‘SYNchronicality’ is Really
‘MICRO-DIAchronicality’.
Dear
Reader,
We maintain a steadfast qualitative, oppositional distinction, in our ‘Dialectic of the Dialectic Itself’,
between ‘Synchronic Dialectics’ and
‘Diachronic Dialectics’ -- i.e., respectively,
between ‘‘‘Systematic Dialectics’’’ as a dialectical ‘‘‘Method of comprehending Presentation’’’ of a given present [sub-]totality or Domain, and ‘‘‘Historical Dialectics’’’ as a
dialectical modeling of ‘Nature-al’
history,
i.e., of the overall
‘Dialectic of Nature’, or of some historically-specific epoch or epochs thereof. Such epochs include
that most recent epoch of ‘Nature-al’
history that
is known to us -- the ‘Nature-al’
history of human Nature, of human-social
evolution and of human-social
‘meta-evolution’;
of the human progress of the growth of the “social forces of production”,
and the ‘intergenerate’
historical development of the “social relations of production”,
of the ‘intergenerate’ development of ‘‘‘the human Genome’’’ and of ‘the human
Phenome’, on planet Earth, and, with increasing likelihood, given our recent observations of
the ubiquity
of exo-solar
planets,
elsewhere as well.
Indeed, we maintain a steadfast qualitative, ideo-ontological distinction between the “synchronic” and the “diachronic”
in general.
But
this does not mean
that we hold these opposites as forming some kind of UNdialectical “radical
dualism”.
‘Diachronic-ness’
-- ‘diachronicality’ -- is exceptionless: ‘There is only time’ [in the concrete, all-encompassing
sense by which we intend the term ‘‘‘time’’’.].
Therefore,
‘synchronic-ness’
-- ‘synchronicality’ -- is really only ‘micro- diachronicality’.
‘‘‘Presents’’’ are, in retrospect, and as finitary -- and not
as non-existent,
i.e., not as “infinitesimal” -- pasts; segments of ‘‘‘the Past’’’. But they are the relatively shorter segments of ‘‘‘the Past’’’ -- ¿even
the shortest
possible such segments? -- contiguous ‘micro-segments’
of past
time,
of ‘Nature-al’
history.
The immanent
critique, or, i.e., the according-to-self critique,
of the category
of ‘synchronicality’, call it s, net-yields the category of ‘diachronicality’, call it d, as the positive fruition of that self critique --
s ---) s(s) = ~(s) = s2 = s + delta(s) = qs + qss = s + d.
The units
of the category
of ‘diachronicality’ are «aufheben» ‘meta-unit-izations’
of the units
of the category
of ‘synchronicality’.
Each
unit of the category/«arithmos» named ‘diachronicality’ is made up out of a concretely, ‘contentally’ heterogeneous multiplicity of contiguous units of the category named ‘synchronicality’. I.e., each is made up out of contiguous, relatively ‘‘‘micro’’’ segments of ‘‘‘time’’’, that are, at least ‘‘‘fractionally’’’, qualitatively different from one another,
in terms of their
ontological content, given the continually, cumulatively ‘‘‘fractionally’’’ incrementing character of the ontological categories that
are emergent
in any epoch of ‘‘‘Nature-al history’’’. These, relatively ‘‘‘micro’’’,
units
of concrete
‘‘‘time’’’
are former ‘‘‘presents’’’ that have become ‘‘‘pasts’’’, and, thereby, that have become parts of that ‘‘‘macro’’’ past that is cosmological ‘‘‘Nature-al history’’’.
There is thus
no such thing as an absolute -- ‘‘‘time-less’’’
-- ‘synchronicality’.
Per
our alternative solution of the qds dialectical-algebraic
unknown in the equation --
d x s = qd x qs = qs + qd + qds
-- which involves ascribing ‘synchronicality’ to those historical periods of apparent “stability”; of apparently cyclical-only,
unprogressive change, and ascribing ‘diachronicality’ to historical periods of openly sudden, irruptive, rapid, upward-leap-like, ontologically-revolutionary
change -- the ‘‘‘complex unity’’’ of the former two, the term qds above
-- the category
of ‘diachronico-synchronicality’ -- is about
the emerging ‘helical-vortical time’ meme. Per that meme, ‘long presents’ -- protracted,
‘prolongedly’ present-like
periods
of apparently
[limit-]cyclical,
circular stability in a given ‘meta-state’
-- have an often unnoticed cumulative dimension. Thereby, beyond a
critical threshold in such ‘cumulation’, the sudden, revolutionary, ‘vertical
change’, new-level/scale-[b]reaching’
component of
this ‘helical-vortical’
pattern of change irrupts again. It ‘“punctuates’’’
the earlier ‘‘‘equilibrium’’’, via a ‘‘‘singularity’’’-like
leap to a new, higher level of apparent ‘cyclicality’, i.e., to a new apparent ‘‘‘dynamic equilibrium’’’. This third
category thus categorizes how a slowly and apparently only quantitatively-changing evolutionary “cycle” builds to the critical point of a ‘metafinite singularity’ -- of a qualitative-change-manifesting,
ontological leap between the thereby former level/scale of self-reproduction,
and its ‘‘‘lawful’’’ successor level/scale of apparent new ‘‘‘cyclical equilibrium’’’, of higher, relatively transcendent self-reproduction,
only to, once again, after sufficient time and new ‘cumulation’ have ensued, leap upward yet again . . ..
.
FYI: Much of the work
of Karl Seldon, and of his collaborators, including work by “yours truly”, is
available for free-of-charge download via --
Regards,
Miguel Detonacciones,
Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica
[F.E.D.],
Officer, F.E.D.
Office of Public Liaison
No comments:
Post a Comment