Re: Context vs Crackpotism

Anton Sherwood (
Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:02:55 -0700

Anton Sherwood ( wrote (in a very different context)
> >Admittedly the term is not meaningful without
> >a context, namely the scale in question.

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

> 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 !!