Awareness as a science originates from the relationship between tragedy and drama, to the extent that this relationship seems to accommodate the suffering lesson as a fundamental condition of the only, practically verified, awareness.
In other words, regarding what, as a composite of poetic imitation and political concern, intervenes decisively in the choice and consciousness of the political community through dramatization. We may reasonably understand that a science oriented towards the "amount" and the "proposition" of being differs radically from another dedicated to the "quality" and the "sacred" of being, not in terms of the "methods" of cognitive "way" but in terms of the "participations" of cognitive "ethos".
As the issue is posed, it does not concern any insignificant difference but the radicality of a distinction between the "path as way" (method and induction) and the "character as ethos" (method and conduct). As "way" or "path," it refers to "resource" but also to "deception"; conversely, as "character," "ethos" refers to "anger" but also to "soul".
We know, of course, that the emetic is divided between these two opposing connections in the way their vital and biological imperatives diverge in the strength of going, on one hand, and in the strength of standing, on the other, based on the indications of the primary Homeric division.
This, however, does not mean in this case that the "desire," being intrinsically activated by division, renounces or overlooks the manifest dramatization of the division upon which its authority truly arises.
