stiff quadripartite winds

[Terrance]

 In the Metaphysics,  Aristotle is concerned with being.

 His concern with being is different from Plato's, the Sophists, the
Atomists, but all are concerned with being. Today, the winds have TURNED
us and we we are very much interested in what we call “texts.” What
happens if we take a stiff wind out of  Aristotle and consider his
concern with being as our concern with meaning (texts, language,
interpretation, writing-reading...will it waft us to shore upon a ruin?
Or we will welter to the parching wind, grow stiff and collapse? 

Met. 1-3, is concerned with the origin of metaphysic in the mind. This
  concern is analogous to our concern with origin of a “text” in the
mind
  of the author. Met. 4-5, is concerned with the conditions of
  signification and with the meanings of metaphysical terms. Our concern
  is with the signification of the terms of the text. Met. 6-10,
concerns
  itself with the forms of being in its various senses, being as known,
as
  substance, as actuality and potentiality, as one and many. We are
  concerned with the general forms or methods by which texts and their
  realities are ordered. Met, 11-14, is concerned with the principles of
  all things, and primarily with the prime mover that causes the whole o
  function. Our concern is with the principle that causes the text to
  function. In Met. 1, Aristotle identifies four causes. The causes will
  cause me to pull a few more threads from Aristotle's Symphony. Well,
  they don't call him the philosophers philosopher for writing “A
history
  of Insanity in the Age of Reason.”


In this as in all, DIS respectfully, 

T 




Bandwraith at aol.com wrote:
> 
> "We" really should try for some sort of consistency in these
> exigetical exercises, No? For the devil of me, I can't seem to
> to figure out why in one case of forewording Pynchon is being
> literal and in another fictitious, but then, I'm not a member of
> the inner party, either.
> 
> Which, I suppose, puts me in about the same category of
> indecisiveness as Oedipa with her four symmetrical choices:
> Trystero, Hoax, Trystero + Hoax, or, "Just" America.
> 
> Yogi didn't say anything about a double fork, did he?
> 
> Maybe Pynchon likes these quadraphrenic perspectives- thinks
> they represent some sort underlying key to understanding the
> workings of the mind? They remind me of a movie they showed
> us in high school physics about the propagation of electro-
> mechanical waves, like two snakes- one snaking up and down the
> other side to side, in perfect sync- coming right at us, and
> representing the whole wave front.
> 
> In the case of  _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ the four symmetrical
> properties might be the +/- aspects of two concepts "self" and
> "soul" snaking in an orthogonal fashion.
> 
> At the very end of M&D there is another invitation to the
> anagogical, with  "And you too"  representing a positve
> summation, of sorts, of the two orthogonals, while the simple
> and literal "We'll go there" being analogous to "Just" America
> for Oedipa- i.e., a seeming negation of any hope for transcendent
> meaning.
> 
> respectfully