A pervasive pattern recurs across human civilizations: whenever confronted with fundamental predicaments-unexplainable phenomena, incomprehensible orders, incurable diseases-humanity “looks backward” rather than seeking answers from the future. The Renaissance returned to ancient Greece; traditional Chinese medicine returned to the Huangdi Neijing; Western philosophy returned to Plato; religious reformations returned to their original scriptures. Grounded in the PFUSRC system’s Unary ontological marking and the ontology-projection stratification as its hard logical foundation, this paper proposes a fundamental explanation: technology is iterative, growing more refined over time; ontology is originary, growing fainter over time. Technology can be continuously optimized, but the frameworks for fundamental questions-“what is health,” “what is justice,” “what is existence”-were established early in civilization. Later technological progress is “patchwork” within old frameworks, not an upgrade of the frameworks themselves. What humanity “looks backward” for is not technology, but the holistic cognitive framework that existed at the origin of civilization and was later severed due to the loss of ontology. This paper further argues: this is not “nostalgia,” not “anti-intellectualism,” but “returning to the root to open the new”-using modern tools to retranslate that lost framework. Ontology does not negate technology; it is the “step” upon which technology operates-when the first step is sufficient, the technological iteration on the second step proceeds naturally; when the second step approaches saturation, one must return to the first step to recalibrate. This paper contrasts the reductionist critique in mainstream academia with the ontological solution of the PFUSRC system, pointing out that although academia identified the problem, it failed to provide an answer because it lacked the two simplest starting points: Unary as ontological marking, and Wisdom (Ψ-Ξ) as an innate attribute. This paper further reveals that theology and technology are the two historical forms through which ontology has been obscured; obscuration is more thorough than elimination-“looking backward” is an instinctive resistance against obscuration.
Zhenmin Wang (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: