Friday, April 18, 2014

Part II. C. Villages. Epoch t = 2. The Psychohistorical-Dialectical 'Meta-Equation' of Human-Social Formations 'Meta-Evolution'.








Dear Readers,

The present blog-entry is the fifth 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.


Regards,

Miguel











Full Title:  

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


Part II. C.  Epoch t = 2:   Villages” ‘Socio-OntologyEmergent.




In his book, Non-Zero, Robert Wright describes the [initially ‘multi-camp’] “village stage of human social formation, and the inner ferment of its self-induced transition to beyond itself, as follows --

Consider the chiefdom threshold.  It is one thing for neighboring villages to become trading partners or even to attain a measure of “supravillage” political organization via loose confederation.  It is another thing for neighboring villages to grant real, ongoing power to a central authority -- for one village’s chief to become the paramount chief.  When this happens, a chiefdom has been formed.

[Robert Wright, Non-ZeroThe Logic of Human Destiny, Pantheon Books [NY:  2000], p. 59, emphases by M.D.; see also http://nonzero.org/toc.htm ].



In terms of historical ‘‘‘Real time’’’, the Whole-Number model-epochs duration interval, spanning from t = 2 to t = 3, during which the highest forms of human social formation all extant together are believed to have been the scavenging/foraging, ~ single-familybands, the ‘multi-bandcamps, and the ‘multi-camp’ “villages, together with any extant hybrids there-among, lasted from circa 12,500 B.C.E., to the emergence of the first ‘multi-villagechiefdoms[e.g., Ubaidian], circa 5,500 B.C.E. -- a duration of ~7,500 Earth-years.





Suppose, as the next, consecutive, irruptive emergence in this Qualo-Peanic self-«aufheben»  succession /  consecuum-cumulum of human-social emergences, that the ‘‘‘population’’’ of the “campunits of the “camps” «arithmos» — the ‘‘‘population’’’ of which each individualcamp” is a «monad» / unit — reproduces itself with expansion, grows in certain localities of the planetary ‘[now also noo-]bio-sphere’, as an expression of ‘human-societal self-productivity growth’, or of ‘human-sociomass self-productivity growth’ -- i.e., of the "growth of the social forces of production" [Marx].

 
Then, as the monadic population’ of the “camps-as-«monads» ‘densifies’ itself in those localities, a condition of ‘‘‘critically’’’ high “camps ‘‘‘density’’’ may arise, which we term the self-surroundment of the “camp” «monads», the self-environment / self-envelopement of the “camps, or the surroundment- / environment-by-likes, created, for the “camps” «arithmos», by  the “camps” «arithmos» itself.

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

 
This means that there has arisen a condition of “camps densely surrounded by [other] “camps at the heart of each such ‘‘‘nucleation zone’’’ locality.


This condition would have thereby supplanted, in intensity / ‘intensivity’, within these key / core loci, the ‘precedingly-dominant’ condition of the hetero-surroundment of the “camp «monads» by their immediate-predecessor, ‘inverse-consecutive’ «monads», those of the «arithmos» of “bands”, the «arithmos» from out of which, by 'self-«aufheben» self-meta-«monad»-ization', these “camp formations -- the new «arithmos», of “camp «monads» -- had only so recently arisen.


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-hetero-hybridizing’ reactions / inter-actions -- i.e., by ‘ontological conversion hetero-actions / inter-actions’ -- of “camp «monads» with their immediate predecessor, “band «monads».

The new condition — in the “campmonads»-dense ‘socio-ontological innovation nucleation zones’ — is dominated by, and characterized by, self-hybridizing’ interactions, self-interactions’, or ‘intra-actions’, of “camp «monads» with[in][/ upon [other]] “camp «monads», with such self-actions’, or self-operations’, becoming more and more frequent / becoming increasingly self-frequentized’, as the ‘‘‘population density’’’ of “camp «monads» grows therein.



The formerly-dominant modes of monadic interaction — of ‘ontological other-conversion’, or of ‘ontological hetero-conversion’ — had partially converted, had converted some of, the still-extant “band ‘socio-ontology’/‘human socio-onto-mass’ into “camp ‘socio-ontology’/‘human socio-onto-mass’.


This process of ‘ontological hetero-conversion’ of [part of] the remaining «monads» of the precedingly-self-manifested «arithmoi» — of the “bands” «arithmos» — is ‘auto-catalyzed’ by, and ‘[ac]celerates’ it self, in proportion to, the presence of, and to the density of / ‘physical-spatial concentration’ of, the therefore ‘‘‘[self-]expanding’’’ “camps” «arithmos».



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



It shifts [in]to a new and previously unprecedented process.



This new process is that of the nascent ‘ontological self-conversion’ of [part of] the burgeoning “camps” «arithmos» ‘human socio-ontology’, by that burgeoning “camps” «arithmos» ‘human socio-ontology’, into something else:  its ‘self-conversion’ into the ‘human socio-ontology’ of a new, ‘self-involutively higher’, previously unexampled ‘‘‘[onto-]logical type’’’, a new increment of ‘human socio-ontological’ self-innovation in the history of human-social formation(s).


That is, the ‘self-frequentization’ of this new mode of action — of this mode of ‘‘‘self-inter-action’’’, or ‘‘‘intra-action’’’ — ofcamps withcamps, then precipitates, as it exceeds its critical frequency / density threshold, 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 — initially multi-camp — “village human-social formation(s).




A “village, grasped as a human-social formation unit / «monad», is a ‘meta1monad»’, ‘meta1-unit’, or ‘super1-unit relative to a “camp, grasped also as such a human-social formation unit / «monad», and is also a ‘meta2monad»’ relative to a “band, grasped also as such a human-social formation unit / «monad»:   

villages  =  ‘meta2-bands’  =  ‘meta1-meta1-bands’  =  ‘meta1-camps’.



Each typical “village unit / «monad» is a meta1-“campunit / «monad», initially made up from out of a [local-][sub-arithmos» of “campsunits / «monads», i.e., initially made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of “campsunits / «monads», as one result of a self-«aufheben» self-internalization of that local, predecessor sub-«arithmos» of “camps units / «monads», as the immediate predecessor 'self-hybrid' units / «monads» to their successor 'self-hybrid', “village, units / «monads».


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


 

The subject / object identical of < bands+camps > squared --

< bands+camps >2


-- or --

< bands+camps > x < bands+camps >


-- or --

< bands+camps >< < bands+camps > >


-- or --

< bands+camps > of < bands+camps > produces something ‘socio-ontologically’ new.



This self-reflexive functioning of --

  
< bands+camps >


-- acting upon --  


< bands+camps >


-- still possibly reproduces the < bands+camps > ‘cumulum’, but also possibly produces something new and unprecedented, including the “villages” «arithmos»; the “villages” «arithmos»-of-village-«monads».







Formulaic Summary for villagesEmergent.  ‘Ideographized’ / ‘ideogramized’, “shorthand” version of the narrative rendered above.


‘Ideographized’ / ‘ideogramized’ “shorthand” translation of the narrative above [in the following formula, v denotes the ontological category of the “villages” «arithmos»]:


epoch t = 2:  m>-|-<2    =   < b >22 =  < b >4  =  < b + c >2


-- so --

  
-- epoch t = 2 -- 



b + c    < b + c >< < b + c > >  = 
   
< b + c >2  =
    
< b + c > + Δ< b + c >  = 
   
b + c + qcb + v

-- as --


t = 1 t = 2


-- or --


-- [partly] pictographically --


-- 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' of social formation units alone --




-- and, including the one 'merely-hybrid' socio-ontological category that has emerged in the progress of human-social formation to this point in our 'meta-model narrative', as follows --






  
The next image depicts this meta-model’s 1st 2 stages of dialectical, «aufheben» self-meta-monad-ization --







[Note:  This t = 2 epoch marks the first appearance, in our progression, so far, of a ‘‘‘hybrid’’’ «arithmos» in its own right, possibly interpretable as an ‘ontological conversion formation’, and as a ‘‘‘real subsumption’’’ of «arithmos» b, by «arithmos» c.  


It is denoted, above, by qcb.

Its appearance may, at first, come as a shock to some readers, who may be expecting only the “pure [i.e., only the self-hybrid’] types”, e.g., b, c, v, f, s, e, n, ... .  


However, such ‘‘‘hybrids’’’ turn out to be, in general, one of the richest heuristic resources of the NQ_ algorithmic heuristic algebra.


Such ‘‘‘hybrid’’’ -- or ‘‘‘cross-product’’’ -- terms, denote partial or full dialectical synthesis formations, which in many cases may be interpretable as process-formations converting some of the «monads» of earlier-emerged ontological categories / «arithmoi» into «monads» of the most recently-emerged ontological categories / «arithmoi».


It is, more often than not, in the application of the organonic algebraic method to the solution of these -- ‘‘‘hybrid’’’ -- terms, that the most startling and valuable new insights, and new discoveries -- both pre-constructive’ and “re-constructive” -- often emerge.]



Note:  It should also be kept in mind, however, that not every ‘‘‘hybrid’’’ term may be interpretable -- or solvable -- for a given ‘dialectical meta-model meta-equation’.  Some of these terms may be,  à la some of the “generalized coordinates” of the Lagrange Equations, “inoperative” in the special case of a specific dialectic, even though they are valid constituents of the generic Seldon Function expansion for dialectic-in-general.











NEXT --
  


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

  
Part II. DEpoch t = 3.  chiefdoms.










No comments:

Post a Comment