Saturday, November 22, 2014

F.E.D. Dialectical Theory: Seldon's “Brief” Definition.










Dear Readers,




In a recent ‘transcripted’ dialogue among Foundation members, Karl Seldon recounted a recent written exchange, in which he provided a remarkably succinct definition of Foundation Theory.

It’s a gem that I wanted to share, also, with you:



. . .A doctrinaire, state-capitalist “[pseudo-]Marx-IST recently wrote to me, asking that I briefly define F.E.D.’s Marxian-Dialectical Theory overall.  The tone of his communication clearly implied that he believed that neither I nor anyone else could ever do so.

I responded to him with the following definition --

“The F.E.D. Dialectical Theory is an emergently ‘‘‘Trans-Modern’’’, Modern/Ancient Hybrid, Universal Marxian Theory, one which is simultaneously ‘Trans-Animist’, ‘Trans-Pythagorean’,
‘Trans-Heraclitean’, ‘Trans-Parmenidean’, ‘‘‘Trans-Platonian’’’, ‘‘‘Trans-Aristotelian’’’, ‘‘‘Trans-Leibnizian’’’, ‘‘‘Trans-Hegelian’’’, and ‘Trans-Goedelian’.   It is a theory of the dialectically[ ‘aufhebeningly’]-mathematically mimed physical, and ‘ideic’ [i.e., ‘meme-etic’/‘‘‘mimetic’’’], [self-]combinatoric dialectics of ‘self-meta-monadizing’, ‘meta-fractal’, ‘‘‘meta-dynamical’’’, ‘self-meta-evolving’ [i.e., ‘ontologically self-revolutionizing’] «monads», and their ‘intra-dual’ «arithmoi»; of ‘‘‘units’’’ and their ‘intra-dual’ ‘‘‘assemblages’’’; of ‘‘‘individual natural-historical agents’’’ and their ‘intra-dual’ ‘‘‘populations’’’/ ‘‘‘collectivities’’’, viewed synchronically, diachronically, ‘diachronico-synchronically’, and ‘‘‘psychohistorically’’’; viewed contemporaneously, and historically; described quantitatively, qualitatively, and ‘qualo-quantitatively’.”

I’m not sure, but I don’t think that he liked my answer.



This is one of the most concentrated verbal encodings of meaning I have ever encountered, either inside the Foundation, or without it.

Of course, even the individual terms that Seldon employed in it name extremely meaning-concentrating memes.

Definitions of those individual terms are available to you from at least two sources --






Regards,

Miguel






No comments:

Post a Comment