q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed.abh-accepts-apoha-map

{
 "schema_version": 1,
 "artifact_type": "argument_fabric_source_map",
 "question_id": "q:reflexivity-intrinsic-or-constructed",
 "source_packet_id": "ip:abh-accepts-apoha",
 "claim_packet": "content/information-packets/abh-accepts-apoha-claims.json",
 "generated_by": "codex_hermes_loop",
 "source_role": "abh-accepts-apoha",
 "candidate_under_test": "all",
 "central_reading": "Abhinavagupta does not reject apoha outright — he accepts it as a valid cognitive method but recontextualizes it within the Pratyabhijñā framework of progressive manifestation. The difference: Buddhist apoha determines by exclusion (what X is not); Pratyabhijñā determines by progressive manifestation of qualities (what X IS).",
 "nnexpr_mappings": [
  {
   "claim_id": "cl:abh-accepts-apoha-recontextualized",
   "source_span_id": "span:abh-accepts-apoha-recontextualized",
   "quoted_anchor": "accepted by various schools of Indian philosophy beginning with its initial major formulation by the Buddhist idealist Diṅnāga",
   "nn_expr": "sambandha(abh_accepts_apoha_recontextualized,target)",
   "parse_status": "parsed",
   "tradition_scope": "trika_pratyabhijna",
   "evidence_dimension": "textual",
   "pramana": "sabda",
   "nyaya_reading": {
    "paksa": "the Trika and Buddhist positions may be ",
    "hetu": "Abhinavagupta explicitly cites Dignāga's apoha and accepts it as a method while recontextualizing it",
    "sadhya": "the Trika and Buddhist positions may be complementary rather than contradictory at the epistemological level",
    "vyapti": "If Abhinavagupta explicitly accepts apoha as valid while reinterpreting it, then"
   },
   "argument_role": "support",
   "targets": [
    "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
    "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
    "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness"
   ],
   "gate_outcome": "accepted",
   "fallacies_flagged": [],
   "falsifier": "Show that Abhinavagupta's 'acceptance' of apoha is merely rhetorical and that he ultimately rejects its validity for determining the nature of consciousness itself — i.e., that the recontextualization is actually a refutation."
  }
 ],
 "argument_edges": [
  {
   "edge_id": "edge:abh-accepts-apoha-recontextualized:support:cand-abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
   "source_node_id": "cl:abh-accepts-apoha-recontextualized",
   "target_node_id": "cand:abh-vimarsa-intrinsic",
   "edge_type": "support",
   "strength": 0.68,
   "relation_rationale": "Shows Abhinavagupta's position is more nuanced than simple rejection of Buddhist epistemology."
  },
  {
   "edge_id": "edge:abh-accepts-apoha-recontextualized:attack:cand-dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
   "source_node_id": "cl:abh-accepts-apoha-recontextualized",
   "target_node_id": "cand:dharmakirti-conditioned-reflexivity",
   "edge_type": "attack",
   "strength": 0.38,
   "relation_rationale": "If Abhinavagupta accepts apoha's validity within limits, the Buddhist response must address the recontextualization, not just assert svasaṃvitti."
  },
  {
   "edge_id": "edge:abh-accepts-apoha-recontextualized:attack:crux-constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness",
   "source_node_id": "cl:abh-accepts-apoha-recontextualized",
   "target_node_id": "crux:constructed-reflexivity-presupposes-manifestness",
   "edge_type": "attack",
   "strength": 0.4,
   "relation_rationale": "Narrows the crux: the debate is now about whether recontextualization is incorporation or subversion."
  }
 ],
 "bridge_probe_logic": {},
 "structural_correspondences": [],
 "directional_critique_pairs": [],
 "state_of_play_delta": {
  "current_best_answer": "Abhinavagupta does not reject apoha outright — he accepts it as a valid cognitive method but recontextualizes it within the Pratyabhijñā framework of progressive manifestation. The difference: Buddhist apoha determines by exclusion (what X is not); Pratyabhijñā determines by progressive manifestation of qualities (what X IS).",
  "next_tests": []
 }
}