Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Is the Dialectic of Nature a "Subject-less" Dialectic?


Is the "Dialectic of Nature" a "Subject-less" Dialectic?



Dear Readers,

In response to the question that constitutes the title of this blog-entry, above, I can do no better than to paraphrase, here, F.E.D.'s "translation", into "self-reflexive" English sentences, or "subject-[verb-]object identical" sentences, of their "Dialectical Theory of Everything" equation, in module # 63 their new Book, as follows --


'''The Dialectic of Nature, at the level of the most major categories of cosmological ontology, is not subject-less”.

Indeed, it is veritably pervaded by subjects -- by ‘‘‘subject-ivity’’’ and by subject-ness’, as well as by ‘‘‘object-ivity’’’, and by object-ness’.

Only the latest known to us of such subjects”, the human[oid]
kind, exhibit the quality of being “conscious”/“self-conscious”.

But every one of them is a subject in the sense of being an agent of change, and, especially, an agent ofself-change; an agent of «auto-kinesis».


Therefore, the names of each of these agents can aptly fulfill the place of the subject, and concurrently, also that of the object, in ‘‘‘self-reflexive’’’, self-refluxive’, ‘‘‘karmic’’’, ‘‘‘non-linear’’’, dialectical sentences, describing their processes of self-changeauto-kinesis», by self-«aufheben» self-meta-«monad»-ization, i.e., by that simultaneous self-transformation / self-conservation / self-elevation self-operation.



Moreover, each of these agents “acts” via its own, ‘«speci»-fic’ -- subject-specific, agent-specific -- «aufheben» [dialectical] verb.



If we use ‘x’ to denote the variable for the name of the ontological category – the subject and the object, identical – of a generic such sentence, and use ‘x’ to denote the variable for the verb that names the kind of action by which the actual units of the actual «arithmoi», denoted by this category-name, act upon themselves, then we can represent the typical ‘content-structure’ of the progression of subject-verb-object-identical sentences’, which, together, express core content of the ‘Dialectical Theory of Everything Equationmeta-model, the focus of Chapter ±0, via the generic sentence -- 'x x x', yielding up x again, but also + delta-x, such that each unit of 'delta-x' is made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of some of the [former] units of 'x', viz.,

x x x     =    x + delta-x   --

1. Sub-nuclear “particles” ‘sub-nuclear-«aufheben»’ sub-nuclear “particles”, yielding sub-nuclear “particles” again, plus sub-atomic “particle” unitsmonads», each made of several n units; then --


2. Sub-atomic “particles” ‘sub-atomic-«aufheben»’ sub-atomic “particles”, yielding both sub-atomic “particles” again, and/plus atomic nuclei, each made of a heterogeneous multiplicity of s units...; then --


3. atomic nuclei ‘atomic-nuclei-«aufheben»’ atomic nuclei, yielding both atomic nuclei again, and/plus molecule units, each one made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of a unitsmonads»...; then --


4. molecules ‘molecular-«aufheben»’ molecules, yielding both molecules again, and/plus prokaryotic “living” cell units, each one made up of a heterogeneous multiplicity of m unitsmonads»...; then --


5. prokaryotic “living” cells ‘prokaryote-«aufheben»’ prokaryotic “living” cells, yielding both prokaryotes again, and/plus eukaryotic “living” cell units, each made up out of multiple p unitsmonads»...; then --


6. eukaryotic “living” cells ‘eukaryote-«aufheben»’ eukaryotic “living” cells, yielding both eukaryotes again, and/plus multi-cellular ‘meta-biota’ unitsmonads», each made of many e «monads»...; then --


7. ‘Meta-biota’ ‘meta-biote’-«aufheben»’ ‘meta-biota’, yielding both ‘meta-biota’ again, and/plus ‘proto-language-based animal societies/plant communities units, each made of many b units...; then --


8. Animal societies ‘animal-society’-«aufheben»’ animal societies, yielding animal societies again, &/plus human[oid]s-led ‘meta-societies’, by the ‘meta-monadic’, ‘socio-endosymbiotic’, ‘socio-symbiogenetic’ self-internalization, or mutual internalization, of ‘‘‘mutually-domesticated’’’ animal societies [e.g., proto-humans w/wolves/dogs,...] & plant communities [e.g., proto-humans w/wheat, rice, corn,...] -- . . ..


The two, dual occurrences of the name of each such agent -- once as ‘sentence-ial’ subject, once again as ‘sentence-ial’ object -- signify an intra-duality, or self-duality’, within each such agent; an ineluctable discrepancy between the agent-ive’ or subject-ive’, action-initiating aspect and the object-ive’, or acton-receiving aspect, of each.

The evidence of this self-duality or intra-duality is the observable contra-Boolean’ character of these actualities:  the fact that their ‘‘‘self-reflexion’’’ and ‘‘‘self-refluxion’’’ returns not just themselves again only, but themselves “plus” an increment of new ontology.

The [self-]operation of each «arithmos» ‘‘‘eventity’’’ as subject upon itself as object does not produce an equilibrium, an “[onto-]stasis.

It produces, on the contrary, a non-equilibrium; an onto-dynamasis; an expansion/growth of ontology.

Self-operation of an «arithmos» of «monads», of a particular kind, i.e., of a given ontological category. . . does not merely ‘‘‘simply reproduce’’’ [cf. Marx] that ‘categorogram’, as a fixed point”, a la --

x x x   =   x

-- [e.g., Boole’s logical-arithmetical use of 1 x 1  =  1 and of 0 x 0   =  0], but, on the contrary, ‘‘‘expandedly reproduces’’’ it [cf. Marx] -- in a qualitative, ontological-categorial sense -- returning it itself, in the Boolean manner, but also, in a contra-Boolean manner, adding something ontologically, qualitatively new, namely, a new ‘categorogram’, . . . signing a new, irrupting [meta^1-arithmos» of [meta^1-monads». . .'''



Regards,

Miguel

No comments:

Post a Comment