[MD] Reet and the Weakest Link

[Ham Priday]

> -----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

 Hey, Ron --

Speaking of "mutual exclusivity", what's this duplicate message labeled "On 
Behalf of Ham Priday", and how it is distinguished from the previous one 
labeled "On Behalf of Ron Kulp?"  (I wasn't aware that we could direct 
responses to others or ourselves.)

> 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.

If I'm "calling analytics into question" I can assure you that it wasn't 
intentional on my part.  I'm not sure I like this "principal of explosion" 
which seems to be a loophole for violating the law of non-contradction.  I 
thought logic was invented to eliminate this kind of ambiguity.

Look, Ron, my Essentialism is a theory of reality.  To articulate the 
concepts, I'm obliged to make my statements logically consistent.  But I 
have no desire to develop a "semantic model", invent a new logical system, 
or "test" the limits of traditional logic.  I simply want to explain my 
thesis in a way that best conveys the overall ontology.

With that objective in mind, I was struck by the work of Cusanus in the 15th 
century, and am amazed that his theory of the 'Not-other' has never been 
used as the core principle of a metaphysical thesis.  What it says is that 
there is no "essential" other, and that all otherness is a negation of the 
absolute source.  So, too, is the Awareness/Beingness dichotomy we've been 
discussing in logical terms.

Existence itself is negated otherness, the cognizant locus of which is the 
individuated self.  But inasmuch as it is the experience of this self that 
constructs the objectivized universe, I have taken the liberty of referring 
to the self as a "negated agent" (negate).  Have I overstepped the bounds of 
logic by so identifying the subjective self?  The concept is fixed in my 
mind, but I fear that traditional logic--even with its loopholes--will not 
support it.

Should you wish to continue with this dialogue, I suggest that we change the 
subject line.  (I never did find out who Reet was!)  Perhaps "Creation by 
negation", "The negational Source", or "Something from nothing?" would make 
a more appropriate title.  But, as you are the logician, I'll defer to your 
choice on the matter.

Again, thanks for your continued patience and help.

Regards,
Ham