[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[Ron Kulp]

Ham:
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.)

Ron:
O.K. Ham, I probably did get alittle ahead of myself, but what you were
describing seemed to me to reflect the assertion that analytic logic is
flawed where it concerns awareness and being as it relates to a
dichotomy
I thought this was a great way to illustrate how S/o emerges from value
sensibility.
So, o.k. lets back up and start fresh. In simple terms, two events are
mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time (i.e. they have
no outcomes in common). You make the statement that self-other is a
dichotomy
I take that to mean that being-awareness is that same dichotomy.
so if awareness and being are mutually dependant then it does not
qualify as an analytical dichotomy per Aristotle's logic.

Ham:
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.

Ron:
Agreed, we'll throw that out for now.

> 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. 

Ron:
Which is it as it applies to being-aware?
you just stated that A is both dependant and exclusive.
Analytics demands you make a choice, if you do not, the statement is
false
by that standard, if you say they are exclusive and they do not occur at
the same time and they have no outcomes in common then it is a true
dichotomy.
if you say they are dependant and not mutually exclusive then that is a
false dichotomy. But you do say that being-aware is dependant, therefore
it
is a false dichotomy.

Ham:

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

Ron:
Well that's what I'm trying to gain an understanding on with you, if the
being-aware dichotomy is not a true dichotomy then it must be an
illusion
of value awareness. You can make this work for you in your explanation.
You could in effect, by this reasoning state that self-other IS a
dichotomy
BUT it is a conditional dichotomy which emerges from value awareness.
By calling it a perception it absolves you from any formal logical
argument
at this level.

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/