The definition of morphodynamics is from the glossary of the book and is self-explanatory as a definition even if it is extremely abstract and a difficult concept to actually grasp in terms of how what it really means for the organization of matter. The book is far more than pop science and you may get something out of it if you read it. Morphodynamics is the starting point in understanding how dialectical processes at the level of thermodynamics beget new constraints that form a supervening level of organization

That definition is anything but 'self-explanatory'. Can you define morphodynamics on your own in plain English? You keep doing the same thing. Clearly 'supervening' has a technical meaning but I have no idea what it is so this sentence is just gibberish. There's no real reason to debate the content of your thought since you are probably correct that I misunderstood it. Until you define your terms in a way that is understandable that is not possible. You do not have to use plain English all the time, clearly technical language is needed when creating new concepts. But you have to do one of three things: 1) use language that people are already familiar with within the field you are working in. You cannot simply appropriate neuroscience for Marxism because they are separate fields with separate paradigms and this is assuming your use of neoroscience is technically correct and clear if one was already familiar with the terminology. 2) Define your terms clearly. My whole post was to show that you did not do this and you keep using technical words which themselves need to be defined. 3) Create your own technical language. This is what you are trying to do but this is by far the most difficult of all since you need to create your own epistemology. This is why Hegel is so often accused of being incomprehensible and your work is no Phenomenology of Spirit.

It's good that you're trying to think about dialectics, but I am telling you your OP essay is nearly incomprehensible and I am the target audience (highly educated in the source material, politically sympathetic, willing to edit something because I'm bored). You haven't actually addressed this fundamental complaint except to state that it is comprehensible. You are free to believe this but I am being nice in this instance, try and submit this essay to the Monthly Review or Historical Materialism and you will get torn apart in a much less nice way than that. Please either write your concepts in plain English or explain in plain English why you cannot write them in plain English. And if I see another word that I have to look up in the dictionary I'm gonna go ballistic.