# Holism & (super)A

Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Sat, 30 May 1998 13:46:00 -0400

Some of Dan's counters I've not properly
addressed by not clearly defining holism.
Mapping the holistic structure of identity
is deep, and a complex effort. The source
of conflict is the mechanics of notion.

When we say "A" we denote the inside of A.
When we say "-A" we denote the outside of A.
When we say "A + -A" we denote the union of
the inside and the outside of A. The later
expression of union is NOT equal to the two
former expressions. A shortfall of my case
has been the failure to denote that differ-
ence. Doing so, the logical expression of
holistic identity structure is achieved.

As the identity structure of A (the state
of reality that makes A = A) contains both
A and -A, the singular notation of "A" is
incomplete as a means of denoting identity
structure. The holism I attempt to define
accurately is simply the process of noting
that to define the identity structure of
A requires that we denote both A and -A.

Out of habit, I've still been saying
"A = A + -A" (even as I've improved this
a few months ago), which is an unclear and
inaccurate means of denoting the holistic
identity structure of A. The problem is
that the first "A" denotes MORE than the
second "A." This then is the improved
and correct notation of holism:

(super)A = (in)A + (out)A

Or we could say: A = +A + -A, where the
unsigned A implies the union of in and out.
(Super)A is the set that contains all that
defines the identity of (in)A. If we wish
to define the structure of identity, this
is the proper notation. If we want to de-
note only one aspect of the identity stru-
cture of A, then we only denote that aspect,
but that dose NOT denote identity structure,
only the part of it we want to talk about,
and that's what communication is about. But
if we want to know who we get those things
that we talk about, we need to define holism.

The argument that (super)A is not a meaning-
ful or useful way of defining A may or may
not be true, however, that commentary is
beside the point. The goal of scientific
inquiry is the map the structure of what
is, and identity is, and a mapping of the
identity of A that fails to denote the
mechanics of the entire superstructure of
A is a mapping that is NOT the whole truth.
I believe that the whole truth is the true
and deepest goal of scientific inquiry.

"The knowledge at which geometry aims is
knowledge of the eternal, and not of aught
perishing and transient." Plato, The Republic.

**************************************************************
VISIT IAN WILLIAMS GODDARD --------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
______________________________________________________________

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because
its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with the idea from the beginning."

Max Plank - Nobel physicist

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand