[MD] logic of Essentialism

[Ron Kulp]

Ham:

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.

Ron:
I thought the "loop hole" characterized your theory rather well, through
contradiction infinite possibility arises. Traditionally the principle
of explosion is used to destroy an argument but in the use I propose,
it creates one. It is rather unconventional but it does describe your
theory
in classic terms.

Ham:
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.

Ron:
that's what it does, it makes your statements logically consistent,
it's just a counter for critique. Next time someone grills you about
the logic you employ to arrive at your conclusions , you whip this jem
out
and sink em.

Ham:
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.

Ron:
That's the beauty of the logic I propose, it describes this rather well
in terms of logical consistency. Most folks think analytically and when
they
try to understand what you are saying they get confused by the apparent 
contrariety in your statements.

Ham:
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.

Ron;
What you describe as a "complementarity" dichotomy does not really work
with the term "negate" negate, is typically a canceling of mutually
exclusive opposites, or a tension of mutually exclusive opposites.
see how this is crystallizing from the synthetic proposition? I think
your best avenue is the assertion of synthetic argument through
the destruction of analytic initially then re-assert it as an emergence
of
value awareness through the "complementarity" dichotomy. Then when you
state " But inasmuch as it is the experience of this self that 
constructs the objectivized universe," you can then use this as
an explaination for analytics too. THEN when someone knocks you for 
circular contradictory logic you can say "not so" I am making a
synthetic
argument for analytical thought.
you are then free and clear of any inconsistency. You may want to drop
the use of the term "negate" to describe the self. You most certainly
may assert the free agent by virtue of the dichotomy you propose.
you may also account for cusa's coincidence of contrariety as a
construction of the being-aware dichotomy.