Tuesday, October 11, 2011

F.E.D. Algorithmic Systematic Dialectics Applied to a "Prosaic" Example, Part I.

F.E.D. Algorithmic Systematic Dialectics Made Easy! --

F.E.D. Algorithmic Systematic Dialectics Applied to a "Prosaic" Example, Part I.




Dear Readers,


0. The Communications-Strategy of This Blog Entry.

0.1 General Goals of a Marxian, Systematic-Dialectical Method of Presentation of a System/Totality Theory. Typically, an NQ-"modelable" systematic-dialectical presentation would be offered in order to provide "chaotic" [Marx, Grundrisse] knowers/experiencers of a given system of human experience -- a pre-human-natural system, or a human-natural system -- i.e., to offer un-systematic knowers/experiencers of such a system, a systematic scientific theory of that system; a categorial[-progression] theorization of that system; a systematically ordered/organized, categorial/taxonomic reconstruction of that system, by means of a systematically well-ordered, progressive presentation/unfolding of the key categories which comprehend and explain that system in all of its essential phenomena.

That theorization -- to be successful as such -- would have to satisfy those experiencers' "chaotic" experience of that "whole", that system, by way of that theory's aptness/fitness to that, their experience, including its "fitness" as a qualo-quantitative model, to any measuremental data available about the [self-]movements of that system
-- thus providing "empirical validation"/"non-falsification" of that theory.

Such a systematic-dialectical scientific theory must also reveal the "hidden order", the not superficially apparent, deeper, systematic order, not otherwise directly accessible to those knowers' "chaotic" experience, but demonstrable as acting "behind" the apparent dis-order / "chaoticity" of those "surface" experiences, so that this theory thus "explains" those "surface" experiences, and, if sufficiently valid, would be expected to imply also "pre-constructions" of future such experiences before they "arrive" to a future present time, and which would therefore be able to guide human interventions in/into/from-within that system, aimed at ameliorating, or mitigating, or "satisficing" -- or even at 'beneficing' -- that future experience.


0.2 Special Goals of this Blog Entry's Specific Instance of F.E.D.-Algorithmic, Systematic-Dialectic Modeling.
In the special case of this blog entry, the featured NQ-model-generated presentation of a dialectical-scientific theory, by means of the method of presentation known as "systematic dialectics", addresses a system which is already well-known -- both "chaotically" and "systematically" -- by the very literate participants in this blog. The content of this systematic-dialectical theory is already well-known to these participants, though not its systematic-dialectical mode of exposition.

Thus, the intent of this presentation is to reveal, and to render transparent, to the participants in this blog, not so much, as is usually the case in systematic-dialectical exposition, the system, or sub-totality, which is the immediate ostensible object of this systematically-theorizing presentation, but the Marxian, systematic-dialectical method of presentation itself, together with the way in which the F.E.D. NQ-algebra algorithmically models -- generates the skeletal outline of, indeed, the "table of contents" of -- such a systematic-dialectical theory presentation.



1.0  The Target Totality for the Model Systematic-Dialectical Theory Presentation of this Blog Entry.

The target system, or [sub-]totality, to be addressed by the systematic-dialectical theory-presentation of this blog entry, is one well-known to, and one habitually utilized intensively by, all who participate in this blog, in their very participation in this blog.

It is thus, and also, quite literally, a "prosaic" system -- the synchronic, contemporaneous, or present system of English phonetic written language.

This system is a trans-genomic, human-phenomic, human-natural system par excellence!


1.1 Choice of <<Arche'>>, or Beginning, Ontological Category for this Systematic-Dialectical Theory.

Marx chose the "Elementary or Accidental Form of [Commodity] Value" as the <<arche'>> "ideo-ontological" category, or starting category, for his entire multi-volume treatise on Capital, presenting his dialectical-scientific theory of the human-natural system centered upon the Capital-relation as predominating human-social relation of [human societal self-re-]production, because it was the simplest, most abstract[ed] seed-form, or "cell form", of that social sub-totality as a complex whole, in which its entire "lawful", self-causal unfolding was implicitly already present for the minds of the human "chaotic" experiencers of that system.

Let us chose, for the similar reasons, the category of the English letter symbol -- of the phonetic character -- as the <<arche'>> category -- a category that we will connote by the symbol l -- of our exposition in this blog entry:

)-|-(0....=....l.

That category is the simplest seed form -- or "cell form" -- of the whole system of English phonetic writing, one that already "contains", for the modern human mind, albeit hidden in implicitude, the essence of the self-ramified, self-complexified whole of that system.

If we connote that category by the symbol l, and make that symbol the "argument", the "kernel", of a dyadic Seldon function, then the following equation should provide the dialectical-algorithmic generation of the "table of contents" skeleton of a systematic-dialectical treatise on the contemporary system of English phonetic written language:

)-|-(s....=....(.l.)^(.2^s.).




1.2 "Meta-Monadology" of "Self-Hybrid", or "Auto-Hybrid", Ontological Categories Thus Generated.

The first of the "self-hybrid" ideo-ontological categories to arise per the above-exhibited category-generating equation is that connoted by delta_l or q/ll in --

)-|-(1....=....(.l .)^(2^1)....=....( .l .)^2....=....

l(.l.)....=....l..+..q/ll....=....l ..+..delta_l

-- wherein the term "delta_l" connotes a category whose "constituent individuals" are "meta-letters, each one made up out of a typically heterogeneous multiplicity of letters".

Is there anything in our "chaotic" experience of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language that answers to this description?

My answer:  it is the "ideo-ontological category" of "words", which we can connote by the symbol w.

An Example of the 'Organity' of Written Language. The emergence of the category of "words", and its qualitative, ontological distinction from the category of mere phonetic "letters" provides us with ready access to experience the scientific inadequacies of the ideologies of "ontological reductionism".

A word -- such as, well, the word "word" -- is not just the "sum" of its parts; is not just the "sum" of the four letters, of the four phonetic characters -- of the four "phonograms" -- that are the sub-units of that word, and the word is not "reducible" to its constitute letters, without ontological loss -- without the loss of most of the content of what it is as a word. The word-unit "word" is not just an -- order-indifferent -- "set" of its constituent letters, e.g., in any permutation --

{w, o, r, d}...=...{o, w, r, d}...=...{r, o, w, d}...=...{d, r, o, w}...=.... . .

-- nor is it simply the letters, in the order "w o r d", but still taken as separate units -- still taken as an <<arithmos>>, or sub-<<arithmos>>, of letter <<monads>>, i.e., as an assemblage of units, rather than as
a single new unit, a single new <<monad>>, in its own right.

What a word is -- the 'ideo-ontology" that it "adds", as a new, "qualo-fractal scale", or "level", atop the predecessor, <<arche'>>, evolute-continued "qualo-fractal scale/level" of the letter 'ideo-ontology' -- is something qualitatively more than letters alone.

The qualitative, ontological increment of new 'ideo-ontology' that the words scale/level/layer "adds" is that of an "emergent property", an "emergent quality" -- an emergent new ontology, or kind of being, within the phonetic written language universe of discourse.

This emergent ontological quality is one that arises when letter units/<<monads>> are "fused" into a new unity, a new unit, a new -- "meta-" -- <<monad>>:  the word, by which not just the sounds of spoken language are represented in writing, as with "letter" <<monads>>, but by which human meanings can be represented and conveyed in writing.


So, the word <<monads>>, or word units, of the <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>, or assemblage of units, connoted by the "ideo-ontological category", or "meme", named "words", is the solution to the "algebraic unknown", "delta_l", of the "purely-qualitative" equation just stated above:

)-|-(1....=....l( l )....=....l ..+..delta_l....=....


l..+..q/ll....=....l..+..w.

That is, the category connoted by l -- the <<arithmos>> of letters -- by itself, provides an inadequate, an incomplete, a non-comprehensive theorization of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language in its totality.

The progression to the co-possibility of the two categories -- l..+..w -- provides a better, more adequate, more complete, more comprehensive model of that totality -- of the content that it "contains".

But is the resulting model still inadequate, incomplete, and non-comprehensive nonetheless, and therefore susceptible to further "immanent- / self-critique"?

Intuitively, to those experienced with this totality, the answer to the immediately preceding question is obviously an emphatic "Yes!".


A systematic/algorithmic way to determine the answer, in a way which takes the next step of systematically-ordered correction/expansion of the theory/model, is to perform the next, stage s = 2, "self-iteration" of the Seldon function. That next "self-iteration" includes w(.w.) -- the self-confrontation of the category connoted by w itself.

Therefore, the second of the "self-hybrid" ideo-ontological categories to arise per the above-exhibited category-generating equation is that connoted by delta_w, or q/ww, in --

w(.w.)^2....=....w(.w.)....=....w..+..delta_w....=....


w..+..q/ww

-- wherein the term "delta_w", or q/ww, connotes a category whose "individuals" are
"meta-words, each one made up out of a typically heterogeneous multiplicity of words".

Is there anything in our "chaotic" experience of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language that answers to this description?

My answer:  it is the "ideo-ontological category" of "phrases", which we can connote by the symbol p.

The phrase is perhaps the most elementary unit of written language where the "magick" of the phonetic writing systems, that Thomas Astle wrote about, so long ago, becomes manifest in earnest:



"Whence did the wond'rous
mystic art arise
Of painting speech, and
speaking to the eye?
That we by tracing magic
lines are taught
How both to colour, and
embody thought?"

[Thomas Astle, The Origin and Progress of Writing, [London: T. Bentley, Bolt Court, 1803], p. ii].


So, the phrase <<monads>>, or phrase units, of the <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>, or assemblage of units, connoted by the "ideo-ontological category", or "meme", named "phrases", is the solution to the "algebraic unknown", delta_w, or q/ww, of the "purely-qualitative" equation just stated above:

)-|-(2...=....(.l..+..w.)(.l ..+..w.)....=....

l..+..w..+...+..q/ww....=....l ..+ ..w..+...+..p.

That is, the categories-cumulum connoted by l..+..w -- the <<arithmos>> of letters together with the <<arithmos>> of "words" -- by itself, provides an inadequate, an incomplete, a non-comprehensive theorization of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language in its totality.

The progression to the three+ categories -- l..+..w..+...+..p -- provides a better, more adequate, more complete, more comprehensive model of that totality -- of the content that it "contains".

But is the resulting model still inadequate, incomplete, and non-comprehensive nonetheless, and therefore susceptible to further "immanent- / self-critique"?

Intuitively, to those experienced with this totality, the answer to the immediately preceding question is obviously an emphatic "Yes!".


A systematic/algorithmic way to determine the answer, in a way which takes the next step of systematically-ordered correction/expansion of the theory/model, is to perform the next, stage s = 3, "self-iteration" of the Seldon function. That next "self-iteration" includes p(.p.) -- the self-confrontation of the category connoted by p itself.

Therefore, the third of the "self-hybrid" ideo-ontological categories to arise, per the above-exhibited category-generating equation, is that connoted by delta_p or q/pp in --

(.p.)^2....=....p(.p.)....=....p..+ ..delta_p....=....

p..+ ..q/pp

-- wherein the term "delta_p", or q/pp, connotes a category whose "individuals" are
"meta-phrases, each one made up out of a typically heterogeneous multiplicity of phrases".

Is there anything in our "chaotic" experience of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language that answers to this description?

My answer:  it is the "ideo-ontological category" of "sentences", which we can connote by the symbol s.


Note that -- whereas we might assume that all letters become parts of words, however frequently or infrequently, and that all words become parts of phrases --  there is a break in this pattern at least starting here:  not absolutely every possible phrase [or "clause"] will ever become part of a sentence or sentences.


So, the sentence <<monads>>, or sentence units, of the <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>, or assemblage of units, connoted by the "ideo-ontological category", or "meme", named "sentences", is the meaning-solution to the "algebraic unknown", delta_p, or q/pp, of the "purely-qualitative" equation just stated above:

)-|-(3....=....(.l ..+ ..w.. +...+..p.)(.l ..+ ..w..+...+..p.)....=....

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..q/pp....=....

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s.

That is, the categories-cumulum connoted by l..+..w..+...+..p -- the <<arithmos>> of letters together with the <<arithmos>> of "words" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of "phrases" -- by itself, provides an inadequate, an incomplete, a non-comprehensive theorization of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language in its totality.

The progression to the four+ categories -- l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s -- provides a better, more adequate, more complete, more comprehensive model of that totality -- of the content that it "contains".


But is the resulting model still inadequate, incomplete, and non-comprehensive nonetheless, and therefore susceptible to further "immanent- / self-critique"?

Intuitively, to those experienced with this totality, the answer to the immediately preceding question is obviously an emphatic "Yes!".


A systematic/algorithmic way to determine the answer, in a way which takes the next step of systematically-ordered correction/expansion of the theory/model, is to perform the next, stage s = 4, "self-iteration" of the Seldon function. That next "self-iteration" includes s(.s.) -- the self-confrontation of the category connoted by s itself.

Therefore, the fourth of the "self-hybrid" ideo-ontological categories to arise per the above-exhibited category-generating equation is that connoted by delta_s, or q/ss, in --

(.s.)^2....=....s(.s.)....=....s..+..delta_s....=....


s..+..q/ss

-- wherein the term "delta_s", or "q/ss", connotes a category whose "individuals" are
"meta-sentences, each one made up out of a typically heterogeneous multiplicity of sentences".

Is there anything in our "chaotic" experience of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language that answers to this description?

My answer: it is the "ideo-ontological category" of "aragaphs", which we can connote by the symbol .


Note that, whereas we might assume that all letters become parts of words, however frequently or infrequently, and that all words become parts of phrases, that the break we saw with phrases not all absolutely becoming parts of a sentence or sentences, continues with the category of paragraphs:  not every possible sentence will necessarily become part of a paragraph or paragraphs.


So, the aragaph <<monads>>, or aragaph units, of the <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>, or assemblage of units, connoted by the "ideo-ontological category", or "meme", named "aragaphs", is the semantic solution to the "algebraic unknown", delta_s, or q/ss, of the "purely-qualitative" equation just stated above:

)-|-(4....=....

(.l..+..w..+...+ ..p..+...+ ..s)(l ..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s.)....=....

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+..q/ss....=....

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+...

That is, the categories-cumulum connoted by --

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s

-- the <<arithmos>> of letters together with the <<arithmos>> of "words" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of "phrases" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of "sentences" -- by itself, provides an inadequate, an incomplete, a non-comprehensive theorization of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language in its totality.

The progression to the five+ categories --

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+.. --

provides a better, more adequate, more complete, more comprehensive model of that totality -- of the content that it "contains".


But is the resulting model still inadequate, incomplete, and non-comprehensive nonetheless, and therefore susceptible to further "immanent- / self-critique"?

Intuitively, to those experienced with this totality, the answer to the immediately preceding question is obviously an emphatic "Yes!".


A systematic/algorithmic way to determine the answer, in a way which takes the next step of systematically-ordered correction/expansion of the theory/model, is to perform the next, stage s = 5, "self-iteration" of the Seldon function.

That next "self-iteration" includes (..) -- the self-confrontation of the category connoted by itself.

Therefore, the fifth of the "self-hybrid" ideo-ontological categories to arise per the above-exhibited category-generating equation is that connoted by delta_, or q/¶¶, in --

(..)^2....=....(. .)....=.... ..+..delta_. ..=... .

+ q/¶¶

-- wherein the term "delta_", or "q/¶¶", connotes a category whose "individuals" are
"meta-aragaphs, each one made up out of a typically heterogeneous multiplicity of aragaphs".

Is there anything in our "chaotic" experience of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language that answers to this description?

My answer:  it is the "ideo-ontological category" of "documents", which we can connote by the symbol d.

The category of "documents", taken as a <<genos>> category of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language, recall, encompasses many qualitatively distinct <<species>> of "multi-paragraph written instruments", including, e.g., legal documents, like birth certificates and marriage certificates and business licenses, "papers" of all kinds -- government reports, business reports, school reports, academic/scientific papers, including a sub-<<genos>> of document <<species>> which can become, are intended to become, or which circulate, for critique and comment as drafts of, "chapters", destined to become parts of "books". E.g., an academic paper may become a chapter in an instance of a <<species>> of the "books" <<genos>> known as an "anthology".


Note that, whereas we might assume that all letters become parts of words, however frequently or infrequently, and that all words become parts of phrases, that the break we saw with phrases not all absolutely becoming parts of a sentence or sentences, continued in that of sentences not all absolutely becoming parts of paragraphs, continues with the category of documents:  not every single paragraph ever written, or possibly written, must necessarily become part of a formatted document or documents as defined here.


So, the document <<monads>>, or document units, of the <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>, or assemblage of units, connoted by the "ideo-ontological category", or "meme", named "documents", is the solution to the "algebraic unknown", delta_, or q/¶¶, of the "purely-qualitative" equation just stated above:

)-|-(5....=.....

(.l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+...) x
(.l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+...)....=....

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..q/¶¶....=....

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d.

That is, the categories-cumulum connoted by --

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+..

-- the <<arithmos>> of letters together with the <<arithmos>> of "words" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of "phrases" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of "sentences" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of aragraphs -- by itself, provides an inadequate, an incomplete, a non-comprehensive theorization of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language in its totality.

The progression to the six+ categories --

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d

-- provides a better, more adequate, more complete, more comprehensive model of that totality -- of the content that that totality "contains".


But is the resulting model still inadequate, incomplete, and non-comprehensive nonetheless, and therefore susceptible to further "immanent- / self-critique"?

Intuitively, to those experienced with this totality, the answer to the immediately preceding question is obviously an emphatic "Yes!".


A systematic/algorithmic way to determine the answer, in a way which takes the next step of systematically-ordered correction/expansion of the theory/model, is to perform the next, stage s = 6, "self-iteration" of the Seldon function.

That next "self-iteration" includes d(.d.) -- the self-confrontation of the category connoted by d itself.

Therefore, the sixth of the "self-hybrid" ideo-ontological categories to arise per the above-exhibited category-generating equation is that connoted by delta_d, or q/dd, in --

(.d.)^2....=....d(.d.)....=....d..+..delta_d....=....

d..+..q/dd

-- wherein the term "delta_d", or "q/dd", connotes a category whose "individuals" are
"meta-documents, each one made up out of a typically heterogeneous multiplicity of documents".

Is there anything in our "chaotic" experience of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language that answers to this description?

My answer: it is the "ideo-ontological category" of "books", which we can connote by the symbol b.

The category of "books" is thus seen as the categorial outgrowth, in the main, of just those <<species>> of the documents <<genos>> which are suitable to form chapter sub-units, or chapter sub-<<monads>>, of book-units, or book-<<monads>>, books being seen also as "meta-units", or as "meta-<<monads>>" of chapters as chapter-document units, or as chapter-document <<monads>>.


Note that, whereas we might assume that all letters become parts of words, however frequently or infrequently, and that all words become parts of phrases, that the break we saw with phrases not all absolutely becoming parts of a sentence or sentences, continued in that of sentences not all absolutely becoming parts of paragraphs, and in that of paragraphs not all absolutely becoming parts of formatted documents, continues with the category of books:  not every single document ever written, or possibly written, is suitable to become a "chapter", or must otherwise necessarily become part of a book.


So, the book <<monads>>, or book units, of the <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>, or assemblage of units, connoted by the "ideo-ontological category", or "meme", named "books", is the meme-solution to the "algebraic unknown", delta_d, or q/dd, of the "purely-qualitative" equation just stated above:

)-|-(6....=....

(.l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d.) x
(.l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d.)

. ..
=... .

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d..+...+ ..q/dd..=....

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d..+...+ ..b.

That is, the categories-cumulum connoted by --

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d

-- the <<arithmos>> of letters together with the <<arithmos>> of "words" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of "phrases" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of "sentences" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of aragraphs together with the <<arithmos>> of documents -- by itself, provides an inadequate, an incomplete, a non-comprehensive theorization of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language in its totality.

The progression to the seven+ categories --

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d..+...+ ..b

-- provides a better, more adequate, more complete, more comprehensive model of that totality -- of the content that that totality "contains".


But is the resulting model still inadequate, incomplete, and non-comprehensive nonetheless, and therefore susceptible to further "immanent- / self-critique"?

Intuitively, to those experienced with this totality, the answer to the immediately preceding question is obviously an emphatic "Yes!".


A systematic/algorithmic way to determine the answer, in a way which takes the next step of systematically-ordered correction/expansion of the theory/model, is to perform the next, stage s = 7, "self-iteration" of the Seldon function.

That next "self-iteration" includes b(.b.) -- the self-confrontation of the category connoted by b itself.

Therefore, the seventh of the "self-hybrid" ideo-ontological categories to arise per the above-exhibited category-generating equation is that connoted by delta_b, or q/bb, in --

(.b.)^2....=....b(.b.)....=....b..+..delta_b....=....

b..+..q/bb

-- wherein the term "delta_b", or "q/bb", connotes a category whose "individuals" are
"meta-books, each one made up out of a typically heterogeneous multiplicity of books".

Is there anything in our "chaotic" experience of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language that answers to this description?

My answer: it is the "ideo-ontological category" of "Libraries", which we can connote by the symbol L.

Note that a category whose "individuals" are "meta-books, each one made up out of a homogeneous multiplicity of books", i.e., a multitude, or <<arithmos>>, of copies of the same book, would be an "Inventory", or "Stock", not a "Library".


Note that, whereas we might assume that all letters become parts of words, however frequently or infrequently, and that all words become parts of phrases, that the break we saw with phrases not all absolutely becoming parts of a sentence or sentences, continued in that of sentences not all absolutely becoming parts of paragraphs, and in that of paragraphs not all absolutely becoming parts of formatted documents, and in that of documents not all absolutely becoming chapters, or otherwise being included in books, continues with the category of libraries: not every single book ever written, or possibly written, will become part of the collection of a library [although our cultural values are such that, I think, most of us would hope that the number of such library-excluded books is few].



So, the book <<monads>>, or book units, of the <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>, or assemblage of units, connoted by the "ideo-ontological category", or "meme", named "books", is the solution to the "algebraic unknown", delta_d, or q/dd, of the "purely-qualitative" equation just stated above:

)-|-(7....=....

(.l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d..+...+..b.)^2

....
=....

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d..+...+..b..+...+..q/bb

....=....

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d..+...+..b..+...+..L.

That is, the categories-cumulum connoted by --

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d..+...+..b

-- the <<arithmos>> of letters together with the <<arithmos>> of "words" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of "phrases" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of "sentences" together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of aragraphs together with the <<arithmos>> of documents together with . . . the <<arithmos>> of books -- by itself, provides an inadequate, an incomplete, a non-comprehensive theorization of the contemporary system of English phonetic written language in its totality.

The progression to the eight+ categories --

l..+..w..+...+..p..+...+..s..+...+....+...+..d..+...+..b..+...+..L

-- provides a better, more adequate, more complete, more comprehensive model of that totality -- of the content that that totality "contains".


But is the resulting model still inadequate, incomplete, and non-comprehensive nonetheless, and therefore susceptible to further "immanent- / self-critique"?



At this point, my answer is "No!".

To my experience, there may indeed already be fractional emergences -- "partial, fractional actualizations" -- of "meta-Libraries, each one made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of Libraries", in the form of university "Inter-Library Loan Services", etc.

The internet may indeed be becoming, or may be coming to contain, a global "meta-Library".

But these tendencies are still, to my perception, in terms of an RQ rendering, only, stage s = 7.5, or maybe even stage s = 7.9, developments.

But their full, stage s = 8 development is not yet part of the CONTEMPORARY system of English phonetic written language.

The possible full emergence of the neo-ontology of "Meta-Libraries" still remains, to my perceptions, outside of our experience of the target totality of this "algorithmic exposition".


Summarizing the foregoing stages of theory self-critique / theory presentation, our "table of contents" for this "dialectical-algorithm"-generated systematic treatise on the contemporary system of English phonetic written language so far stands as follows --

Chapter [s = ]0. Preface [Defense of choice of letters category as <<arche'>>; characterization of letters].

Chapter [s = ]1. Words [as 1st "self-hybrid"/"auto-hybrid", "supplementary opposite", "contra-" category].

Chapter [s = ]2. Phrases [as 2nd "self-hybrid"/"auto-hybrid", "supplementary opposite", "contra-" category].

Chapter [s = ]3. Sentences [as 3rd "self-hybrid", "supplementary opposite", "contra-" category].

Chapter [s = ]4. Paragraphs [as 4th "self-hybrid", "supplementary opposite", "contra-" category].

Chapter [s = ]5. Documents [as 5th "self-hybrid", "supplementary opposite", "contra-" category].

Chapter [s = ]6. Books [as 6th "self-hybrid"/"auto-hybrid", "supplementary opposite", "contra-" category].

Chapter [s = ]7. Libraries [as 7th "self-hybrid", "supplementary opposite", "contra-" category].


The correspondences of the interpreted NQ meta-numbers to the generic NQ meta-numerals are as follows --

letters...= ...l ...= ...q/l...(---]...q/1;

words...= ...w...= ...q/w...(---]...q/(1 + 1) ...=...q/2;

phrases...= ...p...= ...q/p...(---]...q/(2 + 2) ...=...q/4;

sentences...= ...s...= ...q/s...(---]...q/(4 + 4) ...=...q/8;

aragraphs...= ... ...= ...q/...(---]...

q/(8 + 8)...=...q/16;

documents...= ...d...= ...q/d...(---] ...

q/(16 + 16)...=...q/32;

books...= ...b...= ...q/b...(---]...

q/(32 + 32)...=...q/64;

Libraries...= ...L...= ...q/L...(---] ...

q/(64 + 64) ...= ...q/128 .



2.0 What an Account Limited to "Self-Hybrid", or "Auto-Hybrid", Ontological Categories Leaves Out: "Allo-Hybrids", or "Hybrids Proper".

Well, clearly, if not discerned already from the "ellipsis dots" embedded in the narratives above, then certainly, now, discerned from the growing subscript "gaps" in the listing of generic meta-number correspondences of our key "self-hybrid" categories for this systematic dialectic of contemporary written language, something has been left out in the accounts, above, of the NQ-algebraic, dyadic Seldon function model of this dialectic --

)-|-(s....=....(.l .)^(2^s).

To what, in this model, does the generic meta-number q/3 correspond? To what, in this model, do the generic meta-numbers q/5, and q/6, and q/7 correspond? And so on!


They all correspond to hybrids proper -- to "allo-hybrids"; to "complex unities" of distinct "self-hybrid", or "auto-hybrid", categories; to "dialectical syntheses" -- "full", and, mostly "partial" -- of distinct "self-hybrid" categories, and, in particular, to "subsumptions" of the self-hybrid categories represented via the right-more-listed subscripts, by the self-hybrid category represented by the left-most-listed subscript.

Thus, the qualifier-symbol, or categorial-symbol ["categorogram"] --

q/sw...(---]...q/10

-- denotes the subsumption of word "ideo-ontology" by sentence "ideo-ontology". It signifies all of the adjustments to words that are necessary, or convenient, in adapting them to service as sub-units of a sentence unit; in "converting" words for use in or as sentences.

Such adjustments include the capitalization of the first letter of the first word of a sentence. Such adjustments also include punctuation -- placing a "period" [or an "exclamation point", or a "question mark"] right after the last letter of the last word of a sentence [and, e.g., in Spanish, also placing a period, and inverted "exclamation point", or an inverted "question mark", right before the first, capitalized letter of the sentence].

This category also includes the literal "conversion" of a single word to be a sentence in itself, e.g., the
one-word sentences --

What?

Where?

When?

Who?

Why?

Yes!

No!

Eh?

Damn!

-- etc., etc.

In the next segment, Part II., we will explore, with much more amplitude, these terms of the )-|-(s expansion -- the terms that signify these "allo-hybrid", or "hybrid proper", categories, and their many surprises.




Regards,

Miguel

No comments:

Post a Comment