[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:
First of all something can't BOTH exist and NOT exist 'B' and 'not B'.
which is what you are stating in the above statement per analytic logic
which is what you are using to prove your dichotomy. They are not
mutually exclusive because 'B' requires and is dependant on 'not B'
to exist. Also, if 'B' represents 'Being', and 'Being' and 'not being'
are required for 'Being' to exist, this is a contradictory statement.
IF we do take this to be a given and 'Awareness' requires 'Being' 
to exist, then this is another contradictory statement. The fact that
you compound contradictory statements does not make it true.
In fact it qualifies as a false dichotomy BECAUSE 'A' and 'B'
are dependant and conditional by your own definitions of them.
No matter how you slice it analytically, therefore by the terms that
define
"dichotomy" the "self-other dichotomy" is an analytically false one.


Blame Aristotle not me.