F.E.D. Dialectics: October 2025

Thursday, October 02, 2025

The DIALECTIC of Theisms versus ‘a-Theisms’. GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

The

DIALECTIC

Theisms

versus

‘a-Theisms’.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Dear Reader,

A Theist says: “I absolutely know that God absolutely exists.”

An Atheist says: “I absolutely know that God absolutely DOES NOT exist.”

An aGnostic says, instead:

“I am not a Theist and also not an Atheist.”

“I do not know, and can not prove that something fitting the prevailing definition of “God” actually exists.”

“I do not know, and can not prove that nothing fitting the prevailing definition of “God” actually exists.”

“It would therefore be DISHONEST for me to assert that I know either that “God” exists, or that “God” does not exist.”

“What I can HONESTLY assert is this: I do not know whether or not “God” exists or does not exist.”

It seems to me that many who claim to know that their “God” exists are deliberately lying, seeking the false fame, POWER and MONEY that such claims can bring; that the true, twin “gods” that these claimants “worship” are really POWER and MONEY. Often such claimants also seem to be interested in sexually exploiting their followers, via the false THEOCRATIC POWER that they may gain when they falsely claim to know their “God”.

It seems to me that many who claim to know that no “God” or “gods” exist are also lying; falsely claiming that they possess absolute proof of such claimed “knowledge”.

A person who adheres to a theistic religion solely on the basis of faith; of belief – without claiming to possess any proof of the existence of their God – but, instead, on the basis of tradition, upbringing, conviction via inspiration from religious stories and writings, etc., can be, it seems to me, an honest person, as long as they do not attempt or support the coercive conversion of non-believers, or the denial of political and human rights to non-believers.

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

www.dialectics.info

and

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

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

¡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.

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

SOLUTION –

‘Equitist Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’;

BOOK:

MARX’S MISSING BLUEPRINTS

Free-of-Charge Download of Book PDF –

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications.html

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/Applications_files/Edition%201.,%20DPCAIT_,_Part_1_,_%27THE_MISSING_BLUEPRINTS%27_,_begun_22JUL2022_Last_Updated_08AUG2023.pdf

Hardcover Book Order –

http://www.dialectics.info/dialectics/F.E.D._Press.html

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

Wednesday, October 01, 2025

Socrates’s Legacy: Dialogue, i.e., DIALECTIC, Rules the Modern World.

Socrates’s Legacy:

Dialogue,

i.e.,

DIALECTIC,

Rules

the

Modern World.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Dear Reader,

Negotiation is dialogue, a mutual seeking of synthesis/agreement among two (or more) parties with otherwise/priorly [partially] contending interests.

Such agreements can be win-win.

Coercion and violence – attempted physical “abstract negation” [Hegel] of one party by the other party – is lose-lose, even if one party devastates and dominates the other part(y)(ies), and, in the end, tends to “mutually-assured destruction”.

The real “art of the deal” is a dialectical art.

‘Uni-Categories’ made of contractual points of agreement as their units – whether such agreements are in writing, or verbal, with but a handshake – may exist also for contentions of multiple parties, of multiplicity > 2.

Dialectical-algebraically, and generically, in the _NQ arithmetic/algebra for modeling dialectical processes, q₃ stands for the generic ‘uni-category’ for 2-party [dis-] agreements, “between” parties q₁ and q₂; q₇ stands for the generic ‘full uni-category’ for 3-party negotiations; q₁₅ for 4-party negotiations, and, in general, q₍₂_n_–₁₎ for n-party negotiations.

For the generic agreement ‘uni-categories’ beyond q₃, there are, potentially, ‘partial uni-category’ steps of incremental, partial ‘sub-agreements’, along the way to the full contractual settlement of the multi-party contentions.