[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[Ron Kulp]

Ham:
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.

Ham prev as quoted " 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'.

Ron:
it's the ALSO part of the statement which constitutes the contradiction.
I point this out because you use the term dichotomy to describe and
define
the relation to self-other. You portray it as a tension of opposites
defined by wiki as " A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into
exactly two non-overlapping parts.

In other words, it is a bipartition of elements. i.e. nothing can belong
simultaneously to both parts, and everything must belong to one part or
the other. They are often contrasting and spoken of as "opposites."

your description of the self-other situation is not a true dichotomy
because
being and awareness are interdependent and do not exist as separate
entities on to themselves, they are not mutually exclusive. The term
dichotomy applies to analytic logic therefore it will be understood in
terms of
analytic method subject to analytic axioms. 
If you use analytic terms you are going to have to expect to be
held to analytic axioms of proof for the assertions you make
and consequently analytical critique which is what we base linguistic
reason on and common comprehension of meaning.
just giving you a heads up is all..








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/ 

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/