Tuesday, October 08, 2013

Part 2 of 9. Seldonian, Dialectical-Algebraic Derivation of the Successor System to Capitalism.

Full Title -- 

Part 2 of 9.  Seldonian, Dialectical-Algebraic Derivation of the Fundamental Features for 

the Global Successor System to the [Self-]Global[ized] System of Capitalismusing the 

Dialectical Meta-Equation’ that Models the Meta-Evolution of 

the Human-Social Relations of Production

by [Guest Author] Hermes de Nemores.

Dear Readers,

Questions have recently been raised, in ‘www’ dialogues in which I have participated, as to what Karl Seldon derived, and how he derived it, with regard to the global system of ‘Democratic Communism’, or of ‘Marxian Democracy’ -- of ‘Political-Economic Democracy -- as the global successor system to the global capitalist system, using the dialectical algebra that he discovered in 1996.

Such questions deserve an answer.  

This post summarizes the second part of Seldon’s answer. 

It was extracted from writings of Hermes de Nemores, Secretary-General of Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica, and chairperson of its General Council, from his recent update to an introductory text, whose earlier version is available via --

[see, in particular, pages B-24 to B-37 in the latter].

-- and which I have adapted to the locally-available typography.

Enjoy this second part of Hermes de Nemores' re-telling of Seldon’s amazing story of discovery!



Example 5:  NQ Psychohistorical-Dialectical Meta-Model. The ‘Meta-Equation of Human-Social Relations of Production ‘Meta-Evolution’ [Part 2 of 9].

Historically Specific Commentary, Epoch t = 1.  The 'Intra-Duality' of Raw Appropriation’, from the Vanishing Point of Human 'Use-Value-Added'.  This larger '''story''' also includes the story of the [hu]man[ual] 'Appropriation' of the 'raw' products from diachronically earlier, pre-human Nature, ingredient in co-present, synchronic, extra-human Nature, by palaeo-proto-human[oid]s, which led, at length, with the physical-spatial concentration, or'densification', of such activities, to a 'second degree' of such Appropriation, to ‘Appropriation squared’ -- to a deeper Appropriation of the potentially humanity-useful properties of many pre-human/extra-human ‘Nature-al’ objects/products.

This deeper Appropriation is enacted by human agents, by their initially probablyaccidental, and only later deliberate'inter-Appropriation' and 'inter-Application' of portions of extra-human Nature; by applying raw-Appropriated objects/natural products to other such objects/products; by the deliberate, human-intensionalbringing to bear of the natural properties of one aspect of "raw" Nature upon other such aspects, by the actions of 'human[oid]-natur[e-]al' subjects/agents.

The archetypal image of this 'self-reflexive''second Appropriation' and 'second degree', or 'nonlinear', Appropriation'Appropriation of the Appropriation itself' -- 'rawAppropriation squared', or 'meta-Appropriation' -- is the deliberate striking of one kind of stone upon and against an Appropriately other kind of -- e.g., “glassy” -- stone, to form a blade or burin.

This act epitomizes the transition from a human praxis limited to the 'mere'Appropriation of 'raw' Nature, to the continuation/«aufheben»-conservation of that'mere Appropriation' plus ['+' or '~+~'] the increasingly skillful hand[i-]'crafting' of increasingly 'refined' "Goods" --

A --->  ~<A> = A A = <A>2 = <A + D<A> > =  <A  + qAA> = <A + G>   ¬{<,=,>}   A.

The equation specific to our generic meta-equation’, >-|-<t = <A>2^t, for its epoch t = 1, is

 >-|-<1 = A + G.

The emergence of G from out of this 'self-opposition''self-antithesis, or'self-duality'within A, indicated via ‘~’ as ‘self-relation’ sign -- i.e., out of A ~ A --'explicitizes' and 'outers' or 'externalizes' that 'essence-ial' internalimplicit, immanent,inherent intra-opposition within A, i.e., within the human-social activity praxis of "raw" Appropriation of the productions of 'pre-eval' or pre-human, and of 'co-eval',contemporaneously 'extra-human' Nature, by means of the A operation'''over-coming''' or 'coming-over''over-going' or 'going-over' -- and thereby also 'internalizing', 'contain[er]izing', and hence «aufheben»-'containing' -- itself; 'subsuming' or 're-entering into' itself, that is, by A's construction of a 'meta-A', made up out of the manifold multiplicity of, and including the multiplicitous'''cross-Applications''' of, A, as the 'Natur[e]al' result of a mounting, developed,'pleni-populated''self-densified' praxis of A.

Repetition or iteration of this Appropriation operation -- in effect, aself-Appropriation of the "Raw" Appropriation activity itself; the self-Application of the "Raw" Appropriation action/operation -- is what progressively partially deepens incipient humanity's Appropriation of 'non-human Nature', and thereby increasingly negates the "predicate" or epithet "Raw" initially attached to this activity of "Appropriation". 

This repetition cumulatively negates that epithet, in the direction of its opposite; of the 'not-Raw’, i.e., of the "worked-up", of the "finished", of the "refined"; ofart/artisanship/artifice/artificiality/'arti-factuality'.

Incipient humanity thus moves increasingly in the direction of the 'hu-man-u-f-act-uality'; of the for-human-consumption-human-improve-ment, of Nature -- of ‘extra-human’ Nature, and of  ‘‘‘human Nature’’’ alike, as a reflexive consequence of the former.

Out of this movement, there arises asn increase in the 'fitness' and 'fitting-ness', for human use/consumption, of the heterogeneous «monads» of this socio-ontological category of humans-Appropriated non-human Nature-products, pf thisAppropriation of Nature's [other] productions, for its human product[ion]s; forhuman Naturefor human use, via human labor upon/'''added to''' that non-humanNature /«physis»; by the human further-making of a thus 'humanizedNature'anti-physis»; of an 'objectified human agency, or ‘objectified subject-ivity', via this making-objective of human 'subjecthood'; this outward 'image-ing' and reflection of human faculties and needs in, into, and onto the world exterior to the human body; the formerly exo-human Nature, by this 'exo-reflection' and ‘exo-projection’, of what was within, in[to] its without.  Thus --

Humanity = the [self-]Human[ifying] part of Nature  is part of  Nature as Totality.

The self-application of this 'Raw Appropriation operation' is the following'Contra-Boolean Process' --

Raw Appropriation<Raw Appropriation> = <Raw Appropriation>2  ¬{<,=,>} Raw Appropriation;

<Raw Appropriation>2   -   Raw Appropriation     =   Goods-Making      =     Craftsmanship.

The before-cited epitome of this deepening Appropriation, of this'meta-Appropriation', including of this deepening 'cross-Appropriation', is the strikingof one rock, held in one hand, say a somewhat "glassy" rock, thus fitted, by its 'compositional Nature', to hold a sharp edge after fracture -- a [f]act by then '''known''' to the mind that 'held' the hands that held the two rocks -- by and againstanother rock, held by that same [proto-]human[oid] mind in its other hand, that other rock, say of a species of "harder" rocks, fitted by their characteristic 'compositional Nature' to fracture the "glassier" rock upon impact, creating tools,'''burins''''''blade’’’-edged rocks, objects existent in pre-h Nature' only "'by accident"', but, here, a deliberate result.

Using these two kinds of rocks -- these two kinds of raw Appropriations -- againsteach other, i.e., 'contra-' one another, thus gives birth to bladesburins, as initial «monads» of a new socio-ontological category of 'Goods'; to rudimentary, 'human[oid]-hand-made', '[hu-]man-u-fact-ur-ed' art[e][f]acts; to human-improved-for-humans products of human laborproducts of [self-]human[izing] and of [self-]human-ized Nature.

This act[ion] of the con-current, 'co-Appropriation' of two natural products ofdiffering qualities, harder versus "glassier", is orchestrated via human agency so as to bring these two contrasting "'raw'" properties mutually to bear upon one another, thus enacting a 'cross-Appropriation' of these qualities, and resulting in the creation of a species of physical objects with qualities, '''predicates''', or '''properties''' not normally extant in an earlier 'meta-state' of Nature, a 'meta-state' devoid of the definite, historically-specifically human 'species' of agency/'subject-ivity'/'subject-ness', and of its collectively-/cognitively-contrived social ‘praxes’.

The formula 'A<A>' or 'A of A' -- the formula connoting the '[self-]Appropriation ofAppropriation [itself]' -- also connotes 'serial Appropriation(s)', the iteratedre-Appropriation and deepening ‘‘‘raw'’’ Appropriation of the alreadypreviously‘‘‘raw’’’-Appropriated

The latter is instanced in the sequential stages of use-value-added '[hu-]man-u[al]-fact-ur-ing' or '''hand-making''' operations upon the‘‘‘work-in-process’’’/‘‘‘work-in-progress’’’ objects/objectifications of previous raw-Appropriation-activity, as in the '''Neo-lithic'''/'''Chalco-lithic'''-emergent molding, and later, the 'proto-metallurgical' firing, of Earthen clay jars. 

The advent of the so-called "artificial", the very advent of the «anti-physis» itself, inheres in this deeper and iterated Appropriation/cross-Appropriation of the"Natural" -- of the '''pre-human'''/'''extra-human''', or of the 'exo-human' ontology of the Cosmos. It inheres in this deepened and iterated-Appropriation / cross-Appropriation of the «physis» by and for the human outgrowth of that very"Nature"physis».  It is above all necessary to avoid repeating the error of taking the dialectic of '«Natur» # «Geist»' as any kind of Kantian radical dualism.

This >-|-<1 A<A> = A + G is the incipient form of the growth of the human-societal self-force of human-societal/communal self-re-production, hence also the growth of the ‘Meta-Darwinian’ fitness of the emergent, and ‘self-emerging’, self-developing complex unity of the Human Phenome/Human Genome.

The «genos» qAA G does not, in fact, connote a ‘one-«species» «genos», whoseunits, or «monads», are all of a single sub-kind.

The phrase “universal Appropriation”, of the universalization  of the «modus operandi», ‘‘‘technique’’’, or ‘‘‘technology’’’ of human Appropriation of the Totalityof Nature, “raw”, also carries connotations of Appropriations, as expropriations, of the human Appropriators themselves, as well as the connotations of Appropriations of the human Appropriations themselves, which we have explored heretofore herein, and which issue forth as Goods-productions, as we have seen above.

Thus, on the darker side, universal Appropriation/universal expropriation also includes the seeds of the later, slavery and serfdom social relations of production, and includes practices of inter-band warfare [the ‘self-hunting’ within early proto-humanity], and of cannibalism [the ‘self-consumption’ of early proto-humanity]. 

Universal predation, the universalization of human predation, includes connotations of predations upon the human predators themselves, by [the][other] human predators themselves -- connotations of a ‘self-predation’ going on within early proto-humanity.

The existence of the parasitical social relation of production of human slavery does not arise immediately, because, for a long time, the level attained by the primaeval growth of the human-social forces of production is insufficient to support slaves and slave labor.  Under those, primaeval, conditions, keeping, e.g., war captives, alive as slaves costs more food, etc., than any “equivalent”, let alone surplus, in Goods, that slave’s labors can produce within the limits of the available technology.  At this stage in the development of the human-social forces of production, prisoners, taken in the interminable inter-band and “inter-clan” wars, are killed, e.g., ritually sacrificed -- thereby also further terrorizing and intimidating opponents -- and/or cannibalized,not enslaved.  The slave-relation can first arise, in its first, patriarchal, familial forms, only on the basis of, and as an offshoot of, an advanced development within the t =1+ epochs of G, but it can persist, or re-emerge, in modified forms, even as late as the t = 4+ epochs of K, of «Kapital».

The existence of the social relation of production of serfdom presupposes agricultural production -- since “serfs” are, by definition, agricultural laborers -- i.e., the serf-relation presupposes a deeper degree of G.  

It presupposes the “human improvement, with respect to human consumption needs, of the raw products of extra-human Nature, all the way to the degree of “The Neolithic Revolution”, and, specifically, to the degree of the “domestication” of, e.g., ‘sociaLplants’, as well as of “sociaL animaLs”, by humans, and also, consequently, of the,self-reflexive, self-domestication’ of humans by humans, as well as of the, reflexive, “domestication”, of humans, by “sociaL animaLs”, and by ‘sociaL plants’, including the alteration of the genomes of such animaLs and pLants by humans-conducted artificial selection; by humans-orchestrated selective breeding. 

That is, the existence of the serfdom-relation presupposes human-social internalization of, and  “cultivation” of, e.g., “sociaL animaLs”, and ‘sociaL pLants’, in a way which increases their “Darwinian fitness -- their sustained rates of species biomass reproduction -- beyond the levels of fitness that they could obtain unaided, in the wild, and which does so by Human-Phenomic means, in ways which, symbiotically, also increase the Meta-Darwinian fitness of the human-Phenome/human-Genomecomplex unity -- the sustained rate of human socio-mass self-reproduction.

The serfdom-relation can thus first arise only on the basis of, and as an offshoot of, an advanced development within the t = 1+ epochs of G, but it, too, can persist, or re-emerge, in modified forms, in[to] later epochs as well.

No comments:

Post a Comment