I do not perceive any process as dynamic. It is existentially discontinuous. Causality is apparent, not proven.
I also do not see any part as truly individual.
One may argue the philosophical context, but that is contrived and arbitrary. I tend to think in terms of the underlying nature of existence, not its philosophical import. Of course, the qualifier underlying, in and of itself, does invite philosophical debate.
I suppose it comes down to each person's world view. At what point do we stop looking for pragmatic answers and start posing rhetorical questions? How does one resist the temptation to recite what one knows rather than understand what others say?
