The Partiality Of Wholeness :: essays research papers

<a href="http//www.geocities.com/vaksam/">Sam Vaknins Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign affairs Web SitesReligious people believe in the existence of a supreme being. It has many attri moreoveres but two of the most striking be that it seems to some(prenominal) encompass and to pervade everything. Judaic sources are in the economic consumption of saying that we all have a "share of the upper miraculous soul". Put more white-tiely, we can say that we are both objet dart of a on the whole and permeated by it. But what are the kinships in the midst of the partitionings and the social unit? They could be either formal (a word in a sentence, for instance) or physical (a neurone in our brain, for instance). A formal relationship entails an impairment of the truth value of a sentence / proposition / theorem / syllogism with the remotion of one or more of its part. As a result, a part could be reconstructed to fit into an impaired Whole once the f ormal relationships (and the derivative truth value) are known. Things are pretty much the analogous in the physical realm the removal of the part renders the Whole - not Whole (in the functional 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 potential to contribute to the functioning / role of the Whole. The part motif not be active to qualify as a part - yet, it requires the potential to be active to do so. In other lyric the Whole is defined by its separate - their sum, their synergy, their structure, their functions. Even where epiphenomena occur - it is unimaginable to deal with them without resorting to some discussion of the parts in their relationships with the Whole. But the parts are also defined by their context, by the Whole. It is by observe their place in the hyperstructure, interactions with other parts and general function of the Whole that we can assign the title ("parts") 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 sensory 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.