Why should inquiry be possible, only if some knowledge is required to guide it, as conventionally understood? Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many thinkers in all human history hitherto existing, there are some fundamental dialectic principles hidden behind any categories of understanding in knowing. And these principles impose some constraints, at both methodological and ontological levels, together with other levels in culture, society, nature, and the mind - on how reality is to be understood. Furthermore, the specific categories of understanding (as conventionally understood), even if valid at all (which are often not the case), are often not that important, when compared with these more fundamental dialectic principles hidden behind them. The focus on understanding the nature of knowledge has been much misplaced, in this sense, in the intellectual history hitherto existing, and much time and talent have been wasted for something less important. If true, this thesis will alter the way of how knowledge is to be understood across the board.
Is written by a highly knowledgeable and well-respected scholarA new theory called The Holistic Theory of KnowledgeA comprehensive analysis of knowledge in relation to methodology and ontology, from the perspectives of nature, the mind, society, and culture

The Future of Information Architecture examines issues surrounding why information is processed, stored and applied in the way that it has, since time immemorial. Contrary to the conventional wisdom held by many scholars in human history, the recurrent debate on the explanation of the most basic categories of information (eg space, time causation, quality, quantity) has been misconstrued, to the effect that there exists some deeper categories and principles behind these categories of information - with enormous implications for our understanding of reality in general. To understand this, the book is organised in to four main parts: Part I begins with the vital question concerning the role of information within the context of the larger theoretical debate in the literature. Part II provides a critical examination of the nature of data taxonomy from the main perspectives of culture, society, nature and the mind. Part III constructively invesitgates the world of information network from the main perspectives of culture, society, nature and the mind. Part IV proposes six main theses in the authors synthetic theory of information architecture, namely, (a) the first thesis on the simpleness-complicatedness principle, (b) the second thesis on the exactness-vagueness principle (c) the third thesis on the slowness-quickness principle (d) the fourth thesis on the order-chaos principle, (e) the fifth thesis on the symmetry-asymmetry principle, and (f) the sixth thesis on the post-human stage.

Is moral goodness really so desirable in the way that its proponents through the ages would like us to believe? For instance, in our time, there is even this latest version of the popular moral idea shared by many, when Dalai Lama suggested that " w]e need these human values of compassion and affection]....Even without religion, ...we have the capacity to promote these things." (WK 2009) The naivety of this popular moral idea can be contrasted with an opposing (critical) idea advocated not long ago by Sigmund Freud (1966), who once wrote that "men are not gentle creatures who want to be loved, and who at the most can defend themselves if they are attacked; they are, on the contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness. As a result, their neighbor is for them...someone who tempts them to satisfy their aggressiveness on him, to exploit his capacity for work without compensation, to use him sexually without his consent, to seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and to kill him. Homo homini lupus." Contrary to the two opposing sides of this battle for the high moral ground, morality and immorality are neither possible nor desirable to the extent that their respective ideologues would like us to believe. But one should not misunderstand this challenge as a suggestion that ethics is a worthless field of study, or that other fields of study (related to ethics) like political philosophy, moral psychology, social studies, theology, or even international relations should be dismissed. Needless to stress, neither of these two extreme views is reasonable either. Instead, this book provides an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of ethics, especially in relation to morality and immorality-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). This book offers a new theory to transcend the existing approaches in the literature on ethics in a way not thought of before. This seminal project is to fundamentally alter the way that we think about ethics, 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.

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.

Is public administration so effective that, as William Poole once wrote, "it is highly desirable that policy practice be formalised to the maximum possible extent"? (FAM 2014) This favourable view on policy and implementation can be contrasted with an opposing view by Thomas Sowell, who warned that "you will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing." (FAM 2014a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), public administration (in relation to policy and implementation) are neither possible (nor impossible) nor desirable (or undesirable) to the extent that the respective ideologues (on different sides) would like us to believe. Needless to say, this questioning of different opposing views on policy and implementation does not suggest that the study of public administration is worthless, or that those diverse fields (related to public administration) -- like policy analysis, program evaluation, sociology, psychology, philosophy, performance management, organisational development, economics, anthropology, geography, law, political science, social work, environmental planning, human resources, organisational theory, budgeting, ethics, and so on should be ignored. (WK 2014, 2014a & 2014b) In fact, neither of these extreme views is plausible. Rather, this book offers an alternative (and better) way to understand the future of public administration in regard to the dialectic relationship between policy and implementation, while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favouring 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 tensional theory of public administration) 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 public administration in relation to policy and implementation 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 public administration so effective that, as William Poole once wrote, "it is highly desirable that policy practice be formalised to the maximum possible extent"? (FAM 2014). This favourable view on policy and implementation can be contrasted with an opposing view by Thomas Sowell, who warned that "you will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing." (FAM 2014a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), public administration (in relation to policy and implementation) 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 questioning of different opposing views on policy and implementation does not suggest that the study of public administration is worthless, or that those diverse fields (related to public administration) -- like policy analysis, program evaluation, sociology, psychology, philosophy, performance management, organisational development, economics, anthropology, geography, law, political science, social work, environmental planning, human resources, organisational theory, budgeting, ethics, and so on should be ignored. (WK 2014, 2014a & 2014b) In fact, neither of these extreme views is plausible. Rather, this book offers an alternative (and better) way to understand the future of public administration in regard to the dialectic relationship between policy and implementation, while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favouring 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 tensional theory of public administration) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way, and is organised in four chapters. This seminal project will fundamentally change the way that we think about public administration in relation to policy and implementation 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 traditional understanding of cause and effect in aetiology so certain that Arthur Eddington therefore proposed in 1927 "the arrow of time, or time's arrow" involving "the 'one-way direction' or 'asymmetry' of time", such that "a cause precedes its effect: the causal event occurs before the event it affects. Thus causality is intimately bound up with time's arrow"? (WK 2014) This certain view on cause and effect can be contrasted with an opposing view by Michael Dummett, who suggested instead, back in 1957, that "there was no philosophical objection to effects preceding their causes", or what is now known as "retrocausality". (WK 2014a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), aetiology (in relation to cause and effect) 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 questioning of different opposing views on cause and effect does not mean that the study of aetiology is useless, or that those diverse fields (related to aetiology) -- like physics, engineering, biology, philosophy, medicine, epidemiology, government, geography, spatial analysis, psychology, statistics, mathematics, economics, management, history, law, sociology, theology, and so on -- are worthless. (WK 2014b & 2014c) In fact, neither of these extreme views is plausible. Rather, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of aetiology in regard to the dialectic relationship between cause and effect -- while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favouring 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 pluralist theory of aetiology) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way, and is organised in four chapters.

Is the traditional understanding of cause and effect in aetiology so certain that Arthur Eddington therefore proposed in 1927 "the arrow of time, or time's arrow" involving "the 'one-way direction' or 'asymmetry' of time", such that "a cause precedes its effect: the causal event occurs before the event it affects. Thus causality is intimately bound up with time's arrow"? (WK 2014) This certain view on cause and effect can be contrasted with an opposing view by Michael Dummett, who suggested instead, back in 1957, that "there was no philosophical objection to effects preceding their causes", or what is now known as "retrocausality". (WK 2014a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), aetiology (in relation to cause and effect) 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 questioning of different opposing views on cause and effect does not mean that the study of aetiology is useless, or that those diverse fields (related to aetiology) -- like physics, engineering, biology, philosophy, medicine, epidemiology, government, geography, spatial analysis, psychology, statistics, mathematics, economics, management, history, law, sociology, theology, and so on -- are worthless. (WK 2014b & 2014c) In fact, neither of these extreme views is plausible. Rather, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of aetiology in regard to the dialectic relationship between cause and effect -- while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favouring 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 pluralist theory of aetiology) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way, and is organised in four chapters.

Are the visual arts really so central in our time that, as Doug Adams once said, "people under 60, raised on television remember by what they see. "[F]ilm and television are really the language of today"? (TE 2013) This central view on the visual arts can be contrasted with an opposing view by Camille Paglia, who wrote that "the visual is sorely undervalued in modern scholarship. Art history has attained only a fraction of the conceptual sophistication of literary criticism. Drunk with self-love, criticism has hugely overestimated the centrality of language to western culture. It has failed to see the electrifying sign language of images." (TE 2013a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), the visual arts (in relation to techniques and spirits) are neither possible (nor impossible) nor desirable (or undesirable) to the extent that the respective ideologues (on different sides) would like us to believe. Needless to say, this questioning of the opposing views on the visual arts does not mean that the study of techniques and spirits is useless, or that those fields (related to the visual arts) -- like drawing, cosmetics, manicure, painting, landscape, calligraphy, photography, digital art, computer technology, advertisement, graphic design, filmmaking, fashion, sculpture, architecture, and so on -- are unimportant. (WK 2013) Of course, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of the visual arts in regard to the dialectic relationship between techniques and spirits -- 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 ephemeral theory of the visual arts) 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 the visual arts in relation to techniques and spirits 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 the visual arts really so central in our time that, as Doug Adams once said, "people under 60, raised on television remember by what they see [F]ilm and television are really the language of today"? (TE 2013) This central view on the visual arts can be contrasted with an opposing view by Camille Paglia, who wrote that "the visual is sorely undervalued in modern scholarship. Art history has attained only a fraction of the conceptual sophistication of literary criticism. Drunk with self-love, criticism has hugely overestimated the centrality of language to western culture. It has failed to see the electrifying sign language of images." (TE 2013a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), the visual arts (in relation to techniques and spirits) are neither possible (nor impossible) nor desirable (or undesirable) to the extent that the respective ideologues (on different sides) would like us to believe. Needless to say, this questioning of the opposing views on the visual arts does not mean that the study of techniques and spirits is useless, or that those fields (related to the visual arts)like drawing, cosmetics, manicure, painting, landscape, calligraphy, photography, digital art, computer technology, advertisement, graphic design, filmmaking, fashion, sculpture, architecture, and so onare unimportant. (WK 2013) Of course, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of the visual arts in regard to the dialectic relationship between techniques and spiritswhile 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 ephemeral theory of the visual arts) 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 the visual arts in relation to techniques and spirits 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 nature of the atmosphere really so predictable that, as James Mahoney confidently said, "we know that humans are influencing the climate. There's no question about that"? (TE 2013) This view on the atmosphere can be contrasted with an opposing view by James Glassman, who warned us that "the real world is more unpredictable and uncertain than the idealised world that academics push for." (TE 2013a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones discussed in the book), aerology or the study of the atmosphere (in relation to predictability and non-predictability) 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 questioning of the opposing views on aerology does not mean that the study of predictability and non-predictability is useless, or that those fields (related to aerology) -- like meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, cloud physics, aeronomy, hydrology, atmospheric modelling, climate change, chaos theory, complexity theory, planetary science, and so on -- are unimportant. (WK 2013) In fact, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of aerology in regard to the dialectic relationship between predictability and non-predictability -- while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favouring 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 constructivist theory of aerology) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way and is organised in four chapters. This seminal project will fundamentally change the way that we think about aerology in relation to predictability and non-predictability 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 nature of the atmosphere really so predictable that, as James Mahoney confidently said, "we know that humans are influencing the climate. There's no question about that"? (TE 2013) This view on the atmosphere can be contrasted with an opposing view by James Glassman, who warned us that "the real world is more unpredictable and uncertain than the idealised world that academics push for". (TE 2013a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones discussed in the book), aerology or the study of the atmosphere (in relation to predictability and non-predictability) 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 questioning of the opposing views on aerology does not mean that the study of predictability and non-predictability is useless, or that those fields (related to aerology) -- like meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, cloud physics, aeronomy, hydrology, atmospheric modelling, climate change, chaos theory, complexity theory, planetary science, and so on -- are unimportant. (WK 2013) In fact, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of aerology in regard to the dialectic relationship between predictability and non-predictability -- while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favouring 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 constructivist theory of aerology) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way and is organised in four chapters. This seminal project will fundamentally change the way that we think about aerology in relation to predictability and non-predictability 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 the rules and principles in phonology so general that, as Jacques Derrida once said, "as soon as there is language, generality has entered the scene"? (REL 2013) This general view on language (or phonology in the current context) can be contrasted with an opposing view by Alfred North Whitehead that "we think in generalities, but we live in detail." (BRAIN 2013) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), phonology (in relation to generality and specificity) are neither possible (nor impossible) nor desirable (or undesirable) to the extent that the respective ideologues (on different sides) would like us to believe. Surely, this re-examination of different opposing views on phonology does not mean that the study of generality and specificity is futile, or that those fields (related to phonology) -- like descriptive linguistics, theoretical linguistics, psycholinguistics, phonetics, speech synthesis, speech perception, morphophonology, articulatory phonology, laboratory phonology, phonotactics, and so on -- are unimportant. (WK 2013) In fact, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Rather, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of phonology in regard to the dialectic relationship between generality and specificity -- while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favouring 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 inclusionist theory of phonology) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way and is organised in four chapters.

Is the degree of probability that an individual holds when betting on a particular outcome really so subjective that, as Frank Ramsey once argued, "objective logical relations" do not exist and that "probability is 'the logic of partial belief"? (WK 2012a) This subjective interpretation of probability can be contrasted with an objective view by John Keynes, who argued instead that "logical probabilities are conceived to be objective, logical relations between propositions (or sentences), and hence not to depend in any way upon belief". (WK 2012) Contrary to these opposing interpretations (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), probability (in relation to both objectivity and subjectivity) are neither possible (nor impossible) nor desirable (or undesirable) to the extent that the respective ideologues (on different sides) would like us to believe. Surely, this questioning of the opposing interpretations on probability does not entail that probability is useless, or that those fields related to probability (like "statistics, finance, gambling, science, artificial intelligence/machine learning and philosophy") are not worth studying. Needless to say, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book offers an alternative way to understand the future of probability, especially in the dialectic context of objectivity and subjectivity -- while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favouring 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 interpretivist theory of probability) in order to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way. To understand this, the book is organised in four chapters. This seminal project will fundamentally change the way that we think about probability in relation to objectivity and subjectivity 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 it really true that, as the Roman philosopher Seneca famously said in antiquity, "It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters"? (TE 2013) This popular view on quality can be contrasted with an opposing view by John Ruskin, who wrote that "the strength and power of a country depends absolutely on the quantity of good men and women in it." (TE 2013a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), human resources (in relation to quantity and quality) are neither possible (nor impossible) nor desirable (or undesirable) to the extent that the respective ideologues (on different sides) would like us to believe. Of course, this questioning of the opposing views on human resources does not imply that the study of quantity and quality is worthless, or that those fields (related to human resources)like demographics, human resource management, labor economics, development studies, environmental migration, modernization, organizational studies, sustainable growth, and so onare unimportant. (WK 2013) Needless to say, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of human resources in regard to the dialectic relationship between quantity and quality (especially, though not solely, in the context of demographics)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 post-human theory of demography) 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 human resources in relation to quantity and quality (especially, though not solely, in the context of demographics) 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 it really true that, as the Roman philosopher Seneca famously said in antiquity, "It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters"? (TE 2013) This popular view on quality can be contrasted with an opposing view by John Ruskin, who wrote that "the strength and power of a country depends absolutely on the quantity of good men and women in it." (TE 2013a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), human resources (in relation to quantity and quality) are neither possible (nor impossible) nor desirable (or undesirable) to the extent that the respective ideologues (on different sides) would like us to believe. Of course, this questioning of the opposing views on human resources does not imply that the study of quantity and quality is worthless, or that those fields (related to human resources)like demographics, human resource management, labor economics, development studies, environmental migration, modernization, organizational studies, sustainable growth, and so onare unimportant. (WK 2013) Needless to say, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of human resources in regard to the dialectic relationship between quantity and quality (especially, though not solely, in the context of demographics)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 post-human theory of demography) 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 human resources in relation to quantity and quality (especially, though not solely, in the context of demographics) 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 moral goodness really so desirable in the way that its proponents through the ages would like us to believe? For instance, in our time, there is even this latest version of the popular moral idea shared by many, when Dalai Lama suggested that " w]e need these human values of compassion and affection]....Even without religion, ...we have the capacity to promote these things." (WK 2009) The naivety of this popular moral idea can be contrasted with an opposing (critical) idea advocated not long ago by Sigmund Freud (1966), who once wrote that "men are not gentle creatures who want to be loved, and who at the most can defend themselves if they are attacked; they are, on the contrary, creatures among whose instinctual endowments is to be reckoned a powerful share of aggressiveness. As a result, their neighbor is for them...someone who tempts them to satisfy their aggressiveness on him, to exploit his capacity for work without compensation, to use him sexually without his consent, to seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and to kill him. Homo homini lupus." Contrary to the two opposing sides of this battle for the high moral ground, morality and immorality are neither possible nor desirable to the extent that their respective ideologues would like us to believe. But one should not misunderstand this challenge as a suggestion that ethics is a worthless field of study, or that other fields of study (related to ethics) like political philosophy, moral psychology, social studies, theology, or even international relations should be dismissed. Needless to stress, neither of these two extreme views is reasonable either. Instead, this book provides an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of ethics, especially in relation to morality and immorality-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). This book offers a new theory to transcend the existing approaches in the literature on ethics in a way not thought of before. This seminal project is to fundamentally alter the way that we think about ethics, 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 positive thinking really so healthy that, as Martin Seligman (2000) and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi passionately thus argued, "we believe that a psychology of positive human functioning will arise, which achieves a scientific understanding and effective interventions to build thriving individuals, families, and communities"? This optimistic view on positive thinking for health can be contrasted with an opposing view by Barbara Ehrenreich (2009), who "extensively critiqued 'positive psychology'" and showed "how obsessive positive thinking impedes productive action, causes delusional assessments of situations, and people are then blamed for not visualising hard enough and thus 'attracting' failure even in situations when 'masses of lives were lost'." (WK 2013; R Byrne 2006) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), health care (in relation to mental health and physical health in the context of mind and body) are neither possible (or impossible) nor desirable (or undesirable) to the extent that the respective ideologues (on different sides) would like us to believe. Surely, this questioning of the opposing views on health care does not suggest that the study of health care is worthless, or that those fields (related to health care) like medicine, chiropractic, health system, dentistry, health info tech, nursing, psychiatrics, clinical psychology, occupational therapy, pharmacy, allied health, and so on are unimportant. Needless to say, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of health care, especially in the dialectic relationships between mental health and physical health in the context of mind and body -- while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favouring 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 interconnected theory of health care) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way and is organised in four chapters.

Are words really so determined by rules that, as Leonard Bloomfield once argued in defence of the "morpheme-based" morphology, "word forms are analysed as arrangements of morphemes", such that there are "rules to combine morphemes into word forms, or to generate word forms from stems "? (WK 2012) But there is an opposing approach to morphology known as the "word-based" morphology, which "takes paradigms as a central notion", in that it "states generalisations" which categorise "words based on the pattern they fit into. This applies both to existing words and to new ones. Application of a pattern different from the one that has been used historically can give rise to a new word", (WK 2012) Contrary to these opposing approaches (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), morphology (in relation to both typologies and rules) 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 questioning of the opposing approaches to morphology does not mean that morphology is worthless, or that those fields (related to morphology) like morphophonology, semantics, syntax, pragmatics, anthropological linguistics, etymology, sociolinguistics, computational linguistics, evolutionary linguistics, philosophy of language, neurolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and so on are unimportant. Needless to say, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of morphology, especially in the dialectic context of typologies and rules -- while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favouring 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 fusional theory of morphology) 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 morphology in relation to typologies and rules 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.

Contrary to the thinking of many contemporaries, both capitalism and democracy will not last and are to be superceded one day by post-capitalism and post-democracy. The short-lived triumph of market capitalism and liberal democracy in the post-Cold War era does not imply the coming end of systematic ideology, of structural oppression, or of violent conflict at the rational endpoint of history. Unfortunately, violence does not disappear but only takes a different form of hegemony, as it has throughout history. The difference is, each age has its own form to adjust to, so we believe in ours, and those before us believed in theirs, just as those after us will in theirs. In The Future of Capitalism and Democracy, Peter Baofu evaluates how and why capitalism and democracy have failed at the institutional, organizational, structural, cultural, systemic, cosmological, and bio-psychological levels in order to synthesize the often conflicting ideals of freedom, equality, and fraternity (broadly defined to include all dimensions of life), so much cherished by many minds since the modern era. And this is so, even if democracy and capitalism have different meanings in different cultures and societies. In the end, Baofu shows that capitalism and democracy, hegemonic as they are in the post-Cold War era, are just experiments in history and will not last, just as feudalism and aristocracy before them could not.

Is history really so universalistic (even when similar events happen in different contexts) that, as George Santayana (1905) once famously wrote, "[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"?This more universalistic view of history can be contrasted with an opposing view which is more relativistic in orientation, as shown by the equally known remark by Winston Churchill that "[h]istory is written by the victor," to the extent that what is regarded as true in history today may not be so in another era when a new victor comes into power. (THEX 2011)So, which of the two views is correct here? Contrary to these opposing views (and other ideas as will be discussed in the book), history, in relation to both universality and relativity, is 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 challenge to the opposing views about history does not suggest that the study of history is controversial at best, or that those fields (related to the study of history) like political science, economics, military studies, anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, theology, literature, ethics, and so on should be rejected too. Needless to say, neither of these extreme views is reasonable.Rather, this book offers an alternative, better way to understand the future of history, especially in the dialectic context of universality and relativity-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. Instead, this book offers a new theory (that is, the multifold theory of history) 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 history, 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.

Is it really true that martial arts, in spite of their popularity in this day and age of ours, have, at their deepest level, the promised land of "self-knowledge," "the expression of beauty," or something highly spiritual to be pursued for the human soul? Or, to put it in a different way, what exactly makes martial arts so amazing that, somehow, they will eventually lead the practitioners to the spiritual realm of self-cultivation in its highest depth? Contrary to the conventional wisdom about martial arts as held by many over the ages, this popular view about martial arts has become so legendary that their dark sides have yet to be systematically explored and that the lofty aims of martial arts are neither possible nor desirable to the extent that their proponents would like us to believe.Of course, this is not to say that the very tradition of martial arts is absolutely useless, or that the literature on martial arts hitherto existing in history is spiritually unworthy to be appreciated. Instead, this book constructively offers an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of martial arts, in special relation to the body and spirit of warriors-while learning from different views in the literature, without favoring any one of them (nor integrating them, as they are not necessarily compatible with each other), and, in the end, transcending them towards a new horizon not conceived before. This seminal view, if proven valid, will fundamentally change the legendary way that people have thought about martial arts-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._____________________

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.