>Your phrase about "starting from the whole being/entity" concludes with
>the words "with their own properties". See? You can't avoid talking
>about understanding parts whose sum is graeter than the whole. You have
>simply given parts another name: properties.
Barry, I respond to this issue about parts and wholes from a perspective
which tries to keep the dynamic tension between these two
complementarities always alive, dynamically shifting back and forth
between whole and the part, the global and the local, unity and
uniqueness. It has turned out to be a very effective way to do the
object-oriented design of software, and its not bad for understanding
families and One's relationship to the Divine.
>I think we always DO start from the whole. It's what confronts us; it's
>what we are a part of and wish to see as a whole in order to derive some
>modicum of comfort, isn't it? We WANT wholeness.
I am really with You on this one Barry, not only do we WANT wholeness, but
it is what We already are! The illusion is that We are not, and it
provides Us with endless play down the corridors of time.
-- Doug Seeley, Ph.D. InterDynamics Pty. Ltd. (Australia) in Geneva CompuServe: 100433.133 Fax: +41 22 756 3957 "Choice and Chance are One." 100433.133@compuserve.com