Enlightening read, though I do object to this claim:
> Cuddling is a non-symmetric, non-transitive, and non-reflexive relation from cuddlemonster to cuddlepops.
Cuddling can be transitive via the infamous "cuddle circle" strategy in paraconsistent cuddle theory: e.g. Alice cuddles Bob, Bob cuddles Claire, Claire cuddles Damon, Damon cuddles Alice. Which doesn't have a clear cuddlemonster/cuddlepups distinction.
John Lockearms argued that cuddles can be reflexive with the "self hugging" strategy. Most philosophers would point to G.W.F. Hugel's counterarguments, but I think self-cuddling can still be rescued with the work of Judith Snuggler, who proposes the "pillow-cuddle" strategy.
Of course, cuddling relations can be transitive, but they don’t have to be! That is why “cuddle” is non-transitive rather than intransitive. Ditto to the philosophers’ other objections.
Ah yes, though some would argue that this presupposes a classical cuddle logic, which luminaries like Michel Foucuddle, building on the work of Martin Heihugger, reject. They argue that in modal cuddle-puddles, transitivity becomes a context-sensitive operator, especially in polycuddle arrangements.
In the cuddle circle, each participant is cuddlemonster to the next participant, and cuddlepop for the previous. This demonstrates that cuddlemonster and cuddlepop are only valid in a relative context: Alice is not a cuddlemonster, she is a cuddlemonster vis-a-vis Bob.
I'm glad someone finally broached the hard problem of cuddling. It does seem like there are at least two forms of cuddling that you touch on, call them 'symmetric cuddling' and 'non-symmetric cuddling' since the cuddle relation can be, and can not be, a dyadic symmetric relation. I guess it could also be a triadic relation but now we're bumping into the cuddle-principle of explosion. Anyways, important work here.
Enlightening read, though I do object to this claim:
> Cuddling is a non-symmetric, non-transitive, and non-reflexive relation from cuddlemonster to cuddlepops.
Cuddling can be transitive via the infamous "cuddle circle" strategy in paraconsistent cuddle theory: e.g. Alice cuddles Bob, Bob cuddles Claire, Claire cuddles Damon, Damon cuddles Alice. Which doesn't have a clear cuddlemonster/cuddlepups distinction.
John Lockearms argued that cuddles can be reflexive with the "self hugging" strategy. Most philosophers would point to G.W.F. Hugel's counterarguments, but I think self-cuddling can still be rescued with the work of Judith Snuggler, who proposes the "pillow-cuddle" strategy.
Of course, cuddling relations can be transitive, but they don’t have to be! That is why “cuddle” is non-transitive rather than intransitive. Ditto to the philosophers’ other objections.
Ah yes, though some would argue that this presupposes a classical cuddle logic, which luminaries like Michel Foucuddle, building on the work of Martin Heihugger, reject. They argue that in modal cuddle-puddles, transitivity becomes a context-sensitive operator, especially in polycuddle arrangements.
In the cuddle circle, each participant is cuddlemonster to the next participant, and cuddlepop for the previous. This demonstrates that cuddlemonster and cuddlepop are only valid in a relative context: Alice is not a cuddlemonster, she is a cuddlemonster vis-a-vis Bob.
I'm glad someone finally broached the hard problem of cuddling. It does seem like there are at least two forms of cuddling that you touch on, call them 'symmetric cuddling' and 'non-symmetric cuddling' since the cuddle relation can be, and can not be, a dyadic symmetric relation. I guess it could also be a triadic relation but now we're bumping into the cuddle-principle of explosion. Anyways, important work here.
The three-body problem has stumped physicists for years.
You've neglected the hard problem of spooning.