You seem to recognize this logical contradiction in the very next paragraph, but I don't think you succeed in resolving it.
"... interconnection assumes, along with infinity, that matter is infinitely subdividable to produce two things: 'matter' and 'empty space.'"
BW: The whole section is a muddle, unless you redefine "connection" as the possibility of multiple recurring *events* between *some* distinct objects, which requires a spatial separation between those objects. You could also use the "associated" sense of "connection", if you can demonstrate the existence of sequential events that suggest a cause and effect relationship between the motions of two objects. In that case, you could *hypothesize* some intervening medium or object, yet to be identified. But, that's what science does already.
BW: The alternative being: assuming some Borchardt Thing is there, when there is no evidence of its existence? You seem to be mocking the *realist* view and advocating a mystical view: that there must be invisible Borchardt Things there, because your universal, infinite, "interconnected" philosophy demands it.
TSW: "... disconnection leads to the overemphasizing of the internal and the ignoring of the external."
BW: I would think it would be the exact opposite. Disconnection (in the sense of distinct and separate objects) focuses on the *external* relationship of one object to a separate object, which produce events. That is, the *internal* components of each of the objects is ignored, for the sake of establishing the cause for the effect.
TSW: "But in general, systems philosophy. tends to assume disconnection, always failing to the degree that it refuses to recognize that the surroundings of the system are as important as the system itself."
BW: Yes, it attempts to isolate unique, discrete causes for distinct events. That doesn't *deny* the existence of incidental external influences that might cause slightly different effects. It accepts their existence and tries to reduce them to inconsequential aspects of the actual relationship under consideration. To the degree that their efforts are successful, none of the chaotic external influences are "important" to the primary event under study. That's how science is always done.
TSW: "Barry Commoner, one of the first to emphasize the importance of the environment, declared that in ecology, the most important law is: 'Everything is connected to everything else.'"
BW: You're taking Commoner out of context, since he's referring to the Earth "ecosphere" shared by all living organisms. They are all "connected" because the earth environment is a *closed system*. He doesn't even share the "Butterfly Effect" perspective of Edward Lorenz, which seems more consistent with your proposition.
BW: ... in which case, "interconnection" does not qualify as a fundamental supposition. Until you show that the connection exists, the only valid assumption is that no connection exists. You've just demolished your own assumption.
TSW: "if we are to reject the positivistic view altogether, then we need to show that things do not simply exist in the same universe, but that their motions invariably influence the motions of other things."
BW: If you show that, then the positivists would agree with you, since they believe that "information derived from sensory experience, logical and mathematical treatments and reports of such data, are together the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge." However, to support your universal, infinite connectedness of ALL Borchardt Things to each other, you'll have to produce an awful lot of evidence.