Dear Reader,
The present blog-entry is the seventh 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: The Logic of Human Destiny, Robert Wright describes the generic ‘multi-chiefdom’ “city-state” stage of human-social formation, as follows --
“The chiefdoms’ villages evolved into something more like towns, which themselves got bigger and more complex."
"In all three regions, loosely defined city-states -- urban cores surrounded by farmlands and villages and towns -- seem to have evolved (though in some places, such as Egypt and the Andes, the “city” part of the state may have been so small as to stretch the definition of the term).”
“And these city-states
merged, forming multicity states, and these
multicity states grew into empires.”
“. . . In the Mesopotamian
vicinity, the story of civilization begins, as elsewhere, with farming and
attendant social complexity."
"By 4000
B.C.[E. -- M.D.] there are the familiar hallmarks of chiefdoms -- temples, other capital projects (irrigation
systems and what appears to be a granary), and, of course, special burials for
big shots, complete with precious copper and ceramic knick-knacks."
"The chiefdom’s villages get bigger and bigger and at some point cross
that blurry line between villages
and towns.”
“Around 3500 B.C.[E. -- M.D.], though
true writing had yet to appear, the stirrings of the first information
revolution were evident: the cylinder
seal, complex tokens, the bevel-rimmed bowl."
"As writing evolved, growth toward civilization was brisk."
"In southern Mesopotamia
between 3500 B.C.[E. -- M.D.] and 2900 B.C.[E.
-- M.D.], the number of villages grew from 17 to
124, the number of towns
from 3 to 20. The number of “urban centers” -- 125
acres (50 hectares) or larger -- grew from one to 20. By 2800 B.C.[E. -- M.D.], the city of Uruk covered 617 acres (250 hectares), and
its temples, mounted on massive ziggurats, were visible from miles away."
“Surrounded by, and
interdependent with, farming villages
and towns,
Uruk came to anchor an amorphous city-state."
"Comparable clusters evolved elsewhere in Mesopotamia.”
[ Robert Wright, Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Pantheon
Books [NY: 2000], pp. 109-110, text-color emphases added by M.D.; see also http://nonzero.org/toc.htm
].
In terms of historical ‘‘‘Real time’’’, the Whole-Number
model-time period,spanning from t =
4 to t = 5, during
which the highest forms of human social formation all extant together are
believed to have been the ~ single-family “bands”, the ‘multi-band’ “camps”, the ‘multi-camp’ “villages”, the ‘multi-village’ “chiefdoms”, and the ‘multi-chiefdom’ “city-states”,
lasted from circa 3,100 B.C.E., to the emergence of the first ‘multi-city-state’ “empires” [e.g., Akkadian], circa 2,334
B.C.E. -- a duration of ~ 766 Earth-years.
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» --
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, consecutively next in this ‘self-«aufheben» self-progression’; in this ‘[Qualo-] Peanic’ succession / ‘archéonic consecuum-cumulum’ of human ‘socio-onto-dynamasis’, that the ‘‘‘population’’’ of the “chiefdoms” «arithmos», or “tribes” «arithmos» — the ‘‘‘population’’’ of which each individual “chiefdom” is a «monad» / unit — reproduces itself with expansion, grows in certain localities of the planetary biosphere / emergent “noosphere”.
Then, as the ‘monadic population’ of the “chiefdoms”-as-«monads» ‘densifies’
itself in those localities, a condition of ‘‘‘critically’’’ high “chiefdoms” density may arise,
a condition which we term the ‘self-surroundment’
of the “chiefdom”
«monads», that is, the ‘self-environment’, or the ‘self-envelopment’,
of the “chiefdoms”,
or their ‘envelopment- / surroundment- / environment-by-likes’, created, for the “chiefdoms” formations, by the “chiefdoms” formations.
This condition would typically arise, first, and especially, within the ‘centerward’ or ‘coreward’ sub-population of “chiefdom” «monads» of each of the key / core such localities, which we describe as ‘meta-meristemal’ / ‘‘‘vanguard’’’ social-relations-innovation ‘‘‘nucleation zones’’’.
This means that there has arisen a condition of “chiefdoms” densely
surrounded by [other] “chiefdoms”
at the heart of each such locality, a condition expressed, in the F.E.D. “First Psychohistorical Algebra”,
via a “times” analogy: chiefdoms2 = chiefdoms x chiefdoms.
This condition would have thereby supplanted, in intensity /
‘intensivity’, within these key / core loci, the ‘precedingly-dominant’
condition of the ‘surroundment’
of the “chiefdom”
«monads» by their
immediate-predecessor, ‘inverse-consecutive’ «monads», the “village” «monads» of the «arithmos» of “villages”.
A new ontological 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 “chiefdom” «monads» with their immediate predecessor ‘self-hybrid’, «monads», and with [any] still-persisting earlier-predecessor «monads» — predecessor «monads» as yet unassimilated to any higher ‘‘‘degree’’’ of ontological ‘self-involution’ / ‘self-internalization’ / ‘self-complexification’ — e.g., ‘‘‘inter-actions’’’ with “village” «monads», with “camp” «monads», and with “band” «monads».
The new condition — in the ‘socio-ontological innovation
nucleation zones’ — is dominated by, and characterized by, ‘self-hybridizing’
interactions, ‘self-interactions’, or ‘intra-actions’, of “chiefdom” «monads» with [other] “chiefdom” «monads», which
become more and more frequent / increasingly ‘self-frequentized’, as
the ‘‘‘population density’’’ of “chiefdom” «monads» grows therein.
The formerly-dominant modes of monadic interaction — of ‘ontological other-conversion’, or ‘hetero-conversion’ — had partially converted still-extant “villages” human ‘socio-ontology’ /- human ‘socio-mass’, into “chiefdoms” ‘socio-ontology’ / ‘socio-mass’; [part of] still-extant “camps” ‘socio-ontology’ / ‘socio-mass’, into “chiefdoms” ‘socio-ontology’ / ‘socio-mass’, and [part of] [any] still-extant “bands” ‘socio-ontology’ / ‘socio-mass’, into “chiefdoms” ‘socio-ontology’ / ‘socio-mass’.
This process of ‘ontological hetero-conversion’,
or subordination / assimilation, of [part of] the remaining «monads» of the
precedingly-self-manifested ‘self-hybrid’ «arithmoi» — of the “villages” «arithmos», of the “camps” «arithmos», and of
the “bands” «arithmos» — is ‘auto-catalyzed’
by, and ‘[ac]celerates’ itself, in proportion to the presence of, and to
the density of /- ‘physical-spatial concentration’ of, the therefore ‘‘‘[self-]expanding’’’ “chiefdoms” «arithmos».
But as the — therefore and thereby growing — ‘physical-spatial
concentration’ of «monads»
of the “chiefdoms” «arithmos», in the key / core
‘‘‘nucleation zones’’’, crosses its own “critical mass” / ‘‘‘critical
density’’’ threshold, the process of ‘ontological hetero-conversion’,
of earlier-arisen monadic sub-populations, into the growing “chiefdoms” monadic population,
shifts.
It shifts into a new and previously unprecedented process, of the nascent, ‘neo-self-hybridizing’, ‘ontological self-conversion’ of [part of] that burgeoning “chiefdoms” «arithmos» human ‘socio-ontology’, by that burgeoning “chiefdoms” «arithmos» ‘socio-ontology’, into another ‘socio-ontology’: its ‘self-conversion’ into the ‘socio-mass’ and ‘socio-ontology’ of a new, ‘self-involutively higher’, previously unexampled ‘self-hybrid’ ‘‘‘onto-logical type’’’, a new increment of ‘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 ‘‘‘intra-action’’’
— of “chiefdoms”
with [other] “chiefdoms”,
then precipitates, as it exceeds its critical frequency / density threshold,
the irruption of yet a new, previously non-extant, previously non-existent ‘qualo-fractal’
scale / level / layer of human settlement / governance patterns and practices,
namely, that of the — initially multi-chiefdom
— “city-states”
human-social formation(s).
A “city-state”,
grasped as a human-social formations
unit / «monad», is a ‘meta1-«monad»’, ‘meta1-unit’, or ‘super1-unit’ relative to a
“chiefdom”,
grasped also as such a human-social formations
unit / «monad»; is a ‘meta2-«monad»’ relative to a “village”, grasped also as
such a human-social formations
unit / «monad»; is a ‘meta3-«monad»’ relative to a “camp”, grasped also as
such a human-social formations
unit / «monad», and is a ‘meta4-«monad»’
relative to a “band”,
grasped also as such a human-social formations
unit / «monad» --
‘meta1-meta1-meta1-camps’ = ‘meta3-camps’ =
‘meta1-meta1-villages’ = ‘meta2-villages’ =
‘meta1-chiefdoms’.
‘meta1-meta1-villages’ = ‘meta2-villages’ =
‘meta1-chiefdoms’.
Each typical “city-state”
is a meta-“chiefdom”,
or ‘meta’-“tribe”
— often founded as the result of a local alliance of neighboring “tribes”; an alliance
of formerly disparate, and formerly mutually-warring, local “tribes”, against yet more distant,
yet more ‘‘‘alien’’’ “tribes”
— i.e., is made up out of a [local-][sub-]«arithmos» of “chiefdoms” or “tribes”, i.e., is made up out of
a heterogeneous multiplicity of “chiefdoms”, by a ‘self-«aufheben» self-internalization’ of
that local, predecessor [sub-]«arithmos» of “chiefdoms” as predecessor «monads».
This ‘self-«aufheben» self-internalization’ — of an «arithmos» of “chiefdom” «monads», as collective / holistic
human-social ‘‘‘subject’’’ / agent of [self-]action, acting upon / operating
upon / operating within itself,
via its “chiefdom”
«monads» operating among
themselves — gives rise to an ontologically, qualitatively, behaviorally new and different, previously
unprecedented «arithmos», one that has “city-states”
as its «monads»: the «arithmos» of — [initially] multi-“tribe”, multi-“chiefdom” — “city-states”.
-- the ‘self-reflexive
functioning’
of “chiefdoms” acting upon “chiefdoms” -- still possibly reproduces the “chiefdoms” «arithmos»-of-“chiefdom”-« monads», but also possibly produces something new and unprecedented:
“city-states” -- the “city-states” «arithmos»-made-up-out-of-“city-state”-« monads».
Formulaic
Summary for “city-states” Emergent. ‘Ideographized’
/ ‘ideogramized’, “shorthand”
summary of the narrative above [in the following categories-sum / possibility-cumulum formula, s denotes the human-social formations ‘socio-ontological’ category of the “city-states” «arithmos»] --
< b + c + qcb + v + qvb + qvc + qvcb + f >2
-- so --
< b + c + qcb + v
+
qvb + qvc + qvcb + f >
→
< b + c + qcb + v + qvb + qvc + qvcb + f >2 =
< b + c + qcb + v + qvb + qvc + qvcb + f + qfb + qfc + qfcb + qfv + qfvb + qfvc + qfvcb + s >
-- as --
t = 3 → t = 4
-- or --
-- [partly] pictographically --
-- including the now eleven 'merely-hybrid socio-ontological categories' that have emerged to help describe the progress of human-social formation to this point in our 'meta-model narrative', we can describe the outcome at the end of 'meta-model epoch' 4 as follows --
NEXT --
Psychohistorical-Dialectical ‘Meta-Equation‘ of Human-Social Formations ‘Meta-Evolution’.
Part II. F. Epoch t = 5. empires.
No comments:
Post a Comment