Reflexivity, that x = x, is reasonable, but I don't think it's obvious.

Essentially, it actually states a kind of consistency: that the same reference will always have the same referent.

But 3 things:

1) This isn't as true/simple as it's made out to be

2) This isn't true in natural language

3) It's very plausible to think of another system of logic in which reflexivity does not hold

(1) — Reflexivity only applies within a context. It does not handle name shadowing

(2) "stick" has many meanings. Sam was saying that some Chinese characters have multiple meanings. Same reference, different referent, different contexts.

(3) for instance, being dependent on context. More radically, you could require each reference to be the successor of the last. So let a = 2 then b = c = 2 and a is now undefined.

I remember writing this. I was with my two brothers and my dad, still in China; we were on a hike and I arrived before everyone else to a temple atop a hill. A sketch of the temple is on the next page.