Dear Reader,
Below I have posted an edited excerpt from the fifth part of a recent web forum thread dialogue on F.E.D. dialectics in which I participated.
I have once again notated my interlocutor's queries by 'Q#.:', and my responses by 'R#.:'.
Please feel free to join in this dialogue here, by posting a query or comment via the Comment function of this blog.
Regards,
Miguel
Below I have posted an edited excerpt from the fifth part of a recent web forum thread dialogue on F.E.D. dialectics in which I participated.
I have once again notated my interlocutor's queries by 'Q#.:', and my responses by 'R#.:'.
Please feel free to join in this dialogue here, by posting a query or comment via the Comment function of this blog.
Regards,
Miguel
Q5.: You wrote "atoms x atoms =
atoms + molecules" ... .
How exactly is the molecule the antithesis of
the atom?
R5.: Excellent query!!! -- A query whose answer
will call upon us to unfold a major, core portion of this entire dialectical
method, without which this method cannot be understood, but with which, this
method becomes almost obvious!
“Short[er] Answer”. Because each single molecule is
a dialectical, [self-]«aufheben», determinate
[self-] negation of a [plural] sub-population, or ‘sub-«arithmos»’,
of atoms.
‘The «arithmos» of molecules’ is the category
representing, ‘connotationally’, ‘‘‘the [indefinite] NUMBER
of molecules’’’, or ‘‘‘the [indefinite] population of
molecules’’’ -- all that have ever existed, all that presently exist, all that
ever will exist.
‘The «arithmos» of atoms’ is the category
representing, ‘connotationally’, ‘‘‘the [indefinite] NUMBER
of atoms’’’, or ‘‘‘the [indefinite] population of atoms’’’
-- all that have ever existed, all that presently exist, all that ever will
exist.
Recall that the original form of Occidental Dialectic, so-named,
was that of Plato’s «arithmoi eidetikoi» -- of his multitudes
of fundamental, supposedly causal ‘‘‘idea-units’’’, or of
‘‘‘«eide»-units’’’, organized into
... ‘idea-«species»’ [i.e., into ‘idea-«hypo-gene»’],
under ‘idea-«gene»’, under ‘idea-«hyper-gene»’,
etc., etc.
Any typical individual molecule, as a unit, or as a
‘‘‘logical individual’’’, or as an ‘‘‘element’’’ of the category of “molecules”
-- to use the ancient Greek term, as a «monad» or «henad»,
or, to use an even more apt, ultra-modern term, as a ‘‘‘holon’’’
[Arthur Koestler], of the category, or «arithmos», of molecules
-- is a dialectical, [self-]«aufheben»,
‘self-hybridizing’, determinate [self-]negation
of multiple units, individuals, «monads», «henads»,
or holons of the category, or «arithmos»,
of “atoms”.
That is, a molecule unit is a ‘meta1-unit’ relative
to an atom as a unit [as ‘meta0-unit’].
Indeed, a typical individual, single molecule unit can be
defined as a ‘meta-atom’, made up out of a -- usually heterogeneous
-- multiplicity of two or more distinct atom units.
Thus, a molecule unit -- any typical unit of the “molecules”
category -- is, all together, a negation, or annulment,
or cancellation of a multiplicity of atom units as mere atoms
units, and also a conservation of those atom units,
‘“inside’’’ the new, molecule unit that they compose, and also an elevation
of those atom units [in]to, to form, to help constitute a new, higher, richer,
more complex, more determinate, more massive / more ‘‘‘concrete’’’, more
‘‘‘substantial’’’ ‘‘‘layer of reality’’’, or ‘‘‘level of existence’’’, or
‘‘‘scale of being’’’.
«aufheben»
= negation-cum-conservation-cum-elevation,
which is a ‘thesis-antithesis-synthesis’ in itself!
A molecule unit is thus not an
absolute, indeterminate, abstract “negation”
of any multiplicity, that is, of any ‘sub-«arithmos»’, of
atom units -- a kind of ‘contra-empirical’, fictive “negation”, which would
supposedly turn them into abstract nothingness [in violation of the empirical
conservation of mass-energy principle].
Also, a molecule unit is thus neither a
‘‘‘complement[ary]-opposite’’’ [like “female vs. male”, or
like “yin vs. yang”] to an atom unit, nor is it an ‘‘‘annihilatory-opposite’’’
[like “matter vs. anti-matter”, or like a fatal disease vs. the living body
that it attacks, or like “good vs. evil”] to an atom unit, but it is
a ‘supplementary-opposite’ to an
atom unit [like a ‘‘‘[political-economic-democratic-]communist society vs. a
capitalist society’’’, or like ‘‘‘a money unit vs. a commodity unit’’’ in
Marx’s theory], for more about which, see --
Now, of course, there are exceptional cases wherein the
individual molecule in question is made up out of, not a heterogeneous
multiplicity of atom units, but, instead, is made up out of a homogeneous
multiplicity of [still distinct] atom units, e.g., H2, O2,
O3,
etc.
So, we say that the «arithmos» /
category of molecules is a ‘meta1-«arithmos»’
relative to the ‘[meta0-]«arithmos»’
/ category of atoms, and thus a ‘meta1-category’ of atoms, if not,
in any immediately obvious way, also a ‘contra-category’
to the category of “atoms”.
If we symbolize the category / «arithmos»
of “atoms” by ‘qa’, then
the “molecules” category / «arithmos»
is signified, per our interpretation, by the symbol ‘qaa = qm’, the double subscript, ‘aa’, here signifying that category ‘qm’ is the result of an «aufheben» ‘self-combination’
of category ‘qa’, also signifying «aufheben»‘self-hybridizations’
of the units of ‘qa’.
Similarly, [next] “prokaryotic” cells [e.g., bacteria] are
‘meta-molecules’, [next] eukaryotic cells [e.g., yeast cells] are
‘meta-prokaryotes’, [next] ‘‘‘multi-[eukaryotic-]cellular organisms’’’
[‘meta-biota’ -- “meta-zoa” [e.g., bears] and “meta-phyta” [e.g., trees]] are
‘meta-eukaryotes’, and proto-language-based “animal societies” [e.g., ants, bees, termites, wolves,
reindeer, horses, cattle, meerkats, etc., etc.] are ‘meta-multicellular
organisms’, i.e., ‘meta-meta-biota’, or ‘meta2-biota’,
etc.
Such «aufheben» ‘meta-«monad»-ization’, ‘meta-unit-ization’,
‘meta-«henad»-ization’, ‘meta-holon-ization’,
‘meta-element-ization’, or ‘meta-individual-ization’
is, as we have found in our research, the typical concrete, material form of
the core-dialectical «aufheben» [self-]operation
/ [self-]process, although we have encountered some exceptional
instances of [self-]«aufheben» dialectic
that do not appear to involve its concretization as a [self-]‘meta-«monad»-ization’
operation/process, for our present degree of discernment.
We call this core principle of dialectics
‘The Principle of «aufheben» Meta-Unitization’, or ‘The Principle of «aufheben» Meta-Monadization’,
or ‘The Principle of «aufheben» Meta-Holonization’, or ‘The Principle of
«aufheben» Meta-Elementization’, or ‘The Principle of «aufheben» Meta-Individualization’, etc.
This dialectical principle can also be articulated from a viewpoint of mathematical ‘categorial combinatorics’, or ‘class combinatorics’.
From that perspective, we name it ‘The
[Contra-Boolean] Principle of «aufheben» Self-Combinations’, and it
can be stated as follows:
‘Categorial «aufheben» Self-Combinations are the Sole Source of New Dialectical Antithesis Categories’.
‘Categorial «aufheben» Self-Combinations are the Sole Source of New Dialectical Antithesis Categories’.
No comments:
Post a Comment