Friday, March 27, 2020

«Aoristos Dyas» [“Indefinite Dyad”] -- ‘Seldon on Plato’.










«Aoristos Dyas» [Indefinite Dyad] -- ‘Seldon on Plato’.







Dear Reader,



It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an officer of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] Office of Public Liaison, and as a voting member of F.E.D., 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 presently latest such release is posted below [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, by the editors of the F.E.D. Special Council for the Encyclopedia, to the direct transcript of our co-founder’s discourse].







Seldon --

Simplicius, Metaphysics 187a:  “...‘according to Plato the One and the Indefinite Dyad [M.D.:  «Aoristos Dyas»], which he spoke of as [the] Great and [the] Small, are the Principles of all things and even [of] the Forms [M.D.:  i.e., of the «Arithmoi Eide-tikoi»] themselves.’… [emphases added].



What is Plato’s Mystical Principle, that of the «Aoristos Dyas» [Indefinite Dyad], after it has been submitted to a dialectical, immanent critique, and divested of its irrational, mystical form?”

We hold that it is but an abstract distillation and mystification from the observation, and from the assertion, of the ‘‘‘double-edginess’’’ of realities in general; of the immanent, internal duality within each thing -- of the intra-duality’, of the endo-duality’, of the intro-duality, in short, of the ineluctable SELF-duality’ of things -- of that very ‘self-duality’ which is the cause of all of real dialectic itself.





For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, please see --



and






For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:








¡ENJOY!








Regards,



Miguel Detonacciones,

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.









  

Sunday, March 22, 2020

Dialectics: ‘‘‘CONSORTIA’’’ -- Part 12: ‘Seldon’s Soliloquies Series’.











Dialectics:  ‘‘‘CONSORTIA’’’ -- Part 12:  ‘Seldon’s Soliloquies Series.







Dear Reader,



It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an officer of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] Office of Public Liaison, and as a voting member of F.E.D., 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.

This twelfth release in the present such series is posted below [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, by the editors of the F.E.D. Special Council for the Encyclopedia, to the direct transcript of our co-founder’s discourse].

In this 12th installment, Seldon asserts the essence of Nature-dialectic.







Seldon --

Our «kosmos» consists of ‘‘‘consortia’’’, including of [«monad»-ic] ‘[meta-]consortia of consortia, and so on, ..., and so do we.”

 “That is the dialectic of Nature’.”

“That is ‘«aufheben»-icity’.”

“That is reflexivity[‘‘‘nonlinearity’’’].”

“That is the physical actuality behind the myth of the “God”/“Divine, self-reproductive Force” anciently named “Eros”.







For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, please see --


and






For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:







¡ENJOY!








Regards,



Miguel Detonacciones,

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.










Sunday, March 08, 2020

Historical/Systematic Dialectical Parallelisms.

























The Oft-Encountered Parallelism Between a PAST-Historical Dialectic, and Its Corresponding Systematic Dialectic For The PRESENT Historical Moment, Is NOT anIdenticality’ ’.










Dear Reader,


We often find cases of dialectic in which the proper names, and the order, of the ontological categories-sequence or -progression of that dialectic, is the same for the historical-dialectical categorial progression, past-to-present, and for the systematic-dialectical, ideo-taxonomic’ categorial progression for the present historical period only.

This typically, however, does not mean that the ontological, qualitative content of the categories which bear the same names is the same, in their present versus historical-original forms.

An exemplary case-in-point is that of the Seldonian dialectic of the dialectic itself.

For example, the historical-dialectical first category of the ‘historical dialectic of the dialectic itself, that of ‘systematic dialectics’, has as its content only the Platonic ideo-systematics’ and ideo-taxonomics’ of Plato’s postulated «arithmoi eidetikoi», i.e., of Plato’s purported ‘‘‘assemblages of ETERNAL, IMMUTABLE Idea-Units or Idea-«Monads»’’’.

On the contrary, the contemporary systematic-dialectical first category of the ‘systematic dialectic of the dialectic itself, once again, still named ‘systematic dialectics’, has as its content, e.g., among its ‘sub-«species»’, not only Plato’s version, of a “systematic dialectics” of the eternal «Eide», whose content [purportedly] never changes from eon to eon, but also the sub-«species» that was launched into the ‘human phenome’ by Hegel’s publication of his «Logik», and the sub-«species» that was launched into the ‘human phenome’ by Marx’s publication of Capital, volume I, as well as new sub-«species» that launched after Marx’s launch, including in very recent times.

Thus, in this signal case, we find parallelism, but not confounding, confusion, or reduction, of a systematic dialectic with/to an historical dialectic of a given Domain for which the two, qualitatively different, ontologically-different «species» of dialectics -- in this case, for the Domain of dialectics itself -- do nevertheless exhibit a pronounced parallelism. 

The ‘dialectogram’ below depicts that parallelism only. 

The bi-dialectogram’ below that ‘dialectogram’ depicts some of their «differentia specifica», as well as their parallelism. 
    







For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, please see --



and


For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:










¡ENJOY!



Regards,



Miguel Detonacciones

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.











Saturday, March 07, 2020

Part 03: ‘Karl Seldon on Karl Marx’ Series -- “The Force of Abstraction”.














Part 03:  ‘Karl Seldon on Karl Marx Series --THE FORCE OF ABSTRACTION.







Dear Reader,



It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an officer of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] Office of Public Liaison, and as a voting member of F.E.D., 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.

This third release in this new series is posted below [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, by the editors of the F.E.D. Special Council for the Encyclopedia, to the direct transcript of our co-founder’s discourse].

In this 3rd installment in this new series, Seldon describes the role of abstraction in Marx’s dialectical Method of Discovery of the beginning [category] for the human comprehension of a given Domain/sub-totality, and in his dialectical Method of Presentation of that comprehension of that given Domain/sub-totality, all via the example of Marx’s work in the Domain of his critique of capitalist political economy.







Seldon --

Marx addresses what he calls “the force of abstraction” in his Preface to the first German edition of Capital, vol. I, so [Capital I., NW, pp. 7-8]:

Every beginning is difficult, holds for all sciences*.  To understand the first chapter, especially the section that contains the analysis of commodities, will, therefore, present the greatest difficulty.  That which concerns more especially the analysis of the substance of value and the magnitude of value, I have, as much as possible, popularized.  The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money-form, is very elementary and simple.  Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it, whilst on the other hand, to the successful analysis of much more composite and complex forms, there has been at least an approximation.  Why?  Because the body, as an organic whole, is more easy of study than the cells of that body.  In the analysis of economic forms, moreover, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use.  The force of abstraction must replace both. [emphasis added by K.S.].

“But Marx’s advocacy of abstraction in the passage above must be considered in the context of other passages by Marx in which “abstraction” and “abstractness” are objects of his withering criticism.” 

“That is, Marx is also, of course, a major critic of abstraction in its faulty and misleading forms, in political-economic science and/as in other fields, and with regard not only to abstraction-based theories, e.g., with regard to abstraction from natural-historicity in the natural sciences, and with regard to abstraction from “historical specificity” in the account of human-social formations, but also with regard to ‘‘‘abstraction in practice’’’ as well, e.g., in the very nature of the capital praxis and its “law of value”. ...”

 “...Abstraction is always omissive.  Abstraction is always ‘homeomorphically defectious’, and a major source of the ‘homeomorphic defect’, in models, and in theories-in-general, both ineluctable and ‘eluctable’.”

“A key to ‘‘‘fruitful abstraction’’’ is to omit, from a model/theory, only what you can get away with omitting for the application at hand.”

“E.g., it is to omit details which would only “clutter up” the clarity of the thought-process and of the presentation needed to solve the problem(s) at hand, but also to retain at least some shadow of the details that belong to the core of that(those) solution(s).


*[The character of this first line, as a fragment of a fuller sentence, may be a nod, by Marx, to the opening line of Hegel’s [dialectical] «Logik», Chapter I, BEING, A. BEING [p. 82 in the A V. Miller translation], which is not a grammatically complete sentence, but rather, a kind of lengthy, descriptive name, or noun -- per Hegel, because of the nature of the content that it addresses: “Being, pure being, without any further determination.”].



NOTE:  [by the E.D. Editors] The ‘dialectogram’ posted below provides a partially-pictorial summary of Marx’s dialectical Method of Discovery, and of his dialectical Method of Presentation, in the context, and in the [tables-of-]contents, of the first 3 volumes of Marx’s Capital:  A Critique of Political Economy.







For more information regarding these Seldonian and Marxian insights, please see --


and






For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian and Marxian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:







¡ENJOY!








Regards,



Miguel Detonacciones,

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.