[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[Ham Priday]

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.

First, I did not say that A or B can exist and not exist simultaneously.
Second, I'm not trying to "prove" anything.  All I want to establish is that 
the duality I have defined is a true dichotomy by Aristotelian logic.  I 
think the problem has to do with how you and I interpret "mutually 
exclusive".  For me, this means that no A is B, and vice-versa.  You seem to 
understand it to mean that either A or B can stand by itself, in which case 
A and B are not mutually dependent.  The one condition I am certain of is 
that Awareness and Being are mutually dependent.

I also think your introduction of the tetralemma confuses the issue by 
imposing other conditions that I'm not willing to accept.  (Not A and not B, 
for example.)

> Also, if 'B' represents 'Being', and 'Being' and 'not being'
> are required for 'Being' to exist, this is a contradictory
> statement.

However we define Being, it "exists", whether in part or as a whole.
The term "not-" simply translates to nothingness, whether it is interpreted 
as a void or "hole" in Being or Awareness.  Nothingness does NOT exist.
I am not describing the content or integrity of A or B; I am treating both 
contingents as "wholes".  So your assumption that 'not being' is required 
for 'Being' to exist is not a condition of my proposition and is therefore 
not relevant to the dichotomy as defined.

> 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.

Where have I made a contradictory statement?  That A is dependent on B is 
not contradictory.  That A and B are exclusive of each other is not a 
contradiction.  Neither is the statement that AB is not infinitely 
exhaustive. And what does "analytically" add to this proposition?  Logic is 
the analysis of stated premises to determine what valid conclusions can be 
drawn from them.

If the relation of A to B is not a true dichotomy by traditonal logic, then 
what would you call it?

Thanks,
Ham