A Seminal Motif that is Mostly Still Missing from ‘‘‘The Modern Mentality’’’ as a Conscious Conceptual Resource.
Dear Reader,
There is a key conceptual
insight and resource, crucial for comprehending our world -- our universe, our
cosmos -- to the level already
latent in the
data of modern science, that the prevailing
-- capitalist --
«mentalité»
still hides from itself.
That concept is that of what we
call ‘onto-dynamasis’, which is about the ‘dynamicity’ of the actual ontology
of our cosmos as a whole.
Ontology is dynamical, and, for
the most part, cumulatively growing. Our
cosmos is continually adding new
“kinds” -- new, previously unprecedented categories of “being”, or, better,
of “becoming” -- to itself.
The ontological content referenced
by old, existing ontological categories continually interacts and, crucially,
also self-interacts, in ways that continually irrupt new
ontological content -- content that needs to be referenced by new,
previously-unprecedented names and categories.
Our cosmos is a veritable cornucopia of the
continual genesis of new ontology. It is an engine of
neo-ontological creativity.
That ‘onto-dynamical’ creativity applies also
to we humans as part of that cosmos. And the ontological creativity of the human part of Nature includes a new
‘onto-dynamical’ dimension, that of ‘ideo-onto-dynamasis’, as well as new kinds
within the old dimension of ‘physio-onto-dynamasis’, or of ‘«physis»- onto-dynamasis’, and also includes, especially,
those parts of the human
[sub-]creation that involve the correlated co-creation of new ‘ideo-ontology’
together with new
‘physio-ontology’.
This view of ontology is 'ontologically pluralistic' with
temporally-increasing ontological plurality, in opposition to
'ontologically reductionist' monisms, dualisms, 'triadisms', etc., but
is also 'meta-genealogical', or 'lineage-ic', tracing back to original,
singular, 'ultimate ancestor' ontological categories, or ultimate arche'
categories, for the cosmos as a whole -- the universe as ultimate
totality -- and for each of the Domains which constitute its 'sub-totalities', or 'sub-universes'.
However, when it comes to
‘quanto-dynamics’, that kind of dynamical paradigm pervades the modern
worldview.
In its elaborated expressions,
this pervasion includes the state-space representation of “evolution”, in which
a coordinates point, representing the total state of a given system, moves in a
“space” formed by a fixed number of mutually-perpendicular dimensions and axes,
each one representing and measuring, quantitatively, a [qualitatively]
different “vital sign”, or “state-variable”, of that system, thus constituting
the “coordinates” of that system’s ‘state-point’ in its “state-space”. The variation with time of the quantitative
values of these “vital signs” thus traces out a unified trajectory in that “space”. [“Total”-] differential equations, describing
the “law” of motion of the given system, can then be solved by well-known
methods [if those equations are “linear”, or sufficiently close to
“linearity”], yielding a solution-function that one can use to deterministically
compute the momentaneous state of that system for any moment, i.e., for any
value of the “Real”-number
time parameter.
But such a state-space is a fixed space, with a fixed dimensionality, and a fixed spectrum of system qualities
or system attributes, represented by the state-variables and their axes. There is no provision for ‘qualo-dynamics’ --
for ‘onto-dynamasis’; for the emergence or irruption of new system ontology
with its new system qualities, its new system attributes -- should the “evolution”
of a given system arise to the point of [ontological, qualitative] revolution,
or ‘‘‘meta-evolution’’’.
For example, if a system
evolves to a “singularity” -- e.g., if the solution-function computes, starting
at a specific, finite value of the time parameter, a state involving a division
by zero -- there is no provision, in the contemporary canon of state-space
analysis, to compute a ‘change of space’ at and after such a point of
“singularity”, where the values of one or more of the old state-variables
“explode” to “infinity”.
By a ‘change of “[state-]space”
’, we mean the as-if irruption, as if from the “origin” of that state-space, of
one or more new state-variable dimensions and axes, thus changing the
dimensionality of that state-space, and measuring the new, “emergent” or ‘irruptant’
qualities or attributes that are signified, however obliquely, by the very
division by zero that creates the “singularity”. Nor is there provision, in the contemporary
canon, for one or more of the old state-variable dimensions and axes to as-if collapse
back into that “origin”; to wither away or undergo dissolution, nor for some
former control parameter space axes to become new state-variable state-space axes,
nor for some former state-variable state-space axes to transfer to new axes in
the control parameter space. The Seldonian N Q_
arithmetic for dialectic is
axiomatically designed to facilitate its users in conducting ‘onto-dynamical’
computations, not at
the state-space/control-parameter-space level, but at the much simpler,
ontological-categorial level.
Until the cosmological ubiquity of the ‘qualitative
dynamism’ of self-changing, self-expanding ontology -- and the ubiety and localization of the
latter as the
“universal labor” of human Nature -- becomes more
widely grasped within the advancing ‘human Phenome’,
Terran humanity will go on not noticing key discoveries, and,
hence, key opportunities, that are already extant
in the data of
the modern sciences, but not yet cognized as such.
For more information regarding
these Seldonian
insights,
please see --
For ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian
insights -- specimens
of ‘dialectical art’ -- see:
¡ENJOY!
Regards,
Miguel Detonacciones,
Member, Foundation Encyclopedia
Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D.
Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D.
Office of Public Liaison.
No comments:
Post a Comment