-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ham Priday Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MD] Reet and the Weakest Link
Ron: > ...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. Ham: Thanks for the tip, Ron, although since many already consider the whole concept null and void, I doubt that changing an analytic "dichotomy" to a synthetic "complementarity" will matter much. I would prefer that they understood the concept on its own merits rather than judge it on logical grounds. Ron: Having logical consistency does improve your chances of comprehension and acceptance. Ham: I have learned from our exchanges, too, Ron. As an authority on logic, perhaps you can help me with my Creation Hypothesis. The problem here is my use of a "negated agent" which defies traditional logic. Are you familiar with Cusa's principle of the "not-other"? If you're willing to tackle this challenge, I'm your humble student. Ron: Boy, starting with the easy one huh? I've been giving this some consideration in light of our discussions, you could anchor your theory in the classic logical "principle of explosion" according to which "anything follows from a contradiction" - i.e., once you have asserted a contradiction, you can infer any proposition, or its converse. In other words once you start with the contradiction of "not-other" and cite the principle of explosion you may logically assert the synthetic Dichotomy of the complementarity of being-aware. THEN you have a solid CLASSICAL origin in which to assert a synthetic statement BY which you can argue that all analytical statements are ultimately synthetic by nature, supported by the concept of value awareness. Once you call analytics into question you are creating a logical chain of argument from synthetic statements. THIS avenue seems to be the best way for you to make a bullet proof case yet still retain your theory without compromise. In this way you can build a classically logical case without employing analytics. Research what I'm saying and tell me if I'm hitting all the dots, If I am then I think we can make a solid case for Essentialism per your theories that any Academic would be pressed to poopoo. Kindest regards, 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/
