F.E.D. Dialectics: Part I.: Intuitive Account of the Universality of F.E.D.’s Generic Heuristic Algorithm for Dialectic

Intuitive Account of the Universality of F.E.D.’s Generic Heuristic Algorithm for Dialectic.

Part I.: Instances [<<Species>>] of Dialectical Progressions Viewed One-Sidedly, as "Progressions of Antitheses"

Dear Reader,

Evolute Progressions and Diachronic Dialectics. Our experience and our cognition encounters – when it continues to attend over any substantial stretch of time, of temporality, of history – progressions of entities, in which the earlier-emerged entities for the most part persist – continue to be extant – together with the later-emerged, including the most-recently-emerged, entities.

For example, consider the “universe-of-discourse” of social entertainment media/infrastructure:

live theaters --->

live theaters & … recorded movie-theaters --->

live theaters & … movie theaters & … home radios --->

live theaters & … movie theaters & … home radios & … home televisions --->

live theaters & … movie theaters & … home radios & … home televisions & …
home and mobile, recorded and live, audio and video entertainment-delivery computerized internet devices ---> . . .

That is, [live-play] theaters did not completely die out and disappear, though their population size and activity level were somewhat curtailed, and they were otherwise modified, by the emergence of [recorded-]movie theaters.

Likewise, live theaters and movie theaters did not become completely extinct, although their “socio-mass” was curtailed, in the case of movie theaters, and further curtailed, in the case of live-play theaters, and also otherwise modified, due to the emergence of home radios.

Again, live theaters and movie theaters and home radios did not completely go out of existence as a consequence of the emergence of home televisions, though their existences were somewhat [further] curtailed, and otherwise modified due to that emergence. And so on.

F.E.D. qualifies such progressions as “evolute progressions”, as opposed to “convolute progressions” --

http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Evolute/Evolute.htm

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Glossary_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20last%20updated%2024AUG2011,%20Definition,%20%27%27%27CONVOLUTE%27%27%27,%20JPEG,%20for%2003SEP2011.jpg

Hegel on the ''Evolute-ness'' of Dialectical Progressions. While it is true that the philosophical, dialectical ideology developed by G. W. F. Hegel suffers from the defects identified by Karl Marx, Hegel's work also contains -- at least in the sphere of systematic dialectics, i.e., in the sphere of the dialectical "method of presentation" of theories of dialectical [sub-]totalities -- a rich and systematic "cumulum" of resources for the development of scientific dialectics, and one which is readily accessible to dialectical-scientific immanent critique, as Marx also noted, and instantiated. For Example:

". . .the progress from that which forms the beginning is to be regarded as only a further determination [<<speci>>-fication -- M.D.] of it, hence that which forms the starting point of the development remains at the base of all that follows and does not vanish from it.

The progress does not consist merely in the derivation of an other, or in the effected transition into a genuine other; and in so far as this transition does occur it is equally sublated [i.e., it is equally ‘«aufheben»-ated’ -- M.D.] again.

Thus the beginning of philosophy is the foundation which is present and preserved throughout the entire subsequent development, remaining completely immanent in its further determinations [i.e., the beginning of the «Logik» is the «arché» of «Logik»; its ‘‘‘governing source’’’; its ‘‘‘ever-present origin’’’ -- M.D.]."

[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Science of Logic, With What Must Science Begin? [Introductory Essay], translated by S. Houlgate, in S. Houlgate, The Opening of Hegel’s Logic, Purdue University Press [West Lafayette, Indiana: 2006], pp.175-179, italic bold-face and underline emphasis added. NOTE: All of the F.E.D. Dialectical ‘Meta-Models’ that I have recounted/re-presented in this thread exhibit the characteristics described by Hegel in the emphasized passages above.].

Again, Hegel --

"...the determinateness [‘«speci»-ficity’ -- M.D.] which was a result is itself, by virtue of the form of simplicity into which it has withdrawn, a fresh beginning; as this beginning is distinguished from its predecessor precisely by that determinateness, cognition rolls onward from content to content.

First of all, this advance is determined as beginning from simple determinatenesses, the succeeding ones becoming ever richer and more concrete.

For the result contains its beginning and its course has enriched it by a fresh determinateness.

The universal constitutes the foundation; the advance is therefore not to be taken as a flowing from one other to the next other.

In the absolute method the Notion maintains itself in its otherness, the universal in its particularization, in judgment and reality; at each stage of its further determination [i.e., of its further ‘«speci»-fication’ -- M.D.] it raises the entire mass of its preceding content, and by its dialectical advance it not only does not lose anything or leave anything behind, but carries along with it all it has gained, and inwardly enriches and consolidates itself.".

[G. W. F. Hegel, Science of Logic, Translated by A. V. Miller, Humanity Books [NY: 1969], Volume II., Section 3., Chapter 3., The Absolute Idea (1812), p. 840, bold-italic-underline-shadow-color emphasis added].

Truly-Empirical Science: Following Nature = Following [Natural] History. The history of our cosmos as a whole, in terms of the “kinds of being(s)”, or the “ontology”, that has successively appeared/emerged in its history, exhibits this “evolute progression” form/content.

[ Note: The term <<aufheben>> here means an operation that concurrently qualitatively changes, and also “contains”/conserves, and also “elevates” the entity upon which it operates.

The "elevation" moment of the <<aufheben>> operation is an escalation of the entity thus operated upon in terms of its "qualo-quantitative" scale [thus evoking the hitherto unrecognized "fractal" aspect of dialectic].

Dialectical progressions are diachronic, finitary [meta-]fractals -- self-accelerating self-similarity regresses of continually escalating "qualo-quantitative" scale.

For example, it is obvious that a molecule, which <<aufheben>>-"contains" atoms -- which is a "self-internalization" of atoms, i.e., which is a "meta-atom", typically made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of atoms, wherein a molecule as unit is a "meta-unit" relative to its constituent atoms as units -- resides at a higher quantitative scale than do atoms, given that a molecule is typically larger as measured in linear size units [e.g., in radius], in mass units, and in volume units, than any of the atoms that are internal to it.

It is also not hard to see that a molecule resides at a higher qualitative scale than do its constituent atoms, and than do atoms external to it, that are not yet organized up to the molecular scale or higher, because by virtue of its <<aufheben>>-"containing" atoms, a molecule represents a higher qualitative unit, exhibiting new emergent qualities, qualities, and actions/behaviors, that are not yet possible/manifest at the atomic-and-no-higher level/scale of organization and of units.

Yet it is also clear that a molecule unit[y], in <<aufheben>>-"containing" atom unit[ie]s, and thereby in rising to, and constituting, a higher "qualo-quantitative" scale than that at which pre-molecular atom unit[ie]s reside, is also "similar" to an atom unit[y], in being also a qualitative [meta-]unit[y].

This <aufheben>>, "fractal-ogenic" operation is the operation that resides at the core of all dialectic ].

pre-nuclear “particles” --->

self-<<aufheben>> of pre-nuclear “particles” =

pre-nuclear “particles” & multi-pre-nuclear “particle” nuclear “particles” --->

self-<<aufheben>> of pre-nuclear “particles” & nuclear “particles” =

pre-nuclear “particles” & nuclear “particles” &…multi-nuclear “particle” atomic nuclei --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of that =

pre-nuclear “particles” & nuclear “particles” &…atomic nuclei &…multi-atom molecules --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of that =

pre-nuclear “particles” & nuclear “particles” &…atomic nuclei &…molecules &…multi-molecule prokaryotic cells --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

pre-nuclear “particles” & nuclear “particles” &…atomic nuclei &…molecules &…prokaryotes &…multi-prokaryotic-cell eukaryotic cells --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

pre-nuclears & nuclears &…nuclei &…molecules &…prokaryotes &…eukaryotes &…multi-[eukaryotic-]cellular organisms --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

pre-nuclears & nuclears &…nuclei &…molecules &…prokaryotes &…eukaryotes &…multicellulars &…multi-multi-cellular-organism animal societies --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

pre-nuclears & nuclears &…nuclei &…molecules &…prokaryotes &…eukaryotes &…multicellulars &… animal societies &… multi-animal-society, humans-led [meta-]societies --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

pre-nuclears & nuclears &…nuclei &…molecules &…prokaryotes &…eukaryotes &…meta-biota &… animal societies &… human societies &…multi-planetary-society “meta-humanity” [F.E.D.-predicted next emergence, not yet [fully] actualized / only “fractionally”-actualized to-date] ---> . . . ..

Truly-Empirical Human-Social Science: Following [Human] History. The social history of Terran humanity also exhibits this “evolute progressive” pattern –

mutually-warring tribal societies --->

mutually-warring tribal societies &…prisoner-of-war slave-labor-based empires --->

mutually-warring tribal societies &…prisoner-of-war slave-labor-based empires &… serf-labor-based kingdoms --->

tribal societies &…slave-labor-based empires &…serf-labor-based kingdoms &…wage-labor-based republics ---> . . . ..

-- or, in terms of what Marx and Engels called “the social relations of production”, or ‘“the forms of [human-]social intercourse”’ [in, e.g., The German Ideology] --

predatory Appropriations of the “raw” products of pre-human/extra-human nature --->

<<aufheben>> of that =

“raw” Appropriations & human-labor-improved/refined [by multi-/cross-Appropriation of natural properties] “Goods”/“Use-Values” --->

<<aufheben>> of that =

“raw” Appropriations & “Goods” &…Exchange-Use Value of Goods: Bartered Commodities --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

“raw” Appropriations & “Goods” &…Commodities &…Monies --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

“raw” Appropriations & “Goods” &…Commodities &…Monies &…Capitals --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

“raw” Appropriations & “Goods” &…Commodities &…Monies &…Capitals &… Generalized Equities [F.E.D.-predicted next emergence, not yet actualized] ---> . . . ..

[Note: The "meta-unit-ic" -- or "meta-<<monad>>-ic" -- concretization of the core-dialectical <<aufheben>> operation, is not so directly manifest in the case of the dialectical progression of the Marxian "human-social relations of production" as it is in the cases of the other dialectical progressions invoked in this blog entry.

This observation points-up the difference between historical dialectics, the first "contra-category, and psychohistorical dialectics, the second "contra-category", in the F.E.D. [psychohistorical] dialectical progression of their "dialectic of the dialectic itself".

This is because the "meta-<<monad>>-izations" in the case of the "human-social relations of production" dialectic -- i.e., of the "forms of human-social intercourse" dialectic -- are not as "physical" as they are in most of the other cases invoked herein.

The <<aufheben>> "internalizations"/"containments" & qualitative negations & conservations & scale-elevations in the case of the Marxian "human-social relations of production" dialectic are mind-mediated, inter-subjective, collective-psychological, "meme-etic", "human-phenomic" changes in the psychohistorical material[ity] of humanity, rather than "purely" physical <<aufheben>> [self-]operations.

For a detailed rendition of the "meta-<<monad>>-ization" content of the <<aufheben>> processes in the historical progression of the Marxian "human-social relations of production", see --

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Primer_files/4_F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20B-1,%20v.2_OCR.pdf

-- pages B-24 through B-32 ].

-- or, in terms of the human-social geography/"meta-geology" of human-social formations --

bands of proto-human hunter-gatherer-foragers/scavengers --->

self-<<aufheben>> of that =

bands & initially multi-band encampments --->

self-<<aufheben>> of that =

bands & camps &…initially multi-camp villages --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

bands & camps &…villages &…initially multi-village tribal chiefdoms --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

bands & camps &…villages &…chiefdoms &…initially multi-chiefdom/multi-tribe-alliance city-states --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

bands & camps &…villages &…chiefdoms &…city-states &… multi-city-state empires --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

bands & camps &…villages &…chiefdoms &…city-states &…ancient empires &…multi-empire-remnant/-fragment modern nation-states --->

self-<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding = . . . =

bands & camps &…villages &…chiefdoms &…city-states &…empires &…nation-states

&…multi-nation-state poli [e.g., the EU]

&…planetary poli [F.E.D.-predicted future emergence, not yet actualized] --->. . . ..

-- although Terran human-social formations-history does appear to have somewhat more in the way of “convolute” tendencies than do some other such progressions, along with its also evident “evolute” tendencies.

Synchronic Dialectics: Method of Presentation of Dialectical Theories that Explain the Self-Reproduction of Systems. There are also “contemporaneous”, “synchronic”, “all-at-once” dialectical progressions, or dialectically-progressively-presented taxonomies – usually in the form of short-duration, or “micro-historical”, pedagogical/educational presentations [e.g., lectures, textbooks, slide decks, etc.] – which comprise the category of “systematic dialectics”, such as --

Universe-of-discourse: the system of contemporary phonetic written language.

letters of the alphabet --->

<<aufheben>> of that =

letters & multi-letter syllables --->

<<aufheben>> of that =

letters & syllables &…multi-syllable words --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

letters & syllables &…words &…multi-word phrases --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

letters & syllables &…words &…phrases &…multi-phrase sentences --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

letters & syllables &…words &…phrases &…sentences &… multi-sentence paragraphs --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

letters & syllables &…words &…phrases &…sentences &… paragraphs &…multi-paragraph texts --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

letters & syllables &…words &…phrases &…sentences &… paragraphs &…texts &…multi-text/multi-chapter books --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

letters & syllables &…words &…phrases &…sentences &… paragraphs &…texts &…books &…multi-book libraries --->. . . ..

-- or --

Universe-of-discourse: the system of contemporary “computerware” [hardware & software].

bits --->

<<aufheben>> of that =

bits & multi-bit bytes --->

<<aufheben>> of that =

bits & bytes &…multi-byte computer-words --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

bits & bytes &…words &…multi-word commands --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

bits & bytes &…words &…commands &…multi-command programs --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

bits & bytes &…words &…commands &…programs &… multi-program software systems ---> . . . ..

-- or --

Universe-of-discourse: the system of units of contemporary time metrology.

…seconds --->

<<aufheben>> of that =

…seconds & multi-second minutes --->

<<aufheben>> of that =

…seconds & minutes &…multi-minute hours --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

…seconds & minutes &…hours &…multi-hour days --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

…seconds & minutes &…hours &…days &…multi-day weeks --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

…seconds & minutes &…hours &…days &…weeks &… multi-week months --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

…seconds & minutes &…hours &…days &…weeks &… months &…multi-month quarters --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

…seconds & minutes &…hours &…days &…weeks &… months &…quarters &…multi-quarter years --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

…seconds & minutes &…hours &…days &…weeks &… months &…quarters &…years &…multi-year decades --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

…seconds & minutes&…hours &…days &…weeks &… months &…quarters &…years &…decades &…multi-decade centuries --->

<<aufheben>> of all of the preceding =

…seconds & minutes &…hours &…days &…weeks &… months &…quarters &…years &…decades &…centuries &…multi-century millennia --->. . . ..

In all of the “evolute progression” examples above, I have used “ellipsis dots” -- … -- to avoid detailing the “combinations” – the “hybrids”, or [full and partial] “syntheses” – that often arise in such “evolute progressions”.

These “combined forms” are related to a universal generalization of the “uneven and combined development” theory proposed by Leon Trotsky.

The final examples in this blog entry will be beginning to bring the “combined forms”, “complex unities”, “hybrids”, or “syntheses” back into "explicitude".

Dialectics Generalized. Let us consider a generic version of such “evolute progressions”, abstracting from all of the “evolute-cumulative progressions” cited above, and from many others as well, all of which have common features that we wish to preserve in this abstraction/generalization/generic version.

Note: A truly empirical science – and, therefore, any true science in the essential sense of that word – must “follow nature”, which means, in part, that it must “follow [natural] history”.

That is, A truly empirical science must put forth models – or “meta-models” – which do not just represent all of the entities that are ever known to have appeared in empirical reality, but which must also generate these representations in the empirically-reconstructed historical order, and timings, in which these entities actually arose in the temporal, chronological, historical continuity of nature.

Per the generic version of such progressions --

First, human cognition, seeking to comprehend a given experienced/reconstructed progression, must “work-up” its data, information, evidence, and knowledge about the given progression-phenomena, until it can identify the temporal, historical origin, or beginning, of that progression: the very first entity in that empirically-reconstructed, historical progression of entities: the <<arche’>>-entity, call it A.

Next, human cognition must grasp “the fundamental “law” of dialectical logic”, or “the fundamental “law” of dialectical thought”, which generalizes to “the fundamental “law” of dialectical historical process”, as it applies to the specific progression it seeks to model and master, namely --

A ---> A of A = [self-]<<aufheben>> of A = A + delta_A

-- where delta_A stands for a qualitative increment of new ontology – a new kind of being – a kind qualitatively different from that of A, but a new kind which results from the [self-]<< aufheben >> of the “old” kind, A – by means of the concurrent containment/conservation, and qualitative change/determinate negation, and elevation, of A, by A, itself.

The usual concrete form of this [self-]<<aufheben>> operation of the <<arche’>> is what F.E.D. refers to as “meta-unit-ization”, or “meta-<<monad>>-ization” –

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Glossary_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200.,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20first%20published%2010DEC2011,%20last%20updated%2020AUG2011,%20Definition,%20%27META-%27,%20for%2022AUG2011.jpg

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Glossary_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200.,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20first%20published%2010DEC2011,%20last%20updated%2017AUG2011,%20Definition,%20ARCHE%27,%20JPEG_2.jpg

Once A is posited as [having-been / still-being] actual, or even as just being possible, the actualization of the initially-hidden potential of A, call it delta_A, or B, also becomes possible, beginning at some moment of time after the positing of the actuality, or possibility, of A, as a derivative of the prior actuality, or possibility, of A.

The possibility of B “descends” from, or is “inherited” from, the prior possibility, or actuality, of A.

Next, after both A and B have become, and remained, possible, or actual, their “unification”, “combination”, “hybridization”, or “synthesis”, call it –

“B of A [minus A]”, or delta_[B; A], or C

-- also becomes possible, as a derivative of – as an “inheritance” from – the prior co-possibility, or co-actuality, of A and B together.

In summary, then, F.E.D.’s generic version of “dialectical evolute progression” holds that, over “micro-historical”, “meso-historical”, or “macro-historical” scales/intervals of historical time --

Ontology-state A goes to A & B, goes to A & B & C . . .

-- or --

Ontology-state A becomes A + B, becomes A + B + C . . .

-- or --

Posit goes to Posit + Op-Posit, goes to Posit + Op-Posit + Com-Posit. . ..

In that sub-sphere of historical dialectics "meta-modeling" of the pre-human/extra-human dialectic of nature, where the aspect of opposition, or "antagonism", between Posit and Op-Posit may not be so plain, it may be better to characterize the triadic sub-progressions as --

Posit goes to Posit + Meta-Posit, goes to Posit + Meta-Posit + Com-Posit. . ..

Transition to Part II.: Instances [<<Species>>] of Dialectical Progressions Viewed More Holistically, as "Progressions of '''Thesis / Anti-Thesis / Syn-Thesis''' Triads".

Hegel on the Dialectical Triad. In his lectures on his dialectical <<Logik>>, Hegel spoke as follows on the dialectical triad --

"The first determination [ i.e., ‘«speci»-fication’ -- M.D.] is immediate, while the second one constitutes the sphere posited in its differentiation from the first.

Within every simple first determination, [e.g., ground,] what is determinately different from it [, e.g., the consequence of the ground] is at once also present, but it is at first present without being explicitly posited.

In the second determination, finitude [and with it contradiction] again enters.

The third determination is the unity of the first and the second, in which the contradiction is resolved. ...

The progression is as follows.

The beginning is simple, immediate. ...

Every newly emerging concept is more concretely determinate [i.e., is more-richly "<<speci>>-fied" -- M.D.] than its predecessor.

We are always carrying everything that went before along with ourselves into what is new, but everything prior is, within what is new, put in its determinate place. [assertion by Hegel of the "«aufheben» evoluteness" of systematic dialectic -- M.D.]

Whereas, in what preceded, each [momentarily immediate] determination … passed as ultimate, it is now demoted into being only a moment . . ."

[G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on Logic, Clark Butler, translator, Introduction to the Lectures on Logic, More Exact Concept and Division of the Science of Logic, [I. Being], Indiana U. Press [Indianapolis:2008], pp. 79-80, bold, italic underline shadow, and color emphasis added].

Examples of Dialectical Triads. In the following examples, we will start to “look into the ellipsis” that characterized the earlier, starting examples – into the “hybrids” or “syntheses” that were left-out, or left implicit, in those earlier examples – via the “explicitization” of the third term in each example below – that is, via the "explicitization" of their “C” terms – in place of the “ellipsis dots”, “…”, employed previously.

Term C stands for the "real subsumption" of term A by term B, or the "mutual subsumption" of B and A -- for the "complex unity", or "hybridization", of "kind" A and/with "kind" B.

In the earlier examples presented at the start of this blog entry, the progressions presented were all of the following generic form --

First Posit & First Op-Posit &...Second Op-Posit &...Third Op-Posit &...Fourth Op-Posit &... --->

-- or of the form --

First Posit & <<aufheben>> of First Posit &...<<aufheben>> of First Op-Posit &...<<aufheben>> of Second Op-Posit &...<<aufheben>> of Third Op-Posit &... --->

-- i.e., of the "algebraic" form --

A & B &...D &...H &...P &...--->. . . ..

All of the "hybrids", or [partial/total] "Syntheses", starting with the "First Com-Posit", were hidden in the "ellipsis dots" - ... .

The term C is "hidden" in the first group of ellipsis dots, E & F & G -- or, equivalently, E + F + G -- is "hidden" in the second group of ellipsis dots, I & J & K & L & M & N & O -- or, equivalently, I + J + K + L + M + N + O -- is "hidden" in the third group of ellipsis dots, and so on.

Decoding the "algebra" above, C stands for the "first full synthesis", E, F, and G stand for the "first partial synthesis", the "second partial synthesis", and the "second full synthesis", respectively -- i.e., for the "real subsumptions" of A by D, of B by D, and of C by D, respectively -- and I, J, K, L, M, N, and O stand for the "third partial synthesis", the "fourth partial synthesis", the "fifth partial synthesis", the "sixth partial synthesis", the "seventh partial synthesis", the "eighth partial synthesis", and the "third full synthesis", respectively -- i.e., for the "real subsumptions" of A by H, of B by H, of C by H, of D by H, of E by H, of F by H, and of G by H.

TO BE CONTINUED

Next:

Part II. A.: Instances [<<Species>>] of Dialectical Progressions Viewed More Holistically, as "Progressions of '''Thesis / Anti-Thesis / Syn-Thesis''' Triads" --

Systematic-Dialectics Example 1. – The Opening Triad of Hegel’s Dialectical <<Logik>>.

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

www.dialectics.info

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