reflexivity-nanavira-dharmakirti-bridge-claims

{
 "packet_id": "ip:reflexivity-nanavira-dharmakirti-bridge",
 "schema_version": 2,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_claim_packet",
 "source": {
  "source_id": "text:reflexivity-bridge-formal",
  "title": "Formal correspondence between Nanavira's difference-operation and Dharmakīrti's apoha",
  "author": "Codex/Hermes autonomous loop",
  "external_sources": [
   {
    "source_id": "text:nanavira-fundamental-structure",
    "title": "Fundamental Structure of Experience",
    "author": "Ñāṇavīra Thera",
    "source_quality": "primary_text"
   },
   {
    "source_id": "text:dharmakirti-pv3",
    "title": "Pramāṇavārttika Chapter 3 (Pratyakṣa)",
    "author": "Dharmakīrti",
    "source_quality": "primary_text"
   }
  ],
  "tradition_scope": "cross_tradition"
 },
 "target_question_id": "q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
 "extracted_by": "codex_hermes_loop",
 "extracted_at": "2026-07-26",
 "status": "hermes_proposed",
 "claims": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:bridge-structural-mapping-forward",
   "source_type": "primary_text",
   "source_id": "text:nanavira-fundamental-structure",
   "source_span": {
    "locator": "Fundamental Structure — difference as determination",
    "quote": "A thing is defined by the difference between two things; identity is structurally dependent on contrast"
   },
   "claim_text": "Nanavira's difference-operation — where a thing X is determined by its structural relation to not-X — maps directly onto Dharmakīrti's apoha: the determination of a concept through exclusion of its negation. For any pair (X, not-X) in Nanavira's framework, the content of 'X' is given by the structural contrast with not-X, which is formally identical to saying 'X = apoha(not-X)' — X is what remains when not-X is excluded. The mapping preserves the determination relation in both directions.",
   "targets": [
    {
     "target_id": "cand:nanavira-structural-reflexivity",
     "target_type": "candidate_explanation"
    },
    {
     "target_id": "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
     "target_type": "candidate_explanation"
    },
    {
     "target_id": "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness",
     "target_type": "crux"
    }
   ],
   "tradition_scope": "cross_tradition",
   "paradigm": "buddhist_phenomenology",
   "evidence_dimension": "formal",
   "pramana": "upamana",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(difference,apoha)",
   "hetu": "both accounts determine content through structural exclusion of what it is not",
   "sadhya": "Nanavira's difference and Dharmakīrti's apoha are structurally equivalent as determination-by-exclusion operations",
   "vyapti_statement": "If determination-by-exclusion is the same operation in both frameworks, then the bridge between them is formal rather than merely analogical.",
   "vyapti_confidence": 0.55,
   "log_bayes_factor": 0.25,
   "w_rel": 0.5,
   "w_map": 0.45,
   "w_aux": 0.5,
   "falsifier": {
    "type": "formal",
    "condition": "Produce a case where Nanavira's difference-operation determines X without a corresponding apoha-exclusion, or where apoha determines a concept without a corresponding structural difference — with the gap being explanatory, not notational.",
    "status": "untested"
   },
   "reasoning": "This is the forward direction of the formal bridge. If it holds, the joint defense against Trika's manifestness critique is on solid ground."
  },
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:bridge-structural-mapping-reverse",
   "source_type": "primary_text",
   "source_id": "text:dharmakirti-pv3",
   "source_span": {
    "locator": "Pramāṇavārttika 3 — apoha as exclusion of other",
    "quote": "A universal is the exclusion of other particulars; conceptual content is determined by what it excludes."
   },
   "claim_text": "Dharmakīrti's apoha — where a universal 'cow' is the exclusion of 'non-cow' — entails a structural relation between affirmed and excluded terms. This structural relation is isomorphic to Nanavira's difference: to determine 'cow' via apoha is to establish its