[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[Ham Priday]

Ron [Krimel mentioned] --


[Ham, previously]:
> 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]:
> 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.

How so?  I am not positing a contradiction or contrariety.  (It was you who 
injected the "not-" in my proposition.)  I'm familiar with the law of 
contradiction
but have not invoked it.  I am not proposing that something both is and is 
not at the same time.  With all due respect for the mystical Tetralemma, 
traditional logic,
as Aristotle stated it, applies to relational systems, and Existence is a 
relational system as I've defined it.  The only additional law alluded to in 
the Tetralemma is coverd by the 'ex nihilo' princuiple.

Kindly explain why you insist on complicating my proposition with 
unnecessary negations.  (I do become involved with negation in my 
metaphysical hypothesis, but with the help of Cusan logic.)

Ironically, aside from Marsha, the only other comment on this discussion so 
far comes from Krimel:.

[Krimel]:
> Frankly, I don't see any sense in what Ham is saying at all.

Could we have expected anything more from an existentialist?

Regards,
Ham
.


> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/