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.  

No comments:

Post a Comment