'Seldon in Session' #1: 'Intra-Multiality' as the Cause of Dialectic.

[My] Full Title:  ‘Seldon in Session’ Series, blog-entry #1 --


‘Intra-Multiality’ as the Cause of Dialectic.







Dear Reader,

This blog-entry opens a new series, here, of excerpts from Karl Seldon’s “introduction to dialectics” sessions, for new recruits. 
  

In this new series, I will share with you some of the delectable morsels of creative mentation that fly forth from these sessions, after their transcripts have been edited, by the E. D. editors, and cleared for public sharing by the Foundation’s General Council.


I have posted, below, an excerpt of Karl Seldon’s remarks from the edited transcript of a recent such session. 
 
 
Regards,

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Karl Seldon] --

“Regarding ‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’, or ‘synchronic dialectic’ -- i.e., ‘ideo-taxonomic’, ‘ideo-classificatory’, ‘ideo-meta-genealogical’ “trees of [presently-extant] ideas”, arranged in accord with a systematic, simpler to more complex/determinate, more-abstract to more-‘thought-concrete’, “method of presentation” -- rather than saying, as we often do, that “intra-duality is the cause of dialectic”, it would be more ‘«gene»-ral’ to say that “intra-MULTIality is the cause of dialectic”.”

“The «genos» is ‘‘‘pregnant’’’ with its multiple [1 < n in N] «species» [, and n may be greater than 2:  n > 2].”

“[For ‘human-phenomically’ already known «arithmoi»/categories,] the «species» [sub-]categories of a given «genos» category are ‘‘‘implicit’’’ in that «genos» category -- are already present in it ‘‘‘implicitly’’’, tacitly.”

“Indeed, this is part of what so much bothered Porphyry[, and his commentators], in defense of Aristotelian logic, in his «Isagoge», his circa 270 C.E., ultra-abbreviated introduction to the [Aristotelian] «Categoriae», when Porphyry wrote[, and they ‘annoted’,] as follows --

[p. 29]: “For such a genus is a source, in a way, of the species under itself and it seems to contain the whole subordinate multitude.”

-- and again, but, this time, with yet much more bother --

[p. 46]: “Our predecessors also give this definition:  difference is that by which the species exceeds the genus.  Man, for example, possesses more [determinations -- F.E.D.] than animal, namely the rational and. . ..  Now animal is none of these, for, if not, how could the species be different from one another?  Nor does animal possess all the contradictory differences, for [otherwise -- F.E.D.] the same thing would have contradictory characteristics.  They maintain, however, that animal possesses potentially, not actually [an ‘Aristotelianoid’ cop-out if there ever was one! -- F.E.D.], all the differences of the subordinate species.  Nothing then arises from not-being⁴⁴, nor will contradictories exist at the same time in the same thing⁴⁵.”

“⁴⁴...Since the characteristics are contained potentially in the genus, they are not nothing.”

“⁴⁵Ammonias states the difficulty which Porphyry is trying to remove: “If the differences exist in the genera, opposites will exist in the same thing at the same time, as . . . rational and irrational.  This is impossible.  If differences do not exist in the genera, from what source do they arise in the species?”

 

[Porphyry the Phoenician, Isagoge, Translation, Introduction and Notes by Edward W. Warren, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval [sic] Studies [Toronto:  1975]].

-- Thus is this revised -- Aristotelian, ‘re-dianoiac’ -- logic of Plato’s «Categoriae» -- of Plato’s «Arithmoi Eide-tikoi» -- still so much more than “a little bit pregnant” with [systematic] dialectic; thus is it veritably pervaded by “unity of the diverse” [Marx].”