Re: Mystical Validation Tested

Ian Goddard (
Thu, 28 May 1998 06:17:57 -0400

At 11:41 PM 5/27/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:

>> Since there is never an instance of atomism, we cannot
>> exactly say H = A only in that H always is and A never
>> is. The process of inquiry must discover what is and
>> what is not, and I posit that atomism always is not.
>> Here "atomism" refers to the idea that identity is
>> atomized such that the identity of A comes only from
>> A and not from -A. I posit that such is never true.
>I think we disagree as to what atomism signifies. Atomism is making a
>statement about the actual values on the identity diagram, rather than
>about their sum. For example, on your site you give two objects, A and B,
>where B is one greater than A. If I add 0 to this mix, we get the
>following identity matrix:
> 0 A B
>0 0 +1 +2
>A -1 0 +1
>B -2 -1 0
>When atomism states that A can change independently of B, it means that it
>changes relative to 0, and that this does not affect B relative to 0. For
>example, if A increases by three relative to 0, we get the new chart:
> 0 A B
>0 0 +4 +2
>A -4 0 -2
>B -2 +2 0
>That this change is possible is trivially true; that it is compatible with
>atomism is also true. Not even atomism claims that something can change
>relative to itself, but rather that it changes relative to 0. Note that
>this does not affect B relative to 0 (+2), or 0 relative to B (-2), which
>was all that atomism was trying to prove anyway.

IAN: "A" changes relative to 0 as 0 changes
(taking on the attribute of -4) relative
to A... this is holism. Also B does change
after A changes: before, B was the largest
entity, then it became the smallest entity.

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.

If atomism is defined as A, where the identity of
A is derived from A, but not both A and -A, then
no example of atomism has been evidenced. The ob-
servation that A does not change relative to a
non-changing relation is trivial and not atomism.

>...What I'm trying to say is that under the mystical
>experience, the difference between 0 and 1 is zero, NOT that the sum of
>the difference between 0 and 1 and the difference between 1 and 0 is zero.
>The latter is trivial; the former is mystical.

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.

If we wish to prohibit the summing, we are nega-
ting the holistic relation it defines. To negate
that relation is to define A relative to A, and
the differential relation of A to A = 0. So the
"not summing" where A = 0 you call the mystical
insight is true, for "not sum" is not-holism,
or: the relation of A only to A.

>> Zero may also be defined as "symmetry."
>> If there is asymmetry, it is what it is
>> relative to symmetry, and that's symmetry!
>> So there can never be not-symmetry in all.
>Er, *I* don't define 0 as symmetry, and I don't think it's valid to do so.
>Sure, symmetrical things will sum to zero in the way you describe, but you
>commit a fallacy of parts to say that just because two numbers sum to a
>value that both are that value. This is like saying that since 1 + 2 = 3,
>1 = 3 and 2 = 3. Clearly this is not true; but in the same way, if 1 + -1
>= 0, you cannot say that 1 = 0.

IAN: All the identities you cite, 1, 2, and 3 are
what they are relative 0, as you agree. The nature
of this relation is symmetrical summing to zero. The
mystical insight defines the whole, or the sum, of
the relations of all things among themselves.

>> IAN: I think that your saying that if holism always
>> is, such that there is no not-holism, this is atomism,
>> i.e., there is H and H is H free from not-H.
>On the contrary, I am simply saying that H = A, a conclusion which you
>disagreed with earlier but which I assert.

IAN: Where is the entity, A, that is
what it is free from relation to -A?

Visit Ian W Goddard --->
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 --->