# Aristotle and the Square of Oppositions

When it comes to logic, the best place to start is with Aristotle. As well as being the greatest philosopher of all time, Aristotle was also the greatest fence sitter of all time. With him, our neat dichotomy between left side and right side thinking meets a blank. This man has a foot firmly placed on both sides. Nowhere is this more apparent than with his categorical logic and in particular his square of oppositions. In this section, without going into too much detail, we summarise the aspects that immediately concern our project.

We end this chapter by presenting an alternative approach of breath taking simplicity and elegance, that pioneered by Chrysippus, considered by many to be Aristotle’s equal. However, to understand the full significance of Chrysippus’ approach, we will need to add some important clarifying innovations on our part that will not be found anywhere else. This is quite an important chapter. If the reader has progressed this far into our exposition, it will be well worth the effort to understand what follows, even for logic specialists. Great beauty lies ahead.

What follows is not rocket science. Each step is easy to understand. The hard part, as always, is to grasp the full significance of the matter.

#### Aristotle’s Organon

Aristotelian logic occupies a central place in what is nowadays called classical logic. This was the logic studied by the learned peoples, mainly monks, of medieval Europe for a thousand years. During this time, the notation was refined and elaborated, but the essence barely changed. Even by the Enlightenment, Kant was known to exclaim that the only logic that one needed to know was that of Aristotle.

Aristotelian logic was a central component of what he called the Organon, Greek for tool or organ. Syllogisms are logical arguments made up of three parts, a major premise, a minor, and a conclusion. The most famous is the very familiar:

Major: All men are mortal

Minor: Socrates is a man

Conclusion: Socrates is a mortal.

Aristotelian logic is sometimes referred to as term logic where each proposition of a syllogism is made up of two terms. What interests us is how many kinds of term are necessary for such a logic. This also interested Aristotle. He argued that there were four distinct kinds of term. During the Middle Ages the Scholastics gave each a letter as shown below.

Figure 26 The four kind of terms. The Scholastics later labelled them with four letters.

#### The Four Terms and the Left Side

Aristotelian logic was half modern and half ancient. We will suspend judgment on which was the better half. The modern half is exhibited in two ways: it relies on abstraction and its logic is static. The abstraction can be seen in the use of the existential qualifier “All”. “All men” for example, means every man. By referring to “all men” or every man, one is referring to an abstraction, a generalisation. As the Stoics pointed out, abstractions and generalisations do not exist. In addition to abstraction, there is the fact that the logical representation of these syllogisms can be covered by Venn diagrams as shown below. The terms can be said to have “Venn Diagram” semantics. This characterises the logic as a static, synchronic mechanism.

Both of these aspects, the abstract and synchronic nature of the logic, are characteristics of left side thinking. By default, left side thinking has become synonymous with the modern.

Figure 27 Venn diagrams for the four terms of Aristotle

### The Four Terms and the Right Side

However, what is not modern in Aristotle’s logic is that his infrastructure of the four kinds of terms is not determined by a set of axioms, but rather by a pair of oppositions and the opposition between these oppositions. This is exactly the approach we have been using to construct our semiotic squares. Firstly, obtain a pair of oppositions. Employ one opposition to define a left right dichotomy and the other opposition for the front back structure.

In Aristotle’s case, the left right dichotomy is a strict logical opposition between the affirmative form and the negative. The second opposition is between the universal and the particular. Both these oppositions must be true dichotomies in order to construct a non-trivial semiotic square. This is a technical point, but a very important one and will be discussed later when considering Aristotle’s square of oppositions. It turns out that there can be certain cases where an opposition is not a true dichotomy. This can occur when the subject of a term has no existential import. In other words, when dealing with empty sets such as “All centaurs”.

Figure 28 The semiotic square for the four terms of Aristotle’s Syllogistic logic. The square is formed from two oppositions, the negative/affirmative, and the universal/particular.

Superimposing the two oppositions in the one structure, we get the semiotic square as shown in Figure 28 The semiotic square for the four terms of Aristotelian logic. The square is formed from two oppositions, the negative/affirmative, and the universal/particular.

#### Term Logic

During the middle ages, the scholastics labelled the four kinds of terms with the four letters A, I, O, and E. Syllogisms consist of three propositions, a major, a minor, and a conclusion. Each syllogism could thus be labelled by a triplet of letters taken from the four-letter AIOE alphabet. This fascinated the Scholastics and, many years ago, entertained the author’s curiosity for some time. The reason for the author’s interest was that such a system did have some resemblance to the triadic structure of codons in the genetic code. With a bit of effort, one can make some kind of rapprochement between the AIOE alphabet of the scholastics and the genetic-cum-generic AUGC alphabet, but the effort is probably not justified, as there are richer pickings elsewhere, notably in Stoic logic.

The genetic codon structure only has 64 combinations. What we have ignored for the syllogism is the detail of how the three propositions in each syllogism hook together. We have ignored the fact that there are four different figures of the syllogism. Thus taking into account the four figures, instead of 64 possible syllogisms there will be 256. Only nineteen of these syllogisms are regarded as leading to a valid conclusion.

Aristotelian logic provides a logical tool that is applicable to the contingent world. Unlike modern logic, it also brings with it some nontrivial semiotic infrastructure, the square of oppositions.

(see my online syllogism machine for exploring Aristotelian )logic.

### The Square of Oppositions

Aristotle described how the four kinds of terms could be placed in a square illustrating the various oppositions between them. He then went about characterising each kind of opposition, although the subalterns were not mentioned explicitly.

The oppositions between universal statements are contraries. Contraries have the property that both cannot be true together. One may be true and the other false. It is also possible that both can be false together. On the other hand, subcontraries involve oppositions between particulars. In this case, both cannot be false together.

Figure 29 (a) The modern logic version of the oppositions. (b) Aristotle’s square of oppositions.

#### The Modern Square of Oppositions

Of great interest to us is an opposition at a higher level altogether, the opposition between Aristotle’s syllogistic structures and modern logic. The dramatic difference between the two approaches was clearly illustrated by George Boole, in what has become the modern version of the Square of Oppositions.

Modern logic differs from the ancient logic by simply replacing the universal with the general, in other words with the abstract. This can be achieved by using labels and the logic becomes symbolic logic. Thus, the term ‘All men’ is replaced by the abstract version ‘All X’. The thing gets replaced by a label and introduces different semantics. The label becomes simply a placeholder and as such, like any placeholder, may be empty. The logicians explain this as relaxing the requirement of existential import. From a classical mathematics perspective, the generalisation introduced by modern logic is to allow sets to be empty.

Once the reasoning becomes abstract, the logical difference between yellow centaurs and canaries evaporates. Not only that, but all the oppositions except the contradictories have also evaporated. For example, both sides of the contraries opposition ‘All centaurs are yellow’ and ‘No centaur is yellow’ are true. The contraries opposition has evaporated.

Figure 29 (a) shows the resulting modern logic version of the square of oppositions. The square has virtually collapsed and only the contradictories and the subcontraries survive. We have deliberately drawn the modern version on the left side relative to Aristotle’s square to illustrate that this is the left side variant of logic. The other variant is Aristotle’s seed for the right side version. The left side involves abstract, symbolic logic. The right side in the diagram represents Aristotle’s version of elementary generic logical structure. In practice, the modern symbolic logic approach boils down to a simple bipolar nominalism where the basic opposition is between two particulars, I and O. The letters A and E act as pure label signifiers for the I and O respectively, acting as the signified. The contradictory oppositions A-O and E-I model the relationships between signifier and signified. In essence, the system becomes a simple two letter system labelled by A and E. Thus, although we have not shown that modern day logicians only use half a brain, we are starting to see that they reason using only half an alphabet.

This is our first exploit into the differences between abstract, symbolic logic and generic logic. We can do better. This will be our task in the next section where we investigate Stoic logic and discover great beauty in the land of Chrysippus.

### Generic Logic and the Stoics

In this section, we are going to look at the Stoic version of Square of Oppositions. This will undoubtedly upset the scholars. There is no explicit record that the Stoics ever proposed an alternative to Aristotle’s Square of Oppositions. However, we are not constrained by historic Stoicism. If something is missing from the puzzle then we must endeavour to reverse engineer it. We attempt to follow in the tradition of Chrysippus himself, of whom it was said:

… in many points he dissented from Zeno, and also from Cleanthes, to whom he often used to say that he only wanted to be instructed in the dogmas of the school, and that he would discover the demonstrations for himself. (Laërtius)

Stoicism, particularly the Early Stoa, is a very tightly integrated body of thought, much tighter than what might be imagined, especially after Chrysippus had a hand in the matter. Traditionally Stoic philosophy involves a tight integration of physics, ethics and logic. Likened to an egg, the yolk was physics, the white ethics, and the shell was logic. Logic protects and holds it all together.

Stoic logic differs dramatically from that of Aristotle. There is no static classificatory apparatus. There are no species and no genera. There is no extension or comprehension of terms. The figures and modes of the syllogistic evaporate into thin air. To the Stoics, Aristotle’s syllogistic logic was “useless.” (Chénique, 1974) In contrast, Stoic logic is starkly oriented to the individual. As such, it incorporates one aspect that might entitle the logic to be considered a generic logic, a logic free from abstraction. It is this kind of logic one needs to construct and deconstruct a real world, not an abstract world. However, what precisely is a generic logic? Our immediate task is to answer this question. Now proficiency in logic demands a certain dexterity and agility of the mind. In this respect, the author has been blessed with a mind as nimble as the Titanic and just as infallible. This helps explain his reaction when thirty years ago he first came across Stoic logic. Almost nothing is left of Stoic texts in modern times. Nevertheless, a rough sketch that can be coagulated into less than a page or so has survived. It was Chrysippus’ Ground Zero, viewed from a logician’s point of view of course, a great logician’s point of view. The author was quite excited: it is not every day that one comes across an explanation of the structure of the Cosmos spelt out in hard-core logic, all on one piece of paper to boot. There they were, Chrysippus’ five logical undemonstratables. According to Chrysippus, all reasonment stems from these five logical gems. The author stared at the five gems like a stunned plover. If this is it, he could not see it.

Over the years, the author came back numerous times to the five undemonstratables in an attempt to really ‘get it’. A favourite reference was Éléments de Logique Classique (Chénique, 1974). The pages were getting quite dog-eared. Each time brought about the same stunned plover reaction. He still did not get it. However, Chrysippus’ third undemonstrable stuck out a bit from the other four. It looked very much like the modern logic operation called the Sheffer stroke, named after Henry M. Sheffer. It is called a stroke because that is the way it is symbolically written, as a vertical stroke. The author would look stony eyed at the third undemonstrable and ask himself: “What does it mean?” He knew that if he asked someone trained in logic they would patiently, and perhaps condescendingly, explain that it means “NOT this AND that”. In plain English, it means not both. It is sometimes called the NAND operation. It is important in logical networks because any network can be built uniquely using NAND gates. In other words, any other logical operation can be built up uniquely using NAND. They would then go on to explain that Charles Sanders Peirce had earlier in an unpublished work (Peirce,

1880) come up with the mathematical dual which is now called the Peirce Arrow, written as a vertical arrow. This is the logical NOR operation. Such thoughts would make the author’s eyes glaze over. He would ask himself, “But,what does it really mean? What did it mean to Chrysippus?” Superficially, it simply looked as if Chrysippus was the first to discover the propositional calculus. Granted he had made the discovery several thousand years in advance of the moderns, but this is the kind of thing one would expect from a master logician. If that was all there was to it, then Chrysippus would have nothing much more to offer the moderns. The undemonstratables could be simply seen as an early attempt to systemise and even axiomatise the propositional calculus. Chrysippus could be brought into the modern camp and branded as one of them. Surely, there must be a deeper message here.

For a long time, Stoic logic remained as a kind of lurking nemesis in the author’s mind. The five undemonstratables, where did they come from? What is the underlying principle? For a philosophical system as tight and unified as the Stoic’s, the logic must have the same basic epistemological and ontological signature as their physics and ethics.

Our approach so far has been based on an intuitive interpretation of how the physics and ethics could be constructed from a fundamental ontological dichotomy. The dichotomy can be understood linguistically as the difference between the verbs to have and to be. Two fundamental entities were proposed that expressed primary difference free of any accidental, empirical attributes. In this scenario, one entity had the attribute of being devoid of any specificity whatsoever whilst the entity was this attribute. One entity has an attribute; the other entity is this attribute. The difference between these two entities was said to be a difference in gender. Using this gender construct, the primary attributers of reality can be constructed from first principles. The attributes are not harvested empirically, but synthesised, calculated.

We note in passing that our gender terminology is more reminiscent of Indian and Chinese philosophy traditions. Rather than explaining the beginning of a creation cycle in terms of a union between the feminine and masculine, the Stoics tended to restrict their vocabulary to the masculine register, where only Zeus and his seed seem to feature. For the Stoics, the two principles translate to the active and the passive principles. We prefer reading this as the masculine and feminine principles because, in this relativistic domain, the gender concept is much more generically neutral. What is active can be passive and what is passive can in turn be active.It is much easier to talk in terms of gender where the masculine can play the role of feminine to produce the MF type for example, and vice versa. At any rate, all of this is just a debate about terminology. Using Ockham’s razor to cut through the debris, we will stick to the simple and clean gender terminology as the basis for our generic science. Maybe some Stoics did too.

The approach leads to the four elementary letters of the ontological alphabet based on the binary gender typing MF, FF, FM and MM. For reasons that will later become apparent, we allocated the letters A, U, G, and C respectively from the genetic code for this four-letter ontological alphabet. The detailed algebra of this ontological code based on this fourletter alphabet has yet to be determined. This code is capable of describing and proscribing any being whatsoever, including the universe, itself a being. Any being must have its own ontological DNA, so to speak. It is in this way that a being can be sure of what it is.

Using this gender construct, the theory of the four ontological elements can be explained in terms of four kinds of substance typed by the binary gender typing MF, FF, FM and MM. This corresponds to the ancient terminology of air, earth, water and fire respectively. If it starts with M it’s light stuff, if it starts with F it’s heavy stuff and so on, according to the ancients.

The four elements have multiple instances, are mobile, and mix. The four binary types also apply to something that is not mobile and is located at the centre of the universe; or rather, at the centre of its universe. This is the generic subject, what can be thought of as any being whatsoever. This is the generic template of mind. The whole universe gyrates around this entity. Not only are the four typed bodies fixed at this location, they are fixed in relation to each other. The two bodies with a binary gender starting with M are located on the right and the F on the left. The two bodies with gender typing ending in M are located in the front lobes, the F in the back. The question regarding telling the difference between left, right, front and back can be resolved by looking at the gender typing. This might seem a bit tautological, but that is the way things work in this world. Here relativity is not only endemic it is generic.

At this point in the game, there is also the question of whether the four kinds of mobile elements circulate to the exterior of this generic mind or in the interior. This question cannot be answered at this stage of the ontological development, as what is interior to subject and what is exterior is still unqualified.

Finally, we come back to the main question in hand, the Stoic logic question. What is the ontological interpretation of Chrysippus’ five undemonstratables?

#### The Fifth Element

In order to answer this question, we have to start thinking in terms of quintuplets rather than just quadruples. Before we tackle the logic quintuplet, it is worthwhile looking at Stoic physics. What is the fifth element?

Aristotle argued for a fifth element in his physics, which he called aether. A fifth element was necessary to fill the heavens above the terrestrial world and to explain the constant, unchanging rotation of the stars.

The Stoics also added a fifth element to their system, calling it pneuma, an ancient Greek word meaning ‘breath’. In this perspective, the four elements air, earth, water and fire were considered passive, whilst the pneuma expressed the active principle. Unlike Aristotle’s aether, the pneuma permeates everything and expresses the Logos for both the Cosmos and the body.

Some accounts say that pneuma is created from the fire and air elements. From our previous analysis, we know that the fire and air elements of antiquity have the gender coding MM and MF respectively, which indicates a primary gender of masculine for both. For the Stoics, the masculine gender was interpreted as embodying the active principle, which would explain fire and air being associated with the active principle. The other two elements water and earth are gendered as FM and FF respectively and so are primarily feminine and hence considered as embodying the passive principle.

So far, we have provided the fundamental ontological justification for the ancient four element based physics that was adopted by the Stoics. However, there was no trace of any fifth element in our development. A clue to the missing fifth element can be found in Chrysippus’ five undemonstratables, in particular, the third undemonstratable. As for the other four, we will use them to resurrect a square of oppositions for the Stoic logic of Chrysippus that is comparable to that of Aristotle. Just as the medieval scholars gave four letters to the four terms of the Aristotelian square, we will do the same for the logic of Chrysippus. However, instead of the medieval AIOE lettering we will use the AUGC lettering of the generic-cumgenetic code that we are developing. As for the fifth term, it has no letter. There is no fifth letter in the genetic code. There is no fifth letter in the generic code.

In the biological genetic code, the AUGC lettering based on the codon triplets of letters, code amino acids that go to making up protein. There is no sign of any fifth player in the scheme of things. Moreover, there is no need to try to find a fifth player as it has been there right from the beginning of our development. It forms the core of the very essence of gender, the generic building construct of anything that aspires to be.

To be what one is does not come easily. Being is not something handed out on a plate. To be requires Oneness of the being in question and it is up to that being, and that being alone, to maintain and express its own Oneness.

Generically, this is expressed by the generic entity characterised as totally devoid of any specificity whatsoever. This total lack of specificity must be the case as the generic entity can be anything whatsoever. Such an entity acquires Oneness by interaction with a subject. The subject may imagine it, think about it, touch it, measure it, claim it, or whatever the interaction, the result is that of a collapse to Oneness relative to the subject. Relative to the generic entity itself, the Oneness arises from the one single characterising attribute that the generic entity possesses, that of the absence of any qualifying specificity. The irony of the situation is that this total lack of qualifying specificity plays the role of attribute. The generic entity has an attribute. This attribute that the generic entity has, if it is not to violate First Classness, must be an entity in its own right. This entity is the attribute. Thus, there are two different entities, which share the one single attribute. One entity has this attribute; the other entity is this attribute. The difference between these two entities can be thought of as a difference in ontological gender. The entity that has the attribute is feminine, whilst the entity which is the attribute is masculine.

The masculine entity endows Oneness. As attribute it is pure singularity, pure Oneness. The remarkable thing with the resulting science that can be built upon this initial union of the feminine with the masculine is that entities that are more qualified can be constructed, based on compound gender typing. The first compound types are the four binary combinations of the feminine and masculine and can be considered as the four fundamental “letters” of the generic code. Thus, the four compound genders MF, FF, FM, and MM are allocated the letters A, U, G. and C respectively. The arguments for this particularly allocation will be advanced later.

Ontological gender appears, albeit informally, in the cosmologies of the many different civilisations from the West to the East and Far East and beyond. In this work, we present a formalised version of the construct. The formalisation is not an abstract axiomatic, but a formalisation of a different kind, the generic formalisation. The generic formalisation leads to a new kind of science that we could call generic science.

The essential ingredient in such a science is the rapport between the feminine and the masculine. These two gendered entities are different, but indistinguishable. They are indistinguishable because there is no way to compare them: they both share the one single attribute between them. The attribute that they share is that of Oneness: one has it, the other is it. There is a tension between these two entities. If ever the bond between them were broken, then that would spell the end of the world, at least for it.

The tension between the two genders expresses itself at the microscopic level between all the individual masculine-feminine compounded gender typing of a complex organism. Threats to Oneness of the Organism abound at all levels. This complex compounding of tensions throughout the organism is probably what the Stoics referred to as the pneuma.

We will continue our discussion of the pneuma, this mysterious “fifth element” further on. In the meantime we take another interlude to hammer home the intuitive understanding of the simplest but most profound concept of all, that of ontological gender.

#### A Light Interlude

Gender is not an abstraction. Any being is it and has it. Any individual being is gender typed. Once again, this is not an abstraction. For example, every cell in an animal’s body contains a copy of its chromosomes consisting of long strings spelling out the genetic coding of the individual. The coding is built up of words consisting of triplets of the four letters AUGC (using the RNA convention). From a gender perspective, the genetic coding has a deeper structure than that determined by biochemistry. The four letters can be represented in terms of binary gender typing MF, FF, FM, and MM respectively. Thus if the reader wants to know his or her gender typing then all they need to do is to translate their AUGC based genome into the gender equivalent.

Gender can be illustrated more concretely than even this biological version. Consider the following two rather tongue in cheek examples of gendering. The examples may help to overcome the bad habit of always thinking with a left brained mental disposition. Each example aims to prove once and for all which gender is superior to the other. The reasoning is only vaguely inspired by the Hindu Naya five-step syllogism and so lacks some of the rigor.

Proposition 1

The masculine gender is superior to the feminine gender.

Example:

Take the case of a bird in the hand and the birds in the bush.

Analysis:

The bird in the hand is of masculine gender as it is in possession of the subject, a fact that is absolutely and even tautologically true because the bird is in the subject’s hand. Conversely, the birds in the bush are of the wildcard species, not in possession, and undoubtedly hard to catch. These birds are obviously of feminine gender.

Proof:

In order to prove the proposition we invoke the age-old proverb:

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Conclusion:

This goes to show that the masculine gender is superior to the feminine (by at least two times).

Not to be out done, there is another argument, which demonstrates the converse.

Proposition 2

The feminine gender is superior to the masculine gender.

Example:

Take the grass on your side of the fence and the grass on the other side of the fence.

Analysis:

The grass on your side of the fence is of masculine gender as it is in possession of the subject (which is you). This fact is true for tautological reasons. However, the grass on the other side is not in the subject’s possession, and remains tantalising out of reach, a real wildcard. That grass is obviously of feminine gender.

Proof:

In order to prove the proposition we invoke the age-old proverb:

The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Conclusion:

This goes to show that the feminine gender is superior to the masculine gender (and much more desirable).

There is another variant of proposition 2 that employs the notion that the spouse on the other side of the fence is more desirable than the spouse on this side of the fence. We will not go into a detailed analysis of this case, but the variant has some value as it goes to show that gender is only obliquely related to sex. A spouse of one sex can be gender typed masculine or feminine, depending on context.

### The Gender Algebra of Oneness

As we have said often, left side sciences are based on abstraction, dualism, empirical attribute harvesting, and employ a labelling, categorising, taxonomic epistemological technology. Right side science replaces the abstract with the generic, dualism becomes a monism and the attribute harvesting from the field and laboratory is replaced by attribute construction from one single attribute based on the generic gender construct. As for epistemological technology, labelling, the linear descriptions and essentially rhetorical approach of left side science give way to the dialectical where concepts and semantics are expressed in purely relative terms. Concepts and constructs are expressed in the form of oppositions. Moreover, whilst left side science specialises in the tunnel view of reality, right side science must always address the whole.

Right side science must always take the holistic view. This is the essence of monism; nothing can be left out of the picture. This means that right side science always deals in wholes. A whole is totality viewed from a particular point of view, the point of view of the present subject. The subject is always present in right side science. In the traditional left side sciences, including mathematics, the subject is always absent. As such, left side science specialises and only recognises one-half of reality: it is half-world science.

Right side science must be a monism. There can only be one such science. The Stoics were pioneers in this area with their unified version of the monism, and we follow in their tradition. However, we make no attempt at doctrinal orthodoxy.

The incredible thing about right side science is that it is independent of scale. One still sees the universe as a whole from even the most apparently microscopic point of view. The science is in fact starting point invariant. It does not matter where you start; you always get the same science. There is one and only one science with this unique property. As a theory, the theory is its own invariant.

The science is independent of scale and independent of starting point. It does not matter where you start; you always get the same theory: That is the theory.

Generic Coding

Left side sciences are dominated, even swamped by an ever-increasing avalanche of attributes. Contrast that with the attributes in Generic Science, the right side science. There is only one attribute for the whole science! This single attribute is the attribute that the pure feminine F has. It is the pure masculine M. The feminine has an attribute. The masculine is that attribute. That defines what gender is all about. One entity has it; the other is it. All other attributes are simply built up from different combinations of the masculine and the feminine.

It might be thought that the feminine F is also playing the role of attribute, which of course it is, but only by role-playing it, not being it. And so here is the difference. We can be absolutely sure of what the masculine attribute means. We understand the masculine as it means one and only one thing. It means pure Oneness. It represents pure certainty, because we know what Oneness means. The situation with regard to the feminine is the opposite. It represents the opposite of certitude. It represents total ignorance. We do not have a clue of what the feminine actually is, not a clue. This is the absolute expression of the Uncertainty Principle. It is also the secret of Generic Science. Generic Science is the only science that can talk about something that it knows absolutely nothing about, and talk about in absolutely certain terms. Moreover, it can express its ideas in algebraic form.

Now the reader may have had a similar experience to the author as in the following. The author remembers vividly, many years ago, when his Technical School mathematics teacher started the day’s lesson with great drama, something he was prone to do quite often. His name was Harry Sermon. Harry wrote up on the blackboard one letter. It was the letter x. Now apparently x was just like a number. Apparently, you could add it, subtract it, multiply by it and so on; remarkable. Even more remarkable was that you could do all this without having a clue of what the actual value of the number x was! Remember that? The lesson of course was an introduction to elementary algebra. Now having gone through what we now realise was not a complete waste of time, we find ourselves faced with the prospect of learning the algebra of the Cosmos, a worthwhile enterprise surely. Instead of the letter x, we have the ultimate unknown of all time and possibly even outside time, the letter F. This is the wildcard of the cosmic algebra. Its value can be any entity whatsoever. In the case of x in our first algebra lesson, at least we knew it corresponded to a number, even if we did not know its value. In the case of F, we do not have a clue about anything, whether it is a number or god knows what.

Our project is to develop a way of describing our pure ignorance of the world. Now some people might say that if you do not know what you are talking about then you should shut up. However, we take the high road, the road of Socrates’ confession of ignorance. He is reputed to have said that the only thing he knows with absolute certainty is that he knows nothing with absolute certainty. In addition, this is our position; and our task is to develop algebra up to the task of expressing such wisdom.

One of the main points made in this work, is that we have apparently been beaten to the gun. Instances of the algebra, the algebra of Socrates’ confession of ignorance, are everywhere. In your body, repeated in every cell is the same description over and over again, of what you are and are to become. All that has to be done is to “solve for F”, based on the situation on hand. The question, ‘Why bother?” may be raised by those not motivated to solve things, particularly algebraic things. It is a good idea to solve these Socratic gems of wisdom, as a failure to do so may challenge your very existence. If your body gets its Oneness equations tangled up, you could be in real strife.

Only two letters are needed for this code, the letter M and the wildcard F. Combined in pairs they make up the four letters of the alphabet of the generic, pardon, the genetic code. These are the letters A, G, U and C, all binary compounds of F and M. The macroscopic organism is organised as an immense compound articulated by these four letters, an immense compound of F and M gendered entities. M expresses the Oneness of the organism, F the unqualified, the unknown, “Solve for F”, and perhaps you have your life in a nutshell. However, solving for F may take a lifetime and could depend a bit on what crops up along the way.

Before understanding our reconstruction of the Chrysippus semiotic square, we need to know a bit about semiotics , or at least, our version of it.

The author’s first acquaintance with the semiotic square came from following the courses of Greimas back in Paris, many years ago. The term “semiotic square” is nowadays generally associated with his name. The big weakness in the Greimas approach was his failure to come to terms with the subject. His
is sans sujet. We will sketch out here a more fundamental approach to
and the semiotic square that does include the subject.

To begin with, there are two kinds of semiotics
, one associated with Ferdinand de Saussure (dyadic, arbitrariness of the sign etc.) and one associated with Charles Sanders Peirce (triadic). In our view, the approach of de Saussure is not semiotics
, but General Linguistics. Like Greimas, the approach of de Saussure is sans sujet. If there is a subject, it is part of the Spectacle, not the Spectator. It is merely what Hegel referred to as the empirical ego. In this perspective, the de Saussure approach is like that of the traditional sciences and mathematics. All of these sciences are sans sujet. We call all of these traditional science left side sciences. Left side sciences claim to be objective, which is another way of saying that they only concerned with a reality of objects where any reference to the subject has been excluded. They are all sans sujet. As such these sciences look at the world from a very specific point of view. This point of view has been described as the “view from nowhere” or the “God’s eye view”. This is a general characteristic of science sans sujet. It is a general characteristic of all the sciences and mathematics of today.

The other possible scientific paradigm goes in the opposite direction. It demands that the subject is always present. In other words, if there is a spectacle there must also be an accompanying spectator. You can’t have one without the other. We call the science based on this paradigm, right side science. The right side science becomes, in fact, the dialectic of the Spectator and the Spectacle, the Subject and its kingdom.

Unlike the many left side sciences, there is only one right side science. This is because its focus is on the science of the subject and this is quite different to the science of objects. It is the science of the Self. For a Stoic logician like Chrysippus, it is the science of the Logos. This generic entity, the Self, the Logos, the Ego, has a generic form. This form can be worked out from pure reason.

Now Charles Sanders Peirce was more inclined to the right side paradigm, but he didn’t make much headway. He also despised the Stoics, which didn’t help. Thus we have to start from scratch. Starting from scratch means that we start with a subject and its kingdom. Alternatively we start with a kingdom and its subject, the same thing. Both spectator and spectacle must be present in the same moment.
This is where we have to put our thinking caps on. The relationship between the Subject and its Other is a very particular kind of relationship. They each determine one another. The Hindus sometimes see this as a coital relationship. The subject corresponds to the masculine and the mysterious other is feminine where gender gets interpreted as sex, poetic licence oblige. The Stoics saw the relationship as that between the Active Principle and the Passive Principle. Vedanta philosophy often refers to the Active principle as the Principle of Individualization, the Spiritual Principle, or simply the masculine principle. We have here the building block for right side science. It’s getting a bit steamy so here is one way to arrive at a dispassionate view. It involves the gender construct.

The main role of the subject in this right side science, is that it does provide a determined point of view. As such it is a pure singularity. What is non-subject is non-singularity. This can be formalised with the concept of gender. The gender concept is very ancient, both in the West and the East. First there is the unqualified substance totally devoid of any determined specificity. Such an entity is typed as the pure feminine. One might say that the pure feminine is devoid of specificity and so has no attribute. This is not the case. It is only devoid of a determined specificity. It has an undetermined specificity. That is its attribute. This attribute, using the argument of First Classness, must be an entity in its own right. (Note that the Stoics always claimed that the property of an entity is an entity in its own right). This attribute entity will be said to be of masculine gender. Two entities, one has an attribute, the other is the attribute. The first entity corresponds to the feminine, the second to the masculine. These two entities provide the building blocks for the right side science paradigm.
The first thing to construct is the semiotic square. One way of understanding this square is as the architecture of a whole. Totality can only be understood from a determining point of view of the subject. Instead of comprehending the totality in any moment, which is impossible, it is understood as a whole. A whole is totality looked at from a particular point view. There are as many wholes as there are points of view. This requires that the subject must be present in the whole. Right side science always understands things in terms of wholes.

Thus the semiotic square, as a generic understanding of a whole, is a map of the subjects conscious understanding of the whole, any whole. The first moment of understanding is “Wow, here I am, this is me and the rest is not me.” We thus draw a square, cut it down the middle and adopt the convention that the right side corresponds to subject and the left side to what is not subject. The right side is masculine typed and the left side is feminine typed.

However, the subject in this particular configuration is not you or I. It represents the impersonal subject. In fact, it is this subject that corresponds to the “view from nowhere”, the “God’s eyes view” of the traditional sciences. These sciences, in their quest for objectivity, remove all reference to subject from consideration. They even remove this impersonal subject from consideration as they have no need for it. They demand a godless science, a pure science sans sujet. Thus the semiotic square for the left side sciences is the same as for the right side science, except that the right side is blacked out. Left side sciences thus suffer from a symptom well known to the psychiatrist. It is called hemi-neglect. Right side science knows about the left side, left side science wings it alone, content with half a brain, so to speak. Curiously, in passing, the human brain exhibits exactly this same bi-lateral specialisation. The right hemisphere does not exhibit hemi-neglect and sees a whole world. Only the left side exhibits hemi-neglect.

This is now where left side and right side science part company. Not content with just the presence of the impersonal subject, right side science must find a way of introducing a more determined subject, the personal subject. This is constructed by applying the first feminine masculine opposition to itself, an opposition of two oppositions. It might sound complicated but is easily visualised with the semiotic square. The second opposition is orthogonal to the first and so instead of a left right dichotomy, the dichotomy is front back. We use the convention of masculine in front, feminine at the back. It appears that we am not the only ones to adopt this polarity convention..
semiotic
The end result is that we end up with a square shaped kind of placeholder for dealing with knowledge. The first kind of knowledge involves an elementary consciousness of self, a knowledge of what is and what is not. This is expressed logically in our reconstruction of the Chrysippus square. For the moment, note that the four parts of the semiotic square have been binary typed with gender. For example, the left front part is typed as MF. This reads that, from the impersonal subject perspective, it is typed as feminine. From the personal subject perspective it is typed as masculine. Thus the first letter in the binary gender typing is that of the personal subject, the second letter is that of the impersonal.

Figure 1 The generic semiotic square is constructed from the feminine masculine opposition applied to itself.

The semiotic square is a placeholder, the architecture of the generic mind, so to speak. The semiotic square is static and unique, for the purposes of the science. You only need one brain, it can be said.
In addition to the placeholder, there are values relative to it. These values are mobile. There are the four kinds of elementary substance that can be binary typed by the four binary gender types. The binary typed substance correspond to MF, FF, FM and MM. The ancients called them air, earth, water and fire respectively.

 Stoic Qualia Pure Gender Algebra Element masculine active MM Fire masculine passive MF Air feminine active FM Water feminine passive FF Earth
Figure 2 The ancient four elements can be can be understood in terms of gender.

We now come to the semiotic square constructed with four of the Chrysippus undemonstratables. Note that one diagonal is constructed from the conjunctive syllogisms. These are known to logicians as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens. The other diagonal is constructed from the two forms of the disjunctive. The diagram can be gender typed by matching the is copula with the masculine and the is not with the feminine, as shown. This matches perfectly with the semiotic square gendering shown above.
What is interesting, is that the logic of Chrysippus has introduced yet another dimension into the semiotics
, a vertical axis. The square becomes the “Chrysippus cube”! We have used the convention of the implication arrows in the diagram going left to right to signal the upwards direction, and the downwards for the right to left. Talking intuitively, this indicates that the top two entities have an “upward flow” and the bottom two entries have a “downward flow”.

 Chrysyppus Logical Semiotic Square
One should note that the gender coding of the top two elements correspond to the “elements” of air and fire. These are the “light” elements, being predominantly masculine and less substantial than the feminine bottom two elements of earth and water. Such reasoning is not very rigorous as we are not talking about the same kind of elements as in the left side, traditional science. The logic of Chrysippus however adds a different complexion to the matter.
These principles must have been part of core Stoic teaching, as Marcus Aurelius wrote in Meditations.
Your aerial part and all the fiery parts which are mingled in you, though by nature they have an upward tendency, still in obedience to the disposition of the universe they are overpowered here in the compound mass. And also the whole of the earthy part in you and the watery, though their tendency is downward,

The Stoics claimed that theirs was a unifying science that integrated logic, physics, and morality. Some people are attracted to Stoic values whilst thinking that their science has been completely eclipsed by the modern day sciences. However, how antiquated is the science of antiquity? Consider the following.
In our diagram we have added in the four letters CAUG matching up with the gender typings MM, MF, FF and FM respectively. This is part of another story in this book. These are the four letters of what we call the generic code. We’ve taken them from the RNA version of the genetic code. The genetic code is a standard code which codes all living beings, without exception. This is a known fact. The generic code is impervious to evolution and has remained unchanged since the year dot. By extending the notion of the living to that of the universe, itself considered as living by the Stoics, this same code takes on a generic vocation. In this book we explore its application to understanding elementary particle physics from a new angle (see Appendix). We use the generic code to code quarks and leptons. These claims may test our short term credibility. However, in the longer term that is the way it will pan out once we have properly digested this new science, a science with such ancient roots.

# Chrysippus and Stoic Logic

## The Stoic Five Undemonstratables

There are two kinds of logic, logic with infrastructure and logic that can be carried out with the bare brain, the terra nullus logic. We first consider the bare brained version. This variety of logic is virtually infrastructure free. The logic is abstract and makes extensive use of symbols that do not mean anything. It is often referred to as symbolic logic. At the base of symbolic logic is the propositional calculus and its second order extension, the predicate calculus. The other kind of reasoning requiring infrastructure will be a terra plenus logic. In accordance with our two-hemisphere brain metaphor we refer to terra nullus logic as left side logic and terra plenus Stoic style logic as right side.

What is interesting about the Stoic logic developed by Chrysippus is that it can be interpreted as a left side symbolic logic as well as a right side logic, all decked out with dialectical infrastructure. Thus, Chrysippus’ logic has both a terra nullus as well as a terra plenus interpretation.

The kernel of the logic is articulated in the form of the “five undemonstratables”. The undemonstratables can be stated as five three step syllogisms as follows (Chénique, 1974):

##### 1 Conditional

If one has the first quality one has the second
one has the first
thus, one has the second

##### 2 Contraposition of the conditional

If one has the first quality one has the second
one has not the second
thus, one has not the first

##### 3 Incompatibility

One has not at the same time both the first and the second quality
one has the first
thus, one has not the second

##### 4. ‘OR exclusive’ or alternative

One has either the first quality or the second quality
One has the first
hence, one has not the second

##### 5. ‘OR non-exclusive’ or disjunction

One has either the first quality or the second quality
one has not the second
Hence, one has the first

All of these syllogisms can be interpreted from the symbolic logic perspective of propositional calculus. As such, it can be said that Chrysippus was the first to discover the propositional calculus. In addition, the first and second syllogisms can be interpreted as definitions of modus ponens and modus tollens respectively. This is all familiar ground for traditional logic.

The third syllogism deals with the incompatibly paradigm. In the propositional calculus context, this corresponds to the Sheffer stroke. In this context, the syllogism loses its explicit temporal nature and flattens down to the simple formula:

NOT (a AND b) is true

Note that the “at the same time” part of the formula has been dropped. Traditional modern logic has no notion of time. To entertain a notion of time, one needs a brain. The brain of the logician does not count, because that is not a formal part of the logic. Modern logic has no such infrastructure. It has virtually no infrastructure at all. Brainless, this is truly the logic of the terra nullus.

#### Building the Logical Brain

Logic combined with integrated cognitive structure goes from being logical to being ontological. In other words, it starts to become a science of being. Integral to a science of being is the science of the generic subject. The formal presence of the generic subject in the science provides a fundamental point of reference. All propositions become relative, relative to the subject. As we have said before, the subject, any subject, is the centre of the Cosmos. This means that you are located at the centre of the universe. Since you could be anybody located anyewhere, the centre of the can be literaly anywhaere. This identity of the generic centre of the universe and the individual centre of the universe is a most important principle. (In my book to appear, I show that any spatial reality with this property is equivalent to the Special Theory of Relativity. It is not verycomplicated)

As we have seen, the generic subject is endowed with a particular brain architecture. First, the impersonal, undetermined subject is based on a left-right dichotomy, with the subject on one side and its kingdom of objects on the other. The usual polarity convention is right and left sides respectively, but this does not have to be the case.

The above paragraph has a certain apparently outrageous dimension. It is probably enough to make some readers choke on their crumpet. However, it just takes time to become comfortable with the generic viewpoint. The situation can get untenable when we move on to the next paragraph. Written in italics in an effort to ease the reader’s pain, it reads something like this:

The brain architecture of the personal subject, in addition to the left right dichotomy of the impersonal, has a front back determination with the polarity, subject in front and kingdom in the back. These left right, and front back determinations can be explained in terms of gender, where the singular Oneness of the subject corresponds with the masculine and the non-singular wild card Otherness corresponds to the feminine. The configuration at this stage is that of a square divided into four quarters. Reading from left to right, starting from the front, the quarters are gender typed MF, MM, FF and FM respectively. Any subject whatsoever will have this configuration.

Perhaps one redeeming point is that we are not the only ones to have ever argued along these lines. Apparently, the ancients, going back thousands of years, have passed by here many times before. One thing to keep in mind is that we have not yet distinguished between the form of the world and the cognitive structure needed to comprehend it. Our basic thesis on this matter is that:

1. The form of the world and the cognitive structure are different,
2. The form of the world and the cognitive structure are indistinguishable.

This constitutes the basis of generic science and is why it is only necessary to study cognitive structures. Just put yourself into the position of that electron over there, the one that’s peering at you. It is a subject just like you. It might surprise you to know that, in this context, it has a cognitive structure indistinguishable from yours.

In the final analysis, the two points above apply perfectly to the two basic building blocks of generic science. These were the pure feminine entity and the pure masculine entity. They are both different whilst being indistinguishable. The masculine, in this sense, is the ultimate embryonic cognitive structure; the feminine corresponds to the ultimate embryonic world.

### Bridging Laws of Consciousness

David Chalmers characterised what he called the Hard Problem (Chalmers, 1995) as the problem of explaining the relationship between a physical account of reality and conscious experience. As he saw it, solving this Hard Problem required determining the “bridging laws” that related physical reality and conscious experience.

The “bridging laws” solution to the consciousness question is a natural response of traditional left side scientific thinking. Such thinking is naturally dualistic where dichotomies abound between Mind and Body, the abstract and the real, and in this case, between the realms of the physical and the conscious. The solution to the problem seems like after the fall: How do you put Humpty Dumpty back together again? How do you bridge the broken? Chalmers is looking for an abstract solution to a problem that is a direct consequence of abstract thinking itself. Explaining abstractly how to bridge the abstract with the real is definitely a very Hard Problem, reserved only for the most courageous of abstract thinkers. For the less courageous, an alternative approach is to avoid abstraction and think generically.

From the monist right side viewpoint of the generic, there is never any need for a bridge as nothing was ever broken apart in the first case. At the ontological foundations of the generic, the very first spark of consciousness stirs with the pure unqualified feminine that has the pure attribute of Oneness. The masculine entity is this attribute. The embryonic physical unites with embryonic consciousness: One has an attribute; the other is this attribute. The bridging here is more like how some of the Hindus describe it, as a coital embrace. This couple have no need for a prosthesis, bridging or otherwise.

According to our embryonic Generic Science based on the generic algebra of gender, any being is coded and organised through this generic code. In the case of the biological, the generic code becomes the genetic code. The four-letter code is really based on binary valued gender. Any life form is coded in this gender algebra and organised through it. The original gender construct of the masculine and feminine now becomes a massive complex entwinement of gendered entities. The overall coherence and survival of the organism absolutely depends on maintenance of the coherence of the gender typing that runs throughout every nook and cranny of the organism. If there is failure of coherence then no bridging Band-Aid will ever bring this organism back into consciousness. The organism would be well and truly dead by now.

When viewing the healthy gender typed organism from the perspective of a third party, everything appears to be in ambiguous and chaotic superposition. Gender states are dynamic and something like quantum states, except that they are relative to each other and the organism, not absolute. Unlike quantum states, the subject sees its states quite differently from any third party. Viewed from the perspective of the organism, these states are in coherence with its own being and articulate its being. There must be no ambiguity whatsoever in gender typing.

We propose that the formal mechanism of gender regulation can be articulated in the form of Chrysippus’ third undemonstratable, that of incompatibility.The premise of the syllogism states:

One has not at the same time both the first and the second quality.

In the context of the generic coded organism, this becomes

One has not at the same time both the masculine and the feminine gender.

It is by the implementation and maintenance of this principle that any living being maintains its Self. This solution demands a dynamically gendered system with a global mechanism for the maintenance of gender coherence.

For a cosmological system, the mechanism is that of pure rational coherence, including the non-violation of the causality principle. As a science, it will present as a much more generic version of present day relativity theories. The geometric aspect of the mathematics (or anti-mathematics) will however need a substantial overhaul. In fact, a new geometry is needed. It will be a more generic version of what is now called geometric algebra.

In biological systems, the genetic code, although material, is a different substance from the proteins it codes. In the realm of pure physics, the code and the substance entities are possibly the one and the same. However, the same generic principle is at work in any realm.

## Chrysippus and The Square of Oppositions

Chrysippus’ remarkable logical system can be naively interpreted as a simple left side version of the propositional calculus. There the incompatibility paradigm can play a pivotal role as the key operator from which all other logical constructs can be constructed.

The incompatibility paradigm, as Clark Kent, steps into the phone box and remerges as a virtual superman, ready to bring order and life into a chaotic world. Dumb left side logic transforms into the right side logic of the generic.

Having situated one of Chrysippus’ five paradigms into the generic scheme of things, we now have four left. There is no mystery where these fit in. The diagram below shows how they fit together to form a new kind of square of oppositions. Moreover, each of the four undemonstratables fits in snugly with our gender typing. This naturally leads to associating each of the four syllogisms with the corresponding four letters of the generic-cum-genetic code based on the AUGC alphabet. This is quite important, as the four letters now take on more semantic baggage than that of being a mere transcription language.

It is not clear how much of this was known to Chrysippus. Nevertheless, he does follow in the footsteps of Aristotle and his Organon. Here we have our version of Chrysippus’ Logos, the forerunner to the semantic cracking of the genetic code.

Figure 30 Author’s Reconstitution of Chrysippus’ Square of Oppositions.

#### Chrysippus and Ground Zero

By Ground Zero, we mean the centre of the Cosmos. Ground Zero has a certain shape, the shape of the entity located at the centre of the Cosmos. As we know, this entity is none other than any subject whatsoever that takes the pain to reflect on its particular spot in the universe. Without fail, this subject, like any other subject, sees itself as being located at the aforesaid location, notably the centre of the Cosmos, the centre of its Cosmos, at least.

As for the shape of this entity, the generic subject, it has a left, a right side, also a front, and a back. This is the structure we have been referring to as the semiotic square. It is a structure that can be interpreted in many ways, as a blueprint for epistemological organisation of knowledge, for example.. The same semiotic structure might be taken as a good framework for brain architecture, but we will avoid that topic here.  There are also ontological, and of course many biological interpretations. On the biological front, this structure can be thought of as the structure of a whole, as coded by a chromosomal codon. Any biological organism is organised as an entity viewed as a whole from a myriad of points of views. To each codon, there corresponds a holistic point of view. The genetic cum generic code is the language that articulates the geometric algebra of this exhaustive but holistic view of the organism. Another interpretation of this highly generic semiotic square is that it offers a schematic for elementary cognitive structure.

So prodigiously generic is a structure that it can make the head spin. To top it off, we now have Chrysippus joining the fray. Now Chrysippus was conceded by the ancients to be the equal of Aristotle, so he cannot be dismissed as a lightweight. In above, we have organised four of his five fundamental syllogisms into a form that falls quite naturally into the elementary structure of the generic semiotic square. As can be seen, the premises of the first and the second hypothetical conjunctive syllogisms make one diagonal of the square and the two disjunctive forms mark out the other diagonal. It is becoming clear that we have here, a structure that resembles the Square of Oppositions of Aristotle. The Scholastics added the AEOI four lettered labelling to Aristotle’s system and spent over a millennium probing into its delights. Not to be outdone, we have added our lettering to our reconstructed version of the Chrysippus Square in the hope of preparing it for its reinvigorated role in the present millennium. Suffering from a lack of creativity, we have borrowed the RNA version of the biologist’s genetic code. Why invent when you can steal, is our motto. It took the author a little while to get the right fit, but he is reasonably confident that his allocation of the CAUG lettering is spot on. He would be very miffed if this was not the case.

#### Chrysippus and the Grand Unification

The ancient Stoics have been the historic mentors for the material presented in this work. They developed the most successful and diverse form of monistic philosophy that the Western world has ever seen. Zeno provided the intuitive and informal core elements of the doctrine. Chrysippus logic marked the first tentative steps towards the formalisation of a unifying science. The full significance of Chrysippus’ contribution has been little understood by the moderns, blinded as they are by the achievements of the current day sciences. Despite these achievements, the present day sciences are lacking in any kind of cohesive unifying discipline. The unifying science pioneered by the Stoics, will provide such a unification.

Of critical importance is to learn how to reason in a different way from what is customarily taught in modern schools and universities. The moderns only have a partial grasp on rationality. Modern science and mathematics only understand the notion of the true and the false. What lacks, is the understanding of truth. However, the very mention of this word, truth, can seem off putting. After all, probably more people have been burned at the stake because of an allegedly incorrect understanding of truth, than for any other reason. However, buried amongst the historic debris of lost causes lurks indeed the rusted hulk of truth.

Nevertheless, as any philosopher knows well, truth of this kind must be self-justifying. For many, such as Karl Popper, the notion of a self-justifying truth is synonymous with the blind faith of religious zealots and doctrinaire extremists, something anathema to science. Popper is content with the kind of knowledge where each proposition is forever condemned to the judgment that it might be false. Even worse, at the same time the proposition must accommodate the stark reality that this judgment might indeed be true. Then again, it might not. Modern scientists are a brave lot.

Sidenote:

Popper did eventually nuance his views on this matter in the light of the self-justifying biological organism notion. In so doing he implicitly admits that the biological organism is obsessed with self-justifying its continual existence in the world. As such, biological organisms seem to have ontologically more in common with the logic of religious zealots and political fanatics, than with the cool, dry head of the analytic philosopher.

The stark truth about truth is that it must be relative and never absolute. Only in this way can it become an absolute truth. In other words, it becomes an absolute truth relative to itself. This is the essence of monistic philosophy: It is the rationality of the self-justifying Self. Relative to this subject, there is only one truth.

We have already made inroads into the science of the subject. Unlike the analytic rhetorical type reasoning of analytic philosophy, the reasoning of this right side, monist philosophy, is expressed in terms of oppositions and oppositions between oppositions. It is in this way that the reasoning becomes a relativistic form of reasoning. Rather than rhetorical, it becomes dialectical. The nuts and bolts of the reasoning deals with the dialect of two entities, one which has and the other that is. These entities differ by gender, the first corresponding to the feminine gender, the second to the masculine. The dialectic of to have and to be, constitues the core essence of the monistic, right side form of reasoning.

This is the dialectic of the subject minimally conscious of itself. It leads to a particular kind of knowledge. It leads to the generic truth that reality, viewed from any particular perspective, is the reality viewed from the point of view of the generic subject, the any subject whatsoever kind of subject,

The elementary form that arose from our investigations was the semiotic square. This structure arose from the opposition between what the subject is and what the subject is not, that is to say, what it has. This opposition was formalised in terms of the gender construct. This leads to the four distinct parts of the square being gender typed MF, FF, FM and MM.

This very generic quadruple structure is highly lacking in determination. The edifice is so undetermined that it is not even clear whether it corresponds to the semiotic structure of knowledge of the world, or the structure of the world itself. Is this epistemology or is it physics? Is this the structure of Mind or is it the structure of Body? Is it the structure of a generic language or that of a generic world?

Finding an answer to these kinds of questions is key. It is here that we find the great enigma of this science. Unlike the analytical thinkers who want to understand the relationship between Mind and Body in terms analogous to that between horse and cart, the synthetic monist thinker must take a different tack. The horse will not be separated from the cart, but treated as an organic whole. One cannot have one without the other. We came across the very essence of the monist solution in the form of the gender construct. Rather than plucking attributes from a predefined definitional framework or harvested from empirical measurements, we constructed the one single fundamental attribute from which stem all other attributes of our science. This was the attribute possessed by the pure feminine entity. The attribute, an entity in its own right, was the masculine entity. These two entities are different. They differ by gender. However, they are absolutely indistinguishable. Two entities are distinguishable if they have different attributes. Here there might be two entities, but there is only one attribute between them: two entities; one has an attribute, the other is the attribute.

This gender construct provides the generic formula for all of the science that follows. The dialectic of the masculine and the feminine provides the generic base for all other seemingly dyadic structures such as the popular Mind-Body duality of the analytic philosophers. The relationship between the pure feminine and masculine is a generic form of the same relationship between Mind and Body.

Not everyone will agree with this assertion. Certainly, an analytic philosopher or anyone reasoning from a Cartesian viewpoint would take the abstract road, abstractly arguing that Body is like a machine and Mind is an intelligence that drives the machine. The two are linked together by some kind of “bridging laws” perhaps. There is no dialectic here, as the notion of a bodiless mind and mindless body, is considered quite respectable. They can conceivably go their separate ways: put the brain in the bottle and the brain dead body on life support, should do the trick.

Such a surgical separation is impossible for an organism constructed from the gender construct. The organism is constructed according to a four-lettered code. According to our gender calculus version of this code, each letter is made up of one of the four binary gender typings, MF, FF, FM and MM. On the face of it, the organism might be just a highly complex assemblage of hydrocarbon-based compounds. However, from an organisational point of view, it is a seething mass of intertwined, gendered entities. It is this gender typing of content and form of the organism that ensures systemic coherence. It is in this way that the One can be constructed from the inseparable and indistinguishable Two.

The Stoics saw this dynamic systemic organisation of the organism in terms of the tensions and tenos of a fifth kind of substance they called pneuma.

The pneuma is in constant motion. It is a process into itself, and from itself. The inward process produces unity and substance, the outward process dimensions and qualities. The pneuma is a disposition (hexis) in process. As a disposition, the pneuma holds the cosmos together, and accounts for the cohesions of each individual entity. The pneuma is the cause of the entity being qualified: for the bodies are bound together by these. [Chrysippus views on the pneuma (Reesor, 1989)]

The coherence, the very being of an organism, is synonymous with it maintaining Oneness. The mechanism for achieving and maintaining Oneness is through the establishment and maintenance of gender typing. The organism must know, without a shadow of doubt, what it has and has not and what it is and is not in all cases. These are the key determinants of consciousness. In addition, the determinations are purely relative. They are purely subject-ive. This, one must admit, is truly a beautiful, self-referring system.

Beautiful indeed, but how does it work? With profound beauty, one would expect an accompanying simplicity, a profound but simple principle. Seeing that everything involved in this kind of self-organising organism is relativistic, there should be some fundamental relativistic principle at play. In the traditional sciences of our day, the only relativistic principle known is in physics. There is no known equivalent in biology. In physics, we see relativity theory expressed as demanding that the laws of physics remain invariant from one reference frame to another. Perhaps more pointedly, as shown by Zeeman, the principle of relativity is intimately bound up with the non-violation of the causality principle. It is here that one can grasp the simplicity and elegance of the theory. System coherence demands the coherence of causality. The claim of generic science is that this is not enough. A much more demanding form of relativity is we call generic relativity.

If the work presented in this book is to be more than the usual exposition of inconclusive philosophical prose, then we should be able to advance an equally simple and elegant formulation concerning the essence of generic relativity, the cornerstone of the generic science we are trying to develop. Fortunately, we do not have to look very far. The principle is located at Ground Zero and there is no one who knew this spot in the Cosmos better than Chrysippus, the Stoic logician par excellence. Ground Zero is the location of the Logos, the reasoning faculty of any subject whatsoever. The form of the Logos can be understood in terms of the dialectic of having and being, a form expressed by the semiotic square. Chrysippus provided the logical framework of the Logos semiotic square in the form of four of his five undemonstratables. We have resurrected this structure as an alternative to Aristotle’s Square of Oppositions, discussed previously. We have named this the Chrysippus’ Square of Oppositions. The fit between this structure and the four undemonstratables is comfortable and reasonably self-evident. The structure effectively provides an additional logical impetus to the thrust of our argument. The four undemonstratables provide a logical dimension to the interpretation of the four-element theory and the corresponding four letters.

#### Absolute Incompatibility

Five undemonstratables minus four leaves one. The missing syllogism is the third undemonstrable, the incompatibility syllogism: One cannot have one quality and the other at the same time. We now come to the fundamental tenet of generic science. It is founded on the premise that there is nothing more incompatible in this world than the masculine and the feminine. This premise does have some intuitive appeal and so we will stick with it. This is not a bad idea, as it appears that the whole cosmos hinges on the concept. It is the incompatibility principle that holds not only the cosmos together, but any being whatsoever that exists.

In the case of biological organisms, the concept should be relatively easy to grasp. A stumbling block might be in accepting that the genetic code is more than a mere transcription language. One should keep in mind that curiously, and apparently accidently, the code became a convention adopted by all living organisms since the year dot; without exception. Accidents do happen, but this accident does seem a little bigger than most. Life might be subject to evolution, but the language of life seems absolutely impervious to change. The gamble of Nature seemed to have hit the jackpot absolutely spot on, right from the start.

The reader may rest with that interesting accident hypothesis or move on to considering that the code may be based on a generic semantic and ontological structure. According to our take on the question, this structure is based on the dialectics of being and its naturally orthogonal counterpart, that of having. This can be formalised in terms of the gender construct and leads to a four-letter code based on the four possible binary combinations of the two genders. It is generally accepted that all biological processes are coded by the genetic code, what we claim to be the generic code. Moreover, in multi-celled creature, the same code is repeated for each cell. We say that this code expresses a relative typing on all aspects of the organism. At the very ground roots level, the typing is in terms of complex combinations of gender typing. We claim that the organism relies on this form of organisation in order to arrive at knowledge and consciousness of itself. It is via this absolutely relativistic gender typing that the entity knows what pertains to it or what does not. This is the most elementary and most essential feature of life.

Moreover, the basic health of the organism will be placed in peril if this typing mechanism starts breaking down. The cohesion of the system demands the constant maintenance of the integrity of gender typing through the organism. The Stoic picture of a pneuma permeating every aspect of the organism is very helpful. The pneuma is constantly attracting and repelling, constantly maintaining the equilibrium of the organism.

The Stoics claim that there are two primary principles working through the pneuma: the active principle and the passive principle. This terminology is also helpful, as long as we recognise that the active and passive ultimately refer to the masculine and feminine, in a particular configuration. For example, we refer to the feminine as active by the mixed gender term FM.

The masculine as active becomes MM and so on for the passive MF and FF variants.

Maintenance of the integrity of gender typing throughout the organism is paramount. Since the system is changing and reacting to its environment, this integrity must be synchronised. This brings us back to the key logical ingredient that guarantees such coherence: the coherence principle.

#### The Gender Coherence Principle

The organisational coherence of an organism is regulated through gender typing. The maintenance of organisational coherence is synonymous with maintaining the integrity of gender coherence. This can best be expressed in the form of Chrysippus’ third undemonstratable, the incompatibility syllogism. The premise can be restated in the form:

In no single moment can an entity be both masculine and feminine at the same time.

We will call this the gender coherence principle, the fundamental organisational principle of Nature.

Note in passing that an entity can have multiple gender typing. However, it cannot have two different gender typings at the same time. This raises interesting question regarding the degeneracy of the genetic code. Take the amino acid asparagine, for example. It can be coded by the bases either AAU or AUC. In gender terms, this translates to the gender typing MFMFFF or MFMFMM. According to the gender coherence principle, such an entity has two possible “quantum” gender states. At any time, it can be functioning as either MFMFFF or MFMFMM, but not both at the same time. Remember that gender typing at any instant of time is not absolute and cannot be measured deterministically by a third party. Gender typing is relativistic and dynamic and in coherence with the organism so typed.

Note that the so-called superposition of states addressed by quantum mechanics disappears if they are considered to be more like relativistic gender states. Any observer that deterministically tries to measure a relativistic gender state of an organism will encounter superposition. For the organism in question, there is no superposition whatsoever. Relative to its integrity system, the gender coherence principle demands that the very opposite apply at each and any instant.

As for the organism, in the life sciences the organism might be a cat on a slab in the lab. For the physicist, the organism might be a much smaller or much larger creature. However, it is still an organism based on the same generic organisational principles.

#### Physics Interpretation

In an appendix attached to this work, elementary particle physics will be interpreted from a generic point of view. This leads to elementary entities like quarks and leptons being gender typed in terms of codons reminiscent of biology. In this way, any being in nature codes itself in terms of the generic code based on gender typing. This includes the cosmos itself, as a dynamic self-organising being.

In traditional relativity theory, one can discern an elementary organisational coherence that can be stated in a form comparable to the gender coherence principle. In this case, it becomes the principle of causal integrity. The principle states the dialectic of cause and effect:

The cause event is always antecedent to the effect event.

This is the most fundamental organisational principle known to traditional physics. The law must not be violated in any context (i.e., in any reference frame) and so demands a system that obeys Einstein’s Special and General Theory of Relativity.

One can see that the form of Einstein’s relativity has a certain resemblance to the generic form expressed, not as a causality coherence, but as gender coherence. There is also a fundamental difference. Einstein’s relativity demands coherence across time: causes must precede effects in time. In other words, Einstein’s relativity is diachronic in nature. In contrast, the generic version of relativity demands coherence at the same time. In other words generic relativity is synchronic in nature and, up until now, has been totally ignored in physics.

#### Computer Science Interpretation

It is important to keep in mind at all times when dealing with the generic that it is not an abstract science. Generic science is capable of formalism but not as an abstraction, which is necessarily dualist. Generic science is monist and non-abstract. Some effort is required to become accustomed to this totally different paradigm. Interpreting some of the concepts in a Computer Science setting can help, in this regard. Unlike axiomatic abstract mathematics, Computer Science is a constructive science and naturally synthetic in nature. The science also enjoys a natural tendency towards monism in the sense that the theory of code can be expressed in code.

Generic science is a discipline, which has for its vocation the task of articulating the structure and organisational principle of any living being. The science is naturally constructionist. This raises the question of how to construct an organism based on generic science principles. Such an organism would have to be based on gender typing and be organised on the gender coherence principle. In addition, the whole system must not violate the principle of First Classness. Is this possible?

This is a silly question as our very own presence on this globe is at least some kind of feasibility proof of the concept, a living proof in fact.

What we wish to do in this section is to provide a very simple example of how Computer Science, unknowingly, has already started to go down the path of Generic Science. Our example is the very computer itself, the Von Neumann computer.

Before Von Neumann, there already existed programmable calculating devices. However, they all had one thing in common. They were based on an absolute dichotomy between data and program. For example, the program might be hard wired into the device and the data fed in via paper tape. If we want to put some gender typing into the mix, we could say that the program was masculine stuff and the data feminine. With this arrangement, the gender coherence principle could be satisfied because at no time is any confusion possible between what was program stuff and what was data stuff. Data was always on the paper, and program in the machine. The only problem was that such a device violates First Classness.  First Classness is incompatible with such a blatant and absolute duality. First Classness cannot tolerate a world cut up into two, one made of paper and one made of the other stuff.

Von Neumann started the process of moving the calculating machine into the realm of a generically organised entity. He made two innovations. The first innovation was shared memory where there was no longer to be any absolute dichotomy between data stuff and program stuff. They were all loaded into shared memory in the same format as small chunks of information. Von Neumann was then faced with the problem of how the computer could tell the difference between program stuff and data stuff. It was here that Von Neumann decided to invoke his version of Chrysippus’ incompatibility principle. The principle was that:

No chunk of information in shared memory could be both data and program at the same time.

In order to implement this principle, he came up with his second innovation. It was called the Program Counter. The Program Counter is a pointer into the shared memory of the computer. The rule was that a program instruction was the chunk of memory pointed to by the Program Counter at a particular instance in time. All the rest of the chunks were considered data. Having executed that instruction, the Program Counter would be incremented to the next memory location, and that would then be considered a program chunk and no longer potential data. In the case of a JUMP instruction, the Program Counter would be moved to some other distant place in memory and the process continues. The computer was born.

Like practically every major advance in computer science, the Von Neumann’s computer was an exercise of eliminating violations in First Classness; in this case, eliminating the fixed dichotomy between data and program. Henceforth, the distinction became relative to the dynamically changing Program Counter. What was program and what was data depended on context.

However, such a device is far from freeing itself from violation of First Classness. The Program Counter itself becomes a rigid privileged memory location, totally estranged from the run of the mill information chunk in shared memory. That is yet another dichotomy to be eliminated by generic engineering principle. There is a long way to go.

The Von Neumann computer needed a few further innovations in order to become operational. However, not many other innovations were needed. Add a stack, interrupts, and a few input/output ports and that is about it.

#### The Semiotic Logic of Chrysippus

Before reaching an understanding of our reconstruction of the Chrysippus semiotic square, we need to know a bit about semiotics, or at least, our version of it. We provide here a summary of our approach.

The author’s first acquaintance with the semiotic square came from following the courses of Greimas back in Paris, many years ago. The term “semiotic square” is nowadays generally associated with his name. The big weakness in the Greimas approach was his failure to come to terms with the subject. His semiotics is sans sujet. We will sketch out here a more fundamental approach to semiotics and the semiotic square that does include the subject.

To begin with, there are two kinds of semiotics, one associated with Ferdinand de Saussure (dyadic, arbitrariness of the sign etc.) and one associated with Charles Sanders Peirce (triadic). In our view, the approach of de Saussure is not semiotics, but General Linguistics. Like Greimas, the approach of de Saussure is sans sujet. If there is a subject, it is part of the Spectacle, not the Spectator. It is merely what Hegel referred to as the empirical ego. In this perspective, the de Saussure approach is like that of the traditional sciences and mathematics. All of these sciences are sans sujet. We call all of these traditional science left side sciences. Left side sciences claim to be objective, which is another way of saying that they only concerned with a reality of objects where any reference to the subject has been excluded. They are all sans sujet. As such, these sciences look at the world from a very specific point of view. This point of view has been described as the “view from nowhere” or the “God’s eye view”. This is a general characteristic of science sans sujet. It is a general characteristic of all the sciences and mathematics of today.

The other possible scientific paradigm goes in the opposite direction. It demands that the subject is always present. In other words, if there is a spectacle there must also be an accompanying spectator. You cannot have one without the other. We call the science based on this paradigm, right side science. The right side science becomes, in fact, the dialectic of the Spectator and the Spectacle, the Subject and its kingdom.

Unlike the many left side sciences, there is only one right side science. This is because its focus is on the science of the subject and this is quite different to the science of objects. It is the science of the Self. For a Stoic logician like Chrysippus, it is the science of the Logos. This generic entity, the Self, the Logos, the Ego, has a generic form. This form can be worked out from pure reason.

Now Charles Sanders Peirce was more inclined to the right side paradigm, but he did not make much headway. He also despised the Stoics, which did not help. Thus, we have to start from scratch. Starting from scratch means that we start with a subject and its kingdom. Alternatively, we start with a kingdom and its subject, the same thing. Both spectator and spectacle must be present in the same moment.

This is where we have to put our thinking caps on. The relationship between the Subject and its Other is a very particular kind of relationship. They each determine one another. The Hindus sometimes see this as a coital relationship. The subject corresponds to the masculine. The mysterious other is the feminine where gender gets interpreted as sex, poetic licence oblige. The Stoics saw the relationship as that between the Active Principle and the Passive Principle. Vedanta philosophy often refers to the Active principle as the Principle of Individualization, the Spiritual Principle, or simply the masculine principle. We have here the building block for right side science. It is getting a bit steamy, so here is one way to arrive at a dispassionate view. It involves the gender construct.

Figure 31 The generic semiotic square is constructed from the feminine masculine opposition applied to itself.

The main role of the subject in this right side science is that it does provide a determined point of view. As such, it is a pure singularity. What is non-subject is non-singularity. This can be formalised with the concept of gender. The gender concept is very ancient, in both the West and the East. First, there is the unqualified substance totally devoid of any determined specificity. Such an entity is typed as the pure feminine. One might say that the pure feminine is devoid of specificity and so has no attribute. This is not the case. It is only devoid of a determined specificity. It has an undetermined specificity. That is its attribute. This attribute, using the argument of First Classness, must be an entity in its own right. (Note that the Stoics always claimed that the property of an entity is an entity in its own right). This attribute entity will be said to be of masculine gender. Two entities; one has an attribute, the other is the attribute. The first entity corresponds to the feminine, the second to the masculine. These two entities provide the building blocks for the right side science paradigm.

The first thing to construct is the semiotic square. One way of understanding this square is as the architecture of a whole. Totality can only be understood from a determining point of view of the subject. Instead of comprehending the totality in any moment, which is impossible, it is understood as a whole. A whole is totality looked at from a particular point view. There are as many wholes as there are points of view. This requires that the subject must be present in the whole. Right side science always understands things in terms of wholes.

Thus, the semiotic square, as a generic understanding of a whole, is a map of the subjects conscious understanding of the whole, any whole. The first moment of understanding is “Wow, here I am, this is me and the rest is not me.” We thus draw a square, cut it down the middle and adopt the convention that the right side corresponds to subject and the left side to what is not subject. The right side is masculine typed and the left side is feminine typed.

However, the subject in this particular configuration is not you or I. It represents the impersonal subject. In fact, it is this subject that corresponds to the “view from nowhere”, the “God’s eyes view” of the traditional sciences. These sciences, in their quest for objectivity, remove all reference to subject from consideration. They even remove this impersonal subject from consideration, as they have no need for it. They demand a godless science, a pure science sans sujet. Thus, the semiotic square for the left side sciences is the same as for the right side science, except that the right side is blacked out. Left side sciences thus suffer from a symptom well known to the psychiatrist. It is called hemi-neglect. Right side science knows about the left side, left side science wings it alone, content with half a brain, so to speak. Curiously, in passing, the human brain exhibits exactly this same bi-lateral specialisation. The right hemisphere does not exhibit hemi-neglect and sees a whole world. Only the left side exhibits hemi-neglect.

This is now where left side and right side science part company. Not content with just the presence of the impersonal subject, right side science must find a way of introducing a more determined subject, the personal subject. This is constructed by applying the first feminine-masculine opposition to itself, an opposition of two oppositions. It might sound complicated but is easily visualised with the semiotic square. The second opposition is orthogonal to the first and so instead of a left-right dichotomy, the dichotomy is front-back. We use the convention of masculine in front, feminine at the back. It appears that we are not the only ones to adopt this polarity convention.

The end result is that we end up with a square shaped kind of placeholder for dealing with knowledge. The first kind of knowledge involves an elementary consciousness of self, a knowledge of what is and what is not. This is expressed logically in our reconstruction of the Chrysippus square. For the moment, note that the four parts of the semiotic square have been binary typed with gender. For example, the left front part is typed as MF. This reads that, from the impersonal subject perspective, it is typed as feminine. From the personal subject perspective, it is typed as masculine. Thus, the first letter in the binary gender typing is that of the personal subject, the second letter is that of the impersonal.

The semiotic square is a placeholder, the architecture of the generic mind, so to speak. The semiotic square is static and unique, for the purposes of the science. You only need one brain, it can be said.

In addition to the placeholder, there are values relative to it. These values are mobile. There are the four kinds of elementary substance that can be binary typed by the four binary gender types. The binary typed substance corresponds to MF, FF, FM and MM. The ancients called them air, earth, water and fire respectively.

We now come to the semiotic square constructed with four of the Chrysippus undemonstratables. Note that one diagonal is constructed from the conjunctive syllogisms. These are known to logicians as Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens. The other diagonal is constructed from the two forms of the disjunctive. The diagram can be gender typed by matching the is copula with the masculine and the is not with the feminine, as shown. This matches perfectly with the semiotic square gendering shown above.

What is interesting is that the logic of Chrysippus has introduced yet another dimension into the semiotics, a vertical axis. The square becomes the “Chrysippus cube”! We have used the convention of the implication arrows in the diagram going left to right to signal the upwards direction, and the downwards for the right to left. Talking intuitively, this indicates that the top two entities have an “upward flow” and the bottom two entries have a “downward flow”.

One should note that the gender coding of the top two elements correspond to the “elements” of air and fire. These are the “light” elements, being predominantly masculine and less substantial than the feminine bottom two elements of earth and water. Such reasoning is not very rigorous, as we are not talking about the same kind of elements as in the left side, traditional science. The logic of Chrysippus however adds a different complexion to the matter.

These principles must have been part of core Stoic teaching, as Marcus Aurelius wrote in Meditations.

Your aerial part and all the fiery parts which are mingled in you, though by nature they have an upward tendency, still in obedience to the disposition of the universe they are overpowered here in the compound mass. And also the whole of the earthy part in you and the watery, though their tendency is downward,

The Stoics claimed that theirs was a unifying science that integrated logic, physics, and morality. Some people are attracted to Stoic values whilst thinking that their science has been completely eclipsed by the modern day sciences. However, how antiquated is the science of antiquity? Consider the following.

In our diagram, we have added in the four letters CAUG matching up with the gender typings MM, MF, FF and FM respectively. This is part of another story in this book. These are the four letters of what we call the generic code. We have taken them from the RNA version of the genetic code. The genetic code is a standard code that codes all living beings, without exception. This is an established fact. The generic code is impervious to evolution and has remained unchanged since the year dot. By extending the notion of the living to that of the universe, itself considered as living by the Stoics, this same code takes on a generic vocation. In this book, we explore its application to understanding elementary particle physics from a new angle (see Appendix). We use the generic code to code quarks and leptons. These claims may test our short-term credibility. However, in the longer term that is the way it will pan out once we have properly digested this new science, a science with such ancient roots.

# Ground Zero and Chrysippus

By Ground Zero, we mean the centre of the Cosmos. Ground Zero has a certain shape, the shape of the entity located at the centre of the Cosmos. As we know, this entity is none other than any subject whatsoever that takes the pain to reflect on its particular spot in the universe. Without fail, this subject, like any other subject, sees itself as being located at the aforesaid location, notably the centre of the Cosmos, the centre of its Cosmos, at least.

As for the shape of this entity, the generic subject, it has a left, a right side, also a front, and a back. This is the structure we have been referring to as the semiotic square. It is a structure that can be interpreted in many ways, as a blueprint for epistemological organisation of knowledge, for example. There are also ontological, and of course many biological interpretations. On the biological front, this structure can be thought of as the structure of a whole, as coded by a chromosomal codon. Any biological organism is organised as an entity viewed as a whole from a myriad of points of views. To each codon, there corresponds a holistic point of view. The genetic cum generic code is the language that articulates the geometric algebra of this holistic view of the organism. Another interpretation of this highly generic semiotic square is that it offers a schematic for elementary cognitive structure.

So prodigiously generic is this structure that it can make the head spin. To top it off, we now have Chrysippus joining the fray. Now Chrysippus, the most important thinker of the Stoics, was conceded by the ancients to be the equal of Aristotle. In the figure below, we have organised four of his five fundamental syllogisms into a form that falls quite naturally into the elementary structure of the generic semiotic square. As can be seen, the premises of the first and the second hypothetical conjunctive syllogisms make one diagonal of the square and the two disjunctive forms mark out the other diagonal. It is becoming clear that we have here, a structure that resembles the Square of Oppositions of Aristotle. The Scholastics added the AEOI four lettered labelling to Aristotle’s system and spent over a millennium probing into its delights. Not to be outdone, we have added our lettering to our reconstructed version of the Chrysippus Square in the hope of preparing it for its reinvigorated role in the present millennium. Suffering from a lack of creativity, we have borrowed the RNA version of the biologist’s genetic code. Why invent when you can steal, is our motto. It took the author a little while to get the right fit, but he is reasonably confident that his allocation of the CAUG lettering is spot on. He would be very miffed if this was not the case.

Figure 1. Four of the five undemonstratables of Chrysippus from a semiotic square.

## Chrysippus and the Grand Unification

The ancient Stoics have been the historic mentors for the material presented in this Blog. They developed the most successful and diverse form of monistic philosophy that the Western world has ever seen. Zeno provided the intuitive and informal core elements of the doctrine. The logic of Chrysippus marked the first tentative steps towards the formalisation of a unifying science. The full significance of Chrysippus’ contribution has been little understood by the moderns, blinded as they are by the achievements of the current day sciences. Despite these achievements, the present day sciences are lacking in any kind of cohesive unifying discipline. The unifying science pioneered by the ancient Stoics, can provide such a unification.

Of critical importance is to learn how to reason in a different way from what is customarily taught in modern schools and universities. The moderns only have a partial grasp on rationality. Modern science and mathematics only understand the notion of the true and the false. What lacks, is the understanding of truth. However, the very mention of this word, truth, can seem off putting. After all, probably more people have been burned at the stake because of an allegedly incorrect understanding of truth than for any other reason. However, buried amongst the historic debris of lost causes lurks indeed the rusted hulk of truth.
Nevertheless, as any philosopher knows well, truth of this kind must be self-justifying. For many, such as Karl Popper, the notion of a self-justifying truth is synonymous with the blind faith of religious zealots and doctrinaire extremists, something anathema to science. Popper is content with the kind of knowledge where each proposition is forever condemned to the judgment that it might be false. Even worse, at the same time the proposition must accommodate the stark reality that this judgment might indeed be true. Then again, it might not. Modern scientists are a brave lot.

Sidenote:
Popper did eventually nuance his views on this matter in the light of the self-justifying biological organism notion. In so doing he implicitly admits that the biological organism is obsessed with self-justifying its continual existence in the world. As such, biological organisms seem to have ontologically more in common with the logic of religious zealots and political fanatics, than with the cool, dry head of the analytic philosopher.

The stark truth about truth is that it must be relative and never absolute. Only in this way can it become an absolute truth. In other words, it becomes an absolute truth relative to itself. This is the essence of monistic philosophy: It is the rationality of the self-justifying Self. Relative to this subject, there is only one truth.
We have already made inroads into the science of the subject. Unlike the analytic rhetorical type reasoning of analytic philosophy, the reasoning of this right side, monist philosophy, is expressed in terms of oppositions and oppositions between oppositions. It is in this way that the reasoning becomes a relativistic form of reasoning. Rather than rhetorical, it becomes dialectical. The nuts and bolts of the reasoning deals with the dialect of two entities, one which has and the other that is. These entities differ by gender, the first corresponding to the feminine gender, the second to the masculine. The dialectic of to have and to be, constitues the core essence of the monistic, right side form of reasoning.

This is the dialectic of the subject minimally conscious of itself. It leads to a particular kind of knowledge. It leads to the generic truth that reality, viewed from any particular perspective, is the reality viewed from the point of view of the generic subject, the any subject whatsoever kind of subject,

The elementary form that arose from our investigations was the semiotic square. This structure arose from the opposition between what the subject is and what the subject is not, that is to say, what it has. This opposition was formalised in terms of the gender construct. This leads to the four distinct parts of the square being gender typed MF, FF, FM and MM.
This very generic quadruple structure is highly lacking in determination. The edifice is so undetermined that it is not even clear whether it corresponds to the semiotic structure of knowledge of the world, or the structure of the world itself. Is this epistemology or is it physics? Is this the structure of Mind or is it the structure of Body? Is it the structure of a generic language or that of a generic world?

Finding an answer to these kinds of questions is key. It is here that we find the great enigma of this science. Unlike the analytical thinkers who want to understand the relationship between Mind and Body in terms analogous to that between horse and cart, the synthetic monist thinker must take a different tack. The horse will not be separated from the cart, but treated as an organic whole. One cannot have one without the other. We came across the very essence of the monist solution in the form of the gender construct. Rather than plucking attributes from a predefined definitional framework or harvested from empirical measurements, we constructed the one single fundamental attribute from which stem all other attributes of our science. This was the attribute possessed by the pure feminine entity. The attribute, an entity in its own right, was the masculine entity. These two entities are different. They differ by gender. However, they are absolutely indistinguishable. Two entities are distinguishable if they have different attributes. Here there might be two entities, but there is only one attribute between them: two entities; one has an attribute, the other is the attribute.

This gender construct provides the generic formula for all of the science that follows. The dialectic of the masculine and the feminine provides the generic base for all other seemingly dyadic structures such as the popular Mind-Body duality of the analytic philosophers. The relationship between the pure feminine and masculine is a generic form of the same relationship between Mind and Body.

Not everyone will agree with this assertion. Certainly, an analytic philosopher or anyone reasoning from a Cartesian viewpoint would take the abstract road, abstractly arguing that Body is like a machine and Mind is an intelligence that drives the machine. The two are linked together by some kind of “bridging laws” perhaps. There is no dialectic here, as the notion of a bodiless mind and mindless body, is considered quite respectable. They can conceivably go their separate ways: put the brain in the bottle and the brain dead body on life support, should do the trick.

Such a surgical separation is impossible for an organism constructed from the gender construct. The organism is constructed according to a four-lettered code. According to our gender calculus version of this code, each letter is made up of one of the four binary gender typings, MF, FF, FM and MM. On the face of it, the organism might be just a highly complex assemblage of hydrocarbon-based compounds. However, from an organisational point of view, it is a seething mass of intertwined, gendered entities. It is this gender typing of content and form of the organism that ensures systemic coherence. It is in this way that the One can be constructed from the inseparable and indistinguishable Two.

The Stoics saw this dynamic systemic organisation of the organism in terms of the tensions and tenos of a fifth kind of substance they called pneuma.
The pneuma is in constant motion. It is a process into itself, and from itself. The inward process produces unity and substance, the outward process dimensions and qualities. The pneuma is a disposition (hexis) in process. As a disposition, the pneuma holds the cosmos together, and accounts for the cohesions of each individual entity. The pneuma is the cause of the entity being qualified: for the bodies are bound together by these. [Chrysippus views on the pneuma (Reesor, 1989)]

The coherence, the very being of an organism, is synonymous with it maintaining Oneness. The mechanism for achieving and maintaining Oneness is through the establishment and maintenance of gender typing. The organism must know, without a shadow of doubt, what it has and has not and what it is and is not in all cases. These are the key determinants of consciousness. In addition, the determinations are purely relative. They are purely subject-ive. This, one must admit, is truly a beautiful, self-referring system.
Beautiful indeed, but how does it work? With profound beauty, one would expect an accompanying simplicity, a profound but simple principle. Seeing that everything involved in this kind of self-organising organism is relativistic, there should be some fundamental relativistic principle at play. In the traditional sciences of our day, the only relativistic principle known is in physics. There is no known equivalent in biology. In physics, we see relativity theory expressed as demanding that the laws of physics remain invariant from one reference frame to another. Perhaps more pointedly, as shown by Zeeman, the principle of relativity is intimately bound up with the non-violation of the causality principle. It is here that one can grasp the simplicity and elegance of the theory. System coherence demands the coherence of causality. The claim of generic science is that this is not enough. A much more demanding form of relativity is we call generic relativity.
If the work presented in this book is to be more than the usual exposition of inconclusive philosophical prose, then we should be able to advance an equally simple and elegant formulation concerning the essence of generic relativity, the cornerstone of the generic science we are trying to develop. Fortunately, we do not have to look very far. The principle is located at Ground Zero and there is no one who knew this spot in the Cosmos better than Chrysippus, the Stoic logician par excellence. Ground Zero is the location of the Logos, the reasoning faculty of any subject whatsoever. The form of the Logos can be understood in terms of the dialectic of having and being, a form expressed by the semiotic square. Chrysippus provided the logical framework of the Logos semiotic square in the form of four of his five undemonstrat-ables. We have resurrected this structure as an alternative to Aristotle’s Square of Oppositions, discussed previously. We have named this the Chrysippus’ Square of Oppositions. The fit between this structure and the four undemonstratables is comfortable and reasonably self-evident. The structure effectively provides an additional logical impetus to the thrust of our argument. The four undemonstratables provide a logical dimension to the interpretation of the four-element theory and the corresponding four letters.

# Representation of Generic Structure

I categorise the traditional sciences, including mathematics, as left side science. The science without any a priori conditions, I call right side science. Lefts side science deal with knowledge of objects. Right side science deal with the science where the subject is always present and is an integral part of the action. To resolve the Kantian problem, we need a right side science. This is my project. Instead of mathematics, we need anti-mathematics.
The technical core of the paper will not be presented in the blog.

Formalising Choice
The process of formalising knowledge in the left side science is a relatively straightforward affair. The basic technology is already in place: It is called mathematics. Mathematics provides the tool for formalising the traditional left side science knowledge. When it comes to formalising right side science, one immediately comes up against a brick wall. None of the mathematics works. The obstacle is the draconian constraint of FC. FC must not be violated. The problem is that traditional axiomatic mathematics violates FC right down to its very core.

However, all is not lost. Because axiomatic mathematics is a formal system, it can be exploited to formalise the obstacle to formalising an FC compliant system. Mathematic formalises the way the problem must not be tackled. Axiomatic mathematics formalises the wrong way to go, that is to say, the wrong way to tackle the Kantian problem. Having a formal statement of the obstacle to progress, all we have to do is to find the way around the obstacle. If we cannot do it with mathematics as it stands, we will need something else.

Looking down at the very foundation of mathematics, we come to Set Theory, the elementary mathematic of collections. Without a formal notion of collections of things, there can be no formal mathematics. There are many axiomatic systems that claim to formalise Set Theory. Each system has a different set of axioms, but all systems contain one pivotal axiom, the Axiom of Choice. Faced with a Set of elements, which may even be infinitely denumerable, how can you distinguish one element from the other? How do you choose? The Axiom of Choice imposes sufficient structure on the system to solve the problem. Equivalent to the Axiom of Choice is Zorn’s Lemma, which is easier to understand. The lemma effectively states that the elements of any set can be uniquely labelled with real numbers. Thus, using real numbers as labels, there always exists a unique labelling of elements such that one element can be distinguished from the other.

The very reliance on an axiom, any axiom, violates FC, as no such a priori constructs are permissible in a First Class system. What is of interest with the Axiom of Choice is that it situates the way that mathematics resolves the distinguishing problem. Firstly, it has to resort to a construct at the axiom level. Secondly is equivalent to using an ad hoc labelling technology, a characteristic of all left side sciences. The Axiom of Choice, and its fundamental lemma, thus articulates quite clearly, the way not to proceed: Don’t use labels.

### Structure

Structure is in the mind of the beholder. For the left side sciences the beholder is the impersonal subject providing the much sought after ‘mind independent’ point of view. This primary opposition between the impersonal subject and its object is ignored by left side science and replaced with an opposition of its own making, that of the rigid dichotomy between abstract theory and its object. In left side mathematics, the primary dichotomy becomes that between a set of axioms and a world of deductively explorable mathematical objects so predetermined, either explicitly or implicitly.

For right side science, the mind of the beholder is of primordial importance and is always present. Not only is the impersonal subject present, but also the personal. There are many ways of interpreting these two kinds of subject. As mentioned previously, the subject as placeholder and the subject as value is one possibility. A more mathematical flavour might be to call them the “covariant” and “contravariant” subjects, but one must be on guard not to slip into abstraction ways of thought. Both these two kinds of subject are simultaneously present in any whole considered by right side science, The science of wholes is the speciality of the right side of the epistemological brain. What matters is the generic subject formed by a highly primitive, primordial Clifford-Grassmann style “geometric product” of these two subjects (together with their respective worlds). The end result is a the generic subject in the form of a “quaternion” kind of Three-Plus-One structure, a semiotic square which can be more formally understood in terms of the ontological gender typing construct. In the right side science paradigm, this artifice occupies centre stage at all times. One could even say that it is centre stage.

One way of understanding the generic subject is to realise that it suffers from an incurable disease. The disease is called monism. Patients suffering from monism exhibit the pathological symptoms of being totally incapable of distinguishing the difference between the real world and their conception of it. Both appear to be the one and the same thing. Curiously, most human subjects, at least when not on hallucinogenic drugs or suffering from a deep schizophrenic episode, also seem to exhibit these symptoms .

Right side science not only must articulate the basic architecture of the generic subject but also of the generic objects. There are four types of generic object, four bases distinguished one from the other by binary gender typing. The typing of bases is determined relative to each other and ultimately compatible with the polarity conventions established by the subject, the ultimate arbitrator of type. These four bases can be represented by four binary gendered typed arrows. The problem now is to establish how these arrows can be combined to form elementary structures, without violating FC.

From a left side science perspective, if a right side science were at all possible it would present as some kind of meta science, metaphysics or meta mathematics equipped with its own metalanguage. Such a science is not possible under the ambit of left side paradigm dominated, as it must be, by its atomistic and dualistic worldview. However, even though fundamentally incompatible with FC, some accommodations can be made to achieve a kind of Partial First Classness (PFC). The resulting science will not be a true metaphysics but at least pass as a poor man’s cousin.

#### The Sad Story of Mereology

One such accommodation is the rather obscure quasi-mathematical discipline called mereology, a left side attempt at a science of wholes and parts. Mereology is an exercise in mathematical logic. It achieves PFC by removing the rigid set theoretic dichotomy between sets and the elements that they contain. This is achieved by ignoring any explicit reference to the elements of a set and only considering containment relations between sets. Sets do not contain elements, they contain other sets. Contained sets are parts of the containing set. Different axiomatic schemes are set up to formalise this kind of structure where wholes contain parts and PFC is achieved by both parts and wholes being sets.

Mereology is of interest because it is essentially an attempt to formalise has-a relations between entities. Such structure finds echoes in the class inheritance structure of Object Oriented programming systems, for example. There are also echoes with our initial development of right side science where the has-a relation is paramount. However, right side science grants comparable prominence to is-a relations. In fact, the basic building block involved the gender construct where the feminine ontological gender corresponds to the has-a relation and the corresponding masculine gender to the is-a relation. The core of right side science, with its ontological vocation, consists of the dialectic of the has-a and is-a relationship. In mereology the has-a relation is axiomatised in terms of some kind of partially ordered structure such as set inclusion. As for any ontological is-a structure, that is hard wired into the axioms. Being a left side science mereology does not entertain any kind of is-a has-a dialectic.

A. N. Whitehead, in his philosophical quest for a holistic rationalist science, extended mereology concepts to geometry and achieved a geometric PFC (Whitehead, 1919). In this case, the rigid dichotomy between geometric objects with extension and geometric objects with no extension (points) was avoided to produce a pointless geometry. A pointless geometry is a right side kind of geometry. However, the geometry was caste in a left side, abstract, dualistic, atomist framework. In the final count, the system inevitably violates FC on practically every other front. Nevertheless, mereology is worth mentioning here as it expresses many of the aspirations of right side science even though it fundamentally lacks the necessary equipment to deliver the goods. In this respect, the mereology-based paper “Steps Toward a Constructive Nominalism” (Goodman, et al., 1947) is notable. In espousing constructionism and nominalism, the paper articulates important hallmarks of right side science. In addition, the authors start the paper with the doctrinal declaration: “We do not believe in abstract entities. No one supposes that abstract entities—classes, relations, properties, etc.— exist in space-time; but we mean more than this. We renounce them altogether.” This rejection of abstraction is yet another fundamental tenant of right side science. However, declared within the confines of left side abstract axiomatic technology this anti-abstract belief becomes a bit of an oxymoron. It is like the Christmas turkey that struts into the kitchen valiantly declaring that it does not believe that turkeys are food.

From our perspective, mereology is interesting more for its aspirations than its achievements. What we want is a left side discipline that can properly formalise the very essence of mathematics and that comes from within mathematics itself. What we need is an abstract theory of abstract mathematics, and that naturally leads to Category Theory, the meta-mathematics of mathematics. It is with Category Theory that we can find a formal specification of the kind of structure that is anathema to our right side science. We will use Category Theory as a formal negative indication of what we are up against in trying to resolve the Kantian problem.

#### Category Theory Structure Violates FC

Category Theory provides abstract representations of mathematical structure in terms of a collection of objects and a collection arrows or morphisms between the objects. The specificity of mathematical structure is represented by the arrows and in no way by any explicit internal structure of the objects. The approach is thus structuralist in nature. Representation of the most elementary mathematical structure starts with placing two arrows end to end. This represents the composition of two arrows. Composition of arrows must satisfy two axioms, identity and associativity relying on the structures illustrated in Figure B 3 . Both of these structures violate FC.

Figure B 3 Even the most elementary structure necessary for a mathematical category violates FC..

Figure B 3(b) represents the composition of two arrows f and g to determine a third arrow h thus satisfying associativity. This violate FC because the arrow g is in an absolute ordering relationship with the arrow f. In a system satisfying FC, no entity can be absolutely before or after any other. Thus, even the two arrows shown in Figure B 3(c) is an FC violation. Thus not only is associativity prohibited but any kind of composition. We could call this disallowing of any absolute ordering relationships, the Parmenidean condition. For FC, the only thing that is must be immediate, not anterior, nor posterior.

A mathematical category requires the notion of composition identity defined for each object. This requires arrows that close back on themselves to form a loop as shown in Figure B 3(a). This structure also violates FC as it infers than the same entity can be different to itself. We will call it the Heraclitus principle expressed by the saying that “You can’t put your foot into the same river twice”. It is a special case of the Parmenidean condition. This prohibition is a subtle one but suffice to say that it can be represented by a prohibition on circular arrows.

Without getting into messy details, it suffices to say that the formal axiomatic mathematical Category abstractly states the minimal structural characteristics that a system must possess in order to qualify as mathematics. What interests us is not mathematics, but its opposite, anti-mathematics. We informally define anti-mathematics, as being everything that mathematics is not. At the abstract pinnacle of mathematics, we find Category Theory. The anti-mathematical counterpart will be the Anti-Category. The only thing in common between the Category and the Anti-Category will be that they both exploit an arrow theoretic methodology.in one way or another.

#### The Anti-Category and the Kantian Conditions

The conditions on the Anti-Category can be summed up as:

• Unlike the Category, the Anti-Category cannot be abstract. This can be achieved by prohibiting dualistic structures, the essence of abstraction.
• Thus, unlike the Category, the Anti-Category cannot tolerate a duality between a collection of objects and a collection of arrows. For the Anti-Category not to violate FC, the mantra is that all entities are arrows. In this way, any entity will possess extent. From an ontological point of view, we reiterate the Stoic mantra that only bodies exists. Point like entities do not exist.
• Unlike the Category, there can be no identity, no associativity and not even composition of arrows.
• There can be no axioms as any such predetermining structure violates FC.

We will call these conditions, the Kantian conditions for determining a formal structure that is totally devoid of any predetermining considerations. Realise an apparatus that satisfies the Kantian conditions and one has resolved the Kantian problem. In other words, one would have provided a formal basis for right sides science, the monistic counterpart of the dualistic left side sciences. Bot easy, but it can be done.
The axiomatic formalisation of mathematical categories is quite precise. Taking these conditions in the negative provides draconian requirements on the right side counterpart to the Category, the Anti-Category. Briefly, arrows determining anti-categories cannot form loops or be concatenated end to end. This leaves plenty of slack for finding a solution to the riddle. At least the Kantian problem is starting to look tractable.

### Arrow Theoretic Methodology

Category Theory is based on an arrow theoretic methodology. It expresses its fundamentals in terms of arrow diagrams. Our task is to develop the right side counterpart of the Category in terms of the Anti-Category. If we can achieve this objective then we will have made a breakthrough is resolving the Kantian problem, the fundamental thrust of this paper. Thus, we claim that, in addition to the known left side arrow theoretic methodology of Category Theory, there must be a complementary right side arrow theoretic methodology. Our task is to bring this right side version of arrow theoretic methodology into the light of day. In the process, we will see that the traditional left side version specialises uniquely in the syntaxical aspects of structure and is virtually devoid of fundamental semantic considerations. On the right side of the equation, we will demonstrate that right side arrow theoretic structures are virtually syntax free, concentrating uniquely on semantics. One could say that traditional left side abstract approach to semantics leads to a syntax only account: Abstract semantics distils down to syntaxical expression. On the other hand, rhea right side paradigm approach to semantics leads to generic, non-abstract semantics. This kind of semantics is ultimately expressed in the gender calculus in the form of a syntax free generic code, a code capable of coding any semantics whatsoever that is compatible with FC.

# Science without attibutes

It is a remarkable fact that the one single language, the genetic code, codes all biological organisms. The code is truly universal across all organisms and seems impervious to evolution, remaining unchanged from the verybeginnings. However, the central dogma of biochemistry downplays the importance of this observation claiming that, linguistically, the language is of little interest. It is a mere transcription code translating genes into proteins. In this paper we argue that, like any true language, there is a double articulation, As well as coding the means for an organism’s life, the language also articulates its ends, by proscribing its generic ontological structure. In other words, this generic code articulates a generic semantics.
The paper starts from an unlikely source by tackling the Kantian problem. The problem posed by Kant was that of developing knowledge that was totally free of any a priori experience or definitional scaffolding. Kant called such science metaphysics. In the paper, it is named Generic Science. The paper resolves the Kantian problem by developing a science that is free from any determined attributes, the science sans attributs. From pure reason alone, the elementary generic structures of the science are developed. The resulting generic language is claimed to be the reverse engineered version of the genetic code and is claimed to articulate the generic semantics of its “second articulation.”
Central to the development of this new science is a very old philosophy, that of the Stoics. In this respect, the Generic Science presented in this paper is a modernised and reconstituted version of the Stoic paradigm. A core concept involved is gender. For the ancients, their science involved a gendered world. Even the Four Elements were gendered. Can the gender notion be formalised.? Is there a gender calculus? Is there a relationship with the four lettered genetic code unearthed by the moderns?

In addition to the genetic code implications of the science, the paper also includes some examples of applying the same generic language to provide new insights into quantum mechanics and elementary particle physics based on a new kind of relativity principle, generic relativity.

Needless to say, the material in this paper goes in the countersense, or is orthogonal to practically all accepted tenants of the present day sciences and philosophy.

Introduction

There are two kinds of knowledge. On the one side, which we will call the left side for discursive convenience, we find all of the traditional sciences including mathematics. These sciences all have a common epistemological structure, which can be summed up by saying that they specialise in conditional knowledge, knowledge that is conditional on such things as empirical data, hypotheses, axioms, and in many cases even opinions. In this paper, we reopen the age-old case for the other kind of knowledge, which does not depend on any antecedent factors at all. A science capable of providing such knowledge we will call right side science. It was Kant that asked the question concerning “the possibility of the use of pure reason in the foundation and construction of all sciences.” Turning this possibility into reality requires the development of right side knowledge. The object of this paper is to argue that the construction of right side scientific knowledge is possible, to show how it is done, and to explore some of the practical repercussions.

## Characterisation of left side scientific knowledge

A common characteristic of the left side sciences is that they are all attribute based. All knowledge, without exception, is expressed in terms of the attributes of entities: attributes can be anything from measured properties, defined properties, just to human attributed labels. Many philosophers claim that this is the only kind of scientific knowledge possible. They effectively declare that there is no other way to know the “real thing” behind the attributes other than via and in terms of the attributes themselves. Thus, knowledge has to be preceded by attribute acquisition in some way, either by attribute harvesting, as is the case for empirical sciences or by proclamation, as is the case in axiomatic mathematics. This is what characterises left side science as conditional knowledge, conditional on having the prerequisite attributes on hand before any reasoning can begin.

The “attributes only” paradigm of left side sciences imposes important limitations including the impossibility of a fundamental explanation of differentiation and distinguishability of objects as the possession of both mechanisms are assumed to be a fait accompli before any serious investigation ever even starts.

## Right side science is founded on First Classness

Non-conditional knowledge by definition cannot rely on being kick started with a bunch of attributes. However, like any science, right side science needs something from which to start. Since this kind of science is to bootstrap itself up from pure reason alone, it will need to predicate, right from the beginning, all the logical development on the very central principle of pure reason. In other words, knowledge must be conditioned by the principle of pure reason. Since the task is to develop knowledge that is totally non-conditioned, this may seem an impossible contradiction. Rather than a contradiction, what is involved here is a specification of the principle itself. The principle, applied to its object, declares that the object is and must be totally unconstrained by anything other than itself. There is no one in the shadows pulling strings.

Such a principle is extraordinarily difficult to describe let alone formalise. However, examples of such an amorphous but powerful concept appear in many present day scientific disciplines. Computer Science provides some good illustrations of that concept we are searching. There, it is called First Classness (FC). One illustrative example of FC is the Object Oriented (OO) paradigm in Computer Science where the mantra is “everything is an object.” An object is defined as being an “instance of a class.” In this case, there is an apparent violation of FC as a class is not an object. The OO paradigm answers that a class is in fact an instance of a meta class and so is an object. The same argument applies to the meta class that is an instance of a meta-meta class. Infinite regress is avoided though as it turns out that the meta-meta class is an instance of itself and so are both a class and an object in the same instance. The OO paradigm resolves the dichotomy between specification (class) and implementation (object) and provides a useful, concrete way of beginning to understand FC. Note the objects at the base level, the class level, meta class level, and meta-meta class level construct described here. The overall structure is a Three-plus-One structure, where the meta-meta level is the One. We claim that any serious attempt at a system based on FC, be it a left side or right side science, will employ Three-plus-One structures.

Another Computer Science example of FC is the programming language LISP invented by the mathematician McCarthy as an outcome of his theory of mathematical recursion based on anonymous Lambda functions. In this case, the mantra was that any entity is a list. Procedures, arguments, return values, values, and value placeholders were all instances of lists. In this way, McCarthy’s paradigm eliminated the rigid dichotomy between program and data. The Three-plus-One structure in this case is built around atoms, lists of atoms, lists of lists, where the One corresponds to the Lambda functions implemented as lists. “Everything is a list” was the mantra.
Perhaps the most abstract examples of FC comes from mathematical Category Theory which merits a claim to FC by eliminating the rigid dichotomy in Set Theory between the sets of elements and the elements they contain. Instead of sets of elements, Category Theory concentrates on mathematical structure represented in the form of arrows called morphisms. A collection of such structured arrows is called a category. Many different branches of mathematics can be lumped together by thinking of them as instances of common mathematical categories. In their turn, these mathematical categories reveal higher order structure that can be represented by arrows between categories themselves. This leads to meta categories based on meta morphisms called functors. The abstraction does not end there. Mathematics admits of yet another meta level, what we can think of as meta meta categories with meta functors. These meta functors were first defined by Eilenberg and Mac Lane. They coined the term natural transformations for these meta meta arrows. They later wrote that their express aim in developing Category Theory was to study natural transformations. There is no higher meta level above natural transformations. Mathematicians use natural transformations to discover new mathematical objects. Despite its power in the providing new understanding of mathematics, Category Theory is built on an axiomatic framework itself and so is only a left side science. However, we will use some of its arrow theoretic thinking to construct right side science and in so doing we will discover some of the generic entities underlying any system whatever as long as it is based on FC and only FC, no axioms allowed. The Three-plus-One structure in the Category Theory case is realised in the form of the category objects, the morphisms, functors, and finally the natural transformations.
The earliest scientific approach to FC can be traced back to Aristotle who developed his mantra that everything can be rationally understood as instances of classifications. Particulars were considered as instances of species, which in their turn ended up being instances of genera. Aristotle argued that any traditional scientific discipline was limited to the study of entities that were under the umbrella of a determined genus. In so doing, he provided a useful definition of what we are referring to as left side sciences. What interested Aristotle in Metaphysics was how he could classify something that had no determined genus. He needed some sort of meta genus. He referred to it as Being qua (as) Being but left few precise details of what he meant. The study of beings without determined genera, the study of Being qua Being, he called metaphysics, a science with a decidedly ontological vocation. Aristotle’s metaphysics can be thought of as the first explicit and coherent reference to right side science and its distinction from the traditional left side sciences. Developing the foundations of such a science is the task of this paper. However, our inspiration will not come from Aristotle but from those that followed him; the little understood Stoics.

Another example of FC can be found in a modern particle physics where the mantra is “everything is a particle.” The particle paradigm attempts to resolve the dichotomy between particle and field. The effect at a distance explained by force fields is replaced by a new breed of particle, the gauge boson, which acts as a carrier of force. However, particle physics is a left side science and so can only approximate FC. The reason is that FC is irretrievably violated at the very foundational level where the dichotomy between entity and attribute is not resolved but ignored by only considering the attribute side of the equation. In particle physics this violation of FC reappears in the form of the irresolvable formless, point like elementary particles floating around in a void; the particle/void dichotomy. What can be measured is particle, what is without measure is void. We will not attempt to discern any Three-plus-One structure in Particle Physics, as there is probably little point in the exercise at this stage.

These examples show that FC is a very powerful and widely applicable principle. Central to the principle is that it abhors rigid dichotomies. However, even more fundamentally and quite surprisingly, as we shall see, the principle abhors symmetries preferring instead asymmetries in the form of Heraclitus style oppositions. In fact, practically everything taken for granted in the traditional left side sciences is torn inside out for right side science,

If particle physics is founded on the doctrine that the only things that exist are pinpoint particles in the void, right side science upholds the antithetical position that the only things that can exist are bodies. Voids have no role in the science. This is the world of bodies. Only material bodies exist. It is by rejecting the particle principle and the inevitable void of left side science and replacing it with bodies, the particle-void dichotomy is avoided, and FC not violated. This mantra dates back to the ancient Stoics as David E. Hahm writes, “According to the Stoics the only things that really exist are material bodies.” (Hahm, 1977) He also remarks that “For half a millennium Stoicism was very likely the most widely accepted world view in the Western world.” Thus, the concept has some pedigree behind it. This doctrine goes part of the way for ensuring the purity of a deeper doctrine. If left side sciences are fundamentally dualist, right side science must be fundamentally monist.

### The Difference Dogma of Traditional Sciences

The central dogma of the traditional left side sciences concerns difference. According to the dogma, two entities are determined to be different from each other according to a difference in their attributes. For the physical sciences the attributes may be perceptible or measurable qualities such as, for example, mass, colour, position or velocity. In the case of mathematics, the properties are assigned via the definitional framework, or derived in some way. Of central importance to the dogma is that an entity is an entity and that an attribute is simply not an entity, it is an attribute. The dichotomy between the world of entities and the world of attributes is central in establishing the fundamental dualist nature of this kind of science. We will call this central dogma of left side sciences, the Difference Dogma.

Associated with the notion of difference, is that of distinguishability. In this paper, we will define that two entities are distinguishable if they have different attributes. From this definition it follows that if the Difference Dogma holds, and so difference is determined by attribute comparison, then the same applies for distinguishability. Thus for a science satisfying the Difference Dogma, difference and distinguishability are synonymous. This is understandable as the distinguishability notion begs the question: “Distinguishable by whom”? The whom referred to here is the subject. Left side sciences, because of their objective epistemology, are devoid of any determined subject. The perspective is that of the “view from nowhere,” the viewpoint of non-determined subject, the viewpoint of what can be called, the impersonal subject. From this “God’s eye” point of view, it is no surprise that difference and distinguishability are synonymous.

### Difference Without Attributes

The Difference Dogma appears so obvious and familiar, that few people of modern times seem to question it. However, there is an alternative viewpoint, the monist viewpoint. Monism totally negates the Difference Dogma. For a want of a better name, we will call it the Anti-Difference Dogma. This dogma effectively declares that there is no determined difference between entities whatsoever. Clearly, this is what is required in order to establish a truly monist worldview.

At first sight, the Anti-Difference Dogma, and the implied monism philosophy, appears counter intuitive and diametrically opposed to common sense let alone any kind of scientific enterprise. Even Hegel’s tortuous attempt at such a science has done more to reinforce this assessment than achieve the original intention. How can one construct a science based on the premise that there is no ultimate difference between entities?

Unlike the left side sciences, the object of right side science is devoid of any determined attributes. Such an object of enquiry is quite familiar territory in philosophy. Kant called it the thing in itself. The Stoics referred to it as unqualified substance. We will refer to it as an entity characterised as being devoid of any determined attribute whatsoever. We then make the observation that being devoid of any determined attribute does not imply that the entity is attribute free. The contrary even, it implies that the entity has a very specific attribute, that of the attribute of being free of determination.

Apparently, this primordial starting point entity is not alone. The entity is in the company of its attribute, the attribute of being free of any determination, qualification, and specificity whatsoever. It is at this conjuncture that the principle of FC most be invoked, FC abhors the rigid dichotomy. In order not to violate FC, there must be no dichotomy between objects and their attributes. The attribute of this primordial starting point entity must be an entity in its own right.

Thus, this generic starting point for the new science is not a lonely “thing in itself,” as Kant imagined it, but necessarily two different entities. These entities are of a different kind. We will formalise this difference in kind by recycling some ancient terminology, the terminology of ontological gender. The starting point entity, which has the specificity of being absolutely devoid of specificity, we will say, is an entity of feminine gender. This entity has an attribute, that of non-specificity. In order not to violate FC, the attribute must be an entity in its own right. The attribute will be said to be an entity of masculine gender. Thus, the feminine entity has an attribute; the masculine entity is this attribute. Here resides the object of the right side science. From here on, the science at its most fundamental becomes the scientific dialectic of to be and to have, the dialectic of gender. The central task of right side science will be to develop a new calculus, the gender calculus. It is via this calculus that one will be able to describe and proscribe any entity whatsoever, any world whatsoever, as long as FC is respected. In the process of developing the gender calculus, we will make a remarkable discovery. We will realise that we are in fact reverse engineering a calculus that already is apparent in Nature, the four-letter genetic code. We are discovering the underlying generic structure of Nature.

Note that these two entities are formally different as they differ by gender. However, they are indistinguishable to a third party. Distinguishability requires a difference in attributes; however, in this case the two entities have only one attribute between them: One entity has it the other is it. Unlike the left side sciences, right side science does not rely on distinguishability to determine difference. Right side science is a monism where maintaining in distinguishability is paramount. Rather than attribute comparison to determine difference, right side science is totally based on the relative typing scheme provided by ontological gender.

## Differentiation

Right side science is the science of the oneness of monism. The first question concerns the compatibility of the unified oneness demanded by the doctrine with a differentiated reality seemingly dominated by multiplicity. The science must provide an account of such differentiation. There are two approaches one objective and one subjective. In this section, we recount the objective approach.

Unlike left side sciences, right side science accounts a reality where the subject is always present. The subject can be present in two ways, either implicitly or explicitly. In the implicit scenario, the subject becomes the Spectator. In the explicit scenario, the subject becomes Spectacle. Traditional left side science and left side philosophy, such as analytic philosophy, only consider the first scenario and ignore the second, as indeed they must in order to remain true to the objectivity paradigm. After all, the whole thrust of traditional science is to be objective and this demands elimination of the subject from consideration. This objectivist prise de position of the left side sciences has obvious advantages as witnessed by the spectacular success of the objective sciences over the past few centuries. However, it comes at a cost.

The downside can be illustrated by what appears to be a similar prise de position underpinning the organisation of the biological brain. In the biological case, subjects acting with only a functional left hemisphere exhibit hemi-neglect. where they only identify with the right half of their body and even may only be conscious of the right half of a clock. The subject may only eat the food on the right side of their plate and still complain to be hungry. They may only shave the right side of their face and wash only the right half of their body and so on. (Berlucchi G, 1997) (McGilchrist, 2009). Acting with only the left-brain, they are only conscious of half a world. In the converse case, a subject operating with only a functional right brain does not exhibit hemi-neglect but is conscious of a whole world. One could say that the left-brain only has a body, in fact only half a body at best. In contrast, if the right brain operates under the sway of the monistic paradigm then it must conceive itself as part and parcel of body. In this scenario, the right brain would not be conscious to having a body, but conscious that it is body, all body, all of body.

The traditional left side sciences suffer from a similar form of hemi-neglect. This fact does not have to be proven because, as remarked above, hemi-neglect forms the core of the objectivist stance of the traditional sciences. To be objective, one must eliminate any subjectivity pollution that may be introduced by the subject. The traditional left side sciences and mathematics adopt their own form of hemi-neglect, based on the neglect or refusal to allow the subject into their epistemology.

The hemi-neglect syndrome is most easily observed in axiomatic mathematics where mathematicians even boast about it. Axiomatic mathematics is abstract left side mathematics par excellence. Such mathematics necessarily produces a symmetric view of the world where every mathematical theorem, every mathematical object, every mathematical space possesses a symmetric dual, without exception. Any theorems proven valid in one side of this reality will automatically be valid in the dual reality. Pure mathematicians see this as a godsend, often boasting to their students that they get “Two for the price of one!” This must be one of the most popular clichés of abstract mathematics. It gives mathematicians a perfect excuse to practice hemi-neglect and always only work on one-sided realities. Most still eat food on both sides of their plate though.

In contrast, right side mathematics, due to the ever-present subject, will be seen to produce a fundamentally asymmetric world. The structure of right side mathematics, although complementary to the left side version, is so antithetical that in Part 2 of this paper, we will call it anti-mathematics.

Hopefully, the biological split-brain allegory helps to illustrate an essential difference between traditional left side sciences and the embryonic right side science introduced here. The right side science is based on the monism paradigm. This makes it immune from hemi-neglect and demands that it not only considers reality as a whole but must continuously embrace reality as a whole. From the standpoint of monism, both sides of the equation are always present. The subject cannot be separated from its object kingdom. They form an inseparable whole. This said the monistic paradigm must come to terms with the same world of objects that the left side sciences so adeptly study. However, it must avoid the half world mentality of left side science. Thus, there are two worlds of objects, that viewed by left side science and that viewed from the monistic perspective of right side science. Left side sciences completely discard the implicit subject and has no need for it. Right side science must retain the implicit subject at all times and exploits it to the full as the reference point for development of its unique kind of knowledge of reality. In the process, it comes up with its own science of matter, for example. Our aim here is to show that such a science will be a more modern version of the four-element theory of the ancients, dating back to Empedocles. The end results are deceptively simple. The reasoning leading to the results is tricky to explain but should be easy to understand. In this section, we only attempt the right side science version of the left side science of objects.

Left side sciences address a reality populated with composite entities ultimately made up of atomic or sub-atomic particles. All particles and their composites possess attributes that are measurable by a disinterested third party. To prove that the third party is disinterested, all results must be demonstrably reproducible. In contrast, the right side science version cannot employ attributes harvested from experiments. The attributes must be constructible from first principles. As for the disinterested third party, it becomes the subject and plays an integral role in the development of knowledge. We proceed as follows.

In this scenario, the subject is the same impersonal subject as for the traditional left side sciences. However, there is a difference. Rather than being dismissed as irrelevant, the subject is always present and in this scenario provides the reference point for the argument. Attributes are involved in the exercise but in every case, the attribute is determined relative to the subject. One could even say that the attributes are determined by the subject. There are no idle players in this game. Unlike left side science, there is no a priori notion of stand-alone attributes, which are indifferent to all subjects. The only attributes permissible in right side science are those calculable from the unique position of the subject. For the case in hand, the subject is any subject whatsoever, the undetermined subject, or what we call the generic subject in its totally undetermined guise. Any attributes calculable from the generic subject will be generic attributes. By an ironic twist in the argument, any subject whatsoever will experience the same generic attributes and so there will appear to be, in fact, “stand alone arguments” which are indifferent to any subject. However, they are not a priori to the subject. They are part and parcel of what determines subject as subject.

As anyone who has ever delved deeply into this area knows full well, this domain is a minefield. The dialectic of the Spectacle and the Spectator sometimes appears as a morass of hopeless self-referring contradictions. There are many ways of tackling the problem. One way, the one opted for here, is to see it as a problem of choice. The subject, in order to be such, must be capable of choice. It must be capable of choosing between this and that. The immediate problem is to determine what these choice alternatives are. In the left side science, this and that just appear willy-nilly. In contrast, right side science must ignore the accidental and employ an entirely different technology for creating and processing attributes. An integral part of this technology is the process of choice. In this highly relativistic game, the very act of choosing is intimately implicated with the ontological status of the object chosen.

We start where the generic Subject is called upon to engage in a thought experiment involving objective choice. We note in passing that this “thought experiment” may indeed be a “real life experiment.” At this stage of the development, there is no determined difference between the two. Confronted with Kant’s thing in itself, the Subject has already reasoned that it is confronted with two entities, not one, the entity which has an attribute and the entity which is that attribute. The Subject must now attempt to differentiate the one from the other.

Note that differentiation is not the same as distinguishing. Distinguishing is difference determination that is posterior to an already accomplished differentiation. Distinguishing can only take place when differentiation is already a fait accompli. Differentiation is an active process involving the Subject itself. It is the fait à acomplir.. Differentiation involves an act and the specificity of that act. The act is that of choosing, in this case choosing absolutely objectively. This brings us to the First Choice, the most objective choice of them all.

The First Choice, the most fundamental of all choices, involves two alternatives, one passive, and the other active. The passive alternative is to choose not to choose. This is the “Let the mountain come to Mohamed” type choice. The active alternative is to choose to choose. The active case is the easiest to understand, but like any choice, opting for one alternative at the expense of another always restricts the range of possibilities further down the track. In the case of the active choice, the Subject has opted to know the entity by its attribute. Knowing via attribute is the methodology of the traditional left side sciences. The choice involves opting for a masculinising view of the world. Such a world is perceived as being uniquely populated by attributes. What this means is that, viewed through this methodological eye, the two primordial entities, one feminine and the other masculine, will now both appear as attributes. In other words, they will both appear as masculine. This is a consequence of enacting the active choice alternative.

Choosing to choose is the masculine choice, the active choice. Choosing not to choose is the feminine choice, the passive choice. In the feminine case, the two simply gendered primordial entities do not appear as attributes. Given that attributes are essential for any appearance, they do not appear as anything. In other words, no explicit knowledge can be garnished from these two entities viewed through the prism of the passive choice. This means that in this context the two entities must be considered as feminine. However, these two entities can be known, not explicitly, but implicitly. They can be known not be what there are, but by what they are not.

This is the land of the poets and there are many ways of explaining the self-referring reasoning involved here. In a nutshell, relative to the impersonal Subject, there are not two, but four types of elementary substance making up the generic substance, the original unqualified stuff, or thing in itself. In other words, relative to the ever-present impersonal subject there are four kinds of stuff.

• MM the masculine as masculine or masculine active
• MF the masculine as feminine or masculine passive
• FM the feminine as masculine or feminine active
• FF the feminine as feminine or feminine passive.

In Western culture, this construct dates back to Empedocles of the fifth century BCE. As Aristotle records:

Empedocles, then, in contrast with his predecessors, was the first to introduce the dividing of this cause, not positing one source of movement, but different and contrary sources. Again, he was the first to speak of four material elements; yet he does not use four, but treats them as two only; he treats fire by itself, and its opposite—earth, air, and water—as one kind of thing. We may learn this by study of his verses. (Aristotle)

Empedocles called the four classical elements roots, associating fire and air with male deities whilst water and earth were associated with female deities. We also note that Empedocles saw the four elements as a Three-plus-One kind of structure that we have associated with FC. In this case, Empedocles associates the One with Fire or Zeus, to which we have associated the binary gender MM.

Right side science dispenses with determined attributes and replaces them with self -determining attributes where system entities are determined relative to each other. At all times the subject is present, either explicitly or implicitly. In the present scenario leading to the four classical elements, the subject is implicitly present. Implicitly we are discussing the very substances that constitute this organism that we have being referring to as the Subject. This subject, any subject, is constituted along these lines according to the doctrine of the four elements. The coherence of this relativistic gender typing scheme is known to the subject in question. In fact, the very coherence of the organism depends on the relative coherence of its gender typing system.
The subject in question is none other than the impersonal subject. But the same argument can be applied to any subject whatsoever. Any such subject will be constituted from matter based on the organisational structure of ontological gender. The gendered structure is determined relative to that subject and is in coherence with that subject, and that subject only. To each subject, there is only one centre of the Cosmos, and that is itself. Right side science involves the ultimate in introspectively.

Differentiation is based on the right side version of objective reality. In that scenario, the subject is implicitly present where the explicit becomes a material presence. The gender argument leads to the classical four element constituents of material presence. Any substance present will itself be constituted from the four elements. Such an organisation just does not happen by chance but comes into being from a creative act, the creative choice process that endeavours to stay within the bounds of FC at all phases of the development.

## Unification

The previous section considered the right side science version of the objective reality that underpins the traditional left side sciences. In the first instance, this leads back to the ancient doctrine of the four elements. In a nutshell, this can be summarised by enumerating all of the primordial choice alternatives confronting the generic subject. With impeccable precision, the science predicts that the outcome of any choice will be one of four possibilities. According to right side science, anything can be constructed from these four generic types of entity. This provides the basis for the right side version of composite structure, a certain kind of “monistic atomism.”

Right side science is a two faced coin. We now turn to the other side of the coin, where the subject moves out of the shadows onto full stage. The entity of study becomes the explicit subject. Unlike the case of objective reality considered in the previous section, there is no left side equivalent for this side of right side science. At best, it is covered by the hemi-neglect aspect of traditional science. Our focus now becomes that of subjective reality, considered by many, such as Karl Popper, as being the domain of the “unscientific.”

We have already seen that even with the right side epistemological version of left side science, the resulting knowledge is expressed in terms of oppositions. The primary opposition, of course, is that between entity and type. In order not to violate FC, the type of an entity must be considered as an entity in its own right. Thus, there are fundamentally two kinds of entities, according to the right side paradigm. This difference in kind can be formalised as a difference in gender, the ultimate and most generic expression of the ontological opposition.

In summary, left side science relies heavily on using labels that do not mean anything. Left side Science is also based on dualism and atomism. Right side science replaces labelling technology and dualism with ontological oppositions. If there are any labels or letters involved, they must be constructed and will necessarily mean something.

As Kant observed, these kinds of oppositions are, in effect, antinomies. Thus right side science describes and cognizes its reality in terms of two faced coins. The coin itself is a whole, but always has two sides to it. In this way, right side science must express itself dialectically. Plato expounded the practice of dialectical argument in the form of the dialog between two antagonists. Here we see that monism based thinking is monist on the outside but dualist and antinomic on the inside. Such is the nature of dialectic reasoning. This contrasts with the left side sciences to which the dialectic is totally foreign. Left side thinking is rhetorical, speaks with a single voice, and so expresses its non-duality in that way. Nevertheless, it always remains totally dualist in regards to its subject matter. The left side sciences are thus dualistic on the outside and monistic on the inside, so to speak.

Instead of dealing with objective reality, we are now dealing with subjective reality. Our attention is drawn to the generic specificity of the subject. What is this specificity and by what mechanism does the subject – any subject – maintain its coherence and integrity? By what mechanism does the subject know what it is and what it is not? According to the monist doctrine of right side science, the coherence of such an organism can be articulated in terms of a relativistic typing system. However, such a typing system is only a means to an end. The end is the organisational coherence of the subject itself. This involves a process of unification. Once again, four binary typed entities come into play but this time there is no multiplicity and the entities are no longer mobile. Rather than values, we are dealing with placeholders. The placeholder par excellence for value is the subject.

Relative to object, the subject is active. It is an innovator, a source of creativity and, embarrassingly, a wildcard when it comes to prediction. Subject can be seen as a causal factor of certain events, of certain effects. A subject thus enters into the causal chain and, in so doing, upsets the deterministic applecart. Epicurus was perhaps the first to recognise this problem and find a suitable remedy. Implacable determinist that he was, he had to find a way of admitting the subject into the realm of causes whilst at the same time salvaging a deterministic concept of causality. His was a left side science viewpoint advocating a dualist, atomistic and deterministic world, His solution to admitting some slack into a brutally deterministic system was in the form of the Swerve. All atoms behaved deterministically, but he added a caveat. Atoms behaved deterministically most of the time. Occasionally they experienced an unexplainable, imperceptible Swerve. According to Epicurus, it is via this mysterious Swerve mechanism that the universe micro swerves from its primordial state into the highly structured reality we know today. Remnants of Epicurean Swerve theory can still be discerned in modern science, resurfacing in the form of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, for example.

Our topic is how to construct a science without attributes, not to explain causality. Nevertheless, when it comes to science of the subject, causality cannot be ignored.

### Causality and the Subject

In physics, the Principle of Causality is very much related to the Theory of Relativity. Erik Christopher Zeeman sheds some light on the situation by effectively showing that the fundamental invariant behind the Special Theory was causation itself (Zeeman, 1964). The principle of causation demands that any cause event must be antecedent in time to any consequent effect event. Zeeman showed that in order for this principle not be violated in any reference frame, the mappings between reference frames must be the same mathematics as for maintaining the speed of light as a constant. In other words, the transformations must be Lorentz transformations. Zeeman’s causality interpretation is a weaker, more generic version of relativity than the Special Theory. The constancy of the speed of light could be seen as just an implementation detail for assuring the non-violation of the causality principle in physics.

The causality principle can be thought of as a polarity condition: Causes come first; effects come second, not the other way around. Any violation of Relativity Theory is a violation of the causality principle, which in turn is a violation of the causality polarity condition. Relativity Theory guarantees the coherence of causality. It can intuitively be thought of as guaranteeing the integrity of the Arrow of Time, which expresses the irreversibility of time. The Arrow of Time can be thought of as a polarity convention. It declares that, in our universe, time flows this way, not the other way. From the left side science perspective, this is difficult to formalise. Arthur Stanley Eddington introduced the Arrow of Time term stating:

Let us draw an arrow arbitrarily. If as we follow the arrow we find more and more of the random element in the state of the world, then the arrow is pointing towards the future; if the random element decreases the arrow points towards the past. That is the only distinction known to physics. This follows at once if our fundamental contention is admitted that the introduction of randomness is the only thing which cannot be undone. (Eddington, 1928)

The Arrow of Time points in the direction of increasing uncertainty. He then continues to a most important observation:

We shall use the phrase ‘time’s arrow’ to express this one-way property of time which has no analogue in space.

Eddington highlighted the familiarity of the arrow of time to consciousness and how this stood out in stark contrast with physics where all of the fundamental laws are essentially time symmetric. In desperation, he was forced to turn to entropy considerations to get a handle on the direction of temporality. He admitted that this was a poor solution, remarking:

I do not think he [the scientist] would say that the familiar moving on of time is really an entropy-gradient.

Eddington was writing in 1928 and since then little has changed to challenge his observations. Particle physics is dominated by Schrodinger’s Wave Equation, which is time symmetric and so completely catholic in regard to which way time flows. What is not time symmetric is the “collapse of the wave function” which is irreversible. Applied statistically we see this irreversible process just like all others leading off to increased entropy according to Eddington’s time arrow, hardly an illuminating observation.

Eddington pointed out that there was no satisfactory “this way” arrow for time in the four dimensional Murkowski space necessary for Special Relativity. The same applies to Riemann space for General Relativity. An extra dimension has been added for time, but it is just like the other spatial dimensions, totally lacking in orientation.

Eddington’s plea for a physics that somehow included consciousness has been revisited in more recent times. Roger Penrose writes:

A scientific world-view which does not profoundly come to terms with the problem of conscious minds can have no serious pretensions of completeness. Consciousness is part of our universe, so any physical theory which makes no proper place for it falls fundamentally short of providing a genuine description of the world. I would maintain that there is yet no physical, biological, or computational theory that comes very close to explaining our consciousness. (Penrose, 1994)

Nobel laureate Brian D. Josephson also joins the fray with his Mind-Matter Unification Project (Josephson) in his quest to find a physics that embraces mind as well as matter.

In effect, all of these writers are lamenting about an incurable condition of the traditional left side sciences: All sciences that operate under the left side epistemological paradigm are conde mended to suffer from hemi-neglect. Such sciences can never accommodate a role for consciousness due to their wired in antagonism to a science of the subject. After all, how can a science sans sujet, ever produce a non-trivial science de sujet?

The right side scientific paradigm must not only render a science that makes embracing consciousness possible but fundamentally necessary. The right side scientific paradigm moves the subject into the explicit realm of study. The subject becomes the fulcrum for all subsequent knowledge which follows and as such, provides the answers to the “which side up” type of questions posed by Eddington. There are no absolute, context free answers. All answers must be relative to the subject. By proceeding along these lines, we will be able to eventually arrive at a fundamental notion of the Arrow of Time. In this kind of scenario, not only does time become asymmetric, but also so does spatiality. The Cartesian spatiality of the left side sciences treats any orientation, any frame of reference as being equally valid. There is no preferential reference frame in Cartesian geometry and so one could argue that this is a good example of FC. The fact that no reference frame is privileged over any other is an example of FC, but a very second rate example. Cartesian geometry violates FC because it is based on a dualism, a dichotomy between reference frames and geometric objects situated in these reference frames. FC demands that these geometric objects should be treatable as reference frames in their own right. This form of FC is impossible in Cartesian style geometry. However, in the geometry of the right side scientific paradigm, the converse applies. This science of the subject treats the subject as the origin and reference frame for any spatio-temporal geometry that might be involved. Such a geometry, dictated by the specificity of the subject, loses its time symmetry and its spatial symmetry. What is on the left and what is on the right, the front and the back, the up and the down, all becomes absolutely determined and not interchangeable. A new form of absolutism enters the scene. The only caveat is that the absolutism only applies to a specific subject. As far as this subject is concerned, it knows with absolute precision, what is on its left and right and any other relative position to it. In this right side scientific paradigm, the subject becomes the privileged entity in the system. As such, one might think that this violates FC, as FC is anathema to absolutely privileged entities. The way out of this apparent conundrum is the fact that, in this science, the subject under investigation is any subject whatsoever, the generic subject. The generic subject is not an abstraction. Understanding the difference between the abstract and the generic, is synonymous with understanding the difference between the left side and right side scientific paradigms. Abstractions cannot exist. This cannot be said of the generic.

In effect, all of these writers are lamenting about an incurable condition of the traditional left side sciences: All sciences that operate under the left side epistemological paradigm are condemned to suffer from hemi-neglect. Such sciences can never accommodate a role for consciousness due to their wired in antagonism to a science of the subject. After all, how can a science sans sujet, ever produce a non-trivial science de sujet?

## Shape of the Generic Subject

A classical problem for traditional schools of thought such as Analytic Philosophy is the Mind Body problem. Viewed from the left side perspective, this presents as a problem to be tackled. It is however, a fruitless quest as the very problem is a mere immediate consequence of the explicit dualism of the left side paradigm itself. The best that can be achieved is some kind of psychological neuro-science brain theory. Nevertheless, left side philosophy has bravely pushed ahead and come up with a philosophy of Mind. However, this philosophy essentially consists of systematically cataloguing all of the known possible (left side) approaches to the philosophy of Mind. This is like presenting a nineteenth century theory of flight by cataloguing of all of the brave would be aviators who jumped of cliffs with a flight contraption strapped to their backs.

From the right side perspective, the problem vanishes as the monistic paradigm, due to FC, does not allow any rigid dichotomies at all, let alone any Mind Matter kind of split. At first encounter, this concept can be annoyingly difficult to fully grasp. In what follows, we will be constructing the “shape” of the generic subject. In so doing, the subject becomes endowed with a determined form. Now it may be all very well for us to say that this is the generic “shape of the subject,” but the nagging anxiety arises as to what constitutes the subject. Is this a subject confronting Nature? Alternatively, is this subject really Nature looking back the other way? As for the specificity of the shape, is this the shape of Mind or is it the generic shape of Matter or of Nature herself? Perhaps annoyingly, right side science does not even attempt to answer any of these questions, as they do not make sense in the monist framework. The difficulty can be traced to the difference between abstraction, which is a left side science technology, and the generic, the right side sibling. Abstraction is naturally dualist. On one side, there is the abstract understanding of the thing in the form of a theory, opinion or whatever. On the other side is the thing pure and simple. There is no mix. This is a harsh dichotomy.

The dualist epistemology of left side science is easy to understand. Going from the abstraction formalism of left side science to the generic formalism of right side science is much more delicate. The existence even of such an alternative formalism has long been contested. Suffice to say at this point, is that the dominant characteristic of right side epistemology is the absolute intolerance to rigid dichotomies as dictated by the demands of FC.

Even though the absolute dichotomy is anathema to right side science epistemology, the generic structures from which generic knowledge is constructed are built on what appears to be absolute dichotomies. This is only an apparent absolute contradiction as all dichotomies are relative to the subject. The subject needs to know its reality in terms of absolute dichotomies. It needs to know what it is and what it is not and know so absolutely and even urgently. However, viewed by a third party, such dichotomies, such determinations, so vivid to the subject, will be virtually undiscernible. After all, the third party has its own boat to row.

Other than expressing structure and knowledge in terms of oppositions, the second cardinal characteristic of right side science is that knowledge is expressed in wholes where, at no time, can any aspect of the whole claim autonomous and separate existence. Any aspect of the whole is necessary for the existential coherence of any other aspect.
The third characteristic is that the subject is always present.

The totality of reality cannot be conceived or perceived. Reality can only be known in the form of a whole. Each whole is reality considered from a particular pint of view. There are as many wholes as there are points of view.
Any whole must include the subject. Thus, due to the presence of the omnipresent subject, any whole can naturally be considered as a dichotomy, the subject on one side and what is not subject on the other. We will adopt the convention that the subject is on the right side of the dichotomy and the other on the left. Certain subjects may be based on the opposite polarity convention, but that does not affect the argument. To each its own polarity convention, as long as it lives by it.
Any subject is characterised by its own specificity. In the case of the left right dichotomy, the subject involved enjoys the specificity of being totally devoid of any determined specificity. Such a subject is customarily referred to as the impersonal subject. The impersonal subject is what it is, nothing more and nothing less. It inevitably finds itself in the company, of what it is not. We will informally refer to this Other of the subject as its kingdom. However, we keep in mind that there is no construct that determines in any way that the kingdom may be of a mental or physical nature, or of any other kind. Relative to the totally undetermined impersonal subject, there is the presence of the equally undetermined kingdom.

As we have already remarked, left side science also is involved with this kind of dichotomy. However, the left side science ends up dispensing with the impersonal subject and concentrating on getting to know the great unknown kingdom via various forms of pragmatic techniques, the details of which we are more than familiar.

At this point right side science definitively splits from its suck it and see sibling and starts its own distinctively dialectical journey. The step in the quest for the conscious subject was based on the realisation that “I am not alone.” The second step involves being conscious of this realisation. This is achieved by the presence of a more determined subject than the first. Entering into this reality, already split asunder by the presence of the impersonal subject, is the personal subject. This subject is neither on the side of the impersonal subject nor of its kingdom. It must straddle both and in doing effectively produces a dividing incision orthogonal to the first, resulting in the whole being cut into four quarters

One might argue that the notion of an orthogonal incision does not make much sense here, as there is no a priori notion of orthogonality in the first place. This objection has some merit; however, the objection comes too late. In the wake of this dichotomous operation, a primordial form of orthogonality becomes a fait accompli. Having achieved this tautological operation of effectively applying the first opposition to itself, we will adopt the convention that the personal subject is located at the front lobes of the resulting four part square and its kingdom is located at the back. We retain in mind that the primordial rapport between the front back axis and the left right axis is some equally primordial kid of orthogonality.

Keeping in mind that both the personal and impersonal subjects are singular relative to their kingdoms, we can say the both subjects are of masculine gender relative to their respective kingdoms. The kingdoms themselves are of totally unknown specificity and hence of feminine gender. What we now have constructed is relative typed form of a generic whole as illustrated in Figure Ap 1.. This corresponds to the generic form of the subject as a generic placeholder of value. There are four placeholder positions, each binary gender typed. The gender typing relative to the personal subject is defined by the first letter whilst the second letter conveys the gender typing relative to the impersonal subject.

Figure Ap 1 Generic form of the subject: The semiotic square.

### The Semiotic Square

There are two fundamental ways of organising knowledge, the left side and the right side way. The left side technique is the easiest to understand as it is based on a taxonomic hierarchical form of organisation involving different levels of species and genera. This kind of structure can usually be represented in tree diagrams. For example, Chomsky’s transformational grammar for representing the syntax of natural languages is based on tree diagrams and transformations between tree diagrams. The essence of the left side tree-diagram approach is that entities, and knowledge of them, can be broken down into increasingly smaller and refined components.

The right side organisational approach is the converse to the atomist and atomising left side approach. In this scenario, any entity, viewed from a particular point of view, can be known in terms of a whole. The innovation comes from the fact that a whole, any whole, has a generic form consisting of four gender typed parts as shown in Figure Ap 1.. We will call this generic form, the semiotic square.

The semiotic square conveys that in any whole there are always four players. Each of these players has an attribute that distinguishes one from the other. This attribute is not of the empirical kind but of the ontological kind, being based on ontological gender. With the semiotic square, no labelling is necessary, only the polarity conventions. The semiotic square can be thought of as a generic cognitive structure, one of its roles is to type a player in reality views as a whole.

The semantics behind the gender typing formalism can be grasped more intuitively by using natural language; The semiotic square shown in Figure Ap 2. replaces the gender typing with natural language generic attributes. In this way, we start to see that our science with attributes starts to take attributes on board by actually constructing them.

Figure Ap 2 Intuitive natural language interpretation of the generic semiotic square.

The taxonomic, tree structure classification systems of the left side sciences are simple to understand and apply. For the right side version, it is the semiotic square that first springs to the fore. By applying a simple semiotic analysis to practical scenarios viewed as a whole, one can start to comprehend the semiotic square and its extremely generic nature.

Algirdas Julien Greimas developed his version of the semiotic square, inspired by Aristotle’s Square of Oppositions as will be discussed later, He applied semiotic analysis based on the semiotic square to many different areas, one of them being, the semiotic analysis of text. (Greimas, 1991).

The semiotic square provides an intuitive approach to formalising the Three-plus-One structure we mentioned in the introduction. The One is the Singular MM typed player with the triad making up of the rest. This singular MM typed entity corresponds to that which is simultaneously impersonal and personal subject, a singular singularity. Over the ages, many minds, from different cultures have mused over the nature of this being.

### The Theological Semiotic Square

Semiotic analysis based on the semiotic square has been applied to many different areas by practitioners of semiotics. It can even be used in advertising to settle such questions as “How many fundamental ways are there to advertise underarm deodorants? It is not an abstract way of thinking, but a generic way of thinking. There are, of course, four strategies to advertise underarm deodorant, the singular, the general, the particular, or the universal approach. It is left to the reader to fill in the details.

On a higher note, the generic nature of the semiotic square is well illustrated by applying it in the theological domain in order to study generic theology. There are of course four generic religions and it is interesting to see where they fit into the semiotic square and relate to each other.

The four generic religions make up a whole. The whole can be informally constructed as follows. The generic structure of a whole is constructed from one single opposition applied to itself, leading to the semiotic square structure. For the generic semiotic square, the primary opposition is between the subject, necessarily masculine and its feminine gendered other. A simpler to understand version of this opposition is to talk of the masculine subject as the One and the feminine as the Other. The primary opposition thus becomes that between the One and the Multiple. Such an opposition can qualify as an opposition satisfying the Socratic Uncertainty Principle, as defined previously.

When the opposition is applied to itself this leads to four kinds of entity as shown in Figure Ap 3. This semiotic square illustrates the four fundamental answers to the theologically impregnated question, “What is the relationship between the One and the Multiple? Each answer corresponds to a fundamental generic paradigm that can be interpreted in theological terms. Each paradigm corresponds to one of the four world religions. The Providence paradigm of Christianity declares the rather individualistic stance that the One is Multiple. Islam takes the converse position declaring that the Multiple is One, where the collectively is decidable under the hammer of the One. Hinduism, according to the Advaita doctrine of Non-Duality declares that the One is One, and to add a phrase of Shankara, “Everything else is illusion.” All three of these religions incorporate the masculine subject into the paradigm in one way or another. The exception is the fourth paradigm that we associate with Buddhism. Buddhism, according to its doctrine of Non Self, declares that the Multiple is Multiple. There is no One. This doctrine is subjectless, pure FF.

Figure Ap 3 The One Multiple opposition may be easier to understand than gender. Here is the semiotic sure based on the One Multiple opposition interpreted as the semiotic square of theology.

Here is not the place to attempt an exhaustive semiotic account of theology, however it the importance of religion studies cannot be underestimated. Before moving on, we note that each of the world religions themselves can be viewed as a whole. As such, each will be characterised by its own semiotic square. For example, the semiotic square for Christianity will be based on the Trinity and have God in the singular position, God the Father in the general, Christ in the particular and the Holy Ghost in the universal slot. The Three-plus-One structure for each of the world religions is shown in Figure Ap 4.. In this way, one ends up with a semiotic square of semiotic squares.

In the diagram, no details are provided for the Buddhist Multiple is Multiple paradigm but it would probably be based on the Four Noble Truths. However, one must tread carefully as this paradigm is devoid of any explicit subject.

Figure Ap 4 Illustrating, that each of the four world religions can be considered a whole and thus has its own semiotic square. The Buddhist semiotic square would probably be based on the Four Noble Truths, but no details have been included in this diagram.

This is a long paper…only the first part has been included here.
I think it is getting too long for publication as well.