Let me draw your attention to the following:

<http://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Boot-Journeyman-Cobbler-Philosophy/dp/1933237139\
/>

Cheers!

Eric

Eric v.d. Luft, Ph.D., M.L.S.
Author of Die at the Right Time! A Subjective Cultural History of the
American Sixties
<www.gegensatzpress.com/datrt.html>

Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,

Partly Pro-, and Partly Also Contra-, Hegel's Theory of the [Capitalist] State:

HYPOTHESIS: The Self-Degeneration of Competitive, Representative-Democratic
Capitalism into
Plutocratic, Totalitarian, Multi-Genocidal State Capitalism -- or 'Government
Capitalism' -- is a "Law Of Nature".

We often fail to think of human-social development as something that falls under
the "Laws of Nature" such as our science struggles to discern.

However, if we simply realize that humanity is a further -- and very "Nature-al"
-- self-development of pre-human Nature; that humanity is not some kind of
"intruder from outside of the universe", then we can begin to realize that there
must be "laws", or self-[re-]enforcing patterns, of human-social
self-development,
just as there are "laws" of the self-development of other portions of Nature's
spatio-temporality.

Products of human skill emerge from the initial appropriation of the "Mere",
"unimproved, "raw" products of Nature, by 'predationist',
"hunter-gatherer-scavenger", but "handy", proto-human[oids], who, as such,
develop the thumb/finger 'opposability', and the 'neuro-sociality', to actualize
this opportunity.

"Mere" Products, produced with growing human productivity, hence in local
surfeit, give rise to inter-tribal barter, i.e, to the emergence of the
'trade-able' "Commodity", the "exchange-value", from out of the mere [human]
"Product", with its initially 'exchange-value-less' added "use-value" above that
of the "raw appropriation" of Nature's products.

"Mere" Barter, as that practice grows with further growth of human productivity,
gives rise to Money, and the Money-mediated circulation of "Commodities",
accompanied by the subordination of Commodity to Money.

"Mere" Money circulation, as that practice grows, with further growth of human
productivity, gives rise to "Capital", i.e., to the 'auto-catalytic form of
exchange-value' -- to "Money which Makes [More] Money", and to the subordination
of "Mere" Money to Capital-Money -- first in the form of Merchant's Capital
[transporting Commodities, and selling them for more money than that for which
they were purchased].

Much later, Mercantile Capital gives rise to Industrial Capital [PRODUCING
Commodities whose Value is greater than the sum of the Values of their
ingredients].

Competition among industrial Capitals initially provides an economic
check-and-balance against over-pricing, under-quality, and other abuse of
consumers by industrial-capitalist producers.

It also tends to distribute money-based power and influence among many different
centers of industrial-capital power -- many separate, individual industrial
capitals -- so that representative democracy, and, with it, the political checks
and balances among the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of the
state can function, militating against complete dictatorship by any faction of
the capital-ownership-based plutocracy.

Competition among individual industrial capitals leads to SUCCESSFUL
competition, which leads to the failure/disappearance of the losing capitals,
and, often, to their being swallowed up into the winning capitals, which grow in
scale, leading to the consolidation, centralization, and concentration of
industrial capital ownership.

The concentration of money resources that accompanies the concentration of
capital ownership means that, increasingly, the most concentrated faction of
capital ownership -- tendentially located in the energy [e.g., especially, the
petroleum] and the banking [commercial lending / finance / joint-stock market
securities] "industries" -- can increasingly buy -- prostitute -- all three
branches of political government, thus also increasingly obviating and
subverting the political checks and balances that used to function, to a degree,
among the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary branches.

This situation creates the FORMAL potential for a [self-]degeneration of the
formerly competitive capitalist, representative-democratic political-economy,
into a police-state dictatorship, with a state-capitalist political-economy,
ruled by a plutocracy which "owns" the state, but this potential does not, by
itself, explain why that potential, given all of the risks it also poses even
for the oil-finance plutocracy itself, tends to be actualized -- as we see
happening right now, before our very eyes, especially in the U.S., and the U.K.
-- toward a nightmarish, multi-genocidal, Orwellian Hell-On-Earth.

Note that the totalitarian police states of Great-Depression/WWII Italy
[Mussolini's "Fascism"], of Great-Depression/WWII Germany [Hitler's "Nazi-ism",
or "National Socialism"], of Great-Depression/WWII Russia [Stalin's "Communism",
"Socialism in one Nation"], as of Great-Depression/WWII Japan, Spain, Portugal,
Argentina, Hungary, etc., as well as that of Post-WWII China [Mao's "Communism"]
all represent PREMATURELY-MANIFESTED "species" of the same "genos":
totalitarian, multi-genocidal STATE-CAPITALISM.

We are often told that "Communism" and "Fascism" are "diametric opposites".

They are opposite "species", but only within the same "genos" of
STATE-CAPITALISM.

And STATE-CAPITALISM, per this HYPOTHESIS, is the predestined fate of
Capitalism; it is the terminal state that is built into capitalism's
['Phenomic'] "DNA" from the very beginning.

Great Depression/WWII+ "Fascism", Communism", and the rest were just early
warnings of the horrific destiny which, full-blown, is destined to manifest
first, and worst, at the very core of the capitalist system -- in the U.S., the
U.K., and in Western Europe.

It hasn't manifested there, full-blown, yet, but it has begun to be happening
before our very -- usually unseeing -- eyes, right now, especially, and at an
accelerating pace, during and since Bush 2.

Why then, is the mere formal potential for totalitarian dictatorship "lawfully"
carried forward into horrific actualization?

And why is that 'totalitarianization' "lawfully" accompanied by global
multi-genocide?


More subtle discernment, requiring lengthier expression, and evidence-citation,
is needed to account for this aspect of this "Law Of Nature".


For more on those crucial further stages of the argument of this Hypothesis, see
the essay entitled

"The Political-Economic Law of Motion of Modern, Capital-based Society" at
Global-Samizdat "dot Org".


For a potential way out, to a preservation AND 'EXTENTION' of "mere" Political
Democracy into 'Political-ECONOMIC Democracy', see the essay entitled
"Political-Economic Democracy" at Global-Samizdat "dot Org" website.

-- and the text of the proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution at the
Equitism "dot Org" website.


For a fuller, but deeper rendition of the whole story, see the essay entitled
"Malady and Remedy", also at the Equitism "dot Org" website, and the essay
entitled "Global Strategic Hypotheses" at Global-Samizdat "dot Org" website.



For the alternative to our presently-emerging New / Final Dark Age: Global
Renaissance; a HUMAN Future,

Regards,

Miguel

Dear Hegel-Hegelian Group Members,

Marx's advance on the concept of Historical, or Diachronic, Dialectic which is
emergent in Hegel's work -- an opus otherwise consumed primarily with
Synchronic, or "Systematic", Dialectic [see writings by Tony Smith on
"Systematic Dialectic"], as a dialectical method of presentation, via
"categorial progressions" -- has recently been formulated as follows"

New Excerpt from F.E.D. Introductory Letter --

"The most fundamental form of dialectical opposition, the most fundamental form
of dialectical '''contradiction''' -- i.e., of ontological, existential,
'essence-ial', and temporal / 'temporo-genic' INTERNAL or SELF-contradiction, as
distinguished from formal-logical, propositional contradiction -- the most
fundamental form of thesis versus 'contra-thesis' confrontation -- or of
<<physis>> versus 'contra-<<physis>>' confrontation -- is the
'''self-reflExive''', 'self-reflUxive', '''<<karmic>>''' self-confrontation of a
single 'event-entity' ['''eventity'''], of a single '''[sub-]totality''', of a
single ''''[w]hol[on][e]''', of a single '''dynamical system''', of a single
'''self''', as [sentential] '''subject''', or '''agent''' of action, versus
itself again, as [sentential] '''object''', i.e., as the recipient of the
'essence-ial' action ['''<<karma>>''']of the subject, mediated through the
[sentential] verb-form of that 'subject-object', or 'agent-object'.

Thus the celestial '''eventities''' whose mature forms we call ["Main Sequence"]
"stars" act upon themselves '''self-gravitationally''' -- starting during their
"proto-stellar" stages -- thereby inducing an implosion which, by compressing
the Hydrogen atoms / proton plasmas, at their hearts beyond a critical
threshold, triggers the '''anti-implosive''', explosive "thermonuclear" force of
the fusion of Hydrogen into Helium, that stops their implosive collapse in a
[temporary] balance between the [nearly] spherically-symmetrical,
[internally-]everywhere-opposing "vector-field" forces of implosion and
explosion, until the complete fusion-conversion of their core Hydrogen into core
Helium triggers a further qualitative, ontological change.

This fundamental dialectical opposition "between" the '''eventity''' in its
aspect as subject versus the self-same '''eventity''' in its aspect as object,
is epitomized, in a universal sense, by the following sentence, a
'''self-reflExive''', 'self-reflUxive', '''<<karmic>>''' sentence, which
formulates this universal dialectical principle of '''self-activity''',
'''self-change''', '''self-movement''', '''NON-LINEARITY''', or <<autokinesis>>,
in its generic form --

'subject '''subjects''' subject.'

OR:

'agent '''agents''' agent.'


In the above sentence, the verb, '''subjects''', is not meant with its usual
connotation alone, or mainly, but is meant primarily as the verb form of the
noun '''subject''', or '''agent''', connoting the 'essence-ial', and
'''essential'''/necessary, ineluctable action of the subject upon all things it
encounters as objects, including upon itself as its own object; the 'verb-name',
or 'action-name' of the subject in question, whatever its 'noun-name', or
'pronoun-name'.

Of course, because the products of the 'self-production' that these sentences
describe multiply the ontology of their domains, the resulting '''subjects'',
'''objects''', or '''subject-objects''' engage in true '''INTER-actions''', in
addition to the '''self-interactions''', '''self-INTRA-actions''', or
'''self-actions''' that the sentence above describes --


'subject '''subjects''' object.'


-- wherein '''subject''' is not synonymous with '''object'''. However, the
'self-reflExive', 'self-reflUxive', '''<<karmic>>''' form remains primary and
fundamental.

This primary form is 'formulatable' equally as --

'object '''objects''' object.'

-- once it is realized that '''natural objects''' in general -- and not just
individual humans, or human collectivities -- are inherently active and
'self-active'; are 'agental'; indeed, that they ARE 'activities'; that they ARE
'activity-entities'; that they ARE [nameable as] "verbs"; that they ARE
"eventities".

The key to the solution of the riddle of the Marxian Dialectic of Nature is the
realization that pre-human, natural '''eventities''' legitimately play the role
of the subject of sentences describing the self-evolution and
self-meta-evolution of pre-human nature, and of the '''operators''' in
mathematical expressions which 'ideo-gram-ize' those 'phono-gram-ic' sentences.

It is not just individual human subjects, or the '''inter-subject-ivities''' of
human-social collectivities, that warrant the subject place in such sentences,
and in their corresponding ideogramic, mathematical models.

For human natur[e-]al history, the primary <<specific>> forms of the <<generic>>
sentence above are --

'Humanity '''humanifies''' humanity.';

'Humanity produces humanity.'

'Humanity produces itself.'

'Humanity expandedly-reproduces itself.'

-- and the fundamental proposition of Marxian theory in this regard is the
proposition that 'the accumulation of humanity' -- 'phenotypically' and
'''phenomically''' as well as 'genotypically' and '''genomically''';
'''culturally''' as well as "biologically" -- within the later, final,
'''descendant''' phase of the capital-relation-based epoch of -- still
'''pre-historic''' [cf. Marx] human
self-development-cum-self-alienation, comes into conflict with '''the
accumulation of capital'''.

Using the doubly-negated/slashed equals sign, '#', as the sign for dialectical
[self-]opposition / [internal-]contradiction, we then have the claim, for
'''descendant-phase''' capitalism, that --


'Accumulation of Humanity' # 'Accumulation of Capital'."




For context, click the following links to the two extant versions of the F.E.D.
Intro. letter --

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/D\
\
ialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm

http://www.dialectics.org/Primer_files/1_F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,v.2,New_OCR.pd\
\
f


Regards,

Miguel

Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,

INTRODUCTION. The quote below implicitly raises the issue as to whether the "Set
of All Sets" and the "Set Of All Objects" exhibit the same pattern of
"meta-<<monad>>-ization", or "meta-unit-ization" that we have hypothesized, in
our posts on "The Prelude to the Psycho-Historical Equations" ["A New Model of
the Universe, Using the Purely-Qualitative Dialectical Ideography"], to be
universal principle of ontological innovation in Nature, and as the concrete
meaning of the <<aufheben>> process, which we have hypothesized to be the
universal essence of dialectical process.

The purpose of this reply is to briefly address this issue.

For more depth on this issue, including as to how it applies for human-social
evolution, and meta-evolution, use the following link, to F.E.D. essays and
letters on the subject --

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/DiaRith/Intro/D\
ialectical-Ideography_An-Introductory-Letter.htm#Example_5

http://www.dialectics.org/Briefs_files/F.E.D.-Brief2-part3-07DEC2008_OCR.pdf

-- and --

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/MetaMonadology/\
\
\
MetaMonadology-entry.htm




PRELIMINARIES.


1. The Meaning of the <<Aufheben>> [Self-]Operation, as the Essence of
Dialectical Process.

This everyday old German word -- <<aufheben>> -- asserts a three-fold, and --
superficially -- incompatible bundle of meaning, e.g., to pick-up a stone from
the ground, and to raise it, e.g., to eye-level.

Thus, it means to change the position of the stone, i.e., (a.) to NEGATE its
position, and, concurrently, also, (b.) to PRESERVE the stone, in your grasp,
and, concurrently, also, to (c.) ELEVATE the stone as well.

<<Aufheben>>, in a more technical, 'scientifico-philosophical' usage, also
describes what the cosmos-content does to itself, in creating new, unprecedented
content; in creating, not just new beingS, but NEW KINDS of being; new
"ontology".

This usage is concretized, by F.E.D., in terms of the concept of
"[Self-]Meta-Monadization".



2. The Meaning of the Term "[Self-]Meta-<<Monad>>-ization", or of
"[Self-]Meta-Unit-ization".

In the posts here on the "The Prelude to the Psycho-Historical Equations", the
"self-meta-evolution" of the cosmos is described, in terms of <<aufheben>>
"self-metamonadization", as follows --

This self-<<aufheben>> of the content of the cosmos is accomplished by
"self-meta-<<monad>>-ization", that is, by "self-meta-unit-ization".

<<Monad>> is Greek for "unit".

The qualitative units, or <<monads>>, that our scientists call "quarks", et al.,
once their population, and its spatial concentration, grows to a sufficient
level, birth new populations, of a new kind of qualitative unit, a meta-unit –-
the "sub-atomic particle" unit –- i.e., to populations of "meta-quarks", e.g.,
protons, each one made up of a heterogeneous multiplicity of "quarks".

These new populations of sub-atomic "particle" units, once grown to sufficient
quantity & density, birth populations of "atom"-units, i.e., populations of
meta-sub-atomic "particle" units, each one made up out of a heterogeneous
multiplicity of sub-atomic "particle" sub-units.

These new populations of atom units, once they grow to sufficient quantity &
density, birth populations of molecule units, i.e., populations of meta-atoms,
meta-atomic units, each one made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of
atom-units.

These new populations of molecule units, once they grow to sufficient quantity &
density, birth populations of prokaryotic "living" cell units, i.e., to
populations of meta-molecules, meta-molecular units, each one made up out of a
heterogeneous multiplicity of molecule units. . . .

If you want to understand this progression of novelty -- of NEW KINDS of being;
of new "ontology" -- as achieved by means of "meta-unit-ization", by an example
closer to home, consider that part of human Nature which is written language.

Start from phonetic letters.

Each word unit is a "meta-letter" unit, each word typically made up out of a
heterogeneous multiplicity of letter–units.

Each sentence unit is a "meta-word" unit, each sentence typically made up out of
a heterogeneous multiplicity of word-units.

Each paragraph unit is a "meta-sentence" unit, each paragraph typically made up
out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of sentence-units.

Each chapter unit is a "meta-paragraph" unit, each chapter typically made up out
of a heterogeneous multiplicity of paragraph-units.

Each book unit is a "meta-chapter" unit, each book typically made up out of a
heterogeneous multiplicity of chapter-units.

Each library unit is . . . –- well, you get the idea!



ISSUE RESOLUTION. Our answer is that -- YES! -- the dialectics of the "Set of
All Sets" and of the "Set of All Objects" also exhibit this structure of
"Meta-Monadology" -- synchronic "meta-fractal" structure that arises from the
diachronic "meta-fractal" process of "self-meta-monadization".

Thus, if our universe of discourse involves only two "logical individuals", only
two distinct, qualitative objects, such as an apple and an orange, denoted by a,
and b, then, if we take these two "idea-objects" to be two distinct, qualitative
units, because, certainly --

a ~< & ~= & ~> b

-- then the very formation of the "Universe of Discourse Set", here --

U = { a, b } = O-sub-0

-- is a "singular", or "non-multiplicitous", "meta-monadization": the two units,
a and b, are <<aufheben>> cancelled, conserved, and elevated, all three
concurrently, into a new, higher, single object / individual / unit, namely, the
set U.

In the next step, the sub-sets of the set U = { a, b } --

namely the sets {_}, {a}, {b}, and the "improper" sub-set of U,

{a, b} itself

-- are "added to" ["unioned with", denoted by u] U, to form --

U u 2^U = { a, b, {a}, {b}, {a,b}, {_} } = O-sub-1.

Once again, the "improper subset" of U, {a,b}, is -- when it occurs INSIDE the
set a O-sub-1 -- a "meta-U unit, made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of
the units of U, i.e., of the [sub-]units a and b.

The new "singleton" units, {a} and {b}, are also meta-U units, but each one is
made up out of a "singular NON-multiplicity" of the predecessor units of U.

Even more so, in the next step, most of the incremental contents, the sub-sets
of O-sub-1, of the next attempt at the "Set of All Objects", namely O-sub-2,
are, precisely, "meta-units of the predecessor, O-sub-1, units, each one made up
out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of the predecessor units", e.g., to cite
just 4 of the 64 new subsets of --

O-sub-1 u 2^[O-sub-1] = [U u 2^U] u 2^[U u 2^U]   =   O-sub-2 --

{ a, b, {a} };

{ a, b, {b} };

{ a, b, {a,b}, {_} };

{ a, b, {a}, {b}, {_} },

etc. --

and this pattern, of "metamonadization", holds even more true with every
subsequent self-iteration of each subsequent attempt at "The Set of All
Objects", in the self-induced, own-essence-induced, own-definition-induced
process that IS the "Set of All Objects", as modeled by the equation --

O-sub-T = [ O-sub-0 ]^(2^T).


Regards,

Miguel


--- In hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com, "detonacciones" <detonacciones@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,
>
> Note that the self-movement of the "Set of All Objects" is, precisely, a
> DIALECTIC, an <<AUFHEBEN>> <<auto-kinesis>>; a set self-progression; a
> self-propelled "categorial progression", with sets as its "categories":
>
> If we use the shorthand symbols --
>
> 'A ---C B'
>
> -- to stand as shorthand for the phrase --
>
> 'set A is wholly contained within set B'
>
> -- then we have the <<aufheben>> condition that --
>
> Osub0 ---C Osub1 ---C Osub2 ---C Osub3 ---C Osub4 ---C Osub5 ---C...
>
> -- and, in general, for every T in the set of Natural Numbers --
>
> N = { 1, 2, 3, . . . }
>
> -- we have --
>
> OsubT ---C Osub(T+1).
>
>
> Notice that the self-propelled movement --
>
> OsubT ---> Osub(T+1) = [OsubT]^2
>
> -- wherein --
>
> Osub(T+1) = [OsubT] union [Power-Set of OsubT]
>
> -- is an <<aufheben>>, determinate self-negation of OsubT.
>
>
>
> When OsubT "reflects/reflexes/refluxes" upon itself --
>
> OsubT x OsubT = OsubT "of" OsubT = [OsubT]^2
>
> -- the resulting process --
>
> OsubT union 2^OsubT
>
> -- exhibits all of the moments of the <<aufheben>> operation:
>
> (1) "conserving" 'OsubT' inside 'Osub(T+1)', since 'OsubT ---C Osub(T+1)';
>
> (2) "elevating" 'OsubT' to a one unit higher Russellian "logical type" level,
> qualitatively changing 'OsubT' into a qualitatively different/higher
> 'Osub(T+1)', and;
>
> (3) "determinately [self-]negating" 'OsubT', converting it[self] into
> 'Osub(T+1)', because 'Osub(T+1)' is a DETERMINATE case of a 'NOT-OsubT'.
>
>
>
> Thus --
>
> [OsubT]^2 = OsubT x OsubT = OsubT <<AUFHEBEN>> OsubT.
>
>
>
> The drive behind --
>
> OsubT ---> Osub(T+1)
>
> -- is INTERNAL, IMMANENT to 'OsubT' itself.
>
> It is not an EXTERNALly-caused/imposed transition.
>
>
> The symbol '--->' within the symbol-complex --
>
> OsubT ---> Osub(T+1)
>
> Means NOT so much that 'OsubT' "IMPLIES" 'Osub(T+1)', as would the statement
--
>
> OsubT ===> Osub(T+1)
>
> -- but that 'OsubT' "BECOMES" 'Osub(T+1)'; "TRANSFORMS ITSELF INTO"
'Osub(T+1)',
> "CAUSES ITSELF TO CHANGE INTO" 'Osub(T+1)', due to its own, INTERNAL, IMMANENT
> causes/reasons.
>
>
>
> The self-movement expressible as --
>
> Osub0 ---> Osub1 ---> Osub2 ---> Osub3 ---> Osub4 ---> Osub5 ---> ...
>
> is a "self-necessary", "neccessitarian" one.
>
> Since 'OsubT' is an idea of a mental object, of an idea-object, rather than an
> idea of a physical, <<physis>>-object, the necessity of its self-movement is a
> mental, ideative, conceptual, semantic necessity, rather than a physical
> necessity.
>
>
> The set 'Osub0', or 'U', may start out as representing a collection of
physical
> objects, of <<physis>> objects.
>
> However, from 'Osub1' on, the expanded universe set includes set-theroetical,
> extensional representations of Predicates of
> various orders, of Qualities, of "Intensions" or "Connotations" such as are
> perceived/constructed by human subjects, by human cultures, by human
> "meme-pools", by human "Phenomes" -- by human inter-subjectivities.
>
> Thus, this model captures something which is of the essence of Marx's
> world-historical breakthrough in human cognition, in human science, in human
> knowing, evident already in his "Theses On Feuerbach"; of Marx's
> negation/transcendance/synthesis/complex-unification of both one-sided
> mechanical materialism and 'other-sided' dialectical idealism; his founding of
> what F.E.D. terms "PSYCHO-Historical Materialism", in which the human Phenome
> and its Meme-Pool -- in which human ideology and human science -- are not
> denied; are not declared non-existent, or outside of the "material" universe,
> but in which they are seen as "matter" too; as also "material"; as part of a
> <<Genos>> of matter which comes in two primary <<species>> --
>
> <<species #1>>: <<physis>>-matter; "physical" matter;
>
> <<species #2>>: idea-matter.
>
>
>
> The formula for "the Set of All Objects" --
>
> OsubT = [Osub0]^(2^T) = U^(2^T)
>
> -- is NOT that of an [EXO-]"Iteration", as is --
>
> XsubT = (F^T) "of" (Xsub0), as the value of T escalates.
>
> In the case of 'OsubT', the 'F' is replaced by 'OsubT' itself.
>
> Therefore, F.E.D. calls --
>
> OsubT = [Osub0]^(2^T)
>
> -- a "SELF-Iteration"; an "ENDO-iteration"; an "INTRO-Iteration", or; an
> "INTRA-Iteration".
>
>
>
> In the symbol complexes --
>
> [OsubT]^2 = OsubT "times" OsubT = OsubT "of" OsubT = Osub(T+1)
>
> -- we express, ideographically, a "Subject/Object Identical", and a higher
form
> of mathematical "NONLINEARITY" even than that of those inherently
> singularity-prone [zero-division-prone], and STILL-UNSOLVED nonlinear partial
> differential equations that formulate the "Laws", or the presently prevailing
> "habits" [Peirce], of Nature, to the extent that they are presently known to
> humanity, when those nonlinear equations are presented in their "standard
form"
> -- i.e., in their "unqualified", purely-quantitative form, without the
explicit
> presence in them of [F.E.D.] "ontological qualifier meta-numbers", and/or of
> [F.E.D.] "metrical qualifier meta-numbers".
>
> That is, we express a "Self-[Reflexive ]Function", or "Self-Reflexion" -- a
> Bending ["Flex"] Back ["Re"] Upon "Self" -- of 'OsubT', and also a "Self-
> Refluxive Function", or "Self-Refluxion" -- a Flowing ["Flux"] Back ["Re"]
> upon/to "Self" -- of 'OsubT', in which 'OsubT' semantically, as meaning, as
> definition -- and also as sentential SUBJECT, in this context -- confronts
> itself as sentential
> OBJECT, and, finding that its 'OBJECT-ive' existence in its 'Tth' stage falls
> short of its meaning/nature/definition, expands itself by the set-ontological
> increment denoted by '2^OsubT', that is, by the generation, and by the
inclusion
> within itself, of all of its sub-sets, thus transforming its own
self/identity,
> into that of a NEW
> set, a new "self", a new "identity", with a DIFFERENT power-set, although a
new
> self/identity which is <<aufheben>>-related to its old self/identity, as a
> "conservative extension" of itself, of that old self/identity.
>
> It finds that its 'Tth' self, as sentential OBJECT, contradicts its self as
> sentential SUBJECT, and it responds by expanding itself set-qualitatively;
> set-ontologically, creating, thereby, its '(T+1)st' self.
>
>
>
> When one mentally simulates the "Set Of All Objects", when one mentally
behaves
> AS IT; constructs it in one's own mind, one sees that this Set is "forced" to
> expand itself -- by adding its own sub-sets to itself; is forced to do so by
its
> own nature; by its own essence; by its own definition -- in fact, by its own
> NAME.
>
> It always, inherently, has left itself and its proper subsets out of itself,
> and, when it therefore moves to bring them in to itself, thereby changes
itself,
> and, along with that self change, it changes also its subsets.
>
>
> This process of its continuing qualitative self-expansion potentially never
> ends, because each time it changes itself, changes what it contains, its
> power-set also therefore changes; its "new" self means that its "new"
power-set
> is unprecedented, qualitatively different from all of the previous power-sets
of
> all of its previous selves -- containing NEW "LOGICAL [META-]INDIVIDUALS", NEW
> PREDICATES, and NEW RELATIONS -- new 'ideo-ontology, never before extant or
> explicit in its series/sequence/succession/progression of likewise
> ever-SELF-inadequate "it selfs".
>
> Regards,
>
> Miguel
>

Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,

Note that the self-movement of the "Set of All Objects" is, precisely, a
DIALECTIC, an <<AUFHEBEN>> <<auto-kinesis>>; a set self-progression; a
self-propelled "categorial progression", with sets as its "categories":

If we use the shorthand symbols --

'A ---C B'

-- to stand as shorthand for the phrase --

'set A is wholly contained within set B'

-- then we have the <<aufheben>> condition that --

Osub0 ---C Osub1 ---C Osub2 ---C Osub3 ---C Osub4 ---C Osub5 ---C...

-- and, in general, for every T in the set of Natural Numbers --

N = { 1, 2, 3, . . . }

-- we have --

OsubT ---C Osub(T+1).


Notice that the self-propelled movement --

OsubT ---> Osub(T+1) = [OsubT]^2

-- wherein --

Osub(T+1) = [OsubT] union [Power-Set of OsubT]

-- is an <<aufheben>>, determinate self-negation of OsubT.



When OsubT "reflects/reflexes/refluxes" upon itself --

OsubT x OsubT = OsubT "of" OsubT = [OsubT]^2

-- the resulting process --

OsubT union 2^OsubT

-- exhibits all of the moments of the <<aufheben>> operation:

(1) "conserving" 'OsubT' inside 'Osub(T+1)', since 'OsubT ---C Osub(T+1)';

(2) "elevating" 'OsubT' to a one unit higher Russellian "logical type" level,
qualitatively changing 'OsubT' into a qualitatively different/higher
'Osub(T+1)', and;

(3) "determinately [self-]negating" 'OsubT', converting it[self] into
'Osub(T+1)', because 'Osub(T+1)' is a DETERMINATE case of a 'NOT-OsubT'.



Thus --

[OsubT]^2 = OsubT x OsubT = OsubT <<AUFHEBEN>> OsubT.



The drive behind --

OsubT ---> Osub(T+1)

-- is INTERNAL, IMMANENT to 'OsubT' itself.

It is not an EXTERNALly-caused/imposed transition.


The symbol '--->' within the symbol-complex --

OsubT ---> Osub(T+1)

Means NOT so much that 'OsubT' "IMPLIES" 'Osub(T+1)', as would the statement --

OsubT ===> Osub(T+1)

-- but that 'OsubT' "BECOMES" 'Osub(T+1)'; "TRANSFORMS ITSELF INTO" 'Osub(T+1)',
"CAUSES ITSELF TO CHANGE INTO" 'Osub(T+1)', due to its own, INTERNAL, IMMANENT
causes/reasons.



The self-movement expressible as --

Osub0 ---> Osub1 ---> Osub2 ---> Osub3 ---> Osub4 ---> Osub5 ---> ...

is a "self-necessary", "neccessitarian" one.

Since 'OsubT' is an idea of a mental object, of an idea-object, rather than an
idea of a physical, <<physis>>-object, the necessity of its self-movement is a
mental, ideative, conceptual, semantic necessity, rather than a physical
necessity.


The set 'Osub0', or 'U', may start out as representing a collection of physical
objects, of <<physis>> objects.

However, from 'Osub1' on, the expanded universe set includes set-theroetical,
extensional representations of Predicates of
various orders, of Qualities, of "Intensions" or "Connotations" such as are
perceived/constructed by human subjects, by human cultures, by human
"meme-pools", by human "Phenomes" -- by human inter-subjectivities.

Thus, this model captures something which is of the essence of Marx's
world-historical breakthrough in human cognition, in human science, in human
knowing, evident already in his "Theses On Feuerbach"; of Marx's
negation/transcendance/synthesis/complex-unification of both one-sided
mechanical materialism and 'other-sided' dialectical idealism; his founding of
what F.E.D. terms "PSYCHO-Historical Materialism", in which the human Phenome
and its Meme-Pool -- in which human ideology and human science -- are not
denied; are not declared non-existent, or outside of the "material" universe,
but in which they are seen as "matter" too; as also "material"; as part of a
<<Genos>> of matter which comes in two primary <<species>> --

<<species #1>>: <<physis>>-matter; "physical" matter;

<<species #2>>: idea-matter.



The formula for "the Set of All Objects" --

OsubT = [Osub0]^(2^T) = U^(2^T)

-- is NOT that of an [EXO-]"Iteration", as is --

XsubT = (F^T) "of" (Xsub0), as the value of T escalates.

In the case of 'OsubT', the 'F' is replaced by 'OsubT' itself.

Therefore, F.E.D. calls --

OsubT = [Osub0]^(2^T)

-- a "SELF-Iteration"; an "ENDO-iteration"; an "INTRO-Iteration", or; an
"INTRA-Iteration".



In the symbol complexes --

[OsubT]^2 = OsubT "times" OsubT = OsubT "of" OsubT = Osub(T+1)

-- we express, ideographically, a "Subject/Object Identical", and a higher form
of mathematical "NONLINEARITY" even than that of those inherently
singularity-prone [zero-division-prone], and STILL-UNSOLVED nonlinear partial
differential equations that formulate the "Laws", or the presently prevailing
"habits" [Peirce], of Nature, to the extent that they are presently known to
humanity, when those nonlinear equations are presented in their "standard form"
-- i.e., in their "unqualified", purely-quantitative form, without the explicit
presence in them of [F.E.D.] "ontological qualifier meta-numbers", and/or of
[F.E.D.] "metrical qualifier meta-numbers".

That is, we express a "Self-[Reflexive ]Function", or "Self-Reflexion" -- a
Bending ["Flex"] Back ["Re"] Upon "Self" -- of 'OsubT', and also a "Self-
Refluxive Function", or "Self-Refluxion" -- a Flowing ["Flux"] Back ["Re"]
upon/to "Self" -- of 'OsubT', in which 'OsubT' semantically, as meaning, as
definition -- and also as sentential SUBJECT, in this context -- confronts
itself as sentential
OBJECT, and, finding that its 'OBJECT-ive' existence in its 'Tth' stage falls
short of its meaning/nature/definition, expands itself by the set-ontological
increment denoted by '2^OsubT', that is, by the generation, and by the inclusion
within itself, of all of its sub-sets, thus transforming its own self/identity,
into that of a NEW
set, a new "self", a new "identity", with a DIFFERENT power-set, although a new
self/identity which is <<aufheben>>-related to its old self/identity, as a
"conservative extension" of itself, of that old self/identity.

It finds that its 'Tth' self, as sentential OBJECT, contradicts its self as
sentential SUBJECT, and it responds by expanding itself set-qualitatively;
set-ontologically, creating, thereby, its '(T+1)st' self.



When one mentally simulates the "Set Of All Objects", when one mentally behaves
AS IT; constructs it in one's own mind, one sees that this Set is "forced" to
expand itself -- by adding its own sub-sets to itself; is forced to do so by its
own nature; by its own essence; by its own definition -- in fact, by its own
NAME.

It always, inherently, has left itself and its proper subsets out of itself,
and, when it therefore moves to bring them in to itself, thereby changes itself,
and, along with that self change, it changes also its subsets.


This process of its continuing qualitative self-expansion potentially never
ends, because each time it changes itself, changes what it contains, its
power-set also therefore changes; its "new" self means that its "new" power-set
is unprecedented, qualitatively different from all of the previous power-sets of
all of its previous selves -- containing NEW "LOGICAL [META-]INDIVIDUALS", NEW
PREDICATES, and NEW RELATIONS -- new 'ideo-ontology, never before extant or
explicit in its series/sequence/succession/progression of likewise
ever-SELF-inadequate "it selfs".

Regards,

Miguel

Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,


This is the next in a series of posts on the value-form Phenomic contagion of
Capitalist Decadence, as to (1) how it has infected Modern Science, and Modern
Mathematics in particular, as to (2) the dialectical, immanent critique of that
theoretical and conceptual decadence, and as to (3) the positive fruition of
that immanent [self-]negation, resulting in a new paradigm of Dialectical,
Marxian Science, and Marxian Mathematics.

This new Marxian, Dialectical Science and Dialectical Mathematics is capable of
overcoming 'Ontological Reductionism', and, consequently, of addressing the
longstanding, 300+ year-old problems of nonlinear integro-differential equation
closed-form solution -- e.g., [ontological-revolution-modeling, zero-division]
"SINGULARITY", and state-variable path 'IRREPETITIVITY' -- which have blocked
Modern Science from mining the vast treasur[i]es of practical, engineering
knowledge stored in the still-unsolved nonlinear equations of the "Laws" of
Nature, e.g., from finding the closed-form solutions and the
control-parameter-space locations for the Maxwell-Boltzmann-Vlasov Equations,
and for the Klimontovich Equation, some of which would represent the
design-parameters for practical fusion power reactors.



EXTENDED TITLE. Prelude to a Set-Theoretical Model of Hegel's "Science of
<<Logik>>" -- A Set-Theoretical Model of the Dialectical <<Logik>> of the
[Hegelian+ ]Dialectic,

One which is ALSO an IMMANENT Critique of Set Theory,

and a Set-Theoretical Model of the "Meta-Numbers" of the N\Q

Dialectical Symbolic Logic, or "Symbolic Dialectics".


HYPOTHESIS. By a central canon of Standard, Reductionistic Set Theory, the set
of all elements "belonging to" a category, call it A -- the "EXtension" of the
category, A -- is the set-theoretical, "extensional" definition, and
representation, of the "connotation", the "INtension", the very MEANING, of that
Category.

Thus, the set-theoretical definition, and representation, of the "intension",
the meaning, of the founding object, foundational object, and most fundamental
object of Set Theory itself -- of "The Set" -- is the "extension" of "The Set",
namely, the set-theoretical idea-object named "The Set Of All Sets".

Standard Set Theory has had to reject -- to outlaw, to suppress, or to exclude
-- this, its own core object, "The Set of All Sets".

As we shall see, users of Dialectical Logic can whole-heartedly embrace this
idea-object, "The Set of All Sets", finding that it provides a universal model
of "Dialectic-In-General", of the <<Genos>> of Dialectic, leading to the
formation of a new, Trans-Reductionistic Set Theory -- to a "Dialectical Set
Theory" -- and to an <<Aufheben>> Determinate Negation/Elevation/Conservation of
Reductionistic Mathematics -- to a "Mathematics of Dialectic".

Users of Dialectical Logic can also evoke, from "The Set Of All Sets", an
IMMANENT CRITIQUE / Dialectical Self-Negation of Reductionistic Mathematics, in
the form of a <<reductio ad absurdum>> self-refutation of the pervasive,
implicit, "Parmenidean Postulate" of that mathematics -- an assertion to the
effect that "all set-theoretical/mathematical ideas are "ideo-static" " -- by
showing that the assumption of "ideo-stasis", together with the other axioms of
that Reductionistic Set Theory / Mathematics, deduces objects, such as the "Set
of All Sets", which contradict that "Parmenidean Postulate", by being
"ideo-dynamical", and -- even worse -- by being "ideo-auto-dynamical": by
exhibiting "[ideo-]auto-kinesis".

We assume, throughout, a maxim called "The Principle of Metafinity", which may
be stated in many ways, including the following two ways: "Infinity is
counter-[f]actual." and "Infinity is unmanifest.".

Only the "potentially infinite" [Aristotle] can be [f]actual in this
finite-manifest universe

Part of what this maxim means is that mathematical expressions which seem to
take on fallacious infinite quantitative values [e.g., "singularities"] are
actually pointing to real finite but qualitative changes, to ontological changes
-- to "meta-finite" changes. It also means that to assume sets of infinite
cardinality is to assume the existence of non-constructed, and of
non-constructible, idea-objects, and thus to concoct a "logically-rigorous
phantasy".



"BEING" <---> "NOTHING". The "Finitary Set of All Sets", and, even more so, the
"Finitary Set of All Objects", as mental constructs which are "self-moving",
and, moreover, "self-developing", due to their essences/definitions alone --
constituting therefore two "idea-object" examples of Plato's <<autokinesis>> --
interest me, from a Hegelian perspective, because, for example 'O', denoting the
"Set of All Objects", proxies Hegel's "Science of <<Logik>>" category of
"BEING", and beyond, in interesting ways.

In set theory, the "INtension" of a given set -- the meaning, the predicate
which, as an "EXtension", it denotes -- is the Quality shared by every one of
the members/objects contained in that set.

Thus the "Natural Number" '3' has been defined/modeled, logically, or
set-theoretically, as the intension of the set of all sets that contain exactly
three members/elements, because "three-ness" is therefore the one quality that
all of these -- otherwise often quite disparate -- sets have in common.

If the <<arche'>>, or beginning point/state, of the "Set of All Objects", as a
self-expanding set, is the "Universe Set", or "Universal Set" of a given
[finite] Universe[-of-discourse], denoted by 'U', so that --

O_subscript_Zero = U = Osub0, for short

-- then the Quality shared by all members of 'U', the implicit connotation, or
"INtension", which that set, as an explicit "EXtension", represents, is the
common Quality of BEING -- the Quality common to all beings which make up that
Universe of discourse.

If that U "universe" of Objects is already "large" and "diverse", then the
"common denominator" Quality represented by 'U' will be something highly
attenuated, and difficult to state/describe -- almost "NOTHING", in terms of any
specificity, or "determinateness".

Even if the membership of 'U' is not "large" and "diverse' to begin with, the
membership of 'O' will get "larger and larger", and simultaneously, "more and
more diverse", as

U = Osub0

"ingests" all of its subsets -- whose collection is called its "Power-Set", and
is usually denoted by --

2^[Osub0] [See BACKGROUND section at bottom for more on this.]

-- by "union-ing" with that set of all of its subsets, including that subset of
itself which is itself as a whole [it's own "improper" subset], as Osub0
transforms itself into --

Osub1 = Osub0 union 2^[Osub0]

-- in its Sisyphosian attempt to include within itself the next higher "logical
type" of "objects" which it still excludes/lacks, and which, hence, makes its
name a lie; makes its momentary existence [always and forever] a violation of
its own essence/definition.

Its "self-motion", its "self-change", is driven, not by formal-logical,
"propositional contradiction", but by this [[ideo-]ontological /
[ideo-]existential] "SELF-contradiction", this "self-opposition", this
"self-disagreement", this "intra-duality".

The "subsets" which it will thereby "add" to it's [successor-set's] membership
will extensionally represent new intensions, new Predicates -- i.e., more
specific Qualities, mostly qualities shared by smaller sub-groups of "logical
individuals", or "[idea-]objects", that are grouped together in, or contained
in, the original universe of discourse set, denoted by 'U'.

Thus, the "Set of All Objects" will, simply by trying to "BE"[COME] itself,
"auto-construct" successive waves of more and more subtle Predicates, of
ever-higher Russellian "logical type" -- Predicates of Predicates; Predicates of
Predicates grouped together with the "base-objects, or "Ur" objects, of 'U',
which objects are NOT sets; Predicates of Predicates of Predicates,. . ., etc.,
as --

Osub0 becomes Osub1 becomes Osub2 becomes Osub3 becomes Osub4 . . ..

Thus, even an initially "small" and "non-diverse"

Osub0 = U

will quickly become "attenuated" in terms of the overall, unified "intension" of
its growing "extension", and will thus -- as a whole, entire set -- more and
more approximate an "intension" or "Predicate" of "NOTHING" as the common
Quality of all of the "BEING(s)" in its objects-realm / content.

So, using the symbol '--->' to denote the phrase "becomes", as --

Osub0 ---> Osub1 ---> Osub2 ---> Osub3 ---> Osub4 ---> . . .

-- we therefore also have it that, for the totality of the BEING(s) represented
by 'OsubT', as its subscript, the "stage of self-reflexion countor", T,
escalates in its value, from 0 to 1 to 2 to 2 to 4 to. . . --

BEING ---> NOTHING.

That is, using the ideogramic signs-complex 'A (---) B' to denote "mutual
assignment", or "mutual interpretation" of A and B --

lim[as T goes to oo][Osub0]^(2^T) (---) NOTHING.



AFTER-WORD. Might it not be interesting to further scrutinize our mental
experience when we mentally simulate this subjective object,

OsubT = [Osub0]^(2^T)

-- to see if that experience replicates other Concepts / - "determinations" of
the categorial progression which Hegel claims for his <<Logik>>?

That we plan to do, in a future post on "A Set-Theoretical Model of Hegel's
"Science of <<Logik>>" ".




BACKGROUND ON POWER-SETS. First, to make this discussion of "The Set Of All
OBJECTS" a little more concrete, for those of us who are not steeped in modern
set theory:

Suppose we consider a "Universe of Discourse" consisting of only two "idea
objects", or "logical individuals" -- one representing a particular, physical
"apple", denoted by 'a', and another representing a particular, physical
"orange", denoted by 'b'.

Then we have --

U = {a,b} = Osub0

-- and --

2^U = the Set of all Sub-Sets of U = { {a}, {b}, {a,b}, {_} },

-- wherein '{_}' stands for the "Empty Set", which is automatically an element
of every power-set per modern Standard Set Theory.


If '|U|' denotes the "cardinality" of 'U', i.e., its [cardinal] number of
members, its "elements-count", then --

|U| = 2 = |{a,b}|

-- and therefore the cardinality of the set '2^U' is --

|2^U] = |{ {a}, {b}, {a,b}, {_} }| = 4 = 2^|U| = 2^2 = 4.


Then we have --

Osub1 = Osub0 union 2^[Osub0| = U union 2^U =

{a,b} union { {a}, {b}, {a,b}, {_} } =

{ a, b, {a}, {b}, {a,b}, {_} }

-- wherein the NEW elements, "added" to the content of 'Osub0' to form 'Osub1'
-- this time SETS-as-elements, note well -- represent the "extensions" of the
following "intensions", or "Predicates" --

{a} extensionally stands the intension/predicate/quality of this particular
apple, named 'a' -- "[this-]apple-ness"?;

{b} extensionally stands the intension/predicate/quality of this particular
orange, named 'b' -- [this-]"orange-ness"?;

{a,b} extensionally stands the intension/predicate/quality shared by both this
apple and this orange -- "[this, partial ]fruit-ness"?

-- and --

{_} extensionally stands for the intension/predicate/quality shared by NO
thing(s) [in this universe of discourse], or shared by [any]thing(s) which exist
in this universe of discourse, but which are unmentioned by / unknown to /
unrecognized by its present discoursers / observers / participants.



Now, for anybody brave enough:

What is the content of the next set in this self-propelled set-self-progression;
what is the membership of, namely, , the set named 'Osub2'?

Osub2 = Osub1 union 2^[Osub1] =

{a, b, {a}, {b}, {a,b}, {_}} union 2^[{a, b, {a}, {b}, {a,b}, {_}}]


Note that, already, just one step beyond set 'Osub0', at the position of set
'Osub1', in the set-self-progression 'OsubT', or '[Osub0]^2^T', from a mere
2-element <<arche'>> set 'U', we have --

Osub1 = { a, b, {a}, {b}, {a,b}, {_} }

-- such that the set 'Osub1', again, represents, EXtension-ally, a connotation /
INtension / Quality / Predicate of our SELF-expanded Universe of Discourse.

What is that Predicate, that describes/connotes the Quality that all of the (6)
"beings" or "objects" or "logical individuals" in our expanded
Universe/Universal Set, 'Osub1', have in common?

I would describe this Predicate/Quality of "All BEING" [for our Universe] -- the
"INtension" of 'Osub1' -- as being already pretty "attenuated" toward "NOTHING"
-- wouldn't you?



For more on this Subject, see slides 28 through 32 of --

http://www.adventures-in-dialectics.org/Adventures-In-Dialectics/Dialectical_Pic\
\
\
\
\
\
\
tography/Dialectical_Pictography.htm


A one paragraph description, plus a depiction, of the Set of All Sets
self-movement can be found here:

http://www.dialectics.org/Glossary_files/OnePageGlossary_OCR.pdf




[NOTE: There is an error in the above-linked rendition, later/elsewhere
corrected by F.E.D., in its assertion that --

Ssub0 = U

-- wherein 'U' denotes the Universal Set, or set of all logical individuals of
the[finite] Universe[-of-discourse], whereas, the correct assertion is that --

Ssub0 = 2^U

-- where '2^U' denotes the "power-set", or set of all subsets, of 'U'.

Otherwise, the resulting "Set of all SETS" will contain the "Ur"-objects, or
"base objects" belonging to 'U', which are themselves NOT sets.



SUMMARY. Almost all of the readily-available conceptual tools of our present
mathematical and scientific communities exhibit the "Parmenidean over-hang", or
the "Parmenidean hang-over", of "Onto-STASIS", of a "statical, ANTI-dynamical
ontology" -- even Hegel, in the mere circle / <<Kyklo>> of his <<En Kyklo
Paidea>> of the Philosophical Sciences: the great circle of --

<<Logik>> ---> <<Natur>> ---> <<Geist>> ---> <<Logik>>.

The only extant conceptual-mathematical, scientific tools that I am presently
aware of, that transcend this crypto-Parmenidean "onto-stasis"; that accommodate
a non-reductionist, and "dynamical, ontology", are those of F.E.D..

These tools provide an Arithmetic+ whose "set-theoretical model" is not a mere
domain of statical relations, but the "auto-onto-dynamasis" and
"Predico-Dynamasis" of the finitary "Set of all Sets", and of the finitary, and
self-expanding, "Univers[e][al] Set", or "Set of all Objects" [including of
idea-objects, such as extensional representations of predicates, of ordered
pairs, of relations, etc.], both of which sets must continually,
"ideo-auto-kinesically" expand themselves QUALITATIVELY, ONTOLOGICALLY, because
they always exclude those sets which are the elements of their own power-sets,
or set-of-all-subsets; those sets AS "idea-objects" which are the elements of
their own power-sets.

The formula for the finitary "Set of all Sets", for a finite
universe[-of-discourse], denoted by 'U', is, given --

'Ssub0 = 2^U'

-- the following --

SsubT = Ssub0^(2^T) = (Ssub(T-1))^2

-- where --

Ssub(T-1))^2 = Ssub(T-1) UNION 2^(Ssub(T-1)).


The formula for the finitary "set of all Objects" is,
given --

Osub0 = U

-- is the following --

OsubT = U^(2^T) = (Osub(T-1))^2

-- where --

(Osub(T-1))^2 = Osub(T-1) UNION 2^(Osub(T-1)).


The N\Q "Dialectical Arithmetic" / "Dialectical Symbolic Logic" can be
comprehended as one which models the "ideo-auto-onto-kinesis", and
"ideo-auto-onto-dynamasis", of these two ideo-<<autokinesis>>-exhibiting sets,
which thus form its "set-theoretical foundation/definition", analogous to the
way in which set cardinality has been employed to form a foundation for the
purely-quantitative / onto-statical "Standard Natural Arithmetic", of --

N = { 1, 2, 3, ... }.


This N\Q "Meta-Natural Meta-Numbers" arithmetic, of --

N\Q = { q-sub1, q-sub2, q-sub3, . . . }

-- then provides a "contra-Boolean" -- a Dialectical -- algebra of logic,
capable of modeling the diachronically self-expanding ontology that we observe
in our reconstructions of the cosmological self-evolutions, punctuated by
self-revolutions, of this <<Kosmos>>.

This relationship between "Dialectical Set Theory" and "Dialectical Arithmetic"
can be made plainer by comparing the two renditions below, one of the "Power-Set
Product of Sets", that we have been utilizing, and reviewing the consequences
of, above, and the other of the "<<Aufheben>> Evolute Product of Ontological
Qualifier Meta-Numbers":


[OsubT] ---> [OSubT]^2 = [OsubT] "+" 2^[OsubT];

[qsubT] ---> [qsubT]^2 = [qsubT] "+" [qsub(2T)].



Regards,

Miguel

Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,


Part IV.  A New, Dialectical Model of the Universe / of the History of Nature.


NOTE ON NOTATIONS: 'q|XX' denotes q, underscored, and with the subscript XX;
'N\Q' denotes Q with the "pre-subscript" N, where N denotes the set of the
"Natural" Numbers N = { 1, 2, 3,... }, and where 'N\Q' as a whole is understood
to have its 'Q' underscored, and, in this context, denotes the N-based set of
pure, UNQUANTIFIABLE

[meaning "unaddable":  q|n + q|n   =   q|n; also,   q|n + q|m   does not reduce
to any q|x, for any x in N, if n is not equal to m, because q|n and q|m, in that
case, are ontologically, qualitatively unequal to one another, like "apples +
oranges".]

"ontological qualifier meta-numbers" [purely-qualitative "numbers" /
"ordinalities"]:

N\Q = { q|1, q|2, q|3,... }.

'(^1)q|a' denotes q-underscore-subscript-a with pre-superscript 1.

'Delta-' denotes the delta-symbol underscored; it identifies a
purely-qualitative, non-quantitative, ontological increment.

'q|X [---> q|m' means "interpreted ontological qualifier meta-number q|X
corresponds to the uninterpreted qualifier meta-number q|m [given that m is in
N], of the generic meta-Natural meta-Numbers arithmetic, N\Q."



[CONTINUED FROM Part III., POSTED HERE PREVIOUSLY]


2.  On the Generic Meanings of "Non-Cross-Product", "Self-Crossed", Terms in
this New Model of the Universe. [CONTINUED & CONCLUDED]

That is, the third system in this progression of ideo-systems --  N\q|QN, or
N\q|U, or N\U -- is characterized, by its primary qualities, as an arithmetic of
"meta-numbers" which are interpretable as "quantifiable ontological qualifiers",
e.g.:

2u|n + 3u|n    =    5u|n,

for any n in N.

The fourth "ideo-system", in this progression of ideo-systems of Dialectical
Arithmetic, is the "second contra-thesis system / category of ideo-ontology" --
"contra" to all of the foregoing systems -- N, N\Q, and N\U.

It is a system of "unquantifiable METRICAL qualifiers", the primitive prototype
for the later-to-emerge fully-algorithmic arithmetic for the "dimensional
units', or "dimensional <<monads>>, of "dimensional analysis" full-blown.

As of the seventh "ideo-ontological category", and system, of Dialectical
Arithmetic, q|MQN, there has emerged an arithmetic for the explicit,
fully-algorithmic "Ontological and Metrical Qualification of Quantifiers", or,
symmetrically, for the "Quantification of Metrically Qualified Ontological
Qualifiers", suitable for the formulation of the State Variables and Control
Parameters of an advanced formulation of [Nonlinear] Dynamical Systems Theory.

Thus --

N\q|Q x N\q|Q    =    N\q|Q + N\q|QQ    =    N\q|Q  +  N\q|M

=  the system of arithmetic of the N\Q "meta-numbers"

plus

the system of arithmetic of the N\M "meta-numbers"

-- where N\M   =   { m|N }   =    { m|1, m|2, m|3, ... }

-- and where the full systems-progression "cumulum", to stage 2 of this
"Dialectic of the Systems of Dialectical Arithmetics", is --

<q|N>^(2^2)    =    <q|N>^4  =    N + N\Q + N\U + N\M.


For more on this Dialectical-Algebraic Model of the dialectical progression of
the systems of Dialectical Algebra, used as an example below, and formulated in
the ideography of the F.E.D. First Dialectical Algebra, see, for example --

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/Fract1-1.pdf

-- and the other texts in that series.


C.  "Formal Subsumption" of Predecessor Ontology, by the Latest-to-Emerge
Neo-Ontology.

Suppose we observe an historical sequence in which the ontological category
connoted by qX gives rise to the ontological category connoted by qY --

q|X  --->  <q|X>^2    =    q|X + q|XX     =     q|X + q|Y

-- and, later still, in which the ontological category connoted by q|Y gives
birth to the ontological category connoted by q|Z --

q|Y  --->  <q|Y>^2   =    q|Y + q|YY    =     q|Y + q|Z.

If so, then we call the epoch for which the ontological category connoted by
q|YX first appears, the epoch of the "Real Subsumption" of q|X, and of all of
its predecessors, by q|Y.

Likewise, we call the subsequent epoch, for which the ontological category
connoted by q|ZY first appears, the epoch of the "Real Subsumption" of q|Y, and
of all of its predecessors, by q|Z.

Contrasting with those designations, we call the epoch immediately preceding
that for which q|YX first appears, but for which q|XX, or q|Y, first appears,
the epoch of the "Formal Subsumption" of q|X, and of all of its predecessors, by
q|Y.

Likewise, we call the epoch immediately preceding that for which q|ZY first
appears, but for which q|YY, or q|Z, first appears, the epoch of the "Formal
Subsumption" of q|Y, and of all of its predecessors, by q|Z.

The above designations represent a universalization, to historical-dialectical
processes in general, of the concepts developed by Marx, in the specific context
of the historical dialectic of capital as subsuming social relation of
production, under the names "The Formal Subsumption of Labor by Capital", and
"The Real Subsumption of Labour by Capital", as set forth in his [unpublished]
6th Chapter of the first volume of his treatise "Capital, A Critique of
Political Economy".



D.  "Ontological Self-Conversion", by "Self-Subsumption".

Can 'connotograms' of the form q|XX be interpreted consistently, in the same,
standard way that 'connotograms' of the form q|YX, where Y NOT= X, are
interpreted, per the F.E.D. standard?

An interpreted/assigned ontological qualifier 'connotogram', such as q|YX,
wherein X NOT= Y, can, as noted earlier in these preliminaries, be interpeted as
connoting a '''hybrid''' formation, or process, of the conversion of the
ontology connoted by the 'connotogram' q|X into the ontology connoted by the
'connotogram' q|Y -- i.e., the conversion of the individual "units", or
<<monads>>, that constitute the q|X ontological category, into the '''higher''',
or '''meta-''', <<monads>>, the 'meta-units', that constitute the q|Y
ontological category.

That is, q|YX connotes the conversion OF q|X-type individuals, BY q|Y-type
individuals, INTO q|Y-type individuals.

The example used earlier, from the Universe-Model to be exposited here, is that
of first generation stars, connoted by q|as [--> q|6, which converted units, or
<<monads>>, of the ontological category, or <<arithmos>>, known as sub-atomic
particles, connoted by q|s [---> q|2 [mainly in the form of the units, or
<<monads>>, of the <<species>> of that q|s <<Genos>> known as protons, ionized
Hydrogen atoms, "the acidic species", etc.], into individual atomic nucleus
units, the units, or <<monads>>, of the ontological category, or <<arithmos>>,
known as atomic nuclei, and connoted by q|a [--> q|4, a <<Genos>>-<<arithmos>>
whose <<species>>-<<arithmoi>> include the ontological sub-categories known as
Helium nuclei [or "alpha particles"], as Lithium nuclei, as Carbon nuclei, and
as Oxygen nuclei, etc., whose individual units, or <<monads>>, are, precisely,
individual Helium nuclei, individual Lithium nuclei, individual Carbon  nuclei,
and individual Oxygen nuclei, etc., respectively.

Consistent with this "conversion" interpretation, then, what should the
'connotogram' q|ss [---> q|4 connote?

It, q|ss, should connote the conversion OF q|s-type individuals, BY q|s-type
individuals, INTO -- what type/kind/ontological category/<<Genos>>/<<arithmos>>
of individuals?

INTO q|s individuals again [i.e., "simple reproduction", or even "expanded
reproduction", of the population(s) of individuals who should be classified into
the same ontological category, q|s, again]?

The "self-interaction", "self-reflexion", or "self-refluxion" [self-action,
<<auto-kinesis>>,  self-<<karma>>, or '''self-multiplication'''] of the
<<monads>> of q|s, under the "<<aufheben>> evolute product rule" Axiom for
multiplication, as stated here in an earlier post, does encompass the "Boolean"
moment of the simple [or, within the same quality, or ontological category,
merely quantitatively expanded] reproduction of q|s, reflecting the "mere
conservation / preservation" moment of the meaning of the Hegelian <<aufheben>>
operation.

However, that multiplication rule also encompasses the "contra-Boolean" moment,
of the other two "moments" of the Hegelian <<aufheben>> operation, namely, the
moments of "elevation" and of transformation/transcendence, i.e., of
qualitative/ontological expansion, or qualitative expanded reproduction;
expanded reproduction by production of qualitatively new, unprecedented ontology
--

q|s x q|s   =    q|s + q|ss

-- wherein q|ss connotes mainly the latter two moments of the self-<<aufheben>>
self-negation process.

In particular, per the F.E.D. standard, "Meta-<<Monad>>-ology" interpretation,
q|ss connotes the "qualitative increment" of a new ontological category, or
<<arithmos>> of <<monads>>/individuals, each <<monad>>, or "unit", or
"[onto-]logical individual" of which is a META-q|s <<monad>> / "unit" /
"individual", made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of <<monads>> /
"units" / "individuals" of the q|s predecessor ontological category /
<<arithmos>> of <<monads>>.

What kind of <<monad>>, of what category, or <<Genos>>-<<arithmos>>, does "an
<<arithmos>>/ontological category of meta-sub-atomic particles, each one made up
out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of sub-atomic particles" connote?

To this observer, the phrase above connotes an "atom", or, more specifically, an
"atomic nucleus".

Thus, to this observer, the ideogram 'q|ss' connotes the ontological category
also connoted by 'q|a' --

q|s x q|s   =   q|s + q|ss    =    q|s + q|a

-- and --

q|ss   =   q|a,   [--->    q|4.


Thus, the "ontologically dynamical" process -- the process of "onto-dynamasis",
per F.E.D. -- connoted by --

q|s x q|s   =   q|s + q|ss    =    q|s + q|a

contains the term q|ss, which connotes processes of the SELF-Conversion of
sub-atomic particles into [ionized] atomic nuclei.

Recent cosmological research has turned up massive evidence that the production
of the vast populations of atoms of the "higher atomic species" manifest in our
contemporary <<kosmos>> was not entirely accomplished by stars alone, via the
thermonuclear fusion process known as "stellar nucleosynthesis".

Prior to the emergence of stars, a process of '''cosmological nucleosynthesis'''
is in evidence, which produced mainly atoms of the two "lowest atomic species"
-- atoms of Hydrogen and of Helium.

The physical-spatially self-concentrating, self-densifying processes of the
pre-atomic, sub-atomic particles -- the self-interactions of "free" sub-atomic
particles, such as protons and neutrons, connoted by q|ss, produced these first
<<species>> of the <<Genos>> of "atoms", or of "atomic nuclei", connoted by q|a.

Thus, this observer receives the symbol q|ss as connoting the self-conversion of
sub-atomic ontology into atomic-nucleus ontology, via the original, or
<<arche'>>, process of "nucleosynthesis" -- not "stellar nucleosynthesis", but
"pre-stellar nucleosynthesis", or "cosmological nucleosynthesis".

Thus, 'connotogramic ontological qualifiers', terms of the form q|XX, can be
interpreted as connoting the SELF-conversion of individuals of the q|X ontology
into individuals of a higher, "META-", ontology, and as also connoting the
[cosmological] formations which accomplish said SELF-conversion.



E.  "Original"/"Primitive" Accumulation of Neo-Ontology by
"Self-ReflExion"/"Self-ReflUxion" of Predecessor.

The process of 'pre-stellar nucleosynthesis' referred to as "cosmological
nucleosynthesis" in the sub-section above, was the process of "Original
Accumulation", or of "Primitive Accumulation", for the "atoms" ontology [or,
more specifically, for the ionized, cosmological plasma, "atomic nuclei"
ontology], q|a [---> q|4, from out of the "resources-base" of the pre-existing
populations of protons, neutrons, etc. -- of the "sub-atomic particles"
ontology,

q|s [---> q|2.

The process of stellar nucleosynthesis, within those "ontologically hybrid"
cosmological formations known as stars, was and still is the process of
"ongoing, reproduced, reproductive conversion", and of "reproductive
accumulation", of atoms, or of ionic atomic nuclei, from sub-atomic particles
[e.g., from "free" protons and neutrons], and also from "lower atomic species"
-- all / both connoted by

q|as [---> q|6.

Thus, terms of the form q|XX may be interpreted as connoting processes of
"Self-Terminating Original Accumulation" OF the q|XX ontology, BY the q|X
ontology, FROM the q|X ontology itself as "resource-base".

Thus also, terms of the form q|YX, wherein X NOT= Y, may be interpreted as
connoting processes of "Ongoing, Continually Reproduced, Not[-Yet]-Terminated,
Reproductive Accumulation", OF q|Y ontology, BY q|Y ontology, [but] FROM q|X
ontology as "resource-base".

This means that the processes of "Original Accumulation", or "Primitive
Accumulation", and of 'Reproductive Accumulation', described by Marx in his
"Capital:  A Critique of Political Economy", and in his "Grundrisse", are not
applicable to that human-social relation-of-production, known as <<Kapital>>,
alone.

On the contrary, these <<Kapital>>-relation, human-social-relations ontology
instances of these two processes -- of "Original Accumulation", and of
"Reproductive Accumulation" -- are but two individual <<species>> among many
other <<species>>, of these two universal <<Gene>> categories of
historical-dialectical process.



3.  How the "epoch-counting" tau of this (^1)<q|n>^(2^tau) Model Maps to the
Standard "Real" time variable, usually denoted by t: "Diachronic
Meta-Fractality" and the Phenomenon of "Temporal Acceleration" as "Diachronic
Scaling".

F.E.D. refers to QUALitative, and to "QUALO-Quantitative", or
"Quanto-QUALitative", self-similarity structures, which feature a scale-regress
in their similitude-recurrences, as "META-Fractals".

In particular, F.E.D. refers to the irreducible, non-amalgamative sum, or
"cumulum", of ontological qualifiers  -- generated by the (^1)<q|n>^(2^tau)
"Dialectic of Nature" model of the <<kosmos>> -- as modeling the [taxonomy level
one] "diachronic meta-fractal"of this <<kosmos>> as a whole, viz. --

q|n + q|s + ... + q|a + ... + q|m + ... + q|p + ... + q|e + ... + q|b  + ...

-- wherein q|m connotes the cosmo-ontological category/<<arithmos>> that has
molecules as its <<monads>>, wherein q|p connotes the cosmo-ontological
category/<<arithmos>> that has prokaryotic cells as its <<monads>>, where q|e
connotes the cosmo-ontological category/<<arithmos>> that has eukaryotic cells
as its <<monads>>, and where q|b denotes the cosmo-ontological
category/<<arithmos>> that has "multicellular organisms", or "meta-biota" --
"meta-phyta" and "meta-zoa" -- as its <<monads>>, . . . , with each term given
explicitly above connoting a "meta-fractal similarity-recurrence" of each of its
predecessor terms [if any] in the chronologically-ordered
[order-of-appearance-ordered] series-sum given above.

But, if the "similitude-recurrence scale-regress" feature is a required feature
of any structure that F.E.D. terms a "meta-fractal", what is the [diachronic?]
scaling feature that defines a "diachronic meta-fractal"?

Well, certainly, there is a physical-spatial volume, physical-spatial size
gradient in this "cumulum".

That is, proto-nuclear sub-atomic particles, because they "contain" a [usually]
heterogeneous multiplicity of pre-nuclear particles -- e.g., protons "contain"
quarks -- are generally larger than pre-nuclear particles in terms of their
three-dimensional-spatial "size", in their "volume" -- in the amount of 3-D
space that they "take up".

Likewise, atomic nuclei, because they "contain" a [usually] heterogeneous
multiplicity of sub-atomic particles -- e.g., the ordinary Helium nucleus
"contains" two protons and two neutrons -- are generally larger than are
sub-atomic particles in terms of their three-dimensional-spatial "size", in
their "volume" -- in the amount of 3-D space that they "take up".

And again, molecules, because they "contain" a [usually] heterogeneous
multiplicity of atoms -- e.g., a water molecule, "H2\O", "contains" two atoms of
Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen; a Carbon Dioxide molecule, "CO|2", contains one
atom of Carbon and two atoms of Oxygen -- are generally larger than are atoms in
terms of their three-dimensional-spatial "size", in their "volume" -- in the
amount of 3-D space that they "take up".

However, this "spatial size" scaling pertains more to the
"one-slice-in-time-at-a-time" view of the "synchronic meta-fractals" that result
from the diachronic growth of the 'multi-ontology cumula', or "multi-ontic,
multi-meta-monadic cumula", that result from the diachronic processes -- indeed,
from the concrete-time-generating processes, or "chrono-genic processes" -- that
are modeled by formulae like (^1)<q|n>(2^tau), rather than to any concept of
"diachronic scaling".

That is, this spatial volume scaling of the <<monads>>, or units, of the
similarity-recurrence <<arithmoi>>, or "ontological categories",  is "synchronic
scaling", not "diachronic scaling".

"Diachronic scaling", per F.E.D., refers to the time-scale of recurrence; to the
time-interval between -- to the amount of duration between --the occurrence /
irruption of a given ontological category / <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>, and of
the similarity-recurrence immanent in the occurrence / irruption of its
successor ontological category / <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>.

F.E.D. holds that, generally, the successive time-intervals or
duration-intervals between successive "contra-thesis" '[meta-]<<monad>>-ic'
irruptions exhibit a diminishing scale-regress, with shorter and shorter
intervals of duration between each successive [meta-]monadic emergence in the
cosmological progression.

Thus, it took less time for meta-biota, q|b, e.g., fish, to emerge from
eukaryotic [meta-]cellular organisms, q|e, e.g., yeast cells, than it took for
the q|e to emerge from prokaryotic cellular organisms, q|p, e.g.,
archeo-bacteria, than it took for molecules, q|m, e.g., polypeptide,
poly-amino-acid proto-proteins, to emerge from atoms, e.g., from Carbon,
Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Hydrogen atoms, than it took for atomic nuclei, q|a, to
emerge from proto-nuclear sub-atomic particles, q|s, e.g., protons and neutrons,
than it took for proto-nuclear sub-atomic particles to emerge from
pre-sub-atomic, sub-nuclear particles, q|n, e.g., from the various <<species>>
of the <<Genos>> "quarks".

This shortening of the time/duration that it "takes" to get from one
"self-hybrid" ontological category / [meta^(n)-]<<arithmos>> of
[meta^(n)-<<monads>>] to the next, successor [meta^(n+1)-]<<arithmos>> of
[meta^(n+1)-<<monads>>] -- to traverse the "whorl" on the meta-fractal,
trans-spatial helix, of cosmological "meta-evolution", between each pair of
mutually-similar but qualitatively-different, ontologically-different nodes on
that rising spiral -- is termed, by F.E.D., "temporal acceleration".

The validity of this concept of "temporal acceleration" depends upon moving,
from viewing "time" as an absolute, abstract "ticking", of an
external-to-the-universe "clock", a "clock" "ticking" with abstract regularity
for a transcendental time-keeper, who is also '''squatting somewhere outside the
universe''', to a relative, universe-immanent, "contental", "concrete"
definition of '''concrete duration''', in which "time" is conceived as being
PRODUCED, as CREATED, by the inherent activity of the [ev]entit(y)(ies) which
constitute(s) this universe -- by the self-generating events going on inside
this universe -- and in which a "rate of change of time" is thus measurable, if
measured relative to that event-content.

Thus, suppose that, e.g., (a.) the "distance-in-ontology-state" from a universe
with atoms and earlier-emerged ontology extant, to a universe with
earlier-emerged ontology and atoms AND molecules extant is defined to count as
one unit of ontology-state advance -- of advance in the ontology-content of the
<<kosmos>> -- and that, e.g., (b.) the "distance" from a universe with
proto-nuclear sub-atomic particles ontology plus earlier-emerged ontology
extant, to a universe with earlier-emerged ontology plus proto-nuclear
sub-atomic particle ontology PLUS atoms ontology extant, is, likewise, counted
as one unit of "meta-evolutionary" cosmological progress[ion].

Then, if the duration that the universe took to traverse transition (b.) is
longer than the duration that the universe took to traverse transition (a.),
then, per F.E.D., this "speed-up" in "cosmological meta-evolution" would
constitute an instance of "temporal acceleration" -- i.e., of that form of
"diachronic scaling" which is native to "diachronic meta-fractals", such as the
taxonomy level 1 cosmological "diachronic meta-fractal" modeled by the N\Q
formula (^1)<q|n>(2^tau).


Regards,

Miguel



[TO BE CONTINUED]

Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,

Part III.

[CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST, Part II.]



[NOTE:  For more on this Dialectical-Algebraic Model of the dialectical
progression of the systems of Dialectical Algebra, formulated in the ideography
of the F.E.D. First Dialectical Algebra, see, for example --

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/Fract1-1.pdf

-- and the other texts in that series].


2. On the Generic Meanings of "Non-Cross-Product", "Self-Crossed", Terms in the
Dilectical-Algebraic Model of the Dialectic of Nature.


A. Non-Hybrids as "Self-Hybrids": Phenomenology of "Self-Meta-Monad-ization" as
Self-<<Aufheben>> Process.

Terms of the from q|XX, in models built using the N\Q "First Dialectical
Arithmetic", where q|X, is a mnemonic abbreviation for the name of a
previously-possible ontological category, denote the emergence, into possible
existence, of a qualitatively new ontological category, born out of the
'intra-duality', or 'self-duality' of the predecessor ontological category, q|X,
itself. It is for that reason that q|XX is also standardly denoted by
Delta-q|X, wherein the underscored "Delta" connotes a Non-Quantitative,
QUALITATIVE ontological increment, born from out of category X, or,
equivalently, out of category q|X, itself.

For example, consider the primary foucus of this exposition, the "New Model of
the Universe" for the F.E.D. universal taxonomy, level one, thoroughly narrated,
epoch-by-epoch, in Part IV.

The interaction of the ontological category of atomic nuclei, mnemonically
connoted by (^1)q|a, WITH ITSELF, the interaction of such nuclei, as the
<<monads>>, or units, of the (^1)q|a <<arithmos>>, or assemblage of units,
taking place while the population of these atomic nuclei <<monads>>, or units,
increases at an accelerated rate, and as the physical spatial concentration, or
density, of these atomic nuclei <<monads>>, increases apace, eventually crosses
a threshold where formerly overshadowed forces come into play with sufficient
intensity to precipitate the manifestation of a new kind of unit, or <<monad>>,
of a new kind of <<arithmos>>, or assemblage of units: the molecules,
mnemonically connoted by (^1)q|m.

A molecule, as a unit, or <<monad>>, is a 'meta-unit', or 'meta-<<monad>>',
relative to an atom, taken as a "mere" <<monad>>, or "mere" unit.

The <<arithmos>> of molecules, as a ontological category, is therefore also a
'meta-<<arithmos>>', and an ontological 'meta-category', relative to the
ontological category of atoms, taken as a "mere" <<arithmos>>.

Ideographically, this process of the irruption of the molecular ontology from
out of the heart of the physical spatial 'self-concentration', or
'self-densification', of the atomic ontology, is symbolized as follows, via the
N\Q "First Dialectical Ideography", per the definition of the "<<aufheben>>
evolute product rule" given earlier, above, in these Preliminaries to the
present exposition, and in the earlier posting of the Axioms for a Dialectical
Logic --

(^1)q|a x (^1)q|a = (^1)q|a of (^1)q|a = (^1)q|a<(^1)q|a>

= <(^1)q|a>^2 = (^1)q|a + Delta-(^1)q|a

= (^1)q|a + (^1)q|aa = (^1)q|a + (^1)q|m.

The expression above is simply the '<<species>>-ific', specific, special case
expression -- for the F.E.D. level 1 taxonomy, and for the transition from the
epoch of cosmological "meta-evolution" without molecular ontology as a
"metastable" possibility, to the succeeding epoch, with molecular ontology as a
"metastable" possibility -- of the '<<genos>>-ific', "generic", and general case
dialectical-algebraic expression, alluded to in the paragraph above, i.e. --

q|X x q|X = q|X of q|X = q|X<q|X> = <q|X>^2

= q|X + Delta-q|X = q|X + q|XX = q|X + q|Y.

[Note that, because Delta-q|X, or q|XX, connotes an ontological category that is
"new", and qualitatively different than, the category connoted by q|X, and which
therefore has, or deserves, a new, different name, with a different abbreviation
than "X", we give Delta-q|X, or q|XX, a new, single-letter abbreviation in the
last equation above, namely, q|Y, wherein the letter Y stands for a mnemonic,
one-letter [e.g., first-letter of the name] abbreviation of the name of the new,
emergent ontological category, connoted by q|XX, or Delta-q|X, which is built
upon / out of / from q|X, and which is therefore "higher" than -- "elevated"
with respect to -- q|X, but also not of the same primary quality as q|X, which
means that it exhibits a DETERMNATE negation of the primary quality of q|X, and
which is also '''op-posit[e]''', and '''op-posed to''', q|X, in the
["qualitative-Peanic"] sequence, or succession, or progression, of ontological
categories].

The last equation above illustrates most clearly of all the "contra-Boolean"
character of the N\Q "Dialectical Symbolic Logic", or "Symbolic Dialectics"
["Ideographical Dialectics"].

Boole expressed, via the equation --

X^2 = X

-- an equation that asserts the reduction of algebraic nonlinearity to algebraic
linearity -- his "Fundamental Law of Thought", by which he meant that '''the
selection OF all of the Xs out of the class of all Xs itself, BY the class of
all Xs, acting as an operation[, a self-[s]election operator], UPON itself, can
yield only all Xs again, nothing more, thing less'''.

This fundamental Boolean formula expresses a principle of "the simple
reproduction of ideas" -- that '''X, acting upon X, "reproduces" exactly X once
again, nothing more, nothing less'''.

Note that the "<<aufheben>> evolute product rule" Axiom of the N\Q
contra-Boolean arithmetic still contains this "Boolean" moment, viz. --

X^2 = X + Delta-X

or,

<q|X>^2 = q|X + q|XX

-- as that aspect of the [self-]<<aufheben>> product rule which expresses the
"conservation" aspect of the meaning of the German-Hegelian, core-dialectical
concept of self-<<aufheben>> self-supercession.

However, the kind of "ontological multiplication" stipulated by the
"<<aufheben>> evolute PRODUCT rule" Axiom also supersedes the Boolean
[simple-re-]PRODUCT[ion] rule Axiom, by adding a further term, a qualitative
increment, an increment of new ontology, denoted Delta-q|X, or q|XX,
qualitatively different from the source ontology, denoted q|X, and "meta-" to
it, just as the "physio-ontological category" of molecules is "meta-" to the
"physio-ontological category" of atoms.

The latter term, Delta-q|X, or q|XX, also represents a "conservation" term,
e.g., "atoms" are "conserved" within "molecules", in that each molecule-unit
contains a [usually heterogeneous] multiplicity of atom-units inside itself.

However, this latter form of "conservation" also involves, and thus satisfies,
the "elevation" and "determinate-negation/transformation" aspects of the meaning
of the German-Hegelian, core-dialectical term <<aufheben>>.

Thus, in contrast to the Boolean "Fundamental Law of Thought" --

X^2 = X

-- which asserts a "Simple Reproduction of Ideas" for a fixed and unchanging
universe[ of discourse], an "eternal" and "immutable", "onto-static" and
unevolving, "ideo-ontology", the contra-Boolean "Fundamental Law of Dialectical
Thought" --

X^2 = X + Delta-X,

or

<q|X>^2 = q|X + q|XX

asserts an ontologically-dynamical ["onto-dynamic"] "Expanding Reproduction of
Ideas".

If the ideas being modeled are about the external, extra-mental, sensuous world,
then the model directly asserts a "Self-Expanding Reproduction of
PHYSIO-ontology".

If the ideas being modeled are about the internal, endo-mental, intuitive world
of ideas not directly referred to any external, sensuous objects or experiences,
e.g., about a highly-abstract mathematical system of idea-objects, then the
model directly asserts an "Expanding Reproduction of IDEO-ontology".

The concrete mechanism of the contra-Boolean, dialectical, <<aufheben>> process
that works in a wide variety, but perhaps not in all, of the extant F.E.D.
dialectical models, using the "First Dialectical Ideography", of N\Q, can be
expressed by the following equation:

self-<<aufheben>> self-convervation/self-elevation/self-negation

= "self-meta-<<monad>>-ization"

= "self-meta-unit-ization" =

the self-formation of a "meta-<<arithmos>>" from out of that
self-interacting predecessor <<arithmos>> itself.

That is, each of the units, or <<monads>>, of a successor <<arithmos>>, or
assemblage of <<monads>>/units, relative to the <<monads>>/units of its
predecessor <<arithmos>>, is a "meta-unit", or "meta-<<monad>>", of its
predecessor units, or <<monads>>.

Each unit of that successor, "meta-", <<arithmos>>, is a "meta-unit", made up
out of a [generally] heterogeneous multiplicity of the predecessor units of its
predecessor <<arithmos>>.

Each <<monad>> of that successor, "meta-", assemblage of <<monads>>, is a
"meta-<<monad>>", made up out of a [usually] heterogeneous multiplicity of the
predecessor <<monads>> of its predecessor "assemblage of <<monads>>".

Thus, for example, each molecule is a "meta-atom", made up out of a [typically]
heterogeneous multiplicity of atoms, created through the critically
self-concentrated mutual interaction of atoms, consequent upon the accelerated
quantitative expanded reproduction of their populations.

Likewise, each atomic nucleus is a "meta-sub-atomic particle", made up out of a
[typically] heterogeneous multiplicity of "nuclear sub-atomic particles",
created out of the critically self-concentrated mutual interaction of "nuclear
sub-atomic particles", consequent upon the accelerated quantitative expanded
reproduction of their populations.



B. Emergence of New ANTITheses -- of "Neo-Contra-Thesis" Neo-Ontology.

"Hybrid" terms, of the form q|YX, in F.E.D. dialectical models, using the N\Q
Dialectical Arithmetic and its Dialectical Algebra, are typically interpreted as
connoting "synthesis", or "uni-thesis", ontological categories -- "complex
unity" and "hybrid" ontological categories -- as we have seen, in Part II.

"Self-Hybrid" terms, of the form q|XX, on the contrary, are typically
interpreted as connoting "new contra-thesis", or "new antithesis", ontological
categories.

The F.E.D. expositional model, or "[Meta-]Systematic Dialectic"-al model, of the
progression of the systems of Dialectical Ideography itself, can serve to
illustrate such interpretations.

The "meta-system", and <<arithmos>>, of the systems of Dialectical Arithmetic
[here, an <<arithmos>> having "ideo-systems" as its "ideo-<<monads>>", or
"idea-object-units"], is made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity -- in the
form of a heterogeneous dialectical PROGRESSION -- of the individual systems of
Dialectical Arithmetic.

The original, or <<arche'>>, thesis "ideo-ontological category / system" of that
"meta-system", and <<arithmos>>, of systems of Dialectical Arithmetics, is the
Standard, "first-order" axiomatic system of the so-called "Natural" Numbers,
denoted by N --

N = { 1, 2, 3, . . . }.

That system is characterized, by its "primary quality", as an arithmetic of
numbers which are "unqualified quantifiers".

I.e., "three apples" is a "qualified quantifier" -- the "quantifier", here
three, "qualified" by the "ontological qualifier", apples. Likewise, "three
hours" is a "qualified quantifier"[, and, symmetrically, a "quantified
qualifier" as well] -- the "quantifier", three, "qualified" by the "metrical
unit", or "metrical qualifier", hours. The word "three" by itself is an
"UNqualified quantifier".

The successor system of arithmetic to that of N, in this F.E.D. "Dialectic of
the Systems of Dialectical Arithmetic", is the N\Q "First Dialectical
Arithmetic", the arithmetic of the
"Meta-Natural Meta-Numbers", N\Q = { q|1, q|2, q|3, . . .}.

That second system of arithmetic, N\Q, is the "first contra-thesis" system --
"contra" to the primary quality of the first, "thesis" system, N.

The axiomatic system of the N\Q "meta-numbers" is characterized, by its primary
quality, as an arithmetic of "meta-numbers" which are interpretable as
"unquantifiable ontological qualifiers".

They are "unquantifiable" because of their "idempotent addition rule": for any
n in N, q|n + q|n = q|n.

You can never stably get to even 2q|n, because 2q|n reduces immediately to 1q|n
= q|n.

So, cooting the system of arithmetic of the N ["Natural"] numbers by the symbol
q|N, we then have --

q|N x q|N = q|N + q|NN = q|N + q|Q.

Next, q|Q x q|N = q|N + q|QN.

The term q|QN connotes the "complex unity", or "uni-thesis", of the primary
qualities of the system of N and of the system of N\Q, which F.E.D. calls N\U,
where --

N\U = { u|N } = { u|1, u|2, u|3, . . . }.

The resulting, third system of Dialectical Arithmetic, N\U, is the "first
uni-thesis" system -- "unit-ing" the primary qualities of the first, "thesis"
system, N, and the second, "contra-thesis" system, N\Q.

That is, the third system in this progression of ideo-systems -- q|QN, or q|U,
or N\U -- is characterized, by its primary qualities, as an arithmetic of
"meta-numbers" which are interpretable as "quantifiable ontological qualifiers",
e.g.: 2u|n + 3u|n = 5u|n, for any n in N.

The fourth "ideo-system", in this progression of ideo-systems of Dialectical
Arithmetic, is the "second contra-thesis system / category of ideo-ontology" --
"contra" to ALL of the foregoing systems -- N, N\Q, and N\U.

It is a system of "unquantifiable METRICAL qualifiers", the primitive prototype
for the later-to-emerge fully-algorithmic arithmetic for the "dimensional
units', or "dimensional <<monads>>, of "dimensional analysis" full-blown.

As of the seventh "ideo-ontological category", and system, of Dialectical
Arithmetic, q|MQN, there has emerged an arithmetic for the explicit,
fully-algorithmic "Ontological and Metrical Qualification of Quantifiers", or,
symmetrically, for the Quantification of Metrically Qualified Ontological
Qualifiers, suitable for the formulation of the State Variables and Control
Parameters of an advanced formulation of Dynamical Systems Theory.

For more on this Dialectical-Algebraic Model of the dialectical progression of
the systems of Dialectical Algebra, formulated in the ideography of the First
Dialectical Algebra, see --

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/Fract1-1.pdf

[TO BE CONTINUED]

Regards,

Miguel

Dear Hegel-Hegelians,

Will essay to make all of this less abstruse by:

Posting some intuitive "Principles of Trans-Hegelian Dialectic", expressed via
--

(a.) Using only the "intuitive" symbols, avoiding all discussion of the
algorithmics of the undergirding Dialectical Arithmetic, and;

(b.) Exemplifying each universal "Principle of Dialectic", expressed in the
intuitive algebra, with at least two, disparate particular examples of it, taken
from different levels of the F.E.D. "Universal Taxonomy".

Here's the first-presented of these "Principles of Trans-Hegelian Dialectic".

_______________________________________________________________________


One CRUCIAL Point -- the symbolic logic used herein, and in some previous posts
here, is NOT a formal logic, in that it is "contra-Boolean".

It is an ONTO-Logical, 'Content-al' Arithmetic and Algebra.

Boole's "Fundamental law of Thought", or "Law of Duality", is stated by him as
--

X times X = X,

or

X squared equals just X, e.g.,

1 times 1 = 1

and

0 times 0 = 0.


In the F.E.D. "Symbolic Dialectics", e.g.,

q|B times q|B equals q|B plus q|BB,

and q|BB is QUALITATIVELY UNEQUAL to q|B, that is,

q|BB is NEITHER Less Than NOR Equal To NOR Greater Than q|B, but q|BB is still
different than q|B.

In their "analytical geometric" representation, q|BB is a unit-length arrow,
perpendicular to the unit-length arrow representing q|B.

______________________________________________________________________


The findings of Karl Marx, in his [unpublished] sixth chapter to <<Buch>> I. of
his treatise "Capital, A Critique of Political
Economy", under the headings --

"Formal Subsumption of Labor under Capital"

-- and --

"Real Subsumption of Labor under Capital, or the Specifically Capitalist Mode of
Production"

-- [see Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Volume 34, International
Publishers, NY, 1994, pp. 424 ff., & 428 ff.] --

are principles of far wider applicability than the particular instances of them
solely addressed by Marx [appropriately, in the context of his treatise focused
upon the Capital-Relation].


1. The Principle of "Formal Subsumption" is a universal characteristic of
dialectical processes.

2. The Principle of "Real Subsumption" is a universal characteristic of
dialectical processes.

3. The Principle that "Formal Subsumption" precedes "Real Subsumption" is a
universal characteristic of dialectical processes.


All three principles, as stated above, are explicitly codified as such in the
"product rule" -- the "multiplication rule"* -- of the initial F.E.D.
Dialectical Ideography.

[*The "<<aufheben> evolute product rule".

The term "evolute", in the phrase-name above, is metaphoric, comparing
<<aufheben>>, or "past-categories-conserving", sums of heterogeneous ontological
category-symbols, or "cumula", to seashells with "evolute" spiral structure, in
which earlier whorls [categories] are still visible [still in existence], from a
side-long view, after later whorls [categories] emerge. The opposite is a
"convolute" seashell spiral structure, in which later whorls block earlier
whorls from [side-long] view [i.e., extinct them; drive them out of existence].
"Convolute" product rules can, but do not of absolute necessity, model "abstract
negations".].

In what follows, the term "ontology" means "kind of "being" ", in the the sense
of "ontological NON-reductionism".

[By "NON-reductionism", we mean the theory that it is not useful, to practical
truth, to attempt, e.g., in the extreme case of "ontological reductionism", to
re-describe all of the phenomena of the present-day cosmos as "nothing but
quarks, moving in the void".].



Unified, Universal Statement of the Dialectical Principle of Subsumption of
Ontology by [Other] Ontology --

[CAVEAT: This statement pertains to universes[-of-discourse] assumed to be
"ontologically DYNAMICAL", i.e., to be universes[-of-discourse] with CHANGING
ontology, e.g., EXPANDING ontology -- the operation of whose ontology, in every
"present", is spontaneously producing its "future" presents, by producing new,
emergent categories of ontology, i.e., by self-generating "qualitative change";
the emergence of new "kinds"].

(i.) When a new, "meristemal" ["leading-edge", "vanguard"] ontological category
emerges within an "ontologically dynamical" universe of discourse, it emerges in
an "epoch" dominated by "previously-emerged", or "predecessor", ontological
categories.

(ii.) Nevertheless, as the "meristemal" ontology, once it emerges, it already
begins to manifest its potential self-reproductive ascendancy, thereby already
"formally subsuming" all of the predecessor ontology of its universe of
discourse.

This defines the epoch of "Formal Subsumption" of predecessor ontology by this
successor ontology.

If this meristemal ontology's potential is actualized, the more rapid growth
rates of local populations of its units, relative to the growth rates of the
units of predecessor ontological categories -- its rapid "expanded reproduction"
-- and the consequent rapidly growing physical-spatial concentration of its
units in a multitude of localities, leads to direct interactions between its
units and units of the predecessor ontological categories.

Its units tend to prevail in those interactions, in such a way that formations
emerge which convert units of the predecessor ontological categories into units
of this currently-meristemal, successor ontological category.

The emergence of such "conversion-formations" defines the epoch of this
[temporarily-]meristemal successor ontology's "Real Subsumption" of its
predecessor ontologies, and marks that epoch's temporal beginning.



Application Examples.

n these application examples, I eschew all discussion of
the algorithmics of the undergirding dialectical arithmetic, using only its
interpreted, meaning-assigned ideograms, which can also be characterized as
"mnemonograms", or "connotograms".

"Connotograms" such as "q|A" can most readily be construed as standing,
syntactically, for "q with A as SUBscript", which Yahoo typography does not more
directly provide for.

Semantically, the "q|A" ideogram MEANS: "the ontological qualifier standing for
the ontological category A, where A is a mnemonic abbreviation of that
category's name".


If A abbreviates a different ontological category than does B, then --

q|A + q|B

-- is a heterogeneous, "non-amalgamative sum", like the sum --

"Apples + Oranges"

-- because q|A is QUALITATIVELY, not quantitatively, UNEQUAL to q|B.


The sum 2 + 3 "amalgamates" to the single value 5.

The value "2" and the value "3" are merely QUANT-itatively, NOT QUAL-itatively,
UNEQUAL to each other.

The sum --

"Apples + Oranges", or, q|A + q|O

-- does not amalgamate at the level of categorization where different
<<species>> of fruit are distinguished, because "Apples", or "q|A", is a
category for units -- each called "an apple" -- which are qualitatively
different from those of "Oranges", or "q|O", designating the category for units,
each of which is called "an orange".


The "arrow" symbol, '--->', stands for the word "becomes".



1. General Example. Formal Subsumption: Generic Notation.

q|A ---> q|A + q|B.

Ontological category q|B FORMALLY subsumes ontological category q|A.


2. General Example. Real Subsumption: Generic Notation.

q|A ---> q|A + q|B ---> q|A + q|B + q|BA + q|BB.

Ontological category q|BA represents the Real Subsumption of ontological
category q|A by ontological category q|B.

Ontological category q|BB represents the "SELF-Subsumption" of ontological
category q|B, and q|BB is qualitatively unequal to q|BB.



3. Specific Example. Dialectic of Nature. Taxonomy Level One.

Suppose q|A means "Atomic nuclei" [e.g., Hydrogen nucleus; Helium nucleus;
Carbon nucleus],

q|S means "nuclear Sub-atomic particles" [e.g., protons and neutrons],

and,

q|N means "pre-Nuclear particles" [e.g., quarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos,
etc.].


Then --

q|N ---> q|N + q|S ---> q|N + q|S + q|SN + q|A

-- models a three epoch cosmological progression, one which ends with the
"Formal Domination" of, e.g., the "Sub-Atomic Particles ontology", and the
"Pre-Nuclear Particles ontology", by the emergent / "meristemal" "Atomic Nuclei"
ontology.

Furthermore --

q|N ---> q|N + q|S ---> q|N + q|S + q|SN + q|A --->

q|N + q|S + q|SN + q|A + q|AN + q|AS + q|ASN + q|M

-- includes a fourth epoch, in which the possibility of the "Real Domination" of
all previous ontology by the q|A ontology, or "Atomic nuclei" ontology, is
posited, via the three new terms q|AN, q|AS, and q|ASN, and in which also the
possibility of the "Formal Domination" of all seven precedingly-posited
categories of ontology, by the emergent / meristemal q|M, or "Molecules",
ontology, is also posited.

The ideogram q|AS is interpreted by F.E.D. as connoting "first generation
stars", which convert primarily protons -- ionized Hydrogen atoms, produced via
the process known as "cosmological nucleosynthesis" -- into the "higher atomic
number" <<species>> of the category q|A, of "Atomic nuclei", via the process
known as "stellar nucleosynthesis".


4. Specific Example. Dialectic of Nature. Taxonomy Level Two.
Dialectic of Human[ized] Nature.

Suppose q|C means the category of human-social ontology named [barterable]
"Commodities", the commodity being grasped, per Marx, as a "social relation of
production", or "form of [human social] intercourse", and that q|M means
"Monies", again with Money grasped as a category of the human-social relations
of production, and that q|K means the human-social relation of production
category of <<Kapitals>>.

Then --

q|C ---> q|C + q|M ---> q|C + q|M + q|MC + q|K

-- models a three epoch socio-historical, human-social- systems-progression, one
which ends with the "Formal Domination", by the q|K, <<Kapital>>-Relation
category of social ontology, of the q|C, "Commodity", and the q|M, "Money", and
of the q|MC, Money-mediated CIRCULATION of Commodities", categories of "social
relations of production ontology", due to the "meristemal" emergence of q|K.

The third epoch symbolized above fits that of the pre-industrial, "antediluvian"
<<species>> of <<Genos>> <<Kapital>> -- e.g., Usurers' <<Kapital>>, Merchant's
<<Kapital>>, and Chattel-Slavery-based, Plantation Agricultural-Production
["Latifundial"] <<Kapital>>.

Furthermore, the further-extended epochs-progression-model --

q|C ---> q|C + q|M ---> q|C + q|M + q|MC + q|K --->

q|C + q|M + q|MC + q|K + q|KC + q|KM + q|KMC + q|S

-- includes a fourth epoch, in which the possibility of the "Real Domination" of
all previous ontology by the q|K social-ontology, or <<Kapital>> socio-ontology,
is posited, via the three new terms q|KC, q|KM, and q|KMC, and in which, also,
the possibility of the "Formal Domination" of all seven previously-posited
categories of socio-ontology, by the emergent / meristemal q|S, or "Socialist",
socio-ontology, the new social relation of production of the successor social
system to the <<Kapitals>>-system, is also posited.

In terms of the systematic presentation of a global capitalist social economy in
the ascendant phase of its expanding self-reproduction, for the part assigned,
by Marx, to <<Buch>> II. of Marx's treatise on the <<Kapital>>-Relation, these
"Real Subsumption" socio-ontological categories can be interpreted [denoted
below by the "assignment symbol", '<--->']as follows --

q|KC <---> Commodity-Capital;

q|KM <---> Money-Capital;

q|KMC <---> The Circulation of the Total Social <<Kapital>>, as
self-reproduction of the <<Kapital>>-Relation on an extended scale.


In this interpretation, we differ with the F.E.D. definition of "capitalism", or
of the capitalist system, as stated in the text at the end of the following link
--

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/D.I.,Post,Phono-Neograms,%5BC%5D.w3.pdf

-- and which defines q|K, or (^2)q|K, by itself as the [most rudimentary]
dialectical-ideographic model of "capitalism", of the capitalist social system,
rather than the entire "cumulum", or "heterogeneous sum" --

q|K + q|KC + q|KM + q|KMC

-- as the [most rudimentary] dialectical-ideographic model of that social
system.

For F.E.D.'s take on this model as a whole, see pp. B-24 ff. via --

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
\
B-1,%20pp.%2023-33,%20v.2.pdf



Regards,

Miguel

Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,

One CRUCIAL Point -- the symbolic logic used herein, and in some previous posts
here, is NOT a formal logic, in that it is "contra-Boolean".

It is an ONTO-Logical, 'Content-al' Arithmetic and Algebra.

Boole's "Fundamental law of Thought", or "Law of Duality", is stated by him as
--

X times X = X,

or

X squared equals just X, e.g.,

1 times 1 = 1

and

0 times 0 = 0.


In the F.E.D. "Symbolic Dialectics", e.g.,

q|B times q|B equals q|B plus q|BB,

and q|BB is QUALITATIVELY UNEQUAL to q|B, that is,

q|BB is NEITHER Less Than NOR Equal To NOR Greater Than q|B, but q|BB is still
different than q|B.

In their "analytical geometric" representation, q|BB is a unit-length arrow,
perpendicular to the unit-length arrow representing q|B.

______________________________________________________________________


Will essay to make all of this less abstruse by:

Posting some intuitive "Principles of Trans-Hegelian Dialectic", expressed via
--

(a.) Using only the "intuitive" symbols, avoiding all discussion of the
algorithmics of the undergirding Dialectical Arithmetic, and;

(b.) Exemplifying each universal "Principle of Dialectic", expressed in the
intuitive algebra, with at least two, disparate particular examples of it, taken
from different levels of the F.E.D. "Universal Taxonomy".

Here's the first-presented of these "Principles of Trans-Hegelian Dialectic".

_______________________________________________________________________



The findings of Karl Marx, in his [unpublished] sixth chapter to <<Buch>> I. of
his treatise "Capital, A Critique of Political
Economy", under the headings --

"Formal Subsumption of Labor under Capital"

-- and --

"Real Subsumption of Labor under Capital, or the Specifically Capitalist Mode of
Production"

-- [see Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Volume 34, International
Publishers, NY, 1994, pp. 424 ff., & 428 ff.] --

are principles of far wider applicability than the particular instances of them
solely addressed by Marx [appropriately, in the context of his treatise focused
upon the Capital-Relation].


1. The Principle of "Formal Subsumption" is a universal characteristic of
dialectical processes.

2. The Principle of "Real Subsumption" is a universal characteristic of
dialectical processes.

3. The Principle that "Formal Subsumption" precedes "Real Subsumption" is a
universal characteristic of dialectical processes.


All three principles, as stated above, are explicitly codified as such in the
"product rule" -- the "multiplication rule"* -- of the initial F.E.D.
Dialectical Ideography.

[*The "<<aufheben> evolute product rule".

The term "evolute", in the phrase-name above, is metaphoric, comparing
<<aufheben>>, or "past-categories-conserving", sums of heterogeneous ontological
category-symbols, or "cumula", to seashells with "evolute" spiral structure, in
which earlier whorls [categories] are still visible [still in existence], from a
side-long view, after later whorls [categories] emerge. The opposite is a
"convolute" seashell spiral structure, in which later whorls block earlier
whorls from [side-long] view [i.e., extinct them; drive them out of existence].
"Convolute" product rules can, but do not of absolute necessity, model "abstract
negations".].

In what follows, the term "ontology" means "kind of "being" ", in the the sense
of "ontological NON-reductionism".

[By "NON-reductionism", we mean the theory that it is not useful, to practical
truth, to attempt, e.g., in the extreme case of "ontological reductionism", to
re-describe all of the phenomena of the present-day cosmos as "nothing but
quarks, moving in the void".].



Unified, Universal Statement of the Dialectical Principle of Subsumption of
Ontology by [Other] Ontology --

[CAVEAT: This statement pertains to universes[-of-discourse] assumed to be
"ontologically DYNAMICAL", i.e., to be universes[-of-discourse] with CHANGING
ontology, e.g., EXPANDING ontology -- the operation of whose ontology, in every
"present", is spontaneously producing its "future" presents, by producing new,
emergent categories of ontology, i.e., by self-generating "qualitative change";
the emergence of new "kinds"].

(i.) When a new, "meristemal" ["leading-edge", "vanguard"] ontological category
emerges within an "ontologically dynamical" universe of discourse, it emerges in
an "epoch" dominated by "previously-emerged", or "predecessor", ontological
categories.

(ii.) Nevertheless, as the "meristemal" ontology, once it emerges, it already
begins to manifest its potential self-reproductive ascendancy, thereby already
"formally subsuming" all of the predecessor ontology of its universe of
discourse.

This defines the epoch of "Formal Subsumption" of predecessor ontology by this
successor ontology.

If this meristemal ontology's potential is actualized, the more rapid growth
rates of local populations of its units, relative to the growth rates of the
units of predecessor ontological categories -- its rapid "expanded reproduction"
-- and the consequent rapidly growing physical-spatial concentration of its
units in a multitude of localities, leads to direct interactions between its
units and units of the predecessor ontological categories.

Its units tend to prevail in those interactions, in such a way that formations
emerge which convert units of the predecessor ontological categories into units
of this currently-meristemal, successor ontological category.

The emergence of such "conversion-formations" defines the epoch of this
[temporarily-]meristemal successor ontology's "Real Subsumption" of its
predecessor ontologies, and marks that epoch's temporal beginning.



Application Examples.

n these application examples, I eschew all discussion of
the algorithmics of the undergirding dialectical arithmetic, using only its
interpreted, meaning-assigned ideograms, which can also be characterized as
"mnemonograms", or "connotograms".

"Connotograms" such as "q|A" can most readily be construed as standing,
syntactically, for "q with A as SUBscript", which Yahoo typography does not more
directly provide for.

Semantically, the "q|A" ideogram MEANS: "the ontological qualifier standing for
the ontological category A, where A is a mnemonic abbreviation of that
category's name".


If A abbreviates a different ontological category than does B, then --

q|A + q|B

-- is a heterogeneous, "non-amalgamative sum", like the sum --

"Apples + Oranges"

-- because q|A is QUALITATIVELY, not quantitatively, UNEQUAL to q|B.


The sum 2 + 3 "amalgamates" to the single value 5.

The value "2" and the value "3" are merely QUANT-itatively, NOT QUAL-itatively,
UNEQUAL to each other.

The sum --

"Apples + Oranges", or, q|A + q|O

-- does not amalgamate at the level of categorization where different
<<species>> of fruit are distinguished, because "Apples", or "q|A", is a
category for units -- each called "an apple" -- which are qualitatively
different from those of "Oranges", or "q|O", designating the category for units,
each of which is called "an orange".


The "arrow" symbol, '--->', stands for the word "becomes".



1. General Example. Formal Subsumption: Generic Notation.

q|A ---> q|A + q|B.

Ontological category q|B FORMALLY subsumes ontological category q|A.


2. General Example. Real Subsumption: Generic Notation.

q|A ---> q|A + q|B ---> q|A + q|B + q|BA + q|BB.

Ontological category q|BA represents the Real Subsumption of ontological
category q|A by ontological category q|B.

Ontological category q|BB represents the "SELF-Subsumption" of ontological
category q|B, and q|BB is qualitatively unequal to q|BB.



3. Specific Example. Dialectic of Nature. Taxonomy Level One.

Suppose q|A means "Atomic nuclei" [e.g., Hydrogen nucleus; Helium nucleus;
Carbon nucleus],

q|S means "nuclear Sub-atomic particles" [e.g., protons and neutrons],

and,

q|N means "pre-Nuclear particles" [e.g., quarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos,
etc.].


Then --

q|N ---> q|N + q|S ---> q|N + q|S + q|SN + q|A

-- models a three epoch cosmological progression, one which ends with the
"Formal Domination" of, e.g., the "Sub-Atomic Particles ontology", and the
"Pre-Nuclear Particles ontology", by the emergent / "meristemal" "Atomic Nuclei"
ontology.

Furthermore --

q|N ---> q|N + q|S ---> q|N + q|S + q|SN + q|A --->

q|N + q|S + q|SN + q|A + q|AN + q|AS + q|ASN + q|M

-- includes a fourth epoch, in which the possibility of the "Real Domination" of
all previous ontology by the q|A ontology, or "Atomic nuclei" ontology, is
posited, via the three new terms q|AN, q|AS, and q|ASN, and in which also the
possibility of the "Formal Domination" of all seven precedingly-posited
categories of ontology, by the emergent / meristemal q|M, or "Molecules",
ontology, is also posited.

The ideogram q|AS is interpreted by F.E.D. as connoting "first generation
stars", which convert primarily protons -- ionized Hydrogen atoms, produced via
the process known as "cosmological nucleosynthesis" -- into the "higher atomic
number" <<species>> of the category q|A, of "Atomic nuclei", via the process
known as "stellar nucleosynthesis".


4. Specific Example. Dialectic of Nature. Taxonomy Level Two.
Dialectic of Human[ized] Nature.

Suppose q|C means the category of human-social ontology named [barterable]
"Commodities", the commodity being grasped, per Marx, as a "social relation of
production", or "form of [human social] intercourse", and that q|M means
"Monies", again with Money grasped as a category of the human-social relations
of production, and that q|K means the human-social relation of production
category of <<Kapitals>>.

Then --

q|C ---> q|C + q|M ---> q|C + q|M + q|MC + q|K

-- models a three epoch socio-historical, human-social- systems-progression, one
which ends with the "Formal Domination", by the q|K, <<Kapital>>-Relation
category of social ontology, of the q|C, "Commodity", and the q|M, "Money", and
of the q|MC, Money-mediated CIRCULATION of Commodities", categories of "social
relations of production ontology", due to the "meristemal" emergence of q|K.

The third epoch symbolized above fits that of the pre-industrial, "antediluvian"
<<species>> of <<Genos>> <<Kapital>> -- e.g., Usurers' <<Kapital>>, Merchant's
<<Kapital>>, and Chattel-Slavery-based, Plantation Agricultural-Production
["Latifundial"] <<Kapital>>.

Furthermore, the further-extended epochs-progression-model --

q|C ---> q|C + q|M ---> q|C + q|M + q|MC + q|K --->

q|C + q|M + q|MC + q|K + q|KC + q|KM + q|KMC + q|S

-- includes a fourth epoch, in which the possibility of the "Real Domination" of
all previous ontology by the q|K social-ontology, or <<Kapital>> socio-ontology,
is posited, via the three new terms q|KC, q|KM, and q|KMC, and in which, also,
the possibility of the "Formal Domination" of all seven previously-posited
categories of socio-ontology, by the emergent / meristemal q|S, or "Socialist",
socio-ontology, the new social relation of production of the successor social
system to the <<Kapitals>>-system, is also posited.

In terms of the systematic presentation of a global capitalist social economy in
the ascendant phase of its expanding self-reproduction, for the part assigned,
by Marx, to <<Buch>> II. of Marx's treatise on the <<Kapital>>-Relation, these
"Real Subsumption" socio-ontological categories can be interpreted [denoted
below by the "assignment symbol", '<--->']as follows --

q|KC <---> Commodity-Capital;

q|KM <---> Money-Capital;

q|KMC <---> The Circulation of the Total Social <<Kapital>>, as
self-reproduction of the <<Kapital>>-Relation on an extended scale.


In this interpretation, we differ with the F.E.D. definition of "capitalism", or
of the capitalist system, as stated in the text at the end of the following link
--

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/D.I.,Post,Phono-Neograms,%5BC%5D.w3.pdf

-- and which defines q|K, or (^2)q|K, by itself as the [most rudimentary]
dialectical-ideographic model of "capitalism", of the capitalist social system,
rather than the entire "cumulum", or "heterogeneous sum" --

q|K + q|KC + q|KM + q|KMC

-- as the [most rudimentary] dialectical-ideographic model of that social
system.

For F.E.D.'s take on this model as a whole, see pp. B-24 ff. via --

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
\
\
B-1,%20pp.%2023-33,%20v.2.pdf



Regards,

Miguel

Dear Hegel-Hegelians,

Part II.

A New, Non-Reductionist Model of the Universe.



NOTE: In the notation (^k)q|x, the k is a 'pre-super-script' of q|x, a kind of
superscript placed before/to-the-left of its "base", here q|x, rather than
after/to-the-right of its base, as with conventional exponents/powers. In this
notation, k denotes a Natural Number which indicates the level of the F.E.D.
universal taxonomy in which the ontological category denoted q|x arises. Also,
in "meta-numerals" of the form 'q|x', 'x' is the specifying subscript of 'q',
the generic "ontological qualifier" symbol.

Additionally, the following generic meanings of such "combinatory", and
"cross-product" terms, of such historical-dialectical models, will apply, per
the F.E.D. standard interpretation:


A. Hybrid Ontological Categories.

A generic "cross-product" term, such as (^k)q|zy, connotes an "ontological
hybridization" of the (^k)q|z and (^k)q|y ontological categories, or "ontos",
exhibiting characteristics of both of its consitutent "ontos", and mixing
together the <<monads>>, or units, of category (^k)q|z and of category (^k)q|y,
allowing those different kinds and different levels/scales of <<monads>> to
mutually interact.


B. "Complex Unities", or "[Partial] Syntheses", of Successor with Predecessor
Ontology.

A generic "cross-product" term, such as (^k)q|zy, connotes the "complex unity",
or the "unifying complex", of category (^k)q|z and category (^k)q|y. It
signifies a new <<arithmos>>, combining the units, or <<monads>> of the (^k)q|z
<<arithmos>> with those of the (^n)q|y <<arithmos>>.

For example, in a case where the taxonomy level, k, is equal to 1 -- the case of
(^1)q|as, discussed also already above -- this combination of the "atomic nuclei
<<monads>>" ontological category / <<arithmos>>, (^1)q|a, with the
"proto-nuclear sub-atomic particles/<<monads>>" ontological category /
<<arithmos>>, (^1)q|s, connotes the category of "first-generation stars", as its
hybrid <<monads>>, or hybrid units.

In each stellar macro-<<monad>>/macro-unit of this (^1)q|as macro-<<arithmos>>
of macro-<<monads>>, the as yet few/little populated sub-categories of the
extant micro-units/micro-<<monads>> of the developing, "atomic", successor
ontology, (^1)q|a -- e.g., ionized Hydrogen-Deuterium atom nuclei, ionized
Hydrogen-Tritium atom nuclei, ionized Helium atom nuclei [i.e., "alpha
particles"], etc. -- "mix" with, and interact with, the still-prevalent
sub-populations of the extant micro-<<arithmos>> of "sub-atomic"
micro-units/micro-<<monads>> of the predecessor, "sub-atomic proto-nuclear",
ontology, (^1)q|s -- e.g., "naked singleton protons" [i.e., plasma -- ionized --
"normal" Hydrogen atoms], "naked singleton neutrons", etc. -- in a way which
brings about the "population" of the possible "higher atomic number"
sub-categories of the (^1)q|a category: the up-conversion of sub-atomic-level
ontology, (^1)q|s, into "meta-sub-atomic-level ontology", that is, into
atomic-level ontology, (^1)q|a.

The ontological "categorigram", or "connoticon", (^1)q|a, corresponds to the
generic "ontological qualifier meta-number", q|4, of the "uninterpreted"
["minimally-interpreted"] N\Q arithmetic. The (^1)q|s "categorigram"
corresponds to the generic "ontological qualifier meta-number" q|2. Thus, the
"categorigam" (^1)q|as corresponds to [ a relation denoted herein by '[--->' ]
the generic qualifier --

q|4+2 = q|6.

The "categorigram" --

(^1)q|as [---> q|6

-- does not represent the "full synthesis" term, or "full uni-thesis" term, for
its epoch of self-expanding cosmological possibility.

Instead, it represents a "partial synthesis", or "partial uni-thesis", term,
because it still leaves out of its "complex unity" one constituent of
predecessor "physio-ontology", namely, (^1)q|n, the <<arche'>> ontological
category / <<arithmos>>, that has "pre-nuclear particles" as its
<<monads>>/units.

The "full synthesis", or "full uni-thesis", for the epoch of cosmological
possibility in which (^1)q|as first arises, per this model, is --

(^1)q|asn [---> q|4+2+1 = q|7.

This "second grand uni-thesis" "categorigram", (^1)q|asn, connotes the possible
past existence of, or even the possible past-to-present existence of,
cosmological macro-formations that accomplish a "tri-fold" conversion of (^1)q|s
and of (^1)q|n monadic ontology into (^1)q|a monadic ontology, as connoted by
(^1)q|a(s)(n), and/or of other such macro-formations, which might accomplish a
"bi-fold" conversion of the (^1)q|n-to-(^1)q|s [i.e., or (^1)q|sn ],
macro-converters, into (^1)q|sn-to-(^1)q|a [i.e., (^1)q|a(sn) ],
macro-converters.

There is, within this same epoch, also another "partial synthesis", or "partial
uni-thesis", <<arithmos>> of macro-converter macro-<<monads>>, or macro-units,
potentially building the accumulation of the "atomic nuclei", or (^1)q|a,
monadic ontology, in the model's "possibility-space", namely --

(^1)q|an [---> q|4+1 = q|5

-- connoting an <<arithmos>> of macro-<<monads>>, or of macro-units,
accomplishing the direct, "stage-skipping", "level-skipping", or "meta-fractal
scale-skipping" conversion of "pre-nuclear particle" micro-<<monads>>, or
micro-units, (^1)q|n, into "atomic nuclei" micro-units, or micro-<<monads>>,
(^1)q|a.


C. "Real Subsumptions" of Predecessor Ontology by Successor Ontology.

A generic "cross-product" term, such as (^k)q|zy, connotes the "Real
Subsumption" of predecessor ontology, here connoted (^k)q|y, by the successor
ontology, here connoted by (^k)q|z, as opposed to the mere "Formal Subsumption"
of (^k)q|y by (^k)q|z, which already begins to emerge in the immediately
preceding epoch of such a model, by the mere and simple emergence of (^k)q|z as
a supercession of, and successor ontological category /
<<arithmos>>-of-<<monads>> to, the (^k)q|y category.

For example, in the cosmological "physio-ontological Cumulum", connoted by --

(^1)C(2) = < (^1)q|n >^2(^2) = < (^1)q|n >^4 =

(^1)q|n + (^1)q|s + (^1)q|sn + (^1)q|a

-- the "Formal Subsumption" of (^1)q|n, (^1)q|s, and (^1)q|sn, by (^1)q|a, has
already begun.

In the immediate-successor cosmological "Cumulum", connoted by --

(^1)C(3) = < (^1)q|n >^2(^3) = < (^1)q|n >^8 =

(^1)q|n + (^1)q|s + (^1)q|sn + (^1)q|a +

(^1)q|an + (^1)q|as + (^1)q|asn + (^1)q|m

-- the "Real Subsumption" of (^1)q|n, (^1)q|s, and (^1)q|sn by (^1)q|a has
begun, via the emergence of the "assimilation", or "appropriation"
["conversion"], of (^1)q|n, (^1)q|s, and (^1)q|sn into (^1)q|a -- the
"synthesis" of the (^1)q|a successor, "meristemal" ontology from the (^1)q|n,
(^1)q|s, and (^1)q|sn predecessor ontology, through "partial consumption" /
"partial depletion" / "partial dis-accumulation" of that predecessor ontology --
as connoted by the presence of the new terms (^1)q|an, (^1)q|as, and (^1)q|asn,
respectively.

Note also, that, in the same epoch in which the "Real Subsumption" of the
(^1)q|a-predecessors, the (^1)q|n, (^1)q|s, and (^1)q|sn ontology, has begun,
(^1)q|m, connoting the ontological category / <<arithmos>> that has "molecules"
-- "meta-atoms, each one typically made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity
of atoms" -- as its micro-<<monads>>, or micro-units, has emerged, thus
launching the beginning of the "Formal Subsumption" of the (^1)q|n, (^1)q|s,
(^1)q|sn, (^1)q|a, (^1)q|an, (^1)q|as, and (^1)q|asn predecessor ontology, by
the (^1)q|m successor ontology.

This interpretative concept, of the "Formal Subsumption" of predecessor
ontology, by successor ontology, versus, and followed by, the "Real
Subsumption", of predecessor ontology, by successor ontology, generalizes -- to
historical "ontological dialectics" in general -- the Capital-Relation-specific,
human-social-ontological findings of Karl Marx, in his [unpublished] sixth
chapter to <<Buch>> I. of his treatise "Capital, A Critique of Political
Economy", under the headings "Formal Subsumption of Labor under Capital", and
"Real Subsumption of Labor under Capital, or the Specifically Capitalist Mode of
Production" [see Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Volume 34,
International Publishers, NY, 1994, pp. 424 ff., & 428 ff.].


D. "Ontological Conversion Formations" for the "Synthesis" of Successor
Ontology from Predecessor Ontology.

A generic "cross-product" term, such as (^k)q|zy, connotes a cosmological
ontological category -- and a cosmological macro-<<arithmos>> of
macro-<<monads>> -- whose macro-cosmic <<monads>>, or macro-cosmic "units",
convert the micro-<<monads>> of the (^k)q|y micro-<<arithmos>> into the [usually
larger, but still] micro-<<monads>> of the (^k)q|z <<arithmos>>, in a way which
is "catalyzed" by the presence of micro-<<monads>> of the same (^k)q|z
micro-<<arithmos>> in the hybrid "mix" of micro-<<monads>> that is contained in
each such "macro-conversion-formation" macro-<<monad>> of the (^k)q|zy
macro-<<arithmos>> / ontological category.

That is, a generic "cross-product" term, such as (^k)q|zy, here connotes a
cosmological ontological category -- and a cosmological macro-<<arithmos>> of
macro-<<monads>> -- which synthesizes micro-<<monads>> of the (^k)q|z
micro-<<arithmos>>, as its "output", from micro-<<monads>> of the (^k)q|y
micro-<<arithmos>>, used as its "input".


E. "Reproductive Accumulation" of Successor Ontology using Predecessor Ontology
as Resources, versus "Primitive Accumulation", or "Original Accumulation" of
Successor Ontology.

A generic "cross-product" term, such as (^k)q|zy, connotes a cosmological
ontological category -- and a cosmological macro-<<arithmos>> of
macro-<<monads>> -- whose macro-cosmic <<monads>>, or macro-cosmic "units",
"expandedly reproduce", and thereby increasingly "accumulate", the
micro-<<monads>> of the (^k)q|z micro-<<arithmos>>, in a sustained, recurrent,
and continuing/ongoing way, by continually transforming [usually smaller]
micro-<<monads>> of the (^k)q|y <<arithmos>>, into [usually larger, though
still] micro-<<monads>> of the (^k)q|z <<arithmos>>, in a way which is
"catalyzed", and, in effect, "supervized", by the presence of micro-<<monads>>
of that same (^k)q|z micro-<<arithmos>>, in the hybrid "mix" of micro-<<monads>>
that is contained in each such "macro-conversion-formation" macro-<<monad>> of
the (^k)q|zy macro-<<arithmos>> / ontological category.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

Regards,

Miguel

Dear Hegel-Hegelians,

Part I.

A New Model of the Universe.

Pre-Note: The model of our <<kosmos>> presented herein is an 'ideo-graph-ical'
model of the dialectic of the <<physis>>, in the ancient Greek and philosophical
sense of that term. A definition of that term thus seems useful at the very
outset of this exposition. For example, the Random House Dictionary of the
English Language, College Edition [1968], defines <<physis>> as follows --

"physis (fi'sis), n., pl. -ses (-sez). 1. The principle of growth or change in
nature. 2. nature as the source of growth or change. 3. that which grows,
becomes, or develops. ...".

Note also that this ancient Greek term, <<physis>>, in its "combining form", of
"physio-", or "physi-", resides at the [psycho-]historical and semantical roots
of modern English terms such as "physics" and "physiology".


This exposition is based upon a new model of the universe set forth in writings
by Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.], mainly as drafts of a book
entitled Dialectical Ideography: A Contribution to the Immanent Critique of
Arithmetic, and posted to the following website --

http://www.dialectics.org/



Introduction. Watch the <<kosmos>>, in a Process of "Continual Emergenc[e](y)",
Unfold Before Your Mind's Eye, in Simulation, via an Historical Dialectic of
Nature Model with a 3-Symbol Seed --

n^(2^t)

-- wherein n [underscored], or q|n ["q" underscored, with SUBscript "n",
subscript NOT underscored], denotes the primordial <<arithmos>> [ = "number of
qualitative
<<monads>>, or units"; i.e., "assemblage of ontological units"] and "ontological
category" that has "pre-nuclear "particles" " as its <<monads>>, or "units",
taken as the "historical premise", or <<arche'>>, of the total self-development
of <<Natur>>, and where t -- the Greek letter "tau" if the Symbol font were
available -- denotes the discrete epoch counting-number for the epochs of
cosmological "[meta-]evolution" ["the succession / progression of ontological
self-evolutions punctuated by ontology-expanding self-revolutions"].

This [underscored] n, or q|n [q underscored, with subscript n, subscript NOT
underscored]; this ontological category of "pre-nucleus, pre-nuclei,
pre-nuclear"
"particles"; this fecund primordial <<physis>> <<genos>> of cosmological
ontology, this <<arithmos>> of <<monads>> -- the deepest and earliest so far
known to the consensus of the community of modern scientists, hence our
necessary starting point in formulating a theory within modern science at
present -- includes, among its monadic <<species>>, the <<species>> of
"photons", "neutrinos", "electrons", "quarks", etc., but does not include the
<<species>> of the <<genos>> of "proto-nuclear sub-atomic "particles" ", e.g.,
the protons <<species>>, and the "neutrons" <<species>>.

This formula instantiates the profound potential "semantic concentration" of
ideography as a "shorthand" written language; the enormous "semantic
productivity", the depth of intuitive, "connotative" per-symbol meaning, that
ideographic notations can achieve.

There is a theorem, deductively provable from the "Axioms of Dialectical
Symbolic Logic", posted here previously, and stated in detail in the
pictographic summary of the book Dialectical Ideography, available via the
following link, slides 9-11 --

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.,%20Dialectical%20Pictography,%20I.\
\
\
\
\
\
,%20Systematic%20Dialectics,%20Parts%20IV-VI,%2018MAR2008.pdf

-- which states that, for any k [NOT underscored] in the set of "Natural"
Numbers, N = {1, 2, 3, . . . } --

[ q|1 ]^k = q|1 + . . . + q|k

-- and hence that --

[ q|1 ]^(2^k) = q|1 + . . . + q|2^k.

Thus, "Seldon functions" of the form x^(2^t) for a generic "<<arche'>>-thesis"
ontological category denoted x [underscored], forming the Left Hand Sides [LHS]
of "Seldon
Equations" such as the one immediately above, represent the "moment of unity" in
such expressions of dialectical processes.

Their Right Hand Sides [RHS], such as the non-amalgamative sum-expansion, q|1 +
. . . + q|2^k, above, represent the "moment of multiplicity / diversity" in
such expressions of dialectical processes.

The "Seldon formula" < q|n >^(2^t) involves two levels of exponentiation.

Where adjustable superscript-height-level controls are available, only 3
ideograms -- only three ideographic "symbols" -- are required for this formula.

Above, 4 "symbols" are needed, because the caret, '^', is used to indicate the
second level of "superscription", i.e., 2^t means the same as [FORTRAN's] 2**t,
e.g., 2^3 = 2**3 = 8.

This dialectical model of the 'self-[meta-]evolution of the <<kosmos>> at
"taxonomy level 1", the most general level of ontological taxonomy, takes 5
symbols if you count the underscore -- which signifies the "contra-Boolean"
character of the symbol it underscores -- as a separate symbol, and 6 symbols if
you add 1 as a "pre-super-script", to signify the taxonomic level / location of
this model, thusly --

(^1)n[underscored]^(2^t).

Even Einstein's General Relativity model of the universe, reduced to its
"gravitic" and homogenized mass-energy aspects only, requires, in its tensor
formulation, 5 symbols --

G = 8piT

-- wherein G denotes the momentaneous [tensorially-formulated] Geometry of the
total cosmos ["curved" or "warped" locally in proportion to local
mass-energy-density], where pi = 3.14159..., and where T denotes the
"stress-momentum-energy Tensor" of the Universe, describing the total, detailed,
momentaneous distribution of mass-energy throughout the [finite] space-volume of
that Universe. If we ignore the "G =", and write just "8piT", then this model
requires only 3 distinct symbols, counting "pi" as one symbol since, given a
Symbol font, "pi" would be replaced by a single Greek character.

If we substitute the value of t that counts up to the cosmological epoch in
which humanoid "meta-societies" -- connoted by (^1)q|h -- are emergent,
per this version of the "taxonomy level 1" ontological-categorial taxonomy,
namely t = 8, and expand the formula in accordance with the rules stated in my
earlier post here, on the Axioms for Dialectical Symbolic Logic, we obtain a
pure qualitative "cumulum-sum" of inhomogeneous, non-amalgamative, <<asumbletoi
arithmoi>> [Plato: "unaddible numbers"] ontological category symbols containing
256 ontological category signifying terms --

(^1)n^(2^8) = (^1)n^256 = (^1)n + . . . + (^1)q|lbepmasn +
(^1)h [---> q|1 + . . . + q|255 + q|256

-- wherein the q|1, q|255, and q|256 ideograms represent generic /
minimally-interpreted "unquantifiable ontological qualifier meta-numbers", and
wherein 'x [----> q|k' means "maximally, intuitively, connotatively interpreted
"intensional / heuristic" symbol, x, is identified with, assigned to, or is
interpreted by, minimally-interpreted, generic symbol qk",
for k in N = { 1, 2, 3, . . . }, the set of "Natural Numbers".

We will explain the meaning of the "complex unit[y]", 8-subscript, "hybrid" term
"(^1)q|lbepmasn" a little later along, in the "Preliminaries" section, and
beyond.

The "Dialectical Ideography", or "Dialectical Symbolic Logic", employed here, as
"axiomatized" in my earlier post, together with the interpretation or assignment
of it -- the model -- specified in this post, in its sequel, together solve the
problem of the Marxian "Dialectic of Nature" [i.e., this model constitutes a
solution to that fundamental open problem of Marxian Theory. We do not assert
that this solution is the only possible such solution.].

In the sequel to this post, below, we will supply you with the interpretational
background preliminaries essential to your understanding of this model, followed
by a narrative exposition of the model itself.

You can then behold the glorious self-burgeoning of our <<physis>> <<kosmos>>,
from its single, tiny seed -- herein denoted 1n -- simulated before your own
mind's eye, by thinking this model for yourself.

More about this "New Model of the Universe" can be found via the following link,
starting on page B-20:

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
\
\
\
\
B-1,%20pp.%2012-22,%20v.2.pdf



Preliminaries Regarding the Generic Interpretation of Heuristic, "Intensional",
Dialectical Ideograms.

1. On the Generic Meanings of "Cross Product" Terms in the Model.

Suppose that the symbol '(^n)q|z', connotes a new, unprecedented
ontological category that has emerged in the latest iteration of an
historical-dialectical model of a self-expanding "Cumulum" of self-diversifying
ontology, an historical "Cumulum" initially located at the nth level of the
F.E.D. universal taxonomy.

Suppose that this historical-dialectical model can be expressed as follows, per
the Axioms posted here earlier:

(^n)C(t) = (^n)x^(2^t) = <(^n)q|x >^(2^t).

Suppose further that the ontological category connoted by (^n)q|y first
emerged into existence in a previous [self-]iteration of this model, i.e., for a
lesser value of the t "independent variable".

Then, by the "<<aufheben>> evolute product-rule", per the cited axioms, the
product of (n^)q|z, as "[sentential] subject", interacting with and operating
upon (^n)q|y, as ["sentential"] object, is as follows --

(^n)q|z "times" (^n)q|y = (^n)q|z "of" (^n)q|y = (^n)q|z< (^n)q|y > =
(^n)q|z x (^n)q|y = (^n)q|y + (^n)q|zy.

Given all of the above, (^n)q|zy will denote a new, qualitatively different
ontological category, qualitatively unequal to either of its "parent"
ontological categories, namely (^n)q|z and (^n)q|y.

The ontological category of new -- or "neo-" -- ontology connoted by (^k)q|zy,
residing at the kth level of the F.E.D. universal taxonomy, for k i N = {1, 2,
3, . . . },
signifies concepts which, per F.E.D., include the dialectical "synthesis" of
(^k)q|z, with (^k)q|y, the dialectical "complex unity" of
(^k)q|z and (^k)q|y, and the "conversion" of the <<monads>>, or "units", of the
(^k)q|y <<arithmos>>, into their "meta-<<monads>>, or "meta-units" -- the
"neo-units" of the (^k)q|z <<arithmos>>, also catalyzed by the <<monads>>, or
"units", of the (^k)q|z <<arithmos>>.

For example, if (^1)q|s connotes the ontological category of "proto-nuclear
sub-atomic particles" [i.e., the category which includes that of protons and
that of neutrons as among its sub-categories], residing at level 1 of the F.E.D.
universal taxonomy, and if (^1)q|a connotes the
ontological category of "atomic nuclei" [i.e., the category which includes
"Helium atom nuclei" [a 'meta-unit' of units of the (^1)q|s category, the atomic
nuclei which, in the typical case, are each composed of two proton units and two
neutron units, tightly merged together into a new, single, atomic nucleus,
"meta-unit", or "meta-<<monad>>'], then we can "particularize" or "instantiate"
the generic expression above as --

(^1)q|a "times" (^1)q|s = (^1)q|s + (^1)q|as

-- wherein the qualitatively new ontological category, connoted by (^1)q|as,
connotes the <<arithmos>>, or "number/assemblage of qualitative, ontological
units", of those cosmological and galactic units which, through "stellar
nucleosynthesis", progressively convert "proto-nuclear sub-atomic particle"
units-- mainly ionized Hydrogen atoms, i.e., essentially, "naked protons" --
into ever higher "atomic/nuclear species", or 'physio-<<species>>' of atomic
nuclei "meta-units", or "meta-<<monads>> -- e.g., the nuclei of Helium atoms, of
Lithium atoms, of Carbon atoms, of Nitrogen atoms, of Oxygen atoms, etc., which
form sub-<<arithmoi>> of the "[meta-]<<arithmos>>" that constitutes the
ontological category of "atomic nuclei", connoted by (^1)q|a.

That is, (^1)q|as connotes the ontological category, or <<arithmos>>
["number/assemblage of qualitative <<monads>>/units"], which has the
first-generation stars as its "units"/<<monads>>, i.e., which has as its units
those gargantuan cosmological processors which convert "proto-nuclear sub-atomic
particle" units/<<monads>> into their "atomic nuclei" meta(^1)-units /
meta(^1)-<<monads>>, which we call "the first stars".

TO BE CONTINUED


Regards,

Miguel

Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,

Hegel's <<Logik>>, originally published in 1812, has, in its first two Chapters,
the following large-scale structure, in outline --



Volume I. The Objective <<Logik>>

Book I. The Doctrine of Being

Section I. Determinateness [Quality]

Chapter 1. [Abstract] Being

A. [Abstract] Being

B. [Abstract] Nothing

C. [Abstract] Becoming

Chapter 2. Determinate Being

.
.
.


While it is our ambition to reveal the intuitive justification of the
dialectical-logical "followership"-relations -- the exact sequence -- of the
"ideo-ontological" categories of Hegel's entire categorial progression in the
"Systematic-Dialectical" Order of Presentation in his <<Logik>>, including for
its Volume II., The Subjective <<Logik>>, to the extent that it can be so
justified, we will attempt to model only the concept-progression of the first
two chapters, as outlined above, for the purposes of this present posting.

This intuitive, heuristic, intensional, and ideographical model of the above,
opening, portion Hegel's <<Logik>> will be presented in the language of the
[subscipt-N]Q-underscore, or N\Q [this Q should be underscored, but Yahoo
typography does not avail] Dialectical Ideography, or "Dialectical
<<Characteristica Universalis>>" [ = Universal "Character-Language", or
"Algebra"], employing the "axioms", including the "rules of calculation",
posited to this forum in an earlier posting [which see, for the details on the
"purely qualitative computations" employed here].

More information on this new, "contra-Boolean", "Dialectical Symbolic Logic" can
be found via the following link --

http://www.dialectics.org/primer.htm



The <<arche'>>, the beginning "ideo-ontological" category, or "Concept", of
Hegel's "idea-ontology", or "universe of fundamental ideas", is that which Hegel
names ["Abstract"] Being, which we will denote by using the second phonogram of
our alphabet AS a mnemonic, "abbreviative" ideogram, "standing for" Hegel's
Concept of "Abstract Being", in the unity of all of its explicit and implicit
connotations or "intensions" -- i.e., its TOTALITY OF MEANING(s) -- by, simply,
B, or, equivalently, by q-subscript-B, or q|b.

We use the symbol/ideogram '=', to denote the relationship named "equal by
definition" as well as the relationship named "equal by computation", since
Yahoo typography does not support the traditional "three parallel segments"
symbol for the former.

For our model, we will identify this beginning idea-object with the beginning or
initial "ontological qualifier meta-number" of the N\Q arithmetic, such that --

N\Q = { q|1, q|2,q|3, . . . }

-- namely, q|1.

We signify this mental act of identification, "assignment", or "interpretation",
via the ideogram '<--->'.

Thus, we write --

q|1 <---> B, or, symmetrically, B <---> q|1

-- meaning that, in the "homeomorphic defect" of this model, we attribute all of
the algorithmic properties of q|1 to the "intension-symbol",
"connotation-symbol", "category-symbol", and "Concept-symbol", B.

We use, e.g., "x^2" to denote "x-squared" -- x with the "exponent" or "raised"
to the "power" of 2, and, e.g., x^(2^3) to denote x "raised" to the power of
2^3, or 8.

We seek to generate the following progression of category-series, or
category-sums, by letting the two-levels-of-exponentiation formula for the
generic dialectic, [q|1]^(2^(s)), where s counts the steps in the presentation /
argument, guide the repeated, self-iterated self-reflexion of the Concept,
denoted B, in its specific dialectic, modeled as B^(2^(s)), to see if the thus
algorithmically-guided progression of connotational, intensional symbols, makes
intuitive, heuristic, connotative sense.

We use symbol formations like "X ---> [Y + Z]", to "ideogramize" the expression
"X BECOMES [Y + Z]", or " "Over Time", or "Upon Further Reflection", X
TRANSFORMS ITSELF INTO [Y + Z]".

The progression of Hegel's <<Logik>>, Chapters 1 & 2, that we wish our model to
reproduce, and to distill the "sense" of, is --

[Abstract] Being --->

[Abstract] Being + [u][Abstract] Nothing --->

[Abstract] Being + [Abstract] Nothing + [Abstract] Becoming --->

[Abstract][Being + Nothing + Becoming] +

Determinate [= No-Longer-Abstract] Being.




0. Step 0., with s = 0, simply [re-]posits the <<arche'>> Category,
B = q|B:

B^(2^(0)) = B^1 = B = q|B.


1. Step 1, with s = 1, emerges, out of implicitude, into explicitude, the fruits
of the first [self-]reflexion of the Concept denoted by B upon itself:

B^(2^(1))  =   B^(2)  =  B "squared"  =  B(B)  =

B "of" B  =

B "of" itself = the self-reflexive function of B  =

B + delta_B  =

q|B + q|BB.

Now, knowing what q|B connotes, already, by supposition, we ask:

What could q|BB, i.e., delta_B, MEAN?

What could the increment of new "idea-kind", or of new "idea-ontology" --
qualitatively different from B, i.e., q|B, and that which emerges into human
consciousness when the human mind, "mentally-embodying" / "simulating" the
Concept connoted by B, reflects with itself upon B, i.e., upon itself -- that
is, confronts / observes [the functioning of] itself when it "embodies" the
Concept B or q|B -- "STAND FOR"?

It may help, in attempting to answer this question, to employ the
set-theoretical concepts that have arisen into greater familiarity since Hegel's
life-time.

Set-theoretically, the set of all things which we perceive as having the color
"blue", is called the "extension" of the "concept" of "blue-ness" -- of the
concept which, in itself, is an "intension"; an "intensional" or "connotational"
mental entity.

Set theory uses such "extensions", i.e., such "sets" -- such exhaustive listings
of all objects, or "logical individuals", that exist in the "universe of
discourse", and that share a quality or "Predicate", call it "P", for short --
to represent "intensions", such as the concept, predicate, category, or
attribute here denoted by P.

Well, consider the most comprehensive possible "intension", the one that has the
largest possible number of "logical individuals" in its "set", or "extension".

Let's take, therefore, the entire universe as our "universe of discourse", and
assume that we can name every object that we know to exist in it as a distinct
"logical individual". That set will have "every thing" in it.

What is the "intension" of this maximal "extension", this "univers[e][al] set"?

Maybe that "intension" is Hegel's "Being".

Maybe the only thing that ALL of the "logical individuals" in the universe have
in common is "Being".

But that predicate, "Being", asserts almost "NOTHING" about anything; about any
"logical individual" in that "set" that contains all "logical individuals".

Thus, we see that, upon [self-]reflection, the Idea, the Category, of "Being"
reproduces / re-derives itself, but also gives rise to its opposite, the concept
of "Nothing".

So, maybe, delta_B  =  q|BB  = Nothing, which we can connote by the
"ideogram-ized" mnemonic phonogram N.

If so, we then have --

B ---> B x B = BB = B(B) = B^(2)  =

B + delta_B  =

B + q|BB  =

B + N

<--->

Being ---> Being(Being)  =   Being "of" Being   =

Being "squared"   =   Being^(2)   =

Being + delta_Being  =

Being + Nothing.


Note that, generically, this result has the form:

Thesis + Contra-Thesis.


Thus -- if this progression is intuitively plausible to you -- you now have a
dialectical model of Parts A. and B. of Hegel's dialectical <<Logik>>, per the
outline above, via step s = 1 of the two-exponential-level "self-iteration"
formula B^(2^(s)).


But what of Hegel's Part [b]C[/b].?


Our model, to encompass Hegel's Part [b]C[/b]., must INTUITIVELY yield, in its
second step, for [b]s = 2[/b], something like --


( Being + Nothing ) --->

( Being + Nothing )( ( Being + Nothing ) )  =

( Being + Nothing ) "of" ( Being + Nothing )  =

( Being + Nothing ) reflecting upon ( Being + Nothing)  =

( Being + Nothing ) x ( Being + Nothing )

( Being + Nothing )^(2)   =

( Being + Nothing + Becoming . . . ).



So, let's look at the "Connotative Logic" of step s = 2.


2. Step 2., with s = 2, applies the conceptual activity / functioning
/"ideo-eventity" / "mental-process-object" connoted by
( B + N ) to itself:

B^(2^(2))  =  B^(4)  =  ( B^(2) )^(2)  =

B^(2 x 2)  =  ( B + N )^(2)  =

( B + N ) "of" ( B + N )   =   ( B + N )( ( B + N ) ) =

( ( B + N ) + delta_( B + N ) )   =

( B + N + q|NB + q|NN )   =

( q|B + q|BB + q|NB + q|NN ).

So, what do the two new, emergent, "Idea-symbols" / "Category-symbols" /
"Concept-symbols", namely q|NB and q|NN, connote for us?


q|NB:

This ideographic symbol connotes, per the standard F.E.D. interpretation, the
"subsumption" of B by N, the "subsumption" of "Being" by "Nothing" /
"[self-]conversion" of "Being" into "Nothing", a "moment" which Hegel describes
as the passage, or [self-]movement, from "Being" to "Nothing", or as the process
of "Ceasing-to-be".

This symbol also has the reverse, "commutative", shadow-connotation of q|BN, the
subsumption of N by B, the subsumption of "Nothing" by "Being", the
[self-]conversion of "Nothing" into "Being", the other "moment", which Hegel
describes as the passage, or self-movement, from "Nothing" to "Being", or as the
process of "Coming-to-be".

Hegel describes the combination, or unity, of these two "moments" -- of
"Coming-to-be[" and "Ceasing-to-be" -- which is also the result of the
combination, or '" complex/unity/unification/'unit-ification' "', of the Concept
that Hegel names "Being" with the Concept that Hegel names "Nothing" -- as the
Concept / Category / Idea-Function, or Idea-[Process-]Object that he names
"Becoming".

Thus, we hold, q|NB  =  q|BN connotes a new idea-increment, that appropriately
nameable as "Becoming".

The human mind, thinking the Concept of "Being", soon finds itself also thinking
the Concept of "Nothing", and, shifting the emphasis of its thoughts to the
Concept of "Nothing", soon finds itself remembering again that, if this
"universal set" looks like it stands for "Nothing"-in-particular,
"Nothing"-specific, if viewed EXCTERNALLY, from its "OUT-SIDE", i.e., viewing
its unitary outer skin only, as enclosing a single "set"; in effect, viewing its
"braces" only, just '{' and '}', as it were, that this set, viewed INTERNALLY,
from its "IN-SIDE", is seen in an exactly opposite light, as a vision of the
plenitude of all particular being; as an exhaustive listing of the maximal
qualitative diversity of every single "logical individual" in the universe, and,
so, that human thought-process returns itself to the Concept of "Being" once
again.

The human mind, observing itself in this continual OSCILLATION, moving from
"Being" to "Nothing" ["Ceasing-[to]-be[ing]"; "Passing-Away[-from "Being"]],
then, once again, as a result of that just-previous movement, moving itself
again, back from "Nothing" to "Being" ["Coming-to-be[ing]";
"Arising[-from-"Nothing"-to-"Being"]], should name its behavior in this
thought-process by the word "Becoming", in that double sense, per Hegel.

q|NN:

All three of the Categories evoked so far have been "Abstract", or free of
specific, particular, concrete attributes, or "determinations".

They have been "NOT-Determinate" categories; "NON-Determinate" categories;
"IN-Determinate" Categories.

"Being" in this context means "Abstract Being", "Being" lacking any substantive,
distinguishing features or facets.  That is precisely why these "Being"
immediately collapses, into / to "Become", "Nothing".

"Abstract Nothing", the "Contra-Thesis" Concept to this "Abstract Being"
Concept, in this context, is even more "Abstract" than the "Abstract Being"
Concept, which collapses into it, because this "Abstract Nothing" Concept
intends absolutely no determinations whatsoever, whereas "Being" at first seems
to be about -- pretends to be about -- something more, some "Quality" or other;
"Quality" in general, until, upon further reflection, that ruse collapses, into
"Nothing".

This, the "self-reflexion" of this nadir of determinateness, of this zenith of
INdeterminateness, or "Abstract-ness", the Concept of "Abstract Nothing", calls
forth, calls to mind, its own opposite, which is also the opposite of the entire
"Abstract Being + Abstract Nothing + Abstract Becoming" triad; the opposite of
"Abstract-Ness" itself, namely "Determinate-Ness" -- "DETERMINATE Being".

Thus, q|NN connotes the Category / Concept of "Determinate Being", connoted here
by D.


If this connotation-logic works -- "goes through" -- convincingly, for you, then
you now have an dialectical-ideographic, shorthand mathematical model of the
first two Chapters of Hegel's dialectical <<Logik>>, in three steps, s = 0 to s
= 1 to s = 2:

s = 0, B^(2^(0)) = B;

s = 1, B^(2^(1)) = B^(2) = B + N;

s = 2, B^(2^(2)) = [ B + N ]^(2) =

[ [ B + N ] + [ q|NB = q|BN ] + D ]  =

B + N + q|NB + D.



Note that this third step in the "Systematic-Dialectical" presentation of
Hegel's "Dialectical Logic" has the generic form --



First Thesis + First Contra-Thesis + First Synthesis +

Second Contra-Thesis,


or


Thesis 1 + Contra-Thesis 1 + Uni-Thesis 1 +

Contra-Thesis 2.



Regards,

Miguel

Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,

As promised in my earlier post here on "Axioms for Dialectical Logic", this post
contains a worked example of a 'Dialectical-Mathematical Model', using the
language of the "purely-qualitative", "purely connotative" mathematics -- the
'Dialectical Ideography' -- of that axiomatized Dialectical Logic.

The example for this post is that of the philosopher William of Ockham's theory
of science.

Ockham gave to terms of language which refer to the reality outside of [[the
reality of]] language, the descriptor "categorematic". Thus, the "term" or word
"rock" refers to that "external reality".

Ockham gave to terms of language which refer to categorematic terms the
descriptor "syncategorematic". Thus, the "terms" or words "all", "some", "none",
and "not" are such "word-referring words", or "term-referring terms".

Ockham also called terms that refer to things belonging to the reality outside
of language "terms of the first intension".

He called terms which refer to terms of the first intention "terms of the second
intension".

In a sense, then, syncategorematic terms are terms of the second intension.

However, Ockham distinguishes mere "terms" of language -- e.g., individual words
-- from those 'meta-terms', or 'meta-words', each one made up out of a
heterogeneous multiplicity of "mere" "terms, or of "mere' "words", which are
named "complete sentences", or "well-formed propositions", and Ockham does not
ontologically "reduce" the latter to the former.

Thus, for Ockham, categorematic terms in combination with syncategorematic
terms, in the form of well-formed sentences or propositions, and thus,
functioning together, refer more adequately to things belonging to the reality
outside of language, than do single, isolated "mere" terms, or single, isolated
words, such as those terms/words which are "names", or "nouns".

The sentence/proposition "All men are mortal." is thus first intentional.

But when we use terms such as <<species>>, and <<Genos>>, we are using terms of
"second intension".

On the basis of these distinctions, Ockham divides the <<Genos>> of the sciences
into two <<species>>, or sub-<<Gene>> --



<<Genos>>: Science, or, in F.E.D.'s terms, <<Scientia Universalis>>.

<<species>> 1: <<Scientia realis>>, encompassing the sciences of "real things".
For example, the science of physics would form a sub-<<species>> of this
<<species>>. This <<species>> is "first-intensional".

<<species>> 2: <<Scientia rationalis>>, encompassing the sciences of
'language-things'. For example, the science of formal logic would form a
sub-<<species>> of this <<species>>. This <<species>> is "second-intensional".

For further background on Ockham's theory, see Dictionary of Philosophy and
Religion, Eastern and Western Thought, by W. L. Reese, 1980, pp. 627 ff..



To model Ockham's taxonomy of this world of human ideas, using the "Dialectical
Logic" axiomatized in the earlier post here, we "interpret", or "assign" -- the
mental action denoted by the ideogram '<--->' -- the first of the "meta-Natural
meta-Numbers" of that "N\Q", or "unquantifiable Qualifier", "Dialectical
Ideography", as follows --

q1, <---> q-subscript-r or R, such that R <---> "reality"; the universe of "real
things", outside of human language.



The model then captures the sequential presentation of Ockham's ideas via the
recurrently "self-reflexive" function, or "self-iteration" expressed by --

R^(2(^s))

-- wherein s, as the higher exponent of the exponent 2, counts the "steps" or
"stages" of that presentation of ideas / of philosophical categories.


0. Then, for the 0th step, s = 0 --

R^(2(^0)) = R^1 = R

-- which simply reiterates the starting point, or <<arche'>>, of the
presentation.


1. For the first step of the presentation, for s = 1, we then have --

R^(2(^1)) = R^2 = R(R) = the [self-[reflexive]]function R "of" R =
"R-squared" = R confronts itself = R evokes its own immanent other /
"intra-dual" out of itself = R <<aufheben>>-negates itself = R + delta-R = R +
q-sub-rr = q-sub-r + q-sub-rr.

I propose that we interpret the "delta-R", or qrr, term -- corresponding to the
"uninterpreted' N\Q "meta-numeral" q1+1 = q2 -- as a term which connotes the
result of the "self-reflexion" of "reality".

In this context, that means the immanent emergence, within Nature, from out of
Nature -- as part of the dialectic, or self-development, of Nature itself -- of
"observing eyes", and of "observing sensoria" in general; of observing and
thinking minds, as "things"/objects/bodies within Nature -- the emergence of
Natural entities which produce languages, hence "terms", to name/communicate
their observations/experiences among themselves. Thus, we are asserting the
interpretation, or assignment: q2 <---> qrr = qt = T.

Accepting this interpretation, we then have that, as of step 1, s = 1, we find
that the model r2^s, posits the possible existence of two philosophical
categories -- the category of "reality", "plus" [+] its "contra-thesis" category
of "terms", used in "naming" the "elements" of that "reality":

R^(2(^1)) = R^2 = R + T.


2. For the second step of the presentation, for s = 2, we then have --

R^(2(^2)) = R^4 = R^(2 x 2) = (R^2)^2 = (R + T)^2 = (R + T)((R + T)) = the
[self-[reflexive]]function (R + T) "of" (R + T) = ( R + T )-squared = ( R + T )
confronts itself = ( R + T ) evokes its own immanent other / "intra-dual" out of
itself = (R + T) <<aufheben>>-negates itself = ( (R + T) + delta-(R + T) ) =

( (R + T) + qtr + qtt ) =

( qr + qt + qtr + qtt ).

Thus, we see that two new possible philosophical categories have emerged,
symbolically, in this "argument", in the calculation of step 2 of this
"Ockhamian Dialectic", namely, the category connoted by the "connotogram" -- or
"connot-icon -- qtr, assigned to the "uninterpreted" N\Q "meta-number" qualifier
q3, and the category connoted by the "connoticon" qtt, assigned to the
"uninterpreted" N\Q "meta-natural meta-number" qualifier q4.

I propose that we interpret as follows --

q3 <---> qtr = qf = F: the category of well-formed propositions of the first
intension, in which the terms of language, categorematic and syncategorematic
alike, functioning together, "subsume" "reality" for those cognizing
subjects/agents within Nature -- i.e., for that which we [humans] name by the
term "humanity" -- who are capable of creating and using language, by
"converting" that "reality" into systematic, sentential, propositional,
linguistic, human descriptions of that "reality".

q4 <---> qtt = qs = S: the category of well-formed propositions of the second
intension, in which the terms of language, categorematic and syncategorematic
alike, functioning together, "self-subsume", by "[self-]converting" that human,
internal, "inter-subject-ive", or "inter-agent-ive", "mental", secondary
universe of "terms", of "language", of "ideas", into systematic, sentential,
propositional, linguistic, human descriptions of that universe of linguistic
"things", of linguistic "[idea-]objects", of linguistic descriptions themselves;
that universe of the human "meme-pool", or of the self-developing "Human
Phenome", self-reflexively.

Thus, by R^(2(^2)), step 2 of the dialectic connoted by R^(2(^s)), we have
generated the full regalia of the Ockhamian taxonomy, namely --

R^(2(^2))  =  R^4  =  R + T + F + S   =

"real things" + "categorematic and syncategorematic terms" + "propositions of
the first intension" + "propositions of the second intension"

<--->

q1 + q2 + q3 + q4.

-- where F comprises the <<Scientia realis>>, S the <<Scientia rationalis>>, and
( F + S ) the <<Scientia Universalis>>.


For more on this "Dialectical Ideography", and its applications, see:

http://www.dialectics.org/briefs.htm


Regards,

Miguel



--- In hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com, "detonacciones" <detonacciones@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,
>
> Background. The following nine axioms are extracted from a number of texts
posted at the following website --
>
> http://www.dialectics.org/
>
> -- none of which assert all of these axioms together.
>
> Note: Since the Yahoo Groups' text facilities lack the capability for
subscripts and underscores, I will use 'a|b' to denote "a underscore with
subscript b' and 'a\b' to denote "underscored script-level b with pre-sub-script
a", throughout this post.
>
> However, the axiom set provided below seems to be a fair representation of
those necessary to the "calculus of discovery" described on that site, which
seems -- judging from the models and calculations presented in the texts posted
there, as well as a number of test models that I have derived on my own [two of
which are
> presented below] -- to be a [somewhat unexpected] fulfillment of Leibniz's
quest for a "Characteristica Universalis", a "universal character-language"
[universal ideography; universal algebra] for philosophical and scientific
inquiry.
>
> The calculus specified by these axioms is a "purely-qualitative", "heuristic",
and "intensional" one, rather than a "purely-quantitative" and "extensional"
one.
>
> That is, this calculus, when its generic symbol, q|1, is "interpreted" or
"assigned" to a specific "ontological category", or "kind of being" category,
call it X --  where "X" would, typically, denote a mnemonic abbreviation for the
name of the ontological category in question, in order to model, and thereby
CONNOTE its meaning -- to explore the past and/or the "expectable" future of,
some aspect of conceptual and/or experiential reality, starting from its first
or primary manifestation, is purely connotative, even though the operations of
the undergirding, generic calculus are purely deterministic and algorithmic.
>
> The underlying algorithm, [q|1]^(2^t), generates a progression of new
> "ontological categories" in a "mechanical" way, as t rises.
>
> However, for a model written in this language to work, the connotations of the
interpreted symbols, [X]^(2^t), as t rises, must "make sense of" the algorithmic
progression in a way which recapitulates the "psycho-history" of the domain of
experience being modeled.
>
> This process of "connotative decipherment" of the new symbols generated by the
algorithm often leads to startling new discoveries and hypotheses, including
previously unrecognized reconstructions of the past, and/or predictions [or
"pre-constructions"] of the future.
>
> Below, I provide links to some of the models/discoveries posted on the site,
as well as a couple of [more minor] model discoveries of my own, using the new
calculus.
>
> The most rudimentary version of this calculus presented involves a new kind of
number, which the cite names "meta-Natural" Number, which is built on the set of
Standard Natural Numbers, usually denoted by N, where
>
> N = {1, 2, 3, ...},
>
> but which appears to be the exact opposite of the Standard Natural Numbers.
>
> That is, if the Standard Natural Numbers can be characterized as forming an
arithmetic of ontologically "unqualified pure quantifiers", the "meta-Naturals",
which the site denotes by N\Q, where
>
> N\Q = {q|1, q|2, q|3, ... },
>
> forms an arithmetic which the site characterizes as being one of "pure,
unquantifiable ontological Qualifiers".
>
>
>
> The Axioms.
>
> 0. If n is a Standard Natural Number, then q|n is a meta-Natural Number.
>
> Ideographical shorthand version [using 'e' to denote the phrase "is an element
of the set...", and '=>' to denote "implies"]:
>
> n e N => q|n e N\Q.
>
>
> 1. q|1 is a meta-Natural Number.
>
> [N\Q version of Axiom 1 of the Peano Postulates for the Standard Natural
Numbers][Note: "Axiom 1" is actually a Corollary of Axiom 0., treated as an
axiom here simply to parallel the Peano Postulates]
>
> Ideographical shorthand version: q|1 e N\Q.
>
>
> 2. The successor of any meta-Natural Number is also a meta-Natural Number.
>
> [N\Q version of Axiom 2 of the Peano Postulates for the Standard Natural
Numbers]
>
> Ideographical shorthand version [ where s denotes the Standard Natural
Numbers' Peano "successor function", s(n) = n+1, and where S denotes the
meta-Natural Numbers' "successor function", S[q|n] = q|(n+1) ]:
>
> [n e N => q|n e N\Q] => S[q|n] = q|(s(n)) = q|(n+1) e N\Q.
>
>
> 3. No two meta-Natural Numbers have the same successor.
>
> [N\Q version of Axiom 3 of the Peano Postulates for the Standard Natural
Numbers]
>
> Ideographical shorthand version:
>
> [[j, k, e N & j NOT= k => ]
>
> [q|j, q|k e N\Q] =>
>
> S[q|j] is QUALITATIVELY UNEQUAL to S[q|k], or S[q|j] ~<=> S[q|k].
>
>
> 4. q|1 is not the successor of any meta-Natural Number.
>
> [N\Q version of Axiom 4 of the Peano Postulates for the Standard Natural
Numbers]
>
> Ideographical shorthand version [using 'E(x)' to denote "there Exists at least
one value x"]:
>
> NOT[ E(x)such that x e N & q|x e N\Q ] such that S[q|x] = q|1.
>
>
> 5. Any two meta-Natural Numbers differ qualitatively, if their subscripts
differ quantitatively.
>
> Ideographical shorthand version [using '><' to denote "is less than or greater
than", i.e., "is quantitatively unequal to", and '~>=<' to denote "is not
greater than, AND is not equal to, AND is not less than", i.e., "is
NON-quantitatively different than", or "is QUALITATIVELY unequal to" ]:
>
> j, k e N & j >< k => q|j ~>=< q|k.
>
>
> 6. The self-addition [or "doubling"] of any meta-Natural Number is redundant.
[The principle of "additive idempotency", or of "UNQUANTIFIABILITY"].
>
> Ideographical shorthand version [using '(n)' to denote "for every value
"denote-able" by the variable n"]:
>
> [(n) e N][ q|n + q|n = q|n ].
>
> [Note similarity to "Boolean addition": 0 + 0 = 0, and 1 + 1 = 1].
>
> Corrolary. 2q|n = q|n.
>
> Indeed, (m) e N => m "times" q|n = mq|n = q|n.
>
>
> 7. The addition of one ontological qualifier meta-Natural Number to another
DOES NOT REDUCE to any SINGLE meta-Natural Number value.
>
> Ideographical shorthand version:
>
> j, k e N & j <> k => NOT[ E(x) e N such that q|j + q|k = q|x ].
>
>
> 8. Multiplication of ontological qualifiers multiples the ontology explicitly
qualified [adds new ontology].
>
> Ideographical shorthand version:
>
> j, k e N & j <> k => q|j "times" q|k = q|k + q|(j+k).
>
> That is, q|j, "operating upon" or "multiplying" q|k, gives back q|k again, but
also together with [added to] a QUALITATIVE, ontological INCREMENT, q|(j+k),
which is denoted by a[n additive] combination of [the Natural Number subscripts
of] q|j and q|k.
>
> NOTE how this product rule implements a Hegelian-like "aufheben" --
> annulment/conservation/elevation -- operation!
>
>
>
> Sample Applications.
>
> The texts posted to the site linked-to above set forth a large number of
natural-scientific -- and social-scientific, or "psycho-historical" -- models,
constructed using the calculus whose rules I have attempted to summarize above,
with many startlingly insightful results.
>
> For example --
>
> a. A model of the "taxonomy level one" evolution, and "meta-evolution", of the
cosmos as a whole: Pages B-19 ff., Link --
>
>
http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
> \
> B-1,%20pp.%2012-22,%20v.2.pdf
>
> b. A "psycho-historical" model of human social evolution, and
"meta-evolution", in terms of human "social relations [of [social
re-]production]": Pages B-24 ff., Link --
>
>
http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
> \
> B-1,%20pp.%2023-33,%20v.2.pdf
>
> c. A "psycho-historical" model of human social evolution, and
"meta-evolution", in terms of "human socio-geography": Page B-23, link --
>
>
http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
> \
> B-1,%20pp.%2023-33,%20v.2.pdf
>
> d. A "psycho-historical" model of the progressive emergence of the various
"fields" of human inquiry -- Mythopoeia --> Religions --> Philosophies -->
Sciences --> to the "meta-Sciences" of "Psycho-History" itself: Pages B-9 ff.,
Link --
>
>
http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
> \
> B-1,%20pp.%2001-11,%20v.2.pdf
>
> e. A "systematic presentation", or "pedagogical" model of the progression of
the "Characteristica Universalis" systems of mathematics, starting with the
Natural Numbers arithmetic of N, as "thesis", thence provoking the emergence of
the arithmetic of N\Q, as "contra-thesis", thence provoking the emergence of the
arithmetic of N\U, the arithmetic of "quantifiable ontological qualifiers", or
> of "ontologically qualifiable quantifiers", thence onwards from there, step by
step, into an indefinite, potentially infinite expansion of the horizons of
mathematical/ideographical language expressive power: Pages B-6 ff., Link --
>
>
http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
> \
> B-1,%20pp.%2001-11,%20v.2.pdf
>
> Of course, this dialectical calculus cannot, and does not, escape "The
Godelian Dialectic", of 'semantics # syntactics', i.e., cannot escape that
"reductio ad absurdum" of all formalist, "deductivist" claims to the
mechanization of all logical truth that is codified in the Godel Incompleteness
Theorems.
>
> At the higher-than-first-order levels of formal logic, this means that there
will be well-formed equations in N\Q, and assertions that those equations are
unsolvable -- assertion which are true theorems, but which theorems cannot be
proven within N\Q, but only within all successor systems to N\Q, in the systems
progression denoted, in the N\Q language itself, by [N]^(2^t), where N connotes
the first order axiomatic system of the Standard Natural Numbers.
>
> An example of an equation which is unsolvable in N\Q is:
>
> x = [q|1] - [q|1].
>
> The latter equations IS SOLVABLE in W\Q, where
>
> W = { 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . },
>
> with a very interesting expansion of mathematical "ideo-ontology", to include
a new "meta-number", with a surprising praxis: q|0.
>
> This means that, at the "first order" logical level, despite its "semantic"
completeness, i.e., where the Godel "[semantic] Completeness Theorem" for first
order predicate calculus also applies, there will always be "syntactical
INcompleteness", that is, there will exist well-formed formulas of N\Q that are
true in some models of its first order axioms, but false in others, so that the
co-implicitude of Non-Standard Models together with Standard Models cannot be
avoided.
>
> I will illustrate two "sample models" of my own, using the N\Q algebra, in a
reply post to this one.
>
> Regards,
>
> Miguel
>

Dear Hegel-Hegelians Group Members,

Background. The following nine axioms are extracted from a number of texts
posted at the following website --

http://www.dialectics.org/

-- none of which assert all of these axioms together.

Note: Since the Yahoo Groups' text facilities lack the capability for subscripts
and underscores, I will use 'a|b' to denote "a underscore with subscript b' and
'a\b' to denote "underscored script-level b with pre-sub-script a", throughout
this post.

However, the axiom set provided below seems to be a fair representation of those
necessary to the "calculus of discovery" described on that site, which seems --
judging from the models and calculations presented in the texts posted there, as
well as a number of test models that I have derived on my own [two of which are
presented below] -- to be a [somewhat unexpected] fulfillment of Leibniz's quest
for a "Characteristica Universalis", a "universal character-language" [universal
ideography; universal algebra] for philosophical and scientific inquiry.

The calculus specified by these axioms is a "purely-qualitative", "heuristic",
and "intensional" one, rather than a "purely-quantitative" and "extensional"
one.

That is, this calculus, when its generic symbol, q|1, is "interpreted" or
"assigned" to a specific "ontological category", or "kind of being" category,
call it X --  where "X" would, typically, denote a mnemonic abbreviation for the
name of the ontological category in question, in order to model, and thereby
CONNOTE its meaning -- to explore the past and/or the "expectable" future of,
some aspect of conceptual and/or experiential reality, starting from its first
or primary manifestation, is purely connotative, even though the operations of
the undergirding, generic calculus are purely deterministic and algorithmic.

The underlying algorithm, [q|1]^(2^t), generates a progression of new
"ontological categories" in a "mechanical" way, as t rises.

However, for a model written in this language to work, the connotations of the
interpreted symbols, [X]^(2^t), as t rises, must "make sense of" the algorithmic
progression in a way which recapitulates the "psycho-history" of the domain of
experience being modeled.

This process of "connotative decipherment" of the new symbols generated by the
algorithm often leads to startling new discoveries and hypotheses, including
previously unrecognized reconstructions of the past, and/or predictions [or
"pre-constructions"] of the future.

Below, I provide links to some of the models/discoveries posted on the site, as
well as a couple of [more minor] model discoveries of my own, using the new
calculus.

The most rudimentary version of this calculus presented involves a new kind of
number, which the cite names "meta-Natural" Number, which is built on the set of
Standard Natural Numbers, usually denoted by N, where

N = {1, 2, 3, ...},

but which appears to be the exact opposite of the Standard Natural Numbers.

That is, if the Standard Natural Numbers can be characterized as forming an
arithmetic of ontologically "unqualified pure quantifiers", the "meta-Naturals",
which the site denotes by N\Q, where

N\Q = {q|1, q|2, q|3, ... },

forms an arithmetic which the site characterizes as being one of "pure,
unquantifiable ontological Qualifiers".



The Axioms.

0. If n is a Standard Natural Number, then q|n is a meta-Natural Number.

Ideographical shorthand version [using 'e' to denote the phrase "is an element
of the set...", and '=>' to denote "implies"]:

n e N => q|n e N\Q.


1. q|1 is a meta-Natural Number.

[N\Q version of Axiom 1 of the Peano Postulates for the Standard Natural
Numbers][Note: "Axiom 1" is actually a Corollary of Axiom 0., treated as an
axiom here simply to parallel the Peano Postulates]

Ideographical shorthand version: q|1 e N\Q.


2. The successor of any meta-Natural Number is also a meta-Natural Number.

[N\Q version of Axiom 2 of the Peano Postulates for the Standard Natural
Numbers]

Ideographical shorthand version [ where s denotes the Standard Natural Numbers'
Peano "successor function", s(n) = n+1, and where S denotes the meta-Natural
Numbers' "successor function", S[q|n] = q|(n+1) ]:

[n e N => q|n e N\Q] => S[q|n] = q|(s(n)) = q|(n+1) e N\Q.


3. No two meta-Natural Numbers have the same successor.

[N\Q version of Axiom 3 of the Peano Postulates for the Standard Natural
Numbers]

Ideographical shorthand version:

[[j, k, e N & j NOT= k => ]

[q|j, q|k e N\Q] =>

S[q|j] is QUALITATIVELY UNEQUAL to S[q|k], or S[q|j] ~<=> S[q|k].


4. q|1 is not the successor of any meta-Natural Number.

[N\Q version of Axiom 4 of the Peano Postulates for the Standard Natural
Numbers]

Ideographical shorthand version [using 'E(x)' to denote "there Exists at least
one value x"]:

NOT[ E(x)such that x e N & q|x e N\Q ] such that S[q|x] = q|1.


5. Any two meta-Natural Numbers differ qualitatively, if their subscripts differ
quantitatively.

Ideographical shorthand version [using '><' to denote "is less than or greater
than", i.e., "is quantitatively unequal to", and '~>=<' to denote "is not
greater than, AND is not equal to, AND is not less than", i.e., "is
NON-quantitatively different than", or "is QUALITATIVELY unequal to" ]:

j, k e N & j >< k => q|j ~>=< q|k.


6. The self-addition [or "doubling"] of any meta-Natural Number is redundant.
[The principle of "additive idempotency", or of "UNQUANTIFIABILITY"].

Ideographical shorthand version [using '(n)' to denote "for every value
"denote-able" by the variable n"]:

[(n) e N][ q|n + q|n = q|n ].

[Note similarity to "Boolean addition": 0 + 0 = 0, and 1 + 1 = 1].

Corrolary. 2q|n = q|n.

Indeed, (m) e N => m "times" q|n = mq|n = q|n.


7. The addition of one ontological qualifier meta-Natural Number to another DOES
NOT REDUCE to any SINGLE meta-Natural Number value.

Ideographical shorthand version:

j, k e N & j <> k => NOT[ E(x) e N such that q|j + q|k = q|x ].


8. Multiplication of ontological qualifiers multiples the ontology explicitly
qualified [adds new ontology].

Ideographical shorthand version:

j, k e N & j <> k => q|j "times" q|k = q|k + q|(j+k).

That is, q|j, "operating upon" or "multiplying" q|k, gives back q|k again, but
also together with [added to] a QUALITATIVE, ontological INCREMENT, q|(j+k),
which is denoted by a[n additive] combination of [the Natural Number subscripts
of] q|j and q|k.

NOTE how this product rule implements a Hegelian-like "aufheben" --
annulment/conservation/elevation -- operation!



Sample Applications.

The texts posted to the site linked-to above set forth a large number of
natural-scientific -- and social-scientific, or "psycho-historical" -- models,
constructed using the calculus whose rules I have attempted to summarize above,
with many startlingly insightful results.

For example --

a. A model of the "taxonomy level one" evolution, and "meta-evolution", of the
cosmos as a whole: Pages B-19 ff., Link --

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
\
B-1,%20pp.%2012-22,%20v.2.pdf

b. A "psycho-historical" model of human social evolution, and "meta-evolution",
in terms of human "social relations [of [social re-]production]": Pages B-24
ff., Link --

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
\
B-1,%20pp.%2023-33,%20v.2.pdf

c. A "psycho-historical" model of human social evolution, and "meta-evolution",
in terms of "human socio-geography": Page B-23, link --

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
\
B-1,%20pp.%2023-33,%20v.2.pdf

d. A "psycho-historical" model of the progressive emergence of the various
"fields" of human inquiry -- Mythopoeia --> Religions --> Philosophies -->
Sciences --> to the "meta-Sciences" of "Psycho-History" itself: Pages B-9 ff.,
Link --

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
\
B-1,%20pp.%2001-11,%20v.2.pdf

e. A "systematic presentation", or "pedagogical" model of the progression of the
"Characteristica Universalis" systems of mathematics, starting with the Natural
Numbers arithmetic of N, as "thesis", thence provoking the emergence of the
arithmetic of N\Q, as "contra-thesis", thence provoking the emergence of the
arithmetic of N\U, the arithmetic of "quantifiable ontological qualifiers", or
of "ontologically qualifiable quantifiers", thence onwards from there, step by
step, into an indefinite, potentially infinite expansion of the horizons of
mathematical/ideographical language expressive power: Pages B-6 ff., Link --

http://www.dialectics.org/archives/pdf/F.E.D.%20Intro.%20Letter,%20Supplement%20\
\
\
B-1,%20pp.%2001-11,%20v.2.pdf

Of course, this dialectical calculus cannot, and does not, escape "The Godelian
Dialectic", of 'semantics # syntactics', i.e., cannot escape that "reductio ad
absurdum" of all formalist, "deductivist" claims to the mechanization of all
logical truth that is codified in the Godel Incompleteness Theorems.

At the higher-than-first-order levels of formal logic, this means that there
will be well-formed equations in N\Q, and assertions that those equations are
unsolvable -- assertion which are true theorems, but which theorems cannot be
proven within N\Q, but only within all successor systems to N\Q, in the systems
progression denoted, in the N\Q language itself, by [N]^(2^t), where N connotes
the first order axiomatic system of the Standard Natural Numbers.

An example of an equation which is unsolvable in N\Q is:

x = [q|1] - [q|1].

The latter equations IS SOLVABLE in W\Q, where

W = { 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . },

with a very interesting expansion of mathematical "ideo-ontology", to include a
new "meta-number", with a surprising praxis: q|0.

This means that, at the "first order" logical level, despite its "semantic"
completeness, i.e., where the Godel "[semantic] Completeness Theorem" for first
order predicate calculus also applies, there will always be "syntactical
INcompleteness", that is, there will exist well-formed formulas of N\Q that are
true in some models of its first order axioms, but false in others, so that the
co-implicitude of Non-Standard Models together with Standard Models cannot be
avoided.

I will illustrate two "sample models" of my own, using the N\Q algebra, in a
reply post to this one.

Regards,

Miguel

This book should be added too: <www.gegensatzpress.com/individual.html>.

Cheers!

Eric v.d. Luft, Ph.D., M.L.S.
<www.gegensatzpress.com>

Goddam. I'll start a separate category for Schmidt.  I must also
acquire the book.

You shouldn't be so shy about your products. Perhaps you should also
tell us about The Absolute Boot and Love Letters Without Love.

At 12:05 PM 9/10/2008, Eric v.d. Luft, Ph.D., M.L.S. wrote:
>This book should be added too: <www.gegensatzpress.com/individual.html>.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Eric v.d. Luft, Ph.D., M.L.S.
><www.gegensatzpress.com>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.19/1664 -
>Release Date: 9/10/2008 6:00 AM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have added a number of items (most available online) to my Stirner
bibliography.

<http://www.autodidactproject.org/bib/hegelyng.html>The Young
Hegelians: Selected Bibliography

The journal literature on Max Stirner in English is much more
extensive than this.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I only report the news:

THE SPECULATIVE LOGIC PROJECT (TSLP)
http://www.tslp.de/


Uwe Petersen
Diagonal Method and Dialectical Logic
http://www.der-andere-verlag.de/buecher/petersen.html



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

hiFound these r references `Die Zeitschrift....because i ve found inquiring
minds interested in hegel and india.I have given considerable thought on this
issue, having done with.No longer interested.

@ Indian Philosophy and Hegel   Dubey, V.K. (2002) Absolutism: East andWest: A
Comparative Study of Sri Aurobindo and Hegel   Herling, B.L. (2006) The German
Gïtà:Hermeneutics and Discipline in the German Reception of Indian
thought,1778-1831
      regardsdebussyyee

_________________________________________________________________
2000 Placements last year. Are You next ? Find out
http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=499

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear robert fenelli,
hello

It is difficult to remember some important matters while working on a manuscript
dealing with histories.Too many dialects and complexity have to be made simple
and the job.task is boring, thankless. At any rate, please find a bibliography,<
leaving the judgment on the size to you>. One notice, which is that in 1960's
there was a renewed interest in phenomenology and this may be useful to keep in
mind.
Husserl wrote leanthy, laborious and almost painful works; so to cut his
references short:


>1 E Husserl, Philosophy as a rigorous science in `Phenomenology and crisis of
philosophy'[tr., ed.] Q Laur, where he makes the sole, off the cuff remarks on
Hegel
>2 E Husserl, The Paris Lectures, [tr] P K Koestenbaum ,Hague 1975
>2.1 E Husserl, Notes on Heidegger, 1994
>3. Gerhard Funke, `Phenomenology and History' in Pheno. and Socal Sciences, M
Natenson, v.2, 1973
>4 Richard Grathoff, , The Structure of Social Inconsistencies', Hague, 1970
>5 Aron Gurwitsch, Studies in phenomenology ad Psychology, Evanston, 1966
>6 M Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible, Evanston, 1969
>7 J-P Sartre, The Emotions-Outlines of a theory, N Y, 1989
>8 John Stewert, The Architectonic of Hegel's phenomenology of spirit, in
Philosophy and Phenomenological TResearch No. 4,Berlin, 1995
>9 J Braur and Freud, `Are all hysterical phenomena Ideogenic?
       Unconscious ideas and Ideas inadmissible to consciousness - splitting of
the mind, [tr]J & A Sratchy, 1979
>1o  M Heidegger, `Hegel's Concept of Experience', in `off the beaten tract,
Cambridge, 2002
> 11 M Heidegger, Hegel and the Greeks, Conference of Academy of Sciences,
Heidelberg, 1985
>12 Katherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel : Plasticity, Temporality and
Dialectic, Routledge, 2005
> 13 Anna-TeresaTimeniecka, Phenomenology and Science in Contemporary European
Thought, N Y, 1962
>14 MAX sCHELER, THE NATURE OF SYMPATHY, YALE, 1954
> 15 Herbert Speigelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, vols 1 & 2. Hague, 1965
> 16 Max Weber, The Methodology of Social Sciences, N Y, 1949
> 17 Hegel G W F, PhG, Section 2, Self-Consciousness
> 18, Hegel G W F, Lectures on Philosophy of Religion[ ed &tr.]Peter C Hodgeson,
et al., Berkeley ad L A, 1984-87

That's that. Period
have a nice time
debussyyee

To: hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com
CC: cfanelli@...; domfan23@...; falon@...;
gamesage47@...; comatunes@...; tedhumphrey@...
From: robertfanellione@...
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:22:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [hegel-hegelians] Re: 20th c. critics on Hegel's �Time, History -
Hegel Reception or Hegel Rejection




















             debabrata,



Thanks for your response.



You may need to cut it short. Try using a razor.



"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities
required to explain anything."



William of Occam



Regards,



Bob Fanelli



From: debabrata banerjee <d.ebu@...>

Date: 2008/06/03 Tue PM 07:43:57 CDT

To: hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [hegel-hegelians] Re: 20th c. critics on Hegel's �Time, History -
Hegel Reception or Hegel Rejection



Dear Bob Fenelli,



[...]






















_________________________________________________________________
Watch hottest Bollywood videos, clips, movie tailors, star interviews, songs and
more on MSN videos.
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-in

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Everybody,
I would be grateful, implicit and explicit, for web based references ,
books, articles in specific journals, tracts, non-specialized articles
that are critical of Hegel on themes  like 1]time;2]geography and 3]
on the introductory chapter on philosophy of history.
I want to ask whether Hegel ends philosophy in history; would it
provide sufficient meaning to state that his discourse on philosophy
of history -  perhaps his last lectures- argues the completion of the
work of Divine Providence where time is either suspended? what
significance could be attributed to Hegel for separating  God from
history ? Did Hegel consider time and duration as central to history?
Why does Hegel reduce histories of different peoples < since he wrote
primarily on people's history> to geographical zones and make some
thoughtless arguments, unmindful of the future in some cases? I am
saying thoughtless because according to Hegel  dialectic has no
validity without the action of the future on the present? Did Hegel
postulate anything close to Asiatic mode of production, not despotism,
in abstract  or obtruded terms?
Thanking you
debussyyee
P S : Please keep in mind that I am not interested in what Hegel has
to say about various peoples, from those habitants of extreme climatic
conditions, Africa south of Sahara to whatever is meant by his use of
Germanic.

Hegel-Hegelians
<> on Dumain's belated response, meaning `better late than never'

Please bear in mind that the word `lunacy' was deployed by R Dumain,
as a diatribe on yours truly.The  humorous part arrived via an e-mail
  in its use of the word was interpreted in a mail that was sent by
someone whose name will not be given,a cogent and meaningful argument,
critical of Husserl, which made a point about existence in these
dangerous times, times of trouble, having gone too far/distraid by a
peculiar  typecast American imagination still  running amok by
consensual belief on the arrow of time comparable to the permanent
dreamworld of  an opiated , workless Hindoo referred by Hegel [Ph of
History]  that  exists outside of current stasis [ permanent state of
emergency]. Whatever remains as residual actuality defines that
loonies as uncorrupted, ethically good, not driven by any metaphysics
of vengeance/revenge,outside of consumerist magalomania,
undisturbed/non-perturbed by any variant on warmongering that they are
`normalizers place of their contrariness representing the obverse,
extremely insane side od power that is of their making. He referred
Foucault though historically, the first credit remains overdue for M
de Sade. For a change it was interesting to find your take,
irrespective of copious quotations, on the history of number theories
related to definite temporal markers in the course of its turnings,
meaning that the historical markers emerged in Andalus.  I would
stress like many others that this knowledge was not bereft of
self-conscious about the history of the subject.
However,the origins of decimals,understood as values ascribed to
number placement emerged in India, duly acknowledged in the Arabian
world mainly by geographers, a world co-terminated with the Islam.This
was clearly stated by Laplace who is quoted by Dumain, again through
eliminative selection from inside what Laplace said :
> "The indigenous method of expressing every possible number using a
set of 10 symbols  where 1] each symbol had a place value 2]and
absolute value.'Stated via critical dialectic, relative place values
would be non-sequential placements of values, e.g. 720 wheras absolute
value is a form determination where  the absolute is the necessity in
sequencing 2 after 1 or 7 before 8. Laplace went on to say that this
"system emerged in India. The idea seems so simple nowadays that its
significance and profound influence is no longer appreciated ....yet
arithmetic was foremost among useful inventions. 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
adds up in 10 [so much for decimals]. This sequence [absolute]  was
not a simple , naturalistic usage, unless one learns"

  among useful inventions.
Dumain's quotation or interpretation of Laplace misleads,falsifies, in
order to defnd status quo. Almost all quotes and the written stuff
looks stiff, opaque, with some variations instead of infusing a
dynamic.This produces minor or nil effect on the very subject in
Dumain's hand, math, in a time when change is on top of
agenda.Critical dialectic presupposes the solidified,ossified
given-ness like dead matter and aims at re-kindling the spontaniety
of stiff matter by the use of Notion.Then there is some miasma, as is
the case with dead matter, when eliminativism, erasing, crossing out
for discarding the singular emphasis that Laplace placed in the
`emergence'of the set " in India".Omitting the contribution by India,
where number placement in a set of 10 symbols emerged

   reminds me of Stalinist falsification.This is no oversight.In
contrast to this airy-fairy look, the Arabs place a very high value
and respect when cross cultural borrowings in the realm of ideas was
happening [ 8th-11th c.]towards India.They translated mathematicians
and astrologers from scholars held high esteem. Varahamira,
Brahmagupta are two figures who discovered the origin of sequentials,
set of 10, fractions and many other branches. Dumain mises out on this
completely and intentionally, given the fact that the very quote from
Laplace goes further and takes up Indian contribution.This is no
Freudu=ian slip. The Arabs, on the other hand, recognized Indian
contribution in branches like medicine, astrology, etc; even
Arayabhatta was translated. What Dumain focuses on is over the zero
whose provenance is unknown though its usage was not so.The 0 in the
set of 10 belongs to the region of universality.
About Arabians and others,I had posted a mailin hegelscilogic. Dumain
may rectify some other mistakes too.
regards
debussyyee

  In hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com, Ralph Dumain <rdumain@...> wrote:
>
> Anyone wishing to read the article that sparked this lunacy can find
it here:
>
> "<http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/hegelddc.html>Hegel's
> Philosophy as Basis for the Dewey Classification Schedule" by Eugene
> E. Graziano
>
> It appeared in a library science journal, so presumably its intended
> audience was librarians with a curiosity about the history and
> philosophy of library classification schemes.  I don't think it's any
> deeper than this.  It is the only article on the subject in the
> English language I know of, and given its obscurity, I uploaded for
> librarians and connoisseurs of Hegeliana and intellectual history.
>
> As a result of the political activism of the 1960s and after, a few
> librarians began to be concerned about biases built into
> classification schemes and especially subject headings.  Sanford
> Berman, formerly of the Hennepin County library system, maintained an
> Alternative Cataloging in Publications system to counter the
> practices of the Library of Congress.  He also wrote a book on the
> subject called Prejudices and Antipathies.  Some years ago, after
> decades of service, Berman's employment was terminated.  The library
> science profession maintains an interest in freedom of speech except
> for that of librarians themselves, who are exploited by their
> employers like all other wage-workers under capitalism.
>
> At 04:05 PM 5/11/2008, debabrata banerjee wrote:
>
>
>
> >Dear Hegel-hegelian scholars,
> >This is a response to Ralph Dumain's downloading of an article that
> >basically revolves around Dewey Decimal Classification [ DDC] Schedule
> >for libraries as a standard for classifying all kinds of books that is
> >easy, simple, open, accessible framing of knowledge structures. It is a
> >well loaded article downloaded verbatim.As though it is written by some
> >student of his or whoever, some respected Prof., Dean , Cardinal and so
> >on.. I am not aware whether it is some purpose, intention, entelechy,
> >telos, goal or some end, undoubtedly humane desire [ or maybe
> >automatism] has served its purpose. It is not clear whether the
download
> >is addressed to antiquarians, those familiar with the authors cited or
> >this diverse website and the network. Whatever be the pretext [ or
maybe
> >automatism] the stuff of the matter is not pregnant with meaning. We
> >are offerred toppings but nothing beneath. The men who matter, past and
> >present are depicted under a vey long focus and that introduces lots of
> >shade in the domain of the download and the terrain that different
> >personage's cover is both highly expansive and narrow but one central
> >character predominates.
> >I was under the impression that uncommented, interpreted downloads and
> >attachments are not allowed. Please correct me, just in case. To me, it
> >appears as the easy way out.After all, when you have rubbished 666 or
> >off the cuff, on a regular basis in a sensitive field sans the reasons
> >then obviously some sort of a demand builds up inside to show yourself.
> >What would be less smart than roping in some scholar in her own right
> >and download, like inside a slot machine.
> >Let me come to the crux, after a droopy start. Firstly Leidecker's
> >approval ratings for Dewey's `borrowings' may have been a carefully
> >planned operation given the fact that William T harris hardly did
> >nothing for Dewey though that rule does not apply to Amherst Library
> >system.. Because Dewey was a library staff member, some relation
> >outside the cunning of reason was needed. Harris really did not have to
> >discover the decimal scheme; some innovations were needed and Amherst,
> >an Anglo-Saxon elitist high school provided the materials to concritize
> >his classification system from the first [000]- covering References,
> >Encyclopedias,Dictionaries, Bibliographies to the last [900] which was
> >Universal History. Harris was giving shape to a Hegelian Propadeutic
> >that integrated the materials of study within a decimal classification
> >distributed subject wise and alphabetically indexed for easy access to
> >all. The lower classes, presumably till early teens were taught the
> >difference between theory and practice, in terms of acting and
> >kindergarten chats. The sensual, sexual world was also differentiated
> >into the interior- meaning ethics, morals and the religious world was
> >taught and as for the external/exteriorly this consisted of a]
one's own
> >bodily growth that included sports, exercises and self-defence and b]
> >the, determination of ego by theoretical, aesthetic consciousness
> >whether they be at the level of perception or sensuous experience or
> >imagination [ so-called faculties]. Maybe a lot of folk physics , like
> >impulse, impetus, etc., were given some width and after that it became
> >an individual choice, the decision to gratify, repress, renounce or
> >reflect. A rational psychology was expected to develop qualities of the
> >will and heart. For the middle sections, the emphasis was put on
> >subjectivity, culture and mind.At this level, however, it was Mind
which
> >was taught ti be self-related, self-referential in view of the
> >distinction btw the inner driven and outer driven personality. Studies
> >of all the branches , meaning from 001-009, the decimal arrangement
> >within the library would be explored and taught, with emphasis on
> >reading and listening, not to obliterate but to accept and live with
> >differences, diversity, choice and multiplicity in any field whether it
> >be musical instruments or universal history. The knowing of the object
> >and his knowing of knowing the subject was the path to
> >self-consciousness as the unity of being and being [ open to the
> >fluidity of cosmos]. After this, higher /upper classes began and this
> >last course was also a return to the first.
> >Now, William Torry Harris was already a Hegelian before all else or
> >anyone else. He had met and shared the commons with Brockmayer, [Judge]
> >John G Woerner, the ladies, Schnider, Sullivan and others in early
> >years , 1850's. Later o, after the Chicago fire that Brockmayer
> >considered as a Hegelian negation. He was their undoubted leader, so
> >much so that this group splat during the civil war, not politically,
> >which was explained by Brockmayer in the following way : `Thr southern
> >position was, what Hegel would term, `abstract right' and the northern
> >position was `abstract morality', while the Union represented , what
> >Hegel would say, `Ethical State'. [ in Harry A Poachman, German Culture
> >in America, Wisconsin, 1957, Easton, L D, Hegel's First American
> >Followers; Goetzman, American Hegelianism, 1914,Progs. of H S A].During
> >the civil war, they all left their books behind and took to the
> >horseback, successfully raiding two confederate fortifications and
after
> >having actualized the universal notion went their own way and for
> >Brockmayer [ they did not fancy the defeated immigrants of 1848],
> >obtaining Governorship in Missouri meant little as long as the book, WL
> >was not translated properly once and for all into English. He was to
> >become anonymous soon because of a deeper understanding of both slavery
> >and tribal societies.While for Sullivan, whose first impression of the
> >the `looming, dark and enormous terrifying mass that overhung the broad
> >river Marrimark from bank to bank made him remember Julia's fairy tales
> >and what giants did...when he saw the long flat thing under the chains
> >to float in the air'[ Louis Sullivan, Autobiography of an Idea,
> >pp82-85]Thus, in Chicago, as an architect, he would intentionally use
> >the cunning of design, and geometrically arrange in a cluster or scroll
> >and frieze and medallion would impose an instinct with vitality and
> >rhythm covering two floors and the rest of the floors above were pure,
> >simple efficient flats, lounges and apartments suitable for a
democratic
> >way of life.[Willard Connely, Louis Sullivan as he lived]
> >Now Harris was the only one having the knowledge od "using Arabic
> >numerals" on that basis he would construct subsections [ say within a
> >range of 100000, he would declassify in accordance the next as 10000;
> >1000;100,10,1]Internal classifcations were alphabetically indexed.So,
> >where did he get the arabic system as the most universally advanced
one?
> >All the answers are cited below in the minimal sense. Harris could
> >derive from the history of numeric placements, the contents of what was
> >needed to "educate the masses", expand public libraries and so on. For
> >this he needed a far bigger and powerful institution, i.e.. the State.
> >His model in St Louis Public School with its design , curriculum and
> >classification was what spread throughout the U S. The pity was whereas
> >Harris's influence of Hegel was deep enough to insist that aprominant
> >role be given to the study of philosophy, since that was the
> >fountainhead of all knowledge.In Amherst, Dewey broke the unity of
> >phiosophy , arbitrarily, though maintaining the decimal acheme
> >: part philosophy; part theology and part nature and the last part was
> >history. For Dewey, this carriculum was the best that European
> >civilization had to offer. Since Anglo-Saxon was considered the best
> >European civilization could offer, Hegel got integrated in their eyes,
> >to those as Dumain puts in their words , " Burgess, Seelye, who went
> >and studied in Prussia from Amherst, were convinced by Hegel that
> >private property was the logical conclusion to human developnent
and law
> >proceeded from it".
> >Just how far they were from Harris is also stated in the article :
> >Harris was prioritizing `Sociology [300] and history[900] in
1873-75, as
> >he derived Statistics, Political Science, Political Economy and Law
from
> >`Sociology due to Harris's emphasis on opening further possibilities ti
> >`change the government',. Dewey, for his role was emphasizing hygiene
> >and Physical Education and Public Health, all of that
wouldcontribute to
> >the rise of Eugenics soon thereafter.
> >One Major Correction : While DDC 's internal alphabetical
classification
> >rests on the doctrine of Anglo-Saxonism, that's not the case with the
> >Decimal classification. The very history of the origins of the Decimal
> >Classification, noted by the quotes below shows a cultural multiplicity
> >of a high order where Europe is included. This corresponds to
> >Universality. By the way, one of the first measures introduced after
> >the French Revolution was to eliminate the highly differentiated system
> >of weights and measures - that was where the poor were really cheated-
> >and replaced the entire system into anetric one.
> >best
> >debussyyee
> >
> > >>>>European mathematician Laplace best described the 'invention'
of the
> >decimal place value system as such:
> >
> >...The idea of expressing all quantities by nine figures whereby is
> >imparted to them both an absolute value and one by position is so
simple
> >that this very simplicity is the very reason for our not being
> >sufficiently aware how much admiration it deserves. [CS, P 5]
> >
> >..Beyond not being fully appreciated D Duncan discusses briefly the
> >enduring problem of Eurocentric scholars who long assumed the
symbol for
> >zero was a Greek invention, with no proof at all. The claims were based
> >of pure speculations that zero came from the Greek letter omicron (O),
> >the first letter of the Greek word ouden meaning empty. We know this to
> >be untrue, but it serves as a timely reminder of the struggle for
> >recognition of Indian mathematical developments.<???-db,italics
> >mine/what struggle? these qs ve been settled in19- 20th c.>
> >------------------------------
> >
> > >>The inventor of the zero symbol is unknown, but what is known is
that
> >it was firstly denoted by a dot, then possibly a circle with a dot in
> >the centre, and later by the oval shape we now use. Prior to its
> >invention, Indian mathematicians had already taken to leaving an empty
> >column on their counting boards and clearly at some point this empty
> >space was filled. The Indians referred to zero as 'sunya' meaning void.
> >Again, although evidence points towards a Mesopotamian origin for a
> >place holder, their 'zero' (two slanted bars) was not used in
> >conjunction with a decimal base.
> >
> >Having become firmly established in academic circles in India by
the 6th
> >century, the decimal place value system spread across the world.
> >Initially to China and Alexandria, then to the Arab empire where it
> >became the system of choice of the scholars in Baghdad by the 8th
> >century.
> >
> > >>>Arabic scholars during this time improved the system by introducing
> >decimal fractions. The system also spread into Spain, as has been
> >previously discussed southern Spain was under Arabic rule into the 12th
> >century. It took much longer for the system to be accepted in mainland
> >Europe, but eventually by the 16th century it was widely used. That
> >said, both prejudice and suspicion continued to be widespread, while
> >orthodoxy also played its part in the continued use of Roman numerals.
> >The last significant case of an attempt to abolish the Indian decimal
> >place value system was in Sweden in the early 18th century.
> >This is clearly a very brief overview of the phenomenal development of
> >the decimal place value system, without which it is accepted 'higher
> >mathematics' would not be possible. It is impossible for me to do
> >justice to its importance in such few words, so I will conclude with a
> >quote from G Halstead who commented:
> >
> > >> ...The importance of the creation of the zero mark can never be
> >exaggerated. This giving to airy nothing, not merely a local
habituation
> >and a name, a picture, a symbol but helpful power, is the
characteristic
> >of the Hindu race from whence it sprang. No single mathematical
creation
> >has been more potent for the general on go of intelligence and power.
> >Perhaps one of the most significant advances made by Arabic mathematics
> >began at this time with the work of al-Khwarizmi, namely the beginnings
> >of algebra. It is important to understand just how significant this new
> >idea was. It was a revolutionary move away from the Greek concept of
> >mathematics which was essentially geometry.
> >---------------------------------
> >Algebra was a unifying theory which allowed rational numbers,
irrational
> >numbers, geometrical magnitudes, etc., to all be treated as "algebraic
> >objects". It gave mathematics a whole new development path so much
> >broader in concept to that which had existed before, and provided a
> >vehicle for future development of the subject. Another important aspect
> >of the introduction of algebraic ideas was that it allowed mathematics
> >to be applied to itself in a way which had not happened before. As
> >Rashed writes in [11] (see also [10]):-
> >
> > >>>Al-Karaji (born 953) is seen by many as the first person to
> >completely free algebra from geometrical operations and to replace them
> >with the arithmetical type of operations which are at the core of
> >algebra today. He was first to define the monomials x, x2, x3, ... and
> >1/x, 1/x2, 1/x3, ... and to give rules for products of any two of
these.
> >He started a school of algebra which flourished for several hundreds of
> >years. Al-Samawal, nearly 200 years later, was an important member of
> >al-Karaji's school. Al-Samawal (born 1130) was the first to give
the new
> >topic of algebra a precise description when he wrote that it was
> >concerned:-
> >
> > >>3. Indian numeral system.
> >The third system was the arithmetic of the Indian numerals and
fractions
> >with the decimal place-value system. The numerals used were taken over
> >from India, but there was not a standard set of symbols. Different
parts
> >of the Arabic world used slightly different forms of the numerals. At
> >first the Indian methods were used by the Arabs with a dust board. A
> >dust board was needed because the methods required the moving of
numbers
> >around in the calculation and rubbing some out as the calculation
> >proceeded. The dust board allowed this to be done in the same sort of
> >way that one can use a blackboard, chalk and a blackboard eraser.
> >However, al-Uqlidisi (born 920) showed how to modify the methods
for pen
> >and paper use. Al-Baghdadi also contributed to improvements in the
> >decimal system.
> >
> >I
> >
> >--- In
>
><mailto:hegel-hegelians%40yahoogroups.com>hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com,

> >Ralph Dumain <rdumain@>
> >wrote:
> > >
> > > How do you moderate a list that has been inactive for months, even
> > > years, at a time? What is the point?
> > >
> > > At 10:16 AM 2/16/2008, Kai Froeb wrote:
> > >
> > > >Dear list,
> > > >
> > > >as some paricipants have left this list the last days (while noone
> >has
> > > >left the months before) and OTOH (on the other hand) we had some
> >rather
> > > >very long mails in this list, I'd like to emphasis on some rules to
> >make
> > > >the most out of this list.
> > > >
> > > >First of all, Hegel.net provides some general Hegel lists as
well as
> > > >some specialised lists like this one. The specialised lists
have been
> > > >planed to be some kind of highly focused think tanks,
exchanging the
> > > >latest research results and doing some cooperative research,
but also
> > > >answering questions in their area of expertise, reviewing books on
> >their
> > > >subject etc, so that they are both of use for their
participants (who
> > > >are all either experts in tehir fields or want to learn from these
> > > >experts), as well as for the wider community of people
interested in
> > > >Hegel and Hegel research at hegel.net and beyond.
> > > >
> > > >Such discussion can only work, if they are very focussed and
> >scientific.
> > > >It should be clear in the discussion, which specific subject /
> >question
> > > >we want to clarify and we should have an idea, in what way we
want to
> > > >use the mailing list to help to clarify that subject / question.
> > > >
> > > >When participating in a debatte in this list, please try to
think how
> > > >your mail is helpfull for other people (also in its ration of
length
> >of
> > > >content : benefit) and so please see to it that you always make
clear
> > > >your arguments and/or sources.
> > > >
> > > >Longer mails should rather be entries in our
> > >
><<http://wiki.hegel.net>http://wiki.hegel.net>http://wiki.hegel.net ,
> > > >which can then be discussed both in the wiki and this list and teh
> > > >resulting article could tehn again be placed in the wiki, our
> >hegel.net
> > > >pages and the upcoming Hegel Online Journal.
> > > >
> > > >But such articles should focus on one subject, not on many
different
> >nes
> > > >(remember: make your focus clear and keep it),
> > > >
> > > >Thank you!
> > > >Kai
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >-
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG.
> >Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1427 - Release Date:
> >5/11/2008 1:08 PM
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hegel-Hegelian group,
for Kai Froeb,
In June 2008, I had posted a message, single-clicked. When i checked
out the list I found that at least 5 copies of the same mail appeared
in Hegel-Hegelian list.I may conjecture why this happens  but that
will not solve the problem.The problem being the absence of central
cognitive processes based on non-modular architectonics somewhat akin
to  the CNS, meaning a complex systematic whole and if at all,
biotechnology has to complexify perhaps over a century to create a
completely integrated processor, which would be organic enough to
clear all confusions re. cognition , inferences and non- formal,
non-propositional logic.
As of now whenever multiplicities of the sort that I said occur, I
guess some tabs may help in minimizing the problem though it is not
risk/error free.
I do understand the demanding and somewhat thankless nature of your
work, so I want to limit my curiosity.Are third party intervention
sans basic decency, netiquatte allowed in direct terms.There have been
occasions when I wrote 9-10 pages , covering large time-spans since
any original democratic psychology demands that questions asked should
be answered.That is why Hegel would define democracy as `plastic'
activity. I have spent hours responding thoughtfully to a numer of
useless questions for defending this common [logos according to
Heraclitus] rather than elevating levels of polemic. That would
destroy the free commons [ rep. by this website]and transform this
into v varient of war -space. Now I will never name names for whatever
any person says or writes but would like to read some instances of
moderation, stories and not in general. What say u on the
aforementioned brief andgibberish
best
heraclitusmisanthrope
Next, it is beyond my capacity to figure out reasons for some
notable's tendency to take recourse intentional `eliminativist'
procedures, personal provocation, polemos, downloads and nothing
else.This kind of maneuver damages the brittle commons of Hegelians,
shows up `bad blood' and becomes disgusting



-- In hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com, "Kai Froeb" <froeb-list@...> wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
> I just saw that yahoogroups, which host our mailing list/discussion
> group has classified 5 mails of the last days as "spam"
> (unfortunately, they seem never to trap the real spam but only "good"
> mails / false alerts). Out of these, I have approved 3 mails to the
> list. However, as from these 5 mails, 3 seemed to be from Debu with
> almost the same content, after I approved the first one, I did not
> approve the otehr 2 in order not to spam the list (I hipe this is OK
> for you, Debu?).
>
> As a general rule, plese never send an email twice when it does not
> appear to the list, but rather first contact me to check what may have
> gine wrong. Anyway messages (even my own) often take anything from
> minutes to a whole day to appear on the yahoo lists, principle unknown.
>
> However, it seems that yahoo remembers all lists sent to a list and
> plcaes tehm in a queue, so that if you send mails several times, they
> will also appear several times on the list.
>
> All the best
> Kai
>

Hegelian-Hegelians,
Ralph Dumain comments after  quoting that  has some intelligibility  as well as
containing the requisite standard of questions. Though it may have been
articulated, the general norm of philosophy, as the ambiguity where we may
obtain the shallows in depths.. I must emphasize that writing on Hegel is in the
least something telegraphic - telegramming message-language is anywhere close a
form adequate to any Hegel exposition.Even the aphoristic composition of
Nietzsche cannot be communicated in the form of techno-science signifier, like a
telex message though a computer is compatible with tele-language.
I am posting the second part,cff from the first part.In continuity though this
is final, second part.

>I doubt that the importation of Hegel's idea into different national contexts

> and the reaction to it was the same.

Were I 2 refer positivism, the `same-ness' holds much water. No boubt there were
differences following national idiosyncrasies, when language was pretty
decisive.Yet the amazing , astounding dimension of Hegel, who wrote both as a
mix of local dialect that was put across a syntax and numerous grammatical norms
borrowed from ordinary speech and also the language of near perfect Latin-German
combination. Because of the latter classicism his students were able to make
coherent notes.If he had persisted with using the language of `PdG, Hegel would
have disappeared from the philo. landscape.Yet 2 works including WL would not
have met nemesis.Such texts, like the fragments of Heraclitus goes much further
from immediate time.Pointing the main error/mistaken idea to Lassalle  was `to
transform philosophers/wisemen/women as mouthpieces of their time.This means 1]
the limits of of historicity and 2]the persistence of Ideas moving beyond even
10000's of years [ such the the idea which produced fire from flintstone] with
the proviso : the criteria of the Real and Active.Within the finite spatiality
of 19th c Europe, the spread of Hegelianism was swift and unprecedented.The
active though oppositional presence of Hegelians in and out of
institutions/univ's teaches the use of the ruse of reason by uncompromisingly
moral, committed individuals who were not entangled with their time.Their
conscience cames from the Anarchist legacy as with Eleese Reclus. Nothing was
`same. What was relational was mechandizing of good and ideas and music and arts
btw  the nations.
What you consider as `ungrammatical mess' should not imply that philo =pefect
grammar.For Hegel grammar is important in its formative phase, a comment made in
relation to Sanskrit. Beyond the limited philo associated  with grammar we pass
over  by another unfolding. There are numerous examples of philosophers,
including Hegel, whose concerns  had little to bother about grammatical
perfection/correctness not due to their ignorance of the rules.Grammatical
anomalous were more attractive.In the realm of speculative philosophy, most of
the main insights emerge out of the anomalous because it already presupposes the
knowledge of rules.Following your lead would lead to Pannani the original
Grammarian ; my path is  risky, hopefully leading one to Gianfranco Conti, the
great romance linguist, great believer of the anomalous, in the line of 
Grammarian of the school of Alexandria used to exclaiming `this is it' whenever
he encountered the anomaly, not to be confused with oddity.Within the German
academic establishment  where do I write that `positivism triumphed'? I was
talking about the triumph of obscurantism including positivism that was not
really significant in Germany. Avanarius became a eye opener. He and Mach, in
the main, were the one's to provide causes leading to the emergence of  major
confusion in sciences that started after the eclipse of metaphysics, philosophy
of science./naturphilosophie. Avanarius  could see the so-called
anti-metaphysical garb pun on by the likes of Buchner, Vogt. Molleschot,
scholars of physiology, zoology, who could use `cryptometaphysical materialism [
aleatory materialism occurred suddenly as a flash] as their main arsenal for
conducting persecutions, dismissals, etc.other than excluding metaphysics, philo
of science, contents of `naturphilosophie'.
On victory of positivism in Germany that Dumain says is a point made by me, let
me replicate the earlier argument before the laugh.`The limited triumph
consisted in injunctions that substituted  artificial metaphysics by analysis of
sensations
[Cf, Avinarius, Kritik der reinen Erfarurung, Liepzig, 2 vols.where he discusses
the `human concept of the world']
I responded to your queries; one, on `ungrammatical nonsense'[these matters are
dismissed by me without boasting the number of languages that I know] and 2] the
meaning and the nature of limited triumphant  positivism in Germany . Much more
than positivism was involved in German triumphalism such as attack ob France to
crush the commune, the start of militarism, division of Africa, anti-socialist
laws,worker opposition to militarism and their distrust of state institutions
like Univs.

I am at loss while attempting to figure out whatever you mean by the "connect"
with the previous argument". The only rationalization I  find is the omission of
Germany by Marx of Germany in his study of Comte and positivism.Let me  explain
that in Germany , small victories by positivism in relation to the entire
complex was of no consequence to Marx when compared to its near hegemonic status
in France and , together with empiricism  the growing influence of positivism in
Britain.Marx was writing this much before 1870-71. Marx did not consider Germany
while  studying Comte and `positivism in Britain and France'.Where is any
`prior' argument that I make for making any connection. If you read with some
patience the `connect' that I make is none; what I do relate to is Comte and
Hegel and this is a Hegel site.Marx find Comte `wretched' when compared with
Hegel and some more.Marx defines positivism as `trashy'. I agree with this
definition. What falls beneath my wits is your brash, unreflected, illiterate
statements like " Machian wave of positivism" and" Comte's quasi-technocratic,
quasi-religious movement". If you really mean so then let things be, let us not
disturb the sleeping dog.

Regarding Husserl I have placed him squarely on the side of the victors.  More
important though, his search for phenomenological foundations for pure logic
without the required universal moment, his misunderstanding of Mach's critique
of dogmatic materialism that began functioning within the limits  of sensations
should make Husserl as a confused version of positivism, not Mach, as you
claim.Regarding your estimation of Comte it's upto you.

Rest of `alse sprachen Dumain' is sheer ignorance.You may have `read' Heraclitus
or not or you may have read Hegel's Philosophy of Nature, v.2 or not and you may
have heard or read Harris lecture shortly before he died or not, but whatever
you  pose is neither fish nor flesh. Your sources seem too opaque, they do not
seem to peep through or penetrate the substrata or the mystical shell of the
commodity world, your questions are repetitious.  Then there are confusions
galore.
  That is why I wish you luck in a re-reading of Hegel.
debussyyee
To: hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com
From: d.ebu@...
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:05:43 +0000
Subject: [hegel-hegelians] Re: 19-20th c. critics of Hegel -acceptance,
rejection




















             Hegel-Hegelians



R Dumain addresses '"Let's see if we can make sense...."

Following quotations he asks `what does it mean',on and on.

I want to know from Dumain whether he knows the difference between

meaning and sense.



Dumain reads philosophy as one reads pulp. In some cases his reading

is literary.Really wonder, by what stretch of imagination does he

consider himself as Hegelian?

I have no qualms about anybody pointing some grammatical errors.I do

not, in general make a rough draft and a fair one. My writing is a

singular deed on a singular plane of this time for that I am

responsible.It's fine if Dumain wants to point out a grammatical flaw

[ a pure literary habit]what I write is not an alibi, whether Dumain

understands [meaning?] or not. The very act of writing involves the

use and play of tactile senses, which makes the deed go beyond

words.This would mean be `sense-certainty'.



Dumain's writing is an alibi, meaning eliminating words from

quotations in order to produce some effect.

It is pointless to comment on his personal diatribes.pure nonsense.



If Dumain is familiar with history he should have known that 19th c.

was a century of nations and nationalism. The French had a word

derived from a surname : chauvinism. What really `sounds' after

1870-71 is the noise of gunpowder. The crushing of Paris commune is

the point of departure for `vicious attacks', suppression, etc.Many

more persons of great caliber were imprisoned or shot.The period

coincides with a great depression, which would last for more than 2

decades.

Having said this I do feel a need to answer or clarify some questions,

which may have been asked with some wit.I did not name `British

idealists'.iF YOU DOUBT, WHICH YOU MUST,let me drop names : R F

Westcott. F J A Hort, J B Lightfoot,, Jowett on biblical criticism,,

the scholarship of McTaggart, Pringle-Pattison., John and Edward

Caird. In 1829, W Hamilton cited Hegel under the influence of V

cousins.The historian Carlyle cited Hegel;The Scottish philosopher, R

Ferguson referred Hegel in 2 essays and those days these notices in

journals like Quarterly Review and Edinburgh Review mattered a lot for

your kind info.Hegel had arrived and his influence was destined to

increase in a country that was under deep slumber associated WITH

laudanum, induced by the strict, ever watchful [ a bit like your

gaze], intimidating Hume. Philosophers such as Bradly, Wallace and Mc

Taggart tried fertilizing the barrenness of British philosophy.

Russell did not turn to Hegel directly but out of a feeling of

religious impulses. [read his`Portrait from Memories and other essays].

As for British idealists regarded as reactionaies that is of no

concern to me, whether  they were or not , my foot.



You have raised a question on the situation in Germany.It's dinner

time. I may attempt to respond.

  luck

debussyyee



--- In hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com, Ralph Dumain <rdumain@...> wrote:

>

> Let's see if we can make sense of this gobbledegook:

>

> At 08:44 AM 6/11/2008, debabrata banerjee wrote:

> > >>Abstract : To clear the confusion due to differing presuppositions,

> > >my brief outline should have spelled the period after 1870 a vicious

> > >attack on Hegelianism began that had few precedents.Yet the reaction

> > >was/is long durational stretching deep into 20th c.

>

> It sounds like said 'vicious attack' was a coordinated effort.  Yet I

> doubt that the importation of Hegel into different national contexts

> and the reaction to it was the same.

>

> >In France Hegel

> > >rejection had positivism, which provided the bedrock of the

> > >intellectual backlash in addition to printed matter churned by

> > >Catholic Church. What was initiated then reached the first

> > >benchmark consolidation in Thibadaut's blow on Mallarme's work in

> > >light of Hegelianism. The explosive combination of Mallarme's poetry

> > >with strong Hegelian moorings had to be suppressed by the state.

>

> What is this all about?

>

> >In >post-1870's Britain, Hegelianism became an object of derision,

> >a>ccused of " despicable style, perverse vocabulary", a " Hegel who

> >offered many things a little better than an ass", " tending to deprave

> >our intellect" [ Blakey, L Stephen, J S Mill]. One may add de Quincy

> >and Coleridge in their reaction.

>

> British idealism was reactionary, as even many advocates of Hegel

have argued.

>

>

> >In post-1870's German universities an obscure tradition triumphed

> >following the collapse of metaphysics,

> >philosophy of science, naturphilosophie' Avinarius's notice on the

> >absence of self-criticism and Mach's critique of dogmatic materialism,

> >caging metaphysics in analysis of tradition a la positivism .

>

> What does this ungrammatical mess mean?  That positivism triumphed in

> German academia after 1870?

>

> >The situation also drew Marx's attention to a study of Comte because of

> >the "fuss made by the British and French over that fellow". When

> >compared to Hegel he found Comte, positivism "wretched", even if "

> >even when Comte was a mathematician and physicist by profession

> >....even here Hegel is infinitely greater" followed by brushing this

> >"trashy positivism' [ M-E Correspondence,Moscow,169]

>

> How does this connect with the prior "argument"? What is the relation

> between the Machian wave of positivism and Comte's quasi-religious,

> quasi-technocratic movement?

>

>

> >  In my brief take I say that the cardinal error of Husserl was his

belief in

> >triumphalism that emerged, meaning a belief in the collapse of

> >metaphysics, naturphilosophie together with the tradition where Hegel

> >towered.Husserl's complicity with reaction led him to a search for new

> >phenomenology.

>

> What does this mean?

>

> >It is too self-evident to stress that the

> >Husserl-Heidegger phenomenology [even the case of Russell's break with

> >Hegel in Britain, Whitehead included] flourished in the context of

> >positivism, empiricism, neo-romanticism and an aggressive, European

> >expansionist imperialism HQ'd in Germany.

>

> What does this mean? What has Russell to do with

> phenomenology?  Whitehead didn't know a thing about Hegel.

>

>

> >Lubbe says that this phenomenology was " caught up in the times" [ H

> >Lubbe,Studien der

> >Phenomenologie der subjectivat : Mach-Husserl-Schapp-Wittgenstein]Till

> >WW2, the triumph was somewhat phyrric since Hegel's influence was not

> >gravely diminished when Hegelians around fin de sicle turned

> >combative, oppositional.But from 1914, it went in rapid tailspin mode.

>

> What does this mean?

>

>

> >Next, I refer to the lecture by Harris to HSA titled `Would Hegel be

> >a Hegelian today?'This provocative, bold question emerges when

> >ex-Hegelians like C Taylor, Westphal, C Butler etc., were making waves

> >and would direct his polemic at them, after mastering a kind of

> >pathos.To the question Harris responded `yes',given the division in

> >Hegel btw `comprehending one's own time' and a philosophy ` that is

> >out of time'.This re-assertion of the two-foldness of Hegel's philo.,

> > >which was clear to Marx in the first chapter on commodities must be

> > >appreciated.

>

> What does this nonsense mean?

>

>

> >Ironically put, I may even extend the argument amidst

> > >the noise and din shrouding the `novelty' of Deluze's idea of

> >`>two-foldness' because the idea is hackneyed, a schizoid revolt

> > >against Freud that is hardly political coupled with a rabid,

> > >unelucidated but polemically misinformed assault on the dialectic. I

> > >should ask, which dialectic? the positivist, learnt by rote

> > >dialectic or the critical reflection?Surely Deluze does not consider

> > >the making of science by critical dialectic , which could also be due

> > >to the repressive atmosphere in Fench academia though this hardly

> > >withholds a criticism of Deluze having missed out on any critical

> > >development of knowledge upto the point when the mode of presentation

> > >is dialectical.Anyway, I conclude by taking the natural philosophy of

> > >Heraclitus to find a two-foldness of time that differers from Harris

> > >and not Hegel.In Heraclitus we get he notion of time as " Free Fire,

> > >i.e.,1] fire as life, soul, purged of all materature and 2]as

> > >materialized in determinate being.[Hegel, Philo of Nature, v.2., p

> > >222]Within left anti-Hegelianism post-1990, we get the glorification

> > >or the centrality of materialism by A Negri but should he look at

> > >fire he would be hard pressed to explain the phenomena except as

> > >caricatured materialism, or slip into imagination, Venus. Defending

> > >Hegel, neither supra-historically nor via phenomenology or

> > >historicist mode, but as presence that may be seen/read in words or

> > >outside words, I rn by quoting this from Marx's letter to Lassalle

> > >:".... I regard your gravest shortcoming the fact that a la Schiller,

> > >you transform individuals as mouthpieces of the time" [ M-E

> > >Correspondence, p. 110]

>

> Reading this gibberish, I conclude the author is a nutcase. He should

> be put in a rubber room with Paul Healey.

>
























_________________________________________________________________
Timely update on all current affairs, sports, events and all thats in News here
on MSN videos.
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-in

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hegel-Hegelians

R Dumain addresses '"Let's see if we can make sense...."
Following quotations he asks `what does it mean',on and on.
I want to know from Dumain whether he knows the difference between
meaning and sense.

Dumain reads philosophy as one reads pulp. In some cases his reading
is literary.Really wonder, by what stretch of imagination does he
consider himself as Hegelian?
I have no qualms about anybody pointing some grammatical errors.I do
not, in general make a rough draft and a fair one. My writing is a
singular deed on a singular plane of this time for that I am
responsible.It's fine if Dumain wants to point out a grammatical flaw
[ a pure literary habit]what I write is not an alibi, whether Dumain
understands [meaning?] or not. The very act of writing involves the
use and play of tactile senses, which makes the deed go beyond
words.This would mean be `sense-certainty'.

Dumain's writing is an alibi, meaning eliminating words from
quotations in order to produce some effect.
It is pointless to comment on his personal diatribes.pure nonsense.

If Dumain is familiar with history he should have known that 19th c.
was a century of nations and nationalism. The French had a word
derived from a surname : chauvinism. What really `sounds' after
1870-71 is the noise of gunpowder. The crushing of Paris commune is
the point of departure for `vicious attacks', suppression, etc.Many
more persons of great caliber were imprisoned or shot.The period
coincides with a great depression, which would last for more than 2
decades.
Having said this I do feel a need to answer or clarify some questions,
which may have been asked with some wit.I did not name `British
idealists'.iF YOU DOUBT, WHICH YOU MUST,let me drop names : R F
Westcott. F J A Hort, J B Lightfoot,, Jowett on biblical criticism,,
the scholarship of McTaggart, Pringle-Pattison., John and Edward
Caird. In 1829, W Hamilton cited Hegel under the influence of V
cousins.The historian Carlyle cited Hegel;The Scottish philosopher, R
Ferguson referred Hegel in 2 essays and those days these notices in
journals like Quarterly Review and Edinburgh Review mattered a lot for
your kind info.Hegel had arrived and his influence was destined to
increase in a country that was under deep slumber associated WITH
laudanum, induced by the strict, ever watchful [ a bit like your
gaze], intimidating Hume. Philosophers such as Bradly, Wallace and Mc
Taggart tried fertilizing the barrenness of British philosophy.
Russell did not turn to Hegel directly but out of a feeling of
religious impulses. [read his`Portrait from Memories and other essays].
As for British idealists regarded as reactionaies that is of no
concern to me, whether  they were or not , my foot.

You have raised a question on the situation in Germany.It's dinner
time. I may attempt to respond.
  luck
debussyyee

--- In hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com, Ralph Dumain <rdumain@...> wrote:
>
> Let's see if we can make sense of this gobbledegook:
>
> At 08:44 AM 6/11/2008, debabrata banerjee wrote:
> > >>Abstract : To clear the confusion due to differing presuppositions,
> > >my brief outline should have spelled the period after 1870 a vicious
> > >attack on Hegelianism began that had few precedents.Yet the reaction
> > >was/is long durational stretching deep into 20th c.
>
> It sounds like said 'vicious attack' was a coordinated effort.  Yet I
> doubt that the importation of Hegel into different national contexts
> and the reaction to it was the same.
>
> >In France Hegel
> > >rejection had positivism, which provided the bedrock of the
> > >intellectual backlash in addition to printed matter churned by
> > >Catholic Church. What was initiated then reached the first
> > >benchmark consolidation in Thibadaut's blow on Mallarme's work in
> > >light of Hegelianism. The explosive combination of Mallarme's poetry
> > >with strong Hegelian moorings had to be suppressed by the state.
>
> What is this all about?
>
> >In >post-1870's Britain, Hegelianism became an object of derision,
> >a>ccused of " despicable style, perverse vocabulary", a " Hegel who
> >offered many things a little better than an ass", " tending to deprave
> >our intellect" [ Blakey, L Stephen, J S Mill]. One may add de Quincy
> >and Coleridge in their reaction.
>
> British idealism was reactionary, as even many advocates of Hegel
have argued.
>
>
> >In post-1870's German universities an obscure tradition triumphed
> >following the collapse of metaphysics,
> >philosophy of science, naturphilosophie' Avinarius's notice on the
> >absence of self-criticism and Mach's critique of dogmatic materialism,
> >caging metaphysics in analysis of tradition a la positivism .
>
> What does this ungrammatical mess mean?  That positivism triumphed in
> German academia after 1870?
>
> >The situation also drew Marx's attention to a study of Comte because of
> >the "fuss made by the British and French over that fellow". When
> >compared to Hegel he found Comte, positivism "wretched", even if "
> >even when Comte was a mathematician and physicist by profession
> >....even here Hegel is infinitely greater" followed by brushing this
> >"trashy positivism' [ M-E Correspondence,Moscow,169]
>
> How does this connect with the prior "argument"? What is the relation
> between the Machian wave of positivism and Comte's quasi-religious,
> quasi-technocratic movement?
>
>
> >  In my brief take I say that the cardinal error of Husserl was his
belief in
> >triumphalism that emerged, meaning a belief in the collapse of
> >metaphysics, naturphilosophie together with the tradition where Hegel
> >towered.Husserl's complicity with reaction led him to a search for new
> >phenomenology.
>
> What does this mean?
>
> >It is too self-evident to stress that the
> >Husserl-Heidegger phenomenology [even the case of Russell's break with
> >Hegel in Britain, Whitehead included] flourished in the context of
> >positivism, empiricism, neo-romanticism and an aggressive, European
> >expansionist imperialism HQ'd in Germany.
>
> What does this mean? What has Russell to do with
> phenomenology?  Whitehead didn't know a thing about Hegel.
>
>
> >Lubbe says that this phenomenology was " caught up in the times" [ H
> >Lubbe,Studien der
> >Phenomenologie der subjectivat : Mach-Husserl-Schapp-Wittgenstein]Till
> >WW2, the triumph was somewhat phyrric since Hegel's influence was not
> >gravely diminished when Hegelians around fin de sicle turned
> >combative, oppositional.But from 1914, it went in rapid tailspin mode.
>
> What does this mean?
>
>
> >Next, I refer to the lecture by Harris to HSA titled `Would Hegel be
> >a Hegelian today?'This provocative, bold question emerges when
> >ex-Hegelians like C Taylor, Westphal, C Butler etc., were making waves
> >and would direct his polemic at them, after mastering a kind of
> >pathos.To the question Harris responded `yes',given the division in
> >Hegel btw `comprehending one's own time' and a philosophy ` that is
> >out of time'.This re-assertion of the two-foldness of Hegel's philo.,
> > >which was clear to Marx in the first chapter on commodities must be
> > >appreciated.
>
> What does this nonsense mean?
>
>
> >Ironically put, I may even extend the argument amidst
> > >the noise and din shrouding the `novelty' of Deluze's idea of
> >`>two-foldness' because the idea is hackneyed, a schizoid revolt
> > >against Freud that is hardly political coupled with a rabid,
> > >unelucidated but polemically misinformed assault on the dialectic. I
> > >should ask, which dialectic? the positivist, learnt by rote
> > >dialectic or the critical reflection?Surely Deluze does not consider
> > >the making of science by critical dialectic , which could also be due
> > >to the repressive atmosphere in Fench academia though this hardly
> > >withholds a criticism of Deluze having missed out on any critical
> > >development of knowledge upto the point when the mode of presentation
> > >is dialectical.Anyway, I conclude by taking the natural philosophy of
> > >Heraclitus to find a two-foldness of time that differers from Harris
> > >and not Hegel.In Heraclitus we get he notion of time as " Free Fire,
> > >i.e.,1] fire as life, soul, purged of all materature and 2]as
> > >materialized in determinate being.[Hegel, Philo of Nature, v.2., p
> > >222]Within left anti-Hegelianism post-1990, we get the glorification
> > >or the centrality of materialism by A Negri but should he look at
> > >fire he would be hard pressed to explain the phenomena except as
> > >caricatured materialism, or slip into imagination, Venus. Defending
> > >Hegel, neither supra-historically nor via phenomenology or
> > >historicist mode, but as presence that may be seen/read in words or
> > >outside words, I rn by quoting this from Marx's letter to Lassalle
> > >:".... I regard your gravest shortcoming the fact that a la Schiller,
> > >you transform individuals as mouthpieces of the time" [ M-E
> > >Correspondence, p. 110]
>
> Reading this gibberish, I conclude the author is a nutcase. He should
> be put in a rubber room with Paul Healey.
>

Let's see if we can make sense of this gobbledegook:

At 08:44 AM 6/11/2008, debabrata banerjee wrote:
> >>Abstract : To clear the confusion due to differing presuppositions,
> >my brief outline should have spelled the period after 1870 a vicious
> >attack on Hegelianism began that had few precedents.Yet the reaction
> >was/is long durational stretching deep into 20th c.

It sounds like said 'vicious attack' was a coordinated effort.  Yet I
doubt that the importation of Hegel into different national contexts
and the reaction to it was the same.

>In France Hegel
> >rejection had positivism, which provided the bedrock of the
> >intellectual backlash in addition to printed matter churned by
> >Catholic Church. What was initiated then reached the first
> >benchmark consolidation in Thibadaut's blow on Mallarme's work in
> >light of Hegelianism. The explosive combination of Mallarme's poetry
> >with strong Hegelian moorings had to be suppressed by the state.

What is this all about?

>In >post-1870's Britain, Hegelianism became an object of derision,
>a>ccused of " despicable style, perverse vocabulary", a " Hegel who
>offered many things a little better than an ass", " tending to deprave
>our intellect" [ Blakey, L Stephen, J S Mill]. One may add de Quincy
>and Coleridge in their reaction.

British idealism was reactionary, as even many advocates of Hegel have argued.


>In post-1870's German universities an obscure tradition triumphed
>following the collapse of metaphysics,
>philosophy of science, naturphilosophie' Avinarius's notice on the
>absence of self-criticism and Mach's critique of dogmatic materialism,
>caging metaphysics in analysis of tradition a la positivism .

What does this ungrammatical mess mean?  That positivism triumphed in
German academia after 1870?

>The situation also drew Marx's attention to a study of Comte because of
>the "fuss made by the British and French over that fellow". When
>compared to Hegel he found Comte, positivism "wretched", even if "
>even when Comte was a mathematician and physicist by profession
>....even here Hegel is infinitely greater" followed by brushing this
>"trashy positivism' [ M-E Correspondence,Moscow,169]

How does this connect with the prior "argument"? What is the relation
between the Machian wave of positivism and Comte's quasi-religious,
quasi-technocratic movement?


>  In my brief take I say that the cardinal error of Husserl was his belief in
>triumphalism that emerged, meaning a belief in the collapse of
>metaphysics, naturphilosophie together with the tradition where Hegel
>towered.Husserl's complicity with reaction led him to a search for new
>phenomenology.

What does this mean?

>It is too self-evident to stress that the
>Husserl-Heidegger phenomenology [even the case of Russell's break with
>Hegel in Britain, Whitehead included] flourished in the context of
>positivism, empiricism, neo-romanticism and an aggressive, European
>expansionist imperialism HQ'd in Germany.

What does this mean? What has Russell to do with
phenomenology?  Whitehead didn't know a thing about Hegel.


>Lubbe says that this phenomenology was " caught up in the times" [ H
>Lubbe,Studien der
>Phenomenologie der subjectivat : Mach-Husserl-Schapp-Wittgenstein]Till
>WW2, the triumph was somewhat phyrric since Hegel's influence was not
>gravely diminished when Hegelians around fin de sicle turned
>combative, oppositional.But from 1914, it went in rapid tailspin mode.

What does this mean?


>Next, I refer to the lecture by Harris to HSA titled `Would Hegel be
>a Hegelian today?'This provocative, bold question emerges when
>ex-Hegelians like C Taylor, Westphal, C Butler etc., were making waves
>and would direct his polemic at them, after mastering a kind of
>pathos.To the question Harris responded `yes',given the division in
>Hegel btw `comprehending one's own time' and a philosophy ` that is
>out of time'.This re-assertion of the two-foldness of Hegel's philo.,
> >which was clear to Marx in the first chapter on commodities must be
> >appreciated.

What does this nonsense mean?


>Ironically put, I may even extend the argument amidst
> >the noise and din shrouding the `novelty' of Deluze's idea of
>`>two-foldness' because the idea is hackneyed, a schizoid revolt
> >against Freud that is hardly political coupled with a rabid,
> >unelucidated but polemically misinformed assault on the dialectic. I
> >should ask, which dialectic? the positivist, learnt by rote
> >dialectic or the critical reflection?Surely Deluze does not consider
> >the making of science by critical dialectic , which could also be due
> >to the repressive atmosphere in Fench academia though this hardly
> >withholds a criticism of Deluze having missed out on any critical
> >development of knowledge upto the point when the mode of presentation
> >is dialectical.Anyway, I conclude by taking the natural philosophy of
> >Heraclitus to find a two-foldness of time that differers from Harris
> >and not Hegel.In Heraclitus we get he notion of time as " Free Fire,
> >i.e.,1] fire as life, soul, purged of all materature and 2]as
> >materialized in determinate being.[Hegel, Philo of Nature, v.2., p
> >222]Within left anti-Hegelianism post-1990, we get the glorification
> >or the centrality of materialism by A Negri but should he look at
> >fire he would be hard pressed to explain the phenomena except as
> >caricatured materialism, or slip into imagination, Venus. Defending
> >Hegel, neither supra-historically nor via phenomenology or
> >historicist mode, but as presence that may be seen/read in words or
> >outside words, I rn by quoting this from Marx's letter to Lassalle
> >:".... I regard your gravest shortcoming the fact that a la Schiller,
> >you transform individuals as mouthpieces of the time" [ M-E
> >Correspondence, p. 110]

Reading this gibberish, I conclude the author is a nutcase. He should
be put in a rubber room with Paul Healey.

Dear Hegel-Hegelians,

I owe an abstract, requested by Robert Fenillon in clear terms. Would
call it abstract +

>>Abstract : To clear  the confusion due to differing presuppositions,
  >my brief outline should have spelled the period after 1870 a vicious
>attack on Hegelianism began that had few precedents.Yet the reaction
>was/is long durational stretching deep into 20th c.In France Hegel
>rejection had positivism, which provided the bedrock of the
>intellectual backlash in addition to printed matter churned by
>Catholic Church. What   was initiated then reached the first
>benchmark consolidation in Thibadaut's blow on Mallarme's work in
>light of Hegelianism. The explosive combination of Mallarme's poetry
>with strong Hegelian moorings had to be suppressed by the state.In
>post-1870's Britain, Hegelianism became an object of derision,
a>ccused of " despicable style, perverse vocabulary", a " Hegel who
offered many things a little better than an ass", " tending to deprave
our intellect" [ Blakey, L Stephen, J S Mill]. One may add de Quincy
and Coleridge in their reaction.In post-1870's German univer4sities an
obscure tradition triumphed following the collapse of metaphysics,
philosophy of science, naturphilosophie' Avinarius's notice on the
absence of self-criticism and Mach's critique of dogmatic materialism,
caging metaphysics in analysis of tradition a la positivism . The
situation also drew Marx's attention to a study of Comte because of
the "fuss made by the British and French over that fellow". When
compared to Hegel he  found Comte, positivism "wretched", even if "
even when Comte was a mathematician and physicist by profession
....even here Hegel is infinitely greater" followed by brushing this
"trashy positivism' [ M-E Correspondence,Moscow,169] In my brief take
I say that the cardinal error of Husserl was his belief in
triumphalism that emerged, meaning a belief in the collapse of
metaphysics, naturphilosophie together with the tradition where Hegel
towered.Husserl's complicity with reaction led him to a search for new
phenomenology. It is too self-evident to stress that the
Husserl-Heidegger phenomenology [even the case of Russell's break with
Hegel in Britain, Whitehead included] flourished in the context of
positivism, empiricism, neo-romanticism and an  aggressive, European
expansionist imperialism HQ'd in Germany.Lubbe says that this
phenomenology was " caught up in the times" [ H Lubbe,Studien der
Phenomenologie der subjectivat : Mach-Husserl-Schapp-Wittgenstein]Till
WW2, the triumph was somewhat phyrric since Hegel's influence was not
gravely diminished when Hegelians around fin de sicle turned
combative, oppositional.But from 1914, it went in rapid tailspin mode.
Next, I refer to  the lecture by Harris to HSA titled `Would Hegel be
a Hegelian today?'This provocative, bold question emerges when
ex-Hegelians like C Taylor, Westphal, C Butler etc., were making waves
and would direct his polemic at them, after mastering a kind of
pathos.To the question Harris responded `yes',given the division in
Hegel btw `comprehending one's own time' and a philosophy ` that is
out of time'.This re-assertion of the two-foldness of Hegel's philo.,
>which was clear to Marx in the first chapter on commodities must be
>appreciated. Ironically put, I may even extend the argument amidst
>the noise and din shrouding the `novelty' of Deluze's idea of
`>two-foldness' because the idea is hackneyed, a schizoid revolt
>against Freud that is hardly political coupled with a rabid,
>unelucidated but polemically misinformed assault on the dialectic. I
>should  ask, which dialectic? the positivist, learnt by rote
>dialectic or the critical reflection?Surely Deluze does not consider
>the making of science by critical dialectic , which could also be due
>to the repressive atmosphere in Fench academia though this hardly
>withholds a criticism  of Deluze having missed out on any critical
>development of knowledge upto the point when the mode of presentation
>is dialectical.Anyway, I conclude by taking the natural philosophy of
>Heraclitus to find a two-foldness of time that differers from Harris
>and not Hegel.In Heraclitus we get he notion of time as " Free Fire,
>i.e.,1] fire as life, soul, purged of all materature and 2]as
>materialized in determinate being.[Hegel, Philo of Nature, v.2., p
>222]Within left anti-Hegelianism post-1990, we get the glorification
  >or the centrality of materialism by A Negri but should he look at
>fire he would be hard pressed to explain the phenomena except as
>caricatured materialism, or slip into imagination, Venus. Defending
>Hegel, neither supra-historically nor via phenomenology or
>historicist mode, but as presence  that may be seen/read in words or
>outside words, I rn by  quoting this from Marx's letter to Lassalle
>:".... I regard your gravest shortcoming the fact that a la Schiller,
>you transform individuals as mouthpieces of the time"  [ M-E
>Correspondence, p. 110]

Calling off
cheers
debussyyee

hello
gave up occam's razor, middle ages long ago.it cuts two ways between brevity and
telegraphic procedures/bytes assuming the shadow of william of razor fame still
looms over and above in these times.
after chopping para 1, u'll get a fair abstract. so i suppose.
Last, abstracts cannot be stated as propositions,.
  have a god time,
debussyyee

To: hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com
CC: cfanelli@...; domfan23@...; falon@...;
gamesage47@...; comatunes@...; tedhumphrey@...
From: robertfanellione@...
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:22:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [hegel-hegelians] Re: 20th c. critics on Hegel's �Time, History -
Hegel Reception or Hegel Rejection




















             debabrata,



Thanks for your response.



You may need to cut it short. Try using a razor.



"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities
required to explain anything."



William of Occam



Regards,



Bob Fanelli



From: debabrata banerjee <d.ebu@...>

Date: 2008/06/03 Tue PM 07:43:57 CDT

To: hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [hegel-hegelians] Re: 20th c. critics on Hegel's �Time, History -
Hegel Reception or Hegel Rejection



Dear Bob Fenelli,



[...]






















_________________________________________________________________
Catch the latest fashion shows, get beauty tips and learn more on fashion and
lifestyle.
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-in

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

debabrata,

Thanks for your response.

You may need to cut it short. Try using a razor.

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities
required to explain anything."

William of Occam

Regards,

Bob Fanelli

From: debabrata banerjee <d.ebu@...>
Date: 2008/06/03 Tue PM 07:43:57 CDT
To: hegel-hegelians@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [hegel-hegelians] Re: 20th c. critics on Hegel's �Time, History -
Hegel Reception or Hegel Rejection



Dear Bob Fenelli,

[...]