How we perceive our reality, and what we do to live with or change that reality, is governed almost entirely by a set of assumptions, and self-reinforcing metamodels that, while constantly evolving, are mostly taken for granted and, as a consequence, go unchallenged. Their dynamic interaction shapes our most fundamental experience of the world. Our worldview.
The unique paradigmatic nature of the contemporary Occidental worldview is a combination of four powerful metamodels:
- Western cosmological concepts – including beliefs about how the world started, how it works, in what direction it is headed, and its eventual fate. The ontological construction of this worldview derives from an historical synthesis between scientific and Judeo-Christian religious traditions, based particularly on their hierarchical, class-based, characteristics.
- Cartesian logic – a method of reasoning derived from Rene Descartes which applies ontological duality to two finite substances, such as mind (spirit or soul) and matter. This invariably leads to a discourse around two moral opposites, such as the conflict between good and evil, or right and wrong, for example.
- Scientific realism - a view emerging from the tradition of empiricist philosophy of science where the universe described by science, including invisible forces and relationships, is regarded as real regardless of how it might be interpreted.
- Cultural conventions based on the moral worth of the individual, that then give rise to the rights of the individual – as enshrined in democracy [the right to be informed and to have one’s voice heard] and in capitalism [the right to own and sell property] for example.
Although the prevailing Western worldview is a shared phenomenon, and increasingly so, it is not shared equally by everyone. Indeed the major alternate paradigmatic tradition, which evolves from Eastern thought, is distinctive in ways that are deceptively subtle.
The Occidental view of the universe is that of a clockwork mechanism with boundaries fixed in time and space. The Oriental stance, on the other hand, posits a universe that is cyclically created and destroyed, while social customs emphasise community rather than the individual.
On the surface, one might be excused for thinking that the Yin-Yang philosophy merely reflects the dualism noted above. In fact this is totally misleading. Duality can be found in many belief systems. Sinic beliefs are associated with oneness and the Tao. They might be more accurately understood as seemingly contrary forces that are actually balanced and complementary, interconnected yet interdependent, informing each other as they interrelate in any number of ways.
If we seek an even earlier and more unified worldview we must go back to the origin of indigenous societies where all life was sacred. Invariably experienced as an integral whole, the only meaningful boundary was between our existence here on Earth and the spirits of the ancestors - embodied within the topology and objects of the landscape and in the heavens. But this is a distraction in terms of my main point…
What I am suggesting is that the Western worldview has now evolved to a position of authority that is unprecedented in modern times. Most of the global population subscribes to this worldview. The adherence of Singapore and Dubai to the Western model is reflected in their respective skylines. The rules of globalism impact everything from trade and investment to wars and organised crime. Even China has opened up its society to some of the most central Occidental tenets – like private ownership, for example – in order to thrive in a global market system.
So let us assert for the time being that the Western worldview has emerged triumphant – that it has successfully neutralised or integrated potential challenges to its supremacy from alternative belief systems, and that a majority of the world is comfortable with the result. The next question we must surely ask is: How do we go about translating and interpreting that prevailing worldview into some form of relevance for us if we were born and socialised into a non-Western culture? The answer to that simple question is quite profound and points to fundamental differences between worldview and mindset – the socio-cultural filter that is constantly called upon to do the actual interpetation.
Over the course of a lifetime, each individual on the planet accumulates a mix of understandings, principles and attitudes that shape their unique mindset. Just as we all have distinctive biometrics, so it is unlikely any of us will have identical reactions to an event or particular set of circumstances.
But while our individual mindset does indeed set us apart from some others, it also unites us with those of a like mind. Common values and practises can be identified across specific groups. We then assign labels, like community and nation, to these clusters, distinguishing them from nations and communities that possess dissimilar characteristics. People in these social clusters tend to think and act alike to some degree and to that end there a degree of coherence manifests. But such groupings are essentially matters of political convenience – imagined social constructs that are not valid in any material sense. Yet we place such store in imagining that we are Australian citizens, or Canadian, or English, and that somehow we are fundamentally different because of it. Nationality becomes part of our identity – a neccesity in this bureaucratic age for international travel. United behind a flag, patriotism swiftly follows – and then, quite possibly, rabid fundamentalism. And yet it is all illusory. The only real unity we have is being part of a single species. One human family. Sapiens.
And so here we have the ultimate paradox characterising the human condition. For that mindset, that filter, that window onto the world, is actually a subservient agent; it is only able to interpret the worldview, performing its task of filtering out particular beliefs and behaviours while leaving others alone, in ways determined by that worldview. The power of the worldview is therefore absolute.
This is one of the most critical problems facing humanity. For while it allows us to destroy cultures and indigenous wisdom, contrive conflicts, and impose universal rules in a quest for homogeneity, it resists any attempt to transform it. So why should we want to reform a worldview that has brought so much affluence and wellbeing in its wake? Why don’t we hasten the inevitable by accelerating the shift towards a universal cultural uniformity?
The truth is that we cannot afford to allow that to happen at a time when the Western worldview is a demonstrable failure, unable to remain viable or fit for purpose in a dynamically complex global context vastly different from even a decade years ago. Democracy is in a shambles. The neoliberal theory of unlimited growth has led to economic stratification that is now patently inequitable and unsustainable. The environment we have neglected by industrial farming and fishing is dying. Propaganda and misinformation in social media are leading to social dislocation, depression and alienation. The crumbling US empire still believes and behaves as though it is the leader of the free world. Fear and apprehension stalk the planet. And the only promises we seem prepared to make to the next generation entail submitting to a form of joyless technological limbo, destroying each other with nuclear weapons, or preparing for civilisational collapse from the climate breakdown.
Meanwhile, as I have pointed out on several occasions, our incumbent leaders seem to have reached a collective cognitive threshold beyond which it is impossible to think or act, where the possibility of a new dawn for humanity, a different worldview, and a different narrative with shades of hope, have shrivelled into a dithering futility. The look of utter shock and disbelief on the face of Edward John Smith, Captain of the Titanic, as that unsinkable vessel slipped into the icy waters of the north atlantic ocean, come to mind.
Our best hope is to interrupt this folly, turning to wise reflection fuelled by intelligent optimism. For we are blessed with the exceptional gifts of ingenuity and invention should we choose to use them. Our best selves must be applied to a conscious renewal of the prevailing worldview before it enters a death spiral. If the source models I have identified are no longer effective, and do not work in the interests of the human family as a whole, then they should be replaced.
If we do not act, the collapse of our civilisation will be inevitable and it will occur without a guiding hand. The signs are already intensifying. Western cosmological thought continues to amplify class and hierarchy at a time when mutual networks and new commons are best suited to contemporary conditions. Dualistic thinking is a blunt instrument in an age of intensifying complexity. Scientific realism is but one epistemology among many – just ask indigenous people. And capitalism has become toxic - wedging open the lesions between affluent societies and everyone else.
So surely the UN is doing something about this? There must be a clutch of influential think-tanks and international NGOs working on this problem right now. Wise philanthropists must surely be turning their attention to second-order structural change? If they are I have not heard about it.
Apart from a few exceptions most so-called leaders are blindly optimistic concerning futures they cannot even begin to imagine. Besides, they are too busy patching up the present to notice the truth of our predicament. Naturally the UN is continuing to do what it has always done in a setting that would be hostile to tackling such massive contradictions in the stories we have been telling ourselves for decades. They, too, focus on the present expecting that the future will trace a linear rather than an exponential path. Their behaviour seems to indicate an unfounded trust in just-in-time achievements or prayers for deliverance to some unseen god.
All around me colleagues plead for the restoration of positive thinking, for hope, for putting the narratives of scarcity, competition, rampant economic growth, and dystopian collapse to one side. I wish that I could do that. Believe me it does nothing for my soul to be writing in this manner. But I remains convinced that the single most vital task facing all of us is the renewal of an obsolescent worldview.
In the words of the British war poet Wilfred Owen: All a poet can do today is warn. That is why the true poets much be truthful.
Comments