Ian Goddard wrote:
> IAN: That's exactly what I'm saying with
> respect to identity: there is no identity
> external to context. Everything that exists
> exists in context, and context is holistic.
Wrong. There is no DESCRIPTION without context and contrast.
Identity - "every thing is equal to itself" - needs neither.
My sentence quoted above was in a discussion of the value of
"centralism" as a DESCRIPTIVE term.
> When we say what an elephant is (a member
> of X family of animals that live in Y set
> of locations), we put it in context, yet
> when we say what A is, "A=A," we remove
> it from context.
So what? "A=A" is not an attempt at description, hence it needs no
context.
> When I define identity
> as "A is A relative to ~A," I put it
> in context, as it exists in reality.
And you wrench the word _identity_ away from how it has been defined and
used for centuries, because you are too lazy to coin a more accurate
term for what you're defining - and/or too much in love with the idea of
yourself as Great Philosopher to adopt words that other people have used
for what you call "identity", words like _description_ and
_characteristics_ and _qualities_.
> Nobody has ever shown me an example of
> a thing, A, being A free from relation,
> and yet all those who cannot show that
> such is true, continue to claim that
> it is. That defines crackpotism.
Or illustrates your bullheaded refusal to understand common language.
-- "How'd ya like to climb this high without no mountain?" --Porky Pine Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 !! visiting New Mexico, end of March !!