[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[Ron Kulp]

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:32 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

Ron:

> ...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.
Ham:
Thanks for the tip, Ron, although since many already consider the whole 
concept null and void, I doubt that changing an analytic "dichotomy" to
a 
synthetic "complementarity" will matter much.  I would prefer that they 
understood the concept on its own merits rather than judge it on logical

grounds.

Ron:
Having logical consistency does improve your chances of comprehension
and acceptance.

Ham:
I have learned from our exchanges, too, Ron.  As an authority on logic, 
perhaps you can help me with my Creation Hypothesis.  The problem here
is my 
use of a "negated agent" which defies traditional logic.  Are you
familiar 
with Cusa's principle of the "not-other"?  If you're willing to tackle
this 
challenge, I'm your humble student.

Ron:
Boy, starting with the easy one huh? I've been giving this some
consideration in light of our discussions, you could anchor 
your theory in the classic logical "principle of explosion"
 according to which "anything follows from a contradiction" - i.e., once
you have asserted a contradiction, you can infer any proposition, or its
converse.
In other words once you start with the contradiction of "not-other"
and cite the principle of explosion
you may logically assert the synthetic Dichotomy of the complementarity
of being-aware. THEN you have a solid CLASSICAL origin in which to
assert a synthetic statement BY which you can argue that all analytical
statements are ultimately synthetic by nature, supported by the concept
of value awareness. Once you call analytics into question you are
creating
a logical chain of argument from synthetic statements. THIS avenue seems
to be the best way for you to make a bullet proof case yet still retain
your theory without compromise. In this way you can build a classically 
logical case without employing analytics.

Research what I'm saying and tell me if I'm hitting all the dots, If
I am then I think we can make a solid case for Essentialism per your
theories that any Academic would be pressed to poopoo.




Kindest regards,
Ham