>>IAN: There can be only A -- such as "super-red-box" --
>>where A possesses at least two contrasting features.
>
> Sorry, Ian, but that comes across as a ex post facto response which
> undermines a lot if not all of your prior arguments. Internal dichotomy
> does not remove the requirement for an external comparative.
IAN: The whole (A, ~A) is the whole relative to the parts. The
parts are said to be "not-whole." So that answers your counter:
whole = (whole + not-whole)
The whole is internally relative, ipso facto. The point your counter
misses is that, according to holistic logic, there is no external area.
If we found an area external to the whole, it would become internal to
the whole. Dichotomy is all holistic logic describes, predicts, and
requires. I fail to see the relevance of your "ex post facto" stipulation.
The only contradiction to holistic identity would be a whole or thing,
that is what it is free from dichotomy. I've shown that dichotomy is
always the basis of identity. You've yet to show where dichotomy is
not the basis of identity. Your suggestion that holistic logic requires
that there be some anti-whole is satisfied by the fact that "the part"
is the "anti-whole," and accordingly the two are one.
There is zero inconsistency here, dichotomy is a constant. I am
still waiting for evidence of the identity free from dichotomy.
***********************************************************************
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
_______________________________________________________________________