"It's not really fair to keep discussing Dick's work since he obviously is not here to defend himself. Is there a way that we can discuss this subject without referring to him?"
But sometimes I may refer to Feynman, or might refer to Chris Langan, etc. They are not here defending themselves. By default we maybe have to stand in as Dick's peers until the qualified people check his work. I did persuade a practicing theoretical physicist to look at his work though.
We can broaden the discussion and be less dazzled by his viewpoint I suppose. His views might enter discussion more incidentally as with other authors one quotes from time to time.
When an autogyro is flying south-west, in an airflow that is flowing North, but where this air-river is embedded in a depression drifting East; so as to leave the autogyro stationary relative to the ground: you have a rational scenario of complementary containments?
H: "Each time you say 'Existence Itself' or 'Existence Himself', you give me the impression that you like phrases like 'nothing is something', 'something is nothing', 'up is down', 'down is up', 'truth is a lie', 'a lie is the truth', etc. If you see 'Mystery Men' the character played by Ben Stiller made fun of the character who made such kind of comments. Maybe you will see the humor that I see. "
But, I do not like contradictory statements at all.
Just, I am proposing the notion that there exists a God Who is personal yet is Existence. We seem to be dimensions of His consciousness, existent entities thus distinct from Him; everything that exists would be a perspective on Existence; a view of God.
I do wonder if true ideas (perfectly mistake-free) might be also objects? But that suggests that in such a perfect-thought state; if you think of yourself being on Mars, you'll find you are on Mars. Well that is what QED seems to say about things: that a photon is everywhere at once; to see it here you just have to have a particular perspective on it. A certain perspective on that photon will place it on Mars?
At least, within limits of the expansion of the logically consistent possible places it COULD BE.
QED seems to say things CAN be wherever they COULD be.
No infinite regress of "relationships" if the basic relationship is "with Existence"; it is with infinite expansion of relationship opportunities.
Your "property of being round" was a particular perspective, a way of looking.
I agree that Dick fell into the fallacy of equivocation.
Because "ontology" is itself a word, involving "definition"; by investigating "definition" itself Dick surely stepped outside the system?
I wasn't referring to Revelation; but I thought the idea occured in the Gospel. Whatever; I meant simply that a change in perspective on our present situation will make our present Earth "new". New perspective on what we've got.
I throw in suggested interpretations of Biblical quotes I seem to recall, as they come to me when it seems light might be shed on them.