Dear Psycho-History Group Members,

The findings of Karl Marx, in his [unpublished] sixth chapter to " Buch" I. of his treatise "Capital, A Critique of Political Economy", under the headings --

"Formal Subsumption of Labor under Capital"

-- and --

"Real Subsumption of Labor under Capital, or the Specifically Capitalist Mode of Production"

-- [see Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Volume 34, International Publishers, NY, 1994, pp. 424 ff., & 428 ff.] --

are principles of far wider applicability than the particular instances of them solely addressed by Marx [appropriately, in the context of his treatise focused
upon the Capital-Relation].


1. The Principle of "Formal Subsumption" is a universal characteristic of dialectical processes.

2. The Principle of "Real Subsumption" is a universal characteristic of dialectical processes.

3. The Principle that "Formal Subsumption" precedes "Real Subsumption" is a universal characteristic of dialectical processes.


All three principles, as stated above, are explicitly codified as such in the "product rule" -- the "multiplication rule"* -- of the initial F.E.D.
Dialectical Ideography

[*The "aufheben evolute product rule".

The term "evolute" is metaphoric, comparing "aufheben" , or
"past-categories-conserving", sums of heterogeneous ontological category-symbols, or "cumula", to seashells with "evolute" spiral structure, in which earlier whorls [categories] are still visible [still in existence], from a side-long view, after later whorls [categories] emerge. The opposite is a "convolute" seashell spiral structure, in which later whorls block earlier whorls from [side-long] view [i.e., extinct them; drive them out of existence]].

In what follows, the term "ontology" means "kind of "being" ", in the the sense of "ontological NON-reductionism".

[By "NON-reductionism", we mean the theory that it is not useful, to practical truth, to attempt, e.g., in the extreme case of "ontological reductionism", to re-describe all of the phenomena of the present-day cosmos as "nothing but
quarks, moving in the void".].



Unified, Universal Statement of the Dialectical Principle of Subsumption of [Other] Ontology by [Other] Ontology --

[CAVEAT: This statement pertains to universes[-of-discourse] assumed to be "ontologically DYNAMICAL", i.e., to be universes[-of-discourse] with CHANGING ontology, e.g., EXPANDING ontology -- the operation of whose ontology, in every "present", is spontaneously producing its "future" presents, by producing new, emergent categories of ontology, i.e., by self-generating "qualitative change"; the emergence of new "kinds"].

(i.) When a new, "meristemal" ["leading-edge", "vanguard"] ontological category emerges within an "ontologically dynamical" universe of discourse, it emerges in an "epoch" dominated by "previously-emerged", or "predecessor", ontological categories.

(ii.) Nevertheless, as the "meristemal" ontology, once it emerges, it already begins to manifest its potential self-reproductive ascendancy, thereby already "formally subsuming" all of the predecessor ontology of its universe of discourse.

This defines the epoch of "Formal Subsumption" of predecessor ontology by this successor ontology.

If this meristemal ontology's potential is actualized, the more rapid growth rates of local populations of its units, relative to the growth rates of the units of predecessor ontological categories -- its rapid "expanded reproduction"
-- and the consequent rapidly growing physical-spatial concentration of its units in a multitude of localities, leads to direct interactions between its units and units of the predecessor ontological categories.

Its units tend to prevail in those interactions, in such a way that formations emerge which convert units of the predecessor ontological categories into units of this currently-meristemal, successor ontological category.

The emergence of such "conversion-formations" defines the epoch of this [transitorily-]meristemal successor ontology's "Real Subsumption" of its predecessor ontologies, and marks that epoch's temporal beginning.



Application Examples.

In these application examples, I eschew all discussion of
the algorithmics of the undergirding dialectical arithmetic, using only its interpreted, meaning-assigned ideograms, which can also be characterized as "mnemonograms", or "connotograms".

Connotograms such as "q|A" can most readily be construed as standing, syntactically, for "q with A as SUBscript", which Yahoo typography does not more directly provide for.

Semantically, the "q|A" ideogram MEANS: "the ontological qualifier standing for the ontological category A, where A is a mnemonic abbreviation of that category's name".


If A abbreviates a different ontological category than does B, then --

q|A + q|B

-- is a heterogeneous, "non-amalgamative sum", like the sum --

"Apples + Oranges"

-- because q|A is qualitatively unequal to q|B.


The sum 2 + 3 "amalgamates" to the single value 3.

The sum --

"Apples + Oranges", or, q|A + q|O

-- does not amalgamate at the level of categorization where different " species" of fruit are distinguished, because "Apples", or "q|A", is a category for units -- each one called "an apple" -- which are qualitatively different from those of "Oranges", or "q|O", designating the category for the units each of which is called "an orange".


The "arrow" symbol, '--->', stands for the word "becomes".



1. General Example. Formal Subsumption: Generic Notation.

q|A ---> q|A + q|B.

Ontological category q|B FORMALLY subsumes ontological category q|A.


2. General Example. Real Subsumption: Generic Notation.

q|A ---> q|A + q|B ---> q|A + q|B + q|BA + q|BB.

Ontological category q|BA represents the Real Subsumption of ontological category q|A by ontological category q|B.



3. Specific Example. Dialectic of Nature. Taxonomy Level One.

Suppose q|A means "Atomic nuclei" [e.g., Hydrogen nucleus; Helium nucleus; Carbon nucleus],

q|S means "nuclear Sub-atomic particles" [e.g., protons and neutrons],

and,

q|N means "pre-Nuclear particles" [e.g., quarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos, etc.].


Then --

q|N ---> q|N + q|S ---> q|N + q|S + q|SN + q|A

-- models a three epoch cosmological progression, one which ends with the "Formal Subsumption" of, e.g., the "Sub-Atomic Particles ontology", and the "Pre-Nuclear Particles ontology", by the emergent / "meristemal" "Atomic Nuclei"
ontology.

Furthermore --

q|N ---> q|N + q|S ---> q|N + q|S + q|SN + q|A --->

q|N + q|S + q|SN + q|A + q|AN + q|AS + q|ASN + q|M

-- includes a fourth epoch, in which the possibility of the "Real Subsumption" of all previous ontology by the q|A ontology, or "Atomic Nuclei" ontology, is posited, via the three new terms q|AN, q|AS, and q|ASN, and in which also the
possibility of the "Formal Domination" of all seven precedingly-posited categories of ontology, by the emergent / meristemal q|M, or "Molecules", ontology, is also posited.

The ideogram q|AS denotes "first generation stars", which convert primarily protons -- ionized Hydrogen atoms, produced via "cosmological nucleosynthesis" -- into the "higher atomic number" " species" of the category q|A, of "Atomic nuclei", via the process known as "stellar nucleosynthesis".


4. Specific Example. Dialectic of Nature. Taxonomy Level Two. Dialectic of Human[ized] Nature.

Suppose q|C means the category of human-social ontology named "Commodities", the commodity being grasped, per Marx, as a "social relation of production", or "form of [human social] intercourse", and that q|M means "Monies", again with Money grasped as a category of the human-social relations of production, and that q|K means the human-social relation of production category of " Kapitals" .

Then --

q|C ---> q|C + q|M ---> q|C + q|M + q|MC + q|K

-- models a three epoch socio-historical, human-social- systems-progression, one which ends with the "Formal Subsumption", by the q|K, " Kapital"-Relation
category of social ontology, of the q|C, "Commodity", and the q|M, "Money", and of the q|MC, Money-mediated CIRCULATION of Commodities", categories of "social
relations of production ontology", due to the "meristemal" emergence of q|K.

The third epoch symbolized above fits that of the pre-industrial, "antediluvian" "species" of "Genos" "Kapital" -- e.g., Usurers' "Kapital" , Merchant's
"Kapital" , and Chattel-Slavery-based, Plantation Agricultural-Production ["Latifundial"] "Kapital" .

Furthermore, the epochs-progression-model --

q|C ---> q|C + q|M ---> q|C + q|M + q|MC + q|K --->

q|C + q|M + q|MC + q|K + q|KC + q|KM + q|KMC + q|S

-- includes a fourth epoch, in which the possibility of the "Real Subsumption" of all previous ontology by the q|K social-ontology, or "Kapital" socio-ontology, is posited, via the three new terms q|KC, q|KM, and q|KMC, and in which, also, the possibility of the "Formal Subsumption" of all seven previously-posited categories of socio-ontology, by the emergent / meristemal q|S, or "Socialist", socio-ontology, the new social relation of production of the successor social system to the "Kapitals" -system, is also posited.

In terms of the systematic presentation of a global capitalist social economy in the ascendant phase of its expanding self-reproduction, for the part assigned,
by Marx, to " Buch" II. of Marx's treatise on the "Kapital"-Relation, these "Real Subsumption" socio-ontological categories can be interpreted as follows --

q|KC = Commodity-Capital;

q|KM = Money-Capital;

q|KMC = The Circulation of the Total Social " Kapital" , as self-reproduction of the "Kapital"-Relation on an extended scale.


In this interpretation, we differ with the F.E.D. definition of "capitalism", or of the capitalist system, as stated in the text at the end of the following link --

www.dialectics.org . . .

-- and which defines q|K, or (^2)q|K, by itself as the [most rudimentary] dialectical-ideographic model of "capitalism", of the capitalist social system, rather than the entire "cumulum", or "heterogeneous sum" --

q|K + q|KC + q|KM + q|KMC

-- as the [most rudimentary] dialectical-ideographic model of that social system.

Regards,

Psi_Sci