(for John Lodewijks) My last post ( https://harvardsquareedition.com/pipedream-2/ ) shared a pipedream. It was little more than a thought experiment. Why not? Even Einstein hinted that reality may be an illusion (anticipated by the Vedic notion of Maya). In fact, a Nobel was awarded in Physics demonstrating that the local world is illusory. If so, why not, in all self-awareness, dream within a dream? * Leaving that conundrum aside, what is the real, anyway? A working definition: anything that has space-time co-ordinates, and/or exercises a determinate effect upon its environs (not perfect, but it will do)? That would cover Gravity and Buddhism. * I have argued that EM (European Modernism) is the (Eurocentric) ethos within which we all (barring a few native peoples) co-exist, all but unconsciously. It is the (problem) child of the European Enlightenment. I have also suggested that it is demonstrably false in its assumptions, as to who we are as an anthropic species. Just as you need an accurate physics to unIt isderstand chemistry and biology, you need a realist anthropology to understand our economic, societal, and political relations. EM got the latter wrong, categorically. Whence, ALL of its social theory is concocted, otiose, and far worse, misleading. Left, Right, and Centre, of the EM spectrum, we have all been living under systemic delusion(s) in the E-Modernist world. We breathe the same, unhealthy, ether. It is the social ontology we exist in, and its dominant epistemes have captured not merely our modes of thinking, but also our very imaginations. Sadly. * The greatest sin of EM lies in its original, baseline, alienation. We have been alienated from our own, innate, species-being. How?. Most mainstream EM thought, specially in its ‘economics’ avatar, has presumed us to be characterised by one or other of these attributes: rationalist (not to be confused with being reasonable) , competitive, calculating, adversarial, covetous, acquisitive, etc. In other words, EM (mis)took its own E-Modernist prescriptive credo of codes of conduct to be universal (rather than being imposed, and required, by its own agenda). Au contraire, stated simply, we humans are emotive, cooperative, mutualist, convivial, and familial. That, incontestably, is our ‘human nature’(oxymoron notwithstanding). We are moral entities first, and materialist beings afterward. And that moral sensibility is derived from natural reciprocities that arise within family and kinship bonds. Mother and child, for example, is the first moral relationship, stemming wholly from natural instincts. So the denial of our organic, instinctual, natures is axiomatic with EM discourse: only then it could ‘mold’ us willy nilly into whatever policy needs might require. Whence needs disappear, from its lexicon, to be replaced by manipulable wants. Similarly, it sees society(like Dame Thatcher) as a mechanical entity, merely the stage upon which ‘free’ individuals conduct their life-or-death struggles. The principle of ‘substitution’ dear to it says it all: Solow is attributed to holding that ‘we can do without nature’. I need hardly say more (nor would I, I dare say, want