THE HEGELIAN AND THE PRESOCRATIC DIALECTICS AND A PREPOSITION FOR THE PRESOCRATIC INTEGRATION WITH A CONTRADICTIVE MONADOLOGY

HEGELIAN AND PRESOCRATIC DIALECTICS
AND A PREPOSITION TO INTEGRATE THE PRESOCRATIC DIALECTICS TO A CONTRADICTIVE MONADOLOGY AND A DIALECTIC LOGIC FORMALITY

This work is small discussion about the relations and the differances of the idealistic hegelian dialectics and the presocratic dialectics of nature (by Anaximander, Zeno, Heracleitos and Lao Tsu) and finaly a preposition of a contradictive monadology which could be the basis of a dialectic logic formality.
     For the easier comprehension of this conversation, i must make a reference to the difference of the meanings of contrariety and contradiction. This reference considers both hegelian and presocratic dialectics: 
     If man is not a creation of god but a result of the universal evolution process, his structure must contain recorded all the moments of this process.  So the human existence, form and structure, are faces of this recording. For the same reason human cerebrum is also a codified structure of experience and knowledge of the universal evolution process in every man.  Nowadays is accepted that all these recordings in human structure are concentrated codifications in his microdomic (microstructure) record, -his DNA-.  This recording is a specific logico-lingual syntax (a language), which has not been completely de-codified- yet.
     When experience “enters” in the human hereditary knowledge mechanism, (which mainly is the human cerebrum), stimulates and awakes this mechanism, reminding its ancient founding formation deposits, which travel deeply into the ancestors, the animals and the nature, decoding them. Because a new experience is not exactly the same with the responding one in the hereditary mechanism, it reforms-enriching the old founding formation of the mechanism also. So the decoding process of this knowledge mechanisme by the entrance of experience, follows a new conscious codification, which reforms the cerebrum structure also. This course of decodification and conscious recodification, is Logic and Conscience; while the other part of the knowledge mechanism, which remains in the old hereditary situation, is Sentiment, Intuition and all the inexplicable and considered metaphysic attributes of the human nature, which altogether compose the human Aesthetics.
     According to this ontological preposition “knowledge is possible”, because by experience and critique we decode the world evolution course which is multi-dimensionally recorded in our codic knowledge mechanism. All the structures of human hereditary knowledge mechanism, are recoded again and again, in an endless process in the human cerebrum.
     So i point out that with the discovery of the human DNA, as a "hereditary knowledge potentiallity mechanism”, all the discussion about the terms of metaphysics as science and any relation of that with human mention, collapses.  Mention and knowledge do not have any relation with metaphysics, because science forbids it. So all that litterature about the mechanisms of the inner-subjectivity and all the metaphysic terms concerning the psychology, the soul or the spirit in relation to the knowledge and the human behaviour has fallen to the emptyness, since from now on, these are an object of neurobiology.
     Because the “a priory knowledge potetiallity” is the structure and the nature of man, as a recording of the universal evolution process in the human being and because this is a hereditary experimental accumulation, that is why human knowledge receives experience exactly as really is.  So the world is the one we come in immediate touch and has nothing to do with Ideas of any kind of phenomena whose Ideas reflect to our knowledge.
      Anyway, because phenomenology is still accepted and exists as a way of thinking, there are two ways of Logic for the world perception and interpretation:
     A.  The contrapositive (contracting-oppositive) dialectics:  This is the parmenidian one which accepts that in the depth of the world and the language which describes it, there is a series of ultimate unchangable elements; these elements compose the world, interacting each-other without violating the ultimate limits inbetween them. This way the ultimate elements the world is supposed to consist of, compose a predetermined, finite phenomenal dynamic-differential deterministic and closed logico-lingual system.  The ultimate elements, which compose this closed system, demande operating, after a specific moment, to repeat a specific finite series of games which could be named “compositive prototypes of the end”.  These prototypes exist from the beginning of that system operation, waiting to be accomplished by the operation of that closed system phenomenal process. That is a finished, closed, teleological, world of objectivity, consisting of predetermined limits and terms, which presupposes the existence of a “world of ideas”, of which the phenomenal process  will appear during the dynamic system's function.
      According to the parmenidian contrapositive dialectics, the thinker should put aside contradiction which Is-NotBeing (because contradiction includes the not-existing) and following rationalism, which is the pure road of the Existing, to achieve the knowledge of "the constant heart of Truth".
     B.  The contradictive dialectics: This is the heracleitian one which accepts that the world and the language which describes it, is a Whole in a continuous evolution process, which does not consist of ultimate and unchangeable elements but of contradictive and self-overpassing ones. These elements, interacting each-other, violate their limits, (not permitting the existence of any ultimate protective space in-between them). Every event or thing in this world, exists in a collapsing-composition state. That is realised by the passing in things of under-elements of a lower world level, and so on infinitely till the ultimate contradictive level of the world (the level of potentiality). Which is described by Zeno this way:  To exist something must have certain dimensions and a distance from an other. That concerns the margin in-between them. I will say it once and for ever: There can neither exist an ultimate element of thing nor an ultimate space in-between them, So if there are many things these should be simultaneously small and big, so small not to have not any dimension, so big to have infinite dimension.    This is the way the ultimate Contradictive level of universe, the Potentiality Level, which contains simultaneously all forms of universe and no one.

Α.  HEGELIAN DIALECTICS

The hegelian Science of Logic is a masterpiece of sophistry, where Hegel tries to convince us, using daedalic definitions and designations, that the universal evolution process to which we come in touch, is a phenomenal reflection of a hidden unchangeable reality. He claims that we are not able to receive the reality as it is but only its phenomenal reflection of which the greater part is not real.   He also claimes that the evelation of that phenomenal appearance to Logic Itself will lead us to the absolute truth which is god and only the god.
    Hegel § 1 page 53: Philosophy has the same objects of research with religion. Both have as an object the truth, in the higher meaning, that is god and only him, is the truth. In addition both of them deal the teretory of the finite: the Nature and the Human Spirit, in relation between them and eachone of them with god.
    Hegel § 88 page 216:...we must be surprised listening nowadays opiniots like ”from nothing cannot become something and only from something could come something” and not to be conscious that these opinions are the base of Pantheism and Atheism.

 Hegels "Science of Logic" begins the phenomenal evolution process, using an incoherent “Medenology” (Nihilology-Zerology), departing from the Absolute Zero and terminating to the Being as Absolute. This process is determined by such way to appear the exnihilo world's creation by God. So the deepest meaning of that work is theological.  In this case, he proposed the truth of Old Testimony against Logic.   
     Moreover during the process of his dialogic coherence, he transformes the contradiction to opposition, giving a sleaping under but clear reference to determinism.  That is why the majority of his definitions, following two logico-ligual syntaxes, are so much comfusing and do not obey neither to dialectics nor to rational determinism.  That confusion is more intensified by his practice to equalize or to assimilate the meanings which he considers to be absolutely opposites. This assimilation could exist in very special situations, but by the abstract and superficial use Hegel practice it, demolishes logic, because this way everithing could happen and be said for every case.  When we pursue a Dialectic Logic but do not want to roll down to sophistry, that equation must be accepted only for the ultimate level of the world (the ultimate contradictive elementary unit) as Zeno has described it: For something to exist, should have a size and a distanse from another. The same should hapen for the margin in between things. That also must have a size and always some space should exist in between them. I will say this once and for ever: it is neither possible to exist an ultimate part of some body, nor of the margin in between. (it is not possible to exist ultimate atomic elements or elements absolutely separated). It is not possible also something to exist absolutely by itself. So if there are many things in the world, these should be simultaneously big and small. So big to be of infinite size, so small to be of zero size.
     Hegel's "Science of Logic" do not accept the correlation of Logic and Things, so it is forbidden to this work to be Sciense or Logic and because of its idealism is not permitted to be dialectics also. Although it is one of the most brilliant philosophical concepts, harmed more than anything dialectic thinking. And althought he wanted to rise it as a scientific tool, he never succeeded.
     For the understanding of the hegelian dialectics and justify my critique against this logic, i propose the reeder to have in mind his fallowing verses:
--A. § 8 page 68: There is nothing in sensation,  to be not contained in intellect.  By means that mind and with its deepest term, spirit, is the cause of the world.
--B. § 40 page 122: The philosophy of criticism considers experience as Unique base of knowledge; but also considers this not to be true, being only the knowledge of phenomena.
--C. § 84 page 201:...The Thing (the essence of the world) should not carry the fault of contradiction, this must blame logic capacity (the essencse of spirit).

A. If ”thinking and spirit is the cause of the world” or at least exists before the experimental reality and because Thinking and Being coincide, thinking could not begin from nothing (from zero), as he claimed, but he could not also base the intellectual process of his work on that. So his claim about the unity of the pure Being Itself and the pure Zero Itself  in the Evolution Process collapses.
B. From that verse we conclude that Being consist of Ideal Things Themselves which reflect the contradictive experimental-phenomenal evolving process. According to him we only could know the experimental process but we refuse that it is true.
C. Because experimentally, we only come in touch with the contradictive phenomenality and not with the Things Themselves, Logic following the contradiction does not coincide and correlate with the considered by him reality of Things. So his Logic does not correlate with that he accepts as reality.

--D. § 6 page 61: It is significant to point out that philosophy has as a content this which is produced in itself and produces itself in the territory of the spiritual life, so the external and the internal world of conscience has as a content this reality... Indeed that agreement with reality at least could be accepted as an external criterion of the philosophical truth. Thus we must consider that higher and final purpose of this science is the reconciliation of the self-conscious logic --with the existing logic capacity, that is the reality.
--E. § 24 page 102:...thoughts could be named objective and between them the forms could be concluded, which forms at the beginning are searched in the common Logic (the formal one) and usually are conceived as forms of the conscious thinking.  Thus Logic coincides with Metaphysics because it conceives the things in thoughts, which are the essence of things.

--D and E.  Higher and final purpose of his tractatus is the reconciliation of the formal rationalism with his dialectics of the phenomenal contradiction. It is so that he although intends to propose his dialectic logic, will never abandoned the basic terms of the rational formallity. That is why he continuously reforms the dialectic contradiction to rational contrariety, giving a referance to the formal rationality; which occasionally undervalues.

--F. § 19 page 92: Logic is the science of the Pure Idea, that is, the Idea as the abstract element of thinking.
--G. § page 209: The pure Being is the pure abstraction so it is the absolutely negative; which being conceived as immediate, is Zero.

--F and G. Hegel accepts the preposition of Kant about the “Logic purity” which is related to the “a priory human knowledge capacity” which coincides with Metaphysics. So, according to him, the mind in its higher meaning could be the cause of the world and the world of conscience to be the content of the reality. And that is why he wants his logic to depart from the preconscious pure Being-Itself, which as undetermined coincides with the Pure Zero Itself.    Since Logic (according to him) is developed in the abstract element of thinking, it should be (according to me) the abstract of something (of a specific experimental event) or thing, because we cannot have any abstraction of Nothing, and this way the characters of “Pure” and “Itself” loose their meaning. The materialistic dialectics (of Nature) demands Logic and Experience to coexist. These inter-extent deeply to each-other, not leaving any unviolated limits in between them, being inseparable.  Experience cannot be fertilized without the related logic capacity and logic capacity cannot be developed without experience. These inter-develop in the universal evolution process creating human as an existing reality.

Conclusion:  The hegelian “Science of Logic” being idealistic owes to refuse contradiction and to be antithetic-opposing. As antithetic though cannot be by all means dialectic, because refusing the contradiction of the real existence, owes to accept the phenomenal evolution process which is not a real evolution. Because of all these, owes to accept incoherence between logic and things so it could neither be a science nor logic also. Finally in his work, logic gives place to faith, since he claims that god is the only truth.
     That’s why his work didn’t offer to science the service he promised, that is a dialectic formality as the one of Aristotle for rationalism. And that is why his dialectic formal principals could not be tools for research but final conclusions which rationalism do not refute in many cases.
     The faithful and the mystic climb on the lather of determinism and when they reach their higher grade of arrogance, drop and forget the lather creating a world of their own.  And since this work is rather a theological preposition we should not forget to talk a little about it:  Theology is the most arrogant activity of the human being. Because the theologist puts the “voice” of god in his mouth replacing him as unable to commune with his creations. Even more theologists overpass the prepositions of Christ, the son of god, concerning them to be naive and to need help from the genius theologist. The verses of Christ are very simple and cannot offer dialogic pleasure, these are proposed to be understood by the poor in the mind and this way by everybody.   The dialogic complexity of Hegel, did not succeed to offer nothing to faith also.  The Science of Logic did not make the faithful more faithful, on the contrary creates more infidelity.

Generally faith and mysticism emit a dialogic stench because they nourish where dialectics goes to stool.

Oppositely to the hegelian logic, i will make a small reference to the presocratic "dialectics of nature" and reveal what really dialectics is concerning of.   I will distinguish Anaximander, Heracleitos and Zeno, not forgeting their far-away relative Lao Tsu.

PRESOCRATIC DIALECTICS

Presocratic dialectic is based on Anaximander’s contradictive aspect that is the infinite evolution process which is a result of the collapsing-composition process of the beings and universe. Heracleitos accepted that aspect and proposed Logos, that is the logical organized contradictive logico-lingual syntax, which is the first and rather the most reliable Dialectic Logic.   Logos as Heracleitos claimed, is Logic, Language and Essence, so it coincides with the material and therefore the natural infinite evolution process. Thus it is the dialectics of nature.   Farther on Zeno by his paradoxa shows the antinomies of rational formality and of the rationalism dialogic bases when it dials with Being, Motion, Time, Space and Speed.  This way leads us to another kind of dialectics, the Negative Dialectics, which later Plato integrated differently in his dialogue “Parmenides”.    Hegel departing from that point, organized his “Science of Logic”, which is based on the platonic Idealism, on the parmeneidian phenomenology and the kantian metaphysics. Yet this was the one which was accepted as The dialectic logic of the modern world.
     This small tractatus raises the inquary why presocratic dialectics were abandoned for the sake of the hegelian logic, for one more reason that hegelian logic as we mentioned is neither logic nor dialectics and thought it is a genius concept, had spread the confusion to dialectic thinking for centuries.

ANAXIMANDER

“Anaximander claimed that both, authority and element of beings and universe is infinite. He also claimed that infinite has not only the quantitative character of the unfinished but the qualitative character of the contradictive elementary unite, which being in a continuous evolution process, changes continuously being always other.  So things and universe are under the authority of infinite, as mega and micro, wherefrom skies and worlds but also all beings are born and are contained in.   --He claimed that time is related to the genesis and perishing of the specific related materials.  --He also determined that Infinite coincides with the eternal motion, inside which other beings born and other die, having as a result the eternal universal evolution process and motion”.

--“Anaximander claimed also that the first animals were born in a liquid environment having scales but when the environment became drier they threw out the scales and adapted their selves to the new environment”.
 --“He also claimed that human beings at the beginning were born in between fishes and when they where capable got out on the land”.

Anaximander conceived that the contradiction of infinite and evolution process had as a result the evolution of specimens also.  The  “Evolution of Specimens Theory” of Darwin, is an elegant achievement of rational conclusions and remarks, in-front of which the Anaximander’s prepositions pale as primitive, if we do not consider that it was proposed 2500 years before.  The prepositions of Anaximander, though came to us in a fragmental state and we do not know the way they were proposed, have something that Darwin’s theory falls short of: Anaximander with his evolution aspect, proposed the bases of dialectic thinking also, which about Darwin did not care.

HERACLEITOS

--Everything communes to Logos, and because of that they change and thought we are assured for that, do not feel it and do not understand it.
--The changing one, agrees to itself; it is the amphi-coursing harmony, like the one of violin and bow.
--This world which is the same for everyone, was not created by god or human, but it was, it is and it will be, eternal fire which burns-exhausting in balance (metro).
—Everything transforms to fire and fire to everything, as gold to merchandises and merchandises to gold.
—We neither enter in the same river nor we touch the same material again, because everything changes violently and rapidly, travels away returning, collapses-composing, exists-not existing simultaneously.
— In the lather, rectilinear motion is a result of rotation.

The world according to Heracleitos consists of the eternal fire (energy) which burns-exhausting in Metro(balance). That is the continuous interchange or the life and death of Beings;  which Beings are in collapse-composing state, from the eternal fire passing inside them, every time in specific Metro (balance). Metro is also a loaded meaning as Logos is. This is the essence of Logos.  The contradiction of Logos presupposes always a Metron of the one leg of contradiction to the other one. So Metron is the specific character of the contradictive relation, which composes occasionally a contradictive identity; this identity communing to the eternal course of the universal evolution process, changes continuously composing other identities. Thus, Metron is a dynamic balance composing the identity in a continuous modification, being continuously Always, Other. Nowadays we all know that everything alternates to energy and energy to everything. Indeed Einstein has terminated that by the equation Ε=mc².

If we compose the six previous prepositions we have the following conclusion: Every thing or every event exists because other elementary under-events of fire (pyridia or quanta of energy) pass inside of that in a specific contradictive Metron. These elements depart for universe interacting with the events of universe they meet, and returning back to their former position (to the event they departed), consist a collapsing-compositive reality which continuously changes. Because the universe of Heracleitos is open and infinite, these elements of eternal fire (pyridia, photons or quanta of energy) returning back from universe to the event, do not make a perfect circular course but a thick elliptic and helicoeide course. This way they do not verify the event absolutely in the former position it was, but they verify-falsifying it a little farther. Thus the event moves simultaneously being Onother Similar to it self and to another place. According to Heracleitos the event moves-evolving, being simultaneously an evolving and changing Identity.

ZENO

--To exist something should have a size and some distance from another. The same occurs and for the margine in between them. I will say this once and forever: it is neither possible to exist an ultimate part of any material nor an ultimate margin in between things. It is not possible to exist something by itself also. So if there are many things should be simultaneously big and small. So small to be of zero size, so big to be of infinite size.
--If there are many things these are similaer and not similar to themselves.

The rationalists putting aside the ambiguity of the zenonian verses come to the conclusion that Zeno claimed: that many things do not exist because the existance of many contradicts. This is a simplified approach to the multi-significant character of Zeno’s prepositions. I oppositely believe that in this verses Zeno with the relativity of big and small, one and many, showed that one and many compose an ultimate contradictive unity, where the one meaning gives birth to the other but simultaneously fight each-other also. Zeno presents the ultimate contradictive level of the world, which being simultaneously immediate and immobile is the contradictive essence of universe. This is the Being and Material itself and the universal potentiality. That opinion goes against the atomic theory of Leukippos and Democritos which accepts the existence of ultimate, unchangeable, unseparated elements, as atoms where supposed to be, and ultimate margin of empty space inbetween them.  Although science was nourished with that aspect and did everything to discover the existence of ultimate unchangeable elements of the world, did not succeeded.  Modern science concludes that everything transforms to energy and energy to everything as gold to merchandises and merchandises to gold.

--The moving one neither moves in the space it is nor in the space it is not.

In this preposition Zeno do not doubts the existence of motion as the doxographs, Hegel and the majority of his interpretors say. Zeno doubts for the way we accept the existence of Beings, motion and the space upon motion occurs.
     Hegel said: something moves not because it is one moment here and another somewhere else, but because the moving one exists simultaneously here and not here, so motion is contradictive.
     Hegel here presents the contradiction of the removal, because the identity of the “moving” one do not owes to change during the motion. Oppositely the moving one according to Zeno, because it is in a collapsing-compositive state, being an Other thing to an Other Place, is not removed upon a place but it moves inside itself, changing its identity also.  Motion according to the presocratics coincides with evolution process.  We also conclude that because of the collapsing-compositive process of Beings, Time is the friquency of the passing by elements repetion rhythm and Space is the wave length of their spread around. According to this option, because things collapse-composing being continuously different and others, do not deserve to have a speed the way we accept it.

LAO TSU

It would be a serious omission speaking about dialectics, to forget the verses of  Tao by Lao Tsu; So I will remind some of them and to input him with the presocratics:
--The great straight course owes to be curve. –The great square do not have corners.
These verses reveal the dialectic principal of the great quantity transformation to a new quality; and thus the contradictive identity.

According to the great scientist and humanist Bohm: In the field theory, every motion in quanto-mechanics, is described as a creation-destruction of the elementary particles.  The motion of a free particle is described as a destruction of a particle in a position and creation in other position. So  motion is generally as a series of elements destruction-creation which has also the result of their identity change.
      So contemporary science accepts that in the ultimate limits of our world the so called micro-particles collapse-composing continuously loosing their stability and their formal identity. Therefore quantimechanics agree to the presocratic collapsing-compositive dialectic, real evolution process and not to the idealistic platonic-hegelian phenomenal evolving process.
      For this preposition to be completed, i propose an anatomy of contradiction and a contradictive monadology refering to this anatomy.

CONTRADICTIVE MONADOLOGY AND UNIVERSAL BIO-GEOMETRIC CHARTOGRAPHY

NOTATIONS:

    A.This is an elaboration and recapitulation of my earlier works:" CONTRADICTION IS MOTION AND MATERIALITY" published by Dodoni 1983 and "LOGIC, LANGUAGE AND ACTION: also published by Dodoni at1994.

    B. This small work is an effort to answer to the following inquiries:

1.  How a contradictive elementary unite, a contradictive identity and a contrdictive rationalism are logically possible.

2.  How universe as an open system is logically possible.

3.  How motion and change as real (not phenomenal) are logically possible.

4.  How the universal unity of great and small (mega and micro) is logically possible.

5.  How intellect, intuition, conscience and aesthetics are logically possible.

6.  How universe as intercommunication "plot", where everything in it would be and behave as a message, is logically possible.

7.  How this communication plot is possible to exist as an ontological logico-lingual syntax: a Contradictive Bio-geometry.

     C. If man is not a creation of god but a result of the universal evolution process, his structure must contain recorded all the moments of this process. Thus human existence, form and structure, are codified faces of this recorded process. Therefore human cerebrum is also a codified structure of recorded experience and knowledge of the universal process in every person.  Nowadays is accepted that all these recordings in human structure are concentrated codified in his micro-structure record, (his DNA) . This is a specific logico-lingual syntax, which is not completely decodified yet.

     When experience "enters" in the human hereditary knowledge mechanism, (which mainly is human cerebrum) stimulates and awakes this mechanism, reminding its ancient founding formation deposits, which "travel" deeply into the ancestors, the animals and the Nature, decoding them.

   Because the new experience is not exactly the same with the responding one in the hereditary mechanism, it reforms-enriching the old founding formation of the mechanism also.  So the decoding process of this mechanism from the entrance of the experimental stimulation, follows a new conscious codification, which reforms the cerebrum also.  This course of de-codification and conscious re-codification, is Logic and Conscience, while the other part of the knowledge mechanism, which remains in the old hereditary situation, is sentiment intuition and all the inexplicable and considered metaphysic attributes oh the human nature, is Aesthetics.

     According to this ontological preposition "knowledge is possible" because by experience and critic we decode the world's evolution process, which is multi-dimensionally recorded in our knowledge mechanism.  All the structures of the human hereditary knowledge mechanism, are recoded again and again, in an endless process in the human cerebrum.

So I point out that with the discovery of the human DNA, as a hereditary knowledge potentiality mechanism, all the discussion about the terms of Metaphysics as a science and any relation of that with human mention, collapses.

      There are two ways of Logic the world is perceptive and interpreted:

A. The contrasting dialogical process: This is the Parmenidian one which accepts that the world in its depth and the logico-lingual syntax that describes it consists of a series of ultimate, unchangeable elements which inter-acting each-other do not violate the ultimate limits between them. Thus according to Parmenides the world I is a is phenomenal dynamic-differential deterministic, objective, closed, rational logico-lingual sytactic system.  The ultimate elements which compose this closed system, demands operating, after a moment to repeat eternally a specific finite series of ontological  games, which we could name them "copositive prototypes of the end".   These prototypes exist from the beginning of that closed system, watting to be accomplished from this system operation. 

B.  The contradictive dialectic process: This is the Heracleitian one, which accepts that the world and the logico-lingual system, which describes it, is a whole in continuous evolution process. This does not consist of ultimate, unchangeable unites but fron contradictive, self-overpassing ones.

The first logico-lingual syntactic system being rationalism and objective determinism we have accepted as logic itself.  That departing from Parmenides, traveled as formal logic to Aristotle, developed as logico-ethical process to Plato and after a long trip in the catholic monasteries, passed from Decart and arrived to be fully integrated as objective rationalism to Newton.

     This was not bat at all. We expected results from science without "If and Maybes". After the preposition of "Relativity Theory" and "Theory of Quanta" rational objectivity and determinism were disputed violently.  These theories ask for another logic to describe the world.

     The great scientist and humanist Bohm realizes: Every motion in the quantomechanic "theory of fields",is described as a collapsing-composition of the moving elementary units. . . The motion of a free particle is described as a destruction in one place and creation of an other particle in other place.

That realization verifies the preposition of Heracleitos: In the same river we do not enter, and the same material we do not touch twice, because everything changes rapidly and violently, departs-returning, collapses-composing, exists-existing not.

      That is why we must reconsider the Heracelitian dialectics.

This small work of mine has the purpose to uncover the grave stone Aristotle placed upon these great thinkers and to integrate their dialectic preposition, which the Christian "Talibants" hade disappear burning their libraries.

                                            

 INTRODUCTION:

     1.  The world (material reality) exists in two ways, which though being opposite, they do not refute eatch-other, but they integrate to a contradictive unity.

     2.  This exists A: as many separated specific finite events to which we only can be in contact and every moment of every one of them is unique and inter-determinates with the other specific events.  B:  as a unity (a whole).

     3.   From the point of view of the specific finite events, to which we only can be in touch, the world is always a finite event.

     4.  Every finite event has as limmits the other specific finite events with which interacts every moment, inter-forms and inter-determinates, in a narrow or broad relation.

     5.  There is a quantitive scale which expresses this inter-termination and inter-formation. This departs from the deeply inside self-determination of the specific One, passes to the inter-formation and inter-termination with the specific Other events of the environment near by, gradually to the faraway Ones and finally with the whole (the universe), which is the Other-self, that forces the specific-one continuously to change.

      6.  This way the specific and finite One comprises potentially a face of infinite. That is, every material event changing contiuously cannot be absolutely determined for its beginning or ending.

      7.  The world as a Whole, is the Unity of all these interactions and inter-terminations, of which every moment is Unique and Always Different, being a continuous explosion of changing.  So, the world itself, as a Whole, exists overpassing continuously itself. That is, to be Always Itself-Being continuously Other.  This is the Contradiction as Essence Itself, the Potentiality (the dynamic base of the world), the Evolution as essence itself and finally the Materiality itself.

      8.  From the point of view of the continuously changing specific events, but also from the point of view of the whole, Past and Future do not really exist, only Present exists. Present (Now) ExistsAlways-NotExisting, because in its every moment is Other (different). It is the zero edge of the fading (perishing) present, which tending to zero, tends simultaneously to infinite BeingAlwaysOther. So Time, being Always “Now”, do not exist as duration.  Duration as Time Itself is a deterministic illusion. 

      9. The whole (the material universality) as a continuity of the specific separated events, is the abstract expression of their inter-action generality. This situation in its higher grade though, over-grades the abstract generality to a higher specification, as the Eternal Motion Itself (Motion itself as a specific essence).     The world consists of unlimited separated evens, which the more static and stable are considered, the more specific they are, but in their supreme stability, thas in their minimum time duration, the stability is overpassed to eternal motion, which needs another calculation and logical approach. (The ultimate time divisions, tending to zero, become an infinite continuance, being the Eternal Motion as an essence itself).

     10.  There are two ways of logical approach to the material reality, which inter-extend each-other so that the specific enters inside the abstract and oppositely. This way the abstract and the specific compose a unity to a higher specification, which responds to the Eternal Evolution –the Motion as an specific essence– event and position.

      11.  Every event exists in a position because of the flowing-antiflowing process of under-events in this position, which make the event in a collapshe-composing state. So every event in a position has a specific way to emit-receiving under-events (messages) to and from universe.  This has as a result, a specific intertermination-interformation and opposition-unity of every specific event with its environment, which is the way the event “perceives”  the world.

      12.  This perception means that every event emits-receiving messages (under-events), which arrive to universe passing by all the events of the environment and interacting with them, brings the difference to its formal position changing itself.

      13.  There is a scale of the specific events “perception” for the world, which scale emitsreceiving flowing-antiflowing messages, which departs from the confrontation, (interreaction-intertermination) from deeply inside the event itself (self-termination),  passes to the confrontation to the near by events, next to the farther ones and finally to the Universe as a Whole itself, (the Eternal-Other-Self, the Universal Reply), which forces the event to change continuously. This interacting-perception differs with the distance of the events, being bigger the farther. (The universal reply of an event, is its decentralising structure to the farthest universe in respond to the concentration the event represents).

      14.  Every confrontation is a junction of depart-returning messages; these mes sages traveling to the universe, reform the events of the environment they meet, being simultaneously reformed by them; and finally returning back, reforms the event of  departure.  So after an unconstrained  process  of gradual  departure-returning  messages to all events of  the universe, the specific event transforms the universe being transformed also simultaneously by the universe.

     15. The above means, that every message performs unconstrained “cycles” of departure-returning, composing a scale of differentiality, which transforming the universe is also transformed by that.

     16.  Every cycle of the departing-returning messages is a junction which puts the limits of the event specification.  The message though, passing by all the junctions of differentiality, terminates itself to its opposite view.  The integration of the event “self- perception”, is realised when the event itself has been overpassed, because the transformation of its furthest opposite, having gradually been absolutely similar to it, do not exist any more as itself being as Other.

     17.  During this process of message exchanging, (emit-receiving messages to the universe and from that), the bigger distance messages travel the more different they return, so they verify the event of the departure, but simultaneously being different, they falsify it also. That has a result, the event to be verified a little further from the position it was.  It is so that the event itself to depart from the same position of itself and to return-getting away, enters to a continuous identification to itself. This identification departing from the greatest one (as the eternal departure) and gradually getting smaller, ends to the minimum identification (where exactly is the position of the eternal return). Between these extreme positions there are unconstrained junction-positions of departurereturning, where the event is able to exist as related and similar to itself. In the two extreme positions though, the event do not exist because it has fallen in the under substance of the world, the immediate and immobile (the Potentiality Existing level of the world).    All this process could be named contradictive identity, of which i will try to make a full descriptin in the following work.                    

 point, straight course, space and time   

     18. The world to evolve really and its every moment not to be repeated (to be unique), should be an open system, whose terms should be self-overpassing (of contradictive nature). So the language to express this reality, should consist of contradictive elements. To make understood how an element would be a contradictive one, it is necessary to bring in mind the Eucledean Geometry elements, which are opposite to the contradictive elements. These are not simply elements of a geometry, but from a philosophical aspect, elements of a cosmological lingual system.

      19. In Eucledean Geometry point, straight line and space, are ideal meanings, being each other separated and motionless “in the state of rest”. The Space is of three dimensions, whose all directions expand to infinite; this is considered to be separated from all the others but it can contain all of them, (its existence though do not depend on these). This could exist and be conceivable without all the others it contains, as an empty space, being finally an idea. Straight line expanding to infinite never meeting itself; the point is ideal having no dimensions. Regardless something happens to any one of them,  nothing is necessary to happen to the others.  On the contrary, if we suppose  the existence of a «Contradictive Geometry», this would have as basic characteristics the innate mobility and correlation  of the elements  it consists of.   Space, time, straight line  and point, altogether compose a unique event in a continuous motion, inter-action and inter-formation, being everyone in a specific condition because the rest of all the others demand to.

    20. Let’s see the meaning of this preposition: A point in the state of rest, can not be considered, but moving rectilinearly and normally in space; thus, the accomplishment of straight line is not the ideal event, we imagine and sketch it on a flat paper. Straight line in this case, is a straight and normal course of a moving point in space and space, to be real (not ideal), has the continuous rotation as a state of rest.     Space, for any point moving rectilinearly and normally, is an unconstrained series of similar points, composing a unity. These points move differing each other in direction and departure position at specific moment and all these are considered to depart simultaneously composing the specific space. So, the moving-one rectilinearly and normally point, should do so in a space consisting by other similar, but in different direction points; that’s why “the state of rest” of the space in relation to the moving-One, rectilinearly and normally point, is a rotation (there is one more reason for this rotation which we will realise during the process of this work). Thus it’s necessary for the moving-One, to accomplish gradually its course upon the crossing positions of the Other similar moving points, the space consists of. These crossing positions of the One’s course upon the ideatic courses of the Many Others, is the way the straight and normal course of the One is recorded upon the rotating space.  The rotating space falsifies the straight course of the One, because this course is accomplished on the Many-Others “course-plot” in a curved form. (The One “intends” to accomplish straight and normal motion, but the rotation of space transforms its course to curved).

      21. To have a better comprehension of space, point and straight-motion relation process, let’s make a mental experiment: Suppose the rectilinearly and normally moving point, «intends» to accomplish an absolute straight course. This moving point to catch up the space rotation should accelerate, so its course to be «straighten up»; Thus the movingOne to accomplish this task should cover a supposed distance A―B, instantaneously. Every «rectilinear» course of a point moving instantaneously looses its course sense, because being instantaneous, it has been expanded to all universe and has simultaneously returned back to its former position.  After this remark we have this paradox: The instantaneous acceleration of this point, don’t permit acceleration and motion, because the this expands to all universe, being in the departure and arrival position and every-where simultaneously. This is an explosive change to infinite and return back to zero point. instantaneously.  So this point being of zero and infinite size, is at the same time, the instantaneous and motionless, One and Many, the contradiction itself, the potentiality level of the whole.

      22. This paradox could reveal the relativity of space, point, straight-course and time, where the behaviour of all these, depend on their relation to All Others, forming this way a Contradictive Unity.  The size of the point is every time so big, as its speed permits and due to its speed, the motion course recorded in space “straightens up”.  The more its speed increases, the greater space is limited and included in the “curvedness” of the course “straightness”,  and smaller  the size of the point becomes,  an appropriate rotation of the moving point around itself demands. This way the point is a rotating anti-space that expands-unrolling into space, as space rolls-folding and rotates reversely, diving into the point. For this reason, the crossing positions of the course of the One, upon the courses of the Many-Others, which compose the corresponding space to the course of the One-point (moving normally and rectilinearly), forms a crossing position scale. This scale departs from the position of the One crossing one-Other, and gradually unfolds to positions of crossing-together two-Others, three-Others …etc, arriving to a position of the scale, where the One crosses all Many-Other courses simultaneously. The Point moves-expanding to the Space and the Space rotates-diving into the point, acting reversely to the point and composing together a contradictive  unit.

     23. The previous process is similar to the following: The rectilinearly and normally moving-One, crossing gradually the Many-Others courses, (having everyone of them separately a different direction), once will reach the position to cross the course of the One (of itself), having a reverse direction to the One-self of its departure, being at this moment the centre of the hypothetic rotating space; Hence from this position, it will begin to «return», crossing this way its own course and finally it will coincide reversely upon its own course.  This process we described, is the space which corresponds to the moving-One, composing an open system, because the integration of this return is accomplished only to its direction, but has not return exactly to the hypothetic position of this point departure, since there is not an absolute one of this kind. (This preposition will be determined again, because it is very critical the space not be a closed system).     Regarding carefully this process, we could realise that the course of the One, crossing the courses of Many-Others, is finally the same to the One crossing its own course;  That is so because the “curvedness” of a straight course, presupposes this course once to begin crossing its own course.

     24. Space, following the curved (straight and normal) motion of the One reversely, moves-rotating, expands-constricting, departs-returning. It is so that space in relation and together with the moving-One point, behaves as a unit.   The only space not obliged to have a motion course, but only palpitates, is the Whole and because this palpitation is instantaneous do not have any course, existing potentially and can not be terminated as any other essence, but as the contradiction nude.  That means: to have all attributes and none, being the Instantaneous and Motionless at the same time.   When space is not a whole, but a conventional one, the element of instantaneous disappears from surface and hides in the underground, being indefinite and forgotten.  In extreme and boundary situations though, it shows its face astonishing us.  Except of the «absolute» space, appearing as the contradiction nude, any other conventional space is curved, responding to its related moving-point and its related «straight» course, having a paracentral oscillation. This way the point is real, having size, rotation and its straight course owes to have a curvedness, responding to the course of the point and its size.  This space is constricted-rotating and limited by the curvedness of its straight course on one hand, and the rotation and size of the point on the other;  so there is space and anti-space. The space is constrained by the course curvedness of the point and the anti-space by the rotation  of  the  point  around  itself.  From a contradictive  point of view though, both spaces together compose  one event:  “the contradictive space”  which is inseparable from the events it is related with  and compose  the Time-Space event.  Time is the flowing of point frequency in the specific position related to the point rotation round it self and Space is the anti-flowing expanse area of the wave length, in relation to a specific system of reference.

      25. The specific space departs-returning, not being able to verify absolutely itself, because, as we have notice, the moving-One-Point responding to this space, moving forward returns once to the direction of its own course, verifying the direction, but never absolutely the hypothetic position of its departure. This way, it verifies positions of itself relatively near its hypothetic departure position, but not absolutely; the returning point meets its position, touching it more and more but never being exactly upon that. (The absolute departure is an ideal one and can only be conceived as the immobile and instantaneous, the absolutely vacant and simultaneously the absolutely full). This way the moving-One collapses-composing itself a little farther from the previous position, moving forward.  From a contradictive point of view, motion is the course of the collapsing-compositive process of the events. This departing-returning course, responds to a process of an unlimited series of denial-verifications, that departs from the one of absolute verification and at the same time absolute falsification, where space departs-returning instantaneously as contradiction-nude, and passing by all the positions of possible verifying-falsifying relation, ends to the absolute falsification, being at the same time, the absolute verification which is again the instantaneous and the contradiction-nude. There, space is always different and potentially has all forms and simultaneously no one. All intermediate positions of departure-returning, verifying-falsifying, collapsing-composing, situation represent a specific and conventional space, which although is constrained, has undetermined limits, because the moving-One has not an absolutely specific departing position and its limits are continuously changing.  These limits, are always related to some departure of the moving-One, presenting itself as an ultimate unite at the moment.  This way the specific and constrained space, is at the same time open containing potentially the infinite.

Explicative note: 

    26. Every rectilinearly and normally moving point has the syndrome of curvedness; henceforth a moment, it must create crossing positions upon its own course, by itself.  These positions are where the moving-One repeats itself more than one time; this way a scale of positions gradualness is created, departing from the position of zero repetition, passes all the possible (one, two, three. . ) positions of repetition and ends to the infinite one. (Zero and infinite positions of this scale respond to the contradictive-instantaneous).     Now let’s see again this process from an other related view: The moving-One point performs an unconstrained number of departure-returning cycles, intending to verify itself.   This way it terminates two spaces to which every time responds.    (The great one,  -the Space- responds to the course curvature of the moving-One and the small one the  -AntiSpace- responds to the perimeter of One’s rotation round itself, being its size. These two spaces compose a unity, thus when the one expresses the Space the other expresses the Time).  These cycles depart from the one which never accomplishes, because it has never departed and ends to the one that never accomplishes because it will never return.  (Both of these cycles compose the zero-infinite unit, responding to the instantaneous).   Between these two space-time relating positions, an unconstrained number of departure-returning relating positions exist, where the event is not verified absolutely but in relation to its falsification.  At these positions the moving-One (the point) crosses its ideal course but never absolutely. (We call it ideal, because it is not there itself to be met again, but it has passed from this spot, creating positions of departing-returning repetition). Any moving-one never passes exactly by the position once passed, but gradually touches more and more the ideal spot of departure and verifying it gradually, creates a scale of verification-falsification relating positions. These positions depart from the greater falsification and smaller verification of this moving-One and arrives to the greater verification and smaller falsification.

     27. The moving-One (point) departs-returning continuously to universe, terminating the size of the space curvedness course in relation to the size of the position rotation around itself. (The smaller position self rotation responds to a greater course curvedness, containing the adequate universal space). This relation departs from zero size position and infinite size space and passing by all position and space relations, (the bigger position, smaller the space becomes), arrives to a zero space and infinite position. (As we have noticed, at this extreme situation we have simultaneously the instantaneous and immobile, with all the consequents following this relation).

     28. Accepting the existence of an unconstrained number of departing-returning points, which move rectilinearly and normally, it is necessary every-One of these to pass from the positions of all the Other points and all the Other points gradually (one by one) to pass from the position of the One. This way we have the accomplishment of Many Others by the course of the One passing through them, and simultaneously, the accomplishment of the One by the alternating Many Others courses, passing through the One.  So on one hand, there is a series of positions, having a periodic repetition of different points through every One position and on the other hand, one position having a series of different frequency repetition courses of Many Other points through the same position. (These are the different crossing positions of the course of the One by itself). They are two opposite quantity, flowing-antiflowing position scales: the One through Many-Others and ManyOthers through the One. This has as a result the creation of a spherical order position system, with pole A, being the departure of the One and arrival of Many-Others and antiΑ, being the departure of many Others and arrival of the One. In this process the movingOne exists exactly where it consists by the anti-coursing of Many-Others (being in a continuous self rotation and in changing rotating balance because the anti-cording o Many Others, have a gradualy changing frequency). This anti-coursing, consists by the courses of similar Many Others, having everyone a different direction, that is a different angle of crossing, (something we accepted at the beginning of this concept, as an element of difference between the similar Many-Others).  So these points arriving differently to every position of this quantity scale, compose the One as rotating and different every moment and simultaneously Many-Others exist the way they are, because the One counter-moves with a different repetition frequency (of its course-crossing by itself) through every One of Many-Others separately.  We have noticed that the moving-One departing from the position A, arrives in position anti-A (being Many-Others), where the greatest crossing state of the One’s course by itself exists.   At the same time, position anti-A, is the departure of Many-Others, where they exist as the anti-course and the anti-moving-One. Many-Others, as we shall see, during unfolding this model, are every moment and in every position One else, –a different Other–, having a different direction, because it arrives there having some other spot as departure in a different quantity scale,  from the unlimited number our world consist of, and different rotation every-one around their-selves. Between positions A and anti-A, a gradual scale of flowing—antiflowing relating positions of the One’s course and Many-Others anti-course exists.  Every position, although is an identity having its own character, is simultaneously an inseparable part of the scale of the whole.     A scale of positions is a specific identity, being a different relation of the One and Many-Others, flowing-antiflowing process;   This scale of positions, is simultaneously a partaker of the whole as a unity. Whole is a contradictive unity, being an ideal “scale board” of positions and point activity, being the matter we try to terminate in all its contradictive dimensions in this work.

      29. As noticed,  this scale has unconstrained number  of point depart-returning  positions.  Every position is a result of different flowing-antiflowing One and Many moving elements having a different character with a definite emission-receiving of a specific event, departing for universe and returning to position. Every position is a vortex of a different paracetral angle of vibrating rotation, where Many-Others dive, enter from one side and spring out by the other side, because the One contra-moves terminating, by the frequency of its repetition, the quantity and the wave-length of Many-Others. Any removal from position to position, modifies all relations. Any character of modification in the position of a receiving-emissiοn point, changes its scale position, moving exactly to the justified position by its receiving-emission character. At the poles of the scale, there the unrepeated and the instantaneous repetition is, which reveals the infinite character of an open system, in all events of our world. Since every scale takes a specific character of emit-receiving-flowing-anti flowing  position, its infinite character withdraws, carrying away zero element also. Then the infinite element of the scale, is modified to an infinite number of scales, changing face.   Although every scale is characterized by the attributes we referred to, simultaneously has a departure reference to a different position in every other parallel scale;  That is why it has an unconstrained number of faces and dimensions, containing one face of the whole, (from its evolutional point of view), until the moment of a specific research.  Although it seems that two different situations exist, both are the same event from an other point of view; it is remarkable to notice this detail, to make clear that the departure-returning of the emission-receiving of messages in position, is not a closed system but an open one.

 Explicative note:

      30. The moving-One, we supposed that its course crossing by itself, is “the cause of the – One and Many-Others– (coursing-anticoursing), contradictive relation process” in its complete integration is the instantaneous-immobility potentiality. This potentiality is, the operation of the Whole, which being instantaneous is hidden. That operation exists in the depth of this hidden form of the world, as an instantaneous palpitation (expansionshrinking). (This is the motionless-instantaneous crossing-distances of no size parts situation and zero-infinite unity). When we intend for distinguished, moving rectilinearly and normally units, the instantaneous disappears from surface hiding in depth and the relation of the moving-One and Many-Others counter-motion comes in surface, where the existence of the moving-One depends on the counter and reversely motion of ManyOthers. The remaining in surface character of the hided instantaneous palpitation of the whole, is a specific paracentral vibration in every conventional operation system.     The hypothetic leaping removal of the One, from position to position, which we could imagine as the ultimate removal distance on hypothetic axis with poles A-antiA, of the hypothetic flowing-antiflowing sphere is a result of the anti-moving course of ManyOthers.  This anti-moving course of Many-Others, travelling to the faraway limits of the sphere (and forward to Universe) returns to meet and verify the moving One.  The returning Many-Other elements, meet the moving-One in its direction from position «α» to position «β» on the axis A-antiA;  since the Many-Others moving reversely to position «β» passing by «γ», («next» position of moving-One course on the hypothetic A-antiA poles axis).  (I insist  to notice  this again,  because  of the importance,  that Many-Others contra-moving, compose the leaping removal of the One from position «α» to position «β» on the axis A-antiA. Many-Others moving reversely from the supposed next position «γ» to «β» and «α»). The speed of the moving-One on axis A-antiA, from position «α»  to position «β» being considered as the smaller leaping distance, is astronomically smaller from the speed of Many-Others reversely moving to consist the moving-One. (If we imagine the moving-One as a photonic quantum and the Many-Others as sub-quantum  elements  of  a deeper existing level, then the so called leaping removal, is the result of an almost instantaneous collapsing-composing process of the One by the anti-moving ManyOthers. These anti-moving Many-Others and the composed by them One, though they have enormously different speed, moving reversely and in different levels, coincide interterminating, inter-composing each other).  In this case, a paradoxologist would say that one system moves from past to future and the other from future to past.  From a quantic point of view though, it is possible “time not to exist this way”, because quantic world is  οnly Now and real time is the repetition frequency of the passing elementary points in position. (Since space is the length of the points wave spread).

      31. Positions should receive-emitting, a consequence of a gradually alternating angle of coursing-anticoursing units, having as a result a rotation. This rotation is terminated by the responding relation of receipt-emitting-coursing-anticoursing points in every position. This rotation departs as paracentric, since its emission on the “coursing-anticoursing” scale should be singular (of one element) and its receiving is almost infinite at pole A, but after passing by all possible relating positions of emission-receiving-receipt-emitting on axis A-antiA, its paracentric character tends to be in balance until the centre of the hypothetic sphere, (having axis and poles A-antiA); after wards balance will gradually again be disordered reaching pole antiA, where it will be completely paracentric. All positions however, appear externally balanced, because the receipt-emitting of coursing elements disorder will be balanced by the responding disorder of the anticoursing elements. These positions differ its other, to the coursing-anticoursing relation frequency, having a responding angle of rotation, in relation to their position in axe A-antiA of the hypothetic sphere.

      32. Micro (very small), which we could name «point», expands far away to Mega (great, universe) and Mega dives into Micro, being together One (a unit). The deepest limits of the inside coincide to the faraway limits of the outside, composing the contradictive unity.  Events consist by an unconstrained number of this kind points, everyone of which departing for universe, returns verifying partially its moving self. This event referring simultaneously by a different way to all universe scales, expresses by these receipt-emitting process, its own view of all universal faces. Any position of these flowing-antiflowing scales, emits to universe, receiving from it messages, being everyone a specific emit-receiving message cod. A scale consisting of this kind successive positions, begings from the position of higher receipt and lower emission, passes gradually by all possible positions of different relation emission-receiving messages and ends to position of lowest receipt and higher emission messages.      Every position, responding to all these different scale point departures, even the instantaneous one, is able this way to change itself, emitting gradually to universe all possible messages,  responding  differently  to all scales.   These begin from  the message which never departed, because it is always there, passes from all gradual series of departure-returning messages with a different point of flowing-antiflowing relation to universe, ending to the message which will never return. (We have noticed that both messages, “the one being always there and the one which never returns”, compose the contradictive unity of the “instantaneous-immobility and infinite-zero”, being the positions of A-antiA poles) This way, the event we call point in universe, sends an unconstrained number of messages, changing continuously its emitting-receiving code, to maintain its own position and simultaneously changes continuously position, to maintain its own receipt- emission code.

     33.  This could be expressed differently:  the One and Unique consists of the anti-course of Many-Others (flowing in position of One) and simultaneously, Many-Others consist of the course of the One (anti-flowing in Many-Others positions).   Many-Others are accomplished by the One and One by Many-Others, composing  together the Whole. This way, the course of the moving-One to sequent positions, is a collapsing-compositive result of Many-Others anticoursing (in the position of the One), realising-verifying it; and the One returns its dept to Many-Others, realising-verifying gradually all of them.      [Because universe is infinite and open system, every message that departs from a position to the universe, returning back, do not verify absolutely its departing position (as we have noticed), but it verifies-falsifying it.  This because the returning message «steps» upon the departure position, verifying it gradually from more to less, going finally farther from the departing spot. This way the moving-One exists as a collapsing-compositive event in a continuous changing position].        That we call «point» in universe, on one hand, moves being continuously the same, (changes scale, being able to verify a similar One-Other point in a different scale); on the other hand it collapses-composing, at the same scale and moves changing continuously its position by changing its emission-receiving code. This way a moving point (the event), is a constant and distinguished spot but simultaneously an expanding cloud.       We  could imagine  both  of  these  faces together, as  a cloudy «one stroke of the pencil line» having a solid “nose”, but moving, leaves back an elliptic and gradually  expanding to the universe cloud. That «point-event», moving eternally, verifies-falsifying all the spots of its “tail”, being simultaneously verified-falsified by them.

     34. Therefore that we could name «opposite» from a contradictive view, is the unconstrained universal plurality, formed in relation to the unity the One-event represents.  The opposite to any specific-One, cannot be expressed as minus-One, but as an unconstrained series of similar and gradually differing from the One events. These depart very deeply from inside the specific-One, without leaving any independent «space» and travelling faraway out of the One, accomplish an unconstrained number of depart-returning courses, which verify-falsifying them selves, compose this an unconstrained contradictive moving relation as opposite to the One.  Everyone of all  these similar and unconstrained number of units, existing simultaneously in this relation, could be accepted as a distinguished scale of positions, which during this contradictive process of opposites as simultanea, must be considered as a distinguished departure position. This way we have Two, Three, Four… etc,  (distinguished events and arithmetic numbers).

      35. As a consequence of the previous prepositions, we could imagine our world, as a whole, consisted of such an elementary «junction plot» positions. Everyone of these positions sends specific messages of departing-returning, flowing-antiflowing, emission-receiving, so it would be considered as a distinguished event.  The state and position of such events, consist by a distinguished «plot» of flowing-antiflowing-receipt-emission of under-events, which could be characterised as energy for these specific positions existences (events) of that plot. So if anyone of these events receive energy (flowing of under-events), more than a necessary quantity, (it should be to another specific position  of  that plot);  this collapses entering to the under existing energy flowing-antiflowing level (the under-event level) and it is recomposed to another position, justified by the new flowing-antiflowing-emisson-receipt, of the under-events state of the structure-plot.      By this concept, the world should be a plot of an unconstrained number of messages interchanging positions. This message plotting, could be the worlds evolution process as essence and its operation would be the Dialectic Logic.

     36.  By means of a dialectic logic formality, “Identity” would be considered as an evolving-self-overpassig event, like the contradictive unit i have presented. This way the “Identity Principal”, the so much necessary for the “Comparative Process” of logic, will turn to be “Principal of the Contradictive Identity”. This identity, which will be an evolving process (as we have described), to be functional in logic, its amplitude will be confined by the kind of research and the kind of involving units which demanded by the responding departures to the responding scales.  This abstractly could be said, that every specific moment of this process would be a species of differential collapsing-compositive operation.  This way the typical logic formality is overpassed, getting a living dimension.

      37.   For such a contradictive logic process to be possible, some ideal index recording boards must be contacted. These would be such as i tried to propose terminating the idea of  contradiction  scales of  “emit-receiving-coursing-anticoursing  messages plot”  in this  work. It’s necessary, these boards to be contacted with mathematic support, based on a Contradictive Geometry, i have sketched previously; this research process should also be related to the research limits of a specific event. These record-boards must define the possible flowing-antiflowing receiving-emission messages of the contradictive crossing position plot, which will represent a current and specific reality. This way, the removal from a crossing plot position to another, will be the result of a collapse-composing process, as it will be revealed by the ideal operation of the supposed record-boards (the crossing plot, flowing-antiflowing, positions system).       I speak about ideal function and hypothetic recording boards, because we will never have an immediate experimental approach, at least the way we used to, because this evolving process is taking place in the so called unter-quantic world, which can not absolutely be investigated. We should use hypothetic models and notice if these could be verified in levels we have experimental approach.

    38. The contradictive unite, i speak about, could take a specific meaning every time its hypothetic departing position in the scale of a specific reference is determined; This reference would serve the specific research. That departing position of a specific reference system, simultaneously could be related to all other unconstrained number of moving points,  in other systems of reference  (scales),  by a different way everyone to a different scale.    All these simultaneously departing points, travel-returning to universe, or positions emit-receiving messages, verify-falsifying all the positions of the other scales, except of the simultaneously departing positions of the other relating scales.  Then every unique departure point of a specific relation systems scale, which cannot be verified from all this process, could be One, Two, Three… etc,  and generally the numeral departure counting of other contradictive units.  (We should not forget that all these units appearing as autonomous and independent, when they «touch» the position of Poles in a scale (A antiA), bring back to the surface the instantaneous and immobile element, which is the contradictive unity of the whole).

    39. After this concept we have spoken about, a rational and organised contradictive process could be supposed.  This should be related to departure positions, specific systems of scale references during a specific research and the way departure-returning messages, would behave.  That would be Dialectic Logic.

     EPILOGUE

     40. This imaginary adventure of One point moving rectilinearly and normally, in all its development, could be the characterisation of a “Contradictive Elementary Unit”.      The way i have proposed it, does not look as a perfect one.  Although, the reader should have in mind, that deals about contradictive meanings, stepping many times simultaneously on the negation and the affirmation of thinking.  Never the less, if science and Logic do not take under consideration this preposition about the meaning of this dialectic unit or another work of that kind, -maybe better proposed-, will never be able to overpass the dialogic impasse, it has been trapped. Having that under consideration, the  language  of science  will coincide  to the  Contradictive Geometry language,  where world should be accepted as Biochartographic recording, the way this language demands. There will also be a logico-ligual syntax that takes in consideration and have as basic term the Contradictive Elementary Unit, as it has been proposed by Zeno and the dialectic mental structures of the Heracleitic thinking, which i have reformed in this preposition. Mathematics, physics, biology, medicine and all sciences, should be «seen» again and reconsidered, having in mind the Contradictive Elementary Unit and the Contradictive Geometry Biochartography of the world. This way, science will again be One, –«Philosophy»–.  So it will coincide to the Contradictive Rationallity Language, which is Dialectics as essence; ―The Heracleitian «Logos»―.

      41. We could re-determinate the principles of a Dialectic Logic formality, stepping on the contradictive elementary unit. This way we could form three Dialectic Logic principles:

      A. «The Principle of Dialectic Identity» where identity coincides with the Contradictive Unite, as it has been proposed during this work.

      B.  «The Contradictive Relativity Principle of the Opposites», which we have terminated in the contradictive opposition meaning.

      C.  «The Amphidromic Rationality Principle», being a both way Rational Activity Chain,  presupposing Reason and Result  to be intercollapsing-intercomposing each-other having   an unconstrained number of dimensions,  which end to the instantaneous-immobility and the nihil-infinite,  (contradiction nude  and potentiality).   In this  principle,  rationality is considered to be a departure-returning evolving process, as it has been terminated during this work.

       42. These principles worth only as operative tools in specific situations and contain a meaning concentration of all the previous work, which should be considered in the development for every specific case, but not as a formal stereotypes.

       43. As we have noticed, Logic and Aesthetics are recorded in the human hereditary mechanism and Conscience is the de-codified part of this recording. This recording do not constrain human notion and behaviour, because being contradictive is unconstrained and multi-dimensional.

       44. This imaginary adventure of the normally and rectilinearly moving point, let be considered by the reader as a contradictive cognitive game, which could claim a scientific face, as “The Anatomy of Contradiction”.

       45. The preposition and use of the Contradictive Logic, for centuries, was accepted as a cognitive game and it would stay this way, since rationalism departing from Aristotle, till the time of Newton has taken the position of Logic itself in our conscience. Rationalism as determinism and typical logic, being reinforced with differential and integral mathematics and with the necessity of the electronic computer, which is indeed an instrument of rational typicality, had puss away contradictive dialectic logic.   With the appearance though of the “relativity theory” and the “quantic theory”, this situation has been violently reversed.

      46. For the above reason we must not forget the notation of the great scientist and humanist Bohm: Every motion in the quantomechanic “Fields Theory”, is described as a collapsing-composition of the moving elementary units. . .The motion of a free particle is described as a destruction of that in one position and creation of another in another position.   This realization looks so much with the collapsing-composition of the presocratic dialectics, that brings back Contradictive Thinking and Dialectic Logic in the front of the stage.  Dialectic Logic is not anymore a logical game, but a door to the future.

    space and time

    47.  From a contraductive and a collapsing-compositive point of view, because things are always Other-Different and in other position, neither Time could be duration nor Space extension.    In that ultimate level of the world which could be the quantic one, Time is the repetition frequency of under events in position and space is their wave length.  So time and space in that level of the world is very different from the newtonian and aristotelian objective rationality “time and space”. The relativity theory though and the equation of Shroediger do not take under consideration this fact and intermix the newtonian space and time with quantic time and space (frequency and wave length) in the same calculations. That is logically illegal and it will create in specific cases logical problems and antinomies

    a final notation

    48.  The world is a dynamic process having contradictive nature being in a continuance of evolving process and for this reason it needs a contradictive rationalism to be prescribed. Science should consider my prepositions about the Contradictive Elementary Unit and the Contradictive Rationality, as it is proposed in that logic tractatus, or other works maybe better proposed about that matter, if not, it will not be able to forward theoretically any more.       It is necessary new mathematicians and thinkers to take under consideration this work and to depart for a long journey to the unknown.   They must create a new mathematic logic which should step upon the collapsing-compositive “tablets” I have hypothetically proposed.  Then all sciences will be in another theoretical base which will consider the “collapsing-compositive” nature of the world and will be organises again.

Because my work was not understood by my english intrerpreters, was translated by me, though the level of my english knowledge is very low.  This english version though is an approximate one to the greek prototype, that gives its real general meaning.