User talk:Piper3

This a first for me, and because my skills are limited in the use of such facilities I may need help. Therefore I'll keep my initial remarks very brief.

I accessed the holism/wholism discussion and believe I can cast light on what seems to be very much an unresolved problem. Bold textThe whole is never greater than the sum of its parts! The whole is nothing but its parts!

Firstly, I see no justification for a difference between holism and wholism, but see nuances that are worth noting. 'Holism' to my thinking suggests a connection with traditional religion via 'holyism'. I'd prefer in my usage to avoid all such connotations and therefore use wholism because it is anchored in the treatment of 'wholes' and thus is entirely neutral vis a vis theology and religion. The term in my usage therefore is exclusivly philosophical cum logical.

Secondly, in only one edit did the term dialectic appear, and although this is in my view a step in the right direction, the treatment is still tentative and uninformative. Nevertbeless dialectic holds the key I believe and can indicate/suggest very briefly why a consistent dialectical treatment commands universal recognition. There are a number of steps that must be bourne in mind: 1. Dialectic implies a constitutional two-sideness to all phenomena. 2. i. Reductionism implies ii. reflexive bottom-up determination. 3. i. Wholism implies     ii. constitutional top-down determination. 4. Wholism and reductionism (with corresponding reflexes of topdown and bottom up         determination)are mutually incorporating, mutually defining and mutually determining opposites as in Yin and Yang. Energy and mass as (as quantity and quality)a la Einstein can be treated in the same way. The treatment is universally applicable--ontology (the fixed) and history (the transient)-- the a priori (as necessity)and the empirical (the contingent) and so on. Longer than I intended but not nearly long enough. piper3 24/3/07 12.55 AM