book

Transform Your Life  Search Results

These search results are taken from the book Transform Your Life only. If you would like to search the entire WTM website, use the ‘Search entire website’ input box in the top right hand corner.

Showing search results for: ‘

Loading...

Print , Download or buy from Amazon

Part 1

 

The Dishonest Biology

 

Thank you Tim, my wonderful, wonderful friend on this long and very difficult journey to this day, for your kind introduction.

Most especially I want to thank Sir Bob Geldof for your inspiring and encouraging address. My gratitude to you for agreeing to help with the launch of FREEDOM is completely bottomless, because in my view, Sir Bob, your concern for humanity is second to none, and your preparedness to relentlessly point out the horror of our species’ predicament makes you the conscience of the world. I love your prophetic honesty so much that to me it’s like the coming of the summer rains that water the parched Earth! Thank you.

 

I would like to begin by referring to some of the amazingly honest statements Sir Bob has made about the extremely serious plight of the world.

You have just stated that you’ve ‘never felt the world more threatening, more fractious, more fissiparous, more febrile, more fucked up than it is now.’

And in your 1986 album with the appropriate title Deep in the Heart of Nowhere, you sang, ‘What are we going to do because it can’t go on…​This is the world calling. God help us’, and ‘Searching through their sacred books for the holy grail of “why”, but the total sum of knowledge knows no more than you or I.’

At a recent conference in Montreal, you asked, ‘Where is the public good in the vast inequality wrought by modern capitalism…​which is just a euphemism for greed?’, and you said, ‘I’ve never felt greater fear and greater anger than I do today.’

In 2002 you pleaded, ‘Can the void, the nothingness, that we appear to inhabit ever be filled?’

In your 2006 book Geldof in Africa, you wrote about ‘attempting to make sense of…​the scale of the horror, the utter devastation’and referred to ‘world leaders’ pathetic plans’ to help. And asked, ‘What will ever stop the madness?’

In your brilliant W.B. Yeats documentary last month, you pleaded for Yeats’ ‘revolution of the mind’ where ‘peace, pluralism and respect’ will replace hate and aggression, and you referred to ‘the ludicrous notion of death or glory’ practised in Ireland during the 1916 Easter Uprising.

And, finally, at the very end of Geldof In Africa you wrote, ‘I’m sick of standing in squares and linking arms…​of tear gas and pop concerts…Feed the World. Yes. For we starve for justice. We hunger for dignity. We thirst for the end of degradation and hurt. Feed the world, for we are empty of hope and too full of despair and have nothing to nourish our dreams.’ Basically, what you’re pleading for here is the food we really need, which is understanding of the human condition.

Yes, the real and ultimate frontier that we needed to explore was never outer-space but inner-spaceas Sir Laurens van der Post said, ‘We must go sharply into reverse…get our old natural selves to join with our other conscious, wilful, rational, scientific selves’. Again, the message is that to make any progress in our human situation we had to solve the human condition.

And as I will seek to make very clear today, unless the reconciling understanding of the human condition was found, as it now is in FREEDOM, the rapidly escalating pain and alienation in humans was only going to increase at such a rapid rate and to such an extent that all the suffering the human race has experienced to this point in time would pale in comparison to the amount of human suffering that was coming our way.

The fact is, what is being presented here today provides the only doorway out of the incredible crisis the human race is now in, so please, please listen to what I have to say. Basically I’m going to present the essence of what’s in FREEDOM, and I might mention that it’s been a 50 year journey to get to this day and this venue and this presentation in, most gratefully, the esteemed company of Sir Bob.

 

Sir Bob, you’re a fabulous humanitarian, however, when it comes to such fundamental questions as ‘the holy grail of “why”’ the human condition exists, you said to me a few days ago that ‘they are questions for biologists like you Jeremy to answer’and on that score you remarked that ‘We’re not all going to turn into people who are all hugging each other Jeremy because we’re all competitive by nature. The question is how do we relieve ourselves from our unchangeable primal instincts [that are selfish and competitive]?’ Essentially you were expressing the view virtually everyone has been subscribing to, which is that we humans have a competitive and aggressive animal heritage, and thus we have brutish and savage genetic instincts that we can’t change. But, as I am now going to explain, that’s all been a great lie, albeit a very necessary one. And after explaining why this has been a lie, I will go on to explain that our condition is a psychological condition, and that psychoses can be healed with understanding.

It is certainly true that humans have used the excuse that we are competitive, aggressive and selfish because we supposedly have instincts that compel us to compete for food, shelter, territory and a mate in order to reproduce our genes, just as other animals dobut this cannot be the real reason for our competitive and aggressive behaviour.

First, we humans have cooperative and loving moral instincts, the voice or expression of which within us is our conscienceas Charles Darwin recognised, ‘The moral sense perhaps affords the best and highest distinction between man and the lower animals’ (paragraph 375 of FREEDOM). And in order to have an instinctive altruistic moral nature, our distant ancestors must have been cooperative and loving, not competitive and aggressive like other animals.

Second, descriptions of human behaviour, such as egocentric, arrogant, inspired, depressed, deluded, pessimistic, optimistic, artificial, hateful, mean, immoral, guilt-ridden, evil, psychotic, neurotic, alienated, etc, all recognise the involvement of our species’ unique fully conscious thinking mindthat there is a psychological dimension to our behaviour. Humans have suffered not from the genetic-opportunism-based, non-psychological animal condition, but the conscious-mind-based, PSYCHOLOGICALLY troubled HUMAN CONDITION. (par. 40 of FREEDOM)

So saying our behaviour results from having competitive and aggressive instincts like other animals simply does not stack up, it is not true; it’s just an excuse, but, again, an extremely necessary one, as I will now explain.

To start, let’s imagine that it is true that our distant ancestors did live cooperatively and lovingly, the instinctive memory of which is our ‘moral sense’ or conscience that Darwin recognised distinguishes us from other animals.

And following that first step, let’s imagine that Plato was right when, long ago, in 360 BC he wrote of ‘our state of innocence, before we had any experience of evils to come, when we were…​simple and calm and happy…​pure ourselves and not yet enshrined in that living tomb which we carry about, now that we are imprisoned’, a time when we lived a ‘blessed and spontaneous life…​[where] neither was there any violence, or devouring of one another [no sex as humans practice it now], or war or quarrel among them…​And they dwelt naked, and mostly in the open air…​and they had no beds, but lay on soft couches of grass’ (pars 158 & 170 of FREEDOM).

Similarly, let’s imagine that Plato’s compatriot Hesiod was right when, in his poem Theogony, he wrote, ‘When gods alike and mortals rose to birth / A golden race the immortals formed on earth…​Like gods they lived, with calm untroubled mind / Free from the toils and anguish of our kind…​Strangers to ill, their lives in feasts flowed by…​They with abundant goods ​’midst quiet lands / All willing shared the gathering of their hands’ (par. 180).

And let’s imagine that our mythologies were also right; that, as the author Richard Heinberg summarised, ‘Every religion begins with the recognition that human consciousness has been separated from the divine Source, that a former sense of oneness…​has been lost…​everywhere in religion and myth there is an acknowledgment that we have departed from an original…​innocence and can return to it only through the resolution of some profound inner discord…​the cause of the Fall is described variously as disobedience, as the eating of a forbidden fruit [from the tree of knowledge], and as spiritual amnesia [forgetting, blocking out, alienation](par. 181).

And let’s then imagine that the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau was right when he said about even some humans living today that ‘nothing is more gentle than man in his primitive state’ (par. 181)and that the anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy was correct in his summary of the evidence that anthropology has now revealed, which is that ‘our species-defining cooperative mutualism can now be seen to extend well beyond the deepest Pliocene [well beyond 5.3 million years ago] (par. 183).

 

And, from there, let’s imagine that it is also true that primatological studies of bonobos (the variety of chimpanzee living south of the Congo river) reveal a great deal about how loving and cooperative our distant primate ancestors likely were.

To evidence this last point, consider these absolutely amazing observations of bonobos. Firstly, from filmmakers who were producing a documentary about them: ‘they’re surely the most fascinating animals on the planet. They’re the closest animals to man. They’re the only animals capable of creating the same “gaze” as a human.’ And ‘Once I got hit on the head with a branch that had a bonobo on it. I sat down and the bonobo noticed I was in a difficult situation and came and took me by the hand and moved my hair back, like they do. So they live on compassion, and that’s really interesting to experience’ (par. 418).

 

Kanzi’s human-like gaze (from paragraph 418)

Photograph by Finlay MacKay for TIME

The bonobo Kanzi’s human-like gaze (from paragraph 418)

 

 

Yes, as bonobo keeper Barbara Bell said, ‘Adult bonobos demonstrate tremendous compassion for each other…For example, Kitty, the eldest female, is completely blind and hard of hearing. Sometimes she gets lost and confused. They’ll just pick her up and take her to where she needs to go.’ And that ‘They’re extremely intelligent…​They understand a couple of hundred words…​It’s like being with 9 two and a half year olds all day’ and ‘They also love to tease me a lot…​Like during training, if I were to ask for their left foot, they’ll give me their right, and laugh and laugh and laugh’ (par. 451).

 

Researchers have also reported that ‘bonobos historically have existed in a stable environment rich in sources of food…and unlike chimpanzees have developed a more cohesive social structure’. For example, ‘up to 100 bonobos at a time from several groups spend their night together. That would not be possible with chimpanzees because there would be brutal fighting between rival groups.’ (par. 415)

 

Bonobo group (from paragraph 415)

© Fiona Rogers / shahrogersphotography.com

Bonobo group (from paragraph 415)

 

Note that what’s being said about bonobos is amazingly similarwell, it’s almost identicalto how Plato described our distant ancestors long before bonobos were even known of, which was that they ‘dwelt naked, and mostly in the open air…and they had no beds, but lay on soft couches of grass’. And, in Hesiod’s words, ‘They with abundant goods ’midst quiet lands / All willing shared the gathering of their hands.’

Bonobos’ unlimited capacity for love is also apparent in this truly amazing first-hand account from researcher Vanessa Woods: ‘Bonobo love is like a laser beam. They stop. They stare at you as though they have been waiting their whole lives for you to walk into their jungle. And then they love you with such helpless abandon that you love them back. You have to love them back’ (par. 451).

 

And significantly, unlike other primate societies, bonobo society is matriarchal and focused on the nurturing of their infants, as this quote evidences: ‘Bonobo life is centered around the offspring. Unlike what happens among chimpanzees, all members of the bonobo social group help with infant care and share food with infants. If you are a bonobo infant, you can do no wrong…​Bonobo females and their infants form the core of the group’ (par. 416).

 

Bonobos nurturing their infants (paragraph 417)

Frans Lanting/Mint Images/Getty Images; San Diego Zoo (bottom right)

Bonobos nurturing their infants (paragraph 417)

 

 

All these descriptions (and you can read many more in chapter 5 of FREEDOM) provide powerful insights into how amazingly cooperative and loving bonobos, our closest living relative, are. In fact, the following picture shows just how similar our species are, comparing as it does the skeleton of our early australopithecine ancestor (who lived between 3.9 and 3 million years ago) with the skeleton of a bonobo (chs 8:2 and 8:3).

 

Left side: Bonobo skeleton. Right side: Early australopithecine. (Drawing by Adrienne L. Zihlman from New Scientist, 1984)

Left side: Bonobo skeleton. Right side: Early australopithecine.
(Drawing by Adrienne L. Zihlman from New Scientist, 1984)

 

On the back of those primatological insights, let’s now imagine that the American philosopher John Fiske was right when, in 1874 (only a few years after Darwin published his great book Origins), he proposed that it was through the nurturing of our infants that our distant primate ancestors acquired cooperative loving moral instincts (nurturing like that the bonobos practise). As I explain in chapter 5 of FREEDOM, the reason nurturing can create a cooperative moral sense is that while the trait for nurturing is a selfish trait, as genetic traits have to be to survive, it has the appearance of being selfless. While the mother is selfishly reproducing her genes by fostering her infant, from the infant’s perspective, it is being treated unconditionally selflesslythe mother is giving her offspring food, warmth, shelter, support and protection for apparently nothing in return. So it follows that if the infant can remain in infancy for an extended period and be treated with a lot of seemingly altruistic love, they will be indoctrinated with that selfless love and grow up to behave accordingly. Of course, being semi-upright from living in trees, and thus having their arms free to hold a dependent infant, primates are especially facilitated to develop this nurtured, loving, cooperative nature. So yes, let’s imagine that it was entirely appropriate that Fiske’s nurturing theory for the origin of our moral nature was described at the time as being ‘far more important’ than ‘Darwin’s principle of natural selection’ and ‘one of the most beautiful contributions ever made to the Evolution of Man’ (par. 488).

With all this in mind, let’s now imagine that it was the emergence of our conscious mind (which, as explained in chapter 7 of FREEDOM, an environment of unconditional selflessness or love liberated the development of) that caused our species to depart from that original all-loving, all-sensitive, completely happy and cooperative idyllic statethat it was, as Heinberg wrote, ‘human consciousness’ that ‘separated’ us ‘from an original…​innocence’. And let us imagine therefore that Shakespeare was right when he acknowledged how seemingly destructive and stupid we marvellously conscious humans are, writing ‘What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty!…​in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? [Brutal and barbaric] man delights not me.’ And that the philosopher Blaise Pascal was similarly precise in his damning observation, ‘What a chimera then is man! What a novelty, what a monster, what a chaos, what a contradiction, what a prodigy! Judge of all things, imbecile worm of the earth, repository of truth, a sewer of uncertainty and error, the glory and the scum of the universe!’ (par. 49)

Shakespeare’s and Pascal’s denunciations of our conscious brain certainly leave no doubt as to their views on the difficulty of understanding the contradictions faced by the conscious mind, so let’s next imagine that science writer Roger Lewin was also right when, in commenting about how depressing and confronting the subject of consciousness is, he said that to ‘illuminate the phenomena of consciousness’ is ‘a tough challenge…​perhaps the toughest of all’. And that philosopher René Descartes’ reaction when he too tried to ‘contemplate consciousness’that ‘So serious are the doubts into which I have been thrown…​that I can neither put them out of my mind nor see any way of resolving them. It feels as if I have fallen unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool [of utter depression]was completely understandable given what a destructive force consciousness has appeared to be. (par. 624)

Yes, when taking into account the cooperative and loving nature of our species’ instinctive past, how ashamed of our conscious mind’s seeming destruction of that state must we be!

Now, if all these imaginings are right (and I suggest that by the end of this presentation humans’ conscious mind will be so well defended, yes defended, by the true explanation for our corrupted state that you will be able to admit that these imaginings are, in fact, all true), namely that our distant ape ancestor lived completely cooperatively and lovingly and then we became fully conscious and for some reason, unbeknownst to ourselves, we began to behave competitively, aggressively and selfishly, then how absolutely terrible a predicament must that have been!

Instead of being loving, cooperative and gentle, humans had developed a propensity for shocking deeds of violence, depravity, indifference and cruelty. For some reason we had turned into seemingly evil monsterssufferers of the human condition. And having become preoccupied seeking power, fame, fortune and glory to salve the shame and insecurity caused by that condition meant there was little or no time left to properly nurture our children, which meant they in turn became victims of our corrupted condition, and so on, through generation after generationthe guilt of which explains why John Fiske’s explanation of the nurturing origins of our moral nature has been completely ignored and forgotten, despite it being an insight that was described at the time as being ‘far more important than Darwin’s’. It has been said that parents would rather admit to being an axe murderer than a bad mother or father, and it’s true: the importance of nurturing in the development of humanity and in our own lives is a truth we have not been prepared to admit. (ch. 6:4)

We can now see that it makes complete sense that the guilt associated with trying to think about and confront the truth of the horror of our corrupted condition has been so great that we could only cope with it by not coping with it, by adopting all manner of dishonest denialbasically by blocking out all memory of our species’ cooperative and loving past and any thoughts about how corrupted we as a species had become since we gained a conscious, thinking mind. We didn’t want to admit our species once lived cooperatively and lovingly, and we didn’t want to face the issue of the human condition. Plato’s famous description of ‘our human condition’ in which he depicted humans as having to ‘take refuge’ ‘a long way underground’ in a dark ‘cave’ because they couldn’t face the ‘painful’ ‘light’ of the truth of ‘the imperfections of human life’, is, in fact, a deadly accurate portrayal of this inability to cope with our species’ corrupted realityof how deeply resigned we humans have become to living in denial of the issue of the human condition. (pars 81-84)

 

Author’s drawing of humans finally being able to escape Plato’s metaphorical dark cave of denial into the healing sunshine of understanding of the human condition

Computer graphic by Jeremy Griffith, Marcus Rowell and Genevieve Salter © 2009 Fedmex Pty Ltd

Author’s drawing of humans finally being able to escape Plato’s metaphorical
dark cave of denial into the healing sunshine of understanding of the human condition

 

To further explain this all-significant process of Resignation: between the ages of around 12 to 15 adolescents try to confront the human condition; they question and try to think truthfully about the seeming complete wrongness of human life, how it is all completely contradictory to what our original instinctive moral self or soul expects. But by the time they reach 14 or 15 their thoughts become so depressing that they learn that they have no choice but to resign themselves to never trying to confront the issue of the human condition again. In this respect, the individual goes on the same journey as the conscious-mind-based human race, the principle of biology that ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’. Humanity started adopting denial to cope, and it was a strategy that each generation of humans also had to learn to adopt on a personal level.

It is pertinent here to include my ‘valleys drawing’ that depicts humanity’s (and the individual’s) journey from ignorance to enlightenment (this drawing appears a number of times in FREEDOM). At the start of the frame you can see humanity, or in the individual’s case, the young adolescent, leaving the valley of our/​their innocent childhood and having to resign to an absolutely horrible life of living with the upset state of the human condition, which demands you deny/​forget that idyllic soulful past and the issue it raises of the human condition. This stage of Resignation, which historically has been too unbearable to acknowledge once that transition has occurred, is fully explained in chapter 2:2 of FREEDOM where you’ll find some excruciatingly honest accounts from adolescents negotiating this horror.

 

Drawing by Jeremy Griffith © 1996-2015 Fedmex Pty Ltd

 

I might mention here that occasionally some adolescents refuse to properly resign and take up the strategy of denial of the issue of the human condition. I call these semi-unresigned individuals ‘ships at sea’ (par. 1209) because they refuse to pull into port, as it were, and escape the storms that occur when they try to grapple with the human condition during their early adolescence. I’m certain that Sir Bob’s extraordinary capacity for honesty about the extent and horror of the human condition in the world is because he is, to a degree, a ‘ship at sea’. Reading his 1986 book Is That It? is like reading one long ‘Resignation poem’, a practise many adolescents engage in during Resignation and one I refer to in chapter 2:2 of FREEDOM. Sir Bob repeatedly writes about ‘a civil war inside my head which accelerates until I think my brain will explode’, which is a classic description of a ‘still-wrestling-with-the-human-condition’-unresigned mind. As you have said Sir Bob, ‘I will always rail against those things I abhor. I will always try and avoid the cant and hypocrisy I loathe so much. I will continue being an “awkward bugger”.’ Yes, truthful, unresigned people make the world of the resigned feel incredibly awkward, but thank God for such truthsayers. The only reason I can explain the human condition, as I’m about to do, is because I have an unresigned mind that still confronts and thinks truthfully about the human conditionwhich is why I so love Sir Bob’s honesty about the state of the world.

Of course, for resigned minds that are committed to avoiding the issue of the human condition the resulting human-condition-confronting truthfulness of FREEDOM makes it a difficult book to read. In fact, as I describe in chapter 1:4 of FREEDOM, resigned minds are so trained to avoid thinking about the human condition that when they start reading my work they suffer from a ‘deaf effect’ where their minds initially find it very difficult taking in or ‘hearing’ what’s being said, to the extent that they even end up thinking their incomprehension must be due to poor expression, or that the treatise is too dense to understand or even completely meaningless! Conversely, unresigned minds don’t have to patiently allow their minds the time to overcome the deaf effect when reading my work; the blocks are not in place, and so they can ‘hear’ its truthful explanation of the human condition with such ease it is instantly life-saving, as this typical response from a ‘ship at sea’ that we received this week shows: ‘Have watched the video presentations [on your website] and have read to part-way through chapter two [of FREEDOM] when I read the line; “To be confused and frightened to the point of being sickened by human behaviour, indeed to be suicidally depressed by it, is the effect the human condition has if you haven’t resigned yourself to living a relieving but utterly dishonest and superficial life in denial of it.” This has shaken me to the core, as it describes my tormented life of 67 years, and it tells me why it has been so, which nothing or no-one has been able to. Having discovered this immense truth, I hope I can find in the rest of this book a way to cope with the avalanche of emotions it has unleashed. At the moment I feel overwhelmed and vulnerable, which I presume is not unknown to yourselves when this realisation occurs in people like me, and would dearly love to receive some guidance on this. I honestly believe that if anything can save the world, this book has the potential to; if the world can cope with it. Thank you. Bill [real name withheld]. We will counsel ‘Bill’ to be patient as a lifetime of confusion unravels itself, and we will invite him to join the ‘Former Ships at Sea Club’ in which he can share his experiences. We will also explain to him that chapter 9 of FREEDOM (a summary of which appears as Part 3 of this book) describes how the world can cope with all the confronting truth about the human condition.

So, the situation was that until such time that we had the understanding (the enlightenment) we requirednamely the fully accountable, truthful explanation of human behaviour that will shortly be presented in Part 2virtually all humans had no choice but to sensibly resign themselves to not trying to confront the suicidally depressing issue of the human condition. However, in the face of such pain and condemnation, denial alone wasn’t enough. What we desperately needed to come up with was an excuse for our corrupted condition that would relieve ourselves of the excoriating and suicidally depressing truth that our conscious mind had seemingly wrecked paradise.

And so it was at this point that we zeroed in on the aforementioned relieving excuse for our behaviour, namely that other animals are always fighting and competing and tearing each others throats out, and so ‘That’s why we’re competitive and aggressivewe too have savage animal instincts that compel us to compete for food, shelter, territory and a mate’. Despite knowing full well that we have a cooperative and loving moral instinctive nature that can only have been derived from a time when we lived cooperatively and lovingly, and therefore that it’s patently untrue that we have a savage competitive and aggressive ancestry, our fear of suicidal depression was so great that we gratefully and determinedly embraced the lie that our distant ancestors were brutish and aggressive. Further, we whole-heartedly embraced the idea that the task then of our uniquely conscious mind was to try to control these supposed brutal, savage instincts within us.

It was an absolutely brilliant excuse because instead of our instincts being all-loving and thus unbearably condemning of our present non-loving state, they were made out to be vicious and brutal; and, instead of our conscious mind being the cause of our corruption, it was made out to be the blameless mediating ‘hero’ that had to manage those supposed vicious instincts within us! Rather than our instincts being good and our conscious mind bad, our instincts were made out to be bad and our intellect to be good, which, while fabulously relieving, was in-effect a complete reverse of the truth lie! (par. 153)

This excuse that we have competitive, brutish and savage animal instincts gained further momentum when it was given a biological base through the misrepresentation of Charles Darwin’s idea of ‘natural selection’ as being a ‘survival of the fittest’ process. Natural selection is the process whereby some members of a population reproduce more than others in a given environment, and in the first edition of The Origin of Species Darwin rightfully left it undecided as to whether those individuals that reproduced more could be viewed as winners, as being ‘fitter’. In later editions, however, Darwin’s associates, Herbert Spencer and Alfred Wallace, persuaded him to substitute the term ‘natural selection’ with the term ‘survival of the fittest’, which is the defence most people today use to justify their competitive, selfish and aggressive behaviour: ‘I’m just making sure I’m a winner!’ (ch. 2:9). (The reason it was ‘right’ that Darwin originally left it undecided as to whether selfishness is meaningful or not is explained in chapter 4 (in particular par. 358) of FREEDOM. Basically, nature, like everything else in the universe, is concerned with developing the holistic, teleological, negative-entropy-driven order of matter, which is a cooperative, integrative process, not a selfish, divisive one.)

The problem that emerged with this corruption of Darwin’s idea (with what became known as Social Darwinism) was that it couldn’t explain instances of selfless cooperation in nature, such as that which apparently occurs in ant colonies, or when humans behave in accordance with our moral conscience and help others in need. So to circumvent this problem, human-condition-avoiding, so-called ‘mechanistic’ biologists created the theory of Evolutionary Psychology/​Sociobiology that claimed the apparent instances of selflessness in nature, such as that seen in ant colonies, was really a case of those animals indirectly selfishly fostering their own genes by fostering the survival of their relatives’ genes. In the case of ants, this explanation holds true, but when used to explain our moral nature, it too was found wanting; as the journalist Bryan Appleyard pointed out, biologists ‘still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explain altruism. If, for example, I help a blind man cross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am being prompted to do this because he is a close relation and bears my genes.’ (ch. 2:10)

To contrive a solution to this problem, the Multilevel Selection Theory was created. Its proponents (the most prominent of whom is Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson) claimed that humans have some selfish instincts selected at the individual level and some selfless instincts selected at the group level. Although this idea of ‘Group Selection’ giving rise to selfless instincts has been fully discredited on the grounds that any selflessness that develops will always be exploited by cheaters (‘By all means, help me reproduce my genes but I’m not about to help you reproduce yours’), by accepting the Multilevel Selection Theory human-condition-avoiding, mechanistic, reductionist biologists have nevertheless been adopting it. (ch. 2:11)

Overall, while the Multilevel Selection Theory added unconditionally selfless instincts to selfish instincts in the mix of what allegedly forms our species’ instinctive make-up (thus countering Evolutionary Psychology’s offensive denial of the fact that we have altruistic moral instincts), in essence, it still amounted to a continuation of the same old reverse-of-the-truth, ‘escape-rather-than-confront-the-human-condition’ agendathat humans have villainous selfish instincts and a blameless conscious mind that has to ‘step-in’ to control them. (par. 210)

One big problem with this ‘we-are-selfish-because-we-have-selfish-instincts’ excusewhich Sir Bob referred tois that it implies humans are intrinsically imperfectable, that we can’t change our selfish and competitive primal nature because it’s in our genes and instinctive. But as is about to be explained, our instincts are to be cooperative and loving and it was a conscious mind-based psychosis that caused us to behave competitively, aggressively and selfishlyand since psychoses can be healed with understanding, we can be cured of our competitive, aggressive and selfish behaviour. Humans are not intrinsically imperfectable. (par. 218)

Tragically, however, the whole of biological science is now based on this fundamental lie that ‘we have competitive and aggressive instincts’. Libraries are full of this dishonest nonsense. Afraid of being holistic and teleological and confronting the human condition, science has instead been evasively mechanistic and reductionist. (ch. 2:4) As Charles Birch, my Templeton Prize-winning Professor of Zoology at Sydney University when I was a student there, has said, ‘science can’t deal with subjectivity [the human condition]…​what we were all taught in universities is pretty much a dead end’, and ‘Biology has not made any real advance since Darwin’ (par. 225). The polymath Arthur Koestler similarly recognised that ‘the citadel they [mechanistic scientists] are defending lies in ruins’ (par. 223).

The overall point is that when Sir Bob subscribed to the ‘selfish-instincts-in-humans’ account he was only doing what virtually every other human has been doing. Unfortunately, however, while it’s fully understandable that we humans had to inventand then resign ourselves to believing inan excuse to cope with our diabolically corrupted condition, it means biology, and the human race that depends on it for clarifying understanding of our behaviour, is now festering in a cesspit of human-condition-avoiding, dishonest biological crap; it is living ‘deep underground’ in Plato’s metaphorical ‘cave’ of darkness.

In fact, if the redeeming and psychologically rehabilitating, teleological, non-mechanistic true explanation of the human condition that I’m about to present hadn’t arrived to liberate humans from Plato’s ‘cave’ of terrible darkness from practising so much dishonest denial, the alienation or separation from our true self that results from that denial would only have continued to increase, so that very soon the human race would have succumbed to an absolutely horrific psychotic state of terminal alienation. Indeed, the recent flood of movies and documentaries based on zombie, apocalyptic, escape-to-another-planet, ‘we are being attacked by aliens [by our own alienation]’, doomsday-preparation, ‘we need a super hero to save the world’ and other judgment-day-and-anxious-Bible-related-epic themesand the actual breakout of such extreme psychosis that some people are led to fly hijacked planes into buildings, and drive trucks into crowds of people, and fire bullets into anyone they can corner, and such overall psychological fear in young people about the incredibly corrupted state of the world that there is now an epidemic of children suffering from the highly anxious and agitated Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and the even more extreme, can’t-cope, completely detached state of autismall reflect the fact that the end play state of terminal alienation for the human race is upon us. (ch. 8:16G)

I should reinforce to the reader here that living in Plato’s cave of darkness from having to resign to a life lived in denial of the suicidally depressing issue of the human condition, and the truth that our species’ once lived in a cooperative and loving state, has rendered resigned adults unable to recognise how corrupted from that original all-loving state our world has become. They find it difficult to see how psychotic/​soul-separated/​alienated/​sick/​unwell the human race now is, and in their blindness carry on as if everyone is reasonably happy and healthy, and that life for humans today is more or less as it should be. Children, however, being unresigned, can still see and somehow have to cope with the horror of the real extent of that corruption. While it is true that the ‘cave-dwelling’ resigned world of denial is being forced to recognise that there are serious crises occurring from unsustainable levels and amounts of environmental devastation, resource depletion, over-population, wars, terrorism, refugees, polarised politics, corruption, failed economies, family breakdown and even mental illness, it has not been able to recognise that the real, underlying, source threat humankind faces is from the extremely rapidly increasing levels of alienation from our species’ original innocent, all-loving state. The resigned world can’t see that our species is about to die from terminal psychosis, but the fact is, the psychosis-relieving understanding of the human condition that I’m about to present has arrived in what are the absolute ‘last seconds’ of the metaphorical ‘eleventh hour’ for the human race! (par. 237)

In a further example of the blindness of the resigned mind, the failure to acknowledge that our species did once live in a cooperative and loving state means there has been a subsequent failure to see how the recent enormous advances in communication technology have destroyed the trust we derive from our species’ original instinctive inclination to believe in the goodness of others; to believe that others will behave lovingly and cooperatively. There has been a failure to see that over-exposure to upset behaviour has eliminated naivety from Earththat too much exposure to corruption has meant our soul has lost its power to cause people to behave cooperatively and lovingly. There has been an inability to recognise that cynicism about the goodness of humans is now so rampant that greed resulting from the view that ‘If you’re not putting yourself first you’re a sucker’ is now endemicwhich is leading to the complete breakdown of society and to levels of soul-death/​alienation escalating by the minute everywhere! The situation is so dire that if we were to measure and graph the rate of increase in alienation since the 1950s, that graph would now be climbing vertically! (pars 1026-1027)

Yes, the truth is that if the relieving understanding of the human condition that is about to be presented here hadn’t been found then unimaginable and unthinkable terminal levels of writhing and deadening alienation/​psychosis and the extinction of humankind were just around the corner!

Given how evasive, truth-avoiding, ‘everything-is-fine-we-are-doing-well’, massively deluded, the resigned mind is, it is really to an unresigned adolescent mind that we should go for a truly accurate description of the seriousness of our species’ plight to conclude Part 1and that’s exactly what we have in these clearly unresigned, denial-free, honest lyrics from the 2010 Grievances album of the young American heavy metal band With Life In Mind: ‘It scares me to death to think of what I have become…​I feel so lost in this world’, ‘Our innocence is lost’, ‘I scream to the sky but my words get lost along the way. I can’t express all the hate that’s led me here and all the filth that swallows us whole. I don’t want to be part of all this insanity. Famine and death. Pestilence and war. [Famine, death, pestilence and war are traditional interpretations of the ‘Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse’ described in Revelation 6 in the Bible. Christ referred to similar ‘Signs of the End of the Age’ (Matt. 24:6-8 and Luke 21:10-11).] A world shrouded in darkness…​Fear is driven into our minds everywhere we look’, ‘Trying so hard for a life with such little purpose…​Lost in oblivion’, ‘Everything you’ve been told has been a lie…​We’ve all been asleep since the beginning of time. Why are we so scared to use our minds?’, ‘Keep pretending; soon enough things will crumble to the ground…​If they could only see the truth they would coil in disgust’, ‘How do we save ourselves from this misery…​So desperate for the answers…​We’re straining on the last bit of hope we have left. No one hears our cries. And no one sees us screaming’, ‘This is the end.’ (par. 229)

Saying, ‘I scream to the sky but my words get lost along the way. I can’t express all the hate that’s led me here and all the filth that swallows us whole. I don’t want to be part of all this insanity. Famine and death. Pestilence and war’, all of which is happening in our supposedly normal and reasonably healthy and happy world, is exactly what Edvard Munch’s famous painting The Scream captures. And saying, ‘Everything you’ve been told has been a lie’ reiterates the extent of the dishonest denial in the world, especially in science, today. And saying, ‘So desperate for the answers’ confirms how incredibly important are the ‘answers’ about our human condition that are now going to be presented.

 

Edvard Munch’s The Scream 1895

Edvard Munch’s The Scream 1895

 

After sending this book to the printers, an article from The Wall Street Journal by Ed Ballard (23 Aug. 2016) was re-printed in The Australian with the title ‘Yeats’s words suit our grim times’ (see <www.wtmsources.com/197>). Due to its confirmation of all that has just been said, we delayed the printing to allow this reference to be added. Employing the same words as I have, the article is about the now widespread ‘feeling that something appalling is around the corner’ for humanity. As evidence of that fear, Ballard cites the recent frequency of references in the media to the chilling words I’ve underlined from WB Yeats’ prophetic 1919 poem The Second Coming: ‘Turning and turning in the widening gyre / The falcon cannot hear the falconer; / Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, / The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere / The ceremony of innocence is drowned; / The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity. // Surely some revelation is at hand; / Surely the Second Coming is at hand. / The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out / When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi / Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert; / A shape with lion body and the head of a man, / A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, / Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it / Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. / The darkness drops again; but now I know / That twenty centuries of stony sleep / Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, / And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?’ To mention just one of Ballard’s statistics, in the first 7 months of this year the line ‘The centre cannot hold’ has been used 249 times in newspapers, news sites and blogs, a figure already level with last year’s record total. Note how ‘twenty centuries of stony sleep’ echoes With Life In Mind’s ‘We’ve all been asleep since the beginning of time’. The latter part of Yeats’ poem is about the subconscious ‘nightmare’ fear all humans have of the arrival of the ‘revelation’, judgment-day, all-exposing ‘pitiless as the sun’, ‘rough [hurtful] beast’ of the truth about their massively corrupted condition, an unjustified fear that is dealt with in Part 3. The true, contexted meaning of ‘the Second Coming’ is given in par. 1278 of FREEDOM.