Re: No Identity Boundary

Ian Goddard (
Thu, 05 Mar 1998 11:23:04 -0500

Reilly Jones ( wrote:

>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.

IAN: I was talking about semantics. The subjective,
seen as the view of a part, is a part relative to
the whole; or the subjective is itself relative to
the objective; thus the concept of the subjective
contains the concept of the objective, if not, we
would have nothing to contrast it to in order to
define what the subjective is. A = (A,~A).

><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.

IAN: We can define concepts as real or unreal,
either way, concept A is A relative to ~A.

><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.

IAN: Why does atomism point to the true?

What is "the good."

><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?

IAN: Atomism is also a spacial concept, just like
holism. When we think of a point in space, we also
have to be thinking of space, relative to which the
point is a point in space. So that's why there really
is never deviation from holism, for atomism implies
and rests upon holism. Only holism is always real.
Atomism is an idea unaware of its true nature.

VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ---->