I'm having trouble understanding this passage. Although it says "Both feed into the other", I don't see how both are related to each other. Could someone explain this to me? Thanks in advance.

-----For context-----

So what is apocalypticism? In short, apocalypticism refers to two general strains of imagination. One, it refers to what James Berger calls an alchemical shift, where a subject is hit or deals with what seems to be a fundamental transition in a pre-existing social order. The idea here, right, is that society is determined by its limit cases, the things that press against it, and challenges to a pre-existing order are dealt with.
"But in order to keep a community safe and to protect the most vulnerable, we have to create a new normal."
Here, Berger’s apocalypse is a sort of sluicing, acidic imagination in which something sort of reveals the bones of society, of ideology, or politics and order.
On the other hand, we have a more classical definition. Apocalypse is from the Greek root of apokalypsis which is focused on an unveiling, or revealing, where we can immediately understand the circumstances that allow us to realise that something else is afoot. This is particularly important if we think about apocalypse as a revelation that leads you to a truth of society.
Both feed into the other - the disastrous imagination can reveal the limitations and difficulties of pre-existing social orders, unveil what doesn’t actually work, and how new imaginations can arise. At the same time, a sense of revelation can feel or be incredibly alienating. In other words, the apocalyptic text is one of the barest, clearest ways in which subjects of an ideology might imagine the ‘way out’. So here’s the question - what is going in Japan?

https://youtu.be/B-mf11CbK3w?t=263
https://whatismyth.web.unc.edu/2017/11/apocalypse/