[MD] Aristotle & DQ

[Ham Priday]

Hello David --

> I see Aristotle, like me, and so should Pirsig, I'd suggest,
> [see] potential as inseparable from 'dynamei'.
> Also note that where Wiki translates the Greek
> used by Aristotle as 'matter', others think that what
> Aristotle meant is more like what we mean by 'energy',
> i.e. pure potential. What could be more dynamic?
>
> Any thoughts?  Other than this makes your brain hurt?

Positing pure potential (potentiality) as "dynamic" is a perversion of the 
metaphysical concept.
I don't know how Aristotle would define DQ, but he did not imply that 
potential is inseparable from dynamic process.

According to your referenced article in Wikipedia, he said "Potentiality 
...is what a thing is capable of doing, or being acted upon, if it is not 
prevented from something else," whereas "Actuality...is the fulfillment of 
the end of the potentiality.  Because the end (telos) is the principle of 
every change, and for the sake of the end exists potentiality, therefore 
actuality is the end."

In other words, Actuality is the end (fulfillment) of Potentiality, and 
vice-versa.  Clearly this analysis separates the two modes.  The whole point 
of modality is to explain how difference arises from unity.  Actuality is 
the differentiated, relational world of experience wherein change occurs. 
Potentiality is the uncreated, immutable source of difference -- the 
beginning and ending of change.  (Cusanus theorized it a the "coincidence of 
contrariety".)

Pirsig has confused the issue by his unfortunate use of "Dynamic" for the 
immutable source and "Static" for the ever-changing actualized world.  To me 
this is completely backward.  What he wants to suggest is that Dynamic 
Quality is the SOURCE of Change.  But there is no equivalent definition for 
Static Quality as a "source" or "fulfillment" of DQ, and such a notion is 
illogical and empirically untrue.

Here's the Essentialist view:

Negation is the beginning of number, difference, process and modality, none 
of which is integral to the absolute source.  The appearance of diversity 
and change is man's finite perspective of the existential dichotomy.  It 
comes about as a negation of nothingness which is the ground of existence. 
Absent nothingness and you eliminate existence.  (Of course, that would also 
be the end of you.)

How does your brain feel now?

Regards,
Ham