Here the human mind is confronted by a paradox, which is inherent in the ambiguo

us meanings of the words unity and one. Unity is primarily defined in Webster's
New International Dictionary (Second Edition) as "the state of being one," and a
lso as "the quality or fact of constituting a whole; a totality of related parts
, a complex systematic whole; a thing that seems complete in itself." It also is
said to refer to "a uniting or being united in one body, unification" and the r
esult of this unification. Another of its many meanings is "the absence of diver
sity," but a current and indeed today fashionable phrase or motto is "unity in d
iversity." Thus the word unity can refer not only to the state of being one but
also to the process of becoming united and the quality required for the fulfillm
ent of the process in a union. Above all, unity is confused with the term whole,
which the dictionary defines as "the entire thing without loss of parts, withou
t any impairment of its integrity; a totality; a complete organization of parts
or elements." Only at the end of the entry for unity, under the heading Mathemat
ics, is the term unity defined as "any definite quantity or aggregate of quantit
y or magnitude taken as one; numeral one."
The basic and original meaning of the word one does indeed refer to the first nu
meral, number one. But number one is not merely the first of an infinite series
of numbers; all numbers are produced by the addition of one to itself. Therefore
, in an abstract sense, one can be considered the principle of numeration. It ge
nerates all numbers, which can be considered differentiated aspects of it. But i
f one generates all numbers, such a process is obviously a kind of self-multipli
cation. The tendency inherent in number one to generate all numbers, seemingly a
d infinitum, clearly shows that unity and multiplicity are both inherent in numb
er one. Thus we are faced again with a paradox, the realization that one is a "w
hole." Nevertheless, the human mind cannot conceive of absolute "one-ness," beca
use any conception by a mind implies that one already has a second, indeed a mul
tiplicity of potential seconds. Therefore the metaphysician has to infer two lev
an absolute level at which one is not even a principle of numeratio
els of oneness
n, and a level at which, as such a principle, it contains all numbers in potenti
ality.
The human mind cannot fathom or know such a state, yet a realization of it can b
e experienced by a human being whose consciousness has become like an absolutely
quiescent lake or mirror. Such a quiescence implies a momentary separation of w
hat in the human being operates as 'the Many' and what (either relatively speaki
ng or in absolute identification) "is" the 'One.' There must be separation, yet
also that which is able to perceive both separate terms in relation to each othe
r and to give form to that relation: this is what I call the "mind of wholeness.
"