[MD] logic of Essentialism

[Ham Priday]

 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.

Your knack for reducing a metaphysical concept to a logical proposition is 
fascinating.  I've been calling the ground of existence Difference, and the 
power to negate Difference the potentiality of Essence.  But, except for 
Cusa's first principle, I've never been able to formulate this in strictly 
logical terms.

I must say, however, that I'm now wary of logic.  For if there's a logic to 
make anything reasonable or valid, what's the point of logical analysis? 
If  by the "principle of explosion" anything is possible--including the 
concurrent existence of A and Not A, why isn't this a violation of 
Aristotle's law of non-contradiction?  And which law takes precedence here? 
It would appear that one can support equivocation simply by basing it on the 
right logic.  What am I missing here?

> 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.

Who, then, thinks synthetically, and how do average folks know the 
difference, even when stated by the author?  I tend to believe that most 
intelligent people can recognize an illogical statement when they see it 
without resorting to formal analysis.
For example, I doubt that Pirsig actually reduced his theory to the equation 
Quality = Experience = Reality.  Yet, that's the way his concept has been 
interpreted, and we see this equation frequently in these posts.  Would you 
call that interpretation a "synthesis" or an "analysis"?

> 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.

Ron, if the truth be told, people typically reject an idea outright, 
irrespective of logic, if it is associated with an ideology they despise. 
They'll dismiss it on the ground that it is "theistic" or "right wing" or 
"made up".  You see this gut reaction all the time.  "It doesn't smell 
right", "he's hallucinating", "it's talk radio garbage".  I'm not an analyst 
and may be naive, but I take the position that words and language are 
secondary to the concept presented.  Only a  person who is receptive to a 
new concept will be discerning enough to critique it analytically.  I'm 
trying to reach that kind of person, one who is willing to consider the 
concept long enough to comprehend it.  If there are some flaws in my logic, 
I can re-express the concept to correct or circumvent them.  However, I 
shall consider your advice and see how I can implement it in the future.

But, concerning Cusa's 'not-other', which you seem willing to discuss, 
here's how Clyde Miller of Stony Brook U. formalized this theory as a 
logical proposition:

"For any given non-divine X, X is not other than X, and X is other than not 
X.  What is unique about the divine not other is precisely that it is not 
other than either X or not X ('cannot be other than'-'is not opposed to 
anything').  The transcendent not-other thus undercuts both the principles 
of non-contradiction and of the excluded middle."

I wrote to the professor, but he never kept his promise to get back to me. 
I think this theory has profound implications for metaphysical development. 
Inasmuch as I've based my ontology on this principle, I'm most interested in 
hearing your take on it.

Many thanks,
Ham