Dear Reader,
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’.
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 --
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-family “bands”, the ‘multi-band’ “camps”, 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-village’ “chiefdoms” [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 “camp” units of the “camps” «arithmos» — the ‘‘‘population’’’ of which each individual “camp” 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].
A new innovation in the human-social settlement / governance patterns’ taxonomy of ‘socio-ontology’ is thereby seeded.
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’.
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 “camps” monadic 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).
A “village”, grasped as a human-social formation unit / «monad», is a ‘meta1-«monad»’, ‘meta1-unit’, or ‘super1-unit’ relative to a “camp”, grasped also as such a human-social formation unit / «monad», and is also a ‘meta2-«monad»’ 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-“camp” unit / «monad», initially made up from out of a [local-][sub-]«arithmos» of “camps” units / «monads», i.e., initially made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of “camps” units / «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».
The ‘subject / object identical’ of < “bands” + “camps” > squared --
-- or --
< “bands” + “camps” > x < “bands” + “camps” >
-- or --
-- or --
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».
‘Ideographized’ / ‘ideogramized’ “shorthand” translation of the narrative above [in the following formula, v denotes the ontological category of the “villages” «arithmos»]:
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».
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-Ontology’ Emergent.
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-Zero: The 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-family “bands”, the ‘multi-band’ “camps”, 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-village’ “chiefdoms” [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 “camp” units of the “camps” «arithmos» — the ‘‘‘population’’’ of which each individual “camp” 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.
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 “camp”-«monads»-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 “camps” monadic 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’’’
— of “camps”
with “camps”,
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 ‘meta1-«monad»’, ‘meta1-unit’, or ‘super1-unit’ relative to a “camp”, grasped also as such a human-social formation unit / «monad», and is also a ‘meta2-«monad»’ 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-“camp” unit / «monad», initially made up from out of a [local-][sub-]«arithmos» of “camps” units / «monads», i.e., initially made up out of a heterogeneous multiplicity of “camps” units / «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-“camps” as its «monads», i.e., of the
— initially ‘many-camp’
— “villages” «arithmos».
The ‘subject / object identical’ of < “bands” + “camps” > squared --
< “bands” + “camps” >2
-- or --
-- 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 “villages” Emergent. ‘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 --
b + c → < b + c >< < b + c > > =
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 --
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.
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, Ã 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. D. Epoch t = 3. chiefdoms.
NEXT --
Psychohistorical-Dialectical ‘Meta-Equation‘ of Human-Social Formations ‘Meta-Evolution’.
Part II. D. Epoch t = 3. chiefdoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment