[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Ron --


Far be it for me to "throw academic meaning and terminology out the window".

Merriam-Websters on-line dictionary defines Dichotomy as "a division into 
two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities (e.g., 
the dichotomy between theory and practice)".

I do not claim to be an academic or a logic specialist, and if I've been 
misusing the term, I'll be only too happy to substitute one that meets the 
contingencies of experiential existence.  As I have previously defined them, 
and letting 'A' represent Awareness (sensibility) and 'B' represent 
Beingness (other), they are:

1.  A and B are mutually dependent, meaning neither can exist separately.

2.  A and B are mutually exclusive, in that no A is B and no B is A.

Also, while both contingencies may (and do) include their opposites 'not-A' 
and 'not B', and their conjunction is not all-encompassing (absolutely 
inclusive), I do not see that these conditions affect the AB relationship.

In your criticism, you said:
> They are not a dichotomy if they do not exist separate
> and exclusively.

Since I stated in 1 (above) that neither A nor B exists separately or 
exclusively, what do I call this duality (other than a "false" dichotomy")?

You also said:
> Being and awareness are NOT mutually exclusive
> by your double standard and double meaning and they
> do not compose a true dichotomy.

This criticism is untrue.  No "double standard or double meaning" is implied 
here.  Being and awareness ARE mutually exclusive.

If mutual exclusivity invalidates "dichotomy",  I need to know the proper 
term by which to identify the AB contingency.  Any suggestions?

Thanks, Ron.
--Ham