Wednesday, May 22, 2019

“Quantum Computing” -- The “Qubit” ‘Values Dialectic’.






Quantum Computers -- The Systematic Dialectic of the Qubit Values Ideo-Ontology.







Dear Readers,



The Seldonian dialectogram pasted-in below illustrates The Systematic Dialectic of the Qubit Values-Ontology -- the presentation method dialectic of the indefinite  numbersarithmoi»] represented by the ideo-physio-ontological categories which are about the use of the “physical states”, or of the “physical levels”, of various, e.g., “two-level Quantum Mechanical Systems”, to represent the 3 possible ideal values of the Qubit, the ultimate unit of “quantum information”.

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, please see --

and

For ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:




¡ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.






















Monday, May 20, 2019

‘Molecular Dialectic’ -- Acids vs. Bases.







Molecular Dialectic -- Acids vs. Bases.







Dear Readers,



The dialectogram pasted-in below illustrates the molecular dialectic of the indefinite  numbersarithmoi»] and of the physio-ontological categories named Acids and Bases, and of their synthesis category, named Salts.

For more information regarding the Seldonian insights, please see --

and

For ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:




¡ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.






















Sunday, May 19, 2019

Karl Seldon on Karl Marx Series, Part 2. Marx's Theory of “Self-Alienation”.






Karl Seldon on Karl Marx Series, Part 2.

Seldon on the Marxian Theory of “Self-Alienation”:

The Root Cause of Subjective Human Self-Alienation Under Capitalism,

The Social Relation of Production Social Praxis that [Continually Re-]Produces Affective and Objective Social Alienation in the Capitalist Epoch -- A ‘Psychohistorical-Materialist’ Analysis.







Dear Readers,


This new series -- “Karl Seldon on Karl Marx” -- is for the purpose of my presenting to you key excerpts from Karl Seldon’s discourses, among we of F.E.D., on the topic of the work of Karl Marx.  This series continues -- in this Part 2 -- with a clarification of Marx’s lifelong and mature ‘‘‘psychohistorical’’’ analysis of human “alienation” within the integument of “the capital relation”.

[Seldon:]  Contrary to the claims of some anti-Marxians, Marx never “abandoned” his view of the prevalence and centrality of the «problematique» of human-social alienation, both subjective and objective -- that first surfaced in his early writings of the 1840s -- all the way from those early writings to his most “mature” work on the immanent critique of the ideology-vitiated “science” of capitalist classical political economy, in the four [drafted] volumes of his «Das Kapital».”

“Instead, that theory of alienation became the very heart of his critique of political economy:  self-alienation is the very essence of “the capital-relation” [Marx].”

“The beating heart of “the capital-relation” is wage-labor.”

“Wage-labor is, precisely, self-selling -- self-alienation -- a comprehensive system of “universal prostitution” [Marx, Grundrisse], which is not restrictedly or primarily sexual prostitution, but is the prostitution of the total human person, the giving up of ‘individual sovereignty’ and of control of one’s own potentially creative life-activity, of ownership of one’s creations, and of the purpose and meaning of one’s very life, to an alien will, for the better part of one’s daily life, and for the better part of one’s entire lifetime, in exchange for mere survival -- for the wage wherewithal to live to work another day for that alien will, with, perhaps, enough wherewithal left over to feed, to clothe, and to educate one’s children, e.g., to take one’s place after one’s life has been “used-up” and thrown away.”

“Marx’s solution regarding the root cause, the economic basis -- or, rather, the social relation of production and social praxis basis -- of human social alienation in general, and the individual self-alienation that resides at its causal core in particular, is sprinkled and applied throughout his  middle and final “mature” works -- e.g., «Zur Kritik...» [A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy], and Capital:  A Critique of Political Economy.”

“The problem has been that Marx’s more subjectivist and ‘existentialoid’ mis-interpreters have not known how to read Marx’s frequent exhibitions of this solution in those works.”

“And, the ‘Leninoid’ would-be misleaders about Marx’s theories have sought to suppress all understanding of the role of Marx’s theory of alienation in his critique of capitalism, hoping that their readers will not notice their perpetuation of that alienation in their plans, and in their actualizations, of their perpetuation of wage-labor, in enslavement to the state -- to state-capital -- and in enslavement to their state-bureaucratic ruling class, in their proto-state-capitalist, Orwellian dictatorships.”

“Even pre-capitalist production for sale -- i.e., production of commodities -- is production for alienation, for the dis-owning of one’s products in return for money, producing products for ‘exchange-use’ -- rather than for ‘consumption use’ by their immediate producers -- and, while it marks progress for the development of the social-reproductive self-force of the human species, it also already engenders a social praxis which produces and reproduces problematic pre-capitalist forms of social alienation.”

“But daily [re]production of your self for the purpose of daily self [re-]sale -- for daily wag├ęd [and salaried] labor -- is production and reproduction of self mainly for self-alienation, and is thus also the production and expanded reproduction of individual and social self-alienation itself; of self-disowning; of self-estrangement.”

“And this incessant, ‘essence-ial’ social practice of capitalism produces an alien social world, ‘a world of strangers’, a world devoid of true human community, devoid of real human-social solidarity, and devoid of non-monetary purpose and meaning, for most of its practitioners.”

“When we are too used to this world -- immersed in it, from birth -- we may lose sensitivity, lose the ability to discern these tragedies, unless or until certain healing and consciousness-inducing events engulf our lives and our social self-identities.”

“This social praxis produces, and continually expandedly reproduces, an alien world, a world of alienated objectifications, of [self-]objectifications designed and owned, not by the human selves that, together, socially, produce those [self-]objectifications; a world shaped per and owned by, not by the majority of human beings, but, instead, designed and owned by the “logic” of capital, by capital personified, by the ever-shrinking capitalist ruling class, an ever-tinier, ever-more-deranged minority of “Dr. Strangeloves”, characterized by ever-more-concentrated capital ownership, and pursuing an agenda which is increasingly alien to, and contrary to, the interests, the needs, the well-being of the majority, producing, class, opposed to the collective will of that majority, and utterly and lethally subversive of the democracy that capitalism championed in its ascendence phase.”

“The [socio-politico-]economic act of participating, per force, in the wage-labor/capital social relation of production, and in its social praxis, creates and daily recreates a social “base”, and a social “superstructure”, permeated throughout its entire depth and breadth and height, from top to bottom, by the historically-specific, capitalist brand of  social alienation.”

“The root of modern self-alienation is none other than self-selling, and self-selling is, precisely, wage-labor [and salaried labor].”

Wage-labor is the labor-side, the worker-side, the MAJORITY-side, of “the capital-relation” as predominant “social relation of production” [Marx].”

“Self-alienation, alienated [sold] life-time, alienated [sold] labor-time, alienated labor IS WHAT CAPITAL IS ALL ABOUT -- it is WHAT CAPITAL IS MADE OF.




For more information regarding these Seldonian and Marxian insights, please see --

and


For ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian and Marxian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:




¡ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.






Friday, May 17, 2019

‘‘Logics’’’ -- Boolean versus 'Contra-Boolean'.







‘‘‘Logics’’’ --

Boolean versus Contra-Boolean.







Dear Readers,



‘‘‘Boolean Logics’’’, represented by the W_E = W_qE ‘ideo-ontological’ category for the Boolean “kind”, for the Boolean “family” of mutually-similar/variant axioms-systems, are logics of ‘onto-stasis’ -- for modeling statical ontologies’, and wherein W_ denotes the first-order “Whole Numbers” arithmetic.

These W_E logics are also arithmetical/algebraical ‘‘‘formal logics’’’.

‘Contra-Boolean Logics’, represented by the W_Q =-| W_qEE ‘ideo-ontological’ category for the ‘contra-Boolean’ “kind”, for the ‘contra-Boolean’ “family” of mutually-similar/variant axioms-systems, are logics of ‘onto-dynamasis’ -- for modeling dynamical ontologies’ and ‘ontological dynamics’.

These W_Q logics are also arithmetical/algebraical ‘‘‘dialectical logics’’’.

However, this opposition between Boolean and ‘contra-Boolean’ logics -- between W_E and W_Q -- is not an irreconcilable or an unreconciled radical dualism.  We have also identified a category of ‘synthesis systems’, of ‘uni-system’ axioms-systems, whose unsolved W_Q-algebraic unknown ‘category descriptor’ is W_qQE.

Nor does this dialectical categorial progression /axioms-systems-progression of ‘‘‘unit-interval’’’-based arithmetical/algebraical logics end with the triadic ‘polyqualinomial’ --
W_E ~+~ W_Q ~+~ W_qQE.
That dialectical categorial progression extends to at least the 4-fold ‘tetra-qualinomial’ --
certainty logic ~+~ possibility logic ~+~ actualization logic ~+~ probability logic.




For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, please see --

and


For ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:




¡ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.






Wednesday, May 15, 2019

A Dialectic of Modern Rocket Science.






A Systematic Dialectic of Modern Rocket Science.














Dear Readers,



No doubt without intending to do so in the least, the latest episode of the PBS series “Breakthrough”, in episode 5 of that series, entitled “The Rocket”, stated -- in terms of our Unified Theory of Universal Dialectics -- the systematic-dialectical, ‘‘‘horizontal- dialectical’’’, «aufheben» ‘meta-unit-ization’ dialectic that resides at the core of the orbital and inter-planetary success, to-date, of the modern-epoch’s “chemical” rocketry.

The episode narrator notes, starting at time-index ~ 0:37:49, Tsiolkovsky’s key idea that “...a rocket can be made up out of several rockets all strapped together...”. 

One of the episode’s main interviewees later states, at time-index ~ 0:43:16, that “This concept, of dropping your outer boosters or the first stage, is the essential solution for any chemical rocket to be able to reach orbit.” 

It is further noted that, without this “multi-stage rocket” solution, it would take a “single-stage” chemical rocket ‘‘‘the size of the Empire State Building’’’ to house sufficient molecular-power fuel to reach escape velocity if carrying payload masses of adequate magnitude.

We note, in the dialectogram above, that each multi-stage rocket unit is, precisely, none other than an ‘«aufheben»-ation of a mere rocket unit -- a meta1-rocket meta1-unit, made up out of a, typically, heterogeneous multiplicity of at least two mere rocket units, or stages [i.e., of at least two meta0-rocket units] as its sub-units.
Again, we call your attention to the observation that truly universal principles -- such as the universal principle of the negation-elevation-conservationdialectic, i.e., of the «aufheben»-ation dialectic, of what we call meta-unit-ization -- may be so general as to be difficult to discern, so that they may go unnoticed in their full universality for long stretches of human history.

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights into dialectics, please see --

and


For ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:



¡ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.











Tuesday, May 14, 2019

A Review -- Volume 3 of the F.E.D. treatise ‘A Dialectical Theory of Everything’.







A Brief Review --

of Volume 3 of the F.E.D. treatise A Dialectical Theory of Everything.







Dear Readers,



Volume 3, harnesses the ‘Unified Theory of Universal Dialectics’ first elaborated in volumes 0 and 1.

That theory unifies, to begin with, the synchronic or ‘systematic dialectics’ of ontological categories -- categories understood to be ‘arithmoi’, i.e., “numbers [of monads or units, all of a definite single kind]” in the ancient sense -- which, per its ‘dialectogram’ diagrams, is also ‘vertical dialectic’, with diachronic or ‘historical dialectics’, which, per those same diagrams, is also ‘horizontal/rightward dialectic’, finding the universal ‘aufheben’ relation/process of ‘meta-monad-ization’ to be central to both.

This theory also supplies a ‘mathematics of dialectics’, one that mimes both ‘vertical dialectic’ and ‘horizontal dialect’, which, in its standard ‘dialectical-analytical-geometric’, ‘dialectogram’ diagrams, are also co-depicted and ‘inter-related’.

Volume 3 applies that unified theory to the ontological content of cosmological Natural History.

It uses the first axioms-system of ‘mathematics of dialectics’ in this treatise’s dialectical progression of axioms-systems of ‘mathematics of dialectics’, also modeled via one of its ‘dialectical meta-equations’, to construct diverse human-social ‘dialectical meta-equations’ for key Domains of human history, as well as for, in its last section, the [singular] Dialectic of Nature as the whole, historical human natures included. 
 
Each such ‘meta-equation’ is ‘‘‘made up out of’’’, i.e., implicitly ‘aufheben-contains’, a qualitatively, ontologically heterogeneous multiplicity of mere equations, one ontologically-distinct mere equation for each value of its historical epoch variable. 

These ‘meta-equations’ cover the core constituent ‘historical dialectics’ that make up what the authors call ‘The Seldonian Psychohistorical-Dialectical [Meta-]Equations’.
 
Each such ‘Psychohistorical-Dialectical Meta-Equation’ describes, ontologically, and categorially, a key aspect of human history as a whole.

These ‘meta-equations’ include ‘[psycho]historical-dialectical mathematical meta-models’ of (1) the dialectic of the [psycho]historical progression of human social formations, (2) the dialectic of human-social ‘Ideology\Knowledge’ formations [for the ‘ideo-ontological’ categories of Mythologies, Religions, Philosophies, Sciences, and ‘Psychohistories’], (3) the dialectic of the social relations of production, (4) the dialectic of the social forces of production, and (5) the [psycho]historical ‘dialectic of the dialectic itself’, as well as a progression of ‘systematic-dialectical meta-models’ of the [tables-of-]contents of Marx’s Capital:  A Critique of Political Economy.

In my view, it would have been better, for the ‘meta-equation’ mapping the historical progression of human-social Ideology\Knowledge formation(s), to have selected the [primitive] Arts as the starting ‘ideo-ontological category’, or ‘arche’-category’. 
 
The petroglyph rock-wall carvings, cave-wall-paintings, and “Mother Goddess”, etc., fired clay effigies, and so on, that have we have found, in modern times, surviving from remote antiquity, are also works of ‘Ideology\Knowledge’. 
 
Their authors struggled toward ‘Knowledge’ in their efforts to aptly represent the landscapes of Nature, plants, other animals, and humans, etc. 
 
No doubt they are also works of ‘Ideology’ and mystification, e.g., in attempting to “capture” and “magically” control the natural forces and natural agents that they depict, via “mimesis” -- via these humans-crafted ‘’‘images’’’ of those natural forces and agents.

Both as beginnings of ‘Knowledge’, and as beginnings of ‘Ideology’, they became ingredient in -- ‘aufheben’-integrated into -- the next, later-born stage of ‘Ideology\Knowledge’ -- “Mythopoeias”.

Volume 3 culminates with the exposition of a progression of single ‘dialectical meta-equations’, each covering the known ‘meta-evolution’ of our cosmos as a whole, ontologically and categorially, with increasing fitness to its qualitative, ontological data. 
 
Each single equation in this progression maps the singular Dialectic of Nature -- The Historical Dialectic of Natural History as Total History -- in an increasingly-detailed degree.

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights into dialectics, please see --

and


For ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:




¡ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.







Sunday, May 12, 2019

A Review -- Volume 2 of the F.E.D. treatise ‘A Dialectical Theory of Everything’.







A Brief Review --

of Volume 2 of the F.E.D. treatise A Dialectical Theory of Everything.







Dear Readers,



This volume, volume 2, harnesses the ‘Unified Theory of Universal Dialectics’ elaborated in volumes 0 and 1.
 
That theory unifies, to begin with, the synchronic, ‘systematic dialectics’ of ontological categories as ‘arithmoi’, i.e., as “numbers” in the ancient sense, which, per its ‘dialectogram’ diagrams, is also ‘vertical dialectic’, with diachronic, ‘historical dialectic’, which, per those same diagrams, is also ‘horizontal dialectic’, finding the “aufheben” relation/process of ‘meta-monad-ization’ to be central to both. 
This theory also supplies a ‘mathematics of dialectics’ that mimes both.

Volume 2 applies that unified theory, and its first ‘mathematics of dialectics’, to construct ‘dialectical meta-models’ -- mathematical ‘meta-models’, each one made up out of a qualitatively, ontologically heterogeneous multiplicity of mere mathematical models -- to the memes-realm of ‘the human phenome’, the cultural, non-chromosomal heritages of the various branches of humanity, or of Terran humanity as a whole.

This memes-realm is a realm, not primarily of external, physical ontology, or of ‘physio-ontology’, but of ‘ideo-ontology’, although humans-made physical artefacts are often generated in association with this ‘ideo-ontology’, as a secondary aspect of its otherwise intangible reality.

There are, in volume 2, dialectical-mathematical ‘meta-models’ of the systematically-presented categorial content contemporary written English, as well as historically-presented ‘meta-models’ of the first-known [psycho]historical development of proto-written language in ancient Mesopotamia, of the [psycho]historical development of ‘systematic dialectics’ itself, and of the [psycho]historical development of ancient Mediterranean Philosophy up to and including Plato’s Philosophy.

The culminating ‘dialectical meta-model’ of volume 2 is a synchronic, systematic-dialectical presentation-model of the progression within the present Standard Arithmetics -- for the “Natural” Numbers, followed by the 0-including “Whole” Numbers, followed by the “Integers”, followed by the “Rational” Numbers, followed by the “Real” Numbers, followed by the “Complex” Numbers, and stopping -- arbitrarily -- with the first emergence of the categories that constitute the incremental arithmetical ‘ideo-ontology’ of the Hamilton Quaternions -- all built around images of the “filling-in”, and advance, of the “analytical geometry” of the “number line(s)” of those successive ‘numbers-systems’.

The authors have chosen to emphasize the ‘ideo-ontological’ content of the human epoch of the ‘Dialectic of Nature’ in their volume 2, saving their presentation of the historical ‘Dialectic of [‘pre-human/exo-human’] Nature’ for their volume 3.

Perhaps it would have been more “natural” if the order of the content of volumes 2 and 3 had been reversed.


For more information regarding these Seldonian insights into dialectics, please see --

and


For ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:




¡ENJOY!



Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.