The «Allo-Aufheben» Dialectical PROCESS of First STARS Formations. Part 04.: Everywhere-Dense Dialectic Series.

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The

«Allo-Aufheben»

Dialectical

PROCESS

of

                 First

               STARS

           Formations.

 

 

 

Part 04.:

 

Everywhere-Dense

Dialectic

Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

 The dialectogram posted above does not depict a case of ‘self-hybrid’, ‘self-meta-unit-ization’, «auto-aufheben» dialectic in the dialectics of pre-human nature.

 

On the contrary, it depicts a case of hybrid, «allo-aufheben» dialectical synthesis in the process of birth of the first, “Generation III”, stars in the history of our cosmos.

 

Thus, the units of the ‘species a.’ category do not give rise, through a process of «auto-aufheben» ‘self-meta-unit-ization’, to the units of the ‘species b.’ category.

 

On the contrary, both the units of the ‘species a.’ cosmo-ontological category, and the units of the ‘species b.’ cosmo-ontological category, co-exist in the time of the first advent of stars in our cosmos, and interact.

 

Their interaction leads to their dialectical synthesis in the units of cosmo-ontological category g., the units that are the first stars in the history of our cosmos.

 

What is more, this process is of one of the interaction of two merely ‘self-hybrid’ categories.  It is the interaction of a [hypothetically, per our ‘Regenerist Hypothesis’] ‘self-hybrid’ ontological category – that of the “mini-halo” units of the [hypothetical] ‘meta-spandetron’ units of “Dark Matter”, q_c – with an already, triply-hybrid cosmological category: that of ‘particulo-atomo-molecular’ “clouds”, q_mar, initially existing outside of those “Dark Matter mini-halo” units.

 

The process, per the current cosmological-scientific community’s consensus, unfolds as follows –

 

 

1.  “Dark Matter” mini-halos’ “gravitational wells” gravitationally mutually interact with, and suck into them, cold neutral gas clouds, consisting mainly of Hydrogen atoms and Helium atoms, plus a molecular critical catalyst.  Those clouds, “ingested” by the mini-halos, start to heat-up via their resulting gravitational and self-gravitational [self-] compression.  

 

2.  For these “ingested” gas clouds to densify enough to form even a proto-star, they must radiate away, via photonic emissions, enough of their, anti-compressive, expansionary heat.  Neutral Hydrogen atoms, and neutral Helium atoms cannot provide sufficient photonic heat dissipation on their own.  But the H₂ molecules, that then form within these compressing gas clouds, can, and do.  Those H₂ molecules rotate and, in that process, emit infrared photons that flee the gas clouds, taking heat energy out with them.    

 

3.  Although this heat-release process is less efficient in cooling, hence densifying, these mini-halo-“ingested” gas clouds, than the later proto-planetary disk processes, possible only after first generation and later generation stars have cooked up Carbon and Oxygen within themselves, and released those accumulating higher atomic species into later generations of gas clouds – Carbon and Oxygen being much more efficient at cooling compressing-gas-clouds – these primordial gas clouds do eventually cool and self-compress enough to form proto-stars, that eventually heat-up enough, due to their self-gravitational self-densification, to ignite protonic [“Hydrogen”] fusion in their plasma cores.  But this process therefore takes much longer than the star-formation processes of later stellar generations.  This means that, by the time the first generation stars cool enough to get dense enough to ignite internal fusion, they have accrued more an more atomic and molecular matter over time, becoming typically much larger and more massive than typical later-generation stars, often reaching one to two orders of magnitude larger than our Sun.

 

The resulting, “Generation III”, dialectical synthesis hybrids are of ‘multi-hybrid’ or ‘compound-hybrid’ cosmo-ontological category q_cmar.  In dialectical-ideographic summary –

 

q_c  <´> q_mar   =   q_mar  <+>  q_cmar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

and

 

 

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see –

 

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE HISTORICAL DIALECTIC of the Wage-Labor and/versus the Capital Categories. Part 03.: Everywhere-Dense Dialectic Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE

HISTORICAL

DIALECTIC

 

of

 

the

Wage-Labor

 

and/versus

 

the Capital

 

Categories.

 

 

 

Part 03.:

 

Everywhere-Dense

Dialectic

Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

 

In ancient times, in ancient civilizations, long before the “capital” social relation of social reproduction and the “wage-labor” social relation of social reproduction coalesce into the predominant social relation of societal self-re-production of modernity, of industrial capitalism, there was a prehistory of the capital social relation – there existed socially-marginal, socially-subordinate, “antediluvian forms” [Marx] of capital – e.g., merchant’s capital and usurers’ capital.

 

Just so, also in ancient times, in ancient civilizations, there existed a pre-history of ‘protoic’, socially-marginal, ‘‘‘antediluvian’’’ forms of wage-labor, that were, initially, unhinged from those “antediluvian” capital-forms and their monetary-profits-creation.

 

The relative sub-species categories of this ‘protoic’ wage-labor relative-species category include:

1.  Ancient Soldiers’ Wages.  The Roman military state, from circa 406 BCE, paid a retainer, called, in Latin, a «salarium» or «stipendium», to its citizen-soldiers – typically land-owning farmers – to meet their livelihood expenses while they were away from their farms, providing military services to the Roman state, which funded these salaries, not from money-capital, but from plundered tribute and taxes.  These salaries were subsistence revenues for the soldiers, and did not produce surplus-value for the Roman state to re-invest.  The Roman state merely consumed the labor-services of their soldiers, made possible by paying such salaries to their soldiers.  As land-owning farmers, these citizen-soldiers were not completely severed from means of production ownership-access, hence escaped the “modern proletarian” condition of the propertyless wage-laborer, incorporated into capital via the wage as sole legally-sanctioned means of worker-survival.  The “return on investment” r[e]aped by the Roman state via this «praxis» was not a mass of grown or crafted commodities, saleable, on markets, for a profit, but plundered goods, captives of war convertible to slaves-as-commodities for the Roman, slave-labor-based economy, and incremental land-ownership for the Roman state.  

 

2.  Wages Paid to Slave Overseers.  In the ancient Roman agricultural estates [«latifundia»], an overseer of slaves, called, in Latin, a «villicus», himself often a – highly-trusted, by the estate’s owner(s) – slave or former slave [“freedman”], was paid a wage called a «peculium»: a sum of money, and/or of property, managed by that «villicus», but still legally owned by the “slave-master” owner(s) of that «latifundium».  This wage served as part of a slave-labor economy’s psychological incentives management strategy.  The overseer, if still a slave, might save these wages to eventually buy freedom, motivating such an overseer to a draconian extraction of labor from the “overseen” field slaves, “lower” in the plantation hierarchy.  These «latifundia» were themselves ‘protoic pre-vestiges’ of later, industrial-capitalist “productive capital” [Marx], producing, e.g., massive quantities of grain agricultural commodities, mainly for Mediterranean markets, and selling those commodities, on those markets, typically at a profit.    

 

3.  Wages Paid to Ancient Day Laborers.  In ancient Athens, there existed free citizens, called «thetes», who owned no land or other means of livelihood – e.g., who were unable to farm for their livelihoods – and worked in return for a wage, paid to them daily.  Within the psychohistorically-inevitable «mentalité» born of the human-social conditions of those times, and of the ‘human phenome’ that those conditions reproduced, these «thetes» were looked down upon, by “landed” commoner citizens and “nobility” alike, with extreme derogation and disdain, as ‘almost slaves’, or ‘near slaves’.  This was because they were dependent upon others for their daily livelihoods – a condition akin to “temporary slavery”.

 

However, modern, full-form, Industrial-capitalist “wage-labor” required a long historical process which completely severed the “wage worker” from ownership-access to any means of production – agricultural, craft, industrial, etc. – so that the wage-worker became abjectly livelihood-dependent upon wage-employment by individual capitals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

and

 

 

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see –

 

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 02.: Everywhere-Dense Dialectic Series. THE SYSTEMATIC DIALECTIC within the Category of Dialectical Synthesis Units as «Genos»-Category.

 

THE

SYSTEMATIC

DIALECTIC

 

within

 

the

Category

of

Dialectical

Synthesis

Units

as

«Genos»-

Category.

 

 

 

Part 02.:

 

Everywhere-Dense

Dialectic

Series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

Over the course of long experience with ‘dialectograming’ and analyzing a plethora of individual triadic and also more-extended systematic, historical, ‘diachronico-synchronic’ and psychohistorical dialectics, for a vast variety of subject-matter Domains, we have gradually come to notice a triadicity in the sub-categories of the ‘dialectical uni-categories’ within a given Domain – i.e., of the sub-categories whose units represent dialectical syntheses, or hybridizations, of some of the units of an '«arché»-category' and/with some units of its 'contra-category' – of units of a 'thesis-category' and of/with those of its 'antithesis-category'.

 

The three species-categories that we have so far noticed, recurrently, within the 'dialectical synthesis category', taken as their relative «genos»-category, are as follows:

 

1.  The most common kind of dialectical ‘uni-category’, or ‘synthesis-category’, encountered by us so far, is a category whose units are a Hegelian-like, combinatoric ‘“Complex unity”’ hybrid of the ‘thesis-category’ units and/with the ‘antithesis-category’ units.  

An ‘exo-human’ dialectic-of-Nature example of this kind of synthesis/hybrid, complex-unity unit would be a first-generation star.  Such a star is a combination of an outer shell of atoms [e.g., of Helium nuclei], with an inner core of “particles” [e.g., of a plasma of dissociated protons and electrons], category-symbol q_ar.  

An example from the dialectic of human Nature is the complex unity of the human Genome and the language-based human Phenome within, and constituting, each acculturated human individual, category-symbol q_PG.  

The units of such a hybrid category are, quite aptly, designated as consisting of BOTH ‘thesis-units’ and ‘antithesis-units’.

 

2.  The dialectical-synthesis kind second-most commonly encountered by us, to-date, is the interMediate or ‘‘‘Mean-like’’’ ‘uni-category’ of dialectical-synthesis units.  

An ‘exo-human’ dialectic-of-Nature example of this kind of dialectical-synthesis category unit would be the “anyons particles” category of the dialectical unity of particle ‘Bosonicity’ and/with ‘Fermionicity’, whose observed “statistics” may fall “anywhere in-between” “Fermi-Dirac statistics” and their, polar-opposite, “Bose-Einstein statistics”[For more, see: F.E.D. Dialectics: THE DIALECTIC of Fermions and/versus Bosons. Part 01.: Everywhere-Dense Dialectic Series.].  

A dialectic-of-human-Nature example is that of Aristotle’s “Doctrine of the Mean” ethical theory, whereby optimal human conduct quality locates as a biased mean between the extremes of the given Domain of human conduct qualities [for more about this dialectical synthesis, see: F.E.D. Dialectics: ‘The Dialectic of Aristotle's Ethics, circa 335 B.C.E.-- ‘Dialectogram’: ‘A Systematic-Dialectic Method of Presentation for the Domain of the Aristotelian Philosophy of Ethical Behavior’, Single Triad'.].  

The units of this species of ‘dialectical-synthesis category’ are, quite aptly, designated as residing BETWEEN the category for the ‘thesis-units’ and the category for the ‘antithesis-units’ of the given Domain.    

  

3.  The third and more rarely encountered, by us, dialectical-synthesis species-category is that of the ‘‘‘Transcending’’’ kind of dialectical-synthesis units, whose units appear to escape or exit the level within which the ‘thesis-units’ and the ‘antithesis-units’ are mutually, qualitatively opposed and apparently radically distinct.  

An ‘exo-human’ dialectic-of-Nature example of this kind of dialectical-synthesis category unit would be the “anyons paraparticles” category of the dialectical unity of particle ‘Bosonicity’ and/with particle ‘Fermionicity’, whose theoretical, not yet observed “statistics” are located “beyond” both the “Fermi-Dirac statistics” and their, polar-opposite, “Bose-Einstein statistics”[For more, see: F.E.D. Dialectics: THE DIALECTIC of Fermions and/versus Bosons. Part 01.: Everywhere-Dense Dialectic Series.].  

A dialectic-of-human-Nature example is that of the later, modern historical synthesis of the initially ancient forms of wage-labor – e.g., in the forms of some ancient civilizations’ paid-soldiering – and/with capital, whose ancient, “antediluvian” forms included merchant capital, usurers’ capital, and slavery-based latifundial agricultural productive capital.  

The modern synthesis of capital and/with wage-labor, the irruption of the capital-wage-labor social relation of social re-production, at length, seeded the “modernist” form of society – industrial-capital-based capitalist society, by far qualitatively and quantitatively transcending the limits of ancient and medieval societies.  

The units of such a ‘dialectical-synthesis category’ are, quite aptly, designated as consisting of NEITHER ‘thesis-units’ or ‘antithesis-units’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For more information regarding these Seldonian insights, and to read and/or download, free of charge, PDFs and/or JPGs of Foundation books, other texts, and images, please see:

 

www.dialectics.info

 

 

and

 

 

https://independent.academia.edu/KarlSeldon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of these Seldonian insights -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ – as well as dialectically-illustrated books published by the F.E.D. Press, see –

 

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU are invited to post your comments on this blog-entry below!