Spheres of Perception

I set out to obtain as much knowledge as possible, hoping to create a set of practical ethical values and morals, in anticipation of a more purpose driven and meaningful life. In a world where it is difficult to justify religious beliefs and the only realities appear to be the laws of physics and mathematics the task has become more difficult than ever before. After many years travelling around the world working as a vet and living in different countries I have developed a simple set of rules and beliefs as an aid to a healthier, happier and more meaningful life. I would like to share these values with the hope of making the world a safer and happier place, starting with you and me.

Introduction

The harsh reality of an objective world where God is dead and mathematical and physical laws appear to be the only realities we can cling to morality is under threat.

We will only discover a happy life under conditions of total freedom—Freedom from fear of rejection, poverty, suppression, death and our own ambition. In other words, complete freedom from objective fixations, including the mind itself. Through this detachment, we obtain pure love and understanding. Add to this an understanding of a higher purpose for our presence here, and we are enlightened

The idea of biological replication and its proposed desperate drive to mutate, adapt and survive must surely be more than just a senseless mass seeding of DNA. In fact, from a relative point how do we define ‘survival’; and from a more philosophical viewpoint why is it so highly regarded?

To some entirely lost in the evidence-based scientific view of the world, these issues may seem either too trivial or perhaps too unrewarding to be a worthy pursuit. For others perhaps more sceptical about the confines of objective science, and what religion or perhaps philosophy has to offer, it may come as a refreshing alternative.

In brief, physics sets the boundaries of the universe supported by objective evidence—evidence mainly found in the basic elements and an ongoing discovery of new energy forces, this then expressed mathematically. In turn, in the natural sciences, our foundations are more equivocally based on DNA and genetic coding; changes in organisms accounted for as adaptations to environmental stimuli. Technocrats are designing computers and machines with the aim to simulate human activity and behaviour mechanically and electronically. Driving research in all these progressive fields is principally an out of control financial machine with the focus on profits.

In an era of computerization and extreme, at times cruel materialism, ‘reality’, vehemently set by genetic and financial limitations can be daunting. Marketed as computerised statistics and with information overload on every imaginable topic it can be, to say the very least, become confusing. In healthcare materialism now extends, but does not limit itself to longevity medicine for the rich, with its’ other extreme acceptance of basic nutritional deficiencies, substance abuse, mental health issues and infectious diseases in the poor taking a distant second place.

Add to this the fact that we are living on a planet with potentially dwindling water and food supplies and climate change, increased prevalence of natural disasters, religious fanaticism, terrorism, acidification of oceans, deforestation, accumulation of nitrogen and phosphorous waste to a growing list, what an overwhelmingly fearsome place the world must seem to a new generation.

(Natural selection theory (the selfish, greedy and ‘senseless’ DNA) with a survival of the fittest strategy seems to be the logical and sensible conclusion to explain our origins and most of us )

Natural selection theory (the selfish, greedy and ‘senseless’ DNA) with a survival of the fittest strategy seems to be the logical and sensible conclusion to explain our origins and most of us aggressively and without much thought jump into its hierarchical mayhem. Most conventional religions offer fleeting alternatives for the desperate, creating no more than self-interested segregation, secured in egocentric rejection of others and their beliefs. Followers of theses religions justify suffering and inequality with the promise of a glorified special place in an afterlife. Depressing as these facts already seem, the neglect of our mental health and sensory wellbeing is an added concern, and a mostly overlooked or completely ignored issue.

It is a sobering reality of our narrowly defined objective world that, as recent as the 1990s, scientists considered issues like pain in animals as rather trivial matters. With such an ignorant Cartesian view of life, we are now also oblivious to the poverty and suffering around us. Pre-occupied with material wealth and electronic and mechanised devices, we spend more time admiring the lifestyles of the rich-and-famous, involved with our own petty ambitions instead of concerning ourselves with the suffering of others. In fact, considering the current diversity of quality of life on our planet, we need to redefine suffering.

Before we do so a few reminders of how embarrassingly, slow sensory evolution has been for humankind:

Some examples—the church’s ignorance of a Copernican world, Platonic thinking in philosophy, not realising our animal origins, apartheid, eugenics, the misuse of nuclear energy, and mismanagement of natural resources and the current primitive fiscal system controlling life and creating a growing gap between the rich and the poor. To add fuel to the fire we tolerate an era of misinformation in marketing and corruption in our higher financial institutions with amazing calm.

In recent years, a new awareness, driven to protecting our Earth and addressing poverty and inequality is emerging, but as usual full of objective economic and political checks and balances; encumbering sense.

Humankind’s significant advances, be it in the sciences, the arts, or other fields, were all initially based on assumptions triggered by feelings. Such feelings, the liberating factor for the human mind from its solipsistic dull state.

Our inability to understand and pay heed to an emerging new sense could yet again pose to be a major obstacle in the next phase of our evolution.

We live in amazing times, advancing into a new universe. Set in the never before background of global internet access opinions, ideas and feelings now freely float around with the potential to make others aware, or more confused. Posted on the internet is anything from teenage social blogs to recent medical and scientific research papers, all this with the ability to simultaneously link millions of minds together. Minds, each in turn, connected with millions of neurons and with options to decide and elect what is worthy of assimilation.

Marketeers and business people tend to exploit what they can with this new marketing tool, principally for self-gain—misdirecting the human intellect. Politicians and the wealthy are fighting for control of this new media to gain more power, and of course for financial gain. Presented with such confusing and many times unproven information promoted by greedy marketing tactics and financially induced censorship, one has to often resort to feelings and sense to sift through useful information and mere gibberish.

In ensuring that such feelings have the opportunity to evolve soberly and sanely, the issue of mental health and ethics have also never been more urgent. We are ‘empowered’ by a new era of scientific achievement to a point where, if uncontrolled, we have the ability to, in extreme, destroy our entire planet by means of a nuclear war, or life itself by means of uncontrolled genetic manipulation. On a smaller objective scale, if we mess things up badly, we may create unimaginable suffering through unchecked development and greed. Such greed augmenting inequality and setting the background for revolution and war.

We should seriously ask ourselves, if this blink of intellectual empowerment is a mutative off-chance event driven by a selfish gene, or if this ability of self-destruction and global communication is not perhaps a new hallmark in the start of a more responsible, less egocentric and more benevolent era. Responsible action would involve all of us, regardless of race, culture, standing, or even species. Concerning ourselves with something as precious and urgent as our delicate future and mental-wellbeing, not only then become apparent as the key to solving the problems causing all the angst seen around us, but also the most important determinant of our destiny. It would be more than a revolt against the Darwinian cruelty still taken for granted around us, but it would also prove to be invaluable as the first step in setting Sense free in a new more enlightened period of our existence. In today’s world ‘senselessly’ ruled by a survival-of-the-fittest concept, we will have to be more proactive to change concepts kept in place by misinformation and false marketing, ferociously driven by an unflinching money machine.

Objective science, under the influence of narrowly set financial confines, were (and to some extent still is) very much the cause of this ignorance towards animal and human suffering—perhaps the growing acceptance of euthanasia as a ‘treatment’ option. As a reminder of man’s limitations, we should historically go back to Descartes almost 400 years ago. His objective views and endeavours to understand the human body became well embedded in our thinking. As a respected philosopher, he convinced the church to see the human body and spirit as complete and separate, promising not to interfere with the mental and spiritual realm that belonged to the church. This split between mind and body sadly and embarrassingly has set the pattern of thought in scientific and medical thinking ever since. Interestingly he went further to lay claim that the pineal gland was the seat of the human soul and therefore only people had souls, and not animals, resulting in vivisection that continued for centuries. Embarrassingly, in his lifetime he had to admit that animals also have a pineal gland, but still declined their sense of pain.

This objective construct (although a significant part of our mental advancement), firmly created a wall between the mental and physical causing much of the neglect of animal and human mental welfare. Such is the sleepwalking existence of man.

It is equally troubling to know that it was only after the war in the late 1940s that the tiny profession of psychology was established, driven by a need to cater for the mental scars of post-war veterans. Sadly, we needed a war to maim and kill in order to trigger a more concerted interest in the mental welfare of our own species.

Psychiatry, the other main caretaker of our mental health (although it existed in name as early as 800 A.D. in the Islamic world and in Hebrew times), became more of an academic pursuit with little to offer therapeutically than homes for the mentally ill until recent years. Confronted by a limited number of treatment options to alter the mind, lobotomies were a common treatment option as recent as the late 1970’s. Our deleterious objective approach, to if something is dysfunctional to ‘cut it out’ and get rid of it.

Amazingly, the most important aspect of our existence has received the least of our attention and understanding, and is still generally left as an afterthought to the objective body. Armed with this underrated enigmatic organ we make all our decisions and judgments. As I continued my studies it also became more apparent that our mental health depends heavily on addressing the quality of life in others, including our fellow creatures.

In veterinary medicine the principle criteria used as recently as 1981 was pure objective science, and in agriculture it’s still ongoing today, affecting production efficacy. The guidelines are mostly set using efficiency of food use and reproduction, with mortality and morbidity worked into the equation only as threat to production efficiency. Most of science and health care, augmented by today’s technocratic society, still blindly follow such restrictive objective values.

We should thus take care, after our explorations and analysis, not to end up with the same inconclusive objective and technical barriers when dealing with feelings, pain, and suffering. Intertwined in all objective pursuits is inescapably the enigma of life, with all its complex diversity and richness based on feelings and sense. This we should give much more credit.

All this potential awe-inspiring benevolence demands a progressive new view, detached from pure objectivism, greed, and the idea of an aimless selfish DNA. Needed is, a more benign and inspiring philosophy. Set in a deceivingly ordered computerised world we now need a new set of ethics and morals, with no egoistic motives, to re-enchephalize humankind—free form greedy politics, economic bias or restrictive religious beliefs.

Why we are here and how are we supposed to live a good, honourable and pure life, and why should we? For our purpose, we discuss this under three main subunits:

I. Higher purpose—without a higher purpose for our existence this sentence would end right here, and we may as well stop harping on about the meaningless of it all. We can therefore safely assume there is a higher purpose. We can continue to debate if the higher purpose has any purpose or not, the futility of this speaks for itself.

II. Reason—the inner self; our ego. The mind objective, geared for survival, greed and hierarchical placement of ourselves in society—what gave us an evolutionary advantage and simultaneously made us conniving smart apes. This is also the damper on our evolutionary advancement. Most of us are entrapped in this stage and as a result suffer needless pain and illness; it is responsible for most of the crime and even war. Noteworthy is that ignorance of a higher purpose of our presence here we enhance our ego and create further entrapment in this intermediate stage of our sensory evolution.

III. Action—the basic somatic self (our basic anatomical and physiological self)

Simple changes in our perception and management of these three can make life complete, meaningful and less stressful.

I. Purpose

Chapter One

Higher Purpose

It was not the existentialists who killed God; it was God who killed God.

Definitions: (as used in human and veterinary medicine).

Suffering- an unpleasant emotional state or an undesirable mental state that people or animals would normally prefer to avoid. Suffering can refer to a wide range of intense and objectionable subjective states such as fear and frustration. It can be of either physical or psychological origin.

Pain- an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or is described in terms of such damage. The inability to communicate in no way negates the possibility that an individual is experiencing pain and is in need of appropriate pain relieving treatment.

To be purpose driven to survive and not suffer or be in pain, would be a rather pragmatic approach to defining life’s purpose. To be purpose driven to make money or obtain a higher education without well-defined goals also hardly suffices and the majority of us need a better purpose.

Seen as the highest evolutionary achievement in our known universe, there are two ways we can view human higher perceptive ability (our brain), the only means at our disposal to figure out the purpose for us being here.

a) A mutative off-chance event, with higher perception merely as a freak tool to improve survival. This option immediately limits our ability to do much more. As seedlings of a freak off-chance event, we were extremely lucky, and we have now reached the objective peak in our sensory evolution, we may even regress. We now have to rely entirely on natural selection and environmental changes to make minor adjustments over eons to come. We would most likely go extinct or maybe not.

b) Achievement of higher perception as the primary drive of evolution.

We have only started the initial stages of an amazing journey in a universe filled with infinite potential… our intellect and cognitive ability evolving explosively.

Why sensory advancement and global wellbeing is not only our ultimate purpose, but the only choice:

Key facts: The brain is the source of all suffering and pain, no one wants to suffer or be in pain.

From a universal point, all life is of equal importance, a single strand of viral DNA can wipe out vast numbers of humankind.

The excesses of some create suffering in others. Excessive individual wealth results in corruption, nepotism and protectionism. It furthermore results in manipulation of ethics and morals to mollycoddle the already powerful and rich. These excesses of a few, backed by unscrupulous marketing, also sets false values and aspirations in others. Survivalist strategies at the cost of others are not conducive to mental health or in fact survival.

The above facts seem easy to relate to but we tend to ignore them and as such their damaging effect on mental health. Furthermore, the above facts can only be justified under a Darwinian survivalist strategy, option (a).

Mindset that there is not enough to go around and fear driven by an antiquated economic system inflating shortages rather focusing on alternatives, it rewards the ‘haves’ at the cost of the ‘have nots’. Subsequently the latter have now become no more than cheap labour for the former. In a market driven economy with few jobs where a good day’s work may be worth less than the cost of needs to prepare dinner at the local grocer or a course of antibiotic tablets for your dog from the local vet, the rich have become extraordinary rich. These individuals take pride in their achievements making fortunes while they sleep or sit in a $1000 an hour spa, while the poor in many parts of the world work for $2 an hour. Even as staunch supporters of option (a) we have to admit, the rich are not necessarily the fittest or the smartest.

We have subsequently broadly stratified society into three sub-groups:

1) Homo sapiens supremus – an elitist group of firm believers in the superiority of their genetic makeup and achievements (or in some deserving of God’s special recognition), as the determents of their elevated position and lavish lifestyles. Many cheat, bribe and deceive in their attempts to belong to this group, subsequently reducing the average morality standards of its solipsistic driven members. Some just thank their lucky stars.

2) Homo sapiens comfortis – The rather content and harmless middle class. Comfortable and secure, if not too busy complaining or pretending to be happy they dream about how good life would be in sub-group 1. With relative easy-acceptance of their safe place in this pretentious hierarchy, they are the easiest targets for unscrupulous marketeers. They are also the backbone of our society.

3) Homo sapiens ignoramus— Ignorant, either due to an unfortunate genetic shortfall, bad luck or a self-created, drug-induced ignorant bliss. Due to their inability to part with much money, they are predominantly of use to the other classes to boost their egos, promote political images or do their dirty work.

With such a background we now have to create a purpose with a system of ethics and morals to satisfy the lot. For some of more enquiring mind we also have to create a system of beliefs to add meaning and purpose to life. An enormous task indeed—with science having determined reality, the existentialist having killed God (after the churches have already done a good job scaring people off), and worth measured in monitory terms. Military regimes are not very fashionable; although under current systems of democracy guns have been replaced with money.

With such an overwhelming task it can be easy to see how most failed entrants of sub-group (1) quickly accept their place in the scheme of things, or else fall victim to sub-group (3).

Either way, we are mortal beings with a limited lifespan, facing the reality of needing a purpose with ethics and morals to justify our stay here. We are inevitably again faced with the, possibly unrecognized impact on our existence here, of deciding between the brain as a freak event or an emerging goal directed sense.

In this search for meaning and purpose there has always been an undercurrent of awareness of something higher, something more meaningful than a struggle to survive or get rich quick. Some are quite happy to ignore issues like these since they appear to be of no value in their rather short objectively defined lives.

Others of more enquiring mind, or those lucky enough to have exhausted the pleasures of what money can buy, need something more. There is then a profound wish to dig deeper than religion and science (politics and economics being an unworthy pursuit for our purposes here).

In order to start somewhere we need to tap on all we can— ancient and present day religious wisdom, philosophical thinking and inevitably science. The task seems enormous but possible due a vast amount of duplication and cyclic activity in human thinking.

We start our search in China. Revived again today in modern-day China is Confucius’s ancient wisdom, where it has become especially popular amongst some Chinese intellectuals. This has enormous benefits to its populace in elevating moral standards in a new more democratic and capitalistic China where unchecked greed and capitalism has slowly planted its’ segregating roots (we in the West are already experts at this).

Confucius based the pillars of his wisdom and high morals in an ancient tale where humankind, bequeathed with the enormous task of pulling Heaven and Earth together, has to act wisely and with caution and care. Facing a new interconnected world narrowly defined by science, economics and politics, ‘freed’ to some extend from the confines set by some religions, it may never have been more applicable than now to intermingle Western and Eastern philosophical thinking in facing a very complex future. Tapping on both Western and Eastern philosophy has also never been more appropriate and practicable than in a more interconnected world as we have today, thanks to the Internet and air travel.

I found it fascinating during my travels and explorations to see how some people brought up under the influence of Eastern religious and philosophical thinking such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and others are grasping at wisdom and ideas in Western religion and philosophy. Likewise, we are all familiar with how in the West disillusioned individuals (we do not mention agnostics here, since they do not care anyway) are reaching for escape in Eastern religions and philosophical thinking. Many individuals on both sides have emerged from this with a ‘newly’ discovered enlightenment, satisfied with a new life and death formula. Inevitably, we have to ask ourselves if there is a common pattern here, and if so, how can we simplify and apply it.

Confucius continued and brilliantly exemplified a more open-minded wisdom centuries ago— “with only ambition (heaven) and no realism we are dreamers, with only realism (earth the objective) and no dreams we are plodders”. Clearly, either way, it can be seen we need move forward from another plodding phase of our existence, this time spiritually depraved and entrapped in a money driven technocratic society where God is dead and science our only guide.

The significance of revived Confucius and Zen thinking lies in its involvement with the detachment of sense from object. Almost simultaneously with this detachment comes the responsibility to utilise sense in an ongoing pursuit to amalgamate sense and object. From this it may already become evident to some the duplicity in Eastern philosophy and religion to detach form object –move outside the objective world and then be drawn back with more clarity of vision--enlightened.

Cause and effect is an obvious reality of life and the known universe, in science we call this evidence-based research. ‘A hot plate burns’, ‘water is wet’ (we do not need much more to prove this), ‘drug C causes such and such’, and so on. Ignoring a sense of awareness of a higher aspiration simply because it lacks objective evidence would in essence be as ignorant as burning a finger on a hot plate.

How do we explain a current sense that something is amiss and a new more harmonious era is dawning, eradicating greed and poverty? Certainly, science and a better understanding of a material world cannot be where it begins or ends.

We have evolved the perceptive capacity to survive in the objective material world, all the way to now mapping the human genome, certainly not due to a freak chance genetic mutation or selective coding. If, on the other hand genetic coding is merely a selection process to create the fittest to survive, we have done pretty well, and passed our objective goal with the ability to destroy an entire planet. Unless we are part of a bigger plan where evolving toward a higher level of perception and sense is the ultimate universal goal.

Under such a system ethical and morally guided living become a lot more meaningful. Under such a system we also cannot justify extreme wealth greed or poverty and any neglect of the weak and poor. A serious problem arises if values are misconstrued and a few powerful people have the ability to control the masses and manipulate the rules driven by material gain. Religion has slowly been replaced by economics to determine values, perhaps forcefully perhaps due to destiny. In addition, lawyers of the powerful and rich, subject to their financial power, benefit form more available means to manipulate the rules than the poor masses. Never before in the history of humankind have we had a complex society governed by such blunt economics and materialism. Clearly, we blindly follow and worship option (a) and the meaninglessness of it all.

In order to explain, imagine a futuristic scenario, very likely to occur since the science is already in place. Genomics, nanotechnology and genetic engineering, to name but a few, new era advances in medicine that will benefit the wealthy.

With stem cell replacement therapy and genetic manipulation to fix damaged tissue, what an amazing new era of blissful painless living awaits some of our richer compatriots. However, to different ‘minds’ this will be of different value:

For Joe 2 the clone of Joe (the initial Joe Self), this is great news because after a promiscuous lifestyle and smoking for years he now develops lung cancer.

Joe Self on the other hand, raised by a Buddhist monk group was the sole survivor of a plane crash in Tibet. He move back to the west and dedicated his life to writing philosophical text and helping others through pure and healthy living. He is in good health, happy although financially considered poor.

Joe 2, considered a lucky and successful man, growing up with the odds against him as a cloned orphan can now afford the new stem cell replacement therapy on offer. He can do so after making a fortune selling off a pornographic website where you can meet your future dream date and invested it ‘wisely’ in a property soon to be developed for a new casino.

Under option (a), survivalist lucky events create winners and we can justify a successful, evolutionary winner in Joe2 (although not in agreement with many individuals’ ethical values. He potentially has the means through his wealth to control many more than the initial Joe Self. The above may even suggest there is a valid argument for cloning select genomes (the rich who can afford it) to expose their replicas to potentially more diverse environments.

We now face a philosophical dilemma. A cloned individual based on material gain has obtained a higher placing in the gene pool than the original pure form. Under our current ethical standards and moral values governed by material wealth, we can see how easy it is to accept Joe 2 as the evolutionary winner in the complex scheme of things. Clones may have biological flaws and with the potential to be cloned again can enhance biological disasters and restrict the natural selection process.

Delving a bit deeper in the above situation we can also argue that Joe 2 has employed many people in the new Casino (also destroyed many families and caused suffering in many), so he seems like a bit of an economical stimulant besides a genetic success?

Option (b) argument, a higher purpose, Jo Self is the winner. Furthermore, consider the casino property now turned into a park, open to all and available for spiritual escape and recreational needs; in a society where greed and excess is not highly valued. Jo Self has created spiritual awareness and healthy living through his simple lifestyle. He has given more to society than he has taken. Instead of fabricating a shaky base for addictive behaviour patterns driven by an enigmatic lust for more, he set a less rapacious platform for people to improve their mental and physical wellbeing— also less dependent on material needs. No prizes for guessing who has created a better platform for ethical and moral values to develop and a more purpose driven and moral society to evolve.

We all generally object to greed and self-gain at the cost of many, and consider it repulsive. So what drives this edacity?

Aggressive competitive behaviour is a genetically acquired trait needed for primeval survival—we should now confidently discard its use in civilised society. Ongoing competitive behaviour is of use only to obtain recognition in the group, to stand out and inflate one’s own ego. The marketing fraternity are experts at utilising this, driven by large paycheques from big industry. To stand out not only as a potential mate for breeding purposes, but to elevate one’s status when it comes to compete for food needed for survival. Alternatively, the motive is brash egoistical comfort seeking or fear. Such primitive recognition in the group is no longer of any use to society as a whole and has become a damper for future development; it may even be a threat to group safety. Elevating status based on wealth and property ownership as a creator of more access to power and freer lifestyle choices set false aspirations and created the platform for corruption, nepotism and greed. Everybody is and should be, born free. We can see how easy it is to lose the plot under such a system with the Confucian heaven slipping away. None of humankinds’ intellectual endeavours, our religions, sciences and philosophies, can ignore the fact that they are in search of a higher level of existence. In this way, we can sense the sagacity and motivation in our noble pursuit. Seen as driven by financial gain it loses acumen.

Therefore, we need to change the basis of our ethical design system to be less dependent on material gain and more preoccupied with mental wellbeing and spiritual gain. Under such a system, we also will reduce crime and greed.

The first step is simply to reject option (a) and accept the higher reason for our purpose here—to nurture advanced perception and sensory wellbeing on all possible levels.

The mentioned emerging medical developments should serve as more examples to create awareness of the profound new era philosophical, ethical, and moral dilemmas we inevitably will have to face in the background of healthy mental development. With the likelihood of immortality medicine and euthanasia in the context of genetic ‘fitness’ and species differences—we can sense our urgent duty to assimilate more than objective facts in such matters.

The veterinary profession, well versed in performing euthanasia, may soon be the first to confront the issue of cloning pet animals, since the market will be very attractive to entrepreneurs once the basic science (already there) is marketable. The reason for animals possibly becoming the first beneficiaries of such forms of new era ‘medicine’ is because we still carry with us the Cartesian view of animals having no ‘soul’. Furthermore, the business fraternity is anxiously awaiting the marketing value of potential of expensive and popular clones

Again to highlight a few philosophical issues in the interest of our coming quest:

If we clone, whom shall we clone, the gifted, the highly moral, the wealthy, or quite likely, as mentioned initially the beloved pets of the wealthy based on affordability? If we had cloned Beethoven (the composer, not the dog in the movie) would he still be a gifted musician today and how many of his clones would be around? Possibly not.

What impact will time and space have on the clone? What is the effect of repeatedly cloned genetic material to changing environments? How many times shall we allow the same individual to have his ripped-out calf muscles replaced by stem cells?

Is our concern with immortality and longevity merely an offspring of our blind objectivity—option (a) existence?

In the context of interconnectivity, feelings, and fragile species interdependency, think of your fifty-five kilogram Rottweiler, Brutus, play-wrestling with you, knowing full well it could rip your throat out if it wanted to. If on your doorstep one day arrives the ‘new’ clone of the few cells taken by the vet from Brutus some years ago, will you immediately go and play-wrestle with him again? Of course not.

Think of your daughter on the back of a pony, gently walking along, sensing its vulnerable load. They, the animals, and we humans feel secure in the above situations, so how do we feel about immortality and what do we sense we would want from it if it was for sale? Do we want Marley the dog’s being (soul) to continue or for her body objective to persist indefinitely as a clone? From the above the urgent need for all of us to think (sense) and philosophy in a societal way—beyond the objective world and its limitations are apparent.

After eons of evolutionary ‘adaptations’ our physiology is fine-tuned to keep us alive, creating a delicate interdependency between us, our environment and each other. Thanks to science, we now know that ages of natural selection and genomic adjustments have made us adapt and survive changing environments, but for what reason?

When a single cell adapts and acquire the ability to survive, we consider it a biological success. If one was to be, let us say a pancreas in a dog, from an evolutionary standoff this fragile and shaky coexistence has been a fair trade-off for the organ seen as a conglomerate of cells. Taken into account the sanctuary that a body had given its cells with the chance to surrender other cellular functions and to reside unhindered in our bodies. Seen differently, in a delicate way it assisted her survival as an organ within an organism. More dramatic and scary for us however, should this organ and its’ cells become cancerous or diseased we may die.

In the context of such a dilemma due to a ‘minor’ organ failing, I cannot help but realise the insignificance of man but simultaneously the extraordinary significance of all life forms.

Let us prematurely assume in the new era of biotechnology a computerised system will calculate a scoring system for quality of life and euthanasia has become commonplace.

Imagine yourself to be in the doctors’ waiting room busy dying of pancreatic carcinoma (a malignant cancer):

‘As you sit waiting for your results you are aware of the calm serenity in the room, mainly achieved by means of the carefully selected furnishings and décor. An ominous austerity prevail besides all the objective attempts to mask it and the robotic attempts by efficient and well-trained staff to show compassion to customers. In the distance, a hum of the computer- machine deciding my continued existence was ominously audible.

The score delivered by the Termination Machine, and now confronting me, was 93/100 (cut off is 90/100) and the scoring criteria carefully explained by the booklet in front of me.

The computer ‘considered’ the following categories and sub-categories with updated software (backed by recent advances in the field) in arriving at the score:

Quality of Life to Self:

Pain score, further sub-categorized and completed by competent physician-

Mental health, further sub-categorized and completed by psychologist /psychiatrist-

Financial status or support/ ability to afford treatment (documents reviewed)-

Family support if any (completed by family members)-

Ability to be self- dependent/pre- filled out questionnaire social worker guided-

Patient’s personal opinion and willingness to continue existing in this state-

Quality of Life –Societal context:

Ability to function in a profession, position, work or contribute to society-

Demand for this service-

Cost of ongoing medical and supportive treatment-

Potential of a new cure related to statistical survival time-

Value as a study case with future benefit to society-

Threat to society-

In conclusion, on failing to sign in acceptance and agreement with the above determents for an appointment with the Termination Machine, another form was waiting with a list of liabilities, indemnities and exclusions from ‘normal’ society; listed equally lucidly and waiting less eagerly for a signature.’

So in view of the above where lies the difference between Marley the dog (an organism), us (an organism) and the pancreas (the organ)? The objective difference can be found in another organ, Marley’s brain, able to make decisions and assessments of the outside world and to move through it by differentiating safety from danger. However, more importantly, the difference lies in its ability to sense and express emotions—to be happy when her owner comes home and sad if left alone—feelings and emotions as a non-objective link. If the brain is unwell what then?

Objectively life can dependent on a small organ such as a pancreas, in sense our interconnectivity is vastly more complex than we daily perceive. It prompts us to respect and acknowledge this delicate interconnectivity, not only as support to some higher transmorfiguration, but also because we share it and depend on it in all levels of life. Option (b) and not (a) clearly function in this higher sense. Once we grasp this ubiquitous interconnectivity in our objective world through sense as a higher and purpose driven goal it will guide us to respect not only each other more, but sense as an august achievement of eons of ongoing evolutionary struggle. Something we should preserve and protect at all cost.

Realising such a pattern of delicate interdependency, striving for advancement sense will reinforce awareness of interdependency, helping us emerge into an unimaginably blissful new future. Life, free of religious, financial, and political stratification or the obligations set by objectivism in its well-defined and narrow confines. This unanimous and selfless search of sense, the ultimate drive of DNA; not merely objective survival in a solipsistic DNA with replicating genes hoping for diversification. Evolving sense is not a means to an end but the ultimate and yet incomplete end to a means. If not clear why, it should become clear as we continue our journey, hopefully in sense under option (b).

Is there some meaningful design other than the relatively objective gain of DNA replication with the chance to genomic variation (as promoted by natural selection theorist) to our existence and being? How are we supposed to live a meaningful life, and are the present values set by our society good guidelines?

Religion and years of scientific reading and studying have sadly failed to supply all the answers to the question: what is this life? Is there an arrangement that has been present throughout the ages? Staunch academics have now boldly rejected the Grand Design theory at the expense of (better supported by objective data) Natural Selection. This support is objectively substantiated by the discovery of the DNA helix and major advances in gene mapping in recent years.

Absolutists and relativists, realists and idealists, objectivists and subjectivists, black and white, poor and rich, scientific and unscientific, awake and asleep, conscious and unconscious, well and unwell, happy and sad, failure and success, receiving and giving, surplus and famine, alive and dead. Are our minds simply geared to make sense of such comparative objective values merely as a tool for objective categorisation in a hierarchical society struggling to survive (and is this life?), or are these hidden feelings much more than what the primitive objective values at our disposal present them as? Are all such relative values set just to find a niche in the hierarchy of the gene pool of natural selection or something much more profound? Besides recording such objective differences for survival or self-recognition, what does my mind do? What is mind? What is being? Why are we sad about losing a loved one?

With all intermingled and with cognition fluctuating in and out of objective extremes, we can either become completely entrapped in trying to define ourselves under the constraints of such guidelines, or be set free enough to fully grasp for the first, time the being in the object and the sense in being. Involving ourselves with objective differences all around us in our search for conformity, ultimately reveals a cyclic pattern of interconnectivity, not divergence. All of us also urgently cry out for something more than the harsh objective reality of failure and success, beauty and ugliness, wealth and poverty as presented by our primitive Darwinian origins.

Objective values simply fail to satisfy or impress the mind other than creating a sense of fear of loss and belonging. The reason for this is because we’re slowly drowning in objectivity and missing the goal completely! We’re identifying our being with the objective with the aim of boosting our self-esteem and finding a place in the hierarchy of the gene pool. We miss seeing this as merely a self-esteem evolved to establish ourselves as proof of our usefulness to the community and to be part of this ‘buzzing’ interconnectivity in search of sense. With this approach, the I (me) merely is an object amongst objects and the mind so easily gets lost in this concept that it forgets its more august place in the scheme of things—evolution of sense under option (b). So, what is this sense (explained in chapter IV on sensory evolution), and how you (the reader), and I fit into all of this?

How can we not be concerned?

As a practicing vet responsible for the healthcare of all sentient beings other than man the responsibility, if nothing else we carry is enormous. We also perform more legal euthanasias on sentient beings than any other profession. It serves as a vital link between the desperate outcries of addressing issues affecting, besides the traditional physical (objective) health, also the sensory wellbeing of all creatures around us. It breaks barriers between species when dealing with pain and suffering, acting as a witness to emotional suffering on both sides of the species barrier. It also serves to show how discomposingly shameful it is if we cannot address the human need for harmonious interconnectivity and mental health. Fixation and entrapment in objectivity is the primary cause of this neglected care of the ‘sense’.

Veterinarians, traditionally responsible for the physical wellbeing of all creatures, should be careful not to fall victim to Cartesian values by splitting mind, ignoring sense and the interconnectivity of all. We should all urgently involve ourselves with the mental wellbeing of our farm and pet animals and not ignore lessons learnt from the past. We should furthermore attune ourselves to the carers of these pets and their mental health. As witnesses to the human-animal bond and in realising the limitations of objective data (more on this in chapter II) we should pay urgent heed to search for ‘something’ we sense and know is lacking. This sense of the missing (or the missing of sense) in between the objective is what should urgently be explored and given all the care it requires.

This concept of sensing the mind was first brought to light, albeit amidst some confusion, by none other than aforementioned philosopher, Descartes. Denying the reality of our existence for a while, entrapped in mind and an objective world, he concluded one day and subsequently stated, “I think, therefore I am”. Essentially his revealing discovery boiled down to (after spending some years doubting his existence) that if he doubted (thought), he couldn’t be doubting his existence without existing (as a doubter or thinker that is). Affirmation of sense? Today more likely like most of us he may have concluded, “I have stuff, therefore I am”.

“Why are we here?” has challenged most of humankind at some point as far as memory goes back. Perhaps as responsible caretakers of enhancing sense?

To emphasize our ignorance on this topic, I recall a well-respected and distinguished professor of philosophy, enlighteningly on the animals’ side, and his response to a lecture presented by a prominent pain physiologist in the late 1970s.

In brief, the pain physiologist, after an hour of relying objective electrochemically recorded data and their interpretation thereof, claimed that due to “different electrochemical activity in the neurocortex of the dog it did not feel pain the way humans do”.

The philosophy professor’s rebuttal was the shortest in his career and went as follows. He simply asked, “As a prominent human pain physiologist, you do your work on dogs and then extrapolate your work to humans, correct?”

The physiologist in an erudite manner replied, “Yes”.

Our philosopher replied in his only response, “Excellent. Then either your statement is false or your life’s work is”. Mental Health and Wellbeing in Animals (Franklin D McMillan 2005).

It is easy to see why doubts regarding objective science can start early during studies in these fields.