Home Forums General Discussion Jeremy goes too far

This topic contains 3 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  nomad 1 month ago.

  • Author

  • MartyR

    Hi there

    Some of you know me by now as I’ve been in touch with various questions. I’ve almost completed freedom and am reading the last chapter, which talks about the answer to the human condition coming from Australia.

    Let me first say that I think it’s very possible that it has. I am accepting the science as Jeremy has presented it, although I’m no expert on the subject so I have to study it some more. I have also read the section on autism and as I’m autistic myself it did resonate with me. I should say that autistic people love rules so science can be king when presented correctly.

    Also I was initially resistant to his treatise on the left-wing and men and women but again I see the argument. I’m accepting a lot but still fighting with myself over the old Mexican stand-off that he mentions.

    However, although I believe Jeremy to be a compassionate human being I think his writing does not reflect this fully. His style on issues such as the left-wing, environmentalism, feminism etc are going to alienate people naturally and I believe they could be presented in another way that doesn’t do this. I believe the message can get across even more effectively if he rewrote certain passages that displayed this compassion overtly rather than using phrases such as “treacherous”, “diabolical”, “cowardly” and so on and so forth. It doesn’t help people get over the deaf effect. Further to that he interprets mythology to state that Australia is the birth place of the answer to the human condition. I am hugely concerned that this will come across as arrogant. Again, I don’t believe this is his intention but I think it will happen nonetheless.

    It’s a shame because I think that if he presented it in a certain way it would have a much greater reach. Jesus never said the answer will come from Palestine, and Plato never said it would come from Greece. None of the prophets mentioned said they were The One. I find this so difficult because saying this so overtly goes against the actual theory Jeremy is stating as true. If he truly is the savior, which I believe may be possible, then he should let it happen naturally through his presentation of the science. Everything else will fall into place.

    Thank you for reading.

  • nomad

    I must say it’s great to hear how much the information is resonating with you Marty, the logic and rationale of this biological understanding of the human condition being the only thing of any significance here. You have covered a lot and have significant thoughts on it all so my reply is somewhat lengthy.

    I think the essay 54 is very helpful to this discussion Marty, as it says there are astonishing claims being made in Freedom and it does ‘warrant initial extreme scepticism and suspicion of delusion, hubris or over-promise’ as I think most of us experience, and definitely me for one. Many of the claims that are being made about Freedom such as ‘it’s the book that saves the world’ ARE quite frankly outrageous BUT the beauty of this biological understanding is that you can simply verify for yourself that each of the claims are true and see if it stacks up in your own mind. You mention Christ as an example of not strongly proclaiming the truth when it is found but again as this essay says, when Christ was accused of ‘deluded hubris’, he said ‘Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don’t you put it on its stand?’ (Mark 4:21). The essay goes on to make the obvious point that ‘It is necessary to say the truth about how important this information really is—especially since it is bringing relieving understanding to the most important yet most denied subject of all of the human condition.’ In my own journey, as difficult as that can be in this denial-ridden world, I certainly do not try to shirk the importance of this stuff when I talk about it. I do think Griffith has solved the human condition and that is an immense world-saving breakthrough, saying anything less would be perpetuating unnecessary pain and suffering.

    It is a misrepresentation of what Jeremy writes to say that he sees himself as the saviour. In the section of Freedom you refer to,, it says ‘As emphasised in pars 296 and 1147, science is the real ‘messiah’ or liberator of humanity—it made the explanation of the human condition that is presented in chapter 3 possible.’ He goes onto explain that there have always been a few extremely rare individuals who were sufficiently nurtured to be able to securely and truthfully think about the issue of the human condition but without science an explanation of it was not possible. To quote further from that section which covers it more articulately than I can, “it has to be remembered that science is only the peak expression of the courageous effort that every human has exerted to defeat ignorance. In reality, it is ‘on the shoulders’ of 2 million years of human struggle against our soul’s oppression that understanding of our species’ fundamental goodness has finally been found—but our soul was needed ‘in the end’ to assemble the actual explanation of the human condition from those clues. It is like a game of gridiron football where the team as a whole, with one exception, does all the hard work, gaining yardage down the field. Finally, when the side gets within kicking distance of the goal posts, a specialist kicker, who until then has played no part, is brought onto the field. While he—in his unsoiled attire—kicks the winning goal, the win clearly belongs to the team of exhausted players who did all the ground work. It is science, backed up by humanity as a whole, that is the real liberator of the human race from ignorance as to our species’ fundamental goodness.” As you said Marty, this whole explanation is based on the truth of the fundamental goodness and worthiness of all humans, and while innocence did clearly have an important role to play, they are not more special or worthy than any other human. That section of Freedom also explains Australia’s role in the same logical way. For this reason I think your title is a bit unfair, ‘the apparent hubris’ might be better in my opinion.

    In regard to the left wing and Jeremy’s strong language, I agree some people will at least at first find it hard to accept or absorb but again this is bringing safe and compassionate understanding to all of human behaviour and it’s critical that it does, including understanding the philosophy of politics and that there are pros and cons to both the left and right wing bringing the whole game of politics to an end. The paradox is amazing where in fact the ideal world the left wing have been dogmatically demanding is brought about by the right wing winning the battle of the search for knowledge, and then we all become legitimately left wing because the battle has been won! Someone else on the Forum articulated it well when they said “The left wing through its philosophy of wanting to make everyone do ‘good’ things, like supporting the environment, and equality etc, is against egocentricity and selfishness, and so by being against the by-products of the search for knowledge, it is, in essence, against the search itself.” I would add that while Jeremy doesn’t pull any punches in his language against the left wing, I have read something by him saying that is only because that strength is necessary to counter the total ruthlessness of the left wing. Again, this whole explanation is based on the truth of the fundamental goodness and worthiness of all humans, but the brazenness of the left wing needed to be stood up. For humanity to find its freedom we must keep the search for knowledge open, otherwise the left wing and its various causes are leading humanity straight into oblivion.

  • MartyR

    Thank you for your extensive answer. In response I would say that experience with denial suffering humans would be my motive for writing this post. I have never managed to communicate effectively with someone in denial by using direct and strong language – it immediately puts the defenses up and people shut down.

    There are a number of things you referred to which I should answer. Firstly I don’t believe there is any problem at all with Jeremy saying that he has found the answer. That is not an outlandish claim if you believe it and can support it. I didn’t refer to that at any point and I accept what you said in rebuttal about my reference to him as a saviour. I think that occurred to me when I started to read the section on Australia. The section on Australia itself is not logical. It is based on the interpretation of poetry and philosophy but not science. The writing on science is backed up by philosophy and I liked it and it made sense. There is no scientific evidence for the Australian part of the theory however. I’m not saying this because it may be true or not, just that it comes across as subjective and can easily open to criticism.

    I hope you realise that what I am presenting here is not a criticism of the theory, just of the presentation. I am experienced in debating and arguing and simply speak from my own experience of how to put arguments across.

  • nomad

    Thanks Marty. I find the section on Australia to be logical, the fact is solving the human condition needed someone sheltered from the batttle of the human condition not to be terrified of it in order to work it out, and Australia is one of the most sheltered countries, and it’s original European settlement was ‘celtic’ ie. Irish and British, which was one of the most sheltered corners of Europe, and so the logic is that Australia is where you would find someone sufficiently sheltered from the battle to do what Griffith has done. And so I think that’s all pretty logical. And it’s quite fascinating for me at least to read of all these historical and contemporary anticipations that a sheltered country such as Australia will make in humanity’s journey. Of course the whole discussion of races is contentious but again, this understanding opens up the truth on all of human behaviour and establishes our equal fundamental goodness, so there is no longer any criticism of anyone.

    That this is information is underpinned by a solid biological foundation is paramount I agree, but I find the truly great and classical poetic and philosophical references used in ‘Freedom’, including that last section equally powerfully resonating. Granted that either side of the historic discipinary divide between science and the arts have been unsympathetic to each other, some say fundamentally opposed. Scientists seek facts and strive to put forward verifiable theories and think poets lose sight of reality. Poets question the capacity to tell us the full truth about our world and criticise scientists for being too cold, analytical and mechanistic, unimaginative. It’s just like the historical divide between science & religion. However this is something that I really love about Griffith’s work as it finally does reconciles all these disciplines. Afterall they are all an attempt to explain the same subject matter, and the whole area of inquiry of the human condition, our capacity for good and evil, is where they all overlap. Having the human condition biologically explained it finally makes it possible to bring understanding to, ‘demystify’, all manner of human behaviour and texts, be it politics, philosophy, religion or the greatest poets, our gretest myths, truth sayers or historical Biblical prophets.

    In terms of introducing these ideas, and a challenge no doubt, if people are to start with the material the WTM intially recommends (ie. the homepage: ‘the first 4 videos are key’) they strike me as a very balanced and most compassionate presentation. They introduce these huge ideas very effectively in my opinion for a species that has lived in denial of them for a very long time, making them, indeed myself, feel it is at last safe to confront this whole historically forbidden area. The material you are talking about is still presented in a balanced and compassionate way but is not meant to be an introduction to these ideas. They are a more advanced education on all areas of human behaviour that this explanation makes sense of, for example the philosophy of politics.