[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[Ham Priday]

Ron --


I anticipate that others may want to ring in on this, but you seem to be 
stressing "contrariety" in the contingencies of my AB dichotomy.  While I 
don't dispute that possibility, I see no reason to specify the contents of 
these contingencies in the relational proposition AB, nor the need to posit 
a not-AB (i.e., nothingness).

What if I deny that "BOTH AB and NOT AB may exist without contradiction"?

--Ham


------------------------------------------------------

> 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.
>
> Ron:
> This violates the division into
> two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities.
>
> Ham:
> 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.
> Ham:
> 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")?
>
> Ron:
> You COULD call it that by traditional methods THEN make the transition
> to
> the tetra lemma logic which WILL support your assertion that both AB and
> NOT
> AB may exist without contradiction. Producing a tension of apparent
> opposites which is illusionary but existent in perception. Which I
> believe falls right in with your body of work.
>
> Ham:
> 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?
>
> Ron:
> I say this because if one may not exist without the other then
> technically they are not mutually exclusive.
> Check out the tetra lemma, logic of the middle path.
> I think this would compliment Essentialism
> and provide support for it. See Ham, this is what Pirsig
> ran up against, and why he says that traditional analytic logic
> fails to explain accurately these concepts we are trying
> to express. Analytics says that your concepts do not exist
> and are false, but we say "not so" your concepts DO exist
> despite the axiom of non-contrariety.
> In this way I support your concepts now more than ever.
>
> thank you Ham
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/