Forum Replies Created
Great to hear Mo that you’ve nearly finished Freedom and how much you are benefiting from it. I couldn’t agree more how important it is that we each verify this informtion for ourselves, because it is that grounding in the basic information that allows us to see that it does finally bring meaningful understanding to all manner of mystery including the realtionship between men and women which has caused so much hurt, pain and confusion for a milennia.
The truth is that the human condition has unavoidably resulted in the almost total corruption of our lives and the relationship between men and women is no exception. Most significantly though, this information brings total defence to our upset revealing that it’s the most heroic and meaningful state imaginable. So with regard to men and women’s sexual relations what Griffith explains is that while the corruption of human sex is true, the full story is that the relationship between men and women is sublime; Griffith is not writing this with the intention of making it palatable; his only intention is to present the truth, which is that there has been very good reason for sex and aggression—and his only motivation in doing so, is to bring an end to it. Men had to take up the horrific job of searching for knowledge, and women came with them to be ‘the only warmth, comfort and support they would know’, and despite all the excruciating pain and hardship that that journey caused to both sexes we have arrived where ‘that march into hell for a heavenly cause’ is fulfilled. The greater meaning to men and women’s story is overwhelmingly beautiful. And most important of all, with understanding of it the whole horrific journey can end. As Jeremy says at the end of freedom essay 27, ‘Thank goodness with the battle to defeat the ignorance of our instinctive moral soul now won, the horror of both men’s and women’s existence can end, and this dreamed-of ‘new time’ where society will be neither matriarchal or patriarchal, but gender-neutral and at peace, can begin…With understanding of the human condition now found, men and women can at last stand side by side.’
The significance of the explanation of the human condition will I believe transform us to your high hope of free peaceful people Mo.
In my experience Mo, this information brings about the most massive new paradigm of knowledge that there ever could be, and just how much there is to get your head around cannot be overstated. Just as with any new concept or course you have to build from the basic, core information before considering the more advanced, otherwise it will certainly leave you confused for sure. So I agree with your statement above that this paragraph alone requires more biological explanation, but that biological explanation is all presented in the introductory videos & previous chapters in Freedom, in other words, presented alone it is out of context. Understanding the role of men and women under the whole human condition requires an understanding of what the human condition is, and what produced it, all presented in video/essay 3 which the essay you quote from references first. It then requires an understanding of the different biological roles men and women historically took up in the human journey presented in the previous essay 26 and in Chapter 8 of F, and then how this knowledge actually brings about an honest dialogue and true reconciliation of the sexes for the first time etc. This is very powerful and confronting biological treatise Mo and from my experience it needs to be considered in the safe and full context in which it is presented.
In regard to whether the deaf effect explanation can undermine constructive analysis, there are situations known as ‘non-falsifiable hypotheses’, where if you disagree with a theory you can be said to be proving the theory. However, what is so significant about this info that the WTM is presenting, in particular that humans live in great fear of the human condition, is that you can verify for yourself the logic and evidence being put forward. As they explain in FAQ 1.10, ‘the ultimate test is how accountable it is of our own lives’. We humans are the subjects of this biological treatise on the human condition ‘which means we can experience, feel and know the truthfulness or otherwise of the explanations’ —so we undertake our own constructive analysis of it. In freedom essay 13 under the heading ‘Part 5: Is this hypothesis testable?’ this is all discussed further which you may find helpful to read.
I would suggest that the reason the WTM say they are dedicated to making their presentations as accessible as possible is not to do with the book needing more scientific refinement, in my opinion the scientific rigour of this information can not be faulted—I would argue it is a million mile ahead of anything else. What I see as the bottom line is that the very nature of the human condition means that people can have a great deal of difficulty initially accessing or ‘hearing’ the explanations because the issue of the human condition has been the most terrifying of subjects to face and we have lived in almost total denial of it. We just had no choice as a species. While we didn’t have the biological understandings of how genes and nerves work we couldn’t explain why we had corrupted our species’ original state of innocent togetherness. We had absolutely no choice but to live in denial of our corrupted condition, our ‘fall from grace’. As the great philosopher Plato described it we had to hide deep in his ‘cave’ of darkness. So when we do finally find the redeeming biological explanation of our corrupted condition, which the WTM presents, we are naturally going to have to go through a process of shock at having all the truth revealed about ourselves, which is ‘the deaf effect’. It just makes sense that that would happen. The WTM didn’t invent the deaf effect as a way of defeating any arguments against, it really is just the fact of the situation. Plato even predicted that ‘deafness’ would be so great we initially wouldn’t be able to hear ‘a single one of the things we were now told were real!’.
I can certainly attest to this journey and I really like freedom essay 11 because it has some great counsel of how to overcome the deaf effect, a simple case of ‘patient perseverence’ which calmly erodes the deep-seated fear, and there are also some pertinent quotes from people who have done just that. It just takes a while to appreciate how denial works and then the impact it has on the way we respond to this stuff but it’s very worth the journey Mo to say the least, and I hope you continue your interest.
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.
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, https://www.humancondition.com/freedom-the-pathway-of-the-sun, 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.
Yes it is an interesting article with some honesty about how extraordinary bonobos are (Jeremy actually quotes from it in par 415 of FREEDOM). In analysing it, the first thing to remember is that, as Jeremy explains in Freedom Essay 2, before we could honestly defend our destructive behaviour, we had to use the false ‘savage instincts’ excuse to explain why we are so competitive and selfish. This is significant because people just loved pointing at chimpanzees and their ruthless competitive behaviour and saying that’s why we are ruthless and competitive as well (see par 514). While De Waal doesn’t get anywhere near the bottom of just what is so special about the bonobos, he does recognise that they might represent a model for what our ancestors were like, and even suggests that is the source of our morality, so that is significant. Despite this though, he still maintains that our destructive behaviour comes from a chimpanzee like aspect of our past. So while he is acknowledging the presence of cooperative insincts in us, he still essentially adheres to the old ‘savage instincts’ explanation for our destructive behaviour.
As Jeremy explains in chapter 5:6 of FREEDOM, what is really so amazing about the bonobos is that they demonstrate the nurturing based love-indoctrination process that we humans went through. So if we go through his article, you can see De Waal recognises some of the unique aspects of the bonobos that have developed out the love-indoctrination process, such as their peacefulness, their use of sexual appeasement behaviour to overcome aggression, that they are a female led or matriachal society, and other aspects such as females migrating to other groups, but nowhere does he recognize that it is their extraordinary nurturing that lies behind the development of all these traits. (See chapter 5:10 for just how nurturing bonobos are.) In an attempt to explain why bonobos are so unusual De Waal suggests, “The answer may lie in the different ecological environments of bonobos and chimpanzees–such as the abundance and quality of food in the forest. But it is uncertain if such explanations will suffice.” This is known as the ‘Social Ecological Model’ and in Chapter 6:8 Jeremy explains just how inadequate it is in explaining bonobos loving cooperative society and behaviour.
So yes Marty, De Waal does highlight some of the amazing aspects of bonobos, but in the end he is evading the importance of nurturing (which we had to do until we Jeremy’s real defence for the human condition!), and in De Waal’s essential adherence to the ‘savage instincts’ excuse, he is also evading the truth that our destructive behaviour is psychological in origin.
Basically I recommend all of chapter 5 of FREEDOM about love indoctrination and how we humans developed our loving moral instincts. The stuff about bonobos, starting at chapter 5:6 is absolutely fascinating.
Thanks Evelien. I can follow that logic. Certainly people have tried to explain the various mysteries of life, and counter the limitations of mechanistic science, but without the key explanation to why we humans are egocentric and selfish, not loving and selfless, they have never been able to really get to the bottom of anything. I think it is very important to realise that it is this fundamental issue that Jeremy is dealing with here — the question of why humans are not ideal; why we are selfish and aggressive and egocentric, when we should be loving and cooperative. This is THE fundamental question about being human. Everything else is just dodging the issue. Religions are totally based on recognising it, and they call it ‘the fall’ etc. As Verhulst and Bolk etc recognise, there have been all sorts of side issues to work out, but it is very very important to realise that it is this central issue in all our lives that Jeremy’s work deals with, and that to really answer all those other questions about neoteny, ADHD, and why science has been mechanistic, humanity needed to answer this central question first.
So that is what is so special about Jeremy’s work. It finally explains the real psychological answer to why we are the way we are. And not the ridiculous excuse that we are selfish and aggressive because we have ‘savage instincts’, but the real explanation that admits that our condition is psychological! Its all there in the first 4 Video Essays!
Obviously if it is the true answer to this question of questions, then all sorts of other mysteries will now easily make sense. As I’ve said, we can now easily explain why science has had to be mechanistic (see chapter 2.4 of FREEDOM); and why humans are so neotenised (see chapter 5 of F); and what ADHD really is, and why there is an epidemic of ADHD and autism sweeping the world (chapter 8:16B of F).
Regarding reincarnation, Jeremy explains in para 840 of F that it’s hard for us to imagine how loving and empathetic humans once were but the emotion of love would have been so powerful that everyone would have been ‘near to us’ and remained ‘near to us’ after they died. So in earlier times although people died physically, their entire spirit lived on with us. Love and feeling and emotion and togetherness was everywhere and in everyone. It is only in more recent times that humans have become much more alienated and disconnected from our all-sensitive and loving soul, and thus needing to believe in a physical ‘afterlife’. But now that it is possible to understand the human condition and that we are actually good and not bad, in fact a profound part of the development of order of matter on Earth, it can be understood that each and every human life is extraordinarily significant and meaningful and that their efforts and real essence of their being do carry on and endure. To quote Jeremy from his 2003 book A Species in Denial regarding afterlife, ‘The spirit of humans, the enormous courage that they have exhibited on the journey to enlightenment through the incredible darkness, loneliness and hardship of having to live in denial, lives on in each of us and is carried on in all subsequent generations.’ You can read the full section on ‘afterlife’ here: https://www.humancondition.com/asid-afterlife-explained
So there is a lot to think about there Evelien, but I do hope you can find the time to quietly watch those first 4 videos, because you will quickly see that it does all make sense at last.
Hi Evelien, I too spent a lot of time exploring ‘anti-mechanistic’ thinkers before I found Griffith’s work. I am familiar with Goethe of course, but had to look up Paul Levy and I won’t pretend that I have a real understanding of Verhulst apart from another cursory search. What I think I can say though, is that a lot of people have been intuitively aware that mechanistic science was not presenting the whole truth. The following passage from chapter 2:12 of FREEDOM, quotes the Templeton Prize winner Charles Birch who was Jeremy’s professor of biology at Sydney University, who expressed this view. He said, ‘[mechanistic] science can’t deal with subjectivity [the issue of our psychologically distressed condition]…what we were all taught in universities is pretty much a dead end’ (from recording of Birch’s 1993 World Transformation Movement Open Day address). He also perceived the stultifying, ‘truth’-‘prevent[ing]’ effects of dishonest, denial-based, mechanistic thinking when he said, ‘Biology has not made any real advance since Darwin’, and, some 10 years later, that ‘the traditional framework of thinking in science is not adequate for solving the really hard problems’, with the ‘hard[est] problem’ of all for truth-avoiding thinking to solve being the all-important issue of our psychologically distressed human condition. Yes, as Birch concluded, ‘Biology right now awaits its Einstein in the realm of consciousness studies’ .”
The key to point to keep in mind though, is that while Jeremy’s work points out and explains what has been lacking in mechanistic science, it actually defends it. Just as his explanation of the human condition defends selfishness and egocentricity as being necessary in the search for knowledge, so does his work ultimately defend mechanistic science. As he says, the job of science was to find the pieces of the puzzle while not looking at the bigger picture, because until we found the defence for our upset behaviour, the bigger picture was unfairly condemning. And that’s what changes everything when trying to introduce this new paradigm to other people – it doesn’t criticise people, it defends them! Which isn’t to say it isn’t a huge change, and you wont receive some ‘malignant responses’, but the fact that this information defends mechanistic science (and ultimately all humans) can’t be emphasised enough. You will also find it completely accountable. At anytime, you can run through what is actually pretty simple logic, and that is a huge reassurance.
I am thinking that with your interest in holistic science, you will particularly appreciate Freedom Essay 25: ‘The truthful biology of life’. Actually you will find all of the essays in that section ‘The other key biological explanations’ very interesting ie Freedom Essay 21: ‘How we acquired our altruistic moral conscience’, 22: ‘Fossil discoveries evidence our nurtured origins’, 23: ‘Integrative Meaning or ‘God’’, 24, ‘How did consciousness emerge?’ and 25: ‘The truthful biology of life’.
Good luck with it all Evelien, but do take you time. There is a LOT to absorb, and if my journey is anything to go by, it does take time for your deeper self to come to terms with what is on offer here; patience is very important.
High praise to you Adam with taking your time with this biological understanding, it is obviously highly challenging of your previous and current world-view, and to remain open is admirable. I have read in-depth all of Jeremy’s work, and I know he considers the Bible to be a repository of extremely rare denial-free truth, containing all the truth about human life albeit from a pre-science view, and Christ as one of the greatest prophets that humanity has known. The big difference is that without science religions could only manage our upset (eg. the ten commandments) and give us comfort, but the human condition could not actually be solved. As Tommy points out above, understanding of the source of our upset angry, egocentric and alienated (sinful) behaviour required knowledge of genes and nerves, namely why our conscious mind had to search for knowledge and why our instincts could not help but criticise that search – which is because nerves are insightful, whereas genes are not. With that key piece of knowledge found by Jeremy, the whole human condition ends, we no longer have to be defiant – our angry egocentric and alienated defiance is redundant. So that is why this understanding ‘solves’ the human condition. In terms of the fear of not having an ‘afterlife’, Jeremy writes beautifully about that in his book ‘A Species In Denial’ https://www.humancondition.com/asid-afterlife-explained/?scroll_to=afterlife&scroll_num=1. This information really does represent a huge demystification of our world, and it speaks for itself in terms of whether the logic stacks up, but the preference for more literal interpretations is respected.
You might be over-thinking it Goldenruler! Of course the terror of the human condition causes us to repress and live in denial of the issue, and that includes blocking out or repressing memories, but the dark cave of denial in which humanity has lived, and the deaf effect ‘protection’ mechanism humans employ, are not produced by not having access to the full potential of our memory. The cave in which humanity has had to imprison itself is a reflection of our commitment to evasion; as Jeremy explains in F essay 30, once you Resign yourself to not being able to reconcile your own and the world’s corrupt state with the ideals, you are committed to living “a haunted existence, dogged by the dark shadow of its imperfect human condition, forever trying to escape it—the result of which is that we have become immensely superficial and artificial; ‘phony’ and ‘fake’, as the resigning adolescents so truthfully described it, and living on the absolute meniscus of life in terms of what we are prepared to look at, feel and consider. We are a profoundly estranged or alienated species, completely blocked-off from the amazing and wonderful real world, and from the truth of our self-corruption that thinking about that beautiful, inspired, natural, soulful world unbearably connects us to”. That is the cause of the deaf effect, and the whole cave existenc e—they are reflections of our psychological terror of the human condition, not a reflection of a mind without adequate memory.
Ive just figured out Neil Young’s ‘Sugar Mountain’ is about resignation.
Sugar Mountain is childhood innocence, but you’ve got to leave, though you dont want to…
“Oh, to live on Sugar Mountain
With the barkers and the colored balloons
You can’t be twenty on Sugar Mountain
Though you’re thinking that
You’re leaving there too soon”
wait, there’s more…
“Now you say you’re leaving home
Because you want to be alone
Isn’t it funny how you feel
When you’re finding out it’s real?”
Im not a particular fan of Jackson Browne, but ‘Before the Deluge’ is the closest I have seen anyone come to connecting resignation with the real meaning of the ‘flood’ metaphor (see Freedom Essay 43). The chorus also says pretty plainly that one day the human condition was going to be solved!
Some of them knew pleasure
And some of them knew pain
And for some of them it was only the moment that mattered
And on the brave and crazy wings of youth
They went flying around in the rain
And their feathers, once so fine, grew torn and tattered
And in the end they traded their tired wings
For the resignation that living brings
And exchanged love’s bright and fragile glow
For the glitter and the rouge
And in a moment they were swept before the deluge
Let the music keep our spirits high
Let the buildings keep our children dry
Let creation reveal its secrets by and by, by and by
When the light that’s lost within us reaches the skyDecember 23, 2017 at 8:24 am in reply to: The increase in skull size resulting in consciounsess
True. But worth bearing in mind that cranial capacity is only an indication of intelligence – albeit a pretty good one. There are other factors such as body size and brain refinement and efficiency, as well as which parts of the brain were actually taking up the space. For example a lot of the Neanderthal brain was devoted to sight and movement, whereas the homo sapien brain has a far larger frontal lobe, which is where the real smarts are.
WTM Email 45 is a really good introduction to Resignation. It would be a great way for adolescents to read about the concept I think. https://www.humancondition.com/wtm-emails/resignation/July 7, 2017 at 8:01 am in reply to: The increase in skull size resulting in consciounsess
Interesting character this Harry Harlow, and he did some really important studies. The impetus for his work with rhesus marques was a desire to see what affect institutionalisation was having on children – and so he developed his experiments with the rhesus marques where he would replace their mother with an inanimate mother made of wire. Not surprisingly, what he found was that the deprived infants had all sorts of psychological issues. And also not surprisingly, he was not like by the mechanistic science mainstream. Jeremy includes in FREEDOM the follow anecdote about Harlow: ‘For some scientists it was hard to accept that monkeys may have feelings. In [the 1979 book] The Human Model…[authors Harry F.] Harlow and [Clara E.] Mears describe the following strained meeting: “Harlow used the term ‘love’, at which the psychiatrist present countered with the word ‘proximity’. Harlow then shifted to the word ‘affection’, with the psychiatrist again countering with ‘proximity’. Harlow started to simmer, but relented when he realized that the closest the psychiatrist had probably ever come to love was proximity”’
The best place to read about the effects of depriving children of nurturing is 8:16C of FREEDOM. They are not easy truths, but they are ones we can now face with the full defence of the human condition.