The Dual «Aufheben» ‘Meta-Monadicity’ Relations of the Modern Dialectic, ‘‘‘Vertical’’’ & ‘‘‘Horizontal’’’.

Full[er] Title -- 

The Dual «Aufheben» ‘Meta-Monadicity’ Relations of the Modern Dialectic, ‘‘‘Vertical’’’ versus ‘‘‘Horizontal’’’.

Dear Reader,

Our texts here have featured the interweaving of two distinct dimensions, and directions, of color-coded ‘qualitative ordinality’, a rightward [in our standard depictions] ‘‘‘horizontal’’’ progression, e.g. --

‘thesis species-category’ + ‘antithesis species-category’  + ‘synthesis species-category’  + ...

-- and a upward [in our standard depictions] ‘‘‘vertical’’’ progression, e.g. --

‘base units/«monads» [non-category] level’ + ‘species category-units level’ + ‘«genos» category-units level’  + ... .

This blog-entry is designed to set forth, both textually and pictorially, the nature, and the provenance, of these two “directions” of dialectical, «aufheben», ‘meta-«monad»-ic’ progression, and to disentangle, and to clarify, their mutual distinction, with the aim of clearing up any confusion that their complex interconnexion, in our accounts, may have induced for our readers.

We wish for you all to find great joy in your seasonal celebrations!

Regards,

Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, F.E.D.,

Officer, F.E.D. Public Liaison Office

Modern ‘‘‘Systematic Dialectics’’’ and modern ‘‘‘Historical Dialectics’’’ -- alike -- in their Seldonian versions, and in contrast to Ancient [Occidental-]original, «Arithmoi Eidetikoi»  Dialectics, as founded by Platon of Athens, feature two, distinct -- ‘‘‘mutually perpendicular’’’, ‘‘‘orthogonal’’’, essentially mutually independent -- dimensions and directions of dialectical, «aufheben», ‘meta-«monad»-icity’ relations.

The historically second / later-developed of these two dimensions/directions is depicted as progressing in the horizontal/rightward dimension/direction in our standard ‘dialectic diagram’.  

It represents a temporal, chronological, diachronic, historical succession.

It describes the progression of species-categories, typically, as a progressions of a species-category for base [meta⁰-]«monads», followed by a species-category for [meta¹-]«monads» of the base [meta⁰-]«monads», ... , followed by a species-category for [meta²-]«monads» of the base [meta⁰-]«monads», ..., and so on.      

It typically represents an epochal, ‘macro-historical’ temporal succession, in the case of modern/Seldonian ‘‘‘Historical Dialectics’’’, progressing from a ‘first «physis»’ or ‘first «meme-esis»’ species-category, to a ‘first full meta-«physis»’, or ‘first [full]  meta-«meme-esis»’ species-category, to a ‘first full uni-«physis»’, or ‘first full uni-«meme-esis»’ species-category... .

It typically represents a brief-narrative, ‘micro-historical’ temporal succession [at about the duration-scale of a methodical/systematic ‘‘‘present-ation’’’, i.e., of a lecture, or of the time it takes to read a structured essay], in the case of modern/Seldonian ‘‘‘Systematic Dialectics’’’, progressing from a ‘first «thesis»’ species-category, to a ‘first [full] antithesis species-category’, to a ‘first full synthesis species-category’... .

The ‘first [full] antithesis species-category’ is, typically, an <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>, each one of which is a 'meta-<<monad>>' of [some of] the [therefore now sub-]<<monads>> that [formerly] made up the '''prior''' <<arithmos>> of <<monads>> that is ‘first «thesis»’ species-category -- that is, each <<monad>> of the ‘first [full] antithesis species-category’ is typically made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of [some of the former] <<monads>> of the first «thesis»’ species-category.

The ‘first full synthesis species-category’ represents some kind of '''hybridization''' between the first [full] antithesis species-category’ and the ‘first «thesis»’ species-category.  The ‘first full synthesis species-category’ may sometimes even be an <<arithmos>> of '''hybrid''' <<monads>> , each one of which is a '''combination''', consisting of one or more <<monads>> from out of those that [formerly] made up the '''prior''' <<arithmos>> of <<monads>> that is the first [full] antithesis species-category’, united with one or more <<monads>> from out of those that [formerly] made up the '''prior''' <<arithmos>> of <<monads>> that is the ‘first «thesis»’ species-category.

The historically first / earlier-developed of these two dimensions/directions is depicted as progressing in the vertical/upward dimension/direction in our standard ‘dialectic diagrams’, and represents a classificatory, taxonomic, systematic succession, progressing [from individual, to] specific, to more general classifications / classes / categories, progressing from a[‘base units/«monads» [non-category] level’, to a] ‘species category-units level’, to a ‘«genos» category-units level’... .

The units of this ‘species category-units level’ are not base units, nor any of their metaⁿ-«monads», or metaⁿ-units, but species-categories-as-units.

The units of this ‘«genos» category-units level’ are not base units, nor any of their metaⁿ-«monads», or metaⁿ-units, but «genos»-categories-as-units.

and so on.

The "lowest", or '''infima''', species category-units are each, implicitly, '''made up out of''', or <<aufheben>>-"'contain"', that heterogeneous multiplicity of the "ultimate units", base units/«monads», or '''logical individuals''' of the given universe[-of-discourse] or '''domain''', that are, explicitly, also immediately "below" them, and each of which is a '''NON-category'''.

Each of the ''logical individuals''' that is <<aufheben>>-"'contained"' in a given '''infima'''-species category-unit is similar to every other such ''logical individual''', but can never be "identical" to any other such unit/«monad».


Each one of the '''next-up''', «genos», category-units is a 'categorial meta-unit', each one implicitly made up out of, or <<aufheben>>-"'containing"', the heterogeneous multiplicity of the "infima"-species category-units that are also, explicitly, immediately "below" it.

It was the [Occidental branch of the] Ancient epoch of ‘human-Phenomic’ “universal labor” [cf. Marx] that developed, only [with some exceptions due, e.g., to Heraclitus], the ‘‘‘vertical’’’ dimension/direction of dialectic, as a, purportedly, statical, eternal, immutable, Parmenidean, and, therefore, forever-synchronic ['omni-syncronic'] dimension/relation of dialectic, most notably in those works of Platon of Athens that survived the last Dark Age, as the dialectic of Platon’s reified and mystified «Arithmoi Eidetikoi». 

Of course, Platon did not explicitly describe the relation of his «Eide-Monads», or «Idea-Monads», to his «Eide-Species», or «Idea-Species», categories, to his «Eide-Gene», or «Idea-Gene» categories, ... , under the phrase ‘«aufheben»-relation’, and did not notice, as far as we can tell, the categories-as-«monads» ‘meta-«monad»-icity’ of those ‘«aufheben»-relations’.     

It was the Modern, global epoch of ‘human-Phenomic’ “universal labor” that first explicitly brought forth, or brought out, the ‘‘‘horizontal’’’, dynamical-diachronic dialectical relation-as-process, most notably in the works of Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Marx, and Engels -- and even under the explicit ‘«aufheben» name and concept, in Hegel, Marx, and Engels, but still not noticing/noting the typical ‘[self-]meta-«monad»-ization’ content of that dialectical, «aufheben» relation/process.

Both dimensions/directions are depicted together in the ‘dialectic diagram’ below, generically -- that is, in a form abstract enough, or generalized enough, to encompass both modern/Seldonian ‘‘‘Systematic Dialectics’’’, and modern/Seldonian ‘‘‘Historical Dialectics’’’, equally.

The ‘content-structure’ depicted in the above, generic ‘dialectic diagram’  is still, at its core, that of Platonian [minimal] «Arithmoi Eidetikoi» Dialectic, and also at every synchronic moment of the now -- ‘modernly’ recognized as such -- historical, temporal, transitory [no longer purportedly “eternal”] existence of the ontological content to which it refers, and which it represents.

But, therefore, this generic ‘dialectic diagram’ represents a now ‘trans-Platonian’ «Arithmoi Eidetikoi» Dialectic, one which, by way of a long history of immanent and external critique, ever since Ancient times, has become de-mystified, de-reified, temporalized, and ‘historified’.

That is, this modern «Arithmos Eidetikos» is ‘trans-Platonian’ because it has become, not only dynamical, in the sense of its explicit encompassing of quantitative change, i.e., change limited to change within a given, fixed quality/ontology, but it has also become ‘‘‘meta-dynamical’’’, i.e., in the sense of its explicit encompassing of qualitative change, that is, of ontological change, of ontological innovation, of ontological revolution, i.e., of the continuing irruption of new ontological categories:  ontology expansion, as [net] increases in the number of qualitatively different kinds / categories / classes / taxons of «monads» extant / existent, as time progresses.