What makes the rule of law so special that it is to conscientiously punish the “bad” doers and reward the “good” ones—such that, where there is the rule of law, peace and order are to be expected, so that “the rule of law is better than the rule of any individual”? Take the case of international law, as an illustration. While different international courts have been busy going after the killers of innocent victims in Rwanda and Liberia, they have turned a blind eye to the major powers which have killed—on a much larger and more brutal scale, by comparison—innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, just to cite two current examples. Contrary to the conventional wisdom conveniently held by many in human history, the rule of law has its other side which has not yet been systematically understood, such that the rule of law is neither possible nor desirable to the extent that the defenders of legal institutions in human history would like us to believe. Lest any misunderstanding hastily occur, this is not to imply that the rule of law is absolutely useless, or that the literature in jurisprudence (and other related fields like political philosophy, ethics, law and economics, and the sociology of law) should be dismissed because of its scholarly irrelevance. Of course, neither of these two extreme views is reasonable either. Instead, this book provides an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of law, in relation to its necessity and contingency in the context of justice—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). In the process, this book offers a new theory to transcend the existing approaches in the literature in a new direction—in that, in the end, there is no justice without injustice and that it will be transcended too. This seminal project, if successful, will fundamentally change the way that we think about the nature of law, 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.
Is the invention of accounting so useful that, as Charlie Munger once said, “you have to know accounting. It's the language of practical business life. It was a very useful thing to deliver to civilization. I've heard it came to civilization through Venice which of course was once the great commercial power in the Mediterranean”? (WOO 2013) This positive view on accounting can be contrasted with an opposing view by Paul Browne that “the recent [accounting] scandals have brought a new level of attention to the accounting profession as gatekeepers and custodians of social interest.” (DUM 2013) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), accounting (in relation to addition and subtraction) are 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 reexamination of different opposing views on accounting does not mean that the study of addition and subtraction is useless, or that those fields (related to accounting)—like bookkeeping, auditing, forensics, info management, finance, philosophy of accounting, accounting ethics, lean accounting, mental accounting, environmental audit, creative accounting, carbon accounting, social accounting, and so on—are unimportant. (WK 2013) In fact, neither of these extreme views is plausible. Rather, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of accounting in regard to the dialectic relationship between addition and subtraction—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). More specifically, this book offers a new theory (that is, the double-sided theory of accounting) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way and is organized in four chapters. This seminal project will fundamentally change the way that we think about accounting in relation to addition and subtraction 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.
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)...
What exactly makes creative thinking so magical that, somehow, “everyone can be creative” and, by implication, creativity is a good thing to have—to the point that this popular view is fast becoming a fashionable nonsense in this day and age of ours? To put things in a historical perspective—this popular view contrasts sharply with the opposing view in the older days (e.g., during the Enlightenment and Romantic eras), when people used to think that creativity was primarily for the selected few with extraordinary abilities. Contrary to the respective conventional wisdom in each of the two opposing eras, neither of the two views is valid. Ours is no more so than theirs. This is not to imply, of course, that there are only a few instances of creativity in human history, or, in reverse, that creativity can be equally taught to everyone—and, for that matter, that there is absolutely nothing good about creativity. Obviously, extreme views like this are far from the truth. The point in this book, however, is to show an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of creative thinking, which goes beyond both convergent and divergent thinking, while learning from them. The current fashionable nonsense on creative thinking has tended to minimize its hidden downsides and exaggerate its overstated promises, as part of a new ideology in this age of ours. In addition, there is nothing intrinsically good (or bad) about “creative thinking”—just as there is nothing essentially good (or evil) about “God,” “the King,” “Motherland,” or the like, by analogy. They have all been used and misused in accordance to the interests and powers that be over the ages. If true, this seminal view will fundamentally change the way that we think about the nature of imagination and intuition, with its enormous implications for the future of invention and innovation, in a small sense, and what I originally called its “post-human” fate, in a large one.
To what extent is there really a universal structure, whether innate or not, of language for learning? Or conversely, is language learning mainly context-based? And, in the end, does the very nature of language delimit our mental world—such that “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world” or, in a different parlance, constitute “the prison house of language”? Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many in history, all these seemingly plausible views are highly misleading, to the extent that something vital is missing in the conventional debate, such that the nature of learning has yet to be more comprehensively and systematically understood. This is not to say, however, that the literature in the study of language (and other related fields) hitherto existing in history has been much ado about nothing. In fact, much can be learned from different theoretical approaches in the literature. The virtue of this book is to provide an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of learning, especially (though not exclusively) in relation to language—which, while incorporating the different views in the literature, transcends them all in the end, with the use of language and also beyond it. This inquiry may sound academic, but it has enormous implications not just for the narrow concern with the nature of language, but also, more importantly, for the larger concern with the nature of thinking, feeling, and doing in learning, both with the use of language and beyond it. If true, this seminal work will fundamentally change the way that we think, not only about the nature of language, in a small sense— but also about the nature of learning, with the use of language and also beyond it, from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, for the human future and what I originally called its “post-human” fate, in a broad sense.
Can transportation really have such a destructive impact on society that, as Jay Holtz Kay (1998) once forcefully wrote, with the automobile industry as an example, that “the modern consequences of heavy automotive use contribute to the use of non-renewable fuels, a dramatic increase in the rate of accidental death, social isolation, the disconnection of community, the rise in obesity, the generation of air and noise pollution, urban sprawl, and urban decay”? (WK 2012) This negative expectation from transportation, with the automobile industry as an example here, can be contrasted with an opposing (positive) expectation in the old “glory days” when, as Skip McGoun (2012) thus reminded us, “we have sung songs about the glory and wonder that surrounds the very concept of the car. Examples of this range from the 1909 tune, ‘In My Merry Oldsmobile,’ to what is considered to be the first rock and roll song, ‘Rocket 88,’ in 1949. . . . Motion pictures have portrayed . . . expensive sleek sports cars . . . associated with wealth and success. . . . One commercial described Hell as being a place where a teenager would have to drive a minivan!” Contrary to these opposing expectations (and other views as will be discussed in the book), transportation, in relation to both networks and operations, is neither possible or impossible, nor desirable or undesirable, to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. This challenge to the opposing expectations from transportation does not mean that transportation is useless, or that those interdisciplinary fields (related to transportation studies) like urban planning, environmental sustainability, migration, tourism, transport economics, traffic engineering, transportation technology, energy efficiency, the tragedy of the commons, and so on are unimportant. Needless to say, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Rather, this book offers an alternative, better way to understand the future of transportation, especially in the dialectic context of networks and operations—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 panoramic theory of transportation) 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 transportation in relation to networks and operations 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.
This seminal project aims to fundamentally change the way we think about semantics, 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.
Why should mathematical logic be grounded on the basis of some formal requirements in the way that it has been developed since its classical emergence as a hybrid field of mathematics and logic in the 19th century or earlier? Contrary to conventional wisdom, the foundation of mathematic logic has been grounded on some false (or dogmatic) assumptions which have much impoverished the pursuit of knowledge. This is not to say that mathematical logic has been useless. Quite on the contrary, it has been quite influential in shaping the way that reality is to be understood in numerous fields of knowledge—by learning from the mathematical study of logic and its reverse, the logical study of mathematics. In the final analysis, the future of mathematical logic will depend on how its foundational crisis is to be resolved, and "the contrastive theory of rationality" (in this book) is to precisely show how and why it can be done by taking a contrastive turn, subject to the constraints imposed upon by "existential dialectic principles" at the ontological level (to avoid any reductionistic fallacy) and other ones (like the perspectives of culture, society, nature, and the mind). The contrastive theory of rationality thus shows a better way to ground mathematical logic (beyond both classical and non-classical logics) for the future advancement of knowledge and, if true, will alter the way of how mathematical logic is to be understood, with its enormous implications for the future of knowledge and its "post-human" fate.
Are natural resources really so limited that, as Mahatma Gandhi once famously said, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed”? (TE 2012) This limiting view of natural resources can be contrasted with an opposing view by John Maynard Keynes, who “summarized Say’s Law as ‘supply creates its own demand’” but then “turned Say’s Law on its head in the 1930s by declaring that demand creates its own supply,” so whenever a demand exists, there will be resources to create the supply. (EN 2012) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), natural resources, in relation to both diversity and discontinuity are neither possible or impossible, nor desirable or undesirable to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. Needless to say, this challenge to the opposing views of natural resources does not mean that natural resources are unimportant, or that those interdisciplinary fields (related to natural resources) like conservation biology, environmental management, ecological economics, political ecology, environmental ethics, adaptive management, genetic engineering, Malthusianism, and so on are not worth studying. Of course, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Rather, this book offers an alternative, better way to understand the future of natural resources, especially in the dialectic context of diversity and discontinuity—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 resilient theory of natural resources) 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 natural resources in relation to diversity and discontinuity 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.
Are the performing arts really supposed to be so radical that, as John Cage once said in the context of music, “there is no noise, only sound,” since “he argued that any sounds we can hear can be music”? (WK 2007a; D. Harwood 1976) This radical tradition in performing arts, with music as an example here, can be contrasted with an opposing view in the older days, when “Greek philosophers and medieval theorists in music defined music as tones ordered horizontally as melodies, and vertically as harmonies. Music theory, within this realm, is studied with the presupposition that music is orderly and often pleasant to hear.” (WK 2007a) Contrary to these opposing traditions (and other views as will be discussed in the book), performing arts, in relation to both the body and its presence, is neither possible nor desirable to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. Needless to say, the challenge to these opposing traditions in performing arts does not imply that performing arts are worthless human endeavors, or that those fields of study related to performing arts like aesthetics, acoustics, communication studies, psychology, culture studies, sociology, religion, morality, and so on should be rejected too. Of course, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book provides an alternative, better way of understanding the future of performing arts, especially in the dialectic context of the body and its presence—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. In other words, this book offers a new theory (that is, the transdisiciplinary theory of performing arts) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way. If successful, this seminal project will fundamentally change the way that we think about performing arts, 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.
Why are some individuals relatively more successful than others in achievement? And why are some countries (or regions), for that matter, relatively more successful than others in development? Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many, Dr. Baofu argues that the nature-nurture debate is misleading and faulty, since his “transcendent approach” is to show how and why the two are closely intertwined in producing the behavioral differences as often seen in individual human endeavors on the micro scale, and for that matter, in country (or regional) endeavors on the macro one—without, however, committing “the compromise fallacy” as often seen in an in-between alternative. The debate also obscures something more tremendous in the long run, in relation to the emergence of what Dr. Baofu originally proposed as the “post-human” world that humans have never known, when human genes will no longer exist. Human genes have their days numbered.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.