Re: Superset <=> subset

Ian Goddard (igoddard@erols.com)
Fri, 27 Sep 1996 14:01:14 -0400


QueeneMUSE@aol.com questioned:
>
> is this A not A again in a new guise?

IAN: It's the same thing I've always stated: A is A only relative to ~A,
therefore ~A is a necessary feature of A, and thus the two are unified.

My description of this evolves over time, seeing as it's very hard to
understand how two things can be same thing via indivisible dependence.

Despite the difficulty of comprehension, the truth of holistic unity is
established by literally unlimited physical examples, and evidence to the
contrary -- an example of A being A free from relation to ~A -- is nowhere
to be found. There is therefore no basis in physical fact or fact based
logic to support the claim that A is separate from, or other than, ~A.

Alas, I cannot compel others to see or to base their belief on physical
fact, but I can work to "guise" holistic logic in a more acceptable
package, necessitated also by the fact that my ability to describe is imperfect.

***********************************************************************
IAN GODDARD <igoddard@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
visit Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
_______________________________________________________________________