BW: I don't think "hypothesizing" is the exclusive province of any ideology. However, the assertion of something for which there is NO evidence whatever is the province of mysticism, not determinism.
TSW: "Today, however, it is the determinist who believes that interconnecting objects must exist, while it is the indeterminist who more often believes that they do not."
BW: I don't think that's a valid characterization. A determinist believes there is a cause for every effect, whether known or not. However, there can be no "determination" of cause in the absence of an effect. So, IF a determinist sees an event, he will try to find a "connection" to the objects which might cause it. That's different than the automatic assumption that some unknown objects are "interconnected" in the absence of ANY event whatever. That's "idealism", not determinism.
TSW: "If a thing is not subject to interactions with other objects in its surroundings, then it would exist like the solipsist: all alone in a universe supposedly of its own making. Insofar as we distinguish among things, but fail to relate them to other things, we reveal a juvenile bias in favor of disconnection ..."
BW: Your mixing insults and misrepresentations. The question is NOT whether objects are "subject to interconnections", but whether ALL things are physically connected to ALL other things. That's your proposition: "All things are interconnected." It isn't "juvenile" to believe that objects are not connected UNTIL there is evidence that those specific objects have produced an event which requires a causal explanation.
TSW: "It begins with the child’s egocentrism, develops along with the bourgeois notion of individualism, and retreats, finally, to the citadel of free will."
BW: So, totally abandoning the effort to demonstrate your case, in favor of insults, characterizations, and Marxist rhetoric?
TSW: "Solipsism, egocentrism, individualism, anthropocentrism, and systems philosophy are merely variations on a theme."
BW: But, none of them correspond to Leibniz's assertion that God "implanted" all things with fixed and totally distinct identities. You're wandering off into religious, social, and psychological commentary, rather than pursuing the premise of your stated proposition about the interconnection of all Borchardt Things.
TSW: "... the search for a universal disconnection fails with each improvement in knowledge."
BW: Now, you're flipping the burden of proof on it's head, with a strawman that doesn't exist: the claimed assertion of "universal disconnection" of all objects, rather than defending what you claim: universal connection of all objects. I don't know of any philosophy that says ALL objects are *disconnected*, much less "absolutely separate" in every way from ALL other things.
TSW: "Absolutists believe otherwise."
BW: It's hard to determine what form of "absolutism" you're characterizing. Hegel was an "absolute idealist", so I guess he's repugnant. There are those who believe in "absolute space" and others in "absolute truth":
BW: You also seem to be stuck on the term "Systems Philosophy", which isn't what you make it out to be. It asserts that there are NO systems in nature. They believe that systems are just conceptual models created by humans for the purpose of understanding causation. Those models have an arbitrary boundary, chosen to isolate specific events. So, it would seem to me that you agree with them!
TSW: "... their own bodies demonstrate against disconnection."
BW: Humans are an *effect*, caused by the Earth environment. Like all living things, we are created by, composed of, and survive in the environment. Does that mean we are "physically connected" to the environment? Not necessarily.
BW: First of all, the environment is not a Borchardt Thing, it is a Westmiller Thing: the interaction of a multitude of material objects. Some of those objects occasionally collide, creating effects. But each of those collisions is a momentary impact, not a persistent connection. Some objects combine with others upon collision, with the effect that they become a new, distinct object, composed of their constituents (e.g.: C+O2 = CO2). Are they "connected"? No, they are *combined* and have unique attributes, distinct from their components.
BW: Second, because one thing is caused by an interaction with another thing does not mean they are "connected", only that they were once in contact and produced a result. For example, humans build a house. That doesn't mean that all those humans are physically "connected" to the house, only that humans are logically associated with the construction of the house ... some more and some less. The objects "humans" are always *disconnected* from the object "house".
BW: Third, an abstract composite of things does not make them "connected". Every object in existence is a "part" of the concept "universe". Because we formulate that abstraction does not mean that our thought *makes them* connected (that's idealism). A molecule of water in the Indian Ocean is not "connected to" a molecule of water in my teardrop, even if they both correspond to our definition of water: H2O.