[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[Ron Kulp]

Hello Ham --

> Self and other are dependant, dependency implies that they do not
> and can not exist separately.
>
> Uses of dichotomy
> The above applies directly when the term is used in mathematics,
> philosophy or linguistics. For example, if there is a concept A, and
it
> is split into parts B and not-B, then the parts form a dichotomy: they
> are mutually exclusive, since no part of B is contained in not-B and
> vice-versa, and they are jointly exhaustive, since they cover all of
A,
> and together again give A.
> A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy consisting of a supposed
> dichotomy which fails one or both of the conditions: it is not jointly
> exhaustive or not mutually exclusive. In its most common form, two
> entities are presented as if they are exhaustive, when in fact other
> alternatives are possible. In some cases, they may be presented as if
> they are mutually exclusive although there is a broad middle ground.
>
> The self other dichotomy is a false dichotomy and a logical fallacy
> they are not mutually exclusive.
Ham:
Existence is split into two parts -- awareness and being.  No part of 
awareness is being, and no part of being is awareness.

  Also, there is no 
being without awareness, and no awareness without being, which makes the

contingencies "jointly exhaustive" and mutually exclusive, albeit
mutually 
dependent.

Ron: What????
Then They are not a dichotomy if they do not exist separate and
exclusively. 
you admit they are dependant to exist which is a contradiction of the
term "dichotomy". It fails the logical conditions which define the term.
it is a logical fallacy by the standard you use to make the statement.

Ham:
  Even if existence is an "illusion", it fulfills your definition 
of a (true) dichotomy.

Ron:
Even if existence is illusionary, it fulfills THE definition
of a (false) dichotomy. Being and awareness are NOT mutually exclusive
by your double standard and double meaning and they do not compose
a true dichotomy. 

P.S.
Your dichotomy being non-encompassing IS relevant to the conditions of
correct usage of the term "dichotomy" If it does not meet the criteria
of a dichotomy then it is a fallacious use of the term.
or are we throwing all academic meaning and terminology out the window?


thanks Ham