Ron --
I anticipate that others may want to ring in on this, but you seem to be
stressing "contrariety" in the contingencies of my AB dichotomy. While I
don't dispute that possibility, I see no reason to specify the contents of
these contingencies in the relational proposition AB, nor the need to posit
a not-AB (i.e., nothingness).
What if I deny that "BOTH AB and NOT AB may exist without contradiction"?
--Ham
------------------------------------------------------
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/
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/
