Dr Neville Buch[1]
Abstract
This essay provides a Dynamic of Cognition (DoC) analysis of the intersection between Stephen H. Jones et al.’s exploration of the “mythology of conflict” between science and religion and Joshua Kyle T. Rovero’s Theory of Civilization. Utilizing the diagnostic framework of Dr. Neville Buch, the analysis argues that the “horizons of understanding” provided by modern social imaginaries often settle into a pathological ”techné mindset,” where human identity is reduced to simplistic binaries or narrow technical utility. Rovero identifies this as a “Void of Existential Fulfillment,” where the repetition of historical patterns without intellectual anchors leads to a state of “Historical Forgetfulness.” The DoC analysis demonstrates that a “humanistic ascent” is required to move from these unreflective prejudices toward “Interpretive Holism” and “Human Authorship.” By uncoiling repetitive patterns of civilizational conflict through Spiral Historiography, individuals can achieve Aristotelian Flourishing (eudaimonia), where success is measured by the integration of wisdom, character, and meaningful social contribution.
DoC Analysis: Civilizational Identity and Horizons of Understanding
I. Prejudice: The Thrown State of the Social Imaginary
In the DoC model, all thought begins in Prejudice—the unavoidable, “thrown” state of unexamined beliefs that constitutes an individual’s starting point. Jones et al. describe this as a “social imaginary,” a repertoire of interrelated images and models that provides a “background understanding” of one’s whole situation. For Rovero, this is the foundational identity of a Civilization, which serves as an “eternal framework-embodiment for understanding and navigating the world”.
The pathology at this stage, according to Jones et al., is the “myth of conflict” between science and religion, which is used by individuals to position themselves in “moral space” and draw boundary lines against outgroups. Buch identifies this as “simplistic literalism,” the conviction that these “official stories” or identity-affirming myths are objective, static truths.
II. Attitudes: The Techné Mindset vs. Active Nihilism
The Attitude component represents the forcefulness of ideas that drive judgment. Rovero notes that in the modern era, humanity often experiences a “Void of Existential Fulfillment,” characterized by a struggle to grasp technology without a corresponding emergence of major ideations. This results in what Buch calls the ”techné mindset,” a cognitive failure that reduces complex human existence to quantifiable metrics and ”singular messaging”.
To remediate this, the individual must adopt ”Active Nihilism”—the systematic use of reason to negate entrenched myths and institutional “bullshit”. This allows the thinker to move from being a ”passive conduit” of social drives (what Jones et al. call a “horizon within which one is capable of taking a stand”) into an active participant in the ”Universal Unfolding”.
III. Exclusion: Historical Forgetfulness and the Analytical Abyss
Exclusion (associated with Sensation) acts as a procedural filter. Pathologically, this manifests as “Historical Forgetfulness,” where societies repeat past errors because their origins have been banished from memory. Jones et al. observe that conflict myths perform social functions by reinforcing distinctions between classes and ethnic groups, effectively producing a ”sociology of absences” where complex historical interactions are rendered invisible.
Buch proposes Spiral Historiography as the corrective filter, “uncoiling” these repetitive patterns of failure by learning from past intellectual errors. This process uses the “social wound” of existential pain as a diagnostic signal to filter out manufactured myths and restore humanistic critique.
IV. Inclusion: Restoring Human Authorship
Inclusion (associated with Intuition) is the synthesis of external data into a comprehensive world-picture. Rovero argues that civilizations are the total sum-aggregates of all human experiences, and a human without a civilization is a “human without Being”. Jones et al. suggest that knowledge must move toward a “fusion of horizons,” where diverse perspectives are integrated into revisable knowledge through empathy.
This leads to the restoration of “Human Authorship,” where the individual is no longer a “puny human node” in an automated system but the intentional author of their social narrative. It requires “Interpretive Holism,” integrating local micro-histories with global theoretical frameworks to overcome ”specialized ignorance”.
V. Value: Aristotelian Flourishing
The ultimate stage of cognition is Value, where the standard of success is defined. Moving away from immediate “Political Profit” or narrow utility, the goal of both the Buch and Rovero frameworks is Aristotelian Flourishing (eudaimonia). For Rovero, this involves a new ”Renaissance” across all civilizations to lift humanity from its “soulless state” toward consciousness and meaning. Within the MICE framework, this flourishing is an objective state of being involving rational activity and the achievement of one’s highest human potential.
Background of Civilisation Theory and Social Imagination
This section examines the theoretical underpinnings of Civilisation Theory and the Social Imagination, focusing on the contemporary scholarship of Joshua Kyle T. Rovero and Stephen H. Jones et al. Drawing on a lineage that includes Feliks Koneczny, Samuel Huntington, and Charles Taylor, the analysis demonstrates how civilizations function as “eternal framework-embodiments” for navigating existence. Rovero defines civilizations as the total sum-aggregates of human experience—the collective Dasein of a people. In parallel, Jones et al. utilize Taylor’s concept of the social imaginary to explain how mythologies (such as the conflict between science and religion) provide a “horizon of understanding” that orients individuals within “moral space”. Together, these works illustrate that identity is not a static essence but a dynamic, interpersonal construction synthesized from shared historical and cultural resources.
The Background of Civilisation Theory and Social Imagination
I. The Genealogy of Civilisation Theory
The intellectual foundation of modern Civilizational Theory is rooted in the early twentieth-century work of Feliks Koneczny, who first explored the “plurality of civilizations” as a means to view both reality and history. This study was reignited in the post-Cold War era by Samuel P. Huntington, whose “Clash of Civilizations” thesis argued that global politics would be defined by the dynamics between different cultural identities rather than competing ideologies.
Joshua Kyle T. Rovero expands this framework, identifying civilizations as the “supreme absolute of all human existence”. In his theory, civilizations are Entities of Experimentation in Existence, meaning they are the total sum-aggregates of all human experiences that form worldviews. Rovero introduces several critical distinctions to clarify the nature of these polities:
- The Civilization-Society Distinction: A civilization is the collective aggregate of experience over time, while Society is the specific organized manifestation of that identity within a geographical context.
- Macrocivilization and Microcivilization: Macrocivilization refers to the greater whole of a civilization and its foundational “Six Pillars”—Religion, Politics/Economics, Philosophy, Language, History, and Culture. Microcivilization refers to the smaller units and social expression of individuals within that framework.
- World-Ideation: The creation of a “New Civilization” begins with a split or renewal of ideas—a “Revolution from the Centre” based on the emergence of differences in Dasein.
II. The Social Imagination as a Horizon of Understanding
While Rovero focuses on the structural essence of civilizations, Stephen H. Jones et al. explore the cognitive mechanisms through which these civilizational identities are maintained. Drawing heavily on the work of Charles Taylor, they define the social imaginary as a repertoire of interrelated images, models, and beliefs that provide a background understanding of one’s whole situation.
The social imaginary is not a solitary mental creation but a communicative framework shared between people—a “web of interlocution”. It provides the “horizon” within which individuals are capable of taking a stand and determining what is valuable or true. Jones et al. argue that certain mythologies, such as the perceived transhistorical conflict between science and religion, have become embedded in Western social imaginaries to the point where they serve as cultural resources for “boundary work”. This boundary work allows groups to position themselves in moral space, often constructing outgroups to affirm their own civilizational identity.
III. Synthesis: Civilizational Identity and the Dynamic of Cognition
The synergy between these two works lies in their recognition that human identity is an interpersonal social product. For Rovero, a human without a civilization is a “human without Being,” because they lack the structured framework required to explore and manifest the intricacies of experience. For Jones et al., the social imaginary sets the terms of debate for how that experience is interpreted.
Utilizing Dr. Neville Buch’s Dynamic of Cognition (DoC), we can analyse these concepts as parts of a “humanistic ascent.” The unreflective adoption of civilizational myths is a starting point of Prejudice (the Centre). To move toward Aristotelian Flourishing (eudaimonia), individuals must engage in Reflective Self-Criticism to dismantle “institutional bullshit” and manufactured myths. By uncoiling repetitive patterns of civilizational error through Spiral Historiography, societies can reclaim Human Authorship over their narratives, ensuring that technology and social systems serve humanistic ideals of autonomy and freedom.
Dynamic of Cognition (DoC) Analytic Table
| DoC Component | Pathological Regression (Conflict Mythology/Void) | Reformatory Ascent (Civilizational/Spiral) | Epistemological Rationale |
| Prejudice (Centre) | Conflict Mythology: Using “science vs. religion” myths to draw social boundaries. | Social Imaginary / Macrocivilization: Recognizing identity as an interpersonal framework. | Moves from unreflective boundary-work to the recognition of shared world-disclosure. |
| Attitudes (Thinking) | Techné Mindset: Reducing life to technological whims and measurable utility. | Active Nihilism & Panser: Using reason and “thinking as caring” to purge errors. | Replaces mechanical calculation with noetic judgment and social accountability. |
| Exclusion (Sensation) | Historical Forgetfulness: Banishing context to maintain simplistic narratives. | Spiral Historiography: “Uncoiling” patterns of failure through recursive return. | Filters out “institutional bullshit” and manufactured myths like the Dark Ages. |
| Inclusion (Intuition) | Puny Human Nodes: Individuals as passive conduits for interaction rituals. | Human Authorship: Reclaiming the role of the proactive creator of meaning. | Restores the “who” (the person) as the master of the “what” (the system). |
| Value (Feeling) | Political Profit / VoEF: Measuring success by status or feeling empty/repetitive. | Aristotelian Flourishing: Success measured by wisdom, character, and eudaimonia. | Transition to a comprehensive system of social fairness and human dignity. |
Bibliography
Arendt, H. (1977). The life of the mind (M. McCarthy, Ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Bengtsson, J. O. (2006). The worldview of personalism: Origins and early development. Oxford University Press.
Buch, N. (2015). No regrets in the evening of life: The history of Junction Park State School (1888–2013). Salisbury, QLD: Boolarong Press.
Buch, N. (2024). The spiral history theory of stupidity: Getting stuck in time-space, and personal breakout of historical cognition patterns. Management Institute for Contributory Economy.
Buch, N. (2026, April 10). Understanding history is philosophy in practice: A cognition history of Queensland. Management Institute for Contributory Economy.
Buch, N. (2026, June 15). Spiral historiography and the dynamic of cognition (Revised Final). Management Institute for Contributory Economy.
Buch, N., & Peach, N. (2024). Philosophically Ontology Logic Intersect Compatibility Education (POLICE). Management Institute for Contributory Economy.
Fuglseth, K. S. (2026). The past was once future: Reenactment of values and virtues on historical grounds in education.
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Simon & Schuster.
Jones, S. H., Elsdon-Baker, F., Catto, R., Kaden, T., Rivera, R., Fitz Herbert, A., Aechtner, T., Williams, R., & Sander, A. (2026). Horizons of understanding: On the social functions of the mythology of conflict between science and religion. Keele University.
Koneczny, F. (1962). On the plurality of civilizations. Polonica Publications.
Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81.
Rovero, J. K. T. (2024). Essays on civilization. Rovero Estate.
Stiegler, B. (1998). Technics and time, 1: The fault of Epimetheus (R. Beardsworth & G. Collins, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
Taylor, C. (1992). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press.
Taylor, C. (2003). Modern social imaginaries. Duke University Press.
Williams, B. (2006). Philosophy as a humanistic discipline (A. W. Moore, Ed.). Princeton University Press.
*****
[1] Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) has been fairly used in the production of this work. The tool used is Google NotebookLM (recently rebranded as Gemini Notebook). It is an AI-powered virtual research assistant and thinking partner designed to help a person interact deeply with their own documents. Unlike general chatbots, it is source-grounded, meaning it only generates answers based on the specific PDFs, documents, or links uploaded. The A.I. process in the production of this work has been limited to the attached (prompts) on each of the questions in turn. This ensures an accurate reading of each source. The author then rearranged and re-edited the answers the A.I. provided. The human author publishes this work. A.I. is never an author when used properly. This assistance is not qualitatively different from a human research assistant when that assistance is deemed to have no authorial status but is acknowledged.
Featured Image:
Neville Buch
Latest posts by Neville Buch (see all)
- The Architecture of Meaning: Context, General Rules, Modern Chatter – September 29, 2026
- The Epistemology of Fanaticism: Wishful Thinking, Political Exploitation, and the Reclamation of Higher Values in Sport – September 27, 2026
- Agency, Spiral History, and the Market Chaos Myth: Reclaiming Human Authorship through the Contributory Economy – September 25, 2026