Monday, July 27, 2015

Karl Seldon’s Sagacious Sayings Series -- #10. '''Dialectical OPPOSITION-in-General'''.












[My] Full TitleKarl Seldons Sagacious Sayings Series, #10 --

'''Dialectical Categorial OPPOSITION-in-<<Gene>>-ral'''.







Dear Readers,



From time to time, I like to share with you some of the gems of insight that leap from out of the ‘‘‘multilogues’’’, among Karl Seldon and other members of the Foundation, and from the transcribed versions, published internally, including of those ‘‘‘multilogues’’’ in which I did not happen to participate, when and if those [edited] transcripts are cleared for public sharing by the Foundations General Council.


I have pasted-in, below, an excerpt of Karl Seldon's remarks from the edited transcript of a recent such ‘‘‘multilogue’’’. 

 

Regards,

 

Miguel



 

 

Background --

F.E.D. Definition of the term '''OPPOSITION-in-<<Gene>>-ral''' --

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Glossary_files/Glossary,Dialectic_of_Oppositions,04FEB2014.jpg

 

F.E.D. Vignette #6, by F.E.D. Public Liaison Chief Aoristos Dyosphainthos, regarding The Dialectic of Oppositions, according to Muses and Seldon --

 http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Vignettes_files/Aoristos_Dyosphainthos,F.E.D._Vignette_%236,The_Dialectic_of_Oppositions,first_posted_29NOV2012.pdf

 

 

[Karl Seldon] --


"The meaning of the word-element [prefix] op includes connotations of “against”.

Thus, an op-posit[e]’ may mean a term as “posited” against one other term, or against multiple other terms.


In common discourse, and, in many particular cases, quite aptly, op-posit-tion’, or op-pos[e]-ition’, may validly imply connotations of ‘‘‘mutual negativity’’’ -- of conflict, mutual antagonism, discord, and/or “diametric” qualitative polarity -- even of ‘‘‘complementary’’’ or of ‘‘‘mutually annihilatory’’’ contradistinction.

However, in its most ‘«gene»-ral’ -- most universal -- meaning, abstracted to the point of including all known cases/instances/«species» of opposition, our term dialectical, supplementary opposition connotes ‘‘‘mutual negativity’’’ merely and only as mutual not-ness’, as mutual distinctiveness, as mutual [ontological] difference. 

As such, it simply means next-ness in a symbolically-represented categorial progression, a progression of symbolized ontological ‘‘‘«arithmoi» of «monads»’’’.

That is, such generalized opposition simply means the consecutive ‘being-next-to-one-another-ness’ of, e.g., a predecessor category-symbol and its successor category-symbol.

It can even mean a non-consecutive ‘being-near-to-one-another-ness’ of a successor category-symbol, in a progression of category-symbols, to one of its predecessor category-symbols, but with one or more intermediary category-symbols intervening -- also present -- in-between them.


So, dialectical, categorial, supplementary oppositeness-in-«gene»-ralis only categorial-symbols’ next-to-ness, or near-to-ness, in a symbolized categorial progression.

It connotes a category-symbol that is synchronically present -- or that diachronically ‘self-presents’, at a certain stage -- as opposite-to/~next-to/ontologically [qualitatively] different from another ontological category-symbol.

Being a categorial op-posit[e]’ means being posited op to (an)other ontological category-symbol(s).

Even categorial-symbolic ‘before-ness’/‘after-ness’ in-«gene»-ral, i.e., including mediate[d], rather than just immediate -- non-consecutive, rather than just consecutive -- ~next-nesses/followings /precedings still fall within the meanings of dialectical, categorial, supplementary oppositeness for us."
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment