Law of Relation (Third Law)

Book: The Wisdom of the Eternal Laws

There is, subsequently, the law of the series or law of relation. We have previously stated that the opposites are “relative”, are mutually indispensable within the world of beta context, since the materiable potentiality has always a form, what demands a formative actuality, a determination, since the determinative is only determinative when there is a determinable to be determined.

The law of relation is, therefore, fundamental for the created beings, the beings of beta context, since those cannot exist or occur without a correlation between opposites. The finite entity emerges from such correlation, since they are – to use an Aristotelian expression – form and matter.

But it is important to distinguish between relation qua law and other accidental relations that the entity can have with other entities or, in its accidence, the accidents with one another. The relation we refer to is a principial[1] one, from which without it, the being cannot emerge; it is, therefore, an absolute necessity of the being. It is properly a category and, at the same time, a law. It is a category, since it occurs within things and can be classified according to its relative[2] aspects. But it is also a law that rules things of beta context[3].

We cannot know a being without considering it by its unity, its oppositions and its correlations, i.e., the relations that are formed between the opposites. It is necessary to know the emerging relations, that initiate alongside with the beginning of the being, since all dyadic being – a being of beta context, a finite being – is a being that simultaneously begins with its unity, its oppositions and its relations.

In the relations that are formed between the primary oppositions emerge the equilibrium and the disequilibrium, since there is a “semiformed” matter and levels of proportionality that characterize a specific way of being of the thing whilst its specific perfection. Equilibrium and disequilibrium emerge also as categories, subordinate to the opposition; they are subcategories, such as Plato’s macron and micron, which as subcategories of opposition, since macron refers to the maximum determination and maximum determinability, and micron, to the minimum determination and minimum determinability, i.e., the being of minimum determinability is, consequently, the being of maximum determination and, therefore, macron and micron are always jointly in reverse relations. That is the reason Plato referred to the macron and the micron of the indeterminate dyad, which is the minor dyad, the dyad that comes after the Hen Prote and the Hen Deuteron, namely Hen Dyas Aoristos.

———–

[1] Referring to the domain of principles, cf. R. Guénon.

[2] I.e., according various types of possible relations between the composing opposites.

[3] There are also, within alpha context, relations of transcendental character, although in different conditions, various from the rulership way of the entities of beta context.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s