You are, the iridescent butterfly

With your wing-swish, who stirs the gentle ether,

 Creates the draft that braves the Caribbean trade-winds,

And kisses me with the warm sweet sea breeze off the coastal reef.

O:

Me, the cheeky Clown Fish,

With my tail-swish, who moves the aquatic,

Creates the wave that braves the mighty ocean whitecaps,

And caresses your tired feet with the warm salt water of the great Oceans.

O:

Love, our love, is the innocent dormant acorn,

That will create the next great Oak,

And push the yakking pines aside, to stand proud and alone,

Head-high, boughs wide, and shelter our children from the world’s soak.

:

As long as butterflies fill the sky,

And fish swim the sea,

Our Oak will stand proud,

And under its shade we’ll be.

As overused as a tired cherished sweater.

Lost in a madding crowd like

The whisper in a bloody heaving arena.

Tired, commercialised, slack!

As hollow as the old fallen Oak

Surrounded by a forest of ignorant Spruce Pine,

As far as the eye can stretch.

Bereft,

A cold breeze amongst empty trees, merely a rustle and gone.

How can a word so worn and smashed do justice to the depth of feeling

For you, my soul mate – so entwined into my psyche?

Mine own psyche to be consumed by mine own psyche.

Cannibalised – sliced, diced, consumed by the rolling monster.

Lost in the serene orderly clutter,

To be scavenged like a corpse to vultures.

‘

And there I’ll be pacified for hours by Willow-the-Wisp,

Or turn up for work without my trousers, or

Give up quite stoic the turmoil of the rational world.

And in my bliss I’ll find solace in the rational calm

Of my neat madness.

‘

Please, Grandpa, I don’t want to be one of Nietzsche’s Sleepies,

Nor engulfed by the frenzied crazies of Heracles and lose all I hold dear.

What scares me most, Grandpa, is to fall -

Fall beyond the slate cliff and into the inky depths of Plath’s bell jar,

To walk with you unequal.

‘

Reach out for me, Grandpa; stay with me as I cling on to all I find dear.

Beat away those eyes, hands, and black fingernails that claw at my body.

Press the egging echoes that rise like bubbles of sulphurous air from my deep

Conscience. Save me, Grandpa! Save me from mine own mind,

Before I fall to its simple allure.

‘

Grandpa, I beg, never leave my side. Let your spirit hold me close.

I feel the day approach where I lose my desire to stay.

And that time will see the moment when I forego all my chattels for -

The quietness, the sleepiness, the deepest despair,

That fate whispers as my true destiny.

Think of the ocean.

No, the sea.

Off a near Caribbean island.

Okay, right, now think of a boat.

A sailing boat; with silver shrouds and high mast.

And just you and me aboard.

Now, Princess, think of the night.

A moonless night with an army blanket sky,

With glitter silver sprinkled across it.

Perfect!

You’re at the helm with me.

I’m holding you tight, keeping the ocean’s chill at bay.

Listen, smell, a breeze – soft,  sweet,

Off the sleeping reef,

Wow!

Look up.

The stars:

~

Choose one; I’ll have it cut for a golden ring thet you might wear; with pride of place.

The uncontrollable smile that tightens the cheekbones

      and fills the body with a Shakespearian sonnet;

         On a Mills and Boon swoon.

‘
And yet its source is amazing! Electro-chemical autonomous response

   to the things around us that we are destined – nay programmed – to feel.

      One kiss and we are filled with a painter’s determination;

         Our purpose to connect, our destiny to replicate.

‘

It’s not that I don’t feel it.

   It’s not that I don’t understand it.

      It’s simply that the mechanics dulls the sparkle of the miracle;

        That nests within the scape of affectionate resolute wealth.
‘

The cold machinery of Darwin, Freud, Plato,

   all conspiring to explode the deepest resolute sureness

      of feelings that are so personal, so emotionally wrapped up;

         Shaped by humanity’s thymos, our need to be loved by all others.

‘

So what’s to be?

By Cameron Macdonald

________________________

Me, me, me!

Ego, fill my tummy!

Ego, I am cold!

Ego, go get mummy!

Ego, I need a hold. 

‘ 

You, you, you!

Id, I’ll get you food.

Id, I’ll get you hot.

Id, I’ll get your mummy.

But not until I’ve thought.  

‘ 

Now! Now! Now!

Ego, I am starving!

Ego, I am ill!

Ego, I am dying!

Ego, get my fill! 

‘

Hey, hey, hey – there.

Hush little baby, don’t say a word.

Momma’s gonna buy you a mocking bird.

An’ if that mocking bird don’t sing,

Momma’s gonna buy you a diamond ring.

‘

________________________ 

By Cameron Macdonald

.

Standing the age of time.

Erect, defiant, proud!

Surrounded by the salt of sailors,

Fighting to survive the rising tide.

‘

Grey birds overhead battle Seth’s ocean winds,

As cycles of life tumble

Into the diurnal patterns of Khons!

But, alas, all under their influence crumble.

‘

Now, since time, the black knight stands

Shoulders square to the raging torrent

And the great white charioteers that

Charge to battle and take what they dare.

‘

They hawk not a single molecule from

The great warrior’s granite hide.

And in defeat they recede, regroup and find -

Never will this proud obelisk kneel to Yamm’s tide.

‘

So be for millennia before, and millennia to come,

That mighty twisted black gnarled block,

Like Osiris, will face the wrath of Time’s charging mares,

And each day will cheat them his beating heart of rock.

‘

This is one of the hardest philosophical questions that has posed mankind since beyond time immemorial. A debate either with one’s self or a wider debate with the world at large will no doubt result in a number of answers and in many cases yet more questions. Bearing in mind there is no absolute truth what we would like to do is offer a hypothesis from which we would expect a large amount of debate in the coming years, but since when has that stopped us publicly opining.

The ancient study of understanding and notating existence travels under the name Ontology. It has in the past revolved around an ancient notion that anything with a noun exists. This approach has tied philosophers in knots for centuries, and no doubt will continue to do so for many more.

There is an underlying problem with the view that all objects that are nouned (tagged if you like) exist. The problem to a great extent is caused by the way man utilises language; in particular the tagging of abstract forms. It’s not hard to accept that a cup exists, considering you can see it, touch it, etc.

However, consider love: Does it exist, bearing in mind it can not be touched, nor seen in the same context as a cup? This problem has more to do with the construct of manmade language than it does with the existence of objects in our universe. Its failings have resulted in compromises & work arounds to maintain the original argument that all nouns exist.

In accepting ancient doctrine we are forced to conclude the following: All nouns are objects and all objects exist, ergo all existence is noun bound. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. This is a leap for abstract objects as the fact they have a tag, automatically means they exist. This is obviously a problem when we look at transient forms such as thoughts, ideals, and transformations like matter to energy, or man’s emotions such as love, hate, pride etc.

This is not the only problem with current doctrine. If only man has the ability to tag objects, then only man can acknowledge existence of objects in space.

If this were true, then why do chickens fear foxes, antelope run from lions, dogs go to their feeders yet cower their persecutors, or even salivate at the sound of Pavlov’s bell?

It’s clear that the application of the human lexicon when applied to the physical world we see around us fails too many tests to be a credible way forward. Given this we have taken a different approach. We proffer that nouns are tags, and given this add a point that a tag comes with a criteria by which to measure the given ‘object’. For instance grass has a given wavelength (usually in the green-brown spectrum), it is of the plant family, and like other plants it is connected to the Earth. It has a certain texture and taste. Moreover a plant’s criteria used for identification differs it from other objects like water for instance.

Furthermore, there are differing classes of objects, also tagged, in existence that revolve around the creation of a relative reality for each individual observer, whether that be man or beast. And finally there are differing types of existences that are based on objects found in shared time-space, or individual psyches of men such as emotions.

All of these points lead us to a new way of approaching the problem.  

We start with a simple hypothesis: Without observation there is no existence.

By saying this we acknowledge that some objects exist, and others do not. We will deal with those that we argue exist first:

We live in a universe that is populated with ‘stuff’…Let’s call this the Global Universe. This universe has been observed by mankind culminating in a rationalization by many, scientists, philosophers and mathematicians; resulting in a set of ‘universal’ laws that are measurable and with which we observe and conclude existence. This set of laws and measurements describe and predict the way in which the Global Universe operates, and of what it is made of. To keep it simple, in terms of this blog the Global Universe consists of matter, energy, and Vector (ŕ). (We’ve used the term Vector (ŕ) to represent a four dimensional universe: x, y, z, and time). We don’t want to over complicate this treatise by discussing the complexities of the mathematics around vectors, but to say let’s assume ŕ is relative to the observer at a given single point in time i.e. I look at the sky at 8pm from my house in New Zealand and before me is the moon at x,y,z,t from my position (where time is my time). To be sure: the Global Universe is external to our own psyche. It is independent of man & beast and yet observable by both at a given point in time.

One would hypothesise that anything in the Global Universe made of matter and/or energy at a given ŕ exists since it is observable and measurable in mathematic and scientific terms. Given this, the answer to our original question, ‘what is existence?’ is simply anything that is made of matter and/or energy at a given ŕ in the Global Universe, right?

Under test this hypothesis fails. If mankind does not ‘exist’ in the Global Universe, then the Global Universe can not be observed, nor acknowledged, and as such that universe can not exist. This is a hard concept to deal with. To help us navigate the gap let’s ask a simple question: For you…That is, in your mind did the Global Universe exist prior to your birth? If you answer yes, (in most cases we would expect, ‘what a stupid question, of course it existed!) we would ask: How do you know if you had not been born, and why now do you accept it did exist?

Maybe you read a book that said before you were born the universe existed. But do you believe the author? Simply put, before you were born somebody observed the Global Universe and based on their observation you were told that the universe existed prior to your birth. Maybe you observed direct evidence yourself that the universe existed, again based on a historically produced ŕ measurement. But for you to accept either of these observations, and conclude that the universe did exist, you have to take a leap of faith. Your faith is in the person who observed and reported to you. You trust that they did not lie or make a mistake. Where you observe evidence yourself you have to trust that the data and result concluding past existence is not flawed.

The latter two points suggest that unless the observer at that time is the questioner of existence (we’ll note at this point that time has a major part to play in this debate) and there is no need for a leap of faith, either in historical data or the observation data of a 3^rd party, there is no guarantee that the universe under question existed at that point in time. There is simply a probability of its existence.

If we make this conclusion, any object in the Global Universe is non-existent until both the observer and the object in space-time are in alignment. To be sure, the observer has to be in the same time axis and observable x,y,z as the object under scrutiny, and make a judgment that a given object exists. It is at this point of alignment that a reality is formed.

Given the last paragraph there seems to be a second universe at hand. This we’ll call the Local Universe.

Cogito ergo sum – a well known quote of Socrates that roughly translated means I think therefore I am. This summation of existence of the individual is extremely profound as it crystallises the notion of existence in relative terms to the individual. If we review our earlier points we see that for an object in the Global Universe to exist it has to be observed and a conclusion drawn that is based on cognitive measurement. This process of reconciliation to existence requires two universes. It requires the Global Universe (let’s say the shared physical universe for simplicity of the point) and the Local Universe (let’s say the individual cognitive universe, again for simplicity).

In illustrating the two parts of physical existence we gain an understanding that Socrates’ quote says that I am cognitive of me as an object in the physical universe, therefore I exist. To illustrate our point, answer this: If Socrates did not think, would he exist? The answer is – no, not in Socratesian reality (assuming we interpret ‘think’ as a point of consciousness resulting in observation and measurement of objects using ‘generally agreed measurements’ of the Global Universe). However, if I observed Socrates in the Global Universe and, in my Local Universe, was aware of his existence he would exist, but only in my reality.     

Given that the Global Universe is external to our psyche in relation to matter, energy and ŕ, yet requires a Local Universe to bring it into existence, we should examine what we mean by the Local Universe. Our definition is simplistic at this point although under that simplicity lays numerous problems around our theory of existence. Never the less we’ll remain on this track to set some foundations for further analysis and deal with the more complex problems in a short while.

Each of us is born with an individual psyche. This psyche, independent of all others, observes the Global Universe within its own bounds based on its observation. You might consider the term ‘observe’ in this context to be a feed-forward sensation that is formed in the brain from physical contact with the Global Universe. It need not be based on sight alone, merely interaction resulting in brain stimuli. Each psyche is a self-contained universe (Local Universe) where objects can exist independent of other objects. We are using the term ‘objects’ in a different way than one might consider a vase or a table to be an object in the Global Universe. These objects are in the imagination of the subject. In this instance an object in the psyche is imagined only and has not been reconciled with the Global Universe.

A point of note here is that objects that may exist in the Local Universe are formed either from direct interaction with the Global Universe at that second in time (this is point-in-time observation) or thoughts and memories of objects that were once formed and now recalled in the mind based on past observation (this is object memory recall). The latter point is made in relation to the Freudian view that no object in the psyche can be recalled without the subject having first been exposed to that object from an external perspective; this need not be observed! (See earlier context.) An idea shared through story can be an object exposed in this instance and may be enough for the psyche to construct a given object within the Local Universe without point-in-time observation. We have no reason to doubt Freudian doctrine on this point.

To explain the Local Universe a little more let’s form a reality for you: Think of a banana. If you can imagine the banana then the banana exists as an object in your psyche. Let’s say that this thought is exclusive of all other objects that you may also be imagining right now, and any physical objects that you are currently observing around you at this point in time, for instance the monitor or paper that this treatise is rendered on. All of these objects have created a reality – your reality. At this point in time in your reality some objects exist in the Global Universe and others, such as the banana, only exist in the Local Universe (provided you don’t have a Global Universe banana in front of you). If you reach out to the Global Universe you will find that in space-time there is no banana. The two Universes have not been reconciled and as such the banana does not exist – although in your reality the banana does exist, but only as an object in your mind.

By this we clarify our hypothesis: Without observation there is no existence

Only objects that are Global Universe bound and reconciled exist, all other objects such as ideas, feelings and transient global objects such as matter that has been destroyed don’t exist.

To expand the point let’s imagine two people in a room sitting at a table with a vase upon it. One person has been taught from an early age that the colour they see reflected from the vase is green. The second person was taught from an early age that the colour they see is blue. What colour is the vase? In the Global Universe the vase’s colour is a function of light reflection and absorption on its surface resulting in a specific wavelength of light within the visible spectrum at a given time. One observer sees that light and renders it into their Local Universe as green, the other blue. At this point we have three universes and two relative realities. We have the Global Universe and we have two Local Universes. All of them are different than each other. In simple terms the Global is acting as a common reference point for the two Locals, both of which are forming relative realities for each respective subject. These realities are time specific and relative to the reconciliation of each subjects’ Local Universe to the global reference.

To recap: If we go back to an earlier point: For you…in your mind did the Global Universe exist prior to your birth? We can see that your Local Universe and the Global Universe at some point in time meet, and as they do a reality is formed in the mind of the observer. This reality is made up of ‘objects’ in each Universe; some exist and others do not.

A simple test to prove this conclusion: You are walking up a flight of stairs that you have traversed many times before. It is dark. In your mind you have one stair to go. You raise your foot and as you lower it you discover the stair you imagined is not there. Here there is a mismatch between your universe (the Local Universe), where a stair existed, and the Global Universe where one did not. If we rewind this situation, where you are on the Global Universe’s last stair, and ask you: ‘Does another stair exist?’ your answer would be, yes. Here we see that there is a mismatch between the Local Universe and the Global Universe. It is only when the two collide at a given point in time and create a reality that we can come to a firm conclusion on the existence of objects external to the subject’s psyche.

Let’s go back to the room with the vase upon the table where the two people observing the Global Universe remain seated. We ask one person to close their eyes, and the other to remain sighted. Here let’s assume the only means of observation for each subject is by way of sight (although one subject is prohibited from seeing). If the closed-eye observer were told to clear his mind and now asked if the vase exists, they may say, no. In their Local Universe the vase has been removed. If we asked the other candidate they may say, yes. The vase still remains globally and their Local Universe is in agreement as they are observing it. Here we see clearly that existence is related to relative reality.

However, as an external observer of both parties we can see that the vase does exist globally as our universe coincides with one of the test subject’s. Furthermore, if we were to test the vase against globally agreed universal laws we would conclude that the object was made of matter, energy, and time. We see at this point that the Global Universe has objects in it that we can observe collectively based on our interaction with the world around us. Here we see that we have two different types of existence: Universal and Local.

The question is: Out of these two states which objects exist and how are they related?

As explained earlier, the reconciliation of existence is based on the formation of a reality. In Socrates’ mind he only exists when he knows he does. In my mind even if I imagine him he does not exist as I can not observe him in the Global Universe (given he is dead). Had I have been alive and observed him when he was alive he would exist for me as I, like him, would have observed him and reconciled my Local Universe with the Global  Universe and formed a common reality.

However we should not dismiss our closed-eyed test subject. In their Local Universe a vase does not exist and their perceived reality is one of no vase.

In areas where reconciliation has not taken place probability of existence defines the Global Universe. With each step I take along the stairwell there is a probability that my Local Universe will not coincide with the Global Universe. This is to say that when I take my next step, there is always a probability that in the Global Universe of time-space the ground will not be under my foot and I may fall into something that is not within my comprehension.

Given the points so far, we would sum up with the following:

Where Local and Global Universes meet and agree, a relative reality is formed where two types of objects exist – universally and locally.

Only universal objects found in the Global Universe ‘truly’ exist, but have to be observed and rendered into a person’s reality before their existence is snapped from probability of existence into ‘true’ existence.

Other objects that are not ‘universal’ are by default ‘local’ objects. These objects do not ‘truly’ exist; they are just objects.

Objects that may ‘truly’ exist in the Global Universe, but have not been reconciled by an observer, do not ‘truly’ exist. They will only ever ‘truly’ exist once discovered by observation and only exist at the time of Local/Global reconciliation.  

To make clear this last point. A planet in the heavens that is yet to be discovered does not exist. Once discovered and reconciled by the individual the object then exists in the Global Universe for future reconciliation into each of our own realities. However, if there is no observation of the object it remains out of existence.

Our summation is: Without observation there is no existence.

But, we have two problems with our summation; both based on the fact that we have disconnected the Local Universe from the Global Universe when in reality this is not feasible.

Where there is agreement in the Local and Global Universes we conclude a notion of existence for a given object. However, the measurements of existence for objects within the Global Universe are manmade. This forces an extension of the Local into the Global. At this point we are left with a measurement problem.

The second problem is related to the first, and Secretes’ quote, I think therefore I am. If we accept this as the basis for proof we have a problem for other sentient animals. That is animals can not reconcile the Global to the Local because they are not cognitive and as such animals without a reality are animals that live in a world where nothing exists. This begs absurdity!

The measurement problem

I ask a believer of God (lets say the Christian God for this point): ‘Does God exist?’ A resounding, yes, is said by the Christian. We modify: ‘Given the discussion of existence where Local and Global meet in time-space to create a reality in which global objects ‘truly’ exist and local are merely psychological objects, on what basis do you base your argument on God’s existence? How do you measure God’s existence in the Global Universe?’

The believer may respond: ‘I am told God exists by others,’ or; ‘I observe God myself by the world around me,’ or; ‘I feel God. That is how I measure God in the Global Universe and that is how I imagine God in my own.’

The observer in this instance is using either: The observations of others that tell them of existence, or; the observations they themselves make of the Global Universe, or; the feelings they feel as a result of interacting (observing) with the Global Universe, described by many as physical as much as they are emotional. Once they have reconciled their Local Universe to the Global Universe, a relative reality is set in place.

Many scientists find the resulting reality of the Christian difficult to accommodate, mainly as the measurements used are immeasurable in independent terms using current scientific doctrine. Currently we conclude the Global Universe to be made of matter, energy, and ŕ. The current laws and measurements that determine the Global Universe are based on the adherence to these laws and measurements.

If we imagine a ghost and tell Frank (our neighbour) that there is a ghost in front of us both. Since Frank can not see the spirit, he would ask for proof of its existence beyond our psyches. That proof would have to be supplied in scientific terms based on the measurement of matter or energy within a given ŕ of the universe. Here we see that for objects to exist in the Global Universe the Local of Frank and others has to coincide with currently agreed measurements. In the case of the ghost there is no measurement and as such the ghost remains a local object in our individual reality and does not enjoy ‘true’ existence. But what if an alien were watching who like all other aliens had the ability to observe spiritual energy and could reconcile the global with the local. At that point the ghost would enjoy true existence in relation to all other aliens.

By using man as both the provider of the global measurement devices and the observer we end up without the ability to definitively agree on the existence of any object in the Global Universe. We are left confused as to what ‘truly’ exists, considering the Global is the common universe where object existence is based on scientific measurement.

Therefore, we must conclude that for an object to ‘truly’ exist it has to be a global object that has been reconciled into a relative reality. The reality that is formed by each person is unique, and yet fashioned into rationality by a common framework. That framework is the reconciliation of the Global Universe based on energy, matter and ŕ. For some people however other measurements such as spirituality are acceptable where energy, matter and ŕ have a different interpretation than that of current scientific doctrine.

Given this our summation stands that: Without observation there is no existence. Although we have to acknowledge that this summation is related directly to a scientific view that the Global Universe is made of observable energy, matter and ŕ. The net result is emotions, thoughts and even God does not exist in these terms. This is not to dismiss belief. Merely to say that in our physical terms and globally agreed measurement we can not accommodate God today, but may be able at some point in the future. In these terms there is a probability of God’s existence but the current state is – we have no agreed means to measure this type of existence. 

 The Descartes problem

René Descartes discussed in detail the Socrates ‘I think therefore I am’ summation. The broad conclusions were to place mankind at the centre of the existence universe which at the time of Descartes was within the doctrine of the Church (a substantial influencer of his day).

The argument is relatively simple according to Descartes: Animals do not think; not in the same way as Socrates described himself in thought. Therefore, an animal’s inability to think removes its ability to enjoy a reality. In short, to all but humans there is no reality; ergo there is no perception of existence by the animal.

No doubt the animals we speak of do not care, they simply survive, replicate and continue to adapt. But in philosophical consideration we have to acknowledge Descartes’ point and ask: Is it only mankind that can create a reality with local and global objects within it i.e. do animals simply undertake the duties of living based on simple reflex, genetic memory, or mimicry without the creation of a reality? If the answer is yes, we conclude that animals follow a predetermined program the way a motor vehicle does. If we do not accept this view we must acknowledge that animals are closer to man in relation to them forming a reality the same way man does.

One can state clearly that a motor vehicle’s engine does not live. In specific terms motor engines do not have a sense of consciousness (A soul if you like) which itself spawns a sense of self survival. In short, there is no empirical evidence that machines can sense or feel their environment and as such mechanical devices do not autonomously interact with the universe so as to sustain their own ‘life’. At this point we stray close to mechanical artificial intelligence (AI) and the construct of machines that can pass the Turing Test…These are not the machines we are talking of in this context and would remain on the track of non-AI machines for the remainder of this treatise.

It is clear that a machine is not imbued with a soul (based on consciousness). However, animals show evidence of self survival that is drawn from a self-contained mental consciousness that interacts with the Global Universe. Historically, animals that have failed to interact with the Global Universe have failed to survive as they have had no way of sustaining the three functions of life – food, reproduction, and avoidance of life threatening danger. Given this, animals in some way must reconcile, through mental calculation, their Local Universe with the Global Universe as this is a primary function of life.

In contrast, we should consider plants in relation to their interaction with the Global Universe and find out, as we have with animals, how closely related plants are to machines, compared to animals. Empirical evidence suggests that plants don’t exhibit the traits of consciousness. One can therefore surmise that plants are closer to machines than they are animals; albeit biological ones. Plants interact with the Global Universe at a passive level and don’t form a reality of their own. In doing so, they trust their fate to nature alone. Their continuing survival is based on their evolved ability to reproduce in vast numbers and applying traits that offer them the best passive survival such as size, spines, toxins, arid tolerance, etc. 

Considering Descartes’ philosophy was drawn up back in the early 17^th Century and the knowledge of man is distinctly improved, as well as the development of secular free thinking, the time is right to question his view that only humans can form a reality. Our points listed earlier we believe are enough to raise doubt to his conclusions.

There is a point here that lays a distinction between Socrates and our thoughts that animals must recognise the existence of objects in the Global Universe to survive. That is: is it a requirement to be both sentient (have a conscious) and self-cognitive (be aware of one’s self) before any objects in the Global Universe can be reconciled? To be sure, Socrates was both sentient and self-cognitive and as such reconciled his own global existence within his relative reality. This point Descartes focused on and in doing so dismissed an animal’s ability to reconcile the existence of objects in their own reality. Descartes was arguing: To be devoid of self-awareness is enough to disbar the beast from forming a reality. Descartes in this way was aligning animals with plants and machines, rather than acknowledging their status closer to man. No doubt the doctrine of Descartes’ day was such that man existed on a plane well and above that of animals. This we would consider not true, given current knowledge.    

The evidence today is such that cattle, fish, bees and most other animals, including man, do not interact with the universe in a purely passive manner, unlike rocks, plants and machines. Animals sustain life by interacting with the universe at three levels: The pursuit of food; sexual reproduction, and; the avoidance of life threatening Global Universe objects (such as predators). Given this fact, animals have to form a reality that within it includes Global Universe objects with which they interact for their individual and species survival. To fail to do so would prevent the animal surviving in its current form. This last point certainly includes man’s survival as much as other animals.

In conclusion, for objects to exist they must be reconciled into a reality. That reality is a function of Local and Global Universe objects. Only those objects in the Global Universe are measurable within the context of generally agreed measurements. By observing Global Universe objects we can conclude true existence; all other objects are simply objects.

In relation to other animals, there is evidence that a reality is formed that includes Global Universe objects. This formed reality enables the animal to interact and survive in the Global Universe in an active manor. Plants and inanimate objects on the other hand need not form a reality and as such interact with the Global Universe in a passive manor. They therefore rely on autonomous biological mechanics for passive survival and as such do not enjoy any kind of recognised existence. In essence to a plant, machine, or rock our universe simply does not exist.

Deeply disturbing

of late is the changing political landscape and the associated pain that is linked with the international political turmoil affecting all our lives. From the price of oil to the mortal danger that is published every night on our television sets; none of us are immune to its insidious nature. No doubt the years 2000-2010 will be marked in history as the decade of the bomb and ‘murdering-suicide’ of extremists who see their role in life is to end others. And gloriously from the Muslim world’s perspective it will be the decade of the Jihadic martyr.  

These two perspectives are a product of a cultural schism that will continue on well beyond this troublesome decade with its root buried in the past and stock & bush floating in a theological future that is so to speak beyond reconciliation in today’s terms. This is disturbing for all of us and our children as it means there will be no letup of the economic-theological divide that currently splits the World East to West.  

So what’s really going on?

The West lead predominantly at this time by America is convinced that liberal economic democracy is the answer to the woes of what it would consider ‘backward nations’. This is reflected by the work of

It seems according to Fukuyama, and other commentators of the many international liberal democratic schools of thought, that through a liberal-economic and Western based democratic evolutionary process we have attained a place that is somehow Lockean, even Neitschean, in maturity. In essence we have emancipated the individual, the government, the judiciary and the financial institutions from the state; and by us arriving at this liberal economic and democratic Wonderland it is obvious that the track of other nations, on a democratic and economical evolutionary progressive timeline, is simply inevitable. In essence

It’s not surprising then to hear the current United States president profess the necessity to democratise, and through aggressive foreign policy push for democratic liberalism to all of the rogue nations around him since this is considered by the American establishment – and other followers of their Western Wonderland view – as some sort of panacea to cure all the evils of their World. After all, most of the American establishment is centre-right Ivy League; and Bush an MBA graduate with an American right-wing Christian ethic. With this perspective the hawks of the Whitehouse view economic maturity of the secular liberal democracy as the cornerstone of American and European economic success. After all, the World’s free-market economy is built on the successful Western free-market economic model.

But there is a problem!

When we apply liberal democracy & economics to the nations of Islam we see hot conflict. There are four primary pillars of Western liberal economic democracy: Elected representation; Free-market economics; Freedom of speech; Freedom of association including religious tolerance. These pillars are supported by three principles: Separation of the state from religion; Separation of the judiciary from the state; Separation of the state from a hereditary monarchy. Considering the first principle of this model is the separation of state from religion it’s not hard to see that the Islamic World is very different in its view of state governance compared to the West.

Simply put, the nations that have Islam meshed into the mechanics of the state are at odds with the introduction of Western based democracy and its associated economics. So much so that there is an impasse that can not be bridged in Western liberal democratic terms. But even so, why is there so much friction between the two models if each model works effectively for each respective society?

The Islamic world is under an inordinate amount of pressure – more so than the West – to ‘modernise’ in Western terms, both internally and externally. From inside the Islamic states that make up the Islamic World, people – particularly the young – can see the humanly selfish trappings of the liberal West. This is causing an internalising pressure change that is challenging the traditional frugal views at all levels of the Islamic ruling governments, although somewhat denied at higher levels. This was seen in Eastern Europe during the Cold War and had a large part to play in the failure of the ideological Communist Left and ultimately dominoing the entire Eastern European bloc into numerous Western-based constitutional democratic republics.

Compounding this internal pressure are the financially stronger economies of the West and the institutions that are dominated by a Western free-market liberal economic view, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the United Nations (UN). These international agencies are placing substantial external pressure on Islamic states to a point where their theocracies choose isolationism over Western viewed international prosperity. To be sure, this was the position taken by the Taliban in Afghanistan during the late nineties. The rational for their view was simple: It’s better to be a simple purist, than a rich sinner; where sinner is assumed to be those who abandon the strictest view of Islam, as interpreted by the ruling council – this included in Taliban terms – being audaciously rich.

So what is left is a not a hot Christian crusadist war on Islam – as expounded by most Islamic anti-West proponents, although from the inside it seems like this – but a hidden agenda by the West of emancipation of nations from what it sees as Islamic repression.

Is this a naive illusion?

Maybe the West’s agenda is a little more sinister: Economic and democratic emancipation of the Islamic World with the end-game to remove the market skew for international resources which they, the West, can exploit within the capitalist multiplier. Noting that there is a great emphasis on emerging states’ valuable oil and gas reserves accessible under free-market trade. Personally I don’t think the West is so divisive, although the argument goes: The economic multiplier is a World phenomenon that can deliver economic prosperity to the World system at large, and set free those World citizens shackled to the apparatus of the ‘dysfunctional state’. In simple terms the West believes that by it democratising Islamic, and other autocratic and oppressive nations, we as the liberator will unleash the people from the shackles of state slavery into some realm of secular tolerance, economic free-marketism and democratic freedom. This end will release political stability and a fair distribution of wealth across a meritist environment. In other words – free the people and they will sell their assets at free-trade prices, or not sell them if they prefer, and in doing so will themselves see the riches of international prosperity.

It is not a great leap to consider this the worthy cause that underlines Western policy. But the pursuit of this ideal is where the wheels fall off. Fukuyama is wrong in having us believe that we The West have arrived at the End of History and we should drag others here to. And I doubt we will arrive soon at that destined terminal, nor those we drag with us.

To be fair Fukuyama looks into the West as proof of his argument more than he does the Islamic Middle East and Asia. In my criticism I’m looking for international proof as to the end of history as I would contend that until all nations, as the basis of the entire system, have arrived in Fukuyama’s Wonderland none of the others can be there either.

My last point is salient as an economic system that has to accommodate for dysfunctional elements is itself dysfunctional – particularly free-market economics with a foundation of information perfectionism. Yes I know this is a circular argument as it is clearly understood that the base value of the market is through imperfect information (arbitrage) – or at least the time-lag associated with perfection. The point being – Fukuyama’s End of History at an international level fails with its reliance on perfect information that is not just time-lagged, as experienced in the free-market, but over time guaranteed not to be perfect. Nations that purposefully skew the market for non-free-market ends – or rather, as seen in Islamic nations for theocratic reasons – will always fail the End of History test as well as the surrounding nations that rely on them for trade.

What I am actually saying here is for Fukuyama’s argument that the End of History has arrived to be true all market participants have to work within the framework of free-market economics. Failing this an altered version of liberal economic democracy is applied to all states to accommodate external distortions. Therefore

To understand this we need only look at Iraq. That country was, during Hussein’s tenure, the closest state we would have seen able to bridge the gap to secular democracy within the traditionally ‘hostile to Western democracy’ Islamic world. Hussein did not allow a theistic philosophy to reign over the governing council and for this reason Islam was not bound to the country’s governance. But scratching deeper we see this is actually a false statement and ultimately the reason why

To recap the ‘Old Western World’

European history is one of post-Romanic Aristocratic governance where the Catholic Church was deeply intertwined into the workings of a mature feudal continent: Similar to Afghanistan prior to the Western invasion. The constituent states of Continental Europe from Russia to the depths of Ireland where ruled by groups of elite that held the Catholic Church close to their moral principles and legal & administrative governance. In short they were theistic governing clans. If we look closer at England there was a breakaway from the theistic model during Henry VIII’s rule where the monarch was at odds with the Catholic Church. He resolved the conflict by quasi-dissolution from the central influencing theocracy (

Following Henry was Cromwell – not a monarch, but instead a republican – and with him a new view of religious tolerance which in the longer-term resulted in a state separated from Church. The secular state had arrived in Britain, the result of which, in psychological terms, was a transcended cultural shared-psyche based on Judaic-Christian belief for moral guidance. The Christian moral ethic became a reference for law, not the reason for law.

The key here is Henry’s break from Rome, followed by the disconnection of the Protector of the Faith – the monarch – from state governance, and the introduction of a Parliament that tolerated the differing belief systems of the land (although mainly rooted in the Judaic-Christian faith). The result is a secular state where religion is separated from state, and the judiciary, and the military; moreover the market evolved into a non-interventionist free-market rooted in capitalist economics.

So moving back to Iraq : Hussein – as the de facto monarch – held back the Mullahs’ influence as Henry had, and by ruling with an iron fist as Tito did in Eastern Europe, prevented ethnic factions from warring. This removed the pressure of internal historical factionists breaking the state apart. Equilibrium was achieved by the Sunni minority through the iron fisted rule of a Sunni ruler without that ruler being dominated by an external theistic force.

The problem with Iraq is the ruler was the holder of the equilibrium and that ruler did not do what Henry VIII did in Britain. That is to disestablish religion from the apparatus of the state to such an extent that the natural progression of the state would be secular governance. So what is left today is not only a political vacuum, but also a need by the population to resurrect historical political systems steeped in the dominating religion of the country – Islam. And this brings us to the ongoing conflict – ‘The Lost War’ – that we see ourselves being drawn into day by day.

The Lost War.

The catalyst for change in the Middle East was operating well before Osama Bin Laden, but not for the apparent reason of the Islamic martyrs’ brigades hitting The West the way they have over the past 25 years. The root of the war is in the Islamic World and how it is coming to terms with western based secular democracy. Its people are dieing for modernity, the bourgeois establishment pining to sell the assets (oil and gas reserves) spread over many kindred countries, and the World’s apparatus is pressuring it to respect life, gender, secularism, suffrage, and all other Western values including the rules of international free-trade.

It is the West’s foolishness – and to a great extent arrogant pride – that has dragged it into an internal factional fight that will result in all parties losing. This is why it is ‘The Lost War’. The problem is obvious, if the Islamic World is to democratise it has to come to terms with the problems listed earlier – particularly secularism.

However, let’s assume Fukuyama is going to be right. Let’s assume that there is a state where Islamic based democracy is feasible and a cross-democratic free-trade framework is established. The End of History may then be possible; but only when the two systems find a means to interface in a way that underscores the basic principles of free-market economics. Is this possible? The answer is short. No!

America will not find the road to world peace through the export of Fukuyama’s End of History democracy as it stands today, nor accommodate the Islamic republics in free-market terms. Not until the Islamic World ends its struggle through what will be its own reformation – as seen in the West over the last 600 years – will the world come close to

Yet, Bin Laden’s view is without doubt: No reformation on any terms! He would argue that the only way to remove the West from interfering in the Middle East is to draw it in to a bloody conflict based on the West’s view that it can deliver democratic freedom to ‘the oppressed’, and for the Islamic world to prevail by consolidating it’s Islamic values. For Bin Laden this would result in the end of the Jewish state by Islamic nations discovering their joint strength – a substantial goal of most Islamic nations of the

In conclusion the West’s ‘War on Terror’ is a fool’s errand. As we have seen the emancipation of the Afghani and Iraqi people from repressive governments has resulted in democratically elected theistic republics with associated Shari’a law. The resulting rights and laws are to some extent as repressive as those of the previous incumbents as seen through Western eyes. This is due to the political strength of the mullahs who are seen by the population as both clerics and spiritual governors. The Western view is freedom of expression including religious worship. There are no western imposed religious limitations on those who stand for election in these nations. So it’s not hard to see why the parliaments of Iraq and Afghanistan, along with Palestine, have become dominated by the Islamic Right. The West can not have it both ways in Islamic open suffrage nations – free democratic representation and secularism.

No doubt over the coming centuries the Islamic republics of today, regardless of Bin Laden and the other fundamentalist hardliners of the Islamic Middle East and Asia, will evolve into their own version of democracy in spite of the constant stream of suicide bombers and retaliations, or the West’s pressure through international institutions. To be sure, Islamic evolution will take much longer than the West would like.

In the interim Iraq will descend into a bloody civil war, whose fault will be the West’s as decided in the aftermath, and result in a shi’a Muslim theistic republic similar to Iran, with a bitter distaste of Western interference. No doubt over time Afghanistan will move back to a hard-line Taliban type republic and unravel the hard fought principles of Western secular democracy, again blaming the West for the bloodshed it will undergo as it did Russia. And the Western blood lost to the distant oil rich sands over the last decade will petrify as democracy will, and all the pain today and in the future would have been in vain. 

Ironically over the next 500 years, when the Islamic evolution results in some type of secular governance model, the Western World would have moved on to some other system beyond the exploitative liberal economic democracy promoted by Fukuyama, and alas history will show that Fukuyama’s End of History was too early an absolute statement.

Cameron Macdonald – 2006