"The Whole is Untrue" is based on a piece the "Minima Moralia: Reflections from a Damaged Life" and some works from Adorno. The "whole" being "nothing other than the essence consuming itself through its development."
Perhaps inspired by the idea of the whole, came to existence a "new configuration and a new meaning of the relation of part and whole"..."there the part is not structurally a fragment, but it sets itself a part, calling attention to itself as part, in the mode of resistance the whole. It is not as if the whole simply goes way, but now the exemplary work of art... cannot entirely sustain the tension between part and whole, whose reconciliation was to be the defining characteristic of art."
" This disjunction of whole and part is not simply a function of the work of art considered in itself...The art work comes from and opens onto the world, the realm of un-reconciliation and in this light too signs of the vexed part-whole relation are to be reckoned with... In the "damaged world" the fragment is the more truthful form of the work of art."
After reading this particular piece of work, nothing seems clear. It describes the whole as "nothing other than the essence consummating itself through its development", this clarifies absolutely nothing, it is an "essence",( at least in this piece of writing). That whole has parts, fragments, developments, that in some cases are actually an entity in itself, calling attention to said part.
There is a very interesting argument here of how the fragment is actually "the truth", "the whole"(since it also argues that the truth is the whole) and that since the truth is the fragment, then the fragments the true whole. In the end this turned into a whole, who came first the chicken or the egg? Kinda thing so I stopped before my brain exploded.
