F.E.D. Dialectics

Sunday, August 30, 2026

¿[Meta-]Evolution’s Next “Endo-Symbiosis”/“Symbiogenesis”? GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

¿[Meta-]Evolution’s

Next

“Endo-Symbiosis”/-

“Symbiogenesis”?

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Dear Reader,

The consensus of the evolutionary biology community now holds that a dialectical, or [auto-]«aufheben», ‘self-meta-unit-ization’ process – though not recognizing that process as such – among prokaryotic, living single-cell units, gave rise to eukaryotic living single-cell units, through cases of the internalization of respirating prokaryotic cells by other, but non-respiration-capable prokaryotic cells, in a process named “endosymbiosis” and “symbiogenesis”. In our ‘dialectic of Nature’ short-hand, that looks like this –

…p¹ ®…p² = …p¹ Ä p¹ |-º …p¹…Å…e¹.

That same kind of process – of “endosymbiosis” and “symbiogenesis” – is also held to have given rise to the first, single-cell plant units, when already-respirating, i.e., already mitochondria-organelles-including, eukaryotic single-cell units internalized photosynthesis-capable prokaryotic single-cell units, that eventually became their photosynthesizing “chloroplast” organelles. In our ‘dialectic of Nature’ short-hand, that process looks like this –

…e Å…p…®…e Ä p… |-º …p Å q_ep…

– which describes, in our terms, also another dialectical, or [allo-]«aufheben», ‘meta-unit-ization’ process, creating single-celled plant units, in ontological category q_ep.

We argue that further forms of “endo-symbiosis” and “symbiogenesis” generated new ontologies in local Nature, beyond the 2 described above, via (3) the self-incorporation of eukaryotic single cell units to form ‘multi[-eukaryotic] cellular’ organisms, as initially asocial ‘meta-biotic’ units, in (4) the self-incorporation of asocial ‘meta-biotic’ units, “meta-zoa” and “meta-phyta”, to form “animal society” ‘meta-units’ [and ‘plant society meta-units’], and in (5) the incorporation of humans-led animal society units, into humans-led ‘meta-society’ units, by means of, thereby becoming-former animal society units of the human species. This began with the wolves-to-dogs domestication, in the Paleolithic, and thereafter, later burgeoned-forth into the social-animal domestications, ‘social-plant’ domestications, and human-social-self-domestications, of the Neolithic.

¿Is that it, then; the end of “symbiogenesis” and of “endo-symbiosis” in the ‘meta-evolution’ of the ontologies of Nature; in the ‘dialectic of Nature’?

¿Are there to be no, predictable, future such “endo-symbioses” yet to come?

We say no.

We hold that a next such “endo-symbiosis” is now predictable, in humanoid ‘meta-evolution’ – potentially throughout our cosmos, but at least “locally” – notwithstanding that no other humanoid planets than planet Earth are conclusively known, to we the planet-Earth-dwelling humanoids, as yet.

We predict a coming ‘meta-humanoids’-engendering “endo-symbiosis”, as part of the end of the ‘human meta-society’ units epoch of the ‘dialectic of Nature’; its ‘dialectic of humanit(y)(ies)’, in the formation of the units of the ontological category of ‘meta-humanity’.

Per our short-hand, this will be a part of the ‘meta-evolutionary onto-dynamasis’ process described by –

h¹ ® h² = h Ä h |-º h Å y.

In particular, as part of the foundational process of the formation of y, we predict a, triadic, ‘dialectical speciation’ of ‘meta-human’ body-forms –

_yg¹ ® _yg³ = _yg¹ Ä _yg¹ Ä _yg¹ ¶|-º

_yg Å _yr Å _yq_r_g

– in which _yg stands for the predicted future category of genomically self-reengineered ‘meta-humans’, _yr for its ‘antithesis-category’, of AI android robot ‘meta-humans’, and _yq_r_g for the categorial dialectical synthesis of the first two: “cyborg” ‘meta-humans’, “endo-symbiotically” unifying ‘genomically reengineered meta-human’ biological bodies, inside an ‘exoskeleton’ of non-biological modules, sourced from android-robot humanoid body-parts.

The resulting ‘_yq_r_g |-º _yc categorial units, we hypothesize, might even have a kind of ‘intra-dual brain’, in the form of an advanced, genomically reengineered human brain, in continuous consultation and mutual checking-and-balancing with a, non-biological, AI robot “brain”.

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

www.dialectics.info

and

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

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!

The Case of Nonlinear Dynamical System “Attractors” – Teleological? Part 1. of the Series on Nonlinear Dynamical Systems.

The

Case of

Nonlinear

Dynamical System

“Attractors” –

Teleological?

Part 1. of the

Series on

Nonlinear

Dynamical

Systems.

Dear Reader,

Consider the “limit-cycle attractor”, a closed curve orbit in a state-space, approached by the state-space trajectory – i.e., by the solution-geometry of a nonlinear dynamical system’s system-describing total-differential equation – but it is only approached asymptotically, never reached or even touched by that state-space trajectory for all finite [realistic] values of the time-variable, t < ¥.

The limit-cycle thus constitutes a ‘‘‘transcendental’’’ state-space structure/process/closed loop of states, ‘‘‘located at’’’ “t = ¥”, and of a kind not found among the solutions of linear total-differential equations, but prominent among the solutions of nonlinear, total-differential, dynamical, and strictly-causal, deterministic equations.

¿Does such a “limit-cycle attractor” actually “attract” the state-space trajectory of the solution to the nonlinear “ordinary” differential equation, that harbors that limit-cycle trajectory as its “essence”; as its final, “t = ¥” solution, irresistibly “pulling” upon that, winding, trajectory from the “transcendent”, “eternal”, “t = ¥” future, and “reeling it in” to, like Sisyphus, forever orbit that limit-cycle loop of states, closer and closer to that loop, but never finally merging with it, into it, for all, finite, futurity?

¿Are nonlinear total-differential equations, with “limit-cycle” solutions, or even those with “strange attractor” solutions – “aperiodic deterministic flows” in state-space; so-called “chaos” – just a mathematical implementation of Aristotle’s doctrine of teleology, of “final causes”?

No.

A nonlinear differential equation is “nonlinear”, or “of higher degree” [higher than, or just different than, the 1st degree] because, in it, the, e.g., x(t), unknown-“function-of-time”-to-be-solved-for, operates upon itself; multiplies itself, or at least one of that function-unknown’s derivatives operates upon itself; multiplies itself –

x(t)¹ ´ x(t)¹ = x(t)²;

x(t)¹ ´ x(t)¹ ´ x(t)¹ = x(t)³, etc.;

(dx(t)/dt)², etc.

This can lead to an “unbounded”, unlimited “explosion-to-infinity” of the equation’s solution state-vector, due to a division-by-zero “singularity” for a critical time-moment value in the modeled-history of that system.

However, in limit-cycle-solution nonlinear dynamical total-differential equations, this ‘self-interaction’ – of the state-function with itself – leads to a cumulative self-constraint upon the values of that state-vector, x(t), as its t-value increases.

Thus, starting from the initial state/state-vector, x(0), of such a system, with each advance of each of its time-values, t, to its “next” value, t + Dt, the system’s state-space path or trajectory constrains itself, bending itself a little more toward the limit-cycle loop, until the ‘cumulation’ of these ‘self-bendings’ brings it, for high-enough values of t, into a shrinking orbit that increasingly converges toward that cyclically-repeating loop of states, without ever finally entering that loop.

This is not, mystical, “teleology”.

This is self-consistent self-determination.