the "is of identity"

Consider the following - from Robert Anton Wilson's Cosmic Trigger vol. III:


“Take an extreme case, where E-Prime seems overly pedantic: instead of “this is a chair,” I write “I call this a chair, and use it as a chair.” The is-ness statement tends, to a greater or lesser degree, to make you forget what the E-Prime statements helps you to remember: the non-verbal space-time event called a “chair” can have many other names, and many other uses—e.g., an aggressive weapon in a dysfunctional family, a defensive weapon if a burglar breaks in, kindling wood in some Ice Age situation, a scratching post for Kitty, etc. Similarly, “this is a rose” encourages you to forget that the non-verbal Gizmo “is” also a botanical specimen, a structure created by DNA out of other molecules, a source of pleasant aroma, a gift for a loved one, a subject for a painter a mass of electrons, etc. etc. etc.

To illustrate: consider, first, the current debate about abortion, and the series of terrorist murders it has provoked. The whole controversy always whirls around the question : what “is” the fetus? In E-Prime one cannot even ask that question. One’s opinion, in E-Prime, also sounds like an opinion and does not masquerade as a Law of Nature of a Proven Theorem. The best I can come up with for the two opposed positions would read: “I classify the fetus as a human person.” “I don’t classify the fetus as a human person.” These could only achieve further clarity and sanity by amending them further, thusly: “Due to the philosophy I hold at present, I currently classify the fetus as a human person.” “Due to the philosophy I hold at present, I currently do not classify the fetus as a human person.” This hardly represents an isolated case of how the “is” perpetuates dogma and hostility (what psychologists Edward de Bono calls the I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG syndrome) and how the use of E-Prime tends (at least) to lessen the dogma and hostility. Very few forms of fascism, racism or sexism (even those most fashionable in P.C. circles) can survive in E-Prime.

For instance –
“I tend to see all Hispanics as fundamentally the same, and equally obnoxious.” “I tend to see all Asiatics as fundamentally . . .” “I tend to see all men as fundamentally the same, . . . “

While one may not want to associate with the persons who might utter such statements, such persons do not seem quite as hopelessly nutty as those who tell you what all Hispanics “are,” or what all Asiatics “are,” or what all men “are,” etc. . . .
The “is of identity” encourages dogmatism and in many more cases even escalates the prejudice to the point where book-burning and outright fascism become inevitable.
[I added these italics because this is particularly easy to see today with the controversy over the "mosque" in the old Berlington Coat Factory building two blocks from where the twin towers stood and the subsequent controversy over the burning of the Koran that may or may not be taking place as I type this right now.]

Remember again that none of the murders recently [to the time of this book's publishing] committed at Planned Parenthood clinics resulted from “In my system of philosophy, I do not see a distinction between fetus and child.: The murders resulted from “The fetus IS a child,” and “The abortionist IS a murderer” as clearly as the success of Elmyr [a famous forger of master painters] resulted from “This IS a Matisse” and “This IS a Modigliani.”
. . .
All “is” statements expressing judgment become more accurate (describe the instrument used to make the evaluation) when rephrased as “seems to me” statements: “Beethoven seems better to me than Punk Rock,” Abstract Expressionism seems like junk to me,” “abstract Expressionism seems to me the most important innovation since Cubism” all speak a “truth” – in the sense of the truth of experience or the truth of perception even though different people will speak them.