Part 3. The Western Enlightenment, concealed the traditional model of knowledge formation

Traditional animist knowledge formation emerged most probably sometime in the millennia preceding the Eamian Interglacial, that lasted from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. And during the Eamian itself that form of knowledge formation was boosted by the necessity to adapt to an abrupt climate warming. This adaptation initiated the transition to the archetypal model of tribal societies, which launched the process of societal evolution in parallel with the process of biological evolution.

An abrupt climate heating, some 11,700 years ago, at the tail-end of the Younger-Dryas destabilized the tribal model of society in the Tri-Continental-Area. This initiated a transition to a new archetypal model of society capable of handling larger populations.

After re-discovering “the virtue of belonging” the men of power associated with men of knowledge having a large following. This enabled the reproduction, some 5,000 years ago, of the institutions of the new archetypal model of power-societies that, in the TCA (Tri-Continental-Area = Middle East), rested on a paradigm that reads as “the assembly of citizens by force and their sharing a common religious societal worldview to ease the reproduction of their societal institutions”.

This path of societal evolution in the TCA was later adopted by the Roman empire and by Western European nations. In the territory of present-day China extremely large alluvial plains allowed for a continuous territorial expansion of the “Tribal Cultural Confederations” which resulted in a different path that did not cause a rupture with the paradigm of animism while imperceptibly shifting the societal paradigm of East-Asia to a power archetypal model. And so the Chinese societal paradigm reads as “the spontaneous assembly of citizens, around pragmatism in daily life, alleviates their anxiety and suffering while easing the reproduction of their societies”.

The assembly of early-power-societies by force, in the TCA and later in Western Europe, resulted in the differentiation of the individuals between “men of power” and the population which fostered the emergence of social inequality. And once their citizens got accustomed to share the religious narratives of their societies they differentiated among themselves and with the men of power / men of knowledge.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, Western Christianity lost its base of followers in North Africa, Southeastern Europe and much of Italy, and so it quickly felt the strategic need to recompose a broad base of followers. After helping to bring down the Roman Empire, the Franks quickly unified Gaul, making them the most dynamic force in Western Europe. Expanding the audience of Western Christianity through the conversion of the Franks was therefore a resounding success that shaped the nature of Western Christianity for centuries to come.

The crusades later initiated the yearning of the Frankish aristocracy for long distance commerce. The sudden long haul commercial endeavor by Frank local and regional merchants confronted them with unknown risks that illuminated their minds to the paradigm of Modernity. This paradigm co-existed, for centuries, with the religious paradigm of Western Christianity and the modalities of this coexistence have definitely been the determinant parameter in assuring the popular expansion of the societal rationality of Modernity.

Later the enlightenment consecrated this societal rationality by uniting the 3 Western power estates in controlling the outcome of the political (r)evolution that gave access to the capital holders, representing the new social class of burghers (bourgeois in French), in the institutions of public decision-making. It was the sharing of the rationality of Modernity that unified the 3 Western power estates which fostered a most propitious level playing field for the emergence of the industrial revolution and for the emergence of market imperialism. The process of the industrial revolution necessitated huge investments, in technology and in factory equipment, that were covered for a great deal by forced sales in the South.

British industrialization started with mass produced cotton goods like socks. The population of Britain in 1800 was merely 10,481,401 while the population of India was more than 250,000,000 (Maratha Confederacy ~208,250,000 + British East India Company ~ 30,765,640) (1). Would British capital holders have been able to generate sufficient profits, from their cotton sales in Britain, to sustain the investments that were necessary to invest in the whole production chain that was necessary to produce socks and other cotton goods ? The answer is evident.

The sales of cheaper British industrially mass produced cotton goods destroyed the Indian cotton cottage spinning and weaving which forced the country to sell its raw cotton to Britain while buying its finished products. A good chunk of the profits that got invested in Britain’s industrial revolution came from the forced supply of raw cotton by India and from its forced buying of British finished cotton products. And another big chunk of these investments originated from the profits generated by the forced purchase of opium by the Chinese !

Early-Western modernity, also known as commercial capitalism, had quickly turned into a debauched plundering of the rest of the world, that resulted in a global holocaust. Many civilizations were violently destroyed, many societies were shattered and individuals were killed by the hundreds of millions. The Enlightenment was one of the determinant factors in the generation of High-Western-Modernity, also known as industrial capitalism, the industrial revolution and its corollary mass market imperialism, that gave rise to nearly 300 years of unhinged resource extraction from Non-Western-nations in order to satisfy a Western consumerist debauchery.

Non-Western nations are not ready to forget the barbarity of Western totalitarian behaviors that left them suffer for centuries. But China's rise to economic prominence is suddenly suggesting that "There Is Definitely An Alternative" (TIDAA) to this suffering after all. Unfortunately the promise of consumerism, which the end of Western market imperialism suggests in the minds of non-Western citizens, is obscured by "the great convergence of the many side-effects of Western modernity".

The hope of non-Western-citizens, in the promise of consumerism, will most probably be shattered by Western moral imperatives of sobriety in the face of the natural cataclysm that “the Great Convergence” is unleashing on the earth. But this cataclysm is of the sole responsibility of the West which imposed the rationality of Western-Modernity to all human activities in the first place. And in light of this the imperative of sobriety, that the West is invoking, should primarily be sustained by the West itself until non-Western-citizens attain some decent level of economic development !

But in light of the Western exceptionalism and its consequences, that I tried to describe in part 2 of this series, the complexity of the present moment will be used by an unscrupulous imperial West to shatter the hope of non-Western-citizens of finally having access to, what their windows on the world have been presenting for years to them as, the goodies of Western-Modernity. The easiest and well-known way for the West, to shatter the dreams of non-Western-peoples, has always been to conceal the reality of the present moment under a thick fog of media noise that pits them against one another.

In light of the servile propagation, of the voice of the men of power by the mainstream media, it is the responsibility of the non-mainstream media commentariat to paint as realistic a picture as possible of the present moment. But instead it is participating in blurring the lines of the sketch ! I’m not a reporter but reading the exaggerations of the non-mainstream media commentariat draws me to share a more holistic picture of the present moment.

My series about “the transition of Western-Modernity to After-Modernity” is focusing on a holistic picture. I understand that very few people will ever take the time to go through its thousands of pages. My intention with the present series of 5 articles is to sketch the contours of the context out of which emerges the present moment. And once the articles are terminated I’ll rework them in some hundred book pages that I’ll upload as a PDF.

In the following 3 chapters I propose to illustrate how the concealment, by the Western Enlightenment, of the traditional animist knowledge formation, is constantly blurring the reality of the present moment under a thick fog of media noise.

3.1. Knowledge paradigms : holism versus atomism

3.2. Societal paradigms : pragmatism versus religious belief

3.3. The success of the rationality of Modernity eclipsed the animist knowledge formation

 

3.1. Knowledge paradigms :
holism versus atomism

All systems of logic start with a paradigm that is derived from the peoples’ synchronization of their perceptions about their present contextual settings with their historical worldview.

By “peoples’ synchronization of their perceptions about their present contextual settings” I mean their conscious and unconscious perception about all factors that affect their present habitat. And by, “historical worldview”, I mean the shared vision, of all citizens in a given society, about the world. What I mean thus by “the synchronization of peoples’ perceptions about their present contextual settings with their historical worldview” is that peoples’ vision of the world inevitably shape their perceptions about their present contextual settings.

In other words the peoples don’t catch the reality of their present contextual settings but a transformation of it by the filters of their shared beliefs in what the world is all about. This implies that all societies are traversed by the cultural continuity of their historical worldview and by the axioms of their foundational worldview. This cultural continuity is what we habitually call civilization.

3.1.1. Animism is a holistic system of knowledge formation

The traditional animist knowledge formation is estimated to have emerged in small bands in the millennia preceding the Eamian interglacial that started some 130,000 years ago. In the TCA the application, of this traditional knowledge in daily life, was intact until about 10,000 years ago. Since then its application has suffered an intensifying systematic destruction which was a real “Culturecide” (2).

We can safely say that the present remnants of this worldview, in most of the world, are merely grotesquely deformed shadows of the real thing. The situation is different in China where the animistic knowledge base still forms the substance of the Chinese historical worldview today but in a form that has necessarily adapted to the daily changes that have occurred since their “Tribal Cultural Confederations” imperceptibly transformed them into power societies.

It is important to remember here, that tribal animism as well as well as its early philosophic schools of thought in early power-societies, have always considered that knowledge is a secret matter that must be passed down from one human generation to the next through a lengthy process of apprenticeship. The knowledge itself was thus never shared with the population at large !

Tribal (wo)men of knowledge shared, a visual narrative summarizing their worldview, with their fellow citizens. They also shared the conclusions, derived from their knowledge base, that pertained to their various questions about their health, about the nature of reality, about how they fit in this reality, and so on. Their vision of the whole of reality was holistic. Adapted to a modern imagery we could say that they considered the universe as the largest ensemble containing a vast quantity of sub-ensembles among which is the Milky-way. And they viewed humans, as infinitely small particles, living like bacteria or viruses on the earth which is situated on the outskirts of the Milky-Way.

Such a holistic vision taught them that the truth about the working of the universe is unattainable and as such they concluded that certainties were necessarily false (3). Focusing on false certainties was thus seen, not only as a mistaken endeavor but as a dangerous one. False certainties inevitably confront their believers to other false certainties which causes confrontations and conflicts that distract peoples’ attention from the only thing that we know is real : the here and now in the life of each individual. After accepting this evidence we rapidly discover that how the individuals fit in the context of their habitat is the grail of life. Not a holy grail but the grail of human knowledge formation.

3.1.2. Atomism is a system of knowledge about the assembly of atoms into larger structures

In contrast to the holism, of this traditional system of knowledge formation, the rationality derived from the reason, that is at work in the paradigm of Western-Modernity, is atomistic in nature which means that it views reality as an assemblage of atoms.

“Atomism in the strict sense is characterized by three points: the atoms are absolutely indivisible, qualitatively identical apart from shape, size, and motion, and combinable with each other only by juxtaposition. Atomism is usually associated with realism and mechanism; it is mechanistic because it maintains that all observable changes can be reduced to changes in the configuration of the atoms that constitute matter.” (4)

Holism and atomism are paradigmatic in the sense that they are foundational to opposite systems of knowledge formation :

• 3.1.2.1. Atomism is mechanistic

  Atomism views the addition of atoms as assemblies that substantiate complex phenomena or realities. The comprehension of these realities is thus gained solely by analyzing the interrelations of their atom constituents.
  
  As mentioned by the editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica atomism is mechanistic :
  

  “… because it maintains that all observable changes can be reduced to changes in the configuration of the atoms that constitute matter. “

  And in this last sense atomism is also a purely materialist vision of reality.




• 3.1.2.2. Holism is emergent

  Holism views the whole as an emergent phenomenon that is far more complex than the addition or multiplication of atoms or of lower level assemblies.
  

  • 3.1.2.2.1. Each assembly of atoms is thought to generate a far more complex outcome than the addition of its atoms

    Quantum mechanics rests on the observation that the assembly of elementary particles is hazardous and impossible to forecast at the present level of knowledge attained in the field of particles physics which necessarily implies that assemblies of atoms are far more complex than their juxtaposition.
    

    • 3.1.2.2.1.1. A molecular assembly of atoms is necessarily impacted or forced by a still unknown energy or field

      This suggests an emergent outcome at the atomic, or sub-atomic, level that is far more complex than a mere juxtaposition by addition or multiplication of atoms.

    • 3.1.2.2.1.2. Further assemblies, at a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or higher levels, imply that the complexity of their emergence is unattainable to a human observer

      First assemblies get eventually congregated, with other 1st assemblies or with individual atoms, into 2nd assemblies that generate an emergent outcome that is larger, or more complex, than a mere addition or multiplication of atoms or of 1st assemblies.
      
      Second, third, and fourth or more assemblies get eventually assembled among themselves, or with other assemblies or with individual atoms, until emerges the whole universe.
      
      This implies that the emergent complexity, at each level, is combined with the emergent complexity at all higher levels, which suggests levels of complexity that are intrinsically unknowable from the vantage point of the human observer !
  
  

  • 3.1.2.2.2. Assemblies necessarily generate an emergent outcome

    The emergent character of assemblies suggests an input not only of their constitutive material parts but of energy, fields, or other forces originating in their higher assemblies or in the whole Universe. This energy, field, or force, enfolds or induces assembly behaviors that are far more complex than the juxtaposition of their material parts.
    
    The human observer eventually catches the outcome but is left in the dark about its emergent complexity as well as its life complexity.
  
  

  • 3.1.2.2.3. In power-societies the unmapped nature of emergent phenomena inspires esoteric narratives to justify power

    Science, or traditional animist knowledge for that matter, are still largely in the dark about the emergent complexity as well as the life complexity of all assemblies starting with the quantum paradox of the movement of elementary particles.
    
    Traditional animist knowledge never cared about the atomic constitutive parts of material phenomena or realities. Its practitioners looked for patterns, in the movements of the sky that superposed on patterns in the habitat, to divine future human related outcomes. Their intervention in phenomena consisted thus largely in an adjustment, of behaviors in the habitat, to the long haul patterns observed in the movements of the celestial spheres that aligned with patterns observed in the habitat.
    
    The Yijing, or book of changes (5), is an ancient instruction manual to systematically divine future human related outcomes. Its instructions are codifications about the contextual adaptations that are necessary to maximize the future behaviors of an individual. These adaptations were induced from the animist very long haul observations, of how human behaviors are modulated by the patterns in the movements of the celestial spheres that superpose on the patterns observed in the habitat.
    
    Scientists for their part are on a quest for knowledge that is largely rooted in atomism and materialism and their quest is furthermore rooted in the dualist societal system of logic that is derived from their societal paradigm.
    
    Atomism (individualism), materialism (separation of the individual from her or his natural state of interrelatedness), and dualism (irreconcilable opposites animating a constant competition and warfare) form the trinity at work in the rationality of Western-Modernity.
    
    Unlike traditional knowledge formation or science, both of which actively seek to understand the workings of reality, religious belief is rooted in the blind acceptance of a revealed truth. Nevertheless, it should be noted that understanding how reality works and accepting a revealed truth both help to build trust between individuals, which ultimately strengthens the cohesion of their society.

Different knowledge paradigms generate thus their corresponding systems of knowledge formation and each particular system of knowledge formation generates its own system of societal logic that, in turn, generates its own archetypal model of society.

The knowledge paradigm of animism fostered a system of societal logic serving a pragmatic approach of daily life centering on alleviating individual suffering while maximizing societal continuity through the reproduction of their society over the long haul. It was this particular system of societal logic then guided the formation of the archetypal model of tribal societies through the abrupt climatic destabilization of the early-Eamian and of the early-Holocene.

In the TCA, in contrast, the abrupt climate warming, that shifted the Younger-Dryas into the early-Holocene, initiated the rejection of the tribal model of society and its animist model of knowledge formation as the site of Göbekli Tepe attests (6). It did not escape our attention that later the knowledge paradigm of religious belief, the acceptance of a revealed truth, fostered a system of societal logic serving the interest of the men of power who yearned to reproduce their institutions of power over the long haul. By gluing the minds of the citizens this particular system of societal logic then guided the reproduction of the institutions set up by the men of power. And the reproduction of the institutions of power finally initiated the archetypal model of power societies.

As indicated earlier China did not follow this model. The imperceptible nature of the shift of its archetypal model of society, from “Tribal Cultural Confederations” to “Power Confederations”, did never destabilize the animist paradigm, nor its system of knowledge formation, nor its system of societal logic. So its new archetypal model of power-society automatically inherited animism as its foundational worldview. Herein resides the other-worldliness of the Chinese in the eyes of Westerners and the other-worldliness of Westerners in the eyes of Chinese. And the fact is that each side of this civilizational divide acted radically differently upon its perception of other-worldliness !

To summarize the differentiation between atomism and holism we have to go back to “the continuum of the interactive cultural filed of societies” which has set in motion the process of societal evolution. Here after I sketch the links in the chain of causality that animates the process of societal evolution :

1. A knowledge paradigm generates a system of knowledge formation.


2. A system of knowledge formation generates a foundational worldview


3. A foundational worldview generates a societal paradigm.


4. A societal paradigm generates an archetypal model of society.


5. An archetypal model of society generates a system of societal logic


6. A system of societal logic eventually generates a civilization with its historical worldview like a religion or a philosophy.


7. The historical worldview of a society evolves, or actualizes, by synchronizing with the daily culture thus absorbing its replicating cultural memes.


8. The daily culture substantiates by synchronizing the individuals’ perception of their contextual settings with the historical worldview of their society. Daily culture is most generally called culture in Late-Western-Modernity.

The differentiation between atomism and holism originates in the contrasting contextual settings found in the different regions of this earth and it materialized by bifurcating their chain of causality :

1. From the knowledge paradigm of animism to the archetypal model of tribal societies
   
   The knowledge paradigm of animism reads as follows : “pragmatism in daily life, to alleviate the anxiety and suffering of the individuals while easing the long haul reproduction of their societies”. And the sharing of the animistic paradigm generated an animistic system of knowledge formation and its shared foundational worldview This foundational worldview then induced a societal paradigm, that eventually sustained the emergence of the archetypal model of tribal societies, which reads as “the sharing of the worldview of a given (wo)man of knowledge resulted in the assembly of the citizens of a tribe which ensured its long haul reproduction”.



2. In the TCA the tribal model of society is abandoned for experimenting a new archetypal model of society
   
   In the TCA, about 10,000 years ago, a paradigm of religious belief emerged out of the vital necessity to experiment the formation of a new knowledge paradigm to answer the failure of the tribal model of society to absorb any further population growth. This new religious paradigm was reading as follows “The sharing of a common narrative about the transformation, of the traditional hierarchy of animist spirits, into a new religious hierarchy of gods that, over the millennia eventually evolved into a monotheistic hierarchy and its revealed truth about the working of reality”.
   
   Structured religious narratives emerged from this paradigm that the men of knowledge, with a large following, put at the service of the men of power, about 5,000 years ago, in order to ease the reproduction of their societal institutions. This service of religious knowledge, to the men of power, consecrated the emergence of the paradigm of power-societies that reads as “the assembly of citizens by force and the forced sharing of a common religious worldview to ease the reproduction of their societal institutions”.
   
   This forced sharing of a religious narrative among the citizens of an empire fostered the territorial realm of civilizations.



3. In China tribal societies flourished uninterrupted while imperceptibly altering into power societies
   
   Large alluvial plains, 50 to 100 times the size of the Egyptian or Mesopotamian plains, allowed a non-interrupted population growth through territorial expansion.
   
   The call to undertake major flood mitigation works, addressed to the animistic sages symbolizing the unity of the "Tribal Cultural Confederations", transformed their symbolism into a more practical approach to manage such works. Over the course of one or two millennia, this more practical approach had evolved, during the 5th millennium BC, into a fully-fledged system of governance that decided, some 4,000 years ago, on a dynastic transmission of power. Thus was born the era of "Power Confederations", which lasted until Qin Shi Guang centralized the empire some 2,250 years ago.



4. Continuity in China kept Holism as the root of knowledge formation while rupture in the TCA forced religious belief as the new paradigm of knowledge formation which later consecrated atomism

The continuity of animism in China, from “Tribal Cultural Confederations” to “Power Confederations” kept intact the knowledge paradigm that sustained more than 100,000 years of animist knowledge formation.

The occupation, of the entirety of the alluvial plains of Mesopotamia and other areas around Anatolia some 10,000 years ago, called for a violent rupture with animism and tribal societies in order to ease the experimentation of new models of societies able to manage larger population levels. The burying of Göbekli Tepe some 10,000 years ago is the most significant sign of this violent rupture.

Unfortunately the academy is unable to comprehend something as stupendous as Göbekli Tepe’s burying. Quantitative measurements certainly allow us to generate a big picture from numerous remnants of a material culture. But when an archaeological site is the big picture by itself prehistory scientists act like blind scholarly idiots !

 

 

 

 

3.2. Societal paradigms : animist pragmatism versus religious belief

Observing that the reality of the universe, and its meaning and implications for its sub-systems and its parts, is largely unattainable the animist (wo)men of knowledge came to understand that all certainties are illusions trapping the mind in vain thinking, idiotic behaviors, and unwise actions.

From this they concluded that certainties should be rejected out of hands. They thought that knowledge should focus on alleviating the individual’s daily suffering by implementing strategies that ease the reproduction of the individuals, their societies, and their species’ life over the long haul. Such strategies invariably imply that the application of knowledge must result in pragmatic outcomes for the individuals, their societies and their species. But what do I mean by pragmatic outcomes ?

To understand what pragmatism is not, and to reach an understanding that is unencumbered by ideology, let me cite the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that is rooted in Late 19th century US philosophic pragmatism :

“Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that – very broadly – understands knowing the world as inseparable from agency within it. This general idea has attracted a remarkably rich and at times contrary range of interpretations, including: that all philosophical concepts should be tested via scientific experimentation, that a claim is true if and only if it is useful (relatedly: if a philosophical theory does not contribute directly to social progress then it is not worth much), that experience consists in transacting with rather than representing nature, that articulate language rests on a deep bed of shared human practices that can never be fully ‘made explicit’.” (7)

The paradigmatic and logical mental background, of the authors, is seeping out of their definition. This definition has certainly the advantage of being concise. My personal rewording of it goes something like this :

“Knowledge, about the working of reality, must be productive to humanity which implies that human agency must be unimpeded in its application of the rationality of Modernity whose outcome, as is well know, fosters ‘social progress’ “.

In this view the generation of societal complexity is the primary target and the individual well-being, or her/his continuous reproduction, appears to be of no concern. In other words the societal logic implied in this quote is that the rationality of Western-Modernity is not concerned by the well-being of the individuals nor by their reproduction over the long haul as well as that of their societies and species. This Stanford definition is best confronted to my last iteration of “the First Principles of Life” in “Societal Knowledge Formation. 6.2.3.4. Necessity to clarify our conceptual framework”.

In light of a modern reading, of the contextual adaptation of the traditional animist understanding, pragmatism is the outcome of a knowledge formation that is at the service — of alleviating the suffering of the individuals and more generally of purveying to their well-being — of easing their long haul reproduction, that of their society, and that of their species.

These 2 definitions of pragmatism could not be further apart :

1. The US, late 19th century, philosophic conception of pragmatism is the logical outcome of the paradigm of Western-Modernity
   
   The societal paradigm of Western-Modernity, and its societal system of logic in the form of the rationality of Modernity, command that knowledge must be productive in generating higher levels of complexity. The first among “the First Principle of Life” states that the complementary objectives of any living species are : — primarily the maximization of their reproduction over the long haul — secondarily the maximization of their biological and societal complexity.
   
   This means that the maximization of their biological and societal complexity is relative and dependent on their reproduction over the long haul !
   
   The pragmatism of Western modernity has no concern for the well-being of the individuals nor for the long-term continuity of their species. Its sole concern is the generation of ever more complexity which is instrumental to a dynamic process of capital accumulation.
   
   But isn't this what has led humanity to its predicament of the Great Convergence and its maelstrom of tipping points, that plunge all living species on earth in a new Geo-bio-chemical state that is pathological to life ?


2. The conception of pragmatism espoused, by the Chinese animism+, is the logical outcome of the paradigm of tribal animism
   
   Imperceptible changes in governance moved the “Tribal Cultural Confederations”, in the territorial realm of present-day China, into its archetypal model of power-societies with its early form as a “Power Confederation” assembling “City-states” and “Tribal Cultural Confederations“.
   
   This imperceptible transformation of its system of governance, and its institutional set-up, was realized in the continuity of its societal paradigm, its societal worldview, and its system of societal logic.
   
   But how is such a model of societal change, that is steeped in the continuity of its societal cultural field, going to fare in its inevitable confrontation with the Great Convergence unleashed by Western-Modernity ?
   
   We have already seen that by inspiring TIDAA Russia had the courage to assert its security against an expansionist Western market imperialism which most non-Western-nations refused to sanction.
   
   China’s latest technological breakthroughs procure us a sketch of what is to come in the not so distant future :
   
   
   • 2.1. Economic growth rates continue to be multiple times those of the West
     
     A recent article, by John Ross, summed up the situation as follows :
     

     “In the last four years, covering the period of the Covid pandemic, China’s economy has grown two-and-a-half times as fast as the US, 15 times as fast as France, 23 times as fast as Japan, 45 times as fast as Germany, and 480 times as fast as Britain.
     
     To add in smaller G7 countries, China has grown four times as fast as Canada, and 11 times as fast as Italy. China’s out performance of advanced capitalist countries is even greater in per capita terms — a still better measure of productivity changes and potential for increasing living standards.
     
     China’s per capita GDP grew three times as fast as the US, five times as fast as Italy, 44 times as fast as Japan or France, and 260 times as fast as Britain — while per capita GDP fell in Germany and Canada.
     
     China’s out-performance of developing capitalist countries shows the same pattern — China’s per capita 4.4 per cent GDP annual average growth compares to 2.6 per cent in India, 1.3 per cent in Brazil, or 0.9 per cent in South Africa. What is important about such economic growth, of course, is not abstract statistics but its meaning for the real lives of ordinary people.” (8)

   • 2.2. China’s technological drive
     
     
     • 2.2.1. Yearly STEM graduates (9) :
       
       
       
       
     
     
     • 2.2.2. Yearly STEM doctorates (10):
       
       
     
     
     
     • 2.2.3. Yearly scientific articles (11):
       
       

As we have just seen the definition of pragmatism, in the late 19th century bu US philosophers, is imbued with the rationality of Western modernity, that today imposes on the world a rather steep price, for trying to counter the Great Convergence, and its pathological new Geo-bio-chemical equilibrium, that threatens to eliminate all life on earth.

The rationality of the paradigm of Western-Modernity is to transform whatever is available into a process of capital accumulation. And by presenting itself as the guarantor of a green technological future the West wants to make believe that its exceptionalism will save humanity from the high price of the ignominious outcome of its own modernity ! Only context blind fools will miss the fact that this ruse implies the compensation of the West by non-Western nations for their forced use of Western exceptional green gadgets !

This mischievous renegade act contrasts with TIDAA, and its promise of an international order bypassing the hegemony of Western Modernity, that consecrates the equality and freedom of all nations to exercise their sovereignty in the continuity of the cultural field of their societies.

 

 

 

 

3.3. The success of Western-Modernity eclipsed animist knowledge

The paradigm of Modernity is “the reason that is at work in the transformation of sterile money into a dynamic process of capital accumulation”, and its satisfaction implies the production of goods or services. The reason in this transformation is the primary mover. The reason contains the substance of what will evolve into the rationality of Modernity. Capital accumulation supplies the capital to erect the facilities and the machinery that are necessary for the production of goods and services.

The actors, of this process of capital accumulation and its accessory the production of goods and services, are those who implement the reason by transforming their sterile money in a process of capital accumulation. They are the capital holders who are seconded by servant technical spcecialist. The spectators come in 2 categories : — the passive spectators are satisfied by consuming the goods, generated by this process of capital accumulation, they are the entire citizenry — the active spectators are motivated by their envy of the flashiness of the material possessions that are paid for by the financial fortune that accrues in the hands of the capital holders.

3.3.1. The 3 actors in the daily culture of the rationality of Western-Modernity

The social dynamic, between these 3 actors, rapidly expanded its daily culture to the society at large :

1. The rationality of Western-Modernity in daily-culture
   
   The reason, that is at work in the transformation of sterile money into a dynamic process of capital accumulation, is the paradigm of the system powering Western-Modernity’s societal logic of rationality :
   
   
   • 1.1. Capital invests in production facilities
     
     The production of goods and services is the property of the corporation invested by capital holders. With the silent revolution of the 1970’s this principle has been turned upside-down and Western productions got subcontracted. But a subcontract transfers the concept of the product, the science that is applied in its technology, the design, while the subcontractor is forced to find out the most productive manner to realize the production.
     
     Rare by-standers immediately observed that the subcontractor detained the key of further design and future technological developments. Applied research was indeed always a matter that occurred on the production floor ! Nearly fifty years later those early Cassandras have been proven right by China’s production shops.
     
     And since fundamental research has never been a matter of concern for private capital holders it was always in the hands of public institutions; mostly military institutions in the USA and mostly national Academies in China. So any clear minded observer knew decades ago that China’s public governance would eventually order its academies to focus on the basic, but fundamental, science in the fields that China’s factories would have mastered down the road.
     
     Chinese research and development, and state policies relating to Electric Vehicles, are patent examples of such a winning strategy to take over the world market as the world is presently witnessing !
   
   
   
   • 1.2. Capital finances services
     
     Services are specialized functions, that dig always deeper in their tunnel visions, like scientific tunnels that always dig deeper in their fields of specialization, like design, like marketing, like management, like accountancy, like the guidance and legal framing by publics institutions, etc.
     
     Quantitative approaches in US business schools have unfortunately castrated economic research and limited its field to modeling what is already being done instead of studying the working of societies, the place of economics in their working, and how to maximize the efficacy of societies by adapting their economic activities to their working. Economic quantification blinded Western capital holders, and their public decision-maker servants, to how production countries would strategize their role in this Western globalized world.
     
     The blindness of Western capital holders, and their public servants, was sized by China as an opportunity to enforce an effective production strategy that came to dominate the world. And its top economic ranking was recently given a memetic sticker in the form of TIDAA or “There Is Definitely An Alternative” to Western hegemony.
   
   
   
   • 1.3. Services implement the continuity of the rationality of Modernity through continuous renewal
     
     These services are instrumental to the continuous renewal of productions and this continuous renewal implements their rationality not only throughout the production process but also imposes it throughout the society at large where it shapes the lines, forms, colors, music, and rhythm of the present context, which after synchronization with the historical worldview of the society, form its daily culture.
     
     This is how the rationality of Modernity gradually transpired in the entire societal life where it came under the watching e