In 2001, Gina LoSasso published an essay I wrote in a journal she calls "Noesis," which she and Chris Langan have been producing in contempt of a court judgement stemming from their deliberate and malicious theft of the Mega Society's trade name and journal. In 2002 LoSasso replaced my essay with the comments below and inserted into a copy of my essay this reference that credits its central concept, holistic identity, to her partner Chris Langan:

Reference inserted by Gina LoSasso without consent into a copy of my essay:
[2] "Holistic Identity" is first described in logical terms as syndiffeonesis in Langan, C. M. (1992), Noesis, No. 76, pp.25-26.

The contents of my writing should be the consequence of my consent. And I neither consent to LoSasso's insertion of that reference into a copy of my essay nor do I agree with Langan's priority claim that it forces into my mouth.

Gina LoSasso: From the Editors: In November 2001, we printed an article by Ian Goddard in our journal. I approved and published the article. That article appears here. One year later, after Chris Langan published his CTMU theory in a peer-reviewed journal, Ian Goddard began insinuating that his ideas had been used without citation. He did so publicly, on a bulletin board, without so much as a heads up. Chris Langan has published articles on the CTMU since the late 1980's. The concept in question, syndiffeonesis, is ancient in origin and can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. We have recently reprinted a seven-page description of the CTMU for our members (password protected, if you are a member contact us for the password). This piece, originally published in the journal Noesis in 1992, includes a logical description of the entire theory and an outline of syndiffeonesis (using that exact term). The pdf is of the original document with a copyright date of 1992. This was several years before Ian even began this type of work. This was all pointed out to Ian. Regardless, as Chris points out in one of his responses to Ian, the concept that syndiffeonesis is based on has been in the public domain for millennia.

Ian Goddard: To asses their priority claim I acquired Langan's 1992 article from the publishers of the real Mega Society journal Noesis who sued Langan for falsely claiming to head the Mega Soceity and publish Noesis (Langan joined the Mega Society before falsely claiming to be its leader). Since LoSasso has not made Langan's 1992 article avialable to the public I've scanned the two-page section wherein Langan first defines his syndiffeonesis concept :

- click on -

In that 1992 article, Langan defines syndiffeonesis as that which makes two distinct entities (in this case two theories) in the same class disjoint. The definition of disjoint is:

Disjoint: If sets A and B have no elements in common, i.e. if no element of A is in B and no element of B is in A, then we say that A and B are disjoint. (Lipschutz, 5)

Therefore, Langan's 1992 definition of syndiffeonesis is the opposite of holistic identity, which defines all elements of A as elements of B and vice versa. Consistent with this opposition between the original syndiffeonesis and holistic identity is the fact that Langan's 1992 article concludes with the explicit rejection of the identity of distinct entities on the basis of syndiffeonesis. But then in Langan's 2002 paper, the definition of syndiffeonesis has become "informational union and intersection," or "unisection," no longer disjunction. That 2002 definition does resemble but postdates holistic identity. So I cannot agree that Langan's 1992 paper constitutes priority over holistic identity.

Holistic identity is the proposition that the external area of a thing, A, is inclusive in its identity if its identity is a result of its difference from not-A. So its identity is this whole difference relation. My writing on holistic identity goes back to material I published in the early '90s and sent to publishers and others. Its historical basis (Eastern philosophy) has been a major part of its presentation. When I got online I posted about it, such as in this post back when I was calling it "relational identity." Here are a few of my old posts, debates, and rants about holistic identity:

Relational Identity (1996)

Lots of debating (1996)

Holistic Logic 101 (1997)

Re: Holistic Logic 101 (1997)

Good points from a critic (1997)

HOLISM: Utility & Prediction (1998)

Free Entity = Free Energy = Fallacy (1998)

LoSasso: Ian Goddard displayed very unethical behavior and lost two friends who had reached out to him. I would be wary in any dealings with this unpredictable person. I would not be surprised if, catching wind of what the CTMU was about, Ian had planted a relatively superficial article in our journal so that he could later attempt to take credit for some of Chris's work. This is very much how he appears to operate.

Part of Chris's response with Ian is reprinted at the bottom of this page. It didn't stop there. Ian just kept going on and on until the moderator started deleting his irrational posts. He is an embarrassment to journalists and human beings everywhere.

Goddard: What was said was said in this multi-page thread. The moderator (of a forum sympathetic to Langan's views on teleology) deleted only one post I made that started a thread that was copied to another forum along with LoSasso's reply. Note that the reposting there of that deleted thread contains commentary specific to that second forum.

Lipschutz, Seymour. Theory and Problems of Set Theory and Realted Topics. New York: Schaum Publishing Co. 1964. 


      

      
My Home Page