Freedom: Expanded Book 1—The Old Biology
Part 4:4E Fifthly, the upset human race has had to deny the differences in alienation between human individuals, races, genders, generations, civilisations and cultures.
This truth of the differences in alienation that inevitably resulted from humans’ differing encounters with humanity’s upsetting search for knowledge is really an extension of the just described fourth great unconfrontable truth that we humans once lived instinctively in an utterly integrated, cooperative, loving, harmonious state. If, in our distant past, we humans lived in a cooperative, loving state and then the upsetting search for knowledge began, which was the case, then naturally people are going to vary in how much exposure they have had with that upsetting struggle and how angry, egocentric and alienated they have become as a result. What this means is that admitting that our distant ancestors lived in a cooperative, selfless and loving state was not only devastating because it confronted us with the truth of the present extremely corrupted competitive, selfish and aggressive state of the human race in general, it was also devastating because it confronted us with the truth that individual humans are going to vary in how upset or soul-corrupted or innocence-destroyed they have become. While the human race as a whole is no longer innocent, there is naturally also different degrees of angry, egocentric and alienated upset amongst individuals, and while we couldn’t explain the corrupted state of humanity as a whole and thus face that overall truth, we also couldn’t face the truth that some humans and groups of humans were more upset/corrupted than others.
The particular problem has been that without the redeeming explanation of the human condition any admission of some humans being more or less upset/corrupted than others only led to the prejudiced view of some humans being better or worse, superior or inferior, more worthy or less worthy, than others. To avoid the human race as a whole being condemned as bad and worthless the truth of our species’ innocent past had to be denied, and, similarly, to avoid the possibility of the prejudiced view of some humans being better or worse than others, the whole notion of differences in soul-devastated, innocence-destroyed upset anger, egocentricity and alienation between humans had to be avoided.
While this fact of there being differences in upset, particularly differences in alienation, between individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations and cultures is really only an aspect, a sub-set, of the fourth great unconfrontable truth that we humans once lived instinctively in an utterly integrated, cooperative, loving, harmonious state, it is such a significant aspect, in terms of truth that has been unbearable to face, that it does deserve to be recognised in its own right as one of the great unconfrontable truths.
Of course, it is an obvious truth that humans are variously upset as a result of their differing degrees of exposure to the upsetting battle of the human condition. Someone growing up in the human-condition-embattled, soul-destroying red light district of Kings Cross in Sydney is obviously going to be more upset/corrupted than someone who grew up in the relatively sheltered, innocent countryside. It is the most obvious of truths but without the dignifying and redeeming explanation of the human condition any discussion about some people being more innocent than others left those no longer innocent feeling condemned as bad, inferior and worthless—and it also left the possibility of them being treated as such, which could then lead to their retaliation against that mistreatment. In fact, even the presence of relatively innocent people could be so confronting and condemning that those no longer innocent couldn’t bear it and had to retaliate by attacking and even killing those more innocent in order to remove their condemning presence from their lives. Again, this is all perfectly described in the Bible in the aforementioned story of Cain and Abel: ‘Abel kept flocks, [he lived the nomadic life of a shepherd, staying close to nature and innocence] and Cain worked the soil [he cultivated crops and domesticated animals and as a result was able to become settled and develop towns and cities and through greater interaction with other humans became increasingly upset]…Cain was [became] very angry, and his face was downcast [he became depressed about his upset, corrupted state and]…Cain attacked his [relatively innocent and thus unwittingly confronting and condemning] brother Abel and killed him’ (Gen. 4:2, 5, 8).
The simple fact is the longer the battle to find understanding went on, the more upset humans became—and the simple fact that flows from this is that those people and races who have been in the thick of the battle a long time will be more upset—and also more instinctively adapted to upset, including becoming instinctively cynical and selfish—than those who haven’t been in the thick of the battle for as long—and the simple fact that flows from that is that all manner of insecurities, inequalities and frustrations are going to arise from those differences.
Innocence has been affected by upset everywhere, and vice versa. As will be explained in Part 7:1, men have oppressed women because of women’s relative innocence. Older people have tended to limit young people’s access to power and position because young people could be too innocent and naive about the realities of life under the duress of the human condition. When we get up in the morning we are much fresher, more enthusiastic and idealistic than we are by the end of the day, such that our end-of-the-day-just-want-some-luxury-self wouldn’t entertain the more optimistic and altruistic enterprises of our more soulful, socially healthy and operational morning-self. By evening, most people are in need of a gin and tonic (or two or three or four) to escape the tribulations of their day’s exertions under the duress of the human condition. Whatever idealistic, selfless, soul-inspired enterprises they might have been thinking about in the morning have, by day’s end, been replaced by a selfish preoccupation with a need for ego-reinforcement from others, relief from exertion, and for escape from the whole horror of life under the duress of the human condition.
The point being made here is that having to live with all the stresses from a deeply upset, human-condition-afflicted world has meant that in the course of one day in the life of a resigned human he or she regresses from a state of fresh, boundless energy and enthusiasm all the way to a state of physical and emotional exhaustion. Such has been the change in the mindset of humans over one day, let alone over a lifetime, over generations, and over the whole two million year upsetting journey of humanity from its original state of innocent idealism to its variously embattled, punch-drunk, distressed, soul-exhausted state today! Everywhere that the battle of the human condition has been raging there have been differences in upset with all manner of consequences, some extremely unjust, even horrifically tragic.
The situation in Fiji provides a good case-study of what occurred when races of different degrees of upset cohabitated. In the late 1800s British colonists brought Indians to Fiji as indentured labour to farm sugar cane, and by the mid-1960s half the Fijian population was Indian. As a result, a serious conflict arose between the Indian and native Fijians, which we can now understand. The issue is the Indian Fijians, coming from an older and thus naturally more cynical, human-condition-toughened, human-condition-realistic and thus opportunistic civilisation, have been so industrious and materially successful that they now monopolise the small business sector in Fiji to the extent that the native Fijians feel their country has been taken over by the Indian Fijians; for their part, however, the Indian Fijians also feel discriminated against. Indian Fijian sugar growers in particular feel this inequity, for while they produce 90 percent of the country’s sugar, they are only allowed to lease land from the native Fijians (who own 90 percent of the land). Furthermore, since gaining independence in 1970 the native Fijians have ensured their domination of the political process—a state of affairs that was reinforced in 1990 when the Fijian constitution restricted the Indians to a maximum of 27 seats in the country’s 71-seat Parliament. When this provision was amended in 1997 the Indians came to dominate the political scene, successfully electing an Indian Prime Minister in the late 1990s. This situation, however, was overthrown in 2000 when the native Fijians led a coup—and they have remained in power ever since. As mentioned, the Indian Fijians come from a very ancient civilisation in India, one where innocence has long given way to more upset-adapted humans. In comparison, the native Fijians are still relatively innocent, yet to become embattled, hardened and upset-adapted. They aren’t manically driven to win power and glory like more embattled, upset-adapted races, preferring to spend their day tranquilly occupied by such activities as playing music, drinking the sedating kava and eating taro roots from their gardens. It is akin to a 20-year-old, or thereabouts, equivalent race having to co-exist and compete with a toughened, cynical, more-upset-and-thus-more-insecure-about-their-goodness-and-thus-more-driven-to-find-ego-reinforcement, opportunistic 50-year-old, or thereabouts, equivalent race.
Trying to manage differences in upset between individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations and cultures has been extremely difficult, but once the prejudiced views of some individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations or cultures being either good or bad, superior or inferior, more worthwhile or less worthwhile, arose terrible atrocities and injustices very often followed. In the last century alone, we have seen the Holocaust in which approximately six million European Jews were exterminated by the Nazis during the Second World War; the attempted ‘ethnic cleansing’ by the Bantu Hutu of an estimated 800,000 of the more upset-adapted Nilotic Tutsi in 100 days of bloodshed in Rwanda in 1994; Idi Amin literally throwing out of Uganda, in 1972, all the Indians and Pakistanis, some 40,000-80,000 people, who owned and operated most of the businesses there because he claimed ‘they [were] sabotaging the economy of the country’ (Jet mag. 14 Sept. 1972); the racial segregation of apartheid in South Africa that was enforced between 1948-1993; and the ‘White Australia Policy’, which in essence restricted ‘non-white’ immigration to Australia and wasn’t completely abolished until 1973.
Discrimination—the management of human interactions based on levels of innocence or lack thereof—is not in itself bad or immoral; after all, we go to great lengths to protect the innocence of children. What is wrong or immoral is to base those management decisions on judgments about the goodness or badness, superiority or inferiority, worthiness or unworthiness, of different states of innocence. Unable to explain the human condition, explain the good reason for the upset, soul-and-innocence-destroyed, corrupted state of humans, any acknowledgement of differences in upset almost always led to those who were more upset feeling and/or being condemned as bad or inferior or worthless, and, in response, retaliating, in which case no differentiation according to levels of upset could afford to be tolerated. The ‘White Australia Policy’ was wrong and couldn’t be tolerated not because humans aren’t differently upset but because it led to prejudiced/wrong views about some races being better or superior than others, which invariably led to serious and damaging consequences.
As I mentioned in Part 4:1, Plato quite sensibly wanted to have the least ego-embattled/most innocent—the ‘philosopher kings’ or ‘philosopher rulers’ or ‘philosopher princes’ or ‘philosopher guardians’ as he variously described them—lead society. He wrote, ‘isn’t it obvious whether it’s better for a blind man [an alienated person] or a clear-sighted one [an innocent, ego-unembattled, denial-free, honest person] to keep an eye on anything’ (Plato The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.244 of 405), arguing that ‘If you get, in public affairs, men who are so morally impoverished that they have nothing they can contribute themselves, but who hope to snatch some compensation for their own inadequacy from a political career, there can never be good government. They start fighting for power…[whereas those who pursue a life] of true philosophy [honest, unresigned, egocentricity-free thought] which looks down on political power…[should be] the only men to get power…men who do not love it [who don’t egocentrically hunger for power, fame, fortune and glory]…rulers [who] come to their duties with least enthusiasm’ (p.286). Completely ‘obvious’ as Plato’s idea was of having the most innocent run society, such honesty was untenable and couldn’t be tolerated because differentiation between individuals according to degrees of alienation or soundness left those no longer innocent unjustly condemned as bad and unworthy. (Once again it should be pointed out that it wasn’t as though we didn’t know who was soul-corrupted, upset and alienated and who was relatively innocent—to ignore, deny, repress and, in the extreme, persecute to the point even, in the case of Christ, of crucifying innocence, as we have done because we found their honest, truthful innocent soundness too confronting, we had to first be able to recognise it. It would have been as easy, indeed, probably much easier, to design exams that tested a person’s level of alienation or soundness or soulfulness quotient, their SQ, than it was to design exams that tested their intelligence quotient or IQ.)
So, clearly, until we were able to explain the human condition and by so doing defend and understand the upset, corrupted state, any acknowledgement of who was upset and who wasn’t only led to dangerous prejudice, especially so-called ‘racist’ views of some races being viewed as being either superior or inferior or more worthy or less worthy than others. Without the defence for upset it was virtually impossible to talk about upset in a way that didn’t infer that it was somehow bad. It is only now that the human condition is explained that the essential equality of goodness of all people is at last established. While all humans are variously upset, all humans are equally good because upset was a result of an unavoidable and necessary battle humanity has had to wage to find knowledge. The equality of goodness of all people is a first-principle-established, fundamental and universal truth now. Humanity no longer has to rely on dogmatic assertions that ‘all men are created equal’, purely on the basis that it is a ‘self-evident’ truth, as the United States’ Declaration of Independence asserts, because we can now explain, understand and know that the equality of all humans is a fundamental truth. We can now understand why everyone is equally worthy, and that no one is superior or inferior, and that everyone deserves the ‘rights’ of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ (ibid). Prejudice, the view that some individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations or cultures are either superior or inferior to others, is eliminated by understanding of the human condition. In fact, with understanding of the human condition the concepts of good and bad, superior and inferior, worthy or unworthy, disappear from our conceptualisation of ourselves.
We haven’t been able to talk about different levels of innocence without condemning those more corrupted as bad when they are not. In which case, a lie that said there was no difference in alienation between people was less of a lie than a partial truth that said there were differences with some people being ‘good’ and others ‘bad’. The end result of taking this denial to the extreme was the emergence of an unsaid, blanket rule where no one was allowed to say anything meaningful about human behaviour—to the extent that, as has already been mentioned, even the children’s nursery rhyme Baa Black Sheep was said to be racist and should instead be recited as ‘Baa baa rainbow sheep’ (London Daily Telegraph, 18 Feb. 1997). Political correctness was a dogma that became ridiculous and yet that is where the human race wound up—in a state where totally superficial, truthless non-sense reigned! Feminists are now saying there is no real difference between the sexes and now even men can give birth through some weird surgery!
Under this blanket rule, in order to avoid prejudice we were not allowed to talk about different individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations or cultures being more or less innocent than other individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations or cultures. In science, denial of differences in the innocence of races was such that when Sir Laurens van der Post dared to write about the relative innocence of the Bushmen people of the Kalahari in his many books, a biographer of Sir Laurens’ life’s work said that his writings about the innocence of the Bushmen made the ‘academic experts’ ‘absolutely berserk with rage’ (J.D.F. Jones, ABC Radio, Late Night Live, 25 Feb. 2002)! (Much more will be said in Part 5:2 about science’s denial of the relative innocence of so-called ‘primitive’ races.) No one was allowed to talk about such differences and yet they were the only differences that would make real sense of the different behaviours that each human exhibits. If we wanted to understand human behaviour, we had to look at how upset we humans have been, specifically how alienated we have been. As R.D. Laing said, ‘Our alienation goes to the roots. The realization of this is the essential springboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967, p.12 of 156). Yes, tragically, because of our monumental insecurity about our human condition that has forced us to live in denial of such all-important truths as the existence of differences in alienation between people, of Integrative Meaning, of the existence of the human condition, of what consciousness really is, of the fact that our species once lived in a cooperative, loving state, and, as will be explained next in Part 4:4F, of the importance of nurturing in our upbringing, science has provided us with more insights into the behaviour of elephants, and of tiny little insects like tree-hoppers, than it has about our own species’ behaviour!
To find understanding of the human condition all the great truths just referred to had to be accepted, not denied. The whole denial-based scientific paradigm had to be defied and ignored for the new human-condition-understood world to emerge. However, what now has to be explained is that when that new, truthful, human-condition-understanding world finally emerges, as it now finally has, a problem still remains, which is with the human race having practiced such extreme denial—having buried itself so deep inside Plato’s dark cave of denial—there is now a mountain of truth to suddenly have to confront, most particularly, the extent of alienation and loss of innocence in humans today. As such, the liberation of the human race is unavoidably and necessarily also ‘judgment day’, exposure day, honesty day, truth day, transparency day, revelation day—the time when, as it says in the Bible, ‘your nakedness will be exposed’ (Isa. 47:3). It can’t be any other way. We can’t have the truth and not have the truth, but the problem is that while all the upset that the denials/lies/degrees of alienation have been concealing is now safely explained and defended it is still a shock to have it all exposed, particularly the differences in alienation between people and groups of people. This outcome, where the differences in alienation between people is suddenly revealed, is also referred to in the Bible where, immediately after describing the arrival of the all-exposing, shocking truth about the human condition as being ‘like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other’ (Luke 17:24, see also Matt. 24:27), Christ describes how ‘two people will be in one bed; one will be taken [revealed as sound, non-alienated] and the other left [revealed as being alienated]. Two women will be grinding corn together; one will be taken and the other left’ (Luke 17:34,35; see also Matt. 24:40). Again, it has to be stressed that ‘judgment day’ is not a time when some will be judged as deserving of being ‘taken’ to heaven and others ‘left’ rejected, but a time of compassionate understanding of everyone. With the arrival of understanding of the human condition no one is going to be ‘left’ behind. As already emphasised, and as will be explained in Part 9 when the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE is described in detail, all humans will be able to fully participate in the new human-condition-liberated world. There will be no inequality, no prejudice and no discrimination of anyone. Our species’ liberation from the human condition comes at a price, which is exposure of all our falseness/lies/denials, but that price is not too high because the TRANSFORMED WAY OF LIVING allows everyone to joyously cope with that exposure.
Much more will be said about this denial of differences in alienation between individual humans and groups of humans in Parts 5:2, 7:4 and 7:5.