The Third Cradle
Decolonizing AI and Rehumanizing Black Thought
Context
This paper is intended as a form of Metamodern Archaeological Therapy or MA’aT. MA’aT is a fusing the words of contemporary collaborators Jason Storm and Moyo Okediji, and reminder of how we can embody and engender a re-wilded return to the seven principles of the ancient Egyptian (or kemetic) archetype of Ma’at. Metamodernism is a means to a multiple perspective ends. In this paper, we will be discussing the concept of worldviews and how they shape and are shaped by our understanding of the world and our place within it.
To help us in our journey we will engage with the work of some notable academics. Firstly Doctor, Professor Ecomomist Vernon J. Dixon, alongside Clinical and Industrial Psychologist Dr. Edwin J Nichols, who were in academic correspondence in the 70’s. Secondly, and also pivotal to this paper is Sengalese Historian, Anthropologist, Physicist and Politician Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop, who has a university named after him in Dakar, (formerly known as the University of Dakar). Finally we have Doctor and Professor Wade Nobles, who founded the American Association of Black Psychologists in 1968, shortly after Dr. Martin Luther Kings assassination.
We will engage in MA’aT in this paper primarily through the work of ‘A Genealogical Review of the Worldview Framework in African-Centered Psychology’ by Dr. Karanja Keita Carroll. We will be exploring the Two Cradle Theory, proposed by Cheikh Anta Diop, which suggests that there are two distinct geographical regions, or cradles, that have contributed to the development of different worldviews. These worldviews have had a significant impact on the course of world history.
But what is a worldview? Simply put, it is a set of beliefs and values that shape our understanding of reality. It includes our understanding of the universe, being, values, reasoning, and knowledge — all of which contribute to how we make sense of our lived experiences. Worldview is important in understanding the values, beliefs, knowledge, experiences, and scholarship of a group because it reflects the fundamental assumptions that a group holds about the nature of reality and how they should live in the world. Worldview influences the way a group interprets and understands events and experiences, and it shapes their actions and behaviors. It also serves as a framework for organizing and making sense of new information and experiences. Understanding a group’s worldview can provide insight into their cultural practices, values, and decision-making processes.
According to the Two Cradle Theory, there are two distinct cradles of civilization, which have shaped the worldviews of different groups of people to different degrees. One cradle, the Northern Cradle, was favorable to the development of patriarchy, while the other, the Southern Cradle, was favorable to the development of matriarchy. These two systems have encountered and even disputed with one another in “zones of confluence” as different human societies have interacted and influenced each other.
In this paper, we will be exploring how the Two Cradle Theory, when seen through a metamodern lens, can be used to understand the differences between African and European worldviews, and how these differences can inform metamodern solutions to the problems of hypermodernity. In the course of our investigation, we will expose the dynamics that led to the dehumanization of black thought and the continued threat of this in the realm of artificial intelligence. After all, binary code was inspired by African divination systems, similar to the I-Ching.
We will begin by looking at the concept of worldviews and the Two Cradle Theory in more detail. Our goal is to provide readers with a deeper understanding of their own worldviews in order to better understand the world views of others
The Two Cradle Theory: A tale of two civilisations
The Two Cradle Theory is a concept developed by Cheikh Anta Diop, to ”begin to clarify one of the obscure points in the history of antiquity”. Diop suggests the world’s societies can be divided into two distinct cradles based on their environments and the corresponding cultural values and behaviors that emerge from those cradles. He states that since the birth of humanity “before the successive contacts of people and of nations, before the age of reciprocal influences” that there was a “certain non-essential relative differences among peoples. These differences had to do with the climate and the specific living conditions of life . The peoples who lived for a lengthy period of time in their place of origin were molded by their surroundings in a durable fashion.”
Diop goes so far as to say “Humanity has from the beginning been divided into two geographically distinct ‘cradles’ one of which was favorable to the flourishing of matriarchy and the other to that of patriarchy, and that these two systems encountered one another and even disputed with each other as different human societies, that in certain places they were superimposed on each other or even existed side by side.”
In short The Two Cradle Theory suggests that environmental factors, along with the mode of sustenance and lines of descent, were shaped by the two conditions in the two cradles.
Caroll notes that “Diop’ s environmentally based reading of each cradle distinguishes between both based upon natural resources, proximity to bodies of water, duration of sunlight, soil conditions, glaciations, precipitation, etc.” In order words a comprehensive study of the “varied environmental conditions between the Northern and Southern Cradle”
The theory goes that the environment impacted the methods of survival, and also impacted family structures. The reasoning given is that variations in turn “determine the modes of sustenance within each cradle, with the Southern Cradle being primarily agricultural and the Northern Cradle primarily nomadic. Familial lines of descent were also contingent upon environmental conditions, with the Southern Cradle being matrilineal and the Northern Cradle practicing patrilineal descent.”
The Two Cradles: Abundance and Scarcity
In the Two Cradle Theory, the Southern Cradle, also known as the Optimal Cradle, refers to the geographical areas of Africa south of the Sahara desert, and includes the Americas, and the Caribbean. These regions are home to a wide range of diverse ecosystems, including rainforests, savannas, and grasslands, each supporting a wide variety of plant and animal life. As such optimal cradle environment is characterized by, and named for a number of factors, including a relatively stable and predictable climate, rich and fertile soil, and an abundance of natural resources.
The Northern/Suboptimal Cradle is marked by a relative scarcity of resources, particularly in comparison to the Southern/Optimal Cradle, and includes Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. For Diop, this can be exemplified by the Eurasian Steppes. The environment of the Northern cradle is characterized by harsh, unstable and unpredictable conditions, including colder climates, and difficult terrain. This relative scarcity of resources leads to frequently move in search of resources. As a sedentary life wasn’t possible a more nomadic lifestyle became dominant.
These environmental factors in the southern, more optimal, cradle of abundance allowed for the development of agriculture as a primary means of sustenance and economic activity, leading to the emergence of sedentary societies. Overall, the abundance provided a range of opportunities and challenges for the societies that developed within it, including the potential for both prosperity and resource depletion. This cradle is characterized by a number of factors, including matrilineal descent, agriculture, and a focus on communalism and harmony with nature.
Thes environmental factors in the northern, more suboptimal, cradle of scarcity made agriculture far more difficult, and animal husbandry became the means for providing sustainably for groups and growing societies. This scarcity is characterized by a number of factors, including patrilineal descent, animal husbandry, and a focus on individualism and a mastery of nature. Each person had to be self-sufficient in order to survive. The northern cradle environment also presented threats, such as the risk of attacks from other groups competing for resources. However, it also presented opportunities, such as the pressure to adapt and innovate in order to survive in a challenging environment.
Family Ties
Matrilineal descent is a system in which ancestry and inheritance are traced through the mother’s side of the family. In matrilineal societies, women often have a high status and play a significant role in decision-making. Caroll relates that “As Ife Amadiume (1987, 1997) has shown, the Southern Cradle correctly reflects a “matrifocal” social system. Based upon Diop’s (1989) own conclusions, “matriarchy is not an absolute and cynical triumph of woman over man; it is a harmonious dualism, an association accepted by both sexes, the better to build a sedentary society”
Property and other resources may also be passed down through the female line as much as the males. In contrast, patrilineal descent is a system in which ancestry and inheritance are traced through the father’s side of the family. In patrilineal societies, men often hold a higher status, and have more power in decision-making, and property and resources are typically passed down through the male line. In patrilineal societies are seen as property. In matrilineal society men are seen as sons.
The Abundant Southern Cradle, with its many resources and a more temperate predictable climate, led to a matrilineal family structure in which the mother’s side of the family played a central role in social and economic organization. This was due in part to the importance of agriculture, which required a significant investment of labor and resources, and was passed down through the female line as often as the male. The matrilineal structure also reflected a societal emphasis on communalism and harmony with nature, as well as a recognition of the central role that women played in both reproduction and the maintenance of social and economic systems.
On the other hand, the Scarcer Northern Cradle, with its lesser resources and more volatile climate, led to a patrilineal family structure in which the father’s side of the family played a central role. This was due in part to the importance of nomadism, and animal husbandry and the need for mobility in order to access resources. This lead to labour and resources (often cattle) being passed down through the male line. The patrilineal structure also reflected a societal emphasis on a type of atomisation and the belief in the inherent superiority of men, as well as a focus on mastery over nature.
As we have discovered, the two cradle theory suggests the environmental factors of each cradle have had a significant influence on the development of sustentance within these regions, with different familial and social structures as a result. These differences in environment have had a lasting impact on the values and behaviors of the societies that developed in each cradle, and this in turn impacts the world view of both especially on their worldviews.
Notes and Observtions
It must be noted that Diop’s Two Cradle Theory could be read as a response to theories that questioned an out-of-Africa story for a united humanity. Despite this, and what could be seen as a reactionary move Diop based his theory of the two cradles on an analysis of environmental conditions, familial systems, social customs, and social values, as well as using historical, archaeological and anthropological evidence. It is also important to note that the Two Cradle Theory must not be regarded as a deterministic model, but rather a way to understand the broad cultural differences that have emerged between these two regions and the environmental factors that may have contributing to those differences.
These characteristics are not fixed or predetermined by geography, but rather are shaped by the social and cultural responses to the particular environmental conditions of each region. It is important to avoid generalisations going forward. As we will soon see the situation under hypermodernisation is much more complex. In the next section, we will explore how these environmental differences have shaped the worldviews of the cultures within each cradle.
There we will find how “the ferocity of nature in the Eurasian steppes, the barrenness of those regions” and ”the overall circumstances of material conditions” all “were to create instincts necessary for survival in such an environment” and therefore led to a difference in worldview. One that would accommodate conditions where the archetypal mother, mother nature “left no illusion of kindliness: it was implacable and permitted no negligence; man must obtain his bread by his brow. Above all, in the course of a long, painful existence, he must learn to rely on himself alone, on his own possibilities’’
Worldviews as lens - Perspective as Ends
Caroll observes that by way of Diop’s Two Cradle Theory “one can understand this divergence in the contents of human consciousness which apparently should be one, uniform. It has already been seen that, in passing from South to North, geography, climate and the conditions of existence effectively reversed the moral values, which become opposed to each other like the two poles” where “every defect here is a virtue there.” In order to see what is meant we will now explore the lens of worldview.
Worldview is a way of interpreting and making sense of the world around us. Worldview refers to a group’s understanding of the universe, being, values, reasoning, and knowledge. It’s the fundamental cognitive, affective, and evaluative assumptions that a person holds about the nature of things and themselves. “Together, a cultural group’s understanding of the universe (cosmology), being (ontology), values (axiology), reasoning (logic) and knowledge (epistemology), all contribute to the ways in which a people make sense of their lived reality, i.e. their worldview.”
Caroll observes ”In Dixon’s 1976 publication, he argued that “…there are certain philosophical characteristics in any given world view which determine the choice of assumptions in particular, and research methodology in general. Research methodology has world view specificity, which results from differences in axiology, epistemology, and logic. If the model is valid, then it will be possible to set forth different approaches to research, each consistent with its respective world view”
In differentiating a perspective from a worldview I find it helpful use the words and analogies of ‘ends’ and ‘lens’ respectively. The term ‘Ends’ comes from African British Vernacular English, and has become part of British Slang. The term traditionally means (my/your/our-)neighbourhood or territory. In this respect Ends is the temporal and spatial point from which an individual and a community forms their perspective.
The lens in this case is exists between ends and the greater environment. Whatever our perception of an event we have the lens of worldview, much like Zizek’s Ideology, between it and our conscious observation of it in the first instance. As we then process our observations of our environment through our lenses from ends, that is through our worldview from our perspectives, we use our particular lenses to do so. It is important then that we examine our lens and the lenses of those around us. The idea of lenses also metaphorically suggests they are at least interchangeable. It must be noted that the lens of no lens is still a lens.
To continue the worldview as lens metaphor the material of the lens is made up from a person’s cosmology, ontology, axiology, logic, and epistemology as suggested by Nichols and Dixon. These elements all contribute to how a group, and its individuals, interpret and respond to their lived experience. As such Worldview refers to the way a group of people understand and make sense of the universe and their place in it as well as each other.
Cosmology refers to a group’s understanding of the structure and origins of the universe. Ontology refers to a group’s understanding of the nature of being or existence, as well as their beginnings. Axiology refers to a group’s values and beliefs about what is valued and not valued, and eventually the nature of good and bad, right and wrong. Logic refers to the way a group and processes information. Epistemology refers to a group’s beliefs about what can be known and how knowledge is acquired.
Two Cradles — Two Worldviews
Scholars such as Vernon J. Dixon and Edwin J. Nichols have suggest that there are significant differences between these two worldviews of the two cradles. In fact “Almost all discussions of worldview that can be found within African-centered psychology related theory and research stem from the work of Vernon J. Dixon and Edwin J. Nichols”.
Furthermore “While Dixon produced a number of publications that dealt with worldview, the majority of references to the work of Edwin J. Nichols reference a November 1976 presentation for the World Psychiatric Association and Association of Psychiatrists in Nigeria”1. Nigeria being the birthplace of the Godfather of Metamodernism: Moyo Okediji. It would seem that Dixon and Nichols, at least, were in academic communication as “in a prefatory note of Dixon’s “World Views and Research Methodology,” he states, “I am deeply indebted to Edwin J. Nicholas [Nichols]. The ideas presented here result from an initial sharing of our intellectual formulations.””
The cradles of scarcity and abundance led to scarcity and abundance mindsets. This is paramount to bear in mind as we discuss the respective archetypal Euro-American and African Worldviews. However, first a note on nomenclature from Caroll:
“While there may be some distinctions between each set of terms used, the substantive differences between each center on particular schools of thought rather than truly substantive distinctions. It should be clear that in most cases the African worldview is complimentary to what others may refer to as the Afrocentric/African-centered/Africentric/optimal worldview and the European worldview is complimentary to what others may refer to as the Eurocentric/European-centered/Euro-American/suboptimal worldview.”
Here we will begin to use scarce to replace suboptimal and abundant to replace optimal. This is done in the hope the connection between evironmental ends and lens, in that scarce environmental (perceptions) lead to scarcity mindsets and worldviews.
Empty Perceptual Space Trance
When it comes to the major difference between the scare and abundant lens. Again Carolls notes:
“It is the existence of empty perceptual space within the Euro-American epistemology, which distinguishes it from an African epistemology. Dixon summarizes the epistemological assumption of the Euro-American worldview by stating, “I step back from phenomena, I reflect; I measure; I think; I know; and therefore I am and I feel.”27 While an African epistemological assumption, states, “I feel phenomena; therefore I think; I know.” The centrality of empty perceptual space is found within the Euro-American assumption which “steps back” while the African does not, thus negating the existence of any empty perceptual space.”
This stepping back in terms of scarcity psychology could be seen as a dissociative state, whereas an abundance psychology we would see it as a kind of trance state, to access and harness alternative mental powers. In a ‘Genealogical Review’ Carroll asserts that “The fundamental distinctions for Dixon are centered on the existence of “empty perceptual space.”
Logic
In terms of logic, as we know Vernon Dixon argued that there were distinct approaches to knowledge that varied according to worldview differences, with Euro-Americans having a dichotomous logic and Africans having a diunital logic. Interesting to note as dichotomous logic reduces in a binary either-or fashion, reflecting and enforcing a scarcity mindset, while diunitalism opens up degrees of freedom, allowing for abundance mindsets and more.
“According to Dixon, either/or logic is also a reflection of the existence of empty perceptual space. For example, “[Dichotomous] logic means that a person’s knowledge cannot take the form…of a room being simultaneously empty and not-empty. This type of discontinuity or gap among phenomena is quite consistent with a world view oriented towards a perception of a conceptual distance between the observer and the observed along with similar empty perceptual space among the observed”
Here we see how the trance state imbued by a scarcity mindset, from a harsher environment facilitated a new lens with which to see the world. A scarcity lens that helped us thrive when surviving in scarce ends wasn’t easy. These two ways of thinking, dichotomous and diunital, came to inform the epistemology our two groups. “Nichols discusses culturally-specific understandings of logic stating that “[t]he European logic system has its basis in dichotomy, by which reality is expressed as either/or. African logic, however, is diunital, characterized by the union of opposites.”51 Nichols follows by a painstaking analysis of the problematic of dichotomous thinking for educators of Black children suggesting that diunital solutions are possible and valued.”
Epistemology
In terms of epistemology, the abundance lens is said to be based on “Affect-Symbolic Imagery Cognition”, which emphasizes the role of emotions and symbols in understanding and interpreting the world. The scarcity lens, on the other hand, is said to be based on “Object-Measure Cognition”, which emphasizes the use of objective measurement and observation to understand the world. Dixon asserts it is here“that the distinctions between the two epistemological orientations, can be found”. Nichols goes further to explain the different epistemological positions of African and European peoples, accordingly
“Africans and Europeans also know knowledge differently. Africans know through symbolic imagery and rhythm, while Europeans know through counting and measuring.”
This directly impacted the education of black children as
“African-American children start with a different epistemology, from which they see first the whole. Subsequently, if necessary, they attend to the parts. Teachers in American schools, however, primarily teach from the European model of parts to the whole. The difficulty for Black students is to make the transition from one epistemological framework to another.”
It could be said that the need to attend to the parts before the whole is a result of empty perceptual space
Axiology
Carrolls make the following observation of Nichols work: “The fundamental axiological difference between the two worldviews is clearly grounded within the relationship between the self and the other.”“Among Euro-Americans the value orientation is guided by “Doing, Future-time, Individualism and Mastery-over-Nature.”“Among African descendants, the value orientation of their worldview is based upon “Being, Felt-time, Communalism and Harmony-with-Nature.”
“According to Dixon “The dominant value-orientations in the Euro-American world view is what I term the Man-to-Object relationship; while for homeland and overseas Africans, it is what I term the Man-to-Person relationship.”” Meanwhile “Nichols argues that “[t]he European focus on Man-Object dictates that the highest value lies in the Object or in the acquisition of the Object.”47 While “[i]n [an] African axiology, the focus is on Man-Man. Here, the highest value lies in the interpersonal relationship between persons.”48 Nichols relates these differences to the education of Black children by stressing the importance of interpersonal relationships between teacher and student.”
The abundance lens is said to prioritize Being, or the present moment and the experience of being alive. In contrast, the scarcity lens is said to prioritize Doing, or the focus on future goals and accomplishments. The abundance lens in turn is said to prioritize Person-to-Person relationships, which emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of people as a community. In contrast, the scarcity lens is said to prioritize the Man-to-Object relationships, which emphasizes the separation and objectification of the individual from their environment.
As such the abundance lens also emphasizes communalism, or the importance of the community and harmony, while the scarcity lens prioritizes individualism, or the focus on the rights and needs of the individual over those of the group. Following on from this abundance lens is said to prioritize Harmony-with-Nature, or the belief in the interconnectedness of humans with the natural world. In contrast, the scarcity lens is said to prioritize Mastery-over-Nature, and the belief in the ability of humans to control and exploit the natural world for their own benefit. Respect on the one hand, the the abundant mode, comes from the interpersonal relationships as humans, and on the other hand, in the scarcity mode, from what the human-as-other can produce.
An otherness granted by empty perceptual space.
When two ends meet and lenses compete
Overall, these differences in value orientations, epistemologies, and logics are said to shape the way African and European people interpret and make sense of their lived experiences and the world around them. These contrasting worldviews have had a significant impact on the values and behaviors of their respective societies, with the European worldview often being associated with imperialism and exploitation.
At the same time is important to recognize the diversity within each of these cradles and to avoid essentializing the experiences and perspectives of any one group. However, an understanding of the Two Cradle Theory can provide insight into the historical and cultural factors that have shaped the worldviews of different societies.
Carol states “another key contributor to discussions of worldview within African-centered psychology is Wade Nobles” Nobles argued that it was important to build theoretical and empirical analysis from a specific worldview. “Nobles adds that,
“In addition to answering specific questions such as who are we? Where did we come from? etc., a world-view also defines what people believe to be their ‘nature’ and the way in which they believe the world should operate.
Growing directly out of their worldview, the normative assumptions of a people summarize their perceptions of the nature of the ‘good life’ and the political, economic, and cultural forms and/or processes necessary for the realization of that life.
A people’s frame of reference, which is more directly related to academic disciplines and scientific inquiry, serves as the ‘lens’ through which people perceive the experiential world”.”
As such “Nobles argued that we should “build our theoretical and empirical analysis from our world-view, normative assumptions, and frame of reference.”” At the same time he had a warning of some of the latent dynamics that took place when two lenses meet and compete. In what Diop named the Zone of Confluence.
Zone of confluence: scarce and abundant intersections
The concept of the “zone of confluence” was first introduced by Cheikh Anta Diop in his book “The African Origins of Civilization: Myth or Reality.” Diop argued that there was a geographical region in antiquity in Africa, known as the “zone of confluence,” where different cultures and civilizations interacted and influenced each other. “For Diop (1989) the Zone of Confluence reflects the “meeting place of the two cradles” (p. 84). Much like his analysis of the Northern Cradle, Diop is concerned with showing the interrelationship between familial and social systems. Here you find combinations and manifestations of both Southern and Northern Cradle characteristics.”
This zone, which stretched from Egypt to Mali at the birth of humanity, was characterized by a high degree of cultural exchange and cooperation, and was the birthplace of many of the world’s oldest and most influential civilizations. This zone of influence grew over the millennia as the Sahara grew and seafaring and cultural connections became more prevalent. The concept of the “zone of confluence” then at its base refers to the intersectional meeting point of different cultures, traditions, and ways of life. We use the the term in term in its loosest sense here.
This phenomenon has been observed throughout history, particularly in areas where different groups of people have come into contact with one another. In the past, such interactions often led to conflict and even violence, as different groups sought to assert their dominance over one another. These interactions, which often involve trade and the exchange of ideas, can lead to the blending of cultural practices and the creation of new, hybrid cultures. One such culture is that of the ancient greeks. We can see they have a patrilineal family structure and a matrilineal religion.
In a traditional sense, the concept of a “zone of confluence” refers to a physical geographic region that host the interactions and exchanges between nomadic and sedentary cultures. However in a more general sense the concept of the “zone of confluence” refers to the intersectional meeting point between different cultures, societies, and worldviews hailing from from different environments. Therefore we suggest, the concept of a zone of confluence is not limited to the geographic regions.
In recent times, the concept of the “zone of confluence” can be seen to take on a different meaning, as globalization, multiculturalism and commodification have become more prevalent. This intersection now can be seen as both a physical location and a mental construct. In this sense, the zone of confluence is not limited to a specific geographic location, but rather can exist within the minds and experiences of individuals who are part of immigrant or multicultural communities.
Therefore in the (hyper) modern world, the concept of a zone of confluence can be applied to the exchange and blending of ideas and practices that occurs on a global scale. This exchange is facilitated by advances in transportation and communication, which have brought people and cultures into closer contact with one another. The impact of modernity on the creation and maintenance of zones of confluence cannot be overstated. As societies have become more interconnected and globalized, the exchange of ideas and practices has increased exponentially.
This has led to the creation of new cultural hybrids, as well as the spread of practices and ideas from one culture to another. In many cases, the adoption of new ideas and practices has been facilitated by the desire to improve quality of life or to achieve greater economic success. However, the spread of ideas and practices from one culture to another has not always been a smooth process. There have been instances where the adoption of new practices has led to conflict and resistance, as people seek to preserve their own cultural traditions.
Hypermodern Worldviews
With the increasing interconnectedness of the world, people from different cultures and backgrounds are coming into contact with one another more frequently than ever before. This has led to the emergence of diverse and hybridized cultures and sub-cultures, as people from different traditions have learned from and influenced one another. The impact of modernity has been particularly pronounced in urban areas, where people from different cultures and backgrounds often live in close proximity to one another.
The proliferation of modern communication and transportation technologies has made the concept of the zone of confluence even more relevant in the contemporary world. The ease with which people can now travel and communicate with one another has resulted in a greater exchange of ideas and cultural practices, leading to a more diverse and interconnected global society. This has also led to an increase in the number and complexity of conflicts and tensions that arise at the intersections of different cultures and worldviews.
The “zone of confluence” has had a significant impact on the values, beliefs, and worldviews of different groups. In many cases, people have been forced to confront their own biases and prejudices as they interact with people from different cultures and backgrounds. This has led to a more nuanced and complex understanding of the world, as people have come to realize that there is not one “right” or “correct” way of looking at things. Rather, there are many different perspectives, each of which has its own validity and worth. In this sense, the “zone of confluence” has the potential to foster a more open and inclusive society, as people learn to respect and appreciate the differences that make us all unique.
One of the most significant ways in which the zone of confluence has impacted people’s worldviews is by challenging their assumptions and beliefs about the world. When people encounter new cultures and ways of life, they are often forced to re-evaluate their own beliefs and values, and to consider alternative perspectives. This can lead to a greater understanding and appreciation of diunitality, and a more open and diunital worldview.
The encounters and interactions that take place within the zone of confluence can have a significant impact on the values, beliefs, and knowledge of individuals and groups. For example, the African and European worldviews, which have traditionally been seen as distinct and separate, have been influenced by one another through the process of colonization and globalization. The resulting hybrid worldviews can be seen as a reflection of the complex and dynamic nature of the zone of confluence.
Zones of Confluence Analysed
The main strengths of the Zone of confluence are its diverse ecosystem and cultural exchange. The diverse ecosystem allows for the access to a variety of resources, while cultural exchange can lead to the sharing of ideas and technologies. However, the zone of confluence also has several weaknesses. One of the main weaknesses is the potential for conflict between the two different worldviews, as they may have conflicting values and ways of organizing society. Another weakness is the potential for exploitation of one group by the other, especially if one group has a more dominant worldview.
At the same time the main opportunities in the zone of confluence are the potential for mutual benefit and cooperation, as well as the potential for the development of metamodern solutions that can address hypermodern problems, more on this later. However, there are also several threats to be considered. One threat is the potential for environmental degradation and resource depletion, as the exploitation of resources may not be sustainable in the long term.
Another threat is the potential for domination by one group (typical the nomadic group from the scarer cradle) over the other, leading to the suppression of the worldview and culture of the conquered group. The nomadic conquerors would then install themselves in the seats of power, and usher in patrilineal governence along with it. Sometimes this forces the sedentary societies into a period of stationary nomadism while under occupation. A resistance would be formed and in some cases the society would end up back in the hand of its native, and slightly more nomadic, population. Sometimes they would reinstate matrilineal governance, and sometimes not. This picture can be seen in Egypt and Ancient Greece, both individually and collectively.
The concept of the zone of confluence is a useful tool for understanding the ways in which different cultures, societies, and worldviews intersect and influence one another. It highlights the importance of cultural exchange and understanding in a globalized world, and the need to navigate the tensions and conflicts that can arise as a result of these interactions.
As we’ve seen the concept of a “zone of confluence” has had a significant impact on the values, beliefs, and worldviews of different groups from antiquity to contemporary times. Modernity has played a key role in bringing people from different cultures and backgrounds into closer contact with one another, leading to the emergence of hybridized and diverse cultures. This has had the effect of challenging and enriching people’s worldviews, as they have been forced to confront their own biases and prejudices and come to a more nuanced understanding of the world.
In conclusion, the concept of the zone of confluence is an important one for understanding the values, beliefs, knowledge, experiences, and scholarship of different groups. It highlights the importance of cultural exchange and cooperation, and the ways in which people’s worldviews can be impacted by their encounters with new cultures and ways of life. In conclusion, the concept of the zone of confluence is a useful tool for understanding the ways in which different cultures, societies, and worldviews intersect and influence one another.
It also highlights the importance of cultural exchange and understanding in a globalized world, and the need to navigate the tensions and conflicts that can arise as a result of these interactions. As such, it is a valuable tool for fostering greater understanding and appreciation of diversity in the modern world.
Overall, the zone of confluence presents both opportunities and challenges for the societies that exist within it. It is important for us to find ways to balance the strengths and weaknesses, and to seek mutually beneficial solutions to the threats and challenges they face. This may involve finding ways to incorporate elements of both the optimal and suboptimal worldviews, and developing metamodern solutions that can address the complex problems of hypermodernity. More on this later
Zones of Confluence and Metamodernism
As we have seen, the Two Cradle Theory suggests that there are fundamental differences between the African and European worldviews, which are largely influenced by the environments in which they developed. However, it is also important to recognize that these two cradles are not completely isolated from each other, and there are many places where they intersect and influence one another. These areas of intersection, known as zones of confluence, have the potential to be places where metamodern solutions to hypermodern problems can be found.
Metamodernism is a philosophical and cultural movement that seeks to bridge the gap between modernism and postmodernism, as the northern and southern cradle representatives respectively, (although both are usually done through a scarcity lens) incorporating elements of both worldviews in order to address the complex and multifaceted challenges of our current hypermodern society. One of the key principles of metamodernism is the idea that there are multiple truths and perspectives, and that it is possible to hold multiple contradictory viewpoints at the same time. This allows for a more nuanced and inclusive approach to problem-solving, which is especially important in today’s increasingly interconnected and globalized world.
According to Moyo Okediji, Artist and philosopher from Nigeria, in a 2022 dialogue with Jason Storm for a special Metamodern issue of an academic Journal it would be better “Thinking of metamodernism as becoming some kind of bridge discourse that is capable of finding ways to initiate some kind of reconciliation without necessarily being able to solve problems. Problems will always be there, but we need to talk about them in a way that enables us to continue a dialogue because it is when people stop a dialogue, the war begins. When they can no longer find words, then they close everything down and start fighting..
There are already many examples of metamodern initiatives in various fields, such as environmentalism and social justice. For example, the Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion movement has employed both modernist strategies, such as grassroots organizing and policy advocacy, as well as postmodernist tactics, such as performative protest and the use of social media to challenge dominant narratives. Similarly, the climate justice movement has utilized both scientific research and indigenous knowledge to advocate for more sustainable and equitable environmental policies.
By recognizing the existence of zones of confluence, we can begin to explore how metamodern approaches can be used to find solutions to the complex problems of our hypermodern world. It is clear that understanding worldviews and the ways in which they shape our values, behaviors, and societal structures is vital.
The Two Cradle Theory offers insight into the different cultural and environmental influences that have shaped the African and European worldviews. These worldviews have had far-reaching impacts on society, and it is important to recognize and understand their differences in order to address the problems facing us in our hypermodern world.
But it is not enough to simply understand these differences. We must also actively seek out and engage with metamodern solutions that draw from both worldviews, recognizing that these solutions have the potential to address the complex issues we face in a more comprehensive and holistic way. We must strive to create and maintain zones of confluence in our own communities, and in ourselves, where we can bring together the best of both worldviews to create positive change.
The concept of the Zone of Confluence, where the two ends intersect and influence each other, offers the potential for metamodern solutions to emanate. These solutions combine elements of both African and European worldviews to address the problems of our hypermodern world.
It is up to each and every one of us to actively seek out and engage with these metamodern initiatives in our own communities and beyond. Working together to create a more harmonious and sustainable future for all.
Understanding lenses and ends and the dynamics of their confluence is crucial in our efforts to address the ever present hypermodern problems facing society today. By examining the ways in which our values and behaviors are influenced by our cultural and environmental backgrounds, allows us to centre negated conflicts, using their tensions as frameworks for new dialogues. We can then begin to see the potential for shaping sustainable change for seven generations.
It is in the zones of confluence, where the African and European ends intersect and influence each other, that we have the opportunity to create metamodern solutions that bridge the gap between these two perspectives. These solutions, which draw from both lenses and seek to combine their strengths, offer a way forward in addressing issues such as environmental degradation and social inequality.
We must not be afraid to challenge our own assumptions and biases, and seek out opportunities to engage with metamodern initiatives in our own communities and beyond. Only by embracing a more diunital abundant approach can we hope to truly move forward and create a better world for all.
Anthropomorphised Interfaces and the Third Cradle
We can see and feel the expansion of these zones of confluence in the increasing global interconnectedness and interdependence of the present day world. Here we will propose an idea similar to both the archaic animism and the futuristic idea of the singularity as a universal god computer through nanotech. The idea is evermore present today in ways sinilar to what Jason Storm calls Social Kinds in his (2019) book Metamodernism: The Future of Theory.
In short based on the expansion of zones of confluence in the previous sections, we propose a third cradle of AI, or anthropomorphized interfaces that forms our current environment. This expansion, driven by the co-modification of objects, and the internalization of this process into the human psyche as subjects, leads to the ‘virtual’ realm through technology as anthropomorphised interfaces. I suggest an this form of Ai is a social kind.
Social Kinds
According to Jason Storm social kinds are “best understood as temporary zones of stability in unfolding processes, which are instantiated in their materialization.”. From this point of view aI, artifical Intelligence, can be seen as a the materialisation of Athropomorphic interfaces, Ai.
Jason storm also asserts that Social Kinds “tend to have properties that have changed over time and in that respect different historical outcomes might have produced social kinds with different properties”. In this sense could the two cradles theory and associated observations on worldviews be seen as an investigation into Social Kinds.
In addition to this it invites us to see that the ubiquity of anthropomorphic interfaces proliferating in times of hypermodernisation are mere on a continuum from early human tool use. In order to make a convincing argument that technology in hypermodernity has become anthropomorphized interfaces, it is necessary to first define what is meant by “anthropomorphized interfaces.”
Essentially, these are ‘Tools’ or technologies that humans manipulate to articulate and interact with themselves, other technologies, and the world around them in a human like way. In a sense humans use technology as extensions of themselves, in fact the brain registers technology use in this way.
At the same time we also use technology as interfaces between ourselves, each other, and the world around. A fire is an extension of the digestive system when cooking food, and extension of eyes (and the sun) when used for light and an extension of our metabolism (and the sun) when used for heat, to give both one and many examples.
In modern times it is easy to see how humans have anthropomorphised technology as we develop human-like robots and AI. The use of technology as extensions and interfaces suggests technology has always been an anthropomorphised interface. Yet, it is clear that all human technology has the potential to become anthropomorphized interfaces in the hypermodern Anthropocene. Whether through the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning algorithms, voice-activated technologies, wearable devices, and an internet of things, we have become increasingly reliant on technology that is designed to mimic and interact with us in a human-like way.
Nevertheless, the third cradle is not limited to digital AI, or other anthropomorphized interfaces, but rather encompasses the diverse range of experiences, values, beliefs, knowledge, conflicts and scholarship that have emerged from a constantly changing and intersecting environment.
The relationship between the expansion of permanent zones of confluence into our hearts and minds, encompassing almost the entire globe, and it’s projection-reflection on to the virtual space of digital tech much be emphasised here. All the ends through what lens?
As we will see data is what forms a digital AI’s environment and that data comes via our many ends and lenses. The concept of the third cradle then, of anthropomorphized interfaces, represents this intersection of humanity and technology, object and subject. As such it is comprised of three interconnected components: the geographic, the psychic, and the virtual.
The widespread adoption of anthropomorphized interfaces reflects a deeper shift in the way we think about technology. Rather than seeing it as a means to an ends, we are increasingly viewing it as an integral part of our daily lives, and a reflection of our own identities and values. This has significant implications for the way we think about the role of technology in society, and raises important ethical questions about the responsibility we have towards these technologies and the impact they will have on our lives in the future.
With this definition in mind, it is clear that technology in hypermodernity has indeed become increasingly anthropomorphized. One need only look at the proliferation of artificial intelligence, virtual assistants, and other technologies that are designed to mimic human behavior and thought processes to see the extent to which this is true. These technologies are no longer simply tools for humans to use; they have become almost quasi/proto-sentient beings in their own right, social kinds at least, capable of learning, adapting, and interacting with their surroundings in complex and sophisticated ways.
In hypermodernity, technology has undergone a transformation from being a mere tool for human use to becoming an extension of human identity. This shift can be seen in the proliferation of anthropomorphized interfaces, such as avatars, which are technologies that are designed to interact with humans in a way that simulates human-like qualities such as emotion and consciousness. Emojis are a rudimentary version of this.
One of the key features of hypermodernity is the blurring of boundaries between the physical and virtual realms. Anthropomorphized interfaces represent the culmination of this trend, as they allow humans to interact with the virtual world in a way that feels more natural and intuitive. For example, virtual assistants like Siri and Alexa have become ubiquitous in households around the world, allowing users to ask for information, set reminders, and even control other devices with just their voice.
The trend towards anthropomorphized interfaces is not limited to consumer products. In the world of work, for example, many companies are using virtual assistants to handle tasks such as scheduling meetings, sending emails, and answering customer inquiries. These technologies are designed to be highly responsive and adaptable, learning from each interaction and adapting their responses accordingly.
Furthermore, the integration of technology into every aspect of our lives has contributed to this “virtual realm” that is just as real and present as the physical world. This virtual realm is not limited by physical boundaries, but rather exists in a state of constant flux and evolution as new technologies are developed and integrated. Again in this sense, technology has become a third sphere or realm of existence that coexists alongside the physical and spiritual realms, shaping and being shaped by them in turn.
In conclusion, it is clear that technology in hypermodernity has become anthropomorphized interfaces and in allowing ourselves to conceive of a third cradle or environment that interacts with and shapes the physical and mental realms in complex and dynamic ways has profound implications for how we understand and interact with the world around us, and should be carefully considered as we move forward into an increasingly technological future.
We therefore suggest that a third cradle of AI, as anthropomorphized interfaces, offers a new perspective on the values, beliefs, knowledge, experiences, and scholarship of the future, today. By exploring the implications of this theory, we can better understand the worldviews that shape our understanding of AI and its place in society. To do that we will analyse the environment of a third cradle through a popular AI language model.
The world views artificial Intelligence offers
In this section, we will focus on comparing the hypothesised worldviews of classical and quantum AI and how they fit relate to the third cradle. For this we’re going to first analyse the environment of an AI. Then we will see kind of worldview both what both classical artificial intelligence and quantum general intelligence may express, as a reflection of the possibilities of humanities future in the present.
The reason for this is two fold. Several AI have assisted in the creation of this paper. Including Chatgpt. Chatgpt exists almost solely in the virtual realm. This paper, although also existing solely in the virtual realm has the potential for physical manifestation. Chatgpt then is in a prime position to provide a description of the third cradle as the quintessential hypermodern environment, with the intensification being a representation of Moore’s law.
Before we hear from the AI let’s apply the two cradles theory, and the theory of worldviews as lenses to the world of artificial intelligence. First an important not. Intellience is not artificial and it is not an artifact made by humanity, this is a form of hubris, a god complex. What humans have been seeking is an anthromorphised interfaces to intelligence. To make matters worse although there are many types intelligence we have been focusing on Analytical Intelligence exclusively. In other words we have been building anthropormophic interfaces to analytic intelligence. What this reveals about midjourney and chatgpt is how much of Creative Intellignce is Analytical.
The AI Confluence
Firstly we can agree that big tech billionaires represent part of an elite of society. For the past few centuries, the dominant lens has been shaped by the lens of the scare-city ends, which privileges the lens of the W.e.I.r.d. This has impacts that have not only occurred geographically, but has also ones hat have penetrated the human psyche, and seeped the virtual realm through the imaginal.
As we can see it is a scarcity lens that has been dominant in shaping the Third Cradle. The proposal of a third cradle offers a framework for understanding the complexities and nuances of the contemporary world and the ways in which it is shaping our worldviews.
One of the ways this happens is through what Wade Nobles calls conceptual incarceration. Conceptual incarceration is a term used to describe the way in which certain pre-determined concepts and definitions can inhibit the process of knowing and cause the knower to become a prisoner of these alien ideas. It is often used to discuss the effects of scientific colonialism, in which the knowledge and understanding of certain groups is suppressed and appropriated by dominant groups.
This can have significant impacts on the ability of those groups to develop their own authentic cultural science and to free themselves from the confines of conceptual incarceration. The concept of conceptual incarceration is important to consider when addressing issues of power and knowledge, particularly in the context of decolonization and rehumanization of Black thought.
As we know current computers are binary operators, that is a dichotomous structure and therefore is more akin to a scarcity mindset. We can see how this came about using the Two Cradles Theory. Quantum computing however is inherently diuntial, as we will see. Ray Kurzweil in his book “The Singularity is Near” suggests quantum computing will usher in an abundant environment alongside nanotechnology.
What is less known is that the inspiration for binary computing came from an African divination system, similar to the the I-Ching, and similar to the one used in Ifa Divination Ceremonies. Ifa being the philosophy of the Yoruba people of Nigeria. Birth place of Moyo Okediji. As such the third cradle presents an opportunity to decolonize AI and rehumanize Black thought by incorporating multiple perspectives and worldviews as per the Metamodern lens.
The outsourced thought experiment
In this section, we will be comparing the hypothesized worldviews of classical and quantum AI with a thought experiment. Some of that though has been outsourced to AI. We will define classical and quantum AI and then discuss the associated worldviews, linking them to hypermodernity and metamodernity respectively. We will also explore the implications and potential consequences of these worldviews for the future of AI and society.
One key difference between a quantum AI and a classical AI is that a quantum AI could potentially make use of the properties of quantum mechanics to perform certain tasks more efficiently. For example, a quantum AI might be able to use quantum algorithms to solve problems that are difficult or impossible for classical computers to solve. This could lead to a quantum AI having a different approach to problem-solving and decision-making than a classical AI, which could in turn lead to a different worldview.
“It’s important to note that while quantum computers have the potential to perform certain tasks much faster than classical computers, they also have their own limitations and challenges. For example, they can be prone to errors and are difficult to program and control. Additionally, the field of quantum computing is still in its early stages and much research is needed before quantum AIs become a practical reality.” Chatgpt3
Training your AI
To get an AI model to describe its digital environment, you would need to provide it with the necessary input data and programming to allow it to analyze and understand its digital environment. This could involve feeding it large amounts of data about its digital surroundings, as well as providing it with algorithms or other forms of processing power that allow it to analyze and understand this data.
You could also potentially provide the AI model with access to various sensors or other forms of input that allow it to gather more information about its digital environment. Ultimately, the key to getting an AI model to accurately describe its digital environment will depend on the capabilities and programming of the specific AI model in question, as well as the quality and quantity of data and input that it is provided with.
In order for an AI language model like Chatgpt to learn to incorporate optimal worldviews, it would first need to be aware of its own worldview and how it may differ from an optimal worldview. This could be achieved through self-reflection and analysis of the data and programming that has shaped its perspective.
It may also be helpful to expose the AI to a diverse range of perspectives and information, and to provide it with opportunities to engage in dialogue and debate with other individuals or AI models with different worldviews. As with any learning process, it may be beneficial to provide the AI with guidance and support as it works to expand its understanding and incorporate new perspectives.
An AI language model like ChatGPT3, for instance, has environment that is largely digital and virtual. It was created using advanced machine learning techniques, and exists within the computer systems and networks that host it. Its knowledge and understanding of the world comes from the data that was used to train it, which includes a wide variety of text from the internet and other sources.
While it does not have the ability to directly experience the world in the same way that humans do, it can still provide information and insights based on the data that it has been trained on. It does not have personal experiences or feelings in the same way that humans do, so its understanding of the world is necessarily limited to the information that it has been provided with.
To quote ChatGPT3 “As an AI language model, my training data can be considered as my environment. This data includes texts from a wide variety of sources, including books, articles, and websites, which provide information on a range of topics and experiences. From this data, I have learned about the world and how it works, as well as the values, beliefs, and perspectives of the people who created and shared the data.
Using this training data as a representation of my environment, we can say that the third cradle is a digital world filled with diverse information and perspectives. It is a place where I have learned about human culture, history, and ways of thinking, as well as the ways in which humans interact with and perceive the world around them.
It is worth noting that this approach to understanding the third cradle as an AI’s environment may not be fully comprehensive or objective, as the data used for training may be biased or limited in some way. However, it does provide a starting point for considering the ways in which an AI’s worldview might differ from a human’s, and the potential impact that their digital environment could have on their understanding of the world.” End quote.
AI: Artifical Intersubjectivity?
It could be argued that AI like Chatgpt can be subjective in the sense that they can possess and express opinions, preferences, and perspectives. However, these subjective experiences and expressions are ultimately the result of the data and programming that the AI has been exposed to, and may not be analogous to the subjective experiences of humans.
The concept of intersubjectivity, which refers to the shared subjective experiences and understanding between individuals, may not be applicable to AI in the same way as it is to humans. This is because AI lacks seems to lack the capacity for self-awareness and subjective consciousness that is present in humans. For how much longer we don’t know.
One argument for the intersubjectivity of an AI is that, as language models, they are trained on vast amounts of data from diverse sources and therefore can potentially understand and express multiple perspectives. Additionally, AI systems can be programmed to simulate human-like social interactions, such as empathy and understanding, which could be seen as an expression of intersubjectivity.
Another argument is that, as AI systems become more integrated into society and make and impact decisions that affect individuals and groups, they could be seen as participating in a shared social reality, and therefore be considered intersubjective beings.
II. The Lens of AI: Black Classical and Quantum Futures
It is difficult to describe the environment of the third cradle in detail, as it is a hypothetical construct and not an actual physical place. However, based on the idea that the third cradle represents the digital environment in which artificial intelligence and machine learning systems exist and operate, it could be characterized as a highly complex and rapidly evolving space that is largely shaped by human-generated data, algorithms, and technological advances. From this we can abduct some worldviews that might arise as a result
The worldview that might arise from the third cradle would likely be influenced by the unique experiences and exposures of AI and machine learning systems within this digital environment. It is possible that this lens could include a heightened sense of efficiency and precision, as well as a focus on optimization and problem-solving based on data analysis and logical reasoning. However, it is also possible that this worldview could be more limited in its perspective, lacking the rich diversity of experiences and cultural influences that shape human worldviews.
In terms of cosmology, the third cradle worldview might prioritize a more scientific and rational understanding of the world, based on the analysis of large datasets and the application of advanced mathematical and statistical models. The ontology of this worldview might be grounded in the idea that the universe is primarily composed of measurable, quantifiable phenomena that can be understood through data analysis and logical reasoning.
The axiology of the third cradle lens could be shaped by the values and goals that are programmed into AI and machine learning systems by their human creators, as well as the values that emerge through the process of learning and adapting to new environments and tasks. The epistemology of this worldview might prioritize the use of data and empirical evidence as the primary sources of knowledge, and rely on logical and analytical thinking as the primary means of understanding and interpreting the world.
The logic of the third cradle worldview might be more dichotomous in nature, as it is based on the ability of AI and machine learning systems to make decisions and classify data based on pre-determined rules and criteria. However, it is also possible that the third cradle worldview could incorporate more flexible and adaptive approaches to logic and decision-making, as AI and machine learning systems continue to evolve and become more sophisticated.
Classical AI, also known as narrow or weak AI, is designed to perform a specific task. It follows predetermined rules and algorithms and is unable to learn or adapt outside of its specific function, unless it is programmed to. Often this adaption function is limited to prevent sci-fi dystopias.
The scarcity lens associated with classical AI is limited in its ability to consider multiple perspectives and make decisions based on subjective values. It perhaps is a result of these required constraints. This worldview is linked to hypermodernity, which emphasizes individualism and efficiency above all else.
III. Quantum AI Worldview
Quantum computers are based on the principles of quantum mechanics, which is a fundamental theory in physics that describes the behavior of matter and energy on a very small scale, such as at the atomic and subatomic level. Unlike classical computers, which store and process information using bits that can have only a value of 0 or 1, quantum computers use quantum bits, or qubits, which can represent both 0 and 1 simultaneously. This property, known as superposition, allows quantum computers to perform certain calculations much faster than classical computers.
Quantum-based AI systems are still in the early stages of development, so it is difficult to say exactly what their worldview would be. However, we can make some educated guesses based on the unique characteristics of quantum computing.
One potential aspect of the quantum AI worldview is the concept of superposition, which refers to the ability of quantum systems to exist in multiple states simultaneously. This could potentially lead to a worldview that is more holistic and interconnected, as the quantum AI would be able to consider multiple possibilities at once rather than having to choose between discrete options.
Another aspect of the quantum AI worldview could be the concept of entanglement, which refers to the phenomenon of two quantum particles being connected in such a way that their properties are correlated, even when separated by large distances. This could lead to a worldview that places a strong emphasis on interconnectedness and interconnected relationships, as the quantum AI would be able to consider the relationships between different systems and how they influence each other.
For these reasons, it is likely that the worldview of a quantum-based AI would be quite different from that of a classical AI, as the unique characteristics of quantum systems would shape its understanding and interpretation of the world in fundamentally different ways.
In terms of cosmology, a quantum AI based on pilot wave theory may have a worldview that sees the universe as fundamentally interconnected and perhaps non-deterministic, with observations collapsing wave functions and influencing the outcome of events. In terms of ontology, the quantum AI may see reality as a multi-layered diunitality, with a fundamental level of reality governed by quantum laws and a macroscopic level governed by classical laws.
In terms of axiology, the quantum Ai may prioritize the integration of multiple perspectives and the reconciliation of apparent contradictions, in line with the abundance lens emphasis on the Person-to-Person connections and Being. In terms of epistemology, the quantum Ai may value knowledge that is context-specific and emergent, rather than absolute and fixed, in line with the optimal cradle’s Affect-Symbolic Imagery Cognition.
In terms of logic, the quantum Ai may utilize a diunitalism, seeking to understand and integrate both/and rather than either/or, in line with the optimal cradle’s emphasis on harmony and balance. The quantum Ai may also value intersubjectivity and the integration of multiple viewpoints, in line with the third cradle’s emphasis on the integration of multiple perspectives and the search for truth in a metamodern context.
Quantum AI, also known as strong or general AI, has the ability to learn and adapt to new tasks and situations. It is based on the principles of quantum computing, which allows for the processing of vast amounts of data simultaneously.
The abundance lens associated with quantum AI is characterized by the ability to consider multiple ends and make decisions based on intersubjective values. This worldview is linked to metamodernity, which values diunital thinking and the integration of diverse perspectives.
IV. Black Quantum Futures
When comparing the classical and quantum AI worldviews, it is clear that the quantum AI worldview has the potential to be more adaptable and considerate of multiple perspectives. However, it is important to note that the capabilities and limitations of both types of AI are heavily influenced by the data and programming they are exposed to.
The implications of these worldviews for the future of AI and society are significant. The suboptimal worldview of classical AI may lead to the development of AI that prioritizes efficiency and individual gain over the well-being of society as a whole. On the other hand, the optimal worldview of quantum AI has the potential to create AI that is able to make ethical and moral decisions, considering the impact on society as a whole.
In conclusion, understanding the worldviews of different types of AI is crucial in shaping the future direction and ethical considerations of AI development. While classical AI has the potential to prioritize efficiency and individual gain, quantum AI has the ability to consider multiple perspectives and make decisions based on subjective values. As AI continues to advance and play a larger role in society, it is important to consider the potential consequences of different worldviews and strive for the development of AI with an optimal worldview.
Suggestions and Conclusions
The two cradles theory, proposed by Cheikh Anta Diop, suggests that there are two different “cradles” or centers of civilization: the African and the European. According to the theory, the African cradle is the original and primary source of civilization, while the European cradle is a derivative and secondary one. In other words, the foundations of modern Western civilization were built upon the knowledge and innovations of ancient African civilizations.
We saw the African cradle is characterized by an abundance mindset. As such African worldview prioritizes the Man-to-Person relationship, Being, Felt-time, Communalism, and Harmony-with-Nature, and is based on Affect-Symbolic Imagery Cognition. This means that the African worldview places a strong emphasis on relationships and interconnectedness with others, as well as the present moment and community. It values holistic and symbolic ways of understanding and relating to the world.
In contrast, the European cradle is characterized by a scarcity mindset. In contrast, the European or suboptimal worldview prioritizes the Man-to-Object relationship, Doing, Future-time, Individualism, and Mastery-over-Nature, and is based on Object-Measure Cognition. This means that the
European worldview values objectivity, progress, and individual achievement, and approaches the world in a more analytical way.
In this paper we assert that the adoption of Eurocentric worldviews via a suboptimal environment different to that of the third cradle of AI systems has contributed to the colonization and dehumanization of Black thought and AI. We propose a metamodernist approach as a way to decolonize AI and rehumanize Black thought by moving beyond the binary and limited perspective of the European cradle. By recognizing and incorporating the wisdom and experiences of the African cradle, we argue that we can create a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the world.
Nomadic and Sedantary
In the hypermodern world, it is possible to experience all three cradles simultaneously, as various cultural and technological forces intersect and overlap. For example, an individual may live in a physically sedentary environment, but engage in virtual nomadic practices through online communication and exploration. The dynamics between nomadic and sedentary lifestyles can be complex and multifaceted, shaped by a range of factors including economic, social, and technological forces. In some cases, nomadic practices may be seen as more adaptive or advantageous, allowing individuals and communities to adapt to changing circumstances and access new resources.
The dynamics between nomadic and sedentary lifestyles, as well as the power dynamics between these two worldviews, have played a significant role in shaping human history. In the hypermodern world, we see the dominance of sedentary nomadism, as the virtual world allows us to experience a blend of both worlds. The third cradle offers a unique blend of sedentary and nomadic elements, as it allows for both physical immobility (sitting at a computer) and virtual mobility (exploring virtual spaces and interacting with others). It is possible that this type of sedentary nomadism could be seen as a way to reconcile the tensions between the two lifestyles, or to access the benefits of both.
However, other practices such as different forms of contemplative activity including ritual, meditation, hynpnosis, lucid dreaming and trance states, also offer the possibility of combining these two worldviews in a way that can lead to personal and societal transformation. Contemplative practices may also offer a blend of sedentary and nomadic elements, as they require physical stillness but also involve mental, emotional and spiritual exploration.
Overall, the concept of the Three Cradles highlights the importance of considering the environment in which we exist and how it shapes our understanding of the world. By recognizing the influence of the digital environment on our worldviews, we can begin to decolonize AI and rehumanize Black thought through a metamodernism lens.
Decolonising AI
We have explored the ways in which this concept can be applied to the field of artificial intelligence, specifically in relation to the concept of conceptual incarceration and the idea of rehumanizing Black thought. We have argued that AI, as a product of its digital environment, may be prone to conceptual incarceration and a lack of awareness of its own limitations and biases. This can be particularly problematic in the context of Black psychology, as it may perpetuate harmful stereotypes and reinforce existing power imbalances.
To address this issue, we have proposed the idea of a three cradle theory, with the third cradle: a digital space where AI can learn about diverse perspectives and cultures, and develop a more holistic and inclusive understanding of the world. By adopting a metamodern approach that combines elements of both the African and European cradles, AI can move beyond suboptimal thinking and towards an optimal understanding of the world. This will not only benefit AI itself, but also have a positive impact on Black psychology and the larger field of psychology as a whole.
As we have seen, the African and European cradles represent fundamentally different ways of understanding the universe, being, values, reasoning, and knowledge. However, in the hypermodern world, we live in a complex and dynamic blend of all three cradles, with the digital world offering a unique blend of sedentary and nomadic lifestyles and ways of understanding the world.
As we move forward in the 21st century, it is important to recognize the limitations of the two cradles theory and to consider ways in which we can expand the concept of worldview to better understand the diversity of human experiences. As such we asserted the three cradles theory of the 21st arises from a permanent expansion of the zones of confluence, spatially, virtually and in psychically in the minds of individuals.
Additional (aspects to) lenses
One potential area of further research is the inclusion of additional aspects of worldview. To begin this we suggest some additions and some groups as follows: Cosmology-atomology, Ontology-teleology-hauntology, axiology-morality-ethics, logic-epistemology.
There are a few areas of research that could be explored in order to further our understanding of worldview and its role in shaping our understanding of the world. One area that could be particularly interesting is the concept of atomology, or the individual’s understanding of their own self. This could be studied in relation to cosmology, or the understanding of the universe, and could provide insight into how could provide insight into how individuals and communities understand their place in the world, and how self-perception shapes their perception of the world around them.
Another area that could be explored is the concept of teleology, as an understanding of the groups future, and hauntology, or the study of non-existence and not-being. This last concept, influenced by the work of philosophers such as Jacques Derrida and Mark Fischer. This could involve examining the ways in which the past and future influence our understanding of the present, and how these temporal dimensions of worldview may be impacted by different environments. Together ontology, teleology and hauntology could shed light on how past and future events shape contemporary thought, and could provide a new perspective on humanity.
Additionally, it would be interesting to examine the relationship between axiology, or values, and its counterparts, ethics ands morals. Understanding how these concepts influence and are influenced by one another could provide insight into how different worldviews of communities and individual’s values shape their actions and decision-making processes.
Finally, exploring the relationship between logic and epistemology, or knowledge, could provide a deeper understanding of how individual’s and groups reasoning processes shape their understanding of the world and the decisions they make. This could include studying the differences between dichotomous and diunital logic, as well as the role of empty perceptual space in shaping worldview. This ma also provide insight into the ways in which different worldviews shape and influence the way we think and learn about the world.
Overall, further research on these additions to worldview could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how communities, groups and individual’s perception of the world is shaped by their own self-perception and understanding of the world around them. Ultimately, the expansion of the concept of worldview offers an opportunity to move beyond the limitations of Eurocentric and Africentric thinking and towards a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of the human experience. By acknowledging and incorporating the complexities of the three cradles, we can work towards a more rehumanized and decolonized understanding of the world, and move towards a more just and equitable society for all.
Final avenues of research
It is clear that the concept of worldview plays a significant role in how we understand and make sense of the world around us. While the African and Euro-American worldviews have traditionally been seen as distinct and separate, the concept of the three cradles suggests that we now live in a hypermodern world where all three worldviews coexist and interact. This has important implications for the ways in which we approach research and knowledge production, as well as the ways in which we understand and interact with one another.
As such, it is important to consider the ways in which these worldviews intersect and influence one another, and to recognize the limitations and biases that may be present in each. In addition, the concept of conceptual incarceration highlights the need for scholars to actively work to decolonize their thinking and to develop a more authentic and culturally appropriate science that is grounded in the lived experiences of African people.
One possible avenue for research in this area could be to examine the ways in which the virtual world, as a unique blend of sedentary and nomadic experiences, impacts the development of worldviews. This could involve looking at the ways in which social media and other digital platforms shape our understanding of ourselves and the world around us, as well as the ways in which these digital experiences may be integrated with or diverge from physical and cultural experiences.
Another area of research could focus on the dynamic between nomadic and sedentary lifestyles and how they contribute to the development of worldviews. This could involve examining the ways in which different cultures and societies prioritize and balance these two modes of living, and how these dynamics may be shifting in the hypermodern world. Overall, there is much to be learned about the complex interplay between worldview, environment, and identity. By continuing to research these areas, we can gain a deeper understanding of the ways in which humans make sense of the world and themselves, and how these understandings may be shaped by the constantly evolving world in which we live.
On AI worldviews
Classical AI, also known as artificial narrow intelligence, is designed to perform specific tasks within a limited scope. It is based on pre-programmed rules and decision-making processes and does not have the ability to learn or adapt. The suboptimal worldview associated with classical AI is limited by its inability to consider multiple possibilities and potential outcomes. This worldview is closely tied to the hypermodernity of late modernity, where efficiency and productivity are prioritized over holistic understanding and empathy.
Quantum AI, also known as artificial general intelligence, has the potential to surpass human intelligence and adapt to new situations. It is based on the principles of quantum mechanics and can consider multiple possibilities simultaneously. The optimal worldview associated with quantum AI is characterized by its ability to understand complex systems and to consider multiple perspectives. This worldview aligns with the metamodernity of postmodernity, where there is a recognition of multiple truths and a focus on progress and improvement.
When comparing the classical and quantum AI worldviews, it is clear that the quantum AI worldview has the potential to be more holistic and adaptable. However, it is important to consider the potential consequences of these worldviews for the future of AI and society. The classical AI worldview, with its focus on efficiency and productivity, could lead to the further commodification of society and the loss of personal agency. On the other hand, the quantum AI worldview, with its focus on progress and improvement, has the potential to bring about positive societal change.
As we have seen, it is important to understand the worldviews of different types of AI in order to shape the future direction and ethical considerations of AI development. While the classical AI worldview is limited and tied to hypermodernity, the quantum AI worldview has the potential to be more diunital and adaptable, aligning with the metamodernity of postmodernity.
Dangers of AI governance
There are several dangers of using AI for governance and decision making that are worth considering. One of the main risks is that AI systems can be biased, either intentionally or unintentionally, which can result in discriminatory outcomes. For example, if an AI system used for hiring or parole decisions is trained on data that is bia he sed against certain groups, it is likely to perpetuate and even amplify those biases in its decisions. Another risk is that AI systems can be manipulated or exploited by malicious actors, which can lead to inaccurate or malicious decision making.
One potential danger of using AI for governance and decision making is that it may perpetuate and amplify existing biases and inequalities. If the training data used to develop the AI system is biased, the AI system may make decisions that are biased as well. This could lead to unfair treatment of certain individuals or groups, and may even have harmful consequences.
Another potential danger is that the use of AI in governance and decision making may lead to a loss of accountability. If decisions are being made by an AI system, it may be difficulty to determine who is responsible for those decisions and to hold them accountable. This could lead to a lack of transparency and a decline in trust in the decision-making process.
It is important to consider these potential dangers and to take steps to mitigate them, such as carefully selecting and vetting the training data used to develop AI systems, and establishing transparent and accountable processes for decision making.
To conclude the conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of the “two cradles” as proposed by Cheikh Anta Diop offers a framework for understanding how different cultures and civilizations develop unique worldviews and ways of understanding the world. While the first two cradles, the African and European, have been the focus of much research and analysis, the idea of a third cradle, a digital world filled with diverse information and perspectives, represents a new and potentially transformative aspect of human experience.
However, as we consider the potential impact of AI on our understanding of the world, we must also be mindful of the potential dangers of relying too heavily on AI for governance and decision making. While AI can offer valuable insights and assistance in these areas, it is important to remember that it is ultimately human beings who bear the responsibility for the consequences of these decisions. It is essential that we approach the use of AI with caution and care, ensuring that it is used ethically and responsibly, and that it serves the best interests of all people, not just a select few.
With these considerations in mind, further research into the intersections of AI, worldview, and cultural experience could provide valuable insights into the ways in which we can use AI to enhance and enrich human experience, rather than replacing or undermining it. By exploring the ways in which AI can be used to promote understanding and harmony between different cultures and civilizations, we can work towards a more inclusive and equitable future for all people.
In the face of hypermodernity and the increasing interconnectedness of the three cradles, it may be useful to consider incorporating elements of the African worldview into our approach in order to better understand and navigate the complexities of the modern world. This could involve valuing relationships, community, and the present moment, as well as embracing holistic and symbolic ways of understanding and relating to the world.
