[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[Ron Kulp]

 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:
I found this Internet definition of Dichotomy which may help resolve our

logical problem:

"Dichotomies of opposition are used more in analysis, and where the two 
elements are often destructive when combined. (Exclusive OR).
Dichotomies of 
complementarity are used more in synthesis, where the two elements are
seen 
as parts of a whole with the whole emerging when the parts join -
(Inclusive 
OR) - with the final whole being the universe of discourse."

I think you will agree that my AB proposition is a "synthesis" rather
than 
an "analysis", which allows for "the whole emerging when the parts
join.".
Therefore, if I withdraw the "exclusivity" condition, it would appear
that 
my dualism is a "dichotomy of complementarity." -- an "inclusive OR" as 
opposed to an "exclusive OR".

Since nothing was stated about "true" or "false" in this description, I 
assume that a dichotomy of complementarity is valid by the standards of 
logic.  Which means that I can still refer to the relation of Awareness
to 
Beingness as a dichotomy.

Ron:
Yes, but I would note the type of dichotomy so as to not confuse your
subscribers, which was my main point, once you start down a path of
analytic propositions you are kinda committed to it and if you start
making synthetic
statements from analytical ones, some may use this as an excuse to
render
the whole concept as null and void. Crucifying you with your own
analytical
statements. Synthetic statements may be true statements but they are
considered false by analytical standards because they are not universal
and do not follow a logical chain of deduction. But they do follow a
logical
chain of induction. It's when you start mixing the two without telling
anyone that the confusion arises. I'm not sure if mixing the two
liberally
is acceptable academically but, by switching to synthetic argument in
the
area you do implies that you understand why Pirsig rejects analytics at
this
level. That is why Pirsig starts and ends with value awareness because
one may not make a deductive argument past it we may only make inductive
inferences from it.

Ham:

Are we back on track?

Ron:
We were always on track Ham, we are (rather respectfully) clearing up
our misunderstandings and mutually improving our understandings which
is why I enjoy conversing with you.