Seldon’s Opus:
Key Excerpts. Excerpt No. 1 --‘Categorial Dialectical Lineages’ and Their Ultimate ‘‘‘Ancestors’’’.
Dear Reader,
It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an Officer of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica
[F.E.D.] Office of Public Liaison,
to share with you, from time to time, as they are approved for public release
by the F.E.D. General Council, key
excerpts from the internal writings of our co-founder, Karl Seldon.
The first
such release in this new series is pasted in below. [Some of the E.D. standard edits have been
applied].
Regards,
Miguel
“... Now I want
to describe for you our ‘principle of the «arché» category’
-- our ‘archéonic
principle’ -- a core
principle of our approach to dialectics.”
“And I want to present this principle
to you in a ‘‘‘generic’’’ way.”
By a ‘‘‘generic’’’
way, I mean a way which encompasses both the ‘synchronic
first, «arché»-«species»
of dialectic’, i.e.,
that of ‘‘‘systematic dialectics’’’, and its ‘diachronic second, contra-«species» of dialectic’, i.e., that of ‘‘‘historical dialectics’’’,
alike -- as well as their ‘‘‘complex
unity’’’,
their ‘uni-«species»’,
of, e.g., the Marxian, ‘diachronico-synchronic dialectic’, or
‘meta-systematic dialectics’, that is the third «species»
of our ‘dialectic of the dialectic itself’, the dialectic of Domain D = Dialectics itself.”
“A key feature of our
dialectics
is the ‘‘‘grounding’’’ and ‘‘‘premissing’’’ of each ‘dialectical [meta-]model’,
of each dialectical
categorial progression, in a single «arché» category.”
“Such a category is the starting category, one which is also
the ever-present
origin -- and,
in the context of the ‘‘‘historical’’’ species of dialectics, is also the [deep-]past origin -- of all that follows [from] that
beginning category; of all of the subsequent progression; of all of the [often
many] ontological categories that follow [from] this «arché» in that dialectical categorial progression.”
“This «arché»
category is
the ‘seed-form’ category,
the ‘‘‘cell-form’’’ category
[cf. Marx], the uttermost root category, the ‘‘‘ultimate ancestor’’’ category, of the entire categorial dialectic of its Domain.”
“The definition, the connotations, the meanings, the
predicates, the primary, ‘essence-ial’ quality, of the units, or «monads», that implicitly
make up the «arché»
category of a
Domain which
is given for the purpose of being dialectically ‘‘‘modeled’’’, provide the
heuristic clues for the solution of the meanings of all of its
subsequently-generated ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ -- initially unknown -- category-symbols,
belonging to its
Domain,
for the modeler, and for the modeler’s audience.”
“These algorithmically-generated, syntactically-generated,
‘‘‘algebraic-unknown’’’ category-symbols are ‘semantified’ by being ‘‘‘vetted’’’ against the
modeler’s, and the audience’s, ‘‘‘chaotic knowledge/experience’’’ [cf.
Marx] of the given dialectical
Domain,
whether in terms of its synchronic,
categorial-taxonomic ‘‘‘systematics’’’,
or in terms of its diachronic,
historical-categorial chronology,
or in terms of both together.
“But, moreover, the ‘antithesis-category’
-- the second
category of the whole
categorial progression that issues from the «arché» category, the first category, the ‘thesis-category’ -- grows out of the «arché» category, is given birth to by
the «arché»
category.”
“The ‘thesis-category’
and the ‘antithesis-category’ are not co-eval, or mutually external “from
eternity”.
“It is the self-action, the immanent monadic ‘‘‘intra-actions’’’,
the ‘self-refluxion’,
the ‘self-reflexion’,
the ‘‘‘self-critique’’’ [immanent critique], by the «arché» category, or by its units or «monads», or by the humans who hold it /them in mind, that gives birth to the ‘antithesis-category’, and/or to its ‘[meta-]«monads»’ or ‘[meta-]units’.”
“Next, later still, [some of the] units of these first two ontological
categories hybridize,
yielding the constituents, the new units, of the third ontological category.”
“The latter
is also the first
‘uni-category’
in this dialectical categorial progression, in
this progression
of kinds,
of «species»-categories
-- in this progression
of representations of
essences: the ‘«arché»-«species»’ category, at length gives rise to itself again, plus to its [first] ‘contra-«species»’
category, then, next, these two «species» categories give rise, together, to themselves again, plus
their [first]‘uni-«species»
category’.”
“Thus, our dialectical
progressions of ontological categories -- our
‘[meta-]models’ for Domain-specific dialectics -- take the form of
‘categorial meta-genealogies’. Each is an ‘ontological genealogy’, a
‘genealogy of ontology’, a ‘‘‘genealogy’’’ of ontological categories, that is, a
dialectical
categorial lineage of ontologically,
qualitatively different kinds of agents, individuals, «monads», or units, all of
which trace their ‘‘‘ancestry’’’ back to their «arché» category, and to the
‘[ur]kind’ of agents, individuals, «monads», or units that constitute[d] this «arché».”
“A shorter way to say all of this is to say that our
dialectical progressions are ‘archéonic
consecua’; that each is an ‘archéonic
consecuum’, a ‘qualo-Peanic consecuum’, an ‘onto-Peanic consecuum’. That is, they
are [all] consecutive
‘‘‘sums’’’, or ‘‘‘superpositions’’’ [‘superpositionings’], or, as we say, ‘cumula’, of consecutive
ontological categories of units, which are all permeated by, and ultimately
constituted and initiated by, and sustained from within by, their «arché», by their «arché»-ic
«monads».”
“Just so, ultimately, to our present knowledge of our ‘cosmo-«arché»’, we observe
the following: That which is the most ‘«arché»-distant’ formation, the most advanced
formation, of our
cosmos, known
to us -- namely,
the human-social
individual --
is constituted by, and sustained from within by, the ‘pre-/sub-nuclear’
“particles” -- the quarks, gluons, electrons, etc. -- that are the iteratively,
ultimately ‘«aufheben»-ated’
content ... of their multicellular organs/tissues, of their cells, of their
organelles, of their bio-molecules, of their atoms, and of their nuclei, of the
human-social
body ...”
