‘Dialectical Synthesis as the “Best” from Its Generating Antithesis’.
-- Part 07: Seldon’s Secrets Series.
It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an elected member of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] General Council, 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 seventh release in this new 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 7th installment, Seldon describes what “best” must mean in the context of the dialectical syntheses that [re]solve the oppositions between dialectical theses and/versus their dialectical anti-theses.
“In that sub-Domain of the Dialectics Domain that we name ‘[ideo-]physio-HISTORICAL dialectics’, the traditional principle -- that a dialectical synthesis perpetuates only the “best” of its opposing ‘“dialectical anti-thesis”’ and ‘‘‘dialectical thesis’’’ -- whose interaction or ‘intra-action’ was the cause of the irruption of that dialectical synthesis, is not strictly true.”
“That “truism” is not true unless its key term, “best”, is strictly qualified, delimited, and defined.”
“In the case of the logical, semantic opposition of a thesis proposition versus an anti-thesis proposition, and of the, resulting, dialectical synthesis, proposition, if the thesis as well as the anti-thesis are adequately descriptive of an [ideo-]physio-ontological reality, then the synthesis proposition will not represent/formulate/-express “the best of both” of the thesis and anti-thesis propositions, in terms of “just any old”, arbitrary, heteronomously subjective criterion, or criteria, of “best-ness”.”
“More relevantly, the ontological ‘uni-category’, that combines, integrates, and unifies an ontological ‘thesis category’ and its qualitatively different, opposing ontological ‘contra-category, does not necessarily select, extract, and feature only the “best” determinations of its ‘thesis category’ and its ‘contra-category, in all, arbitrary, heteronomously subjective, ‘meme-ic’ and ‘human phenomic’ senses.”
“The determinations of the «monads», units, elements, ‘‘‘holons’’’, or individuals making up the «arithmos» of that ‘physio-ontological uni-category’ will tend to be those which “best” contribute to the maximization of the sustained collective rate of [self-]reproduction of those «monads» or individuals, i.e., with the ‘meta-fitness’ of that «arithmos».”
“This expectation is in keeping with the F.E.D. ‘Meta-Darwinian Theory of Universal [Meta-]Evolution’, such as it emerges from our immanent critique of the ideological hyper-pollutions within the received form of the Darwinian scientific theory of biological-only – i.e., of non-universal – evolution.”
For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, please see --
For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ -- see:
Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];
Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.
Please post your comments on this blog-entry below!