Part II. C. The Psychohistorical-Dialectical Equation of Human-Social Formation(s) 'Meta-Evolution', to Epoch t = 2. Villages.

Full Title:  

The Psychohistorical-Dialectical 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 ‘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-epoch from t = 2 to t = 3, during which the highest forms of human social formation all extant together are believed to have been the foraging, ~ single-family “bands”, the ‘multi-band’ “camps”, and the ‘multi-camp’ “villages”, 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’, an expression of ‘human-societal self-productivity growth’, or of ‘human-sociomass self-productivity growth’. 

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». 

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-innovation ‘‘‘nucleation zones’’’. 

This means that there has arisen a condition of “camps” densely surrounded by [other] “camps” at the heart of each such 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”.

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, by ‘ontological conversion hetero-actions / inter-actions’, of “camp” «monads» with immediate predecessor, “band” «monads».

The new condition — in the “camp”-«monads»-dense ‘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 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 to 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 ‘‘‘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 — multi-“camp” — “village” human-social formation(s).

A “village”, grasped as a human-social formation unit / «monad», is a ‘meta¹-«monad»’, ‘meta¹-«monad»’, 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», made up from out of a [local-][sub-]«arithmos» of “camps” units / «monads», i.e., 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 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 --

< “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 “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:  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 + q_cb + v,

as t = 1 → t = 2.

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.  

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 q_cb.

Its appearance may, at first, come as a shock to some readers, who may be expecting only the “pure 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 total 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.