Re: Context vs Crackpotism

From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Date: Mon May 18 1998 - 21:45:22 MDT


>To: At 11:17 PM 5/16/98 -0700, Hara Ra wrote:

>>Ian is kind of like a flea <snip>
>
>Darn.... That was a PRIVATE message, not to the Exi List!

   IAN: Unlike this one. I think that the atomist
   paradigm is properly defined as the crackpot
   paradigm. How so? If we think of the universe
   as a pot, atomism is the process of breaking
   that pot, cracking it into ten zillion sepe-
   rate fragments. Holism is the healing of
   the cracked pot of atomist fallacy.

   A = A is A cracked away from the whole.
   A = A + (-A) is A rejoined to the whole,
   as A exists in reality. When we take
   atomism for real, we slip into
   an "atomistic psychosis."

   Atomism is useful, and defines how we meta-
   phorically subtract a thing from the whole
   and thereby draw attention to it and away
   from other things. If I say, "Pass the
   salt shaker," but define "salt shaker"
   as salt shaker + not-salt-shaker,
   your going to have some trouble
   passing it, or, I already have it.
   Yet at all times the salt shaker exits,
   it is what it is by relation to not-it.

   What is so amazing about the human mind
   is how it becomes conditioned to believe
   that it's own programing is THE truth,
   that A actually is A free from not-A.
   The mind confuses a useful fallacy
   with reality, and that's psychosis.

   That's why during mystical experiences,
   or temporal-lobe epilepsy, the mind's
   program suddenly crashes, it stops, and
   yet the "I am" is still there and like
   a flood of light and realization I see
   that all things are unified, that the
   mind created this illusion of sepera-
   tion, of isolated and free identities,
   when in fact up is down, in is out,
   where A is A only by relation to -A,
   and A is all that which defines it.

   A thing exists on in context and no
   thing exists free from context, not
   even the cracked pot of atomism.

********************************************************
IAN Williams Goddard ----> http://www.Ian.Goddard.net
________________________________________________________
Statements T r u t h A defines -A
                a -A defines A
 A: x is A b A -A
                l T F A set is defined
-A: x is -A e F T by its members, thus
                    ? ? A & -A contain each other.
--------------------------------------------------------
H O L I S M ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/meta.htm
________________________________________________________

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:06 MST