting is the discontinuing of a partnering or collaboration.

For instance, a single unified business may break into distinct operations that focus on particular activities, such as when branch offices go independent or disenfranchise. In a family, children may grow up and leave the household of their parents, with each young adult going their separate ways.

More relevant to many reading this now, in the fragmenting phase of life, social groups that previously co-existed peacefully may splinter into contempt and blame for each other, with the identification of some particular target of unquestionable blame- such as the isolated conspirators of a particular political grouping (“the terrorist religious fundamentalists” or “the imperialist Zionist elite”). As people become more irritable, belligerent, and antagonistic, they may become more and more fierce in their passionate calls to oppose their enemies, such as some alleged advocates of “divide and conquer.” Those who do not agree with their unquestionable calls for revolution (or fascism) may be labeled ignorant, idiotic or even psychopathic- perhaps due to be held indefinitely against their will in “gentle” concentration camps called “mental health” institutions, where those labeled politically incorrect and psychologically incorrect can be coercively pumped full of “medicinal” psychiatric inhibitors, of course “for their own good” allegedly.

One stark irony of the protests against “the enemy who would divide and conquer us” is that the devotees of vilification and antagonism are themselves the practitioners of divisiveness or fragmenting. The neo-cons blame Al Queda, then the reactionary patriots blame the neo-cons, but with relatively naked contempt for the ignorant masses, if not also fear. In the mode of fragmenting, the anonymous masses of “the melting pot” may reflexively withdraw into familiar stratifications, such as ethnic, religious or other ideological enclaves, as in tribalism or isolationism.

In the very early 1930s in the US, the politics of reactionary isolationism may have crippled the  US economy which was already destabilizing (contracting). Thus, a perhaps minor crisis was made into a relatively catastrophic collapse lasting in to the late 1930s at least, setting the stage for a huge advance in the centralized federalist bureaucracy of entitlement socialism called “The New Deal.”

Of course, such a tendency to reflexive fragmenting isolationism is far from unique, and it’s consequences are not unpredictable. Many other obvious examples are available to the intellectually independent, even just from US history. Two more precedents that could be cited are the US Civil War and the American Revolutionary War being instances of large-scale fragmenting or rupturing. Both of these followed major economic downturns, similar to the organized violence of World War II, which is also notable for it’s unprecedented efficiency in destructiveness due to breakthrough technology, highlighted in the atomic bombing of Japan by the USA.

So, in contrast to fragmenting and the religion of blame and the politics of divisiveness, there is the function of creating. Creating is fundamentally responsive and responsible process, being that it develops with attention as in consciousness. The function and process of creating has an entirely distinct language from the language of divisiveness, animosity, accusation and shaming, which worships an ideal of evil or sin, an enemy, a great Satan or devil.

Materialism and money may be the great shame, or a scapegoat of terrorism or global imperialism or even a pandemic flu or perhaps homosexuality or some other perceived threat to cultural paradigms. Note that the language of creating in no way denies any particular development or theory, yet is marked by an openness which may occur for fundamentalists of all sorts as a betrayal of sacred principles, a criminal negligence in it’s lack of compulsion to obsess in self-righteous paranoia, to join the however gentle revolution urgently and without question.

Creating is positively and constructively focused. Creating is based on principles of responsibility, consent and gratitude rather than blame, entitlement and resentment.

Creating involves the deliberate use of language and a willingness to be flexible yet uncompromising, to sacrifice so-called obligations for commitment, for congruence with one’s own instinct, intuition and word. Creating does require ideological justifications or defenses or argument or anyone’s else agreement or permission.

Creating can be spontaneous and has the distinction of the presence of inspiration without attachment about obedience to a particular method. Creating is tolerant and respectful, bold without being proud, both simple and innocent. Creating is an act of generosity and love, rather than an act of desperate redemption to earn one’s way out of suffering or hell… or to preserve a fragile bridge to a distant heaven or utopia. Creating is the proverbial act of God, the action or activity or process of divine expression.

Creating is intuitively self-organizing rather than exhaustively modeled from a theoretical strategy, with exhaustive focus on the letter of any model, as in blind conformity, and neglect of the spirit or functionality. Creating does not require knowing all the details before proceeding. Creating allows for learning- even revels in it.

Creating is not rebellion or opposition to anything, especially not against fragmenting or divisiveness. Creating recognizes that those operating in the divisive mode “know not what they do.” Creating is not so much “forgiving” as marked by a total absence of condemnation (and guilt). Creating is a celebration of innocence, as distinct from a war against the latest threat.

Creating does not require serious problems to solve, but is playful and curious and relaxed, yet can be intensely focused and efficient because of the absence of tensions and repressions and conceptual denials, without lingering worries or rages of hatred of self or others. The mode of creating is the realm of heavenly peace and the rebirth of the God which has no concern for either personal glory nor the disapproval of others, which has no resentment for punishment and no entitlement to rewards and rights and privileges. The mode of creating is the seed from which all else arises, including any later fragmenting and divisiveness.

While those in the mode of divisiveness compete amongst themselves, those in the mode of creating partner with each other, perhaps even occasionally “converting” someone from the mode of divisiveness and struggle and suffering, if only ever so gently. Are you interested in exploring the mode of creating with others of similar spirit?

3 Responses to “modes of creating and fragmenting”

  1. Ante Says:

    i agree that creativity is the best strategy for solving problem and my experience is that without HONESTY there is no creativity. Love is much better approach, but it is the rare bird….

  2. Danijela Poropat Says:

    Ante, if you remark J. didn´t talk about creativity but about creating. It is not potential but vivid process. And if I understand well, creating is something what is innocent and doesn´t have idea of solving problems. Problems can be solved in process of creating by itself, but it is not purpose of creating. If you say: Now, we will work on solving problem, then it is work. Creating transcendents work. Creating is not attached for results. Purpose of creating is creating. It means be alive – children of God. I like to say that creating is service to God. And love is included. There is no creation without love.:)

  3. jrfibonacci Says:

    Hi Danijela and Ante,

    I think we are just using slightly different language- no problem. Does the language of creating “solve problems?” Not exactly. However, if we have been creating the perception of problems through our language and then use a distinct mode of language which does not identify ourselves in opposition to some perception of reality, making that isolated “other” into “a problem,” then the appearance of any problem may suddenly disappear. See

    The mode of creating implies that if there is the experience of a problem, that experience is something we create. Creativity is the name of the general principle for any particular process of creating. As I create this message, then create some cleanliness for my clothes in doing laundry/washing and drying, that is the operation of creativity, of creating, of being responsible for priorities and values- which is distinct IN LANGUAGE from “solving problems,” though other people may say “you solved the problem of having only dirty laundry and needing to have clean clothes for tomorrow.” Either one works.

    The language of creating can INCLUDE the entire realm of the language of fragmenting. In fact, what if fragmenting MUST be preceded by creating, by composing, by gathering and growing? We break things apart in order to make new formations.

    Fragmenting is not a problem, not something to solve. Other people may fragment things unconsciously and we may do it with attention and awareness, like as one stage in a larger process of creating the next thing. Like a young child who unstacks some toy blocks- perhaps by knocking them down- we then are ready to build something new again. If we did not break things apart sometimes- which we often do much faster than it takes us to build, then we would not develop our capacity to build things nearly as fast. We expose each other to the language of fragmenting to train ourselves in giving attention to creating.

    A few people can argue over whether or not something is a problem or how a particular something is a problem, and so on. The language of creating can engage in that argument or debate, but with attention to leading the whole process and an awareness of the opportunity for creating in operation, with presence of mind and spirit and body. Other people may experience urgency and passion and desperation- and we may call it fervor or value- and we can continue to partner with them in creating, yet giving them the opportunity to choose to participate with consent or to withdraw, even if only temporarily.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: