‘Dialectical Synthesis as the “Best” from Its Generating Antithesis’.
-- Part 07: Seldon’s Secrets Series.
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.
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.
Seldon --
“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-Darwinian’ -- ‘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:
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.
Please post your comments on this blog-entry below!
