Full Title: '''Person-ification''' and 'Im-Person-ation' -- A Marxian Approach to the Meaning of Dialectical-Mathematical Formulae.
I thought you might enjoy the following excerpt from Part II. of F.E.D. Vignette #4, "The Goedelian Dialectic of the Standard Arithmetics."
[p. II-10] --
" ‘‘‘Person-ification’’’ and ‘Im-Person-ation’.
The physical terms, the tangible ideographical symbols, that the core
‘meta-model’ of this essay sums, are not, in any sense, in themselves, subjects, or agents -- centers that initiate action -- in their own right. How could they be? They are but, e.g., small, solidified pools of toner, adhering to paper.
Of course, to those who share in the ‘‘‘inter-subjectivity’’’ for
which these desiccated droplets make meaningful marks, those marks
evoke, whenever those ‘sharers’ read them, specific meanings, particular
ideas. But these ideas live, so far as we know, only inside
individual human minds.
Ideas are vivified only by living human beings, forming them, holding them in mind.
Ideas may have some minimal subconscious, unintentional ‘subject-hood’,
some agency, in a human mind, once willfully formed in that mind by
action of its ‘mind-er’. But almost all of any ‘agent-hood’, or
‘subject-ness’, that ideas possess, is consciously lent to them by each human subject who forms them in mind, in response to, e.g., human speech, or to some textual symbol(s).
Their ‘subject-ivity’ is borrowed from the real subjects.
Their ‘agent-ness’ persists only when, and only while, they are being ‘‘‘person-ified’’’, or ‘[im-]person-ated’ by a real person.
To believe otherwise is fetishism, that signal symptom of ideology, of
the failure of science -- like the “Fetishism of Commodities”, the
fetishism of Money, the fetishism of Capital, the fetishism of
[exchange-]Value in general -- that Marx so devastatingly diagnosed in
the ideology-compromised science of classical capitalist political
To believe otherwise would be a ‘fetishism of Ideas’, akin to the
ideology to which Plato’s Socrates -- and to which at least the early
Plato as well, prior to The Parmenides -- succumbed: not to mention so many others since!
These physical symbols -- these ‘empapered’ patterns of ink, staining
the page -- are dead; a deceased residue of past, ended thought-life,
that once guided the hand that wrote down their ‘conventioned’
representatives as marks on ...papyrus..., parchment..., paper, as human
And dead they remain -- unless a living person enlivens them, by comprehendingly reading them, and by [re-]cognizing
them”: ‘‘‘impersonating’’’ them -- infusing them with living
personality, with living human subjectivity, with active agency -- by
thinking them, and therefore also by ‘‘‘incarnating’’’ them in that
person’s seemingly flesh-less mind; by ‘‘‘mentally embodying’’’ them, in
that person’s seemingly ‘body-less’, ‘dis-embodied’’’ mind -- as
acting, interacting, [self-]critiquing and [self-]changing human
thoughts, residing, for a time, within the space of self-aware
consciousness of a breathing being.
The conclusion with which we are left is that what these symbols
really represent are human acts, human cognitive acts -- “Mental
Operations” [cf. Boole]. It is people -- human persons -- who animate
the Cs and the Ms of Marx’s C<--->M<--->C's and M<--->C<--->M's,
who stand behind, and act behind, who ‘enmask’ themselves with -- who
“personify” [Marx] -- these “social relations of production”.
Likewise, it is people who animate that which the arithmetical-system category-operators -- N#, a#, m#, f#, etc., denote.
Like each fictional character of a famous novel, made into a movie, the
‘idea-eventities’ which these ‘connotograms’ and ‘categorograms’ conjure
in the consciousnesses of their ‘cognizors’ can live and act only if
impersonated by a human person, by a human subject, by a human actor.
Objects, including even pre-human/extra-human living ‘[ev]entities’,
other biological beings, do not ‘self-awarely’ enact dialectical
To our knowledge, only humans can enact true critique.
Therefore, the dialectical-ideographical symbols employed in this essay,
the operator symbols for immanent critique that constitute our main
‘meta-model’, must denote intuitive operations, operations that can only
be carried out by human subjects: they denote the operations of human
What these symbols symbolize are [trans-Boolean] human mental movements, ‘‘‘dialogical’’’ and ‘self-dialogical’ mental activities of human beings.
In the last analysis, the formulae of our ‘meta-model’ evoke a
description of, or a guide to, one’s own thought process, one’s own
self-dialogue, in process of considering the meaning/definition of
number in modern/- contemporary Standard Arithmetic(s).
These formulae are ‘mind-guides’, ‘replayable’ condensed recordings of,
e.g., past, polished, proven-to-be-advantageous ‘thought-trains’/
‘thought-sequences’ / thought-progressions -- ‘‘‘programs’’’/
‘‘‘software’’’, not for a digital computer, but for a human mind; ‘thought-recipes’ & ‘thought-guides’; scores for symphonies of thought.
Our written-out recordings are a means for presently following the past
thoughts of others, or of ourselves, thoughts that left behind a
‘‘‘fossil record’’’ in tangible, written form, a form that can be
deciphered/‘re-minded’ to ‘re-navigate’ present readers’ thoughts, anew,
down mind-roads of old, on trails blazed before, by others.
If you are “following” the categorial progression/systems-progression
modeled herein -- conjuring up for yourself, in your own mind,
‘similants’ of the connotations and intuitions of the axioms-systems
that its terms interpret -- then its symbols, its formulae, its
equations, are, thereby, now about you.
¡These symbols are now describing and guiding what is going on in your own mind while you read them, and while you think them!
They are now describing, as well as steering, your own thoughts.
The symbols of this progression of symbols are symbolizing the
progression of your own thoughts now. All of this algebra is describing
your own mental operations now. All of this ideography is ‘‘‘graphing’’’ the flow of what have become your ideas now.
The formulae that follow -- the human minds behind them -- call out to
you to embody them in your own thoughts, to lend them your mind, and to
let them orchestrate the flow of your consciousness, just for the time
that your beholding of their presentation takes you.
These formulae call you to become them, to “simulate” them in your own
inner seeing, to ‘‘‘personify’’’ them, to ‘im-person-ate’ and to
‘im-person-ize’ their intensions and connotations, their meanings, until
they have made themselves known to and in you, via the systematic
journey of comprehension of modern, standard arithmetic and number along
which they are now ready to conduct you."