The whole is perceived in illusory fragments by the human mind. To children, the whole is apparent. Infants do not immediately detect a line between themselves and their mothers. As they become toddlers, the whole is still broken into much larger parts for them, as when all four-legged creatures are called "dog", or when all things of a certain color are referred to only by the name of the color. Slowly the world is understood by way of fragmentation that lets the individual identify the parts of the whole, and in so doing recognizes itself as a part.
We focus on these parts in school. We focus on them constantly as we divide things into groups, categories, and name after name. Naming is powerful and important, but it is also an act of division.
Ultimately the whole itself may be illusory, but we can only work within the framework of the shared reality we are experiencing. That is, that part of nature residing in the realm of philosophy that cannot be fathomed by the human mind is not "supernatural", but it is beyond the ken of human experience. It is no less valid, or real, for that. But philosophies speaking to that fall into the realm of the unfalsifiable.
So working with what we do have, and utilizing the scientific method as a means of understanding the material, we see great similarities between diverse species at the genetic level. We are left to marvel at the similarities between energy and matter at the quantum level. We see patterns in nature that can be described by science, but not explained. Science has nearly innumerable practical applications, and it provides a world view free of unfalsifiable bias, but it does not speak to the spirit, nor can it even satisfactorily define such.
While this does not validate proclamations of the ineffable as the work of a sapient divine being or beings, it does hint at the limitations of the rational mind. There are connections between all things that are not as yet identifiable through science, but are nonetheless felt by many beings. The biological imperative can explain a great deal of human behavior, but it cannot explain the biology itself.
As for that, when we look to what are arguably two of the most important moments in this reality as we know it, science is at something of a loss although it gives us important hints as to how things may have happened and plenty of facts in terms of what followed. These two moments are the birth of the universe and the birth of life on Earth.
In both cases, we can look back to an ocean of nothing, devoid of matter, or an ocean of water devoid of life. There is then a proposed singularity in both cases, and a universe of matter and a world of life follow quickly. It is. Life is. Things regenerate. We are a flickering instant in a great pattern, a cycle whose end and beginning, if such terms can even be applied, are unknown to us. This alone, however, is not satisfactory to most human minds.
The poet Edna St. Vincent Millay addresses this in her poem "Spring" when she writes, "Life in itself / Is nothing, / An empty cup, a flight of uncarpeted stairs. / It is not enough that yearly, down this hill, / April / Comes like an idiot, babbling and strewing flowers."
So we are down to meaning. Is meaning inherent or ascribed? In practical terms, it doesn't much matter, so long as we are able to provide said meaning in accordance with true will. Symbol sets allow us to navigate the realm of the unknown and the unknowable, and as such as exceedingly important. These symbols exist in words, in metaphor, in images, and in the embodiments of truth seated in deific forms.
We are not are memories of a bad day in the third grade or the moment we first defied authority or the litany of things we've done or wish to do. We are the love we experience and we are the expression of love. I can't run tests on that in a lab. But it is what I believe.
Looking to the now is always important. Wondering about the cosmos and all of its mysteries is only important in so far as it aids one in the pursuit of will in this life, in this now.