>> but where
>> is the error? where is the flaw ?
>
> Loathe as I am to get in to this, the flaw's in
> 'subset is not-superset'. Not true. 'Subset is not-100%-superset'
> is true, or, at the very least, useful.
IAN: "If we say it's so, it must be so. The * inside * of the subset
is the area I say it is, no logical rule is necessary." I reject
this truth by decree. I founded my conclusion on a rule:
The inside of the box is the area
that contains all that it is.
Even better:
The inside of the box is that area
that contains all those features
necessary for its specific identity.
You've not shown me a red box that is what it is free from its
external area. Thus your claim of nonholistic identity, stands
as a myth. Should physical verification be the basis of our
belief or should truth by decree be our standard ?
But alas, I believe our differnece may be semantical. That's
why I've made a rule for inclusion so as to reduce wheel spinning.
>Oh, hang on...
>
>"But all that it is, is all that its not."
>
>Is also a flaw. If the redness of a box is contrasted with the not-redness
>of everything else, that does _not_ make the box not-red. And the same can
>be said of every single feature of the box, so all that the box is, is _not_
>all that the box is not.
IAN: Just as this thing > * < has no identity apart from its external
area, the red box has no identity apart from its external area. Therefore
its external area is * inside * the area that contains all those features
necessary for its identity. I've just unified the red box to the universe
that you errantly assume you've removed it from.
Furthermore, the red box is "big," "small," "common," "rare," "bright,"
"dark," .... only relative to other items its external area.
While you've not identified a single feature of the red box that
is derived exclusively from its internal area. I've presented many
examples of externally derived features. Can you find even a single
feature of the red box that is derived free from external relation ?
If not, how do you sustain your claim to nonrelational identity ?
> We've had this conversation before, so I'm fairly sure I won't
> convince you
IAN: I stubbornly stick to physical verification as the basis for
belief. I am still waiting for an example, physical or conceptual,
of a nonrelational identity. Until I have it, I'll believe that
identity is holistic and thus the whole universe is the inside
of the red box. Others can base their belief on whatever
standard they choose, I'll stick to physical verification.
> (anybody else wanna shout for my corner?), but you continue to suggest a
> binary is/is-not pairing and then suddenly assert that each member of
> that pairing is the same, invalidating your own pair-dichotomy. Huh?
IAN: If differnece (two or more features) is the basis for a single
identity (one thing), then the thing is this difference, and thus
is all those things from which this difference is derived. Your
assuming that I deny difference, I do not. Difference is the
basis of what Iam saying. It's a perfect paradox, difference
implies holist unity, implies same, or identity.
***********************************************************************
IAN GODDARD <igoddard@erols.com> Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
visit Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
_______________________________________________________________________