**The**.

**F****.**

**E****.**

**D****Psychohistorical-Dialectical**'

**Meta**-

**Equation**'

**of Human**-

**Social Formation(s)**'

**Meta**-

**Evolution**'.

**Part III**.

**A**.:

**Interlude**.

*.*

**The Dialectic of TV Series**

*The Systematic*__Dialectic__*--*

**of****Modern TV Series****Systematically Presented via a**

**4**-

**Symbol Expression**.

Dear Readers,

The
dialectical model presented in this blog-entry is an ‘ultra-simple’ example of
such models -- is literally a “trivia[l]” example -- a dialectical model of the
systematics of television programming “trivia”. But that is, precisely, the whole point of
this example: to dialectically model
something so simple and so well known, that the core of the

**F**.**.**__E__**. dialectical modeling method will thereby become transparent to the reader.**__D__
No “domain expertise” is
required of the reader, in order to understand the content of this model,
beyond that which is spontaneously learned in the course of following
contemporary TV Series, e.g., via broadcast network TV, and/or via cable TV,
and/or via satellite TV, and/or via internet video streaming, etc., etc.

Herein, we will use the

**F**.**.**__E__**. ‘first dialectical algebra’ to construct and “solve” a “heuristic”, ‘intuitional’, connotational model of a**__D__*‘‘‘*of principal entities/phenomena encountered in the domain of ‘TV Series’.**systematic presentation**’’’
Herein we mean, by the word,
‘‘‘systematic’’’, in the phrase

*‘‘‘*, a presentation of the major kinds of “entities” that exist in this domain -- by means of categories that classify those entities by their**systematic presentation**’’’*“kinds”*, i.e., as*‘‘‘ontology’’’*, or as*“kinds*of things” -- and in strict order of their rising complexity, starting from the simplest category, and moving, step-by-step, from lesser to greater complexity, until we reach the most complex category that presently exists for this domain, or for the purposes of this example.
The model that we will build
will generate these categories in that strict, systematic order of rising
complexity.

This will be a “snapshot” model,
a “synchronic” model that takes the present slice of time -- or at any rate, a
recent slice of time -- and algorithmically generates descriptions of the ‘combinatorially
possible’ categories

*, or that***that presently exist***presently exist, for the model’s domain, in their systematic order.***might**
Our model here will

**be a “chronology” model --**__not____a “diachronic” model -- like the previous, major model, narrated in this series, in which the units of__**not***earlier*categories are described as actually, e.g., physically,**, through their**__constructing__**, as**__activity__*“*, or as**causal agents**”*“*, the units of**subjects**”*later*categories, categories whose units**until that construction took place.***did not exist*
It will

**be a model of a ‘self-advancing’**__not__**of ontology, with each historical epoch containing both old ontology, inherited from past historical epochs, and new ontology, ontology that had**__historical____progression__*never appeared***-- in past historical epochs --***before***the**__until__*later*epoch in question.
We will apply a documented, standard
procedure to “solve” this model -- to determine what actual category, if any, each of
these generated category-descriptions refers to, and to determine which, if
any, of these category descriptions describe “empty categories”, representing
‘combinatorially’

Enjoy!

*possible*entities that*actually*do not exist for this domain -- at least not presently.Enjoy!

Regards,

Miguel

To get started, we must determine the starting-point -- the point-of-departure -- for our systematic model.

This

**will be the***starting category*__of our whole progression of generated category-descriptions, influencing every category that follows, as the “controlling source”, and as the “ever-present origin”, of all that follows from it, by 'connotational entailment'.__**seed**
The rule for getting started
is to ask oneself “

**What is the***¿***kind of thing, the**__least__complex**kind of thing, which exists in this domain**__simplest__*?**”*-- in our present case, in the domain of ‘TV Series’ -- and then to find the answer to that question, based upon one’s prior knowledge of, or familiarity with, this domain of entities /- phenomena.
The answer to this starting
question that we will pursue in this example is the following: The single “

**Episode**” is the simplest ancestor, the ultimate*of contemporary TV Series, ingredient in every one of the more complex***unit***of that domain.***units**
Therefore, the category which
we shall name

**is our**__Episodes__**, and we shall symbolize it, in our***starter category***category-algebra model, via the first letter of that name, as***specific***, or as**__E____q__**, identifying that specific category with the generic first category symbol of our**_{E}**category-arithmetic,***generic*__q__**, in an identification, “interpretation”, or “assignment” [ ‘**_{1}**[---)**’ ] that we indicate by writing:__E____=____q___{E}**[---)**__q__**.**_{1}
Our dialectical model then,
will take the form of a 'dialectical meta-equation', an equating between multiplicity
and unity, that looks like this --

__)-|-(__

_{s}**=**

__E__

^{2s}**=**

__Episodes__

^{2s}
-- with the variable

**s**indicating the**tep in our systematic presentation that the ‘accumulation of categories’, denoted by**__s____)-|-(__**, represents.**_{s}

__Stage__**. Our initial**

__0__**tep --**

__s__**tep**

__s__**s**

**=**

**0**-- contains

*our starting category itself,*

**only**

__E__

__=__

__q__**--**

_{E}

__)-|-(__

_{0}**=**

__E__

^{20}**=**

__E__

^{1}**=**

__E__**=**

__Episodes__
-- because

**2**“raised” to the power**0**--**2**-- is just^{0}**1**, and because the category-symbol**, “raised” to the power**__E__**1**, is just**.**__E__

__Stage__**. It is when we get to**

__1__**tep**

__s__**s**

**=**

**1**that our equation-model gives us something initially “unknown” -- something “algebraical”, rather than just “arithmetical” -- to “solve-for” --

-- because

**2**“raised” to the power**1**--**2**-- is just^{1}**2**, and because our rule for multiplying a**category, call it***generic*__q___{x}__=__**, “by”, or “into”, itself, is, simply --**__x____q___{x}**x**__q___{x}**=**__q___{x }**+**__q___{xx}**=**__x___{ }**+**__q__**.**_{xx}Herein,

**is the**

__q__**category ‘**

__gene__ric**ualifier’. The subscripts that come after it are**

__q__**category “descriptors”, category “predicates”, or category “epithets”.**

__speci__fic**But how do we “solve for” what the resulting, initially “unknown” -- hence “algebraic” -- category, or ‘category description’, here**

*¿*

__q__**,**

_{EE}

__means__?
Well, the

**rule to “solve-for” the categorial**__gene__ric**of such symbols is that, if we know what is meant by category**__meaning____q___{x}**=****, then the symbol**__x____q__**describes a category each of whose units is an ‘**_{xx}**x**__OF__**x**s’, that is, a category for a different kind of units, called*‘***meta**-**x**s’, each such unit being made up out of a -- usually*--***heterogeneous**__multiplicity__of**x**s.
To be

**with this rule,**__speci__fic__q__**specifies a category each of whose units is an**_{EE}*‘*__E__pisode__OF__**’, that is, is a**__E__pisode*s**‘***meta**-**’, such that each**__E__pisode*‘***meta**-**’ is made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of**__E__pisode**.**__E__pisode*s*
That category-description
describes the category of ‘multi-

**’ units -- of**__E__pisode**, i.e., of a usually yearly multi-**__Seasons__**succession / ‘consecuum’, typically ending with a “**__E__pisode**”**__S__eason Finale**final**for each__E__pisode**.**__S__eason
We may “assert” our solution
as follows:

__q___{EE}**=**__q___{S}__=____S__**[---)**__q__**.**_{2}Again, what is

**about the relationship involving**

__dialectical__**and**

__E__

__E__**, or**

^{2}

__E__**x**

**, or**

__E__**, or**

__EE__

__E__

*of***, or**

__E__

__E__**(**, the relationship of what we call

__E__)*‘*, or

**meta**-**unit**-**ization**’*‘*«

**meta**-**»**

*monad**-*, or

**ization**’*‘*, between

**meta**-**holon**-**ization**’**and its already presently existing, ‘**

__E__**supplementary**other’,

**, is that this relationship is a synchronic «**

__S__**» relationship: each single unit of the**

*aufheben*

*typical***category being a**

__Seasons__**, and also a**

*negation***, by way of also being an**

*preservation*

*elevation*

*to**the*/

*forming**the*

**category / level / ‘qualo-fractal’ scale, of a**

__Seasons__**[**

*whole**sub-*]

**of**

*group***of the**

*unit*__s__**category / level / ‘qualo-fractal’ scale.**

__Episodes__
So, our full solution to the

**tep**__s__**s****=****1**equation-model of our 'meta-model' is --If this model is working right,

**will be the**

__Episodes__**category of the domain of ‘TV Series’, and**

*simplest***will be the**

__Seasons__**category of that domain.**

*next more complex*

__Stage__**.**

__2__**What ‘category-specifications’ do we generate in our next step,**

*¿***tep**

__s__**s**

**=**

**2**, that need “solving-for”

*?*
Let’s find out:

__)-|-(__

_{2}**=**

__E__

^{22}**=**

__E__

^{4}**=**

**(**

__E__

^{2 }**)**

^{2}**=**

**(**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

^{ }**)**

^{2}**=**

**(**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

^{ }**)**

**x**

**(**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

^{ }**)**

**=**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{SE}**+**

__q__**.**

_{SS}
This result arises by way of
two new rules of our categorial algebra, plus its

**rule for multiplication when one category is multiplied by a**__gene__ral*different*category [we used a**case of this**__speci__al**rule, for the case where**__gene__ral*the same*category is multiplied by itself, in**tep**__s__**s****=****1**, above] --**1**.

__q__

_{b}**x**

__q__

_{a}**=**

__q__

_{a }**+**

__q__

_{ba}**=**

__a__

_{ }**+**

__q__**;**

_{ba}

**case:**

__speci__al

__q__

_{b}**x**

__q__

_{b}**=**

__q__

_{b }**+**

__q__

_{bb}**=**

__b__

_{ }**+**

__q__**.**

_{bb}**2**.

__q__

_{a}**+**

__q__

_{a}**=**

__q__**; the same category, added to itself, does not make “two” of that category; one “copy” of each category is sufficient; two or more copies of any category would be redundant.**

_{a}**3**. There is no

__q__**such that**

_{x}

__q__

_{a}**+**

__q__

_{b}**=**

__q__**, if**

_{x}__is different from__

**a**__; different categories,__

**b****together [as opposed to being**

__added__**together],**

__multiplied__*to a single category, just as in the proverbial ‘*

**do not reduce**

__apples__**+**’, or

__oranges__

__a__+**.**

__o__
Well, we already know how to
“solve-for”

__q__**.**_{SS}
It describes a category of

*‘***s**__S__eason__OF____S__eason*s**’*-- a category each of whose units is a*‘*__S__eason__OF____S__eason*, i.e., each of which is a***’**__s__*‘***meta**-**’, such that each such**__S__eason*‘***-**__meta__**’ is made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of**__S__eason**.**__S__eason*s*
That category-description
describes the category of ‘multi-

**’ units -- of TV “**__S__eason**” units, each typically ending with a “**__seRies__**Se**”__R__ies Finale**final****for each such**__E__pisode**Se**, and which we therefore symbolize, this time, to avoid another__R__ies**with a different meaning, via the**__S__*third*letter of its name, by**.**__R__
We may “assert” our solution
as follows:

__q___{SS}**=**__q___{R}__=____R__**[---)**__q__**.**_{4}
Our

**tep**__s__**s****=****2**equation-model, as we have solved it so far, thus now looks like this --

__)-|-(__

_{2}**=**

__E__

^{22}**=**

__E__

^{4}**=**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{SE}**+**

**.**

__R__[

__Note emerging pattern__:

__E__**generates**

^{2}**2**categories,

__E__**,**

^{4}**4**categories].

-- since we still have not determined
which actual category of the TV Series domain is described by the
algorithmically-generated symbol

__q__**-- if any, i.e., if**_{SE}__q__**is not an “empty category” for this particular,**_{SE}__fic domain, even though it is__**speci**__not__, in__ral, an “empty category”.__**gene**When, as a component of

**(**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

^{ }**)**

**x**

**(**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

^{ }**)**, the “higher-complexity” category,

**, operates upon / ‘“reflects upon”’ / “multiplies” / «**

__S__**» the “lower-complexity” category,**

*aufhebens***--**

__E__

__S__**x**

__E__

_{ }**=**

__E__**+**

__q__

_{SE}
--

It calls the user to search that user’s knowledge and memory of the domain in question -- in this

Thus, the additional category thereby presented,

**speaking, the categorial relationship to be called to the user’s attention by this operation, in this ‘categorial arithmetic’, is, again, a synchronic «**__gene__rically**» relationship, this time between***aufheben***and**__E__**.**__q___{SE}It calls the user to search that user’s knowledge and memory of the domain in question -- in this

**case, the domain of TV programming -- for a category which represents an “uplift” of category**__speci__fic**entities to the level of the entities native to category**__E__**, thereby “**__S__**canceling**” the**-type entities concerned, at their own native level, but, by the same token, “**__E__**preserving**” those*“*__al” category__**speci****entities that**__E__**ualify for this “hybrid” category, combining**__q__**and**__S____E__**ualities, in the relationship of “**__q__**elevation**” of those category**entities to within the level typical of category**__E__**entities.**__S__Thus, the additional category thereby presented,

**, signifies**__q___{SE}__a__typical**units, that “double as”**__E__**units, or that “masquerade as”**__S__**units, or that “exist in the way that, normally, only**__S__**units exist”.**__S__
For example, if we were doing
a systematic model of written English, with

**denoting the category of phonetic**__L__**of the English alphabet, and with**__Letters__**denoting the category of written English**__W__**, then the category-symbol**__Words____q__**would stand for the category of individual English**_{WL}__etters that also__**L**__ualify as English__**q**__ords, e.g., ‘a’ and ‘I’.__**W**
In this

**case, this means that a unit of the**__speci__fic__q__**category is an**_{SE}**that “doubles for” a**__E__pisode**.**__S__eason**Do any such units, hence does any such category, actually exist, in the domain of TV Series**

*¿*

*?*
Yes: single-

**pisode**__E__**easons.**__S__
Any one-

__E__pisode__S__eason**ualifies, e.g., a planned, incipient**__q__**, cancelled after its initial**__S__eason**of its initial**__E__pisode**, or paused after its initial**__S__eason**of its initial**__E__pisode**, but resumed in its second**__S__eason**, or, e.g., a multi-**__S__eason__S__eason**Se**, with only one final__R__ies**for its Final**__E__pisode**-- rare, exceptional events, no doubt, but I do not doubt that such things have happened --**__S__eason*at least*once -- in the history of TV Series.
Were we to find no instances
of such units, then “category”

__q__**might be an instance of the generic**_{SE}*“*, denoted**empty category**”**.**-- connoting “full zero”, or “existential zero”, or ‘ontological zero’, or ‘qualitative zero’ -- for this particular domain, and for**W****, and we would “assert” our solution as follows:**__Q__**.**__q___{SE}= . [---) W__q___{0}
We would then therefore write our

*full*solution for__tep__**s****s****=****2**as --

__Episodes__

_{ }**+**

__Seasons__

_{ }**+**

**.**

__seRies__But let’s keep our ‘categorial-combinatorially

__possible__*’*category

__q__**around for a while longer, since I feel so sure that some instances of the units implied by the category-description ‘**

_{SE}

__q__**’ have existed, even though I can’t just now cite any --**

_{SE}

__)-|-(__

_{2}**=**

__E__

^{22}**=**

__E__

^{4}**=**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{SE}**+**

__R__**=**

__Episodes__

_{ }**+**

__Seasons__

_{ }**+**

__single____-__

**Episode Seasons**

_{ }**+**

**.**

__seRies__

__Stage__**.**

__3__**What ‘category-specs.’ do we generate in our next step,**

*¿***tep**

__s__**s**

**=**

**3**, that need “solving-for”

*?*Let’s see --

__)-|-(__

_{3}**=**

__E__

^{23}**=**

__E__

^{8}**=**

**(**

__E__

^{4 }**)**

^{2}**=**

**(**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{SE}**+**

__R__**)**

**x**

**(**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{SE}**+**

__R__**)**

**=**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{SE}**+**

__R__**+**

__q__

_{RE}

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{RS}

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{RSE}

_{ }**+**

__q__**.**

_{RR}
We already know how to
“solve-for”

__q__**.**_{RR}
It describes a category of

*‘***se**’s__R__ies__OF__**se**’__R__ies*s’*-- a category each of whose units is a*‘***se**__R__ies__OF__**se**__R__ies*’s,*i.e., each of which is a*‘***meta**-**se**’, such that each such__R__ies*‘***-**__meta__**se**’ unit is made up out of a heterogeneous__R__ies__multiplicity__of**se**__R__ies*’s*units.
That category-description
describes the already actualized category of ‘multi-

**se**’ units, of units consisting of a multiplicity of TV Se__R__ies**ies, of TV ‘**__R__**-**__M__ulti**Series**’, e.g., the early ‘**-**__M__ulti**Series**of the Star Trek sequence --**Original****--->****Next Generation****--->****Deep**-**Space 9****--->****Voyager****--->****Enterprise**-- or the later ‘**-**__M__ulti**Series**of the StarGate sequence --**SG**-**1****--->****Atlantis****--->****Universe**.We may “assert” our solution as follows:

__q__

_{RR}**=**

__q__

_{M}

__=__

__M__**[---)**

__q__**.**

_{8}Our

**tep**

__s__**s**

**=**

**3**equation-model, as we have solved it so far, thus now looks like this --

__)-|-(__

_{3}**=**

__E__

^{23}**=**

__E__

^{8}**=**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{SE}**+**

__R__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{RE}

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{RS}

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{RSE}

_{ }**+**

**.**

__M__
[

__Note__:__E__^{8}**implies****8**categories].
-- since we still have not “solved-for”
which actual categories of the ‘TV Series’ domain are described by the
algorithmically-

__rated symbols__**gene**__q__**,**_{RE}__q__**, and**_{RS}__q__**,**_{RSE}**.***if any*
But we already know how to
characterize the

**categories that these three category-symbols “call for”, viz.:***possible*
·

__q___{RE }**[---)**__q__**“calls for” the category of a kind of**_{5}**that functions as if it were a whole**__E__pisode**se**, a category for__R__ies*‘*__a__typical**se**of type one’.__R__ies
·

__q___{RS }**[---)**__q__**“calls for” the category of a kind of**_{6}**that functions as if it were a whole**__S__eason**se**, a category for__R__ies*‘*__a__typical**se**of type two’.__R__ies
·

__q___{RSE }**[---)**__q__**“calls for” the category of a kind of**_{7}__q__**unit that functions as if it were a whole**_{SE}**se**, a category for__R__ies*‘*__a__typical**se**of type three’.__R__ies**Do any such categories actually exist today, or in the past, in the domain of contemporary TV Series**

*¿*

*?*
·

**Have there been any planned TV Se***¿***ies, intended to run for multiple**__R__**, but that terminated after just one**__E__pisodes__E__pisode*?*
·

**Have there been any planned TV Se***¿***ies, intended to run for multiple**__R__**, but that terminated after just one**__S__easons__S__eason*?*
·

**Have there been any TV Se***¿***ies, run for one or more**__R__**, with at least one single-**__S__easons__E__pisode__S__eason*?*
Probably there have been --
at least for the first two category-descriptions listed above. I don’t know for sure. Any readers who

**know, please write in.**__do__
Were we to find no actual instances
of such units, then the “categories”

__q__**,**_{RE}__q__**, and**_{RS}__q__**, and might all be instances of the generic**_{RSE}*“*,**empty category**”**.****˜**, and we might “assert” our solution as follows:

__q__

_{RE}**=**

__q__

_{RS}**=**

__q__

_{RSE}**= .**

**[---)**

__q__**.**

_{0}
We might then therefore write
our

*full*solution for__tep__**s****s****=****3**as --

__)-|-(__

_{3}**=**

__E__

^{23}**=**

__E__

^{8}**=**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{SE}**+**

__R__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{RE}

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{RS}

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{RSE}

_{ }**+**

__M__**=**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{SE}**+**

__R__

_{ }**+ .**

**+**

**.**

**+**

**.**

**+**

__M__**=**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{SE}**+**

__R__

_{ }**+**

__M__**=**

__Episodes__

_{ }**+**

__Seasons__**+**‘

__Season____-__’

**Episodes****+**

__seRies__

_{ }**+**

__Multi____-__.

**series**But let’s keep all of our ‘categorial-combinatorially

__possible__*’*category-descriptions around for a while longer, since I think most or all of them probably already have actual instances --

__)-|-(__

_{3}**=**

__E__

^{23}**=**

__E__

^{8}**=**

__E__

_{ }**+**

__S__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{SE}**+**

__R__

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{RE}

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{RS}

_{ }**+**

__q__

_{RSE}

_{ }**+**

**.**

__M__

__Stage__**. A**

__4__**tep**

__s__**s**

**=**

**4**self-iteration would end with an ‘‘‘algebraic’’’ category-unknown described by the category-description symbol

__q__

_{MM }**[---)**

__q__**.**

_{16}
Because I believe that no ‘Multi-Multi-Series’
-- no TV Series made up out of a ‘[Meta-]Series’ of ‘Multi-Series’ -- has ever
yet existed, I’m declaring

The "four symbolic-elements expression" for this model is thus

**tep**__s__**s****=****4**to be**null, and stopping the narration of this model here, even though some of the “cross product” category-descriptions, “crossing” category****with each of the seven predecessor categories of**__M____tep__**s****s****=****3**, might turn out to have actualized meaning / not to have the value of the**W**version of ‘full zero’,__Q__**.**.The "four symbolic-elements expression" for this model is thus

__E__**[four if we count the underscore under the**^{23}**as a separate "symbolic-element"].**__E__The 'Qualo-Fractal' content-structure of this psychohistorical dialectic can be summarized as follows --

**Multi**-

**Series**are made of

**SeRies**, which are made of

**Seasons**, which are made of

**Episodes**.

The meaning mnemonically compressed into this four symbolic-element expression can be depicted as follows --

## No comments:

## Post a Comment