The Dialectic of HOLISMS versus ATOMISMS. Part 5.: Cases of Dialectic Series.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Dialectic

 

of

 

HOLISMS

 

versus

 

ATOMISMS.

 

Part 5.:

 

Cases of Dialectic Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

As we see it, the human-natural, ‘ideo-ontological’ and ideological dialectic of ‘holisms versus atomisms’, has a dialectical synthesis category, or ‘uni-category’, which resides at the heart of the Seldonian dialectical worldview.

This dialectic, we hold, goes like this –

1.  «arché» category: of Holistic ideology-units, of the category signed by q_H, tend to envision ‘“a dark night

 in which all cows are black”’ [cf. Hegel], i.e., constituting a worldview which is weak on the parts, particulars and ‘particulations’ that constitute the units of our real world;

 

2.  first contra-category: of Atomistic ideology-units, of the category signed by q_A, tend to envision absolutely

 discrete, un-interconnected and “uncuttable” units, supposedly separated, and thereby also connected, but by “nothingness”, by nothing at all; a world picture that sees only “atoms and the void”;

 

3.  first uni-category: of ‘Monadistic’ or ‘ArithMistic’ conceptual-units, of the category signed by q_M, envision

the universe as composed of qualitatively different ‘«Arithmoi» of «Monads»’ which are even ‘meta-genealogically’ inter-connected, both internally and externally, in that each predecessor kind of «Monads» ‘‘‘begets’’’ its successor kind, and some of its units are «aufheben»-contained inside each of those successor units, while also some of the «Monads» of the predecessor kind still remain, ‘evolutely’, outside of the «Monads» of the successor kind.  The units upheld per the Monadisms’ theory-units are relatively discrete, similar to the atom units of the Atomisms ideologies in that way, but are not “uncuttable”, because each such «Monad» has some of the former units, of its predecessor kinds of units, inside it, and can be cut-back, dis-assembled, or dis-integrated, into earlier kinds of «Monads», by sufficiently energetic means, except, perhaps, for the «archê-monads» of the «arché»-category of a given Domain.

 

 

Note: The q_HH |-º q_A solution is not so much an

 assertion that each ideological unit of the Atomisms category is made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of ideological units of the Holisms category – although Atomisms’ native ideology-units can often be grasped as taking the ultra-macroscopic “Whole” of the holistic totality, and shrinking it down and multiplying it into a plethora of “uncuttable”, immutable, microscopic atom-units, an ancient-version ‘‘‘multiverse’’’ «arithmos» of shrunken universe units – but more like, as in many systematic dialectics, a self-critique of the initial implicit claim that holistic ideologies exhaust the “kinds”, or ‘ideo-ontological’ categories, of the ‘World Pictures’ Domain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Dialectic of PLANETS vs. STARS. Part 4.: Cases of Dialectic Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Dialectic

 

of

 

PLANETS

 

versus

 

STARS.

 

Part 4.:

 

Cases of Dialectic Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

As we see it, the natural-historical dialectic of ‘planets versus stars’ goes like this –

 

1.  «arché» category: Proplyd-Peripheral, “Rocky” Proto-Planetary and Planetary Aglomerations, q_P, e.g., “rocky” planetessimals;

 

 

2.  first contra-category: Proplyd-Centering Proto-Stellar and Stellar Orbs, with the ‘‘‘proto-stars’’’ including “gas giant” planets and “brown dwarves”;

q_PP |-º q_S, e.g., “double-star” and, rarer, ‘multi-star formations’ of stellar multiplicity greater than two;

 

3.  first uni-category: Complex Unities of Stars & Planets; solved as fully-evolved stellar/planetary systems,

 q_ST |-º q_U, e.g., our “Solar System”.

 

 

Note: The q_PP |-º q_S solution is not so much an assertion that each proplyd star is made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of collided/coalesced rocky proto-planets – although such central, collisional coalescences to the point of sufficient mass-density for stellar ignition are imaginable – but more like, as in many systematic dialectics, a self-critique of the initial implicit claim that proto-planets/-planets exhaust the “kinds”, or ontological categories, of the COG Domain.

  

 

There are several ways in which category q_P and category q_S are «arithmoi» whose units exhibit oppositenesses in their essential qualities.  For two examples –

 

1.  “Rocky” planets/proto-planets are cold[er] orbs, whereas stars/proto-stars are hot[ter] orbs.

 

2.  “Rocky” planets, especially those that evolve through a planet-wide molten phase, tend to migrate their heavier elements/-atoms/molecules, such as iron atoms, to their core regions, and their lighter elements/atoms/molecules, such as O₂ and H₂O, to their ‘outermore’ or outermost layers.

 

On the contrary, stars, at least initially, tend to exhibit an inverted stratification, tending to place their heavier/heaviest elements/-atoms/molecules, e.g., their Helium atoms, in their ‘outermore’ or outermost layers, with their lighter particles/elements/atoms in their cores, e.g., Hydrogen nuclei/Hydrogen ions, or protons – and electrons – e.g., as plasmas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marx: “The Development of the Social Individual” -- an Amendment.

 

Marx:

 

 “The Development

 

of the

 

Social Individual”;

 

 

an Amendment.

 

 

 

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

 

We wish to propose, as illustrated in the diagram posted above, an amendment to Marx’s “Productive forces and social relationships – the two different sides of the development of the social individual…”

[David McLellan, The Grundrisse: Karl Marx, Harper & Row, NY,, 1971, p. 148].

 

 

We hold that there are, not just two, but four fundamental dimensions of the historical development of the human-social individual that should be highlighted in any contemporary extension of Marxian theory, that is adequate to the growth of scientific knowledge since Marx’s time. 

 

Those four dimensions are –

 

1.  Yes, the history of the ‘social self-force of human-societal self-re-production’: “productive forces” or “technologies [of human life-expansion]” for short;

 

2. Yes, the ‘social relations of human-societal self-re-production’: “social relationships”, or [the history of human] “livelihood relations” for short;

 

3.  But also: the history of human social formations, 

and;

 

4.  The [psycho]history of

 human ideologies\knowledges.

 

These four “sides” of the development of the human-social individual, as depicted above, are shown as four historical-dialectical categorial progressions, radiating from the four ‘‘‘poles’’’ – two horizontal and two vertical – of the social- individual “core” of this diagram.

 

The «arché» category, and the subsequent ‘self-hybrid’ ontological categories of these four Domains of dialectical categorial progression, to-date, are, we hold –

 

A.  Social Formations:

1.  «arché» category: b, for hunter-gatherer bands;

2.  c, for hunter-gatherer camps;

3.  v, for agricultural villages;

4.  f, for multi-village chiefdoms;

5.  s, city-states;

6.  e, for multi-city-state ancient empires;

7.  n, for nation-states.    

 

B.  Livelihood Relations 

[“social relations of production”]:

1.  «arché» category: A, for raw-Nature Appropriations by humans [e.g., hunter-gatherer-scavenger foraging & cannibalisms];

2.  G, for human-labor-modified Nature, i.e. Goods/Gifts;

3.  C, for bartered Commodities;

4.  M, for commodity-exchange-mediating Monies;

5.  K, for money-profits-targeting Kapitals.

 

C.  Society-Expanding Technologies 

[“Productive Forces”]:

1.  «arché»: h, human communities’ cooperative labor as energy-resource [e.g., communal hunting and gathering];

2.  l, social animals as energy-resources [e.g., herding];

3.  b, de-socialized multi[-eukaryotic-]cellular bodies as energy-resources, e.g., human slavery [and ‘animal slavery’];

4.  e, eukaryotic cells as energy-resources [e.g., yeast cells for our “daily bread”, as well as for beers and wines];

5.  p, prokaryotic cells as energy-resources [e.g., bacteria-based cheeses – technologies for food preservation];

6.  m, molecules as energy-resources 

[e.g., natural gas];

7.  a, atoms as energy-resources [e.g., atomic power].    

 

D.  Ideologies\Knowledges:

1.  «arché» category: L for [initially only spoken]

Languages;

2.  A, for [e.g., initially only cave-wall, petroglyph & figurine] Arts;

3.  M, for the story-units of Mythopoeias, or Mythologies;

4.  R, for doctrinaire, dogmatic Religions;

5.  P, for speculative Philosophies; 

philosophical schools;

6.  K, for observationally/experimentally corroborated

     Knowledges [e.g., sciences];

 

Of course, it must be admitted that, while each of these progressions, within each of these four dimensions of the human-social individual, and of the development thereof in human history, is relatively distinct and autonomous, and are worthwhile to take notice of separately, but all are ultimately driven by, and predicated upon, just one of them – on the growth of “the social forces of production” [Marx].

 

This is so, in a subtlest form, even for the [psycho]historical development of --

ideologies\knowledges.

 

And, also of course, each of these four distinct ontological-dialectical progressions interacts with each of the others, in exceedingly complex ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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!