Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many, not only the dominance of the U.S. in the post-Cold War era is much exaggerated, but also its days as a hyper-power are ending. Instead, the world is slowly but steadily evolving towards what Dr. Baofu originally calls the dawn of 'the post-post-Cold War era' in 'the world of titans' for a tremendous remaking of world order, to be governed by different types of empires crossing regional borders. This has important implications for understanding the logic of empire-building, be it in the past, present, or future, to the extent that the current theoretical debate on international relations among different paradigms is as much misleading as obsolete. The current debate also obscures something more tremendous in the long run, in relation to the emergence of what Dr. Baofu proposes as 'the union of the unions' in the farther future that humans have never known, both here on earth and later in deep space.
Why should mass media be informational and accurate as much as its proponents would claim—and, conversely, disinformational and propagandistic as much as its critics would argue? Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many since the modern era of mass media, neither of the two opposing views is correct, to the extent that a total analysis of media influence has yet to be adequately explored and understood. Something fundamentally vital to the analysis of communication has been missing. This is not to say, however, that the literature on media studies hitherto existing in history has been much ado about nothing; on the contrary, indeed, much can be learned from different theoretical approaches in the field. But the important point to remember here is that this book aims to show an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of mass media (which goes beyond both the pros and cons in the literature on media influence, while learning from them all). If true, this seminal view will alter the way of how mass media are to be understood, with its enormous theoretical implications for going beyond the existing paradigms on the future of communication, in a small sense—and for predicting the future of open and closed societies, in a large sense.
Why should mass media be informational and accurate as much as its proponents would claim—and, conversely, disinformational and propagandistic as much as its critics would argue? Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many since the modern era of mass media, neither of the two opposing views is correct, to the extent that a total analysis of media influence has yet to be adequately explored and understood. Something fundamentally vital to the analysis of communication has been missing. This is not to say, however, that the literature on media studies hitherto existing in history has been much ado about nothing; on the contrary, indeed, much can be learned from different theoretical approaches in the field. But the important point to remember here is that this book aims to show an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of mass media (which goes beyond both the pros and cons in the literature on media influence, while learning from them all). If true, this seminal view will alter the way of how mass media are to be understood, with its enormous theoretical implications for going beyond the existing paradigms on the future of communication, in a small sense—and for predicting the future of open and closed societies, in a large sense.
Is waste (or trash) really so useless that, as William Faulkner once wrote, “[r]ead everything—trash, classics, good and bad, and see how they do it. . . . If it is good, you’ll find out. If it’s not, throw it out the window”? (TE 2012) Interestingly, this critical view of waste (or trash) can be contrasted with an opposing observation by Isaac Bashevis Singer, who once famously said that “the waste basket is the writer’s best friend.” (TE 2012a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), waste, in relation to both uselessness and usefulness is neither possible or impossible, nor desirable or undesirable to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. Of course, this challenge to the opposing views of waste does not imply that waste has no practical value, or that those interdisciplinary fields (related to waste) like epidemiology, global warming, waste management, low-carbon economics, ethical consumerism, resource recovery, freeganism, environmental justice, space debris, and so on are unimportant. Of course, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Rather, this book offers an alternative, better way to understand the future of waste, especially in the dialectic context of uselessness and usefulness—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them or integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other. More specifically, this book offers a new theory (that is, the transfigurative theory of waste) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way. If successful, this seminal project is to fundamentally change the way that we think about waste in relation to uselessness and usefulness from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what the author originally called its “post-human” fate.
Is peace really so precious that it is popularly viewed in irenology (peace studies) of our time as “natural” and “a prime force in human behavior”—whereas war, its opposite, is instead condemned as “sinful” and “not” natural? In fact, there is even the prestigious Nobel “peace” prize to be awarded to those who contribute to world peace but not an equivalent Nobel “war” prize to those who do the contrary. This euphoric view of peace is by no means a constant conventional wisdom in human history, as it can be sharply contrasted with an equally seductive view of war in polemology (war studies). For instance, only several decades ago, the well-known writer Thomas Mann once approvingly asked about war: “Is not peace an element of civil corruption and war a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?” (WK 2009a) This fickleness of conventional wisdom on war and peace has blinded us from the dark sides of both war and peace, with the consequence of impoverishing our understanding of the human condition and its future. Contrary to the two opposing sides of this conventional wisdom in its fickle history, war and peace are neither possible nor desirable to the extent that their respective ideologues would like us to believe. In addition, war and peace cannot exist with each other. Of course, this is not to suggest that irenology (peace studies) and polemology (war studies) are worthless, or that other fields of study (related to war studies and peace studies) like “political science, economics, psychology, sociology, international relations, history, anthropology, religious studies,…gender studies, as well as a variety of others” should be ignored. (WK 2009) Needless to say, neither of these two extreme views is reasonable either. Instead, this book accepts the challenging task to provide an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of war and peace, especially in relation to aggression and pacificity—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them (nor integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other). Thus, this book offers a new theory to transcend the existing approaches in the literature on war and peace in a way not conceived before. If successful, this seminal project is to fundamentally change the way that we think about war and peace, from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what I originally called its “post-human” fate.
Why should anomalous experience, in a general sense, be proven to exist, before they can be taken seriously? Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many scholars in human history hitherto existing, the imaginative exploration of anomalous phenomena, even if all of them were merely the fabricated products of psychological con artists, will have tremendous implications for the future of intelligent life, both on earth and in deep space unto multiverses. For the critics, this is a bold (or outrageous) claim, for sure. So, a good question to ask is, Why should the conventional wisdom on anomalous experience be challenged in this way? This question is all the more fascinating, when related to the nature of unconsciousness. Although unconscious experience does not necessarily imply anomalous experience, the two are closely intertwined, since an individual may not exactly know how and why an anomalous phenomenon he claims to encounter happens in the way that it does, and this constitutes the unconscious dimension of anomalous experience, which has remained the most controversial in the scientific community. This book thus focuses on this relationship between the nature of unconsciousness and the controversial aspects of anomalous experience so understood. To understand this, the book is organized into four main parts, that is, in relation to nature, the mind, culture, and society—together with the introductory and concluding chapters.
Are sports really supposed to be so competitive that, as Henry R. Sanders once famously said, ""Men, I'll be honest. Winning is...the only thing!""? (WK 2012) This competitive view of sports can be contrasted with a critical view by William Shakespeare, who wrote in Othello (Act. iv. Sc. 1), ""They laugh that win."" (BART 2012) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones, as will be discussed in the book), sports (in relation to both training and winning) are neither possible (or impossible)...
Why should inquiry be possible, only if some knowledge is required to guide it, as conventionally understood? Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many thinkers in all human history hitherto existing, there are some fundamental dialectic principles hidden behind any categories of understanding in knowing. And these principles impose some constraints, at both methodological and ontological levels, together with other levels in culture, society, nature, and the mind - on how reality is to be understood. Furthermore, the specific categories of understanding (as conventionally understood), even if valid at all (which are often not the case), are often not that important, when compared with these more fundamental dialectic principles hidden behind them. The focus on understanding the nature of knowledge has been much misplaced, in this sense, in the intellectual history hitherto existing, and much time and talent have been wasted for something less important. If true, this thesis will alter the way of how knowledge is to be understood across the board. - Is written by a highly knowledgeable and well-respected scholar - A new theory called The Holistic Theory of Knowledge - A comprehensive analysis of knowledge in relation to methodology and ontology, from the perspectives of nature, the mind, society, and culture
Why should urban planning in our time be obsessed with the issue of sustainability? Or differently put, is sustainability really as desirable and possible as its proponents in urban planning (and other related fields like economics, political science, environmental studies, architecture, and so on) would like us to believe? Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many since the modern era, the concern with sustainability has been much exaggerated and distorted, to the point that it is fast becoming a new intellectual fad, so that its dark sides have been unwarrantedly ignored or downgraded. This is not to say, however, that the literature on sustainability in urban planning (and other related fields) hitherto existing in history has been full of nonsense. Indeed, on the contrary, much can be learned from different theoretical approaches in the literature. The important point to remember here, however, is that this book provides an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of sustainability in urban planning (and other related fields), which learns from different sides of the debate but in the end transcends them all. The urgency of this inquiry should not be underestimated, as it concerns not only urban planning (as a case study here) but also other highly related yet very serious challenges in our time (e.g., ecological, economic, demographic, technological, moral, spiritual, political, and the like). Therefore, if true, this seminal view will fundamentally change the way that we think about the issue of sustainability, with its enormous implications not only for understanding the future of urban planning, in a small sense—but also for predicting the relevance of sustainability in relation to the entire domain of human knowledge for the human future and what I originally called its “post-human” fate, in a broad sense.
Is migration really so constructive that, as Ralph Emerson (1909) once wrote, in the context of the New World, “asylum of all nations . . . will construct a new race, a new religion, a new state, a new . . . smelting-pot”? (WK 2012) This noble lie—the “melting pot” in the 20th century—can be contrasted with an opposing noble lie of the “salad bowl” in the 21st century, when those in multiculturalism like Tariq Modood (2007) argue nowadays that multiculturalism “is most timely and necessary, and . . . we need more not less.” (WK 2012a) Contrary to these opposing noble lies (and other views as will be discussed in the book), migration, in relation to both the Same and the Others, is neither possible or impossible, nor desirable or undesirable, to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. Surely, this exposure of the opposing noble lies about migration does not mean that the specific field of study on migration is a waste of time, or that those interdisciplinary fields (related to the study of migration) like animal migration, gene migration, diaspora politics, culural assimlation, human trafficking, urbanization, brain drain, tourism, ethnic cleansing, environmental migration, globalization, religious persecution, national identity, gentrification, fifth column, migration art, xenophobia, space colonization, multiculturalism, and so on are worthless. Needless to say, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book offers an alternative, better way to understand the future of migration, especially in the dialectic context of the Same and the Others—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them or integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other. More specifically, this book offers a new theory (that is, the theory of the cyclical progression of migration) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way. If successful, this seminal project is to fundamentally change the way that we think about migration in relation to Sameness, Otherness, and identity, from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what the author originally called its “post-human” fate.
