Correcting the Principle of Identity

There are two elements at the foundation of logic, same and different.
Substitute equals and not equals in your argument for true and false--they are the same abstraction, then you will have an answer you might not expect.

One of the points of Plato's Parminides is that you cannot predicate of a first principle--i.e. an element.

Both equal and true means "not different." Works on logic today use the term true and false in meaningless ways, true to what, not true to what? Language starts with a convention of names and every principle that is true, is true to that convention. i.e. You learn to give your word, and you must learn how to keep it.

Here it is. A thing exists.

Its two elements are form, from which we abstract the binary no difference, and material difference, which is difference.

As things exist, (see Plato)...

...these two elements cannot be said to exist.

The part is not equal to the whole (see Aristotle on the two different meanings of part)...

There fore everything is composed of these two nothings.

The wrong way to think of part is just a smaller thing, in which case you have a self referential fallacy, things define things.

These ideas, the two element metaphysics were what Plato and Aristotle were trying to develope. Aristotle was too stupid to do it. Plato was really good.

So, this is how things are created from nothing.

What Aristotle poited out, these are always part of something. Never exist alone.

So, this implies that one must think of reality as FLUID.

All we have is thing and nothing to work with.

The elements are not things. they are, as Aristotle pointed out "parts" as seen in a non-traditional sense.

And, biologically, your body is composed of acquisition systems, some abstract form, others abstract material difference. One disregards material, the other discards form.

This gives us Two Fundamental Logic Systems. Now, see Language and Experience. To learn some basics.

I figure, if you cannot comprehend that all logic is binary in nature, why in the hell are you sitting at a keyboard.

I am in a mess? Just think about it.

You have too high an opinion of me. I was never good enough to become an instructor at Stevie Wonders School for the Visual Arts.

Sometimes I think I should pose a test for people before conversing with me.

Take for example my post on demonstrating how to multiply and divide a line by a line in Euclidean Geometry, written up in sketchpad and Mathcad.
No one had figured it out prior to my demonstration, never knew how to do the four basic moves in Euclidean Geoemtry, yet, could claim to demonstrate in much higher mathematics the invalidity of Euclidean Geometry. And that makes sense to them? Claiming the ability to do the complex, yet ignorant of the simple?

What is a guy to do?
Ask your question.

And anyone, who follows a train of tautologies, through identity, and then say that it is true, but then say true is determined by some moronic theory, what the hell! You call that intelligence?