> IDENTITY: X possesses an identity and
> can therefore be said to exist where
> X stands out as different from some
> state or quantity defined as not-X.
>
> NOT-IDENTITY: X posses no identity and
> cannot be said to exist where X is the
> same as not-X, for there is then nothing
> that is not-X, and thus no difference.
IAN: Ooops. I included the term defined
in the definition. No matter, it does
not mark an error of essence, since
the same definition can be stated
more properly sans term:
IDENTITY: that which is possessed by X
which makes X different than not-X,
allowing it to be said that X exists.
NOT-IDENTITY: that which makes X the
same as not-X, which nullifies that
which allows X to be said to exit.
Any other definitional suggestions?
I like the "process" definitions above
more, even though they include the term.
A perfect example of the "not-identity"
of "same as," and of the second "not"
definition above, is an item X that
appears one second -- and as such stands
as different than not-X -- then disappears
the next second, "poof"... in so doing it
has become the same as not-X, and thus X
ceases to exist. The prevailing definition
of identity is "same as," and yet as we can
see, that definition is most clearly false.
Another example is identical, or "same as,"
twins: seeing only one at a time, you cannot
be sure which of the two your seeing, since
each looses identity to the degree that the
two are the "same as" each other. So we can
clearly see that "same as" = "ANTI-identity."
IDENTITY RULE: X gains identity by
difference and looses it by similarity.
****************************************************************
VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________
REV. ROGER WILLIAMS ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/roger.htm
________________________________________________________________