I can only respond to one of you requests, and that is what there is new under the sun.
If you like, there is the discussion and construction of what I call human hard theory- irrefutable concepts of the common self such as ‘love’ and ‘control’ and ‘laughter’. Greater understanding allows for deeper interpretation and appreciation- if your concerned that it is unromantic or at all dehumanising to do this.
Then there is the discussion and description of what I call sentient hard theory, such as ‘corporation’, ‘organised religion’ and ‘bureaucracy’. I think this one is of vital concern- to formally acknowledge corporate will is to create the means to domesticate these mammoth bulls into beasts of burden (and stop all the skape-goating and platinum hand-shakes after yet another collapse).
Then there is the discussion and formulation of dis-integral hard theory. This can be described in terms of ambient, circumstantial hard theory. Like air quality is dependant on weather. This is the most vague and yet is the only one that has been considered, imho, in any depth and then only enough to become dismissive of it as ‘too complex’. These are the theory that work as medium for interaction between human hard theory and sentient hard theory.
Can’t help you with the other.
You seam to be an interested fellow- I’d appreciate your comments on the above.
