Dialectical metaRealism’s expanded list of methodologies
Our Toolkit
Here is the current list of Dialectical metaRealism’s (ƉɱⱤ’s) expanding, and frequently overlapping, body of methods or praxes. Most of the links go either to my latest book or to files on Google Drive:
Restructurational Realism™ ⟪ɽᶉ⟫™ refers, first, to the transformational model of social activity (ⴶᘻ𐒡ᗩ™) and, second, to the position–practice system (ᕿᖅᑭᖤ™), i.e. Bhaskar’s social practice theory or praxæology. The term Restructurational Realism ⟪ɽᶉ⟫ is derived from restructuration (尺丂™) itself or, as I sometimes call it, the Bhaskarian dialectic (ɮɖ™). Bhaskar’s use of restructuration reflects his early association with structuration theory. It was primarily developed, and previously advocated, by the English sociologist, and the former director of the London School of Economics and Political Science, Anthony Giddens, né 1938. ⟪ɽᶉ⟫, in the relatively primitive manner I originally formulated it, will be referenced in the current chapter and in chapter 2.
Left–Sorokinian Amitology™ (ꕴശꗈ™), a revised Sorokinism (ڪ𖥚ꭉ𖢨™), is an ontology of emancipatory praxis. ꕴശꗈ—as cosmic unity with universal creative altruism, supraconscious intuition, lovingkindness, and morality (𑼞𑼦🅆🄸🅃🄷ህꗲ𝘈ꞨエꝈꝄꝸꤵ™) or servitude (᧔♡᧓™)—is explored, in this chapter, by discussing my onetime Hegelian Marxist reformulations of Pitirim A. Sorokin’s (1889–1968) framework and, in chapters 2 and 6, through a consideration of the Sufi–Bhakti–Sant Mat Movement. While avoiding his Platonic idealist Integralism (Քɨเ™) aka Sorokinian Integralism (ꈜꎰ™), and now without the Hegelian Marxism (ዘற™), I attempt to rescue his legacy from the social conservatives and the anti–Marxists. Because Sorokin had been both, and I was neither, the uneasiness persisted. The capitalist world–system remains the sworn enemy of amitology (ƛ𑇴įϯ𖠇𖤔𖡼𖥨ꛤ™) and 𑼞𑼦🅆🄸🅃🄷ህꗲ𝘈ꞨエꝈꝄꝸꤵ. But Dialectical metaRealism (ƉɱⱤ) and Post–Civilization–Localism–Mutual Aid Maoism–Third Worldism (Ꭾⵞ𐌋ത𐌀𐒄ՇƜ) are everlasting friends. On February 23ʳᵈ, 2026, four days before my 70ᵗʰ birthday, I reintroduced Sorokin into my work, after a decades–long separation, through a revolutionary transformation of ƛ𑇴įϯ𖠇𖤔𖡼𖥨ꛤ.
Narrative theology (₦₮™) is reading and pondering the words of the Prophets and the reformers as stories to the heart. Some of those stories may be figurative. Some might be literal. Still others might combine the literal with the figurative or symbolic. Much of the Bible (see also the excellent American Standard Version or ASV), including the Four Gospels (here taken from the ASV), could be figurative or largely so. The Dawnbreakers—not a scriptural text but similar perhaps, in certain respects, to the Gospels—might contain both literal and figurative accounts. Divine Revelation is, however, an ongoing story of redemption. One clearly should not assume at the outset, as do many, that a particular text, especially a premodern or early modern account, is factual, historical, or scientific. Chapter 2 presents my narrative theology—though as a religious studies scholar, not a theologian—called The Unicentric Unities Model. It may also be an example of inspired categorization™ (ꗫ™), an admittedly pretentious term I coined in my youth.
Alethiopraxis™ (𝔸Ⱡꝑ𐒴™), truth praxis or practice, is my generalized critical postpositivist (ꛐρ𐫯™) approach to the Bhaskarian critical realist alethic truth (ꋬታ™). It includes both pneumapraxis (Ꝕ™) or spiritual praxis or practice (i.e. methods of spiritual knowledge and transformation) and empiriapraxis (𐕸™) or empirical praxis or practice (i.e. the formal sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, and human sciences). Aspects will be examined in chapter 2. Truth is transcendent as well as collectively and individually transformative. The term alethiopraxis (𝔸Ⱡꝑ𐒴) was inspired by an essay I wrote, now antiquated, in 1994.
Dvandvātmaka•Bhēdābhēda•Vēdāntavāda™ (Sanskrit, द्वन्द्वात्मकभेदाभेदवेदान्तवाद [MP3], “dialectical–difference–nondifference–end–of–wit/wisdom/knowledge–‘ism’”) or Đ𐌱ᜠ™ is the methodology of spiritual cosmology in ƉɱⱤ. That spiritual cosmology is elucidated in The Unicentric Unities Model (chapter 2) and further explained in elsewhere in the same chapter.
Yoga (Sanskrit, योग॑, yōga, “cognate with yoking”) or ♚𐒋𐒆𐒛Ⱥ♔™, as a methodology, is introduced into ƉɱⱤ in the first half of chapter 2. That will follow my translation of Dialectical metaRealism into Sanskrit as Dvandvātmaka•Bhēdābhēda•Vēdāntavāda™. To be clear, though inspired by Vēdānta since my early youth, I am not a Vēdāntist.
Epistemological relativity focuses on the multifaceted character of truth. But truth is not relative. Truth is truth. Postpositivist and critical postpositivist (ꛐρ𐫯) Marxists must, in my view, welcome diverse, multi–paradigmatic hermeneutic epistemologies. (ꨁ𖹙Ԩ꧴ ™). Strong epistemologic relativism ᏋᎡ™ has been associated with the stratified perspectivist or standpoint epistemology systematized by the writer in ƉɱⱤ. Heresy (Koine Greek, αἵρεσις, haíresis) is presented throughout the Christian New Testament, not as the benign presence of alternative beliefs, but as the self–willed promotion of malignant division. It may even be said that common views of heresy as differences in understanding, serving as they do to needlessly divide believers, may themselves be congruous with New Testament usages of haíresis. A classical illustration, however, is found in the Jain–Buddhist–Hindu parable of the blind men and the elephant. With Jainism, the parable illustrates that religion’s teaching of many–sidedness. Strong epistemological relativism (ᏋᎡ) is exemplified by, to cite just three examples: phenomenological meditation (ꚰꛗ™), self–crit aka self–critique (𝕊ᄃ™), and heterodox judgmental rationality (𖥷꛲𖨙™). A weak epistemological relativism (𐌄Ʀ™) may be witnessed in the ethical tragedy of moral relativism and in a postmodern rejection of metanarratives through polydoxy or pluridoxy. To try my hand at some legal jargon, 𐌄Ʀ should be dismissed with prejudice. But perspectivism or standpoint epistemology should, when coupled with orthopraxy or an effective Marxist praxis, be welcomed. Epistemological relativity is also considered in chapter 2.
Moral realism (ⲘⲄ™) and ethical naturalism (ꁉꊃ™), not moral and cultural relativism, are the two major, and also interrelated, axiological methodologies in Bhaskarian critical realism (ᙖᙍⴽ) and Dialectical metaRealism (ƉɱⱤ). They are likewise examined in chapter 2. Notably, Karl Marx himself, it has been argued, might also have supported a Leftist morality. Moral realism (ⲘⲄ) and ethical naturalism (ꁉꊃ) are similar to Sorokin’s cosmic unity with universal creative altruism, supraconscious intuition, lovingkindness, and morality (𑼞𑼦🅆🄸🅃🄷ህꗲ𝘈ꞨエꝈꝄꝸꤵ). Morality is the fabric, the stuff, of all beings and things. However, values and social norms (both mores and folkways aka etiquette), as the relative products of human agency, are often misguided. Ethics are obviously applied in a situational context, but, contrary to Joseph Fletcher (1905–1991), there are no situation ethics.
Dreaming (ȡꭉ𐖟𐖗ꬺịꞑǥ™) is the university for the human soul. The Awakeners are our professors. Dreaming is the divinely ordained methodology for living in the spiritual spheres of this world and preparing for the hereafter. Their lessons are in stories. For those we remember, we can reflect. For those we cannot consciously recall, the meanings are still internalized. We may, at some point, receive insights. The glorious realm of dreams, along with the Awakeners Who abide in that plane of intercession, will be explored throughout the book but particularly in chapter 2.
Phenomenological Copresence (ᑭꖾ 𖠜 ᑕ𖣵™), grounded in Husserlian intersubjectively (S丨Ƨ™) and an inner quietude (𝔔 ᰂ™) marked by the self–evident inversion of disquietude, is the cultivation of unity, or when possible even dialogue, with all beings and things. This methodology can be practiced in tandem with the related methodology of Left–Sorokinian Amitology (ꕴശꗈ) and its praxis of cosmic unity with universal creative altruism, love, and morality (𑼞𑼦🅆🄸🅃🄷ህꗲ𝘈ꞨエꝈꝄꝸꤵ). ᑭꖾ 𖠜 ᑕ𖣵 will be primarily discussed in chapter 2.
The Four–Point Solution™ (ꞘꝒꟅ™), a term I coined in the 1980s, consists of the spiritual methodology of: prayer, meditation, intensive study of spiritual texts, and exemplifying a virtuous life of service to God. ꞘꝒꟅ is closely related to Left–Sorokinian Amitology (ꕴശꗈ). Aspects of ꞘꝒꟅ will be considered in chapter 2. Provisionally, my thought is this: The teaching plans are organized mechanisms for the expansion and consolidation of the Bahá’í Faith. If an individual chooses to serve in their own way, that is their business, not of anyone else. However, one should never become a source of disunity or distraction by encouraging others to follow along. I gave the example earlier of someone who promoted Marian Lippitt’s materials over the Bahá’í institute process and harassed others. The Universal House of Justice legislated the dismantling of their organization. Since, at this particular moment, we need a lot of supplications and supplicants, I made numerous translations of the term prayer:
ʾal•ṣṣalāẗuṇ (Arabic, الصَّلَاةٌ)
ʾal•duʿāˁuṇ (Arabic, الدُعَاءٌ)
it–talba (Siculo–Arabic Maltese)
hạ•ttəp̄illāh (Hebrew, הַתְּפִלָּה)
diy ttəp̄iləh (Yiddish, דִּי תְּפִֿלְה)
diy dʾạv̇ẹʿnəʿn (Yiddish, דִּי דּאַווֶענְען)
yä•sꞌälotu (Amharic, የጸሎቱ)
ʾəti•sꞌälotə (Tingrinya, እቲጸሎት)
namāz (Persian and Balochi/Baluchi/Balòci, نَمَاز)
namoz (Tajik, намоз)
duʿā (Persian, دُعَا)
duo (Tajik, дуо)
l°mūn°ź (Pashto, لمُونْځ)
ʾar°ǧ (Sindhi, ارْج)
dūv̇ā (Uyghur, دُوۋَا)
n°wêǧ (Soranî Kurdish, نْوێژ)
dûa (Kurmanjî Kurdish)
doga (Crimean Tatar, дога)
lamaz dar (Chechen, ламаз дар)
namaź (Bashkir, намаҙ)
ibodat (Uzbek)
namaz (Turkish and Turkmen)
dua (Azerbaijani)
mörgül (Tuvan, мөргүл)
duba (Kyrgyz, дуба)
dūġa (Kazakh, дұға)
prārthanā (Sanskrit, Hindi, and Marwardi/Marwari प्रार्थना)
duʿā (Urdu and Shahmukhi Punjabi, دُعَا)
prārathanā (Gurmukhi Punjabi, ਪ੍ਰਾਰਥਨਾ)
duꞌā (Gurmukhi Punjabi, ਦੁਆ)
p°rārat°hanā (Shahmukhi Punjabi, پْرَارَتْھَنَا)
prārthanā (Bengali, প্রার্থনা)
praārthanā (Assamese, প্ৰাৰ্থনা)
I know that the vowels do not look quite right in the Assamese transliteration (otherwise quite similar to the Bengali and Sanskrit, Hindi, and Marwardi/Marwari transliterations). However, I triple checked, and apparently that is correct. There is no standardized method to transliterate Bengali and Assamese.
kido (Korean, 기도)
inori (Japanese, 祈り)
dǎo•gào (Mandarin, 祷告)
tou2•gou3 (Cantonese, 祷告)
duʿāˁ (Malay in Jawi script, دُعَاء)
doa (Malay and Indonesian)
ewe iotek (Chuukese)
sampi nya (Iban)
ti kararag (Ilocano)
ang panalangin (Filipino)
ʾaddūʿā (Hausa in Ajami script, ادُّوعَا)
ḏə namāz•ik ṣalāẗ (ʿĀlam•iš, my conlang), i.e. literally, the obeisant connection
Social networking (Ꞩቤ™) is the practical methodology of finding significant others to work with. I am not referring primarily to social media. Most of my “friends” on social media platforms are people I never met. When I look at the list of those friends, I honestly recognize only a fraction of them. The vast majority are strangers. If your experience is different, you might find social media to be more productive. Ꞩቤ is considered in chapter 2.
Misdirection (ꪑȡ™), the fine art of deception (i.e. look there, not here), is practiced in: sleight of hand, ventriloquism, espionage, and warfare. The ethical use of misdirection, as a means of distracting the oppressor in real time, will be briefly demonstrated in chapter 2.
Transcendental conscientization™ (𐌕ꛑ𐌂™) is the selfless promotion of a spiritually conscionable consciousness – conscious conscience through Dialectical metaRealism (ƉɱⱤ). Conscientization (Ɔ˙C™) itself is an emancipatory dialectic of the conscience and consciousness. Paulo Freire (1921–1997), a Brazilian educator, creatively coined the term, in Portuguese, as conscientização. The designation was intentionally derived from the Portuguese consciência (MP3) which, like the French conscience (MP3), has a dual connotation of conscience and consciousness. Although they are Indo–European cognates, there are no specific renderings of the West Germanic and debatably semi–creole English “consciousness” in most Romance languages. The Italian consapevolezza (MP3) and the Romanian conștientizare (MP3) are two exceptions. In chapter 2 and chapter 5, 𐌕ꛑ𐌂 will be explored as a non–Bhaskarian epistemology or methodology partially grounded in Freire’s critical pedagogy (𖥐ꚪ™).
ꌚꂦꌚ™, an international distress signal but not an abbreviation, was originally developed for Morse code. In ƉɱⱤ, however, ꌚꂦꌚ refers to an acceleration of global crises and dislocations. As well stated in a 2025 issue of the Creative Commons journal, Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, we are organizing for apocalypse. The capitalist world–system is rapidly unraveling. Centered on that awareness, we can systematically examine, and prioritize, the interests of the Other: the Third World (ꔋꖓ™), the Fourth World of Indigeneity (ꗕꘞꔀ™), and Subalternity (⟆մҍ). By the same token, we cannot neglect an empirical consideration of our own backyards. Discovering various mechanisms to assist those in distress in our towns and neighborhoods is a practical, day–to–day application of ƉɱⱤ. Be ready to act, as Antifas or protectors of the Other, at a moment’s notice. We will turn to this non–Bhaskarian methodology in, once again, chapters 2 and 5.
Decapitalization (ᕲȻ™) refers to non–Bhaskarian methodologies for disentangling ourselves from the dominant capitalist world–system. Our suggestions for implementing ᕲȻ relate to a Post–Civ MTW (ꛠ𖥕ꚸ𖢧𖢊ꛕꚹꚴꛔ𖦚ꛃ) praxis of lawful resistance to capitalism, considered below, and such resistance is vital. A topical discussion, in chapter 5, will offer some suggestions for de–capitalization.
Paulinism (₽ꪖᝀ𖹟ȴ𑴀𐒃𑢡𑊰™), discussed in chapter 5 and chapter 6, focuses upon the importance of contextualization (ꕿㆁղ₸Ҿ𑣬𐲐™). The self–proclaimed divine Messenger or Apostle Paul (Latin, Paulus), né Saul (Hebrew, שָׁאוּל, Šāʾūl), was the great Contextualizer, not, as is commonly believed, a systematic theologian. Being the primary Expositor of the Gospel of Christ, He demonstrated that the teachings of the Prophets could be applied, without sacrificing divine moral standards, to diverses cultures. That is to say, He distinguished between the universality of moral realism and the particularity of values and social norms, i.e., folkways and mores. This basic principle also relates to Post–Civilization–Localism–Mutual Aid–Maoism–Third Worldism (Ꭾⵞ𐌋ത𐌀𐒄ՇƜ). A durable communism can only develop indigenously and without the arrogant cultural imperialism of an external power. If we are serious about establishing communism or revolutionary socialism on a solid contextual foundation, we should, in my view, accept Joseph Stalin’s (1878–1953) brilliant model of socialism in one country (ສɪɴ𐖇𑁟™).
Decoloniality (ꉸꐩꐬꍤ™) is, as presently approached, a methodology for applying kyriarchy (ӃД) to challenge Empire (𑼳𑼆) or imperialism (𖣇ꬺ™), e.g. cultural imperialism or cultural colonialism, neocolonialism, settler colonialiality, Gramcscian cultural hegemony, and mandatory segregation (including ghettoization and apartheid). ꉸꐩꐬꍤ will be extensively explored and categorized in chapter 6. I practice a minimal version of ꉸꐩꐬꍤ, in chapters 2 and 6, by rejecting the placement of scholars into the theoretical rubrics of others. Divorced from Marxism (ᘉᗗꞦⵅ߁ꚠ൲™) or left anarchism (𖧏𖧆), however, ꉸꐩꐬꍤ has tended to be progressive or “leftish,” not Leftist.
Underlaboring (ᏬᏝ™) is the primary topic in chapter 6. Critical realism, according to Bhaskar, is itself an underlaborer. As a tributary of the current of critical realism, ƉɱⱤ is also an underlaborer. Readers will be subsequently invited to underlabor one or more proposed subjects.
Lawful nonviolent resistance (𞋎ᮜᜱ𖦪™), repeatedly considered in this book, is essential to ꛠ𖥕ꚸ𖢧𖢊ꛕꚹꚴꛔ𖦚ꛃ. Praxes of resistance, during these final days of late capitalism, are a cornerstone of Maoism–Third Worldism (ѪŦШ) overall. Capitalism (𑼣𑼯ᜣ™) and imperialism (𖣇ꬺ) must be resisted at every turn. But ƉɱⱤ is not politically partisan in our methods or objectives and will never actively oppose any governments. We do not, for example, advocate the arguably reformist philosophy of civil disobedience (ርꑓᗪ™) or illicit nonviolent resistance. ርꑓᗪ must be clearly distinguished from 𞋎ᮜᜱ𖦪. Indeed, the latter could even include being a Maoist–Third Worldist! Various forms of nonviolent resistance were advanced by such persons as:
Mozi (Mandarin, 墨子, Mò•zi, circā 475 BCE–circā 391 BCE)
Étienne de La Boétie (1430–1563)
George Fox (1624–1691)
William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879)
Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
Tohu Kākahi (c. 1828–1907)
Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910)
Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869–1948)
Martin Buber (1878–1965)
the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968)
Richard Bartlett Gregg (1885–1974)
Alice Stokes Paul (1885–1977)
Bayard Rustin (1912–1987)
Rosa Louise McCauley Parks (1913–2005)
David Dellinger (1915–2004)
John Bordley Rawls (1921–2002)
Corazón “Cory” Aquino (1933–2009)
Nelson Mandela (1918–2013)
Gene Sharp (1918–2018)
Jürgen Habermas (1929–2026)
Václav Havel (1936–2011)
George Lakey (né 1937)
Lech Wałęsa (né 1943)
Erica Chenoweth (né·e 1980)
climate activist Tim DeChristopher (né 1981)
climate activist Vanessa Nakate (née 1996)
climate activist Xiye Bastida Patrick (née 2002)
climate activist 🙵 human rights activist Greta Thunberg (née 2003)
climate activist Isra Hirsi (née 2003)
Maria J. Stephan (NDOB and NMN discovered)
The inclusion of individuals in the above enumeration should not be taken to imply agreement or disagreement with any of their respective approaches or philosophies. Critically thinking for oneself is always good policy.
Moderation (Sanskrit/Sanskr̥ta, अनतिक्रम, anatikrama with its Pali/Pāḷi cognate, अनतिक्कम, anatikkama; and Sanskrit मात्रज्ञता, mātrajñatā with its Pali cognate, मत्ताञ्ञुता, mattaññutā) or 𐲚𐲗𐲖™ is another methodology in Dialectical metaRealism (ƉɱⱤ). One should avoid taking things to an extreme and live a life of balance. Follow the Golden Mean (Hebrew, שְׁבִיל הַהַזָּהָב, šəḇiyl hạ•hạzzạhạḇ; or Arabic, طَرِيق الذَهَبِيّ, ṭarīq ʾal•ḏahabiyy, “the golden path”) taught by Maimonides (Hebrew, מֹשֶׁה בֶּן מַיְמוֹן, Mōšẹh bẹn Mạyəmôn; or Arabic, مُوسَى بِن مَيْمُون, Mūsaỳ bin May°mūn) aka the Rambaꞌꞌm (Hebrew, הַרַמְבַּ״ם, hạ•Rạməbạ″m; or Arabic, الرَامْبَام, ʾal•Rām°bām), 1335 or 1338–1204. If, for instance, one makes an error as a Marxist or as a follower of this or that religion, one may attempt to correct the mistake by attending to the obligation in the moment or in the future. Apologies, when relevant, often soothe hurt feelings. One can also simply forget about the issue and attempt to do better next time. There is no need to be hard on oneself. We are, after all, only human. In my opinion, those praxes define moderation. Perhaps reflecting on the Buddhist Middle Way (Pali, मज्झिमापटिपदा, Majjhimāpaṭipadā, or its Sanskrit cognate, मध्यमाप्रतिपद, Madhyamāpratipada) would be beneficial to some. Moderate Islam (Arabic, إِسْلَامِيَّةُ الوَسَطِيَّةٌ, ⫰Ɪs°lāmiyyaẗu ʾal•Wasaṭiyyaẗuṇ) will be referenced in chapter 6.
Content creation (ꖻ™), a term used here with wide connotations, can be digital or analog: journaling (or blogging), website development, podcasting, the visual arts, the performing arts, and other praxes, particularly those focused on promoting revolutionary socialism. By engaging in ꖻ, one can spread Bhaskarian critical realism (ᙖᙍⴽ), Maoism–Third Worldism (ѪŦШ™), and so forth. My own ꖻ includes: this entire book, Dialectical metaRealism (ƉɱⱤ), Post–Civilization–Localism–Mutual Aid–Maoism–Third Worldism (Ꭾⵞ𐌋ത𐌀𐒄ՇƜ), and the entire MarkFoster.NETwork™ (𑅮ક⸙𑅨™).
Ethnography (𖠢ㅊǶ𖨶𖥞𖠯™) is a qualitative methodology (ⵕጦ™) employed in sociology (߆𖣵ⵛ) and, perhaps more commonly, in sociocultural anthropology (ꕷꗺꕸꕀꗇ™). Among the approaches taken in 𖠢ㅊǶ𖨶𖥞𖠯 is participant observation (ꛄ𖥙™). Investigators often learn through an active engagement with others. That said, nonparticipant observation (𖦇𖡮𖤊™), unobtrusive research as a bystander, can also have ethnographic value. Much of this writer’s own work, admittedly a hermit by disposition, falls under the category of 𖦇𖡮𖤊. Both ꛄ𖥙 and 𖦇𖡮𖤊 are frequently, but not necessarily, conducted in naturalistic settings. Cyberethnography, digital ethnography, or netography (𑋗𐋦も™) has been a relatively recent methodological development. ⴶᘻ𐒡ᗩ, by that name, shall be introduced and discussed in chapter 2. The normatively sequence, however, for 𖠢ㅊǶ𖨶𖥞𖠯 or, conceptually, any research project would follow the following sequence: a point of origin ➔ a life pattern ➔ an end objective (ⱣƠ➤ŁꝒ➤عØ™). 𖠢ㅊǶ𖨶𖥞𖠯 has been utilized throughout the entire project.