Monday, May 20, 2013

Part 04 of 29. The DIALECTICA MANIFESTO. The Secret of the Historical Dialectic.

Full Title:  Part 04 of 29 --

The Dialectica Manifesto


Dialectical Ideography and 


the Mission of F.E.D.

Dear Readers,

I am, together with F.E.D. Secretary-General Hermes de Nemores, and F.E.D. Public Liaison Officer Aoristos Dyosphainthos, organizing to develop a new, expanded edition of the F.E.D. introductory documents, for publication in book form, under a new title --

The Dialectica Manifesto:  Dialectical Ideography and the Mission of Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.]

-- and under the authorship of the entire Foundation collective.

Below is the fourth installment of a 29-part presentation of this introductory material, which the F.E.D. General Council has authorized for serialization via this blog over the coming months, as we develop the material.

I plan to inter-mix these installments with other blog-entries, including the planned additional F.E.D. Vignettes, other F.E.D.  news, my own blog-essays, etc.

Links to the earlier versions of these introductory documents are given below.

Unlike the typical blog-entry, this series will attempt to deliver an introduction to the Foundation worldview as a totality, in a connected account, making explicit many of the interconnexions among the parts.






Part 04 of 29 --

The Dialectica Manifesto


Dialectical Ideography and 


the Mission of F.E.D.




The Secret of the Historical Dialectic

The most fundamental form of dialectical opposition, the most fundamental form of dialectical ‘‘‘contradiction’’’ — i.e., of ontological, existential, ‘essence-ial’, and temporal / ‘temporo-genic’ contradiction, as distinguished from formal-logical, propositional contradiction — the most fundamental form of thesis versus contra-thesis confrontation — or of «physis» versus meta-«physis»’ confrontation — is the ‘‘‘self-reflexive’’’, self-refluxive, ‘‘‘‹‹karmic»’’’ self-confrontation of a single ‘event-entity’ [‘‘‘eventity’’’], of a single ‘‘‘[sub-]totality’’’, of a single ‘‘‘[w]hol[on][e]’’’, of a single ‘‘‘dynamical system’’’, of a single ‘‘‘self’’’, as [‘sentence-ial’] ‘‘‘subject’’’, or ‘‘‘agent’’’ of action, versus itself again, as [‘sentence-ial’] ‘‘‘object’’’, i.e., as the recipient of the ‘essence-ial’ actionkarma»] of the subject, through the [‘sentence-ial’] verb-form of that ‘subject-object’, or ‘agent-object’.

Thus, the celestial ‘‘‘eventities’’’ whose mature forms we call [“Main Sequence”] “stars” act upon themselves ‘‘‘self-gravitationally’’’ — starting during their “proto-stellar” stages — thereby inducing an implosion which, by compressing the Hydrogen atoms / proton plasmas at their hearts beyond a critical threshold, triggers the ‘‘‘anti-implosive’’’, explosive “thermonuclear” force of Hydrogen fusion into Helium, that stops their implosive collapse in a [temporary] balance between the [nearly] spherically-symmetrical, [internally-]everywhere-opposing vector-field forces of implosion and explosion, until the complete fusion-conversion of their core Hydrogen into core Helium triggers a further qualitative change.

This fundamental dialectical opposition “between” the ‘‘‘eventity’’’ in its aspect as subject versus the self-same ‘‘‘eventity’’’ in its aspect as object, is epitomized, in a universal sense, in the following sentence, a ‘‘‘self-reflexive’’’, self-refluxive, ‘‘‘‹‹karmic»’’’ sentence, which formulates this universal dialectical principle of ‘‘‘self-activity’’’, ‘‘‘self-change’’’, ‘‘‘self-movement’’’, [r]evolutionary self-propulsion, or «autokinesis» [cf. Plato], in its generic form:

subject ‘‘‘subjects’’’ subject’.


agent ‘‘‘agents’’’ agent’.


In the above sentence, the verb, ‘‘‘subjects’’’, is not meant with its usual connotation alone, or mainly, but is meant primarily as the verb form of the noun ‘‘‘subject’’’, or ‘‘‘agent’’’, connoting the ‘essence-ial’, and ‘‘‘essential’’’/necessary, ineluctable action of the subject upon all things it encounters, including upon itself as its own object.

That is,  the verb, ‘‘‘subjects’’’, is here meant to function as the ‘verb-name’, or action-name’ of the ‘‘‘subject/agent’’’ in question, whatever its ‘noun-name’, or ‘pronoun-name’, may be.

Of course, since the products of the ‘self-productions’ that these sentences describe multiply the ontology of their domains, the resulting ‘‘‘subjects’’’, ‘‘‘objects’’’, or ‘‘‘subject-objects’’’ engage in true ‘‘‘INTER-actions’’’, i.e., mutual actions with other ‘‘‘subjects/objects’’’ in their domains of influence, in addition to the ‘‘‘self-interactions’’’, ‘‘‘self-INTRA-actions’’’, or ‘‘‘self-actions’’’ that the sentence above describes:

subject ‘‘‘subjects’’’ [other-]object.


agent ‘‘‘agents’’’ [other-]agent.

— wherein ‘‘‘subject’’’ is not synonymous with ‘‘‘object’’’.

However, the ‘‘‘self-reflexive’’’, self-refluxive, ‘‘‘‹‹karmic»’’’ form remains primary and fundamental.

This primary form is ‘formulatable’ equally as --

object ‘‘‘objects’’’ object’.

-- once it is realized that ‘‘‘natural objects’’’ in general — and not just human[oid] individuals — are inherently active, including being self-active; are ‘agental’; indeed, that they are activities; that they are activity-entities; that they are therefore [nameable by] “verbs” as well as [nameable by]  “nouns”; that they are, indeed, ‘‘‘eventities’’’, not just entities.

For human natur[e-]al history, the primary «specific» forms of the «generic» sentence above are --

Humanity ‘‘‘humanifies’’’ humanity’.

Humanity produces humanity’.

Humanity produces itself’.

Humanity expandedly-reproduces itself’.

— and, the fundamental proposition of Marxian theory in this regard is the proposition that the accumulation of humanity — ‘phenotypically’ as well as ‘genotypically’; Phenomically as well as ‘Genomically’, ‘‘‘culturally’’’ as well as “biologically” — within the later, final, ‘‘‘descendant’’’ phase of the capital-relation-based epoch of human self-development, comes into conflict with ‘‘‘the accumulation of capital-value’’’.

Using the doubly-negated/slashed equals sign, ‘#’, as the sign for dialectical [self-]opposition / [internal-]contradiction, we then have the claim, for ‘‘‘descendant-phase’’’ capitalism that --

Accumulation of Humanity  
#  Accumulation of Capital’.

The immediate question in this regard, for this section of this text, is:  How can we incorporate the ‘‘‘subject-verb-object identical’’’ secret of the natural-historical dialectic, as defined just above, into our dialectical ideography, and into our dialectical pictography, within the rest of this text?

What follows presents what we have devised, for this purpose, and how we have devised it.

No comments:

Post a Comment