Is the "Dialectic of Nature" a "Subject-less" Dialectic?
Dear Reader,
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 of “self-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-change”/«auto-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” Equation’ ‘meta-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.,
'''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 of “self-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-change”/«auto-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” Equation’ ‘meta-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” [e.g., quarks, gluons, electrons, neutrinos, etc. -- "non-composite" fermions and bosons], yielding sub-nuclear “particles” again, plus sub-atomic “particle” units/«monads» [e.g., hyperons, neutrons, protons, mesons -- "composite" fermions and bosons], 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 units/«monads»...; 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 units/«monads»...; 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 units/«monads»...; then --
6. eukaryotic “living” cells ‘eukaryote-«aufheben»’ eukaryotic “living” cells, yielding both eukaryotes again, and/plus multi-cellular ‘meta-biota’ units/«monads», 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 --
1. Sub-nuclear “particles” ‘sub-nuclear-«aufheben»’ sub-nuclear “particles” [e.g., quarks, gluons, electrons, neutrinos, etc. -- "non-composite" fermions and bosons], yielding sub-nuclear “particles” again, plus sub-atomic “particle” units/«monads» [e.g., hyperons, neutrons, protons, mesons -- "composite" fermions and bosons], 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 units/«monads»...; 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 units/«monads»...; 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 units/«monads»...; then --
6. eukaryotic “living” cells ‘eukaryote-«aufheben»’ eukaryotic “living” cells, yielding both eukaryotes again, and/plus multi-cellular ‘meta-biota’ units/«monads», 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
Regards,
Miguel
No comments:
Post a Comment