Non-Contradiction

No, Joe. I did not wish to imply that because a living being is also simultaneously in a continuous state of "dying" that a "dead" body (a non-being) is, conversely, in a continuous state of coming to life. But now we've transported from the logic of your topic to the fringes of biology.

joefromchicago wrote:

That's just idle word-play, twyvel, unless you mean to suggest that the "ego-though-body self" and the "unobserved observer" are contradictories.

No it's not word play.

Even what you call "perspective" may have a value or certain property, which can be called "a thing." A thing A with the property of goodness may exist at the same time the same entity A with the property of non-goodness does.

What we can't assert, however, is that the contradictories "poinsettias are bad for cats to eat" and "poinsettias are good for cats to eat" are simultaneously true.

OK, since you didn't address my point, I'll ask it directly: are you saying that the "ego-though-body self" and the "unobserved observer" are contradictories?

What if my friend Paula gives me a catnip? "Catnip is good for your soul" she says (in her proposition that is valid) and "Have a catnip for your good night sleep" she insists (with her intention that is sound). She has a valid and sound reason to give me a catnip, and although I consider her reasoning legitimate, I have no reason for myself to take it, whether it's good or bad for me.

Doesn't that catnip still exists on the table while I can't assert the goodness of it for my own reason? And isn't that a phenomenon of what you meant by "contradiction"? Help me please, I'm needing that catnip.

Joe, no. A man half-way through his life is not half dead; he's half dead throughout his life process, in the sense that his cells are in a continuous state of coming into being (Vishnu) and going out of being (Shiva). Indeed, dying cells must be sloughed off from the body or remain as necrotic matter.

joefromchicago

Quote:

OK, since you didn't address my point, I'll ask it directly: are you saying that the "ego-though-body self" and the "unobserved observer" are contradictories?

Yes and no.

metaethics wrote:

What if my friend Paula gives me a catnip? "Catnip is good for your soul" she says (in her proposition that is valid) and "Have a catnip for your good night sleep" she insists (with her intention that is sound). She has a valid and sound reason to give me a catnip, and although I consider her reasoning legitimate, I have no reason for myself to take it, whether it's good or bad for me.

I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here. But I think it's pretty clear that you're not even positing a pair of contradictories (i.e. you are not suggesting that "good for your soul" and "good for sleep" are equivalent to "A" and "not-A"). As such, since this doesn't relate to the initial query I offer no response.

The man is a PROCESS, a process of continuous regeneration of cells. So in a sense he is the structured and dynamic collection of all that makes him up; in another sense--the sense that counts to you--he is also a social being with a social security number.

No, I'm trying to say that it is contradictory for a catnip that it is good according to Paula's own reasoning, but the cat himself can't take that reasoning as his own, and therefore, the catnip (as a "thing A") has two properties, good (by Paula) and not good (according to the cat).

Paula's reasoning happened to have two sides, one in proposition "good for soul" and another her intention "good for your sleep," and those are mutually irreducible in (her) logic and both conform her legitimate reasoning of the goodness (of a catnip).

I admire all who have the imagination to argue A and not A.
And those who claim so must also admit that Joe is right when he tries to argue against them.
So all posts in this thread are stating truths.
Most of the posts are arguments, arguing against the truth of other posts, but if A and not A then there are _no_ arguments here. We all agree, therefore A and not A.

metaethics wrote:

two properties, good (by Paula) and not good (according to the cat).

No, those aren't contradictories. They aren't even contraries. As I mentioned before, this is merely a point-of-view problem.

metaethics wrote:

mutually irreducible

I must confess that this statement has me stumped. I have no idea what it means for two statements to be mutually irreducible. Are you saying that they are mutually irreconcilable?