Ron:
First of all something can't BOTH exist and NOT exist
'B' and 'not B', which is what you are stating in the above
statement per analytic logic which is what you are using
to prove your dichotomy. They are not mutually exclusive
because 'B' requires and is dependant on 'not B' to exist.
First, I did not say that A or B can exist and not exist simultaneously.
Second, I'm not trying to "prove" anything. All I want to establish is that
the duality I have defined is a true dichotomy by Aristotelian logic. I
think the problem has to do with how you and I interpret "mutually
exclusive". For me, this means that no A is B, and vice-versa. You seem to
understand it to mean that either A or B can stand by itself, in which case
A and B are not mutually dependent. The one condition I am certain of is
that Awareness and Being are mutually dependent.
I also think your introduction of the tetralemma confuses the issue by
imposing other conditions that I'm not willing to accept. (Not A and not B,
for example.)
Also, if 'B' represents 'Being', and 'Being' and 'not being'
are required for 'Being' to exist, this is a contradictory
statement.
However we define Being, it "exists", whether in part or as a whole.
The term "not-" simply translates to nothingness, whether it is interpreted
as a void or "hole" in Being or Awareness. Nothingness does NOT exist.
I am not describing the content or integrity of A or B; I am treating both
contingents as "wholes". So your assumption that 'not being' is required
for 'Being' to exist is not a condition of my proposition and is therefore
not relevant to the dichotomy as defined.
The fact that you compound contradictory statements
does not make it true. In fact it qualifies as a false dichotomy
BECAUSE 'A' and 'B' are dependant and conditional by
your own definitions of them. No matter how you slice it
analytically, therefore by the terms that define "dichotomy"
the "self-other dichotomy" is an analytically false one.
Where have I made a contradictory statement? That A is dependent on B is
not contradictory. That A and B are exclusive of each other is not a
contradiction. Neither is the statement that AB is not infinitely
exhaustive. And what does "analytically" add to this proposition? Logic is
the analysis of stated premises to determine what valid conclusions can be
drawn from them.
If the relation of A to B is not a true dichotomy by traditonal logic, then
what would you call it?
Thanks,
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/
