Ham: 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. Ron: I thought the "loop hole" characterized your theory rather well, through contradiction infinite possibility arises. Traditionally the principle of explosion is used to destroy an argument but in the use I propose, it creates one. It is rather unconventional but it does describe your theory in classic terms. Ham: 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. Ron: that's what it does, it makes your statements logically consistent, it's just a counter for critique. Next time someone grills you about the logic you employ to arrive at your conclusions , you whip this jem out and sink em. Ham: 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. Ron: That's the beauty of the logic I propose, it describes this rather well in terms of logical consistency. Most folks think analytically and when they try to understand what you are saying they get confused by the apparent contrariety in your statements. Ham: 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. Ron; What you describe as a "complementarity" dichotomy does not really work with the term "negate" negate, is typically a canceling of mutually exclusive opposites, or a tension of mutually exclusive opposites. see how this is crystallizing from the synthetic proposition? I think your best avenue is the assertion of synthetic argument through the destruction of analytic initially then re-assert it as an emergence of value awareness through the "complementarity" dichotomy. Then when you state " But inasmuch as it is the experience of this self that constructs the objectivized universe," you can then use this as an explaination for analytics too. THEN when someone knocks you for circular contradictory logic you can say "not so" I am making a synthetic argument for analytical thought. you are then free and clear of any inconsistency. You may want to drop the use of the term "negate" to describe the self. You most certainly may assert the free agent by virtue of the dichotomy you propose. you may also account for cusa's coincidence of contrariety as a construction of the being-aware dichotomy. 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/
