Boxhead's sense of reality & fantasies of ontological security

I was reading some resources created by the Decolonial Futures Collective and came across Fantasies of Ontological Security. In it, the collective gives their 'diagnosis of the present' which is part of their theory-of-change. The present and its systems are represented by a crumbling house, the structure of which is built and maintained by Boxhead who represents a specific ontology.

Boxhead 'thinks, therefore he is': his relationship with the world is mediated by his cognitive repertoire of meanings, rather than by his senses... thereby buffering his sense of reality (and sense of what is possible).

Boxhead works hard to keep his reality secure.

Modern fantasies of ontological security depend on a series of presumed entitlements to the false promises of: autonomy, immunity, and hierarchy (promised via separability), social mobility and property accumulation (promised via global capitalism), law and order (promised via the nation-state), universal knowledge and morality (promised via Enlightenment humanism), and others

Who is Boxhead and how does he think?

Boxhead built and works to maintain the structure and systems of the present. The present and its systems are represented by a crumbling house. Boxhead tends to this house and resides within it.

Boxhead has imprinted grammar that defines what is intelligible, legitimate, viable and desirable. The following frames condition Boxhead's possibilities for experiencing the world - by reducing being to knowing and life to meaning-making:

• Cartesian Refers to René Descartes' philosophy, emphasising rationalism, dualism (mind-body separation), and systematic doubt as a method for acquiring knowledge. Boxhead separates mind and body, values intellect over emotion, and trusts logic to resolve uncertainty.
• Teleological Relating to purpose or end goals; it interprets phenomena based on their ultimate purpose or design rather than just causes. Boxhead's teleological thinking makes him want to plan for the engineering of a future that he can imagine.
• Dialectical A method of inquiry and reasoning that explores contradictions and their resolution, often leading to synthesis or transformation through opposing forces or ideas. Boxhead's dialectical thinking traps him in a linear logic that is obsessed with consensus and resolutions and averse to paradoxes, complexities and contradictions.
• Anthropocentric Centred on humans; interprets the world primarily through human values, experiences, and needs, often at the expense of non-human perspectives. Boxhead's anthropocentric reasoning makes him see himself as separate from nature and having a mandate to manage, exploit and control it.
• Utility-maximising A concept in economics and decision theory where individuals or systems aim to maximise their usefulness, satisfaction, or benefit. Boxhead wants to be efficient and utilitarian. He may think and behave transactionally.
• Logocentric Prioritising reason, logic, and speech as the foundation of meaning, often critiqued for marginalising non-rational forms of knowledge and expression. Boxhead's beliefs compel him to believe that reality can be described in language in its totality.
• Allochronic Viewing other cultures or societies as existing in a different (often earlier) time, creating a temporal separation that reinforces colonial or Eurocentric perspectives. Boxhead's thinks of himself as ahead in time compared to others. He thinks that others are in the past. Boxhead leads humanity on a single 'path of evolution' and he judges based on his own favourable criteria.
• Evolutionary Pertaining to gradual development or adaptation over time, often referring to biological evolution but also applied to cultural and technological change. Boxhead's evolutionary thinking positions himself at leader on the single path of evolution as the apex of civilization.

Imprinted Reasoning

A person who embodies all the above traits might be imagined as a hyper-rational philosopher-scientist—a figure deeply committed to reason, analysis, and systematic inquiry, yet often constrained by the paradigms they uphold.

This individual likely views the world through a Cartesian lens, separating mind and body, valuing intellect over emotion, and trusting logic to resolve uncertainty. They approach life with a teleological mindset, seeking purpose and direction in every action or phenomenon, perhaps envisioning history or progress as unfolding toward a predetermined goal.

Their outlook may be subtly allochronic, placing cultures or traditions they deem "less advanced" in an earlier developmental phase, reinforcing an evolutionary narrative of superiority and linear progress. Their reasoning process is dialectical, exploring contradictions and oppositions, but ultimately aiming to resolve these tensions through synthesis rather than dwelling in ambiguity.

They are anthropocentric, prioritising human concerns above all else—technology, ethics, and exploration all serving humanity’s advancement, often ignoring non-human or ecological perspectives. Decisions are framed by utility-maximizing logic, calculating risks, benefits, and returns to ensure optimal outcomes.

Their communication style and worldview are logocentric, favouring language, definitions, and structured argument as the foundation of truth, often dismissing intuition, myth, or embodied knowledge. Lastly, they interpret both life and society as evolutionary, valuing adaptation and survival but often overlooking cyclical patterns or relational interdependencies.

Such a person could be a techno-scientific futurist, a rationalist economist, or even a philosophical systems thinker—highly intelligent and visionary, yet potentially blind to the limits of their frameworks, leaving questions about what lies outside their structured worldview unanswered.

What lies outside? Here is an idea...