No Identity Boundary

Reilly Jones (
Wed, 4 Mar 1998 13:56:55 -0500

Ian Goddard wrote 3/4/98: <Semantic closure, yes, in that the boundary of
identity is merely a product of semantics, of words, of utility, and as
such is ultimately an illusion.>

Subjectivity is not an illusion, it is very real. It is not the product of
semantics, it precedes semantics and has a physical coherent structure.

<We become so attached to our categories, they become more real than the
reality we impose them upon, to a large extent because the mind IS the
process of categorizing and thus IS those categories.>

They often apparently become more real than reality, but they don't really
become more real than reality because concepts are an integral part of
reality. A concept is reality identifying itself for the purpose of
altering reality. The mind is not a collection of categories only, it is
open at all times to all of external reality and all of consensual reality
prior to categorization, a holistic openness. Categorization occurs after
interest imposes itself on those realities. Interest comes from within
subjectivity, precedes categories and is unique to each separate person.
Each separate person can and does set themselves against the entire
separate remainder of the universe. Yet they are connected.

<To see that which lies beyond the mind, its words and categories, is to
see the truth.>


<So even the most sharply defined category confirms holistic identity, and
thus holistic identity is always true, and atomism is never true, but
always assumed, always semantics.>

I think the opposite, atomism points to the true, holism points to the
good, and the conjunction of holism and atomism points to the beautiful.

<It's probable that because holism is always true, and thus there is no
not-holism, that that is exactly why holism is nearly impossible to

Holism is nearly impossible to grasp because it is essentially a spatial
concept, infinitely divisible, and our separate subjective selves are
finite and indivisible, a mere one-dimensional point in space. How can the
finite grasp the infinite other than through semantics, a poor substitute?

<So zero is zero and not-zero, the whole is whole and not-whole, which
means the whole is the whole and yet is also composed of parts. In this
way, holism (A=~A) is always true since atomism is holism.>

When I was 17, I decided that logically, the universe exists and the
universe doesn't exist, simultaneously. But it is more complicated than
semantics, the underlying reality exceeds the semantic grasp. Your
sentence above is self-evident yet fails to penetrate the surface of
reality, it floats on the surface. Below the surface, there is a design,
which is both simple and complex. We are placed within this design to
pursue the good, the beautiful and the truth. We are both part of
creation, our own unique creators and co-creators with all other forms of
life, sentient or not.

Reilly Jones | Philosophy of Technology: | The rational, moral and political relations
| between 'How we create' and 'Why we create'