Monday, July 22, 2013

Part II. E. The Psychohistorical-Dialectical Equation of Human-Social Formation(s), to Epoch t = 4. City-States.













Full Title:


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

Part II. E.  Epoch t = 4:   City-States” ‘Socio-OntologyEmergent.







In his book Non-Zero:  The Logic of Human Destiny, Robert Wright describes the generic ‘multi-chiefdomcity-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 chiefdoms 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-epoch 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-familybands”, 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.







 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 chiefdom-as-«monads» ‘densifies’ itself in those localities, a condition of ‘‘‘critically’’’ high “chiefdoms” density may arise, which we term self-surroundment of the chiefdom «monads», the self-environment / self-envelopment of the chiefdoms, or their envelopment- / surroundment- / environment-by-likes, created, for the chiefdoms, by the chiefdoms.

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 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’ — i.e., ‘‘‘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 “chiefdomsmonadic 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 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-chiefdomcity-states human-social formation(s).




A city-state, grasped as a human-social formations unit / «monad», is a ‘meta1monad»’, ‘meta1-unit, or ‘super1-unit relative to a chiefdom, grasped also as such a human-social formations unit / «monad»; is a ‘meta2monad»’ relative to a village, grasped also as such a human-social formations unit / «monad»; is a ‘meta3monad»’ 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»: 

city-states  =  meta4-bands  =  meta1-meta1-meta1-meta1-bands  = 

meta1-meta1-meta1-camps  =  meta1-meta1-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 tribe; an alliance of formerly disparate and formerly mutually-warring local tribes against more distant, 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 «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-chiefdomcity-states.



The subject / verb / object identical of “chiefdomssquared, “chiefdoms´chiefdoms” --

or ‘chiefdoms< chiefdoms >’ [“chiefdomsofchiefdoms”]

-- 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»-of-city-state-« monads».



Formulaic Summary for city-statesEmergent.  ‘Ideographized’ / ‘ideogramized’, “shorthand” summary of the narrative above [in the following categories-sum / possibility-cumulum formula, s denotes the human-social formationssocio-ontologicalcategory of the city-states «arithmos»]:

epoch t = 4:  m>-|-<4    =    < b >24    =   < b >16    =  

< 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 >.










No comments:

Post a Comment