The Psychohistorical-Dialectical ‘Meta-Equation’ of Human-Social Formations ‘Meta-Evolution’.
Part III.: Interlude --
A Break in Our Meta-Model’s Flow of ‘Connotational Entailments’;
Some Simpler Examples of ‘Dialectical Meta-Models’.
Dear Reader,
Our narration of the F.E.D. psychohistorical-dialectical ‘meta-equation meta-model’ of human-social formation(s) must here come to a temporary pause.
This is because, with the irruption of the ancient “empires” social formation, the ‘‘‘historical logic’’’,
the ‘form of chronological
followership’, and of ‘connotational entailment’, that has carried forward the heuristic,
‘intuitional’ flow of this ‘meta-model’ so far, from epoch t = 0 to epoch t = 5, has come to a break, for its epoch t = 6.
It has come to a break
because the “nation-states”
social formations that, at length, succeeded and superseded the multi-“city-state”
“empires”
social formations, are not
‘meta-empires’,
made up out of a
heterogeneous multiplicity of [ whole ] empires’.
But before entering into considerations as to why this break
occurred, for Terran humanity, at least, with the ancient “empires” social formations, and
as to how the ‘meta-model’ formed by the F.E.D. psychohistorical ‘meta-equation meta-model’ of
human-social formation(s) can be heuristically and ‘intuitionally’ restarted, resumed
-- iterating even into ‘meta-model’ epochs t > 6, epochs that represent the possible future of Terran human
social formation(s), and, thus, register the predictions of this ‘meta-model’ for that future -- we wish to
provide, to the reader, some simpler examples of ‘dialectical meta-models’.
Perusal of these three, simpler ‘dialectical meta-models’ by the
reader should render what is going on in the far more complex F.E.D.
psychohistorical-dialectical equations ‘meta-models’ -- e.g., in the far more complex
‘meta-model’ that is the F.E.D.
psychohistorical-dialectical ‘meta-equation’ of human social formation(s) ‘meta-evolution’ -- much
clearer.
The F.E.D. psychohistorical-dialectical ‘meta-equation’ of human social formation(s) ‘meta-evolution’ is a case of ‘diachronic dialectic’, i.e., of ‘‘‘historical dialectic’’’, but in a context where ‘human-phenomic’ [‘psychohistorical-material’] realities are taken into account, at least implicitly.
In it, the ‘socio-ontological categories’ whose connoting symbols it generates as its epoch-counter, t, rises consecutively in whole-number value, are generated in chronological order, i.e., in historical order-of-first-emergence, which is also the progressive order of their rising complexity, specificity, thought-concreteness, or determinateness.
Major new ‘socio-ontological categories’ first arise as “populations” of ‘meta-units’, each of which is an <<aufheben>> ‘meta-unit-ization’, ‘meta-<<monad>>-ization’, ‘meta-individual-ization’, ‘meta-element-ization’, or ‘meta-holon-ization’ of the ‘‘‘units/<<monads>>/logical individuals/elements/holons’’’ of a predecessor, earlier-arisen “population” of [relative] “mere” units -- e.g., multi-city state empire units up from out of “populations” of ‘intensifyingly intra-acting’ city-state units.
This happens due to ‘meta-finite resonance singularities’ -- ‘ontological revolutions’ which irrupt, relatively suddenly, when the physical-spatial concentration, or density, of such ‘‘‘units’’’ rises across a critical threshold: cumulative, gradual quantitative change/growth -- expanded self-reproduction -- in the “population” count, and in the localized densities, of the “mere” ‘‘‘units’’’ suddenly turns into the qualitative change of the irruption of a “population” of a new kind , of a ‘‘‘new ontology’’’, of ‘‘‘units’’’, from out of the -- often still persisting and growing -- “population” of predecessor, “mere” ‘‘‘units’’’.
The three simpler models of the forthcoming interlude are all examples of ‘synchronic dialectic’, i.e., of ‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’ -- a systematic method of presentation, or of pedagogically-advantaged delivery, of a ‘dialectical theorization’ of a present-day, experienced totality, to an audience that shares in the experience of that contemporary reality -- not, directly, the presentation of the theoretical reconstruction of a history.
That is,all three models describe/present present sub-totalities, present actualities, snapshots of present components of the human phenome, or ‘‘‘memes pool’’’.
The ‘ontological categories’ of these three ‘categorial progression’ presentations are presented in ‘‘‘systematic order’’’, that is, in order of rising complexity/thought-concreteness/determinations-richness.
They start from the simplest, most abstract single category that at all describes the target sub-totality, and end with the richest, most complex, most ‘thought-concrete’, most “determinate” category that comprehensively “grasps” -- or that assists its human users in grasping/comprehending -- that contemporaneous sub-totality, with a sequence of increasingly complex categories presented in-between those two, first and last, extreme categories.
This systematic order of presentation may deviate markedly from the historical order of first manifestation in which the constituents of its categories first arose. It may even largely reverse that chronological order.
The units of a given category that is presented later may also be ‘meta-units’ of the units of a category that was presented earlier.
For example, the word units of the words category may be <<aufheben>> ‘meta-units’ of the units of the letters-of-the-alphabet category -- but the systematic presentation is not asserting a history in which letters arose earlier, and later gave rise, causally, to words.
Letters and words are presented as naming two co-existing, qualitatively different categories, with the words category supplementary to the letters category in describing the contemporary human-phenomic sub-totality of phonetic written language.
It is not a diachronic, temporal ‘metafinite singularity ideo-ontological revolution’ that irrupts a first ‘“population”’ of words from out of an earlier-extant ‘“population”’ of letters.
It is rather a kind of mental, cognitive-psychological, ideational ‘“critical mass”’, achieved via a presentational/presented deepening reflection upon the category of letters -- revealing its necessity, but also its inadequacy, for conveying and theoretically explaining/comprehending the experienced totality of the system of contemporary English phonetic language -- that urges the presentor’s, and the presentees’, attentions onwards, and “upwards”, to the more inclusive, more complex, more determinate ‘meta-category’ of those ‘meta-letter units’ called words, which, upon further reflection, this time upon the words category, is also found to be necessary, but inadequate/incomplete, leading attention(s) onward and upward to the ‘meta-meta-category’ of those ‘meta-meta-units’ called sentences, and so on ...
The F.E.D. psychohistorical-dialectical ‘meta-equation’ of human social formation(s) ‘meta-evolution’ is a case of ‘diachronic dialectic’, i.e., of ‘‘‘historical dialectic’’’, but in a context where ‘human-phenomic’ [‘psychohistorical-material’] realities are taken into account, at least implicitly.
In it, the ‘socio-ontological categories’ whose connoting symbols it generates as its epoch-counter, t, rises consecutively in whole-number value, are generated in chronological order, i.e., in historical order-of-first-emergence, which is also the progressive order of their rising complexity, specificity, thought-concreteness, or determinateness.
Major new ‘socio-ontological categories’ first arise as “populations” of ‘meta-units’, each of which is an <<aufheben>> ‘meta-unit-ization’, ‘meta-<<monad>>-ization’, ‘meta-individual-ization’, ‘meta-element-ization’, or ‘meta-holon-ization’ of the ‘‘‘units/<<monads>>/logical individuals/elements/holons’’’ of a predecessor, earlier-arisen “population” of [relative] “mere” units -- e.g., multi-city state empire units up from out of “populations” of ‘intensifyingly intra-acting’ city-state units.
This happens due to ‘meta-finite resonance singularities’ -- ‘ontological revolutions’ which irrupt, relatively suddenly, when the physical-spatial concentration, or density, of such ‘‘‘units’’’ rises across a critical threshold: cumulative, gradual quantitative change/growth -- expanded self-reproduction -- in the “population” count, and in the localized densities, of the “mere” ‘‘‘units’’’ suddenly turns into the qualitative change of the irruption of a “population” of a new kind , of a ‘‘‘new ontology’’’, of ‘‘‘units’’’, from out of the -- often still persisting and growing -- “population” of predecessor, “mere” ‘‘‘units’’’.
The three simpler models of the forthcoming interlude are all examples of ‘synchronic dialectic’, i.e., of ‘‘‘systematic dialectic’’’ -- a systematic method of presentation, or of pedagogically-advantaged delivery, of a ‘dialectical theorization’ of a present-day, experienced totality, to an audience that shares in the experience of that contemporary reality -- not, directly, the presentation of the theoretical reconstruction of a history.
That is,all three models describe/present present sub-totalities, present actualities, snapshots of present components of the human phenome, or ‘‘‘memes pool’’’.
The ‘ontological categories’ of these three ‘categorial progression’ presentations are presented in ‘‘‘systematic order’’’, that is, in order of rising complexity/thought-concreteness/determinations-richness.
They start from the simplest, most abstract single category that at all describes the target sub-totality, and end with the richest, most complex, most ‘thought-concrete’, most “determinate” category that comprehensively “grasps” -- or that assists its human users in grasping/comprehending -- that contemporaneous sub-totality, with a sequence of increasingly complex categories presented in-between those two, first and last, extreme categories.
This systematic order of presentation may deviate markedly from the historical order of first manifestation in which the constituents of its categories first arose. It may even largely reverse that chronological order.
The units of a given category that is presented later may also be ‘meta-units’ of the units of a category that was presented earlier.
For example, the word units of the words category may be <<aufheben>> ‘meta-units’ of the units of the letters-of-the-alphabet category -- but the systematic presentation is not asserting a history in which letters arose earlier, and later gave rise, causally, to words.
Letters and words are presented as naming two co-existing, qualitatively different categories, with the words category supplementary to the letters category in describing the contemporary human-phenomic sub-totality of phonetic written language.
It is not a diachronic, temporal ‘metafinite singularity ideo-ontological revolution’ that irrupts a first ‘“population”’ of words from out of an earlier-extant ‘“population”’ of letters.
It is rather a kind of mental, cognitive-psychological, ideational ‘“critical mass”’, achieved via a presentational/presented deepening reflection upon the category of letters -- revealing its necessity, but also its inadequacy, for conveying and theoretically explaining/comprehending the experienced totality of the system of contemporary English phonetic language -- that urges the presentor’s, and the presentees’, attentions onwards, and “upwards”, to the more inclusive, more complex, more determinate ‘meta-category’ of those ‘meta-letter units’ called words, which, upon further reflection, this time upon the words category, is also found to be necessary, but inadequate/incomplete, leading attention(s) onward and upward to the ‘meta-meta-category’ of those ‘meta-meta-units’ called sentences, and so on ...
We plan to deliver our narrations of those three simpler
‘dialectical meta-models’ -- simplest first, most complex last -- over the course of
the next three-or-so blog-entries.
Regards,
Miguel
Regards,
Miguel
No comments:
Post a Comment