The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[popeye1945]

Take away the subject, and the object ceases to be; remove the object, and the conscious subject ceases to be. They are Interdependent in the creation of apparent reality.

Yes, but all sentences are not analytic like predicating an attribute of something else.
Some sentences declare unique identity. E.g. "On this forum I am Belinda", "God is good", "Evil is absence of good", "The morning star is the evening star"', "A great cause of the night is absence of the sun". (That last example --- Touchstone the clown in Shakespeare's --- 'As You Like It'.)

The moral effect of some analytic sentences may be destructive. As Sartre sort of said: if that man over there says he is a waiter then he is doing himself a disservice. That man is much besides a waiter and the totality of what he is can't be known until the moment of his death.

Sentences do not determine apparent reality; that is a process after the fact. All words are qualifications and limitations, giving locations and descriptions, meanings and measures. Experience comes before feeling, feelings come before thought, and thought comes before language. The union of subject and object is a relation that can never be broken, except perhaps in the death of the subject or the end of the physical world. Sartre was wrong; the totality of what a waiter is can never be known. Like a flower, a waiter has no meaning; he just is. He is an object; you are the subject; he is what you bestow upon him. Apparent reality is your reality, it is not a collective sum of all conscious entities. The search for meaning beyond what we create for ourselves as the value of our existence is futile; all meaning is defined by the conscious subject, relative only to the conscious subject, apparent reality for us is just there, or just is. Through the environmental context and the conscious subject, apparent reality emerges to us as just what is.

[Belinda]

Take away the subject, and the object ceases to be; remove the object, and the conscious subject ceases to be. They are Interdependent in the creation of apparent reality.

Yes, but all sentences are not analytic like predicating an attribute of something else.
Some sentences declare unique identity. E.g. "On this forum I am Belinda", "God is good", "Evil is absence of good", "The morning star is the evening star"', "A great cause of the night is absence of the sun". (That last example --- Touchstone the clown in Shakespeare's --- 'As You Like It'.)

The moral effect of some analytic sentences may be destructive. As Sartre sort of said: if that man over there says he is a waiter then he is doing himself a disservice. That man is much besides a waiter and the totality of what he is can't be known until the moment of his death.

Sentences do not determine apparent reality; that is a process after the fact. All words are qualifications and limitations, giving locations and descriptions, meanings and measures. Experience comes before feeling, feelings come before thought, and thought comes before language. The union of subject and object is a relation that can never be broken, except perhaps in the death of the subject or the end of the physical world. Sartre was wrong; the totality of what a waiter is can never be known. Like a flower, a waiter has no meaning; he just is. He is an object; you are the subject; he is what you bestow upon him. Apparent reality is your reality, it is not a collective sum of all conscious entities. The search for meaning beyond what we create for ourselves as the value of our existence is futile; all meaning is defined by the conscious subject, relative only to the conscious subject, apparent reality for us is just there, or just is. Through the environmental context and the conscious subject, apparent reality emerges to us as just what is.

But what we say includes also exclamations such as "Ouch that hurt" ,"I love and admire you" ,"My God My God why have You forsaken me!" "Hold your hands above your head". Much of what we say is also for cementing relationships such as chatting in the pub , or with a casual acquaintance in the park. Man is biological includes man as a social being. Your reality and mine includes other people each unique in their own way and lacking any essence until the moment of their death.

If you met me in person and not only as a persona on a discussion forum we would interact in a lot more ways than predicating attributes to concepts.

I am not the same person today as I was yesterday, and tomorrow if I live that long I will be different again. Identity is refuted by time and change.

[popeye1945]

Yes, but all sentences are not analytic like predicating an attribute of something else.
Some sentences declare unique identity. E.g. "On this forum I am Belinda", "God is good", "Evil is absence of good", "The morning star is the evening star"', "A great cause of the night is absence of the sun". (That last example --- Touchstone the clown in Shakespeare's --- 'As You Like It'.)

The moral effect of some analytic sentences may be destructive. As Sartre sort of said: if that man over there says he is a waiter then he is doing himself a disservice. That man is much besides a waiter and the totality of what he is can't be known until the moment of his death.

Sentences do not determine apparent reality; that is a process after the fact. All words are qualifications and limitations, giving locations and descriptions, meanings and measures. Experience comes before feeling, feelings come before thought, and thought comes before language. The union of subject and object is a relation that can never be broken, except perhaps in the death of the subject or the end of the physical world. Sartre was wrong; the totality of what a waiter is can never be known. Like a flower, a waiter has no meaning; he just is. He is an object; you are the subject; he is what you bestow upon him. Apparent reality is your reality, it is not a collective sum of all conscious entities. The search for meaning beyond what we create for ourselves as the value of our existence is futile; all meaning is defined by the conscious subject, relative only to the conscious subject, apparent reality for us is just there, or just is. Through the environmental context and the conscious subject, apparent reality emerges to us as just what is.

But what we say includes also exclamations such as "Ouch that hurt" ,"I love and admire you" ,"My God My God why have You forsaken me!" "Hold your hands above your head". Much of what we say is also for cementing relationships such as chatting in the pub , or with a casual acquaintance in the park. Man is biological includes man as a social being. Your reality and mine includes other people each unique in their own way and lacking any essence until the moment of their death.

If you met me in person and not only as a persona on a discussion forum, we would interact in a lot more ways than predicating attributes to concepts.

I am not the same person today as I was yesterday, and tomorrow if I live that long I will be different again. Identity is refuted by time and change.

All of what you say is true, but it does not change how it comes about. Family and friends, loved ones, are objects in your world. What makes them more than objects is emotional intimacy and intellectual dialogue to understand the nature of their character. It is true that as examples of a species, we are patterns, which makes us unique in that DNA is an imperfect pattern maker. There is a sense of identity that we acquire that is appreciated in the moment, but the journey is an unending process that only dissolves at death. Nothing is permanent; all is coming to be, all is process. Remember you are the source of all meanings, and they all are relevant to your being. It doesn't matter that when born into the world, there is a grand structure of meanings our ancestors have handed down to us; these need to be constantly examined and perhaps changed. It would be tragic to try to function in the modern world with an old-world mentality. You are the centre of your universe; without intimacy and an intellectual life, it's a lonely place.

[Ben JS]

You are the centre of your universe; without intimacy and an intellectual life, it's a lonely place.

No one is an island,
Entire of itself;

Every one, a piece of the whole -
A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by sea,
the world is less.

Any death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in the world.

Never send to know
for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

iunno
felt right

[popeye1945]

You are the centre of your universe; without intimacy and an intellectual life, it's a lonely place.

No one is an island,
Entire of itself;

Everyone, a piece of the whole -
A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by sea,
The world is less.

Any death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in the world.

Never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

iunno
felt right

Hi Ben,
It is a strange world we live in; the fact that there is no such thing as an independent existence makes the concept of identity difficult to understand, but only in the abstract. Identity is an abstract process; it is one's constitution conditioned by one's environmental context, taking the pains and the pleasures personally. I think it is a highly functional illusion, for identity and the self tend to be thought of as the same thing when they are anonymous or non-existent. The constitution is the product of an imperfect pattern maker, our DNA, as patterns of species, we are common. Ever renewing our parts does not tend to affect our long-term sense of who we are, yet the interrelational defining goes on between the subject constitution and the environmental context until death. When we, as a constitution, die, so does its definition of the world context as its identity. When people sometimes say, I am glad I'll not be around for what is coming up, I think they are mistaken; the patterns continue, and the environment continues, and you will be around in a slightly different pattern. The process goes on!

[Advocate]

[quote=osgart post_id=747056 time=1735237583 user_id=13026]
Since I'm shaped by my past up until this very moment I would say there is a constancy of self that grows, and changes, but never forgets what once was, and sometimes still remains through the changes. The constancy of self never goes away even experiencing changes.

Also with regards to objects I would say they often endure though weathering change often.

At the smallest levels I would say as long as there is an ever-changing field the elements that make up that field are permanent though permanently changing.

Constancy and change are existential brothers. You can't have one without the other.

Man made objects wholly repaired over time is another story.
[/quote]

Identity is a set of clustered attributes and boundary conditions by which a thing is distinguished from all other things according to expected affordances ( interactions, use cases ). There are several necessary attributes that every thing has; a unique position in time, space, and scale both as a neural correlate ( all things are real as a pattern in a mind ) and possibly an external referent, and conditions relative to those affordances which determine how much and in what ways it can change and still be considered the same.