APPENDIX Z24: Context

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 1:22 pm. No Comments.
Filed under Uncategorized.

Heretofore, we essentially
generally operated without
overall context. Most elds of knowledge have
essentially on their own (or linked to close elds)
in an
ineffable and greatly
inexplicable cosmos. Not explicated-
by or tethered-to an all-enveloping metaphysics.
however, offers a powerful
all-embracing context and
integrated thesis.
While the author and many academic luminaries
Summa to be on-the-mark, it may or may not be. But,
certain aspects regarding
Summa are hard to dispute:
It seems to be elegant, powerful,
overarching, integrated
and holistic.
Its core thesis has remained
It alone among known metaphysical schemas
systematically and conceptually seems to truly
Science, Spirituality,
Philosophy and Religion.

And, nally, Summa is essentially “the only game in
town.” There is simply no known bona de
competing, even somewhat compelling (overarching
and well-integrated) metaphysics known to us.*
Respectfully, classic
religious philosophies are not counted here
as competing metaphysics. Respectfully, their systems tend to
include as integral to their core paradigms, a
particular ineffable
and inexplicable deity or divine. Ditto for
(obscure) Taoism. Rather,
religious philosophies can and should consider
Summa as a
potential add-on or wrap-around schema.
The alleged competitor to Summa –
Neoplatonism’s ancient
offshoot schema Aristotelianism – is, respectfully, simply too
simplistic, too assumption-laden, too incomplete
and, respectfully,
more accurately in the realm
of religious philosophy. As noted [see
Khalil “Foreword”]:
Aristotelianism has a gaping-hole in it.
As well, Aristotelianism is often dead-wrong. For
instance, it
postulates that the Sun rotates around the Earth.

Comments are closed.