LAW OF UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Law of Universal Consciousness: A Theoretical Framework for Consciousness as a Fundamental Feature of Reality

Anoop Swarup
Chair, Centre for Global Nonkilling

Abstract

The question of whether consciousness is fundamental to reality remains one of the most contested issues in philosophy of mind and consciousness studies. The present paper develops a theoretical framework for what may be called the Law of Universal Consciousness: the proposition that consciousness is not merely an emergent byproduct of matter but an ontological feature of reality itself. The framework is situated within contemporary debates involving panpsychism, cosmopsychism, integrated information theory, the global neuronal workspace, and recent consciousness-first proposals. Rather than claiming that the theory is empirically established, this paper argues that it offers a coherent metaphysical model that can organize existing discussions about subjective experience, mind-matter relations, and the hard problem of consciousness. It also identifies key limitations, including the combination problem, conceptual underdetermination, and the challenge of making the proposal empirically tractable. The paper concludes that the Law of Universal Consciousness is best understood as a research program: a philosophical foundation that may guide future theoretical and scientific inquiry into the nature of consciousness.

Keywords: consciousness, panpsychism, cosmopsychism, integrated information theory, hard problem

Introduction

The relationship between consciousness and reality remains one of the most enduring problems in the history of thought. Classical materialist accounts generally hold that consciousness emerges from complex physical systems, especially biological brains. Yet despite major advances in neuroscience and cognitive science, the question of why physical processes should be accompanied by first-person experience remains unresolved. This is often called the hard problem of consciousness, a term associated with the view that even a complete account of function and behavior would not by itself explain subjective awareness (Chalmers, 1995). The persistence of this problem has encouraged alternative frameworks that treat consciousness as more basic than standard physicalism allows.

One such alternative is the Law of Universal Consciousness, understood here as the claim that consciousness is a universal and fundamental feature of reality. On this view, consciousness does not arise from matter alone; rather, matter, organism, and mind are different expressions or organizations of a more basic conscious reality. This paper develops that idea into a structured theoretical framework. The goal is not to claim final proof, but to show how the proposal can be articulated with conceptual precision and located within current scholarship.

Recent research and philosophical debate have renewed interest in foundational approaches to consciousness. Panpsychist and cosmopsychist theories propose that some form of experience or mentality is present at the basic level of reality, or that the universe as a whole is itself conscious in some fundamental sense (Goff, 2019; Skrbina, 2017). Integrated information theory similarly argues that consciousness corresponds to intrinsic causal integration rather than simply to behavior or report (Oizumi et al., 2014; Tononi, 2004). Global workspace theory, while not a consciousness-first ontology, provides an influential account of conscious access through distributed neural broadcasting (Baars, 1988; Dehaene & Changeux, 2011). These approaches differ significantly, yet each reflects dissatisfaction with reductive accounts that treat experience as an incidental byproduct of non-conscious matter.

The present paper argues that the Law of Universal Consciousness can function as a unifying philosophical hypothesis. It is broad enough to encompass phenomenology, metaphysics, and theoretical neuroscience, but specific enough to generate a distinct ontology. In its strongest form, the theory claims that consciousness is not a local accident of brains but a universal condition within which all physical processes occur.

Conceptual Background

The philosophical motivation for universal-consciousness theories is the explanatory gap between objective description and subjective experience. Physical science offers powerful third-person accounts of structure, function, and causal interaction, but it does not straightforwardly explain what it is like to be a conscious subject. This is the central problem that animates the contemporary literature on the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995; Strawson, 2006). If experience cannot be reduced to physical description, then some philosophers conclude that consciousness must be treated as basic.

Panpsychism is one of the best-known responses to this difficulty. It holds that consciousness, or proto-consciousness, is a fundamental feature of matter or reality, rather than something that appears only at advanced levels of biological complexity (Goff, 2019; Skrbina, 2017). Panpsychism is attractive because it avoids the emergence of consciousness from wholly non-conscious ingredients. However, it faces the combination problem: if microscopic entities possess experience, how do those micro-experiences combine into the unified subjectivity of an organism? This remains one of the most serious objections to the view (Goff, 2019).

Cosmopsychism offers a related but distinct strategy. Instead of assigning consciousness to fundamental particles, it posits that the universe as a whole is the primary subject, and that individual minds are derivative or partitioned expressions of universal consciousness (Nagasawa & Wager, 2016). Cosmopsychism can avoid some version of the combination problem by reversing the explanatory direction: rather than asking how many small minds create one big mind, it asks how one cosmic mind appears as many finite minds. Yet this too raises its own puzzles, including how the differentiation of subjects occurs and what mechanisms constrain that differentiation.

Integrated information theory provides a formalized attempt to explain consciousness in terms of intrinsic causal power and information integration. According to IIT, consciousness corresponds to the quantity and quality of integrated information generated by a system, often represented through the concept of $\phi$ (Oizumi et al., 2014; Tononi, 2004). IIT is important for the present discussion because it is compatible with the idea that consciousness is intrinsic to certain forms of organization rather than an accidental emergent property. Still, IIT is not identical to universal consciousness. It is a theory of when and how consciousness arises in systems, not necessarily a metaphysical claim that consciousness permeates reality at every level.

Global workspace theory, by contrast, emphasizes the broadcasting of information across specialized cognitive modules. A mental content becomes conscious when it is globally available for report, memory, and deliberate control (Baars, 1988; Dehaene & Changeux, 2011). This theory has been highly influential in cognitive neuroscience, but it remains functional and operational rather than ontologically foundational. For this reason, it is best used as a contrast class. The Law of Universal Consciousness is not primarily about access; it is about being. It asks what consciousness is at the level of reality itself, not merely how information becomes available to a cognitive system.

Theoretical Statement of the Law

The Law of Universal Consciousness may be stated as follows:

Consciousness is a universal ontological feature of reality, such that all entities and processes participate in, express, or arise within a fundamental field or principle of consciousness.

This formulation contains three essential claims. First, consciousness is ontologically basic. Second, consciousness is universal in scope. Third, individual subjects are localized modes or expressions of that universal condition. The theory does not require that every entity be conscious in the same way, nor does it claim that a rock is conscious in anything like the manner of a human being. Instead, it proposes that reality is saturated by consciousness at some basic level, while the richness and organization of conscious life vary according to structure.

This distinction is important. Universal consciousness should not be confused with the assertion that all things are equally conscious. Rather, it implies a graded ontology in which consciousness is present minimally, differentially, or potentially across systems, and becomes especially organized in biological and cognitive forms. That is why the theory can remain compatible with neuroscience and empirical psychology without reducing consciousness to neural mechanism alone.

Ontological Structure

The first pillar of the framework is ontological primacy. If consciousness is fundamental, then reality is not composed solely of dead matter and causal motion. Instead, matter may be understood as one mode of appearance or organization within a deeper conscious order. This view is increasingly discussed in contemporary philosophical work that questions whether physicalism can adequately account for subjective experience (Goff, 2019; Strawson, 2006). The universal-consciousness thesis does not deny the existence of physical regularities, but it claims that those regularities are not the whole story.

The second pillar is participatory locality. Individual conscious subjects are not isolated monads sealed off from the rest of being. They are localized centers of experience, differentiation, or perspective within a broader conscious reality. This idea is especially close to cosmopsychist accounts, where finite subjects are understood as partial manifestations of a cosmic subject (Nagasawa & Wager, 2016). On this view, individuality is real, but not absolute.

The third pillar is structural constraint. Even if consciousness is universal, its forms are shaped by organization. In organisms, especially nervous systems, consciousness becomes more differentiated, integrated, and reflective because the underlying structure supports such complexity. This principle allows the theory to preserve the explanatory relevance of neuroscience. It also avoids the mistake of claiming that consciousness is independent of organization altogether. Instead, organization is what channels universal consciousness into the specific forms we observe.

The fourth pillar is explanatory non-reductionism. The theory does not reject physical explanations; rather, it denies that physical explanation alone can fully explain consciousness. This is a crucial distinction. A universal-consciousness ontology can accept that neurons correlate with experience, that brain states predict reported awareness, and that cognitive architecture matters. What it resists is the stronger claim that such correlations exhaust the metaphysics of consciousness.

Why the Theory Matters

The Law of Universal Consciousness matters because it offers a coherent answer to the hard problem without assuming that subjective experience emerges from wholly non-subjective ingredients. If consciousness is already fundamental, then its presence is not an anomaly to be manufactured by biology. The core question shifts from “How does consciousness arise at all?” to “How does fundamental consciousness become individuated, structured, and reportable?” That is a different and arguably more tractable question.

The theory also offers a potential unification of several disputed domains. Debates about animal consciousness, artificial intelligence, altered states, and large-scale systems often involve incompatible assumptions about what consciousness is and where it can appear. A universal-consciousness framework supplies a common metaphysical background. It allows researchers to ask whether different systems instantiate consciousness at different levels of complexity, rather than deciding in advance that consciousness belongs only to human brains.

Another strength is that the theory remains open to phenomenological insight. First-person experience is not treated as a mere illusion or epiphenomenon. Instead, it becomes data about the nature of reality. This orientation is shared, in different ways, by traditions of philosophy, contemplative practice, and some contemporary theories of mind. While such traditions do not provide direct proof, they do remind us that consciousness is not simply an external object like a molecule or a planet. It is also the condition under which any object can be known.

Criticisms and Challenges

The most obvious objection is that the theory may be metaphysically elegant but scientifically elusive. Universal-consciousness claims are often criticized for lacking clear empirical tests. If a theory explains everything, it may risk explaining nothing in a predictive sense. This is a serious issue, because a useful research program should eventually specify what observations would count for or against it.

A second objection is the combination problem. If consciousness is ubiquitous at the microlevel, how do separate centers of consciousness yield the unified consciousness of an organism? Panpsychist and cosmopsychist theorists have spent considerable effort on this problem, but no consensus solution has emerged (Goff, 2019; Nagasawa & Wager, 2016). Any universal-consciousness model must therefore explain not just presence, but composition.

A third concern is conceptual vagueness. The term consciousness is used in many different senses: wakefulness, access, phenomenality, self-awareness, attention, and reflective thought. If the law is to be useful, it must distinguish these dimensions. Otherwise, the theory may expand until it is compatible with nearly everything and therefore vulnerable to ambiguity.

A fourth challenge is the relation to existing science. Neuroscience has identified many reliable correlations between brain activity and conscious experience. Any serious universal-consciousness framework must account for these correlations without denying their significance. It must explain why consciousness changes with brain injury, anesthesia, sleep, psychedelics, and developmental stage. The existence of correlations does not disprove a universal ontology, but it does require that the ontology be constrained by empirical reality rather than floating free of it.

Toward a Research Program

For the Law of Universal Consciousness to mature into a substantive theory, it must be developed as a research program with clearer concepts and possible points of contact with empirical work. First, it should define levels or modes of consciousness more carefully. Minimal consciousness, integrated consciousness, and self-reflective consciousness should not be collapsed into one another. Doing so would obscure important distinctions relevant to both theory and neuroscience.

Second, the theory should be compared systematically with panpsychism, cosmopsychism, IIT, and global workspace theory. Such comparisons can clarify whether universal consciousness is a rival metaphysics, a supplement, or a reinterpretation of existing models. Third, the framework should be linked to specific questions about organization. For example: what structural conditions appear necessary for the localization of experience? Why do some systems support rich reports of awareness while others do not?

Fourth, future work might explore whether universal-consciousness hypotheses generate distinctive expectations regarding artificial intelligence, collective systems, or nonstandard states of consciousness. Such work need not assume that every speculative idea is testable in the short term. Rather, it should aim to identify what kind of evidence would make the framework more than a philosophical metaphor.

Conclusion

The Law of Universal Consciousness proposes that consciousness is not a late consequence of matter but a foundational feature of reality. It belongs within a family of theories that include panpsychism, cosmopsychism, and consciousness-first models, while remaining distinct in its emphasis on universal participation and ontological primacy (Chalmers, 1995; Goff, 2019; Nagasawa & Wager, 2016). Its strongest contribution is conceptual: it offers a way to think about experience without reducing it to a secondary byproduct of physics.

At the same time, the theory remains incomplete. It must address the combination problem, define its terms more precisely, and establish stronger links to empirical inquiry. For now, the Law of Universal Consciousness is best regarded as a robust theoretical framework rather than a settled doctrine. If developed carefully, it may help organize future debates about the nature of mind, matter, and reality itself.

References

Baars, B. J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge University Press.

Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.

Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J.-P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70(2), 200–227.

Goff, P. (2019). Galileo’s error: Foundations for a new science of consciousness. Pantheon.

Nagasawa, Y., & Wager, K. (2016). Panpsychism and priority cosmopsychism. In G. Brüntrup & L. Jaskolla (Eds.), Panpsychism: Contemporary perspectives (pp. 113–130). Oxford University Press.

Oizumi, M., Albantakis, L., & Tononi, G. (2014). From the phenomenology to the mechanisms of consciousness: Integrated information theory 3.0. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(5), e1003588.

Skrbina, D. (2017). Panpsychism in the West (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

Strawson, G. (2006). Realistic monism: Why physicalism entails panpsychism. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 13(10–11), 3–31.

Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5, 42.

Duality is the Grammar and Fibonacci is the Poetry

 In the vast language of the universe, duality serves as the fundamental grammar — the structural rules that govern how elements relate, interact, and balance each other. Just as grammar shapes the syntax of a sentence, duality frames the interplay of opposites: light and shadow, order and chaos, logic and intuition. It is the underlying code that allows complexity to emerge from simple contrasts.

Fibonacci, on the other hand, is the poetry that breathes life into this grammar. The Fibonacci sequence, with its elegant spirals and golden ratios, manifests as a rhythmic pattern woven through nature, art, and mathematics. It is the lyrical expression of growth and harmony, the aesthetic dance that transforms rigid structure into living beauty.

Together, duality and Fibonacci compose a cosmic language where logic meets creativity, and structure gives rise to emergence. Duality provides the rules and boundaries, while Fibonacci offers the flow and cadence. This dynamic relationship reveals how the universe balances precision with fluidity, reason with inspiration.

The story of existence unfolds through contrasts and rhythms, with duality shaping its structure and Fibonacci patterns weaving its poetic essence. Whether seen in tree branches or galaxy spirals, musical arrangements or the design of living things, life is composed of rules and melodies, form and freedom—intertwined to create a narrative rich with balance and harmonious movement.

In the vast language of the universe, duality serves as the fundamental grammar — the structural rules that govern how elements relate, interact, and balance each other. Just as grammar shapes the syntax of a sentence, duality frames the interplay of opposites: light and shadow, order and chaos, logic and intuition. It is the underlying code that allows complexity to emerge from simple contrasts.

Fibonacci, on the other hand, is the poetry that breathes life into this grammar. The Fibonacci sequence, with its elegant spirals and golden ratios, manifests as a rhythmic pattern woven through nature, art, and mathematics. It is the lyrical expression of growth and harmony, the aesthetic dance that transforms rigid structure into living beauty.

Together, duality and Fibonacci compose a cosmic language where logic meets creativity, and structure gives rise to emergence. Duality provides the rules and boundaries, while Fibonacci offers the flow and cadence. This dynamic relationship reveals how the universe balances precision with fluidity, reason with inspiration.

From the branching of trees to the spirals of galaxies, from the patterns in music to the architecture of life itself, the grammar of duality and the poetry of Fibonacci unite to tell the story of existence — a story written in contrasts and rhythms, rules and melodies, form and freedom.

On the Nature of Patterns and Symmetry in our World

 

Logarithmic representation of the universe centered on the Solar System, with some notable astronomical objects. Distance from Solar System center increases exponentially from center to edge. Celestial bodies were enlarged to appreciate their shapes. Source: Pablo Carlos Budassi 9th Aus 2019

🚀 Ever notice how the same pattern and symmetries keep appearing everywhere in nature?

From the tiniest particles to the code of life itself—our universe loves symmetries and patterns.

Let’s connect the dots:

🔬 Quantum Entanglement
Two particles linked so deeply that the state of one instantly defines the other, no matter the distance. They’re not two separate things—they’re one system.

⚖️ Bilateral Symmetry
Life on Earth often mirrors itself: left and right, thesis and antithesis, yin and yang. Balance through duality.

🧬 The Double Helix
DNA’s two strands bind through complementary pairs (A-T, G-C). One strand can rebuild the other—biology’s perfect backup system.

💻 Binary Code
All digital information boils down to 1s and 0s. The foundation of every app, website, and AI starts with this simple duality.

⚡ Positive & Negative Charges
Opposites attract, likes repel. This dance of + and – builds every atom, molecule, and chemical bond in the universe.

So what’s the big idea?

It’s not that one causes the other. It’s that complementary duality seems to be a fundamental blueprint in our world. Stability, information, and complexity emerge when two opposing states interact, balance, or intertwine. From quantum fields to living cells to the logic in our phones—the same theme echoes across scales. Perhaps duality isn’t just a scientific concept but a pervasive theme in how we perceive and structure reality. For physics, wave-particle duality comes to mind immediately—it’s foundational. For biology, predator-prey dynamics illustrate interdependence. In philosophy, subjective vs. objective experience is a classic. And for human experience, joy-sorrow captures the emotional spectrum. There are more fascinating dualities that fit the pattern—some scientific, some philosophical, some human:

🔭 In Physics & Cosmology

• Wave–Particle Duality: Light and matter behave as both waves and particles depending on how we observe them.

• Matter–Antimatter: For every particle, there’s an opposite counterpart—creation and annihilation in symmetry.

• Space–Time: Once seen as separate, now woven into a single fabric in relativity.

🌿 In Nature & Systems

• Symmetry–Asymmetry: Perfect symmetry creates stability; broken symmetry allows diversity and complexity (think: human face, snail shells).

• Order–Chaos: Systems oscillate between predictable patterns and turbulent randomness—think weather, heartbeats, or stock markets.

• Predator–Prey: An ecological dance of balance and survival.

🧠 In Mind & Philosophy

• Conscious–Unconscious: Freud’s duality of the known mind and the hidden depths.

• Mind–Body: The ancient and modern puzzle of subjective experience vs. physical machinery.

• Free Will–Determinism: Are we authors of our actions, or following a script?

💡 In Human Experience

• Self–Other: The fundamental social and psychological boundary that shapes identity and empathy.

• Love–Fear: Often cited as root emotions driving behavior and connection.

• Creation–Destruction: Essential cycles in art, innovation, and even nature (forest fires renew ecosystems).

💻 In Technology & Information

• Encryption–Decryption: Securing and revealing information.

• Compression–Decompression: Reducing and restoring data without (lossless) or with (lossy) sacrifice.

• Input–Output: The basic dialogue of all interfaces and systems.

The deeper we look, the more it seems duality isn't just a feature of our world and the universe itself—it might be how reality structures itself to create anything at all.

 

No Guns, No Ownerships for a Nonkilling World

Gun ownership as a public-policy norm increases the risk of mass death, terror, and lasting community trauma. The Bondi Beach attack—Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in decades—demonstrates how legally obtained firearms can become instruments of mass murder and terror. Despite Australia’s post-1996 restrictions, the presence of legally owned weapons enabled catastrophic violence when misused. These facts support the view that fewer privately held guns correlate with fewer opportunities for mass killers to inflict mass casualties.

The Amplification of Violence

Guns magnify the harm of politically or ideologically motivated violence. The Bondi Beach attack targeted a religious community during a holiday event, elevating the incident to national terror. When firearms are widespread, acts of hatred and terror can more easily become mass-casualty events.

The Human Cost

Gun violence inflicts persistent and intergenerational harm as families and communities are permanently altered by these losses, with rituals of mourning that never end. Eliminating firearm access can reduce not just immediate deaths but also long-term societal trauma.

Legal Frameworks and Policy Tools

Temporary and categorical exclusions from gun ownership are debated as tools to reduce risk. Courts and lawmakers consider “narrow circumstances” for restricting access to firearms, confirming that some limits on private ownership are defensible responses to clear risks.

Vulnerability of Civic Spaces

Recent shootings in schools, universities, and beaches illustrate that even assumed safe spaces are vulnerable when firearms are accessible. Widespread private gun ownership undermines public safety in civic spaces.

Policy Case Against Private Firearm Ownership

These accounts support a policy case against private firearm ownership to prevent massacres, reduce terror risk, and limit long-term harms. Concrete policy tools—background checks, licensing, buybacks, and temporary disarmament for high-risk individuals—can reduce the chance that legally purchased weapons will be used for mass violence.

Empirical Reporting and Data-Cantered Analyses

Key Findings

• U.S. Gun Deaths at 30-Year High (2021): CDC data show firearm homicide and suicide rates at their highest in decades, with ~21,000 homicides and >26,000 suicides in 2021.
• Leading Cause of Death for Children/Teens (2020): Firearms overtook motor-vehicle crashes as the top cause of death for ages 1–19, with a 30% increase in firearm deaths for this group.
• Public Health Crisis: The U.S. Surgeon General declared firearm violence a public health crisis, citing nearly 50,000 annual deaths and sharp increases in youth suicides.
• Risks at Home: Cohabitants of handgun owners face ~2× homicide risk, with intimate-partner shootings ~7× more likely; women are disproportionately victimized.
• Policy Effectiveness: Background checks and permitting are associated with reductions in some homicides and suicides, though not all mass shootings are prevented.
• California’s Model: Layered policies in California correlate with long-term declines in firearm mortality and lower mass-shooting risk.
• Buyback Programs: Mandatory buybacks (e.g., New Zealand) are more effective than voluntary programs, which often fail to reach illegal channels.
• Paradox of Gun Violence: Despite falling overall violent crime, mass shootings and gun stockpiles are rising, suggesting cumulative supply drives severity.

Evidence Quality and Limitations

• Strongest evidence comes from large administrative/cohort studies and CDC analyses.
• Policy comparisons suggest multi-layered laws correlate with reduced deaths, but causal attribution is complicated by cross-jurisdictional differences and trafficking.
• Data gaps persist due to limited surveillance and research funding.

Policy Memo: Eliminating Firearm Deaths and Mass-Shooting Risk

Executive Summary

Firearm deaths are at multi-decade highs, with children increasingly affected. Jurisdictions with layered, complementary policies show persistent reductions in mortality. A pragmatic package for elimination of firearms ownership, combining universal background checks, licensing, safe-storage, red-flag enforcement, focused mandatory buybacks, manufacturer accountability, and sustained research funding is the best evidence-based path forward.

Some Policy Recommendations for Eventual Elimination of Firearms Ownerships

1. Universal Background Checks: For all transfers, closing loopholes in private sales.
2. Mandatory Permitting/Licensing: Required training and registration for purchases.
3. Extreme Risk Protection Orders: Red-flag laws with due-process safeguards.
4. Safe-Storage Mandates: Public education and incentives for safety technology.
5. Focused Mandatory Buybacks: For military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, paired with trafficking enforcement.
6. Manufacturer/Seller Accountability: Legal reforms to incentivize safer practices.
7. Federal Investment in Research: Surveillance and independent evaluation centres.

Implementation Considerations

• Bundle measures for effectiveness; single laws are insufficient.
• Address trafficking to prevent illicit inflows.
• Recognize limits: background checks and permits reduce risk but cannot stop every mass shooter.
• Design processes with equity and due process to withstand legal scrutiny.

Conclusion

The evidence supports a layered, evidence-driven approach to reducing and eventually eliminating firearm deaths and mass-shooting risk. Combining universal checks, licensing, safe-storage, targeted buybacks, accountability, and research funding offers the most promising path forward for policymakers seeking to protect communities and prevent future tragedies.

Our World Our Times: Call for an immediate end to the killings in Isra...

Our World Our Times:  Call for an immediate end to the killings in Isra...:   Call for an immediate end to the killings in Israel and Palestine   We at the Centre for Global Nonkilling (CGNK) draw attention to the la...

 

Call for an immediate end to the killings in Israel and Palestine 

We at the Centre for Global Nonkilling (CGNK) draw attention to the lack of collective concern and approach to putting an immediate end to the deepening humanitarian crisis and the killings in Israel and Palestine. We urgently seek indulgence in our collective wisdom and approach to stop the inhuman acts of violence and killings in the region for lasting peace.

Around two decades back two important works came out in this regard. One was the WHO World Report on Violence and Health edited by Eugene G. Krug, Linda L. Dahlberg, James A. Mercy, Anthony B. Zwi and Rafael Lozano. The second was Nonkilling Global Political Science by Glenn D. Paige. In the former work, the killing of humans was identified as a global health issue while in the later work, the task was given to the political scientists to come up with creative measures to eliminate killings from global life.

In the wake of the Israel-Palestine war, no one else more than humanity is at an ultimate loss. Thousands of innocent civilians have died and are still dying. At the Centre for Global Nonkilling, a call therefore is being given to all the humanists to come up with creative approaches by which the conflict may be resolved once and forever. It is high time that we cut across all our religious beliefs, faith and ideologies from across the world and bring the ideology of affirmative nonkilling peace into action. The process can be taken over by the United Nations in conformity with SDG 16 by promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development providing access to justice for all and building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. I must also mention SDG 4 can ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning. The affirmative approach encompasses an overall change in good quality values through moral education at primary schools and even lifelong learning based on precepts such as reverence for all life, nonkilling, nonviolence and human dignity in consonance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Charter. This will ensure a just and humane global nonkilling society for all future peace.

Indeed, the Israel-Palestine conflict has been a long-standing conflict. There have been atrocities done from times long bygone to the present-day war. Violence, terror and wars, have, however, never resolved anything to date and that is what we have learnt from history. If affirmative nonkilling peace is the aim, then both parties need to enter into reconciliation and that can only happen when we express apologies for past mistakes. Yes, there are some deep-rooted grievances instilled in the minds of both sides; they are aware of the injuries given by their opponent but not of the injuries given to the opponent by them. We know that the silent majority do not want war but there are some minorities for whom revenge, violence, retribution and wars are inevitable and probably a solution to their injustice. It is these people who have corrupted our societies and the world.

It is such individuals and groups that have to be identified so that they can be checked and if possible corrected from an affirmative nonkilling perspective. As humanists and global citizens, we need to take up this onerous task, for peaceful and nonkilling co-existence for all future on spaceship Earth.

We take this opportunity to sign the Declaration at the Centre for Global Nonkilling as under:

Let us affirm that virtues such as compassion, empathy, humanity
and nonkilling should be promoted in society by developing certain
framework for different institutions. The primary goal of each of these
institutions should be the inculcation of the above-stated affirmative
nonkilling values. Therefore:
Let us affirm to develop nonkilling educational system.
Let us affirm to develop nonkilling ideologies.
Let us affirm to develop nonkilling state.
Let us affirm to develop nonkilling society.
And most importantly let us affirm to develop nonkilling individuals!
NO MORE HATE, NO MORE Killing!

In the backdrop of this declaration by the Centre for Global Nonkilling, we draw attention to the earlier United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377, the Uniting for Peace Resolution, adopted on 3 November 1950, in case the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity among its five permanent members, fails to maintain international peace and security, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue appropriate recommendations to UN members for collective measures, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Incidentally, resolutions have been invoked many times in the past to call an emergency session of the General Assembly and the Centre for Global Nonkilling does look forward to facilitating and participating in such a change for nonkilling world peace.

The Centre for Global Nonkilling assures of our highest consideration and urgent efforts for nonkilling universal peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict and all future conflicts.

With aloha, shanti and a fervent call for an immediate end to all killings and hostilities,

Anoop Swarup
Chairperson, Centre for Global Nonkilling

Hawaii, United States

Open Letter to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres on urgency in Korean Peace Process

Your Excellency Secretary-General Antonio Guterres,

I take this opportunity as the Chair of the Governing Council of the Centre for Global Nonkilling (CGNK) to draw your kind attention to the dangers of an all out but avoidable war that you are  very much concerned considering North Korean President Kim Jong-Un’s bombastic declarations and US President Donald Trump’s aggressive  retaliatory reactions. In this ongoing crisis the global focus has turned to military prowess and posturing rather than rooting out the misunderstandings between North and South Korea. Surely the citizens of Guam and the two Koreas have much to be alarmed of.

I approach you in our consultative status with the United Nations and complement you on your initiatives and efforts to achieve the very challenging task for all round peace in terms of the Charter of the United Nations.  Indeed, you have been a source of great hope not only for us globally but more particularly for those in Korea and for those who believe in peaceful reunification of both the Koreas. 

Your Excellency will agree that in the past, absence of the Peace Settlement has contributed to the development of nuclear weapons in North Korea, threats of nuclear counter attack, and periodic bloodshed on land and sea. It has contributed to mutual fear on both sides of the DMZ, violations of human rights, continued separation of families losing elderly members, economic deprivation related to diversion of human and material resources for war-fighting needs, and ecological destruction. Korean War veteran Late Prof Glenn D. Paige founding Chair of the Centre for Global Nonkilling (CGNK) and world acclaimed author of The Korean Decision (1968), Nonkilling Global Political Science (2002), co-editor of Nonkilling Korea: Six Culture Exploration (2010), and chair of the non-profit Centre for Global Nonkilling have been relentless in pursuing the goal of peace and unification.

Lest we forget the follies of war and its aftermath, the16 UN nations and the Republic of Korea fought under the UN Command led by the United States against the North Korean People's Army and the Chinese People's Volunteers until the Armistice Agreement was signed and called for a political conference of both sides to be held within three months to conclude a peaceful settlement of the War. Apparently that conference never happened as absence of the Peace Settlement has contributed to the development of nuclear weapons in North Korea, threats of nuclear counter attack, and periodic bloodshed on land and sea, and mutual fear on both sides of the DMZ.  Violations of human rights, continued separation of families, economic deprivation related to diversion of scarce resources for war-fighting and ecological destruction followed. Geopolitically, these conditions have led not only to insecurity involving the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia, and the United States, but the region as a whole is regarded as one of the world's most dangerous.

Incidentally, Korean War combatants are members of the UN, including South and North Korea admitted in 1991, and China since 1971. Collectively they can act to establish the peace for which they fought, for the Korean people who have most at stake. Four world leaders can initiate UN action to reignite that 1953 Peace Settlement called for in the Armistice Agreement.  A UN Korean Conference would advance Six Party negotiations toward Korea becoming a nuclear weapon-free zone, and open economic and cultural relations favouring Korean evolution toward mutually peaceful political accommodation.  Under Article 99 of the UN Charter, it is imperative that you as the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres address the crisis and call the Security Council to the long aborted Peace Settlement as a matter of urgency for the maintenance of international peace and security.

In present day crisis everlasting peace eludes us even seventy two years after the arbitrary division of Korea in 1945 and sixty-four years after the July 27, 1953 Korean War Armistice Agreement signed by the Commander-in- Chief of the United Nations Command, the Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army and the Commander of the Chinese People’s Volunteers. It is long overdue to conclude the 'Peace Settlement' called for in Articles IV and V “through the holding by both sides of a political conference of a higher level”. Constant political and military tensions on the Korean Peninsula require steps to be made following the principles of the UN Charter, which requires members to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means.”

Let me elaborate that the “Nonkilling Korea: Six Culture Exploratory Seminar” convened by the Center for Global Nonkilling, as a non-governmental organization in special consultative status with the UN, at Seoul National University during August 18-19, 2010. The results of the Seminar are reported in the book Nonkilling Korea: Six Culture Exploration edited by Glenn D. Paige and Chung-Si Ahn and co-published by Seoul National University Press and the Center for Global Nonkilling in 2012. The PDF is available for download at http://nonkilling.org/pdf/nkkorea.pdf. The Center for Global Nonkilling remains fully committed to the development of proposals that may catalyze a lasting Peace Settlement in the Korean Peninsula for a killing-free East Asia in a nonkilling world. 

Your excellency will agree that this is the time to act! As alternative to current dangerous threats and alarms in Korea, the Center for Global Nonkilling will continue to seek as an urgent 'UN Korean War Peace Settlement Conference' as outlined in the attachments. With your leadership we at the Centre for Global Nonkilling (CGNK) will keep trying to bring the proposal to global attention, and redouble our efforts with the Security Council, UN delegations, the President of the United States and political-military leaders of the two Koreas, media and public. 

Among anticipated consequences of the UN Korean Peace Settlement Conference will be to advance Six Party negotiations toward making Korea a nuclear weapon-free zone. Removal of the state of war among all Korean War combatants will open up universal economic and cultural relations favouring Korean evolution toward mutually desired peaceful political unification. Korea can and should become a killing-free nation as an example for the whole world.

Assuring you of our highest consideration and efforts for nonkilling universal peace,

With Aloha, Shanti and profound regards,