Re: Context vs Crackpotism

Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Mon, 18 May 1998 23:45:22 -0400


>To: At 11:17 PM 5/16/98 -0700, Hara Ra wrote:

>>Ian is kind of like a flea <snip>
>
>Darn.... That was a PRIVATE message, not to the Exi List!

IAN: Unlike this one. I think that the atomist
paradigm is properly defined as the crackpot
paradigm. How so? If we think of the universe
as a pot, atomism is the process of breaking
that pot, cracking it into ten zillion sepe-
rate fragments. Holism is the healing of
the cracked pot of atomist fallacy.

A = A is A cracked away from the whole.
A = A + (-A) is A rejoined to the whole,
as A exists in reality. When we take
atomism for real, we slip into
an "atomistic psychosis."

Atomism is useful, and defines how we meta-
phorically subtract a thing from the whole
and thereby draw attention to it and away
from other things. If I say, "Pass the
salt shaker," but define "salt shaker"
as salt shaker + not-salt-shaker,
your going to have some trouble
passing it, or, I already have it.
Yet at all times the salt shaker exits,
it is what it is by relation to not-it.

What is so amazing about the human mind
is how it becomes conditioned to believe
that it's own programing is THE truth,
that A actually is A free from not-A.
The mind confuses a useful fallacy
with reality, and that's psychosis.

That's why during mystical experiences,
or temporal-lobe epilepsy, the mind's
program suddenly crashes, it stops, and
yet the "I am" is still there and like
a flood of light and realization I see
that all things are unified, that the
mind created this illusion of sepera-
tion, of isolated and free identities,
when in fact up is down, in is out,
where A is A only by relation to -A,
and A is all that which defines it.

A thing exists on in context and no
thing exists free from context, not
even the cracked pot of atomism.

********************************************************
IAN Williams Goddard ----> http://www.Ian.Goddard.net
________________________________________________________
Statements T r u t h A defines -A
a -A defines A
A: x is A b A -A
l T F A set is defined
-A: x is -A e F T by its members, thus
? ? A & -A contain each other.
--------------------------------------------------------
H O L I S M ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/meta.htm
________________________________________________________