Do shape-shifters have identity?

[jrs]

The thing's identity is itself, optical illusion and all.

Are you not breaking down the distinction between a work of art and what that work of art depicts? Rather like confusing a drawing of a hand with a person's actual hand.

My concept of identity is the Objectivist concept of identity. I have given you a direct statement of the Law of Identity (and a direct quote of Aristotle's law of non-contradiction, from which the Law of Identity is derived) and have neither wavered from it nor contradicted it.

Yes. But it is possible for different people to interpret the same words to mean different things. That is one reason why Objectivists make such a big deal about context and about having a philosophical foundation for the non-aggression principle.

As far as the Copenhagen interpretation is concerned, it is my position that there must be a deterministic explanation for quantum behavior. What that explanation is, I can't begin to say at this point in my studies (I'm a Physics student), but I am certain that one exists.

OK.

[dondigitalia]

Are you not breaking down the distinction between a work of art and what that work of art depicts? Rather like confusing a drawing of a hand with a person's actual hand.

No, I'm not. I've been specifically talking about the things that art depicts the whole time. Did the words "optical illusion and all" confuse my intent?

Yes. But it is possible for different people to interpret the same words to mean different things. That is one reason why Objectivists make such a big deal about context and about having a philosophical foundation for the non-aggression principle.

What I provided was (part of) the philosophical foundation for Identity, to make sure that we were using it in the sense of the Objectivist axiomatic concept "identity." Are you using the term differently?

"Identity," qua axiomatic concept, is not subject to formal definition, so a statement of the Law will have to suffice. I don't really see how that statement could be interpreted more than one way. It's pretty direct.

[jrs]

I was using the term "conceivable" to mean: able to be pictured in one's mind.

Then the devil's pitchfork is inconceivable. What those who produce the illusion are intending you to do is to try to imagine a solid object, not merely a drawing or something constructed from wires. However, no such solid object can be made nor can it be imagined (pictured) in three-dimensional detail.

I've been specifically talking about the things that art depicts the whole time. Did the words "optical illusion and all" confuse my intent?

"The things that art depicts" cannot include any illusion. An illusion is "something that deceives by creating a false impression" (according to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary). If a thing is what it is, then it cannot be false to itself. The false impression must be introduced later when it is depicted and perceived.

... the Objectivist axiomatic concept "identity." Are you using the term differently?

I was and am intending to use "identity" in the Objectivist sense. But I am not convinced that you are so using it despite your intention to do so.

"Identity," qua axiomatic concept, is not subject to formal definition, so a statement of the Law will have to suffice. I don't really see how that statement could be interpreted more than one way. It's pretty direct.

Well it appears that we do interpret it differently when the issue is its application to fictional "realities". Perhaps this is another symptom of the fact that fictional "realities" lack identity, i.e. they do not exist.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

An example of what concerns me occurs in "Full Metal Alchemist". The homunculi are shape-shifters especially "Envy" who can change at will into an apparently exact copy of anyone. This challenges the ability of people to rely on their senses in identifying other people. Is this person I see actually king Bradley or is it Envy pretending to be Bradley?

[RationalBiker]

Then the devil's pitchfork is inconceivable. What those who produce the illusion are intending you to do is to try to imagine a solid object, not merely a drawing or something constructed from wires. However, no such solid object can be made nor can it be imagined (pictured) in three-dimensional detail.

That an object cannot be constructed does not logically infer that it cannot be imagined or conceived. You have not established any logical connection there.

Also, the drawing of the Devil's Pitchford DOES exist in reality. I'm not sure why you think you can take one attribute of something's identity and inflate that into the entire identity of that thing. You have been provided examples of why this thinking is fallacious. You are not merely your big toe.

"The things that art depicts" cannot include any illusion.

You appear to be denying reality here. Optical illusions exist, and they have been being used for artistic purposes for quite some time.

I was and am intending to use "identity" in the Objectivist sense.

No you are not for the reason I mentioned above.

Well it appears that we do interpret it differently when the issue is its application to fictional "realities". Perhaps this is another symptom of the fact that fictional "realities" lack identity, i.e. they do not exist.

Of course fictional realities do not exist. There is no real place called Middle Earth, at least not to my knowledge. However, there is a body of fiction in numerous media forms that does exist in this reality called "The Lord of the Rings". From that body of fiction, people imagine and conceive a place that does not really exist. However, while they can imagine the place, it does not create the place into a reality. That the books, films, etc. contains fictional places does not mean that the books, films, etc. themselves do not exist.

Likewise, the drawing of the Devil's Pitchfork really exists. The drawing is conceiveable, it CAN be reproduced on 2D medium within our 3D reality. The identity of the Devil's Pitchfork is not simply the drawing which demonstrates an illusory effect, but it is also the paper, the ink, etc. that make it a drawing.

Edited October 31, 2005 by RationalCop

[dondigitalia]

Then the devil's pitchfork is inconceivable.

Clearly, it is conceivable, or it could never have been represented artistically. How would you propose to draw something without first having formed a mental image of what you are trying to draw?

An example of what concerns me occurs in "Full Metal Alchemist". The homunculi are shape-shifters especially "Envy" who can change at will into an apparently exact copy of anyone. This challenges the ability of people to rely on their senses in identifying other people. Is this person I see actually king Bradley or is it Envy pretending to be Bradley?

If you follow this line of thinking, then a mirage, which does exist in reality, fits the bill, too. It challenges the ability of people to rely on their senses as well; also, chameleons who can change color to blend in with different backgrounds to avoid detection.

[jrs]

Also, the drawing of the Devil's Pitchfork DOES exist in reality.

Of course, it does. I have repeatedly stressed that works of art exist and have a complete definite identity. As I said in Post #5, "A work of art has identity as a work of art: ink on paper forming words; paint on canvas in patterns; sparkling colored lights on a television screen; or whatever. But this is different than saying that the 'things' which it purports to depict have identity.".

Suppose there is an oak tree and I take a photograph of it. Then the photograph exists and has identity; AND the thing which it depicts, i.e. the oak tree itself, also exists and has identity.

Similarly, if I draw the oak tree realistically, then the drawing exists and has identity; and the thing it depicts, the oak tree, also exists and has identity.

Now suppose I make another drawing which is a surrealistic distortion of a "tree". It is not based on any particular real tree and its leaves and other parts are unlike any actual species of tree. Now, this second drawing also exists and has identity; BUT it does not depict anything. I say that the "thing" which it purports to depict neither exists nor has (a complete) identity. But dondigitalia is saying that the "thing" which it purports to depict has a complete identity in spite of the fact that it does not exist except in a fictional "reality".

I'm not sure why you think you can take one attribute of something's identity and inflate that into the entire identity of that thing. You have been provided examples of why this thinking is fallacious. You are not merely your big toe.

An attribute of a part of an entity is also an attribute (albeit maybe not the same attribute) of the entire entity. So if a person were described in a way that was ambiguous or contradictory concerning some attribute of his big toe, then this would also render the description of the whole person ambiguous or contradictory. Thus a defect in the identity of a fictional person's big toe is a defect in that fictional person's identity.

Optical illusions exist, and they have been being used for artistic purposes for quite some time.

Suppose I have a person stand in front of a house and I take a photograph of the person and the house with a pin-hole camera (so that everything is in focus). And suppose that I take the photograph from a position close to the person and just above the ground but angled in such a way that the ground is not in the field of view. Then this will create the illusion that the person is a giant next to the house (or that it is a doll's house next to a normal person).

The person and the house are not illusory. The illusion lies in the photograph (as a result of the way I created it) together with the assumptions which the viewer makes when he interprets it. This is what I was saying -- it is not the thing which was depicted which is the illusion, it is the way it is depicted and the assumptions of the audience which make the illusion.

Of course fictional realities do not exist. ... That the books, films, etc. contains fictional places does not mean that the books, films, etc. themselves do not exist.

Likewise, the drawing of the Devil's Pitchfork really exists. The drawing is conceivable, it CAN be reproduced on 2D medium within our 3D reality.

I agree with all this. It is consistent with what I have been saying.

The identity of the Devil's Pitchfork is not simply the drawing which demonstrates an illusory effect, but it is also the paper, the ink, etc. that make it a drawing.

I was trying to make a distinction between: (1) the drawing which purports to show the devil's pitchfork; and (2) the devil's pitchfork itself. #1 is fine; it exists and has identity which, as you say, includes the paper and ink. #2 does not actually exist nor have identity.

I had been saying that the devil's pitchfork was conceivable, but that it lacked identity. dondigitalia gave a definition of "conceivable" which was different from the one I was using. So I was saying that with his definition, the devil's pitchfork is inconceivable. But he disagrees.

Clearly, [the devil's pitchfork] is conceivable, or it could never have been represented artistically. How would you propose to draw something without first having formed a mental image of what you are trying to draw?

You conceive of two different things whose drawings match along a line then you glue the top of one drawing to the bottom of the other along that line. Although the drawings agree along that line, the three dimensional objects DO NOT agree along the corresponding plane. Hence the lack of identity in the devil's pitchfork.

If you follow this line of thinking, then a mirage, which does exist in reality, fits the bill, too. It challenges the ability of people to rely on their senses as well; also, chameleons who can change color to blend in with different backgrounds to avoid detection.

I have personally seen mirages and I know how to recognize when I am seeing one. Yes, a chameleon can be a challenge. In the real world, there are no guarantees that one's senses or reason will be up to the task of understanding what is going on.

However, we were talking about ART. Good art is supposed to be inspiring, i.e. to give one a sense of competence. Challenges to one's senses detract from that goal.

[RationalBiker]

But dondigitalia is saying that the "thing" which it purports to depict has a complete identity in spite of the fact that it does not exist except in a fictional "reality".

The "thing" exists as a concept. It is that concept of the "thing" that has identity. This is perfectly compatible with "something EXISTS, SOMETHING exists".

The concept of Middle Earth exists. The concept of Middle has an identity for those that have read Lord of the Rings.

Do you disagree that concepts exist, and/or that a concept has an identity?

Edited November 1, 2005 by RationalCop

[jrs]

Now, this second drawing also exists and has identity; BUT it does not depict anything. I say that the "thing" which it purports to depict neither exists nor has (a complete) identity. But dondigitalia is saying that the "thing" which it purports to depict has a complete identity in spite of the fact that it does not exist except in a fictional "reality".

The concept of Middle Earth exists. The concept of Middle has an identity for those that have read Lord of the Rings.

Do you disagree that concepts exist, and/or that a concept has an identity?

If a person has an idea of Middle Earth, then that idea exists and has an identity. It exists within his consciousness. However, there is no guarantee that it is congruent to the idea of Middle Earth which exists in some other person's mind. People can skip over things when they read; or interpret them differently; or misremember them; or elaborate on them with their own inventions.

Similarly, the ideas of two people about the oak tree, based on the photograph, exist and have identity, but they may not agree with each other.

In the case of the oak tree, one can say that an idea is true if it describes the oak tree or false otherwise. But case of Middle Earth is different from the case of the oak tree because no real Middle Earth exists to serve as a standard of truth. The best one can say is that an idea agrees or disagrees with some part of the description of Middle Earth in "The Lord of the Rings". However, that description may be ambiguous or contradictory in some parts, unlike the oak tree.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I have a technical objection to the use of the word "concept" instead of "idea" here. A concept is a kind of idea. But not all ideas are concepts.

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.

I do not see how Middle Earth can be a concept. What are the units (give examples)? I think that "Middle Earth" is a proper name, like "Empire State Building".

[RationalBiker]

If a person has an idea of Middle Earth, then that idea exists and has an identity.

Okay, I'm glad you recognize that. So the remaining disagreement you would have then would be whether the identity of that idea is complete or can possibly be complete. Is that correct?

I have a technical objection to the use of the word "concept" instead of "idea" here. A concept is a kind of idea. But not all ideas are concepts.

Then for the purposes of our discussion, please substitute my use of the word "concept" with the word "idea" in the context of this immediate branch of discussion. When I'm less tired, I will either provide an example of why it's a concept, or I will concede that the term "idea" is more accurate.

[isaac]

Dondigitalia, you make a lot of good points.

As far as the Copenhagen interpretation is concerned, it is my position that there must be a deterministic explanation for quantum behavior. What that behavior is, I can't begin to say at this point in my studies (I'm a Physics student), but I am certain that one exists.

Personally, I believe that the Copenhagen interpretation is a good example of how bad science can happen when good scientists fall victim to bad philosophy. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle only states what we can know - it does not state what is. (Heisenberg himself, in his analysis of the principle, blurs the distinction badly.) When dealing with questions of certainty and knowledge, it makes perfect sense to say that the "exactness" of the location * the exactness of the momentum cannot exceed some fixed value. And, when dealing with questions of knowledge and certainty, this kind of discovery is useful and valid.

However, if an electron is capable of having the properties of "location" and "momentum", then it must posess both in some fixed amount at a certain time. The fact that I don't know if the cat is alive or dead until I look doesn't mean that the cat is "half-dead" until we open the box - it's either dead or it's not. The law of identity does not play dice.

But that's getting off-topic...

Regarding shapeshifters, I think that there were a few good points made.

1. Shapeshifters are a violation of the law of identity.

False (or at least, not necessarily true.) While we know of no way that a being could alter its form at will to any great degree (like Odo in Star Trek), we can say with absolute certainty that, if such a being were to exist, it would be able to alter its form in some manner, with some limits, according to its identity as a shapeshifter.

In order to suspend the audience's disbelief, a writer must portray fantastical things in such a way that they are consistent and do not violate this principle. Odo has limits. His powers are great, but they're not infinite. He changes shape according a method, and according to his identity. A similiar principle applies to all fiction, whether we're talking about wizards or vampires or jedi or talking lizards or static-electricity-powered-engines. The exact powers may actually be impossible or require a leap of imagination on the part of the audience, but such a leap is impossible unless it is portrayed in a consistent and at least semi-plausible manner.

If a writer doesn't follow this rule, then he ends up creating the "flame-apple-cup" thing that was discussed earlier. I can play along with a wizard who casts spells - but if the nature of his spellcasting changes from one page to the next, or if his powers do not have some limits, then I'm lost. That's one reason why the rules in a table-top RPG are what make it fun, even though the imagination and role-playing is what you focus on in the game. Without the rules, there are no "roles" to play. If a player has his every wish granted, it quickly becomes boring and the sense of realism and immersion is lost.

This challenges the ability of people to rely on their senses in identifying other people. Is this person I see actually king Bradley or is it Envy pretending to be Bradley?

A question that lends itself to a wide array of compelling plot twists, and becomes a metaphor for deception in general. When I receive an email from "[email protected]" asking for my password, is it actually eBay, or just a scam? This is a fundamental human experience, and so it should not be surprising or unusual to see it portrayed in a dressed-up form in fiction.

2. Art needs to portray "real" things

This was already covered to some extent, but I'd like to point out that this is just not true. Metaphysical value judgements can be expressed in a wide variety of media, some of which may be very off the wall. Furthermore, one of the purposes of fiction is to take us away from our "normal" life, and express ideas through metaphor. When you set a story in a fantasy setting, it sometimes allows the archetypical aspects of man and society to be more clearly exposed, since nearly all of the nonessentials are different. (For example, consider the many relationships in LOTR or Orson Scott Card's Ender saga. Buggers might not exist, but "other-ness" is certainly a fundamental human experience. Elves may be make-believe, but heroism, loyalty, and grace are real qualities. Evil wizards and orcs are fantasy, but tyrants and their armies are real.)

Does the "concept of middle-earth exist or portray a real thing"? Of course the concept exists - the fact that "Middle-Earth" refers to a fictional non-existent thing doesn't change the fact that it does refer to something (namely, a fictional setting). Middle-Earth has enough in common with our world that we can concieve of it easily. Trees there are roughly the same as trees here, and so on.

I believe that there was a discussion in either the afterward of ItOE or somewhere in OPAR where they discuss whether or not "unicorn" is an invalid concept. Well, if you see a unicorn in a movie, do you know what to call it? There's your answer.

Invalid concepts are ideas that cannot be described or reasonably talked about, concepts that ask us to suspend the axiom of identity. "God" is an invalid concept, because it is, by definition, something that is undefinable (i.e., something without any limits.)

...no real Middle Earth exists to serve as a standard of truth.

Sure it does.

The "real" middle earth is defined by the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien. If I wrote a story about a lake of fire in Chicago in the year 2045, where "elves" have 20 legs and breathe purple smoke, and said, "Oh, this story is set in Middle Earth," then that would be a false statement. To unpack it, I'd be saying, "The setting of this fictional story the same fictional setting that J.R.R. Tolkien described in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Hobbit, and The Silmarillion." Clearly, that would be an incorrect statement, since my fictional setting bears little or no resemblance to his.

I do not see how Middle Earth can be a concept. What are the units (give examples)? I think that "Middle Earth" is a proper name, like "Empire State Building".

Actually, I disagree somewhat with the idea that a proper noun cannot be a concept, or that it does not unite two or more existents. The key is thinking of temporal/spatial location as a property of an object.

For example, "Isaac Z. Schlueter" refers to a particular person, and is a proper noun. However, the concept omits the measurement of time as well as (most of the) changes that occur over time, and (usually) refers to the parts of this person that are continuous throughout time.

Consider these statements:

"Yesterday, Isaac ate at McDonalds."

"Tomorrow, Isaac is going to the park."

Between yesterday and tomorrow, I changed, if ever so slightly. The measurement of those changes are omitted when using the term "Isaac". As the changes become more significant, it sometimes (but not always) becomes necessary to sub-categorize the concept further. For example, "When I was 5, I went to the beach every day. Today, I can't stand getting wet." There are two related sub-concepts here: "Isaac at 5 years old" and "Isaac as an adult."

The same principle can be applied to any proper noun. When we say "Middle Earth" we are omitting the measurements of any differences in the places/people/events described in each of the different books. We are integrating the settings from all of the scenes that JRR Tolkien wrote in his fiction.

A similiar principle can be applied to the "identical" tires. Even if two tires are exactly the same, down to the last quark (which is actually quite impossible, but whatever), they're still not in the exact same place at the same time. Temporal/spatial location is a measurement, just as much as length or width.

3. The Devil's Pitchfork

It's an optical illusion. The term "devil's pitchfork" is a valid concept, but it refers to a drawing, not a square/round peg-thing. The drawing is not a valid representation of a "real" thing, but so what? That's the point of it. It plays on our interpretation of 2-dimensional line patterns into 3-dimensional objects, and purposely creates an invalid conflict to be visually jarring. The effect is kinda cool, but nothing to get all philosophically worked up about, IMO.

Edited November 2, 2005 by isaac

[DragonMaci]

Do Shape-shifters have Identity? If not, then they cannot exist in reality and should not be portrayed in fiction.

This thread was inspired by the following dialog from the "Story Writing Technique" thread in the "Aesthetics" subforum:

I think that you are referring to the section "Measurement-Omission and Generality" on pages 141 thru 144 of ITOE (second edition) where Professor D questions Ayn Rand about what is omitted in forming the concept of "710-15" tires (which are all supposed to be identical). This is relevant to the question of clones or identical twins, but I do not see how it applies to shape-shifters.

Back to the main point, my position is that the Law of Identity should be construed in such a way that it does not allow shape-shifters with unlimited variability. This gives it more meaning than a merely analytic (tautological) statement. That is, the meaning of the Law of Identity TO OBJECTIVISTS goes further than merely ruling out the "logically impossible".

I would like to clarify a few points about MY shapeshifters. For starters due to limits in the power of shapeshifting. For starters they cannot shapeshift into anything more powerful than themselves. Also most of them wouldn't want to change into the physical form of another.

Also they only take unique forms for moral reasons of their own and any exact copy would be just that, a copy not the actual original person.

Edited November 3, 2005 by DragonMaci

[DragonMaci]

Even if mass could be changed, that is a violation of a scientific law, not the philosophical Law of Identity.

Well fantasy books like my own can get to do that because of the term "suspension of desbelief".

[dondigitalia]

3. The Devil's Pitchfork

It's an optical illusion. The term "devil's pitchfork" is a valid concept, but it refers to a drawing, not a square/round peg-thing. The drawing is not a valid representation of a "real" thing, but so what? That's the point of it. It plays on our interpretation of 2-dimensional line patterns into 3-dimensional objects, and purposely creates an invalid conflict to be visually jarring. The effect is kinda cool, but nothing to get all philosophically worked up about, IMO.

I agree with the entirety of Isaac's post, except for a slight disagreement with this quote (which is also a slight disagreement with Vern).

One may consider a work of art qua work of art, but one may also consider (as a mental exercise or means of interpreting the art, not a means of gaining knowledge about reality) the re-creations portrayed in art as thought they were real. They are two completely different, almost unrelated contexts, but they are both possible.

That said, if Escher's work is art (and I've already said that I hesitate to call it art at all), then we may consider the Devil's Pitchfork qua real thing. If it is not art, and merely a drawing, then we cannot consider it in this manner, and the only perspective in which its identity may be considered is qua drawing.

[RationalBiker]

When I'm less tired, I will either provide an example of why it's a concept, or I will concede that the term "idea" is more accurate.

I think Issac addressed this well enough. However, for my own answer, would the following validate Middle Earth as a concept?

Middle Earth is a fictional world. Middle Earth has a variety of fictional cities, to include (but not limited to) Rohan, Gondor, etc. Middle Earth is inhabited by a variety of different fictional races, which are similar in some respects, but different in other respects. These races include (but are not limited to) Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, etc. Middle Earth has a fictional history. It's fictional history consists of different "ages" which were differentiated by significant events that shaped social landscape of the fictional world.

Narnia is also a ficitonal world, which also has fictional countries, fictional races, and a fictional history, but they are all distinquishably different from those of Middle Earth's.

I agree with Issac also in the sense that the "standard of truth" for Middle Earth is the collective writtings by J.R.R. Tolkein and his son, Christopher Tolkein. Should some dispute between people arise over what's "real" in Middle Earth, these works can be referenced to settle the dispute.

[dondigitalia]

Actually, I disagree somewhat with the idea that a proper noun cannot be a concept, or that it does not unite two or more existents. The key is thinking of temporal/spatial location as a property of an object.

I want to clarify my agreement to this portion of Isaac's post by confining it to contexts in which the proper noun does integrate two or more existents, such as McDonald's, or Honda. In contexts where the word refers to McDonald's qua corprate entity, or Honda qua make of car, rather than individual McDonald's restaurants or Honda cars, it is not a concept.

[jrs]

So the remaining disagreement you would have then would be whether the identity of that idea [of Middle Earth] is complete or can possibly be complete. Is that correct?

I do not think that its identity can be complete. Let me make an analogy to Mathematics. An oak tree is like a vector in a very high-dimensional vector space. A description (or idea) of the oak tree is like a system of equations which are alleged to be true of that vector. If the ideas are true, then the system will have at least one solution -- the vector (oak tree) in question. However, it is unlikely that the system will be complete, i.e. have only that one solution, because that would require describing the oak tree in exquisite detail which is impractical, if not impossible.

A description of Middle Earth would suffer the same lack of sufficient detail, but it is likely to also be inconsistent, i.e. there is no vector which satisfies all the equations.

... if the nature of his spell casting changes from one page to the next, or if his powers do not have some limits, then I'm lost.

Right.

Well, if you see a unicorn in a movie, do you know what to call it? There's your answer.

.....

"God" is an invalid concept, because it is, by definition, something that is undefinable (i.e., something without any limits).

But you know that Terry Goodkind is talking about "God" when he uses the word "Creator". Don't you? So how is "God" different from "unicorn"? And is a rhinoceros a unicorn? (I heard that the idea of a unicorn was based on reports of rhinoceroses.)

The term "devil's pitchfork" is a valid concept, but it refers to a drawing, not a square/round peg-thing. The drawing is not a valid representation of a "real" thing, but so what?

But that is my point. I am saying that the "square/round peg-thing" has no (complete) identity. And it cannot be completed because it is not consistent. So it should not be portrayed in fiction as if it were real.

I agree with Issac also in the sense that the "standard of truth" for Middle Earth is the collective writings by J.R.R. Tolkien and his son, Christopher Tolkien. Should some dispute between people arise over what's "real" in Middle Earth, these works can be referenced to settle the dispute.

On Sam's right hand, is the middle finger longer, shorter, or the same length as his index finger?

[RationalBiker]

I do not think that its identity can be complete.

I disagree. I don't think that an incomplete description equals an incomplete identity. It's identity is complete in that there is a collected body of works that described some of the world, some of it's inhabitants, and some of the events that have occurred in it. Part of it's complete identity is that the author left incomplete some descriptions of the world he deemed irrelevant to the story or perhaps didn't even consider including. Although it lacks complete description, and it may even have inconsistencies in it's description, all of those elements are part of it's complete identity. During a discussion of Middle Earth, if an aspect of it comes up that was not contained in the story, the correct answer to the question would be, Tolkein never addressed that in the story. If an inconsistency arose, the correct identification of that part of Middle Earth's identity could be phrased like; Tolkein was inconsistent of his description of X, so the answer is not known. However, the fact that Tolkein may have given some inconsistent descriptions of his fictional world, does not mean any real contradictions exist.

Middle Earth is Middle Earth.

A description of Middle Earth would suffer the same lack of sufficient detail, but it is likely to also be inconsistent, i.e. there is no vector which satisfies all the equations.

Can you give me a complete description of our planet, Earth? Do you know anyone who can? Do you think it is even possible to compile a comprehensive description of Earth, not the least of which would be it's entire history and it's origin? Does the Earth lack complete identity according to your usage of the word complete?

On Sam's right hand, is the middle finger longer, shorter, or the same length as his index finger?

The next time I read the Lord of the Rings, if I remember, I'll keep your query in mind. As it is, I have no interest in researching the answer. I would suspect you either have the answer, you've detected an inconsistency in the answer, or you know that it is never addressed. Outside of that, my immediate knowledge of the answer would be irrelevant. You could ask my the same question about some guy named Patel in India and I would be equally unable to provide the answer.

I think at this point I'm realizing that this thread has such little relevance or value in my life that I don't plan to participate in it anymore, though I may still read some of the posts. You can have the final post as it pertains to our interactions in this thread.

[jrs]

Although [Middle Earth] lacks complete description, and it may even have inconsistencies in it's description, all of those elements are part of it's complete identity.

"The collective writings by J.R.R. Tolkien and his son, Christopher Tolkien" (which purports to describe Middle Earth) has a complete identity. But I am trying to distinguish that from Middle Earth itself which does not have a complete identity. They should not be confused with each other.

Can you give me a complete description of our planet, Earth?

.....

Does the Earth lack complete identity according to your usage of the word complete?

No. I cannot give a complete description of the Earth.

No. The Earth has a complete identity.

Any particular description of the Earth is distinct from the Earth itself. Is this distinction really so hard to understand?

You could ask my the same question about some guy named Patel in India and I would be equally unable to provide the answer.

But at least for Patel there would be a definite answer. And if you cared enough, you could go to India and compare his fingers to get the answer.