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. Ron: This violates the division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities. Ham: 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. Ham: 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")? Ron: You COULD call it that by traditional methods THEN make the transition to the tetra lemma logic which WILL support your assertion that both AB and NOT AB may exist without contradiction. Producing a tension of apparent opposites which is illusionary but existent in perception. Which I believe falls right in with your body of work. Ham: 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? Ron: I say this because if one may not exist without the other then technically they are not mutually exclusive. Check out the tetra lemma, logic of the middle path. I think this would compliment Essentialism and provide support for it. See Ham, this is what Pirsig ran up against, and why he says that traditional analytic logic fails to explain accurately these concepts we are trying to express. Analytics says that your concepts do not exist and are false, but we say "not so" your concepts DO exist despite the axiom of non-contrariety. In this way I support your concepts now more than ever. thank you 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/
