IAN: And if A is on, for example where A
is a lightbulb, then we have at the same
time defined some area that is not on.
Notice, for example, that when a light
is on, or luminous, the area around it
is not luminous... cool... or cool & hot.
Were it not for that not-Luminosity there
would be no Luminosity, therefore not-L
is a necessary feature of L. If L is all
those things necessary for its existence,
all those things apart from which L cannot
exist, then L = not-L.
>> Until we answer
>> That question, all other inquiry is illogical.
>
>...and therefore naughty.
IAN: Extremely naughty, horrible,
even sinful... "people who want
you to think that should live
in a zoo," and stuff like that.
>> A thing, a state of difference, A, is an identity.
>
>Well, yes, obviously that. I mean, if we can't agree that A is an
>identity, a state of difference, a thing, then what can we agree on?
>Nothing, I'd say. (Oops! I'm jumping ahead!)
IAN: Or for that matter, maybe everything.
>> Every identity is derived from relation.
>
>You are your own grandfather.
IAN: My grandfather had many
features... I'm one of them.
>> There is no identity that is not derived from relation.
>> There can be no identity that is not derived from relation.
>
>Except for "Manos" (The Hands of Fate). Manos has no derivation. Manos
>just is.
IAN: Everything just is,
ergo: Manos = everything.
>> Therefore "relation" cannot be separated from "identity,"
>
>Not without the Jaws of Life, anyway.
>
>> And therefore, as relation contains both A and not-A,
>
>...and not-both-A...
IAN: I.e., nothing.
>> What a thing is said not to be cannot truthfully
>> Be separated from what it is said to be.
>
>(See Jaws of Life comment above.)
IAN: I did, but it was about as
explanitory as this reference to it.
>> The assumed separation of A and not-A is therefore
>> A fallacy.
>
>...and even more naughty than illogical inquiry.
IAN: It is indeed an atrocity.
>> If A is not separate from not-A,
>> Then A is not-A:
>>
>> A = not-A
>
>Or, more elegantly:
>
>A !=<>= !A + some_other_stuff
IAN: (A + not-A) includes "some_other_stuff"
>> If there is nothing A is not, A is everything.
>
>Including pasties. Maybe even especially pasties. (Woo hoo!)
IAN: No... especially everything.
>> If A is everything, A is no thing, A is nothing,
>> And thus everything is nothing... Logical Zen.
>
>But what is nothing? Something? A nice snack? (Yes, thank you. A donut
>if you have one.)
IAN: What is something? Hay, that was
the original question... wasn't it?
>> So the answer to the primary question as to the nature
>> Of identity is that identity is nothing,
>
>Actually, the answer to the real primary question (see comments above) is,
>"Yes, it is." Not that your question/answer isn't also profound.
IAN: That's not an answer, but it
sure saves time, and other stuff.
>> identity is
>> False where it assumes separation, and that is true.
>
>Truth is that separation assumes, where it is false, identity is. Just ask
>Yoda.
>(See http://www.theonion.com/onion3109/newgammar.html for more profundity.)
IAN: Christians assume there's this
God that is a some real big dude.
>> Identity is not identity, different is same.
>
>Any 10 year old could tell you this. But I'm glad you said it, anyway, so
>the elderly on the list might also benefit, and grow thereby.
IAN: Well, I guess I had that
feeling that you needed some
growth... glad I could help.
>> Separation does not exist.
>
>Unless you really, really believe in it with all your heart.
IAN: Err, not even then. Same
goes for Santa Clause... sorry.
>> No thing is apart from the whole.
>
>Now you're getting personal!
IAN: You are unified with
the whole, but hay, so is
everyone. It's so common.
>> Every thing is the whole.
>
>And now you're being rude!
IAN: Down right.
>> Everything is whole.
>
>Oh. Well, that's not so bad, I guess. If you'd ended all of that with
>everything being torn asunder and strewn about, we'd have quite a logical
>mess to clean up. Your tidiness and manners are greatly appreciated.
IAN: I thought I was rude... Oh
I see, rude is not-rude... cool.
>P.S. Sorry for the "Me, too." post. I'll try to have more to add next
>time!
IAN: I can't imagine how you could
add more to what you have already.