[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 Ron Kulp
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:32 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Reet and the Weakest Link



-----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:
perhaps you can help me with my Creation Hypothesis.  The problem here
is my use of a "negated agent" which defies traditional logic.  

Ron:
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. 

P.S.
To state it simply 
your argument becomes semantic or model-theoretic in nature. A 
sentence is a semantic consequence of a set of sentences.