From: Sarah Marr (sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Thu Sep 26 1996 - 01:02:39 MDT
At 22:17 25/09/96 -0400, Ian Goddard wrote:
> At 09:20 AM 9/25/96 +0100, Sarah Marr wrote:
>You've not shown me a red box that is what it is free from its
>external area. Thus your claim of nonholistic identity, stands
>as a myth. Should physical verification be the basis of our
>belief or should truth by decree be our standard ?
Ian, what _are_ you talking about? I'm not saying it's separate from its
external area, merely that it's internal area is part of the superset. It's
external area is _not_, as you claim, the entire superset. How can it be? If
the area of the subset were not part of the superset it would not be a subset!
>But alas, I believe our differnece may be semantical. That's
>why I've made a rule for inclusion so as to reduce wheel spinning.
>
> >Oh, hang on...
> >
> >"But all that it is, is all that its not."
> >
> >Is also a flaw. If the redness of a box is contrasted with the not-redness
> >of everything else, that does _not_ make the box not-red. And the same can
> >be said of every single feature of the box, so all that the box is, is _not_
> >all that the box is not.
>
>
>IAN: Just as this thing > * < has no identity apart from its external
>area, the red box has no identity apart from its external area. Therefore
>its external area is * inside * the area that contains all those features
>necessary for its identity. I've just unified the red box to the universe
>that you errantly assume you've removed it from.
>
>Furthermore, the red box is "big," "small," "common," "rare," "bright,"
>"dark," .... only relative to other items its external area.
>
>While you've not identified a single feature of the red box that
>is derived exclusively from its internal area. I've presented many
>examples of externally derived features. Can you find even a single
>feature of the red box that is derived free from external relation ?
>If not, how do you sustain your claim to nonrelational identity ?
<and snipped stuff>
I _do_ wish you'd pay attention to what I'm saying, and not then start
accusing me of disagreeing with the very thing I _do_ agree with. I agree
with everything you've said above (although size brings up interesting
questions).
But the following sentence is a _complete_ nonsense:
"But all that it is, is all that its not."
OK: it's red. So apply that sentence:
"It is red. It is not red."
OK: it's small. So apply that sentence:
"It is small. It is not small."
And so on.
Your theory is fine, and I hate to be so blunt, but it's just that you use
mathematical and grammatical structures to try and desribe it which entirely
fail to do so from any logical or semantic perspective.
Sarah
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Kathryn Marr
sarah.marr@dial.pipex.com http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/sarah.marr/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:45 MST