Wednesday, July 29, 2015

‘«Gene»-ral’ Solutions to the Seldon Equations, Diachronic & Synchronic, for epoch/step 3.

Dear Readers,

FYI:  A new text+-module, entitled --

‘«Gene»-ral Solutions   

to the Seldon Equations,
Diachronic & Synchronic

for epoch/step 3.

-- has recently been cleared for posting to the  Glossary Page, by the F.E.D. General Council.

I have also posted this text+<<monad>> below, for your convenience. 



Dialectic of the Arithmetics of Dialectic, Second Triad.

Dear Readers,

FYI:  A new, triadic 'dialectogram' module, entitled --

2nd Triad, [Meta-]Systematic Dialectic,  

Seldonian Arithmetics of Dialectics --

1st [full] uni-category;  

2nd contra-category

2nd full uni-category. 

-- has recently been cleared for posting to the  Glossary Page, by the F.E.D. General Council.

I have also posted this text+<<monad>> below, for your convenience, together with the earlier 'dialectogram' which presents the first triad of the Seldonian Meta-Systematic-Dialectical method of presentation of the progression of the [Axioms-]Systems of the Seldonian Dialectical Arithmetics



Monday, July 27, 2015

Karl Seldon’s Sagacious Sayings Series -- #10. '''Dialectical OPPOSITION-in-General'''.

[My] Full TitleKarl Seldons Sagacious Sayings Series, #10 --

'''Dialectical Categorial OPPOSITION-in-<<Gene>>-ral'''.

Dear Readers,

From time to time, I like to share with you some of the gems of insight that leap from out of the ‘‘‘multilogues’’’, among Karl Seldon and other members of the Foundation, and from the transcribed versions, published internally, including of those ‘‘‘multilogues’’’ in which I did not happen to participate, when and if those [edited] transcripts are cleared for public sharing by the Foundations General Council.

I have pasted-in, below, an excerpt of Karl Seldon's remarks from the edited transcript of a recent such ‘‘‘multilogue’’’. 







Background --

F.E.D. Definition of the term '''OPPOSITION-in-<<Gene>>-ral''' --,Dialectic_of_Oppositions,04FEB2014.jpg


F.E.D. Vignette #6, by F.E.D. Public Liaison Chief Aoristos Dyosphainthos, regarding The Dialectic of Oppositions, according to Muses and Seldon --,F.E.D._Vignette_%236,The_Dialectic_of_Oppositions,first_posted_29NOV2012.pdf



[Karl Seldon] --

"The meaning of the word-element [prefix] op includes connotations of “against”.

Thus, an op-posit[e]’ may mean a term as “posited” against one other term, or against multiple other terms.

In common discourse, and, in many particular cases, quite aptly, op-posit-tion’, or op-pos[e]-ition’, may validly imply connotations of ‘‘‘mutual negativity’’’ -- of conflict, mutual antagonism, discord, and/or “diametric” qualitative polarity -- even of ‘‘‘complementary’’’ or of ‘‘‘mutually annihilatory’’’ contradistinction.

However, in its most ‘«gene»-ral’ -- most universal -- meaning, abstracted to the point of including all known cases/instances/«species» of opposition, our term dialectical, supplementary opposition connotes ‘‘‘mutual negativity’’’ merely and only as mutual not-ness’, as mutual distinctiveness, as mutual [ontological] difference. 

As such, it simply means next-ness in a symbolically-represented categorial progression, a progression of symbolized ontological ‘‘‘«arithmoi» of «monads»’’’.

That is, such generalized opposition simply means the consecutive ‘being-next-to-one-another-ness’ of, e.g., a predecessor category-symbol and its successor category-symbol.

It can even mean a non-consecutive ‘being-near-to-one-another-ness’ of a successor category-symbol, in a progression of category-symbols, to one of its predecessor category-symbols, but with one or more intermediary category-symbols intervening -- also present -- in-between them.

So, dialectical, categorial, supplementary oppositeness-in-«gene»-ralis only categorial-symbols’ next-to-ness, or near-to-ness, in a symbolized categorial progression.

It connotes a category-symbol that is synchronically present -- or that diachronically ‘self-presents’, at a certain stage -- as opposite-to/~next-to/ontologically [qualitatively] different from another ontological category-symbol.

Being a categorial op-posit[e]’ means being posited op to (an)other ontological category-symbol(s).

Even categorial-symbolic ‘before-ness’/‘after-ness’ in-«gene»-ral, i.e., including mediate[d], rather than just immediate -- non-consecutive, rather than just consecutive -- ~next-nesses/followings /precedings still fall within the meanings of dialectical, categorial, supplementary oppositeness for us."











Saturday, July 25, 2015

'Intra-Duality' is the CAUSE of DIALECTIC. F.E.D. Vignette # 23, by Karl Seldon.

Dear Readers,

FYI:  The new, 23rd F.E.D. Vignette, entitled --

'Intra-Duality' is the Cause of Dialectic.

-- written by our co-founder, Karl Seldon, has recently been cleared for posting to the  Vignettes Page, by the F.E.D. General Council.

I have also posted this text below, for your convenience. 



F.E.D. Vignette #23 --
Intra-Duality is the Cause of Dialectic.
by Karl Seldon.

 Dialectic is the cause of time.

Intra-Duality is the cause of dialectic: 

At the inception of each/any dialectical sub-universe -- as at the so far deepest known inception, or ‘«arché»-ic ontology’, of the universe, as the totality -- ‘intra-duality’, ‘indivi[sible]-duality’, is that which divulges, by externalizing/manifesting/‘visible-izing’/‘explicitizing’/actualizing it, a formerly only ‘‘‘internal’’’, unmanifest, invisible, implicit, potential ‘supplementary otherness’ to what the ‘«arché-arithmos»’ presented/manifested outwardly.

The ‘intra-duality’ of the «arché» of each dialectical sub-universe, at length, irrupts out of itself, & thereby ‘‘‘adds’’’ to itself, a ‘contra-«arithmos»’; a ‘contra-«arché»’, or a ‘meta-«arché»’ -- a ‘contra-thesis’, or ‘contra-«physis»’, content, of new, previously unprecedented ontology, made up out of supplementary ‘contra-«monads»’, &/or of ‘meta-«monads»’, self-added to the original, ‘«arché-arithmos»’, by self-hybridizing «auto-aufheben» meta-«monad»-ization [qxx] --  

x1 --->  x2  = xx  =x times x = x[x] =  x of x   =  ~x   =  x + Dx   =   

qx + qxx   =  qx + qy.

Then, there being two «arithmoi» present, the two can interact, and combine, to yield yet a third, hybrid, ‘‘‘synthesis’’’ «arithmos», one qualitatively contra[ry]/opposite to both of the earlier two, by a complex-unifying «allo-aufheben» hybrid-«monad»-ization [qyx] [as well as a fourth, re-self-hybridization of the previous self-hybridization [qyy] ] --

[x + y]1 --->  [x + y]2  = [x + y][x + y]  = 

[x + y] times [x + y]  =  

 [x + y][ [x + y] ] = [x + y] of [x + y]    =  

 ~[x + y]   =  

 [x + y + qyx + qyy].

Next, the ‘intra-duality’ of the third «arithmos», & of the fourth «arithmos», as well as their interactions with one another, & with the first two «arithmoi», can give rise to a further self-iteration of this ‘ontological-categorial combinatorics’, of this formation of new -- ‘self-hybrid’ & ‘mere hybrid’ -- «arithmoi», of this ‘onto-dynamasis’ -- in short, of this dialectic.

‘Intra-Duality’ is an empiric, inductive universal.

‘Intra-Duality’, through its consequences, is encountered ubiquitously throughout Nature, including within the most-recent-to-irrupt part of Nature known to us, its most recent outgrowth/‘self-extention’, namely ‘‘‘human Nature’’’.

And that recurrent ‘intra-duality’ is the real driver of the Dialectic of Nature, of cosmological meta-evolution, the real generator of quanto-qualitative change throughout the cosmos.

But how do we explain ‘intra-duality’? 

How do we account for its universality, drawing its myriad & qualitatively diverse «species» into a unified «genos»?

Why does ‘intra-duality’ exist at all?  Why is its existence so ‘‘‘necessary’’’, ineluctable, inescapable?

Why can’t our universe be just Boolean:  x[x] = x -- be just simply reproducing of itself, a linear equilibrium?

Why must it be difficult, nonlinear, contra-Boolean, «aufheben», dialectical -- x[x] ≠ x;  x[x] = x + Dx?

Let us not offer a technical explanation, at this stage. 

Let us rather provide a “divination” of ‘intra-duality’, in the sense of ‘‘‘discovering or conjecturing things about something obscure by means of intuitive perception, or insight’’’.

Our best “divination” of the answer to the questions put forward above is close to Hegel’s answer, some 200 years old.

Finite things ‘‘‘contain’’’ their own non-being, their own ‘‘‘self-negation’’’, their own ‘‘‘self-negativity’’’, their own not-ness, within themselves, from their birth, and as an inalienable part of themselves.

Their is-ness also contains their is-not-ness.

The moment that their life begins, is the moment that their death also begins.

Their agency/‘subject-ness’, and their ‘object-ness’, form two sides of their one ‘‘‘dialectical eventity’’’ -- two sides that do not ‘co-in-[c][s]ide’/‘‘‘agree’’’.

Their ‘subject-ness’, their ‘subject-side’, acting upon their ‘object-ness’, their ‘object-side’, does not simply reproduce ‘‘‘them’’’, the ‘‘‘wholeness’’’, the ‘‘‘one-ness’’’, of their two sides, a la Boole’s “fundamental law”, x[x] = x2 = x.

On the contrary, their ‘subject-aspect’, acting upon their ‘object-aspect’, typically expandedly reproduces them, in their ‘‘‘wholeness’’’, yes, but together with an increment of otherness -- together with a ‘supplementary opposite’ “gain” --  

x[x] = x2 = x + Dx.

If we consider the “being” that is the universe as a whole in these terms, then the non-self/non-being ‘‘‘contained’’’ in/by such a being might be construed ‘‘‘synchronically’’’, as meaning that it ‘‘‘contains’’’ the space-content presently outside of itself; that that outside somehow “re-enters” that being’s/[it]self’s inside.

But when it comes to the cosmos as totality, which, by definition, has no outside, this supposed ‘‘‘outer’’’, ‘‘‘synchronic’’’ source of ‘intra-duality’, by definition, does not exist, unless we mean by it non-existence itself/in-general:  a kind of abstract, absolute nothingness as the non-existence that is [the] outside [of] the universe, i.e., the outside of everything.

A more apt rendering sees that internal otherness, or ‘self-antithesis’, which such a being/‘‘‘[it]self’’’ presently, hiddenly ‘‘‘contains’’’, as a ‘‘‘diachronic’’’, temporal, historical matter.

Such a rendering sees intra-duality’ in terms of ‘‘‘seeds’’’; in terms of a present, ‘‘‘occult’’’ potential, a potential for future, actual, exoteric expression of ‘supplementary otherness’; in terms of a present potential to produce future, ‘supplementary opposition’; in terms of a present potential for future new ontology, for future ‘supplementary being’,  new being, supplementary to this present ‘‘‘[it]self’’’/being, that is, at present, yet to be born[e], yet to irrupt, ‘‘‘out’’’ from the ‘‘‘in’’’[side] of this present ‘‘‘[it]self’’’/being.