Monday, September 28, 2020

‘Dialectical Equations’ -- E.D. Definition.

 

 

 

Dialectical Equations -- E.D. Definition.



 

Dear Reader,

 

The text-image posted below sets forth our  Encyclopedia Dialectica definition of our category of dialectical equations.

 

 

Please post your comments on that article below!


 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, please see --

 

http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/

 

and

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

Regards,


Miguel Detonacciones,

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

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday, September 17, 2020

Dialogue with a Reader.










 Dialogue with a Reader.







Dear Reader,



It is my pleasure to share with you a dialogue that I have been enjoying with a skeptical and insightful guest of the dialectics web site.





My Reply to Readers Letter, Below: 


Hello!

Thank you for your reply!

....

Dialectic is yes, certainly, but only in part, as we see it, about humans coming to comprehend, ever more concretely, the development of human “natural languages” -- of both ‘‘‘generalist’’’ and specialist, or “technical”, human languages.

And, as we see it, yes, dialectic is also about humans coming to understand other human-social structures as well.

Indeed, as we see it, dialectic is, in part, about humans coming to comprehend the total ‘‘‘human phenome’’’ -- the entire non-chromosomal inheritance, the total ‘‘‘memes pool’’’, of human-social “cultures”.

[Indeed, our second book, A Dialectical Theory of Everything, volume 2, focuses on the
dialectics of ‘‘‘the human phenome’’’].

As such, dialectics is, in part, about ‘ideo-ontology’, and about ‘ideo-physio-ontology’ -- about the ‘ideo-meta-genealogy’ of human ideas, of the ‘dialectical speciation’ of human ideation.

But, as we see it, ‘ideation’ is an almost uniquely human capability and activity.

Whence, we have to ask you, comes your idea that categories -- even “empty categories” -- somehow exist somehow apart from human minds, from human brains, from collective, social networks of inter-communicating human beings; from human cultures?

Where do such categories exist, and of what are they composed?

Do you posit that every possible idea and category already exists, in some intangible, immutable, absolutely statical transcendental substance, from eternity, and completely apart from human minds and human societies?

If so, we would see that as a contra-empirical, contra-scientific, mystical Platonism -- mathematical and more -- of the grossest kind; as an ideology with which you are afflicting your own cognition.

It is not our fault if both the speciation of humans-produced ideas/categories, and the speciation of pre-human and extra-human Nature at all known scales, as well as the speciation of human ‘ideo-physio-ontology’, all exhibit the, thus universal, aufheben processes and relations of ‘meta-monad-ization’, of ‘meta-unit-ization’, of ‘meta-holon-ization’. It is not our fault. It is an observable, empirical fact for all of these three aspects of Nature.

Nature as a whole is ‘aufheben-ative’. Therefore, Nature as a whole is dialectical.

Our human Nature is a part of Nature. Our human Nature has grown out of pre-human Nature. Is it, given those two facts, such a surprise that the aufheben, dialectical, universal architectonic of Nature also applies to the human part of Nature?

We see, when we look at Nature, not just the reductive [and actually idealist] abstraction “Matter”.

The cosmos that we see is ‘ontologically combinatoric’.

To us, atoms, and their ionized nuclei, are different than free-roaming protons, neutrons, and electrons. Atoms constitute a different kind of being, that was, once, in the deep past history of our cosmos, a brand new kind of being, brand new ontology, generated by a ‘physio-onto-dynamasis’, from, and by the agency of, pre-atomic “particles”, e.g., by the initial, ‘‘‘cosmological nucleosynthesis’’’, as well as by later, and still ongoing, “stellar nucleosynthesis”, both kinds of nucleosynthesis representing special cases of aufheben ‘meta-unit-ization’.

The molecules in the “molecular clouds” from which new stars and, later, new planets were born -- and still are being born -- were once only “atomic clouds”.

Those “atomic clouds” transformed themselves, as the variety and density of higher atomic species increased, due to the explosively diffused enrichment of the “interstellar medium”, which gives birth to these “clouds”, by the products of advanced stellar nucleosynthesis.

This self-transformation of atoms into molecules was a cosmological aufheben process, a process of aufheben ‘meta-unit-ization’, by which some of the atom units transformed themselves into higher, molecule units, each molecule unit being a ‘meta-unit’ relative to atoms as units, each molecule unit being made up out of a typically heterogeneous multiplicity of atom units.

If you reduce, in your mind, atoms to “just” protons, neutrons, and electrons; if you reduce, in your mind, molecules to “just” atoms; if you reduce, in your mind, “prokaryotic” or ‘‘‘pre-eukaryotic’’’ living cells to “just” molecules -- and if you reduce all of these different kinds of things to just “quarks” and “gluons”, etc., then that is a choice that you are making, and you have a right to make that choice.

But we see “pre-atomic particles”, “atoms”, “molecules”, and ‘‘‘pre-eukaryotic’’’ living cells as prevailing names for four different kinds of being, for four ontological categories for four qualitatively-different kinds of units; for four successive, progressional kinds of being that are related ‘meta-genealogically’, and such that each produces its successor by a dialectical process, a process of aufheben, ‘meta-unit-izing’ combinatorics.

Hence we see these four ontological categories as characterizing four “epochs” in a cosmological-ontological dialectic of natural history -- in a singular ‘dialectic of Nature’.

As we see it -- “everything changes.” -- is a true, if still very abstract, summary statement about our experienced actuality.

The statement -- ‘each well-formulated ‘‘‘eventity’’’ changes itself as well as being changed by the impacts upon it of other ‘‘‘eventities’’’.’ -- is a somewhat less abstract, and even truer summary statement.

Indeed, as you say, the truth-about-human-experience of the summary statement -- “everything changes.” -- implies that this humans-formulated statement too must change, since this statement itself is a -- human, mental kind of -- “thing”; a part of, "every", "thing".

It should change, in our opinions, into a more concrete statement, such as -- each well-formulated ‘‘‘eventity’’’ changes itself as well as being changed by the impacts upon it of other ‘‘‘eventities’’’, and as well as changing other ‘‘‘eventities’’’ with which it interacts.’

But it must mean, in our view, that the kinds of change also change, along with “everything changing” -- along with the changing of everything else.

The statement -- “everything changes.” -- also implies, in our view, that ‘change changes’.

That is, the kind of change in which some pre-atomic “particles” change themselves into atoms is a different species of change from the kind of change in which some atoms change themselves into molecules.

Likewise, the kind of change in which some molecules change themselves into ‘‘‘pre-eukaryotic living cells’’’ is a different species of change from the kind of change in which some atoms change themselves into molecules. The specifics of change, well, themselves change themselves, but the generics of change persist.

As “change” goes on, new species of change, new kinds of change, manifest. But all of these qualitatively, ontologically different species of change that we just noted above involve the general features of ‘aufheben meta-unit-ization’. Hence they all inhere in the same genos of dialectic.

The kinds of change manifested in the history of change, in the history of Nature, in natural history, grow, change, or diversify. But all of these kinds of deep, qualitative, ontological change inhere in the ‘super-category’ of dialectic; of the, singular, ‘dialectic of Nature’.

We do not see that the chain of ontological, aufheben, dialectical self-transformations in Nature has ever “split” into “two or more irreconcilable strands”.

We do not see that ‘‘‘radical dualisms’’’ exist, or persist, in nature.

Synthesis, hybridization, complex unification eventually arises, though the opposite kinds of units that later become synthesized or hybridized typically still continue to ‘‘‘evolutely’’’ persist, even after the higher unit[ie]s that constitute their ‘‘‘hybrids’’’, dialectical “syntheses”, or ‘‘complex unit[ie]s’’’ have combinatorically manifested.

We see the progression of our cosmos as a whole, and within each of its included “Domains”, as being more ‘‘‘evolute’’’ than ‘‘‘convolute’’’, and, as a whole, as being ‘covolute’, ‘covoluteness’ being our name for the dialectical synthesis of ‘convoluteness’ and ‘evoluteness’.

Dialogically yours,

Miguel




Letter from a Guest of the dialectics website:


Hi, thanks for the response. Right now I can only give a brief response ... .

As of writing, my impression is that dialectics is a practice revolving around about us understanding the development of 'natural language' (aka everyday language which most people use) and technical language as well as other human social structures, which we are responsible for given that we are the only reason-capable forces who shape our societies and our resources (including our bodies).

On the other hand, from what I've read, you have made it a theory about the development of the entire universe.


So far I have two main questions about this.

First, I don't understand qualitative 'self critique'.

Is it merely to do with the bunching together of similar things giving rise to a new kind of order or is it something else?

If so I'm not entirely sure how it's a 'different kind of being', and if it really is, then surely it must already be in existence as a category even if it is 'empty', though to me that sounds like the kind of teleology which we should be dispensing with or tell us nothing at all because infinite such categories exist, and we end up back in the modern ideology with its familiar anthropomorphisations and other such reifications.


The other question is about change.  

If everything changes, the truth of the statement 'everything changes' is also set to change, which would yield a formal contradiction -- what happens then?

Is there another kind of change?

What form could it take, if it takes one at all?

Are the forms already linked with how we describe and understand them, so that we end up in a situation similar to Marx where we know we can't get away with describing whole economies without also focusing on their parts (because that amounts to using abstractions)?

My additional question:  are there forks in the dialectic where the chain splits into two or more irreconcilable strands or do we get every single combination of qualities with some being empty?

Thanks for responding to me earlier and I hope to hear from you again.











For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, please see --


and






For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:







¡ENJOY!








Regards,



Miguel Detonacciones,

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.







Please post your comments on this blog-entry below!






















Monday, September 14, 2020

‘Chardinian Ordinality’ and ‘Peanic Ordinality’ -- Part 07: ‘The Seldon Files’ Series.










Chardinian OrdinalityandPeanic Ordinality-- Part 07:  The Seldon Files Series.







Dear Reader,



It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an officer of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] Office of Public Liaison, and as a voting member of F.E.D., to share, with you, from time to time, as they are approved for public release by the F.E.D. General Council, key excerpts from the internal writings, and from the internal sayings, of our co-founder, Karl Seldon.

The seventh release in this new such series is posted below [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, by the editors of the F.E.D. Special Council for the Encyclopedia, to the direct transcript of our co-founder’s discourse].

In this 7th installment, Seldon describes the correspondence between [demystified] Chardinian ordinality -- the order of appearance of the various kinds of being in the history of our cosmos -- and Peanic ordinality -- the ordinality prescribed by the first four, “first order logic Peano Postulates for Natural Number, which is so crucial to the efficacy of the Seldonian First Arithmetic for Dialectic in mathematically modeling historical dialectic, including the cosmological, singular, historical dialectic of Nature itself.











Seldon --

[demystified] ‘Chardinian ordinality’ -- the ‘ordinality’ of the temporal, historical, “order of appearance” of new ontology -- of new kinds of being -- in the history of our universe, can be modeled, mathematically, using ‘Peanic ordinality’.”


“The latter is the form of order represented by the succession of the, “first order” logic, Peano “natural numbers”.”


“But such modeling requires a specific, qualo-Peanic’, “non-standard” model of the first four, “first order” Peano Postulates, forming a, “non-standard”, “natural” arithmetic, one whose algebra forms a contra-Boolean’ algebraic logic.


“The ineluctable logical co-existence of such “non-standard” models, with the “standard” model, had been implicated, albeit non-constructively, by three of the deepest theorems in the history of mathematical logic... .”


“The models that arise from that qualo-Peanic’ mapping of ‘Chardinian order’ turn out to be interpretable as “purely”-qualitative, “purely” ontological-categorial models of historical dialectic, including of the historical dialectic of the self-iterating self-«aufheben» self-movement which constitutes our cosmos, i.e., by which our cosmos constructs itself: the, singular, ‘dialectic of Nature’.











For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, please see --


and






For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:







¡ENJOY!








Regards,



Miguel Detonacciones,

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.







Please post your comments on this blog-entry below!























Friday, September 11, 2020

‘Dialecticity’ as ‘Karmicity’ Demystified -- Part 06: ‘The Seldon Files’ Series.










DialecticityasKarmicityDemystified -- Part 06:  The Seldon Files Series.







Dear Reader,



It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an officer of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] Office of Public Liaison, and as a voting member of F.E.D., to share, with you, from time to time, as they are approved for public release by the F.E.D. General Council, key excerpts from the internal writings, and from the internal sayings, of our co-founder, Karl Seldon.

The sixth release in this new such series is posted below [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, by the editors of the F.E.D. Special Council for the Encyclopedia, to the direct transcript of our co-founder’s discourse].

In this 6th installment, Seldon describes that aspect of his theory of dialectic which is a demystification of the ancient religious dogma of karma, in terms of the dyadic Seldon function mathematical model of dialectic.











Seldon --

Just as Marx’s theory resembles Hegel’s theory, but minus the mysticism, so F.E.D. theory resembles the ancient religious doctrines of “the law of karma”, as a “law of [“Spirit-permeated”] Nature, but minus the mysticism.”


“Thus, for example, per the ‘dyadic dialectic function’ -- the ‘dyadic self-«aufheben» function’ -- if x represents the selected «arché» ontological ‘‘‘eventity’’’ for a given Domain within our cosmos, or for the cosmos as a whole, or, for either case, even if x represents the qualitative superposition of a ‘meta-genealogical’ multiplicity of ontological ‘‘‘eventities’’’, the ‘dyadic function’ holds that --

x = x1 ---> x2 

-- that is, that, in or as time, x inexorably goes to or becomes x “squared”.”


“That is, the ontological kind of activity or of action that x represents, becomes, in or as time, the application of that activity to itself; the self-application of operation x; the self-interaction of action x; the ‘‘‘self-reflexion’’’ of x, x’s bending back upon itself; the ‘self-refluxion’ of x, the flowing back to self of the ontological kind of activity that x stands for; and also the ‘self-involution’ of the x ‘‘‘eventity’’’.”


“Mathematically, algebraically [in accord with the axioms of the NQ arithmetic that undergirds this algebra], the contra-Boolean’ expression

x = x1 ---> x2 

means that linearity goes to nonlinearity, that linear x, or x1, inexorably goes to/becomes ‘quadratically’ nonlinear x, i.e., x2.”


“The “karma”, or ‘karmic mechanics’ [‘karmic dynamics’] -- in a word, the quality of ‘karmicity’ -- of any such ‘‘‘eventity’’’, x, is that, to exist/enact-itself entails, later, to receive itself back, to meet itself, to confront itself, to transform itself by its own kind of action acting upon itself, although the/any mediation of this ‘self-refluxion’ by the non-x is elided in this ‘‘‘karmic’’’ algebra.” 


“For x to operate upon the rest of the universe is also, inescapably, for x to operate upon the whole universe, itself included, and thus, a little later, to operate upon itself as well as upon the rest of the universe.”


“This is not some kind of mystical equilibrium doctrine of eternal stasis, or of some temporally and temporarily delayed restoration of immutability.  The activity x2 does not restore the pre-x1 state of the Domain, or of the cosmos as a whole, as the totality.”


“The ‘karmicity’ of each x1 means that the ontology of the Domain in which x1 inheres, or of the cosmos as a whole, continually expands itself, in or as time.”


“That is, x1 ---> x2, and --

x2 = x1 + Delta_x1  |-=   x1 + y1

-- is such that y1 is not less than x1, and y1 is not equal to x1, and y1 is not greater than x1, i.e., is such that y1 is qualitatively, ontologically unequal to x1.”


“The other key to this theory is to recognize that  
 x1 ---> x2 is a self-«aufheben» operation, or self-«aufheben» process -- that is, a dialectical process -- enacted upon x by x itself; a process of x ‘meta-genealogically’ giving birth to y as x’s ‘supplementary opposite’, or ‘antithesis-eventity’; of the endo-duality’ of x itself expressing itself, at length, as the exo-duality’ of y versus x.”


“That is, the units of the ontological ‘‘‘eventity’’’/category/«arithmos» that y represents are ‘aufhebenations’ -- ‘meta-unit-izations’ -- of some of the former units of x.”


“As a ‘‘‘law of Nature’’’, i.e., as a human, linguistic description of Nature, diachronically, at every [qualo-fractal’] scale and in every past epoch of Nature’s history that we have so far observed/reconstructed, and also, when interpreted relationally, more-synchronically

x1 ---> x2  |-=   x1 + y1 

as a description of Nature’s present constitution or ‘content-structure’, this expression works, and it also works for our expectations/predictions of the future of Nature, and of the future of Terran humanity/human Nature within and as part of Nature as a whole, of Nature as the totality.











For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, please see --


and






For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of dialectical art -- see:







¡ENJOY!








Regards,



Miguel Detonacciones,

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.],
Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison,
Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.







Please post your comments on this blog-entry below!