Dialogue with a Reader: On ‘‘‘Self-INVOLUTION’’’ and the Dialectic of Nature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dialogue with a Reader:

On ‘‘‘Self-INVOLUTION’’’ and the Dialectic of Nature.

 

 

 

Reader: “…Could you explain how you are using the term “self-involution” —  what you mean by this, and how you are using this term in conjunction with the term “aufheben”?”

 

“I know what the latter means, but I am not clear about “self-involution” — and whether it is necessary or redundant when conjoined to “aufheben”.” 

“So you may be using this term in a technical sense with which I am not acquainted.” 

 

“Also I am wondering about how you are characterizing evolutionary processes, that is, what is the mechanism by which things (cells, plants, animals, etc.) evolve.”

 

“I am suspicious of the use of the terms “aufheben” and “self-involution” in this regard — note, I said suspicious, not rejecting.”

 

“I can explain my suspicions if and when you provide a little more detail.”

 

“So maybe along with defining “self-involution” you could explain how it applies to the examples you gave in our previous correspondence --

 

1.  “atoms are the neo-ontological product of our stipulated first self-«aufheben» self-involution, that of “particles”;”

2.  “molecules are the neo-ontological product of our modeled second self-«aufheben» self-involution, that of atoms;”

3.  “prokaryotic living cells are the neo-ontological product of our modeled 3rd self-«aufheben» self-involution, that of molecules [the leap from molecules to living cells is a big one, that could be sub-divided into mere ‘‘‘mers’’’, “poly-mers”; ‘poly-poly-mers’, etc., once more has been learned about pre-biological molecular evolution];”

4.  “eukaryotic living cells are the neo-ontological product of the 4th self-«aufheben» self-involution, that of the prokaryotes;”

5.  “asocial ‘multi-eukaryotic-cellular organisms’ are the neo-ontological product of the 5th self-«aufheben» self-involution, that of the eukaryotes;”

6.  “social organisms – ‘multi-eukaryotic-cellular’ “social animals” [social “meta-zoa”], and ‘multi-eukaryotic-cellular’ ‘social plants’ [social “meta-phyta”] are the neo-ontological products of the 6th self-«aufheben» self-involution, that of the asocial ‘meta-biota’;”

7.  “human, ‘meta-social’ societies are the neo-ontological product of the 7th self-«aufheben» self-involution, that of merely-social [meta^0-social] organisms – that of merely-social, proto-languages-based “meta-zoa” and “meta-phyta”.

 

If possible, please try to make your explanations understandable to an air-head like myself.”

 

 

 

My reply: First off, you are not an “air-head”, but someone who is concerned with, and who thinks about, the major issues facing Terran humanity as a whole – not someone who is totally and obsessively concerned with only the pettiest details of “personal” creature comforts, etc., etc.

That, of course, does not mean that you and I agree about the optimal resolution of those major issues.

 

I have formatted my reply to your query as a series of JPG image-pages, posted below, so that I can incorporate original illustrative images and ideographical symbols where needed.

 

¡Enjoy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

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

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding the Seldonian insights, please see –

www.dialectics.info

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights – specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see:

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are hereby cordially invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!