Atomism = Holism ?

Ian Goddard (
Tue, 16 Jun 1998 20:17:27 -0400

At 06:03 AM 6/16/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:

>> IAN: So you say that "atomism = holism"
>> and that there is a class of people that
>> are atomists, but why are they not holists?
>They ARE. They're BOTH. Atomism IS holism.

IAN: We agree on most things: that identity is
holistic and that the traditional Three Laws of
Thought are absurd and need holistic revision.

We're covering 2 issues, (1) What is identity?
and (2), What do people think atomism is?

Re: (1) What is identity?

As we agree, the old absurd Aristotelian identity
laws need to cite the holistic-identity structure
in which A is A only relative to -A. As such, 1
is 1, not due to its relation to itself, but 1
is 1 fundamentally due to its relation to 0.

Toward holistic revision, you have suggested
that "with respect to 0" be added to the Three
Laws of Thought in accord with zero mechanics.

Having established that 1 is the 0/1 relation,
we have 1, we've "achieved" identity, and this
0/1 relation is a holism, it is a whole set with
subsets, or subfeatures dependent upon the whole.

An issue we disagree on is does the addition of
other identities relating to 0 into our universe
of discourse change the identity of the first
0/1 relation that we had. You say no, I say yes.

Our universe of discourse (U) contains the 0/1 relation:


Now we add several more relations, none same as 0/1:

0/1 0/9
0/6 0/4

In the first case, 0/1 was 100% of U, now the 0/1
relation is only one-fourth of U, now it *is* LESS
relative to the whole. We can now also say that the
0/1 relation is unique. When we say A is _____(fill
in the blank), what it is is an attribute of its
identity, and as we can see, adding new relations
to U has added new identity attributes to 0/1,
and as such, identity is a holistic function.

Why Holism is Absolute

100% holism always wins, for even if we disagree
with the above and instead believe that the 0/1
relation has NOT changed, then this identified
state of "not-change" (not-C) is "not-C" relative,
and only relative, to C, and thus the non-changing
of the initial 0/1 relation is a measure of holism.
The change here being that of the contents of U.

So the examples of the relations of relations
cited have not identified any variety of free
identity, and as such we always have 100% holism.

Re: (2) What do people think atomism is?

I say that the traditional Three Laws of Thought
define atomism by 100% by declaring that what the
identity of A is excludes -A, and that the theory
of atomism is different than holism. You feel that
atomism = holism and an improved version of the 3
Laws of Thought based upon holism defines atomism.

If, as you stated, nobody believes the Three Laws
of Thought as they've been written for centuries,
that's fine with me. If there is nothing exterior
to holism, as you also seem to agree on, that too
is fine with me. But I still believe that atomist
identity theory is different than holist identity
theory, but I'm willing to agree to disagree.