Part 05: Seldon’s Insights Series -- ‘Some Observations on the ‘Languaging’ of ‘Ordinalities’ in Modern English and Related Dialectical-Arithmetical Matters’.

Part 05:  Seldon’s Insights Series --

‘Some Observations on the ‘Languaging’ of ‘Ordinalities’ in Modern English and Related Dialectical-Arithmetical Matters’.

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 fifth 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 instantiations of, these Seldonian ‘insights’, see --

www.dialectics.info

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications.html

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.

“... We don’t say, in Modern English, ‘1th’, ‘2th’, and ‘3th’.” 

“We don’t say ‘firstth’, ‘secondth’, and ‘thirdth’.”

“But we do say “4th”, “5th”, “6th”, “7th”, etc.”

“That is, the first three ordinal numbers still each retain a unique name, i.e., each with its own unique ordinal suffix or ending -- “1st”, “2nd”, “3rd” -- perhaps reflecting early impressions as to the ‘«arché»-ic’, ‘epitomic’ and paradigmatic character of the first three -- and most frequently encountered -- ordinal numbers for our [partially latent] concept of ‘ordinalities’ as a whole.”

“It “just so happens” also that our ‘‘‘dyadic’’’ and ‘‘‘triadic’’’ ‘dialectical functions’ for and of the _N Q_ ‘gene-ric «arché»-value’, q₁, also agree, in their ‘gene-ric solution’ interpretations, only for this first triadic ‘gene-ric consecuum’ of _N Q_ ‘ordinal ontological arithmetical qualifiers’, q₁ +  q₂ +  q₃, making that triad of these first three ‘gene-ric meta-numbers’ a ‘‘‘primitive undifferentiated unity’’’ of the interpreted meaning(s) for our ‘dyadic dialectical function’ and our ‘triadic dialectical function’.”

“However, note too that, unlike in the case of our ‘triadic dialectical function’, in the case of our ‘dyadic dialectical function’, this first dialectical triad that these two ‘dialectical functions’ “have in common” -- again, ‘gene-rically’,  q₁ +  q₂ +  q₃  -- does not arise from any “Natural” number or “Whole” number ‘meta-exponent’ of the dyadic exponent, 2.”   

“When that ‘meta-exponent’ is 1, so that the entire power of the ‘gene-ric «arché»-value’ for the ‘ultimate ancestor’ category of the ‘gene-ric categorial meta-genealogy’ is 2¹, the resulting  

‘gene-ric consecuum’ ‘‘‘underflows’’’ to just ‘q₁²¹  =   q₁²  =   q₁ +  q₂’.” 

“When that ‘meta-exponent’ is 2, so that the entire power of the ‘gene-ric «arché»-value’ for the ‘ultimate ancestor’ category of the ‘gene-ric categorial meta-genealogy’ is 2², the resulting  

‘gene-ric consecuum’ ‘‘‘overflows’’’ to ‘q₁²²  ~~   q₁⁴    ~~   q₁ +  q₂ +  q₃ +  q₄’.”

“Both of these ‘meta-exponent’ values, as well as all other possible N or W ‘meta-exponent’ values, fail to produce just the first dialectical triad -- ‘gene-rically’, q₁ +  q₂ +  q₃.”

“Whereas, when the “Natural” number or “Whole number” ‘meta-exponent’ of the triadic exponent, 3, is 1, so that the entire power of the ‘gene-ric «arché»-value’ for the ‘ultimate ancestor’ category of the ‘gene-ric categorial meta-genealogy’ is 3¹, the resulting ‘gene-ric consecuum’ is precisely 

‘q₁³¹  =   q₁³  =   q₁ +  q₂ +  q₃’. ...”