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. 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.” (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)
“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
“
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)
