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 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 ...”