Thursday, April 17, 2014

Part II. B. [En]Camp[ment]s. Epoch t = 1. The Psychohistorical-Dialectical 'Meta-Equation' of Human-Social Formations 'Meta-Evolution'.

Full TitleThe Psychohistorical-Dialectical Meta-Equation of Human-Social Formations Meta-Evolution’.  Part II. B.  Epoch t = 1.  "[en]camp[ment]s / campsites".

Dear Readers,

The present blog-entry is the fourth in a series of blog-entries presenting a Marxian, psychohistorical-dialectical model of human history, focusing on the "social formation(s)" [cf. Marx] aspects of that history.



Part II. B.  Epoch t = 1:   Camps ” ‘Socio-OntologyEmergent

In his book Non-Zero:  The Logic of Human Destiny, Robert Wright describes some specimens of the ‘multi-band’ “camp stage of human-social formation as follows --

Often a !Kung camp will have at its core a single group of relatives such as a brother and sister."

"But they commonly have spouses, whose siblings may also live in the camp, as may these sibling’s spouses."

"So even when a camp is loosely based around a single group of close kin, the camp can comprise multiple families and include many individuals who are not biological kin.

[ Robert Wright, Non-ZeroThe Logic of Human Destiny, Pantheon Books [NY:  2000], p. 353, emphases by M.D.; see also ].

In terms of historical ‘‘‘Real time’’’, the Whole-Number model-epoch duration from the start of epoch t = 1 to the start of epoch t = 2, during which the highest forms of human social formation all extant together are believed to have been only the scavenging/foraging, ~ single-familybands, and the ‘multi-bandcamps, lasted from perhaps circa 100,000 B.C.E., to the emergence of the first, pre-agricultural ‘multi-camp’ “villages[e.g., Natufian], circa 12,500 B.C.E. -- i.e., for a duration of ~ 87,500 Earth-years.

We have defined the «arche'»-«arithmos» of human settlement formations to be that of the non-settlement-pattern ‘‘‘population’’’ of small, mobile, ‘‘‘nomadic’’’ “bands” of [proto-]human predators/foragers/scavengers/hunter-gatherers.   

By ‘‘‘population’’’ here, we do not mean that “population” whose unit is the individual [proto-]human[oid] living bodies that make up these “bands”. 

We mean the ‘‘‘population’’’ that has these individual “bands” themselves as units.

[Note further:  By ‘‘‘population’’’, in this context, we do not mean the count of [proto-]human “biological individuals”, whether of the typical or average “band”, or of the totality of all "bands" extant as of a particular value of some time parameter, or epoch parameter, t

The [minimally ‘memetically-emerged’, phenomically ‘proto-ic’, proto-]human individual is not the unit, or «monad», of counting for this dialectical meta-model narrative. 

The “band itself, for the t = 0 epoch, whatever a given band’s size in terms of [proto-]human individuals, is that unit, or «monad».  

This meta-model thus eschews the usual, metaphysical, “methodological”, contra-empirical ‘‘‘human individual-ism / atomism / reductionism’’’].

We can summarize the progress of human-social formation to this point in our 'meta-model narrative' as follows, in terms of the epochs of 'self-hybridization' [only] of social formation units, for now eliding from representation all of the 'merely hybrid socio-ontological categories' / «arithmoi» -- 

Suppose that the ‘‘‘population’’’ of the “bands” «arithmos» — the ‘‘‘population’’’ of which each individual “band” is a «monad» / unit — reproduces itself with expansion -- grows -- in certain localities of the planetary biosphere [as a manifestation of the growth of human-societal self-productivity -- the growth of the human-social forces of human-societal self-reproduction]. 

Then, as the monadic population’ of the “bands”-as-«monads» ‘densifies’ itself in those localities, a condition of ‘‘‘critically’’’ high “bandsdensity -- or of “bands” ‘physical-spatial concentration -- may arise, which we term the self-surroundment of the typical “band” «monad»; which we also describe as a self-environment or self-envelopement of the “bands”, or their surroundment/ environment-by-likes, a condition created, for the “bands”, by the “bands” themselves. 

This condition would arise, first and especially, within the ‘centerward’ sub-population of “band «monads» of each of the key/core such localities -- the ‘meta-meristemal’ / ‘‘‘vanguard’’’ social-relations-innovation ‘‘‘nucleation zones’’’. 

This means that there has arisen a condition of “bands” densely surrounded by [other] “bands” at the heart of each such locality:  likes‘‘‘times’’’likes” as “bands‘‘‘times’’’bands”. 

This condition would have thereby supplanted, in intensity / ‘intensivity’, within those key/core loci, the ‘precedingly-dominant’ condition of the surroundment of the “bands” «monads» only by the accumulated monadic populations’ of various scales / levels / layers of pre-human-natur[e-]al ontology, especially of the immediate ontological predecessor of the ‘taxonomy level one’ ‘‘‘human societies’’’ «arithmos», in the form of the «arithmos» of the likewise ‘taxonomy level one’ ‘multi-meta-zoan’ animal societies / ‘multi-meta-phytan’, single-kind-of-plant plant ‘‘‘communities’’’:  bands‘‘‘times’’’meta-meta-biota’ -- the 'proto-language-based socialized meta-biota'.

A new innovation in the human-social settlement/governance patterns’ taxonomy of ‘socio-ontology’ is thereby seeded.

The former condition was dominated by and characterized by 'merely-hybridizing' reactions / inter-actions, ‘ontological conversion’ ‘hetero- / inter-actions’, of “band” «monads» with the accumulated monadic populations’ of the various qualo-fractal scales / levels / layers of the pre-existing ‘pre-human-natur[e-]al’ ontology, and, especially, with humanity’s most recent ontological predecessor, the ‘meta-meta-biota’’ -- the 'proto-language-based socialized meta-biota'. 

The new condition — in the ‘human socio-ontological innovation nucleation zones’ — is dominated by, and characterized by, self-hybridizing’ interactions, self-interactions’, or by ‘intra-actions’, of “band” «monads» with [other] “band” «monads», which would become more and more frequent / increasingly self-frequentized’, as the ‘‘‘population density’’’ of “band” «monads» grows therein.

The formerly-dominant modes of monadic interaction — of ‘ontological other-conversion, or hetero-conversion — had partially converted pre-human-natur[e-]al [including animal-social-]bio-mass into ‘[proto-]human-socio-mass’, in the form of this monadic population’ of the “bands” «arithmos» together with, e.g., the social animals that they had so far incorporated into their humans-led 'meta-society', e.g., wolves [becoming "dogs"], as an integral part of what we term ‘[proto-]human-socio-mass’. 

This process of ‘‘‘[plant-/animal-social-and-earlier]bio-mass’’’ to ‘[proto-human-]socio-mass’ ontological conversion was ‘self-catalyzed’ by, or ‘auto-catalyzed’ by, and ‘self-[ac]celerated’, in proportion to the presence of, and to the density of / ‘physical-spatial concentration’ of, the thus ‘‘‘[self-]expanding’’’ “bands” «arithmos».

But as the — therefore growing — ‘physical-spatial concentration’ of the «monads» of the “bands” «arithmos», in the key/core ‘‘‘nucleation zones’’’ of initial [proto-]human-social formation, crosses a “critical mass” / ‘‘‘critical density’’’ / ‘‘‘critical concentration’’’ threshold, the process of ‘ontological hetero-conversion’, of past monadic sub-populations, into the growing “bands” monadic population, shifts.

It shifts into a new and previously unprecedented process, a process of the nascent ‘ontological self-conversion’ of [part of] a burgeoning “bands” «arithmos» ‘[proto-human] socio-ontology’, by that burgeoning “bands” «arithmos» ‘socio-ontology’ itself, as the agent/subject of its own transformation; its self-conversion’ into the ‘socio-ontology’ of a new, ‘self-involutively higher’, previously unprecedented, unexampled ‘‘‘onto-logical type’’’, the first increment of ‘[proto-]human socio-ontological’ innovation in the history of human-social formation(s).

That is, the ‘self-frequentization’ of this new mode of action — of ‘‘‘self-inter-action’’’, or of ‘‘‘intra-action’’’ — of “band” with “band”, then, as it exceeds its critical frequency / density / concentration threshold, precipitates the irruption of yet a new, previously non-extant, previously non-existent ‘meta-fractal’ scale / level / layer of human settlement / governance patterns and practices:  namely, that of the multi-band” — episodically settled, semi-sedentary — “camps” [proto-]human-social formation(s).

F.E.D. characterizes such critical-threshold transitions as specimens of their «genos» of metafinite singularities in general, and of the «species» of metafinite resonance singularities [e.g., as opposed to the «species» of metafinite depletion singularities], within their ideo-taxonomic dialectic of singularity-kinds.   

F.E.D. calls these ‘‘‘singularities’’’ metafinite because they are unlike the “standard” valuations of cases of “division-by-zero singularity” that arise, at specific, finite values of the “Real number” time parameter, t, e.g., in many purely-quantitative nonlinear integro-differential equations, leading to spurious purely-quantitative infinities, or to “undefined”, “indeterminate” values.

Realisticsingularities exhibit, according to F.E.D., everywhere finite results, called metafinite because those results include relatively rapid [not “instantaneous”] irruption of qualitatively different, new ontology.

A “camp”, grasped as a [proto-]human-social unit / «monad», is a meta1-«monad»’, i.e., a meta1-unit, or super1-unit, relative to a “band, grasped also as an -- immediate predecessor -- [proto-]human-social unit / «monad».

Each typical “camp” is a meta-band, made up out of a [local-][sub-arithmos» of the “bands” «arithmos», i.e., made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of «monads» from the “bandscategory, by means of a self-«aufheben» self-internalization’ of a part of that local, predecessor «arithmos» of “bands”, i.e., with multiple “band units as predecessor «monads».

This self-«aufheben»’ self-operation — of an «arithmos» of “band «monads», as collective human-social ‘‘‘subject’’’ / agent of [self-]action, acting / operating, upon / within, itself, via the “band «monads» operating among themselves — gives rise to an ontologically, qualitatively, behaviorally new and different, previously unprecedented «arithmos», one that has “camps” as its «monads»:  the «arithmos» of the — initially multi-band — “camps”.

The subject / object identical of “bandssquared, “bandsxbands”, or ‘bands< bands>’ [“bandsofbands”] -- the self-reflexive functioning of “bands” acting upon “bands” -- still possibly reproduces the “bands” «arithmos»-of-band-«monads», but also possibly produces something new and unprecedented:  camps”; the “camps” «arithmos»-of-camp-«monads».

Formulaic Summary for CampsEmergent.  ‘Ideographized’ / ‘ideogramized’, “shorthand” summary of the narrative rendition above.

[in the following formula, mb denotes the ‘socio-ontological’ category of the “bands”; the “bands” «arithmos», and mc denotes the ‘socio-ontological’ category of the “camps”;  the “camps” «arithmos»] --

epoch t = 1:  m>-|-<1    =   < mb >21    =   < mb >2, so --  

mb  mb< mb >  = mb ‘‘‘of’’’ mb   =  mb2  =  mb + mΔb     

=    mb + mc

-- as t = 0   t = 1 --

-- or --

-- [partly] pictographically --

-- involving, so far, not yet a single 'merely-hybrid socio-ontological category' to this point in our 'meta-model narrative', we can describe the outcome at the end of 'meta-model epoch' 1 as follows --

[Link to supplementary information:  If you would like more information about the rules of ‘purely-qualitative calculation’ that are used in the “shorthand” expression above — i.e., about the rules of ‘ontological multiplication’, ‘multiplication of qualities’ [‘multiplication of ontological qualifiers’], categorial multiplication’, or «aufheben» [dialectical] multiplication’ — then click on the following link: , and scroll down to p. 4].


Psychohistorical-Dialectical Meta-Equation of Human-Social Formations Meta-Evolution’.

Part II. CEpoch t = 2.  villages.

No comments:

Post a Comment