World Views

From fragmentation
to integration
Diederik Aerts
Leo Apostel
Bart De Moor
Staf Hellemans
Edel Maex
Hubert Van Belle
Jan Van der Veken
Internet Edition 2007 authors
Originally published in 1994 by VUB Press: Brussels
Internet edition by Clment Vidal and Alexander Riegler
World Views 2
Table of Contents
Preface..................................................................................................................................... 4
Part I........................................................................................................................................ 5
1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 The fragmentation of our world............................................................................. 5
1.2 What is a world view? A first e!loration............................................................. "
1.2.1 The world...................................................................................................... "
1.2.2 World views.................................................................................................. "
1.2.# World$view construction............................................................................... %
1.2.4 As!ects of world views................................................................................. %
1.# Wh& world views?............................................................................................... 11
1.4 World views and the !ro'lem of modernism.......................................................11
2. The (even )om!onents of a World View................................................................... 1#
2.1 A model for the world in which we live.............................................................. 1#
2.2 The e!lanator& !ower of a world view.............................................................. 14
2.# World views and evaluation.................................................................................15
2.4 A model of !ossi'ilities* +ational futurolog&......................................................1,
2.5 A model for the !rocess of model construction................................................... 1"
2.- In search of an integrated action model............................................................... 1%
2., .ragments of world views as a starting !oint...................................................... 2/
#. The 0nit& of the (even (u'$tas1s............................................................................... 2#
4. 2eta!hors and 2odels* The 3anguage of a World View........................................... 25
5. The Pur!ose of the grou! 4Worldviews5..................................................................... 2,
# Aerts et al.
Part II Pro6ects....................................................................................................................... 2%
Pro!osal I* Invariants7 (&mmetries7 and )onstants......................................................... 2%
Pro!osal II* Variation* The Arrow of Time..................................................................... 2%
Pro!osal III* 0nitar& Theories......................................................................................... #/
Pro!osal IV* 8olisms.......................................................................................................#/
Pro!osal V* Pluralisms.................................................................................................... #/
Pro!osal VI* 9ne and 2an& (&stems.............................................................................. #1
Pro!osal VII* .undamental )ategories............................................................................#1
Pro!osal VIII* 9rganisation and (elf$9rganisation. )&'ernetics................................... #1
Pro!osal I:* )om!arative stud& of 9rigins* )osmogenesis7 ;iogenesis7
and Anthro!ogenesis.................................................................................. #2
Pro!osal :* To!olog& of World Views........................................................................... #2
Pro!osal :I* World Views and Value (&stems............................................................... #2
Pro!osal :II* Pur!oses and <tremalit&$Princi!les........................................................ ##
Pro!osal :III* =ature and Value..................................................................................... #4
Pro!osal :IV* 9rder or )haos. >eterminism or Indeterminism..................................... #4
Pro!osal :V* )onsciousness and ?rou! as 2odels of +ealit&.......................................#5
Pro!osal :VI* World Views and the 8istor& of (cience................................................ #5
Pro!osal :VII* Praiolog&* Theor& and Action.............................................................. #-
Pro!osal :VIII* The )ontrol of )om!leit&...................................................................#,
Pro!osal :I:* The >ialogue of 3anguage ?ames.......................................................... #,
Pro!osal ::* 2odels of the .uture.................................................................................#"
Pro!osal ::I* ?eneral Anthro!olog&............................................................................. #"
Pro!osal ::II* In (earch of anIntegrated 2edicine....................................................... #"
Pro!osal ::III* Ps&chiatr& and 9ur Image of 2an........................................................ #%
)onclusion* The 0nit& 'ehind the Various Pro!osals.......................................................... 4/
9n the authors....................................................................................................................... 41
=ote a'out the Internet edition* Page num'ers from the !u'lished version are inserted in
'rac1ets. These are to 'e understood as occurring at the to! of the !age.
World Views 4
Preface
@,A The authors offer the following tet to the !u'lic 'oth realisticall& and with ho!e. With$
in the scientific world7 large$scale movements tending towards unification seem !owerless
confronted with the information e!losion of research and historicism in the !hiloso!h& of
science. 9utside of science7 we notice also that 'oth religious and secular ideologies claim$
ing to energiBe mass movements have colla!sed. .ar 'e it from us to !romote new7 so!hist$
icated versions of what is lost. We 'elieve however that7 within the scientific communit&7
isolated !ro'lem solvers are loo1ing for more fundamental contets for research7 and that
man& can offer insight into more fundamental Cuestions. The (anta .e Institute7 the man&
attem!ts to organise interdisci!linar& courses with human relevance7 the intensit& of re$
search in cosmolog& and man& other efforts all show this need. 9utside of science7 sociolo$
gists seem to agree that the informed !u'lic feels intellectuall&7 ethicall& and !oliticall&
lost. These facts encourage us to ma1e a new attem!t towards integration. We would li1e it
to 'e careful and !rudent7 integrating and non$dogmatic7 relevant and res!onsi'le. This has
led us to write out a short D!ro!osal7E a 1ind of methodolog& for world$view construction7
followed '& a series of !ossi'le D!ro6ects.E We realiBe that we need man&7 man& &ears for
this F in !rinci!le F unending Cuest. We also realiBe that we need man& !ersons having dif$
ferent ca!a'ilities and &et sharing an identical commitment. This small monogra!h is not an
e!osition of new facts or theories7 'ut an invitation to loo1 at 1nown facts and theories
from another !oint of view7 with new7 different7 integrating !ur!ose. We would li1e the
monogra!h to serve as an invitation to 6oin our effort and to create7 together with us7 a
small F 'ut ho!efull& dedicated F @"A international forum that ma& generate a multi!licit& of
!rovisional and evolving world views7 allowing ultimatel& the continuation of growth and
the s&nthesis of fact and value7 of e!lanation and meaning to 'e realiBed.
>iederi1 Aerts7 !h&sics7 0niversit& of ;russels7 ;elgium
3eo A!ostel7 !hiloso!h&7 0niversit& of ?hent7 ;elgium
;art >e 2oor7 engineering sciences7 0niversit& of 3euven7 ;elgium
(taf 8ellemans7 sociolog&7 8um'olt 0niversit&7 ;erlin7 ?erman&
<del 2ae7 !s&chiatr& and !s&chothera!& +iagg Institute7 ;reda7 The =etherlands
8u'ert Van ;elle7 engineering sciences7 ;om'ardier <urorail7 ;elgium
Gan Van der Ve1en7 !hiloso!h& and theolog&7 0niversit& of 3euven7 ;elgium
5 Aerts et al.
Part I
1. Introduction
1.1 The fragmentation of our world
@11A We can find our wa& in our own house. We 1now how man& rooms it has7 and how
the& are used. Hnowing one5s house thoroughl& ma1es one feel Dat home.E
The world around us can 'e construed as a huge DhouseE that we share with other hu$
mans7 as well as with animals and !lants. It is in this world that we eist7 fulfilling our
tas1s7 en6o&ing things7 develo!ing social relations7 creating a famil&. In short7 we live in
this world. We thus have a dee! human need to 1now and to trust it7 to 'e emotionall& in$
volved in it. 2an& of us7 however7 e!erience an increasing feeling of alienation. <ven
though7 with the e!ansion of societ&7 virtuall& the entire surface of the !lanet has 'ecome
a !art of our house7 often we do not feel Dat homeE in that house. With the ra!id and s!on$
taneous changes of the !ast decades7 so man& new wings and rooms have 'een constructed
or rearranged that we have lost familiarit& with our house. We often have the im!ression
that what remains of the world is a collection of isolated fragments7 without an& structure
and coherence. 9ur !ersonal Dever&da&E world seems una'le to harmonise itself with the
glo'al world of societ&7 histor& and cosmos.
It is our conviction that the time has come to ma1e a conscious effort towards the con$
struction of glo'al world views7 in order to overcome this situation of fragmentation. There
are man& reasons wh& we 'elieve in the 'enefit of such an enter!rise7 and in the following
!ages we shall attem!t to ma1e some of them clear.
The !ro6ect of consciousl& constructing a world view is indeed an urgent one7 since most
of the macro$!ro'lems and @12A micro$!ro'lems of our !resent time are directl& or indir$
ectl& related to this situation of fragmentation. It is !recisel& 'ecause we lac1 such glo'al
views of the world that our a'ilit& even to start loo1ing for lasting solutions to these !ro'$
lems is limited. We can illustrate the relationshi! of world views to the current !ro'lems fa$
cing humanit& with two eam!les.
.irst7 there is the =orth$(outh conflict7 which is one of the ma6or macro$!ro'lems of our
time. 9!inions of individuals and grou!s on this !ro'lem are Cuite divergent. Iuestions of
how to evaluate the level of develo!ment of a societ&7 as well as differing visions of !os$
si'le interactive mechanisms among societies7 !la& crucial roles in the anal&sis of this situ$
ation. 3et us 'riefl& and !rovisionall& eamine some of these conflicting views7 so we can
see 6ust how such seemingl& !ractical issues are effectivel& connected to !rofound Cues$
World Views -
tions of a glo'al nature. We will consider two sets of o!!osite views Jviews A and ;7 and
views 1 and 2K7 each connected to ver& different world views.
According to view A7 interactions 'etween societies have a desta'ilising and degrading
effect. This view would have !eo!le strive towards a collection of relativel& sta'le 'ut isol$
ated societies. View ;7 to the contrar&7 identifies interactions among societies as enriching
and dee!ening. It therefore aims at a situation of activel& interacting societies.
Views A and ; are intersected '& views 1 and 2. View 1 sees the develo!ment of societ$
ies as mainl& characterised '& the amount of material and economic !ros!erit& Ji.e. the
Dstandard of livingEK. (ocial and cultural develo!ments are 'elieved to 'e the conseCuences
of this !ros!erit&. According to this view7 the =orth$(outh !ro'lem is a confrontation
'etween less$develo!ed and more$develo!ed societies. According to view 27 on the other
hand7 the social and cultural develo!ment of a societ& is determinative of its material and
economic !ros!erit&. 8ere the classification of the Dlevels of develo!mentE of =orth and
(outh is not as o'vious.
Variations and com'inations of DviewsE are !ossi'le. )om'ining view A and view 1
Jview A1K would7 for eam!le7 call for a greater material and economic 'uffer 'etween the
Dless @1#A develo!ed third worldE and the Dmore develo!ed first world.E This would reCuire
!rotectionist measures7 and the restriction and mani!ulation of immigration. )ultural e$
changes Jtourism7 s!orts7 artK7 however7 are not identified as threatening. Views A2 would
see a need for greater cultural isolation 'etween =orth and (outh7 while economic interac$
tion would still 'e allowed. View ;1 would see1 more intense economic interaction
'etween =orth and (outh7 with an eventual unification of economies. The economic model
of the =orth would 'e the model for this interaction and unification. View ;2 would strive
towards a greater cultural interaction 'etween =orth and (outh7 and eventuall& towards a
com!lete cultural integration. ;ut neither =orth nor (outh would 'e the model7 since
neither could 'e considered to 'e more develo!ed culturall&. )ultural interaction is con$
sidered to 'e an ins!iration for a societ& at large and hence for material and economic
!ros!erit&.
It is clear that each of these !ossi'le views will lead to different strategies of action. The
!olitical conseCuences for international institutions7 such as migration$!olic& and develo!$
ment$aid are o'vious. Although the !ro'lem of the =orth$(outh conflict seems most !rac$
tical7 the action generated in search of a solution will de!end on a whole arra& of even more
fundamental theoretical Cuestions. What is the significance of our s!ecies in the evolution
of life? What is the s!ecial role and nature of the human s!ecies? What are su'$s!ecies?
These Cuestions cannot 'e addressed !ro!erl& without a 1nowledge of the mechanisms at
the origin of the formation of s!ecies. Which !ro!erties are inherited and which are related
to economic7 social and cultural as!ects of the societies? The search for an answer to this
t&!e of Cuestion !oints to the need for 1nowledge a'out the molecular structure of the
gnome. In what sense are different t&!es of economic7 social and cultural organisation of
societies related to !ros!erit&7 and how are the& connected to more glo'al views a'out the
organisation of societies? Is the develo!ment of a societ& directl& related to the realisation
and 'ecoming of the human s!ecies7 or is ecological sta'ilit& the ma6or com!onent?
@14A We will not ela'orate on these Cuestions here. 9ur intent is to illustrate the relev$
ance of world views to !resent human !ro'lems. This seems sufficient to ena'le us to con$
clude that one needs a frame of reference that allows7 not onl& the relationshi! of one to the
other7 'ut also to see the interconnection of !ro'lems that arise in relation to international7
inter$economic and inter$cultural relations. These !ro'lems range from the world !o!ula$
tion e!losion to evolution and molecular 'iolog&L the& involve views of the nature and the
role of man. These frames of reference are world views. The& offer a model that allows us
to coordinate different as!ects of the world in a meaningful wa&.
, Aerts et al.
9ur da&$to$da& !ersonal life is also connected to societ&7 histor&7 cosmos and to realit&
as a whole. 2an& of us have difficult& feeling at home in our own 'od& and mind. (cience
has caused a revolution in medicineL man& diseases that formerl& were fatal can now 'e
treated with success. And &et there is also the strange !henomenon that almost -/M of the
!eo!le in our societ& who feel sic1 have com!laints not originating from an e!licit !h&sic$
al illness. 9ne thus encounters the conce!t of D!s&chosomatic disorder. D ;ut we 1now that
although medicine cannot find the cause of their com!laints7 these !eo!le are reall& ill.
8ence in medical science DillnessE has ta1en on another meaning7 'esides the direct one7
coinciding with the e!erience of the !atient. Introducing the conce!t D!s&chosomatic dis$
order7E one refers to !s&cholog& and the connection 'etween the !h&sical and !s&chologic$
al as!ects of man. ;ut there still does not eist a glo'all& acce!ted model for this relation.
The D!s&chosomatic !atientE contri'utes eCuall& to the !u'lic health s&stem and hence
also e!ects to 'e hel!ed. .or this s&stem7 however7 illness is something entirel& different7
a!!earing under such forms as num'ers that refer to a'senteeism7 the use of medicines and
hos!ital e!enses. Illness is evaluated starting from a !reoccu!ation with the ever rising e$
!enses for the state and its attem!ts at economising.
The worlds of medical science7 !s&cholog&7 the econom& of health$care service and the
!ersonal e!erience of the !atient @15A lead to different and sometimes incom!ati'le defini$
tions of essential conce!ts such as illness and health. At the same time7 all these a!!roima$
tions o!erate in the same world. 8ence this fragmentation and loss of meaning touches our
world as well as our own !ersonal life .
DWorld viewsE is designed to overcome this !rocess of fragmentation. We certainl& do
not want to renounce the com!leit& of the modern world7 'ut we would li1e to search for
new means of integration. As scientists from diverse origins F scientific as well as ideolo$
gical F we want to e!lore the contem!orar& situation of world views and hel! to construct
an adeCuate view of our world. ?lo'al world views are li1e geogra!hic ma!s7 which hel!
us find our wa& and act coherentl& in this world. We ho!e that in the long run the !ro6ect of
world$view construction can contri'ute to a more integrated !rais.
The construction of world views is not an eas& enter!rise. Indeed the fragmentation of
our !resent world has dee! structural causes that are ultimatel& related to the tur'ulent !ro$
cesses of modernisation that societ& has 1nown during the !ast centuries.
There is toda& an unmista1a'le trend towards !luralisation of culture and individualisa$
tion of human 'ehaviour. Instead of one view of the whole7 shared '& the mem'ers of a
'ounded collectivit&7 there now eist in our international world ver& divergent and com!et$
itive conce!tions and life st&les. We do not interact with one culture7 'ut with man& cul$
tures7 and even with su'cultures and fragments of cultures. The individual is forced to se$
lect his or her own future life7 having to choose 'etween the enormous num'er of !ossi'ilit$
ies offered.
A second cause of the loss of direction originates from the growing ga! 'etween the s!e$
cialist and the la& !erson. The ra!id develo!ment and enormous growth of the sciences7 and
constant changes in cultural life and in the arts ma1e it im!ossi'le for the la& !erson to
1ee! u!. 9ne cannot 'e a s!ecialist in all domains7 and what !enetrates into the !o!ular cul$
ture from the sciences and the arts is often com!letel& alienated from the s!ecialists5 !rac$
tice.
@1-A (uch a ga! eists not onl& 'etween the s!ecialist and the !u'lic7 'ut even within the
sciences7 as the trend towards s!ecialisation in disci!lines and su'$disci!lines continues to
accelerate. The contact 'etween eact sciences and human sciences is scarce and occasion$
al. In recent &ears7 even within isolated disci!lines7 new 'oundaries have 'een created7 for
eam!le 'etween macro and micro'iolog&7 and 'etween macro and micro$economics. In its
ra!id evolution7 science loses the ca!acit& to generate a glo'al view.
World Views "
World views7 as related to the sciences7 ethics7 arts7 !olitics and religions7 are integral
!arts of all cultures. The& have a strongl& motivating and ins!iring function. A sociall&
shared view of the whole gives a culture a sense of direction7 confidence and self$esteem.
2oreover7 interactions 'etween cultures change constantl&. A culture can7 for eam!le7 'e
on the verge of entering a technological !eriod7 while some forces within it will tr& to con$
serve its !ro!er values. The !ro'lem of world views is thus connected to the man& attem!ts
at constructing a new coherence 'etween cultural fragments that are constantl& emerging
and interacting. We 'elieve that it is the tas1 of our time to search for world views in which
different s&stems of inter!retation and ideals can 'e incor!orated and can converse with
each other. This tas1 is urgent7 not onl& for the multi$cultural societies now found in all ma$
6or cities of the world7 'ut also for those countries in which a variet& of cultural !atterns7
with Cuite different histories7 are striving towards a certain s&m'iosis.
.rom this surve& of the forces that stimulate the fragmentation of our 1nowledge and of
the world the difficult& of the tas1 of world view construction emerges. The ultimate goal
ma& not 'e to sim!l& tr& to erase an& variet& of views. The !luralisation of our culture7 the
de!th of the sciences and the arts achieved '& s!ecialists and s!ecialisation are worth& ac$
com!lishments of our culture. We 'elieve7 however7 that the fragmentation of our culture
should 'e a starting !oint for a new effort at integration7 one that e!licitl& ta1es into ac$
count these achievements. It is for this reason that the 'oundaries that have grown 'etween
the different isolated fragments must 'e @1,A removed and a new communication among
these diverse s!ecialisations must 'e created. The immense house that our world has 'e$
come7 in which man& have lost their wa&7 while others have concentrated so hard on the
ela'orate construction of 6ust one of its man& rooms7 needs to 'e re'uilt and rearranged. We
need to ma1e new doors7 and create a house where we all can feel at home.
1.2 What is a world view? A first exloration
We must first clarif& what we mean '& world and world view7 and s!ecif& the role of a
world view in a culture. We shall first introduce the 'asic conce!ts of DworldE and Dworld
view7E which we will e!lore later at greater length.
1.2.1 The world
DThe worldE is the 'roadest environment that is cognitivel&7 !racticall& and emotionall&
relevant. We thus tal1 a'out Dthe worldE in which we live7 the D3e'ensweltE J<dmund
8usserlK. This DworldE can differ7 de!ending on the culture that we consider. Therefore we
can s!ea1 of Dthe world of AntiCuit&7E or Dthe world of the <s1imos.E DThe worldE should
not 'e identified with Dthe earth7E nor with Dthe cosmos7E nor with Dthe o'serva'le uni$
verse7E 'ut with the totalit& in which we live and to which we can relate ourselves in a
meaningful wa&.
1.2.2 World views
A world view is a coherent collection of conce!ts and theorems that must allow us to
construct a glo'al image of the world7 and in this wa& to understand as man& elements of
our e!erience as !ossi'le.
(ocieties7 as well as individuals7 have alwa&s contem!lated dee! Cuestions relating to
their 'eing and 'ecoming7 and to the @1"A 'eing and 'ecoming of the world. The configura$
tion of answers to these Cuestions forms their world view. +esearch on world views7 al$
though we are convinced of its !ractical value and necessit&7 will alwa&s 'e !rimaril& an
% Aerts et al.
e!ression of a theoretical interest. It reflects the unlimited o!enness of the human mind to
realit& as a whole. <ven if this research would not a!!ear to 'e of an& immediate value or
necessit& F Cuod non F we still should !romote and encourage it energeticall&7 'ecause it
also e!resses the most unselfish striving of humanit& Dthe desire to 1now7E a !ro!ert& of
D8omo sa!iens sa!iens.E
8ence7 a world view is a s&stem of co$ordinates or a frame of reference in which
ever&thing !resented to us '& our diverse e!eriences can 'e !laced. It is a s&m'olic s&stem
of re!resentation that allows us to integrate ever&thing we 1now a'out the world and
ourselves into a glo'al !icture7 one that illuminates realit& as it is !resented to us within a
certain culture.
1.2.3 World-view construction
World$view construction consists of the attem!t to develo! world views that ta1e into
account as much as !ossi'le all as!ects of our e!erience. Although this construction e$
!resses itself in a language that includes intrinsic limitations F languages are not closed
formations and s&m'olic s&stems can 'e com'ined F these inherent constraints need not
condemn our enter!rise. World$view construction is alwa&s connected to a culture in which
DmeaningsE are circulated7 t&!es of 'ehaviour are !assed from generation to generation7 so$
cio$!olitical !ro'lems are !roduced7 and st&les of art confront us. The material used to con$
struct a world view comes from our inner e!erience and our !ractical dealings with things7
as well as from the inter!retation of histor& and of scientific 1nowledge a'out our world.
All these as!ects are necessaril& related to !articular cultures7 which are not monolithic en$
tities7 'ut which are alwa&s in a !rocess of change. In this sense world views are not fied
images or co!ies of the world7 'ut will somehow tr& to ca!ture7 as much as is !ossi'le7 all
the as!ects of this world. @1%A Therefore new world views often start with the views of
small grou!s or su'$cultures7 and !re!are7 ste! '& ste!7 new conce!ts of realit&. The& are
not 6ust a reflection of Dwhat ever&'od& thin1s.E
World view construction7 as we see it7 consciousl& aims at collective wor1 that is not
identifia'le with one !erson. It grou!s s!ecialists of divergent disci!lines7 and as!ires to ul$
timatel& e!ress itself in forms that can reach a large !u'lic. In this sense7 world view con$
struction inevita'l& has a collective dimension.
1.2.4 Aspects of world views
The main !ro!erties of a world view are DcoherenceE and Dfidelit& to e!erience.E ;e$
cause of the rational demand for coherence7 a world view should 'e a consistent whole of
conce!ts7 aioms7 theorems and meta!hors which do not eclude each other 'ut which can
'e thought together. A world view can onl& 'e faithful to e!erience if it does not contra$
dict 1nown e!erimental facts. 9f course7 what is to 'e considered as fact is not a sim!le
matter. A DfactE for one generation is merel& a Dtheor&E for another and sometimes even a
scandal Je.g. evolution theor&K. (cientific consensus continuall& evolves.
Although a world view must 'e much larger than all that the !h&sical sciences can offer
us7 the 1nowledge acCuired in a s&stematic and methodological wa& '& these sciences is of
great im!ortance7 es!eciall& in the light of the wides!read consensus that eists for this
1nowledge. The human and social sciences continuousl& !rovide us with a dee!er insight
into the nature of man and societ&. A world view cannot contradict 1nown e!erimental
facts7 'ut this does not mean that it coincides with them. A world view ma& even ins!ire
further develo!ment of science and if necessar&7 from a s&nthetic vantage !oint7 criticise
certain one$sided as!ects of it. In this sense a world view is a continuation of what the sci$
ences !ass on to us7 sometimes coinciding with it7 sometimes generalising from it7 and
sometimes criticall& re6ecting it. The contri'ution of scientific @2/A 1nowledge and the con$
World Views 1/
tinuous critical evaluation of it are of great im!ortance. <ver& scientific theor&7 no matter
how well it descri'es and e!lains facts in its own domain7 will alwa&s 'e confronted with
!ro'lems that cannot 'e solved in the theor&. Therefore7 a fortiori7 a world view will alwa&s
'e a fragile s&stem.
A world view7 however7 cannot 'e determined '& its relation to the sciences alone. 9ur
e!erience also contains our different s&stems of meaning. In our world view7 we also want
to 'e faithful to these other as!ects of our e!erience as we attem!t !ossi'le e!lanations
of our world. A world view must allow us to DunderstandE as man& as!ects of the world as
!ossi'le.
9ur e!erience also includes our different s&stems of values. <ven if these s&stems are
often am'ivalent and contradictor&7 we want our world view to 'e faithful to them. (ince
evaluation is seen to 'e more su'6ective7 and hence connected to a !articular !erson inside a
!articular culture7 it will 'e difficult to achieve one glo'al world view7 satisf&ing the needs
for coherent evaluation of the world for ever&one. =ot onl& scientific e!erience7 'ut also
aesthetic and ethical sensitivit& will have a dee! influence on our attem!ts at world view
construction. It does not follow from this7 however7 that world views will 'e sim!l& a Cues$
tion of taste and feeling. Arts7 st&les7 customs and moral codes can 'e ver& diverse7 'ut
even then the& are all interconnected within their culture7 and on a larger scale within the
whole world in which the& interact.
<ver& e!erience leads towards action of the one having the e!erience. It is '& means
of these actions that we can influence the world7 and strive for certain ends. A world view
should contain an organised conce!t of our real and !ossi'le actions in this world. 9nl&
then will it 'e faithful to the com!lete e!erience of humanit&. Political !rais7 with its
man& attem!ts to construct a new societ&7 must also 'e included in a glo'al world view.
<ver& world view will therefore necessaril& contain ideological elements.
The e!erience of science with its !luralit& of disci!lines7 the e!erience of ethics with
its !luralit& of ethical s&stems7 the e!erience in aesthetics with its !luralit& of arts and
st&les7 @21A the e!erience of !olitics with its !luralit& of attem!ts to construct new societ$
ies* all this has a !rofound influence on world views. ;ut conversel&7 these different t&!es
of e!eriences will in turn 'e influenced '& the glo'al world view into which the& are in$
cor!orated. 9ne of the essential functions of world view construction is to generate this in$
teraction consciousl& and in a controlled wa&. As a conseCuence7 a world view can relate
the different domains of e!erience7 so that the& are li'erated from their isolation and 'e$
come !arts of the whole. The goal is to ma1e the communication 'etween the different la&$
ers of our e!erience e!licit. 9therwise7 if etensive elements remain unconscious7 there
is a danger that one as!ect will emerge as the view of the whole.
<ach human is !art of a whole larger than one self. ;oth !hiloso!h& and religion have
reflected on this awareness7 and on the final nature of realit& as a whole. (uch ultimate
Cuestions cannot 'e avoided in the !rocess of world view construction. Indeed7 the& form
the driving force 'ehind the religious7 !hiloso!hical7 ethical7 aesthetic and !olitical Cuest of
humanit&. ;ut uniCue solutions are not !ossi'le in this domain. +eligions7 differentiated in$
ternall& and eternall&7 generall& em!hasise the necessit& of !ersonal conversion or inner
transformation7 and usuall& rel& on the e!eriences of a founder. In this res!ect7 faithful$
ness to tradition is im!ortant for most religions. 8ere world$view construction differs from
religion in that it shows a fundamental o!enness towards different inter!retative models of
realit&7 allowing agnosticism and a higher degree of uncertaint&. World view construction
searches for different models to illuminate the varied world in which we live7 and must
therefore ta1e into account the multiformit& of the religions7 even those that are neither ec$
clesiastical nor theistic.
11 Aerts et al.
1.! Wh" world views?
The greater unification of humanit& and the interaction 'etween cultures7 with the e!an$
sion of science and the increase of our technical ca!a'ilities7 mean that our Dlife !lansE @22A
are more and more determined '& our relations to larger grou!s. We are confronted cognit$
ivel& and emotionall& with the whole universe7 and with Cuestions a'out the role of human$
it& in this greater whole. <cological !ro'lems related to the survival of humanit& on this
!lanet have more and more 'ecome the concern of ever&one. And &et7 it has 'ecome in$
creasingl& difficult to ela'orate a life !lan7 'ecause it is ver& difficult to ta1e into account
the com!leit& of this whole.
=evertheless7 it is !ossi'le to thin1 coherentl& and to 'ehave res!onsi'l& onl& if we con$
sider the different regions to which we 'elong7 and their interactions. To gain insight into
ourselves and our needs7 !ur!oses and values7 we construct images or models of our !h&s$
ical and social environment and of ourselves as acting7 thin1ing and feeling 'eings. We
need to 'uild such im!licit or e!licit models of humans7 of histor&7 of our value !atterns
and action strategies7 and confront them with our 1nowledge a'out the cosmos and the
earth7 our 'ios!here. Without an& form of integration7 res!onsi'le action seems to 'e im$
!ossi'le. (ince we cannot 6ust let things go their own wa& Jeven if little can 'e changedK7
'ut must acce!t res!onsi'ilit& for our own world7 a new effort at integrating these elements
is necessar&7 an effort that is collective7 co$ordinated and conscious. (uch integration can
also give a new dimension to our emotional7 aesthetic and religious connection with the
whole.
1.# World views and the roblem of modernism
The construction of a rational view of the cosmos and the D!olisE is often identified with
the ideal of 2odernism. D(a!ere aude7E dare to trust &our own 1nowledge7 was the motto
that7 according to Hant7 characterised the <nlightenment. 2odernism often means7 in this
contet7 an attem!t to introduce a glo'al reorganisation of human 1nowledge7 human activ$
ities and human societ&7 on the 'asis of human insight. ;ut the ideal of the <nlightenment
has7 for man&7 !roven itself internall& @2#A contradictor& J2a 8or1heimer and Theodor
Adorno5s D>iale1ti1 der Auf1lNrungE7 1%4,K.
2ust we consider the inheritance of 2odernism7 the <nlightenment and +omanticism as
an unreacha'le illusion? 9ur o!inion is that 2odernism cannot 'e sur!assed sim!l& '&
neglecting its ideals7 as a certain inter!retation of Post$modernism would have us 'elieve.
The result would 'e an evolution towards a com!letel& fragmented world7 without an&
sense of direction and !ur!ose. To the contrar&7 we 'elieve that the ideal of a free and ra$
tional humanit& is not dead7 'ut has not &et 'een realised. The 1nowledge of humanit& and
nature7 histor& and societ&7 the 1nowledge that enlightens ethical and !olitical choices and
allows us to ta1e our fate in our own hands7 is not an illusion or failure of the !ast7 'ut a
goal for the future. 9nl& with this orientation can we ta1e full res!onsi'ilit& and overcome
at least a !art of our alienation. The emotion and !assion e!ressed in +omanticism and
(urrealism7 have come to 'e feared 'ecause of certain ecesses7 and in the 1%th and 2/th
centur& the& have 'een too much a !art of national and social conflicts. ;ut it is our o!inion
that the 'elief of +omanticism in !ersonal emotion7 !assion and imagination as 'eing ca!$
a'le of ma1ing the human !erson a true creator7 must not 'e dismissed as !ure illusion.
The relation 'etween DintellectE and DreasonE JVernunftK as well must not 'e dismissed7
in our o!inion. In .rench7 one ma1es the distinction 'etween Dle rationelE and Dle raison$
a'leE* not all that is rational is reasona'le. In the construction of a contem!orar& world
World Views 12
view7 elements of earlier views and their as!ects of intuition7 emotion and imagination will
have to 'e !resent.
In this res!ect7 we must also e!lain our !osition in relation to (cientism and Anthro!o$
centrism. (cientism suggests that the !ositive natural sciences !rovide the onl& model of
e!lanation. Anthro!ocentrism wrongl& ta1es humans as the centre and onl& !ur!ose of the
cosmos. In the !ast7 world views have 'een !rimaril& Dcosmocentric7E starting with the
'irth of !hiloso!h& in Ionia in the -th centur& 'efore )hrist7 a 'ias still !resent in man&
non$western cultures. (ince the Danthro!ocentric turnE @24A of the +enaissance7 the 8uman$
ists and >escartes7 an rather e!licit form of anthro!ocentrism has dominated Western cul$
ture. 9ne can rightl& ascertain a Ddiscover& of su'6ectivit&E here. ;ut through the evolution
of our 1nowledge in the !h&sical sciences and in the human sciences7 we have come to see
that humanit& can onl& 'e understood as !art of a larger whole. (cientism and Anthro!o$
centrism7 in their etreme forms7 are unacce!ta'le. We can7 however7 agree with (cientism
when it claims that the man& scientific methods deliver models of e!lanation that have to
'e ta1en into account in an& holistic modern world view. And from the 8umanist tradition
we can learn how to inter!ret tets and other cultural !roducts.
In constructing modern world views7 we must ta1e into consideration the Post$modern
critiCue of the m&ths of race7 nation and class that have too often 'een used as a means of
re!ression. 9ur own a!!roach is Post$modern in that we recognise that reason itself has dis$
covered its limitations7 and has 'ecome conscious of its historicit&. Perfect certaint& and a
de facto com!lete and universal all$encom!assing 1nowledge is in !rinci!le im!ossi'le.
)ritical reason and emotional enthusiasm need not eclude each other7 and 'oth can
!rovide an irreduci'le contri'ution to the construction of world views. Indeed7 our reason is
limited and our emotions can 'e misled. We must also confront the shortcomings of lan$
guage. Thus7 we have learned to a!!reciate variet& and multiformit& as values7 and hence
we do not want to strive for one uniCue world view. ;ut neither do we want to resign
ourselves to the !resent situation of fragmentation.
We therefore situate ourselves in the difficult 'ut necessar& tension 'etween 2odernism
and Post modernism7 (cientism and Anthro!ocentrism7 <nlightenment and +omanticism7
secularism and religion7 !hiloso!h& and science7 the individual and the collective7 western
and non$western culture.
World views grow organicall& and historicall&. ;ut7 on the other hand7 the& need to 'e
articulated7 understood7 and develo!ed. In what follows7 we will attem!t to !ut forward a
set of ideas that can serve as a starting !oint for such an ela'oration.
1# Aerts et al.
2. The $even Comonents of a World %iew
@25A The following seven Cuestions re!resent7 in our o!inion7 'asic elements that must 'e
accounted for in ever& world view.
1. What is the nature of our world? 8ow is it structured and how does it function?
2. Wh& is our world the wa& it is7 and not different? Wh& are we the wa& we are7 and not
different? What 1ind of glo'al e!lanator& !rinci!les can we !ut forward?
#. Wh& do we feel the wa& we feel in this world7 and how do we assess glo'al realit&7 and
the role of our s!ecies in it?
4. 8ow are we to act and to create in this world? 8ow7 in what different wa&s7 can we in$
fluence the world and transform it? What are the general !rinci!les '& which we should
organise our actions?
5. What future is o!en to us and our s!ecies in this world? ;& what criteria are we to select
these !ossi'le futures?
-. 8ow are we to construct our image of this world in such a wa& that we can come u!
with answers to J1K7 J2K7 and J#K?
,. What are some of the !artial answers that we can !ro!ose to these Cuestions?
These seven Cuestions articulate different su' $tas1s that are entangled with and necesit$
ate each other. Answers to them can onl& 'e satisfactor& if the& form a coherent whole. We
will demonstrate how and wh& this is the case in the net !art of this tet. While there is no
hierarchical relationshi! among the different su'$tas1s7 the& clearl& come together in one
unified view.
World view construction must not 'e seen as an ar'itrar& !ro6ection. The word D!ro6ec$
tionE itself calls to mind the wor1 of the cartogra!hers of antiCuit& and the 2iddle Ages7
who indeed were involved in a sort of construction of world views. @2-A The& constructed
ma!s of the world using the data coming from navigators7 merchants and e!lorers. <ven
though this information was often incom!lete7 im!recise7 contradictor& or even invented7 it
was graduall& ad6usted and sha!ed into a coherent image. The construction of these ma!s
even hel!ed introduce new values and initiated new activities and e!loration.
In this final decade of the 2/th centur&7 we have an enormous amount of information at
our dis!osal. 9n the one hand7 this ma1es it easier for us to form an image of the world in
which we live7 'ut on the other hand this introduces a new t&!e of difficult&7 i.e. we must
develo! the a'ilit& to ta1e into account all this information. Indeed7 the integration of all
this data !oses an enormous !ro'lem. In connection with this !ro'lem we must consider the
seven su'$tas1s mentioned a'ove.
2.1 A model for the world in which we live
In our search for a world model7 we intend to use conce!ts such as Dworld7E Dnature7E and
DuniverseE in the most general wa& !ossi'le. We mean something li1e this* Dthe totalit& of
all that eists7 and with which we are confronted in one wa& or another.E We can a!!roach
the DworldE from the !oint of view of the su'6ect and its interests. 9r we can a!!roach it as
World Views 14
an o'6ective entit& that shows itself to us7 as1ing ourselves how it is constituted and how it
wor1s.
>escri!tion as such is alread& a choice for a certain model7 which entails the re!resenta$
tion of realit& '& means of a s&m'olic s&stem of conce!ts7 em!hasising certain elements
and relationshi!s. DTo descri'eE involves the selection of certain differences. Whether
something does in fact ma1e a difference de!ends on the inter!retation of an o'server. It
also de!ends on the relation 'etween the o'server and the instrument used for the o'serva$
tion. The human e&e7 for eam!le7 is onl& sensitive to a certain range of the s!ectrum of
light. 8ence7 it is im!ortant to 1now what differences will 'e considered in an& descri!tion.
The colour of a roc1et7 for eam!le7 is not im!ortant @2,A in the descri!tion of its tra6ector&7
'ut it ma& 'e relevant in its identification. This illustrates wh& it is necessar& to ma1e de$
scri!tive models on different levels Jmicro$models7 macro$modelsK7 and wh& the nature of a
descri!tive model will often 'e determined '& the !ur!ose one has in mind* utilit& in rela$
tion to directed action7 intelligi'ilit&7 etc. That the o'server does influence the o'servation
does not im!l& that he or she creates the o'served. 2odels are not mere su'6ective con$
structions. ;ut we will encounter7 in man& forms7 a tension 'etween o'6ective and su'6ect$
ive elements Jrealism versus idealismK in our !ro6ect of world view construction.
2.2 The exlanator" ower of a world view
=o matter how im!ortant facts ma& 'e7 we are not satisfied with merel& D1nowingE them.
We also want to Dunderstand7E gain DinsightE into and e!lain them. We alwa&s see1 an an$
swer to the Cuestion Dwh&?E =o consensus eists concerning what constitutes Dunderstand$
ingE and De!lanation.E This comes7 in !art7 from the fact that e!lanation has a different
meaning in each su'$region. To construct a world view7 we will have to e!eriment with
different models of DunderstandingE and De!lanation.E We will also have to give a new
meaning to the Dwh&E Cuestion as a!!lied to the world as a whole7 one that cannot 'e the
same as in the different su'$regions. <!laining often means formulating meaningful con$
nections. 8owever7 if the o'6ect is realit& as a whole7 the Dwh&E Cuestion cannot retain the
same meaning. D;eingE in its totalit&7 according to 'oth m&stics and !hiloso!hers7 must
find its roots in itself7 or it is Drootless.E )oncerning individual realities7 the Cuestion indeed
arises* wh& are the& there7 and wh& are the& as the& are? Wh&7 berhaupt is there
something rather than nothing?
)ontingenc& and historicit& are im!ortant as!ects of the realit& around us. And &et7 we
seem to live in a universe that is governed '& laws. The Cuestion thus arises as to the e$
!lanation of these laws. ;ut without initial conditions these laws cannot 'e a!!lied. This in$
dicates that we must also search for @2"A the e!lanation of the initial states from which7
under the influence of the laws of evolution7 the histor& of the universe7 life and humanit&
have develo!ed. (ome see laws as !rimar&7 others see histor& as more im!ortant7 while still
others see laws and histor& as eisting inde!endent of each other. .or thin1ers li1e (!inoBa7
3ei'niB and <instein7 chance7 contingenc& and historicit& are not of im!ortance7 while for
other thin1ers the& are. The a'sence of agreement on this matter stimulates further research.
0nderstanding most o'viousl& means* getting a gri! on a wider coherence7 or7 gras!ing the
general in the s!ecific. D)om!rendre7 c5est !rendre ensem'le.E 8ence a world view will
have more e!lanator& !ower if it can gras! the most general structures and laws that eist
in realit&.
There are man& o!inions on the meaning of e!lanation. <!lanation can have a minim$
al and a maimal meaning. 2inimall&7 it means situating the !henomena in a networ1 of
relations. <!laining can also mean the construction of a causal model for the chain of !he$
15 Aerts et al.
nomena Jif. . . then. . .K. 9r it can see1 to clarif& the origin and genesis of a !henomenon. It
can also mean the gras!ing of the most general form of the !henomena in a com!rehensive
D?estalt.E In its maimal sense7 e!lanation can mean showing that the !henomena cannot
'e different from what the& are. According to 3ei'niB7 this entails that all !ro!ositions are
anal&tic. This seems to us a too narrow view of e!lanation. Indeed7 contingenc& and his$
toricit& are overem!hasised in our !resent da& sensitivit&. =evertheless7 e!lanation will al$
wa&s 'e related to the discover& of a connection 'etween what !resents itself in a descri!$
tion and the general e!lanator& !rinci!les from which we start.
A scientific e!lanation loo1s for the Dwh&E of the !henomena. In one wa& or another
we need to 'ring a !henomenon 'ac1 to its antecedents7 and to construct a reasoning in the
form of Dif A7 then ;.E .or instance7 if gravitational force has a !articular value7 then the
acceleration with which material o'6ects fall will 'e such. >escri!tion e!oses the elements
involved7 and the connection to initial conditions gives us insight into the coherence
'etween the elements of the descri!tion. DIf...7 then...E can7 however7 have different mean$
ings. Whether an @2%A e!lanation is satisfactor& de!ends on whether the one hearing the
e!lanation is satisfied with the elements ta1en as !ostulates. Thus7 in !ractice7 e!lanation
often comes to mean the derivation of less evident facts from ver& general !ostulates7 laws
and !atterns. There ma& 'e an attem!t to e!ress these !ostulates and 'asic !rinci!les s&s$
tematicall&7 'ut the& themselves remain une!lained. 2oreover7 we 1now that ever& aio$
matic s&stem is incom!lete7 and will hence !rovide an e!lanation onl& to a certain !oint.
Therefore7 the human mind will alwa&s 1ee! loo1ing for dee!er e!lanations7 as ehi'ited7
for eam!le7 '& Plato and (!inoBa. <ver& language !oints to a more general meta$language.
Ideall&7 such a s&stem of general !rinci!les would allow us J1K to derive the laws that gov$
ern our world7 J2K to sti!ulate the initial conditions of the 'irth and evolution of our uni$
verse and of the life that has develo!ed in it7 J#K to derive the tendencies of the histor& of
the universe and of the evolution that ta1es !lace in it. It is clear that such an ideal can onl&
'e reached in a !rocess of a!!roimation Jas&m!toticall&K.
The fundamental im!ossi'ilit& of a com!lete e!lanation has caused some to refuse an&
attem!t at e!lanation. This attitude amounts to a re6ection of reason itself and leaves our
dee! need for insight com!letel& unsatisfied. The selection and critiCue of general 'asic
!rinci!les7 'asic laws and !ostulates must thus also 'e one of the main o'6ectives of world$
view construction.
2.! World views and evaluation
We do not live in a DneutralE world. We admire7 love or value certain as!ects of the world7
while we detest and hate others or find them irrelevant. We en6o&7 and we suffer. (ome as$
!ects of realit& are hol&7 others !rofane. A world view does not onl& ma1e realit& intelli$
gi'le7 'ut also !rovides a means of evaluating this realit&7 as it is e!ressed in different cul$
tures. As we have noted a'ove7 it is difficult to arrive at a consensus a'out the meaning of
De!lanation.E It is even more so with regard to the !rocess of evaluation. We 'elieve7
however7 that ever&one @#/A who wants to construct a reasona'le view of realit& and human
eistence will have to ta1e into account the following Cuestions*
1. What is ha!!iness and suffering for feeling andOor conscious 'eings? What increases
or decreases ha!!iness and suffering?
2. What is the meaning and the function of aesthetic e!erience? What is 'eaut& and
ugliness? 8ow can these categories 'e a!!lied to the !h&sical7 'iological7 social and !s&$
chological world? )an the& 'e a!!lied to the world as a whole?
World Views 1-
#. What is the origin of the distinction 'etween good and evil? )an these conce!ts 'e a!$
!lied to different regions of realit&7 or are the& limited to the human world? What determ$
ines the values that someone will choose in his or her !ersonal life? What is the meaning of
the distinction 'etween the health& and the sic17 'etween the normal and the a'normal? Is
this distinction onl& culturall& determined? J)ultural anthro!olog& and clinical !s&cholog&
should 'e a'le to shed some light on these Cuestions.K
4. We often com!are values with each otherL some values are more significant than oth$
ers. It seems that values are related to the use of a norm7 and !erha!s to the striving towards
a !ur!ose. 8ow does the !rocess of DevaluationE de!end on as!irations and strivings? Is
there a hierarch& of values and !ur!oses? (hould one avoid a linear ordering and consider
onl& !artial orderings? DValue AE can 'e su!erior to Dvalue ;7E according to certain criter$
ia7 'ut the order can 'e reversed according to different criteria.
The relation 'etween value and science will also 'e affected here. The fact that the !h&s$
ical sciences sometimes claim to 'e value$free finds its origin in the attem!t to emanci!ate
the intellect from social !ressure7 eternal authorit& and affective !references7 an attem!t
that we should !raise7 and that has !roven to 'e fruitful. This attitude7 however7 does not
im!l& that scientists esca!e res!onsi'ilit& for the results of their research. (ooner or later
the& are confronted with the !ro'lem of evaluation. Is there a res!onsi'ilit& for the @#1A sci$
entist who unravels the forces of matter7 when this 1nowledge can 'e used for the fa'rica$
tion of arms ca!a'le of untold destruction? .or eam!le7 current research in genetics will
certainl& have an influence on future ethical Cuestions. We 'elieve7 generall&7 that the de$
velo!ment of our factual 1nowledge will influence Cuestions of evaluation in a !ositive
wa&7 and that man& of the ethical and aesthetic conce!ts that are now ver& a'stract will 'e$
come more concrete through this !rocess.
5. That individuals differ !rofoundl& in their o!inions a'out values does not necessaril&
indicate that values have a naive or !re$reflective character. (uch a discre!anc& can 'e due
to the fact that the wa& evaluative as!ects of the world are structured7 heavil& de!ends on
the culture and even on the individual !erson. =ot one as!ect of human eistence esca!es
the !ro'lem of evaluation. 9n the final value of human eistence7 o!inions differ. )ontact
with religion is inesca!a'le here. What is the meaning of the difference 'etween the hol&
and the !rofane that we find in man& cultures? Are certain as!ects of the e!eriences of the
hol& o'6ective?
The fact that there can 'e 1nowledge onl& for a 1nowing su'6ect does not im!l& that
realit& is a !urel& su'6ective construction. 9f course7 ever& e!erience of value is intrinsic$
all& su'6ective7 since there can onl& 'e value for a value$e!eriencing su'6ect. ;ut this does
not im!l& that realit& has no o'6ective carriers that !rovide the material for this !rocess of
evaluation. The search for o'6ective carriers will 'e of !rofound im!ortance in the construc$
tion of a world view. Indeed7 whether one gives !reference to certain values or not7 whether
one inter!rets values as !urel& su'6ective or not7 the Cuestion remains as to whether it is
!ossi'le to sa& something a'out the world in which we eist or a'out the world as a totalit&
from the !ers!ective of the values that we hold. 0ltimatel& this is also connected to the
Cuestion of meaning* what is it that gives value to our eistence in this world? What is it
that ma1es life worth living?
@#2A These Cuestions cannot 'e !ut aside. Whether the answers are negativeO!ositive7 or
agnostic the& are still answers7 and the& do suggest that the Cuestion of meaning ma1es
sense. An answer to this Cuestion will 'e more universal7 and conseCuentl& more o'6ective7
if individual s&stems of value can 'e integrated into a more glo'al value s&stem. .or e$
am!le7 Cuestions a'out marriage and seualit& or a'out !arent$child relations var& greatl&
from one culture to another. ;ut there are no cultures where these Cuestions are irrelevant.
A world view can neither !ut forward one set of values as the norm in all cases7 nor con$
sider the evaluative element of human eistence as insignificant. World views will differ in$
1, Aerts et al.
sofar as the& structure this evaluative element of human eistence differentl&. .or eam!le7
in more !rimitive societies7 relations with one5s own grou! will 'e highl& valued7 while this
value is hardl& !resent in the most industrialised grou!s of our societ&.
2.# A model of ossibilities& 'ational futurolog"
A world view see1s to clarif& the !lace of humanit& in the world and to !rovide insight into
the most significant relations humans have with this world7 'oth theoreticall& and !ractic$
all&. 9ur 1nowledge7 however7 is far from com!lete. 9ur glo'al action in the world is at a
rudimentar& stage and our value !atterns are insecure. The future ma& de!end on us7 'ut it
is not !ossi'le to sim!l& derive it from the !ast. +ooted as we are in a !ast that cannot full&
'e unravelled7 the future for us is a tree with man& !otentialities. Various scenarios can 'e
invented. Attem!ts to investigate these !otentialities in a reasona'le wa& have 'een under$
ta1en '& such writers as ?. ;erger7 +. +u&er and A. Toffler7 and '& man& other futurolo$
gists7 such as G. .orrestier and ?. 2eadows. 8ow will cultures interact with each other in
the future? Will Western culture 'ecome dominant over the whole world? What will 'e the
role of science and economics in the future order? Who will ma1e the decisions that will in$
fluence humanit& as a whole? In the long term7 and hence more s!eculativel&7 one can !on$
der the role of humanit& @##A in the universe. >oes humanit& have a future that reaches 'e&$
ond the !lanet earth? Will we ever 'e a'le to 'ring human life to other !lanets? >oes our
s!ecies have a cosmic function and destin&?
Iuestions a'out the future of humanit& have Jas does world$view constructionK a de$
scri!tive and evaluative com!onent* what awaits us7 and what should we do? Plans for the
future must 'e modified de!ending on whether the& deal with the short7 middle7 or long
term future of humanit&. These distinctions ma1e realistic7 collective and effective action
!ossi'le. .or eam!le7 care for our environment is of a com!letel& different order from the
investigation into the eventual destruction of the earth due to continuous increase in the siBe
of the sun. Indeed7 !reoccu!ation with the ecological !ro'lems of our immediate environ$
ment is urgent7 for it !resents an im!erative for our collective efforts. (!eculation a'out the
future of the earth five 'illion &ears from now remains highl& theoretical.
In all cultures there is an interest in Cuestions a'out death. A world view should ma1e it
!ossi'le for us to relate in a meaningful wa& to death and the finiteness of life. <ven if cul$
tures come and go7 this does not ma1e them meaningless accidents of histor&. There must
'e human wa&s to co!e with the consciousness of the finiteness of life7 and to transcend the
D(ein Bum TodeE in one wa& or another. .or man& religions7 as for some secular schools of
thought7 attention to the future is an intrinsic element in culture Jas in <rnst ;loch5s D>as
PrinBi! 8offnungEK. The relation 'etween the death of the individual and the death of the
grou! or s!ecies ma1es it im!ossi'le to avoid larger Cuestions a'out the meaning of the hu$
man adventure in this cosmos.
=o matter how uncertain the !rognoses ma& 'e7 and no matter how o!inions a'out the
eschatological destin& of humanit& ma& differ7 we must attem!t to reflect in a reasona'le
wa& a'out our res!onsi'ilities towards future generations. It must 'e !ossi'le to reach
enough of a consensus on this as!ect of the future to !roduce or !romote meaningful col$
lective action. +eaching such a consensus is one of the aims of world$view construction.
World Views 1"
2.( A model for the rocess of model construction
@#4A The !ro6ect of world$view construction reCuires that one ta1es into account su'6ective
as well as o'6ective elements. All 1nowledge7 meaning and value are su'6ective and 'ound
to a culture insofar as the& are necessaril& e!erienced '& concrete7 historicall& determined
su'6ects. The nature of this situation does not im!l&7 however7 that the o'6ective as!ects of
a world view are an& less im!ortant. It is !recisel& these as!ects that are at the 'asis of the
!ossi'ilit& of integration. A world view is neither a mere reflection on o'6ective realit&7 nor
a !urel& su'6ective construction. Toda&7 the universe can no longer 'e eamined without
ta1ing into account the one who o'serves this universe. =evertheless7 we thin1 that dou't
concerning the !ossi'ilit& of world$view construction finds its origin to a great etent in the
fact that so much attention is !aid to the role of the 1nowing7 evaluating and acting su'6ect.
As a conseCuence7 world views are often reduced to the needs and characteristics of the
su'6ect. We re6ect this over$accentuation of the role of the su'6ect 'ecause we 'elieve the
su'6ect can also learn something a'out itself '& regarding and stud&ing itself from different
eternal !ers!ectives. The danger that the su'6ect will 'e lost in this !rocess of o'6ectifica$
tion can 'e overcome '& an integration of the different !ers!ectives involved.
In the !rocess of world$view construction7 the su'6ect does indeed construct a model of
realit&. 9ur wa& of ta1ing into account the !resence of the su'6ect in this !rocess is '& in$
vestigating the !rocess of model construction eternall&. This reCuires a !aradigm for the
!rocess of model construction. The cognitive as!ect of this !rocess has 'een studied most
intensel&7 and we will consider the results of these man& studies in our attem!t to !ro!ose a
general !aradigm for model construction. 3et us eamine some of its elements.
1. The necessit& for constructing a model of the surrounding realit& can 'e related to the
necessit& of a living organism to ada!t itself to its environment. In this sense7 the !ro'lem
of model construction has ethnological and ecological elements. @#5A The su'6ect cannot 'e
understood without a 'od&. The D'iolog& of cognitionE JHonrad 3orentBK e!lains how and
wh& our categories are !artl& determined '& the t&!e of organic 'eings we are. We o'serve
onl& certain tones and colours. 9ur DmeasureE is neither the ver& 'ig nor the ver& small.
2. 2odel construction is also a !ersonal !s&chological !rocess. Its develo!ment is in$
vestigated '& genetic !s&cholog&7 while differential !s&cholog& unravels its affective$d&$
namic as!ects.
#. 2odel construction demands communication and language. When 1nowledge 'e$
comes more differentiated7 a s!ecialised !rofessional language cannot 'e avoided. The
stud& of the cognition !rocess in scientific languages clarifies the structure and develo!$
ment of these languages7 which influence our cognition structures and contents.
4. There eist different means of o'servation7 which also influence the construction of
theories. (cientists develo! a certain st&le which e!resses itself as a su'culture. The Deth$
nolog& of the cognition !rocessE studies the different Dtri'esE that generate these su'cul$
tures7 in the same wa& as traditional ethnolog& tries to understand non$western cultures. 9n
what does the social !restige of the scientist7 and the res!ect for the la'orator& de!end?
Who or what determines whether a new theor& is DscientificE? The verification of our the$
ories is a collective !rocess7 and the !rocess of convincing is sociall& determined. ?rou!
conflicts and hierarchies 'etween different scientific grou!s will thus have an influence on
our 'od& of 1nowledge.
5. (ometimes it is !ossi'le to reall& understand something onl& if one can also construct
it. The stud& of artificial intelligence and c&'ernetics in general can hel! us in this sense to
'etter understand the !rocess of model construction. )om!uter simulation of !ro'lem$solv$
ing !rograms serves as a la'orator& for e!erimental research on the cognition !rocess.
-. )ognition research uses few means for man& aims. We need to co!e with the econom$
ics of human resources7 research @#-A funds7 etc. 2one& used for s!ace travel cannot 'e
1% Aerts et al.
used for cancer research. The economics of the Dcognition enter!riseE investigates in which
wa& these economic restrictions influence the form and content of our model.
,. )ognition is a historical !rocess. The histor& of science Jand its theoretical founda$
tion7 the d&namics of scienceK shows how 1nowledge evolves and determines its form and
content.
". As we remar1ed a'ove7 the su'6ect cannot 'e ecluded from the world view. This
does not im!l&7 however7 that all !ers!ectives can have an eCual influence on the image of
the world. It is the com!lete human F the individual human 'eing as well as his 'elonging
to a certain grou! F that is the su'6ect of cognition and of model construction.
2.) In search of an integrated action model
The world in which we are cognitivel& and emotionall& involved is also our field of action.
To act in a meaningful wa& and to transform the world in function of our !ur!oses are char$
acteristics t&!ical of the human s!ecies. Therefore7 a world view must not onl& contain a
model of descri!tion7 an e!lanation and an evaluation7 'ut also an organised view of the
factual and !ossi'le influences that humans can have on the world. To define such an integ$
ral !attern of action7 it is necessar& to 'ring together dee!l& divided disci!lines7 and !er$
ha!s even to use them for !ur!oses for which the& were not originall& develo!ed. There is a
general tendenc& to neglect the a!!lied sciences when one is loo1ing for an insight into
realit&. That the& are called Da!!liedE sciences suggests that the& are e!ected to Dmerel&
a!!l&E the 1nowledge that has 'een acCuired in a theoretical contet. This is onl& !artl&
true. The a!!lied sciences have a ver& rich !otential for the construction of a glo'al world
view7 !recisel& 'ecause the& are s&nthetic and inter$disci!linar&. .or eam!le7 the engineer
has to organise a !roduction !rocess as a totalit& that relates !urel& !h&sical !rocesses with
economic7 social7 !s&chological and ecological @#,A !ro'lems. The !olitician7 the law&er
and the manager have to use !s&chological7 economic and social means to organise a soci$
et&7 striving towards ver& general !ur!oses. The !h&sician can onl& achieve his or her goal
if he or she7 'esides healing7 also tries to !revent illness7 !a&ing attention to each !atient as
a !h&sical7 !s&chological and social 'eing. This !resu!!oses a DholisticE medicine.
It is a fact7 generall& acce!ted7 that this s&nthetic character of the a!!lied sciences is not
recognised as the most im!ortant one7 neither in the !ractice nor in the training of a!!lied
scientists. The a!!lied sciences are losing their internal unit&7 even if this unit& is one of
their foundations. 8ence7 there eists in this field7 'oth intellectual and !ractical !ro'lems
of integration7 'etween different forms of medicine7 law7 engineering7 etc. This situation is
also intimatel& connected to the !olitical7 social and ethical !ro'lems of unification.
A!art from the !ro'lem of the internal unit& of the different a!!lied sciences Jwhich7 '&
means of their strong s&nthetic character7 are directl& related to world$view constructionK
the !ro'lem of their eternal unit& also arises. If one5s actions influence landsca!es7 anim$
als7 !lants7 !ersons and grou!s7 one acts in function of a certain !ur!ose. Aristotle made a
distinction 'etween theoretical thin1ing and !ractical thin1ing7 and came to the conclusion
that Daction thin1ingE has its own methodolog& J'ecause of its urgenc&7 heterogeneous in$
formation and cost$'enefit anal&sisK. This methodolog& receives too little attention in our
culture. +eflection a'out technolog& F a'out the DlogosE of the DtechnPE F is necessar&. The
internal unit& of the a!!lied sciences can onl& 'e realised if their eternal unit& is also de$
velo!ed .or eam!le7 integrated medicine or an integrated environmental !olic& can 'e at$
tained onl& if !h&sicians7 !oliticians7 and ecologists learn to ta1e into account each other5s
insights and !ur!oses. We can outline the man& divergent wa&s in which we act on our
world*
World Views 2/
1. 8umans act on !h&sical nature. <ngineering s!ecialises in this field Jthe construction
of !ower !lants7 roads7 etc.K.
2. 8umans continuousl& interact with the living world7 influencing !lants7 animals7 other
humans and 'ioto!es. @#"A Agronom&7 medicine Jhuman and veterinar&K7 and ecolog& s!e$
cialise in these fields.
#. 8umans relate themselves to other !ersons and strive towards a certain state of well$
'eing. Ps&cholog&7 !s&chiatr& Jindividual and socialK and !edagog& stud& this field.
4. As a social 'eing7 the human !erson relates to grou!s and is thus influenced '& others
and also influences others. Political science7 Dsocial engineering7E !olitical economics7 6ur$
is!rudence7 and criminolog& can hel! to control and regulate this !ower struggle. (ocial
criticism can also !la& an im!ortant role in this domain. Artists should also contri'ute and
search for new !ossi'ilities here.
The disci!lines mentioned a'ove do not have a mono!ol& on the insight and e!erience
that humanit& has acCuired in these areas. The& generall& 1ee! their own im!licit !re6u$
dices and values hidden. (o$called Ds1illed la'ourE is 'ased to a great etent on non$e!li$
cit and un1nown !rinci!les of efficient action. What is valid in one situation is not neces$
saril& so in another. .or eam!le7 does it ma1e sense to introduce so!histicated agricultural
techniCues in countries that are technologicall& undevelo!ed? (hould a rationalit& of eco$
nomics ta1e into account onl& the !rinci!le of !rofit? It could indeed 'e !ossi'le that an
econom& that ignores moral criteria7 ultimatel& turns out to 'e inefficient. .rom such reflec$
tions it 'ecomes clear that in the field of our actions7 understanding and evaluation cannot
'e se!arated. 9ur interaction with the world evolves continuousl&7 and is directl& related to
the world view7 in all its as!ects7 in which we !artici!ate. Acting in the world is the natural
com!lement to the construction of a world view7 and hence will 'e connected to the diffi$
culties and com!leities of such a construction. It is onl& when the different scientific dis$
ci!lines and the different s!ecialities choose to interact7 and onl& when all cultures and
states recognise that the& have common interests7 that humanit& can evolve towards one
single co$o!erative societ&.
This reCuires a general theor& of !ro'lem solving and strategic action7 as a frame of ref$
erence for all a!!lied sciences. =o !riorit& ma& 'e given here to certain !artial strategies.
;oth @#%A centralising and decentralising forms of organisation7 'oth autonomous and hier$
archicall&$related structures will a!!ear in various domains7 and will have to 'e evaluated
in function of their !ur!oses and efficienc& in certain concrete situations. .or this7 a general
theor& of !ro'lem solving and strateg& of action is called for JDdecision theor&7E Ddealing
with uncertaint&7E Dstrategic researchEK. We thin1 that it is onl& in relation to a general
!raiolog& that a glo'al world view can 'e ela'orated.
2.* +ragments of world views as a starting oint
1. At first sight7 one unified world view ma& seem to 'e an ideal. ;ut soon it 'ecomes evid$
ent that this ideal is not eas& to realise. At the same time7 it ma& seem sociall& threatening
to thin1 that one can and must strive towards one uniCue world view. (uch a view can lead
to totalitarianism. We have alread& seen too often how different !hiloso!hical7 ideological
and religious s&stems 'ehave as com!etitors. This7 in an& case7 ma& 'e the im!ression that
someone who has studied the histor& of ideas from the outside receives. Parmenides and
8eraclitus seem to adhere to o!!osing viewsL materialism and idealism are o!!ositesL the$
ism and atheism eclude each other. (uch antitheses are often a 'asic cause of fragmenta$
tion. We must tr& to discern which contradistinctions corres!ond to fundamental choices of
humanit& Jresulting in fragmentation that cannot 'e overcomeK7 and which are merel& Dloc$
21 Aerts et al.
al fracturesE of s&mmetr& Jwhich should 'e integrated for the 'enefit of humanit&K. ;ut
even then we must avoid naivel& striving towards one uniCue world view. We should loo1
for a multitude of coherentl& connected world views with enough room for a !luralit& of as$
!ects to 'e included in it.
2. We must realise that none of the world views of this multitude will attain com!lete$
ness in one !articular form. Indeed7 an& theor& a'out realit& as a whole is alwa&s self$refer$
ential. (uch a theor& certainl& must contain a model of the wa& in which realit& as a whole
generates the s&stems @4/A that descri'e and e!lain this realit&. .or eam!le7 it will have
to contain a model of our 'rain7 'ut also a model that descri'es and e!lains how we con$
struct such a model of our 'rain. After ?Qdel5s theorem7 we 1now what 1ind of !ro'lems
are incor!orated in such an attem!t at strict logical formalisation of a glo'al theor&.
#. <ven the e!licit realisation of one incom!lete world view among a multitude of oth$
ers is an ideal. We will 'e a'le to wor1 ste! '& ste! in the direction of such an ideal7 while
convinced that ever& ste! is fruitful and valua'le. And of course we must strive for world
views that are as com!lete as !ossi'le7 as !recise as !ossi'le7 as e!licit as !ossi'le7 and
that are without contradiction.
4. In earlier societies7 the role that we now are giving to world views was fulfilled '&
views of totalit& of a religious nature7 or '& secularised forms of it. Toda&7 man& traditional
world views are in tatters. <isting s&stems of orientation will have to incor!orate a vast
amount of new information a'out the nature of realit&7 and integrate this information in one
wa& or another. Therefore7 it should !rove fruitful to investigate how world views or frag$
ments of these views still circulate in our culture.
8istorians stud&ing the histor& of changes in mentalit&7 as well as !s&chologists and so$
ciologists7 indicate that vague7 contradictor&7 im!licit7 and intuitive fragments of world
views still eert a real influence on the wa& in which we live in our societ&. 2oreover7
man& more !eo!le have access to alternative world views due to the influence of the mass
media. An enormous num'er of !u'lications7 and the dissemination of information via vari$
ous t&!es of courses and wor1sho!s7 are often dedicated to the inter!retation of man and the
world. Traces of the world view !ro'lem can 'e found in !hiloso!hies of life7 DWeltan$
schauungenE7 images of humanit& and societ&7 ideologies and !hiloso!hies. (ome of these
fragments highlight the individual7 others the grou!L some !a& attention to the world7 others
are anthro!ocentricL some are theoretical7 others are !racticalL some are descri!tive7 others
are normative. Polls7 such as the <uro!ean @41A values$!ro6ect7 could 'e used to model the
governing world view fragments. 9nce this model has 'een constructed7 the Cuestion of e$
!lanation comes u!* wh& are these world view fragments !resent in Western societ& and
not in others? Wh& is Dres!ect for our fellow manE an o'vious value for us while our atti$
tude towards the non$human !art of nature is so inhumane? Where do we find similarities
and differences with other cultures? Is it correct to sa& that Western culture is engaged
!rimaril& in !ractical matters7 while <astern cultures !a& more attention to s!iritual dimen$
sions of realit&?
5. In the !ast7 as in non$western cultures7 thin1ers have tried to construct e!licit world
views7 ta1ing into account the 1nowledge of realit& availa'le in their time. The histor& of
!hiloso!h& and com!arative !hiloso!h& can give us insight into all these attem!ts to under$
stand and evaluate the factual world. The fragments of world views elicited are often in$
com!lete7 contradictor&7 vague7 and not alwa&s rational. 8ow can we evaluate from our
own !oint of view these !hiloso!hies and segments of world views from the !ast? Philo$
so!hical s&stems of the !ast and !resent can certainl& 'e an ins!iration7 since the& can illu$
minate certain as!ects of the world in which we live and in this wa& illuminate a multitude
of answers and !ro'lems. The& should 'e evaluated7 however7 on their ca!acit& for maim$
al integration of the fragments. Aware of the fact that ever& Cuestion a'out world$view con$
struction has to start from an im!licit7 fragmented world view that cannot 'e made com$
World Views 22
!letel& e!licit7 we must 'e even more critical of attem!ts at striving towards a uniCue and
a'solute world view.
It is also !ossi'le to clarif& factual world$view fragments as echoes of Dcommon senseE
or of insights that are valid in certain social configurations. The advance towards a maimal
world view can then function as a corrective and a warning against ma1ing one of the frag$
ments a'solute Je.g. science7 religion or !oliticsK. We do not thus mean to diminish the at$
tem!t to illuminate and evaluate as much as !ossi'le our own eistence '& considering the
se!arate domains. It is a fact @42A that in the !ast we have 'een a'le to find ins!iration even
in fragmented views7 in order to lessen our fears '& acCuiring a feeling of direction7 to in$
crease solidarit& '& striving towards common goals7 and to gain in this wa& some under$
standing a'out ourselves and the world. World$view construction should aim at fulfilling
all these needs in our com!le societ&.
2# Aerts et al.
!. The ,nit" of the $even $ub-tas.s
@4#A The su'$tas1s for the construction of a world view7 that we mentioned earlier7 form a
whole. We can show this '& means of an eam!le. 3et us consider the situation of a !erson
who has to s!end some time in an environment that is un1nown to him. We can imagine the
!erson to 'e7 for eam!le7 a cultural anthro!ologist. To 'e a'le to orient himself in this new
world he shall certainl& !erform some of the following acts*
1. Tr& to form an image of the ha'its and customs of his new environment.
2. Tr& to understand the DhowE and Dwh&E of the customs and ha'its.
#. 8e shall tr& to avoid reacting in a sim!le affective manner7 'ut will construct a !er$
sonal evaluation modelL some of the customs he can a!!reciate7 others he re6ects.
4. 8e shall tr& to !redict the evolution of the environment that he slowl& starts to under$
stand7 ta1ing into account what ha!!ens elsewhere and rel&ing on his earlier e!erience.
)ertainl& if he is also e!ected to act in the environment7 he shall tr& to construct realistic
goals in the 'est wa& he can.
5. After a while he shall tr& to estimate how much he has 'een a'le to understand his
new environment. )an he tal1 in a meaningful wa& with others? Is he acce!ted in his new
environment as a !erson?
-. 8e shall model his !ossi'le actions to come to a meaningful !lan. In which activities
can he !artici!ate? With which does he not agree7 and wh& not?
,. 8e shall have to 'e read& to weigh his actions continuousl& against those of the oth$
ers7 who generall& strive for other goals7 in different wa&s.
@44A These seven o'vious tas1s for someone who e!lores an un1nown region7 do not
differ much from those that we have to !erform to orient ourselves in our own milieu as we
wor1 on world$view construction. =o'od& thin1s that wor1ing consciousl& at these seven
tas1s is an eaggeration when one e!lores a new environment. Wh& then should one 'e
amaBed7 and even consider it an im!ossi'le underta1ing7 when someone tries to orient him$
self on earth and in the cosmos7 the DnewE environment of man? 2ost of the time7 we live
as individuals in a small geogra!hical and social environment. 9ur interests are limited and
we are not a'le to thin1 and !lan far ahead. 9ur Ds!ontaneousE world view is that of our
families7 our region7 our grou!7 our !rofession7 our !eo!le7 our time. =ot ever&'od& is in$
terested in the stars. =ot ever&'od& is an animal friend. (tars and animals are not !art of the
world of ever&'od&.
;ut we cannot avoid constructing models that ta1e into account our sensi'ilities and !ar$
ticular interests* models of ourselve as acting7 feeling and thin1ing 'eings7 of our fellow hu$
mans7 and of our !h&sical and 'iological environment.These images of ourselves7 of our
grou!7 and of our tas1s7 form a!!roimatel& a coherent whole. The& contain theoretical as
well as !ractical as!ects7 and affect us aestheticall&7 ethicall& and s!irituall&. The& determ$
ine in a certain sense what we thin1 of ourselves. As long as the theoretical7 !ractical and
emotional as!ects of our e!eriences are not too far a!art7 limited and !artial !ers!ectives
are sufficient.
When humans come across other cultures7 these local models turn out to 'e insufficient.
In our actual historical situation this is what ha!!ens7 and there are several reasons. The
!art of realit& that we reach increases constantl& and the de!th of the involvement in our
environment grows7 and our action radius increases constantl&. 9f course7 individuals and
World Views 24
collections of individuals are the ones who act7 'ut 'ecause of the intrinsic and fundamental
nature of our actions7 we engage automaticall& all of humanit& and future generations. In
this wa&7 the acting su'6ect 'ecomes more and more the whole of humanit&. In our actions
DweE influence the whole world7 the whole of @45A humanit& and even the universe. ;&
means of our 1nowledge we relate with the whole o'serva'le universe and witness the in$
crease of man5s im!act on this whole. We are confronted with a multitude of interacting
value s&stems. The tas1s that have to 'e underta1en to 'e a'le to orient ourselves in a
meaningful wa& in our world7 that slowl& is 'ecoming the whole universe7 are more urgent
than ever. As we understand that our world is not our land or <uro!e or the 0(A or another
continent7 'ut that we have to learn to live and thin1 on a !lanetar& scale7 the urgenc& of a
glo'al world view will 'ecome even more o'vious.
We have accentuated the wa& in which different as!ects of the world$view !ro'lem are
connected. We still need to mention that each of the su'$tas1s assumes and !romotes the
others.
8e who wants to have a future$oriented glo'al view of the histor& of humanit& needs a
world model and an action model that ena'le him to ma1e relia'le !rognoses. .or eam!le7
the e!losion of the world !o!ulation is clearl& a !ro'lem that has ecological7 !olitical and
ethical im!lications. 8ow can we construct a meaningful o!inion a'out this !ro'lem7 if we
do not 1now the ca!acit& of the earth and the origin of this e!losion? 9ne who see1s a
world e!lanation needs a world descri!tion. A glo'al world model is im!ossi'le without a
!lace for man7 who 1nows7 acts and evaluates. And as we remar1ed alread&7 the acting su'$
6ect 'ecomes more and more the whole of humanit&. <ver& evaluation for the sa1e of action
im!lies a 1nowledge of the !resent situation. A glo'al action model !resu!!oses a world
model7 and it also needs a model of the instruments7 materials and !ossi'ilities. .or e$
am!le7 can a !ro6ect to !o!ulate other !lanets as a !ossi'le solution for the !o!ulation e$
!losion 'e ta1en seriousl& or is it !ure s!eculation? )onstantl& one needs a confrontation
'etween new insights and traditional models of inter!retation. .or eam!le7 are we sure
that chemical agriculture and even chemical medicine solve more !ro'lems than the& will
eventuall& create?
.rom the com!arison of the o'vious tas1s of a cultural anthro!ologist with the tas1s
awaiting us in a glo'al develo!ment @4-A of world views7 it is evident that the defined su'$
tas1s follow naturall& from our situation in this world and that the& are connected intrinsic$
all&.
25 Aerts et al.
#. /etahors and /odels&
The 0anguage of a World %iew
@4,A <!ressions such as Dthe la&ers of societ&7E Dthe ravages of timeE and Dthe machine of
the stateE attri'ute !ro!erties to societ&7 time and state that the& do not reall& !osses. <ven
so this DfalseE information clarifies the conce!ts of societ&7 time and state. These non$literal
associations of conce!ts that force the reader to see real and true relationshi!s7 are called
meta!hors. A meta!hor gives us a means of reaching new insights and ideas starting from
1nown conce!ts or o'6ects that we can re!resent easil&. 9ur Dworld$view constructionE it$
self contains a dou'le meta!hor. 9ur result will not 'e a view Jas of a landsca!eK and we
don5t construct Jas an architect doesK. We could have chosen other meta!hors to e!ress
our enter!rise* Dworld conce!tE Jem!hasising the reasoning as!ectK or Dworld !ictureE Jem$
!hasising the visual as!ectK. In an& case we shall use meta!hors7 'ecause language without
meta!hors seems to 'e im!ossi'le. The !ro6ect of world$view construction consists in elu$
cidating Jmeta!horK the whole of realit& starting from certain !arts. The world can 'e seen
as a machine7 an organism7 or a consciousness7 and the well$1nown figure of s!eech D!ars
!ro totoE 'rings forward Jmeta!horK essential !ro!erties of it7 without 'eing identified with
it. It is im!ossi'le to construct world views without using Droot meta!hors.E To see total
realit& as a cloud of atoms7 as a field of forces7 as a stream or as a su'stance7 as a machine
or as an organism7 as a cloc1 wor1 or as a !iece of art is using meta!hors. A meta!hor can
also 'e dangerous 'ecause of its ins!iring !ower. If we 1now however what the images
mean we can use their heuristic and inter!retative !ower without danger. The& can hel! us
gras! certain as!ects of realit& that we would otherwise neglect com!letel&. Isolated and
sim!listic @4"A meta!hors7 certainl& when the& are ta1en literall&7 are dangerous and are
'etter avoided.
8ence7 a world view alwa&s contains man& meta!hors. >oes this im!l& that world$view
construction will 'ecome a !art of literature7 a sort of Dm&tho!oesis7E a new m&tholog&?
The !lan designed '& an architect for a 'uilding7 the model that a chemist ma1es for a mo$
lecule7 the drawing that a 'iologist conceives of the s1eleton of a s!ecies and the organi$
grams that a manager uses for the hierarchical structure of his enter!rise are different 1inds
of meta!hors. All s&m'ols and models in ever& domain7 from mathematics to l&rics7 have
in common that Dsomething is used as a re!resentation of something else.E 9ur world view
re!resents in this wa& the totalit&. It can onl& 'e e!ressed '& means of some language that
will use man& different t&!es of s&m'ols7 signs and icons.
8ow does the language of a world view function? The im!ortance of these Cuestions 'e$
comes clear if we see how man& different languages will have to 'e translated in our integ$
ral world view We need words li1e DemotionE and D?estaltE Jotherwise the !s&chological
as!ects are ignoredK7 'ut also words li1e D!ur!ose7E Dgrou!7E and cohesionE Jotherwise we
miss the sociological as!ectsKL we need DcellE7 Ds!eciesE7 and DevolutionE Jto 'e a'le to tal1
a'out living 'eingsK7 D!lanetE7 DstarE and Dgala&E Jfrom astronom&K7 Ddifferential eCua$
tionE7 DfieldE7 and DvectorE Jfrom mathematics and theoretical !h&sicsK.
All these words however are !art of heterogeneous languages7 and this is a great diffi$
cult& in the tas1 that we have !laced 'efore us. (ome words come from formal languages
and have a more or less !recise meaning Jthe last three for eam!leK7 others Jthe first fourK
World Views 2-
have their origin in natural languages and although the& have !recise meaning7 the& are not
defined in an aiomatic wa&.
The language that we want to use for our world view cannot 'e 6ust an&thing. It has to
incor!orate ver'al and mathematical segments. 8ow can this 'e done? We shall have to
em!lo& translations that shall !erha!s increase the !recision of certain terms 'ut decrease
that of others. 8ow is this !ossi'le? <arlier there have 'een attem!ts to ma1e the language
of one science Je.g. !h&sics or !s&cholog&K into a 'asic language. We do not @4%A 'elieve
this is !ossi'le. 9n the other hand we cannot 'e satisfied with the eisting D;a'elE of the
6argons of the different disci!lines. Along with the selection of a collection of good meta$
!hors we have to decide on an intermediate language Jnot too !recise and not too vagueK as
a central aim of the enter!rise.
A third Cuestion can 'e !osed. Is it !ossi'le to simulate on a com!uter a com!licated
s&stem such as a world view? This would ma1e it !ossi'le to a!!l& the method of free vari$
ation7 which is ver& useful to 'e a'le to com!are the real world with !ossi'le worlds. Then
the Cuestion immediatel& rises of the relationshi! 'etween the natural languages of a de$
scri!tive nature and formal languages used elsewhere7 and the com!uter languages that
might 'e used.
These three difficult and dee! !ro'lems Jchoice of the meta!hors7 the intermediate lan$
guage7 and a com!uter languageK shall not have a uniCue and o!timal solution. 9ne has to
answer so man& desiderata that one shall have to !lace !artial solutions side '& side. These
man& different solutions are not ar'itrar&7 'ut are li1e the different t&!es of cars7 where
some are faster7 others last longer and others are more economical. There are also man& dif$
ferent ma!s* !olitical ma!s7 economic ma!s7 geological ma!s7 etc.
Pro'lems such as realismOantirealism in the !hiloso!h& of science7 discussions a'out the
role of the meta!hor in linguistics7 the de'ate around !luralismOrelativism in cognitive sci$
ence* all these Cuestions cannot 'e avoided if we want to attem!t the construction of world
views. It is not our aim to consider these as!ects in more detail here7 'ut we want to state
clearl& that we are aware of the fact that we shall have to confront them.
2, Aerts et al.
(. The Purose of the grou 1Worldviews2
@51A In this tet we want to descri'e as clearl& as !ossi'le the aim of world views. The world
view !ro6ect has at the same time 'oth a uto!ic and a !ragmatic character. Gust 'ecause the
goal cannot 'e full& reached it does not follow that the su'$tas1s that we have !ut forward
are not worthwhile or that we need not strive towards a greater integration of the eisting
!artial views. <ven this entails collective wor17 s!read over a time !eriod of at least decen$
nia7 and reCuiring continual reevaluation. When discussing world views7 the meta!hor of a
'uilding often comes to mind. The construction of world views can indeed 'e com!ared with
an enter!rise such as the construction of cathedrals in the 2iddle Ages. 9n a seemingl& im$
!ossi'le tas17 generations have continued wor1ing7 and sometimes the wor1 never was fin$
ished. .rom time to time an overwhelming !ro6ect colla!ses. The a!!arent im!ossi'ilit& of
the tas1 must not ma1e us afraid. We 'elieve that we must react against the current chaotic
fragmentation of thought and that it is time for a new s&nthesis. We also must affirm that
there is a great 'od& of 1nowledge a'out which man& !eo!le agree. It is a great miracle that
during the course of the enormous struggle of man1ind7 we have 'een a'le to gain 1now$
ledge of the nature of this universe and the relation of our !lanet to the rest of the universe7
that we have some insight into the evolution of the s!ecies7 that Dsuch a thingE as theoretical
!h&sics is !ossi'le. In the !hiloso!h& of science and in s&stem theor& we can find conce!ts
that ma1e a far$reaching integration of different 'ranches of the sciences !ossi'le. Also we
see that a new view of man and human societ& is arising and that we have a res!onsi'ilit& to
nature. It is not sufficient to limit ourselves to !artial tas1s7 im!ortant as these s!ecialised
wor1s ma& 'e. 9ne has to @52A develo! a methodolog& and a strateg&7 to realise su'$tas1s7
and to evaluate success and o'stacles in function of 'roader !ur!oses.
The attem!t to construction of world views is a challenge for all the scientific world7 'e$
cause the s!ecialising7 differential trend in science still has the overhand. The Dworld$
viewsE !ro6ect is essentiall& com!lementar& to this trend. It indicates the necessit& of an ef$
fort towards integration and s&nthesis.
It seems that we can !ut forward some so'er conclusions after all this. It is !ossi'le to
start in a s&stematic wa& on world$view construction7 and the results can 'e evaluated. Par$
tial success is !ossi'le. =ot all world views are eCuivalent and not ever& world$view con$
struction is as sound as another one. )ertainl& one has to warn against the !roliferation of
DwildE world views. There are man& ingenious world models that7 however7 do not want to
'e su'mitted to em!irical investigation7 or do not ta1e the technical terms of certain disci!$
lines into account. This criticism can also 'e made of a sometimes !remature s&nthesis of
4eastern5 and 4western5 thin1ing7 or the etra!olation of insights from relativit& theor& of
Cuantum mechanics7 etc.
We !ro!ose to give an im!ulse to world$view investigation starting with attem!ts that
are alread& underwa& in the direction of the seven su'$tas1s7 and that !refera'l& consider
more than one of these su'$tas1s. 8ere we should not onl& ta1e into account the fashiona'le
trends Jthe new !h&sics7 the uncertaint& !rinci!le7 etc.K 'ut also give attention to traditional
o!tions from our own and from other cultures.
2eanwhile it has 'ecome clear that we envisage more than what a single grou! can at$
tain. The !ro6ect should 'e su!!orted '& a lasting institution7 such as World Views7 that
should 'e a'le to de!end on some financial resources to give the !ro6ect the necessar& sta$
'ilit&. The im!ortance of the !ro'lems concerned ma1e it !ossi'le to find su!!ort from of$
ficial authorities and from !rivate s!onsors. We do not have to wait till we can !rovide e$
World Views 2"
am!les of world views. In conferences7 lessons and !u'lications we should !ut the conce!ts
into !ractice that we have e!ressed in this statement of !rinci!les. This @5#A tet is meant
as an invitation and encouragement to an&one who is read& to wor1 with us.
2% Aerts et al.
Part II Pro3ects
Proosal I& Invariants4
$"mmetries4 and Constants
@5,A DTo understandE alwa&s means* to gras! the general in the !articular. Philoso!hical
and religious s&stems have alwa&s loo1ed for the unchangea'le and the essential. The sci$
ences too loo1 for universal laws7 invariant relationshi!s 'etween var&ing factors. In our
time7 this search for constanc& finds its main e!ression in the investigation of mathematic$
al s&mmetries. The laws of motion7 for instance7 are invariant under translations and rota$
tions of the coordinate$s&stems in which the Cuantities of motion are measured. We !ro$
!ose7 using the theor& of grou!s7 to stud& F from mechanics and cr&stallogra!h&7 to !s&cho$
log&7 sociolog&7 aesthetics and ethics7 F the role and function of the most im!ortant s&m$
metries.
Proosal II& %ariation& The Arrow of Time
@5"A Irreversi'le change has drawn as much attention as invariance. In our time attem!ts are
'eing made to construct a theor& of irreversi'le change7 often connected with the second
law of thermod&namics. To the etent that 8egel5s and 2ar5s dialectics have a foundation
in realit& itself7 the& 'elong to this trend of thought. We !ro!ose to loo1 for a theor& of irre$
versi'le change7 a!!lica'le in various areas7 from the !h&sical to the human sciences.
Comment Pro!osal I and II de!art from 'asicall& different o!tions JI has affinities with
Parmenides7 II with 8eraclitesK. This ehi'its the fundamental !luralism in method that the
World$Views grou! ado!ts. We do not eclude the !ossi'ilit& that su'stance and !rocess7
s&mmetr& and as&mmetr&7 invariance and irreversi'ilit& can 'e thought of as features of
one unified s&stem. ;ut neither do we re6ect a !riori the h&!othesis that either the theor& of
invariance or the idea of change have a'solute !riorit& in nature.
World Views #/
Proosal III& ,nitar" Theories
(ince <instein7 theoretical !h&sics has 'een see1ing7 with growing though not decisive suc$
cess7 a unified theor& that would reduce all forces of nature to one t&!e of force7 to which
matter itself would 'e reduci'le. The foundation of such a ?0T Jgrand unified theor&K7 or
an F even more am'itious F T9< Jtheor& of ever&thingK is ver& s!ecialiBed and technical7
and &et also !hiloso!hical. 2ore s!ecificall&7 the ma6or !ro'lem of the unification of re$
lativit& and Cuantum theor& Jor their re!lacement '& othersK can 'e seen as an e!isode in
the secular confrontation F within all our world views F of the em!hasis on continuit& or
discontinuit&.
Proosal I%& 5olisms
@5%A +ealit& is seen as a totalit& or as a !luralit&. 9ur contem!oraries who stress totalit&7 are
1nown as Dholists.E 2an& holisms !resent themselves7 'oth in science and in !hiloso!h&.
(ome are closer to 'iolog& J?regor& ;atesonK7 others to !h&sics J>avid ;ohmK. The& ought
not to 'e re6ected off hand7 'ut could F after anal&ses F 'e actualised and im!roved.
Proosal %& Pluralisms
We do not decide a !riori in favour of unit& however. 2an& thin1ers envisage realit& as an
irreduci'le !luralit& of forms or !rocesses. Therefore7 we also !ro!ose to stud& the hetero$
genit& and novelt& of the F !ossi'l& irreduci'le $ !arts and !eriods of realit&. <ven if our
universe were a radical !luralit& as William Games claims7 it would still 'e worthwhile to
s!ell out the form of this irreduci'le !luralit&.
Comment Gust as !ro!osal I derives from a world view radicall& different from the one
ins!iring !ro!osal II7 in the same wa&7 the 'asis of III and IV strongl& differs from the
foundation of V. We neither favour a !riori d&namism nor statism7 neither !luralit& nor
unit&7 'ut we do stress the !ossi'ilit& and necessit& of e!osing7 'oth scientificall& and
!hiloso!hicall&7 the glo'al dimensions of the different o!tions.
2oreover7 the two !olarities Jstatic d&namics7 unit&$multi!licit&K intersect. .our differ$
ent t&!es of world views can alread& 'e distinguished.
#1 Aerts et al.
Proosal %I& 6ne and /an" $"stems
@-/A The ne'ula of theories 'rought together under the name Ds&stems theories7E involve a
stud& of 'oth continuous and discontinuous s&stems7 'oth deterministic and indeterministic
s&stems7 'oth feed'ac1 and non$feed'ac1 s&stems. As such7 this stud& has a !owerful uni$
f&ing !otential. (&stems theories are a!!lied in engineering and o!erational research7 in
neurolog& and in oncolog&. The& develo! a num'er of ver& im!ortant conce!ts Js&stem7
su's&stem7 state7 frontier environment7 structure7 com!leit&7 eCuili'rium7 sta'ilit&7 norm7
modelK. We !ro!ose to investigate carefull& the different meanings of these terms7 in their
a!!lication to various regions of realit&. The status of s&stem theor& itself deserves atten$
tion Ja useful voca'ular& or a set of !rinci!les and theorems that have e!lorator& valueK. Is
realit&7 considered as a whole7 a s&stem7 and can its different su'$regions 'e characterised
'& the t&!e of s&stematicit& the& favour?
Proosal %II& +undamental Categories
We organise our realit& in s!ace and time. Within this s!atio$tem!oral framewor1 we dis$
tinguish as!ects and events7 related '& causal and final relations7 o!erating according to
certain laws.
The com!arative stud& of s!ace7 time7 individualit&7 finalit&7 causalit&7 and legalit& in
the various regions of realit&7 contri'utes to a general !icture of realit& as a whole.
Proosal %III& 6rganisation and
$elf-6rganisation. C"bernetics
@-1A )&'ernetics aims at the e!lanation of sim!le and com!le retroactive s&stems. .rom
the 'eginning it has aimed at the e!lanation of living and conscious s&stems as s!ecific
t&!es of retroactive s&stems. This aim could not 'e reached until modelling within a com$
!le retroaction of growth7 evolution7 learning and !ur!oseful action 'ecame !ossi'le.
These develo!ments did occur. 8owever7 the various intelligence models7 !resent in clas$
sical artificial intelligence7 in neo$connectionism and in evolutionar& neurolog& J2urra&
<delmanK are not &et com!letel& integrated. )ollections of interacting and learning cellular
automata had to 'e studied. We !ro!ose the s&stematic stud& of the various models of intel$
ligence7 consciousness7 self$consciousness7 and !ur!oseful action as forms of self$organisa$
tion. Are self$organisation and auto!oiesis J2aturana and VarelaK !recise and fruitful con$
ce!ts? When do retroactive s&stems 'ecome self$organising s&stems within a universe of
s&stems? )an the universe as a whole 'e considered as a self$organising s&stem?
World Views #2
Proosal I7& Comarative stud" of 6rigins&
Cosmogenesis4 8iogenesis4 and Anthroogenesis
@-2A 9ne ma& investigate em!iricall& the origin of our universe7 of life on earth and of the
human s!ecies. 9ne ma& also stud& em!iricall& the evolution of the universe7 life and man$
1ind. These si enormous tas1s 'eing Jver& !rovisionall&K underta1en7 one ma& com!are
the three t&!es of origin and the three t&!es of evolution. >o the& ehi'it strong similarities
or are the&7 to the contrar&7 radicall& different?
Thin1ing ma& 'e !ro'a'ilit&$statistic7 or structural$alge'raic7 or geometrical$to!ological.
What are the !hiloso!hical foundations of !references in favour of one of these three meth$
ods? >oes an o!tion in favour of one of these three methods reflect itself in our views on
the three origins and on the three evolutions7 or is this not the case?
Proosal 7& Toolog" of World %iews
@-#A Ps&chologists such as Harl Gas!ers J!s"cholo#ie der Weltanschauun#enK and (te!hen
Pe!!er7 !hiloso!hers such as Wilhelm >ilthe&7 8ans 3eisegang J$en%formenK7 <tienne
(ouriau J$e l&instauration philosophi'ueK7 and 2artial ?uRroult J$iano(ti'ueK7 ethnolo$
gists such as 2ar& >ouglas and in earlier !eriods )ondillac and +enouvier7 in their classi$
fications of s&stems7 have !ro!osed ordered classifications of world views.
These man& heterogeneous t&!ologies have to 'e com!ared and integrated. 2oreover7
the& can 'e a!!liedS
>emogra!hicists7 ethnologists and sociologists ma& F em!iricall& F discover fragments
of world views in the 'ehaviour of various communities. 2ethodologists and historians of
science ma& F again em!iricall& F discover fragments of world views in the methods as
well as in the results of various sciences at various e!ochs.
The t&!olog& of world views ma& 'e a!!lied to these discoveries in the histor& of sci$
ence and in sociolog&. >oing this7 it will 'e !ossi'le to show that !ractical life7 scientific
research7 and !hiloso!h& often incor!orate similarl& structured world views. The mutual
alienation of these endeavours will 'e overcome in the future.
Proosal 7I& World %iews and %alue $"stems
@-4A Values are e!erienced in ethical7 aesthetic and !olitical action. <thical s&stems7 artist$
ic st&les7 !olitical movements and religious e!eriences !resu!!ose convictions a'out real$
it&7 totalit&7 their roots and their develo!ment. We !ro!ose the com!arative stud& of the on$
tological !resu!!ositions of our diverse value s&stems.
## Aerts et al.
A. )thics and world views.
3oc1e5s ethics 'orrowed models from =ewton5s !h&sics. 3ucretius5 ethics is unthin1$
a'le without >emocritos5 and <!icurus5 atomistic !hiloso!h& of nature. ;rentano and
(cheler !resu!!ose a form of ?estalt !s&cholog&. Hant5s ethics is 'ased on an anal&sis of
human reason7 A!el5s and 8a'ermas5 ethics are 'ased on theories a'out language and com$
munication. We want to !romote the com!arative stud& of the ontological and anthro!olo$
gical !resu!!ositions of our s&stems of ethics. 9ur !ur!ose would 'e to investigate which
forms of ethics find their ade'uate ontolo#ical basis in the information we currentl" pos-
sess about man* societ"* histor" and the universe that surrounds us.
+. The main political pro,ects of this centur" have also been based on world views.
)ommunism and various t&!es of socialism have develo!ed in the !rolongation of a dia$
lectical materialism that cannot 'e se!arated from 8egel. )ontractual li'eralism7 in the
wa1e of mar1et econom&7 !resu!!oses the natural harmon& of the invisi'le hand of the
mar1et. Various nationalisms Jamong them national socialismK are ins!ired '& Jdou'tfulK
'iological theories a'out s!ecies and social >arwinism. Present$da& !olitical ecolog& de$
!ends 'oth on a science Jecolog&K and a world view Jone of the man& eco$so!hiesK. We
!ro!ose the stud& of the most influential !olitical !ro6ects of the 2/th centur& @-5A to eam$
ine their ontological scientific !resu!!ositions with a view to the construction of !olitical
!ro6ects that ta1e the most adeCuate and com!lete scientific information into account.
C. Art* science and philosoph" interact with each other.
>o we see nature as a wor1 of art? >o we see our wor1 of art as models of our realit&?
We need 'oth a s&stematic stud& of the influence eerted '& changes in science and in
world view on changes in art Jand inversel&K and a s&stematic stud& of structural similarit$
ies among the various arts7 sciences and !hiloso!hies Jwithout necessaril& !resu!!osing in$
fluence and interaction.K
$. -ur values are also e.pressed in our reli#ious and ideolo#ical s"stems.
Their ontological and scientific counter!arts also have to 'e studied7 in the same com$
!arative s!irit.
Pre!arations for the four underta1ings we advocate7 alread& eists. 9ur !ur!ose however
is to investigate the glo'al meaning of nature7 life and histor& as it manifests itself in ethic$
al7 !olitical7 artistic and religious as!irations7 and to evaluate these as!irations with refer$
ence to the ontological and scientific adeCuac& of their !resu!!ositions.
Proosal 7II& Puroses and
9xtremalit"-Princiles
@--A >oes !h&sical7 'iological and sociological evolution ehi'it finalities7 or is the a!!ear$
ance of finalit& onl& an etra!olation of local develo!ments? >oes !h&sics use the !rinci!le
of minimal action and econom& !rinci!les of !rofit maimalisation? >o non su!erficial af$
finities eist 'etween 'oth? Are variational e!ressions of !h&sical law onl& com!act wa&s
World Views #4
of writing differential eCuations7 or do the& reveal fundamental insights? )ould one use the
conce!t of finalit& as a lin1 'etween different s&stem levels and as a means to integrate
ver& different t&!es of s&stems?
Proosal 7III& :ature and %alue
As humanit& increases its im!act on its environment7 as it enlarges this environment7 and as
the same humanit& acCuires more and more !ower over itself7 the s!ecies distur's the eCui$
li'ria in which it lives. )ultural and !olitical movements tr& to restore earlier eCuili'ria or
to !romote higher eCuili'ria on a more glo'al scale. Theoretical and a!!lied ecolog&7 in$
cluding human ecolog&7 offer a theoretical framewor1. =ew facts and theories have to 'e
develo!ed Ja theor& a'out the self$regulation of the glo'al 'ios!here or the total !lanet is
neededK. =ew values are discovered Jthe intrinsic worth of non$human s!ecies and of !h&s$
ical landsca!esK. 9ld and new values enter into conflict with each other Jecocentrism versus
anthro!ocentrismK.
The develo!ment of integrated world views Jrelative to science7 !hiloso!h& and valuesK
is needed7 offering a reasoned framewor1 for environmental action and feeling.
Proosal 7I%& 6rder or Chaos.
;eterminism or Indeterminism
@-,A Are the fundamental !h&sical laws deterministic or should the& 'e inter!reted '&
means of stochastic !rocesses? >eterministic and indeterministic inter!retation of Cuantum
mechanics7 of evolution and of histor& confront each other7 e!ressing in fact different
world views.
9ne world view loo1s u!on realit& as 'asicall& chaotic and contingent. The regularities
we o'serve around us are e!lained '& it as the collective result of a multi!licit& of random
events.
The other world view7 to the contrar&7 sees realit& as a strongl& ordered s&stem. Its laws
a!!ear as conditions of the !ossi'ilit& of regularit& as such. +andomness is onl& an illusion.
;etween these etremes7 man& intermediar& world views eist. Again Jas in I and IIK7
the two !olarities intersect* an indeterministic cosmos is as !ossi'le as a deterministic oneL
a deterministic chaos is as conceiva'le as an indeterministic one.
We !ro!ose the s&stematic stud& of this !ro'lem in the different sciences7 in aiolog&
and in ontolog&.
#5 Aerts et al.
Proosal 7%& Consciousness and <rou
as /odels of 'ealit"
@-"A The universe has 'een understood as a mechanism Jmaterialistic mechanismK or as an
organism Jh&loBoism7 vitalismK. Wh& not use acts of consciousness and grou!s as models
of the whole? It is not necessar& to reduce more com!le s&stems to less com!le ones7
even though the Dinverse reductionE of the sim!le to the com!le suffers from our lac1 of
1nowledge a'out collectivities and !ersons. (till7 ?.W... 3ei'niB loo1ed u!on the whole of
realit& as a set of Dmonads7E more or less clearl& conscious individual entities. A.=. White$
head sees the universe as constituted '& a set of occurrences7 all having !h&sical and mental
features.
2odels of consciousness and self consciousness7 develo!ed in c&'ernetics and the com$
!uter sciences7 have to 'e com!ared to models of the same7 originating in !s&cholog& sui
#eneris. Theories loo1ing u!on the !erson as a 1not in the lattice of structures J3evi$
(trauss7 ;ourdieuK7 or as a collectivit& of relativel& autonomous modules J2arvin 2ins1&7
?err& .odorK7 have to 'e com!ared with sociologies that !resent grou!s as re!resentations
of individual !ersons J2a We'er7 Anthon& ?iddens7 Gohn <lsterK. These models7 ins!ired
'& the new !s&cholog& and sociolog&7 ma& give more concrete content to the 3ei'niB$
Whitehead tradition.
Proosal 7%I& World %iews and
the 5istor" of $cience
@-%A The wor1'ench of theor& and 1nowledge is the histor& of science. In the histor& of sci$
ence7 the world views of the investigators determine to a great etent the Cuestions the&
as17 the h&!otheses the& ta1e into account7 the e!eriments the& carr& out and the weight
the& attri'ute to the verification or falsification of these h&!otheses. A historical stud& of
the interrelations 'etween world views and the different features of inCuir&7 throws light on
the !resent$da& situation. 8istorical research will show what t&!es of world views act as
encouraging or restraining factors in !ro'lem situations of a given 1ind. ;& analog&7 we
ma& discover7 confronted '& our !resent$da& scientific and social !ro'lem situation7 the
world views that have more !otential than others for hel!ing our !resent endeavours.
The different em!irical disci!lines that ta1e the acclamation of 1nowledge as their o'6ect
of stud& use world views as e!lanator& factors. The DstrongE h&!othesis in sociolog& of
science Jsee (te!hen Woolgar and ;ernard ;loorK7 ma1es science strongl& de!endant on
social and cultural factors Jamong which world views are !rominentK. An evolutionar&
J)am!'ell7 Po!!erK or genetic J;aldwin7 PiagetK e!istemolog& a!!roaches 1nowledge ac$
Cuisition as a search towards !ro'lem solving7 analogous to the 'iological evolution of s!e$
cies. Again7 a s!ecific world view Jgeneralised evolutionismK is the determining factor.
<conom& and sociolog& of 1nowledge F using either a conflict or a harmon& model of
social interaction F see the 1nowing su'6ects as !ur!oseful actors7 tr&ing to maimilise au$
thorit&7 !ower or control over !roduction factors.
World Views #-
3arge ga!s eist 'etween the em!irical disci!lines of science J6ust mentionedK7 and the
normative ones Jdeductive and inductive7 formal and informal logic and methodolog& of
sciencesK. The decision to let these ga!s eist7 to dee!en them7 to the contrar&7 to overcome
them de!ends on the relation 'etween fact and norm7 'etween 'eing and value7 'etween the
1nowing su'6ect and actor7 and the whole of realit&. This means that it de!ends on one5s
world view.
Proosal 7%II& Praxiolog"& Theor" and Action
@,/A We have !re$refleive intuitions a'out 'eing and 'ecoming7 that we tr& to ma1e !re$
cise in our sciences Jsee !ro!osal I and IIK. (imilarl&7 we have !re$refleive intuitions a'out
action. <ver& action is directed towards !ur!oses7 uses instruments and other means7 trans$
forms materials7 de!arts from an initial state and runs through a series of intermediar&
stages Jusing information and energ&K finall& reaching results Jthat in success realise the
!ur!osesL that in failure do not realise themK. <ver& action also !roduces non$intended and
sometimes even counter!roductive effects. A disci!line7 called D!raiolog&E '& its initiat$
ors7 tries to find the most general laws valid for all action. Value criteria for all action are
rationalit& and efficienc&. Praiolog& intends to ma1e a com!arative stud& of rationalit&
and efficienc& research on the environment7 on !lants and animals7 on human 'eings and on
societies.
Instead of the 6ust mentioned deductive Da!!roach7E one might also tr& a more inductive
one. 8ow do the !ractioners of the different action sciences see themselves and their ac$
tion? 8ow do !h&sicians thin1 a'out the medical act7 their own !lace Jintellectual and so$
cialK7 and a'out their !atients? 8ow do their world views influence their medical
'ehaviour? The same Cuestions need to 'e as1ed a'out law&ers and magistrates7 a'out
!oliticians and administrators7 a'out engineers and technicians. 8ow do the !ractioners of
the various action sciences Jengineering7 medicine7 law7 a!!lied economics7 !oliticsK o!tim$
all& interact7 either in fact or ideall&? 8ow do the& contri'ute s!ecific information to our
general world view?
In !ractice7 one is continuall& o'liged to act on the 'asis of incom!lete7 uncertain and
even contradictor& information. 9ur construction of world views finds itself in an analog$
ous situation. We continuall& confront the un1nown7 the uncertain7 and the im!ossi'ilit& of
mastering the enormous Cuantities of information.
)an general decision theor& hel! us in this field to delineate rational decision methods
for solving ill$!osed !ro'lems in semi$un1nown environments?
@,1A Whoever loo1s at the action sciences7 o'serves that the need for integration is ver&
great7 and the o'stacles against it ver& !owerful.
In medicine7 large distances se!arate general !ractitioners from s!ecialists7 as well as the
different s!ecialisations of !h&siological7 !s&chological and social medicine. (till7 onl& an
Dintegrated medicineE can cure the glo'al !erson.
In engineering7 'etween mechanical and electrical engineering7 'etween nuclear and
classical engineering7 'etween chemical and !h&sical engineering7 'etween !roduction con$
trol7 finance and !romotion7 the same ga!s can 'e ascertained. (till7 onl& an Dintegrated en$
gineeringE can !resent an integrated !roduct to a glo'al environment and communit&.
In law7 national and international7 various courts and related functions J6udges7 law&ers7
!rison administrators and !oliceK remain to a large etent strangers.
#, Aerts et al.
World$view construction is not onl&7 nor even mainl&7 the tas1 of theoreticians. ;ut we
are ver& far from the integrated science of action we !ro!ose to encourage.
Proosal 7%III& The Control of Comlexit"
@,2A Present$da& technical and scientific thought faces as one of its main challenges the
control of the com!leit& of large$scale7 man&$!art7 heterogeneous s&stems. In the con$
struction of world views one finds oneself confronted '& similar difficulties. 8ow can we
ho!e to descri'e the ver& intricate7 strongl& connected real world in a sufficientl& econom$
ical and !ers!icuous fashion? >o s&stems research and a hierarchical structural a!!roach
counter'alance sufficientl& the reductionistic$anal&tic methods Jthat continue to 'e neededK.
Are ver& general methods 'orrowed from energetics also a!!lica'le outside of !h&sics and
technolog& ?
Proosal 7I7& The ;ialogue of
0anguage <ames
(ince Wittgenstein7 Austin and (earle7 we 1now that our language allows us to !la& man&
different language games7 each having its own criteria of meaningfulness and validit&. >e$
scri'ing7 telling stories7 deli'erating7 evo1ing legends and m&ths7 writing !oems are all
activities that com'ine in different wa&s the denotative7 !erformative7 e!ressive7 o!tative
and im!erative functions of language. Is it !ossi'le to tal1 a'out a m&th7 an art or a religion
to a !u'lic that has no intimate connection with them7 without distortion? The sciences of
literature7 theolog& and of m&sticism can onl& develo! to the etent that diversit& in truth
claims and truth conditions is realised. (till7 it remains necessar& to tal1 in a wa& that tran$
scends the frontiers 'etween the language games if one wants to avoid a schiBoid disinteg$
ration of !ersonalit& and culture. ;ut how? 8ow can one7 using one language game7 tal1 to
a !erson using another one? 8ow can one s!ea1 a'out the language game one is currentl&
using Jtr&ing to develo! in itself7 its own meta$language gameK?
These !ro'lems are encountered in the interaction 'etween arts and st&les7 in the interac$
tion among religions Jand in the interaction 'etween religions and non$religionsK.
World Views #"
Proosal 77
/odels of the +uture
@,#A (ince the !u'lication in 1%,1 of Ga& .orester5s World $"namics and in 1%,2 of 2ead$
ows5 Ja.o.K The /imits to 0rowth and 3eontiefs The 1uture of the World )conom" J9ford
1%,,K7 attention remains focused on Cuantitative methods in the forecasting of the future of
humanit&. .uturolog& is searching for a firm foundation. The models develo!ed do not
stress cultural and !olitical varia'les. 2oreover7 the& are not used to com!are on their mer$
its the various social7 economical and !olitical scenarios of the future. We !ro!ose an en$
richment of these models in the general framewor1 of views on world and man1ind.
Proosal 77I
<eneral Anthroolog"
In the human sciences7 !s&cholog& and sociolog& vie with each other for su!remac&.
Against these hostile 'rothers J'asing their e!lanations on conscious or O and unconscious
motives7 or on inter!ersonal relations7 the 'iolog& of social relationsK socio'iolog& and the
neurolog& of !s&chic 'ehaviour Jneurosociolog&K !roclaim their own su!remac&. The tradi$
tional DhumanitiesE Jlinguistics7 hermeneutical sciences7 histor& and lawK investigate man
as a DsignifierE7 'earer of and !roducer of meaning. We !ro!ose the search for the unit& of
man Jin his 'iological7 historical7 social and !s&chical natureK.
Proosal 77II& In $earch of an
Integrated /edicine
@,4A The medical sciences 'elong to !raiolog&. )ontem!orar& Western medicine has se$
lected as its Cuasi eclusive as!ect the human 'od&7 and has a!!lied the anal&tic scal!el of
the anatomist to each as!ect of the 'od& fragmenting it into numerous !arts. 2arginal
activities7 li1e !reventive medicine7 'ehavioural medicine7 and e!idemiolog& do not 'elong
com!letel& to these trends. The fundamental sciences on which medicine is 'ased7 !oint to$
wards fragmentation. The anatomist anal&ses the dead 'od& and the 'iochemist eliminates
the structure and investigates the chemical reactivit& of its com!onents. As a result of all
these divisions7 a multitude of dualisms a!!ear* mind$'od&7 individual$grou!7 organ$organ$
ism. The acting !h&sician7 to the contrar&7 is confronted '& a living total human 'eing7 as
much '& a networ1 of serial relations and '& a field of !h&sical states as '& a !h&sical
'od&. The fragmented sciences offer him onl& a !artialised image of man and his world7
#% Aerts et al.
!reventing him from acce!ting the !atient as a suffering totalit&. =o o'vious solutions eist
for this !redicament.
Ideas have 'een !ro!osed '& theoreticians in the fundamental sciences J2aturana and
Varela for instanceK and '& !raiologists J3e(han and his The 2echanic and the 0arden-
erK. These attem!ts have remained isolated and marginal. An inventarisation of the eisting
attem!ts and a further ela'oration of them is needed in colla'oration with all actors in$
volved in health care. Action sciences change more slowl& than theoretical disci!lines. An
adeCuate model for integration should meet the needs of !h&sicians7 !atients7 and socio$
!olitical activists. It will reCuire generations to develo!.
Proosal 77III& Ps"chiatr" and
6ur Image of /an
@,5A Ps&chiatr& shows a facet of our 'eing that usuall& remains hidden. 2an& so$called
evident truths are revealed as errors. The clinical dialogue shows that man& !arents do not
love their children 'ut terroriBe them7 that se is not alwa&s a source of 6o& 'ut of aniet&
and humiliation7 and that sociall& successful !eo!le are not ha!!& 'ut often live in dee!est
de!ression. =ot onl& the unsual stereot&!es7 'ut also man& ethical and !hiloso!hical !ic$
tures of man a!!ear as idealisations7 'ehind which !ainful realities often remain undis$
solved. 8ow should this dar1 side of man 'e understood?
An eas& solution would 'e to consider the ha!!& active individual as a norm and the
neurotic as a deviant. ;ut the !s&chic norm Jin o!!osition to the !h&siological oneK has no
clear definition. Another eas& solution J!ro!osed '& anti!s&chiatr&K is to consider so$called
DneuroticE 'ehaviour not as a deviant7 'ut as a variant.
(o$called DusualE and so called DneuroticE 'ehaviour7 would 'e considered as of eCual
value. Is7 however7 !s&chosis or seual crime nothing else than an alternative eCuivalent of
usual 'ehaviour?
The most des!erate view would 'e to consider man as essentiall& violent and !erverse
with ethical rules functioning as instruments to regulate and modulate this innate violence.
9nl& the !s&chiatrist would 'e aware of the hideous truth.
=o single solution among these three is reall& satisfactor&. We need to develo! a
conce!t of man that does not onl& ta1e into account the !olished eterior 'ut that also e$
!lains Jwithout ma1ing them o'soleteK the hidden suffering and violence.
World Views 4/
Conclusion
The ,nit" behind the %arious Proosals
@,-A The !ro!osals intentionall& !oint in man& different directions. The& show that the
stud& of the whole can 'e encouraged7 even '& investigations that are not immediatel& dir$
ected towards the universe as such.
(ome !ro!osals are the generalisations of !ro6ects that are alread& under stud& in the
various su'disci!lines7 'ut !oint towards a more encom!assing world view. This is the case
for the !ro6ects connected with invariants and s&mmetries7 with the arrow of time7 with
unitarian theories in !h&sics7 with holisms7 with order and chaos7 with general anthro!o$
log&. 9ther !ro!osals e!ress attem!ts towards integration that derive from more formal
sciences Jthe !ro6ects connected with s&stem theor&7 c&'ernetics and the theor& of self$or$
ganisation 'elonging to this classK. A third t&!e of !ro!osal originates in logic and method$
olog&7 loo1ing for conce!ts that are used in man& different disci!lines and having a unif&$
ing momentum. The !ro!osals connected with fundamental categories are of this st&le.
The former !ro!osals remain on a theoretical level. 8owever7 we loo1 for the unit& of
the universe in order to discover the meaning of life. Value !ro'lems7 the relation of ethics7
!olitics7 action and realit& cannot 'e avoided. The !ro!osals connected with !raiolog&7
!s&chiatr&7 the interaction of language games7 the ontolog& of the various ethical7 !olitical
and religious s&stems incor!orate this need.
To 'e sure7 the !ro!osals listed should 'e differentiated and augmented. The& do not
cover the whole field of investigations that carr& unif&ing !romises. =one of the !ro!osals
is sufficientl& concrete to ins!ire !ractical wor1. All of them should 'e su'divided care$
full&7 without losing however their underl&ing !ur!ose Jthe develo!ment of views F !lural
F of totalit&7 and of their interrelations among the different fields of enCuir&K.
9ne should never forget7 while engaging in one of the man& su'$tas1s7 how the whole is
related to the seven features !resent in all world views that we have tried to e!lain in this
monogra!h.
41 Aerts et al.
6n the authors
;iederi. Aerts =1%5#K is theoretical !h&sicist and (enior +esearch Associate of the ;el$
gian =ational .und. 8e wor1ed in the grou! on .oundations of Ph&sics at the 0niversi$
t& of ?eneva7 and leads now a research grou! in Cuantum mechanics and Cuantum
structures at the .ree 0niversit& of ;russels. 8e is mem'er of the )ouncil of the Inter$
national Iuantum (tructures Association7 and mem'er of the )ouncil of the v.B.w.
Worldviews.
0eo Aostel J1%25F1%%5K studied at the 40niversitR 3i're de ;ruelles5 with )haim Perel$
man and was !rofessor in <!istemolog& and 3ogic at the .ree 0niversit& of ;russels
and the 0niversit& of ?hent. 8e was a mem'er of the 4)entre International d5<!istR$
mologie ?RnRtiCue5 founded '& Gean Piaget. 8e is the founder of the v.B.w. World$
views.
8art ;e /oor J1%-/K is !rofessor in A!!lied (ciences at the 0niversit& of 3euven. 8e
wor1s at <(AT J<lectronics7 (&stems7 Automation7 Technolog&K at the universit& of
3euven and was from 1%"" to 1%"% research associate at (tanford 0niversit&. 8e is a
mem'er of the research grou! 4(&stem theor&5 of ;I+A.
$taf 5ellemans J1%5#K studied sociolog& at the 0niversit& of 3euven7 ;ielefeld and 3ou$
vain$la$=euve. 8e teaches now com!arative !olitical sciences at the 8um'oldt 0niver$
sit& in ;erlin. 8e is a mem'er of the )ouncil of the v.B.w. Worldviews.
9del /aex J1%5-K studied 2edicine and Ps&cholog& at the 0niversit& of 3euven and s!e$
cialiBed in Ps&chiatr&. 8e now wor1s in !s&chiatr& and !s&cholog& at +IA?? in ;reda7
the =etherlands. 8e is a founding mem'er of the (chool of )om!arative Philoso!h&
and a mem'er of the )ouncil of the v.B.w. Worldviews.
5ubert %an 8elle J1%4#K is doctor in A!!lied (ciences and wor1s at ;om'ardier <urorail
division ;= at ;rugge. There he is the head of the de!artment of Informatics. 8e is also
a mem'er of the )ouncil of the v.B.w. Worldviews and a mem'er of the research grou!
4(&stem theor&5 of ;I+A.
>an %an der %e.en J1%#2K is !rofessor in .undamental Philoso!h&7 <!istemolog& and
Theolog& at the 0niversit& of 3euven. 8e contri'uted es!eciall& to the !rocess !hiloso$
!h& of A.=. Whitehead and ). 8artshorne and is chairman of the <uro!ean (ociet& for
Process Thought. In 3euven he leads the )entre for 2eta!h&sics and Theolog&7 and is a
mem'er of the )ouncil of the v.B.w. Worldviews.