Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Seldon’s Opus: Key Excerpts. Excerpt No. 3 -- Civilization Descending.










Seldon’s Opus:  Key Excerpts.  Excerpt No. 3 -- Civilization Descending.







Dear Readers,


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 third such release in this new series is pasted in below.  [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied].


Regards,

Miguel







What we call ‘‘‘the descendence phase of the capitals-system’’’ -- the [psycho]historical sub-epoch since circa 1913 C.E./B.U.E. -- is what happens when a ruling class realizes that its own system, the very system that formed it and that gave it its predominant, overriding economic, political, and social power, will -- if that system is allowed to continue on its own, immanent course, unimpeded -- take all of that power permanently away from that ruling class; will destroy that ruling class as such.






Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Seldon’s Opus: Key Excerpts. Excerpt No. 2 -- ‘‘‘Iblis’’’.










Dear Readers,


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 second such release in this new series is pasted in below.  [Some of the E.D. standard edits have been applied].


Regards,

Miguel







Overcome we the ‘‘‘«iblis»’’’ within ourselves, and the «kosmos» will be our canvas.  We ourselves will be our works of art.  We ourselves will be our work of art.











Links Page Updated.








Dear Readers,


FYI:  The Links Page at www.dialectics.org has been updated -- http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Links.html.

 
Regards,

Miguel







Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Seldon’s Opus: Key Excerpts. Excerpt No. 1 --‘Categorial Dialectical Lineages’ and Their Ultimate ‘‘‘Ancestors’’’.



Seldon’s Opus:  Key Excerpts.  Excerpt No. 1 --‘Categorial Dialectical Lineages and Their Ultimate ‘‘‘Ancestors’’’.







Dear Readers,


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»-atedcontent ... 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 ...







Monday, September 12, 2016

Seldon's Sayings Series, #12. Monads' Combinatorics Drives Categories' Combinatorics.








Dear Readers,





It is my pleasure to share with you, from time to time, selections from the seminal sayings, and writings, shared by him among we of F.E.D., by our co-founder, Karl Seldon [main site:  www.dialectics.org ]. 





Such is the following --



... ‘‘‘horizontal’’’, [psycho]historical, or diachronic, ‘‘‘dialectical agebra’’’ is, for us -- in our interpretation -- a matter of ‘categorial combinatorics’ by way of ‘monadic combinatorics’.”

“That is, certain sub-groups of the units of a given ontological category -- i.e., kind-of-being category -- create, in [and as] time, via their expanded self-reproduction, conditions wherein and whereby they coalesce.”
 
“They coalesce into a new kind of being, a new kind of ‘‘‘meta-’’’units, in the sense that each new-kind unit is made up out of the multiplicity of the former units of one of those sub-groups of the former kind-of-being -- i.e., the former kind-of-unit -- of the given category, the earlier category, the first category that we mentioned above. 

Said another way, those sub-grouped units of the former category become sub-units of the [thus ‘‘‘meta-’’’]units of the successor category.”

“The resulting new-kind, [‘‘‘meta-’’’]units then become the units that constitute -- and that are addressed univocally by the name of, or by the algebraic ideographic symbol for -- the successor category, a new category, a second category, ontologically different -- qualitatively different, in its content, in its meaning, in its subject-matter -- from the given, earlier, first-mentioned category.”

“Then, later still, some of the units of the given, first category combine with some of the [‘‘‘meta-’’’]units of this newer, second category.”

“The resulting ‘‘‘hybrid’’’ units form the base of a yet a newer, third kind-of-thing, or ontological, category, ontologically different -- qualitatively different -- from both of its two predecessor ontological categories; from both the first category and the second category. ...




We hold that every major existent of our cosmos, including every major kind that has ever existed in our cosmos*, whether it still exists in our present epoch, or whether it once existed, but has ceased to exist by now, and -- we expect -- that everything that will ever come into existence in our cosmos in the future, will arise by such -- by [‘‘‘meta-’’’ or ‘‘‘self-’’’]combination of the «monads» or units that are within, and constitutive of,  a single category, or by the combination of the qualitatively different units of two or more qualitatively, ontologically distinct categories, or by combinations of such combinations. ...
 

Regards,

Miguel




 
*E.D. Editors:  We cannot yet assert this contention with clarity with regard to the ontological categories of so-called Dark Energy and Dark Matter, since they presently remain uncertain as scientific categories -- that is, they are scientifically uncertain categories whose empirical content remains largely unknown.






Saturday, September 10, 2016

Seldon's Sayings Series, #11. 'DUalectics' -- the Unity of '''Vertical Dialectic''' and '''Horizontal Dialectic'''.








Dear Readers,






It is my pleasure to share with you, from time to time, selections from the seminal sayings, and writings, shared by him among we of F.E.D., by our co-founder, Karl Seldon [main site:  www.dialectics.org ]. 





Such is the following --



... Our ‘unified theory of universal dialectics’ encompasses a two-fold, or dual, ‘‘‘complex unity’’’ of «aufheben» dialectics.”



 

“The first dimension of that dual «aufheben» dialectics is what we call ‘‘‘vertical dialectic’’’.  It arises out of the Platonian heritage of dialectics.  This ‘‘‘vertical dialectic’’’ involves the «aufheben» ‘meta-unit-ization’ of multiple more specific, or ‘‘‘«species»’’’, ontological category-units, into a single, more general, or «genos», ontological category-unit.”





“The second dimension of that dual «aufheben» dialectics is what we call ‘‘‘horizontal dialectic’’’.  It arises out of the Marxian-Hegelian heritage of dialectics -- of both “systematic dialectic” and “historical dialectic”.  This ‘‘‘horizontal dialectic’’’, which did not exist, for Plato, at least throughout his earlier work, in which he maintained belief in a Parmenidean eternal stasis and immutability [ahistoricity] of the ultimate «Eide», involves the «aufheben» ‘meta-unit-ization’ of [at least some of] the multiple units of an earlier ontological category, to form each single [thus ‘‘‘meta-’’’]unit of the multiple [meta-]units of a single later ontological category.”


“We therefore, among ourselves, sometimes call the F.E.D. version of [universal] dialectics by the name dualectics’, for short....
 

Regards,

Miguel













FYI: I'm Back.









Dear Readers,


[RE:  http://feddialectics-miguel.blogspot.com/2016/07/on-assignment.html] FYI:  I'm back.


Regards,

Miguel






Sunday, September 04, 2016

Seldon's Sayings Series, #10. Our «Arché» Concept.








Dear Readers,



It is my pleasure to share with you, from time to time, selections from the seminal sayings, and writings, shared by him among we of F.E.D., by our co-founder, Karl Seldon [main site:  www.dialectics.org ].   

Standard E.D. edits, including 'ordinal illumination', have been applied to this quotation.



Such is the following --






...What we call the «arché» category is the starting category of a dialectical categorial progression.”  

It is so whether that dialectical progression is a synchronic or a diachronic one; whether it is a systematic, a historical, a meta-systematic, or a ‘‘‘psychohistorical’’’ dialectical categorial progression.”

“The «arché» category is the beginning category, the starting point, the point of departure, the cell-form, the seed form, the root, the most archaic, the first and ultimate ancestor category -- the oldest and/or the simplest, most abstract category -- of its Domain, of its Domain’s earliest emergence or irruption, and is also the ever-present/deep-past origin and governing source of that Domain, and of the categorial progression that models that Domain.”

“The «arché» category is the primary, first-most, initiating ‘‘‘thesis’’’ category of that dialectic -- of the dialectic of that Domain.”

“The «arché» category is the immediate dialectical premise, ground, or foundation, of the given Domain.” 

It must, if the dialectical categorial progression presentation/reconstruction/analysis of that Domain is even to begin, be granted; it must be ‘‘‘given’’’, it must be assumed, but can itself be explained, justified, or ‘‘‘proven’’’ only at the end of its Domain’s presentation, only at and/or after the presentation of the final category of that categorial progression presentation, if at all.”

“The «arché» category, and its «monads», are reproduced, and hence remain present, throughout the epochs, tD, or throughout the steps, sD, of the dialectical categorial progression, both externally and internally, within all of its subsequent categories, its subsequent ‘[ideo-]meta-lineage’, its ‘[ideo-]meta-progeny’ and its ‘[ideo-]meta-genealogy’.  


Those «arché-monads» are categorially and monadically ‘‘‘presupposed’’’, ‘‘‘contained’’’, ‘‘‘conserved’’’, as well as ‘qualo-fractally elevated, to ever-increasing degree of elevation, within each subsequent category, and within each «monad» of that category, in that dialectical categorial progression. ...



 
Regards,

Miguel







Friday, September 02, 2016

Seldon's Sayings Series, #9. Why Q?








Dear Readers,




It is my pleasure to share with you, from time to time, selections from the seminal sayings, shared by him among we of F.E.D., by our co-founder, Karl Seldon [main site:  www.dialectics.org ].   Standard E.D. edits, including 'ordinal illumination', have been applied to this quotation.



Such is the following --




. . . This is the original reason why we used Q to “name”, ideographically, the first explicitly dialectical arithmetic in our [meta-]systematic dialectical presentation of the axioms-systems of our dialectical arithmetics, and why we have used variations on the lower-case letter ‘q’ as the symbolic element in common among of each generic Q ‘meta-numeral’ symbol, and of each interpreted, or ‘‘‘solved’’’, full-form category-symbol in our Q algebras of dialectical categorial progressions, both ‘‘‘synchronic’’’ and ‘‘‘diachronic’’’.


Aristotle’s [and Plato’s, and Kant’s, and Hegel’s] «Katêgoriai» are rooted in epithets, that is, in characterizations, in predicates -- in short, in qualities.


Each typical category can be mnemonically symbolized by an ideographical symbol that stands for the primary or essence-ial character, characteristic, or quality that defines that category.


Thus, for example, in our dialecticaltheory of everything” ‘cosmo-ontologicalcategorial progression, we have used ‘qr’ to stand for the generic or common quality defining the ‘‘‘pre-atomic particles’’’, then ‘qa’ to stand for that defining atoms, then ...




Regards,

Miguel