Monday, October 21, 2013

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

Full Title -- 

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

for the Global Successor System to [Self-]Global[ized] Capitalism,

using 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 also as to how he derived it, with regard to the global system of ‘Democratic Communism’, or of ‘Marxian Democracy’ -- of ‘Political-Economic Democracy -- as the possible global successor system to the global capitalist system, using the algebra of dialectics that he discovered in 1996.

Such questions deserve an answer. 

This blog-entry summarizes the ninth and closing part of Seldon’s answer. 

This blog-entry was extracted from writings of Hermes de Nemores, Secretary-General of Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.], and chairperson of its General Council, from his recent update to an introductory text, whose earlier version is available via the following links --

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

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

This part also “dovetails” with, and flows back into, our not-yet-completed eight-part series on the Seldonian, Psychohistorical-Dialectical Meta-Equation of Human Social Formation(s) Meta-Evolution’, because it opens an exploration of the interconnexion between the predictions of that ‘meta-equation’, and those of the convergent ‘meta-equation’ addressed in this series, the Seldonian, ‘Psychohistorical-Dialectical Meta-Equation of Human Social Relations of Production Meta-Evolution’.

Enjoy this closing part of Hermes de Nemores’ re-telling of Seldon’s amazing saga of solution!



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

The Intra-Duality’ of 'Generalized Equity' as Predominant Social Relation of Production.  This, our predicted category of emergent future human social relations of production ‘socio-ontology’, denoted by E herein, is one whose manifest nature is still beyond present human experience. 

Our grasp of its conceptual essence is still too tenuous, as of this writing, to enable us to form a comprehensive meta-systematic insight into its ‘immanent dual’, or ‘self-dual’, though we feel little doubt that actualized 'Equitarian Societies' will increasingly manifest an inherent 'self-duality' that will drive additional ‘metafinite singularity’, new societal 'self-bifurcation', renewed societal 'meta-dynamicity', further ‘socio-onto-dynamasis’, further societal 'meta-evolution'.

A key issue is the location, in relation to this Encyclopedia Dialectica 'taxonomy level two' predicted irruption of a DE, of the timing and meaning of the predicted 'taxonomy level one' emergence of Dh, that is, of the predicted irruption of the ‘meta2-society’ of ‘meta-humanity’:  of the irruption of ‘the meta-human’ --

h ---> ~h   =  h of h =  h<h> = h2 = h ~+~ Dh  ¬{<,=,>}  h.

Another key issue relates to the emergence of fully '''mature''' form(s) -- including of fully ‘base-democratized’ forms -- of 'meta-national' ‘geo-demographic’ state-formations, in relation to the embryonic transnational forms already, presently, or formerly/historically, extant, e.g., the “United Provinces” of the Netherlands, the “United Kingdom”, the “United States”, the “League of Nations”, the “United Nations”, NATO, NAFTA, “multinational” ‘meta-national’ corporations, etc., etc. 

Per the NQ_ model of Example 4., the Seldonian, ‘Psychohistorical-Dialectical Meta-Equation of Human Social Formation(s) Meta-Evolution’, this involves the timing of the fullness of the ‘meta-model-predicted’ dialectical ‘self-meta-monad-ization’, or «aufheben», transition --

nations ---> ~nations  =  nations ~+~ Dnations  =  nations ~+~ meta-nations;

nations ~+~ meta-nations   ¬{<,=,>}    nations.

If the historical ‘socio-ontological category’ of the 'meta-national' is to connote the institutionalization of global, political-economic governance, it had better not mean, in the actual event, the plutocracy-dominated world-state of the 'Meta-Nazi' '''New International Order'''; otherwise the ZQ_ meta-model’s ‘annihilatory oppositional’ -h and -E terms/categories will have triumphed, and the human species of this planet will be finished-off. 

It had better be an econo-politically base-democratic global governance network, answering to a base consisting of the entire Terran human race:  what we call a ‘planetary «polis»’. 

The ‘socio-ontological’, human-'''geo'''-graphic connotation -- as we detect it -- of a plurality of 'meta-nations' may even imply something 'trans-geo-graphical', in the sense of an ‘intra-solar-systemic’ but, nonetheless, “inter-planetary” expansion of the Terran human ecosphere. 

It is our conjecture that the formation of a ‘planetary «polis»’ on planet Terra is well within the capability of +h -- of a Terran humanity triumphant over its present plutocratic oppressors.

However, a taxonomy level one emergence of what the ZQ_ meta-model’s +Dh term/category connotes -- the successful irruption of the ‘meta-human’ -- would, we hypothesize, coincide with the development of such an ‘intra-solar-systemic’ “interplanetary” institutional formation among several adjacent 'planetized humanities', e.g., emergent via the 'Terra-forming', and [meta-]human colonization, of the most nearby planetary/planetary-satellite neighbors of Earth --

meta-nations ---> ~meta-nations   =   meta-nations  ~+~ Dmeta-nations   =

global «polis»-formations ~+~ inner-solar-systemic multi-planetary federations

¬{<,=,>}     world-«poli»   =    planetary «polis»-formations

-- assuming that +h Terran humanity survives, and triumphs, in its impending clash with -h, and, concurrently, the looming clash of +E with -E [for more on the meanings -- the potential interpretations -- of such '''signed''' ‘dialectical meta-numbers’, see the Comment below, which concludes Part I of Supplement B.].

No comments:

Post a Comment