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: I found this Internet definition of Dichotomy which may help resolve our logical problem: "Dichotomies of opposition are used more in analysis, and where the two elements are often destructive when combined. (Exclusive OR). Dichotomies of complementarity are used more in synthesis, where the two elements are seen as parts of a whole with the whole emerging when the parts join - (Inclusive OR) - with the final whole being the universe of discourse." I think you will agree that my AB proposition is a "synthesis" rather than an "analysis", which allows for "the whole emerging when the parts join.". Therefore, if I withdraw the "exclusivity" condition, it would appear that my dualism is a "dichotomy of complementarity." -- an "inclusive OR" as opposed to an "exclusive OR". Since nothing was stated about "true" or "false" in this description, I assume that a dichotomy of complementarity is valid by the standards of logic. Which means that I can still refer to the relation of Awareness to Beingness as a dichotomy. Ron: Yes, but I would note the type of dichotomy so as to not confuse your subscribers, which was my main point, once you start down a path of analytic propositions you are kinda committed to it and if you start making synthetic statements from analytical ones, some may use this as an excuse to render the whole concept as null and void. Crucifying you with your own analytical statements. Synthetic statements may be true statements but they are considered false by analytical standards because they are not universal and do not follow a logical chain of deduction. But they do follow a logical chain of induction. It's when you start mixing the two without telling anyone that the confusion arises. I'm not sure if mixing the two liberally is acceptable academically but, by switching to synthetic argument in the area you do implies that you understand why Pirsig rejects analytics at this level. That is why Pirsig starts and ends with value awareness because one may not make a deductive argument past it we may only make inductive inferences from it. Ham: Are we back on track? Ron: We were always on track Ham, we are (rather respectfully) clearing up our misunderstandings and mutually improving our understandings which is why I enjoy conversing with you. 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/
