Search results

The attempt to recover the international origins of social and political thought is motivated by the unsatisfactory fragmentation of modern knowledge – by its failure to account for the intimate connections between theory and history in general and its international dimension in particular – and seeks to overcome these divides. This article provides an analysis of the theory/history divide and its role for the fragmentation of modern knowledge. Theoretically, it shows, this divide is rooted in, and reproduced by, the epistemic foundations of modern knowledge. Historically, the modern episteme arises from a crisis of imperial politics in the 18th century. This analysis suggests that theory, history, and the international are products rather than origins of modern social and political thought. These historical origins thus do not provide the basis for more integrated forms of knowledge. They do, however, reveal how the fragmentation of knowledge itself simultaneously serves and obscures the imperialist dimension of modern politics.

This conceptual chapter develops a discussion expounding the Islamic perspective of corporate governance as a special case of a broader decision-making theory that uses the premise of Islamic socio-scientific epistemology. This chapter contributes fresh knowledge in corporate governance theory in the light of two central issues. First, the central issue is of organic preference formation studied systemically by process model. The second issue is of transaction cost minimization while pursuing such a discursive and participatory model of decision-making in an environment governed by a systemic meaning of unity of knowledge as its episteme. Relevant institutional policies are shown to be capable of formulation in the light of such systemic discursion under the episteme of unity of knowledge understood and applied in the systemic organic sense.

Oneness is the prime attribute of God. Divine oneness is the singular moral foundation of “everything” invoking socio-scientific intellection in the Islamic worldview. In this ontological sense, this concept of conscious oneness means that the ultimate and indivisible absoluteness and completeness of creatorship, knowledge, will and power over all things, rest with God alone.¹ Because God's oneness belongs to the domain of purity (Ikhlas), removed from the material and cognized worlds, it marks the topological domain of the fullness and purity of the knowledge stock. It exogenously by itself creates, governs, and acts upon the created universes of all kinds, abstract, and evident. By itself, the precept of oneness of God is not causally affected by anything. It creates all but is never created of itself, or by any other.²

We commence answering the above questions first with an extension of the definition of Economy given by Gerard Debreu (1959). Choudhury (1999a) has extended Debreu's formulation by introducing the learning parameter of unity of knowledge. The ethically induced economy in the light of conscious oneness is a complex relational universe of its micro-parts. These comprise prices, quantities, incomes, resources, preferences and production menus, and technological choices. These are studied in relation to multimarkets and their agents represented by vector-variables of each of the above-mentioned categories. All of these categories of the representing variables are mutually interactive according to the interactive, integrative, and evolutionary (IIE)-learning processes (explained earlier) by the medium of knowledge-flows that emanate from the episteme of conscious oneness.¹

The basis of the present financial crisis, which is bound to continue inflicting its venom because of structural problems of society, economy, finance, and institutions, is the insatiable preferences of households and investors that fuel excessiveness in the real estate market. Then there is the contagion that this kind of preference has on the economy and the foreboding uncertain market expectations everywhere. Finally, the excessiveness is allowed to survive and proceed on with unrelenting animal spirit by weak government polices, outmoded understanding of the economic and financial world-system, being unable to simulate the otherwise complex system by a spent-out methodology.

In this book we consider the foundation of ethics to be the moral law. Contrarily, in mainstream terminology ethics is defined as values manifesting human behavior in congruence with certain civil conduct that are commonly agreed upon by society at large (Spencer, 1978). In reference to the social preference basis of ethics and morality we can adopt formalization by using two different approaches. One approach is to consider linear aggregation of preferences. The other is to treat morality and ethics within complex aggregation types.¹

The economic, financial, social, and scientific reasoning in Occidentalism is a profound example of the reasoning dichotomy caused by the problem of heteronomy. The duality consequences of economic rationality and rationalism between the spiritual and material domains remain entrenched in all the sciences (Dampier, 1961).

There are the interesting words of Myrdal in respect of the universality and commonness of what a scientific problem means:From then on more definitely I came to see that in reality there are no economic, sociological, psychological problems, but just problems and they are all mixed and composite. In research the only permissible demarcation is between relevant and irrelevant conditions. The problems are regularly also political and have moreover to be seen in historical perspective. (Myrdal, 1979, p. 106)

The generality of the universe is “everything.” In this regard, the Qur'an declares abundantly on the ultimate and perfect domain of the divine law in creation. This also means the profundity of the divine law in explaining and applying to all things in the knowledge–time–space dimensions of the conscious universe. Such observations or insights that span the complete universe comprise the Signs of Allah (ayath Allah).¹

To establish these definitions we revisit expression (5.3) of Chapter 5. Since this expression describes a phenomenological model of knowledge transmission from its epistemic origin to the world-system by learning processes, therefore, we first summarize the arguments on what can be the nature of (Ω,S) in this expression. Our arguments were centered on the contrasting nature of moral absolutism and the ethical meaning so derived. This axiomatic core of the arguments stood up against moral relativism of both the rationalist and religious types on which is premised a different meaning of ethics.