A Brief Reflection on Identity & Difference

We can talk about the same thing in different ways, like the planet Venus was described both as the morning and evening star.  Or we can say two “sets” are identical if they have the same “members”.  All these definitions are circular, because “identity” is a fundamental concept.  We can’t define it, because it is the condition of possibility of any definition.  This is a reason that “identity” is considered to be the fundamental law of logic embedded in our understanding.  But is it real too?  Subjectivism of the modern time, seeing half of the truth, rightfully sees “identity” as a property of mind or logic.  This subjectivism from Cartesian moment up to now has entrapped us into the self and alienated us from the world.  The pinnacle of this subjectivism after going through Descartes and empiricism reaches Kant’s noumena, the thing-in-itself, and Hegel’s absolute Idea, “the real is rational and the rational is real”, Fichte’s I=I, and modern subjectivism to see identity and difference as categories of mind.  Accordingly, it happens that we see the world from “inside” the self to “outside”—we become disenchanted about ourselves and ontologically (in terms of Being) disconnected from the world, while paradoxically we become the center of the world.  We can find the stretch of this subjectivism in Chomsky’s understanding of language as computational recursion and the “psychic continuity” of the self.  I can imagine myself here or there, in this life or the other, to become a frog or lion, as in fairy tales, all along I am the “same” person or identity, due not to God’s imposition of soul in us, but because I regenerated my psychic continuity through mechanisms of Turing general theory of computability.

We can’t fully grasp what “completely the Other” means.  We understand the concepts “identity”, “unity”, “individual”, “singular”, and “difference” as belonging together.  We also know that things can be considered in time (diachronic) or without time (synchronic).  But we can’t understand any of these concepts without discernment, which means without “identity”.  For this reason, we take “identity” as a primitive logical property of thought.

As I am writing these words, we discern each word and identify them as separate and belonging to the rest of words, and all belong to language.  Indeed, not only identity as discernment is a logical property of thought but it is a condition of possibility of application of words and sentences in language and signification--with a moment of reflection it becomes obvious to us that we can't identify words discretely to make sentences if we don't understand what language is, and we won't be able to understand what language and using words and sentences are if we don't have a pre-theoretical understanding of Being.  This happens non-reductively and equiprimordially, i.e., coextensive and simultaneously.  So, identity and Being belong together.

As well, every living being from cells and amebae to human beings can discern itself from its environment as the source of sustenance and possible destruction.  So, “identity” as discernment is not only a logical and linguistic property, but ontological (being) condition of existence, and it is given by the diversity of life--but a moment reflection makes it clear to us that prima facie the order of identity is from the living unit to "outside" or environment, but indeed, environment and biosphere circumvent the living being and identity of living beings non-reductively and equiprimordially, i.e., coextensive and simultaneously.  Thus, identity of living beings and holistic horizon of Being belong together.

It is obvious that with “identity”, we also understand “difference”, and discernment is the foundation of understanding “universal concepts” (a set), “individual” (one of the members of a set), “singular” (a set with only one member), and “unity” (the relation between parts and the whole).  All living beings can intuitively perceive “identity” and “difference” ontologically, not logically or linguistically.  Human beings have the capacity to think logically and linguistically coextensive with and through understanding Being as being-there, and this is a gift-event (Ereignis) given to us by God. 

Even if we live the relations of identity and difference ontologically, as being-in-the-world, human capacity for discernment is different from all living beings, because in language we understand Being as such, the horizon of all events, that which is not given to sense date, nor is it pure abstraction.  Let’s reflect on this for a moment: the fact that we are is cleared to us through understanding, not only for the fact that we are a biological being, but also because Being as the horizon of all events, not as this or that being, shines forth only in us through language.  This is what Heidegger means by “language is the house of Being”.  This doesn’t mean the world exists because we can speak!  It means the ontological difference between every existent being: this rock, that chair, this worm, or that human, and intangible and invisible ontological-universal Being as the holistic horizon of everything existing is only given to us by God.  Having this capacity makes it possible that I show the moon to a two years old girl and she discerns herself and the world from the moon, attending the moon against the background horizon of this discernment.  A cat or a wolf doesn’t have a holistic understanding of Being.  They don’t have a universe.  Being is the background “identity-discernment” against which and through which we as human beings can have a “universe” and reflect upon the position of our existence in the universe.  Being is the condition of reflection and language both, not the reverse, but we are destined to perceive it uniquely and give expression to it in language.  The perception of Being as discernment-identity coextensively (not reductively) is given to us through language.  So, language is the house of Being.

A line, a word, divides and connects.  This doesn’t happen only in our mind.  For human beings, it coextensively (not-reduceable) happens in existence, in pre-theoretical understanding of Being, as identity (discernment), and as the word (language).  The miracle of human existence appears at the level of word-ontology (vs. abstract or theoretical wordings).  This is what Heidegger calls “the event” (Ereignis: etymologically: er- similar to re- in English and Auge, eye: coming into view).  In 1936-8, in Contributions to Philosophy, he defined it as "beyng [Being] essentially occurs as the event of grounding the 'there' or, in short, as the event" (CP2, 195, cf. 144).  And in Identity and Difference, he clarifies:

“We must experience simply this owning in which man and Being are delivered over to each other, that is, we must enter into what we call Ereignis (some translate it as “the event of appropriation”). The word[s] Ereignis (event of appropriation), thought of in terms of the matter indicated, should now speak as a key term in the service of thinking. As such a key term, it can no more be translated than the Greek Logos or the Chinese Tao.  The term Ereignis (event of appropriation) here no longer means what we would otherwise call a happening, an occurrence. It now is used as a singulare tantum (uncountable noun or mass word like water, dust, wind). What it indicates happens only in the singular, no, not in any number, but uniquely.”

It is extremely important to reflect (meditate) on this concept: Ereignis is not a number but the unique event that gives rise coextensively and simultaneously (gleichursprünglich: equiprimordially) to our understanding of Being, not as an abstraction, but as discernment and belonging together (identity) of the self and the there (the world) through the word.

Traditional metaphysics takes Being as substance or essence as the ground of existent beings.  Heidegger replaces this rigidification and reification of a static Being as the ground with the abyss of “the event”, something active which transcends Being and Becoming and lets things manifest to human beings as “discernment-belonging”.  In this sense, I add, the ground of human soul is the event of teaching names to us by God to discern, at one stroke the self, the world, the horizon of all beings (Being), the word, and to become aware.   

In analytic philosophy, meticulous attention and effort is devoted to formalize and conceptually elucidate the concepts “identity” and “unity”.  This attempt is a theoretical endeavor to show how these concepts are applicable in ontological discussions.  The ontology [the theory of Being] of this tradition is based on logical elucidation[1].  As I discussed before, identity, unity, and difference are not merely logical or linguistic items, they have an ontological ground in our existence. 

Heidegger ontologizes the origin of identity in a primordial sense as the relation of belonging together of A=A.  So, in a peculiar sense, identity and unity are interrelated for Heidegger.  When we say, A is identical with A, for Heidegger it means A is A.  In order A to have a discernable identity, it has to establish a relation with Being first--even if it doesn't exist but is intelligible, like unicorn.  This is an intricate point that somehow throws us into an abyss and meanwhile transforms us.  The point to reflect on and to digest is that this relationship is not one of grounding as substratum.  Being doesn’t ground A to be and hence to become discernable.  In a primordial sense, the first stroke of discerning oneself as being-in-the-world occurs as an event in which universals came to view for human beings.  The awareness of oneself in the world, coextensively happens as seeing a universal tree, animal, or person as this particular animal, tree, or person and through words simultaneously.  This discernment as an identity relationship brings the identity of A and Being (the horizon of all events) into light at one stroke, what Heidegger calls “clearing or lighting” (Lichtung with two meanings “clearing”, an open space in a forest, and “lighting”, the light of sun).  In another word, A belongs to its Being as discernable from B, because A and Ereignis-Event of discerning belong together:

“The law [of identity] appears at first in the form of a fundamental principle which presupposes identity as a characteristic of Being, that is, of the ground of beings. This principle in the sense of a statement has in the meantime become a principle bearing the characteristics of a spring that departs from Being as the ground of beings, and thus springs into the abyss. But this abyss is neither empty nothingness nor murky confusion, but rather: Ereignis (the event of appropriation). In 'the event of appropriation’ vibrates the active nature of what speaks as language, which at one time was called the house of Being. "Principle of identity" means now: a spring demanded by the essence of identity because it needs that spring if the belonging together of man and Being is to attain the essential light of the appropriation.

On its way from the principle as a statement about identity to the principle as a spring into the essential origin of identity, thinking has undergone a transformation. Thus looking toward the present, beyond the situation of man, thinking sees the constellation of Being and man in terms of that which joins the two-by virtue of the event of appropriation.”[2] (Identity and Difference)

We need to keep in mind that in this sense, understanding of Being, objects and living beings, truth as un-concealment, and disclosure all occur in one awaking lightening of the Event as “discernment-identity”.

Revelation and Ereignis

I would argue that the miracle of Being and Event (Ereignis) belongs to God.  However, God stands outside all relations of human understanding while bestowing us with the miracle of God’s spirit and Word, Logos, Tao, and Ereignis within the illumination which belongs to God as God’s word.  “God is far above that: when God decrees something, God says only, ‘Be,’ and it is.” (19:35)[all the verses quoted are from the Quran].  And what is strange and thought provoking in the Quran is that we as individuals will be called and judged in the Day of Judgement.  We are given the sense of individuation and discernment, the freedom of the will to choose between good and evil, and we will be judged individually for our choices:    

“Man says, ‘What? Once I am dead, will I be brought back to life?’ but does man not remember that We created him when he was nothing before? By your Lord [Prophet] We shall gather them and the devils together and set them on their knees around Hell; We shall seize out of each group those who were most disobedient towards the Lord of Mercy– We know best who most deserves to burn in Hell– but every single one of you will approach it, a decree from your Lord which must be fulfilled. We shall save the devout and leave the evildoers there on their knees. When Our revelations are recited to them in all their clarity, [all that] the disbelievers say to the believers [is], ‘Which side is better situated? Which side has the better following?’ We have destroyed many a generation before them who surpassed them in riches and outward glitter! Say [Prophet], ‘The Lord of Mercy lengthens [the lives] of the misguided, until, when they are confronted with what they have been warned about– either the punishment [in this life] or the Hour [of Judgement]– they realize who is worse situated and who has the weakest forces.’ But God gives more guidance to those who are guided, and good deeds of lasting merit are best and most rewarding in your Lord’s sight. Have you considered the man who rejects Our revelation, who says, ‘I will certainly be given wealth and children’? Has he penetrated the unknown or received a pledge to that effect from the Lord of Mercy? No! We shall certainly record what he says and prolong his punishment: We shall inherit from him all that he speaks of and he will come to Us all alone.” (19:66-80) 

Let’s reflect on these verses:

“In the name of God, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy.  Say, ‘He is God the One, God the eternal. [other commonly held interpretations include ‘self-sufficient’ and ‘sought by all’ (Razi)].  He begot no one nor was He begotten. No one is comparable to Him.’” (112:1-4)

“[Gabriel said], ‘We only descend [with revelation] at your Lord’s command––everything before us, everything behind us, everything in between, all belongs to Him––your Lord is never forgetful. God is Lord of the heavens and earth and everything in between so worship Him: be steadfast in worshipping God. Do you know of anyone equal to God?’” (19:64-65)

God is completely Other and nothing is equal to God--we understand, feel, love, fear God in awe because God's seed and spirit is within us.  God is eternal…  Just lets’ think about it: eternal.  God has no beginning and no end.  God doesn’t come to being and doesn’t change, as we understand these concepts.  God created everything.  And then God created the weakest creatures on the earth, mortals from the dust.  And God breathed God’s soul into human being and asked all angels and jinns bow down to this weak and fragile being:

“[Prophet], when your Lord told the angels, ‘I am putting a successor on earth,’ they said, ‘How can You put someone there who will cause damage and bloodshed, when we celebrate Your praise and proclaim Your holiness?’ but He said, ‘I know things you do not.’  He taught Adam all the names, then He showed them to the angels and said, ‘Tell me the names of these if you truly [think you can].’  They said, ‘May You be glorified! We have knowledge only of what You have taught us. You are the All Knowing and All Wise.’  Then He said, ‘Adam, tell them the names of these.’ When he told them their names, God said, ‘Did I not tell you that I know what is hidden in the heavens and the earth, and that I know what you reveal and what you conceal?’” (2:30-33)

I wish to imagine that moment, the Event (Ereignis): a line was drawn and discernment came into being.  The name sparked and a tunnel of light engulfed me.  At one stroke and blink of eye, I became aware of my “identity” [from Latin idem (neuter) “the same”] and discerned myself from the place and time, within place and time.

[in Farsi and Arabic هویتidentity هویه , its root is “he/she/it” (neutral in Farsi).  This is the same word as pronoun “He” for God in the Quran.  So, the root of the word “identity” in Farsi and Arabic goes back to our common essence with “Him” (or in Farsi “Him, Her, It”) or God].

In the lightening of the word, I become aware of God and myself and “there”, the place and time.  I found myself simultaneously in the concentric awareness of God at the center, the holistic horizon of events as Being, and perceived universal angels, humans, animals, trees in every particular angel, human, animal, and tree, and in the name.  This is the Event (Ereignis: coming into view) that Heidegger talks about.

Nothing, however, is equal to God.  God is the giver of Event, which can’t be circumvented in human terms.  The Event is a verb-word: Be.  Thus, I became aware of my being and the being of everything.  Nonetheless, God taught us how to discern—first and foremost between good and evil.

“God is the Light of the heavens and earth. His Light is like this: there is a niche, and in it a lamp, the lamp inside a glass, a glass like a glittering star, fueled from a blessed olive tree from neither east nor west, whose oil almost gives light even when no fire touches it– light upon light– God guides whoever He will to his Light; God draws such comparisons for people; God has full knowledge of everything.” (24:35)       

---

[1] “Strictly speaking, identity is related to the problem of distinguishing a specific instance of a certain class from other instances by means of a characteristic property, which is unique for it (that whole instance). Unity, on the other hand, is related to the problem of distinguishing the parts of an instance from the rest of the world by means of a unifying relation that binds them together (not involving anything else).  For example, asking “Is that my dog?” would be a problem of identity, whereas asking “is the collar part of my dog?” would be a problem of unity. As we shall see, the two notions are complementary: when something can be both recognized as a whole and kept distinct from other wholes then we say that it is an individual, and can be counted as one.” (Identity, Unity, and Individuality: Towards a Formal Toolkit for Ontological Analysis) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/16fe/72e840c6c6558af92d22c53a75d31140a750.pdf

[2] “Where are we now? At the entry of our thinking into that simplicity which we call in the strict sense of the term the event of appropriation. It seems as if we were now in danger of directing our thinking, all too carelessly, toward something that is remote and general; while in fact what the term event of appropriation wishes to indicate really speaks to us directly from the very nearness of that neighborhood in which we already reside. For what could be closer to us than what brings us nearer to where we belong,

to where we are belongers, to the event of appropriation?

The event of appropriation is that realm, vibrating within itself, through which man and Being reach each other in their nature, achieve their active nature by losing those qualities with which metaphysics has endowed them. To think of appropriating as the event of appropriation means to contribute to this self-vibrating realm. Thinking receives the tools for this self-suspended structure from language. For language is the most delicate and thus the most susceptible vibration holding everything within the suspended structure of the appropriation. We dwell in the appropriation inasmuch as our active nature is given over to language.

We have now reached a point on our path where we must ask the crude but inevitable question: What does appropriation have to do with identity? Answer: Nothing. Identity, on the other hand, has much, perhaps everything, to' do with appropriation. How so? We can answer this question by retracing our path in a few steps.

The appropriation appropriates man and Being to their essential togetherness. In the [technological] frame, we glimpse a first, oppressing flash of the appropriation. The frame constitutes the active nature of the modern world of technology. In the frame, we witness a belonging together of man and Being in which the letting belong first determines the manner of the "together" and its unity. We let Parmenides' fragment "For the Same are thinking as well as Being" introduce us to the question of a belonging together in which belonging has precedence over "together." The question of the meaning of this Same is the question of the active nature of identity. The doctrine of metaphysics represents identity as a fundamental characteristic of Being. Now it becomes clear that Being belongs with thinking to an identity whose active essence stems from that letting belong together which we call the appropriation.

The essence of identity is a property of the event of appropriation. If the attempt to guide our thinking to the abode of the essential origin of identity is to some extent tenable, what would have become of the title of our lecture? The meaning of the title "The principle of identity" would have undergone a transformation.

The law appears at first in the form of a fundamental principle which presupposes identity as a characteristic of Being, that is, of the ground of beings. This principle in the sense of a statement has in the meantime become a principle bearing the characteristics of a spring that departs from Being as the ground of beings, and thus springs into the abyss. But this abyss is neither empty nothingness nor murky confusion, but rather: the event of appropriation. In 'the event of appropriation vibrates the active nature of what speaks as language, which at one time was called the house of Being. "Principle of identity" means now: a spring demanded by the essence of identity because it needs that spring if the belonging together of man and Being is to attain the essential light of the appropriation.

On its way from the principle as a statement about identity to the principle as a spring into the essential origin of identity, thinking has undergone a transformation. Thus looking toward the present, beyond the situation of man, thinking sees the constellation of Being and man in terms of that which joins the two-by virtue of the event of appropriation.” (Heidegger, Identity and Difference)