>As a casual observer, your "holism" is trivial. It proves nothing that
>atomism does not, and makes no predictions that atomism would not. All
>you're saying is that A + -A = 0. Add A to both sides and you get A = A,
>the atomist prediction. YOU'RE SAYING THE SAME THING.
IAN: Yes! But the point is that what we assume is
atomism is in fact holism, and atomism NEVER exists.
If we just say A = A or even just A, that letter is
defined by the area surrounding it, which is -A.
Since there is never an instance of atomism, we cannot
exactly say H = A only in that H always is and A never
is. The process of inquiry must discover what is and
what is not, and I posit that atomism always is not.
Here "atomism" refers to the idea that identity is
atomized such that the identity of A comes only from
A and not from -A. I posit that such is never true.
If I'm wrong, then show me atomism doing something.
I believe it cannot be shown that atomism exits.
>Your presumption that A + -A = 0 somehow proves the mystical experience is
>hogwash; the mystical experience is that A = -A because A = 0 and A- = 0.
IAN: If identity is difference, then A = 0 and -A = 0,
where each are differentiated from themselves, which
is to say that the difference between A and A = 0.
If identity is difference, then A is A only by differ-
entaiton from -A. Lo and behold, the sum of that rela-
tion also = 0. We cannot segment that relation into
two separate parts without each becoming 0, and
yet together they are also 0... in sum. But
that sum, or union, is what they are dictated
by the fact that they cannot exist free from it.
So the "mystical insight" is always the whole truth.
>The mystical experience demands that all things are all things, not that
>the sum of all things is zero.
>
>To show that the mystical experience holds true, you must show that 1 IS
>0, not that the sum of the identity of 1 and not-1 is the same as the sum
>of the identity of 0 and not-0 (which is trivially true), but that the
>identity of 1 is equal to the identity of 0. Similarly, showing that the
>sum of the differences in location with respect to multiple objects is
>zero is again trivial; the mystical experience demands that all such
>values actually BE zero. Same goes for time.
IAN: Your analysis is one of the most skillful
I've encountered and shows that you have a rare
level of comprehension of what I'm saying, wow!
Most responses express only not-understanding.
The showing of "all such values actually being
zero" is the fact that "self to self = 0," that
is, that the difference/identity of A to A = 0,
which holds for every thing. Each thing gets a
non-zero identity only by giving the opposite
non-zero to another thing (or empty space) and
the sum of that relation is the same as the self
to self relation. So there is never not-zero.
Zero may also be defined as "symmetry."
If there is asymmetry, it is what it is
relative to symmetry, and that's symmetry!
So there can never be not-symmetry in all.
>So, as an example of atomism working, I posit: everything holism predicts.
IAN: I think that your saying that if holism always
is, such that there is no not-holism, this is atomism,
i.e., there is H and H is H free from not-H. The short-
fall in that counter is that "the whole" is no thing,
it is not a subset, not an atom. Atomism is the con-
cept of a subset free from the whole. The whole is
itself free, it sums to zero, since there is nothing
to measure it against, it is a subset of no larger
or other thing. It is therefore an expression
of holism: if no not-A then A = 0.
********************************************************
Visit Ian W Goddard ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________