All A Poet Can Do Today Is Warn

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:

1.    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.

2.    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.

3.    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.

4.    Cultural conventions based on an individual's moral worth, that then give rise to the inalienable rights of the individual – as originally 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 major cities like 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 threats 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 interpretation of the rules established within the worldview.

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 other 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 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 that. Nationality becomes part of our identity – a necessary step, in this bureaucratic age, for travel across borders, the purchasing of property, subsidised health care, tax breaks and other perks. United behind a flag, patriotism swiftly follows. And from there it is only another step towards rabid fundamentalism. And yet all of this is illusory. The only real unity we have is being part of a single species. One human family. Sapiens. Everything else is a figment of our imagination.

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 and we are trapped in a prison offer own invention.

This is possibly the most critical problem facing humanity. For while it allows us to destroy the rich diversity of cultures, corral indigenous wisdom, objectify almost every aspect of our humanity, contrive conflicts, and impose universal rules in a quest for homogeneity, it resists transformation utterly.

But why should we even want to reform a worldview that has brought so much affluence and well-being in its wake? In fact 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 and fit for purpose in a dynamically complex global context vastly different from even a decade ago.

Democracy is in a shambles. The neoliberal theory of unlimited growth has unleashed greed and has led to a degree of economic stratification that is patently inequitable and unsustainable. The environment we have neglected by allowing industrial farming and fishing is polluted and dying. Propaganda and misinformation in across all 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 something they still insist is a "free" world. Fear and apprehension stalk the planet. Yet the only promises we seem prepared to make to the next generation entail submitting to a joyless technological limbo, destroying each other with nuclear weapons, or preparing for civilisational collapse arising from a breakdown of the climate.

Meanwhile, as I have pointed out on several occasions, our incumbent leaders seem to have reached a collective cognitive threshold beyond which they find it 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 better suited to contemporary conditions. Dualistic thinking is a blunt instrument in an age of burgeoning complexity. Science is but one epistemology among many – just ask indigenous people. And capitalism, at least in the ways we have allowed it to become so predatory, has become toxic - wedging open the festering sores between affluent individuals and 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. Informed philanthropists must surely be turning their attention to second-order structural change?

If they are they are not talking about it. Most philanthropists are content to share their wealth in ways that make them feel good, look good, and give them a tax break. Few are truly concerned with the structural impact of their investments. And then there is a leadership void. Most so-called leaders are blindly optimistic concerning futures they cannot even begin to imagine. Far too busy patching up the present, they have little inclination to notice or attend to the truths underlying our predicament. As for the UN, and similar global organisations, they continue to do what they have 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. Meanwhile embedded problems become ever more intricate, accelerating away from conventional solutions. Indeed much institutional behaviour seems to indicate an unfounded trust in just-in-time achievements, or prayers for deliverance from 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 remain convinced that the single most vital task facing all of us is the renewal of an increasingly 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.