In the process of knowledge or experience accumulation, the analysis (from Greek ἀνάλυσις – to unravel, to investigate) is a mental and practical operation by which the whole (such as objects, properties, processes or interrelations between objects and various phenomena) is deconstructed into its respective constituent elements. The method of analysis complements the method of synthesis in the overall process of obtaining information about the examined object’s structural arrangement.
The synthesis (from Greek σύνθεσις – putting together, composition, combination) is the process by which two or more separate elements or components are incorporated into one integral whole. The process of synthesis is the opposite of the analysis (i.e. it is the opposite of deconstruction). The synthesis is a method of examination by which the separate elements are integrated into one cohesive whole, as the nature of the phenomena in question is being identified in the process.
In the process of examining our lives, we are executing both methods simultaneously– we are conducting an analythesis.
We examine how the whole determines what the very elements that are composing this whole are like. Similarly, we are examining all the tiny fragments that provide the basis for the whole, yet none of these separate entities is being prioritized over any other such. In other words, each comprising element is equally important to the overall totality. Therefore, the global integral whole is being shaped and defined by each single individuality that it is consisted of. Any change in some of these building elements leads to change in the whole.
We should keep in mind that this method of analythesis is ‘tailored’ to our holographic nature. The hologram is built in such a way that the part is being contained in the whole, yet the whole is being contained inside the part as well. To put this in simpler terms, if we are doing a given thing in a certain way, we will be doing all other things in this way too – irrespective if we are willing to accept the reality of such functioning mechanism or not. To illustrate this, we usually tend to focus on the detail in such way as to arrive at global conclusions that are always being ‘in our favor’ – i.e. we elegantly avoid self-criticism by neglecting all the tiny fragments that would appear unpleasing to us. Such is the pattern behind our reluctance for change. For example, if we often find ourselves ‘in denial’, we must start observing ourselves impartially in what other situations we are being in such state. As a result, we will come to the realization that this element of ‘denying’ is reoccurring in approximately 97% of our actions, conversations or thoughts. In order to change ourselves, we must begin to think, express and act in different ways than the ones we have observed ourselves to be prone to. We can then appreciate the effort necessary for changing this single tiny and seemingly harmless element of our behavior (in this case – denial).
Example: When asked ‘’Are you hungry?’’, we can answer with the positive non-denying ‘’I already had some food’’, instead of simply ‘’No.’’. Instead of saying ‘’I don’t want that’’, we can say ‘’What I want is…’’ and so on. Now it is your turn to put our cross on.