[MD] Aristotle & DQ

[Ham Priday]

Hi Jos [SA mentioned] --



> That said, I'm increasingly convinced that "source" or "essence"
> are better terms than DQ, as they attribute no particular
> assumptions to "it" whatever it is.

Hooray!  I commend you for your understanding.

I think what Mr. Perella fails to comprehend is the concept of 
transcendency.  He regards the "source" of a river as the estuaries that 
feed it, or the "essence" of a pine tree as the seed from which it sprouts. 
This is an ontology based on the Aristotelian notion that everything has its 
own "essence".  Yet, one would think his mystical leanings should have led 
him to an understanding of Oneness.  He needs to contemplate on the "prime 
mover", the uncreated First Cause, instead of created "patterns".  (So does 
everybody else, in my humble opinion.)

The mystery of metaphysics is getting from unity to difference, and back 
again.  Frankly, it puts chills in my spine.  All  knowledge, and all 
awareness of knowledge, is relational.  Yet, except for the nihilists, most 
of us know (intuitively) that the primary source must be the end of 
relations.  It must be "that which transcends all otherness."   My thesis is 
the Value is what connects all finitude to the infinite source.  Plain old 
experience is nothing more than being aware of Value as "things".  Man is a 
valuistic creature who makes Value aware as Being.  But Being (in the finite 
world) is devoid of cognizant awareness.  Only value links them together. 
Therefore, being-aware is a dichotomy.  By absorbing (realizing) Value, we 
incrementally "dissolve" the dichotomy and approach that mystical Oneness 
from which we are all separated at birth.

Sure, that's "poetry", SA.  But it's a poem founded on metaphysical reality. 
We're not going to confirm it through the methods of Science or the 
consensus of society.  But as a personal credo, I'll stack it up against the 
the "patterns of Quality" any day.

Submitted with "conviction".

--Ham