F.E.D. Dialectics

Tuesday, June 23, 2026

The «Aufheben» Concept Implicit in Plato’s «Arithmoi Eidetikoi» Dialectic. Part 1.: History of the «Aufheben» Concept Series.

The

«Aufheben»

Concept

Implicit in

Platon’s

«Arithmoi

Eidetikoi»

Dialectic.

Part 1.:

History

of the

«Aufheben»

Concept

Series.

Dear Reader,

We hold that the emergence of the «aufheben» concept – as relation, and even as process – began long before a word, such as the German word «aufheben», became available, which combines the meaning of determinate [not abstract] negation and conservation and elevation, became available.

We detect early beginnings of this emergence in Plato’s dialogue Sophist, in the passage from ~253c to ~253e:.

“STRANGER: Well, now that we have agreed that the kinds stand toward one another in the same way as regards blending, is not some science needed as a guide on the voyage of discourse, if one is to succeed in pointing out which kinds are consonant, and which are incompatible with one another – also whether there are certain kinds that pervade them all and connect them so that they can blend, and again, where there are divisions [separations], whether there are certain others that traverse wholes and are responsible for the division?”

“THEAETETUS: Surely some science is needed – perhaps the most important of all.”

“STRANGER: And what name shall we give to this science? Or – good gracious, Theaetetus, have we stumbled unaware upon the free man’s knowledge and, in seeking for the Sophist, chanced to fins the philosopher first?”

“THEAETETUS: How do you mean?”

“STRANGER: Dividing according to kinds, not taking the same form for a different one or a different one for the same – is not that the business of the science of dialectic?”

“THEAETETUS: Yes.”

“STRANGER: And the man who can do that discerns one form everywhere extended throughout many, where each lies apart, and many forms, different from one another [M.D.: e.g., «hypo-gene», or species kind categories, or «eide»], embraced from without by one form [M.D.: e.g., a «genos» kind category, or «eide»], and again one form connected in a unity through many wholes [M.D.: e.g., a «hyper-genos», or super-genus kind category, or «eide»], and many forms, entirely marked off apart. That means knowing how to distinguish, kind by kind, in what ways the several kinds can or cannot combine.”

“THEAETETUS: Most Certainly.”

“STRANGER: And the only person, I imagine, to whom you would allow this mastery of dialectic is the pure and rightful lover of wisdom.”

[The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including the Letters, Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, editors, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA, 1989, pp. 998 to 999].

Thus, in Plato’s «arithmoi eide-tikoi» dialectic, the internal and immutable ‘ideo-taxonomy’, or ‘eternalistic systematic dialectic’ of fundamental «ideaV», multiple species-like – not at all necessarily biological – kind categories can combine with the single «genos» kind category under which they all fall; to which they all belong, because it stands for the qualities which they all share, as their generalization. But without [i.e., abstracting from] the «differentia specifica» which divide and qualitatively distinguish them, each one from each of the others.

They multiple species categories – or «hypo-gene» – converge upward until they all merge into the, more general, «genos» category “above” them, losing specificity, losing determinations, losing their different «differentia specifica» as they go “up”, until their differences, and thus, they themselves, as kind categories, dissolve together in that, their “higher” [more abstract] «genos» category.

Note that this process of rising into lessor specificity, into greater generality, into fewer determinations is an «aufheben» human-cognitive process – albeit that, for Plato, this is an eternal, statical relation among his «eide», not a dynamical process-in-time, and that Plato, of course, did not know this process under the German word «aufheben».

The several species sub-categories, in their relation to their single «genos» category, are, in that relation, determinately negated as specific and as separate, conserved inside their «genos» category, which upholds the qualities which they all share in common, and elevated into a “higher” level of ‘gene-rality’ or of abstractness; of lesser determinateness.

This we find the «aufheben» relation at the very heart of Platon’s dialectic, albeit not explicitly noted as such.

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!

Thursday, June 18, 2026

Interactions of “Dark Matter” units and/with ‘Bright-Matter’ units. Part 2.: DialecticS of NATURE Main Sequence.

Interactions

“Dark Matter”

units

and/with

‘Bright-Matter’

units.

Part 2.:

DialecticS

NATURE

Main

Sequence.

Dear Reader,

Background. According to the, prevailing, “Lambda Cold Dark Matter” [LCDM] model of our cosmos, “Dark Energy” [now about 70% of the total energy-density of our cosmos] has existed since the very beginning, during the “Big Bang”, but “Dark Matter” [»25%] and “ordinary matter” [»5%], the latter reactive to electromagnetic radiation – hence herein called ‘Bright Matter’ – were born together, in the immediate aftermath of the “dilaton field’s” causation of “exponential cosmological inflation”.

Only partially to the contrary, according to the Seldonian “Self-Resurging Big Surge Hypothesis”, also known herein as the “Regenerist” cosmological hypothesis, we conjecture the following.

“Dark Energy”, as the expanse of contiguous ‘spandetron’ units that constitute “empty” space, also came first, but it was just the accelerating, anti-gravitic self-expansion of space, caused by an incessant and ceaseless ‘spandetron’ self-replication – unchecked by any opposing, space-contractive, gravitic effects from “Dark Matter” and “ordinary matter”, ‘Bright Matter’, both of which did not yet exist, that caused the “exponential cosmological inflation”, or space self-expansion acceleration.

Per that ‘Regenerist Hypothesis’, “Dark Matter” was born as clumps of gravitating ‘meta-spandetron’ units, no longer able to self-replicate, and exhibiting gravitational, or anti-anti-gravitic effects, that formed as clouds of self-damaged spandetrons – damaged when the accelerating, hyper-explosive “inflation” of physical space breached an inherent limit to the velocity of space-expansion, albeit at a velocity far in excess of the light velocity, c, that limits rates of motion for ‘Bright Matter” units at least.

The ‘Regenerist Hypothesis’ further conjectures that, somewhat as in the LCDM Model, “Dark Matter”,, clumping formed “structures” in the shape of, e.g., “mini-halo” gravity wells, soon after its advent, as part of its interplay-with/resistance-to “Dark Energy” space-expansion, creating the scaffolding for the later, ‘Bright Matter’-inclusive, “cosmic web”.

The ‘existentiation’ of ‘Bright Matter’, per this hypothesis, occurred at the bottom of the very “gravity wells” that the ‘pre-Bright Matter cosmic web’ formed, where ‘quasi-bosonic’ units of “Dark Matter” concentrated, condensed and densified sufficiently for increasingly frequent and intense interactions among “Dark Matter” units, q_cc, to result, and to create ‘meta-meta-spandetron’ units, i.e., ‘Bright Matter’ units, q_r, e.g., the “Standard Model of Paritcle Physics” particles – each single unit of “non-composite” such “particles” being made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of [self-]damaged, ‘meta-spandetron’, “Dark Matter” units.

Thereby, the mere “Dark Matter/Dark Energy” initial scaffolding of the “cosmic web”, initially empty of ‘Bright Matter’, became populated with “particles” – initially perhaps mainly or only a “plasma” of “quarks” and “leptons” – that thereafter gradually ‘meta-evolved’ into the super-galactic-cluster filaments/walls and voids, the galactic super-clusters, galactic clusters, and galaxy units that we detect today, at the largest scale of our observable universe, containing “voids”, in which space continues to expand, again at an accelerating rate, and gravitationally “bound” material ‘clusterings’, within which “Dark-Energy”-driven space-expansion has been arrested by their gravitational and self-gravitational interactivity.

The overall ‘dialectic of Nature’ model for the “Dark Matter”/‘Bright Matter’ processes, including those still ongoing today, via the _NQ dialectical language’s dyadic Seldon function, operating upon the ‘Regenerist Hypothesis’ “Dark Energy” ‘spandetron’ units’ «arché»-category, q_x, is solved by us as follows –

q_x²³ = q_x⁸ |-=

q_x <+> q_c <+> q_c_x <+> q_r <+>

q_r_x <+> q_r_c <+> q_r_c_x <+> q_a

– with q_a, or q_rr, solved as representing the cosmo-ontological category of atoms.

“Dark Matter” and/versus ‘Bright Matter’. Within this cosmological-ontological, dialectical [i.e., multi-«aufheben»] categorial-progression, is the sub-progression that forms the focus of this blog-entry, namely –

q_r <x> q_c |-= q_c <+> q_r_c .

This component-subprocess, categorizing and [algebraic-]‘character-izing’ ‘Bright Matter’/“Dark Matter” inter-actions, could stand for combinations/-hybridizations/complex-unities/dialectical partial «physis»-syntheses, ‘uni-physes’, or ‘syn-physes’, of the two, or conversions of the one kind into the other kind, generically.

¿But which of these processes – which of these different generic kinds of dialectical, physical synthesis – are actually, presently known to exist specifically, for the case of the q_r_c process, and its result(s)?

Current scientific-community consensus appears to hold that “Dark Matter” and “ordinary matter” have only one way of interacting, the gravitational way. If that consensus view continues to be corroborated by ever deepening and ever more accurate observations, then that is all that ‘hybrid category’ q_r_c can ever mean.

However, some physicists are hypothesizing that the – otherwise presently unexplained – “gamma ray glow” of our galaxy is the product of the mutual, pairwise [self-]annihilation of “Dark Matter particles”, whatever those “particles” may turn out to be.

This, if borne-out by future observations and theorizations, would means that, although “Dark Matter particles” do not respond to electromagnetic radiation impinging on them, they do generate – emit – high energy electromagnetic radiation when they mutually annihilate. This would constitute a sub-species of the ‘Seldon-Hypothesis’-posited ‘self-hybrid’ species of

q_cc-becoming-q_r;

It would mean that ‘hybrid ontological category’ q_r_c or q_c_r has at least two species:

(1) mutual gravitation of ‘Bright Matter’ and “Dark Matter” “particles”, q_c_r, and;

(2) Impacts of “Dark Matter” annihilations-generated gamma ray photons on [other] “Bright Matter particles”, also under q_c_r.

We have as yet detected no evidence that there is a q_r_c sub-species of ‘conversion formations’, within which ‘Bright Matter’ “particles” interact with, and catalyze conversions of, “Dark Matter particles”, into more ‘Bright Matter’ “particles’.

We note again, this time more explicitly, that category-symbol q_c_r [generically, q₆ = q₂₊₄] has the same order-number [the same ‘ordinal-quality generic subscript index’, i.e., the 6 in q₆ = q₄₊₂] as q_r_c, and is another syntactically possible species of “Dark Matter” units’ interactions with ‘Bright Matter’ units.

Category q_c_r might also describe cosmological ‘conversion formations’ within which “Dark Matter particles” interact with, and catalyze ‘retrograde-conversions’ of, ‘Bright Matter’ particles”, back into “Dark Matter particles”.

If corroborated by future observations and theorizations, species q_c_r might thus also describe yet another sub-species of the ‘Bright Matter’/“Dark Matter” interactions’ hybrid species, with “Dark Matter” annihilations-emitted gamma-ray photon units’ impacts on ‘Bright Matter’ units as the other sub-species of species q_c_r.