-----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
Hey, Ron --
Speaking of "mutual exclusivity", what's this duplicate message labeled "On
Behalf of Ham Priday", and how it is distinguished from the previous one
labeled "On Behalf of Ron Kulp?" (I wasn't aware that we could direct
responses to others or ourselves.)
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.
If I'm "calling analytics into question" I can assure you that it wasn't
intentional on my part. I'm not sure I like this "principal of explosion"
which seems to be a loophole for violating the law of non-contradction. I
thought logic was invented to eliminate this kind of ambiguity.
Look, Ron, my Essentialism is a theory of reality. To articulate the
concepts, I'm obliged to make my statements logically consistent. But I
have no desire to develop a "semantic model", invent a new logical system,
or "test" the limits of traditional logic. I simply want to explain my
thesis in a way that best conveys the overall ontology.
With that objective in mind, I was struck by the work of Cusanus in the 15th
century, and am amazed that his theory of the 'Not-other' has never been
used as the core principle of a metaphysical thesis. What it says is that
there is no "essential" other, and that all otherness is a negation of the
absolute source. So, too, is the Awareness/Beingness dichotomy we've been
discussing in logical terms.
Existence itself is negated otherness, the cognizant locus of which is the
individuated self. But inasmuch as it is the experience of this self that
constructs the objectivized universe, I have taken the liberty of referring
to the self as a "negated agent" (negate). Have I overstepped the bounds of
logic by so identifying the subjective self? The concept is fixed in my
mind, but I fear that traditional logic--even with its loopholes--will not
support it.
Should you wish to continue with this dialogue, I suggest that we change the
subject line. (I never did find out who Reet was!) Perhaps "Creation by
negation", "The negational Source", or "Something from nothing?" would make
a more appropriate title. But, as you are the logician, I'll defer to your
choice on the matter.
Again, thanks for your continued patience and help.
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/
