Over the years I've written a whole lot of things about gods, ideologies, and how individuals fit into the big picture in many columns as part of this newsletter. I've also written many songs which deal with those issues although musically I approaching them in a more emotional way rather then the structured approach I use when writing. If you've read everything in the Burning Blade, the Consciousness essay on my site, and listened to all the Fireaxe CDs then you might have a pretty good idea of how everything fits together, but nothing beats a simple and concise review of what I call the "Fireaxe theory". So in this issue I've decided to present the basic structure of the Fireaxe theory so that it is easier to grasp and understand.

Before I begin I would like to denounce terms such as "worldview", "philosophy", and "perspective" when used to describe the Fireaxe theory and other theories which attempt to explain how the world works. I think that recently there has been a well meaning movement towards tolerance of all beliefs which is part of a larger movement towards ridding the world of bigotry and discrimination. The basic premise of this movement is that it is wrong to believe that you are right, which, when put in those terms, immediately reveals a paradox. Indeed, universal tolerance is simply another ideal which is intent on asserting its authority on everyone.

There is substantial agreement in several quarters that the clashes of ideologies is the root of most if not all problems on earth and much of the music that I write follows that theme. Humanists and atheists often point to religion as being a major world problem since believers have often resorted to violence and brutality to force their order on the world. Religious believers point out that "atheistic" regimes have even worse records when it comes to atrocities and they are correct for the most part, religion can't assume all of the blame. Since I use "ideology" to refer to all forms of government, whether religious or secular in nature, I avoid this counter-argument in the Fireaxe theory. But I think that there is a tempting urge, once one determines that the problem lies with the fact that differing religions or ideologies are constantly trying to convert or conquer the others, that you can solve this problem by eliminating all religions and ideologies. In essence this demands, to be paradoxical once more, that we become intolerant when it comes to intolerance. To determine that the root cause of the problem of ideological conflict is due to ideologies themselves is, in my view, to stop well short of the true cause, and ensures that any attempt to fix things, especially when taking extreme measures, will result in failure and the problem will manifest again even worse than before. In "Food for the Gods" I underline this theme many times, showing how past attempts to purify the world of the things which are viewed as causing problems have caused more problems than they solved.

And so, I bristle at terms like worldview, philosophy, and perspective to describe the theory that I am putting forth. The terms carry with them the fundamental belief of universal tolerance which is that we all have our own opinions about how the world works and that they are all equally valid. While I agree that nobody's theory should be shouted down or simply dismissed by those in power or by those who are simply louder, the idea that there is no test of validity stands in stark contrast to the universe itself. Like it or not, the universe is autocratic, and discovering the truth is a survival advantage. The source of the confusion on the part of those who favor universal tolerance appears to stem from the belief that non-falsifiable theories are potentially valid. It is correct to say that no non-falsifiable theory is any more correct than any other non-falsifiable theory, since one absurd belief is as useless as another in regards to understanding the universe and predicting the future, but sweeping up falsifiable theories into the vortex of competing belief systems is simply denying that the truth both exists and can be discovered. Those who do so are almost definitely pushing their own agenda and do not deserve your attention. And so, since my understanding of the universe is falsifiable, the correct label for it is a theory.

Now that I have clarified that, here are the basic parts of the Fireaxe theory.

I base the Fireaxe theory on several well established theories:

• 1. Emergent systems - that complex systems can arise from the interactions of simple things
• 2. Natural selection - that organisms mutate, proliferate, and compete, with the "losers" becoming extinct
• 3. Behavioral science - that neurological systems, at their core, function according to the rules of conditioning
• 4. Entropy - that within a closed system, entropy always increases, which limits the amount of transformation that can occur

I extend those theories as follows:

• 1. That consciousness is an emergent system: a complex system arising in the human mind from the interaction of simple neurons.
• 2. That civilizations are emergent systems arising from the physical interactions of humans whether conscious or not.
• 3. That ideologies are emergent systems arising from the psychological interactions of conscious humans
• 4. That emergent systems follow the laws of natural selection in much the same way that organisms do
• 5. That the universe is, by definition, a closed system

So far this is all fairly straight forward. The only thing that I think needs to be clarified is how consciousness arises and how it gives rise to ideologies. I've dealt with these issues in more depth elsewhere and will only cover them briefly here.

Consciousness is the ability for a human to internalize a model of the world which includes itself which gives it the capacity for self awareness among other things. This requires the capacity for symbols, like words, which simplify a complex entity into a single object so that it can be easily manipulated in an internal model. Human are exceptional among all organisms in their mental capacity for learning symbols and languages which is one reason why humans are unique in being conscious. The other reason is that the human brain can become lateralized, which is when the hemispheres specialize for certain tasks instead of remaining essentially symmetrical. One half, usually the left, specializes in linear or sequential thinking, which is good for linking chains of cause and effect, while the other, usually the right, specializes in pattern recognition, which is good for finding shapes or trends in a larger whole. In all other organisms, lateralization is not seen. The phenomenon is specific to humans. Also, there are experiments which suggest that the linear thinking half of the brain, usually the left, houses consciousness. This is to be expected since manipulating symbols in an internal model of the world is inherently an exercise in cause and effect. Thus, the internal model, and the representation of one's self in that model, reside in the left brain with the right brain providing assistance for the modeling process. Of course, this does not preclude other neurological configurations which produce consciousness, since the basic concept is that different parts of the brain end up specializing in different things, which allows for linear thinking and thus the creation of an internalized model which includes the self.

A civilization as described as an emergent system arising from the physical interactions of humans does not differentiate it from, say, an ant colony with the exception being that humans are more complex. But even humans, without consciousness, are limited in the complexity of their behaviors. Without a well developed sense of cause and effect as well as the absence of an internalized model of the world with one's self included, it is difficult to engage in any long term planning. And without consciousness, things that we take for granted, such as finding novel solutions to problems or inventing complicated new things, are either difficult or impossible. But while consciousness gives rise to advanced planning, the use of symbols required for consciousness also allows for abstract thinking. Symbols generally represent concrete things, but they can be used to represent anything. Words can be nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc., and when combined they can evoke images of things which do not exist, that is, which are purely ideas, such as "invisible man", "blue elephant", or "eternal salvation". But just like concrete symbols, abstract symbols are stored in the mind and a person can come to see them as being just as "real" as real things through conditioning. Just as "farming" is rewarded by thankful family members, so is showing obedience to "God" rewarded by thankful priests, and a person being conditioned in this way will come to respect and serve both symbols.

Abstract concepts are the basis of ideologies, which I define as a system of laws which govern behavior in order to achieve some ideal. An abstract concept, be it a god, or goals such as freedom, equality, and prosperity, is the ultimate justification for those laws. In traditional religions, laws are generally handed down by a god or gods to its people and presented in story form as lessons. Modern religions and ideologies focus more on terms which are less easy to define to support their laws, such as "freedom", which often comes to be thought of as freedom from the oppression of a former or rival ideology. Of course, all ideologies contain laws intended to prevent the failed ideologies of the past from rising up once again, but since the more modern ones must prevent a larger number of ideologies from rising up, the ideals of modern ideologies must necessarily become more and more abstract. The more abstract an ideal is, the more inclusive it can be made.

In summary, consciousness is dependent on language, which causes the brain hemispheres to specialize. Language also paves the way for abstract concepts upon which ideologies are formed.

Given the theories and extensions listed previously, I make the following contentions regarding consciousness:

• 1. That consciousness is a survival advantage
• 2. That being a member of an ideology is a survival advantage
• 3. That making its members conscious is a necessary part of an ideology's survival
• 4. That consciousness is created by instilling within a person a permanent sense of inadequacy - in essence a state of constant fear
• 5. That the deeper the sense of inadequacy, the stronger the person is motivated - generally to serve their ideology

The most controversial of these contentions is the fourth one, that consciousness is created by instilling within a person a permanent sense of inadequacy. I will go into the subject briefly here.

Consciousness is dependent on language which is required to build an internal model of the world with the self included, but there must also be a need for that model. If consciousness was simply a useful problem-solving tool, one would expect it to arise only when needed and then disappear once the problem is solved. However, the persistent character of consciousness suggests that a conscious person is in a state where an internal model is constantly needed, such as a permanent state of fear or need. That the self is at the center of the internal model suggests a personal connection to a permanent state of vigilance. In other words, we are conscious because we believe that we constantly need an internal model of the world to protect ourselves and achieve our needs, even though our actual fears and needs may not require constant vigilance. Thus, consciousness is the manifestation of a pathological condition, a permanent state of fear or deprivation which forces it to persist.

Ideologies contain fear imagery at their core and demand constant obedience. In Christian mythology, eternal damnation awaits those who sin, and in some variants, original sin focuses on making the believer feel hopelessly inadequate no matter what they do. A famous quote from one of the United States' founders, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance", warns its people that complacency will result in tyranny and oppression taking root. By spreading such ideas, ideologies reinforce and strengthen the constant state of fear which motivates the individual to support the state. But the state does not raise children, and so the task of instilling consciousness in the young is done by well meaning parents who use punishments and withheld rewards to motivate their children, reinforcing feelings of inadequacy and fear if they do not do what they are told. Of course, everyone who is conscious does not feel constantly inadequate or afraid, but this is because we have adopted behaviors which prevent those feelings from surfacing. When you learn to obey the fear only seems to goes away, but in reality it is a permanent part of your psyche. And just as fear keeps you from breaking the law it keeps your consciousness from going away. Everyone must live up to social standards, which demand consciousness among many other learned behaviors, and so ideologies contain many seemingly odd behaviors and rituals which exist for the purpose that they instill and deepen feelings of fear and inadequacy. Public humiliation of the disobedient or unusual is one of these rituals, but there are many others. Simply look around you and you will find them.

People who are constantly afraid or constantly in need are motivated to find ways to satisfy their needs and make their fears go away. There are many ways in which ideologies exploit this motivation to serve their own ends. I've described these at length elsewhere and you can probably think of many of your own.

I also make the following contentions regarding ideological struggle:

• 1. That ideologies fight for survival using many methods including, but not limited to, war and enslavement
• 2. That aggression is a survival advantage
• 3. That aggressive ideologies make members of rival ideologies feel afraid and inadequate which in response become more aggressive, thus creating a vicious circle
• 4. That aggressive ideologies must continue to grow or face internal strife as their aggressive members will feed on each other to satisfy their needs
• 5. That internal struggle results in ideological mutation

I think that aggression as a survival advantage is obvious, but it is not the only survival option. There are many examples of ideological societies which have gone unchanged for hundreds if not thousands of years. These could be dubbed as passive ideologies. Although ideologies spread fear and inadequacy among its members, it can also satisfy those feelings, and all is well as long as everything works. It's when the social order breaks down for some reason, such as after a series of natural disasters, or a military invasion, or internal changes caused by aggressive individuals, that feelings of fear and inadequacy cause the ideology to become aggressive or provoke an ideological mutation. Most ideological mutations, of which revolution is the most dangerous form, generally lead to the new ideology being very aggressive and can often cause chain reactions in other ideologies.

The idea of aggression creating a vicious circle is the most uncomfortable part of this theory in that human beings seem to be pawns in a game controlled by ideologies. It's conceivable that every ideology on the earth could become passive for one reason or another and stop the cycle of ideological conflict, but it appears that the trend is towards more aggression rather than less. Also, passive ideologies could simply be those in which the aggressions of its members are discharged against each other, resulting in a fragile equilibrium which is susceptible to mutation. There is also the problem that a growing population tends to cause conflicts over limited resources, and since all organisms seek to multiply, people will end up deprived one way or another. I personally don't feel that a permanent passive ideology can ever develop. I think that the vicious circle cannot be reversed and that aggression will continue to grow since attempts to stop the vicious circle are inherently aggressive and have only fed the flames.

It is at this point where the Fireaxe theory suggests that the root cause of ideological conflict is the capacity of the human brain. The increase in size and complexity allows for language, which allows for consciousness, which allows for ideologies, which follow the law of natural selection. Natural selection of organisms occurs slowly since it requires genetic mutation, but natural selection of ideologies can occur rapidly since it requires only behavioral changes in humans. These changes are occurring with increasing frequency along with a growth in consumption as a result. All these changes lead to an increase in the need for ideologies to motivate their members to deal with the new realities, which means that more fear and inadequacy must be instilled in them, which makes the world and everyone in it progressively more pathological. Furthermore, at every level there is no counterbalancing force to prevent continued escalation.

The following are my contentions regarding the future:

• 1. That internal strife is inevitable since the laws of entropy imply that continuous growth is not sustainable
• 2. That the abstract bases for ideologies transcend mortality and thus suicidal aggression is not restrained by fear of death
• 3. That ideological mutation will eventually result in the creation of a suicidal ideology which will attempt to save the human race by destroying it

And that is the Fireaxe theory.