Double positive dichotomies

[Reciprocality]

The concept of the above dichotomy is a very weird concept, because for something to be dichotomous a negation in general must be integral to it. But the reason this apparent absurdity is solved for is that for something to be a negation in general it must be distinct from two things that are discernible (this is the reason or the way in which a normal dichotomy is itself meaningless), and that is precisely what we need for a double positive dichotomy to be real.

A dichotomy is mutually exclusive and exhaust all possibilities with regard to a yet-determined subject, a man and a non-man is an example of this.

A man and everything other than a man would be an example of a dichotomy which exhaust all possibilities while remaining in the positive as opposed to in the negative.

 

That there can even in principle be two such variants of the concept of dichotomy implies the equivalence between the things that are changed between them, the equivalence between 1. a non-man and 2. everything other than a man. (this equivalence is also what makes nothingness a fiction and impossible)

 

My actual point is that whichever dichotomy above you wish to employ in a given moment will merely re-shuffle the cards of necessary or essential concepts that pertains to both, in one example the negation in general is instantiated without referent (borrowing the sufficient information for discernibility from somewhere hidden) and in the other example the negation in general is implied (having the sufficient information for discernibility between the very things that are exclusive and exhaustive).

 

If you got this far then I can introduce the third kind of dichotomy which does not only have positive referents but has non mutually determined identities of these referents, and this kind of dichotomy is dependent on composites, will pertain to physics and mathematics and establish weird yin-yang relationships where you will actually find the identity of one half of the dichotomy in the composite of the referent to the other. (being mutually constructive as opposed to mutually determined) An important question to ask concerning this third dichotomy is whether there is some range or intermediate steps between it and nr 2 where the less determined the dichotomy is through its identities the more substantially either will exist in the composition of the other.

 

There is also a fourth kind, where both positives though they may be mutually determined are generalities as opposed to one of them being a peculiarity as in the example of a "man", an interesting question to ask about these is whether the fourth kind is necessarily mutually determined.

Edited March 16 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

The point about the last type not being made of peculiarities is that it has non-composite qualities, or is apparently substantial or simple or possible something non-composite which is different from simplicity, assuming thereby nothing.

Examples of the last dichotomy would be Cartesian and Kantian dualism, if we introduce the variable of non-totality to the exhaustive subject itself then the fourth dichotomy can pertain to non-metaphysical possibilities such as light vs dark and curve vs line.

[Reciprocality]

Not much of these things are intrinsically meaningful or interesting, but can contribute to clarity in argumentation, analysis and investigation of things that actually are interesting, should be seen as a means or as purposeful.