In context:Dennis: Genesis 1.2
'without form and void'
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness."
The law of identity fits perfectly with Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. God divides what is unformed (the light, the subject, the observer) into what is formed (the darkness, the object, the observed), A is A. "I" am tree, "I" am man, "I" am river, "I" am Adam, "I" am Eve, "I" am good, "I" am evil. A is A.Aristotle's law of identity fucks up absolutely.
I agree, innate (essence or quality) does not mean inherent (there is a self experiencing essence or quality). But innate agrees with rather than refutes the law of identity, i.e., thinking is not walking or talking, thinking is thinking just as walking is not thinking or talking, walking is walking and talking is not thinking or walking, talking is talking. A is A.Innate characteristics like thinking, feeling, walking, talking, sitting, eating, fucking, sleeping, desiring, fighting, abiding calmly, mind on fire, meaning making etc..
these innate characteristics by no means exist inherently.
innate does not mean inherent.
Causality refutes the idea of absolute creation and absolute destruction (as an aside, the concept of creation and destruction as used in the bible is one of a continuum, not as an absolute) however causality does not appear conventionally AND ultimately as you state here, but rather, innately as you state above. The two truths doctrine of existence and not existence (a polarity) as presented by Naragjuna is purposed to help the mind think metaphysically, to clean out the filters of ISMs, it is not meant to explain how reality actually works. From wiki:like 'the Immanent' guy discloses, causality appears conventionally,
ultimately, the notion of creation and destruction is an error in thinking.
Notice that the Buddha does not speak absolutely when he speaks of a polarity, he says "by and large." Notice also that he refutes the two truths in the very next sentence for those who see with right discernment.Nāgārjuna based his statement of the two truths on the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta. In the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, the Buddha, speaking to the monk Kaccayana Gotta on the topic of right view, describes the middle Way between nihilsm and eternalism: By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one.
In conclusion, the law of identity, which transcends the two truths doctrine in understanding is not a fuckup, rather, in contrast it saves us from being fucked up by allowing us to realize that consciousness is whole, perfect, complete and pure of its innate subject-thingness unity. I am That (I am).