Re: Tangible vs True ??

Anton Sherwood (
Mon, 30 Mar 1998 00:39:42 -0700

> Lee Daniel Crocker (
> >.... You spend pages and pages
> >on defining "Identity" and claim that this is an exercise
> >of reason in itself. You can have your definition if you
> >like--it's no skin off my nose. But the old definition--
> >even if it's "wrong" in some sense--manages to feed me,
> >build houses, move me around, and generally make my life
> >interesting. If you want us to accept your definition,
> >show us how using your definition /accomplishes/ something
> >tangible and real in my life.

Ian Goddard wrote:
> IAN: That there is a tangible world is a result
> of the fact that identity is holistic. If atomism
> was somehow true, there would be no tangible world.
> Every thing is what it is only due to relations.
> So holistic identity gives you a tangible world.

So now "identity" means ... interaction? tangibility? reality?
Is there anything that "identity" does not mean? ;)

> For me, a quest into the nature of truth seems much
> more interesting and important than faster cars and
> better mouse traps. To me it seems that seeing such
> things as the end-all measure of value is trivial
> and shallow, but that's what makes me a weirdo.

Well, if you don't mind that everyone thinks you're chasing your tail,
mazel tov.

"How'd ya like to climb this high without no mountain?" --Porky Pine
Anton Sherwood   *\\*   +1 415 267 0685