Learning Living, Living Learning: Signs, Between East and West

Description

cited in the intro. of Edusemiotics — A Handbook by Semetsky (2006) regarding semiotics' bypassing the law of excluded middle (tertium non datur) and thus able to bridge opposites:

Traditionally, for Western thought in the period of modernity “there could be no tertium quid ” (Merrell 2002, p. 204) manifesting as such the elusive middle as the included third between the two, apparently opposite, terms. Such tertium is defined as something of uncertain or unclassifiable nature which is related to, yet distinct from, the other two terms that we tend to perceive as logical binaries. Modern philosophy is largely dualistic and demonstrates the “great bifurcation” (Merrell 2002, p. 54) between body and mind; and education still continues to model itself, even if implicitly, on the philosophy of Cartesian dualism. But Eastern thought proclaims “the polar relationship of all opposites” (Capra [The Tao of Physics] 1975, p. 112). For Taosit philosopher Chuang Tzu, for example, ‘this’ is also ‘that’ and ‘that’ is also ‘this’. The apparent opposites are united, hence cease to be binaries but complement each other in the manner of yin and yang [☯], of body and mind, of material and spiritual, of intuitive wisdom and rational knowledge.

Is tertium non datur (law of excluded middle, LEM) a necessary logical principle? Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., doesn't speak of it when speaking of PSR and PNC and how PSR can be indirectly reduced to PNC. Can LEM be reduced to or deduced from PNC? Are there logics/philosophies that deny LEM?

LEM is Philosophical Axiom 4.2: "Tertium non datur (Non est medium inter esse et non esse ‑ foundation of all distinctions)."