While it’s true that none of us are able to perceive precisely the same reality, or understand that reality in the same way as the person standing next to us (given the continuously personalised construction of every aspect of our existence) we know that our more cogent individual interpretations of the world (i.e. mindset) reflect deeply held assumptions and beliefs that others do consistently share (i.e. worldview) – even when separated by generations and geography.
As a societal scale phenomenon the worldview can and does differ in character from one society to another. It arises from a set of heuristically determined operating rules and conditions (a cybernetic regulatory framework) that evolves into a consensual praxis (i.e. world-system). At one level this shared worldview is the cognitive function of a society; the mind of humanity in that particular place and time. Hence the different cosmological origins between the Sinic, Indic and Occidental worldviews reflecting differing priorities and practices today.
As individuals we all accept our own reality as being authentic, even though it’s a personal interpretation that exists moment by moment - ephemeral, unpredictable, constantly flowing – and unique to each of us. For these reasons we find it tricky at the best of times to communicate our reality to others. What keeps us sane, and the context steady, is that the constant barrage of sights and smells and sounds to which we are constantly subjected during our waking hours is anchored in something more permanent: our worldview.
Feedback loops from the world-system (the daily round of work and play) allow us to make sense of our reality as this interacts with other realities, bringing a semblance of order to what would otherwise be total disorder. But the key cognitive function in this triumvirate resides with the worldview which, though tacit, functions as an underlying code with which we are all subconsciously familiar – at least after the social conditioning of our early years.
For at least the past 150 years the dominant global world-system has been an ever-expanding facsimile of industrial economism – a paradigm whose genesis occurred during the period of mass production in late 18th century Britain and then spread rapidly and globally to all corners of the world.
The praxis behind industrial economism comprises five basic elements: (i) extractive processes (ii) delivering raw materials (iii) used for the manufacture of goods (iv) which are then traded in competitive markets (v) and ultimately consumed. Three factors help sustain this paradigm: 1. Supply: the availability of, and access to, resources. 2. Demand: an endless stream of customers keen to purchase the goods. 3. Credit: so that goods can be purchased with few financial restrictions, thereby guaranteeing market growth and greater investments targeted at “finding and mining” even more supplies. Obviously there are additional factors, like supply chains, distribution networks, and the energy needed for the continuous production of goods.
But now we have a serious issue. In a world of over 8 billion people, where natural resources are finite, many of the processes of production are toxic and wasteful. Excessive consumption has led to diabetes and obesity in some countries and malnutrition in others, while the source of energy being used everywhere in the supply chain is unsustainable. We are caught in a trap between desire and depletion.
The world-system screams at us with tornados, heat waves, floods and droughts. It tells us unambiguously in the language of physics that the model of industrial economism is no longer viable, if it ever was. But the worldview to which that world-system is anchored remains tuned into the old frequencies. In this case, the worldview has developed a pathological condition we could simply call dementia. This mental state needs to be treated concurrently with physical changes to the world-system.
But soft systems like beliefs are more difficult to reinvent than hard systems such as banking, governance, transportation, and manufacturing. And if individual beliefs change only gradually and reluctantly, societal dogmata can be glacially slow. Much depends on the nature of the ideas that provoke reality on the one hand and sustain illusion on the other, quite possibly within the same worldview.
At its core, the paradigm of industrial economism is a materialist worldview embedded in the unconscious modern mind. By and large it represents modernism to the core. Key values and assumptions accept and align with the physical world as it is. This is reinforced by what we have been instructed to believe about the overarching system of industrial economism and how it is meant to behave by successive governments and industrialists. Over eons this has become blind faith. It goes way beyond propaganda. Consequently any challenge to the status quo must come from a distinctly higher level of consciousness.
The essence of “realism” located in the conscious mind is a creative unfolding – a leap of epistemological appreciation of what must change, why, and how. It is a challenge to our ontological frameworks. Clearly this leads to tensions between different groups, such as oil industry lobbyists and climate change activists, for example, but almost a schizophrenic tussle when this same tension occurs within an individual’s mind.
Consciousness is non-physical. So, too, are its products - love, empathy, insight, compassion and appreciation. On the other hand consciousness is required to generate all physical experiences (including of course that of production and consumption).
If consciousness is inseparable from everything we call real, the worldview that places consciousness as its source and origin becomes very compelling.
This is our greatest challenge: consciously switching from the worldview of industrial economism to the worldview of ecority, in which all life is sacred but humans are obligated to steward life on Earth. This challenge also entails moving from ego to eco in our dealings with each other and the planet. This is similar in some respects to a reversal of nomos (of management rules and finance) with logos (the word or purpose for our existence) in order to restore “the greater good” ahead of the many legal and financial and administrative controls used to manage (and mismanage) human purpose.
The reward in that metamorphosis of imagination and aspiration is a regenerative world in which reality is actually on our side rather than railing against us; healing and renewal are integral to our lightness of being; infinite possibilities exist in consciousness; inherent meaning is created; and we are all entwined in the tapestry of the future of life on this Earth.