Saturday, May 24, 2014

Capitalist Economists on the Fatal 'Dialectical Internal-/Self-Contradiction of Capital[ism]' -- GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.












Capitalist Economists on the Fatal 'Dialectical Internal-/Self-Contradiction of Capital[ism]' --


GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES --

Neo-Classical Economists on the Logic, Science, and Ethics of Technodepreciation’.







Dear Readers,



Once again, we delve into the discourse, among capital’s ideological/scientific servants, about the capitalists’, and capitalism’s, fatal flaw of technodepreciation, i.e., of productive-force-growth-induced self-devaluation of past-accumulated capital-value.

Marxians can definitely gain -- a great deal -- from intensively observing, examining, and analyzing such discourses ‘‘‘psychohistorically’’’, that is, equipped with the «organon» of the Marxian paradigm of psychohistorical materialism.

See, for yourself, another case in point, below.


Be Apprised!



Regards,

Miguel










My commentary regarding these extracts is imbedded within them, or below them, in separated paragraphs, beginning with the label ‘M.D.:  . . .’.







1.:   The output from equipment produced to-day will have to compete, in the course of its life, with the output from equipment produced subsequently, perhaps at a lower labour cost, perhaps by an improved technique, which is content with a lower price for its output and will be increased in quantity until the price of its output has fallen to the lower figure with which it is content.”

“Moreover, the entrepreneur’s profit (in terms of money) from equipment, old or new, will be reduced, if all output comes to be produced more cheaply.” 

“In so far as such developments are foreseen as probable, or even as possible, the marginal efficiency of capital produced to-day is appropriately diminished.

[J. M. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Harcourt-Brace, [NY: 1964], p. 141, emphases added by M.D. ].


M.D.:  In this quote, Keynes states, in Keynesian lingo, essentially what Marx stated as follows:  The constantly ongoing devaluation of capital, owing to the increase in the force of production, has to be compensated ... .” [Karl Marx, Grundrisse, Penguin Books, 1973, p. 317].  The term “marginal efficiency of capital” was introduced by Keynes in his famous 1936 book entitled The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, wherein he defined “the “marginal efficiency of capital” as “the rate of discount which would make the present value of the series of annuities given by the returns expected from the capital asset during its life just equal its supply price.”.  Keynes does not explore, in this passage, the consequences of this capitalism-immanent continual technodepreciation of capital plant and equipment for the capitals-system as a whole.
However, I believe that we would be correct in supposing that he was aware of them.  Indeed, per our hypothesis, this knowledge was what led to Keynes role in propagating the Rocke-Nazi’-engineered ideology of Eugenics in the first place.  Keynes was director of the, Rocke-Nazi, British Eugenics Society, 1937-1944, and a race-bigot, for example describing Einstein, after Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, as “a naughty Jew-boy, covered in ink” [David Bodanis, E = MC2:  A Biography of the World’s Most Famous Equation, Walker & Co., [NY:  2000], p. 217]. 
 
No doubt there are great benefits to the Rocke-Nazis, to the private owners of the “Federal” Reserve, in Keynes pro-state-capitalist prescriptions, calling for national government deficits that led to a vast military-industrial complex [Eisenhower], and to huge and continuing debt-service payments -- paid out of taxes on workers’ incomes, as a kind of new form of surplus-value, and apparently paid in perpetuity -- to the plutocratic -- especially to the Rocke-Nazi -- banks, and other “investors”, who largely supply the loans, and buy the government bonds, to finance these ‘‘‘national debts’’’.  Keynes was a de facto supporter of Hitler, like the rest of the Rocke-Nazis, while Hitler was still a Eugenics ‘servant-dictator’, serving the Rocke-Nazis, along with British Prime Minister Arthur Neville Chamberlain, also a member of the, Rocke-Nazi, British Eugenics Society, who, as revealed by a release of recently declassified materials by the British National Archives, in September 2011, attempted, in secret, to make a peace pact with Germany in 1938, and to help the Nazis with PR to achieve an image more palatable to ordinary Britons[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033502/Revealed-Chamberlains-secret-bid-reach-deal-Hitler.html].  Keynes even wrote, in his Preface to the German edition of his General Theory, that “in offering a theory... which departs in important respects from the orthodox tradition” [he might expect] “less resistance from German, than from English, readers” [because Keynes’s theory was] much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state[http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4401913?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104213863643].  Keynes even met with Hjalmar Schacht -- who later became ‘Hitler’s Keynesian’; Hitler’s President of the Reichsbank and Nazi Minister of Economics, implementing Keynesian policies in Nazi Germany -- on Keynes’s way back from an advisory trip to totalitarian Russia.  Keynes -- and Chamberlain -- only withdrew their support from the Hitler Eugenics regime once Hitler ceased to serve the Rocke-Nazis, turning from ‘servant-dictator’ to ‘Franken-dictator’, signaling his intension to take over the world, wresting control away from the Rocke-Nazis, by, e.g., signing the “Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact -- officially named the “Treaty of Non-Aggression Between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”, on 23 August 1939.  For more about these hypotheses, see --

http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/HitlerAndRockeNazis/W_HitlerAndRockeNazis-n1.htm




2.:   The point under discussion is met with in the case of privately-owned undertakings when a technical discovery affords the opportunity for installing a new equipment or capital improvement which is technically superior to an equipment which is already being employed.” 

The equipment being employed, that is to say, may be rendered obsolescent and this may occur before the equipment has earned sufficient revenue to cover its past cost.”

“The question then arises whether the prices of the output of the equipment should be such as will bring in sufficient revenue to cover the prospective costs of producing that output or whether the revenue aimed at should cover, in addition, the uncovered part of the original cost of the old equipment.” 

“As is clear from our discussion of costs and prices it is the first alternative which is economically advantageous to the community; in other words, theundepreciatedpart of the old equipment, as it may be called in conventional accountancy language, should be written off.”

A firm operating in conditions of competition may have little choice but to adopt this policy because of the likelihood that other, competing firms which have taken advantage of the technical improvement will undersell.” 

“But if the firm possesses a high degree of monopoly it can, if it is so disposed, try to recoup the loss on the old equipment out of the revenue earned by the new, in which case the benefit conferred by the technical superiority of the new equipment is not being passed on to the community.

[ A. M. Milne and J. C. Laight, The Economics of Inland Transport, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons [London: 1965], p. 232n, emphases added by M.D.]


M.D.:  When the rate of costs-of-production-reducing technological innovation in fixed capital plant and equipment accelerates beyond a certain degree, in an acceleration which is an immanent, “lawful” feature of the competitive capitals-system, and in the context of the, also immanently, “lawfully” tendential, growing preponderance of fixed capital plant and equipment in the composition of, especially, the most centralized, most consolidated, most concentrated, most advanced industrial enterprises, owned or controlled by the plutocratic core of the capitalist ruling class, the above-prescribed write-offs of technodepreciated, incompletely-amortized fixed capital plant and equipment, tendentially rising in value and in frequency, accounting period after accounting period, netting-out against, and dragging down, profits, during those accounting periods, threaten to destroy the profitability of industrial capital, and to dethrone the reigning core of the capitalist ruling class.  The response of that core ruling class to this threat? -- Eugenics, The 1913 Federal Reserve Act, The 1913 Federal Income Tax, the 1914+ First World War, the 1930s Great Depression, State-Capitalist Totalitarianism [e.g., both Fascism and Stalinist pseudo-socialism], and [1939+] Second World War, the Military-Industrial Complex”, the ~1900+ suppression of industrialization in the Eastern European, Asian, South American, and African peripheries of the core countries of industrial capitalism [i.e., in the UK, Western Europe, and the US] -- the ~1900+ creation/imposition of the Third World -- the engineering and funding of neo-Eugenic, People Are Pollution, Pro-Genocide, PRO-HUMANOCIDE ideologies, the Great Recession . . .  Milne and Laight are quite right, in the quote above, to state that ruling class resistance to writing off the increasingly-recurring technodepreciation of their industrial fixed capital plant and equipment means that the benefit conferred by the technical superiority of the new equipment is not being passed on to the community.  However, that ‘economic-ethical’ argument is of no value in convincing that ruling class to change its ways.  Not passing the benefits of the growth of the social forces of production on to the larger community is the very core of the modus operandi of that core ruling class, from its very birth as such, by its perpetration the vile social violence of original accumulation itself. 





3.:   We should perhaps at this point note that a firm whose capital is obtained mainly or wholly on a loan basis is in a much more vulnerable position financially than a firm which is financed largely or wholly by risk-capital.”

“Suppose a firm has purchased out of finance provided on a risk basis an equipment costing £10,000 and that, in the event, it is found that the results of the investment have fallen short of expectation. 

“The response of the public to the output produced with the aid of the equipment may have proved disappointing.” 

“Suppose that, taking this lower response into account, the firm estimates that an equipment of lower capacity costing £8,000 would have been a better proposition and that, when the original resource wears out, it should be replaced by this lower-capacity resource.”

“But on the original investment a loss will have been sustained, and this will fall to be borne by the providers of the risk-capital.”

“But, retaining the same illustration, now suppose that the finance were provided on a loan basis.”

“The loss will be the same but the loan out of which the original equipment was purchased will remain to the full amount a liability of the firm and the [M.D.:  principal and] interest payments [M.D.:  the “debt-service” payments] as fixed in the loan contract will still have to be met.”

“These interest payments, arising as they do from a past investment, while not representing costs in the economic sense, will be of the nature of financial charges which, if not met, may lead to the firm being received into bankruptcy.”

“It is evident that given the differing characteristics of loan- and risk- capital a firm financed by loan capital will be financially the more vulnerable in a situation where expectations fail to be fulfilled.

[A. M. Milne and J. C. Laight, The Economics of Inland Transport, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons [London: 1965], pp. 191-192, emphases added by M.D.].


M.D.:  Not only does its acceptance of, e.g., Rocke-Nazibank loans -- loans from J. P. Morgan Chase, Citibank, Bank of America, etc. -- in place of “risk-capital”, e.g., the proceeds of capital equity stock sales, via IPOs, etc, place an enterprise in greater danger of failure and loss of ownership, e.g., when ‘technodepreciation strikes’ [the example of the quote above is of lack of expected demand for commodity output, not of pre-amortization ‘technodepreciation’ of the producing equipment, but the two cases are parallel].  Fixed capital plant and equipment purchased with the proceeds of loans may, if ‘technodepreciated’ prior to amortization, be scrapped and replaced with the new, state-of-the-art, competitive plant and equipment, but the debt service on the scrapped equipment still has to be paid, as well as the debt-service on the new plant and equipment, if it too was, once again, purchased via bank loans.  Moreover, the Rocke-Nazi banks can offer loans on seemingly favorable terms, and then orchestrate “capital asset bubbles” [e.g., currencies relative valuation "bubbles"] -- through the method of “Capital Asset Bubble Engineering”, that was advanced by also-early-Hitler-supporter Joe Kennedy, when his Kennedy family was still in good standing with the Rockefellers as one of their lower plutocracy servant-families, like the Bush family of Hitler-financier Prescott Bush -- “bubbles” that result in the expropriation, by bankruptcy, of the original owners of these enterprises, and in the Rocke-Nazi “carpetbaggers” acquiring ownership of the thus-made-vulnerable, and, in effect, assassinated, firms, for the proverbial “pennies on the dollar”.  For more about this hypothesis, see --






 













Thursday, May 22, 2014

The Dialectic of Human Sexual Preferences.













Full Title:


The Systematic Dialectic of Human Sexual Orientations/Preferences.







Dear Readers,


This blog entry exemplifies the ‘classificatory’, ‘‘‘taxonomic’’’, ‘‘‘systematic’’’, and synchronic application of F.E.D. Dialectics, and of the Seldonian NQ_ dialectical algebra, to order the presentation of actualities that are all synchronously present together in a dialectical interconnexion [as distinct from their application to the modeling and presentation of historical dialectics, i.e., to past actualities that have presented themselves diachronically, temporal-sequentially, in what we term a meta-genealogical historical series, in which preceding actualities causally “give birth to” succeeding actualities].


This blog entry illustrates such synchronic applications by means of a timely and vivid example:  human sexual orientation.


Enjoy!



Regards,

Miguel







The Systematic Dialectic of Human Sexual Orientations.











Claim.  The typology [ontology] and phenomenology of human sexual orientations -- heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual -- observed with regularity across historical time, and across multiple disparate instances of ‘the human phenome’ -- can be compactly modeled, dialectical-mathematically, and systematically ordered and encompassed, connotatively and mnemonically, along with some of the more complex ‘sub-structure’ of this domain, by a compact, systematic-dialectical, Dyadic Seldon Function formula, using the category of heterosexual orientations as the «arché» category, or starting category.






Model.  The Dyadic Seldon Function model for the dialectical systematics of this domain


of‘‘‘Human Sexual Orientations’’’, denoted HSO, with heterosexual orientation, denoted by

HSOh, as the starting category, can be rendered, in ‘dialectical meta-model meta-equation’


format, as follows --



HSO)-|-(sHSO  =  ( HSOh )2sHSO.  







Substantiation of Claim.  To test this claim, let us solve the equations, for as many ordinal steps, s, as make sense to us, intuitively, given the content of this domain to-date, as stipulated in our Claim.





Test step 0.   step sHSO = 0.  Our general ‘dialectical meta-model meta-equation’ for this

domain of human experience, denoted HSO --



HSO)-|-(sHSO  =  ( HSOh )2sHSO, for step sHSO = 0



-- becomes the step-0-specific ‘equation-model’ --




HSO)-|-(0  =  ( HSOh )20   =   ( HSOh )1   = 

  

( HSOh )   =   HSOh.




This, 0th, step merely re-asserts the [possible] existence of the «arché» category, or starting category, of heterosexual orientation, connoted by the symbol HSOh.




In ‘phonogramic translation’, our step 0 solution -- our solution so far -- can be expressed

as follows --



The category ‘HSO)-|-(sHSO’, representing the «genos» super-category --  



the general category of human sexual orientations-/preferences-in-general 


-- as HSO)-|-(0, implicitly ‘‘‘contains’’’ only the special category of


heterosexual orientations alone, so that the «genos» category and the «species»  


category here collapse into a single, monolithic category.





The cognition of authoritarian, arbitrary, dogmatic, anti-rational personalities often halts here,


at step zero, in a violent and hysterical, repressive denial of any dialectic at all -- of any  


intra-duality, of any self-duality -- or self-multiality -- of any in[ternal]-tension,  


of anyinternal contradiction, or «species» self-differentiation, within the «genos»


in question, whatever it may be.



The ideology of such personalities might therefore quite rightly be named  ‘‘‘zeroism’’’.





This issue reverberates also in ancient times.



Porphyry the Phoenician, in his classic letter / essay, the circa 270 C.E. «Isagoge», writes as follows --


Our predecessors also give this definition:  difference is that by which species exceeds the genus.”


Man, for example, possesses more than animal, namely the rational and the mortal [M.D.: i.e., 
possesses two “attributes” which may also be called “characteristics”, “predicates”, or “determinations”].”


“Now animal is none of these, for, if not, how could the species be different from one another?


“Nor does animal posses all contradictory differences, for the same thing at the same time
would have contradictory characteristics.”


“They maintain, however, that animal possesses potentially, not actually, all the differences
of the subordinate species.”


 “Nothing then arises from not-being, nor will contradictories exist at the same time in the same thing.



[Porphyry the Phoenician, «Isagoge», translated by Edward W. Warren, The Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, [Toronto:  1975], p. 46, bold, italic, underlined, and colored emphases added by M.D.].




The translator/editor, valuably footnotes the passage by Porphyry above, as follows --


... Since the characteristics are contained potentially in the genus, they are not nothing.”


“Ammonius states the difficulty which Porphyry is trying to remove:  “If the differences exist in the genera, opposites will exist in the same thing at the same time, as mortal and immortal, rational and irrational.  This is impossible.  If differences do not exist in the genera, from what source do they arise in the species?” (p. 101, 17-19).

[ibid., p. 46, emphases added as before].




The progress of our dialectical, systematic presentation, so far -- or, rather, our lack of progress so far, since step zero is only its barest beginning -- can be represented pictorially as follows --








Test step 1.   step sHSO = 1.  Our general ‘dialectical meta-model meta-equation’ for this

domain of human experience, denoted HSO --




HSO)-|-(sHSO  =  ( HSOh )2sHSO, for step sHSO = 1 --




-- becomes the step-1-specific equation-model’ --




HSO)-|-(1  =  ( HSOh )21   =   ( HSOh )2   =




( HSOh )1 x ( HSOh )1    =    ~( HSOh )1    =



HSOh ( HSOh )   =  




HSOh  of HSOh    =    




HSOh   ~+~  Delta( HSOh )    =  




HSOh   ~+~ HSOqhh





-- wherein the symbol ‘~’ denotes the operation of finding the existing category, if any, which


is the dialectical, «aufheben» negation, i.e., the contra-category, or next-opposite-category,


of/to its operand category-symbol, and wherein the symbols-formation ‘~+~’ denotes an  


addition of qualitative opposites’, i.e., that  HSOh, and whatever HSOqhh denotes, not only


possibly co-exist within the cumulum of the sub-totality / domain of human experience denoted


by HSO, but that HSOh and HSOqhh are also dialectical opposites:  HSOh   ~ HSOqhh.




Thus, our task for this step is to solve for the unknown ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ term -- i.e., for the HSO domain category -- whose ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ description involves a double-h predicate, ‘hh’, as its [post-]subscript epithet.




The F.E.D. standard solution algorithm for such category-symbolizing terms includes searching

for an existing category of the given domain which is some kind of opposite, or antithesis, to the

category out of which it arises, by ‘‘‘self-reflexion’’’ of the category denoted by HSOh,

and by ‘self-critique’ of this category as encompassing / exhausting / fulfilling the total content

of the given domain as known to prior, “chaotic” [Marx] -- unsystematic,

or not-yet-systematized’, not-yet-‘‘‘theorized’’’ -- human experience.




That is, the symbols-formations ‘HSOh( HSOh )’, and ‘HSOh "of" HSOh’,


connote the mental operation of you, the cognizing subject/agent of thought, denoted by the


HSOh( . . . )’ portion of that symbols-formation, subjectively [be]holding the


category HSOh, as held in your mind, or as written out, on paper, objectively, denoted


by the ‘ . . .( HSOh )’ portion of that symbols-formation, and, as that


category, held subjectively and actively, reflecting upon that category, as


[a mind also mentally-embodying] that category, and comparing that category, HSOh,


to the/its “domain”, HSO -- the totality of reference for category HSOh -- as to whether


or not this category, HSOh, “comprehends” and explains the totality of the phenomena /


[ev]entities encountered by all of the human experience, in / of that domain, HSO, that is


recalled by / known, directly or indirectly [e.g., via written records of the past, recorded


earlier than the life-time of you, the subject/agent in question] to this subject / agent


of thought -- i.e., to you -- or as to whether another, second category comes to mind, a


second category that is needed to advance -- to further ‘‘‘complete’’’  -- the systematic,


scientific [experiential-data-disciplined] comprehension / explanation of the experiential


content of the domain in question, namely, the domain denoted herein by HSO.




For all but those with the least personal experience of this domain, and those in deepest


dogmatic denial of the human experiences of this domain -- across the many epochs of


recorded human history, and across many cultures/instances of ‘the human phenome’--


the first category, HSOh, will be found wanting in terms of covering the totality of the


human-experiential content of the sub-totality/domain HSO, and at least a second


category will immediately “come to mind” as needed:  HSOqhh, with the meaning


‘‘‘homosexual orientation’’’, connoted herein by HSOm.





We therefore assert [‘|-.’] that the solution to the domain-specific meaning of the term


HSOqhh is ‘‘‘homosexual orientation’’’ -- that ‘‘‘homosexual orientation’’’,


denoted by HSOm,  is the first contra-category to the category of ‘heterosexual


orientation’, for the domain of Human Sexual Orientations, HSO -- as follows --




HSOqhh    |-.=   HSOm





-- and our “solved” step sHSO = 1 equation becomes --




HSO)-|-(1  =  ( HSOh )21   =   ( HSOh )2   = 




( HSOh )1 x ( HSOh )1    =   ~( HSOh )1    =



 HSOh ( HSOh )   =



HSOh  of HSOh    =    



HSOh   ~+~  Delta( HSOh )    =   




HSOh   ~+~ HSOqhh    |-.=   HSOh   ~+~ HSOm.





In ‘phonogramic translation’, our step 1 solution -- our solution so far -- can be expressed

as follows --



The general category of human sexual orientations-/preferences-in-general

implicitly ‘‘‘contains’’’ the special categories of heterosexual orientations and of

homosexual orientations, each as a synchronically co-existing qualitative opposite 

of / to, the / its, other’.



-- by which we posit that, at least in this specific case, but perhaps more generally --



A ‘‘‘dialectical anti-thesis’’’ category opposes a ‘‘‘dialectical thesis’’’ category, so far as if 

forming / expressing a radical dualism, without any resolution of this opposition in any  

third, ‘‘‘dialectical synthesis’’’, category.





Our synchronic, systematic-dialectical meta-model of the domain of Human Sexual


Orientations / Preferences, HSO, thus asserts, per our full solution of its initial



step sHSO = 1, ‘self-iteration’, that this domain consists of the following [possible]


ontological content --



heterosexuality  +/&  homosexuality.










The human-species phenomenon of homosexual activity, whether or not a category of exclusive homosexual orientations was extant in the local variant of ‘the human phenome’, and whether such activity was socially condemned and punished, or accepted and even embraced by the given local culture, was recognized, and represented, within virtually all major geographical loci of the Terran ancient historical record. 

For example, consider the following assertions, but noting that they fail to -- dialectically -- distinguish, clearly, between homosexual activity as a part of bisexuality, versus of exclusive homosexuality --



It is not homosexual relations, but overt homosexuality, which is the distinctive feature of the [M.D.:  ancient] Greeks.  From the end of the seventh century BC[E -- M.D.] they used the same words for homosexual as for heterosexual emotion ... and the same for physical consummation ..., a [M.D.:  male ancient] Greek who said ‘I’m in love’ would not mind being asked ‘With a boy, or with a girl?’, nor would he mind answering ‘With a boy’, in the assurance that he would get sympathy and encouragement from his elders and peers.  The law did not penalize homosexual copulation per se, nor were there religious sanctions against it.

[Wayne R. Dynes, Steven Donaldson, Homosexuality in the Ancient World, Routledge [NY:  1992], pp. 127-128.]








The progress of our dialectical, systematic presentation, so far, can be represented pictorially as follows --
 






Often, in such dialectical-mathematical meta-models as this, the «monads», units, or logical individuals, of the second category will be found to be existing in an «aufheben»  
meta-monadological relationship with the «monads», units, or logical individuals,
of the first category, in which each unit of the second category is made up out of a usually heterogeneous multiplicity of some of the units of the first category.




However, in this case, I do not detect such an «aufheben» meta-monadological relationship in


the qualitative otherness of the category HSOm, and of its units, in relation to the category  


HSOh, and its units.







A Dialogue with Karl Seldon.  Sometime after I had posted the paragraph above, Karl Seldon, the co-founder of Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica, engaged me in a dialogue on its topic.


He noted to me that he had recently found indications that there may be, after all, a subtle «aufheben» meta-monadological relationship between individuals of heterosexual orientation and individuals of the homosexual orientation.


He agreed with me, that the ‘cross-Phenomic’ persistence of the phenomenon of homosexual orientation suggested at least, in part, a human-Genomic contribution.


Then he stated that the problem, from the perspective of a Darwinian account -- and of a ‘meta-Darwinian’ account, in the case of F.E.D. -- was to explain how our hypothesized genetic contributors to homosexual orientation could persist in the human gene pool despite the low probability that the carriers of those generic contributors who exhibit a more or less exclusive homosexual orientation would contribute to that persistence, by heterosexual reproduction.


He then called my attention to a 15 August 2008 New Scientist e-article by Tamsin Osborne, regarding work by Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padua, Italy.



The crux of that article reads as follows --


Bisexual men might have their “hyper-heterosexual” female relatives to thank for their orientation.”

Andrea Camperio Ciani and colleagues at the University of Padua, Italy, showed that the female relatives of homosexual men tend to have more children, suggesting that genes on the X chromosome are responsible.” . . .

“ “It helps to answer a perplexing question - how can there be ‘gay genes’ given that gay sex doesn’t lead to procreation?” says Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, who was not involved in the work.”

“ “The answer is remarkably simple:  the same gene that causes men to like men also causes women to like men, and as a result to have more children.”

“The researchers asked 239 men to fill out questionnaires about their families and their past sexual experiences.  On the basis of their answers, the men were classified as heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual.”

“The results showed that the maternal aunts, grandmothers and mothers of both bisexual men and homosexuals had more children than those of heterosexual men.”

Camperio Ciani emphasises that, rather than being a “gay gene"”, this unidentified genetic factor is likely to promote sexual attraction to men in both men and women.”

“This would influence a woman’s attitude rather than actually increasing her fertility, making her likely to have more children.”

Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist and writer based in West Hollywood, California, describes this as a sort of “hyper-heterosexuality” and explains how it would help to ensure that homosexual behaviour was passed on through the generations.”

“ “The positive effect of an X-linked gene on female fecundity tends to outweigh the negative effect of the gene on male fecundity.”

“According to Camperio Ciani and colleagues, the same genetic factor appearing to be present in both bisexual and homosexual men provides further support for the idea that sexuality is determined by a complex mix of genes and experience.”

“ “We understand that the genetic component has to interact with something to produce different phenotypes,” says Camperio Ciani.”

“Genetics is not determining the sexual orientation, it’s only influencing it.”

[journal reference:  Journal of Sexual Medicine (DOI:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00944.x); source URL:  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14543-bisexuality-passed-on-by-hyperheterosexuals.html?full=true&print=true#.U5qdjFDOQxj].



Designate an X chromosome bearing the hypothesized gene(s) as X’.



This hypothesis, of a gender-linked -- X-chromosome-linked -- gene or genes that tend to induce a heightened attraction, on the part of their bearers, female and male alike, to individuals of male embodiment -- i.e., on the part of female, X’X and X’X’ individuals, and on the part of male, X’Y individuals, alike -- would, if further corroborated, support the following:


It would support an «aufheben» meta-monadological relationship between X’Y males of homosexual orientation and their heterosexually-oriented X’X and X’X’ female relatives. 


The very continued existence / reproduction of X’Y male, homosexually-oriented individuals, bearing the tendentially homosexually-orienting gene(s), requires a heterogeneous multiplicity of X’X or X’X’, heterosexually-oriented female blood relatives of such male individuals, who thus also carry the gene(s) in question, and who reproduce at a higher rate, on average, than do XX female individuals, lacking the same genetic contributor(s).




In that sense, each X’Y homosexually-oriented male individual, so oriented at least in part as a result of bearing the X-chromosome-resident gene(s) in question, «aufheben» “contains”, or is made up out of, a heterogeneous multiplicity of X’X or X’X’ blood-related, predecessor, heterosexually-oriented female relatives, who bear the same X-chromosome-resident gene(s), and who made the X’ gene-influenced homosexual orientation of that male individual possible.


Seldon then pointed out that this situation would place the dialectical antithesis relation of heterosexual orientations with/to homosexual orientations in an exceptional, highly asymmetrical configuration, in that the relation of female [hyper-]heterosexuality to male homosexuality would be «aufheben» meta-monadological, but, at least by the X’X’/X’X/X’Y hypothesis alone, the relation of male heterosexuality to female homosexuality would appear not to be likewise «aufheben» meta-monadological.



This anomaly had led Seldon to hazard the speculative hypothesis, which he then shared with me, of a complementary, X’’X’’/X’’X/X’’Y ‘‘‘hyper-heterosexuality’’’ mechanism contributing, at the level of the human Genome, to female homosexual orientations as well.



Designate an X chromosome bearing the hypothesized gene(s) for male hyper-heterosexuality as X’’.



By Seldon’s speculative hypothesis, male individuals with the X’’Y genotype, thus bearing the gene or genes that tend to induce a heightened attraction, on the part of their bearers, male and female alike, to individuals of female embodiment -- i.e., on the part of male, X’’Y individuals, and on the part of female, X’’X and X’’X’’ individuals, alike -- would, if further corroborated, support the following:


It would support an «aufheben» meta-monadological relationship between X’’X and X’’X’’ females of homosexual orientation and their heterosexually-oriented X’’ male relatives. 
 

The very continued existence / reproduction of X’’X and X’’X’’ female, homosexually-oriented individuals, bearing the tendentially homosexually-orienting gene(s), requires a heterogeneous multiplicity of X’’Y, heterosexually-oriented male blood relatives of such female individuals, who thus also carry the gene(s) in question, and who reproduce at a higher rate, on average, than do XY male individuals, lacking the same genetic contributor(s).



In that sense, each X’’X or X’’X’’, homosexually-oriented female individual, so oriented at least in part as a result of bearing the X-chromosome-resident gene(s) in question, «aufheben» “contains”, or is made up out of, a heterogeneous multiplicity of X’’Y, blood-related, predecessor, heterosexually-oriented male relatives, who bear the same X-chromosome-resident gene(s), and who made the X’’ gene-influenced homosexual orientation of that female individual possible.



Seldon further speculated that the X’’ version of the X chromosome, even when present in female individuals who did not develop exclusive homosexual orientation, might still contribute to a propensity for female-female solidarity, even among heterosexually-oriented females, that, starting with the earliest, forager band human-social formations, and continuing into later-emerged human social formations, would promote a “checking-and-balancing” against, and would thereby tend to reduce, the intra-band strife due to female-versus-female jealousies, and even murderous vendettas, arising from competition over males perceived as “advantaged”, “leading”, “resource-rich”, etc., per said females, that might otherwise tend to compromise the reproductive success of the entire band, or of the entire later social formation.


If both the Ciani hypothesis and the Seldon hypothesis were to be upheld empirically, we would then have a situation in which -- at least for that portion of homosexual orientations that would then be explained by these X-linked genetic factors -- male homosexual orientation would be «aufheben» meta-monadologically related to female [hyper-]heterosexual orientation, and in which female homosexual orientation would be «aufheben» meta-monadologically related to male [hyper-]heterosexual orientation, symmetrically, so that, overall, an «aufheben» meta-monadological relationship of some homosexual orientations to some heterosexual orientations would be empirically supported.


Questionnaire-based survey research regarding contemporary homosexually-oriented female populations, complementary to the research reported by Ciani, et al., that provided evidence supporting the ‘hyper-heterosexuality’ hypothesis to, at least in part, explain male homosexual orientation in a [meta-]Darwinian way, could be engaged to ascertain whether or not Seldon’s speculative hypothesis regarding a complementary genetic basis for female homosexual orientation exhibits empirical merit, and deserves further investigation.







Test Step 2.   step sHSO = 2.  



Our next step, step sHSO = 2, in our consideration of this sub-totality / domain of human

experience, denoted by HSO, is to reflect upon the question as to whether or not the cumulum

sum of two categories that we attained as of step sHSO = 1, suffices to complete the categorial

comprehension / systematic-scientific explanation of the total experiential content of this domain,

or whether (an) additional categor(y)(ies) (is)(are) needed to complete this system of categories

 as a systematic, taxonomic, scientific “containment” of this domain of experiential reality and of our  knowledge of that realty.



Our general ‘dialectical meta-model meta-equation’ for this domain of human experience,

denoted HSO --



HSO)-|-(sHSO  =  ( HSOh )2sHSO, for step sHSO = 2 --



-- becomes the step-2-specific equation-model’ --



HSO)-|-(2  =  ( HSOh )22   =   ( HSOh )4   =  




( HSOh )2  x  ( HSOh )2  =  



( HSOh   + HSOm )1  x  ( HSOh   + HSOm )1    =



( HSOh   + HSOm )2    =



~( HSOh   + HSOm )1    =



( HSOh   + HSOm ) ( ( HSOh   + HSOm ) )   



( HSOh   + HSOm )  of ( HSOh   + HSOm )    =



( HSOh   + HSOm )   ~+~  Delta( HSOh   + HSOm )    = 



( ( (HSOh  ~+~ HSOm )  ~+~ HSOqmh ) ~+~ HSOqmm )




-- wherein the final symbols-formation above is intended to assert a four-term, four


category-symbol oppositionary sum, or dialectical cumulum, in which not only is


HSOm a categorial, qualitative opposite [‘~’] of / to HSOh, but in which also


HSOqmh is a categorial, qualitative opposite of / to both HSOm & HSOh individually,


and of / to their sum, or cumulum, ( HSOh  ~+~ HSOm ), collectively, and


in which HSOqmm is a categorial, qualitative opposite not only of / to HSOqmh,


and of / to HSOm, and of / to HSOh, individually, but is also a categorial, qualitative


opposite to their cumulum/ sum collectively as well.




Our task for this step, step sHSO = 2, is to solve for the two new, initially unknown,

‘‘‘algebraic’’’ terms -- i.e., for the HSO domain categories -- whose ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ descriptions

involve, respectively, a mixed predicate, ‘mh’, as [post-]subscript epithet, and a double-m

predicate, ‘mm’, as its [post-]subscript epithet.






The F.E.D. standard solution algorithm for a hybrid category-symbolizing term, like


HSOqmh,  includes searching for an existing category of the given domain which is some


kind of combination, complex unity, or dialectical synthesis, to the two categories out


of which it arises, by interaction / ‘inter-[re-]flexion’ of the first category, denoted by


HSOh, with / by the second category, denoted by HSOm, and by the ‘‘‘mutual critique’’’


of each category by the / its other category, in terms of either, or of both, merely


“summed” together, achieving the encompassment / exhaustion / fulfillment of grasping


the total content of the given domain as known to prior, “chaotic” [Marx] --


unsystematic, or not-yet-systematized’ -- human experience, as well as in terms of what


has already come to be known systematically, so far, via the systematization consummated


up to and through step sHSO = 1.




That is, the ‘HSOm  x HSOh’, or the ‘HSOm ( HSOh )’,



or the ‘HSOm of HSOh’,


or the  ~m( HSOh ) component of the symbols-formations --



 ( HSOh   + HSOm ) x ( HSOh   + HSOm )


-- or --


( HSOh   + HSOm )( ( HSOh   + HSOm ) )


-- or --


( HSOh   + HSOm )  of  ( HSOh   + HSOm )



-- or --



~( HSOh   + HSOm )



-- connote the mental operation of you, the cognizing subject, or agent, of thought,


again [be]holding the first category, HSOh, in your mind, or written out / described,


objectively, and statically, e.g., on paper, or on screen, with your mind acting as / simulating the second


category, held subjectively and actively, in your mind, and reflecting upon / evaluating


that category, as [a mind mentally-embodying] the second category, and mutually


comparing that first category and/with its consecutive, secondother-category, HSOm,


that you are‘mentally-incarnating’, in relation to the domain in which both of these


categories inhere -- at least for the ‘human phenome’ you have inherited, and that you


also instantiate -- i.e., to the/their “domain”, HSO -- the totality of reference for both


categories -- as to whether or not the first category, HSOh, in ‘additive opposition’,


or in ‘oppositionary addition’, to the second category, HSOm, as forming an


‘ideo-cumulum’, or ‘categorial cumulum’ of just two category-symbols, or


‘category-references’, together “span” -- “comprehend” and “contain”, and


“explain” -- the totality of the phenomena / [ev]entities encountered by all of


the human experience, in/of that domain, HSO, that is recalled by / known,


directly or indirectly [e.g., via written records of the past, recorded earlier than


the life-time of you, the subject/agent in question] to this subject/agent of


thought -- i.e., to you -- or as to whether yet another, third category comes to mind, a


third category that is necessary to advance -- to further complete -- the systematic,


scientific [experiential-data-disciplined] comprehension / explanation of the experiential


content of the domain in question, the domain that we have designated, hereon, by HSO.





To our lights the existing category -- the “populated”; “instantiated”, empirically observed


category -- that combines features / qualities of the HSOm category, with features /-  


qualities of the HSOh category, thus fulfilling the model-equation-generated description


of, or “specs.” of, and thus “solving for”, the initially, “algebraically” unknown”  


category description HSOqmh, has the meaning ‘‘‘bisexual orientation’’’,


connoted herein by HSOb.





We therefore assert [‘|-.’] that the solution to the domain-specific meaning of the term


HSOqmh is ‘‘‘bisexual orientations’’’ -- that the category of  ‘‘‘bisexual orientations’’’,


denoted by HSOb,  is the first uni-category to the “antithesis-sum” formed by the ‘cumulum’


of the category of ‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’, in ‘additive opposition’ to the category


of ‘‘‘heterosexual orientations’’’, for the domain of Human Sexual Orientations, HSO


-- as follows --



  HSOqmh    |-.=   HSOb




-- and our so far partially “solved” step sHSO = 2 model-equation becomes --





HSO)-|-(sHSO  =  ( HSOh )2sHSO, for step sHSO = 2, which is --




HSO)-|-(2  =  ( HSOh )22   =   ( HSOh )4   =   




( HSOh )2  x  ( HSOh )2    =  



( HSOh   + HSOm )1  x  ( HSOh   + HSOm )1    =



~   x  ( HSOh   + HSOm )1    =



~( HSOh   + HSOm )1    =



( HSOh   + HSOm )2    =   



( HSOh   + HSOm ) ( ( HSOh   + HSOm ) )   =  



( HSOh   + HSOm )  of ( HSOh   + HSOm )    =   



( HSOh   + HSOm )   ~+~  Delta( HSOh   + HSOm )    =   




HSOh   ~+~ HSOm   ~+~ HSOqmh ~+~ HSOqmm     |-.=




HSOh    ~+~  HSOm    ~+~  HSOb  ~+~  HSOqmm.








Note that the newly-solved-for third category, that of ‘‘‘bi-sexuality’’’, when described as that of ‘bi-sexual sexual orientations’, almost rings like it is thereby being ‘misnomered’, because the concept of ‘‘‘bi-sexuality’’’ seems more like a suspension of ‘sexual orientation’, like a negation
of each / both of the two preceding, “standard” sexual orientations -- i.e., of ‘heterosexual sexual orientations’, and of ‘homosexual sexual orientations’, alike -- like a non-orientation’, or, more aptly, like an omni-directional’, omni-sexual’ sexual orientation, relative to the two predecessor categories of mutually-oppositely-directed sexual orientations.


It seems so because this third category, that of ‘‘‘bi-sexuality’’’, incorporates both of its two predecessor, previously disparate -- previously opposite -- categories of possible directions of
sexual orientation. 



Will the ‘‘‘relativity’’’ of this third category, and of its predecessor categories, vis-a-vis

the fourth category, HSOqmm -- the still as yet unsolved-for possible category first

‘explicitized’ in step 2 -- change that perception of category three?




Our next and final task, for this step, step sHSO = 2, is to solve-for that very fourth, new,

initially unknown, possible-category-representing ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ term, i.e., for the

final step sHSO = 2, HSO domain category-symbol, or ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ category-

description, whose ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ specification involves a double-m predicate, ‘mm’, as

its ‘[post-]subscript-epithet’:  HSOqmm.




In preparation for such tasks, we have found it useful to scrutinize, in greater detail, with greater concreteness, determinateness, and specificity than previously, e.g., herein, the qualitative nature
of that complex ‘multi-opposition’ inherent in the so-far-solved-for first triad of human sexual orientations / preferences categories, viz. --



HSOh    ~+~  HSOm    ~+~  HSOb



-- i.e. --



( (HSOh  ~+~ HSOm )  ~+~ HSOqmh )  



-- or, in ‘phonogramic translation’ of the ideograms above --



The general category of human sexual orientations- / preferences- in-general

implicitly ‘‘‘contains’’’ the special categories of heterosexual orientations,

homosexual orientations, and bi-sexual orientations, each as a synchronically

co-existing qualitative opposite to each of its others’.



-- by which we posit that, at least in this specific case, but perhaps more generally --



The ‘‘‘dialectical synthesis’’’ category opposes the opposition / ‘‘‘dialectical

antithesis’’’ of the ‘‘‘dialectical thesis’’’ category and the ‘‘‘dialectical anti-thesis’’’

category, collectively, and, also, ‘‘‘distributively’’’, opposes the ‘‘‘dialectical anti-thesis’’’

category individually, and also, likewise, opposes the ‘‘‘dialectical thesis’’’

category individually.




Our synchronic, systematic-dialectical model of the domain of Human Sexual


Orientations / Preferences, HSO, thus asserts, per our partial solution of its, we hold,


final [final for the limited -- Claimed -- mission of this text],  


step sHSO = 2, ‘self-iteration’, that this domain consists of the following [possible]


ontological content --




heterosexuality  +/&  homosexuality  +/&  bi-sexuality  



+/& an as yet-unsolved category.








The human-species phenomenon of bi-sexual activity -- i.e., of human individuals engaging sexually both with other individuals of their opposite gender, and with other individuals of their own gender -- whether or not a category of bisexual orientations was extant in the local variant of ‘the human phenome’, and whether such activity was socially condemned and punished, or accepted and even embraced by the given local culture, was recognized, and represented, within virtually all major geographical loci of the Terran ancient historical record. 


For example, the following passage, which is also of great interest from the viewpoint of ‘psychohistorical dialectics’, or of ‘dialectical psychohistory’, in that it reflects upon the epochal differences in «mentalité», and in ‘categorial memesis’, between the ‘human phenomes’ of classical antiquity versus of the modern Occident [at least] -- implicitly suggests that bisexuality was far more prevalent, in human population percentage terms, than was homosexuality, in the classical ancient Occident, though not recognized, by either of these terms, and categories, by the classical ancients --


I had made extensive use of the terms ‘homosexuality’ and ‘heterosexuality’ -- terms that the 
[M.D.: ancient] Greeks and the [M.D.: ancient] Romans would not even have understood.  

“Indeed, ‘homosexuality’ and ‘heterosexuality’ are modern words for modern concepts.”

“It was for this reason that, in the original preface, I pointed out that for ‘the [M.D.: ancient] Greeks and Romans ... homosexuality was not an exclusive choice.  Loving another man was not an option falling outside the norm, a different or somehow deviant choice.  It was just one part of the experience of life ... [which] during ones lifetime... would alternate and even interweave (sometimes simultaneously) with the love of a woman, and that ‘in both Greece and Rome ... the fundamental opposition between different types of sexual behaviour was not the heterosexual/homosexual contrast but the active/passive contrast’ [pp. xv-xviii below].

“Thus I sought to use these terms to describe sexual behaviour rather than a consistent sexual preference.”

“The choice of the modern term bisexuality in the title was intended to underline this.”

“However, as some recent studies have pointed out, the emphasis placed on sexual behaviour may lead to misunderstanding.”

“In fact there is a risk involved in wholly accepting Foucaults idea that homosexuality is a social construction and that in antiquity the homosexual was not a species. ... .  The risk is that one may forget that sexual preference did exist in the ancient world.”

“In other words, even if the gender of a persons sexual partner was not the central issue in ancient societys view of sex roles, individuals who preferred to have sex, or who fell in love, principally with persons of the same sex existed also in antiquity.”

“Let us consider, for example, the case of men who were passive partners in sexual intercourse with other men.”

“Some were prostitutes who behaved like womenindependently from their sexual preferences; others were men who liked being penetrated by other men.”

“At least some of the men termed katapygones in Athens were homosexuals in the modern sense of the word..., as were their Roman counterparts, the cinaedi... .”

“And these individuals experienced discrimination similar to that suffered by modern homosexuals:  in Rome the discrimination was both social and legal (as indeed this book shows), while in Athens it was only social.”

“Nonetheless, one should use the term homosexual with great care.”

“These individuals were not the victim of abuse and discrimination because they liked to have sex with persons of the same sex.  This was not reproached per se.”

 “They were discriminated against because they were penetrated:  the men who penetrated them, whatever the reason for this behaviour, did not suffer any discrimination.”

“Roman laws punishing homosexual behaviour punished the passive sexual partner alone, not the active one.”

“Thus homosexuals, in the modern sense of the word, were seen as comprising two (or more) groups rather than one.”

“Which brings us back to our starting point:  homosexuality in the modern sense of the word existed in the ancient world, but [M.D.:  at least the classical-Occidental] ancient societies did not recognize homosexual as a [M.D.:  singular] category.

[Eva Cantarella, Bisexuality in the Ancient World, Yale University Press [New Haven:  2002], pp. viii-ix.]






The progress of our dialectical, systematic presentation, so far, can be represented pictorially as follows --







We can more deeply define the three categories of sexual orientations surfaced, and solved,
so far, by taking into account the subjective versus the objective sexual configurations -- meaning, exclusively, the configuations of their physical-biological genitalia at birth -- for the human individuals exhibiting these orientations / preferences, distinctions that are implicit, but not explicit, in the categorial-level that is captured by our ‘meta-model’.





From that subjective/objective genital’ aspect, the «species» category of sexual orientations
named “heterosexuality is that of the sexual preference exhibited by those of the same at-birth genital configuration, female or male, subjectively and objectively, and who are sexually attracted to those who are of the opposite genital configuration, male or female, subjectively and objectively.


Indeed, this first «species» category of sexual orientations, that of “heterosexual orientations, breaks out into two sub-«species» sub-categories --


1.  The heterosexual orientation of subjectively and objectively female humans who are sexually attracted to subjectively and objectively male humans;


2.  The heterosexual orientation of subjectively and objectively male humans who are sexually attracted to subjectively and objectively female humans.




From this same aspect, the «species» category of sexual orientations named homosexuality is that of the sexual preference exhibited by those of the same at-birth genital configuration, female or male, subjectively and objectively, and who are sexually attracted to those who are also of the same at-birth genital configuration, female or male, subjectively and objectively, as well.



Again, this second «species» category of sexual orientations, that of homosexual orientations, breaks out into two sub-«species» sub-categories --


a.  That of the homosexual orientation of subjectively and objectively female humans who are sexually attracted to subjectively and objectively female humans;


b.  That of the homosexual orientation of subjectively and objectively male humans who are sexually attracted to subjectively and objectively male humans.




From this same aspect, the «species» category of sexual orientations named bisexuality is that of the [relative lack of] sexual preferences exhibited by those of the same at-birth genital configuration, subjectively and objectively, and who are sexually attracted to those who are of the same at-birth genital configuration, subjectively and objectively, and also to those who are of the opposite at-birth genital configuration, subjectively and objectively, as well.


 
So, also our third «species» category of sexual orientations, that of bisexual orientations, breaks out into two sub-«species» sub-categories --


i.  That of the bisexual orientations of subjectively and objectively female humans who are sexually attracted to both subjectively and objectively female humans, and to subjectively and objectively male humans;


We may also consider that there are sub-sub-«species» of this sub-«species», e.g. --

 
i.i   That of subjectively and objectively female bisexuals who are somewhat biased, in their sexual preferences, toward subjectively and objectively male humans, and somewhat biased away from other subjectively and objectively female humans;


i.ii   That of subjectively and objectively female bisexuals who are somewhat biased, in their sexual preferences, toward other subjectively and objectively female humans, and somewhat biased away from subjectively and objectively male humans;


i.iii   That of subjectively and objectively female bisexuals who are neutral -- essentially equal in their sexual preferences toward other subjectively and objectively female humans, and toward subjectively and objectively male humans;







ii.  That of the bisexual orientations of subjectively and objectively male humans who are sexually attracted to both subjectively and objectively female humans, and subjectively and objectively male humans.


Again, we may also consider that there are sub-sub-«species» of this sub-«species» too, e.g. --


ii.i   That of subjectively and objectively male bisexuals who are somewhat biased, in their sexual preferences, toward subjectively and objectively female humans, and somewhat biased away from other subjectively and objectively male humans;


ii.ii   That of subjectively and objectively male bisexuals who are somewhat biased, in their sexual preferences, away from subjectively and objectively female humans, and somewhat biased toward other subjectively and objectively male humans;


ii.iii   That of subjectively and objectively male bisexuals who are neutral -- essentially equal in their sexual preferences toward subjectively and objectively female humans, and toward other subjectively and objectively male humans.





The category represented as HSOqmm, that arises out of the --



HSOm  x HSOm’, or the ‘HSOm ( HSOm )’,



or the ‘HSOm of HSOm



-- operation, as one of the two ‘‘‘moments’’’ within the overall step sHSO = 2 self-reflexion’,


self-critique’, immanent critique’, ‘‘‘internal critique’’’, or dialectical self-negation


of the step sHSO = 1 categorial cumulum ( HSOh   + HSOm ), namely -- 




( HSOh   + HSOm ) x ( HSOh   + HSOm )



-- or --



( HSOh   + HSOm )( ( HSOh   + HSOm ) )



-- or --



( HSOh   + HSOm )  of  ( HSOh   + HSOm )





-- is expected, per the Encyclopedia Dialectica standard dialectical interpretation of

the NQ meta-numbers, to be a second antithesis category, i.e., an antithesis to the

first antithesis category -- in this case, with respect to the category HSOqm  = HSOm.




Given our solution for the first antithesis category, HSOqm  = HSOm, as connoting the

category of ‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’, this second antithesis category, HSOqmm,

is therefore expected to connote some kind of ‘‘‘non-homosexual’’’, or

contra-homosexual’, or ‘‘‘anti-homosexual’’’ orientation -- i.e., to be a category

embodying a ‘‘‘dialectical negation’’’ of the category of ‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’,


HSOqhh  |-.=  HSOqm   =   HSOm.





However, this category, described as HSOqmm in our application, herein, of the NQ_,

dialectical, categorial-combinatoric algebra, is also expected to be a supplementary

category to category HSOqhh  |-.=  HSOqm   =   HSOm, and, indeed, a supplementary

category to all of the categories of this model, surfaced, and solved, herein, so far. 





The category specified as HSOqmm is not expected to simply and ‘circularly’ return us to


category HSOqh   =   HSOh, as would a mere formal-logical, propositional negation -- 



|-.  not-not-p  =  p. 





Category HSOqmm is expected to be a ‘‘‘helical’’’, ‘‘‘supplementary opposite’’’ to, and

“above”, each and all of the three categories elicited earlier in this exposition.





So far, we have surfaced three categories -- representing heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual orientations, respectively -- that are ‘inter-mutually’, dialectically opposing categories, each to each of its two others, i.e., with dialectical «differentia specifica»’, dividing, internally, the unitary «genos» of human sexual orientations/preferences, as we have seen above.




Despite these dialectical «differentia specifica»’ -- this ‘‘‘internal contradiction’’’ between hetero- and homo-, as the intra-duality, self-duality, or intra-multiality within the unitary «genos» of human sexual orientations / preferences -- all three of these mutually-opposing categories are united by -- have in common -- an alignment of subjective and objective sexuality, i.e., objective sexuality in terms of physical genitalia at birth, one which, we hold, is not exhaustive of, or definitive for, or ‘essence-ial’ to, this «genos», but only to the first three sub-categories / sub-«gene» / «species» thereof. 



The categories of ‘heterosexual orientation, homosexual orientation, and ‘bisexual orientation all involve ‘sexual orientees / preferees’ who are each personally aligned in terms of their subjective gender identity -- of their affective gender identification -- and in terms of their objective gender identity, i.e., of their genotypic and phenotypic gender -- of their objective genital configuration, their objective secondary sexual characteristics, etc. -- as either subjectively and objectively female, or subjectively and objectively male [leaving out of our consideration, for the present, the category of objectively -- i.e., of ‘genotypically’ and ‘phenotypically’ -- hermaphroditic ‘sexual orientees / preferees’].



We hold that the next, fourth, ‘‘‘dialectical antithesis’’’ category -- that the second 
contra-category -- should mark a break with / a dialectical-categorial negation,
of this subjective / objective ‘genderal’ alignment, shared by all previously-evoked  
categories of this domain / «genos».




We hold that the next category, the fourth category, the final category of


step sHSO = 2, algebraically identified by the descriptor ‘HSOqmm’,


i.e., thus represented as being the self-combinatoric self-hybrid self-critique category


based upon categoryHSOqm’, should be a category ‘essence-ially’ involving the  


non-alignment”, ‘‘‘dis-alignment’’, ‘‘‘cross-alignment’’’, or  


contra-alignment’ of subjective and objective gender identity.






The F.E.D. standard solution algorithm for a self-hybrid category-symbolizing term,


like HSOqmm, includes searching for an existing, experienced category of the given


domain which is some kind of opposite, or antithesis, to the category out of which it


arises, i.e., by ‘‘‘self-reflexion’’’ of the category denoted by HSOm, and by


‘self-critique’ of this category as encompassing / exhausting / fulfilling the total


content of the given domain as it was known to prior, “chaotic” [Marx] --  


unsystematic / not-yet-systematized’, not yet ‘‘‘theorized’’’ -- human experience,

i.e., as achieving the encompassment / exhaustion / fulfillment of -- as grasping --

the totality, the total content of the given domain as known to prior, “chaotic”

human experience, as well as in terms of what has come to be known systematically,


so far, via the systematization consummated up to and through step sHSO = 2


of our model-guided method of presentation.





That is, the ‘HSOm  x HSOm’, or ‘HSOm ( HSOm )’,


or ‘HSOm of HSOmcomponent of the, ‘squared’, ‘self-application’ /-


‘self-operation’ / ‘self-reflexion’ / dialectical self-negation / self-«aufheben» /-


‘‘‘self-critique’’’ symbols-formations --



 ( HSOh   + HSOm ) x ( HSOh   + HSOm )



-- or --



( HSOh   + HSOm )( ( HSOh   + HSOm ) )



-- or --



( HSOh   + HSOm )  of  ( HSOh   + HSOm )



-- connote the mental operation of you, the cognizing subject, or agent, of thought,


again [be]holding the second category, HSOm, in your mind, or written out/described,


objectively, and statically, e.g., on paper, or on screen, with your mind also acting as / simulating that

second category, thus held also, subjectively and actively, in your mind, and reflecting

upon / evaluating that category, as [a mind mentally-embodying] that very category, and


self-comparing that category, ‘...( HSOm )’, thus [be]held objectively, externally,


with/to/against itself, by/as/in ‘HSOm ( ... )’, thus as held-in-[your-]mind, subjectively,


internally, in that you are also then ‘mentally-incarnating’ that category, in relation to 


the DOMAIN in which that category inheres -- at least for the ‘‘‘human culture’’’,

the  ‘human phenome’ that you have inherited, and that you also instantiate -- i.e.,

in terms of this candidate categorys ‘‘‘completeness’’’ with respect to its DOMAIN --


here HSO, the totality of reference for that category, HSOm -- that is, as to whether


or not that category, HSOm, is sufficient for the human mind, grasping it, as well as


what has preceded it, in the systematic categorial-progression exposition of its DOMAIN,

to ‘‘‘complete’’’ the “comprehension”, the cognitive “containment”, and the systematic

“explanation” of the totality of the phenomena / [ev]entities / content encountered by

all of the human experience, in / of that domain, HSO, that is recalled by / known,

directly or indirectly [e.g., via written records of the past, recorded earlier than the

life-time of you, the subject / agent in question], to this subject / agent of thought -- i.e.,  

to you -- or as to whether yet another, fourth category comes to mind,

 a fourth category that is necessary to advance -- to further ‘‘‘complete’’’ -- the

systematic, classificatory, taxonomic,‘ratio-nal’, scientific [experiential-data-disciplined]

‘theoretic’ comprehension / explanation of the human-experiential content

of the DOMAIN in question, in this case, of HSO.






To our lights, the existing category -- the “populated”; “instantiated”, long-empirically-

observed category -- that specifically completes, by supplementarily opposing, the

HSOm category, thus fulfilling the model-equation-generated “specs.” of, and thus

“solving for”, the initially, “algebraically” unknown” category description, HSOqmm,

is the category of ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientations’’’, connoted herein by HSOn.





Those of ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientations’’’ are not ‘‘‘homosexual’’’.



They are sexually attracted to other human individuals who are, subjectively and
objectively, of the opposite gender to the gender to which they assign themselves
subjectively.




Those of ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientations’’’ are subjectively heterosexual in their sexual orientation.



They are, in some sense, objectively homosexual in their sexual orientations, but, in the domain
of human sexual orientations, it is the subjective dimension of sexual orientations that is
definitive and decisive.



They may be mistaken for those of ‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’ because, objectively, i.e.,
in terms of genotypic and phenotypic genitalia, they are of the same gender as those
to whom they are sexually attracted.






However -- and on the contrary -- those of ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientations’’’ constitute a sexual orientations category of contrariety with respect to the category of ‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’, and also a category in part akin to, but still also qualitatively different from, and, overall, qualitatively opposite to, as well as supplementary to, the category of ‘‘‘heterosexual orientations’’’.



Because, in the category of ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientations’’’, subjective and objective gender do not coincide, the category of ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientations’’’ is a further contra-category’ to each of the categories of the HSO domain evoked earlier in our [method of] presentation, and to all of these three earlier categories, collectively, as a unity, since, for all three, subjective and objective gender do coincide, whereas, for the fourth category, of ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientation’’’ -- the second contra-category of this dialectical categorial progression -- they do NOT.



The category of ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientations’’’ involves a dialectical negation of a determination which all three previously-presented categories of human sexual orientations / preferences all share, namely, a qualitative, dialectical negation of the determination of subjective and objective gender alignment.


The determination of subjective and objective gender DIS-alignment which characterizes the category of ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientations/preferences’’’ is therefore a ‘‘‘determinate negation’’’ of the  the determination of subjective and objective gender ALIGNMENT which characterizes each of the three previously-presented categories in this categorial progression.







We therefore assert [‘|-.’] that the solution to the domain-specific meaning of the term /

category-symbol / category-description / category-specification / symbols-formation

HSOqmm is ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientations’’’, that ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientations’’’, herein

denoted by HSOn,  is the second contra-category to the synthesis sum, or synthesis

triad, formed by the triadic cumulum of the category of ‘‘‘bisexual orientations’’’,

in ‘additive opposition’ to both the category of ‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’, plus --

and in its own right, also in ‘additive opposition’ to -- the category of ‘‘‘heterosexual

orientations’’’, for the domain of Human Sexual Orientations, HSO, as follows --



  HSOqmm    |-.=   HSOn.





Our now fully  “solved” step sHSO = 2 equation is then --




HSO)-|-(sHSO  =  ( HSOh )2sHSO, for step sHSO = 2, which becomes --




HSO)-|-(2  =  ( HSOh )22   =   ( HSOh )4   =   



( HSOh )2  x  ( HSOh )2    =  



( HSOh   + HSOm )1  x  ( HSOh   + HSOm )1    =



~   x  ( HSOh   + HSOm )1    =



~( HSOh   + HSOm )1   =    



( ~HSOh    +  ~HSOm )1   =   



( HSOh   + HSOm )2    =   



( HSOh   + HSOm ) ( ( HSOh   + HSOm ) )   =  



( HSOh   + HSOm )  of ( HSOh   + HSOm )    =   



( HSOh   + HSOm )   ~+~  Delta( HSOh   + HSOm )    =   




HSOh  ~+~ HSOm   ~+~ HSOqmh ~+~ HSOqmm     |-.=





HSOh    ~+~  HSOm    ~+~  HSOb  ~+~  HSOn




-- or, in ‘phonogramic translation’ of the ideograms above --




‘The general category, of human sexual orientations- / preferences- in-general,

implicitly ‘‘‘contains’’’ / connotes the special categories of heterosexual orientations,

of homosexual orientations, of bi-sexual orientations, and of trans-sexual orientations,

each as a synchronically co-existing qualitative opposite to each of its others’.




-- by which we posit that, at least in this specific case, but perhaps more generally --




The ‘‘‘dialectical second antithesis’’’ category opposes theintermutualopposition

 of the ‘‘‘dialectical synthesis’’’ category, opposing the opposition / ‘‘‘dialectical

antithesis’’’ of the ‘‘‘dialectical thesis’’’ category and the ‘‘‘dialectical anti-thesis’’’

category, collectively, and it also, ‘‘‘distributively’’’, opposes the 

‘‘‘dialectical synthesis’’’ category individually, and also, likewise, opposes the

‘‘dialectical anti-thesis’’’ category individually, and also, likewise, opposes the  

‘‘‘dialectical thesis’’’ category individually.





Our synchronic, systematic-dialectical model of the domain of Human Sexual


Orientations / Preferences, HSO, thus asserts, per our solution of its, we hold,


final [final with respect to the limited -- Claimed -- mission of this text],  


step sHSO = 2 ‘self-iteration’, that this domain consists of the following [possible]


ontological content --



heterosexuality  +/&  homosexuality  +/&  bi-sexuality +/& trans-sexuality.






The phenomenology modernly named by phrases such as ‘trans-sexual sexual orientations’ is harder to detect, with any certainty, in the typical historical records / ‘psychohistorical aritifacts’ [or ‘psychofacts’] of ancient civilizations, than are the phenomenologies of ‘heterosexuality’, ‘homosexuality’, and ‘bi-sexuality’.

For example, no ancient records of the kind of full gender-conversion surgical / hormonal operations of which modern civilization has become technologically capable, starting circa 1830 C.E., are known to us B.C.E., apart from forms of castration of objectively male trans-sexuals -- which might be regarded as a kind of partial gender-conversion operation, e.g., as among the Gallae, or Galloi, of ancient Greece, ancient Rome, and, perhaps, ancient Phrygia, and as among the Hijras of ancient [and modern] India.

Nevertheless, abundant representation of specimens of “transvestism” are available in the ancient Terran historical record, some of which may possibly be associated with cases of  “trans-sexual” orientations as modernly defined.

The 2004 dictionary/encyclopedia-like book by John Younger, entitled Sex in the Ancient World from A to Z, identifies a number of specimens of such data, individually, under its consecutive entries for  “TRANSSEXUALITY” and for “TRANSVESTISM”.


In this book’s entry for “TRANSSEXUALITY”, we read --

the change from one sex to the other.  Ino-Leuothea raises the young DIONYSUS as a girl; ... Lucius Mucianus claimed to have seen two transsexuals at Argos and Smyrna; and Pliny reports four in 171 BCE and himself inspected one from Thysdrus (HN 7.23; Aulus Gellius 9.4.12 ff.).


In this book’s immediately following entry, for “TRANSVESTISM”, we read --

. . .Part of the characterization of EFFEMINACY (CINAEDI; PROSTITUTES) is the man's attention to his body, to wear make-up and act like a woman (Suetonius, Caligula 52).  A set of late Archaic kylikes [M.D.:  a type of cup for drinking wine] depict “male symposiasts reveling in extravagant eastern garb,” interpreted as enacting habrosúnê, refined sensuality [M.D.:  “lushness”] (Boardman and Kurtz 1986; Kurke 1997:  132), but they may also be mocking women.”

[John Younger, Sex in the Ancient World from A to Z, Routledge [NY:  2004], p. 197].






The progress of our dialectical, systematic presentation, so far, can be represented pictorially as follows --










The Morals of this Story.

The most crucial “moral of this story” is the continually empirically-validated precept to confront the phenomena of human experience honestly, factually, and rationally -- i.e., scientifically -- not persisting in denial of experienced actuality, and not repressing empirical truth.

Not only the phenomena of heterosexuality, but those of homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and  trans-sexuality as well, are attested to by recorded data of many kinds, spanning the entire history of recorded human civilizations, across many revolutions in ‘the human phenome’, in “human cultures”.

This suggests that all four categories of human sexual phenomena have roots in the human genome, and not merely in some few, rare, variants of ‘the human phenome’.

True, heterosexuality is the category most directly and obviously related to human social reproduction, and to the expansion of that human social reproduction.

This fact, however, provides no grounds for the repression or persecution of these other -- persistently-manifested -- species of human sexual orientation / preference.


Indeed, the persistence of the other three categories might make us ask ourselves -- 

¿Are there really only two human genders, or are there, in fact, actually four, or -- taking into account the sub-categories of the four categories that we have considered -- even eight, or eleven?



Another key learning about dialectics that this specific dialectic instantiates:  Not in every [case of] dialectic is the ‘synthesis category’ necessarily more desirable than, or superior to, the ‘antithesis category’, or the ‘antithesis category’ more desirable than, or superior to, the ‘thesis category’ .


Sometimes, all of these kinds of dialectic categories can reside upon a level plane of ‘peeriority’.




In our exploration of the systematic dialectic of TV Series --

http://feddialectics-miguel.blogspot.com/2013/08/part-iii-interlude-dialectic-of-tv.html

-- we saw that some ‘synthesis categories’ can represent anomalous, or even undesirable -- unsuccessful -- cases.




In our exploration of the systematic dialectic of Modern Computerware --

http://feddialectics-miguel.blogspot.com/2013/08/part-iii-b-interlude-dialectic-of.html

-- we saw that some ‘synthesis categories’ can represent exceptional, or rare, little known, cases.




In our exploration of the systematic dialectic of the Basic Operations of Standard Arithmetic --

http://feddialectics-miguel.blogspot.com/2013/08/part-iii-c-interlude-dialectic-of-basic.html

-- we saw that some ‘synthesis categories’ can represent ‘operatorial entities’ that are scarcely ever recognized as such in their own right.




If the «genos» of dialectics -- and the generic ‘meta-numerals’ of the Seldonian first dialectical arithmetic -- are true universals, able to embrace, and to encompass, the vast diversity of specific synchronic domains, and of their synchronic sub-domains; of diachronic histories, and of their diachronic sub-histories, then the generic meaning and definition of such dialectic categories as dialectical syntheses’ must also be -- well -- very generic, with almost endless specializations, or special case meaning variants, assimilable to -- not excluded by -- those meanings and definitions.









Formulations of this domains content in terms of the later, richer dialectical algebras of the Seldonian systematic dialectic of dialectical algebras.



The Seldonian NQ_ [---) q2 dialectical algebra system, i.e., the dialectical algebra system

 which corresponds to the, generic -- i.e., to the set NQ -- ‘meta-numeral’ q2 in Seldon’s  

multi-systematic dialectic of the dialectical algebras, is capable of implicitly modeling two

levels -- twoqualo-fractal scales’ -- of the systematic dialectic of human sexual orientations /-


preferences, by representing explicitly only the second, the «species» level / scale, with  

HSO)-|-(2, the ‘‘‘«asumbletoi» sum’’’ of the «species», representing, implicitly,

the first, the «Genos», level / scale, but onlymulti-vocally’, as amulti-ontic cumulum’.



[The implicit bottom level / scale, represented using color-code red[-ish], is typically, per  

Encyclopedia Dialectica convention, reserved for the ultimate, most concrete, most 

determinate units, or «monads» -- for the ultimate, directly observable, members, elements,

«henads», ‘‘‘holons’’’, or ‘‘‘logical indivi-duals’’’ -- that reside at the base and ground of

the superstructure of categories, and into which that superstructure of categories “sorts”

these ultimates].




Likewise, the Seldonian  Nq_BA   [---) q24 dialectical algebra system is capable of  

explicitly modeling two levels -- twoqualo-fractal scales’ -- of the systematic dialectic  

of human sexual orientations / preferences, in a manner which we typically also term a

‘«Genos» /«species»  qualo-fractal’, or a qualo-Numerator / qualo-denominator

un-continued fraction’, i.e., apurely-qualitative division / «diairesis»

division-of-the-«Genos»-into-its-«species»-operation, by representing, explicitly, together,  

co-vocally’, both the second, «species» level / scale, and the first, the «Genos», level / scale,

in the form of a minimal -- i.e., as a two-layer -- trans-Platonian «arithmos eidetikos»’.



These two representations can be visualized together as follows --




Beyond the descriptive capabilities of either the NQ_ [---) q2 system of dialectical algebra,

or of the Nq_BA[---) q24 system of dialectical algebra, is the Nq_GBA[---) q56  

system of dialectical algebra, which is capable of explicitly modeling three levels -- three

 ‘qualo-fractal scales’ -- of the systematic dialectic of human sexual orientations / preferences,

 in a manner which we term a ‘«Genos» /«species» / sub1-«species» qualo-fractal’, or a  

qualo-Numerator / qualo-denominator / qualo-sub1-denominator continued fraction, i.e., a

purely-qualitative division / «diairesis» of-the-«Genos»-into-its-«species»-and-its- 

sub1-«species» operation, by representing, explicitly, together, co-vocally’, the third, the

sub1-«species» level / scale, and / plus the second, the «species» level / scale, and / plus the 

first, the «Genos», level / scale, in the form of a three-layertrans-Platonian

«arithmos eidetikos»’.



This representation can be visualized as follows --







However, the Seldonian dialectic of the dialectical algebras is not limited to the kind of n-level, n-scale ‘qualo-fractal’, “purely”-qualitative categorial algebras that we have illustrated above via the three foregoing examples.


Its first, or «arché», axioms-system of dialectical arithmetic/algebra is the “purely”-quantitative”, ‘pre-vestigially’-dialectical arithmetic/algebra axioms-system, that of the ‘“first-order”’ “Natural” numbers axioms-system of abstract quantifiers, which we denote by N_:   N_ [---) q1. 


Its numerals represent unqualified quantifiers.



Its second, first antithesis axioms-system of dialectical arithmetic/algebra is the “purely”-qualitative dialectical-categorial arithmetic/algebra of ontological-category qualifiers, which we denote by NQ_:   NQ_ [---) q2, as we have seen above.  


 Its ‘meta-numerals’ represent unquantifiable categorial qualifiers, or ontological category symbols.



Therefore, its third, first synthesis axioms-system of dialectical arithmetic/algebra is the dialectical ‘‘‘complex unity’’’ of that first and that second system, which we denote

by qQN   =  NU_:   NU_ [---) q3.



This third system of dialectical arithmetic/algebra is thus an axioms-system for a hybrid, qualo-quantitative’, or ‘quanto-qualitative’, dialectical ideography, thus one whose ‘meta-numerals’ are compound, qualified quantifiers, or quantified qualifiers, of the form unuon, such that, for NU_, the quantifier’ component of this compound ‘meta-numeral’ formation, un, is an element of N, and uon, the qualifier component, by itself, unquantified’ [or, actually, quantified’, at least implicitly, by the minimum magnitude N quantifier’, un = 1], represents one unit, or one «monad», of the nth ontological category, or ‘ontological «arithmos»”, in the categorial progression in question.


The ‘o’ superscript signifies the quantifiablity’ of this ‘‘‘qualifier’’’, a feature which the NQ_ ‘ontological-categorial qualifiers, for example -- per their axioms -- do not exhibit.


The qQN   =  NU_ system’s ideographical language is thus capable of expressing, not only the ‘‘‘qualitative determinations’’’, the ‘‘‘ontological determinations’’’, or ontological dimensions -- i.e., the species categories -- that make up a «genos» or domain, as the NQ_ language can.

The qQN   =  NU_ language can also express the [present] ‘‘‘quantitative determinations’’’ of each such qualitative / ontological category, or “kind” category, in terms of the number of units of that category that are present, or that are presently extant.
 

In the form of un(t)uon, the NU_ language can even express the entire “time evolution” of the “population” of the nth «arithmos» / ‘‘‘kind’’’.



For example, using the NU_ language, we can summarize the findings of the study, published in April 2011, by the Williams Institute, and authored by Gary J. Gates, as to the ~ present sizes of the sub-populations, for United States adults, of persons of homosexual orientation, of bisexual orientation, and of trans-sexual orientation, as follows --


HSO^o(s = 2; USA, 2011, adults)   =
  


uh(2011)uoh  +  um(2011)uom  +   ub(2011)uob  +   un(2011)uon   =

(227,842,105)uoh  +  (4,026,316)uom  +   (4,263,158)uob  +   (710,526)uon.




Moreover, the seventh system of dialectical arithmetic/algebra in the Seldonian progression of dialectical ideographical languages, whose most useful variant for present purposes we denote by --


RqMQN    =   RqMU    =    Rmu [---)  q7


-- is capable of expressing an even richer rendition of the step s = 2 ‘cumulum’ of sexual orientations ontology. 






The image above provides views of our ‘systematic dialectic of human sexual orientations’ from the vantage point of a selection of five of the Seldonian ‘meta-system’ of axioms-systems of dialectical arithmetics / algebras.


In the first view of this ‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’, that afforded by the NQ_ [---) q2 Seldonian First Dialectical Arithmetic, each of the four step 2 categories is placed on an equal footing, as a discrete ‘psycho-ontological category’, in its own right, qualitatively opposing each of the other three.

In the ‘ontology-only’, ‘quality-only’ language of the NQ_ arithmetic / algebra, there is no way to distinguish the relative degree of prevalence of one category vis-a-vis the other three, except, perhaps, by ordinality.

From that, ordinal, viewpoint the explicit definition of the category of ‘‘‘heterosexual orientations’’’ is the least complex, least “determinate” of the four, requiring the smallest minimum word-determinations for its explicit characterization.

The category of ‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’ is the second simplest, next most “determinate” of the four, requiring a larger minimum of word-determinations for its explicit characterization, relative to the explicit characterization word-count for the category of ‘‘‘heterosexual orientations’’’.

The category of ‘‘‘bisexual orientations’’’ is the next more complex, next more “determinate” of the four, requiring yet a larger minimum of word-determinations for its explicit characterization, relative to the explicit characterization word-counts for the categories of ‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’ and of ‘‘‘heterosexual orientations’’’, respectively.

Finally, the category of ‘‘‘trans-sexual orientations’’’ is the most complex, most “determinate” of the four, requiring the largest minimum of word-determinations for its explicit characterization, relative to the explicit characterization word-counts for the categories of ‘‘‘bisexual orientations’’’ , of ‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’ and of ‘‘‘heterosexual orientations’’’, respectively.



This ‘gradient of determinateness’ can be ‘explicitized’, for example, as follows --

‘‘‘heterosexual orientations’’’ =  females oriented sexually to males; males oriented sexually to females.

‘‘‘homosexual orientations’’’ =  females oriented sexually to other females, and not to males; males oriented sexually to other males, and not to females.

‘‘‘bisexual orientations’’’ =  females oriented sexually to other females, as well to males, with or without bias toward one or the other; males oriented sexually to other males, as well as to females, with or without bias toward one or the other.

trans-sexual orientations’’’ =  ‘objective females’ who are also ‘subjective males’, aspiring to male embodiment, and oriented sexually to other ‘objective females’; ‘objective males’ who are also ‘subjective females’, aspiring to female embodiment, and oriented sexually to other males.


In the second view of this ‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’, the one afforded by the

qQN   =  NU_:   NU_ [---) q3 Seldonian Second Dialectical Arithmetic --

which is a ‘Qualo-quaNtitative’ dialectical arithmetic, as opposed to the NQ_ “purely”-Qualitative dialectical arithmetic -- the estimated relative prevalence of the four, step 2, ‘psycho-ontological categories’ can be made explicit in terms of their estimated sub-population census counts, in this case, for the contemporary U. S. population as a whole.

We can see that the ‘monadic numerousness’ of the uoh «monads» of the HSOh category /

«arithmos» is by far the greatest, exceeding 227 million human individuals, followed by the ‘monadic numerousness’ of the uob «monads» of the HSOb category / «arithmos», at over 4

million 263 thousand persons, and then the uom «monads» of the HSOm category / «arithmos»,

at just over 4 million human beings, with the uon «monads» of the HSOn category / «arithmos»,

at under one million people, being the least prevalent of the four sexual orientations ontologies.

We might -- naively, as it turns out -- have expected the ‘prevalence gradient’ to have strictly followed the ‘gradient of determinateness’, but that is not what we find empirically, per the Williams Institute study.


In the third view of this ‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’, the one afforded by the

RqMQN    =   RqMU    =    Rmu [---) q7 Seldonian Seventh Dialectical Arithmetic --

which is, once again, a ‘Qualo-quaNtitative’ dialectical arithmetic, as opposed to the NQ_ “purely”-Qualitative dialectical arithmetic -- the estimated prevalence of each category is quantified as a conventional, standardized, ‘“normalized”’, percentage part-relation to the whole of the estimated contemporary U.S. population.

That is, the Williams Institute estimated ‘monadic population’ of each distinct category / «arithmos» is divided by that total “present” U. S. ‘individual human units’ population, and then multiplied by the “dimensionless”, or “units ÷ units”, or “units of degree zero” ‘quanto-qualitative factor ‘‘‘100%’’’.


Via this view, one can directly read-off the prevalence of each of the four ontologies relative to the whole that they, together, constitute.



In the fourth view of this ‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’, the one afforded by the

NqBA  [---) q24 Seldonian twenty-fourth Dialectical Arithmetic --

which is a “purely”-qualitative dialectical arithmetic, like the NQ_ “purely”-Qualitative dialectical arithmetic -- this dialectic is portrayed as a minimal, two-scale ‘qualo-fractal qualitative fraction’:  as a unary ‘Beta-level’ «genos» category / «arithmos»  that is «diairesis» divisible, non-amalgamatively and non-reductively, at its step 2 degree of elaboration, into four ‘Alpha-level’ «species» categories / «arithmoi».



In the fifth view of this ‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’, the one afforded by the

NqGBA  [---) q56 Seldonian fifty-fifth Dialectical Arithmetic --

which is, again, a “purely”-qualitative dialectical arithmetic, like the NQ_ dialectical arithmetic -- this dialectic is portrayed as a three-scale ‘qualo-fractal qualitative fraction’:  as a unary ‘Gamma-level’ «genos» category that is «diairesis» divisible, i.e., in the sense of a non-amalgamative and non-reductive, ‘contental’, ontological ‘‘‘division’’’, at its step 2 degree of elaboration, into four ‘Beta-level’ «species» categories, each of which is further «diairesis» divisible into a further three, or, in one case, into only two, ‘‘Alpha-level’ sub-«species» categories / «arithmoi».












Homeomorphic Defect of this systematic-dialectical model of the HSO domain.

As a recent reviewer of this model aptly pointed out, this model still completely leaves out certain widely known and long-experienced categories of human sexual orientation / preference.

Such missing categories include, at one extreme, celibacy, as practiced by some members of the Foundation sisterhood-brotherhood, and, at an other extreme, zoophilia or bestiality, as practiced, for example -- according to a generally disputed legend, but, reputedly, with deadly consequences -- by Catherine the Great.  The Kinsey interviews suggested that, in their times, at least one episode of bestiality occurred in the lives of 8% of American men, and of 3.6% of American women.

If Terran humans, in the future,  encounter alien -- non-Terran -- humanoids, then it is possible that a category of xeno-sexuality’, contrary to / ‘oppos[it]ing’, in ‘psycheo-ontological quality’, all categories of  koino-sexuality’, including even zoophilia or bestiality, may come into experiential, empirical manifestation.


Also, the ‘‘‘discretization’’’ of ontological categories that is inherent in the limitations of the NQ_ system / language of dialectical ideography, as the  first, simplest dialectical ideography, presents what may be more realistically rendered as a more ‘‘‘continuum’’’-like spectrum spanning, inclusively, from the extreme pole of exclusive heterosexual orientation, to the opposite extreme pole of exclusive homosexual orientation, with a equally-balanced bisexual orientation mid-point in-between.