Full Title:
The Psychohistorical-Dialectical Equation of Human-Social Formations ‘Meta-Evolution’.
In his book Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Robert Wright describes the generic ‘multi-city-state’ “empires” stage of human-social formation, as follows --
“. . .Still, even after granting these early and occasionally momentous contacts, we are left with three large realms of ancient civilization, quite removed from each other: China, the Near East, and the New World.”
“The scholarly consensus is that each developed its energy and information technologies -- farming and writing -- indigenously.”
“And each underwent its early civilizational history in essential isolation from the others.”
“Yet, in all three cases, the same thing happened.”
“In all three regions, loosely defined city-states -- urban cores surrounded by farmlands and villages and towns -- seem to have evolved ... .”
“And these city-states
merged, forming multicity states, and these multicity states grew into empires.”
“The first large multicity state in Mesopotamia was the Akkadian empire, formed around
2350 B.C.[E. -- M.D.], when Sargon of Akkade conquered Sumerian cities in southern Mesopotamia.”
“Sargon’s conquests came with
a divine seal of approval; having toppled a city, he asked the local priests to declare his
victory the will of the Mesopotamian god Enlil.”
“Perhaps to facilitate clear
thinking on their part, he exhibited the vanquished local king in neck-stock.”
As a further aid to
theological interpretation, Sargon installed his daughter as high priestess of
the goddess Nanna at Ur, the religious capital
of southern Mesopotamia.”
“In east Asia, farming seems
to have evolved a millennium or so later than in the Middle East, but its
consequences followed just as surely:
bigger villages,
more artifacts, more trade, vaster conflict, bigger buildings, bigger realms of
political control, starker status hierarchies ... .”
“An age of chiefdoms seems to have
been reached by the late fourth millennium B.C.[E. -- M.D.], and in
the second millennium B.C.[E. -- M.D.] came testaments to state-level organization: writing, cities, a king who could lead 13,000
men into battle and oversee epic engineering.”
“All of this belongs to what
is known as “the Shang civilization,” but the suggestion of homogeneity may be
misleading.”
“Some scholars now dissent
from the long-accepted Chinese view of a unified national past, and
envision the Shang as much like early Mesopotamia: individual, perhaps amorphous, city-states
that trade and battle, ally and fall out. ... .”
“The main point is that the story in China
moves in the same direction as the stories elsewhere.”
“The Shang’s successor -- the
Chou, who dominated the first millennium B.C.[E. -- M.D.] -- forged a vast state with many cities.”
“But control was diffuse, and
Chou principalities -- Ch’i, Ch’in, Chin, Ch’u, and others -- finally fell into
open warfare.”
The Ch’in eventually
prevailed, carrying Asian political unity to unprecedented scope. Hence the name China. ...
“...Meanwhile, back in the
Near East, more names had come and gone, and the regions they represented had
continued to get bigger, if fitfully: the
Assyrian empire
dwarfed the Akkadian ... and was in turn dwarfed by the Persian Empire..., which was then
overcome by Alexander the Great (the “son of God” and “general governor and
reconciler of the world”), whose Macedonian empire would soon be overshadowed by the Roman Empire (its emperor being
“the savior of all mankind”).”
“If in 200 B.C.[E. -- M.D.] the
Han, or the Romans, had magically gotten a peek at life in the ... new World,
they would have been unimpressed. A
casual glance across the Americas
would have suggested a hemisphere full of savages and barbarians; almost everywhere, social
structure fell somewhere on the spectrum from simple band to chiefdom. But here and there, visible on close
inspection, were cradles of civilization,
small pockets where culture was crossing the hazy line between chiefdom and state.”
“...Monte
Alban (in southernmost Mexico,
near Guatemala), is
reminiscent of the first big city
in Mesopotamia, Uruk. In both cases, the city-to-be was at first a mere town, outshining its
neighbors in size and architecture, and dominating them politically, in the
classic fashion of a chiefdom’s
hub. In both cases war and trade helped drive
complexity upward, and in both cases information technology and urbanization
proceeded hand-in-hand. In Monte Alban by 300 B.C.[E. -- M.D.] there
were calendrical notations, and glyphs used to label sculptures of dead
enemies. By 200 B.C.[E. -- M.D.] the
population had grown to 5,000, and it would surpass 30,000.
“But Monte Alban was destined to be outclassed by
Teotihuacán, a trading partner to the north that by A.D. [C.E. -- M.D.] 550,
with 125,000 residents, would be one of the six largest cities in the world... .”
“Teotihuacán is not to be
confused with the nearby city
of Tenochtitlán, the Aztec capital that, when
seen by Cortez in 1519, housed around 200,000 people (more than any European city [at that time -- M.D.]) and
anchored a state
twice the size of Portugal.”
“Cortez called Tenochtitlán “the most beautiful city in the world,” and
compared it to Venice.”
“Built on islands in a
saltwater lake, it was laced with canals and bridges and adorned with floating
gardens, a zoo, and an aviary.”
“The city’s waterborne commerce
involved tens of thousands of canoes, and its central marketplace, according to
Cortez, could accommodate 60,000 buyers and sellers.”
[ Robert Wright, Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Pantheon
Books [NY: 2000], p. 108-114, 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 =
5 to t = 6, during
which the highest forms of human social formation all extant together are
believed to have been the ancient ~ single-family “bands”, ‘multi-band’ “camps”, ‘multi-camp’ “villages”, ‘multi-village’ “chiefdoms”, ‘multi-chiefdom’ “city-states”, and ‘multi-city-state’ “empires”, which lasted from circa 2334
B.C.E., to the emergence of the first “national-state” kingdoms, or ‘“modern monarchies”’,
[e.g., Han dynasty China],
circa 202 B.C.E. -- a duration of ~ 2,132
years, and was also associated with a ~ 1,000-year-duration
Dark Age in
Europe, from the fall of the Western Roman empire, [e.g., as of the 2nd
sack of Rome] circa 455
C.E., to the emergence of the European Renaissance, circa 1469
C.E. [the date of the first appearance, in Europe, of the Latin term «media tempestas», or “middle times”, seeding
what we mean today by the term “The Middle Ages”], and after which also modern nation-state kingdoms emerged in Europe.
Suppose, as the next, consecutive emergence of new
‘socio-ontology’, in this ‘Qualo-Peanic
‘self-«aufheben»’ succession / ‘consecuum-cumulum’ of human-social
emergences, that the ‘‘‘population’’’ of the “city-states”
«arithmos» —
the ‘‘‘population’’’
of which each individual
“city-state”
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 “city-states”-as-«monads» ‘densifies’ itself
in those localities, a condition of ‘‘‘critically’’’ high “city-state” density may arise, which we term
the ‘self-surroundment’,
or the ‘self-envelopment’,
of the core “city-states”
«monads», that
is, the ‘self-environment’
of the “city-states”, or their ‘surroundment- / envelopment- / environment-by-likes’, created, for the “city-states”, by the “city-states” themselves.
This condition would arise, first and especially,
within the ‘centerward’, or the ‘coreward’, already-densest sub-population of “city-states” «monads» of each
of the key / core such localities, or ‘meristemal’ / ‘‘‘vanguard’’’
social-relations-innovation ‘‘‘nucleation zones’’’.
This means that there has arisen a condition of “city-states” surrounded -- relatively densely -- by [other] “city-states” at the heart of each
such locality, a condition expressed, in the F.E.D.
“First Psychohistorical Algebra”, via a multiplication analogy --
city-states2 = city-states x city-states.
This condition would have thereby supplanted, in intensity /
‘intensivity’, within these key / core loci, the ‘precedingly-dominant’
condition of the ‘surroundment’
of the “city-states”
«monads» by
their immediate-predecessor ‘self-hybrid’, ‘inverse-consecutive’ «monads», namely, by the «monads» of the «arithmos» of “chiefdoms”.
A new, unprecedented innovation in the taxonomy of human-social
settlement / governance patterns ‘socio-ontology’, of human ‘socio-systematics’
/ ‘socio-taxonomics’, is thereby seeded.
The former condition was dominated by, and characterized
by, ‘merely-hybridizing’ reactions /- ‘allo-actions’, by ‘ontological
conversion hetero- / inter-actions’,
of “city-state”
«monads» with
their immediate predecessor «monads»,
and with [any] still-persisting earlier-predecessor «monads» — predecessor «monads» as yet
unassimilated to any higher ‘‘‘degree’’’ of ontic ‘self-involution’ / ‘self-internalization’ / ‘‘‘self-interiorization’’’ — i.e., by interactions
with “chiefdom”
‘self-hybrid’ «monads»,
“village” ‘self-hybrid’
«monads», “camp” ‘self-hybrid’
«monads», “band” ‘self-hybrid’
«monads», and
with the [hetero-]hybrids of all of these.
The new condition — in the ‘‘‘socio-ontological innovation
nucleation zones’’’ — is dominated by, and characterized by, ‘auto-hybridizing’
interactions, ‘self-interactions’, or ‘intra-actions’, of “city-state” «monads», with [other] “city-state” «monads», which
become more and more frequent / increasingly ‘self-frequentized’, as
the ‘‘‘population density’’’ of “city-state” «monads» grows therein.
The formerly-dominant modes of monadic interaction — of ‘ontological
other-conversion’, ‘ontological allo-conversion’, or ontological ‘hetero-conversion’
— had partially converted, or subordinated, still-extant “chiefdoms” ‘socio-ontology’
/ ‘socio-mass’ [in]to “city-states”
‘socio-ontology’ / ‘socio-mass’; still-extant “villages” ‘socio-ontology’
/ ‘socio-mass’ [in]to “city-states”
‘socio-ontology’ / ‘socio-mass’; [any] still-extant “camps” ‘socio-ontology’ /
‘socio-mass’ [in]to “city-states”
‘socio-ontology’ / ‘socio-mass’, and [any] still-extant “bands” ‘socio-ontology’ / ‘socio-mass’
[in]to “city-states”
‘socio-ontology’ / ‘socio-mass’.
This process of ‘ontological hetero-conversion’ of [part of]
the remaining «monads»
of the ‘precedingly’-self-manifested «arithmoi» — of the “chiefdoms” «arithmos», of the “villages” «arithmos», of the “camps” «arithmos», of the “bands” «arithmos», and of the [hetero-]hybrids
of all of these — is ‘auto-catalyzed’ by, and ‘[ac]celerates’ itself, in
proportion to the presence of, and to the density of / to the ‘physical-spatial
concentration’ of, the therefore-must-have-been ‘‘‘[self-] expanding’’’ “city-states”
«arithmos».
However, as the — therefore, thereby growing — ‘physical-spatial
concentration’ of the «monads»
of the “city-states”
«arithmos»,
in the key / core ‘‘‘nucleation zones’’’, crosses its “critical mass” / ‘‘‘critical
density’’’ threshold, the process of ‘ontological hetero-conversion’, of past monadic sub-populations
into the growing “city-states”
monadic
population, shifts.
It shifts into a previously unprecedented process, of the
nascent ‘ontological self-conversion’ of [part of] the burgeoning “city-states”
«arithmos» ‘socio-ontology’,
by parts
of that burgeoning “city-states”
«arithmos» ‘socio-ontology’
itself, into the content of a new ‘socio-ontological’ category: its ‘self-conversion’ into the ‘socio-mass’
/ ‘socio-ontology’ of a ‘self-involutively higher’, previously unexampled ‘‘‘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 “city-states”
with “city-states”,
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 multi-“city-state”
“empires”
human-social formation(s), e.g., the Incan, Mayan, Aztec, Babylonian, Egyptian,
Persian, Athenian, Carthaginian, Macedonian, and Roman “empires”.
Note:
The word “empire”
is used, herein, only in its earlier meaning, to describe a pre-nation-states,
multi-“city-state”
governance / settlement formation, primarily of the ancient-historical world. This social formation involved “city-state”-colonization,
and tributary, etc., conquest, [partial-]enslavement, and/or other subjugation
of, especially, other / rival “city-states”, by a dominant / ‘‘‘central’’’ “city-state”, as seen, for
example, in those “empires”
that emerged, in the Mediterranean planetary ‘sub-hemisphere’ of planet Terra,
during the period of ‘‘‘classical antiquity’’’, such as the rapacious / parasitical “empires” centered upon
the successively, transiently dominant / ‘‘‘central’’’ “city-states” of Akkad, Persepolis,
Athens, Carthage, Macedon, Alexandria, and Rome.
The word “empire”
is not used herein to describe that qualitatively, ontologically, behaviorally,
and ‘‘‘categorially’’’ different — systematically / taxonomically
different — and higher in ‘qualo-fractal’ scale / level / layer of
the later-to-emerge imperialist
formations of the “nation-state” epoch.
The “nation-state” epoch
of ‘‘‘[national]
empires’’’,
the “nation-state” epoch
/ scale / level /- layer of many-“nation-state”, ‘nation-al’ / colonial imperialisms, is higher in ‘ontic
dimensionality’ — but nonetheless ‘qualo-fractally analogous to’ — those
earlier-to-emerge formations of the multi-“city-state” “empires” epoch.
The former, national, ‘‘‘empires’’’, are typically centered in a
single, dominant transitional / mercantile-capitalist, or
industrial-capitalist, “nation-state”,
such as the rapacious / parasitical inter-[proto-]national imperialisms centered
upon the transiently-dominant ‘‘‘central’’’ [proto-] “nation-states” of medieval
Portugal, medieval Spain, and the Dutch United Provinces, or,
later, those of modern France, England, Russia, Germany,
Italy, Japan, of the so-called “Soviet” Union, of the so-called “Peoples’
” so-called “Republic” of China, and — last, but far from least, in
rapacity — of the North American “United States”.
An “empire”,
grasped as a human-social unit
/ «monad»,
is a ‘meta1-«monad»’, ‘meta1-unit’, or ‘super1-unit’ relative to a “city-state”, grasped also as such a
human-social unit
/ «monad»;
is a ‘meta2-«monad»’ relative to a “chiefdom”, grasped also as
such a human-social unit;
is a ‘meta3-«monad»’ relative to a “village”, grasped also as
such a human-social unit;
is a ‘meta4-«monad»’ relative to a “camp”, grasped also as
such a human-social unit,
and is a ‘meta5-«monad»’ relative to a “band”, grasped also as
such a human-social unit:
Each typical “empire” is a meta-“city-state” — often founded via the
military and commercial conquest, by a single, ‘‘‘central’’’, dominant “city-state”, such as ancient Macedon, or ancient Rome, of a
multitude of other “city-states”
— a ‘meta-“city-state”’,
made up out of a [local-] [sub-]«arithmos» of “city-state” «monads», i.e., made up out
of a heterogeneous multiplicity of “city-state” «monads», by means of a ‘self-«aufheben» self-internalization’ of
that local, predecessor «arithmos»
of “city-states”
as predecessor «monads».
This ‘self-«aufheben» self-operation’ — of an «arithmos» of “city-state” «monads», as collective
human-social ‘‘‘subject’’’ / agent of [self-]action, acting upon / operating upon / operating within itself,
via its “city-state” «monads» operating among
themselves — gives rise to an ontologically, qualitatively, behaviorally new and different,
previously unprecedented «arithmos»,
one that has “empires”
as its «monads»:
the «arithmos»
of ‘multi-“city-state”’
“empires”.
The ‘subject
/ verb / object identical’ expressed
as “city-states” squared,
or “city-states” x “city-states”, or ‘city-states< city-states >’ [ “city-states” of “city-states” ] --
the ‘self-reflexive functioning’ of “city-states” acting upon “city-states” -- still possibly reproduces the “city-states” «arithmos»-of-city-state-«monads», but also possibly produces something new and unprecedented: “empires”; the “empires” «arithmos»-of-empire-«monads».
or “city-states” x “city-states”, or ‘city-states< city-states >’ [ “city-states” of “city-states” ] --
the ‘self-reflexive functioning’ of “city-states” acting upon “city-states” -- still possibly reproduces the “city-states” «arithmos»-of-city-state-«monads», but also possibly produces something new and unprecedented: “empires”; the “empires” «arithmos»-of-empire-«monads».
Formulaic
Summary for “Empires” Emergent. ‘Ideographized’
/ ‘ideogramized’, “shorthand”
summary of the narrative above [in the following formula, e
denotes the ontological category of the “empires” «arithmos»]:
-- so, as t = 4 → t = 5 --
=
< b + c + qcb + v
+
qvb + qvc + qvcb + f + qfb + qfc + qfcb + qfv +
qfvb + qfvc + qfvcb + s + qsb +
qsc + qscb + qsv +
qsvb + qsvc + qsvcb +
qsf + qsfb + qsfc + qsfcb +
qsfv + qsfvb + qsfvc + qsfvcb + e >.
Overall Models Specification --
Overall Models Specification --
No comments:
Post a Comment