Thread: A Dialectical "Theory of Everything"

Results 41 to 60 of 547

  1. #41
    Join Date Jan 2011
    Posts 225
    Organisation
    Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.], joined on July 4th, 2012
    Rep Power 0

    Default Chart: Generic Dialectical Interpretation of the N\Q "Meta-Numbers"

    RevLeft Sciences Forum Participants,

    [This post is sourced in the following F.E.D. writings --

    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Primer.html
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...act1-1_OCR.pdf
    [especially page A-34].

    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Briefs.html
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...UL2008_OCR.pdf
    [especially pages II.-32 through II.-33] ].

    There is a kind of generic "thesis --> anti-thesis --> synthesis" structure to the dialectical progression of the [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT]Q "meta-numbers", or "Natural Dialectors", that base the F.E.D. "First Dialectical Arithmetic", and that also ground its "contra-Boolean algebra for dialectical logic".


    [I used above, and will use throughout, colors in spectral order -- red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet, ... -- to call attention to the "ordinalities" of dialectical categorial progressions].


    However --

    1. F.E.D.'s progression-model is more like this:

    thesis --> thesis + anti-thesis --> thesis + anti-thesis + synthesis;

    2. Their terminology is more general than that of "thesis", "anti-thesis", and "synthesis";

    3. F.E.D.'s dialectical interpretations and progressions do not stop with the first triad, but extend to any needed extent [in a "potentially infinite" dialectical progression of categories].


    I have put together a Chart, below, that surveys the generic dialectical interpretation of the first eight of these "generic Meta-Numbers", interpreted as "ontological category-qualifiers", or "ontological category symbols" ["categorograms"], to give you a feel for how these "meta-numbers" model dialectics.


    This generic interpretation is also illustrated, in that chart, by its specific interpretation for the model of the [table of] contents of Marx's Capital, a model that was presented in this thread in an earlier post, and a model which covers the main "value-forms" of Marx's "circulations-process of capitals" thematics, but which does not yet cover Marx's "productions-process of capitals" thematics.


    Background Preliminaries. Per F.E.D., the "dialectors" of their "First Dialectical Arithmetic" can be interpreted so as to model both "Systematic Dialectics" and "Historical Dialectics", though with some differences between the two modes of interpretation.

    For "Systematic Dialectics", the successive sub-categories are named "arche'-thesis", or "contra-theses", or [partial or full] "uni-theses".

    The word <<arche'>> is an ancient Greek word meaning "beginning", "starting point", "point of departure", "oldest ancestor", "ever-present [deep-past] origin", and the like.

    For "Historical Dialectics", the successive sub-categories are, instead, named <<arche'-physis>>, or "meta-physes", or "uni-physes".

    The word <<physis>> is an ancient Greek word referring to nature as a "self-growing" process-entity.

    Dictionary definitions of <<physis>> generally run like this -- "the principle of growth or change in nature"; "nature as a source of growth or change"; "that which grows, becomes, or develops".

    There is a tendency in the ancient Greek language to limit the meaning of <<physis>> to extra-human nature, and to name the "humanized" zones of nature <<anti-physis>>. However, I have observed that, in F.E.D. parlance, <<physis>> refers to the totality of nature, humanit(y)(ies) included.


    The F.E.D. researchers, in their "dialectical-algebraic equations", use "categories sums" symbols like --

    |-|-|, for generic dialectics;

    )-|-(
    , for Systematic Dialectics, and;

    >-|-<, for Historical Dialectics --

    [best I can do with the typography available], i.e., to denote "cumula", that is, "mixtures", of the units, or <<monads>>, forming assemblages of units -- <<arithmoi>>-- of ontologically different kinds, that co-exist, without "amalgamating", or converting completely to any one kind, or <<species>>.

    For example, not all "pre-nuclear particles", not all "nuclear sub-atomic particles", and not all "atoms" are converted into molecules when, or after, the molecular level of organization first irrupts in a given locus of our cosmos, e.g., in a "molecular cloud" surrounding/forming a "proto-star", and forming the seed of another stellar-planetary system, similar to Earth's solar system.

    F
    .E.D. calls such complete conversion of all predecessor ontology "convolution", and holds that most universes[ of discourse] are not "convolute", but, instead, are <<aufheben>>, or "evolute", conserving earlier ontology outside of, as well as inside of, their most-recently irrupted ontology.

    Instead of "convolution", we see, in actuality, they hold, "evolution": some "mass-energy" remains at no higher than the "pre-nuclear" [e.g., "quark"; "gluon"] level of organization, and some at no higher than the "nuclear sub-atomic" [e.g., proton] level of organization, and some at no higher than the "atomic" [e.g., Helium He, Nitrogen N, Oxygen O, etc.] level of organization, while some of it does <<aufheben>> itself from, e.g., the atomic level of organization, to the new, next-higher, more inclusive molecular level of organization [e.g., Water H2O, Methane CH4, diatomic Oxygen O2, etc., etc., etc.].

    F
    .E.D., in its "algebra for dialectical logic", represents such "evolute" self-developments of nature -- i.e., of <<physis>> -- by a qualitatively heterogeneous -- and therefore "unaddable", "non-amalgamative" -- "sum", or "cumulum", of "categorograms", with each "categorogram" representing an "ontological category", or <<arithmos>>, "assemblage" of <<monads>>, or of "units", such as, if we take as given that --

    n = "pre-nuclears",

    s = "nuclear sub-atomics",

    a = "atoms", and

    m = "molecules"

    -- and noting that we mean, by 3^2, "three squared", and, by 2^(3^2), "two to the power (three squared)", or "two to the 9th power" --

    >-|-<3 = <n>^(2^3) = <n>^8 = n + s + ... + a + ... + m.


    All of the "categorogram symbols" above are, in turn, "interpretations", or "assignments", of the "generic dialectical meta-numbers" that constitute the "set", or "space", that F.E.D. names [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT]Q:

    [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT]Q = { q/1, q/2, q/3, q/4, . . . }.

    For example, for the cosmological "cumulum" represented above, F.E.D. assigns ( symbolized by the relation-symbol '[--->' ) specific model qualifiers to generic qualifiers as follows --

    n [---> q/1,

    s [---> q/2,

    a [---> q/4,

    m [---> q/8.


    The ancient Greek word <<arithmos>> -- often mis-translated into modern English as simply "number", connoting our -- modern -- "law-of-value"-unconsciously-inculcated concept of "purely-quantitative number" -- meant, for the less-law-of-value-permeated <<mentalite'>> of the ancient world, "an assemblage of" -- or "a number of" -- qualitative units, qualitative <<monads>>, or qualitative "holons", all of some "<<speci>>-fic" -- all of some <<species>> -- or all of some "<<gene>>-ric" -- all of some <<genos>> -- "kind": all of some one, determinate ontological category.

    The operation that F.E.D. names "self-meta-<<monad>>-ization", or "self-meta-holon-ization", or "self-meta-unit-ization" is, per them, the very heart of dialectical process.

    It is the concrete <<aufheben>> process whereby each next, new, successor [meta-]<<arithmos>> is formed by that kind of [self-]action which is the "[self-meta-]unit-ing" of some of the units, <<monads>>, or holons of the immediate-predecessor <<arithmos>>, uniting them into the new, higher [more inclusive] "meta-units" of that new "meta-<<arithmos>>"/meta-population, thus, concurrently (1) <<aufheben>>-determinately-negating, (2) <<aufheben>>-scale-elevating, and (3) <<aufheben>>-subsumedly-conserving those former units, now as the sub-units inside each of the new, [meta-]units of the new [meta-]<<arithmos>> thus [self-]created.

    Example: the cosmological [self-]formation of a next, successor <<arithmos>>, or population, of "molecular units", or of "molecules", out of a part of the predecessor <<arithmos>>, or population, of "atomic units", or of "atoms".

    If q/a or a connotes this predecessor <<arithmos>> of <<monads>>, then, in the F.E.D. "First Dialectical Algebra", as "interpreted" or "assigned" to model "cosmological self-meta-evolution", q/aa, or m, connotes its successor [meta-]<<arithmos>> of [meta-]<<monads>>.




    CHART.

    domain....Historical Dialectics: <<arche'-physis>>."meta-physes"."uni-physes"
    domain.Systematic Dialectics: <<arche'>>-thesis."contra-theses"."uni-theses"

    [ideo-]ontological "categorogram"
    [qualifier] first irrupts in
    historical-epoch,
    t, or in
    presentation-
    stage,
    s
    .qualifier.<<Das Kapital>> Model."arche'-thesis"."contra-theses"."uni-theses".

    0...q/1......C: Commodities..........arche'............................................

    1...q/2......q/CC = M: Monies........................1st-contra...................

    2...q/3......q/MC: MMCC...............................................1st-full-uni..

    "...q/4......q/MM = K: Kapitals.......................2nd-contra..................

    3...q/5......q/KC: Commodity-Kapitals............................1st-partial-uni..

    "...q/6......q/KM: Money-Kapitals.................................2nd-partial-uni..

    "...q/7......q/KMC: COTASC........................................2nd-full-uni.....

    "...q/8.......q/KK = E: Pol.-Econ. Democracies..3rd-contra....................
    .
    .
    .

    MMCC = Money Mediated Commodities Circulations;

    COTASC = Circulations Of The Aggregate Social Capital.

    The pattern of <<arche'>>-thesis, contra-theses, and partial and full uni-theses, exhibited in the chart above, continues -- in an expanding, but predictable, fashion [predictable from the logic of the pattern of the first 8 dialectical sub-categorizations] -- for t > 3 and for s > 3.


    The Generic "Dyadic Seldon Function" categorial progression Model of Dialectics-in-General -- for both Systematic and Historical Dialectics -- runs as follows:

    |-|-|k = [q/1]^(2^k) --

    |-|-|0 = [q/1]^(2^0) = [q/1]^1 = [q/1];

    |-|-|1 = [q/1]^(2^1) = [q/1]^2 = [q/1] + [q/2];

    |-|-|2 = [q/1]^(2^2) = [q/1]^4 = [q/1] + [q/2] + [q/3] + [q/4];

    |-|-|3 = [q/1]^(2^3) = [q/1]^8 =

    [q/1]
    + [q/2] + [q/3] + [q/4] + [q/5] + [q/6] + [q/7] + [q/8].


    The Specific "Dyadic Seldon Function" categorial progression Model of the "Presentational", "Method of Presentation", or "Order of [Category/Concept] Presentation" Systematic Dialectic of Marx's <<Das Kapital>> [circulation-value-forms only], which Model is a Specific "Interpretation" or "Assignment" of the Generic Model just given above, runs as follows:

    )-|-(s = [ C]^(2^s) --

    )-|-(0 = [ C]^(2^0) = [ C]^1 = [ C];

    )-|-(1 = [ C]^(2^1) = [ C]^2 = [ C] + [ M ];

    )-|-(2 = [ C]^(2^2) = [ C]^4 = [ C] + [ M ] + [ q/MC] + [ K ];

    )-|-(3 = [ C]^(2^3) = [ C]^8 =

    [ C ]
    + [ M ] + [ q/MC] + [ K ] + [ q/KC ] + [q/KM ] + [ q/KMC ] + [ E ].





    Thus, we are stating, via the CHART above, that the "<<speci>>-fic", systematically-ordered, systematically-staged, presentational, critique-of-political-economy "[sub-]categories cumulum" --


    )-|-(s=3 = Commodities-in-general + Monies-in-general + MMCC + Kapitals-in-general + Commodity-Kapitals + Money-Kapitals + COTASC

    + Political-Economic-Democracies-in-general




    -- is a "<<species>>" instance of, or is a "<<speci>>-fic" instance of, the systematically-ordered, "<<genos>>", or "<<gene>>-ric", "[sub-]categories cumulum" --



    |-|-|k=3 = arche'-thesis + 1st-contra-thesis + 1st-full-uni-thesis + 2nd-contra-thesis + 1st-partial-uni-thesis + 2nd-partial-uni-thesis + 2nd-full-uni-thesis

    + 3rd-contra-thesis
    .





    Regards,

    Miguel






    F.E.D. definitions of special terms utilized in the narrative above --


    <<arche'>>
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...rche/Arche.htm

    <<arithmos>> [plural: <<arithmoi>>]
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...s/Arithmos.htm

    <<aufheben>>
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...n/Aufheben.htm

    categories-sums
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...um/Cumulum.htm

    categorograms
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    contra-Boolean algebra [of dialectical logic]
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    convolute, convolution
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-.../Convolute.htm

    cumulum [plural: cumula]
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...um/Cumulum.htm

    dialectical antithesis
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectical
    <<arche'>>-<<physis>>
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectical
    <<arche'>>-thesis
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectical algebra
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...athematics.htm

    dialectical arithmetic
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...athematics.htm

    dialectical
    [categorial] progression
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectical contra-thesis
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectical logic
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...icalLogics.htm

    dialectical meta-numbers
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectical meta-<<physis>>
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...sis/Physis.htm

    dialectical synthesis
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectical uni-<<physis>>
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectical uni-thesis
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectics, <<gene>>-ric
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...sInGeneral.htm

    dialectics
    , historical
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...Dialectics.htm

    dialectics
    , <<speci>>-fic
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectics
    , systematic
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...Dialectics.htm

    dialectors, "Natural"
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    evolute, evolution
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...te/Evolute.htm

    <<genos>>, dialectical
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...enos/Genos.htm

    holons
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...onad/Monad.htm

    logic
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...ics/Logics.htm

    <<mentalite'>>
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    method of discovery, Marxian
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    method of presentation, Marxian
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    <<monads>>
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...onad/Monad.htm

    ordinality, qualitative, dialectical
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...oPeanicity.htm

    <<physis>>
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...sis/Physis.htm

    potentially infinite; potential infinity [as opposed to "actual infinity"]
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    qualifiers, ontological category
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive

    <<species>>, dialectical
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...es/Species.htm

    Seldon Function, Dyadic
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...nFunctions.htm

    units, purely-qualitative
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...onad/Monad.htm

    units, purely-quantitative
    no definition for this term is available, as yet, in the Clarifications Archive
    Last edited by Miguel Detonnaciones; 10th August 2011 at 16:28.
  2. #42
    Join Date Jan 2011
    Posts 225
    Organisation
    Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.], joined on July 4th, 2012
    Rep Power 0

    Default Marx on "the Self-Confrontation of Capital", K(K)

    RevLeft Sciences Forum Participants,

    [This post is based upon the following F.E.D. source --

    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Primer.html
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...%20v.2_OCR.pdf
    [pages B-24 through B-38] ].


    We have been discussing, in recent posts to this thread, an [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT]Q dialectical model of Marx's "Systematic-Dialectical" presentation, in volumes I. and II. of his Capital: A Critique of Political Economy.

    We have modeled thereby the progression of human-social-relation-of-production categories that Marx presents -- but just those that fall under the exchange-value <<genos>> of social ontology [with one exception: the final category, connoted by E].

    These are: (1) the Commodity-relation-of-production, (2) the Money-relation-of-production, (3) the hybrid, Money-Mediated Commodities-Circulations-relation, (4) the Kapital-relation, plus its two sub-categories of the "real subsumption" of previous social-relations ontology by the Kapital-relation ontology -- (5) Commodity Kapital and (6) Money-Kapital -- plus (7) the Kapital-relation's subsumption of the Money Mediated Circulations of Commodities relation -- the Circulation of the Aggregate Social Capital, as the circulation-sphere moment of the Self-Re-Production of the Total Social Capital and of Capitalist Society as a whole -- plus (8) a final category, that which we have termed here the Political-Economic Democracy-relation-of-production, superseding the Kapital-relation.

    Re-expressing the above using the heuristic, "intension-al"/"intuitional" shorthand of the F.E.D. dialectical algebra, we obtain --

    )-|-(s=3 = C + M + q/MC + K + q/KC + q/KM + q/KMC + E

    -- for this specific interpretation -- specific to Marx's method of presentation of his critique of political economy -- of the generic stage 3 dialectical categorial progression --

    |-|-|t=3 = q/1 + q/2 + q/3 + q/4 +q/5 + q/6 + q/7 + q/8

    -- wherein [visible-]light-spectrum order [red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet[, "ultraviolet", ...] ] is used to highlight dialectical, qualitative ordinality.

    The first seven categories of this dialectical-presentation-model, as listed above, all represent content of our present experience in capitalist society.

    Unlike those earlier seven categories, the eighth, final category of his progression, E, which, for this writer, connotes "Political-Economic Democracy", i.e., "Democratic Communism" [not Stalinist, bureaucratic state-capitalism], is not [yet] already extant in human experience.

    The category denoted E is a category, not of the self-reproduction of capitalist society, but of its [self-]supersession.

    The category denoted E is a prediction of Marx's systematic critique of capitalist political economy, about a future content of human experience.

    It arises, in our model, via the "self-confrontation" of the Kapital-relation category.

    If you see K in this model as connoting the dialectical determinate negation operation specific to the Kapital-relation, then you might notate this "self-confrontation of capital" as ~K = KK = K x K = K^2 = K-squared = K(K), connoting the determinate self-negation of the Kapital-relation.

    If you see K in this model as connoting a specific dialectical aufheben function, then you might notate this "self-confrontation of capital" as --

    "K of K"

    -- as K(K), in K(K) = K + delta-K = K + E, i.e., as the "self-function of Kapital"; the "self-reflexive function of Kapital", the "self-application of the Kapital operation", the "Kapital function(argument)-identical", or "operator(operand)-identical", which self-confrontation irrupts the new social-relation-of-production ontology symbolized by delta-K or E.

    This "self-action of the Kapital-relation" arises in stage s = 3 of the Systematic-Dialectic model, the stage which arises from the "self-confrontation" of the "categories-sum" of stage s = 2, representing all previous social-relations-of-production human-social ontology, including the Kapital-relation in its "formal subsumption" phase with respect to all previous social relations of production, but not yet in its "real subsumption" phase, which arises out of that self-confrontation of stage 2, which yields stage 3 --

    )-|-(s=3 = )-|-(s=2 x )-|-(s=2 =

    ( C + M + q/MC + K ) x (C + M + q/MC + K) =

    (
    ( C + M + q/MC + K ) + K x (C) + K x (M) + K x (q/MC)

    + K x (K) ) =

    ( C + M + q/MC + K ) + ( C + q/KC ) + ( M + q/KM ) +

    (q/MC + q/KMC ) + ( K + q/KK ) =

    C + M + q/MC + K + q/KC + q/KM + q/KMC + E

    -- Given the "additive idempotency" rule, Axiom 7 of the [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT]Q axioms stated in an earlier post to this thread
    , and given the "meristemal" non-distributive multiplication shortcut, for K as "meristem" ["growing edge"] of the )-|-(s=2 "cumulum".

    Note: Within the
    )-|-(s=3 "cumulum" as a whole, the sub-series q/KC + q/KM + q/KMC represents the "real subsumption", by the Capital-social-relation-of-production, of all previously-posited social relations of production.

    Now, the F.E.D. writings usually interpret such a "self-function", here generically notated by X( X ), or by X< X >, in the context of a model of an Historical Dialectic, as distinct from a model of a Systematic Dialectic, as arising at that stage in the development of the X "arithmos" -- i.e., in that of the "population" of X-type "individuals" or "units" -- when the quantitatively expanding self-reproduction / growth of that "population" reaches its critical-density threshold for qualitative, ontological change / growth, as a result of the "self-envelopement", "self-surroundment", or "self-environment" of the X-type "units".

    That is, earlier, before that "self-environmented" stage, the X-type "units" are fewer in number, and are therefore largely "other-environmented" / "predcecessor-environmented".

    That is, they are "environmented" by previously-irrupted ontology, by the units of predecessor "arithmoi", especially by those of their immediate predecessor ontology / ontological category / "arithmos".

    In that stage, the X-type units are busy "auto-catalytically" converting portions of their predecessor type units into more units of themselves, as connoted, for X = K, by the following terms of our Systematic Dialectic model of Capital, if we re-interpret it into Historical-Dialectical terms:

    K(C) and K(M) and
    K(q/MC) [to be "read off as" K of C, and K of M, and K of q/MC, respectively], which my also be written K x C, K x M, and K x q/MC, respectively.

    The term K(C) connotes the conversion of Commodities into Kapitals, the Kapitals-subsumption of Commodities, the appropriation [or [ex]propriation] of Commodities for Kapitals.

    The term K(M) connotes the conversion of Monies into Kapitals, the Kapitals-subsumption of Monies, the appropriation [or [ex]propriation] of Monies for Kapitals.

    The term K(q/MC) connotes the conversion of Money-Mediated Commodities-Circulations [MMCC] into Kapitals'[-Circulation], the Kapitals'-subsumption of
    MMCC, the appropriation [or [ex]propriation] of MMCC for and by Kapital(s).

    However, when the population quantity and "density" of X-type "units" exceeds a certain limit, in the loci of such "densification", the interaction of X-type
    "units" with other X-type "units" -- the "self-environment" of the X-type "units" -- begins to become important, relative to the "environment" of X-type "units" by their predecessor type(s) of "units", and relative to the interaction of X-type "units" with their predecessor type(s) of "units".

    At that stage, the "self-operation" X(X) irrupts, the process of the "self-conversion" of X into something that is "meta-" to X, e.g., X(X) = K(K) -- connoting the "self-subsumpion" of the Kapital-relation; the "self-conversion" of [part of] the units of the Kapital-relation into the units of a new "arithmos", of a new and unprecedented socio-ontological category of relations-of-production, connoted by E; the self-[ex]propriation of K.

    For example, in their "Dialectic of Nature" / "Dialectic of Natural History" Historical-Dialectical model, the "self-confrontation of the sub-atomic particles", symbolized as --

    s< s > = s + delta-s = s + q/ss = s + a

    -- is interpreted as describing the quantitative expanded self-reproduction of sub-atomic "particles", at that stage of that quantitative growth and physical-spatial self-concentration/"self-densification" of the many local cosmological populations of sub-atomic particles, e.g., protons, whereby proton-proton interactions start to become more frequent and important, relative to, e.g., proton-quark interactions, which auto-catalytically convert proton-predecessor quarks into more protons.

    These sub-atomic-"particle" / sub-atomic-"particle" interactions then give rise to qualitative change, to qualitative growth -- to the irruption of the next new cosmological ontology, that of atoms.

    This abstract process --

    s< s > = s + a

    -- in the specifically-interpreted, specifically-"connotized", "specificized", or "specific"[to the Dialectic of Nature as a whole, in this case] dialectical arithmetic, which corresponds, in the generic dialectical arithmetic, to --

    [q/2] x [q/2] = [q/2] squared = the self-operation of [q/2] = [q/2]^2 = [q/2] + [q/(2+2)] = [q/2] + [q/4]

    -- connotes, e.g., the concrete process of the first-generation stars, in which ionized Hydrogen "atoms" -- really, naked protons -- are "fused" together, via star-self-gravitationally-confined thermo-nuclear "fusion" reactions, to form [together with neutrons], initially, mainly Helium atomic nuclei, consisting typically of two protons fused together with two neutrons.


    Given all of the above, it is interesting to see how Marx himself describes such a "self-confrontation of the Capital-relation", in two key passages of his writings about the transition to the successor system of the "Kapitals-System". The second passage is famously well-known. The first passage, unfortunately, far less well-known.

    Here is how Marx described what is connoted by --

    K< K >

    -- in a Historical-Dialectical model of the Dialectic of Capital[ism]:


    1. In this passage, Marx describes that aspect of the Kapital-relation whereby it functions as an operation of "bursting-asunder" of all [previous] social relations of production, once they come to enfetter the growth of the social forces of production [including, as a fetter upon the growth of the social forces of production, at last, itself]:

    "
    ... capital has pushed beyond national boundaries and prejudices, beyond the deification of nature and the inherited, self-sufficient satisfaction of existing needs confined within well-defined bounds, and the reproduction of the traditional way of life.

    It is destructive of all this, and permanently revolutionary, tearing down all obstacles that impede the development of the productive forces, the expansion of needs, the diversity of production and the exploitation and exchange of natural and intellectual forces.

    But because capital sets up any such boundary as a limitation and is thus ideally over and beyond it, it does not in any way follow that it has really surmounted it, and since any such limitation contradicts its vocation, capitalist production moves in contradictions, which are constantly overcome, only to be, again, constantly re-established [and, reproduced each time on an ever-larger 'meta-fractal' scale -- M.D.].

    Still more so.

    The universality towards which it is perpetually driving finds limitations in its own nature, which, at a certain stage of its development will make it appear as itself the greatest barrier to this tendency, leading thus to its own self-destruction."

    [David McLellan, ed., The Grundrisse [by Karl Marx], Harper & Row [NY: 1971], pages 94-95, emphases added by M.D.].


    2.
    In this passage, Marx describes that aspect of the Kapital-relation whereby it functions as an operation of "ex-propriation" of all [previous] forms of property, or of "propriation" [including, in its end, of its own form of property, or of "propriation"]:

    "
    What does the primitive accumulation of capital, i.e., its historical genesis, resolve itself into?

    In so far as it is not immediate transformation of slaves and serfs into wage-labourers, and therefore a mere change of form, it only means the expropriation of the immediate producers, i.e., the dissolution of private property based on the labour of its owner.

    ... as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet... the further expropriation of private proprietors takes a new form.

    That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers.

    This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself
    , by the centralisation of capital.

    One capitalist always kills many
    .

    Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develops, on an ever-increasing scale, the cooperative form of the labour-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common [the 'objective socialization' of the means of production, still pending their '[inter-]subjective socialization', in the form of the conscious creation, by the human species-for-itself, of a truly human, truly social, "social-ist", "associationist" society; the global, and global-market-subsuming, society of the democratically "associated producers" — M.D.], the economising of all means of production by their use as the means of production of combined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and, with this, the international character of the capitalist rgime. ...

    The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it.

    Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument.

    This integument is burst asunder.

    The knell of capitalist private property sounds.

    The expropriators are expropriated
    ."

    [Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, Chapter 32, "Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation", International Publishers, [NY: 1967], pages 761-764, emphases added by M.D.].


    We might imagine the "[self-]expropriation" of capital [and of its personifications], predicted in the passage immediately above, as the uprising, within productive capital, of variable capital -- of alienated [= sold, for wages] labor-power -- negating constant capital, including fixed-capital, as capital, and thereby also negating itself as variable capital.



    All of the above serves to "explicitize" the implicit, connotative richness of the meaning of the "simple", four-symbol, dialectical, "self-function" formula --

    K< K > = K + E

    -- in the specifically-interpreted, specifically-"connotized", "specificized", or "specific"[-to-Capital, in this case] dialectical arithmetic, which corresponds, in the generic dialectical arithmetic, to --

    [q/4][q/4] = [q/4]^2 = [q/4] squared = [q/4] + [q/(4+4)] = [q/4] + [q/8] --

    -- or, if we use the deeper <<arche'>> for the Historical Dialectic of the "Meta-Evolution" of the Social Relations of Production than the Commodities category of human-social-relations ontology as corresponding to q/1, which F.E.D. actually uses [the "Predation"-relation, or the Appropriation of the "Raw" Products of Nature, without their improvement for human consumption by human labor], to --

    [q/16]^2 = [q/16] + [q/(16+16)] = [q/16] + [q/32].





    For more on the possible detailed meaning and workings of a society founded upon the new social relation of production connoted by E, see the thread in the RevLeft Theory Forum entitled "Dialectical, 'Intra-Dual' Design of Democratic-Communist Constitutions".




    Regards,

    Miguel




    F.E.D. definitions of special terms utilized in the texts above --



    <<arithmos>>
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...s/Arithmos.htm

    <<aufheben>>
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...n/Aufheben.htm

    [the] capital-relation
    no definition as yet available in Archive, but see --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...%5D.w3_OCR.pdf

    categorial progressions
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    categories-sum
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Cumulum/Cumulum.htm

    [the] commodity-relation
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    critical density threshold
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

    cumulum, pl. cumula
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Cumulum/Cumulum.htm

    democratic communism
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Theory/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy.htm
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Ame...mentXXVIII.pdf

    determinate negation
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

    dialectical algebra
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Mathematics/Mathematics.htm

    dialectical arithmetic
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Mathematics/Mathematics.htm

    dialectical negation
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

    dialectical presentations [models]
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...Dialectics.htm

    explicitize, explicitization
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    <<genos>>, dialectical
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Genos/Genos.htm

    historical dialectics
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...Dialectics.htm

    human-social forces of production ontology
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    human-social relations of production ontology
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    [logical] individuals [<<monads>>]
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...onad/Monad.htm

    intension, intensional [w.r.t. dialectical-ideographical symbols]
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    intra-dual, intra-duality
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

    intuition, intuitional
    [w.r.t. dialectical-ideographical symbols]
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    meristem, meristemal
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    method of discovery, Marxian
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    method of presentation, Marxian
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...Dialectics.htm

    [the] money-relation
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    ordinality, dialectical
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    ordinality, qualitative
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    ordinality, quantitative
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    political-economic democracy
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Theory/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy/PoliticalEconomicDemocracy.htm
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Ame...mentXXVIII.pdf


    self-confrontation [of an <<arithmos>>]
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

    self-densification, critical, singularity
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

    self-envelopment
    [of an <<arithmos>>]
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

    self-environment
    [of an <<arithmos>>]
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

    self-function(s)
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

    self-negation, dialectical
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

    self-operation(s)
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...nFunctions.htm

    self-subsumption
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...nFunctions.htm

    self-surroundment
    [of an <<arithmos>>]
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

    social ontology; socio-ontology
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    state-capitalism [fully-conglomerated national supercorporation, in competition with other national state-capitals in the world-market]
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/The...awOfMotion.htm

    subsumption, formal
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    subsumption, real
    no definition as yet available in Archive

    systematic dialectics
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...Dialectics.htm

    units
    [<<monads>>]
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...onad/Monad.htm

    Last edited by Miguel Detonnaciones; 11th August 2011 at 16:27.
  3. #43
    Join Date May 2011
    Location In the belly of the beast
    Posts 745
    Organisation
    None
    Rep Power 12

    Default A Red-Green, Natural, Living Materialist Dialectic?

    Miguel and Forum,

    This thread has become threadbare--just Miguel Detonnaciones and me. So it is a rather sheltered place to begin what will become a series of posts in various places that will provide revlefters with one of two possible glorious opportunities. Either I am going to expose myself as about the most pretentious fool ever to appear at revleft (imagine that!), and there will be lots of fun at my expense, or the dialectic I am trying to present will turn out to be valid and viable, in which case we will all go absolutely apeshit as we develop revolutionary practices in our various places.

    Comrades, please check this post out with open but critical minds. The left has been stuck for a long time, and we all need to keep our dogmas in their kennels.

    I wouldn't dare to try to speak for Miguel (or edit his posts), but he and I are searching for and examining the natural organization of life (thus society). Oops! I just spoke for Miguel.

    It is my firm conviction that revlefters can bring the materialist dialectic to life and practice by employing a simple conceptual triangle that has been created by the theoretical physicist, Fritjof Capra. This "triangle of creation" is a watershed achievement for human thought. Using Capra's triangle, I am able to add one transcendently liberating word to Marx and Engels' definition of the dialectic (see Anti-Duhring): dialectics is the "science of the general laws of the ORGANIZATION, motion, and development of nature, human society, and thought."

    But that one word, "organization," boggles human consciousness. Capra's triangle presents a necessary paradigm shift to a human consciousness that "things" life and statically perceives the world to be a collection of things. We can't see the organization so essential to life. Yet, the human future requires that we learn to organize our minds and social systems in the pattern of life in opposition to the cancer of capitalism.

    Here is a concise statement of what I'm trying to present. All life on Earth is composed of living systems: self-organizing, integrated wholes that exist in dynamic interdependence with each other and their physical environment. A cell is the root living system; the biosphere (Gaia), described by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis as a self-regulating ecosystem, provides life with its overarching, global order.

    Life is a process that is created and maintained by its systems, and all living systems share a common pattern of organization that was established in Earth's primeval atmosphere 4 billion years ago. Living systems are SELF-ORGANIZING MATTER NETWORK-PATTERNED WITH ITS LIFE ACTIVITY.

    Miguel (and others), please carefully examine those two paragraphs. Is life composed of living systems? And if so, are these systems self-organized matter network-patterned with its life activity (being, doing)?

    A bark beetle has self-organized its parts in the network pattern that enables it to engage its environment and integrate with life. The beetle has an "ecological mind" that we who must consciously design our lives must emulate, and Capra's triangle is the transcendent, previously unimagined mental tool that enables us to do this.

    If those two paragraphs are essentially accurate, we are off to the revolutionary races. A bottom-up, revolutionary process of personal and social transformation can be developed and made available to all.

    I have been unable to discuss these matters--despite intense efforts--for eleven years. It's that paradigm shift problem, among other difficulties. But despite this isolation, I have been able to develop a comprehensive red-green theory of life, community, and revolution rooted in what I call Capra's Magic Triangle.

    Miguel, there is much I would like to discuss with you. I have both Ollman's Alienation and Ollman/Smith's Dialectiics for the New Century. In that last work, John Bellamy Foster's essay, "The Dialectics of Nature and Marxist Ecology," best expresses the dynamic, living natural dialectic I'm trying to present.

    My largely uninformed take on systematic dialectics had been that it was limited and rather lifeless. I re-read Tony Smith's essay and Ollman's critique of systematic dialectics and a couple of other works that reconfirmed my initial evaluation. But I'm open to learning otherwise.

    Well, dare I press the "send" button? It might be my ticket to exile in the Addled Old Farts group. Here goes....
  4. #44
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,908
    Rep Power 60

    Default


    Capra's Magic Triangle.

    MN, your mention of the triangular form, combined with the topic of this thread, brings to mind a conceptualization of mine that may be timely here -- it's a joining of the past and the future in the present, along with the inclusion of generalized theory, for the third point:


    Consciousness, A Material Definition

    http://postimage.org/image/35t4i1jc4/
  5. #45
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Location UK
    Posts 6,144
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    Here is a concise statement of what I'm trying to present. All life on Earth is composed of living systems: self-organizing, integrated wholes that exist in dynamic interdependence with each other and their physical environment...

    Life is a process that is created and maintained by its systems...

    A bark beetle has self-organized its parts in the network pattern that enables it to engage its environment and integrate with life. The beetle has an "ecological mind"...
    This sounds like a functionalist systems theory, rather than a revolutionary dialectic: i.e. a system conceived as a network of functionally integrated roles. The problem with this kind of model is that, because the emphasis is on how the various activities (of species?) tend toward systems integration, it leads to conclusions tending toward equilibrium and stasis. It is a system in which its various parts are working towards maintaining conditions rather than transforming them. Change, therefore, can only be conceived as the result of an external factor intruding on the otherwise integrated and balanced conditions of life.

    Now, even if this is true for natural systems. It cannot be true of class society.

    If those two paragraphs are essentially accurate, we are off to the revolutionary races. A bottom-up, revolutionary process of personal and social transformation can be developed and made available to all.
    Even if you are correct I don't see how the above follows and, if you'll pardon me for saying so, it sounds like new age, consciousness-raising waffle and really rather unnecessary as, whether you're correct or not, humanity is still in the position whereby it must organise to overcome capitalism if it wants to move forward.
    "Events have their own logic, even when human beings do not." - Rosa Luxemburg

    "There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin

  6. #46
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Posts 133
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    "Freiligrath having found and made me a present of several volumes of Hegel, originally the property of Bakunin"
  7. #47
    Join Date May 2011
    Location In the belly of the beast
    Posts 745
    Organisation
    None
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    ckaihatsu, My childhood home was Decatur, IL.

    Thanks for your interest. Your triadic concept of past/future/general theory is suggestive of Hegel's philosphy of internal relations, which includes temporal abstracts and extensions. Marx adopted and internalized this philosophy and turned its idealism on its head to root it materially. I don't believe you can understand Marx or the materialist dialectic without grasping Marx's Hegelian roots in the philosophy of internal relations.

    I hope you will stay with this project and lend it your skills. Everyone will have difficulty in grasping the simplicity of Capra's magic triangle/natural dialectic. It's that paradigm shift problem. Human consciousness doesn't see organization, and learning to do so and organize in the pattern of life is essential to the human future.

    I've been working with Capra's triangle for eleven years, and I know it works!
  8. #48
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Location UK
    Posts 6,144
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    I've been working with Capra's triangle for eleven years, and I know it works!
    How have you worked with it and what results have proved its effectiveness to you?
    "Events have their own logic, even when human beings do not." - Rosa Luxemburg

    "There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin

  9. #49
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,908
    Rep Power 60

    Default


    ckaihatsu, My childhood home was Decatur, IL.

    Very good, MN. I traveled to Decatur in the mid-'90s with comrades around the Staley strike there. (At the time Dan Lane was fasting, to the point of it being unhealthy, for the struggle of the corn processing workers in Decatur.)



    Thanks for your interest. Your triadic concept of past/future/general theory is suggestive of Hegel's philosphy of internal relations, which includes temporal abstracts and extensions.

    Okay, good -- glad it fits. It makes a certain sense, I think -- I see it as 3 interlocking sets of dialectical pairings over scale and time.



    Marx adopted and internalized this philosophy and turned its idealism on its head to root it materially. I don't believe you can understand Marx or the materialist dialectic without grasping Marx's Hegelian roots in the philosophy of internal relations.

    Sure....



    I hope you will stay with this project and lend it your skills.

    I don't see how much more of a 'project' there is to it, but please feel free to suggest anything, either here, via PM, or email, and I'll be glad to take things under consideration for any possible additions.



    Everyone will have difficulty in grasping the simplicity of Capra's magic triangle/natural dialectic. It's that paradigm shift problem. Human consciousness doesn't see organization, and learning to do so and organize in the pattern of life is essential to the human future.

    I've been working with Capra's triangle for eleven years, and I know it works!

    Terrific, glad to hear it -- would you be able to point me towards some info about it? I'm unfamiliar. Thanks, take care -- good to meet you.
  10. #50
    Join Date May 2011
    Location In the belly of the beast
    Posts 745
    Organisation
    None
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    Bob The Builder, Thanks for your interest and your two replies. You exemplify that "open but critical" mind that is rare these days and so essential to "seeing" the new sciences of the organization of life and the cosmos (Einstein through systems-complexity science).

    I'm having modem/forum problems. I've posted two lengthy replies to you that didn't make it. I'll replace the modem today, but I'm a computer rookie. I got my computer this month so I could engage revleft, and I don't know what I'm doing. Despite registering, my attempts to post are often rejected for "failure to register."

    How do I know Capra's triangle works? The science checks out, and I will be delighted to share the underlying science of my statements whenever asked. And I'm a Marxist revolutionary who has been applying life's organization to human social systems for those eleven years. I demand truth and am not out to indulge a headtrip, and the truth of Capra's magic triangle is relentless.

    Bob, I haven't run across any other lefties who work with this new science. Red has ignored green, and green habitually shuns red. And we're all stuck. Coincidence?

    Well, let's see if this post goes through (my third to you). If it does, I'll get another post off to you and reply to your earlier post. My red-green best!
  11. #51
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,908
    Rep Power 60

    Default

    Since this is a discussion board in cyberspace with participants using pseudonyms (except myself), it's fair to address statements made here according to their *substance*, since that's all there is to go by.



    Bob The Builder, Thanks for your interest and your two replies. You exemplify that "open but critical" mind that is rare these days and so essential to "seeing" the new sciences of the organization of life and the cosmos (Einstein through systems-complexity science).

    MN, Bob already addressed your systems-theory approach, in post #45:



    This sounds like a functionalist systems theory, rather than a revolutionary dialectic: i.e. a system conceived as a network of functionally integrated roles.

    It is a system in which its various parts are working towards maintaining conditions rather than transforming them.


    I'm having modem/forum problems. I've posted two lengthy replies to you that didn't make it. I'll replace the modem today, but I'm a computer rookie. I got my computer this month so I could engage revleft, and I don't know what I'm doing. Despite registering, my attempts to post are often rejected for "failure to register."

    Try using a text editor for all of your composition and then select all of the text, copy it, and paste it into the web form for posting once you're done. If anything messes up on the Internet side of things you'll still have your text in your text editor.

    Also, it sounds like any problems you may be having would be with the forum itself, and not with the computer hardware you're using.



    How do I know Capra's triangle works? The science checks out, and I will be delighted to share the underlying science of my statements whenever asked.

    People have made inquiries about this but you haven't responded to them / us.



    And I'm a Marxist revolutionary who has been applying life's organization to human social systems for those eleven years. I demand truth and am not out to indulge a headtrip, and the truth of Capra's magic triangle is relentless.

    Your description of your activities as a "Marxist revolutionary" don't correspond to the *role* of a Marxist revolutionary.



    Bob, I haven't run across any other lefties who work with this new science. Red has ignored green, and green habitually shuns red. And we're all stuck. Coincidence?

    Well, let's see if this post goes through (my third to you). If it does, I'll get another post off to you and reply to your earlier post. My red-green best!

    Here you sound like you're trying to find common ground between revolutionaries and reformists, and you're attempting to do it by asserting a scientific framework of external, detached functional (natural) systems theory.

    Furthermore you're contending that "we're all stuck" because of this "schism" (my wording) between revolutionaries and reformists. I'll remind both you and the reader that significant improvements to the human condition *cannot* be accomplished while capitalist social relations still exist. While "reds" and "greens" *may* find common ground against attacks from those further right, that doesn't mean that there actually is common ground between revolution and reformism.
  12. #52
    Join Date May 2011
    Location In the belly of the beast
    Posts 745
    Organisation
    None
    Rep Power 12

    Default Computer (and forum) Snafus

    ckaihatsu (and Bob The Builder),

    My computer was down for a day. I have sent six lengthy posts to Bob and one got through. I've been replying to Bob's "quick replies" with a "quick reply." Then I am notfied as I try to post "You do not have permission to perform this action. Please refresh the page and log in before trying again."

    Then, ckaihatsu, when hitting "post reply" to write to you, I am informed that I am not logged in and have to do so, despite being thoroughly logged in.

    On to your comments, although I don't know how to access your post for your comments while I'm posting.

    You seem to take "green" to be liberal. My green is as radical as it gets: my green is rooted in life and the radical changes humanity must make if it is to continue. Arne Naess, the founder of deep ecology, has a lovely phrase that bridges the reform/revolution divide: in a movement of social transformation "the steps are reformist, the direction is transformational."

    In the US (and the UK as best I can tell), there are no transformational directions to the reforms being proposed.

    I have composed five posts to Bob that didn't get through in which I laid out reasons why Capra's triangle and the red-green theory are not functionalist systems theory. The life activity of a self-organizing living system integrates it into the life of its environment from which it obtains the energy necessary to its being, shelter, etc., and into which it discharges "waste." Living systems adapt and are adapted and maintain a dynamic homeostasis.

    I have an essay, "A Red-Green Materialist Dialectic In Three Printer's Sheets," that I will post soon. I want to become more familiar with computers and revleft first. This essay provides the scientific background of Capra's triangle, then fully describes it and puts it through a work-out.

    Good on you for your trip to Decatur and Staleys. An uncle was a fireman at Staleys, and I haven't knowingly touched a Pepsi product for decades.

    I'll end this post on this note: I'm trying to present the new sciences--Einstein through systems-complexity science--that show the organization and evolution of life and the cosmos. I apply the organization of life to the organization of society, and I don't believe anyone else at revleft has worked with this green science. Red has ignored green; green shuns red, and both are stuck.

    This red/green impasse needs to end. Would you please, please, please read Capra's Web of Life, (1996), ckaihatsu? This masterwork, clearly written for a popular readership, brings the new science down to Earth for the rest of us to use. It is my suspicion that I'm the only Marxist to read Capra, and my encounter with Web twelve years ago led to raging brainstorms that continue today.

    I've forgotten some of your points. Later. My red-green best
  13. #53
    Join Date Jul 2005
    Posts 6,291
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    when did all the quacks appear in revleft
    Formerly dada

    [URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
  14. #54
    Join Date Jul 2005
    Posts 6,291
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    RevLeft Sciences Forum Participants,

    We have been discussing, in recent posts to this thread, an [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT]Q dialectical model of Marx's "Systematic-Dialectical" presentation, in volumes I. and II. of his Capital: A Critique of Political Economy.

    We have modeled thereby the progression of human-social-relation-of-production categories that Marx presents -- but just those that fall under the exchange-value <<genos>> of social ontology [with one exception: the final category, connoted by E].

    These are: (1) the Commodity-relation-of-production, (2) the Money-relation-of-production, (3) the hybrid, Money-Mediated Commodities-Circulations-relation, (4) the Kapital-relation, plus its two sub-categories of the "real subsumption" of previous social-relations ontology by the Kapital-relation ontology -- (5) Commodity Kapital and (6) Money-Kapital -- plus (7) the Kapital-relation's subsumption of the Money Mediated Circulations of Commodities relation -- the Circulation of the Aggregate Social Capital, as the circulation-sphere moment of the Self-Re-Production of the Total Social Capital and of Capitalist Society as a whole -- plus (8) a final category, that which we have termed here the Political-Economic Democracy-relation-of-production, superseding the Kapital-relation.

    Re-expressing the above using the heuristic, "intension-al"/"intuitional" shorthand of the F.E.D. dialectical algebra, we obtain --

    )-|-(s=3 = C + M + q/MC + K + q/KC + q/KM + q/KMC + E

    -- for this specific interpretation -- specific to Marx's method of presentation of his critique of political economy -- of the generic stage 3 dialectical categorial progression --

    |-|-|t=3 = q/1 + q/2 + q/3 + q/4 +q/5 + q/6 + q/7 + q/8

    -- wherein [visible-]light-spectrum order [red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet[, "ultraviolet", ...] ] is used to highlight dialectical, qualitative ordinality.

    The first seven categories of this dialectical-presentation-model, as listed above, all represent content of our present experience in capitalist society.

    Unlike those earlier seven categories, the eighth, final category of his progression, E, which, for this writer, connotes "Political-Economic Democracy", i.e., "Democratic Communism" [not Stalinist, bureaucratic state-capitalism], is not [yet] already extant in human experience.

    The category denoted E is a category, not of the self-reproduction of capitalist society, but of its [self-]supersession.

    The category denoted E is a prediction of Marx's systematic critique of capitalist political economy, about a future content of human experience.

    It arises, in our model, via the "self-confrontation" of the Kapital-relation category.

    If you see K in this model as connoting the dialectical determinate negation operation specific to the Kapital-relation, then you might notate this "self-confrontation of capital" as ~K = KK = K x K = K^2 = K-squared = K(K), connoting the determinate self-negation of the Kapital-relation.

    If you see K in this model as connoting a specific dialectical aufheben function, then you might notate this "self-confrontation of capital" as --

    "K ofK"

    -- as K(K), in K(K) = K + delta-K = K + E, i.e., as the "self-function of Kapital"; the "self-reflexive function of Kapital", the "self-application of the Kapital operation", the "Kapital function(argument)-identical", or "operator(operand)-identical", which self-confrontation irrupts the new social-relation-of-production ontology symbolized by delta-K or E.

    This "self-action of the Kapital-relation" arises in stage s = 3 of the Systematic-Dialectic model, the stage which arises from the "self-confrontation" of the "categories-sum" of stage s = 2, representing all previous social-relations-of-production human-social ontology, including the Kapital-relation in its "formal subsumption" phase with respect to all previous social relations of production, but not yet in its "real subsumption" phase, which arises out of that self-confrontation of stage 2, which yields stage 3 --

    )-|-(s=3 = )-|-(s=2 x )-|-(s=2 =

    ( C + M + q/MC + K ) x (C + M + q/MC + K) =

    (
    ( C + M + q/MC + K ) + K x (C) + K x (M) + K x (q/MC)

    + K x (K) ) =

    ( C + M + q/MC + K ) + ( C + q/KC ) + ( M + q/KM ) +

    (q/MC + q/KMC ) + ( K + q/KK ) =

    C + M + q/MC + K + q/KC + q/KM + q/KMC + E

    -- Given the "additive idempotency" rule, Axiom 7 of the [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT]Q axioms stated in an earlier post to this thread
    , and given the "meristemal" non-distributive multiplication shortcut, for K as "meristem" ["growing edge"] of the )-|-(s=2 "cumulum".

    Note: Within the
    )-|-(s=3 "cumulum" as a whole, the sub-series q/KC + q/KM + q/KMC represents the "real subsumption", by the Capital-social-relation-of-production, of all previously-posited social relations of production.

    Now, the F.E.D. writings usually interpret such a "self-function", here generically notated by X( X ), or by X< X >, in the context of a model of an Historical Dialectic, as distinct from a model of a Systematic Dialectic, as arising at that stage in the development of the X "arithmos" -- i.e., in that of the "population" of X-type "individuals" or "units" -- when the quantitatively expanding self-reproduction / growth of that population reaches its critical-density threshold for qualitative, ontological change / growth, as a result of the "self-envelopement", "self-surroundment", or "self-environment" of the X-type "units".

    That is, earlier, before that "self-environmented" stage, the X-type units are fewer in number, and are therefore largely "other-environmented".

    That is, they are "environmented" by previously-irrupted ontology, by the units of predecessor "arithmoi", especially by those of their immediate predecessor ontology / ontological category / "arithmos".

    In that stage, the X-type units are busy "auto-catalytically" converting portions of their predecessor type units into more units of themselves, as connoted, for X = K, by the following terms of our Systematic Dialectic model of Capital, if we re-interpret it into Historical-Dialectical terms:

    K(C) and K(M) and
    K(q/MC) [to be "read off as" K of C, and K of M, and K of q/MC, respectively], which my also be written K x C, K x M, and K x q/MC, respectively.

    The term K(C) connotes the conversion of Commodities into Kapitals, the Kapitals-subsumption of Commodities, the appropriation [or [ex]propriation] of Commodities for Kapitals.

    The term K(M) connotes the conversion of Monies into Kapitals, the Kapitals-subsumption of Monies, the appropriation [or [ex]propriation] of Monies for Kapitals.

    The term K(q/MC) connotes the conversion of Money-Mediated Commodities-Circulations [MMCC] into Kapitals'[-Circulation], the Kapitals'-subsumption of MMCC, the appropriation [or [ex]propriation] of MMCC for and by Kapital(s).

    However, when the population quantity and "density" of X-type units exceeds a certain limit, in the loci of such "densification", the interaction of X-type units with other X-type units -- the "self-environment" of the X-type units -- begins to become important, relative to the "environment" of X-type units by their predecessor type(s) of units, and relative to the interaction of X-type units with their predecessor type(s) of units.

    At that stage, the "self-operation" X(X) irrupts, the process of the "self-conversion" of X into something that is "meta-" to X, e.g., X(X) = K(K) -- connoting the "self-subsumpion" of the Kapital-relation; the "self-conversion" of [part of] the units of the Kapital-relation into the units of a new "arithmos", of a new and unprecedented socio-ontological category of relations-of-production, connoted by E; the self-[ex]propriation of K.

    For example, in their "Dialectic of Nature" / "Dialectic of Natural History" Historical-Dialectical model, the "self-confrontation of the sub-atomic particles", symbolized as --

    s< s > = s + delta-s = s + q/ss = s + a

    -- is interpreted as describing the quantitative expanded self-reproduction of sub-atomic "particles", at that stage of that quantitative growth and physical-spatial self-concentration/"self-densification" of the many local cosmological populations of sub-atomic particles, e.g., protons, whereby proton-proton interactions start to become more frequent and important, relative to, e.g., proton-quark interactions, which auto-catalytically convert proton-predecessor quarks into more protons.

    These sub-atomic-"particle" / sub-atomic-"particle" interactions then give rise to qualitative change, to qualitative growth -- to the irruption of the next new cosmological ontology, that of atoms.

    This abstract process --

    s< s > = s + a

    -- in the specifically-interpreted, specifically-"connotized", "specificized", or "specific"[to the Dialectic of Nature as a whole, in this case] dialectical arithmetic, which corresponds, in the generic dialectical arithmetic, to --

    [q/2] x [q/2] = [q/2] squared = the self-operation of [q/2] = [q/2]^2 = [q/2] + [q/(2+2)] = [q/2] + [q/4]
    -- connotes, e.g., the concrete process of the first-generation stars, in which ionized Hydrogen "atoms" -- really, naked protons -- are "fused" together, via star-self-gravitationally-confined thermo-nuclear "fusion" reactions, to form [together with neutrons], initially, mainly Helium atomic nuclei, consisting typically of two protons fused together with two neutrons.


    Given all of the above, it is interesting to see how Marx himself describes such a "self-confrontation of the Capital-relation", in two key passages of his writings about the transition to the successor system of the "Kapitals-System". The second passage is famously well-known. The first passage, unfortunately, far less well-known.

    Here is how Marx described what is connoted by --

    K< K >

    -- in a Historical-Dialectical model of the Dialectic of Capital[ism]:


    1. In this passage, Marx describes that aspect of the Kapital-relation whereby it functions as an operation of "bursting-asunder" of all [previous] social relations of production, once they come to enfetter the growth of the social forces of production [including, as a fetter upon the growth of the social forces of production, at last, itself]:

    "
    ... capital has pushed beyond national boundaries and prejudices, beyond the deification of nature and the inherited, self-sufficient satisfaction of existing needs confined within well-defined bounds, and the reproduction of the traditional way of life.

    It is destructive of all this, and permanently revolutionary, tearing down all obstacles that impede the development of the productive forces, the expansion of needs, the diversity of production and the exploitation and exchange of natural and intellectual forces.

    But because capital sets up any such boundary as a limitation and is thus ideally over and beyond it, it does not in any way follow that it has really surmounted it, and since any such limitation contradicts its vocation, capitalist production moves in contradictions, which are constantly overcome, only to be, again, constantly re-established [and, reproduced each time on an ever-larger 'meta-fractal' scale -- M.D.].

    Still more so.

    The universality towards which it is perpetually driving finds limitations in its own nature, which, at a certain stage of its development will make it appear as itself the greatest barrier to this tendency, leading thus to its own self-destruction."

    [David McLellan, ed., The Grundrisse [by Karl Marx], Harper & Row [NY: 1971], pages 94-95, emphases added by M.D.].


    2.
    In this passage, Marx describes that aspect of the Kapital-relation whereby it functions as an operation of "ex-propriation" of all [previous] forms of property, or of "propriation" [including, in its end, of its own form of property, or of "propriation"]:

    "
    What does the primitive accumulation of capital, i.e., its historical genesis, resolve itself into?

    In so far as it is not immediate transformation of slaves and serfs into wage-labourers, and therefore a mere change of form, it only means the expropriation of the immediate producers, i.e., the dissolution of private property based on the labour of its owner.

    ... as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet... the further expropriation of private proprietors takes a new form.

    That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers.

    This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself
    , by the centralisation of capital.

    One capitalist always kills many
    .

    Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develops, on an ever-increasing scale, the cooperative form of the labour-process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common [the 'objective socialization' of the means of production, still pending their '[inter-]subjective socialization', in the form of the conscious creation, by the human species-for-itself, of a truly human, truly social, "social-ist", "associationist" society; the global, and global-market-subsuming, society of the democratically "associated producers" M.D.], the economising of all means of production by their use as the means of production of combined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and, with this, the international character of the capitalist rgime. ...

    The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it.

    Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument.

    This integument is burst asunder.

    The knell of capitalist private property sounds.

    The expropriators are expropriated
    ."

    [Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, Chapter 32, "Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation", International Publishers, [NY: 1967], pages 761-764, emphases added by M.D.].


    We might imagine the "[self-]expropriation" of capital [and of its personifications], predicted in the passage immediately above, as the uprising, within productive capital, of variable capital -- of alienated [= sold, for wages] labor-power -- negating constant capital, including fixed-capital, as capital, and thereby also negating itself as variable capital.



    All of the above serves to "explicitize" the implicit, connotative richness of the meaning of the "simple", four-symbol, dialectical, "self-function" formula --

    K< K > = K + E

    -- in the specifically-interpreted, specifically-"connotized", "specificized", or "specific"[-to-Capital, in this case] dialectical arithmetic, which corresponds, in the generic dialectical arithmetic, to --

    [q/4][q/4] = [q/4]^2 = [q/4] squared = [q/4] + [q/(4+4)] = [q/4] + [q/8] --

    -- or, if we use the deeper <<arche'>> for the Historical Dialectic of the "Meta-Evolution" of the Social Relations of Production than the Commodities category of human-social-relations ontology as corresponding to q/1, which F.E.D. actually uses [the "Predation"-relation, or the Appropriation of the "Raw" Products of Nature, without their improvement for human consumption by human labor], to --

    [q/16]^2 = [q/16] + [q/(16+16)] = [q/16] + [q/32].





    For more on the possible detailed meaning and workings of a society founded upon the new social relation of production connoted by E, see the thread in the RevLeft Theory Forum entitled "Dialectical, 'Intra-Dual' Design of Democratic-Communist Constitutions".




    Regards,

    Miguel



    lol
    Formerly dada

    [URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
  15. #55
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Location UK
    Posts 6,144
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    Maldoror, quit trolling or I'll hit you with an infraction.
    "Events have their own logic, even when human beings do not." - Rosa Luxemburg

    "There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin

  16. #56
    Join Date Mar 2003
    Location Sol system
    Posts 12,311
    Organisation
    Deniers of Messiahs
    Rep Power 137

    Default

    Maldoror, quit trolling or I'll hit you with an infraction.
    I can't say I blame him. Is this sort of gibberish really what gets posted when I take a bit of a break from Revleft and neglect to muck out the place?
    The Human Progress Group

    Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
    Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
    Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
    The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky


    Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
  17. #57
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Location UK
    Posts 6,144
    Rep Power 80

    Default

    Nevertheless, quoting the entirety of a long post, just so he can add "lol" at the bottom is out of order. Welcome back btw
    "Events have their own logic, even when human beings do not." - Rosa Luxemburg

    "There are decades when nothing happens; and there are weeks when decades happen." - Lenin

  18. #58
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,908
    Rep Power 60

    Default


    in a movement of social transformation "the steps are reformist, the direction is transformational."

    In the US (and the UK as best I can tell), there are no transformational directions to the reforms being proposed.

    I'm sorry, MN, but this is only restating the problem that exists in the approach -- if the steps are reformist then one is only *accommodating* oneself to the existing structure given, that of the "staircase" (to extend the metaphor). A *revolutionary* approach would be labor's own organizing to build an *elevator* that they themselves would then freely use, along with the larger public.



    Good on you for your trip to Decatur and Staleys. An uncle was a fireman at Staleys, and I haven't knowingly touched a Pepsi product for decades.

    Quite understandable. Thank you.



    I'll end this post on this note: I'm trying to present the new sciences--Einstein through systems-complexity science--that show the organization and evolution of life and the cosmos. I apply the organization of life to the organization of society, and I don't believe anyone else at revleft has worked with this green science. Red has ignored green; green shuns red, and both are stuck.

    This red/green impasse needs to end. Would you please, please, please read Capra's Web of Life, (1996), ckaihatsu? This masterwork, clearly written for a popular readership, brings the new science down to Earth for the rest of us to use. It is my suspicion that I'm the only Marxist to read Capra, and my encounter with Web twelve years ago led to raging brainstorms that continue today.

    I've forgotten some of your points. Later. My red-green best

    MN, I am *fully* aware of complexity theory as it pertains to the natural and social sciences, and have been since about 1995.

    I agree with you about its importance, especially for breaking free of the conventional *linear* scientific paradigm. I posted about it to RevLeft half a year ago:


    Would anyone be interested in a Complexity Theory study group?

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-anyo...48#post1919248


    That said, though, I have to reiterate Bob's point about observing vs. impacting. Institutional science has tended to skew towards description alone while political empowerment is entirely about initiating actively conscious human involvement in its own social matters -- *revolutionary* activity, in other words.
  19. #59
    Join Date Jan 2011
    Posts 225
    Organisation
    Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.], joined on July 4th, 2012
    Rep Power 0

    Default Dialectics vs. "[Dynamic ]Equilibrium" [LINEAR] System Theories

    RevLeft Sciences Forum Participants,

    Dear Mr. Natural,

    I'd like to echo the concerns expressed by Bob The Builder and ckaihatsu regarding theories self-organizing systems.


    You wrote in post #43 --

    "dialectics is the "science of the general laws of the ORGANIZATION, motion, and development of nature, human society, and thought."

    But that one word, "organization," boggles human consciousness. Capra's triangle presents a necessary paradigm shift to a human consciousness that "things" life and statically perceives the world to be a collection of things. We can't see the organization so essential to life. Yet, the human future requires that we learn to organize our minds and social systems in the pattern of life in opposition to the cancer of capitalism.

    Here is a concise statement of what I'm trying to present. All life on Earth is composed of living systems: self-organizing, integrated wholes that exist in dynamic interdependence with each other and their physical environment. A cell is the root living system; the biosphere (Gaia), described by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis as a self-regulating ecosystem, provides life with its overarching, global order.

    Life is a process that is created and maintained by its systems, and all living systems share a common pattern of organization that was established in Earth's primeval atmosphere 4 billion years ago. Living systems are SELF-ORGANIZING MATTER NETWORK-PATTERNED WITH ITS LIFE ACTIVITY.

    Miguel (and others), please carefully examine those two paragraphs. Is life composed of living systems? And if so, are these systems self-organized matter network-patterned with its life activity (being, doing)?"



    Bob The Builder wrote, in a response which ckaihasu later echoed --

    "This sounds like a functionalist systems theory, rather than a revolutionary dialectic: i.e. a system conceived as a network of functionally integrated roles.

    The problem with this kind of model is that, because the emphasis is on how the various activities (of species?) tend toward systems integration, it leads to conclusions tending toward equilibrium and stasis.

    It is a system in which its various parts are working towards maintaining conditions rather than transforming them.

    Change, therefore, can only be conceived as the result of an external factor intruding on the otherwise integrated and balanced conditions of life
    ." [emphasis added by M.D.]


    Bob The Builder's reply, above, is a clear and concise specification of why and how what you have described so far falls short of dialectics.



    In a dialectical perspective, "self-organization" in inextricably interlinked with its opposite, "self-dis-organization".

    A "self-organizing system", not due to any deviation from its essential course of development, either by internal or external causes, but in accord the very core "law" of its own-most self-development, will, after a certain point, turn into a self-dis-organizing system. That is an essential insight of dialectics.

    Such a dialectical self-organizing/self-dis-organizing system has an "ascendant phase", in which the "self-forces" or "internal forces" of its self-assembly and self-expansion are net-dominant, and, later, as the very core result and fruit of that "ascendant phase", the dialectical system enters itself into a "descendant phase", when the "self-forces" or "internal forces" of its self-contraction and self-dis-assembly are net-dominant.

    This is true of the capitalist system -- as we are witnessing today!

    It is also true of pre-capitalist human-social systems.

    Moreover, it is true of the systems of Nature in general -- including those of "pre-human" and "extra-human" Nature, as well as those of human Nature, all as reconstructed per our best available data today. Nature is dialectical from start to finish.



    Marx described aspects of this dialectic of the dialectical, determinate self-negation of human-social formations of the pre-capitalist period of human history, and, indeed, for the very <<arche'>> epoch of primitive communism itself, as follows --

    "The fundamental condition of property based on tribalism ... is to be a member of the tribe.

    Consequently a tribe conquered and subjugated by another becomes propertyless and part of the inorganic conditions of the conquering tribe's reproduction, which that community regards as its own.

    Slavery and serfdom are therefore simply further developments of property based on tribalism.

    But this also clearly means that these conditions change
    .

    What makes a region of the earth into a hunting-ground, is being hunted over by tribes; what turns the soil into a prolongation of the body of the individual is agriculture.

    Once the city of Rome had been built and its surrounding land cultivated by its citizens, the conditions of the community were different from what they had been before.

    The object of all of these communities is preservation, i.e. the production of the individuals which constitute them as proprietors, i.e. in the same objective mode of existence, which also forms the relationship of the members to each other, and therefore forms the community itself.

    But this reproduction is at the same time necessarily new production and the destruction of the old form. ...

    The act of reproduction itself changes not only the objective conditions — e.g. transforming village into town, the wilderness into agricultural clearings, etc. — but the producers change with it, by the emergence of new qualities, by transforming and developing themselves in production, forming new powers and new conceptions, new modes of intercourse, new needs, and new speech. ...

    The community itself appears as the first great force of production. ...

    In the last instance the community and the property resting upon it can be reduced to a specific stage in the development of the forces of production of the labouring subjects — to which correspond specific relations of these subjects with each other and with nature.

    Up to a certain point, reproduction. Thereafter, it turns into dissolution. ...

    These forms are of course more or less naturally evolved, but at the same time also the results of a historic process.

    The evolution of the forces of production dissolves them, and their dissolution is itself an evolution of the human forces of production."

    [Karl Marx, Grundrisse: Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations, International Publishers [New York: 1965], pages 92-95. Bold, italics, underline, and color emphasis added by M.D.].



    No less does this dialectic of self-development leading to self-supersession characterize pre-human / extra-human Nature through and through.

    Nor is it mutually-external forces, arising from mutually-disparate sources, that drive this dialectic of Nature.

    The kind of "opposition" that drives the historical dialectic of Natural = Total History is not primarily a matter of external oppositions, but of internal oppositions: self-oppositions. The opposing forces arise from the self-same source: from the very heart life-process of the dialectical system in question, and operate internally and inseparably.

    They constitute an "intra-duality", or "self-duality" [not an "exo-duality"] of such a system.

    If one wants to use human speech and writing -- human "diction" -- as a metaphor, then one can say that "internal contra-diction", or "self-contra-diction" drives change: universal process, natural [including human-social] history, and time itself!



    Consider the very stars!

    The life-course of each star is driven by the counterpoint of a colossal self-gravitational contraction self-implosion in continual counter-point with a colossal thermonuclear self-explosion.

    The [self-]condensation of an interstellar "molecular cloud", mainly made of Hydrogen atom / naked proton <<monads>>, creates and accelerates self-gravitational implosion. That cloud self-implosion itself, compressing, densifying, concentrating the Hydrogen at its own core, ignites the Hydrogen fusion self-explosion, countering the self-gravitational self-implosion.

    The fusion process consumes, hence depletes, the core Hydrogen, until virtually only Helium "waste" remains there.

    Thus momentaneously unopposed, self-implosion resumes.

    It resumes until core self-compression is sufficient to ignite "the Helium flash", whereafter self-explosion also resumes, fueled by Helium fusion, which, in turn, depletes its Helium fuel, and leaves even higher atomic species as it "waste" or "ash", which later then becomes the next new fuel resource.

    But all of this ends after the synthesis of Iron in the stellar core -- resulting typically in a nova, or supernova, or "hypernova" self-explosion and mass ejection of/from the outer layers of the star, and the hyper-implosion of the stellar core: the self-induced "death" of the star.

    But this star-self-destructive "meta-evolution" in "stellar evolution", this "revolution" in pre-human/extra-human Nature, in "stellar evolution", and its preceding/during synthesis of higher atomic species "waste", becomes the "resource" base for later stellar generations' stars plus planets self-formations, grounding ever higher phases of cosmological evolution cum "meta-evolution" / "natural revolution".

    Were it not for this stellar "intra-duality" of inter-generating colossal self-implosion / colossal self-explosion, then stars would presumably measure their life-histories, not in billions of years, but in milli-seconds.

    If a star were only, one-sidedly self-implosion, it would disappear as a star almost as soon as it formed: it would be gone in a flash.

    It would hardly "exist" at all.

    Likewise, if it were self-explosion only, one-sidedly.

    The colossal internal instability of its "intra-duality", of its "indivi[sible]-duality", is the source of its billions-of-years relative stability, though this same instability also guarantees its eventual self-demise.



    Consider your own body.

    It is sustained by an intra-duality of self-anabolic, self-constructive, versus self-catabolic, self-destructive metabolism.

    Respirative -- Oxygen-"breathing" -- metabolism, richly fuels your body with so much more chemical energy, per food unit metabolized, than did the fermentative metabolism that preceded it.

    Oxygen gas was a toxic "pollutant" to your anaerobic ancestors -- to your anaerobic prokaryotic cellular forerunners in Earth's biosphere.

    But Oxygen gas is a super-fuel to your body.

    Oxygen gas is the only thing that enables you to enjoy a "multi-cellular" body -- a multi-eukaryotic-cellular body: a body constituted out of millions of cells, a number that fermentation bio-energy would be insufficient to supply, and to support.

    But respirative metabolism -- Oxygen-based, oxidation-based metabolism -- is also hyper-catabolic, compared to fermentative metabolism.

    Electron-shedding molecular fragments are ineluctably released from Oxygen-based metabolism: highly-reactive molecular catalysts that tear apart your cellular organelles infrastructure, and that eat-away at your very chromosomes, driving aging, senescence, and eventual bodily death.

    What you eat, also "eats you".

    But what are your alternatives?

    If you stopped breathing, to stop respirative metabolism, you would die in a "flash".

    If you stopped eating, to stop oxidation self-damage, you would not live much longer.

    The inner duality, the self-opposition between the anabolic and catabolic aspects of your unitary metabolism gives your body whatever intrinsic longevity you potentially enjoy.

    Your body too is a dialectical, initially net-self-organizing-system-becoming-eventually-net-self-dis-organizing-system.



    The "dynamic homeostasis" of "living" systems, the "dynamic equilibria" of systems in general, is only a transitory phase [as is the phase of system self-dis-organization], in the cumulative, progressive, dialectical self-revolutions of Nature.

    Such "equilibria" are self-dis-equilibrating. Such "homeo-stasis" gives way, as a result of its own consequences, to 'homeo-dynamasis'.


    Regards,

    Miguel
    Last edited by Miguel Detonnaciones; 15th June 2011 at 11:00.
  20. #60
    Join Date Jul 2005
    Posts 6,291
    Rep Power 115

    Default

    Formerly dada

    [URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25th November 2010, 09:54
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 4th October 2009, 22:20
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16th September 2009, 05:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts