I have excerpted, below, some highpoints of eight recent dialogues on F.E.D. Dialectics, and related topics, in which I have participated, in the RevLeft Sciences Forum's, "A Dialectical Theory of Everything" thread, and which I think will be of interest to you.
I have indicated my own contributions to these dialogues by 'MD:'. My interlocutors in these dialogues-excerpts, to protect their privacy, are identified simply by 'D' for "Discussant".
Regards,
Miguel Detonacciones
Dialogue 1 Excerpt.
D: dialectics are great.
i would argue there are dialectics within and between spirit and matter.
there are dialectal struggles going on within all of you.
within faith and disbelief.
sanity and insanity.
conformity and rebellion.
the revolution is happening on both the atomic and multiversal levels.
i am the bullet piercing through.
life is so very unlikely.
it is one giant self-contradiction.
therefore, self-contradictions are inherent in everything.
stop the self-contradictions, and the universe will die.
consciousness is embedded in the universe.
matter and energy are one.
that explains the big bang.
dialectal materialism vs dialectal idealism leads to dialectal ideamaterialism.
therefore.
neo-anarchism is the only logical and illogical answer.
MD:
Your post contains some assertions that I, and, I think, many others here, would dispute [not all of us for the same reasons], and, perhaps, it also fails to distinguish propositional contradiction from dialectical contradiction --
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Glossary.html
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%27CONTRADICTION%27%27%27,%20JPEG,%20for%2008SEP2011.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,%20last%20updated%2024AUG2011,%20Diagram,%20%27%27%27CONTRADICTION%27%27%27,%20JPEG,%20for%2008SEP2011.jpg
-- but -- at least! -- your post is rich and alive with the poetry and with the spirit of dialectic!
THANK YOU !!!
Dialogue 2 Excerpt.
D: there is a contradiction between propositional and dialectical contradiction
contradiction arises from unity
before the universal vortex arose from the multiversal pot, our universe was 1=1
came big bang and the arousal of contradiction, creating reality by separating reality from unreality, and the synthesis between reality and unreality is surreality
thus 1=infinity
that's a dialectal atom bomb
MD: I'll respond assertion-by-assertion, below --
D: there is a contradiction between propositional and dialectical contradiction
M.D.: Well, at least, a difference of kind, a qualitative difference, and, perhaps, in some contexts, not a mere qualitative difference, but an extreme qualitative difference, i.e., a qualitative opposition, the resolution of which follows the F.E.D. generic dialectic [Triadic or Cubic Seldon Function] to --
P = Human Recognition of the category of Propositional Contradiction [assigned to generic 'dialectical meta-number' q1 ];
D = Human Recognition of the category of Dialectical Contradiction, as qualitatively distinct from, and, in some ways, as an opposite of, the category of Propositional Contradiction [assigned to generic 'dialectical meta-number' q2 ];
qDP = Human Recognitions/Descriptions of Dialectical Contradictions Metaphorically, Using the Language of Propositional Contradiction [assigned to generic 'dialectical meta-number' q3 ]. --
(P)^3 =
P*P*P =
qP*qP*qP =
qP + qPP + qPPP =
P + D + qDP
-- or, in terms of the 'generic dialectical arithmetic', and its 'generic dialectical meta-numbers', not assigned to the terms of this specific case --
[q1]^3 =
q1 * q1 * q1 =
[q1 * q1] * q1 =
[q1 + q1+1] * q1 =
[q1 + q2] * q1 = [q1 * q1] + [q2 * q1] =
[q1 + q1+1] + [q2 * q1] =
[q1 + q2] + [q1 + q2+1] =
[q1 + q2] + [q1 + q3] =
q1 + q2 + q3.
[Also ends in same result for q1 * [q1 * q1] -- "you do the math".].
D: contradiction arises from unity
M.D.: Agreed -- yes! -- from what F.E.D. calls 'self-duality', 'intra-duality', or 'indivi[sible]-duality'.
D: before the universal vortex arose from the multiversal pot, our universe was 1=1
M.D.: There may, indeed, be, or have been, a universal toroidal vortex ['cyclonic vortex', e.g., a '3-D soliton'], but the rest of your post does not make sense to me. What empirical grounds do you have for positing the existence of a "multiverse" -- or is your positing of such mere speculation, rather than empirical science?
D: came big bang and the arousal of contradiction, creating reality by separating reality from unreality, and the synthesis between reality and unreality is surreality
M.D.: I would suspect that, to the extent that there even was a "Big Bang" as currently conceived by establishment science, that dialectical contradiction / 'intra-duality' already existed, and preceded the "Big Bang", and was, indeed, the cause of -- was expressed as, in, and by -- the 'self-explosion' of what, I think, must have preceded the "Big Bang".
D: thus 1=infinity
M.D.: A very dubious proposition, to say the least!!!
D: that's a dialectal atom bomb
M.D.: Or just a collapse of dialectical-rational cognition!
Dialogue 3 Excerpt.
D: Math is bourgeois.
M.D.: No, not any more than all political economy is bourgeois!
Classical [capitalist] political-economics is bourgeois.
Marx's immanent critique of [that] political economy is not.
Only bourgeois math is bourgeois.
F.E.D.'s immanent critique of bourgeois math is proto-socialist.
D: I'm joking. I'm just more of a right brain person so understanding things in terms of numbers is extremely unappealing to me.
M.D.: If you don't dig the ordinary "purely-quantitative" numbers -- and I sympathize, because of the ideology that usually surrounds them as taught in today's "schools" -- then maybe you should try the F.E.D. 'dialectical meta-numbers': they're "purely-qualitative"! --
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Welcome.html
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Primer.html
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Primer_files/3_F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20A-1_OCR.pdf
-- Yes, a "purely-qualitative" [dialectical] arithmetic must be possible, because it already exists, ever since Karl Seldon discovered it in 1996!
Dialogue 4 Excerpt.
D: ...Stop right there! I don't understand what "meta-monadization" means, or anything else you write afterwards...
MD: Thank you for asking a real and deep question!!
Below is my answer -- a somewhat more thorough answer than I have given to this question previously.
Background: The ancient Greek mentality re: <<monad>> and <<arithmos>>. In one of humanity's great ancient-heritage languages, ancient Greek, the word <<monad>> means "unit", or "individual".
The word <<arithmos>>, from which our modern English word <<arithmetic>> is derived, meant an assemblage of <<monads>> -- i.e., a number of units -- and the word <<arithmos>> is usually translated into modern English as just "number".
But <<arithmos>> did not mean the same thing to the ancient Mediterraneans as it does to we moderns!!!
[for more about this, see: Jacob Klein, Greek Mathematical Thought and the Origin of Algebra, Dover, 1968].
The mentalities of the ancients were far less permeated than are ours by the [industrial-capital milieu's] "law of value", and, in particular, by the unconsciously-inculcated illusions of what Marx calls "The Elementary Form of Value".
To these ancients, a "number" meant a number of units, and units, are qualitative entities, not "pure quantities". Thus, for the ancients, "one [unit]" was not a number, was not quantitative at all. "One [unit]" was purely qualitative. Number as such began with "two [units]", and all "numbers" were thus qualo-quantitative, i.e., 'unitso-quantitative'.
E.g., "one apple" was just an apple, not "a number of apples"; "two apples" was "a number [of apples]", but "two oranges" was qualitatively different than "two apples", because the units of those two "numbers of units" ["assemblages of units"] were qualitatively different. There was still more presence of "concrete numbers" in the thinking of the ancients, although they did use quantifiers with generalized symbolic qualifiers -- abstract, generic but still qualitative <<monads>> [e.g., Diophantus's Ms in his circa 250 C.E. proto-algebraic work, The Arithmetica].
!!!No wonder that the ancient Greek world's "Pythagoreans" sound so mystical to we moderns when we hear that they held that "All is number"!!!
!The entire concrete, practical, scientific, empirical dimension of that claim is "lost in translation" for us!
They Pythagoreans meant, at least in part, that "All is <<arithmos>>" -- i.e., they meant that the unit of any kind of thing we experience tends to be found in plurality, in multiplicity, in "populations" -- not as single unique individual as the only exemplar of a given kind of thing!!!
This typical fact of multiplicity rather than uniqueness is in truth a quite remarkable and important scientific observation, completely lost to us because of our modern mentality, when the ancient Greek's writings straightforwardly state it to us, but via the language of their, very different, pre-industrial-capitalist, ancient mentality. [for more about this, see: Alfred W. Crosby, The Measure of Reality: Quantification and Western Society, 1250-1600, Cambridge University Press, 1997].
We moderns don't generally understand, without [Marxian] dialectical science, that abstract human labor-time units are the units behind what seems to be the "purely quantitative" [usually money-price/money-units-mediated] exchange of qualitatively variable numbers of units of different commodities, e.g. "six apples exchange for five oranges", or "six apples cost the same number of dollar[ unit]s as do five oranges".
Indeed, let's consider Marx's own algebraic notation for the "Elementary Form of Value", from Chapter I.3.A. of <<Das Kapital>>, where he used the equals sign, '=', to represent the exchange of "equivalent" but qualitatively heterogeneous, qualitatively different, commodities, A and B --
xA = yB
-- meaning --
x units of commodity A has the same value as y units of commodity B.
Then let's consider one of Marx's concrete examples thereof --
"20 yards of linen = 1 coat"
-- and also consider Aristotle's two connected concrete examples, which Marx famously quotes in this first chapter of <<Das Kapital>> --
"5 beds = 1 house
is not to be distinguished from
5 beds = so much money".
The [largely unconscious] confusion within the human phenome, or memes-pool, wrought by habituation to this seemingly irrational, unintelligible equation of [different] quantities of two qualitatively different, incommensurable kinds of things that Marx dis-covers for us here, is the very kernel of "The Modern Ideology", i.e., of the post-Dark-Ages capitalist ideology and of its reductionist 'ideo-pathology'; of human thinking distorted by humanity's habitual practice of the capital-epoch's unique "law of value"; of humanity's inveterate experience of the apparent reduction of disparate quality to pure, mere quantity.
Reintroducing the abstracted money-price mediation of such "equivalent" commodities exchanges does not help.
That re-introduction does "as if" replace the two qualitatively distinct commodity units, or commodity <<monads>>, with a single monetary unit, or monetary <<monad>>, e.g., the British pound sterling, but the qualitative nature of the monetary unit, the kind of thing that the monetary unit represents, as the unit of "worth" or of "value", remains obscure, if perhaps mostly unquestioned, for most human beings of the capitalist epoch.
Consequently, under the mass-unconscious impact of the practice of the [capitalist] "law of value", our "arithmetic" has become "purely quantitative", an arithmetic of 'unqualified quantifiers', of elided qualitative units, of "pure quantifiers": not "two apples" or "two oranges", but just two.
In relation to that aspect of the modern mentality, the ancient mentality can provide important insights for the immanent critique of bourgeois mathematical ideology, and of modern, unconsciously law-of-[capital-]value-influenced 'mathematico-science' generally.
A Flaw in the ancient ideology regarding <<monads>> and their <<arithmoi>>. However, there is a flaw also in that ancient mentality regarding "<<monads>>" and "<<arithmoi>>" for which the modern mentality and its modern scientific fruits have a potential cure.
Euclid's famous treatise on arithmetic and geometry, The Elements, reveals this flaw: "EUCLID defines in the Elements, VII, 2, a numberas “the multitude made up of units” [i.e., the <<arithmos>> made up of «monads» -- M.D.], having previously (Elements VII, 1) said that a unit is "that by which each of existing things is called one". As a unit is not composed of units, neither EUCLID nor ARISTOTLE regard a unit as a number, but rather as "the basis of counting, or as the origin [i.e., as the «arché» -- M.D.] of number." [H. Hermes, et al., Numbers, Springer-Verlag [NY: 1991], page 12, emphasis added by M.D.].
That is, the ancients, in general, missed out on the dialectic of <<arithmos>> and <<monad>>. They tended to rigidly separate the two concepts, into an "either/or" "radical duality", or "absolute direction", not seeing much of the "interpenetration" of the two categories.
They typically did not discern the processes by which "<<arithmos>> becomes <<monad>>, or by which <<monad>> becomes <<arithmos>>.
But we moderns know, today, that '''units are composed of [sub-]units'''; that '''[meta-]units are composed of units"', that '''<<monads>> are composed of [sub-]<<monads>>''', that '''[meta-]<<monads>> are composed of <<monads>>'''!!!
We know today that, e.g., sub-<<arithmoi>> of the cosmological sub-atomic "particles" <<arithmos>>, at a certain stage in the self-development of our <<kosmos>>, began to form a new kind of [meta-] unit, or [meta-] <<monad>>, which we call "atoms";
and that, later still, sub-<<arithmoi>> of the cosmological atoms <<arithmos>>, at a certain stage in the self-development of our <<kosmos>>, began to form a new kind of [meta-] unit, or [meta-] <<monad>>, which we call "molecules";
and that, later still, sub-<<arithmoi>> of the cosmological molecules <<arithmos>>, at a certain stage in the self-development of our <<kosmos>>, began to form a new kind of [meta-] unit, or [meta-] <<monad>>, which we call "prokaryotic living cells";
and that, later still, sub-<<arithmoi>> of the cosmological prokaryotic cells <<arithmos>>, at a certain stage in the self-development of our <<kosmos>>, began to form a new kind of [meta-] unit, or [meta-] <<monad>>, which we call "eukaryotic living cells";
and that, later still, sub-<<arithmoi>> of the cosmological eukaryotic cells <<arithmos>>, at a certain stage in the self-development of our <<kosmos>>, began to form a new kind of [meta-] unit, or [meta-] <<monad>>, which we call "'asocial multicellular, 'metacullular' organisms"', 'meta-biota' -- the plant '''meta-phyta''' and the animal '''meta-zoa''';
and that, later still, sub-<<arithmoi>> of the cosmological <<arithmos>> of 'meta-biota', at a certain stage in the self-development of our <<kosmos>>, began to form a new kind of [meta-] unit, or [meta-] <<monad>>, which we call [proto-language-based] "animal societies", "plant communities";
and that, later still, sub-<<arithmoi>> of the cosmological <<arithmos>> of 'social/community meta-biota', at a certain stage in the self-development of our <<kosmos>>, began to form a new kind of [meta-] unit, or [meta-] <<monad>>, which we call language-based, 'human[oid]s-led, human/animal/plant meta-societies', based upon the ["Neolithic Revolution"] mutual domestication and 'mutual internalization' of animal societies and plant communities -- of humans, wolves/dogs, horses, cattle, pigs, chickens, rice, wheat, barley, corn, etc., etc.;
The above summarizes the most general level of the multi-level, multi-scale, total-universe-and-multi-sub-universe cosmological progression, the 'meta-genealogy', of the universe, and of its sub-universes, by 'self-meta-<<monad>>-ization', i.e., by 'self-meta-unit-ization', i.e., by 'self-meta-holon-ization', of the <<monads>> of each predecessor 'cosmo-<<arithmos>>', in giving birth to its successor 'cosmo-[meta-]<<arithmos>>', by giving birth to the [meta-]<<monads>> which constitute that [meta-]<<arithmos>>.
And this recurring, mounting cosmological process of 'self-meta-<<monad>>-ization' of <<monads>> is an <<aufheben>> process, a process of simultaneous 'self-negation/self-elevation/self-conservation'.
As such, this process is the more-concrete-descriptive-name of the physical dialectical process, the process of 'The Dialectic of Nature' as Totality.
It's recognition as such, and the discovery of a suitable [progression of systems of the] "mathematics of dialectics" to express it, enables the formulation and reconstruction of the universal <<genos>>-level total known history of Nature, of the total 'self-meta-evolution' of our cosmos, via a single 'dialectical meta-equation', which includes also a prediction, or 'pre-construction', of a cosmological next new kind of being
That is Karl Seldon's, and F.E.D.'s, historic achievement, in the advancement of Marxian theory, and of universal labor!
D: Well, that's cleared that up
M.D.: Maybe the summary below will help you more?
No?
'Meta-Monadization' and 'Meta-Unitization' are two names for a ubiquitous, universal dialectical [i.e., <<aufheben>>] principle.
In the context of the overall [singular] dialectic of nature, here are the main-line instances for the primary <<gene>> ["kinds"] of cosmological [physio-]ontology --
1. A proton unit is a 'meta-quark' meta-unit, each one made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of quark units;
2. An atomic nucleus unit is a 'meta-proton' meta-unit, each one [except the non-isotopic Hydrogen nucleus = just one proton ] made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of proton units [and of other "sub-atomic particle" units, e.g., mesons, neutrons, etc.];
3. A molecule unit is a 'meta-atom' meta-unit, each one made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of atom units [or out of a homogeneous multiplicity of atom units in the cases of, e.g., diatomic and triatomic <<species>> of molecules -- H2, O2, O3- [Ozone], etc.];
4. A prokaryotic living cell unit is a 'meta-molecule' meta-unit, each one made up out of a heterogeneous [vast] multiplicity [mostly mega-]molecule units [and of many non-mega-molecule units, such as H2O, CO2, O2, etc.];
5. A eukaryotic living cell unit is a 'meta-prokaryotic-cell' meta-unit, each one made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of prokaryotic-living-cell units [e.g., of mitochondria units, each with its own DNA, of chloroplast units, each with its own DNA, etc.];
6. A meta-bion unit [e.g., a "multicellular" plant unit, or 'meta-phyton'; a "multicellular" animal unit, or 'meta-zoon'] is a 'meta-eukaryotic cell' meta-unit, each one made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of eukaryotic cell units;
7. A [biochemical/tactile/dance/vocal proto-language-based] animal society unit [e.g., an ants society, a wasps society, a merekats society, a termites society, a cattle society, a wolves society, a pigs society, a chickens society, a bees society] is a 'meta-meta-bion', 'meta-meta-zoan' meta-unit, each one made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of meta-zoa units. A single-<<species>> plant community unit [e.g., a wild rice community, a wild wheat community, a wild corn community, a wild barley community, a wild rye community] is a 'meta-meta-bion', 'meta-meta-phytan' meta-unit, each one made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of meta-phyta units, coordinated via biochemical signals, a non-vocal '''proto-language'''.
Note well the "nested", "concentric", or hailstone-like 'constructure' of each <<monad>> or unit in this progression of <<monads>> or units:
An animal society is a 'meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-quark'.
The <<arche'>>-<<monad>>, the original unit, is still there, as the ultimate "inside" of the much more recent, much more 'meta-evolved' unit, the animal society as unit.
An animal society unit is also a 'meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-proton' unit =
a 'meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-atom' =
a 'meta-meta-meta-meta-molecule' =
a 'meta-meta-meta-prokaryote' =
a 'meta-meta-eukaryote' =
a 'meta-meta-bion' =
a meta^0-animal society unit.
F.E.D.terms such a 'content-structure' a 'meta-fractal'.
Per F.E.D., a 'meta-fractal' differs from a standard mathematical "fractal" in two essential, more realistic, ways: (a.) a 'meta-fractal' is a qualitatively- scaled self-similarity 'content-structure', or 'content-form', not just a purely-quantitative 'content-structure', and; (b.) a 'meta-fractal' always has a finite number of scales/levels, never invoking the abject unrealism of claiming an infinite number of scales/levels.
Let me draw you a picture [or two; or three!] --
[See the four '*.jpg' files inserted at the start of this section of the dialogue-excerpt]
Dialogue 5 Excerpt.
D: Comrade Miguel, what is the difference between 'Meta-Nazis' and 'Rocke-Nazis'?
MD: I am not a member of the Equitist Advocacy Group --
http://equitism.org/Equitism/Equitism-entry.htm
-- but I am an admirer of their work, so I have adopted many of their terms, as I understand them.
The term 'Meta-Nazi' and 'Rocke-Nazi' are terms that the Equitists coined, or that they adopted from various "global samizdat" texts -- I'm not sure which.
To my understanding --
'Meta-Nazi' = The Marxian-theory-predicted generic power-strategy of a globalizing capitalist core-region ruling class, to create "servant-dictatorships" in nation-states in the periphery of the capitalist core region -- servants to the 'Meta-dictators", the core capitalist plutocracy, but '''Nazi''' dictators [e.g., military dictatorships] to their own people, for the purpose of assisting the thus 'Meta-Nazi' core meta-dictators in "population reduction" against that peripheral nation's working class population, and, in general, for the purpose of helping to suppress any growth in the social forces of production / 'self-productivity of humanity' there that would threaten the core ruling class's primary fixed capital assets with 'techno-depreciation', due to any further growth in the social forces of production. A power management strategy: the "Meta-Nazi" core rulers have to "keep their thumbs on" only a handful of servant-dictators, or "Nazis", world-wide, while those servant-dictators and their police states "keep their thumbs on" everybody else.
'Rocke-Nazis' = The specific instance of the 'Meta-Nazi' strategy operated in the 20th-21st century by the core ruling family/political machine of the U.S./U.K. capitalist core region -- the Rockefeller Oil and Banking Oligopolies [EXXON-Mobil, J. P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, Goldman-Sachs, etc., etc.] -- through their created/captured institutions -- the U. S. Military, the CIA, the U. S. State Department, the New York Council on Foreign Relations, "Eugenics", the United Nations, the Trilateral Commission, the World Bank, the IMF, the World "Health" Organization, etc., etc., ad nauseam --
https://www.point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/MetaNazisFaceToFace/W_MetaNazisFaceToFace-n1.htm
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/government-corruption-1/meet-the-real-boss.html
Dialogue 6 Excerpt.
D: ...could you share, or at least describe, the data the theory's built on?
MD: Thank you for your very substantive question!The single 'Dialectical Meta-Equation' so far released to the public by Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.], which expresses their "Dialectical Theory of Everything" is a 'purely-qualitative' formula, expressed as an interpretation of the dialectical language of the NQ_ 'meta-number arithmetic', or 'ontological qualifiers arithmetic', whose axioms are the following --
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Welcome.html
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Correspondence.html
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Correspondence_files/Letter17-06JUN2009.pdf
-- so that the data of the history of nature that it "reproduces" is the essentially qualitative, ordinal data of the chronological order in which the various ontological categories of kinds of things that are known to exist in the present universe first came into being, the '''order of appearance''', or '''order of emergence''', of the various "kinds" of nature, in alignment with the principle of 'Chrono-Empiricism', also known as that of 'historical empiricism', or 'temporal empiricism', as outlined by Aoristos Dyosphainthos, the Public Liaison Officer of F.E.D. --
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Welcome.html
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Vignettes.html
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Vignettes_files/Aoristos%20Dyosphainthos,%20F.E.D.%20Vignette%20%233,%20%27Chrono-Empiricism%27,%20commenced%2012JUL2012,%20first%20posted%2012JUL2012,%20last%20updated%2014JUL2012.pdf
-- and that data consists, principally, of the following:
1. the first pre-nuclear "particles" came into sustained existence before the first sub-atomic "particles" came into sustained existence;
2. the first sub-atomic "particles" came into sustained existence before the first atomic nuclei came into sustained existence;
3. the first atomic nuclei came into sustained existence before the first electrons-en-shelled atoms came into sustained existence;
4. the first electrons-en-shelled atoms came into sustained existence before the first molecules came into sustained existence;
5. the first molecules came into sustained existence before the first prokaryotic "living" cells came into sustained existence;
6. the first prokaryotic "living" cells came into sustained existence before the first eukaryotic cells came into sustained existence;
7. the first eukaryotic cells came into sustained existence before the first multi-[eukaryotic-]cellular organisms came into sustained existence;
8. the first multi-cellular organisms came into sustained existence before the first animal societies and plant communities came into sustained existence;
9. the first proto-language-based animal societies and plant communities came into sustained existence before human[oid]s-led, language-based meta-societies/meta-communities came into sustained existence;
10. the first human[oid]s-led, language-based meta-societies/meta-communities must come into sustained existence before the first 'meta-human' 'meta-meta-societies' can come into sustained existence...
The NQ_ dialectical-mathematical language is only the first of a vast dialectical progression of ever-more-powerful, 'quanto-qualitative' dialectical-mathematical languages that F.E.D. has modeled, using that NQ_ first dialectical-mathematical language --
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Welcome.html
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography.html
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/7_Dialectics-Part1c-MetaBrief_OCR.pdf
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Correspondence_files/Cover%20Letter%2014%2018MAY2008_OCR.pdf
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Primer_files/3_F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20A-1_OCR.pdf
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Briefs_files/_Brief1-29JUL2008_OCR.pdf
-- so that models utilizing these richer dialectical-mathematical languages to describe the total natural-historical '''Dialectic of Nature''' as ultimate Dialectical Totality, including the latter-day sub-universe/sub-totality of the historical dialectics of human[oid] <<species>>, must reproduce an ever richer, and ever more 'quanto-qualitative', data-set about the history of Nature as a whole, to maintain their scientific, empirically-faithful status.
Dialogue 7 Excerpt.
D: ...Miguel, what do you mean by ~+~ and )-l-(? They almost look as if you're merely using emoticons...
MD: Thanks for an excellent question!
With the symbols ')-|-(' and '>-|-<' and '~+~' I'm doing my best to recreate some of the key F.E.D. special symbols with the available typography.
The symbols ')-|-(' and '>-|-<' represent a kind of special summation operator for a qualitatively heterogeneous, and therefore "non-amalgamative", sum of qualitatively different categories -- e.g., apples ~+~ oranges ~+~ pears ~+~ ... -- which F.E.D. calls a [multi-ontic -- multi-kind] "cumulum".
The symbol '>-|-<' is for the context of '''historical dialectics'''.
The symbol ')-|-(' is for the context of '''systematic dialectics'''.
The special '''addition sign''', '~+~', is properly placed between symbols representing "kind-of-thing" categories, being '''summed''', which are also qualitative opposites of one another, e.g. --
hot things ~+~ cold things, or
N_ ~+~ NQ_
-- where N_ denotes the category of the axioms-system for the arithmetic of the "Natural" Numbers, {1, 2, 3, ...}, grasped as a "purely-quantitative arithmetic" [an arithmetic of pure, unqualified quantifiers], and where NQ_ denotes the category of the axioms-system of the F.E.D. "first dialectical arithmetic" as a "purely-qualitative arithmetic" [an arithmetic of pure, unquantified ontological qualifiers], whose generic 'meta-number' qualifiers are represented as { q1, q2, q3, ...}.
Here are links to official F.E.D. definitions of these symbols --
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Welcome.html
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Welcome_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20last%20updated%2029SEP2011,%20Prefatories,%20ENCYCLOPEDIA%20DIALECTICA%20NOTATION,%201st%20Module,%20JPEG,%20for%2030SEP2011.jpg
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Welcome_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20last%20updated%2029SEP2011,%20Prefatories,%20ENCYCLOPEDIA%20DIALECTICA%20NOTATION,%202nd%20Module,%20JPEG,%20for%2030SEP2011.jpg
http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Welcome_files/F.E.D.,%20A%20Dialectical%20%27%27Theory%20of%20Everything%27%27,%20Volume%200,%20FOUNDATIONS,%20Edition%201.00,%20last%20updated%2020SEP2011,%20Postscript,%20ABOUT%20THE%20F.E.D.%20LOGO,%20JPEG,%20for%2021SEP2011.jpg
Dialogue 8 Excerpt.
D: Would you please tell me comrade Miguel; what is the connection between Equitist Advocacy Group and Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica?
MD: Intrinsically Unknown --
http://www.equitist.org/Equitist/Int...nalAffairs.htm
-- see item #2 therein.
No comments:
Post a Comment