Universal Truths and Another Way

When I reflect on truth, I think of the Netflix sensation Resurrection: Ertugrul. It has had seismic influence in Muslim countries, Pakistan, India and parts of Africa. I found out about it when a local Grandmother, from a small Australian country town, told me of her and her husband’s despair that the almost 500 episode series was coming to an end.

In it, you see three civilisations on the verge of war: the Mongols, the Turks and the Byzantine Empire. A proxy for China, the East and the West. It’s the story of how people, sickened by the deceit and corruption of their world, dreamed of creating a Just State, leading to the Ottoman Empire’s establishment.

It’s Islamic, associated with Turkish nationalism and soft-power and provides a chance to see how The Rest view The West – which can be uncomfortable! However, its themes are universal: justice, truth, resisting tyranny and stopping ‘the cruel.’ Its vision has appealed to global citizens the world over, and that, I believe may be something of great significance.

Concern about ‘truth and justice’ issues infused my PhD research, leading to a concept called the Creative State. This is the idea of reimagining governance and society – what the State could be like – in the era of climate, ecological and other security crises. The Creative State sees more voices contributing to the shaping of their worlds and new institutional design. Of course, this reinvention process needs to include universities, or rather, the entire system of knowledge management and what we think of as ‘knowledge.’ The current model of statehood must change for two main reasons.

1. Hyperthreat The biggest reason is to do with what I call the ‘hyperthreat of climate and environmental change’. The hyperthreat notion spotlights the violence, destruction, killing, harm, and loss of freedoms that are imposed by unravelling ecological and climate systems. It draws from eco-philosopher Timothy Morton’s concept of global warming as a hyperobject – something beyond human’s capacity to perceive or understand, which utterly defies our current ‘systems.’ Morton argues that, in the face of the hyperobject, humanity’s new existential truth is that we are now “weak, lame and vulnerable.”

In contrast, the hyperthreat notion, views that humans have still got a chance. It applies military strategy, re-imagined for the Anthropocene, to the problem and devises a hyper-response, (PLAN E). To contain the worst of the hyperthreat’s destructive power, (or avoid dangerous climate change), this diagram shows the path that we must be on:

Pathway to limit global warming to 1.5°C, IPCC 2018 Fig SPM.3a

To support such a trajectory, research, learning and knowledge sharing must be in fasttrack mode, as occurred during COVID19. Yet there is no such system for the #ClimateEmergency.

2. Truth and universities The second reason relates to whether universities are serving the public well or not. When you talk to so-called ‘working people’ – those without a university degree, some say universities are a waste of taxpayers’ money. “What are they doing over there?” they say, “I have no idea what they do.”

Increasingly, to find information and make sense of a world in crisis, people are turning to social media. Disillusionment with official ‘experts’ is an issue of great significance to universities. What’s gone wrong? How could universities better meet their citizens’ knowledge and sense-making needs? It’s time for some blue-sky thinking.

How things could change To return to the Ertugrul series, the reason its popularity matters is that it points to larger socialcultural forces and ‘universal truths’ that are sweeping the world. Widespread mass protests, from #ArabSpring, #YellowVests, #MeToo, #BLM, #ExtinctionRebellion, #StopTheSteal to the recent Russian protests, tell a similar story. Many crave new, ethics-based, leadership. The larger truth may be that large population groups are tiring of a leadership body that is perceived as having failed the majority. Yet while global citizens may be aligning in their aspirations for a fairer world, in other ways, we are being pitched against each other. In real terms, over the 2009 to 2018 decade, global military spending grew 5.4 per cent; the 2018 annual spend was $1.822 trillion. This spending reflects expectations of greater conflict over the next decade; the exact period in which the war against the hyperthreat must be waged. It’s lose-lose. What if the people of the world said:

“We’ve got a better idea… Let’s redirect our efforts to containing the hyperthreat – our mutual foe. We’ll also rescue our major important and beloved ally – nature.”

Truth and the hyperthreat Here is a vision of a different future: The time of fake news, spin and deceit is rejected. The capacity to confront the truth is now understood as critical to human survival.

As the 21st Century progresses, the hyperthreat will increasingly speak in a form which transcends all languages and is heard loudly, across the globe. Climate and ecological issues emerge as a unifying and irrefutable truth that resets dialogue and sense-making through the sheer force of its physical presence. In this world of harsh realities, there is no tolerance for ineffective institutions.

As the Turks overcame widespread corruption to open the door to a magnificent chapter in human history, perhaps the current generation of global citizens can do the same. A global ‘army’ could be raised against the hyperthreat. Alliances between East, West, North and South could be made.

Woke up this morning From the strangest dream I was in the biggest army The world has ever seen We were marching as one On the road to the holy grail… There’s nowhere else to go…” Lyrics, Hunters and Collectors, “Holy Grail”

Humans. Earth. We’ve got nowhere else to go. For my part, I hope to progress a concept called #Research2Public. In general, we must find a new way.

ARTWORK: Sian Williams 55.

On my bag, I have a keychain attached to a Meffert’s ultimate skewb - a Rubik’s-esque puzzle constructed solely by pentagonal faces. So here’s a question: Can you determine a pattern for the number of faces on 3D shapes? A tetrahedron has four, a cube six, and a dodecahedron twelve. But what about a 3D-shape made of hexagons? A friend and I set about to determine this relationship. We failed, of course, and upon our inevitable defeat, we began to suspect that no such pattern existed, and relegated to Googling the answer.

It turns out, a dodecahedron is indeed the limit in terms of 3D objects composable entirely from a single ‘equilateral’ shape (the pentagon). Try to do the same with a hexagon - you can’t! The closest object is a football - consisting of both pentagons and hexagons. What would have happened without Google or the internet? Would we remain blissfully unaware of the limit? Currently, we scarcely acknowledge our reliance on the internet, or the ease with which we can access an array of readily available knowledge. I only gathered from Google that pentagons were the limit, yet at night, I laid awake, troubled by why it was the peculiar pentagon!

The reasoning is rather trivial. Eventually, I concluded that an increase in the number of sides of the shape gradually likens the shape to a circle - and circles can’t be tessellated! Indeed, to me, this was a philosophical triumph.

Yet several centuries ago, when concepts of an ‘internet’ would be ridiculed, philosophical ideas grounded in observation were inseparable from depictions of science and the natural world. Newton’s book, containing much of the physical foundation scientists use today, was aptly titled Philosophy of the Natural World - highlighting the connection between the fundamental patterns of our world and rigorous scientific theory.

A lack of preconceived ‘objective’ knowledge and no globalisation meant that philosophers had to develop their own ideas and rationale on the basis of their own thought and observation - somewhat similar to my pursuit of the 3D shape relationship. If we were in 350 BCE, would I have ever found closure to the shape conundrum?

Even today, the evolution of our scientific understanding is built on the foundation of thought pioneered by great philosophers thousands of years ago. Their days were spent thinking and seeking out the mysteries of the universe, while their education system emphasised reasoning, logic, and encouraged the development of dispositions that shaped ethical character.

Secondary education today is drastically different. The compulsory education children receive in schooling instils virtues of rote memorisation rather than understanding. Education of the sciences in particular has drastically changed. Intention is irrelevant - we are implicitly encouraged by schools to strive for excellence in exams rather than question the reasoning of what we are taught.

Algebra is a great example. Students often assert that they see no point in being forced to study algebra. They believe that the skill is somewhat pointless in their everyday lives. This viewpoint highlights some fundamental systemic issues within the schooling sector that should be addressed. In the case of algebra, emphasis on the ability to determine the slope of a line seems to have overshadowed the underlying goal for students to analyse, question and develop methods to describe patterns they see around them.

This isn’t to say that assessments and exams are obsolete. My point is that we need to rethink the purpose of schooling and for whom it is intended. Over half of all high schoolers in Australia undertake two or more Year 12 STEM subjects, while less than a third of these students pursue further tertiary STEM studies. Indeed, the scientific basics taught are essential for students pursuing further study, yet may seem rather pointless for the remaining 80 percent.

To combat the issue, Australia should consider incorporating philosophy as a core secondary subject. We should encourage students to discuss and challenge existing ideals of our world, as well emphasise the metaphysical, holistic origins of the sciences and humanities instead of encouraging them to memorise and regurgitate facts. This could help instil a culture of thought and curiosity among students.

It’s commonly believed the apple falling on Newton’s head led to the ‘discovery’ of gravity. In reality, Newton had constantly been pondering this phenomenon. The iconic apple was merely the ‘Eureka’ moment for Newton to realise that the orbit of the moon and the falling of the apple were due to the same force. The philosophical concept of ‘gravity’ - the tendency of all bodies to fall towards the Earth had been observed and discussed by philosophers such as Aristotle nearly 2000 years ago before Newton’s time! Newton simply started the effort to rigorously quantify an observation grounded in philosophical origins - the same endeavour continues today with theories of quantum gravity!

Scientific discovery does not have to be complex, nor difficult for the public to grasp. It does, however, take time. Rigorous theory may take a century to develop into practical applications. Yet, regardless of field, the work researchers do today is simply a continuation of what was pioneered hundreds of years ago. Inspiration - perhaps like our skewb or the apple - is not enough to instantly formulate new theories. Science is instead like sourdough - effort, dedication, and constant thought are required to transform an initial idea into a beautiful discovery. Most importantly, all scientific discovery is underpinned by an observation grounded in philosophical nature. Not everyone becomes an academic, but we may all benefit from a culture of curiosity, reasoning and questioning minds.