[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[Ron Kulp]

Ham --

Ham:
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"?

Ron:
Well, lets start out with your assertion of;

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

Ron:
so far this coincides with the definition of a dichotomy
per analytic logic.

Ham prev:
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.

Ron:
In logic, the law of non-contradiction (also called the law of
contradiction) states, in the words of Aristotle, that "one cannot say
of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at
the same time". "It is impossible that the same thing can at the same
time 
both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect."
(Aristotle, Metaphysics)

I would say this affects your AB relationship. Traditionally speaking
of course.

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

Ron:
the tetra lemma supports this as well,

Neither from itself nor from another, nor from both, nor without a cause
does anything whatever anywhere arise (Garfield's translation) 
Here X refers to any arbitrary thing in reality, and thus the following
four logical propositions are rejected by Nagarjuna:

Things arise out of themselves

X 
Things arise out of something else

not X 
They arise out of both

Both X and not X 
Without cause

Neither X nor not X

Nagarjuna used the tetralemma to illustrate the seemingly contradictory
nature of reality.