Examining the notion of Mankind within a strictly ontological framework is reducing the notion itself. Without Mankind’s diachronic nature and temporal determination it seems locally isomorphic to society. Thus, the latter can be nothing but a degenerated projection of the effective structure of Mankind. Without a holistic vision, Mankind resembles to an artificial abstraction – not to say an ad hoc model. The issue also is not about reconstructing it by beginning with multi-local information which would have given us a global sense. This is not our goal, because it is neither cognitively robust nor mathematically reliable. The abstract model of Mankind is more complicated and requires the intrinsic intervention of time. Any approach which does not take into consideration the temporal element not only is it deprived of conceptual efficacy, but also it denies the profound structure of Mankind. For, time also functions as space of memory for Mankind. Thus, we cannot contain ourselves only in the ontology of Mankind and the one of Time, we have to grasp the teleological aspect of this assembly as well. As elements inseparable in human thinking, Mankind and Time function in a cybernetic manner. Without feedback, we would have a machine to erase time. Without a retrograde analysis, it is not possible to have a synthesis of the future. Mankind is inscribed in Time because it is above all a temporal signature. By leaving its traces, Mankind does not restrict itself in acquiring a temporal dimension. It also gives a meaning to time since it fights against entropy. With its intelligence Mankind creates temporal structures which do not allow a linear vision of time any longer. The space of causality is not only a transposition of a characteristic geometry which could be easily modeled. Topology-wise Mankind is richer and less rigid albeit robust. It is in this sense that we can affirm that time is with us. Because time allows us to construct and be constructed within a relation which is necessarily conflicting with social inertia. Thus, it is necessary for us to manage the intrinsic frictions of development and evolution of Mankind in a temporal context and for this reason we have to resolve concurrent problems and ones of spatial nature as well. In this framework the conflicting relation is certainly more intense, because Mankind seems deprived of temporal thickness so it can more easily suffer a violation and even a crime against it. So, it is necessary for us to handle this point in order to demonstrate the meaning of the future even in a genocidal context which represents one of the crimes against humanity. This will also allow us to approach the polycyclicity of time, since it is one of the means at the disposal of Mankind to overcome these problems and survive the problem of suicide. In this sense, we follow Albert Camus’s quest yet in a holistic field which takes into consideration the singularities and structural anomalies of the cognitive space of Mankind which we call noosphere; the only one to enable us freely develop our theory of mental schemes.
In this article, the word Mankind is used interchangeably with Humanity