A piece from a book I'm working on. Any thoughts?

Reading Bergson. I feel I'm finally getting to the crux of what he's talking about, and it agrees with my intuitive understanding of things. "There are no things; there are only acts."

The "things" we see are a result of the way our minds work. Everything is a constant flux, a making and an unmaking continuously going on. Our understanding separates out areas of this flux and designates them as "things" so that we can act in the world. An adaptation for our survival. But in reality there are no hard and fast borders to anything, as we are finding out the more we delve into particle physics, it's all dependent on the time-scale and size-scale we operate on. If we were the size of an atom, the world would appear to us like the stars appear to us now. Bodies divided by infinitudes of space, and who knows but that those "bodies" would also be seen to be constellations of smaller "bodies" and so on. We would never look at a wave in the ocean and say that it was an independent "thing" all on its own. The same is true of all the "things" we perceive, it's just not as apparent to us.
To again quote Bergson: "This organization (that we see in the world) takes, for our senses and for our intellect, the form of parts entirely external to other parts in space and time. Not only do we shut our eyes to the unity of the impulse which, passing through generations, links individuals with individuals, species with species, and makes of the whole series of the living one single immense wave flowing over matter, but each individual itself seems to us as an aggregate, aggregate of molecules and aggregate of facts. The reason of this lies in the structure of our intellect, which is formed to act on matter from without, and which succeeds by making, in the flux of the real, instantaneous cuts, each of which becomes, in its fixity, endlessly decomposable. Perceiving, in an organism, only parts external to parts, the understanding has the choice between two systems of explanation only: either to regard the infinitely complex (and thereby infinitely well-contrived) organization as a fortuitous concatenation of atoms, or to relate it to the incomprehensible influence of an external force that has grouped its elements together. But this complexity is the work of the understanding; this incomprehensibility is also its work."
I think what he's getting at is that there is a third way to see things, which is neither "a fortunate concatenation of atoms" nor "to relate it to the incomprehensible influence of an external force," both of which are unsatisfactory to me. That third way is related to intuition, and makes me think of the piece I found on one of the philosophy websites I look at, the one quoted earlier about Zhuangzi and the non-dualistic non-linear way of knowing by Steve Coutinho.
We need to look at things from this "unknowing" point of view; feel them; intuit them; see them from the inside, so to speak, rather than looking at them as external parts or "things." This way of looking at the universe as a continual amazing flux driven by a motivating force, which forms and unforms and makes of everything a big dance, takes me back, yet again, to Dylan Thomas: "The force that through the green fuse drives the flower." But then, that "motivating force" sounds sort of like god, or maybe Aristotle's "prime mover." But maybe the motivating force is more like gravity; life meeting matter and running downhill, so to speak. Rolling through the universe like a wave.
Relevant quote from John Tyndall, a 19th century physicist: "Life is a wave that in no two consecutive moments of existence is composed of the same particles."