Part 05: ‘Seldon’s
Dialectics’ Series.
The ‘Evoluteness’ of ‘Dialectical Evolution’.
Dear Reader,
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.
This 5th release of
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].
Seldon
–
“… . Persistence of Categories, “Born” in Previous Stages, into All Later Stages.”
“You have no doubt noticed the persistence of the category-signs representing, explicitly, interacting categories, and, implicitly, also signing those categories’ interacting units, in the results of their interaction.”
“I.e., our interaction rules are
not ‘‘‘convolute’’’, e.g. –
Oxygen-atoms(Hydrogen-atoms) ®
Water-molecules.
– or –
Oxygen-atoms(Oxygen-atoms) ®
Oxygen-molecules.
They are, instead –
Oxygen-atoms(Hydrogen-atoms) ®
Oxygen-atoms & Hydrogen-atoms
& Water-molecules
– and –
Oxygen-atoms(Oxygen-atoms) ®
Oxygen-atoms & Oxygen-molecules.”
“The interacting
category-symbols re-occur, re-appear, conserved/preserved in the ‘&ing’ that
expresses the results of their interaction.”
“These rules adopt patterns of
genealogies/lineages in biological reproduction, viz. –
Fathers(Mothers) ®
Fathers & Mothers & Children
¬ Mothers(Fathers)
– although our second rule, for
category-symbol self-interaction, captures, in this context, a
much rarer biological-reproductive pattern, namely, that of “parthenogenesis” –
Mothers(Mothers) ®
Mothers & Mothers & Children
®
Mothers & Children.”
“This latter rule is based
upon a ‘generally universal’ observation, although one with some exceptions.”
“Those exceptions include
cases of the apparently global extinction of certain of the past [sub-]kinds of
beings, therefore obsoleting their thus emptied categories.”
“Such extinctions typically
inhere in the deeper sub-categories of the major kinds-categories, rather than
representing global extinctions at the major-kinds level.”
“That is, parents, crucially,
do not usually disappear right after the mother-parent gives
birth, leaving in existence only their [thus orphaned] offspring. Mothers do not usually die in
childbirth.”
“Self-widowed
“Black Widow” spiders do “off” their spider-babies’ father-spiders, soon after
fertilization – a partial exception to our rule – but the
mother-spiders do persist after spider-spawning. It’s OK for our generalization if, in
specific, exceptional, rare cases, Mothers
categories, Fathers categories, or even both, become ‘empty
categories’, immediately after the Mothers/Fathers
reproductive interactions.”
“Back
to considering the, non-rare, exceptions to
these rare exceptions.”
“Note,
for example, that Live Plays have not “gone extinct”, or vanished out of
existence, because/once Movies emerged, competing with them. Live Plays continued to happen then, and they
have continued to happen right up into our very present, even after Broadcast Television
Programs and Streaming Video Programs also successively and consecutively come
into co-existence with, and into partial competition versus, Live Plays.”
“Nor
did Movies disappear after Television Programs came into being, and came into
competition with them. Indeed, Movies
persist massively to this very day! Nor have [broadcast] Television Programs
disappeared now that [internet] Streaming Video Programs have irrupted into
existence.”
“Nevertheless,
these categorial persistences may lose some of their “umph”
after their partial surpassing by their successor categories.”
“Likewise,
atoms, atomic units, including such units of Oxygen and, especially, of
Hydrogen, all free of any molecules-level organization, still roam the
intra-galactic, inter-stellar, so-called “molecular clouds” of our galaxy, and
of other galaxies, co-habiting with, and oft bumping into, molecules – and
even, sometimes, thereby becoming [mutually self-]converted into
new molecule units.”
“MARXIAN
EXAMPLE. [This example presents our nearly-simplest systematic, presentational dialectical model of the
categorial [table of ]contents of Capital, volumes I. and
II., that answer to Marx’s “Circulations-Process of Capitals” super-category,
with the Capitalist-epoch category of “Commodities”
as the «arché»-category, starting category, or ‘dialectical premise’.].”
“For example, suppose that we have selected qC, denoting the ‘ideo-physio-ontic’ category of Commodities, as the starting category for a dialectical-mathematical model of the Marx’s 1867+ systematic-dialectical, categorial-progression explication of the
D = ‘‘‘circulation
value-forms’’’ phenomena of the then present,
and still present, capitalist economy, in
volumes I and II of Capital: A
Critique of Political Economy.”
“Suppose further that we have “solved
for”/defined the further ‘category-symbols’ generated
in that categorial series expansion, through step 2, as:
step 0, qC20 = qC1 = qC º the category
of Commoditiesa [ambiguous as to inclusion in any “Commodity-Capital”];
step 1, qC21 = qC2 = qC Ä qC =
qC Å qCC
– the new ‘category-symbol’ of which, qCC, we solve/define as –
qCC |-º qM º the category of Moniesb [ambiguous as to ‘“Money-Capitals”’ inclusion],
\ step 1 D » () qC Å qM ();
step 2, qC22 = () qC2 ()2 = () qC Å qM ()2
= [per Miguel’s
Theorem] qM Ä () qC Å qM () =
qC Å qM Å qMC Å qMM
– the new ‘category-symbols’ of which we
solve as --
qMC |-º qR º the category of Monies-mediated
CiRculationsg of Commodities
[ambiguous as to inclusion in any circulations of ‘“Commodity-Capitals”’,
as mediated by ‘“Money-Capitals”’];
qMM |-º qK º the category of ‘Kapitals’d [implicitly encompassing
Commodity-Capitals, Money-Capitals, Productive
Capitals, Fixed Capital Plant and Equipment, etc.];
so, for step 2 \ D » () qC Å qM Å qR Å qK ().”
“If so, then our solution for step 3 looks like [again, per Miguel’s Theorem] --
step 3, qK Ä () qC Å qM Å qR Å qK () =
qC Å qM Å qR Å qK Å
qKC Å qKM Å qKR Å qKK.”
“We solve/define the four new
category-symbols so generated as –
qKC |-º the category of ‘‘‘Commodity-Capitals’’’e, specifically
and explicitly so; Kapital’s [«aufheben»-]subsumption
of qC;
qKM |-º the category of ‘‘‘Money-Capitals’’’z, specifically
and explicitly so; Kapital’s [«aufheben»-]subsumption
of qM;
qKR ¶º-| qKMC º the category of the ‘‘‘Circulations
of the Total Social Capital’’’h, in alternating forms of “Money-Capital”
and “Commodity-Capital”; Kapital’s [«aufheben»-]subsumption
of qMC |-º qR;
qKK |-º qE º a
category of a predicted future, trans-capitalist
“social relation of production”, arising via the self-critique,
in practice, of the capital/wage-labor social
relation of production itself, and which new social relation we
name ‘Generalized Social Equity’ [or ‘‘‘Equitism’’’];
Kapital’s SELF-subsumptionq;
so, for step 3 \ D »
() qC Å qM Å qMC Å qK Å
qKC Å qKM Å qKMC Å qE ().”
“Note that category qE , as we have solved it here, is not fully part of this Domain of
‘‘‘capitalist circulation value-forms’’’, at present,
so that, per our solution, category qKMC is the ‘finishing category’ of its
presentation.”
“The explication of qKK |-º qE potentially belongs
to a ‘‘‘coda’’’, expositing an hypothesis predicting a not
yet fully actualized, not yet fully experienced, but
expected, by us, potential future
‘socio-ontological’ category of ‘[human-]social relations
of [human-societal self-re-] production’, perhaps
a transitional category to an unprecedented new,
higher [more inclusive] Domain, a
category with “one foot inside & one foot outside”,
or with one foot within & one foot beyond, the capital[ist]
system of social relations of [societal self-re]production
Domain.”
“The awareness
of this architectonic reveals already-existing,
synchronic relations of effective ‘de-unit-ization’
of, & elevation up into, & conservation of, the units
of the ‘contra-categories’ that are presented earlier,
per their systematic order, inside the [thus
meta-]units of the ‘contra-categories’
that are presented/evoked later, e.g. –
* qCC |-º qM: Money
is ‘‘‘made of Commodities’’’, i.e., Money [meta1-]units
are -- ‘psychê-ically’, ‘memetically’, or ‘‘‘psychohistorically’’’,
and \ also
practically, but not simply physically – ‘‘‘made
of’’’, Commodity units; are, mentally, ‘‘‘made up out of’’’ a
heterogeneous multiplicity of Commodity-units.
Money units
‘‘‘contain’’’ those Commodity units,
i.e., ‘‘‘contain’’’ the «arithmoi» of Commodities that
different quantities/«arithmoi» of Money
units can command in exchange. Money ‘‘‘is’’’, in essence, a mental
‘‘‘prices-list’’’ for all such Commodity
units.
Thus, Money
units are, mentally, ‘«aufheben» meta-unit-icities’
of Commodity units.
Ability to [legally] command [nearly] all
‘Commodities’ is the core of ‘‘‘the use-value of Money’’’.
* qMM |-º qK: Kapital
is ‘made of Monies’, i.e., Kapital [meta2-]units
are, ‘psychê-ically’, ‘memetically’, and \ also
practically, ‘«aufheben» meta-unit-icities’
of Money units.
Each Kapital
unit is partly made up out of a “homogeneous” multiplicity/«arithmos»
of Money units, i.e., of the multiple
quantities of recorded accounting units
[e.g., written-down “units of account”] as well as physical,
e.g., metal [e.g., coin], or paper Money units, or
digital-electronic units, presently recorded/recalled as
profits, e.g., as “retained” [net] earnings, from past
accounting periods/“deals”/ventures.
“Thus this ‘universal dialectical architectonic’ of dialectical, «aufheben», partial ‘chain-containment’, i.e., of ‘«aufheben», or dialectical, ‘meta-unit-icity’, is evident here, in this ‘psychê-ic’, »synchronic, presentational, systematic/taxonomic sense.
The relation --
‘X in Y’
--
means that all typical units of Y
contain units of X,
but that not all units of X are
contained in units of Y. Therefore, we have, in this model --
C in M in K
-- or --
Commodities in Monies in Kapitals.
______________________
FOOTNOTES.
a[see Capital, volume I,
Part I, Chapter I., “Commodities”.].
b[see Capital, volume I,
Part I, Chapter I. D., “The Money-Form”.].
g[see Capital, volume I,
Part I, Chapter III., “Money, or the Circulation of Commodities”.].
d[see Capital, volume I,
Part II, “The Transformation of Money into Capital”.].
e[see Capital, volume II,
Part I, Chapter III., “The Circuit of Commodity-Capital”.].
z[see Capital, volume II, Part I, Chapter I., “The Circuit of Money-Capital”.].
h[see Capital, volume II,
Part III, “The Reproduction and Circulation of the Aggregate Social
Capital”.].
q[see Capital, volume I,
Part VIII, Chapter XXXII., “Historical Tendency of Capitalist
Accumulation”., and Capital, volume III, Part III,
and also Part V, Chapter XXVII.,
“The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production”.].
______________________
“Of course, e.g. –
D3 » () qC Å qM Å qMC Å qK Å qKC Å qKM Å qKMC ()
-- is not, in itself, the whole
presentation for the capitals system, Domain D.”
“It is but an extremely terse “shorthand” rendition, a
‘hyper-concise’ outline, a horizontal, high-level “table” of contents,
a ‘horizontal list’, of the socio-ontological-categorial contents’
symbolic names; of the “kinds of social relations
[of [soci[et]al [[self-]re-]production]” content, of this Domain, D, of Marx’s critique of the ‘ideologized science’ of capitalist
political economy.”
“E.g., it took Marx the first 156 pages of Capital, vol.
I, and much of the 523 pages
of vol. II, to “flesh out” the ‘categorial skeleton’ of
the 7 categories of ‘‘‘circulation
value-form’’’ “relations of production”, explicit and “solved-for”
in the NQ dialectic equation –
D3 » () qC Å qM Å qMC Å qK Å qKC Å qKM Å qKMC ().”
“Note that each of the 7 parts of the above dialectical
equation RHS, beside its “solved-for”, explicit, specific name, has
also, for us, a generic name as well, viz. --
· Generically,
qC is, of course,
called by us the ‘«arché»-category’ or
‘starting category’ for this model of the ‘capital[ist]-circulation value-forms’
Domain.
· Category qCC |-º qM is called its
‘first contra-category’, in our, ‘supplementary
opposition’ sense of ‘‘‘contra’’’.
· Category qMC is called by us
its ‘first [full] uni-category’.
· Category qMM |-º qK is called by us
its ‘second contra-category’.
· Category qKC is called, by us,
its ‘first partial uni-category’ because, of
the categorial determinations extant in the step in which qKC is evoked, namely C, M,
and K, ‘category-symbol’ qKC does not
include M in its syntactic unification.
· Category qKM is called, by us,
the Domain’s
‘second partial uni-category’, because it
does not include categorial determination C in its unification.
· Category qKMC is called, by us,
its ‘second full uni-category’, because it
includes C, M, and K in its subscripted determinations.
· Were it the case that category qKK |-º qE, per our solution here, inhered fully
in the ‘capital[ist]-circulation value-forms’
Domain, then
it would be called, by us, the ‘third contra-category’
of that Domain.”
“The ‘Evoluteness’ of this Systematic Dialectic –
You may be wondering, at this point, why step 1, D, or D1, is not just qM;
why step 2, D, or D2, is not just qMC Å qK;
why step 3, D, or D3, is not just qKC Å qKM Å qKMC Å qKK.”
“I.e., why do we repeat all of the
earlier generated ‘category-symbols’, and ‘‘‘sum’’’
them together with the latest [self-]critique-generated ‘category-symbols’?”
“We do so because, potentially, and,
usually, also actually, all of the previously generated categories
are still co-present, as valid descriptions
of parts of the present reality of the Domain,
together with the latest [self-]critique-generated categories.”
“Such are what we call ‘evolute consecuum-cumulua’ of categories.”
“We do so because, generally, in such,
the later-evoked categories do not absolutely
“supersede”, “cover-over”, ‘extinctize’, or “erase”, the earlier-evoked categories.”
“On the contrary, in a ‘convolute
consecuum’, in each new step of presentation, all of the categories
of all previous steps of the presentation, would
be absent/erased/eliminated/excluded from representation
in each next step, as “surpassed”, as “obsolete”, or as “extinct”.”
“However, to our lights, ‘evolute-tion’,
not ‘convolute-tion’, provides more fitting models
of typical Domains.” The ‘dialectogram’ and
commentary modules, posted above, further state this case.”
“In terms of our present sample solution,
some Commodities, part(s) of qC,
that are typically not “Commodity-Capitals” -- e.g., many “garage-sale” Commodities -- still co-exist, in the
capitalist present, next to/alongside Commodities
that are part of “Commodity-Capital(s)”, qKC.”
“E.g., ‘personal Monies’ qM;
consumption “revenues”, not part of “Money-Capitals”, are still present,
alongside Monies that are part of
“Money-Capital(s)”, qKM.”
“And ‘Monies-mediated CiRculations
of Commodities’, qMC, are still present, that may not
be part of ‘‘‘The Circulation of the Total Social Capital’’’
-- e.g., many hobbyists’ inter-collector transactions --
alongside those that are qKMC…”
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’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books
published by the
F.E.D. Press, see –
https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH
¡ENJOY!
Regards,
Miguel Detonacciones,
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.
YOU are invited to
post your comments on this blog-entry below!
No comments:
Post a Comment