World Republic - How Might That Happen?

General
1

This in follow-up to a recent “collapse” thread. After exploring “collapse” in some detail, the questions at issue began to revolve around political means to do anything about it. All of my potential responses to these questions will be involving the work of Kojin Karatani, and Karatani’s work is complex enough that it seems to merit it’s own discussion. I recently completed Karatani’s book The Structure of World History, but the article below gives the gist.

On the vital question of World Republic, Karatani picks up where Immanuel Kant left off in his essay Perpetual Peace. Karatani also addresses Hegel and Marx’s later critiques of Kant, as well many more recent developments. Among other things, Karatini’s work brings a lot of other major philosophers and social theorists into the discussion, thus allowing for wide-angled framing of the different political options that were bubbling up in the “collapse” discussion.

My TL:DR of Karatani’s most plausible pathway to a World Republic would be because the various nation-states exhaust themselves in struggle and agree to a global Leviathan (Pogany’s “strong multilaterialism”) as a social contract between states, not between world citizens directly. Karatani calls that “imagined” (as in not here yet) as opposed to utopian (purely ideal).

None of that is especially cheery in the short term, but it does at least give a road map to a different sort of world beyond a literal Hobbesian war of all against all.

1 Like
2

Yes, surely it has to be agreed between states. The question is how can we get to a point where such an agreement starts to become a realistic possibility.

I have no answer to offer apart from the one I offered in the other thread. I think there needs to be some sort of movement towards a unification in meta-ideology, and I think it needs to be based on the idea of creating ecocivilisation. It must happen first in nation states (and China is the first to do commit to it), and then there must be moves towards global unification based around a new, neutral global currency.

This is why I frame the whole thing in terms of Westernising the concept of ecocivilisation. It is why “Ecocivilisation is our destiny, and our goal” is the first principle of my New Epistemic Deal. It is the only thing that comes before the epistemology. It establishes why the epistemology matters.

3

I’ve linked below to a short piece by Richard Flyer. Why? Flyer also proposes a meta-ideology. In Flyer’s case, it’s a sort of spiritual perennialism, drawing on many faith traditions. Flyer calls this the “ancient blueprint”.

My intuition is that new societies form more around spiritual practices that ideologies. I’d be curious how you see the spiritual dimension of eco-civilization.

4

from your link

Without any agreed-upon “objective truth,” reality becomes malleable, fragmenting into a myriad of personal truths/worldviews grounded in individual beliefs, perceptions, and opinions. This fragmentation, seen in our ever-dividing societal groups, only intensifies social conflict.

from the introduction of my own book

If humans have reliable knowledge of an objective reality, then whether we are concerned with practicalities or with morality it is essential that we start by establishing what we can and can’t objectively know and say about it. Any other approach will lead to impractical answers and false morality. We are heading straight towards the most serious humanitarian crisis there is ever going to be, and we have ended up in this mess because previous and current generations have refused to deal with reality. We cannot solve our problems by claiming that the question “what is real?” is as subjective as “what is important?” That is just an open invitation to people whose value judgement is that (for example) growth-based economics and the freedom to acquire unlimited personal wealth are more important than ecological facts about reality. How can we ever come to an objective, collective understanding of what is important if we cannot agree to start our enquiries by establishing what we know about what is objectively real? I am going to make a case that attempts to put morality before reality are themselves immoral: that there is such a thing as objective truth, and that its acceptance is more important than any value judgement. That this is itself a value judgement might seem paradoxical, but it is consistent at the level of meta-ethics. Accepting objective reality is a higher-order moral imperative than any other specific value or moral stance – an overarching principle rather than a contradiction.

I’ve spent my whole life watching this unfold, never complaining about it, but instead working towards a concrete answer to our Age’s central, seemingly impossible challenge: finding a universal understanding around which humanity can unite.

Yes. It is called Reality. But what, exactly, does that mean?

As you will see, I alternately refer to Ultimate Reality as the Transcendent, indicating that it exists beyond material existence, and Immanent as the Ground of Being because it can be experienced here and now as the foundation for life, Nature, and human consciousness.

It’s also the foundation of what has been called “Objective Reality,” from which I believe that all positive Virtues (e.g., love, charity, compassion, generosity, etc.), universally acknowledged across religions, flow. It is likely the reason why humanity tends to aspire to the betterment of the world, for example, Plato’s representation of Love as “truth, beauty, and goodness.”

Yes. I refer to in writing as it 0|∞. Henry Stapp calls it “the Participating Observer”.

One of the chapters in my book imagines the first 3 chapters of an imaginary book from the future. It is a combination of the sort of religion Richard Flyer is imagining, and a post-materialistic form of science. This is the beginning:

The Western Book of the Eco-apocalypse (chapters 0|∞ to 2)

0|∞

Nothing never was, and never will be. There was no beginning of things, and there will be no end. The Ground of all Being is not nothing, and not infinity. It neither exists nor doesn’t exist. It is indivisible and indestructible. It is the Ultimate Paradox.

  1. Psychegenesis…
5

So do you think Flyer is onto the same Reality as you are? Or do you see him as off target somehow?

6

He’s playing a slightly different role to myself – more interested in the spiritual side, whereas I am focused on holding the whole thing together (not just science and spirituality, but also politics). But from what I have seen, I didn’t see any important differences in underlying beliefs. I suspect he would agree to my NED.

Spirituality alone cannot bring the world together. I’m looking to build a bigger coalition than that. It must include people like Nagel.

7

If you look at Richard Flyer’s larger body of work, it goes beyond the spiritual. Probably his signature accomplishment is weaving a regional food network in the Reno, Nevada area. Also, his inspiration, the Sri Lankan Sarvodaya movement has a lot of practical implications for food, clothing, shelter, village organization, etc.

My angle on this is 1) profit-driven models face a hard limit; 2) co-op models look like an attractive alternative; 3) but what does it take to get a critical mass of people sufficiently aligned to cooperate? Shared ideology - perhaps. But shared spiritual/devotional practice has a better historical track record. (Not excluding ideology to go with it, however).

8
  1. profit-driven models face a hard limit; 2) co-op models look like an attractive alternative;

Yes. Although maybe the answer is a combination of the two with other elements also.

This is the million dollar question. In effect the question is what the conditions are for getting enough people together to come to agree on an answer to the first two questions, and all the other questions we need to answer. How do we actually make this thing happen?

At this point we’ve arrived at the back cover blurb for my book:

Can western society create an ecocivilisation?
What might a western ecocivilisation look like?
What is the least bad route from here to there?
Could a new sort of movement be based on this concept?
Could it unite enough people to sustain the necessary transformation?

What could serve as the ideological foundation for such a movement?

The real paths to Ecocivilisation is an attempt to answer these questions.

What does the language game of ecocivilisation look like?

9

Why “western”? It’s hard for me to imagine more than one planetary ecocivilization.

10

Ecocivilisation is a concept invented in Soviet Russia and now being adapted and (theoretically) implemented by China. The Chinese concept is based on Marxist authoritarianism and Taoism, both of which can be adapted for this purpose. The West lacks either a political or religious ideology which can be adapted in this way, and postmodernism has ensured that almost nobody believes a new ideological system could be constructed.

So the question I am asking is how we can Westernise the concept of ecocivilisation. How could the West cut a Western path to ecocivilisation? Can we do it democratically? What is the fate of capitalism? What are the implications for the Western understanding of science (ie scientific materialism)? EDIT: and the one I’m least happy to talk about – how do the Abrahamic religions fit into this?.

The final goal has to global ecocivilisation, but it must start at the national level – and it already has. My book argues that China is well ahead of us in this respect. Most Westerners struggle to even understand the question, let alone have any idea of what answers might look like.

My answer is close enough to 2R that it makes no sense for me to try and build some sort of parallel movement. If 2R will have me, this is where I belong. I have some very specific ideas about what the solution needs to look like, which will cause some people difficulties, but without these specific ideas I don’t think 2R will work.

11

Some related issues from social theory in general:

  • do we currently have one global civilization or many?
  • is a civilization more defined by its values or by its technology?
  • to what extent is collective action organized by state, nation, culture group (i.e. religion), or by civilization?

My leanings on these questions are: one global civilization, defined by technology, with collective action in various-sized containers.

12

That depends on what you mean by “civilisation”. In the sense of the late bronze age civilisation we have one global civilisation, because it is all joined up (even North Korea isn’t completely isolated politically, and not all in other ways, such as technology). But in terms of structure and ideology, there are several distinct categories, with very important differences between them.

We just have to make sure we know what is meant when we use the word “civilisation” – apart from that I don’t think there’s any major problems lurking here.

  • is a civilization more defined by its values or by its technology?

You can define it however you want to. Both are important.

  • to what extent is collective action organized by state, nation, culture group (i.e. religion), or by civilization?

Those are also important questions, yes. But again I think the issues here are semantic. We do need to be clear so nothing gets confused, but I don’t see any insurmountable difficulties.

13

A bit more than semantic, perhaps. On the theory of action models, a key question is - where is the leverage? What kinds of actions in which sorts of containers are more change-making?

To give a very practical example, I’ve recently dialed back my FB postings in favor of more postings here. Why? Better signal to noise ratio. Beyond that, I am also increasing my local face-to-face network of 2R-aligned activities. As any of that ramps up, I may become more sporadic here. Why? Face-to-face offers better leverage than online. I just got off an organizing call for Cascadia Bioregion. Why that and why not US national? Better leverage at local/regional levels than at US national levels. And so forth. If I were Chinese or Russian or Canadian or European all these calculations would be running differently.

14

Ultimately power lies with the sovereign state. But ideas have to change first – the state won’t lead us out of this. It must be led by public opinion first changing and then politics changing.

To give a very practical example, I’ve recently dialed back my FB postings in favor of more postings here. Why? Better signal to noise ratio.

I try whatever options are available that I can bear to use and might work. FB is good for some things, not so good for others. This forum has great potential, but needs more people involved. I have spent some time in recent days on reddit and FB trying to get a few more here.

There’s very little I can do locally in person.

15

If that were entirely true in the US, then anyone not MAGA would be completely sidelined right now. Luckily (see the Bourdieu threads) there are different sorts of capital and influence available. In the US, sovereignty is divided between federal, state and local levels. Also, tribal governments are also technically sovereign. (My local tribe is developing an international container port!). I used to spend a lot of time and energy writing grants for US federal education funding. Such efforts would be entirely wasted now. However, the local technology sector is robust, so public-private partnership is looking more promising. It’s all about tacking into prevailing winds.

16

That is their intention, is it not?

It is mostly true.

Tribal governments are sovereign only in the sense the Scottish Parliament is sovereign…devolution isn’t sovereignty.

17

World unification must become the modus operandi of any long-term system. Let us contemplate the arisal of a unified planet, and work backwards on how it can be created. The epitome of all eventualities lies in the capacity to comprehend that global problems of such magnitude require global, coordinated solutions. Now, it is manifestly apparent that the only manner in which to create such solutions is through world unification. Realisating that necessity, coupled with the underpinning biologically driven momentum that results in species spreading across a planet, the only question that remains is: HOW CAN WORLD UNIFICATION BE ACHIEVED? Everything else is, essentially, redundant. OMBAOWOW.

18

Welcome to 2R, Justin.

What are your thoughts about Robert’s opening post? I don’t think there’s much disagreement about the long term goal. The question is how we actually make it happen.

19

Thanks Geoff.
Well, as I think we both agree, and presumably the majority on this forum, the question is no longer if collapse is coming—it is which part collapses first, and what, if anything, emerges in the clearing smoke. Like the crumbling of Babel, we are living through the great unbinding: institutions failing, truths fragmenting, meaning itself outsourced to neural nets and market algorithms.
In this context, Karatani’s vision of a World Republic doesn’t sound utopian—it sounds like the only plausible madness left! He is right to suggst that world unification will not be born of love, but of exhaustion.. The Leviathan returns—but now with paperwork, summit talks, and carbon treaties. We have a gift here: a non-naive path to unity—one that doesn’t pretend the world will suddenly become good, but that the machinery of history might grind, screeching, toward coordination. And that’s precisely what makes his vision powerful. He gives us a future that is imagined, not imaginary.
But still, I ask: is this truly the best path to unification?

What if the best path is not found in geopolitical treaties or even in statecraft at all? What if it lies in a deeper alchemy—the weaving of human attention, memory, and desire into something shared again?
What if unification begins, not with laws or borders, but with language?
And, with language, our very cognitive foundation through which we perceive ‘reality’?

Language is the infrastructure beneath all others. Before a World Republic can function, we must remember how to speak to one another—not merely to communicate, but to understand, to feel, to remember ourselves as one phenomenon, temporarily divided. This is the essence, the underlying foundation, by which to achieve world unification. Without it, the best thing that would be created is a temporary interlude, or brief recovery, before another collapse starts again.

And the forthcoming collapse is not just material—it is semantic. It is the shattering of shared meaning, of a common story. Thus, the path to world unification may look like this:

  1. A Rebirth of Cosmology– not religious, but poetic and empirical. A new story of what we are, grounded in science and myth alike. Bohmian wholeness, quantum entanglement, Karatani’s modes, Buddhist interdependence—all threads in a tapestry that says: you were never separate.
  2. A Culture of Associationism – not imposd from the top, but grown sideways, through networks of mutual aid, cooperative economies, local-to-global federations. The World Republic cannot precede the world culture it needs to survive.
  3. Collapse as Compost – We must stop fearing collapse as an ending and start using it as fertilizer. The void left behind by dying systems is where the seedlings of unification can be planted.

That is my take on the first steps towards world unification.

2 Likes
20

Hi Justin, welcome to the discussion!

Yesterday I had a video call with a fellow in Colorado who has a strong contact with a model permaculture community about 30 min. from my home. He and I connect philosophically across the board, so he will be guiding me in to work with them as a sort of consultant on practical implementations of “networks of mutual aid, cooperative economies, local-to-global federations”. So yes on your framework. Now to build out proof-of-concept.

Towards the end of this call, my new partner had a second ask. He has been reading my recent FB content (similar to my recent 2R content) and asked for a 3-5 page summary. Sounds like a Medium article to be written, so in a few days likely … Meanwhile, my writing process is very dialogic, so here is an initial brainstorm on what will go into that summary article. (You can hop around all over this forum and find more details on most of it.)

Meta Description of the Current World Process

  1. Pogany’s “chaotic transition” between world systems
    1 a. analogous to Zak Stein’s “time between worlds”
  2. Karatani’s World Republic
    2 a. aligned with Pogany’s projected GS3 ("strong multilateralism)
  3. Pogany’s end-of-career embrace of Gebser’s integral
    3 a. aligned with your “deeper alchemy” above
    3 b. aligned with SD yellow = Wilberian teal = metamodern (“=” meaning here “approximately =”)

Where I differ from @GeoffDann (quite a bit) is on process. That above is just my synthesis of books on my shelf (literally a yard away from current reach). I’m just one guy at a keyboard. I do try to curate the best ideas on offer, but anyone else might have a different scheme of things, and most likely does. This is not concerning. I figure truth will out in the dialogic process. (Note my 2 hour call yesterday with something like 99% alignment with a person I never met before. Not the originality of my thought, by any means. More like my ability as an academic hunter/gather to source interesting ingredients and blend them attractively.)

So about your alchemy … Pogany really comes at cultural evolution from the material side of things. Literally from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Gebser, by contrast, is a poetic mystical philologist. How do those two worlds speak to each other? In going through SD, Wilber, and MM in some depth over the past couple years, I always felt the connection between stages of psychological development and cultural evolution was sketchy at best, Procrustean at worst. So I sourced a bunch of other theory to fix that. (Let’s save all those sources for another time). But below I’ll close with with a quick and dirty attempt at something like an alchemical cookbook recipe.

People (going back to ape-like ancestors) cope with the environments that confront them. Thought, culture, language were adaptive for that. “Structures of consciousness” (Gebser), or more prosaically, the organization of thought, culture, language are relatively self-referencing, conservative systems, that tend to self-replicate generation upon generation. But as the pragmatic environment evolves (due mostly to human intervention over the millennia) from time to time these structures get wildly out of synch with the pragmatic world and we get an upheaval Gebser calls a “mutation”. (Or call it a SD spiral or whatever you like best. Same general idea in any case.) Due to the current “chaotic transition” (Pogany) we are getting cognitive dissonance on mass scales (aka the meaning crisis), which will catalyze your “alchemy” though simple Skinnerian reinforcement learning. People will try all the old practices. This will fail. Much grief and pain. At the psychological bottom, new willingness to try a different approach. Engage with model community built on the new practices. More pleasant experiences all the way around. Learning reinforced.

Note there are subcultures (ie 2R) that have this mostly figured out already and don’t need to learn it all the hard way. That’s why I see building model communities as proof-of-concept as the next important agenda item. Call me the lifeboat guy on the ship that is supposedly unsinkable, flirting with icebergs.

3 Likes