Part 09: Seldon’s Insights Series -- ‘Universal Algorithmic-Heuristic
Dialectical Method’.
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, and from the internal sayings, of our co-founder,
Karl Seldon.
The ninth such
release in this new
series is entered below [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, to the direct
transcript of our co-founder’s discourse].
For more information regarding,
and for [further]
instantiations
of, these
Seldonian insights,
see --
ENJOY!
Regards,
Miguel Detonacciones,
Member, Foundation Encyclopedia
Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public
Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.
“... The ‘‘‘method of this madness’’’ of the Q_ arithmetics / algebras for dialectics are not so hard to understand if you already know, or if you come to understand,
that categories,
and that their individuals, or units, e.g., that,
to use their ancient names, «arithmoi», and their «monads» -- in
short, ‘kinds
of [ev]entities’
-- are fundamental
to human cognition about realities, both those internal to us, and those external
to us...”
“The
«monads»
-- ‘‘‘units’’’
in the ancient
sense --
that, mentally,
we represent collectively by their abstract «arithmoi» -- ‘‘‘numbers’’’ in the ancient sense -- are typically ‘multi-qualitative’, ‘multi-predicate’
units
in the full regalia of their physical, sensuous embodiment. They are sensuous units, present
in multiplicity as ‘‘‘populations’’’ of ‘‘‘individuals’’’. Each kind
of such individuals collectively constitutes, e.g., a specific «species»
ontological category, but not limited to biological «species» categories alone.
They
constitute the
level of «species» as a multiplicity of “higher” [more abstract, more ‘gene-ral’]
units
in their own right; as ontological-categorial
‘super-units’, made up out of their respective «monads» as their [sub-]units.”
“The
‘‘‘individuals’’’
units are
thus generally not
like “1”, or ‘‘‘the 1s’’’ -- the modern, ‘hyper-abstract’,
“purely”-quantitative ‘‘‘unit(s)’’’, of the “Natural” numbers, N, i.e., 1, 2 [= 1 +
1],
3 [= 1 + 1 + 1 ], ... \|/, wherein ‘\|/’ is a variable representing the highest positive integer expressible by the digital computer that we
are presently using to facilitate and augment our present dialogue, or, more precisely, our present ‘multilogue’.
For one thing, these
units
have ‘‘‘individual
differences’’’,
qualitative differences among themselves. They are not
posited, as with
the ‘1(s)’ of N, in
a propositionally
self-contradictory
manner, as (an) absolutely identical
“unit(s)” (which are) somehow also distinct and ever present in multiplicity.
Such units,
such «monads»
are not, and cannot be, ‘‘‘inter-mutually identical / indistinguishable’’’. They are mutually similar, which also means that they are mutually distinguishable, because of their differences. But they are similar enough that some humans, with justification, classify them as belonging to, e.g., one single «species».
Note
that the actual
objects
that we use
the N
to count -- each as a different one -- are more like the former units or «monads» -- e.g., every individual actual apple has a multiplicity of concrete «differentia», different blemishes, etc., with
respect to every
other concrete apple, even if that other is of the same exact variety -- than they are like the units of the latter. We have to deny / ignore / negate / abstract-from
these «differentia» in
order for such a count
to be true, in
order for the number
assigned as their quantity to that multitude
of actual objects
to be exact for us.”
“The
Q_ method elides any detailed description of the individual «monads», including of their movements, from explicit representation, and follows, instead, the
‘‘‘ghosts’’’ of those “departed”-by-abstraction «monads». It does so by explicitly following, instead, the movements of their «arithmoi», i.e.,
of their several «species», etc., that
is, the movements of
their ontological categories,
leaving the «monads»
that constitute
those categories unmentioned, for the most part.”
“It does so, because of human-cognitive limitations; because naked human cognition, unaided by, e.g., our digital and
our trans-digital
computers, that may encompass ‘‘‘multi-agent simulations’’’ involving, typically, myriads of «monad»-agents,
each one encoded in considerable detail, cannot track such multitudes
of «monads».”
“It is, after
all, interactions of
the «monads»
themselves
that, at this
level of description, produce the results that each Q_ categorial calculus ‘‘‘covers’’’ and summarizes.”
“Interactions
-- or, if you
prefer, ‘‘‘intra-actions’’’
-- among «monads» of a single kind [e.g., of a single «species»] produce what each Q_
categorial calculus records, implicitly as the new, ‘self-hybrid’ [meta-]«monads», constituting new ontology; explicitly as a new, ‘self-hybrid’ ontological
category. [the ‘self-«aufheben» operation].”
“Interactions
among «monads» of two or more -- qualitatively different -- kinds [e.g., «species»] produce what each Q_ categorial calculus records, implicitly
as the new, ‘merely-hybrid’
«monads»,
constituting new ontology, explicitly as a new, ‘merely-hybrid’ ontological category. [the ‘mutual-«aufheben» operation].”
“The ‘gene-ric’ core, or «Genos», of this ‘categorism’, or ‘categoreality’, is what we
call ‘«Gene»-ric
Dialectic’.”
