The Partiality Of Wholeness :: essays research papers

<a href="http//www.geocities.com/vaksam/">Sam Vaknins Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web Sites spiritual people believe in the existence of a supreme being. It has umteen attributes but two of the most striking are that it seems to both cover up and to pervade everything. Judaic sources are in the habit of saying that we every have a "share of the upper divine soul". effectuate more formally, we can say that we are both constituent of a social unit and permeated by it. But what are the relationships between the parts and the Whole? They could be either formal (a word in a sentence, for instance) or animal(prenominal) (a neurone in our brain, for instance). A formal relationship entails an impairment of the legality value of a sentence / proposition / theorem / syllogism with the removal of one or more of its parts. As a result, a part could be hypothesise to fit into an impaired Whole once the formal relationships (and the derivati ve integrity value) are known. Things are pretty much the same in the physical realm the removal of the part renders the Whole - NOT Whole (in the operating(a) sense, in the structural sense, or in both senses). A part is immediately discernible it is always smaller (size, mass, weight) than the Whole and it always possesses the latent to contribute to the functioning / role of the Whole. The part need not be active to qualify as a part - yet, it requires the potential to be active to do so. In other words the Whole is outlined by its parts - their sum, their synergy, their structure, their functions. Even where epiphenomena occur - it is inconceivable to deal with them without resorting to nearly discussion of the parts in their relationships with the Whole. But the parts are as well defined by their context, by the Whole. It is by observing their place in the hyperstructure, interactions with other parts and general function of the Whole that we can sequester the title (&qu otparts") to them. There are no parts without a Whole. In this sense, it seems that parts and Wholes are nothing but language conventions, a way that we chose to describe the world that was compatible with our evolutionary and survival goals and with our afferent input. If this is so, then, being defined by each other, parts and Wholes are inefficient, cyclical, recursive, in short tautological modes of relating to the world.