Hey, Ron --
Far be it for me to "throw academic meaning and terminology out the window".
Merriam-Websters on-line dictionary defines Dichotomy as "a division into
two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities (e.g.,
the dichotomy between theory and practice)".
I do not claim to be an academic or a logic specialist, and if I've been
misusing the term, I'll be only too happy to substitute one that meets the
contingencies of experiential existence. As I have previously defined them,
and letting 'A' represent Awareness (sensibility) and 'B' represent
Beingness (other), they are:
1. A and B are mutually dependent, meaning neither can exist separately.
2. A and B are mutually exclusive, in that no A is B and no B is A.
Also, while both contingencies may (and do) include their opposites 'not-A'
and 'not B', and their conjunction is not all-encompassing (absolutely
inclusive), I do not see that these conditions affect the AB relationship.
In your criticism, you said:
They are not a dichotomy if they do not exist separate
and exclusively.
Since I stated in 1 (above) that neither A nor B exists separately or
exclusively, what do I call this duality (other than a "false" dichotomy")?
You also said:
Being and awareness are NOT mutually exclusive
by your double standard and double meaning and they
do not compose a true dichotomy.
This criticism is untrue. No "double standard or double meaning" is implied
here. Being and awareness ARE mutually exclusive.
If mutual exclusivity invalidates "dichotomy", I need to know the proper
term by which to identify the AB contingency. Any suggestions?
Thanks, Ron.
--Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
