EduardoLuft on Nostr: LOGICAL SPACE IN DIALECTICS Dialectical ontology is a relational ontology: “only ...
LOGICAL SPACE IN DIALECTICS
Dialectical ontology is a relational ontology: “only what is ‘in relation to’ remains determinate”, or what comes to the same, “only what is coherent remains determinate”. This is the very universal law inherent to all there is or can be, the objective reason that pervades every being.
All that happens and can happen occurs in or as a configuration. Configurations inserted in time or concrete configurations we call networks, configurations abstracted from time we call graphs (the privileged field of research of mathematics) (Barabási).
Existing is not precisely being, but being in the tense process of determination which aims at coherence, and when it does not achieve it falls apart or becomes lost in incoherence. Coherence is the immanent target, the attractor of the entire process of determination, but there are many, potentially infinite ways of carrying it out between the extremes of the maximum predominance of the One over the Many, or vice-versa.
While it occurs in the extreme face of the maximum predominance of the One (and its characteristic notes - identity, invariance and determination) over the Many, coherence is manifested as order, while when it occurs at the opposite face of the extreme predominance of the Many (and its notes - difference, variation and underdetermination) over the One, coherence is expressed as chaos.
Now let us perform an unusual thought experiment. Just imagine that you, Dear Reader, are located at an equal distance from the extremes of the maximum predominance of the One over the Many, and vice-versa, that is, in the company of that particular web of events that I call Leibniz’s Configuration (in the figure below, the point at the extreme lower part of the circumference (L)), and embarking on a trip in the direction of maximum order (if we look directly at the same figure, the movement that goes to the left beginning at the Leibniz’s Configuration), while a fellow adventurer follows the exactly opposite direction, aiming not at maximum order but at maximum chaos. During the course of the trip, you would be approaching the Parmenides’ Configuration (P), while your colleague, to his own despair - or not? - would be closer and closer to the Gorgias’ Configuration (G). Where would this trip end?
Apparently nowhere, or rather at a greater and greater distance between the two travelers. But this is not what in fact would occur. Let us come really close to the Gorgias’ Configuration and assess where this movement of approach would take us. Now, Gorgias’ Configuration, while it manifests itself as the maximum predominance of the Many over the One, does not have any stable determination except its own self-reference as a configuration, that is, at its extreme it reverts to the almost pure identity of the Parmenides’ Configuration.
On the other hand, the configuration which manifests itself at the opposite extreme, the Parmenides’ Configuration is apparently very stable in its pure self-reference, but, in fact, precisely in its almost full invariance, it is the most open to potential collapses and, therefore, the most unstable, because it is incompatible with any other of the infinite possible reconfigurations enabled by the universal law of coherence itself; in its extreme face, Parmenides’ Configuration reverts to the Gorgias’ Configuration.
Both the opposite manifestations of coherence revert, at their extremes, one into the other and, in their continuous oscillation, coincide. Following their antagonistic travels, aiming at the extreme opposites of order and chaos, you and your friend would end up by meeting again in the Cusanus’ Configuration (C) (at the upper point of the circumference).
In this brief thought experiment, we delimited the map of the dynamic logical space, the field of all possible thoughts and all possible forms of existence.
⚡
This is an excerpt from E. Luft (2017): https://www.academia.edu/35277761/Plato_or_Platonism_A_topic_in_descending_dialectic_2017_
⚡
Dialectical ontology is a relational ontology: “only what is ‘in relation to’ remains determinate”, or what comes to the same, “only what is coherent remains determinate”. This is the very universal law inherent to all there is or can be, the objective reason that pervades every being.
All that happens and can happen occurs in or as a configuration. Configurations inserted in time or concrete configurations we call networks, configurations abstracted from time we call graphs (the privileged field of research of mathematics) (Barabási).
Existing is not precisely being, but being in the tense process of determination which aims at coherence, and when it does not achieve it falls apart or becomes lost in incoherence. Coherence is the immanent target, the attractor of the entire process of determination, but there are many, potentially infinite ways of carrying it out between the extremes of the maximum predominance of the One over the Many, or vice-versa.
While it occurs in the extreme face of the maximum predominance of the One (and its characteristic notes - identity, invariance and determination) over the Many, coherence is manifested as order, while when it occurs at the opposite face of the extreme predominance of the Many (and its notes - difference, variation and underdetermination) over the One, coherence is expressed as chaos.
Now let us perform an unusual thought experiment. Just imagine that you, Dear Reader, are located at an equal distance from the extremes of the maximum predominance of the One over the Many, and vice-versa, that is, in the company of that particular web of events that I call Leibniz’s Configuration (in the figure below, the point at the extreme lower part of the circumference (L)), and embarking on a trip in the direction of maximum order (if we look directly at the same figure, the movement that goes to the left beginning at the Leibniz’s Configuration), while a fellow adventurer follows the exactly opposite direction, aiming not at maximum order but at maximum chaos. During the course of the trip, you would be approaching the Parmenides’ Configuration (P), while your colleague, to his own despair - or not? - would be closer and closer to the Gorgias’ Configuration (G). Where would this trip end?
Apparently nowhere, or rather at a greater and greater distance between the two travelers. But this is not what in fact would occur. Let us come really close to the Gorgias’ Configuration and assess where this movement of approach would take us. Now, Gorgias’ Configuration, while it manifests itself as the maximum predominance of the Many over the One, does not have any stable determination except its own self-reference as a configuration, that is, at its extreme it reverts to the almost pure identity of the Parmenides’ Configuration.
On the other hand, the configuration which manifests itself at the opposite extreme, the Parmenides’ Configuration is apparently very stable in its pure self-reference, but, in fact, precisely in its almost full invariance, it is the most open to potential collapses and, therefore, the most unstable, because it is incompatible with any other of the infinite possible reconfigurations enabled by the universal law of coherence itself; in its extreme face, Parmenides’ Configuration reverts to the Gorgias’ Configuration.
Both the opposite manifestations of coherence revert, at their extremes, one into the other and, in their continuous oscillation, coincide. Following their antagonistic travels, aiming at the extreme opposites of order and chaos, you and your friend would end up by meeting again in the Cusanus’ Configuration (C) (at the upper point of the circumference).
In this brief thought experiment, we delimited the map of the dynamic logical space, the field of all possible thoughts and all possible forms of existence.
⚡
This is an excerpt from E. Luft (2017): https://www.academia.edu/35277761/Plato_or_Platonism_A_topic_in_descending_dialectic_2017_
⚡
quoting nevent1q…67ay
E. Luft. Logical Space