 There are two live responses to this criticism. But before detailing them, note a dead one: the likeness theorist cannot object that \(h\)-\(m\)-\(a\) is somehow logically inferior to \(h\)-\(r\)-\(w\), on the grounds that the primitives of the latter are essentially “biconditional” whereas the primitives of the former are not. This is because there is a perfect symmetry between the two sets of primitives. Starting within \(h\)-\(m\)-\(a\)-ese we can arrive at the original primitives by exactly analogous definitions: