I've been having the following ideas for a very long time now and cannot figure out if I am making any mistakes in my modeling. I would sincerely appreciate thoughtful feedback.

To set the stage for my thinking, I'm in a graduate social work program, and so I naturally get beat over the head twice a week with the culture-and-oppression bat. Discussing "ethnic pride" and "cultural identity" for three semesters is really starting to piss me off. Pride in itself is a dangerous concept, and ethnic pride shows why. People should have pride in their actions, NOT in their identity.

So, I started thinking about identity and what specifically allows for identity. Physically, everything is in a constant state of change (note the irony of

*constant change*). If a tree is always changing, why are we still able to identify it as the same tree?

I started thinking about a way to model this relationship between the permanence (identity) and impermanence (change) of objects in reality. I used language to help me out. Reality is linguistic anyway, right? Syntax (law), content (physics), and grammar -- this is all that is needed to be a language. Beginning with language, this is what I came up with:

**It is(x) + It is(all-x) = It is(all)**So, you may be questioning what the fuck that is. Good question, thanks for asking. I noticed that things are identified only in relation to what they are not. So, for example, that tree is a tree because it's not a duck. More specifically, that tree is a tree because it's not

*anything* else, not even another tree, and not even nothing. So, we form one half of the equation using the variable 'x' which represents any conditioned event/thing, and by using 'all' to represent the largest set containing 'x' (invariably the set of all sets).

The 'It is' is where I grabbed from language. We have the objects (all, x, all-x), but now we needed to include a subject in the equation, or the 'identifier' that determines what something is. Because 'it is,' or the identity aspect of a thing, is distributed to all conditional events (again all, x, all-x) , it appears syntactic. Identity is a distributive property.

I decided to make it prettier:

**Θ(x) + Θ(Σxlim->∞ - x) = Θ(Σxlim->∞)**where Θ = Identity Principle or the distributive quality of identity

where x = any given identified/identifiable conditional event/thing

where Σxlim->∞ = the sum of all identified/identifiable conditional events/things

This equation seems to imply many things given that human beings are both identifiable and capable of identifying. Specifically, a couple things are of note: First, the whole equation reduces to 1 = 1. Second, 1 is also the identifying number in mathematics. Anything multiplied by 1 is itself. And, 1 substituted for theta satisfies the equation, thus 1 and 'identity' seem related.

Theta can also be stricken from the equation:

**x + (Σxlim->∞ - x) = Σxlim->∞**Perceived this way, the conditional events become separated from identity altogether. The equation also no longer means what it used to mean. There is no identifier. But yet the

*values** of the two equations are equal. *

By now you may be wondering what the point of this equation is regardless of whether it models accurately. Well, to me I think it could have significant implications for how an individual *should* live in terms of maximizing utility at a universal level. I also tried taking the equation and fucking with Einstien's E=mc^2. I tried to create some formula for universal energy:

(mc^2) / x = U / (Σxlim->∞)

solves to:

U(x) = (mc^2)(Σxlim->∞)

solves to:

**U = ((mc^2)(Σxlim->∞)) / x**

Where U = Universal energy

Where Σxlim->∞ = the sum of all conditional events/things

Where x = a particular conditional event/thing

Since 'E' in E=mc^2 is at a relativistic level and therefore a conditional one. So, I did some cross multiplication, solved for U, and I got the equation you see above.

...thoughts appreciated?