Previously, I submitted a thread called “The Fifth Paradigm” in which my theory was that certain ubiquitous mindsets evolve historically. I listed these as mythology, relgion, philosophy, and science/technology and asked what the fifth might be. Someone said it is holism.
Looking back, I realize I should probably have used the word “zeitgeist” instead of “paradigm”, since the former is more all encompassing. Also I came to realize that holism has been a consideration in Eastern religions for centuries.
Looking forward I sugesst that the fifth zeitgeist might be informationism, which I would define as approaching all physical phenomena as data. I’ll elaborate on that later if you will tell what you think the fifth zeitgeist is.
The zeitgeists evolve in a way similar to the compartments of a chambered nautilus. Nothing is lost, although some, such as religion, still dominate the thoughts of the masses. The shaman of primitives becomes the priest or pastor of religions, etc.
Is there no one interested in the evolution of dominant memes?
i’m not sure what the fifth might be, or even that there is one yet. Though i would think if holism gets filed under religion, then informationism should fall within the science/technology zeitgeist.
Are the four you have already identified in a chronological sequence or do they coexist?
The subject would be interesting, but I do not exactly share your view (never red your other thread).
Personally - though it can be extensively debated - I suspect that these 4 “paradigms” are not so universal. There is most probably a common root from which they stem - which would explain parallelism with other civilizations, and maybe lead to the hypothesis of pre-aryan common civilizations. Yet, what rises them to the status of categories is quite specifically Indo-European.
However, as for the fifth you are looking for, I would volunteer Economics/Law.
“Informationism”, if I get what you write correctly, looks to me as a branch of science dealing with modelling.
They are chonological and remain coexistent.
Thanks for your post. Yes, informationalism might, as noted above, be simply an science/technology. Please elaborate on the Economics/law idea.
Attano,
Yes, it is possible that our looking back from this vantage point of an Indo-European tradition appears to be imposing a now on a then. Yet, it must be admitted that from our current vantage point we have better diagnostic tools with which we might approach, with some accuracy, what transpired before our time. I still think the zeitgeists I elaborated are universal given that they are both consecutive and inclusive. On a small scale, primitive ideas persist. The evolutionary step from primitive to religion to philosphy to science comes from the primitive why question. Each zeitgiest proposes answers to that question.
I am. Where to go from here?
This is getting very philosophical, in the sense that we are discussing something that we do not know exactly what it is.
What I get of your position - which, I confess, I have not quite understood - it is that you maintain that these “paradigms” are somehow universal and necessary.
If that’s the way it is, I object that I see them as historical - hence linked to our family of Indo-European Civilizations (I have to add that I lack the means to support this view, as I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of Asian and African Civilizations).
But, first of all, what are these paradigms?
You said mythology, religion, philosophy, science/technology, and I added law/economics.
Then, I do not quite agree with your labels. I would rather spell them as Art, Religion, Philosophy, Science and Law, and even then I am wary (because I have this idea of a common root and that their separation is artificial - one may still use the term “evolutionary”, but I am wary about that too; and the case of Philosophy is a special one).
But what are they?
You say Zeitgeist, I do not really see it that way, I guess that Zeitgeist is an agent of change, but not what makes up those paradigms.
That said, I cannot readily tell what they are, but for characterizing them as a style of speech. I mean that one can tell about which domain some speech belongs according to the style (and I mean lexicon, rhetorical figures and other technical aspects), but that becomes a bit problematic with art, though we may see the various techniques used in Art as languages.
Then we could try to push the analysis forward by saying that they are domain of systematization of knowledge. But the word knowledge would only loosely apply.
I could also say that these are areas of speech where poiesis of language is stronger and indeed required, but that would lead to problems concerning science - though maths become most poietic in science.
However, the systematization feature remains for all of them. They are not directly aimed at praxis, but there is some regulatory function of praxis in all of them.
Following what’s above, you can easily guess my case for Law.
As for <<approach[-ing], with some accuracy, what transpired before our time>>, I do not really get what you imply.
Attano,
Your post is quite well done. You are the first person in years who has gotten me to hie to my etymological dictionary. Perhaps we can approach the OP from this vantage point–Could you agree that there is such a thing as a primitive mindset and that it is still extant? Would you agree that what we now know of primitves existing then and now is sufficient for us to make some statements about what they believed or believe?
And yes, the OP most probably refers to evolution of Western beliefs. I do not know enough about Eastern history to claim the presence therein of mythological beliefs, except in the instance of India with its pantheon of gods. Here’s where others, such as Xunzian, who knows much of Eastern religions and philosophies, or anyone else with such knowledge, would enhance this thread.
Thanks for posting here. Please continue to do so.
Would an evolution of memes be a sufficient description of what I’m trying to get at here? Would that description be more accurate than what my terms “paradigm” and “zeitgeist” could suggest? I believe economics/law have precedents in primitive mindsets.
Your list is, or seems to be, a description of the evolution of human thought. If I’m correct, what you’re asking for is our prediction as to what the next development will be. Zeitgeist means pretty much the same thing: the prevailing thoughts within a culture that lead to some sort of encompassing era within a given culture and within a certain time frame. Iow, if we’re now in a scientific/technological era, what will we take from science/technology that will usher in the next?
I really don’t think it’ll be an era of memes, but then, I don’t know what you mean by memes. Memes can, and do, shape cultures, but I don’t think they’re archetypal. 
Thanks, Liz. You spell out exactly what I’m asking. Perhaps “zeitgeist” is the correct word to use here and archetypal is a good desription of why these both evolve and, to some extent, remain the same. What would you suggest the fifth might be?
Thanks, Liz. You spell out exactly what I’m asking. Perhaps “zeitgeist” is the correct word to use here and archetypal is a good desription of why these both evolve and, to some extent, remain the same. What would you suggest the fifth might be?
I know what I’d like it to be–major medical breakthroughs. That would be linear, evolutionary, and co-existent–a progression from science and technology. Wouldn’t unlocking the secrets of AIDS, most cancers, mental disease, alcoholism, etc. be a worthy reason to go down in history as an Age?
Liz,
I would like to say genetics, but genetics and major medical discoveries might both fall under the heading of science/technology. Perhaps we are too immersed in that zeitgeist presently to see anything beyond it. Maybe psychology can come into its own as a linear extension of science. It has roots in religion, philosophy and science.
You’re correct, Ier, it’s extremely difficult to break away from science/technology when you’ve lived within it for most of your life. I haven’t read many of the current philosophers, but most of them also seem more scientific (or they incorporate science into their philosophies) from what I have read. Thinking in terms of a zeitgeist, how about universal education? And how about you telling us what your thoughts are, so we have a better idea about where your thoughts have led you? 
What zeitgeist could be an extension of science/technology is difficult to determine. My two suggestions are informationism and pscyhology. The latter would include universal education. The former is the assumption that all we can know can be reduced to communicable data. Either would fit into a scenario of evolving mindsets.
One would think I’m asking for a solution to the riddle of the Sphinx.
What zeitgeist could be an extension of science/technology is difficult to determine. My two suggestions are informationism and pscyhology. The latter would include universal education. The former is the assumption that all we can know can be reduced to communicable data. We are in an information age. Either would fit into a scenario of evolving mindsets.
One would think I’m asking for a solution to the riddle of the Sphinx.
Informationism- includes global communication as macro and DNA extensions as micro.