Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many in much of human history, in this book Peter Baofu here proposes what he calls «the perspectival theory of space-time.» According to this theory, there are multiple perspectives of space and time in society, culture, the mind, and nature, all of which are subject to «the regression-progression principle» in «existential dialectics.» These perspectives exist in society, culture, the mind, and nature with good reasons, being subject to «the symmetry-asymmetry principle» in «existential dialectics» and with some being more successful and hegemonic (dominant) than others. Furthermore and more importantly in the long haul, space and time as humans have known them will end and will eventually be altered by post-humans in different forms, be they here in this universe or in multiverses, subject to «the change-constancy principle» in «existential dialectics.»

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.

Why should some essential properties of geometry (i.e., infinity, symmetry, and dimensionality) be both necessary and desirable in the way that they have been constructed—albeit with different modifications over time—since time immemorial? Contrary to the conventional wisdom in all history hitherto existing, the essential properties of geometry do not have to be both necessary and desirable. This is not to suggest, of course, that one has nothing to learn from geometry. On the contrary, geometry has contributed to the advancement of knowledge in many ways since its inception as a field of knowledge some millennia ago. The point in this book, however, is to show an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of geometry, which goes beyond human conception, intuition, and imagination, together with worldly experience of course, as its foundation, while learning from them all—with theoretical implications for time travel, hyperspace, and other important issues. If true, this seminal view will fundamentally change the way that the nature of abstraction in the thinking process is to be understood, with its enormous implications for the future advancement of knowledge, in a small sense, and what I originally called its “post-human” fate, in a large one.

Is chemistry really so valuable that, as Theodore L. Brown (2011) and his colleagues continue to claim in the twelfth edition of their work in 2011, chemistry is “the central science” in connecting the physical sciences with the life and applied sciences? (WK 2011 & 2011; C. Reinhardt 2001) This crowning of chemistry, however, can be contrasted with an opposing view, as Michael Polanyi once questioned the centrality of chemistry, when he wrote that “[n]o inanimate object is ever fully determined by the laws of . . . chemistry,” so other fields of study are just as important. (BQ 2011) Contrary to these conflicting views about chemistry (and other ones discussed in the book), chemistry, in relation to substances and their changes, is neither possible nor desirable to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. This challenge to the conflicting views about chemistry does not mean, however, that chemistry is useless, or that those fields of study related to chemistry like astronomy, physics, geology, mathematics, material science, biology, psychology, computer science, and so on should be ignored too. Of course, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book provides an alternative, better way of understanding the future of chemistry —especially in the dialectic context of substances and their changes—while learning from different approaches in literature but without favoring any one of them or integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other. This book offers a new theory (that is, the creational theory of chemistry) to go beyond the existing approaches to literature in an original way. If successful, this seminal project will fundamentally change the way that we think about chemistry, 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.

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.

What exactly makes the nature of organizations so miracular that their very purpose is “to achieve performance” and that it is now regarded, in this capitalist age of ours, as the central aim to be both possible and desirable for any organization? After all, there is simply no lack of organizations which “achieve performance” with questionable means and goals—be they about “greed” and “excess” in the corporate world, or “evil” and “injustice” in the public sphere, just to cite two main examples (although there are others too, of course). Contrary to the conventional wisdom preciously accepted by many contemporaries, this obsessive craze for organizational performance is fast becoming a seductive trend, such that the dark sides of organizational performance have yet to be systematically understood and that its very purpose is neither possible nor desirable to the extent that its proponents would like us to believe. Needless to say, this is not to suggest that the purpose of organizations is to reject performance, or that the literature in organizational studies (and other related fields like political science, media studies, and business management, for example) hitherto existing in history are full of scholarly worthlessness. The aim of this book, however, is to provide an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of organization, in special relation to communication, decision-making, and leadership—while learning from different views in the literature, without favoring any one of them (nor integrating them), and, in the end, transcending them in a new direction not thought before. This seminal project, if successful, will radically change the way that we think about the nature of organization, 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.