>> The relation of B to 0 is constant just as
>> the relation of me in my moving car is con-
>> stant. This "constant" is constant as derived
>> by relation from something that is not-constant,
>> such as the area outside my car that is changing.
>
>Sure. And atomists will gladly concede that. Newtonian physicists
>agree that all motion is relative to something; all atomism is trying to
>say is that the relation of B to our arbitrarily defined 0 does not change
>when the relation between A and 0 changes. This is really a trivial
>point, and one with which I happen to know that you don't disagree.
>
>You think atomism states that A is what it is free from not-A. This is
>not true; atomism states that A's relationship to zero does not affect B's
>relationship to 0. That's all. Your definition is wrong, your point is
>right, and so is atomism when defined correctly. Move on.
IAN: I would be interested to know where you get
your definition of "atomism." I get mine from the
the classical Three Laws of Thought that define
the structure of atomist identity (in short):
1) A is A.
2) A is not both A and not-A.
3) A is either A or not-A.
This defines a clear demarkation around A that
excludes holism by 100% and thus is atomism by
100%. What definition of atomism is more exact?
Your definition of atomism desribes a meta-rela-
tion of three relations (A,B), (A,0), and (B,0)
and observes that as (A,B) changes, the other
two remain static, true! But that's NOT a defin-
tion of identity, atomist or holist, and thus
is not a standard by which the "right" or the
"wrong" defintion is to be determined. So:
* Why is "atomist identity" as defined by the 3
Laws of Thought a "wrong" definition of atomism?
(Our disagreements revolve around definitions,
and it seems that we agree on everything else.)
>> IAN: To sum the parts is to define the whole.
>> The mystical experience defines the whole and
>> the whole relation of A to -A. To prohibit the
>> summing is to prohibit the mystical insight.
>
>I would never prohibit anyone from arithmetic; whether to add or not to
>add is a personal choice with which it is not mine to interfere. ;)
>Rather, I argued that the fact that net identity sums to 0 does not prove
>mysticism; I'm fine with the summation, but find the ultimate argument
>invalid. I demonstrated that there is a non-trivial difference between
>saying that 0 = 1 and that 0 + -0 + 1 + -1 = 0. I assert that because you
>do not support the statement that there is 0 difference between one and
>zero that your proof is not mystical, but trivial. That you left this
>point off of your reply is telling.
IAN: I think your accusation is in error! Cutting
to the quick: here again our difference is one of
definition. Your defining "mystical" as "a statement
about LESS than all data," such as 0 = 1. Based on
that you then construct a series of matrices with
obviously illogical information and then conclude
that the "mystical" must be illogical. Yes! But
if, and only if, your definition is THE definition.
My definition of "mystical" is "a statement about
the unity of ALL data." Based upon that, I then
construct a matrix that defines ALL identities
and sums them into a statement about ALL things.
So the real question here is: Why is a definition
of "mystical" as "a statements about not-all things"
the right definition of the "mystical" ? As I said,
I think we agree on all else but two definitions.
***************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD -------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
_______________________________________________________________