Dear Readers,

I have excerpted, below, for your enlightenment, a passage from a recent "lecture to the troops" by Karl Seldon, which addresses the significance of the Seldonian

*'*.

**Fundamental****Theorem****of**__'__**Dialectic**I have also appended, to the excerpt below, the simple proof of that

*'*', and the

**Fundamental Theorem****axioms used in that**

__N____Q___**proof, for your convenience.**

Enjoy!

Regards,

Miguel

**“**

**...**This ‘contra-Boolean’ theorem, that constitutes our

*‘*, in ideograms --

**Fundamental**“**Law**”**of****’**__Dialectics__

__x__**+**

__Delta__[

__x__**]**

**=**

__x__^{2}~< & ~= & ~>__x__^{1}
-- is deductively
implied by the axioms that we have presented, as per the proof also presented
-- all seemingly so simple -- provides nothing less than a rectification of the
chief defect of Ancient Mediterranean

*‘*and**Arithmism**’*‘*, i.e., of the principle that animated Ancient Mediterranean philosophy and science from the Pythagoreans, circa**Monadism**’**360**B.C.E., through Plato and beyond, all the way forward at least to Diophantus’s ‘proto-ideographical’ algebra,*circa***250**C.E.
That chief defect
was the

[H.-D. Ebbinghaus,

**of «***radical dualism***»***arithmos**vis-a-vis*«**», i.e., of***monad**‘‘‘*versus**assemblages of units**’’’*‘‘‘*, viz.:**individual units**’’’**“**EUCLID defines in the*Elements*, VII, 2, a number as “the**[K.S.: «***multitude***»] made up of***arithmos***[K.S.: «***units***»]” having previously (***monad**Elements*, VII, 1) said that a**is “that by virtue of which each of existing things is called***unit***.” As***one***[K.S.: but, on the contrary, a***a unit is not composed of units***is, typically, “made up of”***unit*__sub__*-*, e.g., a**units***‘*«**-**__meta__**»***monad**’*is “made up of” «**», as we have seen], neither EUCLID nor ARISTOTLE regard a***monads***as a***unit***, but rather as “the***number***[K.S.: «***basis***»] of counting, or as the***arché***[K.S.: «***origin***»] of***arché***.”***number***”**[H.-D. Ebbinghaus,

*et al*.,**, Springer Verlag [NY:**__Numbers__**1991**], p.**12**,**bold**/*italic*/*color***].***emphases added*Under the spell of that radical diremption [‘

**<--**

**|**

**-->**

**’] between «**

**» and «**

*arithmos***», only a radically ‘statical’, ‘Parmenideanoid’, ‘early-Platonoid’**

*monad***could be conceived, as an eternal**

*cosmos**‘*«

**-**__meta__**»**

*arithmos*

*cumulum**’*of eternally fixed, radically distinct,

**tically**

*gene***related «**

__un__**» of «**

*arithmoi***».**

*monads*
True, an element
of [“purely”-

**] dynamism could enter this world picture as**__quant__itative*“*-- as the begetting of new «**genealogy**”**» by old[er] «***monads***» of the «***monads***», the sensuously-empirical***arithmoi aisthetoi**“*-- but all and**units**”**within a given kind, i.e., within a single, “eternal”, “eternally fixed” «**__only__**»***genos**-*«**», or «***arithmos***»***species**-*«**»: never as***arithmos**‘*.**-**__meta__**genealogy**’
That is, no «

**»***genos**-*«**» -- not even any «***arithmos***»***species**-*«**» -- could cross its boundaries of kind, its ontological boundaries, to give birth to «***arithmos***» of even a different, but***monads**already existing***«**__other__**»***genos**-*«**», or «***arithmos***»***species**-*«**»,***arithmos***give birth to a previously***LET ALONE***precedented, brand new «**__un__**»***genos**-*«**», or «***arithmos***»***species**-*«**». That is,***arithmos**“*, but**genealogy**”*no**‘*, was admissible for such a world picture.**-**__meta__**genealogy**’
Thus, no

*cosmological**‘*was even conceivable for such a drastically ‘«**-**__meta__**dynamical**-__meta__**evolution**’**»***arithmos***<--****|****-->**«**»’ «***monad***».***mentalité*
But the
deductively-derived ‘contra-Boolean’ rule --

__x__**[**

__x__**] =**

__x__^{2}~< & ~= & ~>__x__**==>**

**~**

__x__=__x__+

__Delta__[

__x__**]**

**=**

__x__^{2}|

__Delta__[

__x__**]**

**~< & ~= & ~>**

__x__^{1}
-- interpreted in such
a way that

**of the «**__each__**» of the***monads***«***successor***», denoted by***arithmos*__Delta__[__x__**]****, is constituted out of a [sub-]«****» of [some of] the [former] «***arithmos***» of the***monads***«***predecessor***», denoted by***arithmos***, i.e., such that**__x__**[**__each__*meta**-*]«**» of the***monad*__Delta__[__x__**]**[*meta**-*]«**» is “made up of” a heterogeneous multiplicity of the «***arithmos***» of the***monads***«**__x__**», each***arithmos*__Delta__[__x__**]****thus a***unit**‘*«**-**__meta__**» of those***monad***-type**__x__**/ «***units***», tells a dramatically different story.***monads*
This rule can make
possible the compact, ideographical description of

**omains, of**__D__**niverse**__u__**-of-discourse -- including of**__s__*the***[***universal***]***whole cosmos**universe**-*of-discourse, the*universe**-*of-discourse**[***of the total universe***], as a***as a whole***, still-further-unfolding***single**‘*.**-**__meta__**genealogy**’
Such a description
thus formulates a

*‘*.**’**__dialectical__theory of everything
But even also for
subordinate

**omains, this rule makes possible the ultra-condensed, ideographical description of**__D__*‘*, causally and**-**__sub__**universes**’*‘*connecting predecessor «**meta**-**genetically**’**»***arithmoi**-*kinds with their ‘‘‘offspring’’’ new-«**»***arithmoi**-*kinds -- their successor kinds -- consisting of both*meta**-*and**«***hybrid***»***arithmoi**-*«**of**-**», to which those predecessor «***monads***»***arithmoi**-*«**of**-**»***monads**-*kinds give birth, describing a universe-of-discourse-‘universe-al’*‘*, i.e., of**-**__meta__**genealogy**’**of ongoing**,**recurring**__ontological____innovations__*‘*, expressible / describable by / in / via a single**onto**-**dynamases**’*‘*.**-**__dialectical__meta**equation**’**...****”**
## No comments:

## Post a Comment