Jacob, since you see fit to spend half of your reply critiquing my argumentative style, I will join you. You said:

a) "It is essential to realize that you are starting with a presumed given."

You were referring to my words: "... find perfection to be beautiful; beauty also exists outside of perfection..."
I find your statement amusing, since you named your piece "THE BEAUTY" and went on at length about symmetry. Apparently I misunderstood your beginning mission, and was musing on the wrong subject altogether. Ergo: you linked together BEAUTY and symmetry and I took you at your word.

Peaux, now that you explained, you are unconstrained to continue the dialogue, from the D-SP angle. Indeed, symmetry appears to be a basic component of THE BEAUTY, and is present in the physical laws that rule everything.

b) "You are entering a comparative biology terrain, and stating the obvious. "

I stated the obvious because it brought home a point that I assumed you were missing. (I wrote: "There is also a noticeable lack of mention of color attraction...")
Going on at length about visual symmetry and its appeal screamed out for argumentative statements concerning the non-color realm.

I am ignorant on that subject. As for argumentation, please read ON ARGUMENTATION.

c) "These are subjects for art experts, estheticians, and sociologists."

But I began my statement: "I believe that if one wanted to explore the origins of beauty-appreciation in H. Sapiens, ..."
Once again I was thinking of the appreciation of physical beauty. You needn't brush off a comment when it is misdirected; that is no way to teach a lesson.

Peaux, my main interest is to make D-SP known and to keep developing it. I am not cognizant of beauty appreciation. I have seen one woman's face that was perfect: it was truly the average face. It did not appeal to me.

d) "That reader must share with D-SP more than 50% of the ways of (logical) thinking, and the emotional capacity to overcome the anxiety raised by cognitive dissonance. This anxiety is the core of the dead weight preventing enlightenment."

And I really do not know what in the world you are trying to say, but my visceral reaction is that it is somewhat snide and/or condescending! Are you trying to say that confusion causes fear and thus smart people should be able to overcome their natural tendency to reject new/confusing ideas in order to be more at peace?

Fear is an emotion. Anxiety is a disease. One of the things that came to my mind while writing the dialogue was that cognitive dissonance, when associated with anxiety, is at the core of the inability to accept scientific advances. I wonder if I 'found' another D-SP truth...

Most of all, I am intrigued by your constant referring to a new philosophical bent as if it were a person or an object. Do I really have to "share" with D-SP? What will happen if I don't? Will it take its intellectual ball and go home?

D-SP is a NEW Natural Philosophy. I consider it the TRUE Philosophy, as explained in the INTRODUCTION.

As to everything else you wrote.... It is interesting and I will definitely ponder it. HOWEVER, be advised that I have many other things in my life going on and cannot always be directed towards your online library of essays. Sometimes people need a synopsis because otherwise they would get nothing! Be patient....

D-SP is for busy people: it is written synoptically. That you devote time to reading it, then pondering, and even writing a dialogue, is a sign that sometimes it reaches its objective.
Also, that you share more than 50% of its logical principles, and are on the way to successfully deal with the cognitive dissonance it causes you.