What is the difference in the meanings of these two statements?
September 15, 2009 - 10:15 am
1. No identity can be without uniformity.
2. Nothing can be identity if uniformity is nothing.
What is the difference in the meanings of these two statements?
No identity without uniformity means that identity cannot exist if it’s not consistent
Nothing can be identity if uniformity is nothing means that if there is no such thing as uniformity, then there can be no identity.
In the first statement ‘uniformity’ still exists, it’s just not being applied directly to identity.
In the second statement no uniformity exists, ergo no identity exists. Both statements are false.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
No identity without uniformity means that identity cannot exist if it’s not consistent
Nothing can be identity if uniformity is nothing means that if there is no such thing as uniformity, then there can be no identity.
In the first statement ‘uniformity’ still exists, it’s just not being applied directly to identity.
In the second statement no uniformity exists, ergo no identity exists. Both statements are false.
References :
September 15th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
"existence is identity, consciousness is identification" john galt
References :
September 15th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
#1 if life measurable to you then do your part take an action without hesitations so that in your own lil ways you can help.. life starts with your both hands if you want peace then discipline yourself. Do the right move!
#2 wrong grammar sorry!!!! Hahahaha lol
References :
September 15th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
No difference
References :
September 15th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
The difference between THEM is not the difference between them and mine. None of identifiable somethings are uni-formless. A nothing is given identity if it conforms to uniformity if uniformity is a nothing not; it is a logical action with a purpose, if not, it is merely space between, allocated measure but not given exact complete formal logic, an imperfect map.
References :