X < 12 or Hara Ra = Confused

Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Thu, 07 May 1998 18:10:29 -0400

Hara Ra (harara@shamanics.com) wrote:
>Ian is kind of like a flea - keeps on hopping around the same
>fallacies over and over. ...He is, to me, ironically, just the
>kind of psychoceramic indicated in the subject line.

Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net) wrote:

>> IAN: A definition is useful IF it puts
>> the defined in context, IF it defines
>> the relations of the defined to things
>> that are different than it. The "A=A"
>> definition of A does not do that...

> I have an even stronger standard: that the identity
> of an can be expressed as the relationship between
> X and not-X is a truism that a 12-year-old could
> understand with a bit of reflection...

IAN: Or, in other words, identity holism is
something that anyone who was under 12-years-
old or who was Hara Ra could NOT understand,
even after having several years to reflect!

I realize that, like the fallacy of free energy,
the fallacy of free identity stems from a limited
comprehension of the phenomena under investiga-
tion. The idea that energy is spontaneously
created out of nothing expresses a failure
to perceived that any energy in subset X
came from some other subset in not-X.

In the same way, any identity attribute
of subset X did not come from subset X
but from some other subset in not-X.
With the identity matrix we can see
how elementry this principle is:

1 2 3
1 | 0 1 2 |
| |
2 |-1 0 1 |
| |
3 |-2 -1 0 |

The column below each entity along the
top lists the identity attributes of that
entity relative to the other entities. Note
how each entity gains 0 identity from itself.
All attributes of X are derived from not-X.
Identity, just like energy, is conserved.

Visit Ian W Goddard ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
Statements T r u t h A defines -A
a -A defines A
A: x is A b A -A
l T F A set is defined
-A: x is -A e F T by its members, thus
? ? A & -A contain each other.
H O L I S M ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/meta.htm