The Map Thinker’s ™ first law of identity.
When the Identity consists of those things that are objects in the real universe (As opposed to Concepts). When the Identity consists of those things that are concepts, such as freedom, God, government, goals. When Identity consists of things that are beliefs, such as a belief there are true psychics and those who believe all psychics are frauds. When the Identity consists of an event, such as the birth of a baby, or Christmas, or 911.
Identity is that which the Perceiver has learned to identify as distinct.
For the minute we will concentrate on those things that are “real” objects in The Universe.
Let us look at what this means.
And by the way, when you are looking at it, the math like looking junk confuses some people, makes it clearer to others. If it confuses you, just skip it. Just read the words. The math like looking stuff is only there to make me seem more important anyway.
The words alone explain it all.
A = I <- Pn.
Where A is that which is perceived.
Where I is the identity of A as Perceived and Processed by P.
Where <- is the perception as received (observation or non observation through various senses) or, you may say, is understood, by P.
Where P is the Perceiver who Perceives and Processes the Qualities of A that equal Identity.
Where n denotes the specific Perceiver.
Aristotle in his egotism, assumed every intelligent person would be a copy of — You guessed it — Him. He never took into consideration that someone else might legitimately differ with his view. He assumed anyone who differed was less intelligent — Or even less human than he was. Thus he assumed that A = A is the truth and that any intelligent human being would experience it the same. Thus you either agreed with him or joined the ranks of subhumans; barbarians, women, Blind, and Deaf.
Einstein was not an egotist, he simply did not take differences in human perception into consideration when he evolved the Theory of Relativity. To do so would have added a note of complexity that would not have helped his ideas in any way. Still he postulated an observer who saw accurately, processed the information accurately, and would report accurately. Naturally accuracy would duplicate Aristotle’s perceptions.
Something which seldom happens.
It is time we got off our high horse. Look the horse in the eye. That horse thinks. We may think things the horse does not, possibly because there is no use in the horse thinking of them. In this the horse may be superior to us. As humans we think many things there is no use in our thinking. In fact many things humans think are counter survival. Unlike the horse.
Aristotle assumed Truth exists in a permanent state.
There is no evidence that anything, let alone truth exists in other than a transitory state.
Aristotle further assumed that a human being using their mind alone could understand this absolute truth.
That assumption is unfounded and has a very low probability factor. The evidence is that it is extremely difficult for anyone to understand completely even the most obvious truths.
The tree is full of green leaves.
But do we all experience the same green from the same tree? Even those of us who are not color blind do not see the exact same green as others. I personally see one green from one eye, another green from the other eye, and a different green when I look with both eyes. I experience three shades of tree green. Should I ask, “Which is the ‘true green?’ or do I simply accept the fact that I can only experience that which I can experience?
Most of us would be horrified nowadays to be told that Deaf People and Color Blind people were less intelligent, perhaps less human than those who saw colors ‘correctly’ or heard ‘correctly’.
Yet when anyone attempts to apply Aristotelian logic to the modern world they are applying just those assumptions. They are imbedded in Aristotelian logic. They are embodied in the “Law of Thought” A = A.
The “truth” as near as it exists, is that each person who Perceives ( P1,2,3…n) will experience any given reality in a slightly different way.
If an absolute truth did exist in any manner, shape, or form, we would not be able to experience it in any way save through our imperfect human senses.
Once we did experience this absolute, perfect truth, each person would have to process it.
An example of this might be an automobile accident. Let us assume that all observers are of equal perceptual ability. They are capable of exactly the same initial perception.
P1 might notice the action of the cars involved but not be aware of the colors of the cars.
P2 might notice the colors of the cars but be unclear on the action.
P3 might not notice the action or the colors of the cars. They might notice the color of the drivers.
Why the difference?
Processing.
Each processed the exact same information differently.
So Pn for each n processes different information differently.
One person sees Caviar and salivates.
Another is revolted by eating fish bait.
So now let us take an objective look, as objectively as we can, at two disparate A’s.
A half pound of ocean water and A half pound of rock.
No two things could be more different.
Or could they?
Ocean water is called salt water because it has so much salt in it. It has so much that it is economically sound to extract the salt from it.
Rocks have enough water in them that colonizing the moon is more apt to be viable because it can be extracted from them.
Oceans have organic matter in them. Probably because fish poop in it.
Rocks have organic matter in them. Probably because the neighbor’s dog pooped on it.
Ocean water has minerals in it.
So do rocks.
It is quite possible to hold a solid rock in one hand and a glass of ocean water in the other and that both contain the exact same ingredients.
Just not in the same proportions.
It is important to grasp this.
There is no difference between the rock and the glass of ocean water except the proportions of the ingredients.
An = Rn <- Pn
Where A is that proportion of difference which allows the Perceiver to perceive it as having a separate identity. R is the recipe. If you find it difficult to think of A, say a rock, as a Recipe, read on, the concept is truly very natural.
This proportion of difference might be very slight.
One percent difference in DNA can mean the difference between one discernible distinct species and another discernible distinct species.
My mother was in the middle of baking a meatloaf when a bunch of panicked people raced into the kitchen yelling the problem. There were a lot more people coming to dinner than expected and there was no time to change the menu and cook more, or new food.
My mother, undaunted, said, “Hand me some broth. I’ll turn the meatloaf into a huge stew.”
And she did.
She had an innate knowledge that the difference between many things is more in the perception than in the reality.
But she did not stop there.
Spaghetti cooks quick. So she scooped out some future meatballs from the meatloaf.
In less than twenty minutes the meatloaf that was meant to feed six became stew with spaghetti and meatballs able to feed twenty.
Slight differences in composition and ingredients made huge differences in the final product.
This is equally true of humans.
The difference that makes us individuals is one thing and one thing only — How we choose to react to situations.
Let us apply this to our little equation:
A = R
Where A is the Thing, R is the Recipe.
Let us look closely at R.
R = (RsiRpi)
Where Rsi is the sum of the ingredients.
Here we need to keep in mind that stew is still identifiable as stew whether it contains salt or not or whether it contains oregano or not. It is identifiable as the same stew even though you add peppers to spice it up.
Where Rpi is the proportions of those ingredients.
Remember my mother’s stew and the meatloaf had exactly the same ingredients. The spaghetti and meatballs only had one new ingredient.
Where A equals the Sum of its Ingredients factored by the Proportion of those Ingredients. This creates an aggregate identity that can be perceived by The Perceiver. Which is then processed, categorized, and possibly reported to others via language.
The R is simply the Recipe.
In other words all of reality consists of recipes that consist of the same ingredients recombined over and over again.
Are we finished?
No.
The last produces more confusing clarification: We need to dig just a little deeper into identity.
A = R = (RsiRpi ) -> Qn
Or, written in English.
R is the Sum and Proportion of its ingredients expressed as distinct Qualities. These qualities are perceived as hard, soft, rough, smooth, heavy, light, tasty, smelly, etc.
Therefore:
A = R = (RsiRpi ) -> Qn = I <- Pn
A is a Recipe that equals the Sum and Proportions of its ingredients and is expressed as various Qualities that present a distinct Identity that can be Received by each Perceiver in a different way.
A tree is a bunch of bored quarks who got together for a little party. They banded together into little Ménage à trois to produce electrons, neutrons, etc. That banded together into atoms and molecules. That produced all kinds of parts of the tree. Those parts somehow all came together and produced the tree.
Wow!
Aristotle’s universe was very drab and boring compared to the real thing.
Just remember:
A ≠ A
An = Rn = (RsiRpi )n -> Q = I <- Pn
So (RsiRpi) can easily be reduced to Ripn
Looking at this alleged formula brings one to the same philosophical conclusion as arrived at by particle physics.
To wit:
A thing does not really exist except as a potential possibility until we perceive it.
But it gets worse.
We, who perceive it are, to varying degrees, deaf and blind and otherwise limited in our perceptions.
So we are not able to fully perceive that which our perceptions have brought into existence.
We get to that later.
Right now lets just shorten our equation to Rn -> I <- Pn.
A -> I <- P
All the complexities that go into the creation of A produces an Identity that is Received by a Perceiver.
R = A <- P
Or even:
A <- P
In English: A person, place, idea, or thing as perceived by the individual in question.
This is a perfectly fine simplified equation to use instead of:
An = Rn = (RsiRpi )n = Ripn -> Qn = I <- Pn
So long as we remember that it is a simplified, shortened form.
© 2013 All Rights Reserved
The Map Thinker (tm) 
Leave a Reply