Wednesday, December 05, 2018

Part 2.: Leslie A. White on «Aufheben» ‘Meta-Monad-ization’ Dialectics [but using different nomenclature].





Part 2.:  Leslie A. White on «Aufheben» Meta-Monad-ization Dialectics

[but using different nomenclature].







Dear Reader,


In his celebrated 1959 book entitled The Evolution of Culture:  The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome, Leslie A. White spells out a universal principle -- not just a human-social developmental principle -- of [meta-]evolution, and of ‘ontology-expansion’, which is essentially the same as the universal principle that is key to the interpretation and solution of so many of the applied dialectical ‘meta-equations’ formulated via the Seldonian ‘First Arithmetic For Dialectics’, and via its dialectical algebra, per the Seldonian ‘Algorithmic-Heuristic Universal Dialectical Method’. 

The Seldonian term for this principle of ‘meta-evolution’ is ‘«aufheben» meta-unit-ization dialectic.’  Its ‘‘‘vertical’’’ aspect is the systematic presentation of a co-extant, co-present, or synchronic ‘qualo-fractal content-structure’ which is an ‘«aufheben» multi-meta-monad-ic, multi-meta-ontic cumulum.’ 

Leslie A White addresses this universal principle using a nomenclature of “systems” and their “segments”.  White also cites the following example [on p. 147] --

“We may demonstrate the relationship of segmentation to integration, and the roles of both in [F.E.D.:  meta-]evolution, with the example of military organization [F.E.D.:  E.g., the Encyclopedia Dialectica Domain D = mo].”

“An army is a highly developed form of a segmented social system.”

“It is, in fact, a [F.E.D.:  qualo-fractal] pyramid composed of strata of segments, the units of one level becoming [F.E.D.:  better -- already also being -- by using a [meta-]dynamical term like “becoming” in the context of a ‘synchronic «aufheben» relation’, White blurs over a crucial distinction between ‘synchronic «aufheben» dialectic’, or ‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’, and ‘diachronic «aufheben» process, and ‘diachronic dialectic’, or ‘‘‘historical dialectic’’’] segments of the units on the next higher level”.

“On the lowest level of organization [F.E.D.:  the «arché» level] are the individual soldiers, or F.E.D.:  ultimate] units.”

“They become segments of units called squads, which, in turn, become units of segments called platoons, which in turn become segments of companies, and so on up through battalions, regiments, and divisions, to armies.”

“A number [F.E.D.:  i.e., an «arithmos»] of armies may then be integrated into a superarmy, or fighting force, of a nation under a single command.”

“And the military forces of a number of allied nations may be integrated under a joint staff.”


As we noted here in an earlier blog-entry, a ‘dialectical cumulum’ is not, in general, a “hierarchy”.  But here we see that there may be special cases of human-social, ‘multi-meta-monadic cumula’ within which ‘‘‘horizontal’’’ interactions are suppressed, and within which egalitarian tendencies are forcibly minimized, which are, indeed, human-social hierarchies.



FYI:  Much of the work of Karl Seldon, and of his collaborators, including work by “yours truly”, is available for your free-of-charge download via --



Regards,

Miguel Detonacciones,
Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison





















No comments:

Post a Comment