People like to talk about some New World Order, as if we know what that means. It means we're invited to take a Rorschach Test and to project an imaginary dystopian or relatively utopian future for ourselves.
There's some disagreement on whether we're already in the NWO or if it's still on ahead.
Assuming it's still on ahead, that would mean we're in the OWO (Old World Order) right now.
How shall we characterize such a thing. Is it "rules based" in some way?
Before giving vent to your inner cynic, lets be clear: rules exist. Some people like to write about "laws" as in "natural laws" but I'm more into "rules" myself, as a matter of taste.
Some rules we follow come from an exceptionless side of things we don't have much control over. We haven't the luxury of not obeying eternal principles, whatever those may be. We sense their applicability, whether or not we know how to codify them into words.
Sometimes we might acknowledge "miracles" wherein events seem to go against what we considered possible. The reason we consider them "exceptional" in nature is that they're "the exceptions that prove the rule" (an idiom worthy of focus, if you get the time). By updating our sense of the rules, we may need less room for these "impossibilities".
Last night, Everything Everywhere All at Once won a bunch of Oscars. I was too busy studying the Blood Simple special features to feel like breaking off, knowing I could get it in the dailies the next day (or later -- I mean in the reviews, say on YouTube).
This movie (EEAAO, winning sevens statues), not unlike The Dawn of Everything, reminds us to stay away from false dichotomies, such as Manichean polarities, or such as "democratic" versus "authoritarian" or "globalist" versus "nationalist". Why fall for an either/or mindset? Remember neither. Remember both.
My idea of a NWO is somewhat typified by EPCOT (all caps version), wherein a global Refugee Services keeps rescuing people from dead end circumstances. We have two sides of the same coin (symbolized by the lake) with Tomorrow Land on one side, and Remember Land on the other.
Then there's Fantasy Land, somewhat independent of any specific past-to-future axis (= scenario = narrative). Tomorrow Land needs to be actively dreamed up, not treated like a place we stumble into.
So is all that Remember-Imagine-Tomorrow stuff the NWO or the OWO?
Haven't we been dreaming ourselves into the future for some time now? Of course we have.
But in some complexes, or mindsets, the old seems at war with the new. These "two sides of the same coin" fight one another. People get locked into those mindsets pretty squarely sometimes, and even lose the key.
Sometimes the best strategy is to show them the fire escape.
I'm indulgent of the nation-states model, and encourage more virtual versions of same, offering dual and triple citizenship or more, and having few restrictions on where you actually live.
I could be a citizen of a virtual nation (VN) even if I live in Peru per this order. Lasting VNs would actually take more work to create and maintain than blowing bubbles in the quantum foam. I'm just sketching on the back of a napkin here at this moment.
Although it might sound like I'm talking to myself in a vacuum, regarding ideas that will never see the light of day, from my angle I see myself more as descriptive, keeping pace, updating my language to keep it synchronized with real world developments.
Whether that makes me an advocate for the old or the new, in terms of what world order I favor, I'd say that's indeterminate. I am always between what has been (the old) and what is to be (the new).
That's what we mean by "living emergently" am I right? And it's not just me who is doing it.
