F.E.D. Dialectics

Monday, September 22, 2025

The Dx = c Hypothesis.

The Dx = c Hypothesis.

Dear Reader,

Seldon’s hypothesis regarding cosmological inflation, the “Big Bang”, “Dark Energy” and “Dark Matter” can be summarized via the following three propositions –

1. “Cosmological inflation” is the result, not of any “dilaton field”, but of the unfettered, ‘essence-ial’, anti-gravitic action of “Dark Energy”, x, when it is unrestrained by any presence of gravitating “Dark Matter”, c [, or of any ordinary, gravitating ‘Bright Matter’ and its energies, e.g., r]

2. The unfettered operation of x, i.e., the hyper-accelerated, ‘‘‘cosmos-inflationary’’’ expansion of physical space, when its ‘‘‘velocity’’’ crosses a definite threshold value – albeit a “super-luminary” value, much greater than the speed of light – clouds of, ‘“damaged”’, former “Dark Energy” ‘meta-units’, no longer able to replicate/further-expand space, and opposing “Dark Energy’s” anti-gravitic action with contractive, gravitic counter-action, result – “Dark Matter”, c, opposing, and temporarily reducing the expansiveness of, “Dark Energy”, x. That is, Dx = c.

3. However, as remaining “Dark Energy” continues to expand physical space, albeit initially at a slower rate, the resulting continual dilution of the physical-spatial densities of “Dark Matter” and “Bright Matter” alike, will eventually result in a ‘Thermodynamic Regeneration’ of our cosmos, by a ‘Second Inflation’, flooding our universe with new thermodynamic “free energy”, and counter-acting the total accumulated cosmological entropy, by flooding the universe, once again, with [new, additional] “Dark Matter”, which later gives birth to [new, additional] “Bright Matter” and its “Bright” forms of energy.

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

www.dialectics.info

and

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see –

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

¡ENJOY!

Regards,

Miguel Detonacciones,

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!

Wednesday, September 17, 2025

The Fatal, VIOLENT Unrealism of Aristotelian-Boolean “Logic” in Human Affairs.

The Fatal, VIOLENT

Unrealism

Aristotelian-Boolean

“Logic”

Human Affairs.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Dear Reader,

When you are confronted by two “sides”, violently opposed to one another, please do not feel that you have to choose one side or the other.

The formation and sustainment of mutually-negating “sides” is a sign that both “sides” are wrong.

The fact that such, “one-sided”, “sides” are in conflict means that they are both wrong, as well as that they are, in a sense that escapes them both, both right.

To persist for any substantial duration, each such “side” must contain some kernel of the truth, the truth of one side’s seed seemingly excluding the truth of other side’s seed.

The mutual denial of such “sides” typically points to the existence a third, non-“side”, which reconciles by also transcending both sides’ seeds of truth: namely, their dialectical synthesis.

Locate that dialectical synthesis, if you can, and uphold it, despite the fact that both of the opposing “sides” will then suddenly agree in opposing you!

In «mentalités» trapped in Boolean-Aristotelian “Logic”, each “side” treats the other side as “absolutely” false, as a Boolean “zero”; as “absolutely” wrong.

Each side also arrogantly regards itself as “absolutely” true, as a Boolean “one”; as 100% correct.

Each “side” tells some critical truths about the other “side”, but lies about itself – fails to immanently critique itself.

This self-regarding of each “side” as “everything” true, and its regarding of the other “side” as an “absolute”, Boolean 0, a “nothingness” of truth, is a recipe for violence and war.

If carried through to its ultimate extension, it is a recipe for the self-extinction of humanity; for our species FAILING its looming ‘Meta-Darwinian Planetary Fitness Test’.

In a more realistic logic, the antithesis of –

[ q₁ ~ q₂]

– moves on to the synthesis of –

[ [ q₁ ~ q₂] ~ q₃]

– i.e., to –

[ [ q₁ ~ q₂] ~ q₂₊₁].

In Boole’s original logic-arithmetic and logic-algebra, while still keeping, immanently, within the, ‘quasi-Boolean’, unit interval typical of algebraic logics, a better approximation to reality is gleaned by equating the two Boolean opposites for the ‘‘‘time during which true’’’* of a given proposition, call it t, and for the ‘‘‘time during which true’’’ of the Boolean negation of t, i.e., of

(1 – t) –

t = (1 – t)

\ t = 1/2

\ also (1 – t) = 1/2

– that is, one side’s proposition is true “half” of the time, and the other side’s proposition is true the other “half” of the time.

Neither proposition is –

– true “eternally” – “t = 1”–

– or true never, “t = 0”.

Of course, proportions may vary.

*[In his 1854 book “An Investigation of the Laws of Thought…”, George Boole wrote as follows regarding his ‘temporal interpretation’ of propositional truth: [p. 53] “All logical propositions may be considered as belonging to one or the other of two great classes, to which the respective names of “Primary” or “Concrete Propositions,” and “Secondary” or “Abstract Propositions,” may be given. Every assertion that we make may be referred to one or the other of the following kinds. Either it expresses a relation among things, or a relation among propositions. …”

[pp.168-169] “It is necessary, in entering upon this inquiry, to state clearly the nature of the analogy which connects Secondary and Primary Propositions. Primary Propositions express relations among things, viewed as component parts of a universe within which, whether coextensive with the limits of the actual universe or not, the matter of our discourse is confined. The relations expressed are essentially substantive. Some, or all, or none, of the members of a given class, are also members of another class. The subjects to which primary propositions refer – the relations among those subjects which they express – are all of the above character.”

“But in treating of secondary propositions, we find ourselves concerned with another class both of subjects and relations. For the subjects with which we have to do are themselves propositions, so that the question may be asked, – Can we regard these subjects also as things, and refer them, by analogy with the previous case, to a universe of their own? Again, the relations among these subject propositions are relations of coexistent truth or falsehood, not of substantive equivalence. …”

“Let us take, as an instance for examination, the conditional proposition, “If the proposition X is true, [then] the proposition Y is true.” An undoubted meaning of this proposition is, that the time in which the proposition X is true, is time in which the proposition Y is true. This indeed is only a relation of coexistence, and may or may not exhaust the meaning of the proposition, but its relation is really involved in the statement of the proposition, and further, it suffices for all the purposes of logical inference.” [Barnes & Noble Books, NY, 2005: emphases added by M.D.]

M.D.: Note that the relation Boole posits between his Primary and Secondary Propositions is, implicitly and unintentionally, a dialectical, or «aufheben», relation, one of ‘meta-unit-ization’: each typical unit of the Secondary Propositions class/category is made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of at least two units of the Primary Propositions class/category.].

P.S. What Seldon has attempted to do, in “Marx’s Missing Blueprints”, is to unify the seeds of truth of both “conservative” anti-socialism, and “socialist” anti-capitalism, into a viable model for a successful successor system to the capitalist system.

www.dialectics.info

and

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

¡ENJOY!

Regards,

Miguel Detonacciones,

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!

SOLUTION –

‘Equitist Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’;

BOOK:

MARX’S MISSING BLUEPRINTS

Free-of-Charge Download of Book PDF –

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications.html

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications_files/Edition%201.,%20DPCAIT_,_Part_1_,_%27THE_MISSING_BLUEPRINTS%27_,_begun_22JUL2022_Last_Updated_08AUG2023.pdf

Hardcover Book Order –

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/F.E.D._Press.html

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

Friday, September 12, 2025

EQUITISM: ¿A Danger of Demotivation?

EQUITISM:

¿A Danger of Demotivation?

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Dear Reader,

I think that many capitalists worry about their workers’ motivation.

Some seem to think that they must keep workers poor and desperate in order to keep them working: low wages – a very self-serving attitude for those capitalists who are obsessed with profits at any cost.

Some of same would no doubt think that the associated workers/producers in Equitist Citizen Stewardship Equity socialized producers’ cooperatives will lack incentives to work.

But recall, such co-ops will have to compete successfully to survive as such – compete with other ‘Stewardship Equity’ cooperatives in their field of goods and/or services, and compete with capitalist enterprises, producing for the same markets.

Competition is perhaps the chief among the economic checks and balances central to the successful self-reproduction of a ‘political-economic democracy’, as we envision it.

Monopoly is bad. As is oligopoly or near-monopoly.

Private capitalist monopolies are horrible in their consequences.

State[-capitalist] monopolies are the worst of all.

¿But beyond the competitive struggle to survive and to thrive, economically, what can we foresee that would motivate the associated producers in Equitist producers’ cooperatives to continue to produce products and services growing in quantity, as needed, and growing in quality/use-value, and to continue to grow the social forces of their production [i.e., to grow their own labor-productivity]?

For each associated producer in a ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity’ socialized producers’ cooperative, we foresee four main motivations for continued and improving production and productivity –

1. To sustain their livelihoods – to keep their jobs – in the valued cooperative form of those jobs, much preferred to working for a capitalist enterprise, for wages, with little say over working conditions and job security, etc.;

2. To reproduce their valued work community, and the valued quality of life and of solidarity which that community affords them, versus the vicious, snake-pit ‘“war of each against all[ others, and against self]”’ that is so typically encountered in capitalist enterprises today;

3. To participate in productive-force-increasing, productivity-increasing innovations that will allow for shorter work-days, hence for more disposable time for their “real of freedom” life with their families, friends, and avocations. This is a far different motivation for productive-force-growth than the capitalist motive – the latter motive being to increase [unconsciously, relative surplus-value-based] profitability, and may well accelerate productive-force-growth over that generated by the capitalist profit motive, while avoiding the ulteriorities, anomalies and perversions inherent in the capitalist motive for productivity advance;

4. To win out in ‘athleticistic’ competition with other co-op “teams”, and with capitalist firms, e.g., those producing for the same markets.

We suspect that these four motivations will sustain and advance the quantity, where needed, as well as the quality of social production – and the happiness of the majority class – far more than does the capitalist profit motive, especially given that motive’s predestined ‘humanocidal’ denouement in the ‘technodepreciation’-driven profit-fall ‘descendence-phase’ of the capitalist system, now nearing its historical paroxysm and death-throes.

We even suspect that majority class preferences tied to these four motivations will make workers increasingly ‘unhireable’ by capitalist firms, as opportunities for ‘collective self-employment’ in proliferating Stewardship cooperatives develops, over time, in an Equitist ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’, as successor system to the, ‘self-«aufheben»-ating’, [state-]capitalist systems now prevailing on this planet, so that capitalist firms will gradually wither away, as their social obsolescence is increasingly revealed.

It would be a profound mistake to outlaw private capitalist wage-labor, to set up the state to coercively suppress private capitalism, and to coercively force all workers – including many lengthily and deeply capitalistically-conditioned workers, not ready, willing or psychologically able to participate in the collective self-management processes of a producers’ cooperative – to join a ‘Stewardship enterprise’.

Such a state would soon either be overthrown, by the majority class, or would otherwise have to become a state-bureaucratic tyranny; a totalitarian, terroristic police state.