F.E.D. Dialectics: 2026

Wednesday, March 04, 2026

Social AnimaLs, ‘Proto-Languages’: A New Modality, Recently Discovered.

Social AnimaLs,

‘Proto-Languages’:

A New Modality,

Recently

Discovered.

Dear Reader,

In terms of our _NQ ‘categorial-dialectical ideography’ model of ‘The Dialectic of Nature’, we represent the qualitative, ontological distinction between animal and human societies via the following ‘categorial arithmetiques/algebraics’ –

animaL societies²⁰ = animaL societies¹ = animaL societies ®

animaL societies²¹ = animaL societies² =

animaL societies¹ <+> D animaL societies¹ |-º

animaL societies¹ <+> meta-[animal-]societies¹

– and we often abbreviate ‘meta-societies’ as just ‘Human-societies’, after the most ‘meta-Darwinianly successful’ known species of ‘meta-society’, in terms of ‘meta-Darwinian fitness’.

Via the ‘ideogramical language’ of the _NQ categorial-dialectical short-hand, the above expressions become –

L²⁰ = L¹ ® L²¹ = L² = L¹ ~<+>~ DL¹ |-º

L¹ ~<+>~ H¹ = L ~<+>~ H

– with ‘~<+>~’ explicitizing the ‘oppositional addition’ of qualitatively-different, ontologically-different categories, such that the right-more category-symbol, here H, represents a multi-determination, «aufheben» ‘‘‘determinate negation’’’ of the left-more category-symbol, here L.

Whereas human societies are characterized by fully-fledged human languages, pre-human, pre-meta-social, merely-social animal societies are characterized by what we call ‘proto-languages’.

Such ‘proto-languages’ have for long been observed as being communicated vocally, e.g., such as warning calls, mating calls, bird songs, transmitted via air, or, e.g., for whale and dolphin calls, conveyed via water, as well as via scent-based, biochemical, olfactory communications, and sometimes via ritualized dances, as with bees and some birds, etc., or via “bioluminescence”, as with the glowing bodies of fireflies, for example.

However, recently, a new modality of animal-social ‘proto-language’ communication has been discovered.

This new modality is via biologically-directed light-waves that are beyond the light-spectrum range that is directly observable by the human senses, because the frequency-domain of the light-waves being so-directed is in the ultra-violet sub-range.

As investigated by a team of scientists from the University of Georgia, including scientists from its “Deer Lab”, the social, herd animals known as deer – specifically, “white-tailed deer” [Odocoileus virginianus] – employ, during their mating seasons, a ‘proto-language’ medium that combines olfactory signaling with signaling via UV light.

On the olfactory signaling side, male deer rub their antlers on trees in their habitat, thereby depositing glandular secretions, and also urinate on such trees.

On the UV light-signaling side, these markings are called “photoluminescent”. This phenomenon of “photo-luminescence” differs from “bio-luminescence”, whereby animals use bio-chemicals to generate light signals in their bodies. “Photo-luminescence” [perhaps more accurately called ‘bio-photo-luminescence’ in this context], on the contrary, requires an external source of photons, in this case, of ultraviolet photons, to be reflected from the photoluminescent external markings. In this case, both the antler glandular secretions and the urine may be photoluminescent.

Because this species of deer have visual senses that are extra-sensitive to blue light, including to ‘ultra-blue’ UV light that human eyes, for example, cannot see, these UV markings create ‘communication loci’ of sight and aroma.

The University of Georgia researchers hypothesize that these photoluminescent and olfactory markings on trees were attractive to other deer.

Deer are “crepuscular” – active mainly in twilight conditions – when the Sun and its main light-ranges are mostly absent, so that UV light dominates the deers’ environments, as the ultraviolet rays are then no longer being “drowned out”, by the rays of the Sun-borne, e.g., humans-visible light spectrum.

These deer ‘proto-linguistic’ signals are thought to assist in bringing together potential mates, as both kinds of sensory cues are thought to convey the breeding readiness and fitness-level of potential mates. Thus, this deer adaptation is central to the self-reproductive rates of deer, thus to their Darwinian fitness.

The journal Ecology and Evolution published results of this University of Georgia research, as reported by Darren Orf, in a news article entitled “Scientists Discovered Deer Leave Glowing Signals In Their Wake That Humans Can’t Detect”.

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!

Tuesday, March 03, 2026

Part 8.: Karl Seldon on Karl Marx Series. Marx on the Profit-Rate-Raising Limits of Relative’ Surplus-Value.

Marx

on the

Profit-

Rate-Raising

Limits

Relative’

Surplus-Value.

Part 8.:

Karl Seldon on Karl Marx Series.

GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES.

Dear Reader,

It is my pleasure, and my honor, as an elected member of the Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.] General Council, and as a voting member of F.E.D., to share, with you, from time to time, as they are approved for public release by the F.E.D. General Council, Karl Seldon’s commentaries on the world-historic breakthrough work of Karl Marx.

This 8th text in this by now long-running series is posted herewith, together with supporting text-images and diagrams [Some E.D. standard edits have been applied, in the version presented below, by the editors of the F.E.D. Special Council for the Encyclopedia, to the direct transcript of our co-founder’s discourse].

Seldon –

“In his “rough draft” [“«rohentwurf»”] notes-to-himself on the critique of capitalist political economy, in the manuscript later known as the Grundrisse, sometime between 29 November and mid-December of 1857, Marx refuted, in advance, those negligent or ideology-serving later critics who claim that both the surplus-value numerator and the constant capital element of the denominator of Marx’s profit-rate ratio are susceptible of unlimited increase, thus rendering the time-trend of his profit-rate ratio, they say, “indeterminate” –

s^/( c^ + v^ ) ==> ^???

– thus seeking to deny the validity of Marx’s, crucial, “law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall”.”

“Marx wrote, describing capital profitability dynamics for a sufficiently general context and level, the following –

“…The larger the surplus-value of capital before the increase in productive force, the larger the amount of presupposed surplus-labor or surplus-value of capital; or, the smaller the fractional part of the working day which forms the equivalent of the worker, which expresses necessary labor [K.S.: the labor-time value-equivalent of the value of the commodity-purchases needed to reproduce the worker’s labor-power – i.e., to keep the worker alive and fit for the next working-day], the smaller is the increase in the [K.S. “relative”-]surplus-value which capital obtains from the increase in productive force. Its surplus-value rises, but in an ever smaller relation to the development of the productive force. Thus, the more developed [K.S.: industrial-] capital already is, the more surplus-value it has created, the more terribly must it develop the productive force in order to realize itself in only smaller proportion, i.e. to add [K.S.: any substantial] surplus-value – because its barrier always remains the relation between the fractional part of the [K.S.: duration of the working-]day which expresses necessary labor, and the [K.S.: duration of the] entire working day. It can only move within those boundaries, the smaller already the fractional part [K.S.: of the duration of the working-day] falling to necessary labor, the greater the surplus-labor, the less can any increase in productive force perceptibly diminish necessary labor; since the denominator has [K.S.: already] grown enormously. The self-realization of capital becomes more difficult to the extent that it has already been realized”.”*

“Marx gives a numerical case-example to concretize this, his general proposition regarding industrial capitalism’s inherent ‘asymptoticity’ of gains to its surplus-value ‘‘‘value-mass’’’ (s), and to its surplus-value rate (s/v), via productive-force-increase-driven increments to “relative surplus-value” [as distinct from “absolute surplus-value”] –

“If necessary labor had already been reduced to 1/1,000 [K.S.: of the working-day’s duration], then the total [K.S.: relative-]surplus-value would be = 999/1,000. Now if the productive force increased a thousandfold, then necessary labor would decline to 1/1,000,000 [K.S.: of the duration of the] working day and the total surplus-value would amount to 999,999/1,000,000 of a working day; whereas before this increase in productive force it amounted to only 999/1,000 or 999,000/1,000,000; it would thus have grown by 999/1,000,000…”.”**

“A key point here is that the increase in the fixed capital denominator value-element, f, for the fixed-capital-value participating in a given round of production, and in c for the constant capital also so participating, in the more-concrete Marxian profit-rate ratio,

s/(f + c + v),

has no such inherent asymptotic ceiling, as does the increase in surplus-value, s, as described by Marx in the passages quoted above.”

“Thus, as capital accumulation proceeds,

both s and (f + c) increase,

but s must eventually increase less, because s cannot even ever encompass the labor-time of the entire working-day.”

“If s were to do so, then such would imply that no human labor-time was necessary labor-time for the social production process. It would imply an escalation of the productive forces to the point of the complete automation of production –

v = 0.”

“This would model, in the Marxian model’s s/v, rate of labor-exploitation ratio, and in its c/v, productive-forces level [“organic composition”] ratio, as well as in the transformed version of the more-concrete Marxian profit-rate ratio –

(s/v)/( (f/v) + (c/v) + 1 )

– as [division-by-zero] “singularities” –

(s/0), (f/0), (c/0) “=” ¥, and –

(s/0)/( (f/0) + (c/0) + 1)

“=” (¥/¥)

– which would model, per our interpretation of division-by-zero singularities in general, as a ‘dis-existentiation’ of the capital/wage-labor, profits-based social relation of production as the predominant social relation of social [re-]production, i.e., to a concrete transcendence of the social dominance of “the capital-relation” [Marx].”

“Now, it is true that the diminishing [relative surplus-value, hence] profit-rate-returns of further, fixed-capital-enabled increases in productivity might tend increasingly to de-motivate industrial capitalists from continuing to invest in such productive-force innovations and escalations.”

“However, as capital accumulation proceeds, so does the concentration of industrial capital ownership also “lawfully” proceed, as Marx foretold. For large-enough-in-scale industrial production operations, with large-enough wage-worker employments, multiplying tiny increments to the surplus-value source of profits, by huge numbers for the numbers of workers being concurrently employed, may come to compensate, via their dramatically augmented ‘‘‘value-mass’’’ of profits, “r”, despite the falling increments to their Marxian rate of profit, in the capitalists’ return on Investment, r/I, or “ROI”, version of the Marxian profit-rate ratio – enough to incentivize the owning capitalists to continue investing in via-fixed-capital productive-force advances.”

“The above notwithstanding, at a certain level of ownership concentration and scale, such concentrated-capital owners tend to enter into a condition of ‘olig-opoly’ or even of ‘du-opoly’ or of ‘mon-opoly’. Price-fixing deals among such ‘-opolists’ may tend to eliminate any incentive to continue productive-force increases, given their access to super-profits via their, competitional-less, «de facto» monopoly pricing. This may result in a growing ‘trendency’ to stagnation in the productivity of industrial production – in the growth of the industrial “forces of production”.”

“The above-described process constitutes yet another aspect of the later ‘enfetterment’ of the further growth of the social-productive forces by the capital social relation of production.”

*[Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (Rough Draft), Translated and edited by Martin Nicolaus, Penguin Books [Middlesex, UK, 1973], pp. 333 to 341; excerpt, above, is from p. 340, spellings per American English, as opposed to the British-English spellings in the original. Also, in keeping with Marx’s later usage, e.g., in Capital, we have hyphenated Marxian terms-of-art, such as “surplus-value” and “surplus-labor”.].