1. the future emerges in a given context
Obviously the future does not fall from the sky.
The future is resulting from the arbitration between the multiple determinant factors that are competing in the present. In other words the competition, between the multiple determinant factors in the present, is what shapes the context out of which the future emerges.
But where do these determinant factors competing in the present come from?
These determinant factors emerge necessarily out of the context that shaped up in the past. In other words it is the arrow of time forming the long haul history that shapes the context out of which emerges the determinant factors that compete in the present. Notwithstanding what some might be saying, the fact is that it is possible to visualize “the context out of which something emerges”. Let’s take an example to illustrate this. The emergence of mushrooms gives the dirt as the context that makes their emergence possible. Mushrooms do indeed not emerge anywhere as per a miracle. Their emergence results from the combination of a series of factors and no mushroom will ever emerge outside of such a specific combination of factors which forms their context. Each species of mushrooms obey their own specific context that always entails the presence of – some organic matter at a given biochemical composition, – in given conditions of temperature, humidity, light – and spores that feed on that organic matter when its conditions are right.
While its context may be more complex the same principle of emergence applies to the principle of life:
This brings us back to the present societal evolutionary phase of humanity which, in Book 1 and Book 2, I define as “Late-Modernity”. Late-Modernity emerged out of the context of High-Modernity and High-Modernity emerged out of Early-Modernity. In other words European Modernity is an evolving “quasi-worldview”2 that acts like if it was a living organism shaping the societal character of the historical era of Modernity that replaced the earlier era of the religious worldview imposed by empire.
But as a quasi-worldview Modernity is not in any way substantiating a sustainable societal life. We are being indoctrinated to believe that the reason at work within capital, philosophic rationalism and science are procuring the truth about human existential reality. But the fact is that the reason at work within capital, philosophic rationalism and science, are concerned primarily by materialistic mechanisms that are ignorant of the primacy of the principle of life throughout our universe.
In other words the reason at work within capital, philosophic rationalism and science, are omitting the systemic reality of the principle of life from the narrative of their quasi-worldview. In consequence Modernity has encouraged, or at the least tolerated, the seeds of pathogens to grow and overwhelm the culture of its societies3 with all the consequences that we start to observe today in Late-Modernity.
I define the 3 fields that substantiate human societal life in the historical era of civilization in “Book 1. Volume 1. Introduction to the concepts”4 . Here follows a sketch of that presentation:
Later hyper-individualism gave way to societal atomization and the erosion from the individuals’ minds of the traditional feeling of belonging ...to a society. I call this stage of societal evolution “the death of societies” and Late-Modernity is indeed the dieing phase of Modernity. Rationalism and science have no answer to this deadly societal sickness. By favoring the short term considerations, arising from the capture of the minds by the reason at work within capital, in the form of materialism and individualism they ignore the systemic complexity of the universe that governs the principle of life, that traditionally was known as nature or the Tao, and so they are incapable of observing the descent of Modernity in the abyss. It was the hubris represented by the conquest of nature that put mankind on a path that is antithetical to the systemic reality of the universe and its principle of life.
I indicated in “Book 2, Volume 4. Governance and societal evolution”5 that the evolution of living species is given by the interactions of their polarities, ̶ the individuals, ̶ their societies. When the interactions between individuals and societies, for whatever reason, favor one over the other these interactions end up being in a state of imbalance and decay sets in that is a direct threat to the survival of both polarities. More fundamentally the destruction of its polarities corresponds to the extinction of a species. This materializes when all the societies of this species have collapsed... In Late-Modernity humanity faces what I call “the great convergence” of the multiple crises that have been unleashed, ̶ by power, ̶ by Modernity upon the systemic reality of the principle of life, and the Great Convergence puts our species at risk of extinction. But being probabilistic in nature the future remains nevertheless open…
1 Panspermia. “How life originated on earth is a question that people have pondered for ages. Theories abound, from those based on religious doctrine, to the purely scientific, to others that border on science fiction. One possibility that hovers on this border is the panspermia theory, which suggests that life on Earth did not originate on our planet, but was transported here from somewhere else in the universe. While this idea may seem straight out of a science fiction novel, some evidence suggests that an extraterrestrial origin of life may not be such a far out idea”. Citation from “Origin Of Life: The Panspermia Theory” by Sonaali S. Joshi. 2008-12-02 in Helix Online.
2 Modernity as a quasi-worldview: Modernity is not a worldview in the traditional sense because a worldview relates to a narrative about what reality is all about and Modernity does not give a narrative about what reality is all about but a more restrictive narrative about one principle of human action that is founded in the reason at work within capital that later extended to philosophic rationalism that is an extension of this principle of action to all aspects of life. In other words the facts generated by Modernity are not the truth about human existential reality. These facts have indeed been generated to satisfy the sole concerns of capital holders and the implication is that the facts of Modernity have been successfully imposed in a first stage to all citizens in Europe and later to all citizens on earth. But as a matter of fact nor Modernity, nor science which is its active method of enquiry, are offering a narrative about what reality is all about... and in this sense we come to understand why Modernity can’t answer all the existential questions that pop up in peoples’ minds. This is why Modernity is not a real worldview and has to be viewed as a quasi-worldview and being a quasi-worldview means that the sharing of Modernity can’t cure the existential anxiety that afflicts most people in advanced Modern societies; societies that have reached the stage of Late-Modernity. This in turn explains why, when life conditions tougthen people flock to older worldviews like religions, or whatever sects are active in their local environment, to find relief from their anxiety. This failure of Modernity to quieten peoples’ anxiety was the context by excellence, or the fertile ground, in which hyper-individualism would eventually flourish that caused societal atomization which, as explained earlier, signifies that such societies are on their way to death.
3 See “Book 2. Volume 4. About governance and societal evolution.
4“ From Modernity to After-Modernity”. Book 1, Volume 1. Chapter 1. Introduction to the concepts.
5 See “Book 2, Volume 4. Governance and societal evolution. 4.3. A systemic approach of society and governance”.