The organic framework is exactly a whole\part relation, where the whole(the non-local) is not "a one of many ..." thing and a part(the local) is "a one of many ..." thing.
"A thing" is both something or nothing , so the organic framework defines the common source of the empty and the non-empty, which is non-local\local relations, where the difference between the empty and the non-empty is ignored, for example:
As can be seen, Non-locality(The whole, which is not "a one of many ..." thing) and Locality(a part, which is "a one of many ..." thing) are common properties of both Fullness and Emptiness.
As a result any given collection of infinitely many local things is incomplete because it cannot be the whole(the non-local).Originally Posted by Doctor X
"Cantor introduced into mathematics the notion of a completed set, so that the integers, for example, could be considered together as a set in themselves, and so as a completed infinite magnitude. Only by conceiving of the integers as a whole entity, (as a Ding für sich) could Cantor define the first transfinite number, which he denoted by a lower case omega (ω), in contradistinction to the familiar sideways eight infinity symbol (oo), which had only meant unbounded."
( http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1993/PSCF3-93Hedman.html ).
Cantor was very close to define the organic paradigm (The NXOR\XOR product) but his mistake was that he understood the whole in terms of a collection (a XOR product), and not in terms of a non-local atom (a NXOR product) that is not "a one of many ..." thing.
One can say: "Please show n which is not a member of N. If you can show it, then and only then N is incomplete."
My answer: If |N| is non-finite, then any given n is not its final member (order is not important). Being a non-finite collection does not depend on a particular member, but it is a property that belongs to each n in N (no n in N is its final member if N is a non-finite collection).