An appropriate parody might be: boundaryism is more likely the "Truth"
because it doesn't impose an artificial sameness on a heterogen(e)ous
universe.
> >I find this whole line of thinking to be unconvincing. Centuries of
> >thought have tried to convince people that one or another point of
> >view is "Truth" and everything else is mere illusion. The notion
> >that there is some "Super" truth behind mere, everyday truth is a
> >religious notion that serves no purpose whatever.
> >
> >Why should we think that holism is more real than boundaryism?
Ian Goddard wrote:
> IAN: Why should we think that boundaries are more
> real than holism? What I'm getting at is maybe
> because holism is winning the truth test, one
> suddenly thinks "Ah, who needs truth anyway?
> 'The truth' is a religious concept." Which
> constructs a scenario in which a holistic
> paradigm cannot be allowed to prevail.
>
> That may not be your intention at all,
> but in the set of all counters, it
> tends to fit that interpretation.
You are missing the point, if I read Brian right, he objects not to
your *choice* of primal truth, but to your claim of priority for one
end of the axis - it doesn't matter which end.
As for me, I think you confuse description ("Tom Thumb is the
shortest man in the world") with identity.
-- "How'd ya like to climb this high without no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19 Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 !! visiting New Mexico, end of March !!