Ham: 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.) Ron: O.K. Ham, I probably did get alittle ahead of myself, but what you were describing seemed to me to reflect the assertion that analytic logic is flawed where it concerns awareness and being as it relates to a dichotomy I thought this was a great way to illustrate how S/o emerges from value sensibility. So, o.k. lets back up and start fresh. In simple terms, two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time (i.e. they have no outcomes in common). You make the statement that self-other is a dichotomy I take that to mean that being-awareness is that same dichotomy. so if awareness and being are mutually dependant then it does not qualify as an analytical dichotomy per Aristotle's logic. Ham: 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. Ron: Agreed, we'll throw that out for now. > 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. Ron: Which is it as it applies to being-aware? you just stated that A is both dependant and exclusive. Analytics demands you make a choice, if you do not, the statement is false by that standard, if you say they are exclusive and they do not occur at the same time and they have no outcomes in common then it is a true dichotomy. if you say they are dependant and not mutually exclusive then that is a false dichotomy. But you do say that being-aware is dependant, therefore it is a false dichotomy. Ham: If the relation of A to B is not a true dichotomy by traditonal logic, then what would you call it? Ron: Well that's what I'm trying to gain an understanding on with you, if the being-aware dichotomy is not a true dichotomy then it must be an illusion of value awareness. You can make this work for you in your explanation. You could in effect, by this reasoning state that self-other IS a dichotomy BUT it is a conditional dichotomy which emerges from value awareness. By calling it a perception it absolves you from any formal logical argument at this level. 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/
