The Pattern of the Dialectic. Example.

Dear Reader,

In a recent F.E.D.-internal ‘multilogue’, Karl Seldon cited the recurring, ever-escalating pattern of ‘The Gödelian Dialectic of the Standard Arithmetics’ --

N ---) W ---) Z ---) Q ---) R ---) C ---) ...

-- as symbolized in the Seldonian _NQ_ ‘meta-model’ of that Dialectic, as illuminative for the pattern of the dialectic in general, [psycho]historical and [meta-]systematic alike; ‘‘‘diachronic’’’, ‘‘‘synchronic’’’, and ‘diachronico-synchronic’ alike, in the following words [transcript edited for public sharing by E.D.; 'D' herein stands for the Greek letter "delta"]:

“Ontological innovation/disruption, critique, counter-example, supplementary opposition -- i.e., ‘exo-duality’ -- symbolized as X ~+~ Dx, and born(e) of prior stage ‘endo-duality’, or ‘intra-duality’, is continually overcome, or assimilated, in its next stage, in the form of the Y component of our symbolization of that next stage’s ontology.  

But new ‘exo-duality’ is also, concurrently with the constitution of Y, re-constituted at the, higher, ontologically-expanded level, and scale, of that same next stage, which, as a whole, we symbolize by Y ~+~ Dy, in which the previous ontological stage/state, X ~+~ Dx, is still wholly <<aufheben>> contained --

Y ~+~ Dy     =    ₍)  X ~+~ Dx  (₎ “of” ₍)  X ~+~ Dx  (₎   =  ₍)  X ~+~ Dx  (₎²   =      

_~()  X ~+~ Dx  (₎    =    ₍)  X ~+~ Dx  (₎   ~+~   D₍)  X ~+~ Dx  (₎.

I have posted, below, a narrative summary of the Seldonian ‘meta-model’ of ‘The Gödelian Dialectic of the Standard Arithmetics’ that, I think, will help to clarify the notation used by Karl Seldon in the excerpt reproduced above.

Regards,

Miguel