What precisely resides in “sexuality” which warrants the popular discourse on sexuality as “part of our world freedom,” or something as an inspiring source for “our own creation” of “new forms of relationships” or “new forms of love” never before possible in human history? This popular treatment of sexual freedom has become so politically correct, in this day and age of ours, that it fast degenerates into a seductive ideology which has impoverished our understanding of sexuality by blinding us from its dark sides. Contrary to this intoxicating conventional wisdom, the dark sides of this seductive ideology have yet to be systematically understood and that its very creative freedom is neither possible nor desirable to the extent that its advocates would like us to believe. Of course, this is not to suggest that sexuality should not be about freedom nor creativity, or that the literature in sexual studies (and other related fields like gender studies, queer studies, and cultural studies, for example) should be ignored because of their scholarly nonsense. Needless to say, neither of these two extreme views is reasonable either. Instead, the purpose of this book is to provide an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of sexuality, in special relation to the sexual body and spirit, in conjunction with the mind—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them (nor integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other). This seminal project, if successful, will fundamentally change the way that we think about the nature of sexuality, from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what I originally called its “post-human” fate.

Is the invention of accounting so useful that, as Charlie Munger once said, “you have to know accounting. It's the language of practical business life. It was a very useful thing to deliver to civilization. I've heard it came to civilization through Venice which of course was once the great commercial power in the Mediterranean”? (WOO 2013) This positive view on accounting can be contrasted with an opposing view by Paul Browne that “the recent [accounting] scandals have brought a new level of attention to the accounting profession as gatekeepers and custodians of social interest.” (DUM 2013) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), accounting (in relation to addition and subtraction) are neither possible (or impossible) nor desirable (or undesirable) to the extent that the respective ideologues (on different sides) would like us to believe. Of course, this reexamination of different opposing views on accounting does not mean that the study of addition and subtraction is useless, or that those fields (related to accounting)—like bookkeeping, auditing, forensics, info management, finance, philosophy of accounting, accounting ethics, lean accounting, mental accounting, environmental audit, creative accounting, carbon accounting, social accounting, and so on—are unimportant. (WK 2013) In fact, neither of these extreme views is plausible. Rather, this book offers an alternative (better) way to understand the future of accounting in regard to the dialectic relationship between addition and subtraction—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them (nor integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other). More specifically, this book offers a new theory (that is, the double-sided theory of accounting) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way and is organized in four chapters. This seminal project will fundamentally change the way that we think about accounting in relation to addition and subtraction from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what I originally called its “post-human” fate.

Is migration really so constructive that, as Ralph Emerson (1909) once wrote, in the context of the New World, “asylum of all nations . . . will construct a new race, a new religion, a new state, a new . . . smelting-pot”? (WK 2012) This noble lie—the “melting pot” in the 20th century—can be contrasted with an opposing noble lie of the “salad bowl” in the 21st century, when those in multiculturalism like Tariq Modood (2007) argue nowadays that multiculturalism “is most timely and necessary, and . . . we need more not less.” (WK 2012a) Contrary to these opposing noble lies (and other views as will be discussed in the book), migration, in relation to both the Same and the Others, is neither possible or impossible, nor desirable or undesirable, to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. Surely, this exposure of the opposing noble lies about migration does not mean that the specific field of study on migration is a waste of time, or that those interdisciplinary fields (related to the study of migration) like animal migration, gene migration, diaspora politics, culural assimlation, human trafficking, urbanization, brain drain, tourism, ethnic cleansing, environmental migration, globalization, religious persecution, national identity, gentrification, fifth column, migration art, xenophobia, space colonization, multiculturalism, and so on are worthless. Needless to say, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book offers an alternative, better way to understand the future of migration, especially in the dialectic context of the Same and the Others—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them or integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other. More specifically, this book offers a new theory (that is, the theory of the cyclical progression of migration) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way. If successful, this seminal project is to fundamentally change the way that we think about migration in relation to Sameness, Otherness, and identity, from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what the author originally called its “post-human” fate.

Is waste (or trash) really so useless that, as William Faulkner once wrote, “[r]ead everything—trash, classics, good and bad, and see how they do it. . . . If it is good, you’ll find out. If it’s not, throw it out the window”? (TE 2012) Interestingly, this critical view of waste (or trash) can be contrasted with an opposing observation by Isaac Bashevis Singer, who once famously said that “the waste basket is the writer’s best friend.” (TE 2012a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), waste, in relation to both uselessness and usefulness is neither possible or impossible, nor desirable or undesirable to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. Of course, this challenge to the opposing views of waste does not imply that waste has no practical value, or that those interdisciplinary fields (related to waste) like epidemiology, global warming, waste management, low-carbon economics, ethical consumerism, resource recovery, freeganism, environmental justice, space debris, and so on are unimportant. Of course, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Rather, this book offers an alternative, better way to understand the future of waste, especially in the dialectic context of uselessness and usefulness—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them or integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other. More specifically, this book offers a new theory (that is, the transfigurative theory of waste) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way. If successful, this seminal project is to fundamentally change the way that we think about waste in relation to uselessness and usefulness from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what the author originally called its “post-human” fate.

Can transportation really have such a destructive impact on society that, as Jay Holtz Kay (1998) once forcefully wrote, with the automobile industry as an example, that “the modern consequences of heavy automotive use contribute to the use of non-renewable fuels, a dramatic increase in the rate of accidental death, social isolation, the disconnection of community, the rise in obesity, the generation of air and noise pollution, urban sprawl, and urban decay”? (WK 2012) This negative expectation from transportation, with the automobile industry as an example here, can be contrasted with an opposing (positive) expectation in the old “glory days” when, as Skip McGoun (2012) thus reminded us, “we have sung songs about the glory and wonder that surrounds the very concept of the car. Examples of this range from the 1909 tune, ‘In My Merry Oldsmobile,’ to what is considered to be the first rock and roll song, ‘Rocket 88,’ in 1949. . . . Motion pictures have portrayed . . . expensive sleek sports cars . . . associated with wealth and success. . . . One commercial described Hell as being a place where a teenager would have to drive a minivan!” Contrary to these opposing expectations (and other views as will be discussed in the book), transportation, in relation to both networks and operations, is neither possible or impossible, nor desirable or undesirable, to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. This challenge to the opposing expectations from transportation does not mean that transportation is useless, or that those interdisciplinary fields (related to transportation studies) like urban planning, environmental sustainability, migration, tourism, transport economics, traffic engineering, transportation technology, energy efficiency, the tragedy of the commons, and so on are unimportant. Needless to say, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Rather, this book offers an alternative, better way to understand the future of transportation, especially in the dialectic context of networks and operations—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them or integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other. More specifically, this book offers a new theory (that is, the panoramic theory of transportation) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way. If successful, this seminal project is to fundamentally change the way that we think about transportation in relation to networks and operations from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what the author originally called its “post-human” fate.

Are the performing arts really supposed to be so radical that, as John Cage once said in the context of music, “there is no noise, only sound,” since “he argued that any sounds we can hear can be music”? (WK 2007a; D. Harwood 1976) This radical tradition in performing arts, with music as an example here, can be contrasted with an opposing view in the older days, when “Greek philosophers and medieval theorists in music defined music as tones ordered horizontally as melodies, and vertically as harmonies. Music theory, within this realm, is studied with the presupposition that music is orderly and often pleasant to hear.” (WK 2007a) Contrary to these opposing traditions (and other views as will be discussed in the book), performing arts, in relation to both the body and its presence, is neither possible nor desirable to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. Needless to say, the challenge to these opposing traditions in performing arts does not imply that performing arts are worthless human endeavors, or that those fields of study related to performing arts like aesthetics, acoustics, communication studies, psychology, culture studies, sociology, religion, morality, and so on should be rejected too. Of course, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book provides an alternative, better way of understanding the future of performing arts, especially in the dialectic context of the body and its presence—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them or integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other. In other words, this book offers a new theory (that is, the transdisiciplinary theory of performing arts) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way. If successful, this seminal project will fundamentally change the way that we think about performing arts, from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what the author originally called its “post-human” fate.

Is chemistry really so valuable that, as Theodore L. Brown (2011) and his colleagues continue to claim in the twelfth edition of their work in 2011, chemistry is “the central science” in connecting the physical sciences with the life and applied sciences? (WK 2011 & 2011; C. Reinhardt 2001) This crowning of chemistry, however, can be contrasted with an opposing view, as Michael Polanyi once questioned the centrality of chemistry, when he wrote that “[n]o inanimate object is ever fully determined by the laws of . . . chemistry,” so other fields of study are just as important. (BQ 2011) Contrary to these conflicting views about chemistry (and other ones discussed in the book), chemistry, in relation to substances and their changes, is neither possible nor desirable to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. This challenge to the conflicting views about chemistry does not mean, however, that chemistry is useless, or that those fields of study related to chemistry like astronomy, physics, geology, mathematics, material science, biology, psychology, computer science, and so on should be ignored too. Of course, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Instead, this book provides an alternative, better way of understanding the future of chemistry —especially in the dialectic context of substances and their changes—while learning from different approaches in literature but without favoring any one of them or integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other. This book offers a new theory (that is, the creational theory of chemistry) to go beyond the existing approaches to literature in an original way. If successful, this seminal project will fundamentally change the way that we think about chemistry, from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what the author originally called its “post-human” fate.

Is culinary art really so exact that, as Delia Smith once wrote, “cooking is an exact art and not some casual game”? (BQ 2012) This exact view of cooking can be contrasted with an opposing observation by Tom Jaine, when he argued that, “if cooking becomes an art form rather than a means of providing a reasonable diet, then something is clearly wrong.” (BQ 2012a) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones as will be discussed in the book), culinary art, in relation to both ingredients and techniques, is neither possible or impossible, nor desirable or undesirable, to the extent that the respective ideologues on different sides would like us to believe. Needless to say, this challenge to the opposing views of cooking does not mean that culinary art has no practical value, or that those interdisciplinary fields (related to culinary art) like food science, nutritional economics, food chemistry, food aesthetics, the ethics of killing for food, molecular gastronomy, food rheology, food photography, Shechita, the science of aphrodisiacs, and so on, are unimportant. Of course, neither of these extreme views is reasonable. Rather, this book offers an alternative, better way to understand the future of culinary art, especially in the dialectic context of ingredients and techniques—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them or integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other. More specifically, this book offers a new theory (that is, the inquisitive theory of culinary art) to go beyond the existing approaches in a novel way. If successful, this seminal project is to fundamentally change the way that we think about culinary art in relation to ingredients and techniques from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what the author originally called its “post-human” fate.

Are sports really supposed to be so competitive that, as Henry R. Sanders once famously said, ""Men, I'll be honest. Winning is...the only thing!""? (WK 2012) This competitive view of sports can be contrasted with a critical view by William Shakespeare, who wrote in Othello (Act. iv. Sc. 1), ""They laugh that win."" (BART 2012) Contrary to these opposing views (and other ones, as will be discussed in the book), sports (in relation to both training and winning) are neither possible (or impossible)...

What makes the rule of law so special that it is to conscientiously punish the “bad” doers and reward the “good” ones—such that, where there is the rule of law, peace and order are to be expected, so that “the rule of law is better than the rule of any individual”? Take the case of international law, as an illustration. While different international courts have been busy going after the killers of innocent victims in Rwanda and Liberia, they have turned a blind eye to the major powers which have killed—on a much larger and more brutal scale, by comparison—innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, just to cite two current examples. Contrary to the conventional wisdom conveniently held by many in human history, the rule of law has its other side which has not yet been systematically understood, such that the rule of law is neither possible nor desirable to the extent that the defenders of legal institutions in human history would like us to believe. Lest any misunderstanding hastily occur, this is not to imply that the rule of law is absolutely useless, or that the literature in jurisprudence (and other related fields like political philosophy, ethics, law and economics, and the sociology of law) should be dismissed because of its scholarly irrelevance. Of course, neither of these two extreme views is reasonable either. Instead, this book provides an alternative (better) way to understand the nature of law, in relation to its necessity and contingency in the context of justice—while learning from different approaches in the literature but without favoring any one of them (nor integrating them, since they are not necessarily compatible with each other). In the process, this book offers a new theory to transcend the existing approaches in the literature in a new direction—in that, in the end, there is no justice without injustice and that it will be transcended too. This seminal project, if successful, will fundamentally change the way that we think about the nature of law, from the combined perspectives of the mind, nature, society, and culture, with enormous implications for the human future and what I originally called its “post-human” fate.