>“Where are you?” “What place are you talking about?” I don’t know, since Hermes is continually moving on. Rather, ask him, “What roadmap are you in the process of drawing up, what networks are you weaving together?” No single word, neither substantive nor verb, no domain or specialty alone characterizes, at least for the moment, the nature of my work. I only describe relationships. For the moment, let’s be content with saying it’s “a general theory of relations.” Or “a philosophy of prepositions."[\[31\]](https://contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=812#FN31)
---------------------------------------
>Let us, then, recapitulate our argument, in order to try to suggest what
form the new civilization might take. We have two alternatives before us.
First, there is the possibility that imaginal thinking will not succeed in
incorporating conceptual thinking. This could lead to a generalized de-
politicization, deactivation, and alienation of humankind, to the victory
of the consumer society, and to the totalitarianism of the mass media.
Such a development would look very much like the present mass culture,
but in more exaggerated or gross form. The culture of the elite would dis-
appear for good, thus bringing history to an end in any meaningful sense
of that term. The second possibility is that imaginal thinking will succeed
in incorporating conceptual thinking. This would lead to new types of
communication in which man consciously assumes the structural posi-
tion. Science would then be no longer merely discursive and conceptual,
but would have recourse to imaginal models. Art would no longer work
at things (“oeuvres”), but would propose models. Politics would no
longer fight for the realizations of values, but would elaborate manipula-
ble hierarchies of models of behavior. All this would mean, in short, that
