Logical Extension from the First Principle

[psychoactive]

I have been trying to logically progress from a first principle, however it is proving exceedingly difficult. I was wondering if anyone has been able to do so, and if so, what their process looks like.

[jufa]

I have been trying to logically progress from a first principle, however it is proving exceedingly difficult. I was wondering if anyone has been able to do so, and if so, what their process looks like.

There is no logical progression from a first principle because there is no logic for the existence of a first principle.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[psychoactive]

I'm not sure what your trying to say, the first principle is just a term, there is existence, can we not logically extrapolate from this fundamental state?

[Kelly Jones]

A=A is the first principle of logic. The syllogism (expression of deduction, the basic reasoning structure) is a fuller expression of the law of identity (A=A).

So every line of reasoning, including those using the scientific method, and less formed lines constituted by intuition, even those least formed like henids, and even those that contradict the principle which always have some element of henidism, proceeds from that principle.

Henid, interestingly, comes from the Greek for "about".


.

[jufa]

I'm not sure what your trying to say, the first principle is just a term, there is existence, can we not logically extrapolate from this fundamental state?

How can one logically extrapolate anything when the reasoning for the known cannot delve into the logic for how the known came to be?

A=A is the first principle of logic. The syllogism (expression of deduction, the basic reasoning structure) is a fuller expression of the law of identity (A=A).

So every line of reasoning, including those using the scientific method, and less formed lines constituted by intuition, even those least formed like henids, and even those that contradict the principle which always have some element of henidism, proceeds from that principle.

Henid, interestingly, comes from the Greek for "about".
.

The problem with A=A as being the first principle of logic is that there has been no logic for the appearance of A to exist. What has been presented in the immediate statement above does not deal with a definition of the first logic principle, instead we have a illogical presentation of an effect being presented before the cause which cannot be a logical reality.

To be sure, what is the logic for A. When this become known A has a base, but if a base for A's existence cannot be produced, then A=A is the most absurd position one could give as logic.

What is the logic for A? When the logic is presented, then one will see that the first principle of logic is not A=A but the source which manifest A in the beginning. Therefore logic for existence must be defined before the object A can be the reality of a principle.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Kelly Jones]

I'm not sure what your trying to say, the first principle is just a term, there is existence, can we not logically extrapolate from this fundamental state?

How can one logically extrapolate anything when the reasoning for the known cannot delve into the logic for how the known came to be?

You're arse-about there, Jufa. How the first principle (i.e. the law of identity) came to be is causation, but that is a secondary principle deriving from the first. That is, something exists. Therefore, causation.

Kelly: A=A is the first principle of logic. The syllogism (expression of deduction, the basic reasoning structure) is a fuller expression of the law of identity (A=A).

So every line of reasoning, including those using the scientific method, and less formed lines constituted by intuition, even those least formed like henids, and even those that contradict the principle which always have some element of henidism, proceeds from that principle.

Henid, interestingly, comes from the Greek for "about".

Jufa: The problem with A=A as being the first principle of logic is that there has been no logic for the appearance of A to exist.

If one is asking how anything exists (since A=A simply affirms something to exist), the presumption is that nothingness is a logical possibility. It isn't. So your problem is dissolved in thin air.

What has been presented in the immediate statement above does not deal with a definition of the first logic principle, instead we have a illogical presentation of an effect being presented before the cause which cannot be a logical reality.

It's not illogical at all. There is no cause for "something existing". All causes are somethings, and part of that whole "A".

To be sure, what is the logic for A.

A=A is the basis of all logic.

When this become known A has a base, but if a base for A's existence cannot be produced, then A=A is the most absurd position one could give as logic.

You don't understand the law of identity. A=A is the basis for all identities, and is primary to them.

What is the logic for A? When the logic is presented, then one will see that the first principle of logic is not A=A but the source which manifest A in the beginning. Therefore logic for existence must be defined before the object A can be the reality of a principle.

Nope, sorry.


.

[Pam Seeback]

A=A is the first principle of logic. The syllogism (expression of deduction, the basic reasoning structure) is a fuller expression of the law of identity (A=A).

So every line of reasoning, including those using the scientific method, and less formed lines constituted by intuition, even those least formed like henids, and even those that contradict the principle which always have some element of henidism, proceeds from that principle.

Henid, interestingly, comes from the Greek for "about".


.

The cosmology you present of the principle of logic, A = A, as being a fuller expression of the law of identity, (A = A) is flawed on many levels, least of which is that it flies in the face of the principle teaching [goal] of Buddhism, which is the escaping of samsara, or the wheel of birth and death. Which is also the principle teaching of the ascension of the Son of Man out of his human realm of dualism to realize eternal life as I and the Father are One. Your model of Ultimate Reality, as I interpret it to be [correct me if I am wrong] denies that such an escape or exit is possible/purposed.

Not only does your cosmology deny the common core teachings of eastern and western schools of mysticism of ending the suffering of man by way of exiting the wheel of birth and death [the appearance of henids or 'about'] it is, of itself, not logical. I am assuming that the law of identity of (A = A) that you present is a nondual law; if this is so, then how can the principle of logic, which is the principle of dualism, be a fuller expression of That which is nondual? Please note that what I present in my question to you is not your doctrine of logic/dualism as being an expression of Ultimate Reality, but of logic as being the way or tool of awakening to the realization that the error of belief in a caused, logical reality is that which is to be transcended. In other words, of using image-less thought to go beyond imaging thought. Which, as far as I can see, is the purpose of mindful meditation. In biblical scriptures, it is the call of God the Father to "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

Bottom line, Kelly, is that your view of a dual Ultimate Reality that emanates from a nondual Ultimate Reality is not only in error, but it is a view that sentences man to an eternal hell of an existence that is of being between a rock and a hard place, with no way to lift the rock or shatter the hard place. From what I can see, this is the rock/hard place that you yourself are caught, the contradiction of saying that Reality is A = A, but that it is also divided into two warring factions or aspects of itself, the accepted/acceptable masculine aspect and the rejected/non acceptable feminine aspect. Is it not logical to realize that the One Life cannot accept/reject its Singular [Omnipresent] Nature?

As you present your model of the nature of a logical, perpetual divided [suffering] Ultimate Reality out of your understanding of compassion, I present mine to you of exiting this model out of my understanding of compassion. If at any time, I have grossly misinterpreted your model of UR, feel free to guide me closer to your direction of spiritual sight.

[jufa]

Kelly wrote: You're arse-about there, Jufa. How the first principle (i.e. the law of identity) came to be is causation, but that is a secondary principle deriving from the first. That is, something exists. Therefore, causation.

Ha, get away from my ass before I blow your head further away you than it already is. And don't you believe for one moment you, who can display no balls, can intimate one who can display balls.

Now lets us get to your absurity. How can there be a law of identification when the identity of that which created all does not have an identity? Show me that body of cause you say is the law of identity. You can't, for if you could, you would have done so.

So now what does this law relate to Kelly so it can say, this is my mother, my father, my cause of existence? Come on with it now, give me the first cause of identification which is based in the first principle's existence of that Something which you have not been iable to dentified to be the first or secondary cause. This means Causation has no identity to you which means thus its laws and principles you have presented have no logical identity
.

If one is asking how anything exists (since A=A simply affirms something to exist), the presumption is that nothingness is a logical possibility. It isn't. So your problem is dissolved in thin air.

If "A=A simply affirms something to exist," then "A=A is not a principle, something is the principle. And I do not presume my existence, I existed as the living jufa, not a descriptive letter. What you call a problem eliminated is impossible, because there can be no problem solved as long as I am the one asking the question. And the questions to you, which you have totally avoided is: "What is the logic for existence, and the cusation which brought forth A?
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: You're arse-about there, Jufa. How the first principle (i.e. the law of identity) came to be is causation, but that is a secondary principle deriving from the first. That is, something exists. Therefore, causation.

jufa: How can there be a law of identification when the identity of that which created all does not have an identity? Show me that body of cause you say is the law of identity. You can't, for if you could, you would have done so.

The law of identity doesn't exist abstractly "out there". It is a conceptual thing that arises in someone's consciousness. It is caused to exist. By cause and effect.

The law of identity is not the same as causation, but the concept of causation is derived from the law of identity, as understood by the thinker.

So now what does this law relate to Kelly so it can say, this is my mother, my father, my cause of existence?

The law of identity is used in identifying all things. The relationship of the law of identity to all my causes is that I can identify the causes for my existence as causes.

Come on with it now, give me the first cause of identification which is based in the first principle's existence of that Something which you have not been iable to dentified to be the first or secondary cause.

I'm afraid your words don't make any sense to me. You'll need to put it in simpler language.

This means Causation has no identity to you which means thus its laws and principles you have presented have no logical identity

If causation has no identity, how would you be able to identify it as causation?

Kelly: If one is asking how anything exists (since A=A simply affirms something to exist), the presumption is that nothingness is a logical possibility. It isn't. So your problem is dissolved in thin air.

Jufa: If "A=A simply affirms something to exist," then "A=A is not a principle, something is the principle.

A stands for "something". That's an abstraction.

And I do not presume my existence, I existed as the living jufa, not a descriptive letter. What you call a problem eliminated is impossible, because there can be no problem solved as long as I am the one asking the question. And the questions to you, which you have totally avoided is: "What is the logic for existence, and the cusation which brought forth A?

Imagine a sphere, made up of all causes that exist and can exist. If you ask for what causes the sphere, you're supposing there are causes existing outside the sphere. But by definition, the sphere is all causes. Do you see how the problem of what causes existence dissolves?


.

[jufa]

Kelly,

What is the logic for A?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Kelly Jones]

I answered that, jufa. I'll tease it out for you a bit, to see if that helps to make it clearer.

Your question "What is the logic for A?" is the same as your previous one "What is the logic for existence, and the cusation which brought forth A?", presumably.

My answer "Imagine a sphere, made up of all causes that exist and can exist. If you ask for what causes the sphere, you're supposing there are causes existing outside the sphere. But by definition, the sphere is all causes. Do you see how the problem of what causes existence dissolves?" explains.

That is, if by "what is the logic for A?" you are asking for an explanation (the reasoning, the logic) for the existence of something (since A stands for "something"), then you are asking for the causes for the existence of something. Or more accurately, what causes existence itself.

To resolve the question, consider that all causes make up the body of existence. Therefore, any cause for existence is a meaningless concept. Existence cannot be caused, since existence includes all causes.

Clear now?

[jufa]

My answer "Imagine a sphere, made up of all causes that exist and can exist. If you ask for what causes the sphere, you're supposing there are causes existing outside the sphere. But by definition, the sphere is all causes. Do you see how the problem of what causes existence dissolves?" explains.

You have not answered the question when you tell me to imagine something. It is not about me imagining anything, it about you telling me what is the cause of A.

That is, if by "what is the logic for A?" you are asking for an explanation (the reasoning, the logic) for the existence of something (since A stands for "something"), then you are asking for the causes for the existence of something. Or more accurately, what causes existence itself.

I am not asking you to explain anything. I am asking you to tell me what is the Cause of A. That is the most simple thing to do if you know. You can easily do this be just saying the logic for A is [you do, or who do, or do do]. In giving me such, then lead to the next question, What Is The Logic For The Existence of you do, or who do, or do do]. Give me a logical reason for existence of anything, let alone A. Can you give me that without all the bs?

Never give power for anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Jehu]

The Principle of Identity is a linguistic law that governs the naming of entities within any ‘symbolic language’, as all natural languages are. Such a law is necessary because the symbols (words) we use to designate different things have no intrinsic meanings of their own, but derive their meanings from the users of the language who must attribute meaning to each symbol according to a prescribed convention; if any meaningful discourse is to be possible. Essentially, the law allows us to call the same thing by many different names (symbols), and it is for this reason that there is the possibility of different languages, but it prohibits us from calling different things by the same name (symbol), else we will not know which of the possible meanings the user intended us to attribute (call to mind) to the given symbol.

Reasoning, as Kelly pointed out, follows a causal chain of sorts: the premises being the ‘causes’, and the conclusion, the ‘effect’, but without the Principle of Reason, we could not be certain as to what a given premise asserted, no a conclusion for that matter. Hence, the Principle of Identity is rightfully called the First Principle of Reason. Further, the Principle of Identity is a 'self-evident' principle, which means that it does not require a more fundamental principle (cause) from which it is deduced, but is its own reason for being.

[Beingof1]

I have been trying to logically progress from a first principle, however it is proving exceedingly difficult. I was wondering if anyone has been able to do so, and if so, what their process looks like.

The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

The rest follows.
A is A (Identity),
Nothing is both A and non-A (Non-contradiction)
Nothing is neither A nor non-A” (Exclusion of the Middle)

Notice the big zero?

[jufa]

The Principle of Identity is a linguistic law that governs the naming of entities within any ‘symbolic language’, as all natural languages are. Such a law is necessary because the symbols (words) we use to designate different things have no intrinsic meanings of their own, but derive their meanings from the users of the language who must attribute meaning to each symbol according to a prescribed convention; if any meaningful discourse is to be possible. Essentially, the law allows us to call the same thing by many different names (symbols), and it is for this reason that there is the possibility of different languages, but it prohibits us from calling different things by the same name (symbol), else we will not know which of the possible meanings the user intended us to attribute (call to mind) to the given symbol.

Reasoning, as Kelly pointed out, follows a causal chain of sorts: the premises being the ‘causes’, and the conclusion, the ‘effect’, but without the Principle of Reason, we could not be certain as to what a given premise asserted, no a conclusion for that matter. Hence, the Principle of Identity is rightfully called the First Principle of Reason. Further, the Principle of Identity is a 'self-evident' principle, which means that it does not require a more fundamental principle (cause) from which it is deduced, but is its own reason for being.

All the above is PURE GARBAGE!!!!!!! Garbage I say because you as Kelly have not given a definition of what the FIRST PRINCIPLE CAUSE IS, OR THE LOGIC FOR THE FIRST PRINCIPLE'S existence to establish symbolic linguistic laws for identification other than from your own person interpretated concept of EFFECTS. You can't dance with two left feet.

Since Kelly refuse to answer what is the cause of A. I ask you what is the cause of THE FIRST PRINCIPLE? If you cannot give logic or reasoning for the FIRST PRINCIPLE'S EXISTENCE, you cannot speak of any reasoning for the existence of the laws which are an emanation from THE FIRST PRINCIPLE. What is THE Source, Body, formation, and reasoning of logic for the existence of FIRST PRINCIPLE? Answer this PLEASE!

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[psychoactive]

The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

I see no need for the existence of "I."

There is existence.

I am doubtful of any extension from this.

Notice the big zero?

no..?

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: My answer "Imagine a sphere, made up of all causes that exist and can exist. If you ask for what causes the sphere, you're supposing there are causes existing outside the sphere. But by definition, the sphere is all causes. Do you see how the problem of what causes existence dissolves?" explains.

Jufa: You have not answered the question when you tell me to imagine something. It is not about me imagining anything, it about you telling me what is the cause of A.

You don't need to shout. We can all hear you.

If you accept that A stands for something, i.e. existence, then the question resolves itself on understanding that existence, being the totality of all things, cannot be caused owing to its containing all causes.

Kelly: That is, if by "what is the logic for A?" you are asking for an explanation (the reasoning, the logic) for the existence of something (since A stands for "something"), then you are asking for the causes for the existence of something. Or more accurately, what causes existence itself.

Jufa: I am not asking you to explain anything. I am asking you to tell me what is the Cause of A. That is the most simple thing to do if you know. You can easily do this be just saying the logic for A is [you do, or who do, or do do]. In giving me such, then lead to the next question, What Is The Logic For The Existence of you do, or who do, or do do]. Give me a logical reason for existence of anything, let alone A. Can you give me that without all the bs?

The shouting is not unnecessary. Your question is being answered completely and succinctly. Things are not necessarily caused by reasons, but they are definitely caused. There is something perhaps to clarify here. Finite things are caused. They are caused by their causes. But the totality, or rather, existence itself, cannot be caused, for the reason given above.



.

[Kelly Jones]

The Principle of Identity is a linguistic law that governs the naming of entities within any ‘symbolic language’, as all natural languages are. Such a law is necessary because the symbols (words) we use to designate different things have no intrinsic meanings of their own, but derive their meanings from the users of the language who must attribute meaning to each symbol according to a prescribed convention; if any meaningful discourse is to be possible. Essentially, the law allows us to call the same thing by many different names (symbols), and it is for this reason that there is the possibility of different languages, but it prohibits us from calling different things by the same name (symbol), else we will not know which of the possible meanings the user intended us to attribute (call to mind) to the given symbol.

Reasoning, as Kelly pointed out, follows a causal chain of sorts: the premises being the ‘causes’, and the conclusion, the ‘effect’, but without the Principle of Reason, we could not be certain as to what a given premise asserted, no a conclusion for that matter. Hence, the Principle of Identity is rightfully called the First Principle of Reason. Further, the Principle of Identity is a 'self-evident' principle, which means that it does not require a more fundamental principle (cause) from which it is deduced, but is its own reason for being.

That's fair enough. The only quibble I'd make, and it's a teensy one, is that the law or principle of identity isn't its own reason. It doesn't need any such thing. Just sounds anthropomorphic.

[Kelly Jones]

The first principle is - I experience or I AM.

What's the "I" referring to? Experience sounds like something conscious, so that couldn't be an absolute first principle, or foundation, to existence - since consciousness is only a part of existence.


.

[Kelly Jones]

....Kelly have not given a definition of what the FIRST PRINCIPLE CAUSE IS

Please don't shout. We can all read quite well. To respond to your statement, there is no first cause. The reason there is no first cause is because a boundary for a thing, or a cause, between itself and what is not itself, gives it existence. It would be a chicken-and-chicken-egg situation, with always another boundary drawn for every cause (in a chronological sense). Therefore, there cannot be an ultimate beginning.

OR THE LOGIC FOR THE FIRST PRINCIPLE'S existence

If you are asking how the law of identity ever comes to exist in a person's own mind, then the only answer is because they were thinking about it. It doesn't exist as something objective. It's an understanding, or insight, that every individual who realises the concept of identity, creates anew and in a unique form for themselves.

to establish symbolic linguistic laws for identification other than from your own person interpretated concept of EFFECTS.

Every individual who recognises that a thing is itself, creates their own personal symbolism for that notion. When Aristotle's idea is explained to them, they recognise it as their own, and are happy to use the standard formula "A=A".

Since Kelly refuse to answer what is the cause of A.

I haven't refused. I've explained to you that, if A stands for existence, or the totality of all things, then the question is meaningless. It's wrongly asked, like asking a bachelor when he married his wife.

I ask you what is the cause of THE FIRST PRINCIPLE?

As explained, when the first principle exists, it does so as an abstraction in a person's mind. The causes for that happening should be easy enough for you to work out for yourself.

But the first principle, i.e. of reason and of identity, has nothing to do with the causation of all existence. That is a superstitious overlay, and wrong-headed.

If you cannot give logic or reasoning for the FIRST PRINCIPLE'S EXISTENCE, you cannot speak of any reasoning for the existence of the laws which are an emanation from THE FIRST PRINCIPLE.

All the laws that emanate from the first principle are generated inside a rational being's head, uniquely and anew. The first principle is caused to exist in that individual's head because he realises its meaning.

But if you're asking what is the reason the law of identity exists, then you're barking up the wrong tree. There is no reason for it to exist. It is caused to. Perhaps, if you really want to push the matter, one could say that the thinker needed to understand logic fully, and that was a driving force in its existence as an idea.

What is THE Source, Body, formation, and reasoning of logic for the existence of FIRST PRINCIPLE? Answer this PLEASE!

This all sounds rather like you believe the law of identity is some kind of deity or disembodied force "out there".



.

[jufa]

There is a different between shouting and emphasis, and if you could read, you would, as you say all can do, read and answer the question: WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF A?

If there is no beginning, there is no middle, and there is no end for there is nothing. And being

there is no first cause

, as you have stated, there can be no

boundary for a thing, or a cause, between itself and what is not itself, gives it existence.

This means A, or the first principle of identity has no cause of existence as you have stated:

there is no first cause.

You cannot go high or low enough in your intellect to find logic or reasoning for existence to exist, and so, you have no standing logic or reason, as Jehu has none, to attempt to make that which is plain, now appear to be, according to your unreasonable babbling and rhetoric concerning your inability to answer without all the fuzzy covering the question put directly to you.

Yet, behold, in my penny wise and pound foolishness, I want all to see you did say ]there is no first cause., which kind of makes you look ______ by debating that which is not a reality except in YOUR MIND.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Jehu]

All the above is PURE GARBAGE!!!!!!! Garbage I say because you as Kelly have not given a definition of what the FIRST PRINCIPLE CAUSE IS, OR THE LOGIC FOR THE FIRST PRINCIPLE'S existence to establish symbolic linguistic laws for identification other than from your own person interpretated concept of EFFECTS. You can't dance with two left feet.

Since Kelly refuse to answer what is the cause of A. I ask you what is the cause of THE FIRST PRINCIPLE? If you cannot give logic or reasoning for the FIRST PRINCIPLE'S EXISTENCE, you cannot speak of any reasoning for the existence of the laws which are an emanation from THE FIRST PRINCIPLE. What is THE Source, Body, formation, and reasoning of logic for the existence of FIRST PRINCIPLE? Answer this PLEASE!

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

I see, you want to know why it is that existence exists and non-existence does not. The answer is really quite simple. You see, what exists does so because it is possible for it to exist, while it is not possible for it to not exist. That is to say, there is a common misconception that there is (exists) both that which is (existence) and that which is not (non-existence), but this notion is logically untenable, for there is no greater universe of discourse than is that which is called “Being”, for it encompasses everything that is (exists), and there is naught else. Being then partakes of an ‘absolute’ and not merely ‘relative’ existence, and is its own cause. Likewise, the Principle of Identity contains within itself, its own self-inhering reason for being; in its two logical correlates.

[jufa]

All the above is PURE GARBAGE!!!!!!! Garbage I say because you as Kelly have not given a definition of what the FIRST PRINCIPLE CAUSE IS, OR THE LOGIC FOR THE FIRST PRINCIPLE'S existence to establish symbolic linguistic laws for identification other than from your own person interpretated concept of EFFECTS. You can't dance with two left feet.

Since Kelly refuse to answer what is the cause of A. I ask you what is the cause of THE FIRST PRINCIPLE? If you cannot give logic or reasoning for the FIRST PRINCIPLE'S EXISTENCE, you cannot speak of any reasoning for the existence of the laws which are an emanation from THE FIRST PRINCIPLE. What is THE Source, Body, formation, and reasoning of logic for the existence of FIRST PRINCIPLE? Answer this PLEASE!

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

I see, you want to know why it is that existence existsSo why does existence exist? Give me the logic and reasoning for existence

and non-existence does not.

Name me one thing that does not exist

The answer is really quite simple. You see, what exists does so because it is possible for it to exist,What makes it possible to exist?

while it is not possible for it to not exist. In order for you to say this, you must tell us why existence exist in the first place which is the question I've been asking all the time.

That is to say, there is a common misconception that there is (exists) both that which is (existence) and that which is not (non-existence), Who is this concept common to, certainly not me and no one I talk to.

but this notion is logically untenable, for there is no greater universe of discourse than is that which is called “Being”, for it encompasses everything that is (exists), and there is naught else.So then tell me why does Being exist?

Being then partakes of an ‘absolute’ and not merely ‘relative’ existence,Give me an example of Absolute pleae.

and is its own cause.I've been asking you and Kelly to explain the reasoning for this cause all along, and you cannot give me a cause for Cause to have a Cause. What's up with that?

Likewise, the Principle of Identity contains within itself,How does it do that when your counter-part Kelly has stated there is no cause for existence

its own self-inhering reason for being; in its two logical correlates.So what is the cause for your signature to say not two and then you say in its two logical correlates. ?

[Jehu]

That's fair enough. The only quibble I'd make, and it's a teensy one, is that the law or principle of identity isn't its own reason. It doesn't need any such thing. Just sounds anthropomorphic.

When I say that the Principle of Identity is its own reason, I mean that its existence is dependent upon two subsidiary principles that inhere naturally within it, and which are its intrinsic causes; namely: the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of Excluded Middle. These two subsidiary principles partake of an interdependent and complementary existence, which is to say that neither principle can exist on its own, and that the two complete one another in a higher principle – the Principle of Identity.

[jufa]

That's fair enough. The only quibble I'd make, and it's a teensy one, is that the law or principle of identity isn't its own reason. It doesn't need any such thing. Just sounds anthropomorphic.

When I say that the Principle of Identity is its own reason, I mean that its existence is dependent upon two subsidiary principles that inhere naturally within it, and which are its intrinsic causes; namely: the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of Excluded Middle. These two subsidiary principles partake of an interdependent and complementary existence, which is to say that neither principle can exist on its own, and that the two complete one another in a higher principle – the Principle of Identity.

So what is the Cause of this higher principle - the principle of identity, which give your interpreted logic and reasoning for existence? Same question, yet still no answered as to the reasoning and logic for the principle of identity. What is this principle of identity identitification to the Cause - which neither you nor Kelly have identified - which is the Source of the principle of identity?

Please! identify the Cause of the principle of identity.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their sosurce of strength - jufa