-
There Is No “Absolute” in World Order
What We Mistook for “Inevitability”
For a long time, we were taught this:
Globalization is an unstoppable current.
Free trade is the inevitability of history.
Borders will gradually lose their power, and the world will become a single market.These ideas were in our textbooks,
in the news,
and in policy documents.So we naturally came to believe:
this order was not a choice, but a law.But today’s world no longer follows that script.
Supply chains are returning inside national borders.
Technology is being sealed off.
Finance is becoming block-based.
Trade is being rewritten in the language of security.This is not an “exception.”
The order itself is changing.
World Order Is Not a Law of Nature
Gravity requires no one’s consent.
It operates everywhere, always, in the same way.World order does not.
Who controls energy,
who controls finance,
who writes the rules,
who pays the cost of maintaining order —
when these change,
the order is immediately reorganized into a different form.World order is not a law.
It is always closer to a designed system.That is why, these days,
I find myself comparing world order to an operating system (OS).
Free Trade Was One OS
The free trade order was not simply a structure “chosen because it was good.”
It was, under the technological, financial, military, and political conditions of its time,
the operating system that could be maintained at the lowest cost.When all four of these were simultaneously true:
- sea lanes were secure
- the dollar-based financial order was stable
- global division of labor was optimized
- political trust was still functioning
free trade was not an “ideal.”
It was the optimal design.That is why we mistook it for inevitability.
When OS Maintenance Costs Explode, Order Is Replaced
Now comes the present.
Geopolitical risk has exploded.
Supply chains have become security assets.
Finance has begun to regain borders.
Technology has become an object of containment and control.The free trade OS is no longer cheap.
It has become too expensive,
too dangerous,
and too difficult to control.So the world is not rejecting order —
it is changing operating systems.
Order Does Not Collapse — It Is Replaced
World order does not collapse.
It is always replaced by another form.Feudalism → Empire
Empire → Nation-state
Nation-state → Free trade
Free trade → Security-centered bloc orderHistory moves not by morality,
but by the function of maintenance cost, control cost, and risk cost.Order always migrates
to the structure that is cheapest to maintain.
Therefore, There Is No “Absolute” World Order
There is no absolute order.
There never was.
There never will be.There is only one absolute:
Order always moves
toward the structure that is cheapest to maintain.What we are witnessing now is not the collapse of the world,
but a global OS update.And we are standing
right in the middle of that update.
If you enjoyed this piece:
Explore the “To Flip a Coin” collection
Discover more from the Abstract collection -
Why Do We Feel That This Era Is the End?
Why Do We Always Say, “Civilizations Collapse”?
These days, people often say:
Civilizations eventually collapse.
Rome, Babylon, the Maya—everything ended that way.So the anxiety we are living through now,
the cracks in our systems,
this unexplainable suffocation
are read as “signs of decline.”But is civilization really a being
that is born, grows,
and inevitably dies—like a living organism?
Civilization Is Closer to an “Operating System” Than to Death
Civilization looks like a living thing,
but if you examine its structure, it is different.Civilization is closer to a massive operating system (OS).
It absorbs resources and energy,
creates order through rules and institutions,
and transmits that order to the next generation.When this system functions properly,
civilization remains stable.The moment civilization feels as if it is “dying”
is actually when this operating system
no longer matches reality.
The Real Point at Which Decline Begins
Decline does not begin because people become morally corrupt.
Nor because spirits grow weak.Decline begins only at this point:
when the core rules and structures that maintained civilization
can no longer process the changed reality.From that moment, strange scenes appear:
Rules remain, but they no longer solve problems.
Institutions remain, but they are no longer trusted.
Words remain, but no one believes them.
Meanings remain, but they can no longer sustain life.People call this “degeneracy,”
but it is closer to an old system throwing errors in a new environment.
Why Does This Always Feel Like “The End”?
Periods when civilizations update their structures
are always the harshest for humans.Familiar orders collapse,
hierarchies are rearranged,
systems of meaning are shaken,
and life becomes unstable.So we experience this period
as if it were “the end.”But civilization does not die here—
it is changing into another form.
There Is Another Civilization That Is Truly Dangerous
The truly dangerous civilization
is one that cannot admit that its system has grown old.When it distorts reality
to preserve outdated structures,
and tries to protect itself with excessive regulation, excessive morality, and excessive control,
civilization enters a pathological state of attacking itself.This is not senescence—
it is closer to an autoimmune disease.
Where Are We Standing Now?
Our present anxiety does not arise because civilization is dying.
We are passing through a phase
in which civilization is colliding with itself during its self-update process.That is why everything feels unfamiliar,
even goodness feels violent,
protection turns into control,
and enlightenment sounds like oppression.This is less a sign of collapse
than the friction noise just before civilization shifts into a new form.
Civilization Does Not Die
Civilization does not die.
But whenever the ways that sustained it no longer work,
it must pass through a “renewal phase that looks like collapse.”We are now moving through that phase.
And this moment
is not the end—
but the most unstable moment
just before a new civilization is born.
If you enjoyed this piece:
Explore the “A Pre-trained Future” collection
Discover more from the Abstract collection -
If Infant Memories Disappear, Why Do We Say Attitudes Remain?
Infant Memories Are Very Short
We remember very little from immediately after we are born.
Yet developmental theory often says this:“Learning attitudes and values formed in infancy remain for life.”
At first glance, this sounds contradictory.
Do not attitudes and values continue to change throughout life?
Do not our thoughts shift, our standards of judgment change, and our life goals transform?
So what does this statement actually mean?
Attitudes and Values Do Change
First, something must be made clear.
People’s attitudes and values do in fact change.
Political positions, moral judgments, and relational priorities are continuously revised through experience and learning.So if we take the phrase “values formed in infancy last a lifetime” literally, it would be incorrect.
The problem arises when we fail to distinguish precisely what is said to “remain.”
Infancy Does Not Form “Content”
Infancy is not the period in which the content of values is learned.
Infants cannot conceptually understand “this is right” or “this is important.”
Instead, what is formed in this period are bodily answers to questions like:Is this situation safe or threatening?
Is it okay to try, or better to stop?
If I ask for help, will someone respond?
If I fail, will the relationship remain?In other words, infancy is not the time for learning what to believe,
but for learning how to believe.
What Remains Is Not Values, but “Grammar”
Once this distinction is understood, the statement becomes clear.
What remains from infancy is not ideology or belief,
but the basic grammar through which the world is interpreted.By analogy:
what is installed in infancy is an operating system (OS),
and the values and beliefs learned in adulthood are more like apps installed on top of it.Apps can be changed easily.
But while the OS can be updated, its fundamental structure is not easily altered.This is why people often say,
“My thoughts have changed, but my body remains the same.”
The Precise Meaning of “Lasts a Lifetime”
This statement should be understood like this:
Infant memories disappear.
But the neural response rules formed through those memories remain for a long time.
These rules operate before we are even consciously aware of them:Do I tense up first when learning something new?
Does asking for help feel safe?
When I fail, do I shrink back—or try again?
In relationships, do I always become the one who adjusts first?These are closer to reflexes than to choices.
That is why similar reactions are repeatedly triggered in similar situations,
no matter how much our conscious thinking changes.
So Does It Really Never Change?
Not exactly.
It simply changes in a different way.This basic grammar does not shift easily through explanation or persuasion alone—
because “understanding” and “the body changing” are not the same thing.Change usually occurs very slowly through:
repeated relational experiences,
environments where failure is safe,
and emotional–somatic re-learning.This is why recovery feels slow,
and why people become frustrated with themselves.
What This Statement Ultimately Means
What “lasts a lifetime” is not a fixed set of values.
What remains is the posture through which we receive values,
the bodily attitude with which we stand before learning,
and the fundamental way we trust the world.Understanding this is not meant to say “it is already too late,”
but to explain fairly why change is slow
and why effort alone is often insufficient.The memories have disappeared,
but the grammar formed then is still operating within us.
And it, too, is something that can be relearned—
through time and experience.
If you enjoyed this piece:
Explore the “A Greenhouse for Tender Things” collection
Discover more from the Abstract collection