_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ *Corresponding author: Email: zma@mymail.ciis.edu; Asian Research Journal of Arts & Social Sciences 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 ISSN: 2456-4761 Hegel's Eurocentric Triads of Dialectics and Its Transformation to Kelly's Planetary Paradigm Z. G. Ma1* 1 California Institute of Integral Studies, 1453 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103, USA. Author's contribution The sole author designed, analyzed and interpreted and prepared the manuscript. Article Information DOI: 10.9734/ARJASS/2018/38314 Editor(s): (1) David A. Kinnunen, Department of Kinesiology, California State University Fresno, USA. (2) Jan-Erik Lane, Institute of Public Policy, Serbia. (3) Takalani Samuel Mashau, Associate Professor, Department of Educational Management, School of Education, University of Venda, South Africa. Reviewers: (1) Assalone, Eduardo Francisco, National University of Mar del Plata, Argentina. (2) Mark Shugurov, Saratov State Law Academy, Russia. (3) Wael Omran Aly, Cairo University, Egypt. (4) Thiago Ranniery, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (5) Solehah Yaacob, International Islamic University Malaysia, Malaysia. (6) I. Ebeh, John, Kogi State University, Nigeria. Complete Peer review History: http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history/22647 Received 21st November 2017 Accepted 5 th January 2018 Published 9th January 2018 ABSTRACT This article introduces Hegel's Eurocentric philosophy of dialectics in the 19 th century and its transformation to Kelly's planetary paradigm at the turn of the 20th-21st century. The new theory develops Hegel's thesis-antitheses-synthesis to identity-difference-new-identity which is applicable for the entire human history, including the planetary era. The new triad generalizes Hegel's mechanic view of nature by suggesting a dominant worldview which is featured by a series of tightening and converging dynamic fractal cycles. Keywords: Hegel; dialectic; planetary era; fractal cycle. Original Research Article Ma; ARJASS, 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 2 1. INTRODUCTION: PRE-HEGELIAN EUROPEAN HISTORY OF DIALECTICS The origin of dialectics dates back to about 3000 years ago when Chinese suggested that everything is made of opposites, Yin and Yang [1]. Several hundreds of years later, ancient dialectics experienced a surge of development nearly simultaneously in both the East and the West. In parallel to the formation of Taoist philosophy, [2] The European Eleatic school flourished at the southern Italy in the 5 th century BC to pursue a radical monism, i.e., the doctrine of the one: all those exist (or are really true) is a static plenum of Being as such, and nothing exist that stand either in contrast or in contradiction to Being [3]. By contrast, a pre-Socratic philosopher in ancient Greece, Heraclitus (535-475 BC), argued dialectically with a famous saying that "No man ever steps in the same river twice" [4]. Dialectics became popularized due to the Socratic dialogues of Plato (428/427-348/347 BC), the student of Socrates (470-399 BC) and the teacher of Aristotle (384-322 BC) [5]. In addition to philosophy, the term was used to designate a scientific method toward understanding ideas/forms [6]. Plato proposed a similar dialectical principle to I Ching, the unity of opposites, through the discussions on the Oneover-Many in a contradiction entity, [7] and commenced the first speculative thinking in history [8] to define the supreme genera (or categories/forms) [9] and Being/Nonbeing [10]. His dialectic stressed the communion or combination of opposites [11]. Nevertheless, Platonic dialectic was distorted by Aristotle. He believed that, while philosophy was the ultimate, dialectic was merely a path of right reason, a method of sound rational thinking, and a methodology of "deductive" logic, rather than the path to understand ideas/forms of the universal ideal existence [12]. He argued that it is the "contraries" of the opposites, [13] rather than the "unity" of the opposites, that determines all things, either themselves or their constituents [14]. Aristotle's deemphasizing or ignoring Plato's thought diverged Western philosophy from discerning and comprehending accurately the essence of dialectics, at least delayed the process, in the long European history starting from the Stoics, founded in the early 3rd century BC, through the Middle Ages, and down to Kant (1724-1804), who never exhibited any positive comments on dialectics, yet spread the most powerful and thorough reasoning to parse, rebuke, criticize, or undermine the significance of dialectics based on the uninformed conjectures of the logical thinking [15]. In his comprehensive and systematic work on knowledge, ethics, and aesthetics, which greatly influenced all subsequent philosophy, especially the various schools of Kantianism and Idealism, [16] Kent placed dialectics in an explicitly subordinate position to logic: (1) Logic consists of two components: [17] pure general logic, and transcendental logic; and, (2) Transcendental logic consists of two components: [18] transcendental analytic, and transcendental dialectic which is "a critique of the dialectical illusions that arise when the concepts and principles of the understanding are illegitimately extended." 2. HEGEL'S EUROCENTRIC DIALECTICS: TRIAD OF THESIS-ANTITHESIS- SYNTHESIS AND THREE DIALECTIC LAWS After Kant, Hegel (1770-1831) transmitted previous Western philosophies from Greek idealism (like Eleatics, Plato and Aristotle) to Kant's theory, and took advantage of nonEuropean culture to establish a Eurocentric system of idealistic philosophy [19] by demonstrating his speculative dialectics [20]. From his ambitious perspective, "world history travels from East to West; for Europe is the absolute end of history, just as Asia is the beginning" [21]. The philosophical system thus established was coherent and comprehensive, featured by a triad of three categories: (1) Logic; [22] (2) Philosophy of nature; [23] and, (3) Philosophy of mind [24]. To be more important, the essence of the idealistic system rested on a triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis which corrected Descartes' rational Foundationalism by means of absorbing the principles of Bacon's inductive reasoning which was, however, in contrast with Aristotle's deductive reasoning [25]. The dialectic philosophy hence attained rationalistic, eternal truths in the progressive movement of thought [26]. Hegel held that the movement of thought starts from the lowest category where knowledge is reduced to a minimum with a natural constraint of the mind; it then passes on to a higher category in thought to remove or transcend the limitations of the lower; and so on until the highest possible category is reached to comprehend and explain Ma; ARJASS, 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 3 all the others [27]. Specifically, the process develops in following steps: [28] (1) Some idea or theory or movement called "thesis" (or "being") at the initial triad appears first of all; (2) It generates opposition due to the innate weakness or restriction in value or quality within the bounded background where the opposition arises; (3) The opposing idea or movement called "antithesis" (or "nothing") struggles with the thesis until some solution is reached beyond both thesis and antithesis by recognizing their respective values and by trying to preserve their merits and avoid their limitations; and, (4) The solution called the "synthesis" (or "becoming") is reached to become the first step of a new triad if the solution turns out to be one-sided or otherwise unsatisfactory. In the last step, the synthesis will behave as a new thesis, and a new antithesis will be around again to take the dialectic triad to a higher level. The process may go on to arbitrary multi-layered nesting levels until a satisfactory solution is finally achieved. Concisely speaking, this dialectic approach in thinking was described as one of the three laws of dialectics, Negation of the Negation, [29] which was substantially generalized from the original connotation of the phrase used in Hegel's dedicated discussions of "being", where it replaced "synthesis" [30]. Hegel's primary object of the idealistic dialectic was to establish the existence of a logical connection between the various categories which are involved in the constitution of experience with (1) "in-itself" (thesis, an intellectual proposition); (2) "out-of-itself" (antithesis, a reaction to the proposition); and, (3) "in-and-for-itself" (synthesis, conflict solved by reconciling the common truths of thesis and antithesis to form a new thesis, starting the process again) [31]. Note that the antithesis is the direct opposite, the annihilation/negation, or at least the sublation, of the thesis in (1); and the synthesis in (3) is the updated thesis of (1) in a higher, richer, and fuller form to return to itself after the antithesis in (2). Once a reconciliation is attained at the synthesis in a higher category, which combines the contents of both thesis and antithesis, not merely places them side by side but absorbs them into a wider idea, and the process continues until at last to reach the goal of the dialectic in a category which betrays no instability, [32] another law of dialectics, Synthesis of Opposites (or, the Unity and Interpenetration), is recognized owing to the fact that the lower categories are partly altered and partly preserved in the higher one, so that, while their opposition vanishes, the significance of the both is nevertheless to be found in the unity which follows [33]. The principle relied on such an understanding that [34]. "Pure being and pure nothing are therefore the same. The truth is neither being nor nothing, but rather that being has passed over (not passes over) into nothing and nothing into being. But the truth is just as much that they are not without distinction; it is rather that they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct yet equally unseparated and inseparable, and that each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is therefore this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other: becoming, a movement in which the two are distinguished, but by a distinction which has just as immediately dissolved itself." Nevertheless, this immediateness refers only to the leap of a quantitatively progressing thing into a qualitatively different one; or, to the interruption of a gradual process, differing qualitatively from the following state; while this gradualness concerns merely the externality of the quantitative alternation, not the qualitative side, though the progression has no limits in itself, and proceeds in the steady continuity of quantity to approach one newly emerging qualifying point, with respect to the vanishing qualitative existence [35]. For both quantity and quality which unite in one but each claim an independent authority, the qualitative quantum comes from the existence of quantity, and the "identity" between them during the gradual alternation was described as the Measure [36]. The quantitatively progressing process which comes to a leap in quality with the Measure gives rise to the third dialectical principle: Transition from Quantity to Quality. The transition includes not only a gradual growth or disappearance of a thing in quantity from one proportion to another, but also a sudden revulsion of quantity into a qualitatively different thing. Particularly, on the one hand, "the quantitative features of existence may be altered, without affecting its quality;" on the other hand, this "increase and diminution, immaterial though it be, has its limit, by exceeding which the quality suffers change" [37]. In short, if the quantity present in Measure exceeds a certain limit, "the quality corresponding to it is also put in abeyance ... (with) a mere change in quantity, and then as a sudden revulsion of quantity into quality" [38]. That is to say, this third principle exposes that a change is brought about in quality of a thing if Ma; ARJASS, 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 4 there exists a continuous change far enough in quantity. Not only was Hegel's idealistic dialectics of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis and his three dialectic laws "epitomizing German idealist philosophy," but also, as he boldly claimed, "his own system of philosophy represented an historical culmination of all previous philosophical thought" [39]. Nevertheless, Hegel experienced the deeply rooted Eurocentrism and the Western superiority in his life [40]. Hence, he was prejudiced to envisage that the evolution of human history is merely a unified totality to proceed via the evolution of the "world spirit", i.e., the culture of the West (or the New World), while the essence of the culture "is the German Spirit" [41]. Owing to the naive parochialism of his historical and philosophical outlook, Hegel was subject to be challenged on the universality of his dialectic philosophy. For example, Russell (18721970) criticized that Hegel's thinking was tinted with "some distortion of facts and considerable ignorance;" and, "it is odd that a process which is represented as cosmic should all have taken place on our planet, and most of it near the Mediterranean" [42]. It was true that Hegelian idealistic philosophy began to wane after the 1840s, and "no one actually believes his central ontological thesis, that the universe is posited by a Spirit whose essence is rational necessity" [43]. However, although "nearly every line of Hegel's work has been criticized and refuted" and his "account is no longer convincing," [44] the significance of Hegelian dialectic philosophy cannot be underestimated. In the 19th century, Marx (18181883) and Engels (1820-1895) took advantage of the rational kernel of the Hegelian idealistic dialectics to develop materialistic dialectics, with an emphasis on Negation of the Negation which was considered as "an extremely general-and for this reason extremely far-reaching and important-law of development of nature, history, and thought; a law which, as we have seen, holds good in the animal and plant kingdoms, in geology, in mathematics, in history and in philosophy" [45]. They extended Hegelian idealistic dialectics in view of materialism as "the science of the general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought" [46]. During the late 20 th and early 21 st centuries, Hegel's dialectics gained the most creative, multidisciplinary elaboration and transformation by a careful integration of the critical contributions in philosophy, psychology, astrology, and cosmology in the 19 th and 20 th centuries [47]. The said advance was demonstrated by Sean Kelly's Planetary Paradigm which developed Hegel's Eurocentric dialectic philosophy. 3. KELLY'S PLANETARY PARADIGM: THREE-STAGE TIGHTENING AND CONVERGING CYCLES IN DOMINANT WORLDVIEW On the basis of Hegelian philosophy which was rooted in the development of the European history, Kelly proposed a cyclic evolutionary pattern of human society and history in view of the whole evolution in human consciousness, especially the dominant worldview over the planetary era [48]. Kelly is an expert on Hegelian philosophy, and a scholar and faculty in the program of Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness at the California Institute of Integral Studies. By means of an entire elaborated sweep of Western thought through Hegelian theory, Kelly sees the human history as unfolding in a metanarrative. He reformulated Hegel's dialectic triad of thesis-antithesis- synthesis with the triad of "identity-difference- new-identity" (IDI), and divided the entire history into three distinct phases (I, II, and III) in human consciousness of the world history, as shown in Fig. 1, [49] while Phase II contains a subset of six three-stage IDI "fractal" cycles [50]. Phase I is represented by the Lunar arc, from an Origin which was unknown exactly, but around 47 Million years ago when human and chimp were separated, down to after ~3600 BC when the invention of writing came true, [51] and came to an end around the Archaic Greece in the 6th century BC when the earliest most influential people in human history were born, like Lao-tsz (605-531 BC), Siddhartha Gautama (563-483 BC), Confucius (551-479 BC), Heraclitus of Ephesus (535-475 BC). The phase is featured by the predominance of objective factors (geography, ecology) over subjective ones (culture) in the world system, i.e., the fate of the biosphere was largely determined by the Earth and its environment. Phase II is represented by the Solar arc, from the first axial period to the second one, featured by a reverse predominance, i.e., the fate of the biosphere was largely determined by human choices. The first axial period was from about the Ma; ARJASS, 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 5 Fig. 1. Kelly's three phases of human history and the cyclic evolution of the planetary era [3] 6 th century BC to the 1 st century AD when a community was established as an autonomous city-state within Rome under the guide of the spirit of the risen Christ [52]. The second axial period was supposed to point to the epoch of transition at the end of the so-called Planetary Era when a transcendence and transformation happens again between the objective and the subjective, but to reach a higher 'transjective" level. This point was supposed to be around 2008 [53]. The Era was thus named upon the fact that Copernicus and his followers discovered the Earth, along with the other heavenly wanderers, as a planet at ~1500 [54]. Phase III is represented by the hybrid SolarLunar arc, from the second axial period to an unknown Goal time when the above mentioned unspecified "transjective" state arrives in future after a sacred merging of the Lunar and Solar features in the world system. However, it keeps a question about how the forthcoming new surge will be "not only resonant with the preceding but also as an expression of increasing planetization from earlier Axial and pre-Axial or indigenous traditions" [55]. Phase II links Phase I and III to form three successive and overlapping arcs. It evolves in six uniquely "fractal" cycles to form a "chain" of dependent origination between the two axial periods. These cycles represent the periodic IDI development of the dominant human worldview in time from the earlier mythic E-stage "efficient mental" (i.e., the consciousness transparent to original cultures and religions) to the later instrumental D-stage "deficient mental" (i.e., the rationalization of the consciousness), and, returning eventually again to the symbolic forms of traditions in conceptions at the new E-stage of consciousness. Nevertheless, different from Hegel's philosophy where the background was unchanged with European tradition, Kelly's new philosophy is rooted in respective multicultural traditions in the cycles which originate from not only the West (e.g., Hebrew, Greek, Persian), but also the East (e.g., Hindu, Chinese), as well as Islam, indigenous, and Earth-based wisdoms. Every cycle is comprised of three IDI stages. All of the cycles exposed Kelley's breathtaking and insightful scholarship to highlight the genesis and development of the western world in the planetary era. The series is characterized by the continuously tightening and converging spiral cycles between the two axial periods to expose the recurrences of acceleration in time and everdiminishment in the relative magnitude of human's dominant worldview [56]. Specifically, [57].  Cycle 1: [58] >1400 years, from the early Christian community to the beginning of the Planetary Era at ~1500 after the high Middle Ages (1000-1300) during the European Renaissance (1400-1600). Following the progressive differentiation and vaticanization of the community into Ma; ARJASS, 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 6 the medieval church as the dominant secular power of the medieval Christendom, the cycle experienced a flourished Scholasticism in Christian philosophy and theology during 500-1000 [59] which was succeeded by the Reformation sparked by Luther to arrive at a new principle of radicalized subjectivity, Priesthood of All Believers, for the religious authority of freedom.  Cycle 2: [60] ~300 years, from the Renaissance/Reformation at ~1500 to Romanticism/Idealism at ~1800. The Renaissance was labelled by the Copernican Revolution. It was suggested in the mid-16 th century to represent a departure and differentiation from the previous "more mythically embedded, selfenclosed medieval worldview." The cycle thus advanced to an innovated "mechanistic paradigm" and "a total reconstruction of knowledge" represented principally by the course of the European Enlightenment (1687-1789) in science and philosophy based on the achievements contributed by, e.g., Descartes (1596– 1650) in modern philosophy, Kepler (15711630) in laws of planetary motion and celestial mechanics, Galileo (1564-1642) in observational astronomy, Newton (1642– 1727) in mechanical cosmology, Leibniz (1646-1716) in logic, metaphysics, calculus, binary system; and Kant (1724-1804) in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. At the height of the Enlightenment, Romanticism and Idealism arose in both Europe and America in the late 18 th century and peaked at ~1800 as a reaction against the excessive rationalism of the Enlightenment.  Cycle 3: [61] ~100 years, from Romanticism at ~1800 to the 20 th century threshold (extending to the first decades of the century) during which the radical breakthroughs and transformations happened in the arts, science, psychology, philosophy, and spirituality. The presiding expression of the cycle lied in the "New Enlightenment," as represented by the movements of "positivism, Marxism, Freudianism, and a general faith in the power of economic and technological progress." The trend was carried forward by, e.g., Hegel (1770-1831) who took advantage of non-European culture to establish a Eurocentric system of philosophy and his dialectics; Darwin (1809-1882) who contributed to the natural evolution in biology; Freud (1856-1939) who founded psychoanalysis; Maxwell (1831-1879) who developed the theory of electromagnetism; Boltzmann (1844-1906) who provided the statistics of entropy; and, Planck (1858-1947) who found the blackbody radiation law, the basis of the quantum physics.  Cycle 4: [62] ~60 years, from the 1st World War after the 1900s to the 1960s (~1964– 1974) when the hippie countercultural movements in French and American universities spread around the world. This cycle was driven by a couple of human advances in science and technology: (1) Before the War: the 2 nd Industrial Revolution or the Technological Revolution; (2) After the War: the flabbergasting massenergy equivalence formulated by Einstein (1879-1955) out of his special relativity theory which led to the most powerful unification of mass and energy. Note that this was also an era when the mechanical cosmology gave its way to modern cosmology including the static model, the dynamic model, the cyclic model, and the big-bang model which were all related to Einstein's theory of general relativity. The two factors made it possible in the ~1930s to bring into being the "age of anxiety," a resurgence of "technocracy" in the adherence to the societal dictates of industrial efficiency, rationality, and necessity, followed by the birth of the nuclear age after the end of the 2 nd World War. Unexpectedly, the process gives way to the counterculture of the 1960s "against the technocracy and the correlative psychosocial and spiritual wasteland of the post-war period."  Cycle 5: ~30 years, from the counterculture in the 1960s to the "countercultural resurgence" of the spiritual values and themes in the 1990s. The resurgence was exemplified around 1989 and 1990 by the fall of the Berlin Wall, the appearance of the World Wide Web, the beginning of the Human Genome Project, and the launch of Hubble Space Telescope, as well as other various breakthroughs in science. 11 Within the cycle, a "New Paradigm" came with various new propositions such as the "holographic paradigm," "self-organization," "formative causation," "Gaia hypothesis," among others, two principal ones of which were the "new age science" treated by Ma; ARJASS, 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 7 Hanegraaff (1961-present) and the transpersonal psychology (the 4th psychological force) developed by Grof (1931-present) together with Maslow (1908-1970) and Sutich (1907-1976) [63].  Cycle 6: <18 years, from the 1990s resurgence to around the 2008 singularity at which a final turning of the spiral at the second axial period was envisioned to happen for "coming home" [64]. The cycle was flourished with, on the one hand, the emergence of a so-called Neoconservatism that combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets; [65] on the other hand, the implementations in pursuit of an emergent planetary wisdom in the following four planetary ideals: "cosmic solidarity, human unity, radical interdependence, and spiritual liberation" [66]. "If a truly planetary wisdom culture does succeed in fully emerging and stabilizing itself," the final Great Turning of the spiral at the end of the Planetary Era can be expected "to be intensifying over the next decade or so" [67]. 4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEGEL'S EUROCENTRIC DIALECTICS AND KELLY'S PLANETARY PARADIGM Toward a genuine new planetary wisdom-culture, Kelly successfully transformed Hegel's Eurocentric dialectics to a planetary paradigm. Distinct from the work contributed by contemporary philosophers like Morin (1921present) and Wilber (1949-present), What Kelly achieved in his scholarship lie in (1) to inherit Hegelian dialectic and to develop a new philosophy; and (2) to integrate and push forward the frontiers of knowledge arising from the multidisciplinary advances in the evolution of consciousness. The differences and links between Hegel's dialectics and Kelly's innovative paradigm are demonstrated by the following aspects: (1) Philosophical foundation. While Hegel rests his reflections of the speculative dialectics on his convictions of the European-Christian social, political, cultural, and religious traditions which he cherished from his early years and held for the rest of his life, [68] Kelly expresses his principal subject by consolidating both western cultures, such as Hebrew, Greek, Persian, and eastern ones like Hindu and Chinese, together with indigenous and Earth-based wisdoms. (2) Principle of Synthesis of Opposites. The synthesis in Hegel's triad is the "Ground." It was defined as both "the unity (A)" and "the distinction (B)" of identity and distinction, also, as "the sublation (C) of contradiction" with "its appearance as a new contradiction" [69]. Clearly, the concept of "Ground" is ambiguous in its interpretation with A, B, and C, three words of different definitions. By contrast, Kelly stands upon the broad shoulders of previous philosophers, e.g., Aurobindo, Teilhard, particularly, Campbell, to articulate clearly that it is the "new identity" which comes from the prior "identity", the base of the triad, after a fundamental pattern, "difference", separates from the base. Therefore, the new identity reached at the final stage of the process does not "return" to a stage which contains any ingredients of, nor any relations with the old identity. (3) Principle of Transition from Quantity to Quality. In Hegel's mind, a thing will suffer a sudden revulsion into a qualitatively different thing if its quantity exceeds a certain limit during its growth or disappearance from one proportion to another, in contrast to its gradual transition within the limit without any effects on the quality. 38 For Kelly, his evolutionary consciousness of the planetary era achieved a significant breakthrough by relaxing and generalizing Hegel's Eurocentric proposition: the supposed "sudden" change may still follow the prior trend of the nonviolent growth or disappearance adopted during the quantity change. See Table 1 as a reference. All of the six antithesis-like D stages label the qualitatively different propositions from those given at both the thesis-like I stages and the synthesis-like new-I ones, however, they are evolved quantitatively from the former and into the latter, respectively. Checking the helical evolving process of human awakening in Fig. 1. Yields that the dominant worldview pertains normally nothing to impulsive cultural transitions from the background traditions prevailing in a society, though the evolving directions may vary, either going up from the efficient mental to the rationalized D stages, or returning down to the efficient mental from the D stages for the next turning. Ma; ARJASS, 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 8 Table 1. Kelly's planetary paradigm in phase II: three-stage tightening/converging cycles Cycle Period (year) Identity (I) stage (thesis-like) Difference (D) stage (antithesis-like) New-identity (I) stage (synthesis-like) Cultural base (new-identity) 1 st Axial Period Christianity West a 1 >1400 Christianity Scholasticism Renaissance West; Islam 2 ~300 Renaissance Enlightenment Romanticism Eastb 3 ~100 Romanticism New Enlightenment 20 th -Century Threshold East; IE c 4 ~60 20th-Century Threshold Technocracy Counterculture East; IE 5 ~30 Counterculture New Paradigm Resurgence East; IE 6 <18 Resurgence Neoconservativism Great Turning West-East 2nd Axial Period ? a: Including, e.g., Hebrew, Greek, Persian; b: Including, e.g., Hindu, Chinese; c: Including Indigenous cultures and Earth-based wisdoms Ma; ARJASS, 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 9 (4) Principle of Negation of the Negation. In Hegel's dialectical system, any development is concisely characterized by the birth first of all of an internal contradiction of thesis; then, antithesis follows as the negation of the thesis; finally, synthesis is attained by the subsequent sublation as negation of the happened negation. 30 In this sense, any processes in human awakening are isolated from external factors yet with arbitrary evolutionary periods with which the negations happen. On the contrary, Kelly's paradigm exhibits straightforwardly that, as given in Fig. 1 or Table 1, (i) human consciousness is dependent of the background traditions, e.g., Enlightenment behaves as the countercultural movement of Renaissance which is based on the western culture, while Neoconservativism develops as the negation of Resurgence which is relevant to the eastern culture; (ii) the human worldview lends itself admirably to a regular progression in continuously tightening and converging spiral cycles between the two axial times, where not only the periods but also the relative magnitudes of the cycles decrease monotonously in time, which might refer to a link between the decrease in human consciousness and the increase in world population. 5. CONCLUSION Hegel's Eurocentric philosophy of dialectics in the 19th century gained a substantial transformation at the turn of the 20 th -21 st century. The innovative paradigm was proposed by a Hegelian scholar, Kelly, through integrating the critical contributions in philosophy, psychology, astrology, and cosmology of the 19th and 20th centuries. The new theory brings forth Hegelian dialectic philosophy in following aspects: (1) Hegel's triad of thesis-antitheses- synthesis is replaced by that of identity- difference-new-identity; (2) Hegel's Eurocentric foundation is extended to non-European cultures of both the West and the East; (3) Hegel's three dialectic Principles are corrected in view of the development of human worldview in the planetary era. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This essay integrates the themes and readings from PARP 6060 (Introduction to Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness) and PARP 6822 (Hegel, Wilber, and Morin: Foundations of Integral Theory) at CIIS, and PHIL 3P001 (Nature of Mind) at UC Berkeley. The author expresses sincere thanks to the six anonymous referees for the important comments. COMPETING INTERESTS Author has declared that no competing interests exist. REFERENCES 1. Wilhelm R, Baynes CF. The I Ching or book of changes. 3 rd Ed. Bollingen Series XIX, Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1977. 2. Boisen B. Lao Tzu's Tao-The-Ching. Boston, Massachusetts: Gnomad Publishing. 1996;84-5. 3. Calogero G. Eleaticism; 2016. Available:http://britannica.com/topic/Eleatic ism (Accessed 22 February 2016) 4. Graham DW, n.d. Heraclitus. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN: 2161-0002. Available:http://www.iep.utm.edu/heraclit/ (Accessed 15 February 2016) 5. Linder D. The relationship between socrates and Plato. In: Plato & Socrates, The Trial of Socrates; 2002. Available:http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/proj ects/ftrials/socrates/plato& soc.html (Accessed 15 February 2016) Suzzane B. A short biography of plato. In: Plato and his Dialogues; 1996. Available:http://plato-dialogues.org/life. htm (Accessed 15 February 2016) 6. Bloom A. The Republic of Plato. 2nd ed. NY: Basic Books. 1991;VI(511c):191. 7. Allen RE. Plato's parmenides. Rev. ed. In: The Dialogues of Plato. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 1997;4. Rickless S. Plato's parmenides. stanford encyclopedia of philosophy; 2015. Available:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/p lato-parmenides/ (Accessed 15 February 2016) 8. Hegel GWF. Lectures on the History of Philosophy. 2. Trans. Haldane E.S., Simson H. London: Paternoster House. 1894;53. Ma; ARJASS, 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 10 9. Georgescu SD. N.d. Plato's Contribution to Speculative Logic. Available:http://cogito.ucdc.ro/nr_2v2/ PLATO%2520 CONTRIBUTION.PDF (Accessed 16 February 2016) 10. Davies JA, Duerlinger J. Web 2.0 for schools: Learning and social participation. NY: Peter Lang Publ. Group. 2009;53-4. 11. Hegel GWF. Lectures on the History of Philosophy. 2. Trans. Haldane E.S., Simson H. London: Paternoster House. 1894;49-50. 12. Aristotle. 350 BCE. Metaphysics. Trans. Ross W.D. Paragraph 6, Part 2, Book IV. The Internet Classics Archive. Available:http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/ metaphysics.html (Accessed 20 February 2016) 13. Aristotle. N.d. Categories. Tran. Ackrill J.L. §5, In: Barnes J. Complete Works (Aristotle). Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1991;7. 14. Ibid., Aristotle. N.d. Physics: Book I. Tran. Hardie R.P., Gaye R.K. §5, p.9. 15. Livergood ND. N.d. Earlier Distortion of Platonic Dialectic. In: Contemporary Distortions of Plato's Dialectic. Available:http://www.hermespress.com/dialectic_distortions.htm (Accessed 22 February 2016) 16. Duignan B. Immanuel kant. In: The 100 Most Influential Philosophers of All Time. NY: Britannica Edu. Publ. NY. 2010;188. 17. Beardsley MC. The European philosophers: From descartes to nietzsche. NY: The Mofdern Library. 1992;394. 18. Ibid., p.395. 19. Elberfeld R. Laozi-Rezeption in der deutschen Philosophie: Von der Kenntnisnahmezur "Wiederholung". In: Philosophierenim Dialog mit China: GesellschaftfürAsiatische Philoso-phie. Hrsg. Helmut Schneider, Kln: Edition chora. 2000;141-65. German. Tran. Zhu J-L. Available:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/41 695-4. Html (Accessed 24 March 2016) 20. Stace WT. The philosophy of hegel: A systematic exposition. NY: Dover Publication; 1955. 21. Hegel GWF. Lectures on the philosophy of world history. Introduction: Reason in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1975;197. 22. Miller AV. Hegel's science of logic. NY: Humanity Books; 1969. 23. Miller AV. Hegel's philosophy of nature: Part II of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1830). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. 24. Wallace W. Hegel's philosophy of mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1894. 25. Okoye CA. Evaluation of descartes' rational foundationalism. J. Arts Human. 2001;12(1):34-54. 26. Broad CD. The philosophy of Francis Bacon. In: Anellis IH, Bacon F. The Novum Organum. Indianapolis. 2008;109-21. Available:https://resources.oncourse.iu.edu /acess/content/group/800abd97-71ef-9fe800e-37a7e411eea3/Bacon,%20 Novum%20 Organum.pdf (Accessed 12 March 2016) 27. Hibben JG. Hegel's logic: An essay in interpretation. Ontario: Batoche Books Limited; 2000. 28. Popper KR. Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1963; 312-35. 29. Engels F. Anti-Dühring. In: Karl Marx Frederick Engels Collected Works, trans. Burns E., Butt C. Stuttgart. 1894;25:120. 30. Hegel G. Encyclopaedia of the philosophical sciences. Part One. 2016; Section 95:78. Available:http://www.hegel.net/en/pdf/ Hegel-Enc-1.pdf (Accessed 13 February 2016) 31. Herbermann CG. The catholic encyclopedia. NY: Robert Appleton Co. p.192. Breazeale D., Fichte J. 1993. Early Philosophical Writings. Review of Aenesidemus. NY: Cornell University Press. 1910;7:63. 32. McTaggart J, McTaggart E. Studies in the Hegelian Dialectic. Kitchener: Batoche Books. 1999;8. 33. Ibid., pp. 8-9. 34. Hegel GWF. Science of logic. Trans. ed. Giovanni G.D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2010;59-60. 35. Ibid., p.320. 36. Ibid., p.282. 37. Hegel GWF. The logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2 nd Ed. London: Oxford University Press. 1874;§108:82. 38. Ibid., §109, p.83. 39. Duquette DA. N.d. Hegel: Social and political thought. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available:http://www.iep.utm.edu/hegelsoc/ (Accessed 28 November 2016) Ma; ARJASS, 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 11 Note that Hegel himself did never use this terminology regarding his own philosophy, nor postulate the three "laws of dialectics". 40. Nietzsche FW, Arrowsmith W. Unmodern observations. Ed. Arrowsmith W. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1990;127. 41. Hegel GWF. The philosophy of history. Tran. Sibree J. Kitchener: Batoche Books. 1991;358. 42. Russell B. The history of western philosophy. NY: Simon and Schuster. 1945;730-5. 43. Taylor C. Hegel. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. 1975;538. 44. Rehbein B. Critical theory after the rise of the global South: Kaleidoscopic Dialectic. Tran. Kinville M. NY, London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. 2015;60. 45. Engels F. Karl Marx Frederick Engels: Collected works. Trans. Burns E., Dutt C. 25:131. 46. Ibid. 47. Tarnas R. Book review. In: Kelly S.M. 2010. Coming Home: The Birth and Transformation of the Planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books. 2010;p.i. 48. Kelly SM. Coming home: The birth and transformation of the planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books; 2010. 49. Ibid., Appendix I. pp.162-163 (Redrawn from integrating the two summary diagrams). 50. Ibid., p.161, 164. 51. Webster H. World History. Boston: D. C. Heath. 1921;27. 52. Kelly SM. Coming Home: The Birth and Transformation of the Planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books. 2010;45-6. Notice that more specific high-point of the Axial Period may be used as the start: (1) ~750 BC, based on the fact that Rome was founded in around 753 BC. See: Heiken G., Funiciello R., De Rita D. 2005. The Seven Hills of Rome: A Geological Tour of the Eternal City. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p.36; (2) 590-550 BC, according to Richard Tarnas: p.66. 53. Kelly SM. Lecture notes of Introduction to Philosophy Cosmology and Consciousness. PARP 6060 01 of 2016-17 Fall. 23 November (Wednesday); 2016. 54. Morin E, Kern AB. Homeland Earth: A Manifesto for the New Millennium. Tran. Kelly S.M. LaPointe R. Kreskill: Hampton Press, Inc. p.xviii; 1999. Kelly SM. Coming home: The Birth and Transformation of the Planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books. p.vii.; 2010. 55. Kelly SM. Coming Home: The Birth and Transformation of the Planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books. 2010;161. 56. Macy J. Book Review. In: Kelly S.M. 2010. Coming Home: The Birth and Transformation of the Planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books. p.i; 2010. 57. C.f.: Denneby FJ. Book Review: "Coming Home: The Birth and Transformation of the Planetary Era, by Sean M. Kelly. Lindisfarne Books, 2010. 199 pages". First Issue. 2011;57-9. Available:http://www.anthroposophy.org/ fileadmin/being-human/bh-1-2011Spring/being-human-2011-01ComingHome.pdf (Accessed 20 November 2016) 58. Kelly SM. Coming home: The birth and transformation of the planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books. 2010;52. 59. German TJ. Scholasticism philosophy. In: BELIEVE Religious Information Source from A Christ Walk Church Public Service; 1997. Available:http://mb-soft. com/believe/txc/scholast.htm (Accessed 23 November 2016) 60. Kelly SM. Coming home: The birth and transformation of the planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books. 2010;57-8, 65. Galitz KC. Romanticism. In: Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. NY: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000; 2004. Available:http://www.metmuseum.org/toah /hd/roma/hd_roma.htm (Accessed 26 November 2016) 61. Kelly SM. Coming home: The birth and transformation of the planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books. 2010;70-1, 79. 62. Ibid., pp.80-1,83. Pendergast S, Pendergast T. Sixties Counterculture: The Hippies and Beyond. In: The Sixties in America Reference Library. Almanac. Detroit: UXL, 2005;1: 151-71. 63. Kelly SM. Coming Home: The Birth and Transformation of the Planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books. 2010;113, 117-8. Ma; ARJASS, 5(1): 1-12, 2018; Article no.ARJASS.38314 12 Grof S. A Brief History of Transpersonal Psychology. Available:http://www.stanislavgrof.com/ wp-content/uploads/pdf/ A_Brief_History_of_Transpersonal_Psycho logy_Grof.pdf (Accessed 30 April 2016) 64. Kelly SM. Coming home: The birth and transformation of the planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books. 2010;94-5. 65. Ball T, Dagger R. Neoconservatism. Encyclopedia Britannica; 2010. Available:https://www.britannica.com/topic/ neoconservatism (Accessed 27 November 2016) 66. Kelly SM. Coming Home: The Birth and Transformation of the Planetary Era. Great Barrington: Lindisfarne Books. 2010;13449. 67. Ibid., pp.158-9. 68. Dudley W. Hegel and history. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 2010;87. 69. Hegel GWF. The Encyclopaedia Logic (with the Zusatze): Part I of the Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences with the Zusatze. A new translation with Introduction and notes by T.F. Geraets, W.A. Suchting, and H.S. Harris. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Section 121. 1991;188-189. © 2018 Ma; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Peer-review history: The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here: http://sciencedomain.org/review-history/