Freedom Expanded 1

Author

Jeremy Griffith

Book 1 – The Biology
www.HumanCondition.com

Professor Harry Prosen, former president of the
Canadian Psychiatric Association, from Part 2

BLANK PAGE

Book 1 – The Biology
Jeremy Griffith

Freedom Expanded is an elaboration by Jeremy Griffith on thebreakthrough biological explanation of the human condition that hepresents in his main book, FREEDOM: The End Of The Human Condition.
Freedom Expanded comprises two books: Book 1 which focuses onthe biological explanation of the human condition; and Book 2 whichfocuses on how that explanation is able to transform the human race.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1 – The Biology, by Jeremy Griffith

Published by WTM Publishing and Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 103 136 778)
First published in Australia 2009

Minor Additions and Editing July 2020

All enquiries to:
WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT

Email: info@worldtransformation.com
Website: www.humancondition.com
or
www.worldtransformation.com

The World Transformation Movement (WTM) is a global not-for-profit movement represented by WTM charitiesand centres around the world.

ISBN 978-1-74129-011-0
CIP – Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, Health

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
This book is protected by Australian copyright laws and international copyright treaty provisions. All rights arereserved. No part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the copyrightowner. The moral rights of the authors Jeremy Griffith, Tim Macartney-Snape and Harry Prosen are asserted.

The drawings and charts by Jeremy Griffith, copyright © Fedmex Pty Ltd
(ACN 096 099 286) 1977-2020.

Trade marks: WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT, WTM, the arms-raised manbefore the rising sun logo, Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood, FHA andthe Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood logo are registered trade marks of
Fedmex Pty Ltd (ACN 096 099 286).

Edited by Fiona Cullen-Ward.

Typesetting: designed by Jeremy Griffith, set by Lee Jones, Sam Belfield & Brony FitzGerald. Font: Times;main body text:12pt on 15pt leading; quote: 10pt bold; quote source: 9pt; comment within a quote: 11pt; digitsand all caps text: 1-2pts smaller than body text. For further details about the typesetting, styles and layoutused in this book please view the WTM Style Guide at <www.humancondition.com/style-guide>.
www.humancondition.com/freedom-expanded-book1-copyright
Copyright © Fedmex Pty Ltd (ACN 096 099 286) 2009-2020

Freedom Expanded is dedicated to the future of the human race by the World Transformation
Movement’s founding members: Annabel Armstrong, Susan Armstrong, Sam Belfield,
Jοhn Bіggs, Richard Biggs, Anthony Clarke, Lyn Collins, Steve Collins, Lachlan Colquhoun,
Εrіc Crοοke, Εmmα Cullen-Ward, Fiona Cullen-Ward, Anthony Cummins, Neil Duns, Sally
Edgar, Anna Fitzgerald, Brony FitzGerald, Connor FitzGerald, Tony Gowing, Jeremy Griffith,
Simon Griffith, Damon Isherwood, Felicity Jackson, Charlotte James, Lee Jones, Monica Kodet,
Anthony Landahl, Doug Lobban, Tim Macartney-Snape, Simon Mackintosh, Katrina Makim,
Sean Makim, Manus McFadyen, Ken Miall, Tony Miall, Rachel O’Brien, James Press,
Stacy Rodger, Marcus Rowell, Genevieve Salter, Will Salter, Nick Shaw, Wendy Skelton,
Pete Storey, Ali Watson, Polly Watson, Prue Watson, Tess Watson, Tim Watson,
James West, Stirling West, Prue Westbrook and Annie Williams.

Contents
Book 1 – The Biological Explanation of The Human Condition
PAGE

Part 1

A 4-minute Introduction ......... by Jeremy Griffith ..... 15

Part 2

The World Transformation Movement .................. 17
2:1 Introduction ........................... by Tim Macartney-Snape ..... 17
2:2 Commendation from former President of the Canadian Psychiatric Association .......... 18
2:3 ‘A joy without limit’ ......................... by Jeremy Griffith ..... 19
2:4 The sunrise of our species’ FREEDOM ................... by Jeremy Griffith ..... 25
2:5 The Propositions by Jeremy Griffith ................. 29
2:6 Brief history of the World Transformation Movement .... by Tim Macartney-Snape ..... 39

Part 3

The Human Condition Explained Part 3 onward by Jeremy Griffith................. 51
3:1 The agony of the human condition ..................... 51
3:2 The accountable, true biological explanation of the human condition ..... 53
3:3 Only understanding of the human condition could end the march to ever greaterlevels of upset.................................. 57
3:4 But what was humans’ original instinctive orientation? ........ 60
3:5 We can now know that not only are humans good, we are the absolute heroes ofthe story of life on Earth ................. 70
3:6 Science is the liberator of humanity ................... 77
3:7 The depth of our anger ................... 80
3:8 The anguish of Resignation............ 86
3:9 The awesome courage of the human race ............................. 108
3:10 Brief description of the TRANSFORMATION of the human race ........... 110
3:11 Stages of humanity’s journey to enlightenment.................... 123
3:11A Infancy and Childhood ........................... 128
3:11B Sobered and Depressed Adolescentman ..................... 134
3:11C Adventurous Adolescentman ................. 145
3:11D Angry Adolescentman ............................ 173
3:11E Pseudo Idealistic Adolescentman........... 178
3:11F Hollow Adolescentman .......................... 184
3:11G The last 11,000 years ............................... 187
3:11H The final 200 years ............. 194
3:12 Anticipations of the arrival of our species’ liberation from the horror of thehuman condition and resulting TRANSFORMATION of the human race ...................... 214
3:13 The difficulty of the ‘Deaf Effect’ when reading about the human condition .............. 231
3:14 The non-falsifiable situation.............................. 235

Part 4

The Old Biology: The history of biology up to the arrival ofthe psychosis-addressing-and-solving, real explanation of thehuman condition ................. 237
4:1 To explain the human condition science had to be invented, a process Socrates,
Plato and Aristotle initiated ............................... 237
4:2 Even with the development of science, it wasn’t until Darwin introduced his idea ofnatural selection that it finally became possible to explain the human condition ........ 239
4:3 Since the human condition could be explained once Darwin presented his idea ofnatural selection in 1859, why did it take well over a century for it to be explained? .. 241
4:4 Six Unconfrontable Truths blocking access to understanding of the human condition 243
4:4A Firstly, we have been unable to confront the issue of the human conditionitself, the issue of why aren’t humans cooperative, selfless and loving? ........... 243
4:4B Secondly, upset humans have had to deny the truth of Integrative Meaning .... 244
4:4C Thirdly, we have had to live in denial of what consciousness really is.............. 249
4:4D Fourthly, the upset human race has had to deny the truth that our species onceinstinctively lived in a completely integrated, cooperative, harmonious state .. 252
4:4E Fifthly, the upset human race has had to deny the differences in upset betweenhuman individuals, races, genders, generations, civilisations and cultures. ...... 257
4:4F Sixthly, the upset human race has had to deny that nurturing played theall-important role in both the maturation of our species and in the maturationof our own lives.................. 263
4:5 The history of the search for understanding of the human condition....... 264
4:6 First Category of Thinker: Those who admitted the involvement of our moralinstincts and corrupting intellect in producing the upset state of the human condition . 265
4:7 Second Category of Thinker: Those who admitted the involvement of our moralinstincts and corrupting intellect in producing the upset state of the human conditionand who attempted to explain how those elements produced that upset psychosis ..... 277
4:8 Third Category of Thinker: Those who recognised the involvement of the elementsof instinct and intellect in the psychosis of our human condition, but who avoidedthe issue of the human condition by denying we have moral instincts .... 292
4:9 Fourth Category of Thinker: The great majority of the human race who avoided thewhole issue of a psychosis in our human situation by simply blaming our selfish andaggressive behaviour on supposed brutish and savage animal instincts within us thatour intellect supposedly has to control ............. 297
4:10 The danger of excessive denial/ dishonesty/ alienation in science .......... 301
4:11 Darwin stopped short of participating in biological denial ....................... 306
4:12 The great denials in biology of Social Darwinism, Sociobiology, Evolutionary
Psychology, Multilevel Selection and Eusociality ............... 311
4:12A Denial-based mechanistic biology was bound to lose its way ...... 311
4:12B Brief summary of the development of order of matter on Earth ... 313

4:12C

The full description of the denial-based biological theories, beginning with
Social Darwinism .............. 317
4:12D Sociobiology ...................... 318
4:12E Evolutionary Psychology ....................... 340
4:12F A backlash of revulsion develops towards Sociobiology/Evolutionary
Psychology’s denial of our moral instincts ................ 345
4:12G The by-products of natural selection explanation for our unconditionallyselfless moral instincts ........................... 349
4:12H The Multilevel Selection theory ............ 356
4:12I The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history ............. 379
4:12J Desperationville/End Game/Terminal Alienation .......................... 405
4:12K Science became a farce .......................... 412
4:13 Summary of why biology had not made any real advance since Darwin ..................... 415
4:14 Understanding of the human condition has had to be independentlydeveloped and promoted .............. 418

Part 5

Our Denials Exposed .............................. 423
5:1 How understanding of the human condition was found....... 423
5:2 Descriptions of our lost state of innocence and the extent of our denial of it .............. 438

Part 6
6:1 The Solution to Exposure...................... 451
Although the upset state of the human condition is now explained and defended,how is the human race supposed to cope with having the immense extent of itscorrupted condition suddenly revealed? ........... 451
6:2 The initial reaction of intolerant resistance to the exposing truth, which
Plato anticipated ............................ 455
6:3 The threat of terminal levels of alienation ............................ 460
6:4 The dysfunctional ‘Power Addicted’ state ............................ 461
6:5 Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) ............... 473
6:6 Our libraries are all going to become museums but the same ‘let’s get out of here’solution applies ............................. 476

Part 7

How Upset the Human Race Became .................... 479
7:1 The battle of the sexes .................. 479
7:2 How Angry did we become? ............................. 494
7:3 How Egocentric did we become? ..................... 498
7:4 How Selfish did we become? ............................ 501
7:5 How Alienated did we become? ....................... 518

Part 8

The New Biology: The denial-free, real biological story oflife on Earth .......................... 543
8:1 Integrative Meaning and our necessary denial of it ............. 543
8:2 The history of the development of order of matter on Earth .................... 561
8:3 Elaborating the reproducing individual ............ 567

8:4

How humans acquired our moral soul and conscience—our original instinctiveorientation to behaving unconditionally selflessly ............... 573
8:4A Introduction ........................ 573
8:4B Love-Indoctrination ................................ 578
8:4C A brief summary of how consciousness emerged ...... 589
8:4D Self-selection of integrativeness through sexual or mate selection .................... 593
8:4E Fossil evidence confirming the love-indoctrination process .......... 608
8:4F Bonobos evidence the whole love-indoctrination, self-selection ofintegrativeness through mate selection process ......... 614
8:4F The fragility of the love-indoctrination, mate selection process ... 624
8:4H Humans’ development of integration through love-indoctrination andmate selection ..................... 635
8:4I
8:5 A summary of how humans acquired our unconditionally selfless moral soul . 641

Denial of the all-important role of nurturing in human development, and of thetruth that our species once lived in a fully integrated state ....................... 646
8:5A
8:5B 140 years of madness .............................. 646

John Fiske’s 1874 recognition of the obvious truth that nurturing createdour moral sense .................. 648
8:5C The problem has been that the nurturing origins of our moral soul has beendevastatingly, unbearably, excruciatingly condemning .................. 656
8:5D To deny the importance of nurturing, the Social Intelligence Hypothesis wasinvented .............................. 659
8:5E Dismissing maternal love as training to manage complex social situations stillleft the extraordinarily cooperative lives of bonobos, and of our ape ancestors, tosomehow be explained............................ 664
8:5F Fossilised evidence of our species’ cooperative past has also been dismissed andthen ignored by mechanistic science .......................... 666
8:6 8:5G

The Social Ecological Model ................. 668
8:5H The Self-Domestication Hypothesis ........................... 676
8:5I End play for the human race .................. 684
8:5J The great obscenity ............ 686

Summary of the history of efforts to seek support for—and the subsequentrejections, vilification and lack of acknowledgment of—the biological explanationsfor the human condition, for the origins of our moral soul and conscious mind, andfor the truth of the integrative meaning of existence that are contained in this book .. 690
8:7 Consciousness ............................... 696
8:7A What is consciousness? .......................... 696
8:7B Why, how and when did consciousness emerge in humans? ......... 705
8:8 How our particular instinctive orientation greatly compounded our upset .................. 720
8:9 Summary of our journey to enlightenment ........................... 723
8:10 Nurturing now becomes a priority .................... 724

Part 9

The Transformation of the Human Race .............. 739
9:1 The TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE ............................ 739
9:2 The TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE metamorphoses the human race ................ 746
9:3 How the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE will quickly repair the world.............. 752

Part 10

The Nature and Role of Denial-Free Thinking ....................... 759
10:1 Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ ................... 759
10:2 The Three Varieties of Thinkers ....................... 792
10:3 Unresigned Prophets ..................... 794
10:4 Sir Laurens van der Post’s Vision ..................... 798
10:5 Sir James Darling’s Vision ................................ 807

Notes to the Reader
•

While Jeremy Griffith’s 2016 book FREEDOM: The End Of The Human Condition is themain presentation of his breakthrough biological synthesis on the human condition, andthe resulting transformation of the human race, Freedom Expanded: Books 1 & 2 presentthe expanded account of Jeremy’s insights.

•

Freedom Expanded: Books 1 & 2 are freely available to be read, printed or downloadedat <www.humancondition.com/freedom-expanded>. For printing and binding suggestions foryour copies of Freedom Expanded: Books 1 & 2, see <www.humancondition.com/free-toread-print-bind>.

•

Other books by Jeremy Griffith referred to in this presentation, including FREEDOM,are freely available to be read, printed or downloaded from the World Transformation
Movement’s (WTM) website at <www.humancondition.com/publications>. Alternatively, copiescan be purchased from good bookshops or online booksellers such as Amazon.

•

The WTM also has ‘Freedom Essays’ which provide an easy way to access theseworld-saving understandings in wonderfully illustrated bite-sized portions. These arefreely available at <www.humancondition.com/freedom-essays>. You can also listen to themas audios.

•

The WTM also provides a number of introductory and other videos that discuss both thebiological explanation of the human condition and the resulting transformation of thehuman race. These can be freely viewed and/or downloaded at <www.humancondition.com>.
We highly recommend you start with THE Interview That Solves The Human Condition
And Saves The World! at <www.humancondition.com/the-interview>.

•

The WTM has a Frequently Asked Questions facility on our website at <www.humancondition.com/frequently-asked-questions>, and we very much welcome your further

Questions and Feedback at <www.humancondition.com/contact>. With the understanding ofthe human condition finally found, the horizons that now open up for the human race areabsolutely boundless, and immensely exciting—so find out what others are thinking anddoing and become involved by visiting <www.humancondition.com/community> and helpbring about the now urgently needed transformation of the world.

•

There is no index in Freedom Expanded because both books can be freely accessed at <www.humancondition.com/freedom-expanded> and any word or phrase easily searched electronically.

•

Unlike most books, there is no bibliography at the conclusion of either book because thesource is provided in small text at the end of each quote, so the reader can immediatelysee when, where and by whom the quote was made—it is particularly interesting to seehow much knowledge has emerged in only the last 150 years. Also, rather than give theparticular edition and/or publisher of the book that the quote comes from, the page numberwhere the quote appears and the total number of pages of the particular edition used forthe source is provided. This enables the reader to find the comparative place of the quotein any edition.
www.humancondition.com

BLANK PAGE

Please note, this Book 1 – The Biology incorporates a much expanded transcript ofthe 2009 Introductory Video to the biological explanation of the human condition thatwas filmed in Sydney, Australia in October 2009. You can watch this video at <www.humancondition.com/2009-intro-video>. In fact, while large sections of this book do
closely follow the video presentation, there are sections that have been very greatlyadded to, and others that appear in a different order.

Part 1
4-Minute Introduction

Part 1 ‘This is the most exciting moment in human history’

In recent times environmental issues have dominated our concerns, but we have onlybeen focusing on the symptoms. To fix all the runaway problems we are surrounded with—infact to stop the destruction of our world and the disintegration of society that is happeningeverywhere we look—we have to fix the cause of the problems, which is us humans. We arethe problem: our out-of-control egocentric, selfish, competitive and aggressive behaviour.
We are sometimes told that humans are wired this way—competitive, aggressive andselfish—because of our animal heritage: that we have savage animal instincts that makeus fight and compete for food, shelter, territory and a mate. But that’s just the excuse wehave had to use until we found the real reason for our divisive behaviour. For a start, itconveniently overlooks the fact that our human behaviour involves our unique fully consciousthinking mind. Descriptions of our behaviour, such as egocentric, arrogant, deluded,optimistic, pessimistic, artificial, hateful, mean, immoral, guilty, evil, depressed, inspired,psychotic, alienated, all imply a consciousness-derived, psychological dimension to ourbehaviour. And it overlooks the fact that we humans have altruistic, cooperative, loving moralinstincts—what we recognise as our ‘conscience’—and these moral instincts in us are notderived from reciprocity, from situations where you only do something for others in returnfor a benefit from them, as evolutionary psychologists would have us believe. And nor arethey derived from warring with other groups of humans as advocates of E.O. Wilson’s theoryof Eusociality would argue. No, we have an unconditionally selfless, fully altruistic, truly

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
loving, universally-considerate-of-others-not-competitive-with-other-groups, genuinely moralconscience. So yes, the real issue—the psychological problem in our thinking minds that wehumans have suffered from—that had to be addressed and solved in order to fix our divisivebehaviour is the dilemma of our so-called human condition, the issue of our species’ ‘goodand-evil’-afflicted, less-than-ideal, imperfect, even ‘fallen’ or corrupted state or predicament.
Why, when the ideals of life are so clearly to be cooperative, selfless and loving, are we socompetitive, selfish and aggressive?
And the truth is, humans have always intuitively known that the real problem we haveto understand about ourselves is the issue of the human condition—the difficulty, however,has been that unable to explain the dark side of ourselves we have coped by living in almostcomplete denial of the issue, blocking it out of our mind, because to think about it wastoo depressing and, until now, an answerless and thus futile exercise. In fact, we only evermentioned the term ‘human condition’ when we were being really profound, and even then itsent shivers down our spine.
I have used the phrase ‘until now’ because through the advances made in science it isnow at last possible to overcome this impasse and make sense of this deepest and darkest,previously off-limits issue of the human condition. Yes, that greatest of all days in our humanjourney of conscious thought and enquiry—in fact, the day that we have lived in hopeand faith and trust would one day come—when biology would finally be able to provideredeeming understanding of our less-than-ideal existence and allow us to at last explain thepsychological origins of our species’ deeply troubled predicament or condition and by sodoing ameliorate or heal that condition has now, and in the nick of time, arrived!
So while there has been much talk of the need to love each other and to love theenvironment, the real need on Earth has been to love the dark side of ourselves, to findthe reconciling, redeeming and healing understanding of that—and it is precisely that allimportant understanding of ourselves that is going to be presented here.
You are about to hear the explanation of the human condition and, as you will see, theanswer is so redeeming and relieving that it TRANSFORMS us, and thus our world—hence ourorganisation’s name: the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT.
In summary, what is to be presented is the first-principle-based biological understandingthat lifts the ancient debilitating, so-called ‘burden of guilt’ from our species’ shoulders and,by so doing, heals our troubled souls and sets us free—and this is not one of those mindless,dogma-based, ‘New Age’ false starts to a new world for humans that can’t and doesn’t last.
This is the mindful understanding that alone could bring about the real and lasting repair ofourselves and our planet. We humans are conscious beings, we needed brain food not brainanaesthetic. We needed answers, especially the answer to the crux question of why we havebeen the way we have been, less-than-ideally behaved, and it is that answer of answers thatwill be presented here.
This is the most exciting moment in human history!
You are now invited to watch and/or read a more formal introduction to the WORLD
TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT, before the all-important liberating explanation of the human
condition is presented in Part 3.

Part 2
The World Transformation Movement

Part 2:1 Introduction, by Tim Macartney-Snape AM OAM

Welcome everyone to the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT (WTM).
My name is Tim Macartney-Snape and I would like to introduce to you this presentationby my very close friend and fellow Patron of the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT,
Jeremy Griffith. Jeremy is an Australian biologist and the author of many books andpublications about the human condition.
The issue of the human condition, which is humans’ capacity for what has been called
‘good’ and ‘evil’, is really the agonising core issue that we humans have needed to understandabout our behaviour—and it is that all-important biological understanding of the humancondition, which the discoveries of science have at last made possible, that Jeremy will bepresenting here today. The ability to understand this essential aspect of ourselves is whatmakes the TRANSFORMATION of humans possible, and with that TRANSFORMATION ofourselves comes the TRANSFORMATION of our world—hence the name of the organisationthat has been established to support and promote these understandings: the WORLD
TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT.

What you are about to hear is nothing less than the culminating insight of all humanenquiry into the nature of our world and our place in it.
As Jeremy has said, the eternal hope, faith, trust and indeed belief of the humanrace has been that one day the all-clarifying, reconciling, healing and TRANSFORMINGexplanation of human nature would finally be found, freeing humans at last of their insecure,troubled, good-and-evil-afflicted so-called human condition. And as incredible as it is, itis that greatest of all breakthroughs that has finally been achieved. It is this dreamed ofexplanation that you are about to hear!

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

And it comes not a moment too soon, for only the clarifying, dignifying and redeemingbiological understanding of the dilemma of the human condition—the understanding of ourspecies’ extraordinary capacity for so-called ‘good and evil’, the understanding of why wehumans have been so competitive, aggressive and selfish when the ideals are so clearly to becooperative, loving and selfless—could heal the underlying insecurity of that condition, andby so doing bring an end to all the devastation, distress and suffering in the world.
Indeed, the great Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), who early in hiscareer had been a follower of the founder of psychoanalysis, the Austrian Sigmund Freud
(1856-1939), was forever saying that ‘wholeness for humans depended on the ability to own theirown shadow’ because he recognised that only understanding of our species’ dark, human-
condition-afflicted state could reconcile and relieve the guilt and resulting psychosis of thatsituation and make us ‘whole’ again.
Similarly, the ancients had emblazoned across their temples the words ‘Man, know thyself ’because again it was only understanding of the psychological reason for why we humans havenot been ideally behaved that could heal that condition.
So, knowledge, specifically self-knowledge, is what the human race has been tirelesslyworking towards since the dawn of consciousness in the hope that some day, some where,some time someone standing completely upright would truthfully and boldly walk rightthrough the middle of all the confusion and seeming madness of our human situation andmake sense of it all—and again, amazing as it is, that is what has happened. On the shouldersof all the eons of human enquiry and effort (and indeed benefiting from the courageous effortsof all humans who have ever lived) Jeremy has done just that. That day of days, that greatestof all breakthroughs has at last arrived! That holy grail of the human journey of finding firstprinciple-based, biological understanding of the human condition has finally been found.
Ameliorating or healing understanding of ourselves is now here.
From a situation of bewildering confusion and darkness about what it is to be human wehave broken through to a world drenched in the light of relieving understanding. The dawn ofenlightenment has arrived; the sun is finally coming up to drain away all the darkness fromour lives. This is the most amazing moment.

Part 2:2 Commendation from Professor Harry Prosen, former President of the
Canadian Psychiatric Association
At this point I might ask Professor Harry Prosen, via Skype from the United States, forhis view of these understandings of the human condition that Jeremy will be presenting.
Harry Prosen is a professor of psychiatry who has worked in the field for over 50 years,including chairing two departments of psychiatry and serving as president of the Canadian
Psychiatric Association. Professor Prosen was recently appointed one of 500 Specially
Selected Distinguished Life Fellows of the American Psychiatric Association. He is alsopsychiatric consultant to the Bonobo Species Preservation Society. In fact, to listen to a brief
2012 radio interview of Professor Prosen talking about his amazing psychiatric work with
bonobos, click on Professor Prosen’s photo on his Wikipedia page.
Hello Professor Prosen, welcome to Australia.

Part 2:3

‘A joy without limit’

Professor Prosen:
‘Thank you Tim, it’s nice to be with you all in Australia. As Tim has said, I have been a student ofpsychiatry for many years. What I have to tell you is that I have no doubt this biological explanation of
Jeremy Griffith’s of the human condition is the holy grail of insight we have sought for the psychologicalrehabilitation of the human race. I cannot urge you strongly enough to listen to what Jeremy Griffith hasto explain. My message is as simple as that. This is all so exciting; I’m quite overwhelmed to be here on
Earth when these answers are finally found. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you.’

Tim Macartney-Snape:
Thank you very much Professor Prosen for speaking with us.

I will now ask Jeremy Griffith to speak.

Part 2:3 ‘A joy without limit’, by Jeremy Griffith
Thank you so very much Professor Prosen and Tim for your appreciative words, andthank you all for coming along.
The issue of the human condition has been the real ‘elephant in the living room’ of ourlives—the great unmentionable subject on Earth, the most important yet least acknowledgedsubject in human life. Indeed, it will be revealed that the human condition has been thedominating psychological influence in human behaviour since human consciousness fullydeveloped and we became a self-managing species some two million years ago, and theunderlying issue in all human affairs—so influential in our lives, in fact, that being ableto explain the human condition, and by so doing understand and ameliorate or heal itseffects, brings about a fundamental TRANSFORMATION of humans of the most dramatic andwonderful kind.
As Tim said, the issue of the human condition—our species’ capacity for what hasbeen called ‘good’ and ‘evil’—is the agonising core issue that we humans have needed tounderstand about our behaviour. Essentially, human nature, as it has been, was not something

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
immutable or unchangeable, as it is often thought, but rather the product of an underlyingpsychological condition that we humans have always intuitively held a hope, faith and trustwould one day be able to be understood and thus alleviated, and it is that wonderful day ofliberation from the agony of the human condition that has finally arrived.
I have used the word ‘intuitively’ because this underlying psychological condition isnot something we humans have been able to openly admit to, even to ourselves, let alonediscuss with each other. In fact, the human condition has been such a distressingly difficultsubject for us humans to confront that, after being under some pressure to acknowledge itsexistence, I have heard it referred to as ‘the personal unspeakable’, and as ‘the black box insideof humans that they can’t go near’. And these are not outrageous exaggerations, for the truth is
the subject of the human condition—the issue of the extreme imperfection of human life—has been so distressing and depressing that until it could be explained a practice of neartotal denial of the subject had to be adopted. For example, while ‘human nature’ appears indictionaries, ‘human condition’ never does. It was only in moments of extreme profunditythat we even mentioned the dreaded term ‘human condition’, and even then it was only evera vague, glancing reference. For instance, the mission statement of the Fetzer Foundation, aphilanthropic organisation in the United States, contains lofty words about its dedication toresearch, education and service, and spliced in amongst them are the words: ‘as we press towardunique frontiers at the edge of revolutionary breakthroughs in the human condition.’

(Note, this situation where the subject of the human condition has been virtuallyunmentionable changed significantly with the publication in 2012 of the American biologist
Edward (E.) O. Wilson’s book, The Social Conquest of Earth, in which he claims toexplain the human condition. But, as it is fully explained later in Part 4:12I, this ‘Theoryof Eusociality’ (as E.O. Wilson has termed this supposed ‘explanation’ of the humancondition) doesn’t truthfully explain the human condition at all, rather it attempts todismiss it as nothing more than a conflict between supposed selfish and selfless instinctswithin humans. It is not a profound, fully accountable, truthful, real explanation of thepsychological dilemma involved in the human condition, but a completely false—indeedfake—superficial trivialisation of the subject. What E.O. Wilson has done is put forwarda supposed explanation of the human condition that nullifies it, that makes it appearbenign, nothing profoundly distressing at all, when, as the author Olive Schreiner sohonestly acknowledges in her writing that I will be referring to in a moment, the humancondition is a fearfully distressing subject. Indeed, descriptions provided in Part 3:8 ofadolescents going through Resignation, during which they try to face down the terrifyingissue of the imperfect state of our human condition, make it more than clear that thehuman condition is, in reality, a profoundly deep, extremely dark and fearful—indeedterrifying—psychological issue. As will be described in Part 4:12, in devising such theoriesas Social Darwinism, Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, Multilevel Selection andnow Eusociality, mechanistic/reductionist science has become masterful at finding newways to avoid the true nature of the human condition. The unfortunate result of thefake trivialisation of the human condition in E.O. Wilson’s theory of Eusociality is thatpeople will now be inclined to refer to the subject in a way that doesn’t recognise andrespect its true nature. The issue of the human condition has been so belittled by this new

Part 2:3

‘A joy without limit’

21
dishonest account of it that it has lost its dread, but the true horror of this immenselydishonest interpretation of the human condition is that it has taken humanity to the brinkof terminal alienation. That is how serious the repercussions are of misrepresenting thiscore issue in being human—this most profoundly important subject of all—as benign,virtually inconsequential, which is what this new theory of Eusociality in effect does. Itleads us away from the truth about ourselves at the very time we need to be facing thattruth and, by so doing, finding a genuine psychologically ameliorating understandingof it. As emphasised in Part 4:12I, E.O. Wilson’s dismissal of our human condition asinconsequential is the most sophisticated and thus dangerous denial to have ever beendeveloped on Earth. More will be said about Eusociality shortly in Parts 3:2 and 3:4, butwhat I am concerned with achieving here is informing readers that while E.O. Wilson hasnow dismissively trivialised the subject of the human condition, what I said here in 2009,and what I say throughout my writings, about it actually being a fearful subject still holdstrue for humans whenever they truthfully engage with the issue.)
The fact remains, we humans have lived in such fear and thus denial of even the term
‘human condition’ that when people are asked what it means most say they don’t really know,while others who do think they know say it refers to our physical predicament, all the poverty,disease and pollution in the world, when in truth those problems are merely by-productsof the human condition, which is our species’ psychological predicament—our inability tounderstand why we have not been ideally behaved, why we became corrupted, ‘fell from grace’
(derived from the title of Gen. 3, ‘The Fall of Man’), and as a result were ‘banished…from the Garden’
(Gen. 3:23) of our species’ state of original innocence.

The reality has been that as humans grew up they soon learnt to avoid, to block out, toput up ‘blinkers’ to the whole subject of the incredible imperfection of human life becauseto think about it has been far too distressing, and above all—until now—an answerless andthus futile exercise. Adults have learnt to live in denial of the whole depressing issue of thehuman condition.
So it is not surprising that we need a child’s innocence, with all its honesty, to reconnectus to the truth of the utter hypocrisy of human life and the fundamental question that had tobe solved of ‘Why?’ The child I refer to is Olive Schreiner, a famous South African writerwho, on her deathbed in 1920, wrote a deeply reflective essay in which she was able to recallher childhood struggle with the issue of the human condition. She told how, as a little girl
‘not yet nine years old’, she was overcome with distress about all the selfishness, meanness and
cruelty in the world. Remarkably, while Schreiner wasn’t able to find understanding of all thewrongness in human behaviour, she did manage to achieve, through the inspiring beauty ofnature, some peace of mind by realising that a greater meaning did lie behind all the apparentwrongness and suffering in human life.
I would now like to relate what Schreiner wrote because it not only reconnects us with theissue of the human condition, it also wonderfully illustrates what both Tim and Professor Prosenhave said about how incredibly exciting it is that science has finally made it possible to explainthe human condition and, through doing so, bring about the ‘rehabilitation’ of our species.
For brevity’s sake, I will read just the main passages from Schreiner’s essay: ‘When achild, not yet nine years old, I walked out one morning along the mountain tops on which my home stood.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

The sun had not yet risen, and the mountain grass was heavy with dew…I walked till I came to a placewhere a little stream ran…I had got up so early because I had been awake much in the night and couldnot sleep longer. My heart was heavy; my physical heart seemed to have a pain in it, as if small, sharpcrystals were cutting into it. All the world seemed wrong to me…Why did everyone press on everyone andtry to make them do what they wanted? Why did the strong always crush the weak? Why did we hate andkill and torture? Why was it all as it was? Why had the world ever been made?…The little sharp crystalsseemed to cut deeper into my heart.
And then, as I sat looking at [the stream]…the sun began to rise. It shot its lights across the long,grassy slopes of the mountains and struck…[a] little mound of earth [at the water’s edge]…All the…flowers and grasses on it turned bright gold, and the dewdrops hanging from them were like diamonds;and the water in the stream glinted as it ran. And, as I looked at that almost intolerable beauty, a curiousfeeling came over me…I seemed to see a world in which creatures no more hated and crushed, in whichthe strong helped the weak, and men understood each other, and forgave each other, and did not tryto crush others, but to help…And there came to me, as I sat there, a joy such as never besides have Iexperienced…a joy without limit…

[T]his feeling [that] came to me, a feeling…not easy to put into words…was like this: You also area part of the great Universe; what you strive for something strives for…you are moving on towardssomething…
In the long years which have passed, the adult has seen…the greed, the ambition, the cruelty andfalsehood of the individual soul…in so hideously enlarged and wholly unrestrained a form that it mightbe forgiven to one who cried out to the powers that lie behind life: “Is it not possible to put out a spongeand wipe up humanity from the earth? It is stain!”…[Very honestly, Schreiner also conceded that
even ‘Within my own soul I have perceived elements militating against all I hungered for’.] [She wenton]…I have tried to wear no blinkers…I have tried to look nakedly in the face those facts which makemost against all hope—and yet, in the darkest hour, the consciousness which I carried back with me thatmorning has never wholly deserted me…
That which was for the young child only a vision…has, in the course of a long life’s experience,become a hope…which a growing knowledge of human nature and human life does endorse. Somewhere,some time, some place’ (Somewhere, Some Time, Some Place, from a 1987 collection titled An Olive Schreiner Reader:
Writings on Women and South Africa, ed. Carol Barash, pp.216-220 of 261).

‘Somewhere, some time, some place’ is almost the same phrase Tim used.

I think that passage is as clean a take on the fundamental situation we humans have beenin as you could hope to find.
Having, as Schreiner said, ‘tried to look nakedly in the face of those facts which’ seemunequivocally to deny ‘all hope’ of there being meaning in all the suffering and apparentwrongness in human life, she then, in that state of complete openness to all the possibilities,saw the sparkle on a stream in the early morning sunlight and, through that beauty, wasconnected to the greater truth that there is a purpose and destiny to human existence—that we have been ‘moving towards something’. That ‘something’, she said, was ‘a growingknowledge of human nature’ that will ‘somewhere, some time, some place’ bring about an incredible
TRANSFORMATION of humans where ‘the strong helped the weak, and men understood each other,and forgave each other, and did not try to crush others, but to help’, and that the coming of that time
would bring about ‘a joy without limit’.

Part 2:3

‘A joy without limit’

Believe it or not, this ‘somewhere’ and ‘some time’ and ‘some place’ when ‘a growingknowledge of human nature’—science, in fact—would make possible reconciling, redeeming,
healing and transforming understanding of ourselves—when, as Professor Prosen said, ‘thepsychological rehabilitation of the human race’ could begin—is happening right now, and right
here in what you are about to hear!!
I should emphasise again that what is to be presented is not another romantic,unrealistic, pseudo-idealistic, superficial, futile, got-us-nowhere, dogma-based Marxist,socialist, left-wing demand for utopia—or, for that matter, some think-positive, feelgood, motivational New Age treatment of our human situation. Quite the opposite. Toreach the truth about our human situation we have to go, and indeed will be going, intothe very heart of the darkness plaguing this planet, down into the depths of our species’psychosis. We are going into that deepest, darkest and previously off-limits subject of thehuman condition and safely out the other side to our species’ FREEDOM. This will be nosuperficial account of humanity’s journey, or of our lives as part of it, but rather a deeplyprofound presentation of the biological origins, effects and, most importantly, resolutionof the underlying issue in all human affairs of our species’ extraordinary capacity for both
‘good’ and ‘evil’.
Earth has certainly presented some extremely hostile and forbidding realms for humans toattempt to explore, such as the sulphurous volcanic vents recently discovered at the bottom ofthe oceans, but the REAL frontier for human endeavour to conquer was never the inhospitableparts of our landscape or even the remote reaches of outer space, it was always inner space,the domain of ‘self ’, the realm of the human condition. Indeed, Joseph Conrad’s famous novelabout an adventure up the Congo River into ‘the heart of darkness’, as the 1902 book was titled,was actually a metaphorical anticipation of this greatest of all journeys that we are now, in thisvery presentation, about to embark upon.
So this is some journey we are going on into the darkest of subjects, for we are goingto be addressing the historically psychologically terrifying issue of the human condition,
BUT, we are going to make it both successful and thus safe by, as Tim said, flooding it
with the light of dignifying, uplifting, liberating, redeeming, relieving and TRANSFORMINGbiological understanding.
Importantly, this is about the fulfilment of humanity’s freedom-from-dogma-dependent,heroic search for knowledge, not about abandoning that heroic search by oppressivelyimposing unrealistic ideal values. Indeed, this is all about the end of dogma—even of faith—and the beginning of knowing. Olive Schreiner’s vision was dependent on the arrival ofknowledge—‘knowledge of human nature’ is what she said—the ability to understand ourselvesat last, and it is that particular knowledge, and nothing else, that could, and now does, bringabout a new, TRANSFORMED world for humans.
In summary, what is to be presented is the most heroic story ever told, the story of us,the story of the human race: our species’ journey through the long cold night of having to livein a state of ignorance—most particularly, ignorance about our worthiness or otherwise—tofinally reaching enlightenment. We humans had this awesome computer put in our heads, ourfully conscious, thinking brain, but we were not given the program for it; instead we wereleft to wander this Earth searching for the program in a terrifying darkness of confusion and

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
bewilderment. Well, as Tim said, from that terrifyingly cold darkness we can now emerge intothe warm sunshine of dignifying, redeeming, relieving and TRANSFORMING understanding.
Yes, this journey that we are about to go on leads to the most astonishingly wonderfully
FREE, peaceful, happy and exciting TRANSFORMED existence for all humans. In fact, it is
the human-condition-free, exhilarated and empowered, truly alive lifeforce state that wehave always dreamt of one day being able to achieve. Although we haven’t been able toacknowledge it, our psychological struggle with the human condition has been so dominating,so destructive and so oppressive of our lives that in solving it we are effectively solving all ofour own problems and those of the world. It is that significant and impacting a breakthrough!
Finding understanding of the human condition brings about the liberation of the human raceand the TRANSFORMATION OF THE WORLD, a situation that is so wonderful that it brings ushumans, as Schreiner said, ‘a joy without limit’!
_______________________
At this point, some of you watching this video, or reading this transcript, might wishto go straight to the biological explanation of the human condition and follow that maindiscussion, which is presented in Part 3.
Alternatively, you can continue with Part 2, where shortly I will put forward Five
Propositions on what will happen now that understanding of the human condition has beenfound. Tim Macartney-Snape will then conclude Part 2 with a brief history of these ideas andof the World Transformation Movement.
Before either moving on to Part 3 or continuing with Part 2 I would, however, liketo advise the reader and/or the viewer to be prepared to re-read and/or re-watch thepresentations a number of times. This issue of the human condition has been so difficultfor humans to look at that we have practiced almost total denial of it and this practiceddenial makes taking in or ‘hearing’ discussion about the subject very difficult. Whathappens initially is that our mind goes into shock when discussion of the human conditionbegins and finds it very difficult to absorb what is being said, as evidenced by these readerresponses: ‘When I first read your books all I saw were a lot of black marks on white paper’; and
‘When I read your book I found the content very difficult to absorb, so much so in fact I foundit impossible telling someone what the book was even about’; and ‘please send me an executivesummary of your book because I can’t understand what it’s about.’ This comment from an
internet blog also summarises the difficulty: ‘reading Griffith is like reading another language—you know its English, you can understand the words, but the concepts are so basic and so differentthat they are almost incomprehensible—its a paradigm shift of a read.’ What is so ‘basic’ and
‘different’, and such a ‘paradigm shift’, is that the historically unconfrontable, off-limits, even
toxic issue of the human condition is finally being addressed and explained. This responsedescribes the problem clearly: ‘The words in your books have in my experience brought upemotional reactions in people and their minds reject the information, they are not able to get behindthe words and experience the profundity of where you are coming from…Your insights are so head onas to cripple people.’

Part 2:4

The sunrise of our species’ freedom

So my strong advice is to be prepared for what we call the ‘deaf effect’ that thisinformation about the human condition causes when you first start to read/hear discussionof it, and to be prepared to continue to re-watch these presentations, and/or re-read thesetranscripts. In fact, the best way to overcome the initial ‘deaf effect’ difficulty of readingabout the human condition is by taking the WTM Deaf Effect Course which can be accessedat <www.humancondition.com/wtm-deaf-effect-course>. You’ll be astonished at how you do beginto absorb what is being put forward, when initially it is very difficult. Of course, once youare able to access the information sufficiently to evaluate its accountability, you then have tomake sure you maintain a healthy balance between the extent to which you continue to studyit and how much self-confrontation you can cope with. You can read more about this ‘deafeffect’ and how best to manage it in Part 3:13.

Part 2:4 The sunrise of our species’ FREEDOM, by Jeremy Griffith

Our WTM poster, copies of which are freely available at <www.humancondition.com/wtm-posters>.

Before continuing, I would like to say that there are some members here in theaudience from the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT (WTM). I should say there arecertain people I must thank for their enduring support of this all-important project for thehuman race of bringing understanding to the human condition, especially our foundingdirectors: my partner of 30 years, Annie Williams; my brother Simon Griffith; Tim
Macartney-Snape; Tim Watson, and Stacy Rodger. No less critically important has beenthe support and resolve of the other 50-strong founding members of the WTM. All that has

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
been achieved—and as will become apparent, an immense amount has been achieved—inthe last 26 years since 1983 when the FHA/WTM was established and the present, 2009
(at the time of filming), is due to the efforts of these precious few people. The fact isthe opposition to our work has been so great, and our dedication to match it has hadto be so great, that we have not even been able to have children. There are so manychildren in the world and yet there has never before been any answers to the fundamentalquestions facing humanity about the human condition, so obviously when those answersfinally do arrive it is of the utmost priority that we defend them, especially in light ofhow vulnerable these understandings are to everyone’s rampant insecurities about theirown human condition. Trying to address the issue of the human condition when, as I willsoon explain, humanity’s historical, age-old way of coping with the issue has been todeterminedly avoid it, has meant that we have been committing a very great heresy, and todo that has required extraordinary courage, tenacity, self-sacrifice and self-sufficiency. Weare a very proud organisation indeed. While this project will remain in some jeopardy untilsubstantial support builds for it, we thankfully feel that the horrifically difficult pioneerstage is over and that the extreme self-sacrifices, such as not having children, won’t benecessary for subsequent members.
The WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT is so named because its objective is to
TRANSFORM the individual, the human race and the world through bringing dignifying and
ameliorating or healing understanding to the human condition. Details about the WORLD
TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT can be found on our website: <www.worldtransformation.com>
or <www.humancondition.com>—possibly humancondition.com is easiest to remember.
What is to be presented is a first principle-based, rational, testable, scientificunderstanding of the human condition. We are going to be throwing light on that deepestof all issues and through doing so bring about the liberation and amelioration of thatunderlying psychosis in our species’ situation. And it is the dawning of this liberatingknowledge about our species that the rising sun in the background of these imagesbehind me (our WTM poster, which was included at the beginning of this Part, and our
FREEDOM poster, which is shown at the start of Part 3:5), and the gold colour of this
theatre, symbolises. The sun has historically been a symbol for knowledge—light equalsknowledge—and its emergence over the horizon symbolises a dawning of a new era forhumanity based on our ability to finally understand ourselves.

Part 2:4

The sunrise of our species’ freedom

The following photograph of the founding members of the WORLD TRANSFORMATION
MOVEMENT (which will be presented again shortly in a larger format), each with their arms

I should also say that it is natural to be somewhat or even entirely sceptical that what isgoing to be presented will finally explain the human condition and TRANSFORM humans, butsince what is to be presented is all rational, understandable knowledge, you’re on safe ground.
There is no dogma, or faith, or belief, or mysticism, or superstition, or any abstract conceptsinvolved in the explanation. This is all about knowledge that either stacks up or it doesn’t—andif it doesn’t you should reject it. What I have to explain will either make sense to you or it won’t.
While you have to discover for yourself if what is to be presented does unlock the mysteriesof our human situation, the certainty that I and Tim and Professor Prosen and many, manyothers familiar with these understandings have that what is presented is indeed the long soughtafter explanation of the human condition comes from the explanation’s ability to make senseof every aspect of the human condition, indeed of every aspect of human behaviour. The great

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

German-born physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) recognised humans’ ability to establish thevalidity or otherwise of ideas when he said, ‘truth is what stands the test of experience’ (Out of My Later
Years, 1950). Indeed, the following image of a key unlocking someone’s mind is very emblematic
of the power of this idea to finally make sense of ourselves and unlock our long repressedpotentials. In fact, we used the symbol of a key held aloft as the logo of our movement when it

So, with the human condition at last solved, as we are claiming it is—and in truththe human condition has been such a dark and unapproachable subject that it couldn’t beaddressed so freely as it is if it hadn’t been solved—what is going to be discussed is somethingthat has never before been freely spoken about in all of human history. As I said, the humancondition has been the great unmentionable—the ‘elephant in our living rooms’ that we havelived in such deep fear and thus denial of that we are virtually unaware of its existence. Butthat all changes now. With understanding of the human condition found we can now safely

Part 2:5

The Propositions

29
acknowledge the issue of the human condition—and, as will later be described at some length,manage the confronting truth of the extent of our corruption of self (that the explanation of thehuman condition necessarily exposes) in a most effective, TRANSFORMING way.

Part 2:5 The Propositions, by Jeremy Griffith
The overall submission I am making today is that through the finding of understanding ofthe human condition your life, and the lives of all humans, can at last be TRANSFORMED froma human-condition-afflicted state to a state that is effectively FREE of the human condition.
As extraordinary, even outrageous, as this statement sounds, over the next few hours I planto validate it by establishing the following fabulous propositions—and I want to outline thesepropositions now because while they may seem bold now, when I come back to them at theend of this presentation you might in fact find you agree with them:
The First Proposition is that what is to be presented will explain the fundamental paradoxof the human condition—explain how we humans could be good, wonderful and worthwhilewhen all the evidence seems to unequivocally indicate that we are the very opposite of good,wonderful and worthwhile.

Cartoon by Michael Leunig, Melbourne’s The Age newspaper, 8 Oct. 1988

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

This masterpiece by the Australian cartoonist Michael Leunig truthfully depicts allthe horrors of the human condition. What is so brave about this cartoon is that it defiesthe historical and now deeply habituated practice of denial of the issue of the humancondition and instead fully resurrects and confronts us squarely with the issue. Leunig hasbeen contributing cartoons to and writing for Australian newspapers since 1965 and in thattime has produced innumerable brilliantly honest, insightful and therapeutically revealingcartoons about all aspects of our species’ troubled condition. This one, which first appeared in
Melbourne’s leading newspaper, The Age, on 8 October 1988, is in my view one of his best.
This is not a picture of a lovely ordered city park where people peacefully and happilyenjoy themselves, as we all too easily prefer to delude ourselves that the world we havecreated is like. Rather, it shows a mother and child approaching the ‘Gardens of the Human
Condition’ with an expression of bewildered dread on the face of the mother, and in the case
of the child, wide-eyed shock. With this cartoon, Leunig has boldly revealed the truth thatwe humans have been a brutally angry, hateful, destructive, arrogant, egocentric, selfish,mad, lonely, unhappy and psychologically depressed species. He has people fighting, beatingand strangling each other, drunk out of their minds, depressed, lonely, crying, hiding andsuiciding, going mad and egocentrically holding forth—reflecting, in effect, every aspect ofthe human condition. And he has further highlighted the issue of the extreme imperfection ofour lives by identifying all this behaviour as actually being the issue of our human condition,labelling the park the ‘Gardens of the Human Condition’.
Even more exposing—and confronting—is his reference to ‘Gardens’, which suggests thatour behaviour now is an extremely corrupted version of an original, innocent, idyllic, preconscious and thus pre-human-condition-afflicted ‘Garden of Eden’ state that the Bible (andindeed all our mythologies) maintain our pre-conscious ancestors once lived in. If the humanrace has departed from a state of original innocence and we haven’t been able to explain whyit did, then it is no wonder we are insecure about the imperfection of human life now; theissue of the human condition would elicit unbearable condemnation for being such a mean,brutal and savagely behaved species now. And, in fact, what will be explained in Part 3:4 ofthis presentation is that there was a time before we became a fully conscious species whenwe were free of egocentricity, anger and alienation—a time of innocence before there waseven an issue called the human condition. And as a result, we do carry a very deep insecurityand resulting psychosis about our species’ current extremely imperfect, less-than-idealbehaviour—and because of that, we have lived in denial of the human condition.
The reality is it hasn’t been psychologically safe for humans to confront, admit andaddress the issue of the human condition until it could be explained and understood. So withthis cartoon Leunig broke all the rules. He bravely put the term ‘human condition’ up frontand centre, and honestly depicted it as relating to the bewildering mystery of the extremeimperfection of human life now—in fact, to the psychological anguish that our capacity foranger, selfishness, cruelty and meanness, our extraordinary capacity for ‘inhumanity’ towardseach other, has caused us, if we allowed ourselves to think about it.
The fact of the matter is we have lived in near total denial of not just the issue of thehuman condition, but any thoughts that even remotely brought it into focus. And we certainlyevaded the most difficult aspect of the human condition—how it relates to us personally, toour own imperfections, to the issue of ‘self ’.

Part 2:5

The Propositions

I should also say that not only is the human condition the most difficult of subjects forhumans to think about and look at because it involves self-confrontation, it is also a difficultsubject for humans to engage in because it is the area of enquiry where religion and science,faith and reason finally overlap. When our objective, scientific analysis of the mechanismsand workings of our world finally finds the insights that make it possible to explain thehuman condition, science at that moment enters the subjective domain of the human conditionwhere our spiritual faiths and beliefs have operated—reason and faith are finally reconciled.
Objectivity and subjectivity, materialism and spiritualism meet when the human condition isaddressed and explained, but this collision of two previously very separate domains can causegreat anxiety, about which more will be said later.
Involving as it does these difficulties of self-confrontation and the massive religionand-science-reconciling-paradigm-shift, it should not come as a surprise that the humancondition has been the most contentious of subjects—so contentious that some peopleeven believed it was a subject that could never, and should never, be opened up. The entryfor ‘sin’ in The Bible Reader’s Encyclopedia and Concordance, for instance, maintainsthat ‘The problem of the origin and universality of sin…is probably one of those problems whichthe human mind can never satisfactorily answer.’ The American spiritual teacher Ram Dass
held the same view in his 1977 book Grist for the Mill, when, in posing the question
‘Why did we [fall from grace] in the first place?’, he answered, ‘That is the question which isthe ultimate question [and] your subject-object mind can’t know the answer to that question.’ But
while the issue of the human condition has been so terrifying that some people believed itcould never be addressed, the truth is at some stage it had to be addressed and explainedfor there to be a future for the human race. To bring about the peaceful, integrated,environmentally considerate world we all seek we ultimately had to address and findunderstanding of our less-than-ideal, divisive competitive, aggressive, selfish nature—because without the reconciling, ameliorating explanation for why we humans havebeen divisively behaved the underlying insecurity about being divisively behaved wouldonly continue; humans would, in effect, be condemned to a life of perpetual insecurityand thus ever-increasing levels of upset, angry, divisive and destructive behaviour and,consequently, ever-increasing levels of deadening denial or alienation to cope with thehorror of that behaviour. Only the clarifying, dignifying, reconciling and redeemingbiological understanding of the dilemma of the human condition could heal the underlyinginsecurity of that condition and, by so doing, bring an end to all the devastation, distressand suffering in the world.
But until we were able to explain the human condition and thus lift ‘the burden of guilt’,reconcile ‘good’ and ‘evil’, make sense of the dark side of ourselves, explain why we becameso competitive, aggressive and selfish, we could not pacify our troubled nature, dismantleour psychosis; we would not feel, as it were, ‘welcomed back into God’s fold’, feel acceptedon Earth, feel understood and appreciated. We needed to find the reconciling, redeemingunderstanding of ourselves—and it is precisely that crucial, all-important understanding thatis going to be presented.
The overall point to be made here is that we humans have an unspeakable historyof greed, hatred, brutality, rape, torture, persecution, murder and war—a propensity fordeeds of shocking violence, depravity, indifference and cruelty. Despite all our marvellous

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
accomplishments, we humans have been the most ferocious and destructive force the worldhas ever known. And yet the very first proposition I’ll be making here is that what is goingto be revealed is that we humans are, in fact, not just fundamentally good, wonderful andworthwhile, but the absolute heroes of the story of life on Earth! So that’s the extremeparadox of the human condition that I am proposing we are going to make sense of: how wehumans are good, even divine beings, when we appear to be the complete opposite.

Cartoon by Michael Leunig, Melbourne’s The Age newspaper, 17 Mar. 1984

In yet another brilliant cartoon, Michael Leunig has succinctly dared to ask thisfundamental question of ‘What does the chaotic, traumatic and strife-torn life of humans allmean—how are we to make sense of our existence?’ He’s done so by placing a very perplexedand distressed gentleman behind an ‘understandascope’, through which he peers into a seaof apparent madness. Everywhere he looks there is tumultuous congestion: there are peoplefuriously arguing and fighting with each other; there is a church where people pray forforgiveness and salvation; and there are vehicles polluting the chaos with fumes and noise.
And, in this 1984 drawing Leunig even seems to have predicted a climactic demonstration ofall our human excesses and frustrations when, on September 11, 2001, terrorists flew planesinto the tall, square-shaped towers of the World Trade Center in New York City!

Part 2:5

The Propositions

Well, it is precisely this great mystery of ‘What is wrong with us humans?’—‘How arewe to understand it all?’—‘How are we to make sense of human existence?’—that is goingto be answered. The explanation to be given is the ‘UNDERSTANDASCOPE’ we have alwayswanted, needed and sought.
Indeed, the following picture of endless grey suburbia in California is just another exampleof what we need an ‘understandascope’ to make sense of, for it depicts the apparent destiny of
trekkerimages- stock.adobe.com
the world—I suggest—since California sits at the cutting edge of supposed world progress.

An article from TIME magazine (2 Nov. 2009) bears out these fears. The cover features theheading, ‘Why California is still America’s Future’, underneath which the editors have added theaside ‘and that’s a good thing too’ in brackets. This subtext has seemingly been included becausearguing ‘Why California is still America’s Future’ leaves the reader thinking, ‘Well, if Californiais at the cutting edge of development and progress, and it is in dire straits, then surely that is aterrifying prospect for us all.’ To avoid that reaction the editors evidently realised they needed toadd a pre-emptive, ‘No, no, what we’re trying to say is that it is going to be a positive story.’
Despite the article’s positive spin, about cutting edge developments, like cleantechnologies, being pioneered in California, it does begin with some honesty: ‘California, youmay have heard, is an apocalyptic mess, soaring unemployment, mass foreclosures and political paralysis.
It’s dysfunctional. It’s ungovernable. Its bond rate is barely above junk…The media portray Californiaas a noir fantasyland of over-crowded schools, perpetual droughts, celebrity breakdowns, illegalimmigration, hellish congestion and general malaise.’ It also mentions ‘California’s wipeout economy’
[‘Why California Is Still America’s Future (And That’s a Good Thing Too)’, Michael Grunwald, TIME mag. 2 Nov. 2009].

While the article goes on to paint a positive picture, its descriptions of an end play situationunfolding in California are closer to the truth. Shortly, however, when the human conditionis explained, it will become apparent why we have always had to maintain a positive, bravefront—for deep within the human make-up, there is an intuitive belief that one day we would beable to find the liberating, redeeming and totally TRANSFORMING understanding of ourselvesand although the situation became more and more desperate each day, we have always had tocling onto that hope, keep believing in a positive outcome for the human race.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

This situation of needing to find that much hoped-for redeeming understanding of thehuman condition before we destroyed ourselves and our planet was perfectly summarisedby the Australian journalist Richard Neville, when he wrote that ‘The world is hurtling tocatastrophe: from nuclear horrors, a wrecked ecosystem, 20 million dead each year from malnutrition, 600million chronically hungry…All these crises are man made, their causes are psychological. The cures mustcome from this same source; which means the planet needs psychological maturity…fast. We are lockedin a race between self destruction and self discovery’ (Good Weekend mag. Sydney Morning Herald, 14 Oct. 1986).

This is a precise description of the situation the human race has been in—we have been ‘lockedin a race between self destruction and self discovery.’

Catch phrases of our time such as ‘self-discovery’, ‘human potential’ and ‘self-esteem’stress this yearning for psychological maturity, self-realisation and self-justification, but theability to appreciate and love ourselves ultimately depended on being able to understandourselves—discover why we have been less than ideally behaved, in fact capable of horrificatrocities.
So while these cartoons and news articles provide some indication of the dire straits theworld is in, it is the ability to turn this dire situation into one where all the problems facedby the world are solved through finding redeeming understanding of the human condition
(as we have always hoped, even at the eleventh hour, that they would be) that is the basis ofthe next proposition.

The Second Proposition is that the seemingly hopeless situation facing the human race isgoing to suddenly be made entirely hopeful, in fact incredibly exciting.
Improved forms of management such as better laws, better politics and bettereconomics—and better self-management, such as new ways of disciplining, organising,motivating or even transcending our troubled natures—have all failed to end the marchtowards ever greater levels of devastation and unhappiness. Indeed, as the article on
California illustrated, we have entered an end play or end game situation on Earth where theplanet cannot absorb any further devastation from the effects of our behaviour, nor can thehuman body for that matter endure any more debilitating stress and alienation.
Clearly only a change at the fundamental level of human behaviour can redeem thesituation, save us from the prospect of terminal destruction. The following are some quotes
I would like to read to you along those lines—that we need a fundamental change, that onlya fundamental change can make a difference, because without the dignifying, reconciling,redeeming biological insight into our species’ good-and-evil-afflicted condition, humanitywould forever remain, as it has been, besieged and stalled by the distress of that condition,rapidly festering—dying in fact.

Part 2:5

The Propositions

The first quote comes from the British historian Eric Hobsbawm described the starkpredicament facing humanity when he wrote that ‘The alternative to a changed society—isdarkness’ (Age of Extremes, 1994). The 1991 film Separate but Equal also accurately articulated our
plight as a species through the dialogue of one character: ‘Struggling between two worlds; onedead, the other powerless to be born’—words which echo those of the Italian philosopher Antonio

Gramsci: ‘The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in thisinterregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appears’ (Prison Notebooks, written during Gramsci’s 10-yearimprisonment under Mussolini, 1927–1937).

Yes, until understanding of the human condition was found we were ‘powerless’ tochange our society—‘the new cannot be born’. The Australian politician Lionel Bowenalluded to the futility of trying to reform our lives and world without first finding theameliorating understanding of ourselves when he said, ‘I think it’s just impossible to bringabout change until such time as some new civilisation develops to allow change’ (Sydney Morning Herald,
10 Sept. 1988).

Only a whole new way of thinking, in particular the reconciling, redeeming and healingway of understanding ourselves, and resulting new TRANSFORMED civilisation could alterour species’ plight. We had arrived at a situation where humanity desperately needed clearbiological understanding of ourselves, understanding that would make sense of our divisivecondition and liberate us from criticism, lift the psychological burden of guilt, give usmeaning. There had to be a scientific, first-principle-based, biological reason for our divisivebehaviour and finding it had become a matter of great urgency. The ‘race’ that Richard Nevilleso accurately identified we were ‘locked in…between self destruction and self discovery’ hadreached crisis point.
Stranded in a state of insecurity about our worthiness or otherwise was to be strandedin a terminally upset, psychologically immature state of arrested development, as Benjamin
Disraeli, the Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1868 and again from 1874-1880, recognised,
‘Stranded halfway between ape and angel is no place to stop.’ The Anglo-Irish essayist Jonathan

Swift’s anguished cry to ‘Not die here in a rage, like a poisoned rat in a hole’ (Letter to Bolingbroke,
21 Mar. 1729)
did not exaggerate the truth of our species’ plight. The Spanish cellist Pablo

Casals similarly emphasised the danger of our stalled state when he said, ‘The situationis hopeless, we must take the next step’ (at a press conference in Madrid, on the occasion of his 80th [approx.]birthday). The Australian journalist Doug Anderson made the same point when he said, ‘Time
may well be dwindling for us to enlighten ourselves…Tragic to die of thirst half a yard from the well’
(Sydney Morning Herald, 31 Oct. 1994). In saying ‘enlighten ourselves’, Anderson was intimating that
only understanding ourselves, understanding the human condition no less, could make thedifference that was needed. In quoting clinical psychologist Maureen O’Hara, the science

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
reporter Richard Eckersley acknowledged that ‘humanity is either standing on the brink of “aquantum leap in human psychological capabilities or heading for a global nervous breakdown”’ (Valuesand Visions: Western Culture and Humanity’s Future, Address by Richard Eckersley, Nov. 1995; Accessed 11 Nov. 2009:see <www.wtmsources.com/133>). I think I like this last quote best of them all, but all express the
seriousness of the situation.
It is precisely this ‘enlightenment’ of ‘ourselves’ that makes possible a ‘quantum leap inhuman psychological capabilities’ that I’m asserting is going to be presented—yes, finding
understanding of the human condition is the real game-changer the human race has beenwaiting for, such that when only yesterday the levels of human suffering and distressand anger and environmental degradation from the effects of our horrifically troubled,upset human condition seemed irredeemable and irreversible, and all looked hopeless,suddenly people are going to appear who are inspired and TRANSFORMED, so inspired and
TRANSFORMED in fact they are super-charged on a super-highway to a fabulous future for
the human race.

The Third Proposition is that once the incredible opportunity to be TRANSFORMEDto a state free of the horror of the human condition (which understanding of the humancondition at last makes possible) catches on, support for this WORLD TRANSFORMATION
MOVEMENT will sweep the world and carry all before it. In fact, so quick and complete will
be the change from a world of conflict and suffering to a world of peace and happiness thatit will seem instant—as if one day the human race is living in a state of immense turmoil,bewildering confusion and utter despair and the next day it’s all over: an entirely newpeaceful world will have emerged.

The Fourth Proposition is that in the future all schooling will begin with the basicpresentation that is going to be given today—and all classes and grades thereafter will simplykeep fleshing out the concept, as we will also begin to do today. So instead of lots of differentsubjects, all information will be integrated under one subject: explanation of the humancondition. Instead of learning apparently unrelated subjects like mathematics and history andchemistry and spelling, all knowledge will be taught in the context of the human condition;it will be about understanding ourselves and our world, and be presented in a structured,authentic way, beginning with who we humans are. All knowledge will be integrated properly.
We will have a consilience or reconciliation of all knowledge.

Part 2:5

The Propositions

The Fifth Proposition is that this information will make sense of and reconcile all theopposites in the human situation. It will reconcile:
—‘good’ and ‘evil’

—the integrative and the divisive

—yin and yang

—the ‘Godly’ and the ‘unGodly’

—light and dark

—the secure and the insecure

—idealism and realism

—the sound and the alienated

—instinct and intellect

—the honest and the dishonest

—‘I feel’ and ‘I think’

—the natural and the artificial

—soul and mind

—the non-sexual and the sexual

—heart and head

—the financially poor and financially rich

—emotion and reason

—the spiritually rich and spiritually poor

—conscience and conscious

—spiritualism and materialism

—ignorance and wisdom

—young and old

—the pure and the corrupted

—the unresigned and the resigned

—the innocent and the guilty

—women and men

—the happy and the upset

—blacks and whites

—the light-hearted and heavy-hearted

—religion and science

—the unembattled and the heroic

—instinctualism and intellectualism

—the selfless and the selfish

—holism/teleology and mechanism/reductionism

—altruism and egotism

—left-wing and right-wing

—the cooperative and the competitive

—socialism and capitalism

—the gentle and the aggressive

—country and city

—the loving and the hateful

And we could go on. Basically all the duality of the human situation, all the poles of thehuman condition, will be reconciled by this explanation. This is because when understandingof the human condition is found, as you are about to discover it now has been, it is as thougha great impasse in the human journey of conscious thought and enquiry has been breached,allowing access to an absolute flood of answers to all the fundamental questions we humanshave been asking since time immemorial about ourselves and our world—in particular:
‘Does God exist and if so what exactly is God and why does he allow suffering, and whyis he referred to as male, and why are we all equal before his eyes; what does our existenceall mean; why was I born; what is the point and purpose of our lives; what are we doing on

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Earth; who are we and where are we going; what is the meaning of existence; what is “life”and how did it begin; what is our soul, how did we acquire it, and what has happened to it;did the human race once live in a Garden of Eden innocent state and, if so, why did we haveto leave it, and most importantly how can we return to it; where does our moral sense orconscience come from; what is consciousness, intelligence and thought; are we shaped bynature or by nurture; how are men and women different; why do we fall in love; how do weexplain sex as humans practice it; what is our sense of humour based on; why do we live suchsuperficial, artificial, material lives; why is there so much loneliness, suffering, unhappiness,inequality and hunger and will they ever end; can we ever become truly moral beings; whatcauses human alienation, aggression, selfishness, competitiveness, envy, greed, hate, lust andegocentricity; how do we explain the dark side of human nature, or, in religious terms, what isthe origin of ‘sin’, how do we explain the existence of ‘good and evil’ in the world, and is thisduality in the human make-up going to continue forever; what does “left” and “right” wing inpolitics actually mean, and why do we have politics; why are people racist, sexist and elitist;why are children neglected the world over; why wars and will they ever stop; why did thosepeople fly those planes into those buildings; why are humans religious and were prophetssuch as Christ humans like everyone else and, if so, why did they become so revered and evendeified; what happens and where will I go when I die, and why do I have to die; what andwhere is “heaven” and “hell”; and are questions of “will the world and even the universe endand if so how” meaningful?’ And as astonishing as it sounds, all these questions, and manymore, are going to be answered and explained in first-principle-based, scientific, biologicalterms in the presentation you are about to hear.
So, the overall submission is that over the course of the next two hours or so we are goingto introduce an understanding that will TRANSFORM the lives of all humans, the effects ofwhich:

❏
❏
❏
❏
will transform the world for its complete bettermentwill bring complete hope to what can seem hopelessgives rise to a movement that will sweep the worldwill introduce a new paradigm of understanding around which all knowledge can be
integrated

❏
will reconcile all the opposites in the human situation
As I said, I will return to these propositions at the end of this presentation to see if you
agree with each one.

WTM Patron Tim Macartney-Snape will now give you some background information
about the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT.

Part 2:6

Brief history of the World Transformation Movement

Part 2:6 Brief history of the World Transformation Movement, by Tim
Macartney-Snape
As I mentioned, Jeremy Griffith is an Australian biologist and the author of many booksand publications about the human condition, the subject that has previously been described as

Published writings by Jeremy Griffith
(All these publications are freely available on the WTM website to be read or printed.)

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Tim Macartney-Snape AM OAM, the first Australian to climb Mount Everest,on 3 Oct. 1984, and is seen here holding our WTM flag on the summit in hissecond successful assent of Everest in 1990. In this picture we have photoshopped in our new flag to replace our original ‘key-held-aloft’ WTM flag that
Tim actually held, which you can see in the bottom-left inset.

So while I’m known for climbing mountains—this photo from my 1990 Sea to Summitascent of Everest is a self-portrait of me holding the banner of the Foundation for Humanity’s
Adulthood (FHA) that gave rise to the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT—Jeremyis renowned for scaling far more difficult and, in truth, treacherous terrain, the mountainsof the mind. In Part 5 of this presentation Jeremy will explain how he has managed to doso, however, in the interim I think it will help everyone to know something of Jeremy’sbackground and the initiatives he was predominantly involved in that led to the establishmentof the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT.
Jeremy, his brother Simon and other members of the FHA/WTM, including myself, are allbeneficiaries of the influence of the soul-rather-than-intellect-cultivating, Platonic, educationsystem established by Australia’s greatest ever educator, Sir James Darling, at Geelong
Grammar School in Victoria—the school that the future King of England, HRH The Prince of
Wales, was sent to the other side of the world to attend for part of his education.
Jeremy was born on the 1st of December 1945 and raised on a sheep station in central
New South Wales. He was a student at Geelong Grammar School some ten years before me,so we didn’t meet until 1987 when I became fascinated with Jeremy’s thinking about thatgreatest of all mysteries of the human condition.

Part 2:6

Brief history of the World Transformation Movement

Jeremy played a lot of rugby union football in his earlier days and in 1967, prior tocompleting his biology degree at Sydney University in 1971, he made the trials for the nationalside, the Wallabies (see <www.humancondition.com/jeremy-rugby>). This is a photo of threeplayers from the New South Wales Country Week Rugby Carnival at Newcastle in 1967 whowere chosen as having prospects for national selection. Jeremy is in the middle. On his right is
Hugh Rose, who did go on to play for Australia and later became headmaster of Toowoomba
Grammar School in Queensland. Bob Grant is on the left; he went on to become headmasterof Shore school in Sydney.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Over a six-year period in the late 1960s and early 1970s Jeremy undertook the mostthorough search ever conducted for the now believed to be extinct Thylacine or Tasmanian
Tiger, the extraordinary marsupial equivalent of the wolf. The tiger’s jaws were capable ofthis incredible gape.

This is some rare black and white footage of ‘Benjamin’, the last known tiger who died in
Tasmania’s Hobart Zoo in 1936.

Part 2:6

Brief history of the World Transformation Movement

Setting off with nothing but his own enthusiasm, initiative and ingenuity—as these next

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

In time his efforts began to draw a lot of support, in particular from James Malley and
Bob Brown, who appear on the right in this photograph. Bob of course went on to found andlead the Australian Green Party in Australian politics.

In 1972 Natural History, the official publication of the American Museum of Natural
History, published a story written by Jeremy about his search for the Tasmanian Tiger—andin 1973 an episode in the highly regarded Australian television series A Big Country wasshown about Jeremy’s tiger-seeking adventures in Tasmania. For a more detailed accountof Jeremy’s remarkable search for the Tasmanian Tiger, go to <www.humancondition.com/tasmanian-tiger-search>.

An article by Jeremy Griffith in Natural History,the magazine of The American Museum of Natural History, Dec. 1972

Part 2:6

Brief history of the World Transformation Movement

In 1973, after reaching the sad conclusion that the tiger was indeed extinct, Jeremy beganmanufacturing furniture to his own natural designs. Not only was it Jeremy’s ideas about thehuman condition that first attracted me, it was also the simplicity and remarkable ingenuityof his furniture. In fact all the furniture in this theatre is from Jeremy’s Griffith Tablecraft

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Griffith Tablecraft advertisements that appeared in home decorating magazines

When Jeremy sold his interest in the business in 1991 it had a staff of some 45 people andhis extraordinary pole framed workshop and showroom complex was one of the major touristattractions on the north coast of New South Wales. For a more detailed account of Jeremy’ssuccessful furniture business, go to <www.humancondition.com/griffith-tablecraft>.

Part 2:6

Brief history of the World Transformation Movement

Jeremy began writing about the human condition in 1975 and he has steadfastlycontinued his practice of writing about the subject (which he does in the early hours ofthe morning) to the present (which at the time of recording this presentation is late 2009).
This means there are some 35 years of intense work behind the ideas that Jeremy will bepresenting today.
In 1983 Jeremy established the Centre for Humanity’s Adulthood for the study of thehuman condition. Jeremy had to establish his own institution because, as he will explain inhis presentation, the strategy of conventional mechanistic, reductionist science has been toavoid, not confront, the issue of the human condition. In 1991 the Centre was incorporated asthe Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood (FHA), of which I am a founding Director and nowa Patron. The FHA, now the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT (WTM), is a non-profitorganisation with the aims, as set out in its memorandum of association, of ‘understanding the

""" The Rising Sun """
Founding Members of the World Transformation Movement behind Norman and Jill Griffith’s Memorial Tree, Sydney, 13 December 2008
L to R: Back Row: Sean Makim*, Jοhn Bіggs, Tim Macartney-Snape, Will Salter, Tony Gowing, Sam Belfield, Neil Duns, Anna Fitzgerald,
Anthony Cummins, Tess Watson, Anthony Landahl. 3rd Row: Monica Kodet, Prue Watson, Andy Colquhoun*, James Press, Tony Miall, Ken
Miall, Richard Biggs, Pete Storey, Connor FitzGerald, Εmmα Cullen-Ward, Nick Shaw, Lee Jones, James West, Eric Cοοke, Tim Watson.
2nd Row: Felicity Jackson, Fiona Cullen-Ward, Marie McNamara*, Damon Isherwood, Ali Watson, Anna Zilioli*, Stirling West, Susan
Armstrong, Polly Watson, Doug Lobban, Dave Downie*, Sally Edgar, Charlotte James, Manus McFadyen, Annabel Armstrong, Genevieve Salter,
Marcus Rowell. Front Row: Katrina Makim*, Simon Griffith, Jeremy Griffith, Annie Williams, Lachlan Colquhoun, Anthony Clarke, Wendy
Skelton, Brony FitzGerald, Prue Westbrook, Sarah Colquhoun*, Liz Collins, Sam Collins, Amanda Purdy*, Stacy Rodger, Simon Mackintosh*.
Also present in spirit, our adored Founding Member Rachel O’Brien. (*Supporter or Friend of the WTM.)
For profiles of the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT’S founding members,visit <www.humancondition.com/memberprofiles>.

The WTM is based in Sydney where we have a long-standing foundation membership ofsome 50 individuals supporting the activities of the WTM on a full time basis.
Although it is the underlying issue in all human affairs, and the issue that had to beaddressed for there to be a future for the human race, the issue of the human condition is

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
an extremely difficult subject for humans to face. As Jeremy mentioned earlier in Part 2:3,it has been described as ‘the black box inside of humans that they can’t go near’! The problemat the end of the day is that it is the subject of ‘self ’. Furthermore, not only is the humancondition the most difficult of subjects for humans to think about and look at because itis the issue of ‘self ’, it is also the area of enquiry where religion and science, faith andreason—the ideal values of life and our enquiry into those values and our species’ lack ofcompliance with them—finally overlap.
For these reasons the human condition is the most contentious of subjects with manypeople believing it is a subject that can never and should never be opened up. But despitethe resistance our work has encountered because of its extremely confronting nature, it is, as
I said, the all-important issue that had to be addressed and explained for there to be a futurefor the human race.
The South African philosopher Sir Laurens van der Post has been the greatest influencein Jeremy’s work. This is a photo of Sir Laurens with Jeremy and me when we visited him in
London in 1993. Sir Laurens once said, ‘We really know nothing about the nature of man, and unlesswe hurry to get to know ourselves we are in dangerous trouble’ (Jung and the Story of Our Time, 1976, p.239 of
275). What
you are about to hear is precisely this all-important missing knowledge about the

Jeremy Griffith and Tim Macartney-Snape with Sir Laurens van der Postin London in 1993, a few years before Sir Laurens’ death in 1996

The purpose of the Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood was to lay the foundationfor a human-condition-reconciled new world for the human race—basically to endurethe inevitable initial onslaught of resistance to having this most contentious of allsubjects of the human condition opened up. With that stage now completed after someextremely harrowing experiences, it becomes appropriate to take understanding of thehuman condition to the next stage of actually ameliorating or healing that condition. For

Part 2:6

Brief history of the World Transformation Movement

49
this next stage, the FHA has this year, 2009 (at the time of filming), become the WORLD
TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT.

As Jeremy will explain, the human condition—this issue of ‘good and evil’ in ourhuman make-up—has long seemed inexplicable: how can we possibly make sense of thebewildering confusion of paradoxes in our human make-up or condition, especially thequestion of ‘good and evil’? But it is the answer to this supposedly inexplicable dilemma

I would like to close my introduction with this simple analogy, which serves as anaccurate metaphor for untangling the human condition. This is one of my climbing ropes,which has been coiled in a way that makes it easy to undo, but, nevertheless, when it is lyingin a heap like this it looks like a mess that you could never hope to untangle. In fact onceyou find the unlocking start point, which I have here, it all easily unravels as if by magic. Sothe inference is, that by finding the unlocking point of the seemingly impenetrable humansituation it too will easily unravel.

You are going to be absolutely amazed by what you are about to hear, by the power ofthe idea to make sense of our human situation. It is truly the ultimate information arriving toyou via the ultimate communication technology of the internet, and at the ultimate time forhumanity—no one can disagree with the fact that it’s desperately needed.
What you are about to hear is going to change the world.
_______________________
I will now hand you back over to Jeremy to explain his biological understandings ofthe human condition that, as the subtext to our movement’s name states, ‘ends our species’underlying psychosis and transforms the human race’.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Jeremy, before you start I think it would be a good idea to show people something of thesimplicity, originality and freshness of your furniture designs. It will give people an insight

Jeremy Griffith: This is a carver chair because it has armrests. Like all my designs, thischair is designed as simply as possible. After seasoning the slabbed logs in a solar kiln thatwe built, we took the biggest and best slabs to make the tables and we progressively sliced theother slabs up into multiples of the thickness of the basic slab. So that’s a single thickness onthe legs, that’s a double thickness on the sides, there’s triple thickness in the sides of loungesand so forth—so all the parts are multiples of this one thickness—so it’s very simple. Thereare no curves, carving, molding or turning, there’s no glue, or nails or screws—it’s all dryjointed and simply put together with pegs. So this leather backrest just slides off and it allcomes apart. The seat cushion slides off it like that. These are slats tied on to the frame thatthe seat slides over. The frame is held together by what is called a Spanish windlass, which isa twitched rope, which is very powerful. Then it all packs up into these squares.
So that’s a carver chair. Over here is a side chair, which is even simpler. A chair is thehardest part in a range of furniture to design but we made sideboards, book cases—there’s asmall one there—tables; we made the full range of furniture all based on this simple idea ofdry joints and straight, clean pieces of wood.
I might just say that trying to save a threatened—well, tragically now extinct—speciesand trying to build a range of furniture that is simple and free of escapist, materialisticornamentation and embellishment was all very well, but I came to realise there was a much,much deeper and far more serious issue and problem to address in the world, and that is: why arewe humans so destructive and needing such escapist, materialistic embellishment in our lives?
So these are the very profound and serious questions that we are going to be dealing with next.

Part 3
The Human Condition Explained
Parts 3 onwards are by Jeremy Griffith

Part 3:1 The agony of the human condition
Here on Earth some of the most complex arrangements of matter in the known universehave come into existence. Life, in all its incredible diversity and richness, developed. And,by virtue of our mind, the human species must surely represent the culmination of this grandexperiment of nature we call life. As far as we can detect, our species is the first organismto have developed the fully conscious ability to sufficiently understand and thus manage therelationship between cause and effect to wrest management of our lives from our instincts,and even to reflect upon our existence. In a world ravaged by strife it is easy to lose sightof the utter magnificence of what we are; yes, the human mind must be nature’s mostastonishing creation.
One of the greatest demonstrations of this intellectual brilliance was sending three ofour kind to the Moon and back. How far we have come. But what a state our world is in.
Despite our magnificent capabilities and capacity for immense love and sensitivity, levelsof personal and environmental wellbeing are at unprecedented lows. Every day brings withit startling evidence of the turmoil of the human situation. Michael Leunig’s exceptionallyhonest cartoons that were included in Part 2:5 revealed something of the real horror of ourhuman situation. The truth is we have an unspeakable history of greed, hatred, brutality,rape, torture, persecution, murder and war—a propensity for deeds of shocking violence,depravity, indifference and cruelty. Conflict between individuals, races, cultures andcountries abounds; there is genocide, terrorism, mass displacement of peoples, starvation,runaway diseases, environmental devastation, gross inequality, racial and gender oppression,crime, drug abuse, obesity, family breakdown and epidemic levels of depression,unhappiness and loneliness. And an exploding world population is rapidly exacerbating allof these problems.
Try as we might to deny it, behind every wondrous scientific discovery, artisticexpression and compassionate act lies the shadow of humanity’s darker accomplishment asundoubtedly the most ferocious and destructive force that has ever lived on Earth. And, as Iemphasised earlier, improved forms of management such as better laws, better politics andbetter economics—and better self-management, such as new ways of disciplining, organising,motivating or even transcending our troubled natures—have all failed to end the marchtowards ever greater levels of devastation and unhappiness.
So, unable to cope with the truth of the extent and seriousness of our destruction ofthe world around us and within us, we humans have had no choice but to live in denial ofit. We had to, as we say, ‘put on a brave face’, ‘keep our chin up’, ‘stay positive’, ‘keepup appearances’, ‘keep calm and carry on’, etc, etc. This delusion sustained us but it also

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
blinded us to the true extent of the devastation about and within us. We are unable to see theseriousness of the situation—see that the human race is entering end play or end game, wherethe Earth cannot absorb any further devastation from the effects of our behaviour, nor thehuman body cope with any more debilitating stress, or, most particularly, our mind endure anymore psychosis and neurosis or our soul any more alienation.
In recent times environmental issues have dominated our concerns, but we have onlybeen focusing on the symptoms. To fix all the runaway problems we are surrounded with—infact, to stop the destruction of our world and the disintegration of society that is happeningeverywhere we look—we have to fix the cause of the problems, which is us humans. We arethe problem: our out-of-control egocentric, selfish, competitive and aggressive behaviour. Theunderlying real question that had to be answered if we humans were ever to find relieving,redeeming, healing understanding of ourselves was ‘why have we humans been the way wehave been, less than ideally behaved, in fact capable of horrific atrocities?’
The fact is, the greatest of all paradoxes has been the riddle of human nature. As has beenemphasised, we humans are capable of immense love and sensitivity but we have also beencapable of shocking acts of atrocity. This duality of what has historically been referred to as
‘good’ and ‘evil’ has troubled the human mind since we first became fully conscious, thinkingbeings: are humans essentially ‘good’ and, if so, what is the cause of our ‘evil’, destructive,insensitive and cruel side? The eternal question has been why ‘evil’? In metaphysical religiousterms, what is ‘the origin of sin’? More generally, if the universally accepted ideals are to becooperative, loving and selfless—ideals that have been accepted by modern civilisations asthe foundations for constitutions and laws and by the founders of all the great religions asthe basis of their teachings—then why are humans competitive, aggressive and selfish? Doesour inconsistency with the ideals mean we are essentially bad? Are we a flawed species, amistake—or are we possibly divine beings?
The agony of being unable to truthfully answer this question of why we are the way weare, divisively instead of cooperatively behaved, has been the particular burden of humanlife. It has been our species’ particular affliction or condition—our ‘human condition’. (Note,the reason I said we have been unable to truthfully answer the question of why we havebeen divisively behaved is because we have frequently used the excuse that we humans arecompetitive, aggressive and selfish because of our animal heritage; that we have savageanimal instincts that make us fight and compete for food, shelter, territory and a mate. Ofcourse, this cannot be the real reason for our divisive behaviour because descriptions of ourhuman behaviour, such as egocentric, arrogant, deluded, optimistic, pessimistic, artificial,hateful, mean, immoral, guilty, evil, depressed, inspired, psychotic, alienated, all recognisethat our species’ unique fully conscious thinking mind is involved in our behaviour—thatthere is a psychological dimension to our behaviour. We have suffered from the humancondition, not the animal condition.)
Good or bad, loving or hateful, angels or devils, constructive or destructive, sensitive orinsensitive: what are we? Throughout history we humans have struggled to find meaning inthe awesome contradiction of our human condition. Neither philosophy nor psychology norbiology has, until now, been able to provide a truthful, clarifying explanation. For their part,religious assurances such as ‘God loves you’ may have provided temporary comfort but failed

Part 3:2

The biological explanation of the human condition

53
to explain WHY we are lovable. So, yes, WHY are we lovable? How could we be good whenall the evidence seems to unequivocally indicate that we are a deeply flawed, bad, even evilspecies? What is the answer to this question of questions, this problem of ‘good and evil’ inthe human make-up, this dilemma of the human condition? What caused humans to becomedivisively behaved and, most importantly, how is this divisive behaviour ever going to bebrought to an end?

Part 3:2 The accountable, true biological explanation of the human condition
Before presenting the fully accountable and thus true biological explanation of thehuman condition it should again be mentioned that in 2012 the American biologist Edward
(E.) O. Wilson published a book titled The Social Conquest of Earth in which he claimed tohave explained the human condition. As is fully described later in Part 4:12I, this ‘Theory of
Eusociality’ (as E.O. Wilson has termed this so-called explanation of the human condition)doesn’t truthfully explain the human condition at all, rather it attempts to nullify and dismissit as nothing more than a conflict between supposed selfish and selfless instincts withinhumans. Unlike the explanation of the human condition that is about to be given, it is not aprofound, fully accountable, truthful, real explanation of the psychological dilemma involvedin the human condition but a completely false—indeed fake—superficial trivialisation ofthe subject. As will be documented, all our mythologies, religious teachings, influentialthinkers and great writers have recognised, our human condition arises from a consciousnessderived-and-induced psychological insecurity about our fundamental worth and goodness—something this new theory of Eusociality doesn’t even acknowledge, which is, of course,its great appeal; it says, in effect, ‘There is no great underlying insecurity and resultingpsychosis and neurosis involved in our so-called human condition, we simply have selfish andselfless instincts that are sometimes at odds.’ With this interpretation, the human conditionis rendered benign, virtually inconsequential, which is, of course, immensely relieving, but,nevertheless, an escapist lie. As will be described in Part 4:12, in devising such theories as
Social Darwinism, Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, Multilevel Selection and now
Eusociality, mechanistic/reductionist science has become masterful at finding new waysto avoid the true, deeply troubled, insecure, fearful, real psychological issue of our humancondition. But the reality is the human condition is far from a benign, inconsequential subjectfor us humans—it has been a profoundly deep, extremely dark and fearful, indeed terrifying,psychological issue, and it is this truthful deep, dark, historically terrifying real humancondition that is now going to be properly confronted, explained, reconciled and permanentlyhealed. Real understanding, and, with it, real love, is going to be brought to our humansituation. Dishonest, dismissive, escapist denials of the true nature of our species’ uniquecondition have got the human race nowhere; what we needed was the truth about ourselves—but it had to be the full, compassionate truth, and that is what is about to be presented. Theunderlying psychosis in human life is finally going to be compassionately fully explained and,by so doing, ameliorated—with the result that human life will be wonderfully TRANSFORMED,as was always the expectation of what would happen when our human condition was finallytruthfully and thus properly understood.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

I am going to start this fully accountable, truthful, penetrating explanation of our real,psychologically upset human condition with a very simple idea and then keep fleshing it out.
What I suggest will happen is that it will gradually become more and more apparent that thisexplanation really is the unlocking insight into our human behaviour—the key to makingsense of this deepest and darkest issue within ourselves of our less-than-ideally-behaved,good-and-evil-afflicted, seemingly highly imperfect, supposedly ‘evil’ human condition; and,following that, that it is the key to understanding all of our human world; and, beyond that,the insight needed to ameliorate or heal our psychologically troubled lives.
Before doing so, however, I should reiterate that the great mystery of our species’destructive behaviour has seemed to some to be a mystery that could never be explained. Forinstance, the entry for ‘sin’ in The Bible Reader’s Encyclopedia and Concordance maintainsthat ‘The problem of the origin and universality of sin…is probably one of those problems which thehuman mind can never satisfactorily answer.’ But while the real, psychological issue of the human
condition has seemed inexplicable and thus unapproachable to many people, it should beremembered that although the question of the origin of the variety of life on Earth was afar less confronting subject to have to look into than the issue of the human condition, ittoo seemed inexplicable before Charles Darwin explained it; even he described it as havingbeen ‘that mystery of mysteries’ (The Origin of Species, 1859, p.65 of 476). Indeed, prior to finding theirexplanation, many mysteries can seem overwhelmingly difficult to explain, but certainly nonehave been as difficult to unlock as the psychological dilemma of our human condition.
Ironically, however, another common trait of mysteries is that often their answer, whenfinally found, is amazingly simple—despite the difficulties encountered in actually reaching it.
In the case of the concept of natural selection it was, in hindsight, such a simple explanationthat when the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley first heard it he was prompted to exclaim,
‘How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that!’ (The Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Leonard
Huxley, Vol.1, 1900, p.170). Throughout history simplicity has been a hallmark of insightful thought.

As the pioneering biologist Allan Savory once observed, ‘whenever there has been a majorinsoluble problem for mankind, the answer, when finally found, has always been very simple’ (Holistic
Resource Management, 1988). The biographer George Seaver also made this point in his biography
of the theologian, missionary and physician Albert Schweitzer: ‘Naturalness. That is the keynoteof Schweitzer’s thought, life, and personality. The ultimate thought, the thought which holds the clue tothe riddle of life’s meaning and mystery, must be the simplest thought conceivable, the most natural, themost elemental, and therefore also the most profound’ (Albert Schweitzer The Man and His Mind, 1947, p.311).

So while the crux question facing the human race of the nature of ‘good and evil’ has alwaysseemed inexplicable, it too has an amazingly simple answer. The implications, however, ofthis explanation could not be more significant, far-reaching or exciting.
In presenting the explanation, an analogy involving migrating storks is helpful. (Thefollowing picture of The Story of Adam Stork depicts this analogy.)
Many bird species are perfectly orientated to instinctive migratory flight paths. Eachwinter, without ever ‘learning’ where to go and without knowing why, they quit theirestablished breeding grounds and migrate to warmer feeding grounds. They then returneach summer and so the cycle continues. Over the course of thousands of generations andmigratory movements, only those birds that happened to have a genetic make-up that inclined

Part 3:2

The biological explanation of the human condition

55
them to follow the right route survived. Thus, through natural selection, they acquired their

The Story of Adam Stork

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 1991 Fedmex Pty Ltd
instinctive orientation.

Consider a flock of migrating storks returning to their summer breeding roosts on therooftops of Europe from their winter feeding grounds in southern Africa. Suppose in theinstinct-controlled brain of one of them we place a fully conscious mind (I call this stork
Adam, because we will soon see that this story parallels the Biblical account in Genesis of
Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden). So, as Adam Stork flies north he spots an island off tothe left with a tree laden with apples. Using his newly acquired conscious mind, Adam thinks,
‘I should fly down and eat some apples.’ It seems a reasonable thought but he can’t know if

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
it is a good decision or not until he acts on it. For Adam’s new thinking mind to make senseof the world he has to learn by trial and error and so he decides to carry out his first grandexperiment in self-management by flying down to the island and sampling the apples.
But it’s not that simple. As soon as Adam deviates from his established migratory path,his instinctive self tries to pull him back on course. In effect, it criticises him for veering offcourse; it condemns his search for understanding. All of a sudden Adam is in a dilemma. Ifhe obeys his instinctive self and flies back on course, he will remain perfectly orientated buthe’ll never learn if his deviation was the right decision or not. All the messages he’s receivingfrom within inform him that obeying his instincts is good, is right, but there’s also a newinclination to disobey, a defiance of instinct. Diverting from his course will result in applesand understanding, yet he already sees that doing so will also make him feel bad.
Uncomfortable with the criticism his newly conscious mind or intellect is receivingfrom his instinctive self, Adam’s first response is to ignore the temptation the apples presentand fly back on course. This makes his instinctive self happy and wins back the approval ofhis fellow storks, for not having conscious minds they are innocent, unaware or ignorant ofthe conscious mind’s need to search for knowledge. In the drawing above, we see Adam’swide-eyed innocent instinctive self (and the other storks), represented by the stork on theright, demanding Adam’s conscious thinking self, depicted on the left, fly back on course.
The instinct-obedient stork is following the flight path past the island. Further, since Adam’sinstinctive self developed alongside the natural world, it too reminded him of his instinctiveorientation, in effect, contributing to the criticism of Adam for his rebellious decision.
Flying on, however, Adam realises he can’t deny his intellect. Sooner or later he must findthe courage to master his conscious mind by carrying out experiments in understanding. Thistime he thinks, ‘Why not fly down to an island and rest?’ Again, not knowing any reason why heshouldn’t, he proceeds with his experiment. And again, his decision is met with the same chorusof criticism—from his instinctive self, the other storks that were ignorant of the need to searchfor knowledge, and the natural world. But this time Adam defies the criticism and persevereswith his experimentation in self-management. His decision, however, means he must now livewith the criticism and immediately he is condemned to a state of upset. A battle has broken outbetween his instinctive self, which is perfectly orientated to the flight path, and his emergingconscious mind, which needs to understand why that flight path is the correct course to follow.
His instinctive self is perfectly orientated, but Adam doesn’t understand that orientation.
In short, when the fully conscious mind emerged it wasn’t enough for it to be orientatedby instincts. It had to find understanding to operate effectively and fulfil its great potentialto manage life. Tragically, the instinctive self didn’t ‘appreciate’ that need and ‘tried tostop’ the mind’s necessary search for knowledge, as represented by the latter’s experimentsin self-management. Hence the ensuing battle between instinct and intellect. To refute thecriticism from his instinctive self, Adam needed to understand the difference in the waygenes and nerves process information; he needed to be able to explain that the gene-basedlearning system can, through natural selection, give species orientations to their environment,but that those orientations are not understandings. This means that when the nerve-basedlearning system gave rise to consciousness and the ability to understand the world, it wasn’tsufficient to be orientated to the world—understanding of the world had to be found. The

Part 3:3

Only understanding of the human condition could end upset

57
problem, however, was that Adam had only just taken the first, tentative steps in the searchfor knowledge, and thus had no ability to explain anything. It was a catch-22 situation forthe fledgling thinker, for in order to explain himself he needed the very understanding hewas setting out to find. He had to search for understanding, ultimately self-understanding,understanding of why he had to ‘fly off course’, without the ability to first explain why heneeded to ‘fly off course’. He couldn’t defend his actions. He had to live with the criticismfrom his instinctive self and, without that defence, was insecure in its presence.
To resist the tirade of unjust criticism that he was having to endure and mitigate thatinsecurity, Adam had to do something. But what could he do? If he abandoned the searchand flew back on course, sure, he’d gain some momentary relief, but the search would,nevertheless, remain to be undertaken. So all Adam could do was retaliate against thecriticism, try to prove it wrong, or simply ignore it—and he did all those things. He becameangry towards the criticism. In every way he could he tried to demonstrate his self worth, toprove that he was good and not bad. And he tried to block out the criticism. He became angry,egocentric and alienated or, in a word, upset.
As mentioned, the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘ego’ as ‘the conscious thinkingself ’ (5th edn, 1964), so ego is another word for the intellect. Thus the word ‘egocentric’ means
the intellect became centred or focused on trying to refute the instincts’ criticism; it becamefocused on trying to prove its worth, prove that it was good and not bad. Adam Stork becamepreoccupied trying to validate himself, looking for a win, any positive reinforcement thatwould bring him some sense of worth.
In summary, Adam Stork had no choice other than to resign himself to living a lifeof anger, egocentricity and alienation as the only three responses available to him to copewith the horror of his situation, his condition. It was an extremely unfair and difficult, andindeed tragic, position for Adam to find himself in, for we can see that while he was good heappeared to be bad and had to endure the horror of his associated psychologically distressed,upset state or condition until he found the defence or reason for his ‘mistakes’. But sufferingupset was the price of his heroic search for understanding—it was the tragic yet inevitableoutcome in the transition from an instinct-controlled state to an intellect-controlled state. Hisuncooperative, divisive aggression and his selfish, egocentric efforts to prove his worth andhis need to deny and evade criticism became an unavoidable part of his personality. Such washis predicament, and such has been the human condition, for it was within our species that thefully conscious mind emerged.

Part 3:3 Only understanding of the human condition could end the march to evergreater levels of upset
Ideally what would have happened when Adam Stork began his search for knowledgewas that he would have sat down with his instinctive self and explained to it why he had to flyoff course. He would have explained that he was now a fully conscious, self-managing or selfadjusting being that had to experiment in understanding in order to master his conscious mind.
He would have explained that he was using a fundamentally different information processingor learning tool to the one that developed instincts. And he would have explained that through

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
the process of natural selection the gene-based learning system gave his instinctive self itsperfect orientations to the world around it, but that the conscious mind that he was now usingto manage his life was a product of the nerve-based learning system and its effectivenessdepended on being able to understand the world around it.
To elaborate, nerves were originally developed for the coordination of movement inanimals, but, once developed, their ability to store impressions—which is what we refer toas ‘memory’—gave rise to the potential to develop understanding of cause and effect. If youcan remember past events, you can compare them with current events and identify regularlyoccurring experiences. This knowledge of, or insight into, what has commonly occurred in thepast enables you to predict what is likely to happen in the future and to adjust your behaviouraccordingly. Once insights into the nature of change are put into effect, the self-modifiedbehaviour starts to provide feedback, refining the insights further. Predictions are comparedwith outcomes and so on. Much developed, and such refinement occurred in the human brain,nerves can sufficiently associate information to reason how experiences are related, learn tounderstand and become CONSCIOUS of, or aware of, or intelligent about, the relationshipbetween events that occur through time. Thus, consciousness means being sufficiently awareof how experiences are related to attempt to manage change from a basis of understanding.
What is so significant about this process is that once our nerve-based learning systembecame sufficiently developed for us to become conscious and able to effectively manageevents, our self-adjusting conscious intellect was then in a position to wrest control from theinstinctive orientations we had acquired through the natural selection of genetic traits thatadapted us to our environment. Moreover, at the point of becoming conscious the nerve-basedlearning system should wrest management of the individual from the instincts, which, up untilthen, had been controlling our lives, because such a self-managing or self-adjusting system isinfinitely more efficient at adapting to change than the gene-based system, which can only adaptto change very slowly over many generations. However, while consciousness is the ability tounderstand the relationship of events that occur through time sufficiently well to attempt tomanage and manipulate those events—and thus usurp management of the individual from theinstincts—it still has to be able to identify the correct and incorrect understandings.
The problem, or catch-22 referred to earlier, was that when consciousness firstappeared and wrested management from the instincts, the conscious mind had absolutelyno understanding of genes and nerves and the different ways they process information. Touse the analogy, Adam Stork had no ability to explain why he had flown off course, why hehad defied his instincts. He was only just setting out on the great journey to find knowledge,ultimately sufficient knowledge to explain himself. He had no capacity to explain anythingbecause the ability to explain and understand his world was what he was setting out to find.
He needed knowledge to explain, defend and bring to an end his corruption, but he first hadto suffer becoming corrupted through the process of finding that knowledge. At any time hecould fly back on course and feel the relief of not being criticised, but to do so would meanabandoning the necessary search for knowledge.
The gene-based learning system can orientate species to situations but is incapable ofinsight into the nature of change. Genetic selection of one reproducing individual over anotherreproducing individual (in effect, one idea over another idea, or one piece of information

Part 3:3

Only understanding of the human condition could end upset

59
over another piece of information) gives species adaptations or orientations—instinctiveprogramming—for managing life, but those genetic orientations, those instincts, are notunderstandings. Thus, when the conscious mind emerged it had to set out in search of theknowledge it needed to manage change. It follows then that when our conscious mindemerged it was neither suitable nor sustainable for it to be orientated by instincts. It hadto find understanding in order to operate effectively and fulfil its great potential to managechange, manage life. Since the conscious mind must surely be nature’s greatest invention, itsfailure to fulfil its great potential would, in truth, represent a failure of the whole story of lifeon Earth. The problem, however, was that when the conscious mind began to exert itself andexperiment in the management of life from a basis of understanding in the presence of alreadyestablished instinctive behavioural orientations, a terrible battle broke out between the two.
Our intellect began to experiment in understanding as the only means of discovering thecorrect and incorrect understandings for managing existence, but the instincts—being in effect
‘unaware’ or ‘ignorant’ of the intellect’s need to carry out these experiments—opposed anyunderstanding-driven deviations from the established instinctive orientations: they ‘criticised’and ‘tried to stop’ the conscious mind’s necessary search for knowledge. Unable to understandand thus explain why these experiments in self-adjustment were necessary, the intellect hadno way of refuting the implicit criticism from the instincts even though it knew it was unjust.
Until such time that the conscious mind found the redeeming understanding of why it hadto defy the instincts (namely the scientific understanding of the difference in the way genesand nerves process information, that one is an orientating learning system while the otheris an insightful learning system), the intellect was left having to endure a psychologicallydistressed, upset condition, with no choice but to defy that opposition from the instincts.
As just stated, this defiance expressed itself in three ways: it attacked the instincts’ unjustcriticism; it attempted to prove the instincts’ unjust criticism wrong; and it tried to deny orblock from its mind the instincts’ unjust criticism. In short, humans’ upset angry, egocentricand alienated human-condition-afflicted state appeared. Our ‘conscious thinking self ’, whichagain means ‘ego’, became ‘centred’ or focused on the need to justify itself. We became egocentric, self-centred or selfish, preoccupied with aggressively competing for opportunitiesto prove we are good and not bad—we unavoidably became selfish, competitive andaggressive. The so-called Seven Deadly Sins of the human condition, of lust, anger, pride,envy, covetousness, gluttony and sloth, are in truth all different manifestations of the threefundamental upsets of anger, egocentricity and alienation.
Significantly, while we could learn to manage our upset, find ways to contain, restrainand thus slow its pace, the increase in upset could only ever be stopped through findingunderstanding of why upset occurred. In the Adam Stork analogy, Adam couldn’t silence theupsetting criticism emanating from his instinctive self until he could explain why he had to flyoff course. A terrible journey of suffering lay ahead for conscious humans because, as will beexplained later, it took the human race some two million years of enquiry to finally assemblethe liberating true explanation of our psychologically distressed, upset human condition.
The human condition is shot through with paradox: to become happy we had to firstendure unhappiness; we appeared to be bad but believed we were good; we are intelligent,smart and clever but, by all appearances, behave in a most unintelligent, stupid way that

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
has brought the world to the brink of destruction. The human situation appeared to be socomplicated and insoluble, which is why Tim’s climbing rope analogy is so powerful. Howcould we possibly make sense of the seemingly impenetrable mystery of human life, andyet the answer—the ‘unlocking point’—seems so simple and obvious in hindsight. Recall
Huxley’s famous response to Darwin’s idea of natural selection: ‘How extremely stupid of menot to have thought of that!’

Part 3:4 But what was humans’ original instinctive orientation?
The Adam Stork analogy does of course raise the very important question of ‘Butwhat was our species’ original instinctive orientation?’ It certainly wasn’t to the migratoryflight path that Adam Stork is instinctively guided by, but, nevertheless, we humans musthave had an instinctive orientation to life before we became a fully conscious species. Allanimals have an instinctive self and so do we. Carl Jung termed humans’ common, sharedby-all instincts ‘the collective unconscious’, as the following quote makes clear: ‘Jung regardsthe unconscious mind as not only the repository of forgotten or repressed memories, but also of racialmemories. This is reasonable enough when we remember the definition of instinct as racial memory’
(International University Society’s Reading Course and Biographical Studies, Vol.6, c, 1940). Yes,
we must have
had an original instinctive orientation to life, and indeed that instinctive orientation must stillexist within us, so what was our species’ original instinctive orientation—and what impactdid it have on our human condition?
The answer to the first part of the question is that our instinctive orientation was tobehaving in a completely cooperative, unconditionally selfless, fully altruistic, truly loving,genuinely moral, kind, considerate way. While we have learnt to deny this truth because it madeliving with our present immensely upset, corrupted angry, egocentric and alienated conditionunbearable, all our mythologies, such as the story of the Garden of Eden, recognise that therewas an upset-free, pre-human-condition-afflicted, innocent time in our species’ instinctivepast, a time before the fabled ‘fall’, before we became, as we acknowledge, ‘corrupted’. In his
1990 book Memories & Visions of Paradise, the American author Richard Heinberg provides
ample documentation of how our mythologies acknowledged the truth of a cooperative, prehuman-condition-afflicted, innocent past for humanity, writing that ‘Every religion begins withthe recognition that human consciousness has been separated from the divine Source, that a former senseof oneness…has been lost…everywhere in religion and myth there is an acknowledgment that we havedeparted from an original…innocence’ (pp.81-82 of 282). The eighth century BC Greek poet Hesiod
also recognised this ‘Golden Age’ in our species’ past in his poem Works and Days: ‘When godsalike and mortals rose to birth / A golden race the immortals formed on earth…Like gods they lived, withcalm untroubled mind / Free from the toils and anguish of our kind / Nor e’er decrepit age misshaped theirframe…Strangers to ill, their lives in feasts flowed by…Dying they sank in sleep, nor seemed to die / Theirswas each good; the life-sustaining soil / Yielded its copious fruits, unbribed by toil / They with abundantgoods ’midst quiet lands / All willing shared the gathering of their hands.’

So while we have learnt to deny the truth of an upset-free, pre-human-condition-afflictedpast for the human race, deep down we do all intuitively know that our species did once liveinstinctively in a harmonious, cooperative, loving, idyllic way that was free of, and thus

Part 3:4

But what was humans’ original instinctive orientation?

61
unaware or innocent of, upset—because we are all aware of that ‘voice’ within us, of ourideal-behaviour-expecting, fully altruistic, instinctive, ‘moral conscience’.
As has been emphasised, we humans have an undeniable capacity for brutality, hatredand aggression—which we can now understand is our psychologically upset state—but itis also very true that we have an enormous capacity for love, kindness and compassion.
Furthermore, it is clear that we have an inbuilt awareness that such kind, considerate andcaring behaviour is good and to be aspired to—after all, how could we have a sense of guilt,shame, recrimination and disgust about unkind thoughts and deeds committed by ourselvesand others unless some deeper intrinsic part of ourselves felt at odds with such behaviour?
The fact that we have called our born-with, instinctive awareness of what we have termed
‘right’ and ‘wrong’ behaviour our ‘moral’ sense, and its ‘voice’ or expression from withinus, our ‘conscience’, is also indicative of this innate knowledge. This moral sense, thisinclination to be caring and considerate of others, amounts to a social conscience. It is acapacity, in situations where the need arises, to behave altruistically, to put the welfare ofothers, ultimately of our community, above that of our own welfare—such as when we areprepared to volunteer to fight and, if necessary, die for our country in war. Indeed, whilethe most important question of all—‘the Holy Grail of the whole Darwinian revolution’,as some have described it—has been to explain the dilemma of the human condition, theother, almost equally great mystery facing biologists has been to explain the origins of thisaltruistic, unconditionally selfless moral sense in humans, for it is a truly extraordinaryand special part of our makeup. So special, in fact, that the philosopher Immanuel Kantwas inspired to have these fitting words inscribed on his tomb, ‘there are two things whichfill me with awe…the starry heavens above us, and the moral law within us’. Charles Darwin was
equally impressed when he said, ‘the moral sense affords the best and highest distinction betweenman and the lower animals’ (The Descent of Man, 1871), acknowledging here that our moral sense is
something unique to humans.
Biologists have long recognised that there are situations in nature where organismsappear to behave in an altruistic, unconditionally selfless way towards each other, such asworker bees and ants selflessly slaving for their colonies—and in situations such as thosedescribed above, where humans behave selflessly towards each other, such as soldiers givingtheir life for their country in war, or charity workers helping the poor. But in the case ofworker ants and bees, biologists now recognise that their behaviour is a case of reciprocity,where favours are given only in return for another, which means the behaviour is not trulyunconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic. Being sterile and thus unable to reproducethemselves, the worker bees and ants ensure the genes for their existence are reproducedby selflessly helping their colony and its fertile queen, which means their selflessness is notunconditional because it is done to ensure their reproduction. Such reciprocal selflessnessis not altruism but a subtle form of selfishness. So, in the case of humans, when wesacrifice ourselves for others are we similarly merely concerned with selfishly fostering thereproduction of our genes, or is our moral sense truly altruistic in nature? Both Kant’s and
Darwin’s comments infer that our moral sense is something extraordinary in the natural world,that it is unique to humans and therefore not the subtle form of reciprocity-based geneticselfishness that occurs in other social species such as bees and ants—that our moral nature is a

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
truly altruistic, unconditionally selfless capacity to act out of genuine love and concern for thegreater good of humanity, and indeed all the constituents of our planet.
However, as mentioned in Part 3:1, virtually all biologists since Darwin have attributedhumans’ competitive, selfish and aggressive behaviour to savage animal instincts within usthat supposedly date from a time when we had to fight and compete for food, shelter, territoryand a mate.
While excusing and thus relieving of our upset, divisive, competitive, aggressive andselfish behaviour, the problem with this so-called Social Darwinism ‘explanation’ was thatwhile it is true that we humans are capable of being extremely competitive, selfish andaggressive, we do seemingly have unconditionally selfless moral instincts—an instinctivenature that doesn’t comply with this Social Darwinist ‘selfish-competition-and-aggressionis-what-happens-in-nature-and-that’s-why-we-are-selfish’ account. As is fully described laterin Part 4:12, in order to somehow explain this anomaly what many biologists initially triedto do was actually claim that our apparently unconditionally selfless moral instincts are aderivative of the same reciprocity-based, conditional selflessness that occurs in bee and antcolonies! Yes, the theory of Sociobiology and its progeny, Evolutionary Psychology, actuallyargued that human acts of selflessness, such as charity workers helping the poor, were actuallya product of humans selfishly, albeit indirectly, fostering the reproduction of their owngenes by helping others who share their genes—in which case the argument that nature isfundamentally selfish and that’s why we are was maintained.
Aside from the fact that the vast majority of those benefitting would be individualsentirely unrelated to those behaving selflessly, the other obvious problem with thisreciprocity-based, conditionally-selfless ‘explanation’ for our moral nature is that it is entirelyinconsistent with what we all know to be true if we are honest, and which all our mythologies,religious teachings, profound thinkers and great writers like Kant, and eminent biologistslike Darwin, have recognised to be true, which is that we humans have an extraordinaryunconditionally selfless, genuinely moral instinctive nature. Our moral instincts aren’t at allselfish, they are fully altruistic, truly loving.
As is fully described in Part 4:12I, when Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology fell outof favour amongst some biologists because of its inability to account for our unconditionallyselfless, genuinely moral instinctive nature, yet another theory was devised to supposedlyexplain how we acquired unconditionally selfless, fully altruistic, truly loving, genuinelymoral instincts. Put forward by E.O. Wilson in his aforementioned 2012 book The Social
Conquest of Earth as an explanation for the human condition, this ‘Theory of Eusociality’proposes that humans not only have selfish, savage, animal instincts derived from competingfor food, shelter, territory and a mate, but also unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruisticinstincts, and that these two opposing instinctive orientations are what cause the conflictedstate of our human condition.
To very briefly describe how E.O. Wilson went about explaining how we acquired theseunconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic instincts it is first necessary to explain the basicbiological difficulty in establishing selfless instincts—which is that if an unconditionally selflesstrait does emerge in a species it will seemingly always be exploited by those who are selfish. Ifsomeone in a group says, in effect, ‘I’m going to help others’, the others are going to, in effect,

Part 3:4

But what was humans’ original instinctive orientation?

63
reply, ‘By all means, go right ahead because it can only help me reproduce my genes—but don’texpect me to help you.’ Seemingly, whenever selflessness appears it is, in all likelihood, going tobe undermined by opportunist cheaters or free riders. But what the theory of Eusociality (whichemerged from what is referred to as Multilevel Selection theory, which was developed by David
Sloan Wilson and other biologists) argues is that while within a group the selfish are more likelyto prevail, in competition between groups, groups of selfless altruists are more likely to succeed,so in situations of between-group competition selflessness can be selected for. The idea is thatwhere you have two groups competing against each other, as it is claimed occurred betweengroups of our early ancestors, groups with selfless, cooperative members will out-competegroups with selfish, non-cooperative individuals, and that it was through the selection of suchsuccessful cooperativeness in between-group conflict that our unconditionally selfless, moralinstincts emerged. This is the argument E.O. Wilson commandeered to supposedly explainthat we not only have selfish instincts derived from competing for food, shelter, territory and amate, but also selfless instincts, and that the presence of these two instinctive states for supposed
‘nastiness’/‘sin’ and ‘niceness’/‘virtue’ is what produced our conflicted human condition. What
E.O. Wilson has basically done is add selfless instincts to the supposed selfish instincts that
Social Darwinists had already assigned us and claim that the presence of these two conflictinginstincts within us explains the human condition.
This theory of Eusociality ‘explanation’ for our species’ unconditionally selfless moralnature and conflicted human condition is completely dishonest, for reasons that are providedat length in Part 4:12I and which I will very briefly recap here.
Firstly, even if between group competition could overcome the problem of selflessnessalways being exploited and thus eliminated by selfishness, which is in itself extremelydoubtful, the idea that our moral instinctive self or soul is a product of aggressively attackingother groups of humans doesn’t equate at all with what we all know about what our born-with,instinctive moral conscience wants us to feel and behave towards all humans, indeed all oflife. No human who is prepared to be honest would accept that our species’ unconditionallyselfless, moral instinctive orientation to life is driven by an extremely selfish, competitiveand divisive cause, namely to give warring groups a competitive advantage. Also, we are allaware, if we are prepared to be truthful, that our instinctive moral nature is one of universalbenevolence, not one where we have instincts for both niceness and nastiness. We havea completely consider-the-good-of-the-whole-of-your-community-above-yourself, fullycooperative, all-loving, utterly harmonious, totally empathetic, absolutely innocent originalinstinctive orientation, which, as has been mentioned, the story of the ‘Garden of Eden’in religious teachings and awareness of a ‘Golden Age’ state of original innocence that isreferred to in all our mythologies recognises. Further, as has been emphasised, the idea thatour selfish behaviour comes from selfish, savage, animal instincts derived from competingfor food, shelter, territory and a mate overlooks the fact that our human behaviour involvesour unique fully conscious thinking mind. Descriptions of our behaviour, such as arrogant,deluded, optimistic, pessimistic, artificial, superficial, guilty, depressed, inspired, psychotic,alienated, all imply a consciousness-derived psychological dimension to our behaviour. Wehumans suffer from a consciousness-derived, psychological HUMAN CONDITION, not aninstinct-controlled ANIMAL CONDITION—it is unique to us fully conscious humans.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

In short, the competition-for-survival explanation for our selfish behaviour completelyfailed to recognise that our instinctive orientation is not to behaving selfishly, but tobehaving in a completely unconditionally selfless, all-loving way and that, as the Adam Storkstory explained, our selfish behaviour results from a consciousness-derived-and-inducedpsychologically insecure and upset state in which we have been selfishly egocentrically tryingto prove our goodness and worth, and selfishly seeking relief through material reinforcement.
Basically, E.O. Wilson has failed to acknowledge, let alone account for, all thefundamental aspects that we know are involved in the human condition, which aresummarised in that most voted-for-for-its-truth document in human history, the Bible—that
‘God created man in his own image’ (Gen. 1:27) (we did once live in that completely integrated,
unconditionally selflessly behaved, cooperative, loving ideal state), and then we took the
‘fruit’ ‘from the tree of…knowledge’ (Gen. 3:3, 2:17) (became conscious), and then we ‘fell fromgrace’ (derived from the title of Gen. 3, ‘The Fall of Man’) (became corrupted, psychologically
upset; egocentrically selfishly preoccupied trying to prove we are good and not bad all thetime), and, as a result, were ‘banished…from the Garden of Eden’ (Gen. 3:23) state of our originalinnocence (became insecure/guilt-ridden) and became ‘a restless wanderer on the earth’ (Gen.
4:14)

(became psychotic—our instinctive self or soul became repressed because it condemned
our conscious intellect; and neurotic—our conscious intellect became distressed because itcouldn’t explain itself) until we could find the reconciling, healing understanding of the ‘goodand evil’ (Gen. 3:5) in our make-up and, by so doing, become ‘like God, knowing [understanding
of our] good and evil [afflicted lives] (ibid)’. (Note, all biblical references in Freedom Expanded:

Books 1 & 2 are from the 1978 New International Version translation of the Bible.)
Of course, it is not only in religious texts that we find accounts of the true story ofhumans’ journey from innocence to the emergence of consciousness and, with it, thecorruption of our original innocent instinctive state, to the eventual finding of the reconciling,ameliorating, soundness-resurrecting understanding of the human condition. The followingdescription from more recent times comes from the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev’s
1931 book, The Destiny of Man: ‘The memory of a lost paradise, of a Golden Age, is very deep in man,together with a sense of guilt and sin and a dream of regaining the Kingdom of Heaven which sometimesassumes the form of a Utopia or an earthly paradise…We are faced with a profound enigma: how couldman have renounced paradise which he recalls so longingly in our world-aeon? How could he havefallen away from it?…The exile of man from paradise means that man fell away from God [cooperative
ideality]…Not everything was revealed to man in paradise, and ignorance was the condition of the lifein it. It was the realm of the unconscious…Man rejected the bliss and wholeness of Eden and chose thepain and tragedy of cosmic life in order to explore his destiny to its inmost depths. This was the birthof consciousness with its painful dividedness. In falling away from the harmony of paradise and fromunity with God, man began to make distinctions and valuations, tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledgeand found himself on this side of good and evil’ (tr. N. Duddington, 1960, p.36 & 38 of 310). Further on, he
wrote that ‘man is an irrational, paradoxical, essentially tragic being…Philosophers and scientistshave done very little to elucidate the problem of man’ (p.49), and that ‘psychologists were wrong inassuming that man was a healthy creature, mainly conscious and intellectual, and should be studiedfrom that point of view. Man is a sick being…the distinction between the conscious and the subconsciousmind is fundamental for the new psychology’ (pp.67-68). Earlier in The Destiny of Man, Berdyaev

Part 3:4

But what was humans’ original instinctive orientation?

65
also described very clearly why ‘Philosophers and scientists have done very little to elucidate theproblem of man’ and, by so doing, bring about ‘the new psychology’—the reason, of course, being
humans’ great ‘fear’, in fact, ‘primeval terror’, of confronting the truth of our psychologically
‘sick’ condition; as he wrote, ‘Knowledge requires great daring. It means victory over ancient,primeval terror. Fear makes the search for truth and the knowledge of it impossible. Knowledge impliesfearlessness…it must also be said of knowledge that it is bitter…Particularly bitter is moral knowledge,the knowledge of good and evil [which is the issue of the human condition]. But the bitterness is due tothe fallen state of the world…it must be said that the very distinction between good and evil is a bitterdistinction, the bitterest thing in the world…There is a deadly pain in the very distinction of good andevil, of the valuable and the worthless. We cannot rest in the thought that that distinction is ultimate. Thelonging for God in the human heart springs from the fact that we cannot bear to be faced for ever with thedistinction between good and evil’ (pp.14-15).

Yes, to not be ‘faced for ever with the distinction between good and evil’ we HAD TO face the
‘deadly pain in the very distinction of good and evil’—BUT while the great flaw in E.O. Wilson’s

Eusociality account of our human condition is that it doesn’t deal with this real, ‘painful’,
‘ancient, primeval terror’ of the psychological issue of our human condition, for E.O. Wilson
that is its greatest asset, for it offered a way to supposedly explain the human conditionwithout having to acknowledge and engage the agonising, real, true, alienated, core, ‘deadlypain’ of the psychological condition within ourselves! The truth is, E.O. Wilson’s theory of

Eusociality is a completely fake, deliberately trivialising account of the human condition.
And, in being so dishonest he was effectively condemning humanity to be ‘faced for ever withthe distinction between good and evil’—because, as Berdyaev said, such ‘fear’ of the real human
condition ‘makes the search for truth and the knowledge of it impossible’. Only the ‘fearless’ ‘searchfor truth’ could deliver the actual, human-race-liberating explanation of the human condition,
which has now been carried out with this, the fully accountable, ameliorating ‘truth andthe knowledge’ about our condition, the product. As emphasised, all this and much more is
explained when the theories of Social Darwinism, Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology,
Multilevel Selection and Eusociality are presented in detail in Part 4:12I.
So the question is, what is the actual, accountable, true, real explanation of the originof our unconditionally selfless moral instinctive self or soul? Prior to the emergence ofconsciousness and, with it, our upset angry, egocentric, alienated human-condition-afflictedstate, how did we acquire what Darwin recognised as being ‘the best and highest distinctionbetween man and the lower animals’, or what Kant referred to as our ‘awe’-inspiring instinctive
moral nature?
The core biological question that has to be explained is that if reciprocity and betweengroup selection don’t explain our moral nature, which they don’t, then how did humansdevelop an unconditionally selfless, fully altruistic, truly loving, genuinely moral instinctiveself or soul? If conflict between groups of early humans doesn’t explain how the basicbiological problem of selflessness being subverted by selfish opportunism was overcome,what does? How can unconditionally selfless traits be developed genetically when suchself-sacrificing traits tend to self-eliminate, that being what unconditionally selfless, selfsacrifice means? The seeming reality in nature is that the most selflessness that can bedeveloped genetically is reciprocity, where, as mentioned, an animal behaves selflessly

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
on the condition it will be treated selflessly in return, thus ensuring its continuation fromgeneration to generation, which means the trait is intrinsically selfish, not unconditionallyselfless like our moral instincts.
So how did humans develop an original instinctive orientation to behaving in anunconditionally selfless, fully altruistic way? The following answer to this question is anabridged version of a more complete presentation that is provided later in Parts 4:4D and 8:4B.
While self-eliminating genetic traits apparently cannot develop in animals, there was oneway such unconditional selflessness could develop, which was through nurturing—a mother’smaternal instinct to care for her offspring. Genetic traits for nurturing are intrinsically selfish
(which, as stated, genetic traits normally have to be) because through a mother’s nurturingand fostering of offspring who carry her genes her genetic traits for nurturing are selfishlyensuring their reproduction into the next generation. However, while nurturing is a geneticallyselfish trait, from an observer’s point of view the nurturing appears to be unconditionallyselfless behaviour—the mother is giving her offspring food, warmth, shelter, support andprotection for apparently nothing in return. This point is most significant because it meansthat from the infant’s perspective, its mother is treating it with real love, unconditionalselflessness. The infant’s brain is therefore being trained or conditioned or indoctrinatedor inscribed with unconditional selflessness and so, with enough training in unconditionalselflessness, that infant will grow into an adult who behaves unconditionally selflessly. Applythis training across all the members of that infant’s group and the result is an unconditionallyselflessly behaved, priority-consideration-given-to-the-maintenance-and-welfare-of-thegroup, cooperative, fully integrated society. And then, with this training in unconditionalselflessness occurring over many generations, the unconditionally selfless behaviour willbecome instinctive—a moral conscience will be established. Genes will inevitably followand reinforce any development process—in this they are not selective. The difficulty is ingetting the development of unconditional selflessness to occur in the first place, for once it isregularly occurring it will naturally become instinctive over time.
The ‘trick’ in this ‘love-indoctrination’ process lies in the fact that the traits fornurturing are encouraged, or selected for genetically, because the better infants are caredfor the greater are their, and the nurturing traits’, chances of survival. There is, however, anintegrative side effect, in that the more infants are nurtured, the more their brains are trainedin unconditional selflessness.
But for a species to develop nurturing—to develop this ‘trick’ for overcoming thegene-based learning system’s seeming inability to develop unconditional selflessness—itrequired the capacity to allow its offspring to remain in the infancy stage long enough forthe infant’s brain to become trained or indoctrinated with unconditional selflessness orlove. In most species, infancy has to be kept as brief as possible because of the infant’sextreme vulnerability to predators. Zebras, for example, have to be capable of independentflight almost as soon as they are born, which gives them little opportunity to be trained inselflessness. Primates, on the other hand, were already semi-upright as a result of their treeliving, swinging-from-branch-to-branch, arboreal heritage, and so with their arms semi-freedfrom walking and thus available to hold a helpless infant they were especially facilitated forprolonging their offspring’s infancy and thus developing love-indoctrination. And so it was

Part 3:4

But what was humans’ original instinctive orientation?

67
our distant ape ancestors who perfected the ‘love-indoctrination’ process, and that is how weacquired our unconditionally selfless, fully altruistic, instinctive self or ‘soul’, the ‘voice’ ofwhich is our moral ‘conscience’.
On this point, the exceptionally maternal, matriarchal, cooperatively behaved bonoboprimate species (Pan paniscus) provide a living example of a species in the final stages ofdeveloping this love indoctrination process. Indeed, not only are bonobos extraordinarilyloving and nurturing of their infants and the most cooperative and peaceful of all non-humanprimates, they are also the non-human primate that is most often seen walking upright, which,along with their peaceful cooperative nature, we can now explain. The longer infancy isdelayed, the more and longer infants had to be held, and thus the greater selection for armsfreed, upright walking. When I put forward this ‘love-indoctrination’ explanation of humans’unconditionally selfless moral conscience and soul in 1983, I said, contrary to prevailingviews, that it meant bipedalism must have developed early in this nurturing of love process,and in fact the early appearance of bipedalism in the fossil record of our ancestors is nowbeing found. For example, it was reported that a ‘4.4 million-year-old skeleton of a likely humanancestor known as Ardipithecus ramidus’, discovered in Ethiopia in 1994, has features which show
they ‘walked upright on two legs’ (‘A Long-Lost Relative’, TIME mag. 12 Oct. 2009).
As will be briefly explained shortly in Part 3:11, and more completely in Part 8:4C, thisdevelopment of unconditionally selfless behaviour in our distant forebears had the accidentalside effect of liberating consciousness, and with the emergence of full consciousness came thehuman-condition-producing, upsetting battle between our original instinctive self and newerconscious self. (The reason I am unable to explain how we humans became conscious until
Part 3:11 is because I first need to explain other related concepts, which I will do shortly.)
So nurturing is what made us human. It gave us our instinctive orientation to behavingcooperatively, which led to the emergence of our conscious mind, which in turn ledto the upsetting battle of our human condition. Of course, for upset humans who haveunderstandably been incapable of adequately nurturing their children with unconditional lovewhile the horrific battle of the human condition raged, this nurturing explanation for humanorigins has been far too confronting to admit or accept—as has been said, ‘people would ratheradmit to being an axe murderer than being a bad father or mother’ (‘A Single Mum’s Guide to Raising Boys’,
Sun-Herald, 7 July 2002). The nature vs nurture debate has really been about defensively trying to
argue against the importance of nurturing in the lives of our children. It is only now that wecan explain the upset state of the human condition that it becomes safe to confront and admitthe critical part that nurturing has played both in the emergence of our species and in thematuration of our own individual lives.
Nurturing was the main influence or prime mover in human development—not tooluse, or upright walking, or language, or mastery of fire, or movement from the forest to thesavannah, or any one of the other evasive explanations that denial-complying biologistshave been putting forward in the mountain of books that have been published on humanorigins. And our species’ original instinctive self or soul, the ‘voice’ of which is our moral
‘conscience’, is an orientation to behaving in an utterly cooperative, harmonious, lovingway—a truth that we have had to deny, and yet, as mentioned earlier, it is recognised inall our great mythologies. But both these truths, of an original cooperatively orientated,

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
loving instinctive self or soul within us, and the role and importance nurturing played in thematuration of our lives, have been unbearable for upset humans to admit to while we couldn’texplain why we humans became corrupted. Later in Part 4, these two truths (and four othersthat have been equally unbearable) will be described in more detail.
As I mentioned in Part 3:1, given how guilty we have felt about our present seeminglyevil divisive competitive, aggressive and selfish behaviour—behaviour we couldn’t truthfullyexplain—we understandably had to invent excuses for the behaviour, the main excusesbeing that our competitive and aggressive behaviour is due to savage animal instinctswithin us that make us fight and compete for food, shelter, territory and a mate; and, asfor our selflessly orientated moral sense, well that was explained as either a subtle form ofselfishness resulting from reciprocity, or, as E.O. Wilson now falsely claims, the result ofconflict between groups of early humans, neither of which account for our psychologicallytroubled human condition. But we can now understand that our human condition is a resultof a psychological dilemma that arose from a conflict between our unconditionally selflessmoral instincts and our newer self-adjusting conscious mind—which is consistent with theawarenesses that have been so beautifully articulated in all our mythologies of the nature ofour condition, namely that we once lived in a fully cooperative, unconditionally selfless state,and then we became conscious, the result of which was the emergence of the psychologicallyupset state of the human condition.
To now address the second element of the question that forms this Part—namely theimpact our instinctive orientation to behaving in an unconditionally selfless, fully altruisticway had on the issue of our human condition.
While in the case of Adam Stork, when he became upset—angry, egocentric andalienated—for defying his instincts and searching for knowledge, his instinctive orientationto a flight path wouldn’t have had any particular impact on or conflict with that upsetbehaviour, but that certainly wasn’t the case with us humans. When we became angry,egocentric and alienated for defying our instincts and searching for knowledge, ourinstinctive orientation to behaving in a loving, cooperative, honest way was extremelyoffended by that response. And so in our case, becoming upset produced further criticismfrom our particular instincts. When we set out in search of knowledge, we suffered a
‘double whammy’, a double condemnation: firstly for defying our instincts, and secondlyfor reacting in a way that was counter and offensive to our instincts. So if old Adam Storkhad cause to be upset, we had double cause to be upset!
And yet the horror of our situation did not end there—it was actually even morepronounced than that, if a worse fate can be imagined! For we weren’t just doublycondemned, we were triply condemned—forced, in fact, to endure a ‘triple whammy’! Toexplain what I mean by ‘triple whammy’ I need to introduce another of the six historicallyunbearable, unconfrontable truths, which is the truth of Integrative Meaning. (As justmentioned, the six historically unconfrontable truths will be described in Part 4:4, but forreference they are, firstly, the issue of the human condition itself; secondly, Integrative
Meaning, which is about to be briefly explained; thirdly, the nature of consciousness; fourthly,the truth that we humans once lived in an unconditionally selfless, all-loving state, which hasbeen introduced; fifthly, the truth of the differences in alienation between humans; and sixthly,

Part 3:4

But what was humans’ original instinctive orientation?

69
that nurturing was the main influence or prime mover in the emergence of humanity and inour own lives, which has also been introduced.)
To briefly explain the historically unbearable truth of Integrative Meaning. Our worldis constructed from some 94 naturally occurring elements. Under the influence of the lawsof physics, in particular the law of Negative Entropy (also known as the ‘Second Path ofthe Second Law of Thermodynamics’), these elements have come together to form stablearrangements. For example, two hydrogen atoms with their single positive charges cametogether with one oxygen atom with its double negative charge to form the stable relationshipknown as water. Over time, larger molecules and compounds developed. Eventually macrocompounds formed. These eventually integrated to form virus-like organisms, which in turncame together or integrated to form single-celled organisms, which in turn integrated to formmulticellular organisms, which in turn integrated to form societies of single species, whichin turn integrate to form stable, ordered arrangements of different species. So everywherewe look order is developing—larger in space and more stable in time arrangements of matterare forming. It is as plain as day that is what is happening out there in our world. Everythingis a hierarchy of ordered matter and what is happening overall everywhere is that matteris integrating, and yet we have denied this truth—but there is an extremely good reasonwhy we have done so, which is that the truth of Integrative Meaning has, in fact, been themost confronting and condemning of all truths for the upset human race. This is because todevelop and maintain the order of matter requires parts of the developing wholes to considerthe welfare of the larger whole over their own. Selfishness is disintegrative while selflessnessis integrative. In fact, selflessness—ideally unconditional selflessness or altruism—is the gluethat holds wholes together and, as such, is the theme of the development of order of matteron Earth, but to acknowledge that truth left upset, selfishly-behaved humans condemned asbad, evil and worthless. Until the divisive, selfish upset state of the human condition couldbe explained the selfless, integrative theme and meaning of existence, which, as will beexplained in Parts 4:4B and 8:1 when Integrative Meaning is more fully explained, is actuallywhat ‘God’ is the personification of, had to be denied. And so the contrivance developed tosupport this denial of the truth of Integrative Meaning was to assert that there is no directionor meaning to existence and that change is random. Holistic science—derived as it is fromthe term ‘holism’, which acknowledges ‘the tendency in nature to form wholes’ (Concise Oxford
Dict. 5th edn, 1964),
or teleological science—derived as it is from the term ‘teleology’, which
means ‘the belief that purpose and design are a part of nature’ (Macquarie Dict. 3rd edn, 1998)—havebeen avoided in favour of integrative-meaning-denying, focus-down-on-the-details-not-upat-the-unbearable-whole-view, mechanistic, reductionist science. Again, we see what a hugepart denial has played in human existence up until now. We have had to live an immenselytroubled, soul-and-truth-disconnected, evasive, dishonest, fraudulent, lying-based alienatedexistence—a situation perfectly described in the Bible where it says, ‘Today you [Integrative
Meaning/God] are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence, I will be a restlesswanderer on the earth’ (Gen. 4:14).

So, the further extremely upsetting dimension to our upset competitive and aggressivebehaviour, what affords it the ‘triple whammy’ status I referred to earlier, was that it defiedthe cooperative, integrative ideals of life—we were, in effect, defying ‘God’! This additional

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
guilt from seeming to be at war with the integrative ideals of existence, with ‘God’, meansour upset has been absolutely extreme. Our defiance of our instincts would have made usexcruciatingly guilt-ridden and thus extremely upset, which is exactly what happened. ‘Flyingoff course’ in our case, as necessary as it was, was an incredibly upsetting act of defiance—which is why we humans have been capable of absolutely extraordinary acts of brutality,barbarism and cruelty. While we have tried to restrain and conceal the anger within us,
‘civilise’ it, it is, in truth, volcanic—but we can now at last understand why.
When fully explained, the story of the agony of our human condition will tell a taleof diabolical anguish, but the main or primary issue in that upsetting situation was thebattle that emerged between our instincts and our conscious search for knowledge—thetransition from an instinct controlled state to an intellect controlled state—which the Adam
Stork analogy describes. (How our instinctive orientation to behaving in an unconditionallyselfless, altruistic, fully integrated way greatly compounded our upset will be more fullyexplained in Part 8:8.)

Part 3:5 We can now know that not only are humans good, we are the absolute

Graphic by J. Gri昀케th, M. Rowell and G. Salter © 2009 Fedmex Pty Ltd
heroes of the story of life on Earth

The WTM’s FREEDOM poster, copies of which are freely available at <www.humancondition.com/wtm-posters>

It is not surprising then that, unable to explain ourselves and, in doing so, safelyacknowledge the truth of our own instinctive orientation, and other previously unconfrontabletruths, denial—and deep denial at that—has been our only means of coping with theimperfections and dilemmas of our lives.

Part 3:5

We now know humans are the heroes of the story of life on Earth

As will be described more fully in Part 3:10, in his great work, The Republic, the Greekphilosopher Plato (c.429-347 BC) employed the allegory of a cave to describe the humancondition. This allegory—in which humans live imprisoned in a dark cave, deep underground
(which the picture of the cave in our FREEDOM poster, above, depicts)—is the perfectmetaphor for having to live in a state of denial or block-out or dissociation or alienation:humans have had to, as it were, hide in a cave to avoid the glaring light of the sun, whichsymbolises all the truth about ourselves that we haven’t, until now, been able to confront.
Indeed, while some of those unbearable truths have been introduced, as this presentationprogresses more and more truths that we have had to live in denial of will be revealed, whichwill undoubtedly make the reader/viewer nervous, however, all these truths will be presentedunder the umbrella of the safety of the dignifying, reconciling, redeeming, rehabilitatingand TRANSFORMING full truth about our less-than-ideal, imperfect, upset, hurt, damaged,compromised, corrupted, soul-destroyed lives. Explanation of the human condition bringsameliorating, healing understanding to all the upset, all the psychological suffering in humanlife. The word ‘psychiatry’ literally means ‘soul-healing’ (derived as it is from psyche meaning
‘soul’ and iatreia meaning ‘healing’), but we have never been able to ‘heal our soul’, explain to
our original instinctive self or soul that we, our fully conscious, thinking self is good and notbad and, by so doing, reconcile and heal our split selves—until now.
As the euphemisms have asserted, ‘understanding is compassion’, ‘the truth will setyou free’ (Bible, John 8:32), ‘honesty is therapy’ and ‘in repentance lies salvation’—but we
humans have never been able to ‘understand’ ourselves, know ‘the truth’ about ourselves,be ‘honest’ about our condition, explain why we have been upset and in so doing endour insecurity and redeem ourselves from upset with honesty. But now we can. Now thatwe can explain and understand that we are fundamentally good and not bad after all, theinsecure, suicidally depressing state of our apparently contradictory nature—our humancondition—can be reconciled and thus brought to an end. As Professor Prosen said, withunderstanding of the human condition found ‘the psychological rehabilitation of the human race’can finally begin.
I mentioned earlier that the Adam Stork analogy has parallels to the Biblical accountpresented in Genesis of the story of the Garden of Eden, in which Adam and Eve ‘eat [thefruit] from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ (2:17) that was ‘desirable for gaining wisdom’
(3:6)—go
in search of understanding—and, as a result, are demonised and ‘banished…from
the Garden of Eden’ (3:23). In short, when we went in search of understanding our upset,
corrupted, ‘fallen’ (derived from the title of Gen. 3, ‘The Fall of Man’), supposedly ‘sinful’, ‘guilty’state emerged. However, in this presentation, as in the Adam Stork analogy, Adam and Eveare not the banishment-deserving, evil, worthless, guilty villains they are portrayed as in
Genesis, but immense HEROES, for they, representing, as they do, all humans, had to goin search of knowledge and defy ignorance. But since our instincts had no sympathy forthe pursuit of knowledge and would have stopped the search if possible, defiance of thoseinstincts and the upset that resulted was the price we had to pay to find understanding. Itcouldn’t have been any other way.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

We fully conscious humans had to set out in search for knowledge, we had to have thecourage to bite into the proverbial ‘apple’, which is why ‘apple’, and the symbol of an applewith a bite out of it, are such inspired branding choices for the information communicationand technology giant, Apple Inc. It is also why I drew a version of the apple for the logo of
WTM Publishing & Communications, the organisation that now publishes all of our books and

DrawingbyJeremyGri昀케th©FedmexPtyLtd2002
other publications.

So at last we humans are now able to understand that greatest of all paradoxes of howwe could be good when, by all appearances, we seem to be bad, evil, guilty, sinful, defiling,undeserving, worthless creatures. In fact, we can see now that we fully conscious humansare not just good, we are the absolute heroes of the story of life on Earth for having enduredso much unjust criticism for so long before we were able to prevail over that criticism andexplain why it wasn’t deserved.
We can now understand why our intellect, surely the culminating achievement of thegrand experiment in nature that we call life, also appeared to be the most destructive, evenevil, force to have ever appeared on Earth. Our previous inability to explain this dichotomy,to explain all the corrupting and destructive repercussions of being—supposedly—the mostbrilliant, fully conscious, highly intelligent, super-smart, rational animal on the planet, hasmeant that we humans have been extremely insecure and defensive about our supposedlybrilliant intelligence. After all, what was so smart and intelligent and rational about being sobrutal as to create a world of suffering, and so destructive as to nearly destroy the planet welive on? As described in Genesis, our fully conscious, self-adjusting intellect caused us to takethe ‘fruit’ ‘from the tree of…knowledge’ and become so badly behaved and destructive that weseemingly deserved to be condemned and ‘banished’ as defiling, unworthy, evil beings. Butnow that we can understand that our intellect was simply fulfilling its great potential to bethe knowing master of change (as opposed to all other forms of life that are the unknowingvictims of change) and having to do so in the condemning presence of an unjustly criticalinstinctive self, we can at last face the truth about the role our intellect has been playingand finally appreciate why such destruction was a tragic but unavoidable by-product of thatprocess. Our intellect’s readiness to stoically endure and persevere in a situation where ithas been unjustly condemned as the great evil influence on Earth, and to have endured thathorrific persecution for some two million years, reveals our intellect to have been the veryopposite of the villain in the story of life on Earth—it has been the absolute hero of that saga.
We can see in hindsight that we were living in denial of a partial or half truth—denying thatour intellect appeared to be the guilty party behind all the destruction going on in the world—

Part 3:5

We now know humans are the heroes of the story of life on Earth

73
until we found the full, compassionate and redeeming truth that would explain that ourintellect was not the villain but the hero. A denial that said we weren’t bad was less of a liethan a partial truth that implied we were.
For two million years our intellect has been seen as the villain of the piece while ourinstinctive self or soul’s moral conscience was held up as the epitome of goodness, but thetruth, which we can now finally explain, turns out to be the exact opposite in the sense thatit was our instincts’ unjust criticism that caused us to become upset. This paradoxical turnof events in which our ‘good side’ is revealed to have been the ‘bad side’ is the theme of the
English crime writer (and, according to the Guinness Book of World Records, the all timebest-selling writer of books) Agatha Christie’s famous play The Mousetrap. First performedin 1952, The Mousetrap is just another ‘whodunnit’ murder mystery and yet it is now thelongest running play in history—and it’s still going strong, celebrating its 60th anniversarywith a global tour in 2012. All enduring myths and stories contain truths that resonate, and inthe case of The Mousetrap, the police inspector involved in the murder investigation, who isheld up as the pillar of goodness and justice throughout the play, is revealed at the very endof the play to be the culprit. It is the essential story of humanity where the apparent idealsof the soul’s selfless, loving world are revealed, at the very last moment, to have been theunjustly condemning villains. As with so many aspects of the human condition, the truth wasnot as it appeared. We discover at the very end of our journey to enlightenment that conscioushumans, immensely corrupt as we are, are good and not bad after all. In fact, not only are wegood, we are the absolute heroes of the whole horrible tragedy.
In the English writer G.K. Chesterton’s 1908 book The Man Who Was Thursday, apoliceman representing the ‘good’ side has to infiltrate and expose the sinister members ofa quintessentially corrupt organisation, but consecutively each of the apparently corruptmembers are revealed to be forces for good commissioned to fight evil. Again, it is a story ofthe essential paradox of the human situation: that which was apparently ‘bad’—humans in ourcompetitive and divisive state—turns out to be ‘good’, and that which was ‘good’ turns out tobe the cause of our ‘sin’.
With understanding of the issue of the human condition now found the great, ancient,historical, debilitating burden of guilt has finally been lifted from our species’ shoulders.
While we fully conscious intelligent humans always intuitively believed we weren’tfundamentally bad and evil, we could never explain why we weren’t, but now at last we can.
Unable to explain ourselves we were condemned to living life in a tortured, cave-like stateof alienating denial, but the human race can now come home from that deathly dark cavelike existence it was forced to live in and stand FREE in the sunshine of dignifying, uplifting,relieving, redeeming, explaining and liberating self-knowledge. It is all over. Our banishmentfrom THE HELL OF UNJUST CONDEMNATION HAS ENDED. WE HUMANS ARE FREE AT
LAST—WE ARE FREE AT LAST—WE ARE COMING HOME.

The American lyricist Joe Darion encapsulated this great paradox of the human conditionin his 1965 song, The Impossible Dream (which featured in the musical The Man of La
Mancha), when he wrote that we had to be prepared ‘to march into hell for a heavenly cause’; wehad to lose ourselves, suffer self-corruption, in order to find ourselves. Upset was the priceof our heroic search for knowledge. And ‘upset’ is the right word because while we are not

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

‘bad’ we are definitely upset. ‘Corrupted’ and ‘fallen’ have been used but they have negativeconnotations which we can now understand are not deserved. We humans are now immenselypsychologically upset—angry, egocentric and alienated—from participating in humanity’sheroic search for knowledge, but we are not bad, evil beings. In fact, now that we haveunderstanding of the great and necessary battle that humanity had to wage, the whole concept of
‘good’ and ‘evil’, of superior and inferior, disappears from the conceptualisation of ourselves.
Greek mythology described how Prometheus stole fire from his fellow Gods and gaveit to humans for their use, an act which enraged the Gods, in particular Zeus who saw that itheralded an era of enlightenment for humans. As punishment, Zeus had Prometheus strappedto the top of a mountain where, every day in perpetuity, Prometheus was forced to sufferhaving his innards eaten out by an eagle. In light of what has been revealed thus far, we cannow understand that in this story fire is the metaphor for the conscious intellect (as it is in manymythologies), and that the consequence of humans gaining a conscious mind was extremelyupset behaviour, which explains why Prometheus was punished by the Gods—in their eyes hewas responsible for the corruption of the human race, for our falling out with the Godly ideals.
The eighteenth century English poet and philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge similarlyrecognised the suffering that came with our conscious search for understanding, ultimatelyself-understanding, when he wrote of becoming a ‘sadder and a wiser man [people]’ (The Rhyme ofthe Ancient Mariner, 1797) as a result of our journey.

But the origin of so-called ‘sin’ has finally been explained and it is science that hasmade this possible because, after centuries of discovery, science was able to reveal that whilethe gene-based learning system can give species orientations only the nerve-based learningsystem is capable of insightful reasoning, and therein lies the explanation of the humancondition. One of the products the FHA/WTM has been selling since the early 1990s is a t-shirtthat, on the front, poses the question, ‘Ask me to explain the human condition’, under whichis the Adam Stork picture. Written on the back is the answer: ‘Genes Can Orientate But Are
Ignorant Of Nerves’ Need To Understand. Result: The Human Condition.’ To recap this veryimportant point, it was science’s discovery of the existence of nerves and genes and how theywork that enabled the human condition to be explained.
Thus, in summary, if our fully conscious brain is nature’s greatest invention and humanswere in effect given the task of developing it then the condemnation, the persecution we havestoically endured for some two million years, the period of time humans have been a fullyconscious species, is quite phenomenal—we must surely be the most heroic species to haveever existed on this planet. But it follows that to endure so much unjust condemnation wemust have employed a strong mechanism to cope—and we did: as mentioned at the start ofthis Part, denial has been our only means of coping with the horrific injustice of being unfairlycondemned as bad and evil when deep within ourselves we knew we weren’t. Indeed, wehave been living in such deep denial of so many truths that we are now the most alienated ofspecies. So much so, in fact, that if advanced intelligent life does exist within the universe,
Earth would undoubtedly be known as ‘the planet of the alienated’. But the extent of ouralienation is just a measure of how utterly courageous we have had to be in the face of somuch unjust condemnation, so while our extreme alienation would be recognised by anyforeign intelligent life, so would our incredible bravery.

Part 3:5

We now know humans are the heroes of the story of life on Earth

So despite all appearances to the contrary—despite our anger, egocentricity andalienation—we humans are the most wonderful beings. In fact, if there is a word suchas divine that can be applied to mortals, then we can now see that it truly does belong tous—because to withstand two million years of the injustice that we have had to endure andstill be on our feet, still be able to laugh, still be able to smack each other on the back withencouragement, still be able to carry on, get out of bed each day and face life under the duressof the human condition, we must be the most magnificent of organisms.
This fact of our magnificence, that we can now understand and know is true ratherthan merely hope it is so, brings such intense relief to our angst-ridden cells, limbs andtorsos that we will find it is like throwing off a shroud of heavy chains. This explanation,which the analogy of Adam Stork depicts, brings so much relieving understanding to thehuman situation that it ends all the hurt, heartache and suffering; indeed, as this presentationprogresses we will see how this explanation of the human condition finally reconciles allthe unresolved polarities of the human situation—of instinct and intellect, ‘good’ and ‘evil’,women and men, young and old, left-wing and right-wing, idealism and realism, socialismand capitalism, religion and science, etc, etc.

Detail from Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam (c.1508-1512)

This is a detail from The Creation of Adam, Michelangelo’s famous masterpiece thatadorns the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican City. In interpretations of the painting,
God is said to be in the process of creating Adam, yet it can also be construed as God andman reaching out to each other. Since we can now afford to acknowledge that ‘God’ is thepersonification of the integrative, cooperative, selfless, harmonious ideal values of life, thenwith the reconciling understanding of our less-than-ideal, human-condition-afflicted statefound, the ‘out-stretched fingers’ of God and man have finally touched. It turns out that forall their wild, off-the-wall, upset behaviour, the Blues Brothers really were ‘on a mission from
God’ (from the 1980 American film The Blues Brothers); indeed, the life of every human who has ever
lived has been entirely meaningful.
We can now see that the story of the human race is the greatest, most heroic story evertold. It is the story of our species’ journey from a pre-conscious state of untroubled ignorance,to conscious awakening and with it the emergence of the horror and darkness of the ‘good and

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
evil’, human-condition-afflicted state, to finally finding the redeeming understanding of thatcondition. It has been a truly horrendous saga. The suffering, however, has not been in vainbecause with this dignifying, uplifting, relieving, psychologically-healing, peace-bringingunderstanding humanity now begins an absolutely fabulous, TRANSFORMED existence.

William Blake’s Albion Arose (c. 1794-96); this coloured impressionof Albion Arose was painted by Carol Marando for the WTM in 1991

William Blake’s Cringing in Terror (c.1794-96)

These famous pictures by the English painter and poet William Blake are reproduced onthe cover of two of my books. The painting titled Cringing in Terror is a perfect depiction

Part 3:6

Science is the liberator of humanity

77
of the terror of the human condition. In truth, the fiery hell that features in so many of ourmythologies, in art and in literature, was not some deathly dark destination we were cast intoafter living an evil life, it was the horror of the burning state of unbearable condemnation thatwe humans experienced during our lifetime. Hell has been the existing state of human life.
The other picture, titled Albion Arose, perfectly portrays the liberated state that understandingof the human condition makes possible. We can even see a bat flying out from the cave of

Painting by Genevieve Salter © 1998 Fedmex Pty Ltd
terrible alienation from which we emerge in a sunlit, rehabilitated, TRANSFORMED state.

Genevieve’s Sun poster, copies of which are freely available at <www.humancondition.com/wtm-posters>

This picture of a tiny figure standing with upraised arms in front of an immense sunas it rises over the horizon represents this fabulous moment of liberation from the humancondition. Created by WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT founding member Genevieve
Salter in January 1998, this image has become the emblem of the WTM and the basis of theseposters that form the backdrop of our theatre. It is the scale of the person compared with thesize of the rising sun that is so wonderful because it shows just how truly magnificent thearrival of the liberating truth that drives away all the darkness from our lives is.

Part 3:6 Science is the liberator of humanity
I would like to elaborate on a very significant point I raised in the previous Part,regarding the critically important role science has played in assembling the details that madeexplanation of the human condition possible.
What has enabled this, the real story about humanity—the underlying saga that hasdominated human life since we first became conscious beings—to at last be told is that aftercenturies of painstaking enquiry science finally gathered together sufficient knowledge for thehuman condition to be identified, explained and, by so doing, understood.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

But of course this is not the full story. As this entire presentation attests, ever sincehumans first became conscious some two million years ago humanity as a whole has, againstenormous resistance, persevered in the search for and accumulation of knowledge. Thus,it is on the shoulders of eons of human effort and sacrifice that sufficient knowledge—specifically knowledge of the difference in the way genes and nerves process information—was ultimately found to explain the human condition. Science is but the final refinementof that ancient quest for knowledge, the discipline the human race developed and entrustedwith the specific task of searching for first-principle-based understanding, specifically selfunderstanding—understanding of the human condition no less. So while, as was explainedin Part 3:4, science was an enterprise undertaken by upset insecure, human-conditionafraid humans, and as such has had to comply with the practice of denying any truthsthat confronted humans with the unbearable issue of the human condition—such as of
Integrative Meaning and of a nurtured cooperative, loving past for humans—it was thisdenial-complying, whole-view-evading, mechanistic, reductionist enterprise, supported bythe efforts of the entire human race, that enabled humanity to be liberated from two millionyears spent living in doubt and uncertainty about our species’ fundamental goodness,worthiness, relevance and meaning.
Science, supported by humanity as a whole, has enabled us to explain that when humansbecame fully conscious and able to wrest management of our lives from our instincts, ourinstincts resisted this takeover and that it was this opposition that unavoidably led to the
‘corrupted’, upset angry, egocentric and alienated state of our human condition. Further, it isthis ability now to understand how we became upset that allows that upset state to subside.
As mentioned earlier, the WTM has, for many years, been selling a t-shirt that features thequestion, ‘Ask me to explain the human condition’, under which is the Adam Stork picture.
Written on the back of the shirt is the answer: ‘Genes Can Orientate But Are Ignorant Of
Nerves’ Need To Understand. Result: The Human Condition.’ Again, the important point I’mmaking here is that it was science’s discovery of the existence of nerves and genes and howthey function that enabled our species’ consciousness-induced, human-condition-afflictedpsychosis to be explained and thus healed.
Yes, what distinguishes humans from other animals is our fully conscious state, ourability to understand and thus manage the relationship between cause and effect. However,prior to becoming fully conscious and able to self-manage—consciously decide how tobehave—our ape ancestors were controlled by and obedient to their instincts, as other animalsstill are. Aldous Huxley (1894-1963), the grandson of Darwin’s staunch defender Thomas

Part 3:6

Science is the liberator of humanity

Henry Huxley and author of such famous novels as Brave New World, acknowledged howother animals live, and also how our ancestors would have lived, obedient to their instincts,when he wrote, ‘Non-rational creatures do not look before or after, but live in the animal eternity of aperpetual present; instinct is their animal grace and constant inspiration; and they are never tempted tolive otherwise than in accord with their own…immanent law. Thanks to his reasoning powers and to theinstrument of reason, language, man (in his merely human condition) lives nostalgically, apprehensivelyand hopefully in the past and future as well as in the present’ (The Perennial Philosophy, 1946, p.141 of 352).

Part of this passage has been underlined because it raises the important question of whatwould happen if a species was ‘tempted to live otherwise than in accord with their own’ instincts, as
Huxley infers humans must have done when we became fully conscious? The story of Adam
Stork describes what actually had to have happened.
At this point it should again be explained why it is being so strongly asserted that whathas been presented is the real explanation of the human condition. It may at first seemunscientific to say unequivocally that this is the understanding of the human condition thathumanity has so tirelessly sought. Surely, you may think that what is being put forwardat this stage is no more than a hypothesis, much as Darwin’s idea of natural selection wasput forward only as a hypothesis. As Thomas Henry Huxley wrote, ‘We wanted…to get holdof clear and definite conceptions [as to the origin of the variety of life on Earth] which could bebrought face to face with facts and have their validity tested. The “Origin [of Species]” provided uswith the working hypothesis we sought’ (The Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Leonard Huxley, Vol.1,
1900, p.170).

For a hypothesis to become accepted as true the scientific method dictates that it
must first be tested and in the case of a hypothesis about the human condition the ultimatetest is how accountable it is of our own lives. As has been mentioned, that greatest of allphysicists, Albert Einstein, once said that ‘truth is what stands the test of experience’ (Out of My
Later Years, 1950).

The Australian author Morris West similarly wrote that ‘Life itself is the best
of all lie-detectors’ (A View from the Ridge, 1996). Fantastic a claim as it may seem, what is being
presented here is the long-sought-after, desperately needed, psychosis-addressing-andresolving, human race-transforming explanation of the human condition and the reason youwill know this is because once you understand the explanation and begin to apply it—aswill be done throughout this presentation—you will discover it is so able to make senseof human behaviour it makes it transparent. As mentioned in Section 1:13 of Freedom
Expanded: Book 2, a reader of my books complained about this transparency when hewrote the following to the WTM: ‘Diving into a sea of truth where everything is completelytransparent one can’t but ask, “how will anybody cope with this; how in the world can anybody cross

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
such darkness to reach light?!”’ (Enrico, WTM records, 24 Feb. 2011). This transparency of ourselves
and our world—for example, the exposure of all our falseness—that understandingof the human condition brings is the ultimate ‘test of experience’ that confirms that theunderstanding being presented here is the long-sought explanation of the human condition.
In this particular scientific study—the biological analysis of the human condition—wehumans are the subjects, which means we can experience, feel and know the truthfulness orotherwise of the explanations being put forward.

Part 3:7 The depth of our anger
To summarise Part 3 thus far, we can, through using the Adam Stork analogy,understand that neither Adam Stork (as a representative of humanity) nor any of hisdescendants could have hoped to relieve themselves of the injustice of their condemnedcondition until such time as sufficient knowledge was found to explain why the upset angry,egocentric and alienated state emerged. Descriptions of Adam Stork’s upset, embattledcondition were not enough, the upset state had to be explained. The story of the Garden of
Eden described perfectly how Adam and Eve went in search of knowledge, took the ‘fruit’
‘from the tree of…knowledge’, but at the end of that story they were ‘banished…from the Garden’
as evil beings. Until the difference between the gene and nerve-based learning systems wasunderstood there was no ability to clarify the situation and explain why ‘Adam and Eve’,why humans, were good and not bad; to explain why they did not deserve to be banished,exiled to a state of upset.
The next image features another famous cartoon by Michael Leunig, in my view hisgreatest, so it is with deep reverence to Leunig that I have taken the liberty of drawing threemore frames in his marvellously expressive style to complete the story. Leunig’s cartoondepicts the Genesis story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, beginning with Adamand Eve taking the ‘fruit’ (Gen. 3:3) ‘from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ (2:9, 17) andbeing ‘banished…from the Garden of Eden’ (3:23) as a result. Up to that point there is nothingunusual about the story being portrayed, however, the cartoon goes on to show Adamreaping revenge upon that hallowed Garden. Possibly Leunig meant for the retaliation tobe interpreted as a straightforward joke about human behaviour—‘You kicked me out, I’llget even’—but surely there is a deeper truth to the retaliation that accounts for the cartoonresonating with so many people. Hasn’t Leunig got to the truth that lies at the very heartof the issue of our human condition, and summarised that truth in the most succinct waypossible using the story of the Garden of Eden? Hasn’t he captured the underlying feelingthat we humans have of being condemned as fundamentally evil and God-disobeying whenin our heart of hearts we don’t believe we are; and hasn’t he captured the psychotic angerthat feeling of unjust condemnation has caused us?
As we can now understand, humans have been unjustly condemned since our consciousmind became fully developed and we became a self-managing species some two millionyears ago—so how deeply, deeply angry must we be inside ourselves having had to live

Part 3:7

The depth of our anger

81
undefended on this planet against so much unjust condemnation for so long! I ask you,wouldn’t, and shouldn’t, we be as angry as Leunig has depicted us in this cartoon?

Drawings by Jeremy Griffith, with deeply appreciative deference to Michael Leunig, Jul. 2009

Cartoon by Michael Leunig that appeared in Melbourne’s The Age newspaper on 31 Dec. 1988

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

To analyse the cartoon’s elements more closely, in the fourth frame of this cartoon we see
Adam fuming with rage for being evicted, implying that he doesn’t believe it is deserved, anddeciding that he has no choice but to retaliate against the injustice; he can’t be expected to justsit there and take it, he has to find some way of demonstrating that he doesn’t accept as truethe criticism that he is fundamentally bad. And so a vengeful Adam returns with a chainsaw toraze the Garden. The guardian angel is in tears at the wanton destruction, and we can see that
Eve is similarly distressed by his actions. (This lack of empathy by women for men’s battleto defy the ignorance of our instinctive self, which Leunig has so honestly expressed here,will be explained in Part 7:1.) But Adam’s expression and body language shows the immenserelief and satisfaction his retaliation brings him. In giving the guardian angel ‘the bird’, he’ssymbolically saying, ‘Stick that up your jumper for unjustly condemning me!’
BUT, above all, in the expression of extreme anger on Adam’s face, Leunig has
revealed just what two million years of being unjustly condemned by the whole world hasdone to us humans. And since the sun, the rain, the trees and the innocent animals are allfriends of our original instinctive self, through that association they too have condemnedus. While, as will be explained at length later in Part 3:11D, we have learnt to conceal howupset we are—learnt ‘civility’—underneath that facade of restraint lies the level of anger
Leunig has portrayed.
It really has been a case of ‘Give me liberty or give me death’, ‘No retreat, no surrender’, ‘Deathbefore dishonour’, ‘Death or glory’, ‘Do or die’, ‘Die on your feet, don’t live on your knees’, ‘Never givein’, ‘I’d rather reign in hell than serve in heaven’, ‘You can stand me up at the gates of hell, but I won’tback down’, as the old sayings go. We could never accept that we were fundamentally bad, evil
beings, for if we did we wouldn’t be able to get out of bed in the morning and face the world.
If we truly believed we were fundamentally evil beings, we would shoot ourselves. There hadto be a greater truth that explained us and we couldn’t rest until we found it. And so every dayas we got out of bed we took on the world of ignorance that was condemning us. We defiedthe implication that we are bad, we shook our fist at the heavens; in essence, we said, ‘Oneday, one day, we are going to prove ourselves, explain that we are not bad after all, and untilthat day arrives we are not going to ‘back down’, we are not going to take the criticism, weare going to fight back with all our might.’ And that is what we did, and because we did wehave now finally broken through and found the full truth that explains that we humans arewonderful, even divine beings, after all.
When the American clergyman and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr spokeso eloquently of his ‘dream’ of being able to say we are ‘Free at last! Free at last! Thank God
Almighty, we are free at last!’ (‘I Have A Dream’ speech, 28 Aug. 1963), he was in truth dreaming about the
arrival of the all-liberating, all-emancipating and all-reconciling understanding of the humancondition that has now finally arrived.
Yes, the essential truth that has now at last been explained is that we should never havebeen ‘thrown out of the Garden of Eden’ in the first place—which is why I have taken theliberty of attempting to draw three additional frames to complete the story. The first framethat I have added depicts Adam and Eve beckoning to the guardian angel to return, whilethe second shows them explaining to the angel the biological reason why we humans aren’tfundamentally evil—in fact, explaining that we are the absolute heroes of the story of life on
Earth—a truth that so affects the angel that it starts to cry out of regret and sympathy. The

Part 3:7

The depth of our anger

83
third and final frame shows the angel taking Adam and Eve, the human race in effect, by thehand and apologetically escorting us back to the Garden of Eden.
This cartoon encapsulates the whole human story now—starting as it does with the humanrace emerging in an unconscious, unaware, unknowing, ‘knowledge-less’, ignorant, upsetfree, pre-human-condition-afflicted, innocent instinctive state. We then, however, developed afully conscious thinking, self-adjusting mind and became an extremely psychologically upset,angry, retaliatory, defensive, egocentric, human-condition-afflicted species, before finallyfinding the redeeming and ameliorating understanding of why our ‘good-and-evil’-afflictedstate emerged, which in turn allows us to return to an upset-free, psychologically-untroubled,settled, relieved, peaceful, harmonious existence.
In finding the liberating understanding of the human condition, humanity has come fullcircle. Our round of departure has ended. The Nobel Prize-winning American-born, Britishpoet T.S. Eliot wonderfully articulated our species’ horrifically agonising but awesomelyheroic journey from an original innocent, yet ignorant, state to a psychologically upset state,and back to an uncorrupted, but this time enlightened, state when he wrote, ‘We shall not ceasefrom exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the placefor the first time’ (Little Gidding, 1942).

I should explain that in the frames attached to Leunig’s cartoon, I included a giraffe, arhinoceros and a buffalo (although I mistakenly gave the buffalo Asian buffalo horns rather than
African buffalo horns) to reflect Africa’s heritage as our original Garden of Eden. Africa is ourinstinctive self or soul’s home, it is where our species grew up, so the animals of that cradle ofhumanity represent our soul’s original friends before we turned on them and their world withsuch a vengeance because their innocence, and that of their world, exposed, confronted andunjustly condemned us for our own loss of innocence. In the 1998 documentary Scrapbooks
From Africa and Beyond about the exotic life of American photographer and author Peter
Beard, Beard made this comment when talking about Africa that recognises how condemningit has been for us humans: ‘Nature has hundreds of millions of years of messages for us—we camefrom that base but we want to deny it and pour cement over it.’ As evidence of the devastation upset
humans have inflicted on the natural world (which Leunig illustrated so powerfully by having
Adam take to the hallowed garden with a chainsaw!), in his 1963 book, the appropriately titled
The End of the Game, which contains a collage of amazing photographs of natural Africa, Beardrecords how a white African hunter, ironically named J.A. Hunter, dispatched ‘996 Rhinos’ from
‘August 29th 1944 to October 31st 1946’ (p.137 of 280). That is the equivalent of nearly ten rhinoceroses
every week for more than two years that he shot to death! In truth, hunting animals was thefirst expression of our anger and resentment for being unjustly condemned by our originalinstinctive self and its friends. As mentioned, since our original instinctive self developedalongside nature, by association nature has also criticised us. Further, since the innocenceof animals contrasted with our own lack of innocence, to attack that innocence was a meansof getting even with it for its implied condemnation of the upset state. As will be explainedagain in Part 7:1, research shows that 80 percent of the food of existing hunter-foragers, suchas the Bushmen of the Kalahari, is supplied by the women’s foraging (Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers,eds. Richard B. Lee & Irven DeVore, 1976, p.115 of 408). So what were men doing hunting all day? We can
now understand that what they were doing was getting even with innocence for its unjustcondemnation of their upset state.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

With the explanation and defence for our corrupted self now found our former friends theanimals and their world should, in effect, apologise to us humans for criticising us so unjustlyfor so long and welcome us back into the fold, as my third frame depicts. We can see thatonly understanding of the human condition was ever going to allow the real repair of not onlyourselves but planet Earth; only dignifying understanding could quell our species’ immenselyupset and destructive nature. Incidentally, isn’t that the most amazing statement? We killed
‘996 Rhinos’ but they should apologise to US humans! Amazing as it is, this statement is true,
as this presentation will continue to confirm.

Cartoon by Michael Leunig (detail) that appearedin Melbourne’s The Age newspaper on 31 Dec. 1988

To elaborate, this need and capacity to murder animals, and eventually one another,reveals the very deep psychosis that lies within us humans. As Leunig’s cartoon predictedwith his drawing of the wasteland (above) that results from Adam’s retaliation, unless wefound the dignifying understanding of ourselves our anger was such that we were going todestroy this planet. Hugging trees, cuddling animals, reducing our ‘carbon footprint’, andall the other supposed noble causes that people take up today, were never going to ‘Save the
World’, as placards for the Green Movement proclaim—no, only understanding of the humancondition could save the situation, avoid the destruction of our world, but paradoxicallythat search for liberating understanding depended on continuing the corrupting search forknowledge, not on ‘flying back on course’ and taking up feel-good causes. It is the finding ofthe understanding of the fundamental goodness of humans that ends the unjust criticism thathas so upset us and which now allows our anger, egocentricity and alienation to subside. It isexplanation that is key: understanding is the basis for compassion.
As I have already emphasised, there has been much talk of the need to love each otherand to love the environment, but the real need and cause on Earth has been to find the meansto love the dark side of ourselves, to bring understanding to that aspect of our make-up. Andagain, as the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung frequently emphasised, ‘wholeness for humansdepended on the ability to own their own shadow’—or as the pre-eminent philosopher from South

Africa Sir Laurens van der Post said, ‘True love is love of the difficult and unlovable’ (Journey Into

Part 3:7

The depth of our anger

Russia, 1964, p.145 of 319) and ‘Only by understanding how we were all a part of the same contemporary
pattern [of wars, cruelty, greed and indifference] could we defeat those dark forces with a trueunderstanding of their nature and origin’ (Jung and the Story of Our Time, 1976, p.24 of 275).

True compassion was ultimately the only means by which peace and love could cometo our planet and it could only be achieved through finding the fully accountable, psychosisending understanding of our human condition. Drawing again from the writings of Sir
Laurens: ‘Compassion leaves an indelible blueprint of the recognition that life so sorely needs betweenone individual and another; one nation and another; one culture and another. It is also valid for the roadwhich our spirit should be building now for crossing the historical abyss that still separates us from a trulycontemporary vision of life, and the increase of life and meaning that awaits us in the future’ (ibid. p.29).

Yes, only ‘true understanding of the nature and origin’ of our species’ ‘good-and-evil’-afflicted,even ‘fallen’ or corrupted condition could allow us to cross ‘the historical abyss’ that ‘separate[d]us’ from a ‘compassion[ate]’, reconciled, ameliorated, ‘meaning[ful]’ view of ourselves. This
‘future’ that Sir Laurens anticipated, of finding understanding of our human condition, has
now finally arrived. One day there had to be, to quote The Rolling Stones’ lyrics from 1968,
‘Sympathy for the devil’; one day, which is today, we had to find compassionate understanding
of the dark side of human nature!
So, we can now see that our divisive human nature was not an unchangeable orimmutable state as many people came to believe, and which E.O. Wilson’s theory of
Eusociality deems it to be, rather it was the result of the human condition, the inabilityto understand ourselves, and therefore it will dissipate now that we have found thatunderstanding. Importantly, this understanding of why we became upset as a speciesdoesn’t condone or sanction ‘evil’, rather, through bringing understanding to humans’ upsetbehaviour, it ameliorates and thus subsides and ultimately eliminates it. ‘Evil’—humans’divisive behaviour—was a result of a conflict and insecurity within us that arose from thedilemma of the human condition: resolve the dilemma and you end the conflict and insecurity.
As emphasised, peace could only come to our troubled, divisive state and world throughremoving the underlying insecurity of our condition. With our ego or sense of self worthsatisfied at the most fundamental level our anger can now subside and all our denials andresulting alienation can be dismantled. From having lived in a dark, cave-like, depressedstate of condemnation and, as a result, had to repress, hide and deny our true selves, we canat last, as the 1960s rock musical Hair sang, ‘Let the sunshine in’—end our horrid existence ofhaving to depend on denial to cope. The compassionate-understanding-based psychologicalrehabilitation of the human race—the TRANSFORMATION of all humans—can begin.
As will be explained shortly in Part 3:10, the ‘Brief description of the TRANSFORMATIONof the human race’, while it will take a number of generations for the complete psychologicalrehabilitation of the human race to be achieved, all humans can immediately beeffectively free of the human condition by leaving their old upset way of living behind ascompassionately understood and therefore obsolete and, in its place, taking up support ofthe humanity-liberating understanding of the human condition, which is the TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING.

So, in a nutshell, the treatise that I will go on to flesh out in the upcoming Parts ofthis presentation is that the nerve-based learning system is a different form of information

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
processing system to the gene-based learning system, and within that differentiation lies theexplanation of the human condition—why we humans are good and not bad after all. Soyou could win your football match on the weekend, or you could build the biggest moneypile ever seen, or you could follow the example of Mother Teresa and try to save those whoare suffering—any one of which would bring you some relief from the insecurity of yourcondition—but you were never going to end the horror of the human condition until you couldexplain it, which thank goodness we now at last can.
Again, as was mentioned in Part 2:5, the Australian journalist Richard Nevillesummarised our species’ plight perfectly when he said, ‘The world is hurtling to catastrophe:from nuclear horrors, a wrecked ecosystem, 20 million dead each year from malnutrition, 600 millionchronically hungry…All these crises are man made, their causes are psychological. The cures must comefrom this same source; which means the planet needs psychological maturity…fast. We are locked in arace between self destruction and self discovery’ (Good Weekend mag. Sydney Morning Herald, 14 Oct. 1986).

Either we found the greater dignifying understanding of ourselves or it was game over. And,as we will see later, the race went right down to the wire, right to the end game point ofself-destruction in terms of terminal levels of alienation destroying the human species andthe planet. Recall the photo of the housing estates in California (that were included in Part
2:5), estates that in truth are not much more than sterile slums in terms of their destructive,
alienation-inducing soul-lessness. Ken Miall (an adolescent in the audience today) loves hispet animals—he has ferrets and pet sheep and horses, a veritable menagerie of animals at hishome in rural New South Wales—and these are all his soul’s friends, which in truth we allneed. The reason we need to preserve nature is not because we might, for instance, find usefuldrugs in some of the rare plants, as human-condition-avoiding environmentalists have beenreduced to arguing, but because the natural world is our instinctive self or soul’s home andwithout it our soul is bereft, left tortured. Ken’s pets keep him alive in a world of adults thathas gone mad; a world that, to his instinctive self or soul, is so wrong.
This issue of how deeply disturbing and wrong the upset world of adults is to youngadolescents raises the whole issue of ‘Resignation’.

Part 3:8 The anguish of Resignation
The terms ‘Infancy’, ‘Childhood’, ‘Adolescence’ and ‘Adulthood’ are commonly usedto describe phases of human maturation, however, having never before been able to explainthe battle that humans have been involved in of our conscious intellect against our ignorantinstincts, it has not been possible to properly interpret these stages that we as individualshave been going through—and indeed humanity as a whole has traversed—but now we can.
What follows then is an explanation of these stages of maturation, in the context of the humancondition being understood.
To begin, ‘Infancy’ is the time when consciousness first appears and we become selfaware, able to recognise our existence, become aware of ‘I’. It is not possible to have a senseof self-awareness until such time as the swirling array of experiences steadies enough in ourmind, makes sufficient sense to realise that we are at the centre of those changing experiences.

Part 3:8

The anguish of Resignation

It is during ‘infancy’ that we become sufficiently able to understand the relationship betweencause and effect to realise that we are at the centre of all the events we are experiencing.
So, the ability to make sense of experience, to understand change sufficiently to be awareor ‘conscious’ of how experiences are related, first demonstrates itself in our infancy whenwe become self-aware. While some other higher primates are sufficiently able to understandcause and effect to become self-aware, only humans have been able to progress beyond thatpoint and become so able to understand the relationship between events, to make sense ofchange, that we are able to confidently start manipulating the world around us, which bringsabout the next stage in the development of conscious thought—childhood.
‘Childhood’ is the stage when humans develop the ability to understand the relationshipbetween cause and effect sufficiently to experiment or ‘play’ with the power of conscious freewill. This ability to understand cause and effect meant there was going to come a time whenwe became sufficiently confident in managing events to carry out experiments in managingevents over a brief time and then across increasingly longer periods. Childhood is the ‘Look atme Dad, I can jump puddles!’ stage where we start to confidently manage our lives.
The next stage of ‘Adolescence’ occurs when we become sufficiently adept in ourability to understand cause and effect to want to better understand not just the relationshipof events over a brief period of time but over all of time. It is when humans try to makesense of life itself, understand the meaning of all changing events, the meaning of theworld we are living in so that we can adjust our lives in accordance with that meaning.
Adolescence is when we become philosophical, ‘philosophy’ being ‘the study of the truthsunderlying all reality’ (Macquarie Dict. 3rd edn, 1998).

It was during this stage of thinking deeply about the meaning of life that we historicallyencountered the problem of the human condition, the issue of the imperfection of humanbehaviour generally—and, since we were a product of all the upset that we inevitablyencountered during our upbringing, we also tried to understand the upset, the imperfection,the lack of ideality, that was becoming increasingly apparent in our own behaviour.
The problem was that it didn’t take much thinking about what the meaning of existenceis before we realised that it is to be cooperative, loving and selfless—a realisation thatconfronted us with the issue of why aren’t humans cooperative, loving and selfless, which isthe issue of the human condition. As was outlined in Part 3:4 and will be more fully introducedin Part 4:4B, the meaning of existence is to develop the order of matter, to integrate matter intoever larger and more stable wholes. While the upset human race has learnt to live in denialof this truth of Integrative Meaning, the fact is, we are surrounded by examples of orderedmatter, by arrangements of matter where the parts of the arrangement behave cooperatively.
A tree’s leaves, branches, trunk, roots and bark, and indeed all the cells of all those parts ofthe tree, exist in a state of harmonious cooperation—even behaving selflessly, such as whenleaves fall (in effect, give their life) in autumn so that the tree as a whole can better survivethrough winter. Our body is a similar collection of cooperating parts. Almost everywhere welook we see arrangements of ordered matter and we see how well those arrangements benefitfrom all their parts cooperating in a selfless fashion. In fact, in the instances where there isn’tsuch cooperation, such as where we see competition and fighting between organisms, werealise how destabilising and divisive such behaviour is. As such, we deduce very quickly

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
that selfishness and aggression are not consistent with creating order and stability. Moreover,from what we deduce from our surroundings and from what we are taught about the natureof matter at school, we also very quickly realise that there is a tendency of matter to developever larger and more stable arrangements of matter; for instance, atoms have come togetherto form molecules, and in turn molecules have come together to form compounds, which inturn have come together or integrated to form virus-like organisms, which in turn have cometogether to form single-celled organisms. We are able to observe that single-celled organismshave formed multicellular organisms and, in turn, multicellular organisms have come togetheror integrated to form societies of multicellular organisms. Clearly there is a hierarchy ofordered matter in the world around us, that ever larger and more stable arrangements of matterare being developed, and that selfless cooperation is the glue that makes those arrangementsof matter stay together in a stable state. In essence, we are able to recognise that the meaningof existence is to develop order—to integrate matter into ever larger and more stable wholes.
But, as mentioned in Part 3:4, the inherent problem with this obvious truth of Integrative
Meaning is that it is unbearably confronting because it begs the question of why do we behaveso divisively—so competitively, aggressively and selfishly?
So, when young adolescents realised this obvious truth of Integrative Meaning and thehorrifically confronting and unbearably depressing issue it raises of the human condition theysoon learnt that, unable to explain it, they had no choice but to resign themselves to living indenial of both the issue itself, and the truth of selfless-cooperation-based Integrative Meaningthat confronted them with that issue.
Furthermore, not only have young adolescents been able to reason that the meaning ofexistence is to be cooperative, loving and selfless, we humans also have unconditionallyaltruistic instincts—our moral conscience—informing us that is the way we should behave.
As was briefly explained in Part 3:4 and will be more fully explained in Part 4:4D, these moralinstincts were acquired during a time in our species’ past when our ape ancestors lived in amatriarchal, nurturing, fully cooperative, all-loving, pre-conscious, human-condition-free,upset-free, harmonious, innocent state—a time that is recognised in all our mythologies, suchas in the story of the Garden of Eden.
So, from both their own power of reasoning and the ‘voice’ of their own conscience,young adolescents have historically been confronted by the issue of the human condition—the issue of why aren’t we humans ideally behaved now—and the more they tried to thinkabout the question without the explanation of the human condition, the more depressed theybecame, because the only conclusion they could come to was that humans were a flawed,unworthy, destructive, defiling, bad, awful species. In fact, trying to face down the issue ofthe human condition, especially the issue of the lack of ideality within yourself, eventuallybecame so depressing—indeed, suicidally depressing—that there was, as mentioned, nooption but to resign yourself to adopting a strategy of block-out or avoidance or denial of
Integrative Meaning, and of your unbearably condemning cooperative, loving and selflessinstinctive self or soul, and with it the whole depressing issue that is raised of your ownand the human race’s seemingly immensely flawed condition. Having to resign yourselfto blocking out your unbearably condemning, all-sensitive and all-loving instinctive self

Part 3:8

The anguish of Resignation

89
or soul was a truly terrible decision to have to make, and certainly one adolescents didn’tmake easily, because it meant becoming such a false/superficial/fake, empty, effectively deadperson, but without the explanation of the human condition there was no other way—thealternative of living in a state of suicidal depression was not an option. The fact that humanshave had to resign to living such a horrifically fraudulent and destitute existence is witnessto the absolutely extraordinary courage that the human race has exhibited for the last twomillion years!
This deeper philosophical thought journey that brought humans into contact with theissue of the human condition began when we were around 10 or 11 years of age and deepeneduntil Resignation became unavoidable at about 14 or 15 years of age. In fact, moving childrenfrom primary school to secondary school when they were around 12 years old and on thecusp of adolescence was at base a recognition that children had, at this age, undergone thisfundamental change from idealistic extravert to sobered introvert.
The final stage of ‘Adulthood’ occurs when humans leave the insecurity of anadolescence spent attempting to understand the meaning of existence, for having succeededin understanding themselves and their world they are, at last, able to mature to secureadulthood. Since the human race as a whole has not, until now, been able to understand thecontext, meaning and worth of human life, in particular understand the dilemma of the humancondition, humans haven’t been able to properly enter adulthood. That’s not to say that whenstages of maturation aren’t properly completed it doesn’t mean subsequent growth stagesdon’t take place, they do—but if a previous stage isn’t properly fulfilled those subsequentstages are greatly compromised by the incomplete preceding stages. People do grow up, butin a state of arrested development. Without the explanation of the human condition humanshave been insecure, they have not properly developed—in fact, they have been preoccupiedwith still trying to validate themselves, prove that they are good and not bad, find somerelief from the insecurity of the human condition. It is only now with understanding of thehuman condition found that humans will be able to complete their adolescence properlyand grow into secure adults, and the human race as a whole will be able to mature frominsecure adolescence to secure adulthood. (Incidentally, I initially called our organisationthe Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood because humanity has been stalled in insecureadolescence searching for the understanding of the human condition that matures humanityto secure adulthood, and since we are presenting that understanding we are laying the
Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood.)
In summary, infancy is ‘I am’, childhood is ‘I can’, adolescence is ‘but who am I?’ andadulthood is ‘I know who I am’.
A much more detailed description of all these stages of maturation will be given shortlyin Part 3:11, however, since the Resignation that has been occurring in adolescence is suchan important element in understanding our species’ current behaviour it is necessary toprovide the following more detailed description of it. (The full description of the process of
Resignation appears in the ‘Resignation’ chapter of my book A Species In Denial, which canbe accessed at <www.humancondition.com/asid-resignation>.)
_______________________

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Resignation to living a life of denial of the issue of the human condition and any truthsthat brought it into focus (which, as we will see as this whole presentation about the humancondition unfolds, have been many, many, many truths) has been a feature of human lifesince our conscious, self-managing mind fully developed some two million years ago andwe became sufferers of the agony of the human condition. Indeed, it has been the mostimportant psychological event to occur in human life and yet it has never been explained andonly very rarely acknowledged before now. This is because you could not admit to livingin denial and at the same time be in denial—you can’t effectively lie if you admit you arelying. To admit to the process of Resignation meant admitting that the resigned adult worldwas an artificial, superficial, fraudulent, virtually dead world of terrible lies, and to admitthat when we couldn’t understand and thus do anything about being so incredibly fake wasobviously untenable. It is only now that we can explain—> and thus defend—> and thusleave behind—> and thus ultimately heal the extremely upset, denial-based, alienated worldwe have been living in that we can afford to admit and talk about all that upset and all thedenial and resulting alienation from all that is true and meaningful in our lives. Clearly, anunderstanding of the process of Resignation is key to understanding why our lives have beenso incredibly distressed, lost, empty and weird.
As has been described, the issue of the human condition was first encountered in latechildhood. As I will talk more about shortly, having already resigned to living in denial ofthe issue of the human condition, adults have become highly adept at overlooking the utterwrongness and hypocrisy of human life and blocking out the question it raised as to theirown badness/guilt or otherwise, but children in their naivety still recognised that hypocrisy.
Children are both able to know (from listening to their instinctive moral conscience) and toreason that the ideal way to behave is to be cooperative, selfless and loving and, as such, areable to recognise that there is something terribly amiss with the way humans are behavingnow. They ask, ‘Mum, why do you and Dad argue all the time?’ and ‘Why are we alwaysworried about having enough money?’ and ‘Why are we going to a big, expensive partywhen the family down the road is so poor?’ and ‘Why is everyone so lonely, unhappy andpreoccupied?’ and ‘Why are people so fake; so artificial and false?’ and ‘Why is it thatthe only thing people talk about when they meet each other is such incredibly superficialthings as the weather or the football?’ and ‘What is religion?’ and ‘Why do people go tochurch?’ and ‘Why do they pray?’ and ‘Who is God?’ and ‘Why do people make awfuljokes?’ and ‘why do men kill each other?’ and ‘Why are there wars?’ and ‘Why do we allowpictures of dead people in the paper?’ and ‘Why are there pictures about sex everywhere?’and ‘Why did those people fly those planes into those buildings?’ And the truth is, theseare the real questions about human life, as this quote by the Nobel Prize-winning biologist
George Wald acknowledges: ‘The great questions are those an intelligent child asks and, gettingno answers, stops asking’ (Introduction by George Wald to The Fitness of the Environment, Lawrence J. Henderson,
1958, p.xvii). The
reason children ‘stopped asking’ the real questions—stopped trying to point
out the all-important and immensely-obvious-if-you-are-looking-at-the-world-truthfully, yetalmost totally unacknowledged proverbial ‘elephant in the living room’ issue of the humancondition—was because they eventually realised that adults couldn’t answer their questions;and, more to the point, they were made distinctly uncomfortable by them.

Part 3:8

The anguish of Resignation

The truth is, the hypocrisy of human behaviour—which is the difference between whatour cooperatively-orientated, all-loving, pre-human-condition-afflicted, innocent, originalinstinctive moral self or soul expects of human behaviour and what our present immenselyupset, human-condition-afflicted, denial-committed behaviour is actually like—surrounds us.
Two-thirds of the world’s population live in poverty while the rest bathe in material securityand continually seek more wealth and luxury. Everywhere there is extreme inequality betweenindividuals, sexes, races and even generations. When a woman pointed out on a radio talkback program that ‘we can get a man to walk on the moon, but a woman is still not safe walking downthe street at night on her own’, she was acknowledging the absurd hypocrisy of human life. Yes,
humans can be heartbroken when they lose a loved one, but are also capable of shooting oneof their own family. We will dive into raging torrents to help strangers without thought of self,but are also capable of molesting children. We are so loving we will give our life for anotherand yet we routinely torture others. A community will pool its efforts to save a kitten strandedup a tree and yet humans will ‘eat elaborately prepared dishes featuring endangered animals’ (TIMEmag. 8 Apr. 1991). We have been sensitive enough to create the beauty of the Sistine Chapel, yet
so insensitive as to pollute our planet to the point of threatening our own existence.
For a child entering adolescence, which has historically occurred around the beginning oftheir teenage years, this deeper philosophical questioning about the extraordinary inconsistencyof human behaviour with what their reasoning and their moral instincts—their mind and theirsoul—expect of human behaviour leads them to thinking about the inconsistency of their ownbehaviour with the ideals. So, it was not only the issue of the human condition without—thelack of ideality in the world around them—that has been unbearably depressing for adolescents,it was also the issue of the human condition within, their own lack of ideality from the upsetthey encountered having to be born into and raised in an upset world.
The result of encountering the issue of the human condition both without and withinmeant that between the ages of 13 and 15 adolescents struggled to hold on to their innocent,instinctive, born-with awareness of another magic, true, all-loving, utterly cooperative and allsensitive world free of the human condition. Trying to hold on to the last vestiges of idealityin their lives before they had to resign, young girls, if they were lucky, had their ponies, theirlast true friend before they died in soul from being used as sex objects, while young boys,if they were lucky, had a dog, their soul’s companion before they undertook their initiationinto the war zone of the world of men. (As mentioned, the immensely tragic roles of men andwomen under the duress of the human condition will be explained in Part 7:1.)
Eventually, however, trying to think about the issue of the human condition both withoutand within became overwhelming, unbearably—in fact, suicidally—depressing, at whichpoint it became necessary for adolescents to resign themselves to a strategy of living in mentaldenial of their unbearably condemning instinctive self or soul and the whole depressing issueit raised of the human condition.
Adolescents didn’t resign easily because it meant separating themselves from all thewonder, beauty and excitement of existence that our species’ instinctive self or soul has accessto. In fact, denial and the resulting alienation from our true self was a form of death—inresigning you were adopting such a false, dishonest state that you were, in effect, becoming
‘dead’ inside. After Resignation all access to the wonderful world of our species’ soul was going

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
to be blocked out because it raised too many unbearably depressing questions about our currentimmensely upset, compromised, corrupted life and world. But, by this stage, the ‘voice’ of ourconscience was becoming unbearable, leaving us no choice but to repress and ignore it. The
English poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) acknowledged the pain of the criticism emanating fromour conscience when he wrote, ‘our nature [our primary instinctive state, which is our cooperativelyorientated moral soul, the voice of which is our conscience—is]…A sharp accuser, but a helpless friend!’
(An Essay on Man, Epistle II, 1733). His compatriot, the poet laureate William Wordsworth (1770-1850),
was also pointing out the unbearable condemnation from our instinctive conscience when,in his great poem Intimations of Immortality, he wrote about our ‘High instincts before whichour mortal Nature / Did tremble like a guilty thing surprised.’ And the exceptionally honest French

Algerian author, philosopher and Nobel Prize winner for Literature, Albert Camus (1913-1960),was similarly voicing the murderous pain of the criticism coming from our naive, ignorant,innocent instinctive self when he wrote, ‘[can] innocence, the moment it begins to act…avoidcommitting murder [?]’ (L’Homme Révolté, 1951, [pub. in English as The Rebel, 1953]).

And so, struggling mightily to resist Resignation, adolescents typically locked themselvesin their room and surrounded themselves with loud, head-banging music, just trying to losethemselves, escape the pain of what they were thinking and feeling about the wrongness ofthe world and of their own imperfections—and about the terrible, deadening consequences ofgiving in and resigning themselves to blocking out their soul and stopping themselves fromthinking about anything that brought the issue into focus, which is, of course, nearly everything.
Yes, Resignation brought with it both denial of soul (soul-repression, soul-death or
‘psychosis’) and fear of thinking (the inability to think, conscious denials or ‘neurosis’).

Revealingly, ‘psychosis’ literally means ‘soul-illness’, derived as it is from psyche, whichaccording to the Concise Oxford Dictionary comes from the Greek word psukhe meaning
‘breath, life, soul’, and which, according to The Encyclopedic World Dictionary, ‘Homeridentified with life itself ’ (and ‘Plato as immortal and akin to the gods’ and ‘neoplatonism as theanimating principle of the body’), and osis which, according to Dictionary.com, is of Greek origin
and means ‘abnormal state or condition’. ‘Neurosis’ similarly means ‘nerve-illness’, derived as itis, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, from the Greek word neuro meaning ‘neuronor nerve’, and osis which, as just mentioned, means ‘abnormal state or condition’. Thus, the two
elements involved in producing the upset state of the human condition of our gene-basedinstinctive soul and our newer nerve-based fully conscious thinking mind both suffered whenhumans resigned. In essence, we died in soul and in mind, we killed off our instinctive self orsoul and we stopped using our conscious mind to think truthfully and thus effectively—whatan extraordinarily high price to have to pay!
(Just to complete the description-by-definition of our soul-and-mind-destroyed upset stateand the psychological healing of our upset state that understanding of the human conditionfinally makes possible, the word ‘psychiatry’—a discipline that can now finally be practicedin earnest—literally means ‘soul-healing’, coming as it does from psyche, the meaning and

Part 3:8

The anguish of Resignation

93
source of which has already been described, and the Greek word iatreia, which, according to
The Encyclopedic World Dictionary, means ‘healing’. Similarly, ‘psychology’, which literallymeans the ‘study of the soul’, derived as it is, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary,from psyche, meaning ‘soul’, and the Greek word logia meaning ‘study of ’, is another field thatcan now, at last, be truthfully and thus properly studied. Also, while talking about these twoelements of our gene-based instinctive self or soul and our newer nerve-based fully consciousthinking mind, I should point out that our instinctive self or soul did involve natural selectionof nerves or neural pathways, so there was some nerve-based refinement involved in our genebased instinctive self or soul, and similarly, our newer nerve-based fully conscious thinkingmind did also develop by the gene-based process of natural selection, so our newer nervebased fully conscious thinking mind also involved some gene-based natural selection. While Iseem to talk about our gene-based instinctive self as being distinct or separate from our nervebased conscious thinking self, there was obviously some of the two information refinementsystems involved in each of the two conflicting aspects of ourselves. In a way there is some
‘mind’ involved in our ‘soul’, and some ‘instincts’ involved in our ‘intellect’. Some definitionsof ‘psyche’ have referred to it as ‘the human soul, spirit or mind’, and this acknowledgementof some ‘mind’ involved in our ‘soul’ is not inaccurate.)
Tragically, because of our soul’s unbearable criticism, upset humans have beenruthlessly repressing that idealistic part of themselves and, in the process, repressing all thebeauty and truth that our soul knows of and has access to—to such an extent that resignedhumans have now lost almost all memory of that original, innocent, ideal, true world thatour species grew up in. And without that memory humans walk in meaningless darkness.
The word ‘enthusiasm’ is derived from the Greek word enthios, which means ‘God within’.
Without some knowledge of the heavenly, integrative, unconditionally loving state thatour soul has already experienced, without some knowledge of ‘the God within’, life lostits richness and value. Resignation to a life of living in denial of the issue of the humancondition came at a very high price indeed.
Since we can now understand why such extreme alienation emerged in us humans, itis worth including here the following incredibly honest collection of quotes from the great
Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing (1927-1989), who bravely defied the tradition of denial whenhe wrote that ‘Our alienation goes to the roots. The realization of this is the essential springboardfor any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life…We are born into a world wherealienation awaits us. We are potentially men, but are in an alienated state [p.12 of 156] …the ordinaryperson is a shrivelled, desiccated fragment of what a person can be. As adults, we have forgotten most ofour childhood, not only its contents but its flavour; as men of the world, we hardly know of the existenceof the inner world [p.22] …The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being outof one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man [p.24] …between us and It [our true self or soul] thereis a veil which is more like fifty feet of solid concrete. Deus absconditus. Or we have absconded [p.118] …
The outer divorced from any illumination from the inner is in a state of darkness. We are in an age of

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
darkness. The state of outer darkness is a state of sin—i.e. alienation or estrangement from the innerlight [p.116]’ …We are all murderers and prostitutes—no matter to what culture, society, class, nation onebelongs…We are bemused and crazed creatures, strangers to our true selves, to one another, and to thespiritual and material world [pp.11-12]’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967). ‘We are dead,but think we are alive. We are asleep, but think we are awake. We are dreaming, but take our dreams tobe reality. We are the halt, lame, blind, deaf, the sick. But we are doubly unconscious. We are so ill thatwe no longer feel ill, as in many terminal illnesses. We are mad, but have no insight [into the fact of our
madness]’ (Self and Others, 1961, p.38 of 192).

It is no wonder adolescents fought so hard to resist Resignation! Indeed, if we need anyfurther proof of the struggles faced by resigning teenagers, consider the agonising poems thatadolescents in the throes of Resignation quite often wrote as one way of expressing their greatstruggle to someone—if only on a piece of paper—because adults, who were already resignedto living in denial of the whole issue of the human condition, were unable to recall andempathise with what they were going through. The following is an example of such a poem.
Sent to the WTM in February 2000 by Fiona Miller after she read my first book Free: The
End Of The Human Condition, it fully expresses the torture of accepting the consequencesof Resignation that Laing so honestly described, namely the death of our soul’s true worldand the adoption of a false, all-but-dead, deluded, alienated world. Significantly, it wasaccompanied by a note that also illustrates the fact that once resigned, adolescents typically
(like all resigned adults before them) very quickly forget or, more specifically, block-out thewhole horrific episode: ‘I dug out this poem I wrote in my diary when I was about 13 or 14 years old…
It has always sounded very depressing to me whenever I have read it and so I have not shown anyone sinceleaving school…Maybe this was the “transition point” [a term I had used about Resignation in writings I
had given Fiona] for me when instead of trying to fight forever I just integrated very nicely!!??’

This is Fiona’s incredible Resignation poem: ‘You will never have a home again / You’llforget the bonds of family and family will become just family / Smiles will never bloom from your heartagain, but be fake and you will speak fake words to fake people from your fake soul / What you do todayyou will do tomorrow and what you do tomorrow you will do for the rest of your life / From now onpressure, stress, pain and the past can never be forgotten / You have no heart or soul and there are nogood memories / Your mind and thoughts rule your body that will hold all things inside it; bottled up,now impossible to be released / You are fake, you will be fake, you will be a supreme actor of happinessbut never be happy / Time, joy and freedom will hardly come your way and never last as you well know
/ Others’ lives and the dreams of things that you can never have or be part of, will keep you alive / You

Part 3:8

The anguish of Resignation

95
will become like the rest of the world—a divine actor, trying to hide and suppress your fate, pretending itdoesn’t exist / There is only one way to escape society and the world you help build, but that is impossible,for no one can ever become a baby again / Instead you spend the rest of life trying to find the meaning oflife and confused in its maze.’ (Other incredibly honest poems are included in the aforementioned

‘Resignation’ chapter in A Species In Denial at <www.humancondition.com/asid-resignation>.)
Fiona was right, stopping thinking truthfully meant condemning yourself to a life
‘trying to find the meaning of life and confused in its maze’. The fact is, Resignation was a state of
extremely prejudiced falseness and thus futility when it came to thinking effectively. Theresigned state is not interested in the truth, it is interested only in evading the truth. As the
German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) recognised, ‘The discovery of truth isprevented most effectively…by prejudice, which…stands in the path of truth and is then like a contrarywind driving a ship away from land’ (Essays and Aphorisms, tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1970, p.120 of 237). Aldous

Huxley, who was introduced earlier, also courageously recognised why the resigned mind isincapable of penetrating thought when he wrote, ‘We don’t know because we don’t want to know’
(Ends and Means, 1937, p.270). T.S. Eliot was also acknowledging this truth when he wrote that

‘human kind cannot bear very much reality’ (Burnt Norton, 1936).

But while the consequences of Resignation were horrific, the alternative of continuing totry to think truthfully was an even worse option, as the Australian comedian Rod Quantockonce said, ‘Thinking can get you into terrible downwards spirals of doubt’ (‘Sayings of the Week’, Sydney
Morning Herald, 5 July 1986); and Albert Camus wrote that ‘Beginning to think is beginning to be
undermined’ (The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942); and another Nobel Prize winner for literature, Bertrand

Russell, similarly said, ‘Many people would sooner die than think’ (Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking,
1975, p.5 of 127).

So yes, going through Resignation has been a truly horrific experience. A friend and Iwere walking in bushland past a school one day when we came across a boy, who would havebeen about 14 years old, sitting by the track in an hunched, foetal position. When I asked himif he was okay he looked up with such deep despair in his eyes that it was clear he didn’t wantto be disturbed and so we left him alone. It was very apparent that he was trying to wrestlewith the issue of the human condition, but without understanding of the human condition ithasn’t been possible for humans to do so without becoming so hideously condemned andthus depressed that they had no choice but to eventually surrender and take up denial of theissue of the human condition as the only way to cope with it—even though doing so meantadopting a completely dishonest and superficial, effectively dead, existence.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

I haven’t as yet come across a photograph of an adolescent in the midst of Resignation,however, in my picture collection I do have the following haunting image of a boy who had,the previous day, lost all his classmates in a plane crash, and his expression is exactly thesame deeply sobered, drained pale, all-pretences-and-facades-stripped-away, pained, tragic,stunned, human-condition-laid-bare expression I have seen on the faces of adolescents goingthrough Resignation. We can see in this boy’s face that all the artificialities of human life havebeen rendered meaningless and ineffectual by the horror of losing all his friends, leaving bareonly the sad, painful awareness of a world devoid of any real love or truth.

‘Too poor to go on school trip, boy fishes the day after classmates perish in plane crash’
Photo by Harry Benson; published in the Fall Special 1991 edition of LIFE magazine

As mentioned above, one of the greatest agonies for resigning adolescents was that thewhole adult world, having already resigned themselves, could not acknowledge the Resignationprocess and only rarely recall having gone through it, which meant adolescents were essentiallyalone in what they were going through. Tragically there has been virtually no dialogue betweenresigning adolescents and resigned adults. Indeed, when adults read the ‘Resignation’ chapterin my book A Species In Denial they typically feel unnerved because in doing so they areprompted to remember being there, they are awakened to the memory of having made that

Part 3:8

The anguish of Resignation

97
terrible transition to the resigned state. Remember, it was only on very rare occasions that adultseven acknowledged the existence of the issue of the human condition, let alone having beenthrough Resignation—which makes the following acknowledgements very special indeed.
In his 1996 book The Moral Intelligence of Children, the renowned child psychiatrist
Robert Coles provided a rare account by an adult of a teenager in the midst of Resignation.
Coles is a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, which is not surprising given the degree of honestyhe managed to get up in this book about what adolescents go through—it is a fact that alittle bit of truth has been lauded while a lot of truth has been loathed. In commencing hisrecollection, Coles wrote: ‘I tell of the loneliness many young people feel, even if they have a goodnumber of friends…It’s a loneliness that has to do with a self-imposed judgment of sorts: I am pushedand pulled by an array of urges, yearnings, worries, fears, that I can’t share with anyone, really.’ As
emphasised, it has been difficult enough for adolescents to look at the human conditionwithout, namely the imperfection of the world around them, but it is when they looked at thehuman condition within themselves that they became overwhelmed with depression. The factis, no child has received the amount of nurturing all children received before the upset stateof the human condition emerged, and when this upset within adolescents became apparentit did result in a ‘self-imposed judgment’. Coles went on to describe his encounter with theteenager and the effect of this judgment of self that adolescents typically experienced: ‘Thissense of utter difference…makes for a certain moodiness well known among adolescents, who are, afterall, constantly trying to figure out exactly how they ought to and might live…I remember…a young manof fifteen who engaged in light banter, only to shut down, shake his head, refuse to talk at all when hisown life and troubles became the subject at hand. He had stopped going to school, begun using largeamounts of pot; he sat in his room for hours listening to rock music, the door closed. To myself I calledhim a host of psychiatric names: withdrawn, depressed, possibly psychotic; finally I asked him about hishead-shaking behavior: I wondered whom he was thereby addressing. He replied: “No one.” I hesitated,gulped a bit as I took a chance: “Not yourself?” He looked right at me now in a sustained stare, for thefirst time. “Why do you say that?” [he asked]…I decided not to answer the question in the manner that Iwas trained [as a denial-complying psychiatrist] to reply…an account of what I had surmised about him,what I thought was happening inside him…Instead, with some unease…I heard myself saying this: “I’vebeen there; I remember being there—remember when I felt I couldn’t say a word to anyone”…I can stillremember those words, still remember feeling that I ought not to have spoken them: it was a breach in
“technique”. The young man kept staring at me, didn’t speak, at least with his mouth. When he took outhis handkerchief and wiped his eyes, I realized they had begun to fill’ (pp.143-144 of 218).

The boy was in tears because Coles had reached him with some recognition andacknowledgement of what he was wrestling with. Coles had shown some honesty aboutwhat the boy could see and was struggling with, namely the horror of the utter hypocrisy ofhuman behaviour—which all those who had already resigned to living in denial of the humancondition had determinedly committed their minds to avoiding. It has been very hard to growup in a world that is so full of bullshit/denial/dishonesty, most especially its silence about thetruth of the human condition.
The words Coles used in his admission that he too had once grappled with the issue ofthe human condition, ‘I’ve been there’, are exactly those used by one of Australia’s greatestpoets, Henry Lawson, in his exceptionally honest poem about the human condition, about

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
the unbearable depression that has resulted from trying to confront the question of whyhuman behaviour is so at odds with the cooperative, loving Godly ideals of life. In his 1897poem The Voice from Over Yonder Lawson wrote: ‘“Say it! think it, if you dare! / Have you everthought or wondered / Why the Man and God were sundered [torn apart]? / Do you think the Makerblundered?” [Do you think humans are evil and a mistake?] / And the voice in mocking accents,answered only: “I’ve been there.”’ The unsaid words in the final phrase, ‘I’ve been there’, are

‘and I’m not going there again!’—the ‘there’ and the ‘over yonder’ of the title being the stateof deepest, darkest depression.

Goya’s The sleep of reason brings forth monsters (1796-97)

Interestingly, in his best-selling 2003 book Goya, about the great Spanish artist Francisco
Goya, the Australian Robert Hughes, who for many years was TIME magazine’s art critic,described how he ‘had been thinking about Goya…[since] I was a high school student in Australia…
[with] the first work of art I ever bought…[being] a poor second state of Capricho 43…The sleep of reasonbrings forth monsters… [Goya’s most famous etching reproduced above] of the intellectual beset withdoubts and night terrors, slumped on his desk with owls gyring around his poor perplexed head…And I

[then] got to know him a little better, through reproductions in books…all those decades ago…[when Iwas] fourteen.’ Hughes then commented that, ‘glimpsing The sleep of reason brings forth monsters was

Part 3:8

The anguish of Resignation

99
a fluke’ (pp.3, 4). A little further on, Hughes wrote of this experience that ‘At fifteen, to find this voice

[of Goya’s]—so finely wrought [in The sleep of reason brings forth monsters] and yet so raw, public andyet strangely private—speaking to me with such insistence and urgency…was no small thing. It had thefeeling of a message transmitted with terrible urgency, mouth to ear: this is the truth, you must know this,
I have been through it’ (p.5). Again, while the process of Resignation is such a horrific experience
that adolescents determined never to revisit it, or even recall it, Hughes’ attraction to The sleepof reason brings forth monsters was not the ‘fluke’ he thought it was. The person slumped at thetable with owls and bats gyrating around his head perfectly depicts the bottomless depressionthat occurs in humans just prior to resigning to a life of denial of the issue of the humancondition, and someone in that situation would have recognised that meaning instantly, almostwilfully drawing such a perfect representation of their state out of the world around them. Eventhe title is accurate: ‘The sleep of reason’—namely reasoning at a very deep level—does ‘bringforth monsters’; what did the comedian Rod Quantock say? ‘Thinking can get you into terribledownwards spirals of doubt’! While Hughes hasn’t recognised that what he was negotiating ‘Atfifteen’ was Resignation, he has accurately recalled how strong his recognition was of what
was being portrayed in the etching: ‘It had the feeling of a message transmitted with terrible urgency,mouth to ear: this is the truth, you must know this, I have been through it.’ Hughes’ words, ‘I have beenthrough it’, are almost identical to Coles and Lawson’s words ‘I’ve been there.’

Carl Jung gave this deadly accurate description of the human condition: ‘When it [ourshadow] appears…it is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil ofhis nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil’ (Aion:
Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, 1959, tr. R.F.C. Hull; in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol. 9/2, p.10).

Yes, it was ‘a rare and shattering experience’ for resigned adults to allow their minds to confrontthe question of why their behaviour is so diabolically at odds with what soulful, cooperativeideal behaviour would be like—despite it being the stark staring obvious question that had tobe addressed and explained if we humans were to ever understand ourselves.
In Part 2:3 I also included Olive Schreiner’s extraordinarily honest recollection, on herdeath bed, of having grappled with the issue of the human condition as a child—when in her
‘darkest hour’ she ‘tried to wear no blinkers…tried to look nakedly in the face those facts which makemost against all hope’. Those ‘facts’ being the ones that caused her to exclaim, ‘All the worldseemed wrong to me…Why did everyone press on everyone and try to make them do what they wanted?
Why did the strong always crush the weak? Why did we hate and kill and torture? Why was it all as itwas? Why had the world ever been made?’

These are rare acknowledgements by adults of Resignation, because on the whole theresigned adult world has been incapable of speaking the truth to resigning adolescents. If Iwas to give this talk to young people aged between 12 and 14 years of age they would hearwhat I had to say clearly because they have not yet resigned to a life of denial of truth. Olderadolescents who have already resigned just talk bullshit—saying such things as, ‘You’ve gotto go out and buy yourself the latest gear, get yourself lost at parties, just escape, rave on andrage’; just get distracted because ‘There are no answers to those questions you are wrestlingwith, so give up trying to think about them.’ (Note, it is a measure of the extent of the denialin the world that there is no everyday word for all the denial that resigned humans practice,except for the swear words ‘bullshit’ or ‘crap’.)

100

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

For their part, parents did the best they could from their resigned position. Mothers gavetheir troubled adolescent a hug and uttered such empty reassurances as ‘Sweetheart, you’llbe alright, you know the world is just the way it is’, while fathers typically turned their backsbecause being so egocentric men especially didn’t want to be reminded of a lost innocent stateand the issue it raised of the human condition. So, locked in their room playing loud, headbanging music to try to stop the pain in their brain and with nobody to talk to truthfully, theadolescent was dying inside—their desire to think and their true self or soul was dying.
The response from the larger world in general to the honest questioning of children andto the agony of young adolescents struggling with the horrific imperfection of human life wasto say something in keeping with the tradition of denial, like, ‘It’s just our animal instinctsto be brutally aggressive, mean and selfish, it’s not a perfect world, you’ll get over it.’ Butadolescents, who hadn’t yet adopted all the lies, knew full well that the way humans behavenow is not the way humans should or once did behave—they did not buy the false excusessprouted by mechanistic science. Their truthful mind and truthful instinctive moral soulwas still alive inside of them and the way humans behave now simply terrorised them. Forthose who are already resigned and living in denial it is self-evident why everyone is lyingand being so silent about the incredible wrongness of human behaviour, but to unresignedinnocents it has been an extraordinary and inexplicable mystery.
From the young adolescent’s point of view, adults have been ‘full of shit’; full of denial;using all manner of false excuses and not even admitting that there is a very real and seriousproblem with human behaviour. Resigned adults certainly didn’t admit that humans oncelived in an upset-free, innocent state because by not admitting that they were eliminating thepossibility in their mind of there being any basis for any question that needed to be askedabout present human behaviour. And it is only adults who have resigned to living in denial ofthe issue of the human condition who advance the argument that our current aggressive natureis due to savage animal instincts in us and, as such, that there is no fundamental dilemmaor underlying psychosis and neurosis involved in human behaviour—that there is no issueof the human condition to have to be explained. Resigned adults also denied there was anyintegrative, cooperative meaning and purpose to existence, maintaining instead that changeis random. The resigned adult world has been ‘God-fearing’ not ‘God-confronting’, but thosewho are unresigned know these excuses are completely false.
So how then have resigned adults rationalised the agonies that adolescents have beengoing through during Resignation? Unable to talk about the Resignation that has taken placein the lives of humans when they were teenagers, resigned, denial-complying, mechanistic,reductionist scientists simply blamed the well known struggles of adolescence on thehormonal upheaval that accompanies puberty, the so-called ‘puberty blues’—even termingglandular fever, a debilitating illness which often occurs in mid-adolescence, a pubertyrelated ‘kissing disease’. These terms, ‘puberty blues’ and ‘kissing disease’, are dishonest,denial-complying, evasive excuses because it wasn’t the onset of puberty that was causingthe depressing ‘blues’ or glandular fever, but the trauma of Resignation, of having to acceptthe death of your true self or soul. For glandular fever to occur a person’s immune systemmust be extremely rundown, and yet during puberty the body is physically at its peak in termsof growth and vitality—so for an adolescent to succumb to the illness they must be under

Part 3:8

The anguish of Resignation

101
extraordinary psychological pressure, experiencing stresses much greater than those that couldpossibly be associated with the physical adjustments to puberty, an adjustment that, afterall, has been going on since animals first became sexual. The depression and glandular feverexperienced by young adolescents are a direct result of the trauma of having to resign to neveragain revisiting the subject of the human condition.
Of course, when adolescents encountered the extreme depression that thinking about thehuman condition could cause, they very quickly appreciated why adults were using all thisbullshit, all these denials to cope, because they too certainly never wanted to experience thatsuicidal depression ever again. Once people resigned it was almost impossible to get them tothink about the issue of the human condition again, which is why people go ‘deaf ’ reading mybooks. This ‘deaf effect’, where people find it difficult absorbing discussion about the humancondition, is a very real phenomenon. Resignation, when adolescents take up the strategy ofliving in denial of the human condition, has been a watershed moment in people’s lives andyet it has never been discussed because to admit that you have taken up lying would make thatstrategy of lying unbearable and untenable.
Before finishing this long but necessary description of Resignation, I need to describean adolescent’s transition from the pre-resigned situation, where they expect behaviour tobe cooperative and loving, to the post-resigned state, where they embrace an extremelycompetitive, aggressive and selfish existence. It is an absolutely astonishing shift in behaviour,but if we follow closely what happens in the mind of resigning adolescents we can appreciatewhy and how such a transition takes place.
As has now been explained, what upset humans did when they unsuccessfully attemptedto confront the issue of the human condition—that is, when they unsuccessfully attemptedto understand why humans aren’t behaving ‘properly’ (which is in the way that our moralinstincts expect human behaviour to be like)—was that they resigned themselves to blockingout the whole issue. But having given up on trying to understand the human condition theywere then left needing to find some way of feeling good about themselves. At this point thepost-resigned mind set about seeking any reinforcement it could find; it became focusedon seeking ways to at least relieve the insecurity it was having to live with, the feeling thatit wasn’t ideal, good. The post-resigned human became focused on seeking all manner ofpower, fame, fortune and glory as their only means of relieving themselves of the agony of thehuman condition. In short, they became extremely egocentric, their minds became focused or
‘centred’ on making their ego, which the dictionary defines as ‘the conscious thinking self ’, feelgood and not bad—‘Okay, I can’t explain why I am not and the world is not ideally behaved,so I’ll give up on that, but that leaves me feeling bad about myself, feeling that I’m not agood person, so how am I going to live with that? I know, I’ll go out and get as much power,fame, fortune and glory as I can and then I will at least feel a little bit better about myself.’
And that is what happened—pre-resigned humans are idealistic and truthful, while postresigned humans are materialistic, evasive, dishonest, superficial, self-centred, ego-centricpower-fame-fortune-and-glory-seekers. And with each resigned person seeking to achieveas much power, fame, fortune and glory as they could, every opportunity to achieve power,fame, fortune and glory became highly contested, the result being that resigned adults becameextremely competitive. It can be seen that this competition has nothing to do with the sort of

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

102

The Biology
competition instinct-controlled animals practice with their incessant rivalry over food, shelter,space and a mate, even though that has been the excuse used to explain away our extremelycompetitive natures. Our competitive natures arise from the insecurity we suffer from of thehuman condition, it is psychologically derived.
To draw on the Adam Stork analogy, when Adam set out in search of knowledge andencountered the undeserved criticism from his instinctive self of that search, in order to copehe had no choice but to resign himself to living a life of attacking the criticism, of trying torelieve himself of the criticism by winning as much power, fame, fortune and glory as hecould find, and to blocking out the criticism. He became angry, egocentric and alienated—ina word, upset. Adam Stork then had a son or daughter who had to grow up in an upset world,which meant Adam Stork Junior was going to be a product of both the upset from his or herown searching for knowledge and also the effect upon him or her of the upset accumulatedby the previous generation. We can see that resigning to a life of anger, of competitiveegocentricity, and of alienation began when the search for knowledge began, however, asupset accumulated and increased over generations so too did the degree of condemnation forbeing increasingly non-ideally behaved, and thus the depth of depression prior to Resignationbecame worse and worse, and thus the commitment after Resignation to never againrevisiting the issue of the human condition became greater and greater—to the point we areat today, where upset is extreme, Resignation is a terrifying experience and the commitmentto not engaging the subject of the human condition is immense; which again is why it isinitially very difficult for people today to absorb or take in or ‘hear’ discussion of the humancondition. Even the word ‘human condition’ leaves humans today in deep shock—despiterecent attempts by scientists like E.O. Wilson to nullify the term’s profundity (as will bediscussed in detail in Part 4:12I).
A further stage that occurred after resigning to a life of seeking relief from the insecuritycaused by the human condition through winning power, fame, fortune and glory was tobecome, as we say, ‘born-again’ to the soul’s ideal world. After living a false, seeminglymeaningless and destructive existence for many years, resigned adults could become sodisenchanted with their life that they could decide to abandon that way of living and take upsupport of some form of idealism. They could become ‘born-again’ to religion, to supportingleft-wing politics, to being dedicated environmentalists, feminists, activists for the rights ofindigenous people, or animal liberationists. These were pseudo forms of idealism because realidealism depended on defying and ultimately defeating, through understanding, the unjustlycondemning idealism of the world of the soul, not on caving-in to it. To use the Adam Storkanalogy, at any time Adam could quit the upsetting battle to find knowledge and fly backon course, give in to his instincts, but in doing so he would no longer be participating in theheroic search for knowledge.
It is true that the battle to defy and defeat ignorance was corrupting and when peoplebecame overly corrupt they had to give up fighting ignorance and try and bring some souland its world of truth and soundness back into their lives. For those who had become overlycorrupted, excessively angry and destructive, the adoption of a born-again, pseudo-idealisticstrategy was a responsible reaction. The problem was, however, that unable to explain andthus confront and admit their extremely corrupted and alienated state, they were using the

Part 3:8

The anguish of Resignation

103
born-again-to-‘idealism’ lifestyle to delude themselves that what they were doing was actuallyright, that it was ideal. They deluded themselves that they held the ‘moral high ground’when the opposite was true. They even used their born-again lifestyle to delude themselvesthat they were uncorrupted people. There was an extremely deluded, selfish aspect to theirbehaviour—a desire to, as their critics said, ‘feel-good’ about themselves. The truth is theborn-again state was the most dishonest and alienated state humans could adopt. Much morewill be said about the immense danger of the delusion involved in pseudo idealism in Part
3:11E, and also in Part 3:11H, ‘The final 200 years when pseudo idealism took humanity to a
death-by-dogma, end play state of terminal alienation—the time when we needed to, as the
Bible warned, “beware of false prophets”, the merchants of delusion and denial, for they are
“the abomination that causes desolation”.’
As will be explained more fully in Part 3:11G, the great value of religions, comparedto other forms of pseudo idealism, was that they involved a high degree of honesty, asignificant acknowledgment of the alienated state. This honesty was contained in thesound life and words of the prophet around whom the religion was founded, becausethrough acknowledging the prophet and his denial-free life and thoughts, a person’s ownlack of honesty and soundness was also being acknowledged, albeit indirectly. And yet,the problem with religions, and why in recent times they have waned in popularity, wasprecisely this honesty, for the more alienated people became, the less confronting honestythey could bear. Born-again’ers needed more guilt-free forms of idealism to support, as thisquote, which has been mentioned previously, acknowledges: ‘The environment became the lastbest cause, the ultimate guilt-free issue.’

So while resigned people who were not born-again to ‘idealism’ were living a falseexistence, they were at least still participating in humanity’s heroic battle to defy the soul’signorance as to the true goodness or worthiness of humans. They were ‘bullshitting’, livingdishonestly, but those who had effectively quit the all-important battle—and who had not onlyquit it but were now effectively subverting it—whilst pretending to be ideal were ‘doublebullshitters’, doubly dishonest. With understanding of the human condition it is not hardto understand what has been referred to as ‘right-wing prejudice’ against ‘idealism’. At acertain point the lies became suffocating, unbearable—especially the lie that humans’ lack ofideality meant they were evil, inferior and worthless, but most specifically the lie that peoplepracticing born-again ‘idealism’ were themselves ideal.
Overall, we can see that only the finding of understanding of the human conditioncould unravel this terrible mess, in particular end the need for the relief of power, famefortune and glory and all the destructive materialistic greed, egocentricity and competitionthat resulted from it, and end the immensely dishonest and extremely dangerous practice ofpseudo idealism.
And, most wonderfully, with understanding of the human condition now found we canat last tell young adolescents the truth about the extremely upset world we live in, we canexplain the incredible imperfection of human life. We can end the great and terrible (‘terrible’from an innocent’s point of view) silence/denial/lie about the upset, immensely corruptedand alienated human condition. And we can tell the more innocent races, like the Bushman ofthe Kalahari, the Australian Aborigines and the Amazonian Indians, what has actually been

104

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
going on—that people in the ‘developed’ world are not the seemingly secure and confidentpeople they portray themselves as, but in fact sad, alienated lost souls. Imagine how much thathonesty is going to help the unresigned and the relatively innocent. Imagine their enormousrelief when finally told the compassionate truth about the extraordinarily corrupted humancondition and the good reason why humans have been that way. It means children will nolonger have to resign themselves to a life of mental denial of their soul’s true world and adoptall the escapist ego-centric, materialistic, self-centred, selfish preoccupations of resignedadults today. And it means those more innocent amongst us will no longer be intimidated,seduced and overwhelmed by the deluded arrogance and pretence of the extremely alienatedworld. To properly help relatively innocent races like the Australian Aborigines we had tostop talking pseudo idealistic drivel to them, telling them in condescending tones that theywere good at finding ‘bush tucker’ and how important ‘country’ is to them and how ‘sorry’we are for taking their country, and start telling them the truth about how corrupted we areand how relatively uncorrupted they are. Typically, it was the most corrupted who went onwith the most drivel because taking up the cause of Aborigines made them feel good aboutthemselves—it made them feel as though they weren’t corrupted. In other words, they wereusing the ‘plight’ of the Aborigines as a way to avoid being honest about their own plight,their own condition, when it was precisely that dishonesty that they were adding to with theirpseudo idealistic behaviour that was so destructive of Aborigines in the first place! Instead ofbeing selfless and considerate of others, as they maintained they were being, they were beingselfish; they were using Aborigines to artificially relieve themselves of their own corruptedcondition, not help Aborigines as they claimed. They were actually doing the completeopposite of helping the Aborigines because, again, it was precisely their lying (which theywere adding to by the minute with what they were doing) that was so destructive of the
Aborigines’ relative innocence. As mentioned, much more will be said about the horror anddanger of pseudo idealism shortly in Parts 3:11E and 3:11H.
In short, what destroyed the innocent was not so much what was done to them,destructive as that often was, but the lying to them about ourselves, about our own upsethuman condition. So the truth not only sets upset humans free, it also liberates the moreinnocent looking on. I consider Sir Laurens van der Post to be the pre-eminent philosopherof the twentieth century, so I would like to include here his thoughts on the immenselydestructive codependent (which means ‘reliant on another to the extent that independent actionis no longer possible’ (Macquarie Dict. 3rd edn, 1998)) effect that the lies of the resigned world have
had on those still relatively innocent: ‘Nor should we forget that there were races in the worldwhich vanished not because of the wars we waged against them but simply because contact with us wasmore than their simple natural spirit could endure’ (The Dark Eye in Africa, 1955, p.101 of 159), and, ‘merecontact with twentieth-century life seemed lethal to the Bushman. He was essentially so innocent andnatural a person that he had only to come near us for a sort of radioactive fall-out from our unnatural

Part 3:8

The anguish of Resignation

105
world to produce a fatal leukaemia in his spirit’ (The Heart of the Hunter, 1961, p.111 of 233), and, ‘Only theirrepressible gaiety of the Bushman of old was missing in him. Knowing what contact with Europeanshas done to aboriginal laughter in Africa, I had no right to be surprised. Indeed I have lived withprimitive people so much that I have an inkling now of the almost paralytic effect our mere presencecan have on their natural spirit. It is as if, when they first encounter us, the independence of our mindsfrom instinct [namely our alienation] and our immense power in the physical world, which to themis not composed of inanimate matter but is another manifestation of master spirits, trap them into thebelief that we are gods of a sort…If only we were humble enough to realize that just by what we are weplay the devil with the natural spirit of man’ (ibid. p. 56). And at last the human race can afford to
be ‘humble enough’ to stop ‘play[ing] the devil with the natural spirit of man’—and before longthis ability to be honest about our lives will allow generations of humans to appear whowon’t have experienced an upset childhood, out of which will eventually emerge a humanrace that is entirely free of the human condition.
Another aspect of human behaviour post-Resignation is that those who were resignedtended to assume it was self-evident to everyone else why they were behaving so outrageouslyarrogantly, deludedly and dishonestly, but, again, if resigned adults wouldn’t admit why theywere behaving in a way that was so different to what our innocent instinctive self or soulexpected, then the unresigned or relatively innocent could have no possible way of knowingwhy they were behaving so extraordinarily. One of Carl Jung’s most gifted students, the
Austrian psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957), was another who wrote honestly about thecodependent effect that the lies of the resigned world have had upon cooperative, loving,trusting, soul-infused innocence when he described how ‘The living [those relatively free ofupset]…is naively kindly…It assumes that the fellow human also follows the laws of the living and iskindly, helpful and giving. As long as there is the emotional plague [the flood of extreme upset in the
world], this natural basic attitude, that of the healthy child or the primitive…[is subject to] the greatestdanger…For the plague individual also ascribes to his fellow beings the characteristics of his own thinkingand acting. The kindly individual believes that all people are kindly and act accordingly. The plagueindividual believes that all people lie, swindle, steal and crave power. Clearly, then, the living is at adisadvantage and in danger’ (Listen, Little Man!, 1948, p.8 of 109).

In concluding this Part, it needs to be emphasised that although the resigned adult lived asoul-destroyed, materialistic, evasive, dishonest, superficial, self-centred, arrogant, ego-centricpower-fame-fortune-and-glory-seeking life, that horrible ‘plague’ existence has, until now,been an unavoidable, in fact absolutely necessary, way of living. The alternative of facing thehuman condition, without understanding of it, was impossible. The situation has been that ifupset humans were to carry on and continue their heroic search for knowledge, ultimately forthe liberating understanding of the human condition, then they had to resign themselves toliving under the horrible duress of that condition. The courage of the human race, which is thesubject of the next Part, has been absolutely incredible.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

106

The Biology

Yes, having to resign and live in a state of extreme dishonesty was immensely heroic,but thank goodness Resignation no longer has to occur. That classic of American literature,
J.D. Salinger’s 1951 novel The Catcher in the Rye, is all about a 16-year-old boy strugglingagainst having to resign. The boy, Holden Caulfield, felt ‘surrounded by phonies’ (p.12 of 192),in a world ‘full of phonies’ (pp.118 & 151) and ‘morons’ who ‘never want to discuss anything’ (p.39),of living on the ‘opposite sides of the pole’ (p.13) to most people, and in a situation where heabsolutely ‘hate[d]’ ‘school’ (p.117), a time when he ‘just didn’t like anything that was happening’
(p.152),
to wanting to escape to ‘somewhere with a brook…[where] I could chop all our own wood
in the winter time and all’ (p.119). The 16-year-old knows he is supposed to resign—he talks
about being told that ‘Life being a game…you should play it according to the rules’ (p.7), to feeling
‘so damn lonesome’ (pp.42 & 134) and ‘depressed’ (multiple references) he even felt like ‘committingsuicide’ (p.94). As a result of all this disenchantment with the world he keeps ‘failing’ (p.9) all
his subjects at school and as a result had to leave four schools for ‘making absolutely no effortat all’ (p.167). He says about his behaviour, ‘I swear to God I’m a madman’ (p.121) and ‘I know. I’mvery hard to talk to’ (p.168). Finally he finds some empathy from an adult who says ‘This fall Ithink you’re riding for—it’s a special kind of fall, a horrible kind…[where you] just keep falling andfalling [utter depression]’ (p.169). The adult then spoke of men who ‘at some time or other in theirlives, were looking for something their own environment couldn’t supply them with…So they gave uplooking [resigned]…[adding] you’ll find that you’re not the first person who was ever confused andfrightened and even sickened by human behavior’ (pp.169-170). Summarising the horror of having
to resign the 16-year-old says: ‘I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this bigfield of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around—nobody big, I mean—except me.
And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if theystart to go over the cliff—I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going I haveto come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I do all day. I’d just be the catcher in therye and all. I know it’s crazy, but that’s the only thing I’d really like to be’ (p.156). Yes, finally the
reconciling understanding of the human condition has arrived that provides ‘the catcher in therye’, the means to ‘catch everybody’ before ‘they start to go over the cliff ’ that Holden Caulfield
so yearned for! The Catcher in the Rye has rightly been considered a masterpiece, and withunderstanding of the process of Resignation and how adults have lived in denial of it, itbecomes even more impressive, if that were possible! (The Scottish author, J.M. Barrie’s
1902 story of Peter Pan who has a never-ending childhood is also a story of the dream of not
having to become a tragic, resigned, effectively dead adult. Yes, it is going to be a world fullof Peter Pan’s now, a world of unresigned, soul-alive adults.)
(As I mentioned, a more complete description of Resignation is given in the ‘Resignation’chapter of my book A Species In Denial, which can be accessed at <www.humancondition.com/asid-resignation>.)

The following drawings summarise the agonising journey through Resignation.

The anguish of Resignation

107

Part 3:8

A young person (or relatively innocent race) trying to understand the upset,

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 1996 Fedmex Pty Ltd
immensely dishonest and deluded, human-condition-afflicted world around them.

An adolescent grappling with the suicidally depressing

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 1990 Fedmex Pty Ltd
agony of the human condition within themselves.

The moment of Resignation when the adolescent gave up trying to understand why the worldand they were not ideally behaved and committed their mind to blocking out the unbearablyconfronting truth of the existence of our species’ original instinctive self or soul’s ideal-behaviourdemanding moral world, and of the existence of Integrative Meaning, and instead took up alife of seeking as much relieving power, fame, fortune and glory as they could find.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

108

Having resigned, the adolescent became another deluded, artificial, superficial,

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 1996 Fedmex
immensely egocentric and selfish, power-fame-fortune-and-glory seeking resigned adult.

The end-play, terminal alienation, ‘abomination that causes desolation’,doubly-deluded, human-journey-subverting, pseudo-idealistic resigned adult.

Part 3:9 The awesome courage of the human race
Earlier I mentioned Joe Darion’s song The Impossible Dream, the lyrics of whichdescribe so well the extraordinary paradox of our human situation of having ‘to march intohell for a heavenly cause’. More of that song should now be included because it provides such
a wonderful description of humanity’s heroic journey to find liberating understanding. Itbegins: ‘To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe / To bear the unbearable sorrow,to run where the brave dare not go / To right the unrightable wrong, to love pure and chaste from

Part 3:9

The awesome courage of the human race

109
afar.’ Achieving freedom from the human condition has, until now, been an ‘impossibledream’ because only the arrival of understanding of the human condition could deliver that
freedom, and finding that understanding required the work of many, many generations.
Indeed, every generation since the conscious, self-managing state fully emerged sometwo million years ago has had to ‘die in the trenches’—continue the immensely upsetting/corrupting but heroic search for knowledge, without ever being able to liberate themselvesfrom the pain of the human condition. For all those generations liberation from the humancondition was an ‘impossible dream’; every generation up until now has had ‘to fight theunbeatable foe’, ‘To bear the unbearable sorrow’ of this horrific state of upset/corruption, and be
prepared ‘to run where the brave dare not go’, be braver than even the bravest. We have had
‘To right the unrightable wrong’—try to achieve some form of validation of ourselves without
being able to explain in first principle terms why we are good and not bad. We have had ‘tolove pure and chaste from afar’—accept that we are corrupted but still be in love with, have
faith in, aspire to the dream that humanity would one day return to the ideal, all-loving,upset-free state. We had to carry on the journey to find knowledge, ultimately the selfknowledge that would liberate us from our human condition. As Darion concluded, we had
‘To try when your arms are too weary, to reach the unreachable star / This is my quest, to follow thatstar / No matter how hopeless, no matter how far / To fight for the right without question or pause / Tobe willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause / And I know if I will only be true, to this gloriousquest / That my heart will lie peaceful and calm, when I’m laid to my rest / And the world will bebetter for this, that one man scorned and covered with scars / Still strove with his last ounce of courage,to reach the unreachable star.’

There is a very famous parable or story that I understand originated with the Hottentotpeople of southern Africa that also beautifully describes the incredibly difficult, heroicjourney humanity has been undergoing. Sir Laurens van der Post has written about it—in fact,his 1994 anthology Feather Fall is named after the parable. It starts with a hunter seeing ina pool of water the reflection of a great white bird, which is described as ‘the white bird oftruth’, which we can now understand is the liberating truth about the human condition. Afterseeing this wondrous image of the white bird of truth the hunter sets out on a heroic journeyto find it, leaving behind his friends and village—in effect, leaving behind his innocentchildhood—to begin his ascent of this great mountain, at the top of which lives the great whitebird of truth. As the hunter begins his lonely climb he can still hear in the distance the happy,joyous laughter of those he has had to leave behind—implying that as a result of his journeyhe has to suffer becoming corrupted and alienated from his original happy, gregarious, socialinnocent true self and world. As he ascends, gremlins begin to appear amongst the rocks,taunting him by saying, ‘You have become such an egocentric, angry evil person, why don’tyou give up?’, or words to that effect. His doubts grow but still he struggles on. Eventually,as the mountainside becomes steeper, the hunter starts finding steps that have been carved inthe rock face by others who have gone before him. He makes use of these steps but when they

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

110

The Biology
eventually run out he still doesn’t give up. Instead, he carves further steps, but as the yearsgo by his energy wanes. Eventually in his old age he can go no farther and lies down to die,but just as he is about to die a white feather flutters down and comes to rest on his forehead,symbolising that the hunter has found some truth and added to the accumulation of knowledgethat would one day lead to the finding of the full truth about the human condition, which isthe great white bird of truth that resides at the summit of all human endeavour and which hasnow, after all the efforts of all the humans who have ever lived, at last been found.
It’s a story that crops up in the mythologies of many cultures—for instance, it isreminiscent of the Greek myth Jason and the Argonauts, in which the hero, Jason, sets outon a great adventure to find the ‘Golden Fleece’, which again is symbolic of the liberatingunderstanding of the human condition. The myth of King Arthur’s Knights of the Round Tableand their quest for the ‘Holy Grail’ is another expression of the same story of humanity’ssearch for liberating understanding of the human condition. These are fabulous mythologiesthat reveal very clearly the ordeal that humans have had to endure growing up in a worldwithout understanding of the human condition and where all they could do was try and helpfind that all-important insecurity-of-self-ending understanding—and, thankfully, those effortshave been rewarded for the ‘Golden Fleece’, ‘The Holy Grail’ and the ‘White Bird of Truth’have all finally been found.

Part 3:10 Brief description of the TRANSFORMATION of the human race

The word ‘science’ comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning ‘knowledge’ (Encyclopedia
World Dictionary), and ‘biology’ is, of course, the branch of that search for knowledge that studies
the ‘life…of animals and plants’ (The Concise Oxford Dictionary)—animals and plants being the formsthat living organisms have taken. Since its inception, the great outstanding question in biology

Part 3:10

Brief description of the transformation of the human race

111
has been to understand the behaviour of us human animals, and the central issue that weneeded to understand about ourselves was our good-and-evil-afflicted state or condition—ourparticular human condition.
Charles Darwin achieved a great breakthrough in this field when, through his explanationof the process of natural selection, he was able to explain the origins of life, but the ultimategoal of biology was to explain ourselves, our human condition. That has been the goal ofthe whole Darwinian revolution. Indeed, even E.O. Wilson once conceded that ‘The humancondition is the most important frontier of the natural sciences’ (Consilience, 1998, p.298 of 374)—despite
nullifying this ‘most important frontier’ with his own human-condition-avoiding ‘explanation’of it. Yes, finding understanding of the human condition has been the objective of all humanendeavour—the objective that every human who has ever lived has worked tirelessly towards,because only by understanding our seemingly imperfect, ‘corrupted’, ‘fallen’ condition couldwe humans hope to end the psychological insecurity, the upsetting sense of guilt, that weexperienced from being non-ideally behaved and, by so doing, relieve and heal our immenselydistressed human condition.
As fully conscious beings we have been in search of knowledge, specifically theliberating, ameliorating, TRANSFORMING understanding of our good-and-evil afflicted humancondition, and it is that goal of goals that has finally been achieved.
That the search for understanding of the human condition has been the central quest inour human journey of conscious thought and enquiry is apparent in the fact that all our greatmythologies and religions are centred around finding that liberating understanding. As justmentioned, the mythologies of King Arthur’s Knights’ search for the ‘Holy Grail’, Jasonand the Argonauts’ search for the ‘Golden Fleece’, and the Hottentot hunter’s search for the
‘white bird of truth’, were expressions of the search for this key, all-important liberatingunderstanding of ourselves. Religious mythology reveals further examples—for instance,
Genesis in the Bible states that after ‘eat[ing the fruit] from the tree of the knowledge of good andevil’ (2:17) that was ‘desirable for gaining wisdom’ (3:6) and having to suffer being ‘banished…fromthe Garden of Eden’ (3:23), we ‘will be like God, knowing good and evil’ (3:5); we will be like secure,
sound Gods, because we will have finally understood and reconciled our good-and-evilafflicted upset lives. Buddha similarly looked forward to the time when ‘In the future they willevery one be Buddhas [in the future everyone will be free of psychosis and neurosis] / And will reach
Perfect Enlightenment / In domains in all directions / Each will have the same title / Simultaneously onwisdom-thrones / They will prove the Supreme Wisdom’ (Buddha [Siddartha Gautama] c.560–480 BC, The Lotus
Sutra, ch.9; tr. W.E. Soothill, 1987, p.148 of 275). Buddha was anticipating the time when understanding
of the human condition would be found and everyone would be able to share understandingof the human condition and, as a result, become secure and sound. Since our differentpersonalities are largely a result of our different states of upset and alienation resultingfrom the insecurity of the human condition, when reconciling understanding of the humancondition arrives, as it now has, our different personalities will largely disappear. As Buddhaforesaw, we ‘Each will have the same title.’
(On this note, I should briefly address a comment some people have made when told aboutour various states of alienation disappearing and everyone having similar personalities in thefuture, which is ‘Well, that will be boring, because all the interesting “colour” of human life

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

112

The Biology
will go.’ This comment is what I call ‘black speak’, blindness preaching blindness, becausethe alienated state is such a numb, seared and exhausted state that to argue that we should stayalienated is effectively arguing that we should stay dead! As will become increasingly clear asthis presentation unfolds, if a bucket of water represents the depth of sensitivity humans arecapable of then our alienated state is equivalent to living life on the thin surface meniscus ofthat water. So to argue that we should remain in an empty, insecure, immensely unhappy anddeeply, deeply distressed, effectively dead state that can hardly feel or know anything whenwe can finally, at last, savour the magnificence of our world is simply alienation trying to builda positive out of a negative. It is an understandable defensive reaction that people have hadin order to make themselves feel better about their human-condition-afflicted, empty lives,but clearly it is an absurd betrayal of all that the human race has worked towards. While ourworld will lose some of its superficial variety or ‘colour’ when the different states of alienationdisappear and everyone has similar personalities, the incredible sensitivity and happiness thatwill come to humans from being able to access the world of our soul again will mean our liveshave a depth and potential that we have hardly dared to dream of. For example, each personwill be able to immerse themselves in whatever aspect of sensitivity they choose, with thenumber of different aspects of sensitivity available in our world to savour being innumerable.
Some people might spend a whole lifetime perfecting, and sharing with others, what it’s liketo feel what a certain mood feels like, or what a certain animal or plant feels like, or what acertain time of the day truly feels like. There are awarenesses and feelings and knowledgeand thoughts and imaginings that we haven’t even begun to tap into in our human-conditionpreoccupied, virtually dead state. Once people allow themselves to appreciate what life will belike free of the human condition they will never make such sad, blind, defensive comments assuggesting the future will be ‘boring’.)
Like biology and theology, the study of philosophy, which is ‘the study of the truthsunderlying all reality’ (Macquarie Dict. 3rd edn, 1998), has in fact also been focused on the all-important
need to find understanding of the human condition, because the most elusive and necessaryof all ‘truths underlying all reality’ has been the truth about the human condition. And withinthis great biological, theological and philosophical quest to find understanding of the humancondition all the evidence suggests that the person who went the furthest in both describingthe actual problem of the human condition and in anticipating what would happen when it waseventually resolved was that incomparable philosopher of the Golden Age of Greece, Plato.
Of Plato’s writings, his most celebrated is The Republic, the centrepiece of which isthe allegory of the cave. Despite being written so long ago in approximately 360 BC, thisallegory contains what is undoubtedly the most honest and penetrating account ever given ofthe problem and resolution of the human condition prior to it being able to be scientificallyexplained. As evidence of Plato’s stature as an exceptionally honest and thus effective andthus penetrating philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, one of the most highly regardedphilosophers of the twentieth century, described the history of philosophy as merely ‘a seriesof footnotes to Plato’ (Process and Reality [Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Edinburgh During the Session
1927-28], 1979, p.39 of 413). Thus,
if Plato is regarded as being the most accomplished thinker about

‘the truths underlying all reality’, and his most celebrated work is The Republic, the centrepiece
of which is the allegory of the cave, then his cave allegory must be all significant—and it is.

Part 3:10

Brief description of the transformation of the human race

113

In The Republic, Plato described humans as having to live imprisoned in a dark cavelike state of denial, unable to face the glare of confrontation with the depressing issue of ourunbearably imperfect, less-than-ideally-behaved lives. What is so significant about Plato’sdescription of humans incarcerated in a cave-like state of denial of the issue of the humancondition is his admission of, and focus upon, that denial. The great impediment to solvingthe human condition has been our species’ great fear and resulting denial of the subject, soto home in on that denial was extraordinarily honest. As I explained earlier, you can’t admitto being in denial if you are in denial, so for Plato to have done so means he was obviouslyan exceptionally innocent individual who was sufficiently free of the insecurity of the humancondition to have avoided having to resign to a life lived in denial of it; he was clearlyan exceptionally honest, denial-free thinker, or what has historically been referred to as aprophet. So while the mythologies of King Arthur’s Knights and Jason and the Argonautscould only allude to our search for understanding of the human condition using metaphors ofa ‘Holy Grail’ and a ‘Golden Fleece’, Plato actually spoke directly and specifically about thehuman condition, about our denial of it, and about how we had to overcome that great denialto solve the human condition. Later in Part 4 we will see how even Charles Darwin, likevirtually every other biologist in recorded history, went out of his way to avoid the issue of thehuman condition (although in his defence, he did not do so dishonestly—he intuitively knewhe was not secure enough in self to take that next step and confront the human condition and,as such, chose not to attempt to do so, unlike other biologists who sidestepped that responsibleprecedent to go on to manufacture a whole industry of denial-laden and thus fraudulentbiological thinking). In Darwin’s case, in his seminal work, The Origin of Species by Meansof Natural Selection, apart from referring to the way humans select pigeons and manipulateanimals through breeding, Darwin made no attempt to explain human behaviour—despite thefact his book was actually called The Origin of Species and should, by inference, also accountfor the origins of our species’ behaviour. As the description of the process of Resignationhas made very clear, trying to confront the human condition has been a suicidally dangerousenterprise for virtually all humans. Plato was indeed an incomparable philosopher.
Returning then to his work, in The Republic Plato both described humans as having tolive imprisoned in a dark cave-like state of denial and foresaw that liberation from the ‘cave’of protective but at the same time deadening, alienated darkness could only come when thereconciling understanding of the origins of our species’ less-than-ideal behaviour would liftthe siege of criticism of our non-ideal behaviour that caused us to have to live shamefully ina cave-like state of denial—and, most importantly, heal or ameliorate, and by so doing end,the non-ideal behaviour itself, thus TRANSFORMING the human race. Beginning with whatmust be one of the earliest mentions of the term ‘human condition’, Plato wrote: ‘I want you togo on to picture the enlightenment or ignorance of our human conditions somewhat as follows. Imaginean underground chamber, like a cave with an entrance open to the daylight and running a long wayunderground. In this chamber are men who have been prisoners there’ (Plato The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee,
1955, p.278 of 405). A more
complete presentation of what Plato wrote in The Republic about the
human condition and its resolution will be included later in Part 6:2, however, in summaryhe described how the cave’s exit is blocked by a fire such that if one of the prisoners were
‘to stand up and turn his head and look and walk towards the fire; all these actions would be painful…

114

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
he would [have to] turn back and take refuge’ in the cave of ‘shadows’, which are only an ‘illusion’
of the real world outside the cave (ibid. pp.279-280). The allegory makes clear that while ‘thelight of the fire in the cave prison corresponds to the power of the sun’ (p.282), with ‘the sun…makingthings we see visible’ (p.273) such that without it we can only ‘see dimly and appear to be almostblind’ (p.272), having to hide in the ‘cave’ of ‘illusion’ and endure ‘almost blind’ alienation was
infinitely preferable to facing the ‘painful’ light of the ‘fire’/‘sun’ that would make ‘visible’the unbearably depressing issue of ‘the imperfections of human life’ (p.282). The main thrust of
Plato’s cave allegory was that while living in a cave-like state of denial has tragically beenabsolutely necessary it was ultimately only by being ‘illuminated by truth and reality’ (p.273) that
‘the enlightenment…of our human conditions’ could be achieved and the cave prisoners be ‘releasedfrom their bonds and cured of their delusions’ (p.279).

We can see from this condensation of what Plato wrote in The Republic how truthfuland accurate his description of the human condition and of its eventual resolution was. Platocertainly was one of the soundest men in recorded history. Later, in Part 10:1, I will arguethat Plato, along with the other two very great denial-free thinking prophets in history of
Moses and Christ, made the most important contributions to humanity’s great journey toenlightenment. I will argue that with his Ten Commandments Moses gave humanity the mosteffective form of Imposed Discipline for containing the ever increasing levels of upset inthe human race, that Christ gave humanity the soundest and thus most effective corruptionand-denial-countering Religion, and that Plato gave philosophy—the actual business ofstudying ‘the truths underlying all reality’, in particular studying and finding the all-importantunderstanding of the human condition—the best possible orientation and assistance. So, wecould say that ‘the beauty and taste of roses, rice and potato saved the human race’!! And Iprobably should add a ‘leg of lamb’—the prophet Abraham—to that feast because Abrahamcontributed the precious foundations of real, effective religion with his emphasis on the needto revere the truth of there being one God, namely Integrative Meaning.
Finding the ‘enlightenment’ of our ‘imperfect’ ‘human condition’ that enables us to be ‘releasedfrom’ the ‘bonds’ of our ‘cave’-‘like’ ‘prison’ of ‘almost blind’ alienated denial and, as a result,
‘cured of ’ our ‘illusion’ and ‘delusions’ is the dreamed of breakthrough that brings about the
complete TRANSFORMATION—in fact, transfiguration—of the whole human race. The wordtransfiguration means ‘a change that glorifies or exalts’, ‘a marked change in form or appearance; ametamorphosis’ (Dictionary.com), so it is a perfect description for what happens to humans when,
with dignifying, uplifting, relieving, ameliorating, reconciling, redeeming, healing and curingunderstanding, we are finally able to not only end our old egocentric, must-prove-that-weare-not-bad, insecure, human-condition-afflicted existence, but enter an incredibly exciting
‘out-of-cave’, ‘world-in-sunshine’ state of glorious FREEDOM, optimism and psychologicallyliberated, empowered capability—as the detail from the computer graphic of our WTM
FREEDOM poster at the beginning of this Part 3:10 portrays.

Importantly, as I mentioned earlier, this TRANSFORMATION—in fact, TRANSFIGURATION—from a human-condition-afflicted existence to an almost unbelievably wonderful exhilaratedand empowered lifeforce existence is not achieved artificially through transcending ourembattled conscious thinking egoic self, as ‘spiritual gurus’ in the ‘New Age’ or, more recently,
‘A New Earth’, ‘alternative’ movements advocate—nor is it achieved through deep, meditative

Part 3:10

Brief description of the transformation of the human race

115
extinction of our human-condition-distressed thinking mind as some religious practices teach. Itis not achieved by dogmatically imposing a deconstructed, good-and-evil-differentiation-free,politically-correct-but-human-reality-dishonest, ideal world as the postmodern movement and,before it, the socialist and communist movements tried to do. And nor does it involve escapingthe real issue before us as a species of our deeply troubled selves by adopting a focus-awayfrom-yourself, guilt-free, feel-good, pseudo idealistic cause like Environmentalism. Rather, the
TRANSFORMATION is achieved through what is ultimately the only real and lasting way it could
be: through satisfying our conscious thinking human mind with first-principle-based, biologicalunderstanding of why we humans are wholly worthwhile and meaningful beings.
There had to be a biological explanation for our species’ non-ideal divisive, competitive,aggressive, angry, even-brutal-and-mean, selfish, self-obsessed, indifferent-to-others’needs, arrogant, egocentric, deluded, defensive, escapist, superficial, artificial, alienated
‘imperfections’, and our responsibility as conscious beings was to find that ‘enlightenment’ of our
‘human condition’. The British science historian Jacob Bronowski emphasised this fundamental
responsibility we humans had in the concluding statement to his 1973 television series and bookof the same name, The Ascent of Man: ‘I am infinitely saddened to find myself suddenly surroundedin the west by a sense of terrible loss of nerve, a retreat from knowledge into—into what? Into…falselyprofound questions about, Are we not really just animals at bottom; into extra-sensory perception andmystery. They do not lie along the line of what we are now able to know if we devote ourselves to it: anunderstanding of man himself. We are nature’s unique experiment to make the rational intelligence proveitself sounder than the reflex [instinct]. Knowledge is our destiny. Self-knowledge, at last bringing togetherthe experience of the arts and the explanations of science, waits ahead of us’ (p.437 of 448).

Yes, there has been a litany of false starts to a TRANSFORMED, human-condition-FREEnew world for humans, but for the conscious thinking human mind to find true peace itneeded answers. Transcendence of the issue of self, thought repression, enforced dogma andescapism could not provide that. De-braining ourselves or ‘retreat[ing] from knowledge’ wasnever going to work. Ultimately we needed brain food not brain anaesthetic, knowledge—specifically the dignifying, uplifting, healing, ameliorating, relieving, peace-bringing, ‘cave’liberating, ‘prison’-‘released’, ‘imperfections’-no-longer-‘painful’, ‘blind[ness]’-ending, ‘delusions’‘cured’, ‘sun’/truth-‘illuminated’ ‘enlightenment’ of ‘our human-condition’-afflicted lives.

Anything else was an abrogation of the responsibility that came with our greatest capacityand nature’s greatest invention: our species’ fully conscious, thinking, self-managing, selfadjusting mind. And, thankfully, that fabulous destiny and potential to progress from mereabstract, artistic description of the agonising, good-and-evil-afflicted dilemma of our humansituation to reconciling, first-principle-based, biological, scientific understanding of thatdilemma and resulting amelioration, integration and unification of ourselves and our specieshas now, at last, finally arrived.
_______________________
What has been described so far in Part 3:10 is the overview of how understanding of thehuman condition liberates the human race from the insecurity of that condition and by sodoing enables, as Professor Prosen said, ‘the psychological rehabilitation of the human race’. As
Plato said, ‘enlightenment’ of our ‘imperfect’ ‘human condition’ enables us to be ‘released from’ the

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

116

The Biology

‘bonds’ of our ‘cave’-‘like’ ‘prison’ of ‘almost blind’ alienated denial and, as a result, be ‘cured of ’
our ‘illusion’ and ‘delusions’.
Importantly, while this ‘psychological rehabilitation of the human race’, this therapy of all ourupsets, is now possible, the problem is for it to take place in our lifetime would require a greatdeal of time and supportive counselling—time and counselling that isn’t available and whichthe world cannot afford at the moment. In fact, it will naturally take a number of generationsfor all the upset inside humans to be ameliorated or healed through the dissemination andabsorption of the understanding of the human condition that is now available. The crucialquestion this raises is, ‘Does this mean the human race is going to have to wait a personallyagonising and possibly world-destroying (because all our immense upsets will obliterate theworld if we don’t change soon) number of generations to be TRANSFORMED from a life ofliving with the human condition?’
The answer to this question is that in all but the most extreme cases such psychologicalrehabilitating therapy is not necessary. This is because, with understanding of the humancondition found, we can immediately leave behind our upset way of living even though ithasn’t been ameliorated or healed. The fact is, with the upset state of the human conditionnow explained and defended we no longer have to live those upsets out. What we can dostraight away is leave all our upsets behind as dealt with, the effect of which will be to beimmediately free of the upset state of the human condition. All humans can now immediatelybe TRANSFORMED from living in the upset state of the human condition.
To elaborate, now that upset is explained and defended at the most fundamental level—now that the source of all the upset in the human race has at last been compassionatelyunderstood—it follows that all the upset in humans is also now explained and defended. Thismeans that all the ways we have been employing to try to cope with the upset within us andaround us are now obsolete, rendered unnecessary and meaningless. No longer do we have totry to prove our worth because our worth has been established at the most fundamental level.
No longer do we have to deny any confronting truths about our immensely upset/corruptedcondition because no longer are there any truths about our upset/corrupted state that condemnus. And no longer do we have to retaliate against criticism of our upset state because our upsetstate has been defended with truthful, compassionate understanding at the most profoundlevel. Our upset lives are explained and defended now, which means we no longer have to bepreoccupied compensating for that upset by finding forms of self-aggrandisement, by seekingself-distraction, or by chasing relief through materialistic forms of compensation for all thehurt we experienced growing up in an immensely human-condition-afflicted world. In otherwords, we no longer need to seek power, fame, fortune and glory to make ourselves feelgood about ourselves because our goodness has now been established at the deepest, mostprofound, fundamental level.
Instead, we can simply leave our whole ‘must-prove-our-worth, attack-and-deny-anycriticism’ way of living behind as obsolete and redirect our mind and all our energies tosupporting and disseminating these human-race-saving understandings, and to repairing theworld from all the damage our upset has caused—for with the human condition solved it isat last possible to properly repair our environment, because all the upset that caused, and wascontinuing to cause, the destruction of the planet now ends. You can, as it were, put the issue

Part 3:10

Brief description of the transformation of the human race

117
of all your upsets/corruptions in a suitcase, attach a label to it saying, ‘Everything in here isnow explained and defended’ and simply leave that suitcase behind at the entrance to what wein the WTM call the Sunshine Highway as you set out free and unencumbered into the new,human-condition-free world.
All our egocentric, embattled posturing to get a win out of life, all our strategising everyminute of every day to try to find a way to compensate for feeling inadequate or imperfect orbad about ourselves, suddenly ends. We leave the dark ‘cave’ of ‘blind’ denial and ‘delusion’where we have been hiding to escape the ‘painful’ glare of the truth about our seemingly
‘imperfect’ ‘human condition’. Excitement and meaning—based on ‘enlighten[ing]’, liberating,
truthful, honest understanding of ourselves and our world—is what sustains us now.
This will be more fully explained in Part 9, but I cannot stress enough that having thehuman condition explained and defended means that everyone can now immediately leavetheir old human-condition-embattled way of living behind forever. While it will take a numberof generations to eliminate the upset state of the human condition from within humans,everyone can immediately be effectively free of the human condition by redirecting theirefforts from being preoccupied with and living out their upsets to living in support of theseunderstandings and to repairing the world. In essence, the excitement of being effectively freeof the human condition—the joy and happiness of being liberated from the burden of yourinsecurities and self-preoccupations; the awesome meaning and power of finally being alignedwith the truth and participating in the magic true world; the wonderful empathy and equalityof goodness and fellowship that understanding of the human condition now allows you tofeel for your fellow humans; the freedom now to effectively focus on repairing the world;and, above all, the radiant aliveness from the optimism that comes with knowing our marchthrough hell has finally ended—IS GOING TO TRANSFORM THE WORLD.
There will naturally be a brief initial period of shock and procrastination, becauseunderstanding of the human condition inevitably brings with it exposure of, and thusconfrontation with, our immensely upset condition. We can’t very well have the truth abouthumans and not have that truth apply to ourselves. If we return to the Adam Stork analogy, if
Adam could have explained why he had to carry out his search for knowledge when he wasfirst criticised for doing so he would never have become upset—he would never have becomedefensively angry, egocentric and alienated. Or if he had found the explanation for why hehad to search for knowledge after only a few days of carrying out that search he would haveaccumulated very little anger, egocentricity and alienation to have to heal with understanding.
But humans’ conscious, self-managing state fully emerged some two million years ago and wehave only now found the understanding of why we became upset, which means there is nowan absolute mountain of accumulated anger, unsatisfied ego, and denial in us humans to haveto heal with this understanding. Certainly, we have learnt to restrain and conceal a great dealof that upset; we have learnt to, as we say, ‘civilise it’, not let it show—for instance, we don’tnormally attack someone now the moment we become angry. Adult humans now exhibit agreat deal of self-control, but underneath our manufactured facade of restrained civility, evenmanufactured happiness, lies volcanic anger and immense frustrated egocentricity, whichshows itself in all the ferocious atrocities and vengeful bloodshed we humans commit, and—to a lesser degree—in our smaller, everyday disputes.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

118

The Biology

So while we do at last have the compassionate understanding to heal all our psychoses,there is an immense amount of upset in us that we have to suddenly face and rehabilitate,and, as emphasised, the reality is it will take a number of generations to heal all the upset/hurtthat exists in the human race. Alvin Toffler’s famous 1970 book Future Shock was actuallyan intuitive anticipation of this time when understanding of the human condition wouldemerge and humans would suddenly be faced with, as Toffler wrote, ‘the shattering stress anddisorientation that we induce in individuals by subjecting them to too much change in too short a time’
(p.4 of 505). But it couldn’t be any other way: when understanding of our fundamental goodness
was finally found after two million years there was going to be an incalculable amountof anger, egocentricity and denial/falseness/dishonesty/alienation that would suddenly berevealed. The truth about ourselves unavoidably and necessarily exposes the extent of ourangry, egocentric and alienated condition; it destroys the lies, our denials, our pretences, our
‘illusion[s]’ and ‘delusions’, as it must, otherwise it wouldn’t be the truth. We have been living in
near total denial of our corrupted condition as our only means of coping with it, so the arrivalof the truth about our corrupted state suddenly exposes and destroys all that denial.
Unavoidably and necessarily, when understanding of the human condition arrivesthe extent of our upset state is suddenly revealed. Truth day is honesty day, exposure day,transparency day, revelation day—in fact, it is the long-feared so-called ‘judgment day’ referredto in the Bible (Matt. 10:15, 11:22, 24, 12:36; Mark 6:11; 2 Pet. 2:9, 3:7; 1 John 4:17). Although ‘judgment day’ isactually a day of compassionate understanding, not a day of condemnation—as a Turkish poetonce said, judgment day is ‘Not the day of judgment but the day of understanding’ (Merle Severy, ‘The
World of Süleyman the Magnificent’, National Geographic, Nov. 1987)—it is, nevertheless, a day when we face
fearful exposure of the extent of our species’ by now extremely upset condition. This paradoxof being wonderfully liberated but at the same time agonisingly exposed was captured by theprophet Isaiah when he said that the liberation that ‘gives you relief from suffering and turmoiland cruel bondage…will come with vengeance; with divine retribution…to save you. Then will the eyesof the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped…Your nakedness will be exposed’ (Bible, 14:3;
35:4, 5; 47:3). Also
referring to ‘the Day of Reckoning’ (The Koran, ch.56) and ‘the Last Judgement’ (ibid.
ch.69), the prophet Muhammad provided a very similar description of the paradox of being
simultaneously liberated and fearfully exposed when he said, ‘when the Trumpet is blown with asingle blast and the earth and the mountains are lifted up and crushed with a single blow, Then, on thatday, the Terror shall come to pass, and heaven shall be split…On that day you shall be exposed, not onesecret of yours concealed’ (ibid. ch.69). The ‘apocalypse’, which is the Greek name for the Book of

Revelation in the Bible, is another anticipation of the time, which has now arrived, when theliberating truth about our species’ now heroically exhausted condition is revealed—indeed
‘apocalypse’ is ‘Ancient Greek meaning “un-covering”, translated literally from Greek, is a disclosureof knowledge, hidden from humanity in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception, i.e., a liftingof the veil or revelation’ (accessed Apr. 2013 at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse>), and ‘a cataclysm inwhich the forces of good triumph over the forces of evil’ (accessed Apr. 2013 at: <https://www.thefreedictionary.com/apocalpyse>). And, with regard to the difference in alienation between individual humans
being exposed, immediately after describing how the arrival of the all-exposing, shockingtruth about humans will come ‘like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one endto the other’, Christ described how ‘two people will be in one bed; one will be taken [revealed as

Part 3:10

Brief description of the transformation of the human race

119
sound, non-alienated] and the other left [revealed as being alienated]. Two women will be grinding corntogether; one will be taken and the other left’ (Bible, Luke 17:24, 34, 35; see also Matt. 24:27, 40). Again, it
has to be stressed that ‘judgment day’ is not a time when some will be judged as deserving ofbeing ‘taken’ to heaven and others ‘left’ rejected, but a time of compassionate understanding ofeveryone. Yes, the way ‘the forces of good triumph over the forces of evil’ is through ‘evil’ finallybeing compassionately, lovingly understood as a heroic consequence of humanity’s upsettingbattle to defeat ignorance—which was the point Sir Laurens van der Post was making whenhe said, ‘True love is love of the difficult and [historically] unlovable’ (Journey Into Russia, 1964, p.145 of 319).
Given how extremely confronting and exposing of all our upsets the arrival ofunderstanding of the human condition is, some people will naturally, at least initially, want toresist that ‘cataclysm’ of terrifying exposure, maintain all their denials, remain hidden in the
‘cave’ of denial—a resistance that was even anticipated by Plato in his cave allegory, which is
not surprising given how incredibly honest and thus penetrating his thinking was.
Yes, having described humans as existing in a ‘cave’-‘like’ ‘prison’ of ‘almost blind’ alienated
‘illusion’ and ‘delusion’ from living in denial of the issue of the ‘human condition’, Plato went
on to describe what would happen when understanding of the human condition was found.
To quote from a summary of the cave allegory that appears in Encarta Encyclopedia’s entryfor ‘Plato’: ‘Breaking free, one of the individuals escapes from the cave into the light of day. With theaid of the sun [assisted by the understanding of the differences in the way genes and nerves process
information that science has at last found, and necessarily living free of denial of the foundation truthsof Integrative Meaning, of the existence of cooperative loving instincts in humans and of the issue theyraise of the human condition], that person sees for the first time the real world and returns to the cavewith the message that the only things they have seen heretofore are shadows and appearances and that thereal world awaits them if they are willing to struggle free of their bonds. The shadowy environment of thecave symbolizes for Plato the physical world of appearances. Escape into the sun-filled setting outside thecave symbolizes the transition to the real world, the world of full and perfect being, the world of Forms,which is the proper object of knowledge’ (written by Prof. Robert M. Baird, accessed 11 Jul. 2008: see <www.wtmsources.com/101>). To return to The Republic and Plato’s own words: ‘if he [the cave prisoner]
were made to look directly at the light of the fire [again the fire represents the unconfrontable issue of the
human condition], it would hurt his eyes and he would turn back and take refuge in the things which hecould see [take refuge in all the denials and dishonest explanations and arguments that he has become
accustomed to], which he would think really far clearer than the things being shown him. And if he wereforcibly dragged up the steep and rocky ascent [out of the cave of denial by the person who has broken
free of the cave] and not let go till he had been dragged out into the sunlight [shown the truthful allliberating—but at the same time all-exposing and confronting—explanation of the human condition],the process would be a painful one, to which he would much object, and when he emerged into the lighthis eyes would be so overwhelmed by the brightness of it that he wouldn’t be able to see a single one of thethings he was now told were real [this inability to absorb discussion of the human condition is what I
have referred to as the ‘deaf effect’]’ (p.280). Plato continued, ‘they would say that his [the person whotries to deliver understanding of the human condition] visit to the upper world had ruined his sight [theywould treat him as if he was mad, which is how I have been treated for many years, as is documentedon our website where the 30 years of persecution that I and this project have been subjected to isrecorded], and [they would say] that the ascent [out of the cave] was not worth even attempting [as is

120

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
documented on our website, such assertions have been regularly made against our work, such as one ofthe architects of the public campaign of persecution against myself and the WTM saying ‘You know youare encroaching on the personal unspeakable inside people and you won’t succeed’]. And if anyone triedto release them and lead them up, they would kill him if they could lay hands on him’ (p.281). In fact, my
persecutors have done everything they can, short of physical attack, to ‘kill’ me!
Again, the answer to this problem of exposure of the immense amount of upset thatexists in humans is that, while this information is unavoidably and necessarily extremelyconfronting and exposing, all it means is that we shouldn’t, and in fact don’t have to, overlyconfront and study it. All we need to do is study the understanding sufficiently to verify to ourown satisfaction that it has explained the human condition and then avoid studying it moredeeply. Instead, as described, we can leave all our upsets behind as dealt with and redirect ourefforts to living in support of these understandings and to repairing the world.
Once you have investigated these understandings sufficiently to know that they haveexplained the human condition you don’t need to know more than that. You don’t need toknow the full extent of the truth it reveals about the upset state of human existence, or how itreveals and explains everything about your own particular upset life. In fact, if you study thisinformation beyond what your particular level of soundness and security of self can cope withyou risk becoming overly self-confronted and exposed and depressed. As emphasised, thehuman race has coped this far by maintaining extreme levels of denial of many, many truths,so obviously the human race can’t hope to confront and dismantle all those denials overnight.
That process will take generations, but that doesn’t mean we can’t support the truth whilethis digestion and healing takes place—as long as we don’t overly confront the truth duringthis absorption process. According to each person’s level of upset there will be a limit to howmuch truth each person can cope with—there will be a limit to how much they can listen to,read about and study these human-condition-confronting understandings—but that doesn’tmean all people can’t immediately live in support of the truth.
So while we each should investigate these understandings of the human conditionsufficiently to verify to our own satisfaction that they are the liberating understandings ofthe human condition that the whole human race has been searching for, we shouldn’t riskinvestigating them to the extent that we start to become overly exposed and confronted bythe truths they are revealing. If you do become overly confronted by what is being presented,your natural reaction will be to try to attack and deny it in order to protect yourself—in effect,you will try to put all your denials back in place. You will become defensive and angry andretaliatory toward the information, and the consequence of such a response will be to sabotagethe efforts of all the humans who have ever lived to bring the human race to this dreamedof moment of its liberation. As mentioned, we in the WTM have endured years and years ofthis furiously angry, defensive reaction towards this information, attacks that were ultimatelyfruitless because this information is true and it won’t be intimidated or oppressed: it is tooprecious to allow that. In short, the effect of overly studying this information, studying itmore than your degree of security of self can cope with, can be both dangerous to you anddangerous to the human race, and no one should want, nor risk, either of those outcomes.

Part 3:10

Brief description of the transformation of the human race

121

I should also point out here that any meritorious new idea in science has typically gonethrough stages of resistance and even persecution before becoming accepted. With the subjectof the human condition being both novel and extremely confronting that resistance wasalways going to exceptional, but the same journey to acceptance occurs. On this journey wein the WTM believe that after having successfully fought, in the law courts, a terrible publiccampaign of persecution against us that the initial stage of outright hate and persecution isover and that we can now move on to the next stage in the journey to acceptance where wewill certainly face scepticism, but not ferocious persecution. The Persecution of the WTMsection on our website (<www.humancondition.com/persecution>) documents these years ofpersecution and our final vindication.
With regard to not overly studying these understandings, having lived without any realunderstanding of the world it is natural to want to keep studying these explanations that finallymake sense of the world around you, but, again, this can lead to becoming overly confrontedby the extent of your own corrupted state. The more intelligent and/or more educated in theold human-condition-avoiding, denial-based, mechanistic, reductionist world, who pridethemselves on being able to think and study new ideas, will initially be especially temptedto study these understandings beyond what their varying levels of security of self can copewith, but it won’t be long before everyone learns that such an approach is, as stressed above,psychologically dangerous on a personal level, and irresponsible in terms of the human race.
When Christ spoke of a time when ‘the meek…inherit the earth’ (Matt. 5:5), and when ‘manywho are first will be last, and many who are last will be first’ (Matt. 19:30, 20:16; Mark 10:31; Luke 13:30),
he was anticipating this time when understanding of the human condition would arrive andinstead of the more intelligent and intellectual leading the way, as has been the case in almostevery human situation, the more innocent and sound, the more soulful and instinctual, theless upset or corrupted will do so. As the story of Adam Stork reveals, throughout the twomillion year battle to find understanding our instinctive self or soul was repressed becauseof its unjust condemnation of our intellect, but when understanding of the human conditionis finally found this process is reversed, soul becomes sought-after. Our innocent, upset-free,original instinctive self or soul—soundness—has to lead us back home to soundness. It makessense. Again, Christ gave the perfect description of this new situation when he said, ‘The stonethe builders rejected has become the capstone’ (Ps. 118:22; Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet.
2:7). That
pre-eminent philosopher of the twentieth century, Sir Laurens van der Post, referred
to this biblical analogy when he too anticipated this new situation: ‘It is part of the great secretwhich Christ tried to pass on to us when He spoke of the “stone which the builders rejected” becoming thecornerstone of the building to come. The cornerstone of this new building of a war-less, non-racial world,too, I believe, must be…those [more innocent, instinctual] aspects of life which we have despised andrejected for so long’ (The Dark Eye in Africa, 1955, p.155 of 159).

So while it will be initially difficult accepting this advice to only investigate the truthto the degree each person is sound enough to do so, with honesty it can be appreciated as areasonably understood and accepted proposition. It makes sense that the more secure in self,the least alienated, have to develop these understandings of the human condition. In the old

122

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
human-condition-avoiding, denial-based world, academia limited those who could be involvedin the pursuit of knowledge to the more intelligent, those with a high IQ (intelligence quotient).
For instance, to enter university you had to pass entrance exams that basically tested your
IQ. Obviously, to have the most appropriate people studying complex subjects like higher
mathematics and physics you needed people with the highest IQ. If you didn’t have an adequate
IQ you would make little progress in studying such subjects. In the new human-condition-
resolved, human-condition-confronting world we similarly need the most appropriate peopleto study its information, which are those with a high SQ, soul or soundness quotient. If youdon’t have an adequate SQ you simply won’t be able to make any progress with the informationinvolved. With the explanation of the human condition we can now understand that everyoneis necessarily variously upset/unsound but that upset/unsoundness is not something bad, just asin the old denial-based world those who lacked IQ weren’t considered bad people, just not asable to think as effectively about complex subjects. Upset is a heroic, good state, not a bad, evil,sinful state, because it is a product of humanity’s heroic search for knowledge.
As such, everyone has to measure and limit how much they can study these humancondition-confronting understandings against how much self-confrontation they can copewith. But thankfully, and most importantly, no one has to overly confront their old upsetself—everyone can leave that behind as dealt with and simply live for the new world and allits potential. And that is the main thing to remember: once you know that this informationhas explained the human condition then you know all the upset in the world and all theupset within you is also now explained and defended—which means you can, as describedearlier, put the issue of all your upsets or corruptions in a ‘suitcase’, attach a label to it saying
‘Everything in here is now explained and defended’, and simply leave it behind as dealt withas you set out free and unencumbered into the new, human-condition-free world. You can jointhe Sunshine Army on the Sunshine Highway to the World In Sunshine.
Once you know this information is true, that the upset state of the human conditionis defended at the fundamental level, you can leave the issue of your own and the world’scorruption behind as effectively dealt with and preoccupy yourself with disseminating thisinformation throughout the world and to a fresh generation, and preoccupy yourself withsupporting all the projects that must be undertaken now to free and rehabilitate the world fromthe destructive effects of two million years of living under the duress of the human condition.
In fact, it shouldn’t even be necessary to talk about the whole issue of the human conditionany more than what appears in these presentations on our website. Humanity moves on to anentirely new existence now. We get the truth up, and we move on.
Yes, now that we have the truth up all that truly matters is that it is kept alive and that itis disseminated to the world’s population, because it alone can heal the human race and savethe world. All everyone must do now is support the truth about the human condition and itwill achieve everything everyone has ever dreamt of. If we look after this information it inturn will look after the world. That is the mantra of the new world that understanding of thehuman condition brings about.

Part 3:11

Stages of humanity’s journey to enlightenment

123

And the relief of being able to leave the issue of our upset state behind as dealt with,and the excitement of knowing a human-condition-free new world is coming and that we canall fully participate in bringing that about, is so absolutely incredibly relieving and excitingit will TRANSFORM all humans. From being a human-condition oppressed and depressedalienated person all humans can, and will now be, TRANSFORMED into Redeemed, Liberatedfrom the Human Condition, Exhilarated, Ecstatic, Enthralled-with-Existence, Transfigured,
Empowered, World-Transforming LIFEFORCES. This Exhilarated, Ecstatic, Enthralled-withExistence aspect is the ‘Life’ in ‘Lifeforce’; and the Empowered, World-Transforming aspectis the ‘force’ in ‘Lifeforce’, so LIFEFORCE covers both the personal benefit and the benefit tothe world in one word.
(Note, how humans can and will cope with the problem of exposure will be more fullyexplained later in Part 9.)

Part 3:11 Stages of humanity’s journey to enlightenment
Before beginning this description of the stages that humanity has journeyed throughto reach enlightenment, I should mention that while these stages are very briefly discussedtowards the end of the 2009 Introductory Video, I have chosen to include that description here,which is relatively early in the transcript of that 2009 Introductory Video. The reason for thisre-positioning is that in this written presentation I have now been able to introduce all theconcepts necessary to explain the stages, and since the stages are so significant in terms ofhelping us to better understand ourselves they should be included as soon as possible.
Thus, in having explained the origins of our upset human condition (in Part 3:2), hownurturing led to the development of an unconditionally selfless, altruistic, cooperative,loving existence and moral instinctive self or soul in our ape ancestors (in Part 3:4), whatthe stages of Infancy, Childhood, Adolescence and Adulthood truly mean (in Part 3:8), andhow ending the insecure, human-condition-afflicted Adolescent stage enables the humanrace to mature to secure, human-condition-free, TRANSFORMED Adulthood, we are now in aposition to summarise the whole of our species’ conscious journey from innocent ignoranceto enlightenment of our true worth and meaning. We can now explain the psychologicaljourney that the human race has been involved in, and since the psychological journey isthe real journey we fully conscious, human-condition-afflicted humans have been involvedin, and since it has never before been able to be explained, the following pictures and textprovide the first ever true summary of our species’ origins and development. While therehave been mountains of books written about human origins, this is the first denial-free,truthful description of our species’ emergence from our ape ancestors. What follows thenis the most amazing and epic journey of any species to have existed on Earth—and it’s ourown story, the story of the human race.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Photographs by David L. Brill

124

The above sequence of fossil hominid skulls, which date back to our ape ancestors,appeared in the November 1985 edition of National Geographic magazine. Whileanthropologists have since discovered more varieties of Australopithecus and Homo thanthose depicted here, these remain representative of the main varieties.
In examining this sequence we can see that a sudden increase in the size of the brain case,and by inference the brain’s volume, occurred around two million years ago. A larger braincase was needed to house a larger ‘association cortex’. As explained in Part 3:3, the ability to
‘associate’ information is what made it possible to reason how experiences are related, learn
to understand and become conscious of, or aware of, or intelligent about, the relationshipbetween events that occur through time. It follows that the development of a largerassociation cortex meant that a greatly increased need for understanding had emerged, which,as will be explained shortly, was a result of the emergence of the dilemma of the humancondition. The inference we can take from this evidence then is that the human conditionbecame a full blown problem some two million years ago.
To explain the descriptions of the psychological stages that appear under each of thefossil skulls I need to briefly describe the evolutionary journey we humans have been on sincethe time of our ape ancestors.
Our early pre-Australopithecine and pre-Homo ape ancestors lived in male-dominated,patriarchal societies in which males aggressively competed for mating opportunities. Then, asoutlined in Part 3:4 and as will be fully explained in Part 8:4, through the females’ nurturing oftheir infants our ape ancestors were able to grow up trained to behave in an unconditionallyselfless way, curtailing aggressive male behaviour and producing female-dominated,matriarchal, fully cooperative societies—a process the bonobos are presently in the finalstages of developing.
I mentioned in Part 3:4 that this development of unconditionally selfless behaviour hadthe accidental side effect of liberating consciousness, but at that point in the presentation Iwasn’t able to go beyond that to even briefly explain how this occurred, because I hadn’t yet

Part 3:11

Stages of humanity’s journey to enlightenment

125
explained Integrative Meaning or the process of Resignation—both of which were necessaryto understand how the development of selflessness liberated consciousness. But having nowprovided those prerequisite explanations, I now can.
Towards the end of Part 3:4, I described how the meaning of existence is to develop theorder of matter, and that the ‘glue’ that holds integrated wholes together is selflessness—andthat selflessness is cooperative and integrative, while selfishness is divisive and disintegrative.
Selflessness is the very theme of existence, so if you can’t acknowledge that central truthyou are not in a position to think truthfully and therefore effectively. As was pointed outwhen Resignation was explained in Part 3:8, having to live in denial of both Integrative
Meaning and the all-important theme of integrative behaviour of selflessness, as resignedadults have had to do, meant adopting a dishonest and thus ineffective way of thinking.
You can’t build the truth from lies. As Arthur Schopenhauer said, ‘The discovery of truth isprevented most effectively…by prejudice, which…stands in the path of truth and is then like a contrarywind driving a ship away from land.’ Similarly, in her aforementioned Resignation poem Fiona

Miller wrote that ‘you [will] spend the rest of life trying to find the meaning of life and confused inits maze.’ The alienated state that adolescents adopted when they resigned came at the loss
of the ability to think truthfully and thus effectively. But how, you may be asking, does
Resignation and the loss of our ability to think effectively relate to our ape ancestors whohad become orientated to living selflessly? As was also explained in Part 3:4, the limitation ofgenetics is that it can’t normally develop unconditional selflessness, because such traits tendto self-eliminate. This means that if a species did begin to think truthfully and recognise thatselflessness is meaningful and, as a result of this realisation, did begin to behave selflessly,the gene based learning system of natural selection would actively resist such selflessbehaviour—it would not allow it to develop, essentially blocking the emergence of truthful,effective thinking and thus consciousness. However, once our ape ancestors were able todevelop selflessness through nurturing this impasse was suddenly breached and truthful,selflessness-acknowledging, effective thinking and thus consciousness began to emerge—andsure enough bonobos, which are well on their way to developing the selflessness-dependent,fully integrated state, are fast developing consciousness; they are the most intelligent ofall non-human primates. So it can be said that our human brain has been alienated fromtruthful, effective thinking twice in its history: once when we were like other animals livinga competitive, aggressive and selfish existence, and more recently when we lived in fear andthus denial of Integrative Meaning and of the real importance of love and selflessness. (Aswas pointed out when describing the horrific alienating consequences of Resignation in Part
3:8, resigning to a life of denial of any truths that brought the issue of the human condition
into focus meant that we died in soul and in mind: we killed off our instinctive self or souland we stopped using our conscious mind to think truthfully and thus effectively.) This is anextremely abbreviated account of how we humans became conscious—a longer summary willbe given in Part 8:4C, while the complete description will be provided in Part 8:7B.
The descriptions given below the picture of the various fossil hominid skulls documentthe stages humanity progressed through as this liberated consciousness developed. The names
I’ve ascribed to each stage indicate parallels with our own human life-stages. This parallel

126

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
occurs because the stages that we, as conscious individuals, progress through are the samestages our human ancestors progressed through—‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’: ourindividual consciousness necessarily charts the same course that our species’ consciousnesshas taken as a whole. Eugene Marais recognised this when he wrote that ‘The phyletic historyof the primate soul can clearly be traced in the mental evolution of the human child’ (The Soul of the Ape,written between 1916-1936 and published posthumously in 1969, p.78 of 170).

Wherever consciousness emerges
it will first become self-aware, then it will start to experiment with its power to effectivelyunderstand and thus manage change, then it will seek to understand the meaning behindall change, and from there it will obviously try to comply with that meaning. In the case ofconsciousness developing in us individually and in our ancestors, that journey was disruptedby our necessary search for the understanding of why we did not comply with the integrative,cooperative meaning of existence. As described at the beginning of Part 3:8, adolescenceis the stage in the development of consciousness where the search for identity takes place,where the search for understanding of the meaning behind change, and the consciousorganism’s relationship to that meaning, occurs. In the case of our lives individually, and thatof our species, the identity we needed to find understanding of was why we were behavingdivisively when the meaning of existence was to behave cooperatively and lovingly. Until wecould answer that question we, individually and collectively, were stuck in adolescence—wewere stalled searching for our identity, for understanding of ourselves. Our individual andspecies’ development has been waylaid, or, as psychologists say, ‘arrested’ in adolescence byour inability to understand why we had become divisively behaved. Only with understandingof why we were less-than-ideally behaved could we individually and collectively maturefrom insecure adolescence to secure adulthood.
To go over this important point again (it was initially raised at the beginning of Part 3:8),since the human race as a whole has not—until now—been able to understand the dilemmaof the human condition, humans haven’t been able to properly enter adulthood. When stagesof maturation aren’t properly completed it doesn’t mean subsequent growth stages don’ttake place, they do, but if a previous stage isn’t properly fulfilled those subsequent stages aregreatly compromised by the incomplete preceding stages. People do grow up, but in a stateof arrested development. Without the explanation of the human condition humans have beeninsecure, not properly developed—in fact, preoccupied with still trying to validate themselves,prove that they are good and not bad, find some relief from the insecurity of the humancondition. It is only now with understanding of the human condition found that humans willbe able to complete their adolescence properly and grow into secure adults, and the humanrace as a whole will be able to mature from insecure adolescence to secure adulthood.
In this journey through the stages involved in the development of consciousness thatour species progressed, ‘Infantman’ was the ape ancestor who first developed the nurturingtraining in selflessness that produced the fully cooperative state and, in doing so, liberatedconsciousness. The various stages of ‘Childman’, who developed from ‘Infantman’, were,as summarised under the picture of the skulls above, the australopithecines who began to

Part 3:11

Stages of humanity’s journey to enlightenment

127
experiment with the power of conscious free will: ‘Early Happy Childman’ (Australopithecusafarensis), who evolved into ‘Middle Demonstrative Childman’ (Australopithecus africanus),who then developed into ‘Late Naughty Childman’ (Australopithecus boisei). At each stagegreater experimentation in conscious self-management was taking place—from demonstratingthe power of free will in mid-childhood, to beginning to challenge the instincts for the right tomanage events in late childhood.
When the conscious mind broke free of the influence of the instincts and took overmanagement of events, the instincts began to, in effect, resist that takeover, a tension thatresulted in the distressing, sobering upset state of the human condition. Indeed, in recognitionof a significant change that took place around two million years ago, anthropologists actuallychanged the name of the genus at that point from Australopithecus to Homo; ‘Childman’,the australopithecines, changed to ‘Adolescentman’, Homo. As stated, adolescence is thestage when the search for identity takes place, and the identity that ‘Adolescentman’, Homo,particularly sought to understand was their lack of ideality—the reason why they were notideally behaved. Once the march of upset began, its progression could only be brought to anend by finding sufficient knowledge to explain why the instincts’ ‘criticism’ was undeserved.
Thus, there was an ever increasing need for mental cleverness to explain ourselves—inparticular to find the liberating understanding of the human condition—hence the rapidincrease in brain volume from two million years onwards.
After our species entered Adolescence, we necessarily went through the early soberedadolescentman stage (early Homo habilis), to the depressed adolescentman stage (late
Homo habilis), through to the adventurous adolescentman stage (Homo erectus, who firstleft Africa), then to the embattled angry adolescentman stage (Homo sapiens), through tothe pseudo idealistic adolescentman stage (Homo sapiens sapiens), through to the hollowadolescentman stage, and now finally, with the finding of understanding of why we havebeen divisively behaved, humans individually, and humanity collectively, can mature frominsecure Adolescence to secure Adulthood: ‘Adolescentman’ becomes TRANSFORMED
‘Adultman’. (Note, ‘man’ is an abbreviation for ‘human’ or ‘humanity’, however, the useof ‘man’ also denotes a recognition that while humanity’s Infancy and Childhood wasmatriarchal or female-role-led, because that was when nurturing of infants was all-important,humanity’s Adolescence became patriarchal with the emergence of the egocentric, malerole-led need to defy the instincts, search for knowledge and defiantly prove we humans aregood and not bad—a transition that will be more fully explained in this presentation. Sincehumanity’s adulthood will be neither female or male led—because our species’ maturationis complete—‘Adultman’ should more properly be described as ‘Adulthuman’. By the samelogic, since Adolescence was originally female role-led, the description should have been
Adolescentwoman not Adolescentman, but this is all getting too novel and complicated, so wewill leave it all as ‘man’.)
We will now examine these various stages—from the perspective of both the individualand humanity—more closely.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

128

The Biology

Part 3:11A Infancy and Childhood

Infancy
As explained in Part 3:4, it was through the process of love-indoctrination, the nurturingof infants, that our ape ancestor was able to develop unconditionally selfless, fully altruistic,cooperative, moral, integrative behaviour—a process the bonobos are currently perfecting,as illustrated by the following photo of the bonobo Matata hugging her adopted son, Kanzi.
Nurturing is what made us human, a truth that the image of the Madonna and child has beenthe archetypal representation of. And, as has just been briefly explained, with the developmentof selflessness consciousness was able to emerge, and with consciousness came all the stagesof maturation that consciousness itself had to progress through—namely Infancy, Childhood,
Adolescence, and Adulthood.
The first stage of Infancy is when humans become sufficiently conscious, sufficientlyaware of cause and effect to realise that ‘I exist’, that we are at the centre of constantlychanging experiences. As mentioned in Part 3:4, the nurturing bonobos, who are in the finalstages of this ‘infancy, emerging-consciousness, self-aware’ stage, are the most intelligent ofall non-human primates, and some of that intelligence is apparent in Matata’s expression.
The species: our ape ancestor—20 to 5 million years ago

The individual: 0 to 3 years old

Part 3:11A

Infancy and Childhood

129

Childhood
Childhood is when consciousness begins to experiment in self-adjustment and manageevents to its own chosen ends. It comprises three stages: Early Happy, Innocent Childhood;
Middle Demonstrative Childhood; and Late Naughty Childhood.
The species: the australopithecines—5 to 1 million years ago

The individual: 4 to 11 years old

Early Happy, Innocent Childhood
This is the time when the intellect becomes sufficiently able to understand therelationship between cause and effect to begin actively experimenting—‘playing’—with theconscious power to self-manage and self-adjust.
The species: the early australopithecines including Australopithecus afarensis—5 to 3 millionyears ago

The individual: 4, 5 and 6 years old

The ‘look-at-me-daddy-I-can-jump-puddles’,early, happy, prime-of-innocence stage of Childhood

While infancy is all about receiving unconditionally selfless treatment or ‘love’, earlyhappy, innocent childhood is predominantly about beginning to outwardly express theemerging intellectual ability to experiment in self-management. It’s when the power of freewill is innocently tested or played with; it’s when we start to experiment with the awesome

130

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
ability that consciousness provides of managing events to bring about the conscious mind’sown desired outcome. Indeed, we call it ‘play’ in recognition of the naive unawarenesschildren have at this stage of the problems associated with having free will, particularly theirunawareness of the conflict it inevitably leads to with our instincts. We are still, as it were,holding onto our mother’s apron strings, our instinctive orientations, with one hand, whilecarrying out short experiments in conscious self-management with the other. We are stilldepending on our established instinctive responses, namely our nurtured orientation to love,for the overall management of our life, but we are also beginning to actively experimentin managing our life from a basis of understanding. The first demonstrative displays of theemerging ability to consciously manage cause and effect appear during this stage. In the caseof humans today, it is the ‘Look at me, Daddy, I can jump puddles’ stage where reinforcingadmiration from parents of the emerging conscious ability to manage events is so important.

Middle Demonstrative Childhood
In the Middle Demonstrative Childman stage, the intellect becomes demonstrative of thepower of free will and experiences its first encounter with the frustrations of a conflict withthe instincts, which is the human condition.
The species: Australopithecus africanus—3 to 2 million years ago

The individual: 7 and 8 years old

The middle demonstrative stage of Childhood

By mid-childhood consciousness is sufficiently able to make enough sense of experienceto successfully manage and thus plan activities for not just minutes ahead, but for hours andeven days—a development that empowers the individual to be both outwardly marvelling at,and demonstrative of, its intellectual power. It is at this stage of active self-management that theresults of some experiments in self-adjustment also begin to attract criticism from the instinctiveself. ‘There are some apples; why shouldn’t I take them all for myself?’—an innocuous mistakeby a mind trying to reason how to behave, but the instinctive self, orientated to behavingunconditionally selflessly, makes the intellect aware that this is not the right way to behave.
The emerging intellect has, in effect, been disobedient, but the conscious self doesn’t knowwhy it has ‘disobeyed’ the instincts; it isn’t able to understand and explain that it has becomea conscious being. Also, the conscious self can’t stop ‘disobeying’ the instincts; now that it is

Part 3:11A

Infancy and Childhood

131
capable of thought it can’t stop thinking. While the conscious self can’t explain its actions itdoes know that what it is doing is not something it should stop doing, it is not something bad,it is not something deserving of this feeling of opposition coming from within itself. In fact,the intellect is quite proud of its achievements in self-management. Out of frustration, theprecursors of the defensive, retaliatory reactions of anger, egocentricity and alienation start toappear. Some aggressive ‘nastiness’ creeps into the conscious self ’s behaviour. Furthermore,in this situation of feeling unfairly criticised, any positive feedback reinforcement begins to bedeliberately sought after, which is the beginning of egocentricity—the conscious thinking selfor ego’s preoccupation with trying to defend its worth, assert that it is good and not bad. At thispoint, the intellect also begins experimenting in evading the unwarranted criticism. These earlyexperiments in denial take the form of blatant lying. Lying is an art and initially we have littleskill in it, simply blurting out, ‘But Mum, Billy told me to do it.’ From demonstrating the powerof free will, the child has started to feel the first real aggravations from the horror of the injusticeof the human condition. Of course, for children growing up during humanity’s australopithecinechildhood, love would still have very much been the dominant influence in life overall and thesedefensive expressions of frustration would have been restricted to feelings and actions ratherthan expressed in words. In fact, language wasn’t developed by our forebears until the earlyadolescent stage when alienation appeared and the need to somehow explain our extremelyunnatural behaviour and needs arose. Anthropologist Richard Leakey’s study of brain cases infossil skulls for the imprint of Broca’s area, the word-organising centre of the brain, evidencesthis development: ‘Homo had a greater need than the australopithecines for a rudimentary language’
(Origins, 1977, p.205 of 264). Prior to the emergence of alienation we were all instinctively aware of
and in sync with each other. Apart from contact calls there was little need to talk.

Late Naughty Childhood
The Late Naughty Childman stage represents the time when the intellect naivelylashes out at the increasing unjust criticism it is encountering as a result of its first tentativeexperiments in self-adjustment.
The species: The robust australopithecines (A. robustus and A. boisei)—2. 5 to 1 million years ago

The individual: 9, 10 and 11 years old

The late naughty stage of Childhood

132

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Since school teachers become very aware of the changing behaviour of children undertheir care, I asked a teacher to describe what she and her colleagues knew of the stageschildren and early adolescents go through. These are the main points from the response shecollected: ‘Six and seven-year-olds are considered to be very compliant, but by eight children are startingto test the waters and challenge the world a little.’ She continued, ‘the eight-year-olds can be annoyingand a little naughty’, while ‘nine and ten-year-olds can be hard to handle as they seem to hit a phase ofrecklessness’ and ‘are considered naughty’. She noted that ‘Teachers love teaching 11 and 12-year-oldsbecause it is during this stage that children become civilised’ but that ‘Teachers consider years nine andten, when students are 14, 15 and 16 years old, the most difficult to teach. The adolescents seem to be atcomplete odds with what is expected of them. Most teachers are terrified of these extremely uncooperativemid-teenage ages’ (personal communication, 1997). These insights evidence the explanations being
given of the stages of maturation of consciousness through childhood—and confirm theagonising stage of Resignation that occurs in early adolescence.
Of course, as the human condition developed children were going to be increasinglyinfluenced by the upset world in which they were raised, and it would become harder todifferentiate what upset in them was a result of those circumstances or from their ownexperiments in understanding. However, by eight years of age we can expect that even in theoriginal situation, where there was little or no upset in the world, the child would justifiablybe feeling resentful towards the ‘criticism’ emanating from their instinctive self of theirtentative efforts to self-manage their life using understanding. And, unable to adequatelycope with this ‘criticism’ with understanding of it, we can expect that the child would beginto retaliate against the criticism as the only form of defence available to them. The problemthen, however, would be that these early, relatively mild experiments in retaliation—of anger,selfishness and dishonest excuse-making in mid-childhood—would have the alarming effectof greatly compounding the ‘criticism’ from the child’s perfectly integratively orientated,moral instinctive self. From being mildly insecure we can expect the child to now feel guiltyand that this drastic escalation in criticism and thus frustration would be a contributing factorto the turbulent, boisterous ‘naughty nines’ that parents and teachers have labelled this stage.
By the end of childhood, at the ages of 10 and 11, we can expect the resentment and frustrationto be such that it would express itself in the form of taunting and bullying. The child would bebelligerently lashing out at the unjust world: ‘Why shouldn’t I feel resentful and retaliate?’,
‘Why shouldn’t I shove you around if I can, especially since I’m bigger and stronger?’, and
‘What’s wrong with being selfish and aggressive anyway?’
In the situation that exists today, where the external upset is almost overwhelming, wecan expect that almost all of the child’s upset will have resulted from their encounter withexternal upset. The increasingly thoughtful child can see the whole horribly upset worldand would be understandably totally bewildered and deeply troubled by it. Eight-year-oldswill only be beginning to be consciously aware of the horror of the state of the world theyhave been born into, but by nine they will have become aware of that horror and be needinga lot of reassurance that ‘Everything is going to be alright.’ In fact, nine-year-olds can beso troubled by the imperfection of the world that they go through a process of trying not toaccept that it is true. By 10, this despair about the state of the world reaches desperation levelswith nightmares of distress for children. It is a very unhappy, lonely, needing-of-love time

Part 3:11A

Infancy and Childhood

133
for them. So at 11 they enter the ‘Peter Pan’ stage where they decide they don’t want to growup; they decide they want to stay a child forever, surrounded by all the things they love, andnot ever become part of the horror world they have discovered. It is no wonder ‘Teachers loveteaching 11 and 12-year-olds’ who have ‘become civilised’—they’re essentially tame compared to
the ‘reckless’, ‘naughty’ ‘nine and ten-year-olds’.
There is evidence in the fossil record of the description that has been given of thesestages of Childman. The early Australopithecus afarensis, who have been described asoccupying the early happy, prime of innocence stage, and the subsequent Australopithecusafricanus, who have been described as being in the middle demonstrative childhood stage,are both finely built compared to the much more robustly built Australopithecus boisei andassociated Australopithecus robustus, both of whom have been described here as being inthe Late Naughty Childman stage. Anthropologists have even placed the more robust lateaustralopithecines on a separate, dead-end branch to Homo, but that has to be impossiblebecause for branching to occur there has to be deflecting influences, such as when Darwin’sfinches gradually became adapted to different food niches on the Galápagos Islands, and inour case there was only one major development going on and that was the psychologicalone. In a situation where there is only one all-dominant influence causing change there is noopportunity for divergence to develop. From our species’ infancy, humans have been underthe all-dominant influence of what was occurring in our heads, namely the development ofconsciousness and its psychological consequences. Any other influence was so secondary asto be ineffectual in causing our path to branch. But if the robust australopithecines weren’ta separate branch, why was there such a big difference between them and the much moregracile or fine featured preceding A. afarensis and A. africanus, and the variety of earlyhumans they gave rise to, the also much more gracile Homo habilis? The answer has to lie inthe psychological differences between the much quieter, love-immersed A. afarensis and A.africanus, the extroverted, boisterous bullying A. boisei and A. robustus, and the introverted,sobered, quiet early adolescent H. habilis, who will be described shortly.
Late Naughty Childman, A. robustus and A. boisei, had comparatively big framesand skulls that were especially heavily built with very pronounced cranial and facial bonestructures. Anthropologists recognise that these skull modifications came about to supportthe much stronger facial muscles that were required to work the heavy jaw and huge grindingteeth that characterise these late australopithecines. We know from such evidence as thewear patterns on their teeth that the australopithecines were vegetarian, but why did the lateraustralopithecines need bigger grinding teeth? What dietary change occurred, and why? Beingextroverted, increasingly naughty and roughly behaved, the late australopithecines were likeolder children today who would rather be out playing than eating, but such an extremelyphysically assertive and energetic lifestyle required fuel. Not being sufficiently conscious toattempt self-management, all other animal species exert only enough energy to secure theirnecessary food, space, shelter and a mate—they are conservative energy users—but, withtheir rough, energetic play, late childhood humans became the first non-conservative energyusers on Earth. In order to ‘eat and run’ Late Naughty Childman would have needed a readilyavailable food source that they could eat quickly and, being vegetarian, they would haveneeded a lot of it because vegetables do not convert into as much energy as meat for instance,

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

134

The Biology
which was not to appear on humanity’s dining table until upset developed. (While theaustralopithecines, in their naughtiness, would have been capable of being rough and possiblyeven cruel at times to animals, they were not yet upset with innocence and thus killinginnocent animals regularly, which, as will be explained shortly, is what so called ‘hunting’was really all about for upset humans and what finally led to meat-eating.) As such, we canimagine certain edible varieties of nuts, hard-shelled fruits, fibrous roots and tubers wouldhave provided a ready fuel supply, which explains the need for massive grinding teeth andthe necessary facial structure. In contrast, however, to these late australopithecines, H. habiliswas an entirely different individual. Introspective, deeply thoughtful and sobered, H. habiliswas no longer interested in physically intimidating the world, and therefore did not need greatquantities of energy and thus food.
Another feature of the fossil record of early humans is the evidence it provides of theoverlap between the different varieties. For example, in what is the biggest overlap by far,australopithecines were possibly still in existence up to 1.5 million years after H. habilisappeared. Again, this evidence has been used to argue that the late australopithecinesbranched away from the Homo line, but now that we can take into account what washappening psychologically, the overlap becomes understandable. Just as there are very earlymodels of cars still around today, long after they have been superseded, so groups of early,less intelligent varieties of humans carried on long after they had been superseded. Ofcourse, the best example of such overlapping in the anthropological record is the existencetoday of remnants of our infant ape ancestors, specifically the non-human primates oftoday, such as chimpanzees and gorillas. Apes are not a branched development from thehuman line at all—they are on exactly the same development path, but at a much, muchearlier stage.

Part 3:11B Sobered and Depressed Adolescentman
Before describing the first, Early Sobered Adolescent Stage of Humanity’s Adolescence,adolescence itself should be briefly explained again.

Adolescence
Adolescence is the stage when we fully conscious humans search for our identity,for understanding of who we are, specifically for why we have not been ideally behaved.
Unable to understand the corrupted state of our human condition, the only alternative tosuicidal depression for humans once they became extremely upset was to resign themselvesto living in denial of the whole depressing issue of the human condition. The result of thispsychological estrangement from our true situation and true selves has been the horrificallydeadening state of alienation that became the main characteristic of human life during thefinal stage of humanity’s two-million-year journey through adolescence.

Sobered and Depressed Adolescentman

135

Part 3:11B

Detail of Francis Bacon’s deadly accurate painting of thepsychologically-imprisoned-arms-pinned-behind-theback-twisted-smudged-face-alienated human condition.
This painting will be studied in more detail in Part 7:5.

Early Sobered Adolescentman
The Early Sobered Adolescent Stage of Adolescent Humanity
The Early Sobered Adolescentman stage signals the end of Childhood and encompassesthe time when we encounter, in earnest, the sobering imperfections of life under the duress ofthe human condition.
The species: the first half of Homo habilis’ reign—2 to 1. 5 million years ago

The individual: 12 and 13 years old

The early sobered stage of Adolescence

By the end of childhood we realise that lashing out in exasperation at the ‘injustice of theworld’ doesn’t change anything and that the only possible way to solve that frustration is tofind the reconciling understanding of why the criticism we are experiencing is not deserved.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

136

The Biology

At this point, the child matures from a frustrated, extroverted protestor into a sobered, deeplythoughtful, introverted adolescent. While the main stages of maturation in non-human speciesare generally described as infancy, then adolescence when individuals are on the threshold ofsexual maturity, and finally the sexual maturity of adulthood, in the case of fully conscioushumans our stages of maturation involve a psychological journey, so our stages of maturation
(from infancy to childhood, adolescence and adulthood) are fundamentally different to theinfancy, adolescence and adulthood stages of other species. Indeed, as mentioned, the verysignificant psychological change in our psychological journey from the relatively humancondition-free state to the human-condition-aware state is recognised in the fact that weseparate those stages into Childhood and Adolescence. As mentioned earlier, even ourschooling system marks this very significant change that occurs at 12 to 13 years of age—when we humans shift from frustrated protestor to deep thinker about the imperfections of lifeunder the duress of the human condition—by having children graduate from what is generallycalled primary school into secondary school. As also mentioned earlier, this critical junctionin our species’ development was actually recognised by anthropologists when they changedthe name of the genus from Australopithecus to Homo; ‘Childman’, the australopithecines,became ‘Adolescentman’, Homo.
Since the agonising psychological journey that adolescents have gone through as theyengaged the agonising subject of the human condition (which for the extremely upset led to
Resignation) has just been described in Part 3:8, it is not necessary to repeat it again here, or inthe next stage.

Depressed Adolescentman
The Depressed Adolescent Stage of Adolescent Humanity
The Depressed Adolescentman stage represents the time when adolescents struggledwith the depression that engaging the issue of the human condition caused both ‘without’and ‘within’. When the human race as a whole became excessively upset the depressionthat resulted from confronting the issue of the human condition became so severe for mostindividuals in this adolescent stage that they had no choice other than to resign to living indenial of the issue and any thinking that brought that issue into focus, which was almostall thinking—a process that resulted in the psychotic (psyche/soul repressed) and neurotic
(neuron/mind repressed) alienated state.

Part 3:11B

Sobered and Depressed Adolescentman

The species: the second half of Homo habilis’ reign—2 to 1. 5 million years ago
The individual: 14 to 21 years old

137

138

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

In the case of humanity’s journey, Resignation would not have become the key feature itnow is in most adult lives during the time of H. habilis, or the H. erectus representatives ofthe next adventurous early adulthood stage of adolescent humanity, or even the subsequent
H. sapiens representatives of the angry adulthood stage. This is because it is the upset fromthe lack of nurturing in infancy and early childhood that makes self-confrontation duringthe thoughtful early adolescent stage overwhelmingly depressing, and this lack of nurturingwas not a feature of human life until the latter stages of humanity’s increasingly upsettingadolescence. The upset from a developing mind’s own efforts to self-adjust, while distressingand even depressing, was not sufficient to cause the mind to have to block out the truth ofcooperative ideality. This is evidenced by the fact that even amongst H. sapiens sapiens, the
40-year-old-plus equivalent variety of humans living today, there have been adults who didn’t
resign, such as the prophets Abraham, Moses and Christ. Also, quite a number of adults fromrelatively innocent representative races of H. sapiens sapiens, such as the Bushmen of the
Kalahari, must not be resigned to be as happy and full of the zest and enthusiasm for life andas generous, selfless and free in spirit as numbers of them are, or at least were when theywere still living as hunter-foragers. The English explorer and philosopher Bruce Chatwinacknowledged the soundness of Christ and also of innocent races when he wrote theseextraordinarily honest words: ‘There is no contradiction between the Theory of Evolution and beliefin God [Integrative Meaning] and His Son [the uncorrupted expression of our original instinctive self
or soul’s orientation to Integrative Meaning] on earth. If Christ were the perfect instinctual specimen—and we have every reason to believe He was—He must be the Son of God. By the same token, the First
Man was also Christ’ (What Am I Doing Here, 1989, p.65 of 367). More will be said in Part 5:2 about the
soundness of Christ and so-called ‘primitive’ races.
Similarly, ancient Greece must have been home to quite a number of unresigned,denial-free, truthful, effective thinking so-called ‘prophets’ for that empire to have been soextraordinarily innovative, establishing as it did in that golden era so many of the foundationideas for the western world, across politics, philosophy, science, psychology, astronomy,architecture and art. Certainly, the early Athenians Socrates and Plato were unresigned,denial-free thinking prophets; indeed, very early Athenian society must especially have beenpopulated by relatively innocent people, because they were sufficiently ego-free to bothseek out relatively uncorrupted, innocent shepherds to run Athens and, in turn, tolerate theirauthority. Indeed, the prophet Muhammad observed ‘that every prophet was a shepherd in hisyouth’ (Eastern Definitions, Edward Rice, 1978, p.260 of 433). It is the unnatural world of city living that
is especially distressing to, and thus corrupting of, our original instinctive self or soul. Sir
Laurens van der Post noted that during the turbulent period of Plato’s time, Pericles, a closefriend of Plato’s stepfather, ‘urged the Athenians therefore to go back to their ancient rule of choosingmen who lived on and off the land and were reluctant to spend their lives in towns, and prepared to servethem purely out of sense of public duty and not like their present rulers who did so uniquely for personalpower and advancement’ (Foreword to Progress Without Loss of Soul, by Theodor Abt, 1983, p.xii of 389).

Part 3:11B

Sobered and Depressed Adolescentman

139

The human race is not so instinctively adapted to upset now that humans are no longercapable of being innocent enough to avoid Resignation. With sufficient nurturing andshelter from upset behaviour humans can still be sufficiently innocent to avoid Resignation.
The reality is there has to be a great deal of upset in humans for that upset to become sounbearable that they have no choice but to pay the extremely high price of blocking out allaccess to their soulful true self. In the poem by Fiona Miller that was included in Part 3:8,in which she wrote that ‘Smiles will never bloom from your heart again, but be fake and you willspeak fake words to fake people from your fake soul…From now on pressure, stress, pain and the pastcan never be forgotten / You have no heart or soul and there are no good memories’, etc, the terrible
consequences of resigning to living in denial of the issue of the human condition and anytruths that brought that issue into focus are palpable. The behaviour of a resigned person isessentially a form of autism; indeed, it matches perfectly the description a former presidentof the British Psychoanalytical Society, psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott (1896-1971), gave forbehaviour associated with autism: ‘Autism is a highly sophisticated defence organization. What wesee is invulnerability…The child carries round the (lost) memory of unthinkable anxiety, and the illnessis a complex mental structure insuring against recurrence of the conditions of the unthinkable anxiety’
(Thinking About Children, 1996, pp.220, 221 of 343). Later in this description of the stages that the human
race has progressed through under the duress of the human condition we will see that whenupset became even more extreme how an even more dishonest, alienating, autism-equivalentpsychological strategy than Resignation was invented to cope with the human condition,which was to take up born-again, pseudo idealism.
Since it requires a great deal of upset for Resignation to become necessary, we can expectthat it has only become an almost universal phenomenon amongst adult humans from about
11,000 years ago, when the advent of agriculture and the domestication of animals allowed
humans to live in close proximity, the effect of which, as will be talked about shortly, was torapidly spread and compound upset behaviour. The Biblical account of Noah’s Ark is actuallya metaphorical description of this time when Resignation ‘flooded’ the world and our souland all its truths went under, ‘drowned’—when our soul was pushed into our subconscious,out of conscious awareness, and the highly competitive egocentric way of living became alldominant. The only creatures to escape the horror of Resignation, to survive this ‘drowning’of our soul, were the animals and the very few unresigned prophets, as symbolised in thisstory by Noah and his floating zoo. As it says in Genesis, ‘Noah was a righteous man, blamelessamong the people of his time, and he walked with God [he did not have to deny Integrative Meaning]…
God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So
God said to Noah, “…make yourself an ark…I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth…Everythingon earth will perish [the soul and all the denial-free truths will perish when people resign to a life of
denial]. But I will establish my covenant with you [but from here on prophets will have to preserve thetruth of Integrative Meaning and all the other great truths that relate to it], and you will enter the ark…
Go into the ark [don’t resign], you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

140

The Biology
generation”’ (6:9,12,14,17,18; 7:1). And to think people have actually searched for the remains of

Noah’s Ark, and tested ice cores from glaciers and sea beds in the Black Sea for evidence of agreat flood event in the past, as if the story of Noah’s Ark was an actual event rather than themetaphor it really is! Understandably, however, and this will be elaborated upon shortly, themore upset and thus insecure humans became, the less they could afford to confront the truthscontained in religious scriptures and the more they needed to interpret their contents in literaland fundamentalist ways—‘God is actually a person sitting in the clouds somewhere’, ‘Christwas actually physically resurrected from death’, ‘Christ’s mother was actually a virgin’,
‘Abraham actually considered murdering his son’, ‘Judgment day actually heralds an afterlifein which some unlucky souls will be judged as evil and burnt in a fiery pit’, etc, etc. But withthe upset state of the human condition now defended, all religious metaphorical descriptions,parables and symbols—in fact, all mythology—can be safely explained and demystified, aswill be shown throughout this presentation.
In this instance, ‘Noah’ symbolised the rare few individuals who, in recent millennia,didn’t have to resign to a life of almost total dishonesty. Some of the Bushmen people ofsouthern Africa have, in the past, also used a revealing analogical term to describe prophetsin their society, which Sir Laurens van der Post wrote about in his 1958 book, The Lost
World of the Kalahari. Sir Laurens described meeting a Bushman ‘prophet and healer’ named
‘Samutchoso’, which he was told meant ‘He who was left after the reaping’ (1958, pp.159, 129 of
253).

Christ has similarly been referred to as ‘the firstborn from among the dead’ (Col. 1:18). The
reference by these Bushmen to one of them being called ‘He who was left after the reaping’suggests that the majority of them must have been resigned/‘reap[ed]’, which is contrary towhat I said earlier about quite a number of the natural living Bushmen not being resigned.
However, ‘Samutchoso’ was a remnant of an almost vanished race of River Bushmen who,as Sir Laurens described it, ‘had all come together in the swamps [of the Okavango Delta] not bychoice but when escaping destruction by the Matabele [Bantu/negro/black Africans who had migrated
down from the north] in the time of Africa’s great troubles in the past’, and who were ‘withheldand profoundly reserved. Their faces too, were strangely uneven as if each one belonged to a differentrace from which he had been torn by a violent fate’ (The Lost World of the Kalahari, p.127). So while
‘Samutchoso’ was a now rare unresigned individual amongst the devastated River Bushmen,
the existence of unresigned individuals amongst unmolested, natural living Bushmen mightnot in fact be a rare phenomenon—indeed, the happy, excited dispositions of so manysuggests it’s not.
We now need to look at what happened in the years immediately following Resignation,as well as what happened in those same years, from 15 to 21 years of age, for humans whodidn’t have to resign, such as our forebears who were alive during the second half of H.habilis’ reign and during the time of H. erectus and H. sapiens.
Firstly, in looking at the post-resigned situation of those who did resign to livinga life of denial of the issue of the human condition and of any truths that brought theissue into focus, after resigning at about the age of 15 it normally took another six yearsof procrastination to make sufficient mental adjustments to embrace the new, extremelydishonest resigned way of living.

Late
Childhood

CHILDHOOD

Sobered and Depressed Adolescentman

Now
–Shock Soonof change

2 mill yr agoor 12 yr old

–Shockof change
Beginnings of
Resignation
1.5 mill yr agoor 15 yr old

Difficult
+ to – Paradigm Shift

ADULTHOOD
ADOLESCENCE

A dying world of ever increasing andaccumulating anger, egocentricityand alienation

Easy
– to + Paradigm Shift,once over theshock of change

141

Part 3:11B

To best describe the situation presented by this sobered and then depressed period leadingup to Resignation, and then the six-year period of procrastination over having to take up adishonest, soul-dead resigned life, imagine sitting on a ridge between two valleys. Behindus lies the valley of humanity’s enchanted childhood, the ‘Garden of Eden’ where everyonelived happily and extremely sensitively in a non-upset, cooperative, all-loving state. Beforeus, however, is a hell of smouldering wasteland of devastation and destruction, the wildernessof terrible upset and alienation. Of course, we didn’t want to go forward into that wasteland,but retreat was not an option. To leave all that happiness, laughter and togetherness behindwas heartbreaking, but we had no choice but to turn our back on it; we couldn’t throwaway our conscious mind, we couldn’t stop thinking, and while we practiced thinking upsetwas an inescapable by-product that could only be ameliorated by finding understanding ofour corrupted state—understanding that lay at the other side of that terrible wilderness ofdevastation, aloneness and alienation.
Again, it is worth including more of Fiona Miller’s poem to illustrate the horrificconsequences of Resignation: ‘Smiles will never bloom from your heart again, but be fake and you willspeak fake words to fake people from your fake soul…From now on pressure, stress, pain and the past cannever be forgotten / You have no heart or soul and there are no good memories…You are fake, you will befake, you will be a supreme actor of happiness but never be happy…You will become like the rest of theworld—a divine actor, trying to hide and suppress your fate, pretending it doesn’t exist / There is only oneway to escape society and the world you help build, but that is impossible, for no one can ever become a babyagain / Instead you spend the rest of life trying to find the meaning of life and confused in its maze.’

In Part 3:9, Joe Darion’s song The Impossible Dream was also used to illustrate just howawesomely courageous humans have been, for we, and all those who came before us, had toset out on our species’ corrupting search for knowledge, during which time we had ‘To dreamthe impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe / To bear the unbearable sorrow, to run where thebrave dare not go / To right the unrightable wrong, to love pure and chaste from afar / To try when yourarms are too weary, to reach the unreachable star / This is my quest, to follow that star / No matter howhopeless, no matter how far / To fight for the right without question or pause / To be willing to march intohell for a heavenly cause / And I know if I will only be true, to this glorious quest / That my heart will liepeaceful and calm, when I’m laid to my rest / And the world will be better for this, that one man scornedand covered with scars / Still strove with his last ounce of courage, to reach the unreachable star.’ Also

142

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
included in Part 3:9 as evidence of the immense courage of the human race was the famousparable of the Hottentot hunter who had to leave behind his happy village life to ascend, onhis own, a great mountain in an attempt to reach the ‘White Bird of Truth’ that lived at itssummit. Reference was also made to Jason and the Argonauts’ heroic search for the ‘Golden
Fleece’, and King Arthur’s knights’ courageous quest for the ‘Holy Grail’.
There was no retreat for the resigned adolescent; like all the fully conscious humans whohad gone before them, they had to find the courage to continue humanity’s heroic search forknowledge. Procrastination got them nowhere, and so, more typically in recent times, aftera few years’ spent consuming lots of drugs and alcohol and partying long into the night tohelp them accept their fate, the adolescent had to ‘get on with it’ and take up the challengeof adulthood in a world where understanding of the human condition was yet to be found.
In fact, it normally wasn’t until they reached 21 that resigned adolescents finally managed toorientate themselves to their extremely compromised resigned life. This orientation involvedmaking two main adjustments: firstly, they had to block out the negative reality that livingso falsely and thus so dead in soul and intellect would eventually end in the disaster of acompletely corrupted life; and secondly, they had to train their mind to block out all memoryof their innocent childhood and focus on whatever meagre positives they could find in thejourney ahead. I describe these positives as ‘meagre’ because the degree of happiness theyprovided was, in truth, no comparison to the happiness the human race enjoyed while living inthe magic state of our soul’s true world.
The first tiny positive was the prospect of the adventure involved in trying to avoid, for aslong as possible, the inevitable disaster of complete self-corruption. We may have been aboutto ‘go under’—become totally corrupted—but at least we could hope to make a good fightof it. In fact, as will be described in the next 21-year-old-plus stage, by the age of 21 youngresigned adult men in particular could have so blocked out the truth of another ideal, soulful,integrative true world, and so adopted belief in a selfishness-justifying, competitive, survivalof-the-fittest meaning to life, that they deluded themselves that winning power, fame, fortuneand glory would genuinely bring them validation, prove that they actually were good and notbad—when in fact, winning power, fame, fortune and glory could, at best, only bring themsome superficial relief from the insecurity of the human condition, whereas it would certainlylead to them becoming even more unbearably upset, corrupted and insecure.
The second, in truth tiny, positive in the resigned existence was romance, the hope of
‘falling in love’, which can be now understood as the hope of escaping reality through thedream of ideality that could be inspired by the neotenous image of innocence in women. (Thisconcept of neoteny and the ‘neotenous image of innocence in women’ will be explained whenthe next Adventurous stage is described, but to summarise quickly, men could dream thatwomen were actually innocent and that they could share in that innocent state, and that, for theirpart, women could use the fact that men were inspired by their image of innocence to deludethemselves that they were actually innocent rather than just the embodiment of innocence.)

Part 3:11B

Sobered and Depressed Adolescentman

143

Although these two positives were only tiny, resigned adolescents gradually built them upin their mind to the extent that they became everything. They had to mentally posture themselvesand their resigned environment in such a way as to be able to leave that ridge and take uphumanity’s journey to find liberating understanding of our species’ upset, corrupted condition.
We now need to look at the journey into adulthood, and beyond, of those individuals whodidn’t resign, including, as mentioned, our forebears who were alive during the second half of
H. habilis’ reign, and during the time of H. erectus and H. sapiens.
Even for those who hadn’t become so upset that they had to resign to a life of livingin denial of the issue of the human condition, their lives still followed a parallel pathto that of resigned humans, who were living with the delusion that by winning power,fame, fortune and glory they could genuinely validate themselves, prove that they wereactually good and not bad. The reality of this path, however, was that the resigned wereinevitably going to discover that power, fame, fortune and glory didn’t bring them anyreal validation, but merely resulted in them becoming more upset, and thus more insecureabout their meaning and worth, and thus more dissatisfied. While the unresigned were notliving with the delusion that they could prove that they were champions and heroes of acompetitive, survival-of-the-fittest, ‘red-in-tooth-and-claw’ world, they were living with thenaive illusion, the optimistic hope, that all the wrongness in the world could be righted,that they could make the world a better, more ideal place. The reality for the unresignedperson was that the situation all around them, and even in themselves, only got worse asthe upsetting search for knowledge continued. Everywhere humans were becoming moreupset and thus more destructive and mean spirited. So while their disappointments andfrustrations were coming off vastly different bases, both the resigned and the unresignedfaced overwhelmingly difficult paths.
In the situation, however, where most people were resigned, the overwhelming problemfor the unresigned person was that the resigned state of complete dishonesty and desperatecompetitiveness was a total mystery to them—because those who were resigned to livinga life of extreme dishonesty and deluded competitiveness never admitted so. It was the
‘silence’ of the resigned state that was the most destructive of innocence, be that in children orunresigned adults. In effect, the resigned imagined that everyone else was also resigned andthat it was therefore self-evident as to why they behaved so dishonestly and fraudulently, buttheir behaviour was, in fact, a complete mystery to the unresigned. The idealistic innocenceof the unresigned mind was so trusting and thus codependent to the resigned state that theywere brutalised to the point where, almost invariably, their innocence was destroyed by theextreme dishonesty and defensiveness of the resigned state. As mentioned in Part 3:8, the
Austrian psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich wrote honestly about the effects of upset on innocencewhen he described how ‘The living [those relatively free of upset]…is naively kindly…It assumesthat the fellow human also follows the laws of the living and is kindly, helpful and giving. As long as there

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

144

The Biology
is the emotional plague [the flood of upset in the world], this natural basic attitude, that of the healthychild or the primitive…[or the unresigned adult, is subject to] the greatest danger…For the plagueindividual also ascribes to his fellow beings the characteristics of his own thinking and acting. The kindlyindividual believes that all people are kindly and act accordingly. The plague individual believes that allpeople lie, swindle, steal and crave power. Clearly, then, the living is at a disadvantage and in danger.’ As
was also mentioned in Part 3:8, Sir Laurens van der Post described how the relatively innocent
Bushman race struggled to cope with upset when he wrote that ‘mere contact with twentiethcentury life seemed lethal to the Bushman. He was essentially so innocent and natural a person that hehad only to come near us for a sort of radioactive fall-out from our unnatural world to produce a fatalleukaemia in his spirit.’

The problem for the unresigned was that no matter how much idealism, no matterhow much selfless behaviour they threw at a problem, the bottom line truth was that onlyunderstanding of the human condition could stop the resigned from behaving the way theywere behaving—simply because the resigned had no other way of coping in the meantime. Wewill see shortly how various mechanisms, like religion, were developed to try to contain thedishonesty and devastation of the resigned way of living, but ultimately such measures werelimited in their effectiveness.
So, in the final 15-to-21-year-old stage of adolescence, while the resigned personprocrastinated over having to take up such a dishonest, soul-less life, the unresigned person
(or, in humanity’s case, the unresigned amongst H. habilis, H. erectus and H. sapiens) hadto adjust to the prospect of having their idealism disappointed, resisted and frustrated atevery turn. For the unresigned, facing that valley of devastation was just as difficult as itwas for the resigned, but, like the resigned, they had no choice but to accept that fate. Justas the resigned used those years between 15 and 21 to condition themselves to taking up thechallenge of ‘marching into hell for a heavenly cause’, so did the unresigned. The ‘adventure’for the unresigned was to see how much they could resist the corruption in the world, andif not change it then at least contain it. And the unresigned also used romance to inspiretheir horrifically difficult and lonely undertaking. And so, after an initial period of mentaladjustment, both the resigned and the unresigned began their 20s determined to make adifference, even if they were bound to become overwhelmed by the horror of life under theduress of the human condition.
Tragically, all the deadening effects of living with the human condition meant that thehuman race faced the very real prospect of eventually becoming completely estranged/alienated from our soul’s happy, loving and all-sensitive world. And that very nearlyhappened—humans came perilously close to an eternity spent wandering like waifs in theterrible wilderness of the darkness of denial and its resulting alienation, as it is so accuratelydescribed in the Bible: ‘Today you [Integrative Meaning/God] are driving me from the land, and I willbe hidden from your presence, I will be a restless wanderer on the earth’ (Gen. 4:14).

As was emphasised in Part 3:9, and reiterated here, the courage of all humans who livedduring humanity’s heroic two million years in adolescence, in which time they had to face theinevitability of total self-corruption by the end of their lives, has been so immense it is, andpossibly will be for all time, out of reach of true appreciation.

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

145

Part 3:11C Adventurous Adolescentman
The Adventurous Early Adulthood Stage of Adolescent Humanity
The Adventurous Adolescentman stage is the time we took up the battle to overthrow ouridealistic instinctive self or soul’s ignorance as to the fact of our conscious self ’s fundamentalgoodness.
The species: Homo erectus—1. 5 to 0. 5 million years ago

The individual: 21 to 30 year old

By 21 years of age, after about six years of blocking out the negatives and focusing only onthe tiny positives available to them, resigned humans finally adjusted to life in Resignation. Infact, by 21 both resigned and unresigned young adults were able to arm themselves sufficientlywell with a positive attitude to commit themselves to the battle that humanity as a whole wasinvolved in of gradually, step by step, generation by generation, working towards one dayaccumulating sufficient knowledge to be able to explain and liberate the human race from thehuman condition. Indeed, by 21 young adults had made sufficient adjustments to be raringto go, with men in particular having become so focused on the positive of the adventure ofattempting to make a good fight of the battle to validate themselves through winning power,fame, fortune and glory that they were cavalier and swashbuckling. Naive about just howquickly overwhelming the battle was going to become, both resigned and unresigned males hadplenty of strength and resilience—plenty of ‘rock-n-roll’. For their part, 21-year-old womenhad also become firmly focused on the few positives they had of the reinforcements they couldreceive from men for their physical beauty and of the satisfaction of being able to support menand nurture another generation of brave humans to carry on humanity’s heroic struggle. Hencethe significance of the long-held tradition in Western societies to hold a so-called ‘coming ofage’ party for offspring when they reached this milestone, at which they were typically given a
‘key’ symbolising that they were at last ready to leave home and ‘face the world’, and so witha big kiss from Mum and a slap on the back from Dad the young adult set off ‘to see what lifeheld for them’. Interestingly, the fact that young adults were considered sufficiently adapted tolife under the duress of the human condition to be considered independent at 21 rather than atthe round figure of 20 is an indication of how precisely all these stages with ages occurred, andalso how uniform and powerful the effects of the human condition have been.

146

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Basically our 20s, during humanity’s adolescence, was the period when we began refiningall the techniques we needed to cope with living with the horror of the human condition. In ourteens we agonisingly adjusted to having accepted a life of living with upset, and in our 20s wetook up the challenge of living out that life. The forebear who lived in humanity’s adventurousearly adulthood stage was Adventurous Adolescentman, H. erectus, who existed between 1.5million and 0.5 million years ago. Consistent with the description that has been given for thisstage, fossil evidence has revealed that it was H. erectus who first adventured out from ourancestral home in Africa around 1.25 million years ago and migrated throughout the world.
It was during the one million year reign of Adventurous Adolescentman that humanityperfected the many techniques for coping with the human condition, techniques that havebeen part of human life for so long now we tend to think of them as having always beenpart of our species’ make-up, but all the methods of coping with life under the duress of thehuman condition had to be invented. We describe these ways of coping now as simply ‘humannature’, but in truth an immense and an amazing transition took place in our behaviour—especially amongst those who had resigned, who changed from living cooperatively,selflessly, lovingly and gently, to living competitively, aggressively and selfishly.
As mentioned, while humanity’s infancy and childhood was matriarchal or female-roleled (because the nurturing of infants was the all-important activity during those stages), whenthe upsetting battle to defy our ignorant instincts and find understanding emerged duringhumanity’s adolescence our society became patriarchal or male-role led. As will be explainedmore fully when men and women are explained in Part 7:1, this change occurred because, withwomen preoccupied nurturing infants, it was men who had to take up the now all-importantrole of championing the conscious thinking self or ego over our instincts; it was men whowere particularly charged with the extremely upsetting task of trying to defeat the ignoranceof our instincts and prove that we humans are good and not bad—which is why men becameso egocentric, combative and angry.
It is important to note, however, that while men have been so upset, they are far frombeing evil blights on Earth—indeed, they are the heroes of the story of life on Earth becausethey had to, and did, succeed in championing the conscious thinking mind over the ignoranceof the instinctive state. One of the main reasons men are such heroes is because they had toendure being so misunderstood and misrepresented for so long, for the truth was not as itappeared. There was great meaning in the sparse, tightly written prose that the great Americannovelist Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961) used to describe the stoic lives of men in his books;just consider these titles alone of some of his books: Death in the Afternoon, For Whomthe Bell Tolls, Winner Take Nothing, To Have and Have Not, The Old Man and the Sea and
Islands in the Stream. So Ernest, I write these few words of appreciation for you.
As briefly mentioned in Part 3:7, one of the first adaptions to living in the resignedembattled angry, egocentric and alienated state was that we changed from being a relativelypeaceful vegetarian species to ruthless hunters of animals. The hunting and killing of animalswas the first great expression of men’s upset anger and egocentricity. It has always beenclaimed that the hunting in the ‘hunter-forager’ lifestyle that characterised virtually the entiretwo million year period of humanity’s adolescence was primarily driven by the need forprotein-rich food—a denial-complying belief that has so far protected upset humans from the

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

147
condemning truth of the extreme aggression involved in hunting. But, in fact, research showsthat 80 percent of the food consumed by existing hunter-foragers, such as the Bushmen of the
Kalahari, is supplied by the women’s foraging (see Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers, eds. Richard B. Lee & Irven
DeVore, 1976, p.115 of 408). So if providing food was not the reason, why did men hunt? The honest,
unevasive answer is that hunting was men’s earliest ego outlet. Men attacked animals becausetheir innocence, albeit unwittingly, unfairly criticised men’s lack of innocence; it condemnedtheir upset aggressive lives. Also, by attacking, killing and dominating animals, men weredemonstrating their power, which was a perverse way of demonstrating their worth. If mencould not rebut the accusation that they were bad, they could at least find some relief fromthat guilt by demonstrating their superiority over their accusers. The exhibition of power wasa substitute for explanation. This ‘sport’ of attacking animals, which were once our species’closest friends, was, as just mentioned, one of the earliest expressions of our upset. One ofthe definitions given for ‘sport’ in the Encylopedic World Dictionary is ‘the pastime of hunting,shooting, or fishing with reference to the pleasure achieved: “we had good sport today”’ (1971). The
‘pleasure’ of hunting was of the perverse, sick kind, of attacking animals for their innocence
and its implied criticism of us.

Photo on the front page of the 27 Oct. 2011 edition of The Australian newspaper ofa shooter posing with a scimitar-horned oryx, which he shot at a game ranch in the
Northern Territory of Australia. The species is officially listed as extinct in the wild.

Anthropological evidence supports the notion that hunting is an aspect of fully conscious,upset Adolescentman, because it was during the time of H. erectus that the first signs ofhunting appeared in the fossil record. All the anthropological evidence indicates Childmanwas a vegetarian, but with big game hunting came meat eating, an adaption that would haverevolted our original instinctive self or soul since it involved eating our soul’s friends—eventoday, the act of killing animals, or just seeing animals get slaughtered, produces feelings ofdeep revulsion within us. But we weren’t to be put off and in time, as our increasingly upsetand driven (to find ego relief) lifestyle developed, we became somewhat physically dependent

148

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
on the high energy value of meat. (Again, as to whether the lifestyle of Adolescentman shouldbe described as hunter-forager or forager-hunter, since the priority was the heroic search forknowledge and hunting provided men with some retaliatory relief from the criticism of theinnocent world they had to live in, it should be described as hunter-forager.)
As upset increased, so too did men’s insecurity about being corrupted, as did, it follows,the need to combat that insecurity with whatever form of relieving reinforcement they couldfind. And since it was men who had to especially take on the responsibility of championing theconscious-thinking self or ego over the ignorance of our original instinctive self, it was menwho particularly came to need reinforcement of their worth. In the case of resigned men, theyparticularly needed to seek out power, fame, fortune and glory. In the soundtrack to the 1986
African musical Ipi Tombi, the female narrator says, ‘The women had to do all the work because themen were so busy being big, strong and brave’ (Narration: Sesiya Hamba, Drinking Song, lyrics by Thandi Lephelile).

This quote acknowledges just how preoccupied men eventually became in trying to prove theirworth, in defeating the implication that they weren’t worthy. Men became so insecure/egoembattled that in the end it was a case of ‘Give me liberty or give me death’, ‘No retreat, no surrender’,
‘Death before dishonour’, ‘Death or glory’—they just stood there refusing to do anything except
receive glorification and adulation, which meant someone else (that is, women) had to do all thepractical work if it was going to get done. The following two pictures, from Richard Borshay
Lee and Irven DeVore’s Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers (1976), of the relatively innocent Bushmanmembers of the present H. sapiens sapiens variety of humans, perfectly illustrate the situation.
In the first picture women are shown gathering the aforementioned 80 percent of the food, inaddition to nurturing the children—basically doing all the practical work—while the otherphotograph, titled Telling the Hunt, shows the men sitting around together with their backscontemptuously shunning innocent nature’s condemning presence as they boldly tell each other

Photograph by Marjorie Shostak/Anthro-Photo
about their heroic conquests over innocent animals.

Women with infants digging roots

Adventurous Adolescentman

149

Part 3:11C

Telling the Hunt

This destruction of innocence, such as the killing of animals, has been going on at alllevels. In resigning, humans also destroyed the innocent soul in themselves by repressingit. And having turned on and attacked their innocent animal friends, men then turned on therelative innocence of their partners in life, women, and attacked that.
As will also be explained in Part 7:1, men perverted the act of procreation, inventingsex as in ‘fucking’ or violating or destroying or ruining or degrading or sullying the relativeinnocence of women. Prior to the perversion of ‘sex’, women weren’t viewed as sex objectsand so nudity had none of the problems of attracting lust and so there was no need to concealour nakedness with clothes. To quote the Bible, when Adam and Eve took the fruit fromthe tree of knowledge—set out in search of understanding—‘the eyes of both of them wereopened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coveringsfor themselves’ (Gen. 3:7). Clothing was not originally designed to protect the body from cold as
children have been evasively taught at school, but to restrain lust, to the extent that once webecame extremely upset even the mere sight of a women’s ankle or face became dangerouslyexciting to men, which is why some societies demand that women be completely draped.
The convention of marriage was invented as one way of containing this spread of upset.
By confining sex to one life-long, monogamous relationship, the souls of the couple couldgradually make contact and coexist, in spite of the sexual destruction involved in theirrelationship. As stated in the Bible, in marriage ‘a man will leave his father and mother and beunited to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:7, 8.).

Brief relationships kept souls repressed and spread soul repression—however, the more upset,corrupted, insecure and alienated humans became, the more they needed sexual distractionand reinforcement through sexual conquest (in the case of men) and sex-object attention (inthe case of women), and thus the more difficult it became for both sexes to remain content ina monogamous relationship. The saying ‘the first cut [the first falling out of love] is the deepest’is an acknowledgment of the deep and total commitment humans make to their first love. Itreveals that the original, relatively innocent relationship between a man and a woman was

150

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
monogamous. Since sex killed innocence, ideally (although impractical for the majority of thehuman race, who had to ensure the continuation of the species) if we wanted to free our soulfrom the soul-destroying hurt sex caused it we needed to be celibate; as Christ explained it,some priests ‘renounce marriage [for] the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 19:12).
But, while sex was an attack on innocence, an act of aggression, it was also one ofthe greatest distractions and releases of frustration and, on a higher level, an expressionof sympathy, compassion and support—an act of love. The emotions involved in sexualrelationships were also part of romance, part of the dream that the image of innocence inwomen could inspire of living ideally, of living free of the human condition. As mentionedearlier, men could dream that women were actually innocent and that, through that partnership,they could share in that innocent state, while for their part, women could use the fact thatmen were inspired by their image of innocence to delude themselves that they actually wereinnocent. Men and women could ‘fall in love’, let go of reality and dream of an ideal world.
The beautiful lyrics of the song Somewhere, written by Stephen Sondheim for the blockbuster
1956 musical (and later film) West Side Story, perfectly describe the dream of the heavenly state
of true togetherness that humans allow themselves to be transported to when they fall in love:
‘Somewhere / We’ll find a new way of living / We’ll find a way of forgiving / Somewhere // There’s a placefor us / A time and place for us / Hold my hand and we’re halfway there / Hold my hand and I’ll take youthere / Somehow / Some day / Somewhere!’ Cole Porter’s 1928 song Let’s Fall In Love also contains
lyrics that reveal how falling in love is about allowing yourself to dream of the ideal state, of
‘paradise’: ‘Let’s fall in love / Why shouldn’t we fall in love? / Our hearts are made of it / Let’s take achance / Why be afraid of it / Let’s close our eyes and make our own paradise.’

The effect of the ‘attraction’ of innocence—which has been the preserve of youth becausethe young hadn’t yet been exposed to all the upset in the world—for both dreaming throughand for sexual destruction was that through the course of the two million year journey throughour species’ adolescence our physical features became increasingly youthful looking orneotenous, as the increasingly child-like features of the skulls of the varieties of our Homoancestors pictured in Part 3:11 evidence. The dramatic increase in neoteny from H. habilisto H. erectus reflects the dramatic increase in upset that took place once humanity set out onits search of understanding at the age-equivalent of 21, and the dramatic increase in neotenyfrom H. erectus to H. sapiens sapiens reflects the dramatic increase in upset that occurredwhen humanity entered the rapidly dis-integrating stage in the progression of upset in the lastquarter of the exponential growth of upset’s development. Women were especially selected

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

151
for their more innocent looking, neotenous, youthful, childlike features of a domed forehead,large eyes, snub nose and hairless body. Just how adapted women have now become tobeing sex objects can be seen in women’s magazines, which are almost entirely dedicatedto showing women how to be ‘attractive’, which really means just better able to imitate theimage of innocence. Women are now habituated and codependent to the reinforcement thatmen, for over two million years, have given their object self rather than their real self—forinstance, they love to adorn themselves with beautiful objects, use make-up on their faces toincrease their neotenous appearance, and wear high-heel shoes to give themselves the leggy,

The German supermodel Claudia Schiffer,
Australian Elle magazine Aug. 1992

In summary, since all forms of innocence unfairly criticised humans, all forms ofinnocence were attacked by upset humans, who not only attacked animals, but attacked nature

152

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
in the broader sense because all of nature was a friend and ‘ally’ of our instinctive soul andtherefore an ‘enemy’ of our apparently ‘bad’ conscious mind. There was even satisfaction inchopping down trees and setting fire to vegetation. The wearing of dark glasses ostensibly assunshades was often an effort to alienate ourselves from the natural world that was alienatingus—it was a rejection of, an attack on, the innocence of the daytime, of sunshine. The attackingand murdering of each other, and eventually outright, organised warfare, represented adramatic escalation in our upset with the condemning innocence of the ideal world of our soul.
But, as will be explained during the 40-year-old equivalent stage, this extremely destructivebehaviour didn’t emerge until the latter period of our two million years in adolescence.
Of course, the more upset we became the more we needed ways to escape and relievethe trauma of our condition. We sought the material rewards of luxury and comfort tocompensate for the high price we were having to pay of becoming corrupted. Later, whenupset became extreme, materialism became one of the main driving forces or motivations inlife. Glittering dresses, sparkling diamonds, bubbling Champagne, huge chandeliers, silver teasets, big houses, swimming pools and shiny, pretentious cars gave us the fanfare and glory weknew was due us, but which the world in its ignorance would not give us. From being bold,challenging and confrontationist, the heroic 21-year-old eventually became embattled, cynicaland exhausted, greatly in need of escapism and relief and thus an increasingly superficialand artificial person. We abandoned any idealistic hope of winning the battle to overthrowignorance as to the fact of our true goodness and became realists, concerned only with findingrelief and bestowing glory upon ourselves.
As mentioned earlier, while innocent Childmen were instinctively coordinated andconnected, once upset, especially alienation, developed, language became a necessity.
With alienation differing from one person to another there became a need to try to explainourselves, to explain why we were behaving differently, in such a seemingly non-idealmanner. In fact, talking became the key vehicle for justifying ourselves, both in our mindsand to others. But since we couldn’t speak directly about the human condition, or about otherpeople’s particular states of alienation without overly confronting and condemning them,stories became a way of passing on knowledge, or what we call wisdom, about the subtletiesof living under the duress of the human condition. Much later, with the development of thewritten word about 6,000 years ago, the fundamental quest for self-justification became greatlyassisted because the wisdom acquired during each generation could be more accuratelyrecorded, which meant that quite suddenly the accumulation of knowledge gained realimpetus. And throughout the journey through humanity’s adolescence the need to somehowexplain and justify ourselves with words, both oral and written, became increasinglysophisticated with the invention of all kinds of excuses and lies. The industry of denialbecame one of the main features of our behaviour; indeed, the extreme denials that have takenplace in science about our species’ innocent, upset-free, psychologically secure and happypast bear stark witness to just how sophisticated the art of denial became.

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

153

At this point in our journey, other forms of self-expression, such as art and music, becameparticularly useful because, unlike language and stories, their message wasn’t as clear andtherefore as potentially confronting. Each person could derive as much meaning from the artor the music or even the dance and other cultural rituals as they could personally cope with.
On the whole, culture essentially encompassed the various ways people passed on, from onegeneration to the next, the knowledge they had learnt about living under the duress of thehuman condition. More will be said about cultural traditions shortly.
Although the oldest known cave paintings are just 35,000 years old, archaeologistsworking in Zambia announced in 2000 that they had found pigments and paint grindingequipment believed to be between 350,000 and 400,000 years old. At the time of the discoveryit was reported that the find showed that ‘Stone Age man’s first forays into art were taking place atthe same time as the development of more efficient hunting equipment, including tools that combined bothwooden handles and stone implements…[and that it was evidence of] the development of new technology,art and rituals’ (BBC World News, 2 May 2000). The British archaeologist Lawrence Barham, a member
of the team in Zambia, described the find as the ‘earliest evidence of an aesthetic sense’ and that ‘Italso implies the use of language’ (ibid). As explained, language would have emerged with alienation
because people would have then needed some way to account for their unnatural behaviourto each other, and, since we can expect alienation to have begun soon after the emergenceof Homo, we can assume that at least a rudimentary language would have been practiced by
H. habilis. The oldest musical instruments found so far, phalange (bone) whistles, show that
Neanderthals, the early variety of H. sapiens sapiens, were making music around 80–100,000years ago, while a Neanderthal burial site at the Shanidar Cave in Iraq, estimated to be around
50,000 years old, contains traces of pollen grains, indicating that bouquets of flowers were
buried with the corpses. The creative and aesthetic sense of our ancestors of nearly half amillion years ago, as indicated by the pigments and paint grinding equipment, suggests thatthe creative and spiritual sensitivities demonstrated by the Neanderthals were in existencelong before their time.
I find the extreme sensitivity that is particularly apparent in the rock paintings of the
Bushman of southern Africa and Australian Aborigines, and in the cave paintings of earlyhumans in Europe, especially revealing of how much innocence the human race has lost inrelatively recent times. In order to draw the little pictures that have been included throughoutthis written presentation, I learnt long ago that I have to disconnect my conscious mindand just let my instinctive sensitivity express itself, and that if I don’t do that I simply can’tdraw at all. For example, the drawing of the three childmen happily embracing that I used toillustrate humanity’s Childhood stage earlier was done so quickly I shocked myself because
I could hardly believe that such an empathetic drawing could be produced from an almostinstant scribble. At that moment I saw just how much sensitivity we once had, and how muchalienation now exists within us two-million-years-embattled humans. The extraordinaryempathy and accuracy of the paintings of animals in the rock and cave paintings I referred

154

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
to above are similarly incredibly revealing of the amount of sensitivity we humans oncehad and have since lost. We are such an embattled species now, so worn out, so brutalised,so toughened. How extremely sensitive must early humans have been! Sir Laurens van der
Post wasn’t exaggerating when he wrote that ‘He [the Bushman] and his needs were committed tothe nature of Africa and the swing of its wide seasons as a fish to the sea. He and they all participated sodeeply of one another’s being that the experience could almost be called mystical. For instance, he seemedto know what it actually felt like to be an elephant, a lion, an antelope, a steenbuck, a lizard, a stripedmouse, mantis, baobab tree’ (The Lost World of the Kalahari, 1958, p.21 of 253).

The Chauvet Cave in southern France contains a wealth of Neolithic cave drawingsthat, as one reviewer of them described it, are ‘miraculous’, ‘overwhelming in density, humblingin sophistication, and awe-inspiring in sheer beauty’ (The Goddess Bites, accessed 14 Oct. 2011 at: <https://daedala.wordpress.com/>). The drawings, some of which are reproduced here (see next images),
are made of charcoal and, in some cases, red ochre. Carbon dating shows that the earliest ofthe paintings are around 32,000 years old. Only discovered in 1991, the cave was sealed bya rockslide some 28,000 years ago, so its contents are pristine. What struck me most whenwatching the German filmmaker Werner Herzog’s wonderful 2010 3D film Cave of Forgotten
Dreams, on the Chauvet Cave drawings, was the extraordinary empathy the artists exhibitedtowards the bison, mammoth, horses, rhinoceroses, lions, bears and other animals that they soeffortlessly drew in the cave—some of the drawings even appear to be animated, such as therhinoceros depicted throwing his horn forward. When our mind becomes preoccupied withupset, with psychosis and neurosis, it loses the ability to take an interest in anything else. Thepain in our brain stops us feeling or seeing or engaging in our surroundings; recall Plato’sdepiction of our human-condition-afflicted state of alienation or estrangement from the trueworld that our original instinctive self or soul has complete access to—he described it as livingin a dark cave where we can only ‘see dimly and appear to be almost blind’ (see Part 3:10). Our brainis distracted from everything else that is happening in the world. The more upset that our mindis preoccupied with, either trying to understand or, if the upset is extreme, constantly tryingto block out, the less we can access all the other events and experiences going on aroundus. So, as the human race became more and more upset, so its ability to feel and savour theworld around it shrank. For example, later in Part 6:4 I describe how power addicts—adultswho as children had to stand up to tyrannical parents, especially tyrannical fathers, and, as aresult, became psychologically exceptionally preoccupied trying to prove they are good andnot bad—are typically described as ‘lacking any ability to empathise with others’. So although thehumans responsible for the drawings in the Chauvet Cave were not anything like as upset-free/

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

155
innocent as humans were two million years ago when upset first began to develop in earnest,their ability to draw the animals around them so vividly indicates they were much, much moreinnocent than humans today. Clearly alienation has increased at an extremely rapid rate in thefinal stages of humanity’s two-million-year journey through adolescence.
When all the upset in humans heals, as it now will with understanding of the humancondition now found, the world is going to open up for us. We are going to be able to feeleverything around us. We are going to have so much kindness and love and empathy for eachother and our fellow creatures because we will, once again, be able to feel everything they areexperiencing, including just how embattled the lives of other animals are. While, through thenurturing, love-indoctrination process that was explained in Part 3:4, our ape ancestors wereable to break free from the tyranny of genes having to ensure their own reproduction, otheranimals are stuck having to continually compete for food, shelter, space and a mate; unlikehumans, they can’t develop full unconditionally selfless cooperative instincts. And so, inthese amazing drawings of animals, above all else, it is this empathy with, this feeling for, therelatively short, brutish, forever-having-to-fight-for-your-chance-to-reproduce lives of animalsthat those who made these drawings have so sensitively expressed. To use Sir Laurens’ words,they ‘seemed to know what it actually felt like to be’ a bison, rhinoceros or horse. You can sense thewhole internal struggle of the animals’ lives in these drawings. Their huge chests heave withtheir brutal and tough battle to survive—they are struggling so much to endure their lot that itis as if they have asthma! One day, when we humans get over the terrible agony of our ‘humancondition’, we will again be able to empathise with the terrible agony of the ‘animal condition’.
It’s not very nice to have to belt the living daylights out of others to ensure your genesreproduce, let alone other members of your own species—in fact, your cousins, uncles andeven your own father! No, it is not at all easy being a non-human animal, and that is an extremeunderstatement, just as it has not been at all easy being a human, which is, of course, anotherextreme understatement! In those who made these drawings there is not the alienation that nowexists in us humans that separates us from having an awareness of what it’s like to be one ofthese animals. In his commentary in his film, Werner wonders whether the paintings ‘somehow
[show] the beginning of the modern human soul’, but in truth they show the last remnants of our
all-sensitive human soul. At least Werner gets it right at the very end of the documentary when,in showing footage of mutant albino crocodiles who live in a tropical biosphere that has beencreated by the surplus warm water from a nuclear power plant that has been built some 20 milesfrom the cave, he asks, ‘Are we today possibly the crocodiles who look back into an abyss of time when wesee the paintings of Chauvet cave?’ Yes, these paintings certainly reveal how alienated we are now.

156

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

157

As I mentioned, while the Paleolithic artists clearly weren’t as alienated as we humansare today, they still had to be much, much more alienated than humans originally were. Ithink this is revealed by the fact that these cave artists almost completely avoided depictinghumans. In the entire Chauvet Cave complex there is only one representation of a human,and even that is limited to a drawing of only the bottom half of a woman’s torso. On thefew occasions when these cave artists tried to draw humans they almost invariably ended updrawing stick figures. The human face, in particular, which you would think would be themost interesting and relevant of subjects for these artists to depict, seems to have been totallybeyond their ability. It seems clear that the facial expressions of humans were by then soalienated, so devoid of the innocence that they must have once exhibited, that our instinctiveself or soul couldn’t relate to it; it couldn’t draw us. The artist Francis Bacon revealed justhow visibly corrupted we really are in his deadly honest painting of the psychologicallytwisted-smudged-face alienated human condition that was included at the beginning of
Part 3:11B. Also included in that Part was Sir Laurens van der Post’s honest description ofthe physical effects of alienation, when he described the psychologically devastated River
Bushmen as having ‘faces…[that] were strangely uneven as if each one belonged to a different racefrom which he had been torn by a violent fate’.

But it’s not just these River Bushmen who have been ‘torn by a violent fate’ fromtheir soulful moorings—that is the reality of the entire human race. When looking atsome Aboriginal rock paintings, thought to be some 2,000 years old, at Ubirr in the
Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory of Australia, I asked the guide, who wasaccompanying a tour group, whether she thought the reason the paintings of wildlife wereso accurate while the paintings of the humans were so pathetic was because we are nowtoo alienated for our soul to be able to empathise with us. I remember the guide, andeveryone else, reacting with a real shudder and audible choking noise—what I had said

158

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

In light of my comment above, about the River Bushmen being ‘psychologicallydevastated’, I should context comments that I made earlier when I spoke of the relativeinnocence of the Bushmen race that still exists today. The Bushmen’s ability to paint elandwith the empathetic sensitivity that is so evident in the painting (see previous image, bottomleft) is another indicator, like the happiness and zest for life of the unmolested, natural living
Bushmen I mentioned earlier, that the Bushmen are a relatively innocent, relatively nonupset, relatively soul-preserved race. However, for their souls not to be able to relate to andthus draw themselves indicates that they are far more ‘psychologically devastated’ or upsetthan original, fully soulful, innocent humans were. The fact that the life of the Bushmen is sofocused on hunting shows that they are indeed very upset, even if they are not as far along theexhaustion curve as other races today. After all, the Bushmen are, like the artists who drew theanimals in the Chauvet and Lascaux caves, and on the Ubirr rocks, modern humans, membersof the extremely upset genus, Homo sapiens sapiens.
It is truly an insight into how sensitive and loving we humans once were that ourinstinctive self or soul can’t relate to the way we humans are now. Consider the tendernessin the expression on the face of the Madonna in the drawing of the Madonna and child thatwas included at the beginning of the Infancy stage in Part 3:11A. My soul drew that—I,my conscious self, had nothing to do with it. Truly, as William Wordsworth wrote, ‘trailingclouds of glory do we come, From God [the integrated, loving, all-sensitive state], who is our home’
(Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood, 1807). And
people say we humans have
brutish, aggressive instincts! It’s the world we humans currently live in that is mad. It is justso traumatised with upset that it hasn’t been able to deal with the fact that it is deeply, deeplydishonest, horrifically alienated. What did the great Spanish artist Pablo Picasso (1881-1973),one of the modern world’s most accomplished artists, famously say about his ability to paint:
‘It’s taken me a lifetime to learn to paint like a child.’ And what did R.D. Laing say, ‘between usand It [our true self or soul] there is a veil which is more like fifty feet of solid concrete’. Turn on the
television and find a wildlife documentary and I bet it will show pictures of crocodiles onthe Mara River tearing wildebeest apart, or white sharks devouring seals, or snakes striking

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

159
at the camera lens. All the beauty in nature has been reduced to representations of butcheryand horror because we humans have become so upset all we can cope with are pictures ofanimals ‘being’ as aggressive as we are, everything else in nature is far too confronting. Ihave been to natural Africa and seen its spectacle, and the sheer magic of it all surpasses allimaginings; it is just achingly beautiful, the most sacred realm on Earth—‘spiritual amnesia’are the only words I can think of to describe it and they don’t even make sense. My partner
Annie and I have sat hidden amongst the trees on the banks of the Tiva sand river in Tsavo
National Park in Kenya and seen dust rise above the tree line in the shimmering middayheat and then watched as a vast herd of black Cape buffalo, led by an old crooked horn cow,quietly materialised from the bush, cautiously coming down to drink at pools in the riverbed. I really felt like a spy in heaven. It was all just unbelievable. The Earth at its primal,spiritual, authentic, soulful, magical very best. I think God was there beside us sitting onhis heels like a little Bushman smiling at all that he had created. With our sophisticatedcommunication technology, why oh why don’t we have documentaries sensitively immersingus in all of that. It is so sad. We haven’t been able to cope with any truth. Our world hasshrunk to the size of a pea. All the beauty and magic that is out there escapes us, we don’tsee it; worse, we don’t want to see it. No wonder our soul can’t relate to us and just draws

My partner Annie and I in Samburu National Park in Kenya in 1992. Those giraffes behind us arejust walking around as free as a daisy. In Africa, animals like giraffes and elephants and rhinocerosesaren’t in cages; there are no fences over there. Animals—and the place is teeming with them, all sortsof weird shapes and sizes—just walk all around the place. It’s amazing. They can go wherever theywant. They can stop here for a while and then go over the hill if they want to. They just mooch abouteverywhere; walk around a bush and there is another one, this time with great spiral horns comingout of the top of its head, big eyes looking at you as if to say, ‘So, who are you, what’s your problem?’
‘My problem! Have you had a look at what’s coming out the top of your head!?’ It takes some gettingused to. I don’t know who made them all, and was he just having fun making them all in suchweird and different shapes—and, more to the point, who let them all out!

160

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Similar to what happens when I draw, in my writing I have also learnt to, as I describeit, ‘think like a stone’, or ‘think like a child’—say the simplest, most elementary thought—because I learnt that such a thought will be the most truthful and accurate and accountableand explanatory. Absolutely every time I encounter a problem I have to solve in my thinkingabout the human condition I go into a routine where I say to myself, ‘Just go into yourselfand think like a stone, just let the truth come out that’s within and you will have the answer.’
Basically, I learnt to trust in and take guidance from my truthful instinctive self or soul. Ilearnt to think honestly, free of alienated, intellectual bullshit, and all the answers, all theinsights that I have found, and there are many hundreds of them, were found this way. I haveso perfected the art of thinking truthfully and thus effectively that you can put any problem orquestion in front of me to do with human behaviour and I can get to the bottom of it, answerand solve it. It has been astonishing to me to watch my mind work, the freedom it has andwhere it is capable of going in its thinking. It wears me out keeping up with it. This wearingout problem is especially so because there is so much suffering in the world that simply has tobe brought a stop to. Yes, I know that every sentence I write is truth-laden, in complete contrastto the billions of sentences being churned out every second everywhere else on Earth. It is theinnocent instinctive child in us that knows the truth. Christ, as usual, put it perfectly when hesaid, ‘you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children’ (Matt.
11:25). Albert Einstein also recognised the mental integrity of the young when he famously said
that ‘every child is born a genius’; the American architect and philosopher Richard Buckminster
Fuller similarly said, ‘There is no such thing as genius, some children are just less damaged than others’
(NASA Speech, 1966), and ‘All children are born geniuses. 9999 out of every 10,000 are swiftly, inadvertently
de-geniused by grown-ups’ (Education for Human Development: Understanding Montessori, by Mario M. Montessori
Jr., Paula Polk Lillard & Buckminster Fuller, 1987, Foreword); while R.D. Laing noted that ‘Each child is a new
beginning, a potential prophet [denial-free, honest, truthful, effective thinker]’ (The Politics of Experienceand The Bird of Paradise, 1967, p.26 of 156). Laing also pointed out that ‘Children are not yet fools, but [by
our treatment of them] we shall turn them into imbeciles like ourselves, with high I.Q.’s if possible’ (ibid.p.49). Sigmund Freud was another who recognised the problem of the alienated adult/modern
human mind, writing, ‘What a distressing contrast there is between the radiant intelligence of the childand the feeble mentality of the average adult’ (The Freud Reader, ed. P. Gay, 1995, p.715). Many exceptionally
creative people have made statements to the effect that genius is the ability to think like achild. As just mentioned, one of the most accomplished artists of all time, Pablo Picasso,famously said (about his struggle to paint well) that ‘It’s taken me a lifetime to learn to paint like a

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

161
child.’ Truly, our species’ original instinctive self or soul, which the innocence of children still
has access to, is wonderfully orientated to the cooperative, integrative, ‘Godly’, loving, ideal,truthful state. We do indeed come ‘trailing clouds of glory…From God, who is our home’.
Interestingly, a comment that was included earlier, by the biographer George Seaver onthe theologian, missionary and physician Albert Schweitzer, reiterates what I have just saidabout natural thinking: ‘Naturalness. That is the keynote of Schweitzer’s thought, life, and personality.
The ultimate thought, the thought which holds the clue to the riddle of life’s meaning and mystery, mustbe the simplest thought conceivable, the most natural, the most elemental, and therefore also the mostprofound’ (Albert Schweitzer The Man and His Mind, 1947, p.311).

It was bad enough to have acquired a fully conscious brain, the marvellous computerwe have on our heads, and not be given the program for it and instead be left to wanderthis Earth searching for that program/understanding in a terrifying darkness of confusionand bewilderment, most especially about our worthiness or otherwise as a species, but tothen have to be disconnected from access to the ideal, ‘Godly’, cooperatively orientated,integrative, all-loving and all-sensitive, truthful world of our original instinctive self or soul—having to block it out because it unjustly condemned us—meant we have been enduringan extraordinarily lonely, sad existence! It follows that it became a matter of great urgencyfor the increasingly upset human race to find ways to cope with the utter devastation andloneliness of our situation.
Having repressed our soul because it condemned us, a counter need developed toreconnect with it, to find our way back to purity and sanity, and one way we managedto do so was by creating one of the earliest forms of religion, namely animism or natureworship—religion being the strategy of putting our faith in, deferring to, and looking forcomfort, reassurance and guidance from something other than our overly upset and overlysoul-estranged conscious thinking egoic self. Unlike our upset soul-destroyed self, the naturalworld remained in an innocent state, and since nature was also associated with our originalinstinctive self because our species grew up with nature, it could also reconnect us to theinnocent, true world of our soul. So, despite our upset state’s often violent repudiation ofnature’s condemning innocence, nature could still link us back to repressed ‘spiritual’, soulinfused sensitivities, feelings and awarenesses within us that we had lost access to.
Another way that developed to counter the loneliness of our situation, and this wasalso one of the earliest forms of religion, was ancestor worship. Having managed to surviveour mind’s loneliness and our soul’s estrangement, our ancestors were a source of great

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

162

The Biology
reassurance and comfort. In our uncertainty and distress, we could look to them for the hopethat we too might survive the horror of life under the duress of the human condition. Wecould look to them for ‘spiritual’ guidance, for inspiration for our troubled minds. If we triedto imagine how they coped and what they would have done in situations that we now faced,we could be inspired to reach potentials within ourselves that our troubled minds might nototherwise have allowed us access to. By revering them and cultivating their memories, ourancestors could remain a presence in our lives to look after and guide us. Prior to developingwriting and with it the ability to very effectively pass on and accumulate knowledge,especially knowledge about how to cope with being a human, we had to depend on the oralcommunication of knowledge through stories that were easily recalled, and on the memoriesof our ancestors who embodied that accumulated knowledge.
Rituals involving pantomimes and the use of visual totems and objects like masks alsohelped build a cultural tradition that could reassure and guide us from one generation tothe next. It follows that since masks are representations of the human face they should beextremely revealing of our species’ whole psychological condition, which they are.
As has been described at length, there are two fundamental aspects to the humancondition: the tragic repression of our original all-loving and all-sensitive instinctive selfor soul, and the extremely angry state of the unjustly condemned conscious thinkingegoic intellect. In the day to day lives of humans living under the duress of the humancondition the truth of the extent to which our soul has been brutally repressed has beenhidden from view. Similarly, the depth of the anger of our conscious mind has also beenmostly restrained and contained and thus also not often revealed. We learnt to be, as wesay, civilised; we tried not to let the true extent of our corrupted, upset state show. So, forthe most part, we went about in a state of extremely artificial and superficial pretence thatwe were sound, secure, well-adjusted, sane and happy people. We went to great lengths toconceal our extremely tortured, disfigured, soul-dead, furiously angry real condition. Whilethis denial of the truth of our condition saved the upset human race from unbearable selfconfrontation, the extreme dishonesty, artificiality and superficiality of living that way couldalso become unbearable—psychologically and then physically sickening in fact, at whichpoint some purging, cathartic, exorcising honesty was needed. The wearing of masks thatrevealed the true depth of how either soul-dead or ferociously angry we upset humans hadbecome was a powerfully effective way of bringing some relieving, therapeutic honestyto our lives. It comes as little surprise then that masks have, in fact, been used in theceremonies of almost all cultures.
The Greeks call masks ‘ekstasis’, a word which means ‘to stand outside oneself ’. It followsthat when we stood outside our self we were, in turn, looking into our self and seeing thereal devastation that R.D. Laing spoke of when he referred to the ‘fifty feet of solid concrete’that now exists between us and our original soulful true self. The term ‘mask’ is actuallyderived from the term msk, which was used in the middle Egyptian period to denote ‘secondskin’. That ‘second skin’ that the mask sought to exorcise was our soul-corrupted, immensely
upset, human-condition-afflicted real state. Masks allowed the wearer to momentarily relievethemselves of their extremely dishonest everyday masquerade of being a secure, sound, welladjusted, happy person, and let the truth out, which could be very therapeutic for both thewearer and the observer.

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

By far the most common variety of masks are those that reveal the true extent of the, intruth, volcanic, demonic anger inside of humans. The following are some examples.

163

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

164

The Biology

Masks that focused on revealing and exorcising the other aspect in the duality of thehuman condition, of the extent of the devastation of our cooperative, integrative, ‘Godly’,all-loving and all-sensitive original instinctive self or soul, were always going to be rarer thanmasks that revealed the extent of our intellect’s anger. This is because the more upset humansbecame, the more we replaced any sensitive, inward-focusing, introspective awareness andconcern about our loss of soulful innocence with an increasing need to get even with theworld for its unjust condemnation, at which point outward-focusing, egocentric ferociousanger became the dominant concern and orientation of life—which is why masks that exorciseferocious anger predominate. Put simply, the more upset we humans became, the less wewanted to be reminded of how soul-dead we had become, which means that any masks thatdid reveal how estranged from our soul we humans have become were going to be few and farbetween, if not non-existent. In fact, in my research I have not yet found any masks that seemto me to have the specific intention of revealing and exorcising the truth of how soul-deadwe humans really are—however, what I have found are masks that were made for anotherpurpose but which happen to reveal how soul-destroyed we are.
The pictures that follow are of a selection of these truly extraordinary masks that weremade by a few central African Bantu/black/negro tribes who practiced ancestor worship. Theseexamples were chosen from many, in some cases hundreds, of very similar masks from each ofwhat appear to be the main tribes who crafted these particular ancestor masks. For example, thewebsite of the Royal Museum for Central Africa in Belgium (<https://www.africamuseum.be/>)displays some 800 of these masks that were collected between the late 1800s and the early 1900sfrom tribes living in or around the Congo River basin, and if you glance through them you willsee that the samples I have chosen are not at all unique, but, in fact, typical of all the masks.
To explain the meaning behind these masks, I first need to present a brief description ofthe tribes that made them.
The Fang tribe are warrior-like people who spread over a large area encompassing theforests of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon along the Atlantic Coast. Fang masks ‘typically arelarge elongated covered with [white] kaolin [clay] and featuring a face that was usually heart-shaped witha long fine nose. Apparently it has been linked with the dead since white is their color…[Skull fragments,or sometimes complete skulls, of ancestors] would be consulted when the village was to change location,or when a new crop was planted…or before going hunting, fishing, or to war…[Representations of the
ancestors] also served for therapeutic rituals and, above all, for the initiation of young males’ (Rebirth
African Art Gallery, accessed Aug. 2011 at: <https://www.rebirth.co.za/fang_mask_history.htm>).

The Lega are another war-like tribe who, in the sixteenth century, migrated downfrom modern Uganda to their present location in the virgin forests of eastern Congo, near
Burundi. In their society ‘both men and women aspire to moral authority by gaining high rank inthe bwami association…[who] regulate the social, religious and political life of the Lega…Circumcision

[initiation] was an indispensable process that allowed entrance into the bwami (African Art Museum,accessed Aug. 2011 at: <http://www.zyama.com/lega/>). ‘The highest rank of Bwami…is directly associated with
the skulls of the ancestors, which are placed in a hut at the center of the village…[and] are not exposedto public eye’ (Art & Life in Africa, accessed Aug. 2011: see <www.wtmsources.com/189>). ‘Masks with heartshaped, concave faces painted with white pigment are owned, in some areas, by every male member ofthe [most advanced levels] of the bwami association’ (African Art Museum, accessed Aug. 2011 at: <http://www.zyama.com/lega/C552lega.htm>).

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

165

166

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

167

The Chokwe tribe were once one of the twelve clans of the great Lunda Empire ofseventeenth and eighteenth century Angola. They have since spread over a wide area ofeastern Angola, southern Congo and Zambia. ‘They are vigorous and courageous hunters andagriculturalists, who used formerly to engage in the slave trade…Masks are used during investitureceremonies of a chief and sacrifices to the ancestors…[and] play a role in male initiation…training

[which] lasts from one to two years. Boys between the ages of eight and twelve are secluded in a camp inthe wilderness, away from the village. There they are circumcised and spend several months in a speciallodge where they are instructed in their anticipated roles as men. As part of their instruction, the boys aretaught the history and traditions of the group and the secrets associated with the wearing and making ofmasks…The eyes closed to narrow slits [of masks] evoke those of a deceased person’ (African Art Museum,accessed Aug. 2011 at: <http://www.zyama.com/chokwe/>).

Originally from Angola, the Pende people relocated to southern Congo in the beginningof the seventeenth century. The Pende ‘ancestors are placated through various rituals and offerings.
The family head is responsible for taking care of the shrines and appeasing the spirits…when ancestorsare neglected they cause bad things to happen…Pende masks…appear in ceremonies such as milletplanting celebration or circumcision and initiation ritual, and the ritual of enthronement of a chief. Thereare two styles: the western one of the Kwilu with its mbuya mask characterized by a somber, gloomyexpression; and the Kasai style that is more geometric and colorful. The Kwilu Pende are especially wellknown for their masks that were originally used for circumcision ceremonies’ (African Art Museum, accessed
Aug. 2011 at: <http://www.zyama.com/pende/>).

The Woyo tribe of Africa, who left the Congo River cataracts area sometime prior to thefifteenth century, live along the Atlantic coast in Congo and Angola near the mouth of the
Congo River. ‘Masks are used during initiations, funerals of important individuals or may have socialcontrol functions or are used by diviners and healers…The subtle relief carving of the face with the downturned mouth with teeth was painted a dots color applied by fingertips to further set it off from the facepainted a startling white to indicate understanding and knowledge. This use of color reflects the complexsymbolism of color…such as red for bravery, male potency or black for darkness and white to illustrateillumination and knowledge or femininity, fertility and social harmony. White also makes reference tofemale ancestral spirits’ (Africa Direct, accessed Aug. 2011: see <www.wtmsources.com/192>).

I have included these details because while I, and those helping with this research,have found only one suggestion in the literature to indicate that these extraordinary masksare meant to represent the white skulls of deceased ancestors, I think it’s clear from thesedescriptions that that is, in fact, what they are. Such sacred importance is placed on the skullsof ancestors that for the Lega ‘the skulls of the ancestors, which are placed in a hut at the center ofthe village…are not exposed to public eye’, with ‘Masks with heart-shaped, concave faces painted withwhite pigment…owned…by every male member of the’ elite. The description of the Fang mask
mentioned that the ‘color’ ‘white’ is ‘linked with the dead’. The Chokwe quote also mentionedthat ‘The eyes closed to narrow slits [in their masks] evoke those of a deceased person.’
Interestingly, the most distinctive feature of a human skull is its large eye sockets, whichclearly the ‘heart-shaped, concave faces’ of almost all the masks I have seen from these tribescapture, but the problem for an artist is that if they don’t put eyes in the concave sockets theface has no feeling or emotional presence, which is needed if a connection is to be forgedwith the ancestor they represent. On the other hand, if the artist places round eyes into the

168

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
concave socket to give it presence the mask takes on the appearance of a living person, nota dead ancestor; this ‘awake’ effect is apparent in two of the masks in the photo of the Legacollection above. It seems clear that the answer to this problem was to make the eyes slits, sothat the mask still represented the skull of a deceased person, but was not vacant and devoidof presence—which is why ‘eyes closed to narrow slits evoke those of a deceased person’.
As such, I think these masks are clearly representations of the skulls of ancestors that wereused in the very important ritual of ancestor worship. But while the veneration of ancestorshas been practiced by many, if not most, tribal peoples around the world, these ancestor skullmasks, from these few tribes from the Congo River region of Africa, are the only ones I havefound. The question this raises is why haven’t other tribes around the world made ceremonialmask representations of the skulls of their ancestors? I think the very good reason is because,as mentioned earlier, the more upset people became the more unbearable it became to confrontthe truth of how soul-dead they were, and these skull masks of deceased ancestors are far tooevocative of the death of our soul. So while these masks were clearly made to represent theskulls of deceased ancestors, their accidental effect was to reveal the hidden truth of how souldestroyed we immensely upset humans really are. The sadness, the emptiness, the grief-strickenbereavement in the expressions of these African masks is overwhelming. It is like the face ofa human stripped of all facades—the human condition rendered bare. If we compare the Fangmask, for example, with the face of the boy who, the day before, had lost all his classmates in aplane crash (pictured in Part 3:8), what we see are two identical expressions—the same deeplysobered, drained-pale, long-faced, hollowed-out-cheeks, gaunt and empty, all-pretences-andfacades-stripped-away, pained-tragic-human-condition-laid-bare countenance.
Given their long agricultural history and war-like, opportunistic nature, the Bantu Africanswho made these masks were obviously not as innocent as the Bushmen, but, nevertheless, theymust have been relatively innocent to tolerate the making of masks that evoke such incrediblyconfronting honesty about the death of our soul. I can’t imagine extremely upset races copingwith such honesty in their everyday lives, even if that honesty wasn’t intentional. But not onlydid these Bantu people tolerate the confronting honesty of these masks in their midst, theycultivated it, encouraged it, ultimately developing it into an extremely sophisticated, stylisedart form. Of course, having been able to tolerate the inadvertent honesty of these masks,these tribes would have also benefited from the exorcism of the truth of the loss of soul thatthe masks then facilitated. These masks are absolutely extraordinarily revealing and thusexorcising of the tragic, lonely, sad demise of our true, all-loving original instinctive self orsoul. It has been suggested that the long face of some of these masks symbolises ‘the sobernessof one’s duty that comes with power’ (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mask>, accessed Dec. 2010), but I suspect
that what happened is that once these obviously extremely soul-guided and thus talented artistsrecognised the accidental therapeutic value of their art they deliberately developed it—some oftheir creations are just too powerfully honest for there to be any other interpretation.
Another illustration of the relative innocence of these Bantu Africans is that not one ofthe many hundreds of their masks that I have seen appears to exorcise anger. Amongst thecollection held at the Royal Museum for Central Africa, I did find some masks that showedferocious aggression, but when looking at their origins it turned out they were either from
Mexico or from the Iroquois Indians of North America. Another interesting observation Imade when looking at the RMCA collection and that of other museums was that the masks

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

169
that were made by Bantu tribes from further north in Africa, such as Nigeria, Liberia and Côted’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), all seemed to be missing the authentic connection to reality and truththat the masks from the Congo region exhibited. The sensitive presence so apparent in the
Congo masks was gone, replaced by superficial, bland, inane expressions, even silly lookingsmiles and, often as not, by completely mad, demonic grimaces. But at a certain point in thedevelopment of upset that is what happened—people’s psychological situations became somessed up they lost all moorings to anything real. Perhaps the Arab slave traders who hadbeen coming down on raids from the north of Africa for centuries, and the Europeans whofollowed them, corrupted the Bantu in these central northern areas at a faster rate than thosewho were situated further south. Of course, the Bantu down in the Congo region were alsohorrifically brutalised for forty years, from 1880 to 1920, by Belgian colonisers who not onlyemployed such horrific tactics as chopping off villagers’ hands to intimidate the rest of thevillage into gathering ivory and rubber from the forests, but also exposed them to the outsideworld and the trauma of having their numbers decimated by diseases that they had neverbefore been exposed to and therefore had not built up any resistance to, such as smallpox—but, despite such incursions, perhaps their prolonged isolation from exploitation and diseaseallowed the Congolese to remain more innocent than their northern relatives.
Overall, as is talked about later in Part 7:4, upset has been overrunning, oppressing and oftenreplacing innocence since upset first appeared. As Sir Laurens van der Post mentioned earlier,the Bushmen of the Kalahari were, in turn, decimated by the Bantu who were, as just mentioned,brutalised by the Arabs and the Europeans. The Biblical story of Cain and Abel perfectlysummarises what has been happening: ‘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 domesticatedanimals and as a result was able to become settled and through greater interaction with other humans andbeing more removed from innocent nature became increasingly upset]…Cain was [became] very angry,and his face was downcast [he became depressed about his upset state and]…Cain attacked his [relatively
innocent and thus unwittingly exposing, confronting and condemning] brother Abel and killed him’ (Gen.
4:2, 5, 8). Only the finding of understanding of the human condition was going to stop the march to
ever greater levels of upset. And absolutely thank goodness it has finally arrived.
To return, however, to discussing these incredible masks from around the Congo Riverbasin, the truth of the loss of our soul that these masks helped to reveal must have beenespecially relieving for the adolescents amongst these tribes who were undergoing theinitiation into adulthood, namely negotiating Resignation—for as the description for each ofthe tribes mentions, these masks were also used in initiation/Resignation rituals. Recall in
Part 3:8 how much it helped the art critic Robert Hughes to find that etching of Goya’s Thesleep of reason brings forth monsters when he was negotiating Resignation. Well, I doubtthat an adolescent who was going through Resignation could find anywhere in the world anexpression that captured the agony they were going through more accurately than the ivory
Lega mask; I have never seen such a pure representation of inner suffering.
This further quote about the use of these masks in initiation ceremonies is interesting,especially its reference to the ‘energy’ of resigning adolescents being ‘dangerous and destabilizingto society’. Adults have always been unable to cope with the agony and distress that adolescents
went through when negotiating Resignation, and have, as a result, sought to assist, if notforce, the adolescent through to resigned adulthood as directly as possible; as mentioned, the

170

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Chokwe even started this ‘danger’-avoiding process when their children were ‘eight’ yearsold: ‘As people change physically, especially at adolescence [actually, as has been explained, it was thepsychological not the physical change that was painful for adolescents], old age, and death, maskingrituals are performed to mark the transition and make it safe. Adolescent energy, for example, can bedangerous and destabilizing to society. To insure a safe transition, groups of young boys, for example,may be gathered and kept away from their village for long periods of time while they are taught theways of masculine adulthood’ (Masks – The Functions of Masking, accessed Aug. 2011 at: <https://science.jrank.org/pages/10098/Masks-Functions-Masking.html>).

Interestingly, many of the masks feature tears—as seen in two of the masks I haveincluded here. I have not found any explanation for these tears, but I know that the secretto being a good healer is the ability to empathise with those who are suffering, and therecan probably be no greater empathetic connection for someone suffering than for theirhealer to be crying for them. I think I would find an ancestor who was crying for me muchmore therapeutic than one who wasn’t, so this might be the reason for the tears. Indeed, inaddition to ceremonial and initiation rituals, these ancestor skull masks were actually used forhealing—the Pende mask I’ve included was described in the literature accompanying it as a
‘sickness mask’—which makes sense since the masks are so therapeutic.

Although it was not their primary intention, a measure of just how extraordinarilysuggestive these masks are of the true extent of the inner devastation, loneliness, emptinessand sadness of our lives under the duress of the human condition can be gained by how deeplythey effect us when we look at them. We are such miserable wrecks of what a human couldand should be, so it is relieving for our true self to see such honesty. Indeed, the extraordinarytherapeutic, exorcising power of these masks from the Congo region of Africa has led to thembeing considered amongst the finest creations in the art world. For instance, a Fang mask verysimilar to the one shown sold for around $US7 million in 2006 (Lot 193, Vérité auction, Paris, Jun. 2006).
It is no wonder some of the world’s greatest artists have been influenced by these Africanmasks. A 2010 documentary, titled Paris The Luminous Years, describes how ‘The walls of his
[Pablo Picasso’s] studio were hung with African masks and African musical instruments. There wassevere competition in those days [the very early 1900s] between [the great artists] Picasso, [André]
Derain, [Henri] Matisse and [Georges] Braque, as to who could discover the most beautiful African heads.

[As Braque said] Negro masks open new horizons to me. They put me in touch with things instinctive’
(Thirteen production). And indeed, Picasso himself said he experienced a ‘revelation’ (Picasso, Rubin &
Fluegel, 1980, p.87) while viewing African art at a Paris museum and his painting Les Demoiselles
d’Avignon (see next image) was the first work to result from that inspiration. The two faceson the right were especially inspired by the African masks Picasso saw in the museum, whichwere ‘similar in style’ to the ‘Fang sculpture’ that I have included in the selection above (Accessed
3 Feb. 2011 at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picasso’s_African_Period>). Picasso also perfectly understood
the healing value of masks, saying, ‘The [African] masks were not simply sculptures like any other.
Not at all. They were magic objects…They were weapons. To help people stop being ruled by spirits, tofree themselves. Tools. If we give a form to these spirits, we become free…I understood why I became apainter…Les Demoiselles d’Avignon must have come to me that very day [when I visited the museum and
saw the African masks], but not at all because of the forms; because it was my first exorcism painting’ (Ina conversation with André Malraux in 1937; André Breton, Oeuvres Completes, ed. M. Bonnet, 1988). Yes, as Christ

Part 3:11C

Adventurous Adolescentman

171
said, ‘the truth will set you free’ (Bible, John 8:32). I might add that in Picasso’s representation theeyes are open, not closed like they are in the masks, and as a result his depictions are not nearlyas effective in revealing the extent of our alienation. Later in Part 7:5 we will see how theartist Francis Bacon got the eyes-closed, twisted-face representation of our alienated humancondition right, just as the African artists did way before modern art was invented. Indeed,it could be said that the honesty imbued in these African masks cracked the denial beingpracticed by humans today and laid the way for modern art. Such is the power of innocence.

Les Demoiselles d’Avignon by Pablo Picasso, 1907

To return now to the more abridged description of our species’ journey through itsadolescence, throughout which technology was also growing in its sophistication. Forinstance, sharpened stones, choppers, hand axes and scrapers, cudgels, spears, harpoons andbone needles appear in the archaeological record from 3 million years onwards, while otherevidence shows that H. erectus made refined tear-drop shaped flint axe heads and that eventhe earliest of this species were using fire, as indicated by the remnants of hearths at Koobi
Fora in Kenya. However, it is only in the final 14,000 of those two million years that the mostdramatic improvements have occurred—it was then that the bow and arrow, fish basket trapsand crude boats first appeared, while the practice of agriculture and the domestication ofanimals, which both began around 11,000 years ago, prompted the associated production ofearthenware pottery, looms, hoes, ploughs and reaping-hooks. Around 7,000 years ago the
Stone Age was replaced by the so-called Bronze Age, which in turn was replaced around 3,100years ago by the Iron Age.
It needs to be emphasised that throughout these epochs of time the whole developmentof upset was being driven by increasing intelligence. The more intelligent we were, the morewe searched for understanding and the more upset we became—and with each new level ofupset a new psychological and accompanying physical existence and state emerged, includingincreased alienation.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

172

The Biology

The following two graphs chart the psychological journey that humanity has been on, withthe top graph charting the development over time of mental cleverness, as indicated by brainvolume, and the bottom graph charting the development of cooperativeness or integration.

Fig. 2: The Development of Mental Cleverness

(Brain volume is used as a guide to mental cleverness)

A.
af
an
ns
bu
stus

400ccaverage

450

H H. s
.s aap p.ie sactns p.us

.e
re
ab
ili
s

Childman

Infantman

Charts by Jeremy Griffith © Fedmex Pty Ltd 1983

H
ro
us
is

Our Ape Ancestor

A.
af
ric
are

Adolescentman
530

650

900–1100 1350

1400
1400
1300

Common chimpanzees inmid infance also have abrain volume of 400 cc.

1200
1100
1000

Brain Volume cc

900
800

Conscious Mistakes Outstrip Conscience Repair

700

Mind’s Confidence Threshold

600
Love-Indoctrination Develops
500
400
300
200
100
0

1.5

0.5 0.05

Million Years Ago

Fig. 3: The Development of Integration
Period when
Consciousnessappeared and wasupset by the
Conscience

.s
.
.s

Adulthood

Australopithecines

H
.e

Our Ape Ancestor

Adolescence

Childhood

Humanity’s Infancy

Period over which we acquired our Soul and our
Conscience (our instinctive orientation to integration)

Million Years Ago

Line of perfect integration
Resignation Stage
Deviation fromintegration

Rehabilitation Stage

Stage where we refined allour ways for coping with the
Human Condition
Switch-over pointfrom idealist to realist
Stage where upsetreached a crescendo
Religious Stage

Social Disintegration

Departure or
Exhaustion Curve

Part 3:11D

Angry Adolescentman

173

We can see that while the brain size of Childman (the australopithecines) was not muchbigger than Infantman (such as common chimpanzees and bonobos), a sudden increase inbrain size occurred with the emergence of the first Adolescentman, H. habilis, when the needto think and understand began in earnest as a result of the emergence of the dilemma of thehuman condition. This dramatic growth continued through Adventurous Adolescentman
(H. erectus) and Angry Adolescentman (H. sapiens) before finally plateauing with Pseudo
Idealistic Adolescentman (H. sapiens sapiens). Anthropologists have long wondered why thisgrowth stopped. The reason is that in Pseudo Idealistic Adolescentman a balance was struckbetween the need for cleverness and the need for soundness; between knowledge-findingyet corrupting mental cleverness and conscience-obedient yet non-knowledge-finding lackof mental cleverness, with the average IQ today representing that relatively safe consciencesubordinate compromise. The bottom graph shows that by five million years ago nurturinghad enabled our ancestors to live in an utterly cooperative state. However, with consciousself-management, and with it the upsetting battle of the human condition, becoming fullydeveloped some two million years ago, we see that the graph charts a rapid increase in upsetfrom that time to the present, where, as will be described, we faced the prospect of terminallevels of alienation and social disintegration.

Part 3:11D Angry Adolescentman
The Angry Adulthood Stage of Adolescent Humanity
The Angry Adolescentman stage was when we encountered the reality, frustration andanger of trying but failing to defeat the ignorance of our idealistic instinctive self or soul andhad to learn to Self Discipline to contain or civilise our now overly upset state.
The species: Homo sapiens—0. 5 million (500,000) to 0.05 million (50,000) years ago

The individual: 30 to 40 years old

Throughout our 20s we individually, or, in the case of humanity, H. erectus, settled intothe long, corrupting journey to find understanding, ultimately understanding of why webecame corrupted in the first place. But, tragically, the more we searched for knowledge

174

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
the more upset we became, and the more upset the human race as a whole became, and themore new generations had to contend with that ever-accumulating upset. It was an extremelyupset-compounding situation. As the graph charting humanity’s increase in upset over thelast two million years shows, for the first three-quarters of the journey (basically to the end of
Adventurous Adolescentman, H. erectus’ reign), the rate of increase in upset was not great.
However, in the last quarter of that time period (during the reign of Angry Adolescentman, H.sapiens) the graph descended markedly, and then, in the final 50,000 years (during the reign of
Pseudo Idealistic Adolescentman, H. sapiens sapiens), it entered into free fall—upset began tocompound at an extremely rapid rate, a rate that only ends with the rise of human-conditionunderstood-and-ameliorated TRANSFORMED, Adultman or Triumphantman or Godman.
A contributing factor to the speeding up of this progression in upset was the hardship andconfinement of life throughout the four great ice ages that occurred during the Pleistoceneepoch, the period from 1.8 million years to 10,000 years ago. These ice ages greatly contributedto the increase in upset because, in forcing close habitation between people of varying degreesof upset, they dramatically accentuated the difficulties encountered by humans coexistingunder the strain of the human condition, to the point where life today, towards the bottom ofthe graph, has become so difficult that even coupling has proved untenable for many, withmarriage breakdown a common occurrence.
The closer humans lived during humanity’s adolescence and/or the more difficult theliving conditions, the greater the occurrence and spread and thus increase in upset. Innocencedoesn’t last long in New York’s Times Square or Sydney’s Kings Cross where drug pushers,prostitutes, muggers and beggars work the streets. And as those from cold climates willattest, winters are particularly confining and testing, and so each great ice age did, in effect,represent one very long, trying winter. It is not surprising then that out of the hardship ofeach of the great ice ages came the next more upset/soul-exhausted/embattled/alienated stageof humans. From the rigours of the first great ice age, called the Günz Ice Age, came theflowering of H. erectus. H. sapiens emerged after the second ice age, the Mindel Ice Age,while Neanderthal man, a precursor of H. sapiens sapiens, appeared after the third ice age, the
Riss Ice Age. H. sapiens sapiens emerged after the Würm Ice Age, the fourth ice age. Eachice age also contributed significantly to the culling of the human race in terms of humans’ability to adapt to life under the duress of the human condition—because as upset increasedthroughout humanity’s adolescence many individuals must have, in effect, quit the great battlehumanity was waging against the ignorance of our instinctive self or soul through not beingable to survive the degree of compromise to their soul that was increasingly being demandedof them, leaving only the most courageous and enduring. But just how toughened the humanrace became is now hidden under layer upon layer of self-restraint, or what we call ‘civility’.
This restraining, civilising process will be explained shortly, but the point being made here isthat beneath our facade of restraint and manufactured positiveness, which was so necessary tocope with the horror of the human condition, lies a highly genetically toughened individual.
But to return once more to humanity’s journey through its adolescence, by the age of 30in the case of the individual, or by some half a million years ago in the case of humanity, theexponential increase in upset meant that the levels of upset had exceeded the graph of upset’sinflection point and had entered the stage where upset increased rapidly. Upset, namely

Part 3:11D

Angry Adolescentman

175
anger, egocentricity and alienation, increased dramatically from that time on and while allthe adjustments that were made during the Adventurous 20s had served us well—both asindividuals and, in the case of humanity, as members of H. erectus—there was now an urgentneed to take more specific measures to manage the new extreme levels of upset.
If we consider what happened to the 21-year-old more closely we can see whymanagement of upset had become such a serious matter, for despite their bravery andsheer optimism, it wasn’t long before the reality of, in the case of the resigned, trying towin the battle of proving you were good and not bad—or, in the case of the unresigned,trying to reform upset behaviour—started to sour. Gradually he or she came to experienceand appreciate just how truly difficult it was to self-manage and contain upset without theameliorating understanding of upset.
The problem for those who were resigned was the harder you fought to validateyourself, the more criticism you attracted from your idealistic soul, and thus the more upsetyou became. Also, throughout your 20s, you were increasingly encountering the upsettingdifficulty of trying to survive and compete alongside other embattled humans who were alsotrying to prove their worth. The resulting compounding of upset meant that by the time youwere 30 you were becoming very frustrated and angry, and by the time you reached your mid30s you were becoming a seriously upset, embattled person. While 20-year-olds were naive
about the difficulties of living under the duress of the human condition, 30-year-olds hadbecome realists about such an existence. The song I Was Only Joking, which was written by
Gary Grainger and Rod Stewart and released by Stewart in 1977, contains lyrics that vividlydescribe the reality check of reaching 30: ‘Me and the boys thought we had it sussed. Valentinos all ofus…running free, Waging war with society…But nothing ever changed…What kind of fool was I. I couldnever win…Illusions of that grand first prize, are slowly wearing thin… I guess it had to end.’

Our previous inability to defend our corruption has meant that it hasn’t been possible toadmit it, however, the following Japanese proverb does, at least, acknowledge the stages of itsdevelopment: ‘At 10 man is an animal, at 20 a lunatic, at 30 a failure, at 40 a fraud and at 50 a criminal.’
But with understanding of the human condition now found we can finally explain thesestages. Ten-year-olds were ‘animals’ in the sense that their instinctive selves were unrepressed.
Twenty-year-olds—and young men in particular—were ‘lunatics’ in the sense that they wereswashbuckling cavaliers who deludedly believed they could take on and overthrow theignorant world. Thirty-year-olds (and again, men in particular) were ‘failures’ in the sense that,although they were still determinedly trying to defy the inevitable, they were being forced toaccept that the corrupting life of seeking power, fame, fortune and glory was not going to bea genuinely meaningful and thus satisfying way of living. As will be described shortly whenthe 40-year-old stage is explained, at this age men in particular were ‘frauds’ in the sense thatthey had become so corrupted and disenchanted with their efforts to ‘conquer the world’that they suffered a ‘mid-life crisis’—a crisis of confidence that resulted in their decisionto take up support of some form of ‘idealism’ in order to make themselves feel better abouttheir corrupted state. Having had enough of the critically important, yet horribly corrupting,battle to champion the ego over soul, they effectively changed sides to become ‘born-again’supporters of the soul’s ‘idealistic’ world. This ‘born-again’ conversion to taking up supportof some form of idealism made them ‘frauds’ because they were deluding themselves that they

176

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
were at last on the side of good when, in truth, they were working against good, in the sensethat good depended on defying and defeating—not supporting—the ignorant ‘idealistic’ worldof the soul. They were being pseudo idealistic, not genuinely idealistic. As will be describedwhen the 50-year-old stage is explained, at this age men in particular were ‘criminals’ in thesense that they had become so disillusioned with the extreme dishonesty of the born-againstate that they had returned to the battle of championing the ego over ignorance, but were,by this stage of their personal journey, so deeply upset that they were extremely angry andcynical about life—basically, they knew they were beaten on every front and had becomebitter and vengeful ‘criminals’.
Thus, we can see that the 30-year-old stage or, in the case of humanity, the life of H.sapiens, was characterised by extreme frustration and anger. Thirty-year-olds/H. sapiens hadentered the rapidly deteriorating stage in the development of upset where they were broughtinto contact with the destructive and depressing horror of being either excessively upset inthe case of the resigned, or having had their innocence destroyed and thus also become overlyupset if they were unresigned. Upset was becoming overwhelming everywhere.
It was at this point that the radical measures alluded to earlier had to be implemented tocontain the upset in the world, with the first solution to practice self discipline of the upset.
Fully aware that upset was not desirable we had been trying to, with varying success,practice self-restraint of our upset ever since it first appeared in our childhood. But whathappened during our 30s when upset started to become seriously destructive of the fabricof our society was that self discipline became a critical part of our behaviour, somethingthat everyone had to make sure they practiced. And so we learnt to manufacture a calm,controlled, even compassionate and considerate exterior, and to conceal the real extent ofour, by now, inner savage fury from being so unjustly condemned by the Godly ideals oflife. We, as we say, civilised our upset, brought it under control. Since this self discipline,and its civilising effect, has been the primary way of managing our extremely upsetstate and has been practiced since time immemorial, it has become, to a large degree, anautomatic, instinctive element of human behaviour, so much so that we now hardly noticewe are practicing it—to the extent that we are barely aware of just how upset we really areunderneath our restrained exterior. As emphasised at the beginning of this Part, the truth isthere is volcanic upset within us as a species from living for so long with the injustice of beingcondemned as evil, bad and worthless when we intuitively knew we weren’t but couldn’texplain why we weren’t. The Australian writer Morris West offered a rare honest insight intothe extent of the upset that exists in all humans today when he wrote that ‘The disease of evil
[now able to be understood as upset] is pandemic; it spares no individual, no society, because all arepredisposed to it…I know that, given the circumstances and the provocation, I could commit any crime inthe calendar’ (A View from the Ridge: The Testimony of a Pilgrim, 1996, p.78 of 143).

Through civility we not only concealed the extent of our anger and egocentricity,we also concealed the extent of our alienation—the extent of our estrangement from ouroriginal, upset-free, happy, innocent true selves. We manufactured smiles and politelygreeted acquaintances with ‘Good morning’ and asked ‘How are you?’ and talked abouttotally non-confronting subjects, such as the weather. In order not to be overcome by thetrue negativity of life under the duress of the human condition we have had to, as it’s said,

Part 3:11D

Angry Adolescentman

177

‘put on a brave face’, ‘keep our chin up’, ‘stay positive’, and ‘keep up appearances’. Butwhile such civility and positivity made living together possible, it was an extreme formof pretence—of being what we were not. But, in turn, while this falseness was highlycorrosive of any young innocents looking on, it was far less destructive than allowingour real upset to express itself and has therefore been a very necessary and effectivetool. However, after millennia of use, our civility now hides the extent to which we haveblocked out the truth of our upset, corrupted, alienated condition. So when, for instance,we donned scary masks we were, in effect, exorcising our real upset self—we were beinghonest about ourselves; we were admitting that ‘This is what I am really like, this is who
I’ve become.’ R.D. Laing spoke the truth about just how corrupted our species has becomewhen he said, ‘The condition of alienation…is the condition of the normal man…between us and It
[our true self or soul] there is a veil which is more like fifty feet of solid concrete.’ It needs to be
emphasised that adopting self discipline did not mean we had stopped the corrupting searchfor knowledge, we had just decided to try not to allow any expression or manifestationof our corruption to show. When the 40-year-old stage is explained in more detail shortlywe will see that when upset developed even further, some individuals were forced toabandon, and even side against, the corrupting search for knowledge in a far more drasticattempt to slow the increase in their upset by becoming ‘born again’ to pseudo idealisticallysupporting some form of idealism. (This is, of course, the ‘fraud’ stage that featured in theaforementioned Japanese proverb.)
So while civility did have its place, it invariably meant bottling-up our frustrationsand angers, which produced another problem of how then to relieve that pent-up state. Andso, unable to be honest about our internal upset, we had to learn to valve off and relieveourselves in ways that weren’t destructive. The origin of humour, for example, has neverbeen able to be properly explained, but once it is understood how false humans becamethe source of humour becomes very clear. For the most part, adults maintain a carefullyconstructed facade of denial, but every now and then a mistake is made, we ‘slip-up’, andthe truth of our real situation is revealed, providing the basis for humour. Occasionallysituations occurred where the extreme denial, self-deception, delusion, artificiality, alienationbecame apparent and transparent, and in those moments the truth of that immense falsenesswas exposed for what it really was—so farcical it was funny; in fact, a ‘joke’. Whensomeone tripped or fell over, for instance, it was humorous because suddenly their carefullyconstructed, civilised image of togetherness disintegrated. We take humour for granted nowas being a natural part of our make-up, but there was a time when there was no humourbecause prior to becoming false there was nothing very comic or silly or funny or absurdabout humans to laugh about or make fun of.
Swearing has been another way of tearing down and breaking free from the extremedishonesty of our condition—because in what is a stark measure of just how dishonesthumans have been, we don’t even have an everyday word for all the evasions and dishonestdenials and delusions we practice every minute of the day, except for the swear word
‘bullshit’, or ‘BS’ or ‘bull’ or ‘crap’. To understand why ‘fuck’ is such a powerful swear wordwe only have to acknowledge the truth of what sex really is. As explained, while sex at itsnoblest level was something that marvellously complemented the human journey and as such

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

178

The Biology
has truly been an act of love, it has, nevertheless, at base been about attacking innocence
(which women represent) for innocence’s unjust condemnation of humans’ (especially men’s)lack of innocence. ‘Fuck’ means destroy or ruin, and what is being destroyed or ruined orsullied or degraded or violated is innocence or purity. Sex has been such a preoccupation ofhumans and yet everyone lives in denial of the truth that it is, at base, an attack on innocence.
This makes sex one of the biggest lies and thus jokes of all, which is why using the word
‘fuck’ is such a powerful attack on the world of lies, and thus such a powerful swear word.
As emphasised, however, civilising our upset didn’t stop its development, it onlyconcealed and helped contain it. It was inevitable then, that as the corrupting search forknowledge continued, levels of upset were only going to escalate until eventually, byour late 30s, we/H. sapiens were embroiled in a rage of hate and anger. Because of thecompounding effect of upset we became immensely embattled, ‘punch-drunk’ in fact, whichmade us absolutely desperate about our situation. On reaching this state of extreme angerand destructiveness we began to hate even ourselves. Life had become both personally andsocially unbearable, an untenable position that produced a crisis, the well-known ‘mid-lifecrisis’ of the early 40-year-old, or, in the case of humanity, the emergence some 50,000 yearsago of H. sapiens sapiens.

Part 3:11E Pseudo Idealistic Adolescentman
The Born-Again, Pseudo Idealistic Late Adulthood Stage of Adolescent Humanity
The Pseudo Idealistic Adolescentman stage encompasses the time of the ‘mid-life crisis’and the adoption of Pseudo Idealism—the ‘born-again in support of cooperative idealism’lifestyle.
The species: Homo sapiens sapiens—0.05 million (50,000) years ago to the present day

The individual: 40 to 50 years old

Part 3:11E

Pseudo Idealistic Adolescentman

179

In this 40-year-old stage, upset was compounding at such a rapid rate that the graphcharting its intensity did go into free fall, with social disintegration an imminent prospect.
But with upset compounding throughout humanity’s adolescence, we always knew that if wedidn’t find the relieving understanding of the human condition in time then eventually thehuman race would enter a final end play stage where the levels of upset anger, egocentricityand alienation would threaten to destroy humanity. And this fear did play out: the two millionyear race our species has been involved in between self-destruction and self-discovery didfinally enter this crisis stage some 50,000 years ago and the variety of humans involved was
H. sapiens sapiens—us, anatomically modern humans who emerged from H. sapiens atabout that time. In the case of the individual growing up during humanity’s human-conditionafflicted, insecure adolescence, this was when, at about 40 years of age, we entered our socalled ‘mid-life crisis’.
At this point in our journey, our upset had become so great that, on one hand, we werehating the condemnation from the cooperative idealistic world of our soul with such fervourthat we were beginning to become murderously behaved, while on the other we weredespising ourselves for being so upset and destructive of the world. Although we had, throughthe measures taken through our 30s, developed a great deal of instinctive capacity to restrainand conceal—civilise—our upset, it was becoming so great that it all too readily broke out,revealing the extremely angry person we had become. So despite all our efforts to ‘conquerthe world’ if we were resigned, or ‘fix the world’ if we were unresigned, all we had to nowshow for ourselves was an overly upset individual—in truth, a wreck of a person. In the wordsof The Man of La Mancha, we had finally ‘marched into hell…[and became] scorned and coveredwith scars’—that was the price we had to pay for pursuing the ‘heavenly cause’ of trying to prove
that the human race is fundamentally good and not bad.
But what could we do? The so-called ‘mid-life crisis’ long associated with becoming
40 years old had arrived. The essential problem for us personally was that we were loathing
and depressed about what we and our world had become—a crisis that has parallels with thesituation that we faced in our early adolescence when we first started thinking philosophicallyabout the corruption both in the world and in ourselves. The journalist Ali Gripperacknowledged this parallel in an article titled ‘Turning 40 and Frantic, Mid life crisis’, writingthat ‘Mid life is undoubtedly a recycling of adolescent issues. It is as if the psyche goes back and picksup the threads of what we were dealing with as teenagers’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 29 Mar. 1996). As with
the situation that occurred in early adolescence, when resigning individuals were faced withextreme states of despair and depression about their circumstances, or unresigned individualswere faced with the ever-increasing wrongness of the world around them, so 40-year-oldswere faced with variously extreme states of desperation about their situation. And like theadolescent struggling with their extreme despair and depression, the 40-year-old’s mindsimilarly searched frantically for a way to solve the problem of their now untenable situation.
And just as the unbearably upset and psychologically desperate adolescent came up witha desperate solution to put aside the reality of their circumstances completely by resigningthemself to living in denial of cooperative ideality and thus the depressing issue of the humancondition, so too did the, by now, extremely corrupted 40-year-old—BUT this time the evasionwas achieved through focusing on the positive, guilt-relieving effect or feeling that came from

180

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
being civilised. The angry 30-year-old had learnt to restrain/civilise their upset, but what thedesperate 40-year-old realised in their frantic search to find a solution to their problem wasthat being civilised or ‘well-behaved’ or ‘good’ produced a guilt-relieving positive feeling andthat this was the one positive in their life that they could derive some reinforcement from.
When humans are psychologically cornered they typically ‘scan the horizon’ forany positive, no matter how small it is, and make a huge deal out of it, and this situationwas no different. Frantically scanning for any positive that could be employed to escapecondemnation and depression, it was the side effect of feeling good when we behaved in acivilised way that the 40-year-old latched onto to develop. Indeed, in the case of the moreextremely upset 40-year-old, so desperate were they for relief from the horror and guilt oftheir situation that their mind decided to focus so completely on the positive that they weregood when they behaved in a cooperative, civilised, ideal, loving way that they deludedthemselves that they actually weren’t corrupted, that they weren’t massively upset humancondition-afflicted people. They convinced themselves that the mask or facade of civilitywas not actually a mask or facade at all, but the representation of their real self, their truestate—‘I am behaving in a cooperative, loving way, therefore I am an upset-free, guilt-free,human-condition-eliminated, thoroughly good, cooperative, loving, sound human.’ It wasan extraordinarily false/dishonest/deluded interpretation, but the depression from feelingguilty/bad/worthless about being so upset was so great that their mind was well and trulycapable of making such a grand delusion. The situation was similar to the resigned personbeing so overwhelmed by the depression caused by their predicament that they were capableof making the extremely false interpretation that instead of having integrative, ‘Godly’,unconditionally selfless, moral instincts, we actually live in a non-integrative world ofrandom, directionless change, and have selfish, competitive, survival-of-the-fittest animalinstincts that make us competitive and aggressive, and therefore there is no psychologicaldilemma of the human condition to have to explain.
This 40-year-old ‘do good in order to delude yourself that you are actually good, thatyou are actually free of corruption and thus the dilemma of the human condition’, extremelydeluded strategy of coping with the problem of the now massively corrupted humancondition-afflicted state has been so seductive that it developed into an industry so huge andso influential that the dishonesty involved threatened to destroy humanity.
To elaborate, while being civilised—that is, using self discipline to restrain and containyour upset so it didn’t show—did help contain destructive behaviour and provide relieffrom doing so, what happened during the 40-year-old stage, for both humanity and humansindividually, was that this relieving, ‘feel good’, ‘warm inner glow’, ‘blissed out’ positiveof having restrained your upset and behaved in a ‘good’/ideal/cooperative way became theentire focus of existence. In the end, as we will see, when humans became extremely upset—saturated with the problem of the corrupted state of the human condition—their whole mentalpreoccupation became one of searching for situations and opportunities where, through doing
‘good’, they could derive ‘the rush’ of relief from the condemning issue and truth of theircorrupted state. So again, while the 30-year-old used civilising self discipline to restrain andconceal their upset, unlike the 40-year-old they weren’t using it to delude themselves that theywere ideally behaved, upset-free, guilt-free, human-condition-eliminated, sound people.

Part 3:11E

Pseudo Idealistic Adolescentman

181

The immense danger of this preoccupation with relief-hunting through ‘doing good’was that it could become so consuming, so addictive and thus selfishly indulged that it couldstop the all-important search for knowledge, because if there was too much preoccupationwith ‘doing good’ it could result in insufficient tolerance of the corruption that unavoidablyresulted from pursuing humanity’s heroic search for knowledge—ultimately self-knowledge,the liberating understanding of the human condition. If there was too much emphasis oncooperative idealism humanity would never find the liberating understanding of the humancondition, and if it didn’t find that liberating understanding humanity would be condemnedto the eventual emergence of terminal levels of upset—in particular, unbearable levels of thepsychosis and neurosis of alienation from having to adopt excessive amounts of psychologicaldenial and delusion. In short, the dogma of doing good could oppress and even stop the allimportant search for knowledge by denying the freedom to be, to a degree, corrupted. As wewill see, this extremely dangerous situation did arise; humanity did face a death by dogma, afate that only the finding of the liberating understanding of the human condition—that sciencehas made possible and which is being presented here—saves humanity from.
The danger of excessive oppression of freedom was particularly great because ofthe massively seductive effects of relief-hunting. If we return to the Adam Stork analogyfor describing the human condition, at any time Adam could surrender to his criticisinginstinctive self and fly back on course, obey his instinctive orientation, and by so doing stopand thus relieve the criticism emanating from his instinctive self, but that meant abandoningthe all-important search for knowledge. And in the case of humans, when we ‘flew off course’and became angry, egocentric and alienated the sense of guilt from defying our cooperativelyorientated, all-loving, ‘Godly’, moral instincts was immense, so for us ‘flying back on course’was an extremely guilt-relieving, and thus an extremely tempting, option.
There was, however, a further, very significant dimension to the problem of ‘flying backon course’—being, as we revealingly say, ‘born again’ to supporting instead of resisting thecooperative ideals our instinctive self dogmatically demanded—which was that since ourinstinctive self was orientated to behaving cooperatively, when we abandoned the searchfor knowledge by taking up support of cooperative idealism we were not only abandoningthe battle to champion our ego or conscious thinking self over our idealistic instinctive selfor soul, we were also siding against those fighting the battle. We weren’t just ‘taking a rest’to recuperate, we had actually switched camps/allegiances to side with the enemy. It wascompletely subversive, mad behaviour—in fact, an act of cowardice and treachery—becausein switching sides the individual was basically saying, ‘I don’t care about humanity anymore, Ionly care about making myself feel good and relieving my own guilt.’ They were being totallyselfish, the complete opposite of the selfless and ideal person they were deluding themselvesthey were. And since the lie they were maintaining was so great, in order to maintain it theyhad to work very hard at convincing both themselves and others of it, which meant they weretypically a strident, extremely intolerant, even fanatical, advocate of their position.
Yes, in choosing to be ‘born again’ you had to work very hard at maintaining theconviction that what you were doing was right because, while we haven’t been able toexplain, confront or talk about it, the truth is all humans who have lived during humanity’sadolescence have intuitively been aware of the battle of having to overthrow the ignorant

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

182

The Biology
idealism of our soul—when we shook our fist at the heavens we were saying, ‘One day,one day we are going to prove that we humans are good and not bad.’ We knew that togive up the battle against our idealistic soul, and not just give it up but side with the enemyand against those trying to win the battle, was a crime against all those still fighting forunderstanding, and against humanity as a whole. So despite how tempting an option it was,in reality the revulsion of siding against humanity and those fighting the battle meant that ittook a great deal of despair and fear of depression about being overly corrupt to give up thebattle and change sides.
We intuitively knew that changing sides and being born-again to living in support ofthe cooperative ideal world of our soul, while immensely relieving, was also immenselyloathsome. The delusion, dishonesty and betrayal involved was immense, but for everincreasing numbers of people the need for relief from feeling guilty/bad about themselvesbecame so great it could not be resisted.
Again, the great danger was that, since upset was the price of searching for knowledge,if everyone became addicted to selfishly indulging the relief of ‘doing good to feel good’there would be no tolerance of non-ideal upset behaviour, and humanity’s all-importantsearch for knowledge, ultimately liberating self-knowledge, would be shut down,condemning humanity to eventual terminal levels of alienation and thus extinction. Sowhile Resignation to living in denial of the issue of the human condition and taking up acompetitive, egocentric, selfish power-fame-fortune-and-glory-seeking lifestyle was, in itself,extremely desperate and mad behaviour, at least you were still participating in humanity’sgreat battle to overthrow ignorance. As irresistible as it became for ever-increasing numbersof people, the ‘do-good-to-feel-good-and-pretend-you’re-sound-and-pretend-there’s-no-needfor-any-freedom-from-idealism lifestyle’ was far more desperate and far madder and farmore dangerous behaviour, because you were not just abandoning humanity’s great battle toliberate itself from ignorance, you were siding against it.
Certainly, the upset behaviour that resulted from participating in humanity’s heroicsearch for knowledge was increasingly causing immense human suffering and environmentaldevastation, but if we didn’t continue the search for knowledge then there was no hope.
To put it in political terms, the harsh, brutal reality associated with what became known as
‘right-wing’ politics was bringing about immense human inequality, hardship and suffering,and it was destroying the planet, but it was the search-for-knowledge-oppressing so-called
‘left-wing’ politics that posed the real threat to the survival of the human race—because onlythe search for knowledge could lead to the finding of understanding of the human conditionand the liberation of humans from that totally unbearable, crippling, soul-sickening, blackdog-depressing, real-person-extinguishing, deadening, human-life-denying condition! While,as the journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft recognised, ‘the great twin political problems of the age arethe brutality of the right, and the dishonesty of the left’ (Australian Financial Review, 29 Jan. 1999), and, as
the scientist philosopher Carl von Weizsäcker also recognised, ‘The sin of modern capitalism iscynicism (about human nature), and the sin of socialism is lying’ (mentioned in a speech by Prof. Charles Birchthat was reproduced in the Geelong Grammar School mag. The Corian, Sept-Oct. 1980), it was NOT the ‘cynicism’
and ‘the brutality of the right’, BUT THE ‘lying’, ‘dishonesty of the left’ that stood like a colossalogre over the human race, threatening to destroy it!

Part 3:11E

Pseudo Idealistic Adolescentman

183

To return to the Adam Stork analogy once more, Adam knew from the outset that he hadto continue with the upsetting search for knowledge, that he could never afford to stop untilthe liberating understanding of his corrupted condition was found. That was his fundamentalreality, and it has remained our fundamental reality. The Statue of Liberty is as good asymbol as any of the fundamental responsibility we humans have had to maintain freedom,which we can now understand means freedom from the cooperative ideals in order to continuethe upsetting search for the knowledge that would allow humanity’s ultimate freedom.
Paradoxically, real idealism, the real path to an ideal world, depended on continuing thecorrupting search for knowledge until we found the human-race-liberating understanding ofthe human condition. The strategy of hunting for guilt-relieving, feel-good causes was in truthpseudo or false idealism, because it meant abandoning, and, worse still, oppressing, and—even worse still—actively opposing, that all-important search for knowledge.
In summary, with so much upset in human life and in the world, humans have had tocounter its effects with a degree of idealistic, concern-for-others-and-concern-for-the-worldbehaviour, and in truth becoming civilised did involve a degree of abandonment of theupsetting battle in favour of being idealistic and showing concern for others and the world,but, as has been explained, what happened is the feel good aspect of behaving ‘ideally’evolved into an extremely dangerous industry. Again, if there was too much pseudo idealisticobedience to the ‘good’, cooperative ideals through too many people becoming seduced bythis ‘do good to feel good’ preoccupation there would not be sufficient freedom from thosecondemning ideals to carry on the all-important corrupting search for knowledge. At any time
Adam Stork could fly back on course and feel immensely relieved of the criticism emanatingfrom his instinctive self, but he would be abandoning the heroic search for knowledge. Sidingwith the cooperative ideals was always going to become all but irresistible as upset fromsearching for knowledge became overwhelming, but we had to resist, not lose our nerve.
Given it has been so hard to explain and argue why not being ideally behaved is good, andso easy to argue that being ideally behaved can’t be anything but good, ‘the left’ has had afield day mocking ‘the right’ as selfish, immoral and evil, so this quote by the great Germanphilosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) stands out as a brave and rare pronouncement onthe need to hold our nerve and continue our great heroic battle to champion the ego over theignorance of our instincts: ‘There have always been many sickly people among those who invent fablesand long for God [ideality]: they have a raging hate for the enlightened man and for that youngest ofvirtues which is called honesty…Purer and more honest of speech is the healthy body, perfect and squarebuilt: and it speaks of the meaning of the earth [to face truth and one day find understanding of the
human condition]…You are not yet free, you still search for freedom. Your search has fatigued you…But,by my love and hope I entreat you: do not reject the hero in your soul! Keep holy your highest hope!…
War and courage have done more great things than charity. Not your pity but your bravery has saved theunfortunate up to now…What warrior wants to be spared? I do not spare you, I love you from the veryheart, my brothers in war!’ (Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for Everyone and No One, 1892; tr. R.J. Hollingdale,
1961, pp.61-75 of 343). The

English author and journalist George Orwell (1903-1950) was another
who bravely recognised the very real danger of humanity losing its nerve when he famouslypredicted that ‘If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face [freedom]forever’ (Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1949). In fact, as mentioned and as will soon be documented, this end

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

184

The Biology
play, death-by-dogma fate for the human race had all but descended upon us and is only beingavoided by the eleventh-hour arrival of this understanding of the human condition.
As pointed out, all humans have been intuitively aware that when they took up the bornagain, pseudo idealistic way of coping with the human condition they were siding againsthumanity, siding with the enemy, and that doing so was a loathsome act of cowardice andtreachery. So while the desperately upset, mid-life crisis of the 40-year-old stage made takingup the born-again, pseudo idealistic way of coping a tempting option that was worth trying,the revulsion of living so treacherously caused many to change sides yet again and return tothe upsetting battle of searching for knowledge. However, when they returned to the upsettingbattle they could only expect to become even more upset, angry, egocentric and alienated,which introduces the final stage that living under the duress of the human condition couldresult in—the extremely tragic Hollow Adolescentman stage.

Part 3:11F Hollow Adolescentman
The Hollow Final Adulthood Stage of Adolescent Humanity
The Hollow Adolescentman stage represents the time when many post-40-year-oldsbecame disillusioned with the treacherous, extremely dishonest and deluded born-againexistence and returned to the upsetting battle to champion the ego over the condemninginstincts. As a result, however, of this desperate turnaround was that they became even moreupset and embattled—in fact, horrifically punch-drunk and soul-destroyed—hollow 50-yearold-plus people.
The species: the Born-again and Hollowman stages are both characteristic of Homo sapienssapiens’ reign—0.05 million (50,000) years ago to the present day

The individual: 50 plus years old

The soul-destroyed 50-year-old-plus human

Part 3:11F

Hollow Adolescentman

185

Having succumbed to the born-again, pseudo idealistic, completely selfish, ‘do good tofeel good’ way of coping with the, by now, extremely upset human condition, many in the
50-year-old-plus camp became so disillusioned with the extreme delusion, dishonesty and
treachery of that way of coping that they returned to the upsetting battle of championing theego over our ignorant instincts. But doing so could only mean becoming even more upset—thatis, angry, egocentric and alienated—than they were when they were initially driven, throughbeing so extremely upset, to adopt the pseudo idealistic way of living in the first place. In thecontext of that extraordinarily honest Japanese proverb included earlier, which described thestages of maturation under the duress of the human condition—‘At 10 man is an animal, at 20 alunatic, at 30 a failure, at 40 a fraud and at 50 a criminal’—this was the 50-year-old ‘criminal’ stage
where men in particular had become so angry, so punch-drunk, so bitter and vengeful that theybrutally and completely repressed the condemning voice of their ideal-behaviour-demanding,cooperatively orientated soul and were now adrift in an empty, hollow, soul-less wilderness.
This ‘grumpy old man’, vengeful, burnt-out, empty, sad existence that men typicallyinhabited when they reached 50 and beyond was perfectly described by T.S. Eliot in his
1925 poem The Hollow Men: ‘We are the hollow men / We are the stuffed men / Leaning together
/ Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! / Our dried voices, when / We whisper together / Are quiet andmeaningless / As wind in dry grass / Or rats’ feet over broken glass / In our dry cellar // Shape withoutform, shade without colour / Paralysed force, gesture without motion //…This is the dead land / This iscactus land / Here the stone images / Are raised, here they receive / The supplication of a dead man’s hand
/ Under the twinkle of a fading star // Is it like this / In death’s other kingdom / Waking alone / At the hourwhen we are / Trembling with tenderness / Lips that would kiss / Form prayers to broken stone // The eyesare not here / There are no eyes here / In this valley of dying stars / In this hollow valley / This broken jawof our lost kingdoms // In this last of meeting places / We grope together / And avoid speech / Gatheredon this beach of the tumid river //…Between the desire / And the spasm / Between the potency / And theexistence / Between the essence / And the descent / Falls the Shadow /…This is the way the world ends /
Not with a bang but a whimper’ (T.S. Eliot Selected Poems, 1954, pp.77-80 of 127).

For women, ageing during humanity’s adolescence was, in its own way, similarly horrificbecause it meant the loss of the image of innocence that they depended on for reinforcement,the loss of their sex-object ‘attractiveness’, and with it, the loss of their meaning in theworld—a source of meaningfulness that all women’s magazines that focus entirely on howto be ‘attractive’ are testament to. When women are young their beauty is generally soempowering it is as if they own the world, but when they become older and their beauty/
‘attractiveness’/innocence fades they discover that they have become invisible; when theywalk down the street they are no longer noticed. This quote from the French beauty therapist
Diane Delaheve describes how devastating it can be for women to lose their sex appeal: ‘Hereyes, the mirror of her soul, speak nothing but despair. Her face may have kept its beauty, but it hasbecome a picture of affliction. For some women, the prospect of age is sheer tragedy, worse than death,which might be seen as an escape’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 4 Sept. 1988). So, while men become ‘hollow’,
women become ‘invisible’; when observing older couples walking together in the park youcan see how united they are by their comparable afflictions. (Again, the roles of men andwomen under the duress of the human condition will be fully explained later in Part 7:1.)

186

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

An added dimension to the situation faced by older women is that in not being asresponsible for the main battle of having to champion the ego over ignorance as men were,women found that their role of living in support of the battle was limited. It has beenobserved that a woman’s life progressed from ‘bimbo, breeder, babysitter to burden’. Men, onthe other hand, were directly participating in the battle of championing the ego and thereforedidn’t face the prospect of one day feeling they were a ‘burden’ to the extent that womendid. In his 1993 book The Fisher King & The Handless Maiden, the American Jungiananalyst Robert A. Johnson relates the myth of the Handless Maiden, which tells of a millerwho makes a deal with the devil in order to complete more work with less effort. The devildemands the miller’s daughter as payment: ‘The miller is desolate but unwilling to give up hismuch expanded mill, so he gives his daughter to the devil. The devil chops off her hands and carries themaway’ (p.59 of 103). Waited on by her newly prosperous family, the handless maiden is content
for a time, until her growing sense of desperation sends her out to the forest alone. Johnsonexplains that the cry of women, like that of the handless maiden, is ‘What can I do? I feel souseless or second-rate and inferior in this world that puts its women on the rubbish heap when they arethrough with courtship and childbearing!’ (p.56).

Later in Part 7:2 the following drawing by British cartoonist and caricaturist Ralph
Steadman will be discussed in some detail because it depicts with such incredible honesty thehorror of the human condition—indeed, I have used the main dragon in this cartoon as theinspiration for my drawing above of the 50-year-old-plus stage; his eyes show the hollownessthat T.S. Eliot spoke of: ‘This is the dead land / This is cactus land.’ The desperately tragic, sicklystate of older women is also apparent in this cartoon.

Ralph Steadman’s The Lizard Lounge 1971

Part 3:11G

The last 11,000 years

187

Part 3:11G The last 11,000 years
The last 11,000 years and the rise of Imposed Discipline, Religion and other forms of
Pseudo Idealism
Clearly, when the level of upset in the human race as a whole reached this final
Hollowman stage humanity was at end play or end game in the race between self-discoveryand self-destruction. The levels of upset had become stupendous. But what could we doabout it? We were stuck between two increasingly flawed options: adopting, or in some casesreturning to, the extremely treacherous and fraudulent and thus dangerous born-again, pseudoidealistic, ‘do good to feel good’ way of living, or persevering with the ever more brutal anddestructive power-fame-fortune-and-glory-seeking, egocentric, knowledge-finding, resignedcompetitive existence. In fact, our lives, both individually and collectively as societies forall of the last 11,000 years—when the domestication of plants and animals first began, thesignificance of which will be explained shortly—have been marked by the oscillation betweenthese two extremely flawed ways of coping with the human condition. We tried living bythe born-again strategy until it became unbearably irresponsible, dishonest and dangerous,and then we tried living by the resigned competitive strategy until it became too corruptingand destructive, and so on, back and forth. As has been mentioned, these two strategies wereeventually refined into what we now term the ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ in politics.
We now need to examine what happened with these two strategies when, following theadvent of agriculture and the domestication of animals some 11,000 years ago, upset reacheda crescendo. Of the two strategies, we’ll firstly look at the increasingly brutal and destructivepower-fame-fortune-and-glory-seeking, egocentric, knowledge-finding, resigned competitivestrategy—the approach that became known as ‘right-wing’.
The significance of the domestication of plants and animals was that it led to such a rapidincrease in upset that, on the graph charting the intensification of our upset, humanity wasfast approaching rock-bottom—we were racing towards the bitter and vengeful, burnt-out,out-of-control, all-restraints-thrown-to-the-wind, rampaging, warring level of upset. This wasbecause the domestication of plants and animals enabled people to live a more sedentary,less nomadic existence, in closer proximity and in greater numbers, the effect of which wasto greatly increase the spread and growth of upset in humans. As explained earlier whendescribing the effect the ice ages had on our species, living closely under the strain of thehuman condition dramatically accentuated the difficulties encountered by humans who wereliving with upset. So it follows that the closer humans lived during humanity’s adolescenceand/or the more difficult the living conditions, the greater the spread of and increase in upset,and that isolation from such encounters with the battle of the human condition served tominimise the spread of upset or soul-exhaustion. In short, if we were each left alone withour personal level of exhaustion, we would not be criticised by fresher souls or corruptedby the more battle-worn. The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre succinctly summed upjust how difficult it is for upset, alienated people to coexist when he said, ‘Hell is other people’
(Closed Doors, 1944). As mentioned earlier, we need only look at the extreme situation to see the
principle in action—innocence isn’t going to survive long in New York’s Times Square or

188

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Sydney’s Kings Cross where drug pushers, prostitutes, muggers and beggars work the streets.
Of course, while living closer together in more organised societies did greatly increase thespread and accumulation of upset, it also assisted the spread and accumulation of knowledge.
In terms then of the race between self-discovery and self-destruction, there was at this time aspeeding up in the development of both aspects.
This explanation of how the advent of agriculture and the domestication of animals ledto a rapid increase in upset allows us to better understand why, in the aforementioned Biblicalstory, Cain became more upset than his brother, Abel: ‘Abel kept flocks [he lived the nomadic lifeof a shepherd, staying close to nature and innocence], and Cain worked the soil [he cultivated crops anddomesticated animals and as a result was able to become settled and through greater interaction withother humans became increasingly upset]…Cain was [became] very angry, and his face was downcast
[he became depressed about his upset state and]…Cain attacked his [relatively innocent and thusunwittingly exposing, confronting and condemning] brother Abel and killed him’ (Gen. 4:2, 5, 8).

By some 4,000 years ago (2,000 BC) the development of villages, the movement by peopleinto specialised occupations, the beginnings of trade and industry, and the close personalinteraction that each development inevitably brought, resulted in humans becoming so upsetthat some could no longer contain their upset and had to live that upset out, as the story of
Cain and Abel describes—they had to allow some expression of their upset if they were tofind any relief from the pressure of being so upset. Men especially began to feel the periodicneed to go on a rampage of raping and pillaging. Tragic examples abound, but the thirteenthcentury Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan was certainly someone who lived out his upsetto the full, every day satisfying his anger with bloodletting, his egocentricity through thedomination of others, and his mind or spirit by blocking out any feelings of guilt or remorsecoming from the moral instincts within himself. As Genghis Khan is reputed to have said,
‘Happiness lies in conquering one’s enemies, in driving them in front of oneself, in taking their property,in savouring their despair, in outraging their wives and daughters.’

The periodic need to go on the rampage and express, indeed purge, unbearable levels ofupset resulted in endless rounds of payback warfare where warriors from one tribe or villagewould raid another tribe for their material goods and maidens, which in turn would provoke acounter raid, and so it went on. Clearly at this point, where the upset in humans had becomeso great that the warfare and killing and raping was being carried out incessantly, in waveafter wave of ever-increasing ferocity and brutality, a new way to restrain upset simply hadto be invented. For the truth is, despite Genghis Khan obtaining some momentary relief fromfeeling so upset by rampaging across the world, there would have been no inner peace in hisown life, or, more significantly, any peace in his blood-soaked world.
Such extreme upset meant that Self Discipline could no longer contain or civilise theescalating levels of upset in society and so another form of restraint for those participating inthe upsetting heroic search for knowledge had to be developed. The solution that emerged was
Imposed Discipline—an agreed upon set of rules and laws that enforced social (integrative)behaviour through threat of punishment. Once developed, this new form of restraint provedsignificantly effective. For example, by the time Europeans arrived in North America a grandunion of American Indian tribes, known as the Iroquois Confederacy, had been established by

Part 3:11G

The last 11,000 years

189
two unresigned, denial-free thinkers or prophets who had emerged from within their ranks.
Recognised and described by their people as ‘prophets’, these two American Indians, named
Hiawatha and ‘The Great Peacemaker’, with all their soulful sensitive feeling and denial-freeclarity of thought, were able to realise that the endless rounds of payback warfare betweenand within the tribes could only be prevented by everyone agreeing to certain restraining rulesthat were enforced through punishment. The resulting discipline proved highly effective, asthis quote illustrates: ‘The Iroquois Confederacy was established before European contact, completewith a constitution known as the…“Great Law of Peace”…The two prophets, Ayonwentah [Hiawatha]…and Dekanawidah, The Great Peacemaker, brought a message of peace to squabbling tribes…Once theyceased infighting, they rapidly became one of the strongest forces in seventeenth and eighteenth centurynorth eastern North America’ (The Iroquois Confederacy and the Founding Fathers, accessed Sept. 2009; see <www.wtmsources.com/113>).

Exactly the same scenario had played out some 3,000 years prior when, in approximately
1,500 BC, the very great denial-free thinker or prophet Moses brought order to the Israelite

Nation through the Ten Commandments that he had etched on stone tablets. The moral codecontained in those Ten Commandments became the basis of the constitutions, laws and rulesthat continue to govern much of modern society and proved vital in helping rein in the kindsof upset unleashed by the likes of Genghis Khan, namely Hollow Adolescentman.
We now need to consider how the last 11,000 years affected the other strategy for copingwith the human condition, which involved searching for an idealistic cause to support tomake yourself feel better about your, by now, immensely upset state—the approach that laterbecame known as ‘left-wing’.
Just as the resigned competitive practitioners invented a new strategy for coping withtheir problem of excessive upset, which was Imposed Discipline, so born-again, pseudoidealistic practitioners came up with a new strategy for coping with the problems associatedwith their excessive upset of siding against humanity’s great battle and of being excessivelydishonest, which was Religion. To understand the benefit of religion we need to look furtherinto the very serious problems associated with the born-again, pseudo idealistic strategy.
As has already been described, a serious problem with the born-again, pseudo idealistic,
‘do good to feel good’ strategy was that it involved siding against humanity’s great battle tochampion the ego over the ignorance of our instinctive self. The other very serious problemwith this strategy was that because you were behaving in a supposedly good, ideal way youwere effectively saying that you actually were a good, selfless, cooperative, gentle, loving,guilt-and-human-condition-free, ideal person. This was unlike the resigned competitivestrategy where, firstly, you were still participating in humanity’s heroic battle to findknowledge, and secondly, while you were using denial and lies to defend your upset state
(asserting that there was no integrative purpose to existence, only random change, and thatyou were aggressive and selfish because humans had selfish instincts, and therefore therewas no psychological dilemma of the human condition to have to explain), you were notdeluding yourself you were a cooperative, loving, selfless, gentle, thoroughly good personfree of upset. The born-again, pseudo idealist both abandoned the battle and took lying anddelusion to a whole new level.

190

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

To go over this again, while the resigned competitive person continued with the heroicsearch for knowledge and used dishonest excuses for being upset, the born-again pseudoidealist both abandoned humanity’s heroic search for knowledge and took the business oflying about upset to the extreme of denying even being upset in the first place. It is worthmentioning that maintaining such extreme delusion was greatly helped along by the factthat we had already been practicing total denial of the issue of our corrupted, humancondition-afflicted state since resigning in our early adolescent years. So, in adoptinga born-again, pseudo idealist strategy, all its advocates were doing was adding anotherlayer of delusion to one that was already well entrenched. As mentioned in Part 3:11B,while Resignation was a form of autism, of block-out/detachment/denial, pseudo idealismwas an even more extreme form of it, ‘autism’ being, as former president of the British
Psychoanalytical Society, the psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott explained, ‘a highly sophisticateddefence organization. What we see is invulnerability…The child carries round the (lost) memory ofunthinkable anxiety, and the illness is a complex mental structure insuring against recurrence of theconditions of the unthinkable anxiety.’

So, in essence, there were three states of denial. Firstly, there was the unresigned,denial-free position held by unevasive thinkers/prophets who didn’t deny that humanitywas involved in a great battle, and didn’t deny the Godly, Integrative Meaning of existence,nor the moral soul in humans, nor the corrupted state of humanity. Secondly, there was theresigned competitive person who didn’t behave as if there was no great battle that humanitywas involved in and didn’t deny their competitive, aggressive and selfish upset nature, butwho did use dishonest excuses to cope with that upset state. And thirdly, there was the bornagain pseudo idealist who denied that humanity was involved in a great battle and deludedthemselves they were free of the upset state of the human condition—which basically meantthey denied all the fundamental truths about our human-condition-afflicted state. The bornagain, pseudo idealist took the practice of lying to the absolute extreme.
The born-again, pseudo idealistic strategy was both treacherous and extremely dishonest,traits that totally undermined the search for knowledge, because in campaigning againstthe battle to find knowledge you were leading humanity towards an extreme state of denial/alienation/separation from the truth/knowledge, when, in fact, humanity had to continue thebattle to try to get closer to and ultimately reach the truth/knowledge/understanding of thehuman condition. And, as we will see, when the born-again, pseudo idealistic state becamefully developed in the form of ‘postmodernism’ even the existence of truth itself was denied!
The fundamental objective of the human journey was to find the truth about ourselves, soadopting extreme denial of the truth, especially extreme denial of the truth about the humancondition, was leading humanity away from its objective, misguiding humanity onto thepath to oblivion, to total darkness in terms of enlightening ourselves about ourselves—whichis why, as will shortly be further explained, pseudo idealism came to be described as ‘theabomination that causes desolation’.

We can see that since dishonesty was so dangerous, and pseudo idealism was the mostdishonest strategy ever developed for coping with the human condition, there was a verygreat need to find a form of pseudo idealism that minimised this extreme dishonesty—andeventually a great counter to this extreme dishonesty was found in Religion.

Part 3:11G

The last 11,000 years

191

Religion did, of course, involve being ‘born again’ to the cooperative ideal state, it wasa form of pseudo idealism, because instead of living through yourself with all the associatedoverly upset angers, egocentricities and denials, you deferred to someone exceptionally freeof upset—namely one of the unresigned, denial-free-thinking, integrative-ideals-or-Godacknowledging, soulful, sound, innocent prophets around whom the great religions havebeen founded. Because you had become overly upset you decided to end your participationin humanity’s heroic yet upsetting battle to find knowledge and instead put your faith inand live through supporting the soundness and truth of a prophet’s life and words. Ratherthan adhering to what your now overly upset self wanted to do and say, you adhered to thesoundness and truth of the prophet’s life and words. But, the immense benefit of deferring toreligion was that while it allowed you to be born-again to a form of idealism and thus containyour upset and feel good about yourself, you were minimising the dishonesty normallyinvolved in the born-again, pseudo idealistic strategy, because you were acknowledging thesoundness of the prophet and, by inference, your lack of soundness. By recognising, indeedworshipping, the integrity of the prophet, and his representation of another true, denial-free,integrative, soulful, sound state, you were indirectly admitting your own extreme lack ofsoundness—your separation from the integrative, true, soulful state; you were indirectly beinghonest about your immensely corrupted state.
Religions even countered the degree of dishonesty involved in the other strategy forcoping—the resigned, competitive way of living—because most religions acknowledged theexistence of a God who, as has been explained, is the personification of Integrative Meaning.
Also, by acknowledging the soulful soundness of the prophet, you were recognising theexistence of a cooperative, unconditionally selfless, moral soul in humans.
Another very important benefit of religion was that, on an individual level, it also helpedassuage the guilt felt by pseudo idealists who were struggling with the fact that they weresiding against humanity in its great battle. This is because in supporting your religion youwere also indirectly supporting humanity’s heroic search for knowledge, because the truthfulwords of the prophet that were recorded in your religion’s scriptures, which you were showingreverence for and deferring to, were the very font of knowledge; in fact, they were the mostdenial-free expression of knowledge the human race had ever known. Indeed, now that weare able to explain the human condition we can demystify—explain and understand—themetaphysical content of religious texts (such as the explanation already given of the storyof Noah’s Ark in the Bible, and of prophets, and of ‘God’) and what is revealed is thatreligious texts contain an extraordinary amount of knowledge/truth/understanding/insightinto our human situation. Indeed, as it turns out, the whole story of the human condition,bar its scientific explanation, is perfectly described in religious texts, albeit in the abstract,metaphysical and often metaphorical terms that denial-free truthful and thus effectivethinking prophets were limited to in those early pre-science times when the great religionswere established. The psychoanalyst Carl Jung recognised how aligning to the truth and thussupportive of our search for knowledge Christianity, for example, has been when he wrotethat ‘[in Christianity] the voice of God [truth] can still be heard’ (Jung and Christianity, W.B. Clift, 1982) andthat ‘The Christian symbol is a living thing that carries in itself the seeds of further development’ (The
Undiscovered Self, C.G Jung, 1957, p.63).

192

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

In summary, religions offered humans a way to abandon living out their upsets andbe born-again to ideality, but in the least dangerously dishonest and most human-journeyresponsible way. They enabled humans to indirectly continue to participate in humanity’sheroic yet upsetting search for knowledge, and they provided a way for humans tosignificantly avoid being dishonest, because by deferring to a prophet you were able toindirectly admit the truth of your own corrupted state and the existence of another integrative,true, sound, soulful state. Religions provided a way for humans to be (to a degree) honestabout their corrupted, false condition without having to openly admit and therefore nakedlyconfront it. In doing so, they helped minimise the truth-destroying levels of delusion anddenial involved in the born-again, pseudo idealistic lifestyle. Thus, religion was a pseudoidealistic, ‘do good in order to feel you are good’, ‘give up your overly upset life and be bornagain to a cooperative ideal life’ way of living that allowed you to live in safe denial of yourcorrupted condition, but at the same time be honest about it—albeit indirectly. In the case of
Christianity, it actually referred to being ‘born again’ (John 3:3), to having ‘crossed over from deathto life’ (John 5:24). As Christ authoritatively said, ‘I am the resurrection and the life [through me, your
ideal, soulful true self can live again]’ (John 11:25).

The criticism that could be levelled at someone extremely upset, like Genghis Khan or
Adolf Hitler, was that they didn’t take up religion—or, if they did claim to be religious, theyweren’t being genuinely religious. Indeed, for the exceptionally upset, the aspect of religionthat made it so superior to the strategy of Imposed Discipline, which the Ten Commandmentsrepresented, was precisely that it allowed you to delude yourself that you were being ‘bornagain’, ‘resurrect[ed]’ from your corrupted state. Rather than having good behaviour forced
upon you through fear of punishment, as was the case with Imposed Discipline, religionallowed you to feel that not only were you actively participating in goodness, you had actuallybecome a good, selfless, loving, ideal person—that you were ‘righteous’—which providedimmense relief from the guilt of being overly upset. Possibly the best sales pitch for bornagain religious life was that given by the apostle St Paul when he wrote, ‘Now if the ministrythat brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone [Moses’ Ten Commandments that were
enforced by the threat of punishment], came with glory [because they brought society back from thebrink of destruction]…fading though it was [there was no sustaining positive in having disciplineimposed on you], will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemnsmen is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorioushas no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory,how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!’ (2 Cor. 3:7–11).

Thus, in coping with the now raging levels of upset in humans, the first ‘glorious’improvement on destructively living out that ferocious upset was Imposed Discipline, whichwas enforced through fear and punishment. But since discipline provided little in the way ofjoy for the mind or spirit it was hard to maintain, it didn’t ‘last’, it was ‘fading’, especially incomparison to the immensely guilt-relieving, ‘righteous’, ‘do good in order to make yourselffeel good’ way of living offered by the next ‘surpassing glory’, religion.
We can clearly see then that the ‘do good in order to delude yourself that you actuallyare a kind, loving, selfless, good person and not horrifically corrupted’ aspect of religionwas very important, which means that only being indirectly honest about being extremely

Part 3:11G

The last 11,000 years

193
corrupted when you became religious was crucial to the effectiveness of religion—becauseif you had to be directly honest about being horribly corrupted you couldn’t delude yourselfyou were actually a kind, loving, selfless, good, not-horribly-corrupted person. This ability tonot just feel good (because you were now behaving in a good way and not in the incrediblydestructive way you had been), but to use this fact to delude yourself you were actually aloving, kind, selfless, good, upset-free, ideal, guilt-free, human-condition-solved, ‘righteous’person depended on this aspect of only indirectly acknowledging your corrupted state. Soalthough in taking up religion you were being indirectly honest about being corrupted, youwere still relying on being able to delude yourself that you weren’t corrupted. In short,religions allowed people to both admit to being horribly corrupted and yet not suffer theconfronting consequences of such an admission. So just as humans could not directlyacknowledge their corrupted state (because without the explanation of the human conditionthey couldn’t defend and thus cope with that truth), religions similarly depended on notdirectly acknowledging/recognising the soundness of the prophet around whom the religionwas founded, even though acknowledging/recognising his soundness was an intrinsic partof the honesty that made religions so special and effective. Religions depended on notrecognising—at least consciously, explicitly recognising—that prophets were simply a soundvariety of ordinary people, because that truth would directly confront their followers with theunbearable truth of their own lack of soundness. Instead, at least at the surface level of theirconscious awareness, religious adherents viewed their prophets as being supernatural, divine,heavenly, from-another-world beings, because that way they could avoid any comparison withthemselves. In fact, the more upset and insecure the religious person, the more fundamentalist/literal/superficial they had to be in their interpretations of religious scripture and the prophethimself—because being too truthful was impossibly confronting.
As such, religion involved a very delicate balance of honesty and delusion, forwhile it offered a way of only being indirectly honest about the corrupted state, its veryexistence depended on its adherents making at least a subconsciously relieving, honestacknowledgement of their own corrupted state, and on others making at least, on a similarlysubconscious level, a relieving, truthful recognition of that corruption. On the surface ofconscious awareness, however, each individual adherent also depended on being able tomaintain their facade and delusions about being an upset-free, ‘righteous’ person, which meantthere was still a great deal of dishonesty involved in religion.
The cartoon series The Simpsons provides a wonderful illustration of the subtletiesinvolved in religion. In the series, ‘Ned Flanders’ is the born-again religious character whois typically portrayed as having a self-satisfied, ‘I-occupy-the-moral-high-ground’ attitudeover the still-human-condition-embroiled ‘Homer Simpson’. Ned’s posturing drives Homercrazy with frustration because he intuitively knows Ned is deluding himself in thinking his
Christianity gives him the moral high ground—that he is the more together, sound personand is on the right track—but Homer can’t explain why Ned is so extremely deluded andtotally dishonest in his view of self. Homer can’t explain and thus reveal the truth that realidealism and the truly on track, moral high ground lay with continuing the upsetting battleto find knowledge, and that Ned had become so upset, so unsound, that he had to abandonthat all-important battle and leave it to others to continue to fight, including Homer. Worse,

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

194

The Biology
in abandoning the battle, Ned has effectively sided against those still trying to win the battle,adding substantially to the opposition they had to overcome. But even Ned is intuitivelyaware that he is practicing delusion and so has to work hard at maintaining it. As explainedearlier, maintaining a delusion meant constantly persuading yourself, and others, that you areright. Stridency and fanaticism characterised the behaviour of those maintaining a delusion,especially when, in becoming religious for instance, you were practically admitting that youwere being deluded about being a sound, together, on track person yourself by having had todefer to a sound prophet.
In summary, the benefit of Imposed Discipline for the resigned, competitive way ofliving over the born-again, pseudo idealistic way of living was that it did not undermine aperson’s participation in humanity’s great battle—it simply provided a means to managethe upset associated with that battle. However, since the religious born-again strategy bothminimised the irresponsibility of abandoning the battle, and (despite the degree of delusionit still allowed) minimised the extreme denial involved in becoming born-again, religionprovided a marvellous way of coping with the by now extremely destructive and unbearablelevels of upset and associated guilt that affected nearly the entire human race, which Imposed
Discipline could no longer contain. In fact, because of its degree of honesty and indirectsupport of the search for knowledge, religion was by far the most special, the most wonderfulform of pseudo idealism to ever be developed. Indeed, it was religion that saved humanityfrom destruction through the most difficult final stages of its journey.
However, while religion did save the human race, at the very end of our species’ journeythrough ignorance other forms of pseudo idealism evolved that very nearly destroyedhumanity. This final development will now be described and explained.

Part 3:11H The final 200 years
The final 200 years when pseudo idealism took humanity to a death-by-dogma, end playstate of terminal alienation—the time when we needed to, as the Bible warned, ‘beware offalse prophets’, the merchants of delusion and denial, for they are ‘the abomination thatcauses desolation’.
We now need to consider the situation faced by humanity in the final 200 years of its nowplummeting path to self-destruction through excessive upset, because it was during this finalstage in the march of upset that the great benefit of religion, which was its honesty, becametoo confronting, forcing the development and adoption of other forms of pseudo idealism thatwere so dishonest that humanity was taken to the brink of terminal alienation and extinction.
What happened around 200 years ago to dramatically increase the levels of upset insociety were further serious elaborations on the factors that caused the sudden increase inupset 11,000 years ago. Firstly, due to improvements in medicine and sanitation, the world’spopulation increased so rapidly that in many parts of the world people found themselvesvirtually living on top of each other; villages became towns, which in turn became citiesand even mega-city metropolises. Cities represented the most extreme congestion of peopleand this factor, along with their nature-eliminated, un-natural environment, which was so

Part 3:11H

The final 200 years

195
destructive of our innocent instinctive soul, greatly compounded the spread and increase ofupset. Of course, once we humans became alienated, cities did provide a refuge from thecriticising innocence of the natural world—they were a marvellous hide-out for alienation—but for the souls of the next generations who had to grow up in such soul-less environmentscities were devastatingly alien, unnatural places; as the Australian historian Manning Clarksaid, ‘The bush [wilderness] is our source of innocence; the town is where the devil prowls around’
(Sydney Morning Herald, 18 Feb. 1985), or as the English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote, ‘Away, away,
from men and towns, to the wild wood and the downs—to the silent wilderness, where the soul need notrepress its music’ (To Jane: The Invitation, c.1820). No wonder Christ looked forward to the time when
understanding of the human condition would be found and alienating cities could gradually bedismantled (as they now will be), saying, ‘Do you see all these great buildings?…Not one stone herewill be left on another; everyone will be thrown down’ (Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44, 21:6).

The second immense influence on the spread and growth of upset and thus alienationin the world was the development of communication technology of such sophistication that,in terms of one human’s access to another, it basically shrunk the world down to one giantcity—worse, one immense household. Initially, there was the delivery of letters through asophisticated postal system, and then mass printing of documents and newspapers, and thentypewriters, and then the telephone, and then television, and then credit cards, computersand faxes, and then emails and mobile phones, and then the world wide web and the likes of
Facebook and Twitter. From birth, modern humans have been both immersed in an ocean ofupset behaviour, especially alienated behaviour, and overwhelmed by anxiety and stress.
The overall effect of extremely congested living and of the increase in the efficiency ofcommunication technology was that it led to upset—especially alienation from our all-lovingtrue self—reaching a crescendo, as these quotes illustrate: ‘today’s children are probably the leastloved generation of all’ (Robert de Grauw, Letter to the Editor, TIME mag. 3 Apr. 2006); ‘96 percent of Americanfamilies are now dysfunctional’ (popular US therapist and author John Bradshaw quoting recovery movement statisticson dysfunctional families in America, in The Australian, 8 May 1993); ‘The 1990 US Census stated there will be more
stepfamilies than original families by the year 2000, and that 66 percent of those stepfamilies break upwhen children are involved’ (Stepfamily Foundation, <http://www.stepfamily.org/stepfamily-statistics.html>); ‘one intwo US children will live in a single-parent family at some point in childhood’ (US Census Bureau of Householdand Family Statistics, 2000); ‘63 percent of the 18.5 million US children under 5 years of age were in some type
of regular child care arrangement’ (US Census Bureau, 2005); ‘the electronic age has ushered in electronicparenting. Kids spend far more time sitting passively before a device such as a computer or televisionthan they do playing or speaking with their families’ (The Commercial Appeal, 26 Aug. 2001); ‘the sexualisationof Western culture [has meant] that sex has been robbed of its emotional depth…For young men andwomen, it’s increasingly a physical activity, with no real pleasure and no meaning at all…one hears oflipstick parties, where teenage girls wearing different coloured lipstick line up to give oral sex to boys withthe aim of giving them a candy-striped penis’ (Clive Hamilton, co-author of the report ‘Youth and Pornography in
Australia’, The Australian, 24 June 2006); ‘someone born since 1945 is likely to be up to 3 times more depressed
than their parents and 10 times more than their grandparents’ (psychologist Michael Yapko in his 1999 book
Hand-Me-Down Blues); ‘Depression is now the leading cause of disability in the US’ (Andrew Solomon in his 2001book The Noonday Demon); ‘Truly alarming evidence from pharmaceutical prescriptions for Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) drugs shows that in 2005 one in 25 children in many poorer areas of

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

196

The Biology

Australia suffer from ADHD’ (The Daily Telegraph, 13 June 2006); and ‘According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), about 1 in 166 American children born today will fall somewhere on theautistic spectrum. That’s double the rate of 10 years ago and 10 times the estimated incidence a generationago’ (TIME mag. 15 May 2006). The psychological invulnerability that the reality-detached ADHD
and autistic mind adopted to cope with the unbearable levels of upset in the world will belooked at in some detail in Part 6:5.
Australia is one of the most sheltered and isolated and thus innocent countries left in theworld, and yet its society is about to unravel with psychological suffering, as this 2011 reporton the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald indicates: ‘The well-being of Australia’s childrenand young people has declined alarmingly in the past decade—and plunging marriage rates are partlyto blame, a major study has found. Growing rates of child abuse and neglect, of children being placed infoster care, and of teenage mental health problems, including a rise in hospital admissions for self-harm,are rooted in the rise of one-parent families and de facto couples, violent and unstable relationships,and divorce, the report says’ (‘Decline in marriage blamed for neglect’, 6 Sept. 2011). Humans are now so
alienated, so divorced from their true self, they can hardly live with themselves, let aloneanyone else. The real reason for the breakdown in relationships is alienation. Revealingly,recent generations have been labelled the ‘X generation’, the ‘Y generation’, and now the
‘Z generation’ which, according to Wikipedia, comprises ‘people born between the mid-1990sand late 2000s’. The Canadian writer Douglas Coupland defined a Generation X’er as one
who ‘lives an X sort of life—cerebral, alienated, seriously concerned with cool’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 22
Aug. 1994). These are all qualities associated with having had to adjust to an extremely soul-
exhausted world. The adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg was reported as sayingthat ‘Generation Y is being ravaged by depression, anxiety disorders and stress disorders’ (‘Face it, we areall narcissists now’, Miranda Devine, Sydney Morning Herald, 3 Sept. 2009). What exactly did we mean when
we said the X, Y, Z generations? The end game state of alienation, terminal alienation. Afterall, what comes after Z?
And the proof of this end game state of alienation is, as mentioned at the start of thispresentation, indisputable. As a result of the emergence of overwhelming levels of upset in thelast 200 years humanity has endured two massive world wars and countless other insurgencies,as well as the inglorious honour of inventing weapons of such ferocity that they could wipeout entire cities.
The repercussion of upset reaching this crescendo on our strategies for coping withthe human condition was that people could no longer cope with the honesty of religion—itbecame too confronting, guilt-inducing and unbearably depressing. Yes, the great benefit ofreligion—of the honesty imbued in the prophet or prophets (in the case of Hinduism) thereligion was founded around—actually became a liability, because by retaining a presence ofa prophet’s soundness and truth, religions reminded humans of their own corrupted state andtheir alienation from truth, which in turn accentuated their sense of guilt; as the author Mary
McCarthy once wrote about religion, ‘Only people who are very good can afford to become religious;with all the others it makes them worse’ (Memories of a Catholic Girlhood, 1957). It was at this point when
the honesty of religion became too confronting that much less confronting and less guiltemphasising forms of pseudo idealism had to be found, with the extremely dangerous andnegative effect being the loss of the precious honesty contained in religion.

Part 3:11H

The final 200 years

197

When the truthful lives and thoughts of religions’ founding prophets became unbearablyconfronting and condemning, Guilt-Free Expressions of Idealism to support and find ‘feelgood’ relief from became highly sought after. These expressions took two forms. Firstly, youcould defer to Less Guilt Emphasising Forms of Religion where, say within Christianity,rather than following a denomination that focused on the study and acknowledgment of theintegrity of the words and life of Christ, you selected one that emphasised worship, adorationand ceremony, such as Catholicism, or the more euphoric, charismatic Evangelical varietiesof Christianity that have recently gained in popularity. Or you could associate yourself withreligious groups that focused on simple dogmatic obedience to the teachings of one of thereligions, becoming a more fundamentalist and literalist interpreter and practitioner of afaith. Or you could find a religion like Buddhism that avoided any acknowledgement of yourcorrupted condition and instead focused on extinguishing the mental trauma of your upsetstate through meditation. As one convert said of Buddhism, it’s ‘non-judgemental, there’s nonotion of sin, there’s no notion of good and evil, you don’t embrace negativity’ (from Light at Edge of the
World: Science of the Mind of Buddhism, National Geographic Channel, 2006). The problem with focusing on
ways, such as meditation, to extinguish the mental trauma of the upset, human-conditionafflicted state was that, once again, they undermined the fundamental responsibility of beinga conscious being, which is to think and understand, ultimately to find understanding of thehuman condition—as the great Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev (1874-1948) wrote:
‘Man sought to escape from that terror [of the truth of ‘man’s…exile from paradise’] by extinguishingconsciousness and returning to the realm of the unconscious. But this is not the way to regain lostparadise’ (The Destiny of Man, 1931, tr. N. Duddington, 1960, p.41 of 310). The point being made is that as
upset increased, more and more escapist strategies for coping with the human conditionsimply had to be adopted, despite how irresponsible and destructive that trend was ofhumanity’s heroic struggle to find knowledge.
The second form of more guilt-free expressions of idealism to support and livethrough were non-religious and in some cases atheistic, God/Integrative Meaning-denying
Pseudo Idealistic Causes like communism or socialism, environmentalism, feminism,multiculturalism, aboriginalism, politically correct postmodernism, etc, etc—basically anyidealistic cause you could find that allowed you to avoid having to think about and deal withthe real issue behind all the destruction and imperfection in the world, namely your own andeveryone else’s corrupted condition. TIME magazine editor Richard Stengel perfectly capturedthis trend when he wrote that ‘The environment became the last best cause, the ultimate guilt-freeissue’ (TIME mag. 31 Dec. 1990).

Since humanity was, as we will see, trending towards ever more guilt-free but dishonestforms of pseudo idealism to cope with the exponentially increasing levels of upset in theworld, there was clearly going to come a time—unless understanding of the human conditionwas found—when excessive dishonesty would herald the end of the all-important search forliberating understanding of the human condition and lead to terminal levels of alienation inhumans. As Richard Neville summarised: ‘We are locked in a race between self destruction and selfdiscovery’—either we found understanding of ourselves or we faced self-destruction. If we
gave up the search for knowledge, ultimately understanding of ourselves, there was no hope,and, as will now be described, the virtual abandonment of that search by taking up ever more

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

198

The Biology
dishonest/truthless forms of pseudo idealism did take humanity to the brink of hopelessness.
By denying any confronting truth—that is, by taking the practice of guilt-stripping to theextreme—and simply dogmatically demanding we be ideal, pseudo idealism was only addingto alienation, burying humanity deeper in Plato’s cave of denial of any truth, making it harderand harder to reach liberating understanding of ourselves.
In fact, as will become increasingly apparent as this presentation progresses, to findunderstanding of the human condition a veritable mountain of accumulated dishonesty,especially from pseudo idealists, had to be defied and corrected. AND, if that weren’tenough, the advocates of extreme dishonesty then all but destroyed our efforts at the WORLD
TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT to bring the humanity-saving understanding of the human
condition to the world! The whole journey of getting all the truth up from its almost totallyburied state and then bringing the humanity-liberating understanding of the human conditionthat that truth made possible to the world has been so difficult that, in hindsight, it seems allbut a miracle that it has almost been achieved. The Persecution of the WTM section on ourwebsite (<www.humancondition.com/persecution>) documents the horrific persecution the WTMhas had to endure and our final wonderful and heroic vindication in the law courts—however,until substantial support builds for these all-precious, liberating understandings their survivalremains in the balance.
To now drill down into the progression of the increasingly guilt-stripped and thus evermore dishonest and thus ever more dangerous forms of pseudo idealism that humanitydeveloped and adopted when Religion became too confronting—commencing with Socialismand Communism. These movements denied the notion of a perfecting God and avoided thedepressing recognition of a prophet’s world of soundness. Instead, they simply dogmaticallydemanded an idealistic social or communal world and, in doing so, denied and oppressedthe whole reality of the knowledge-finding, creative, egocentric, corrupting, unavoidablyvariously-upset, individualistic, competitive, combative, materialism-compensation-needing,self-distraction-necessary, human-condition-afflicted world. Karl Marx, the politicalphilosopher whose mid-nineteenth century theories gave rise to socialism and communism,argued that ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is [not tounderstand the world but] to change it’ (Theses on Feuerbach, written in German in 1845). By ‘change it’ he
meant just make it cooperative or social or communal. Marx was wrong—the whole ‘point’and responsibility of being a conscious being is to understand our world and place in it,ultimately to find understanding of the human condition. The attraction—and inherent lie—ofsocialism/communism was that you could support and live the ideals without acknowledgingthe reality of the human condition and its struggle.
The limitation of these philosophies was that while there was no confronting prophetinvolved, there was an obvious focus on the condemning cooperative, social ideals. And so intime, as levels of upset and thus insecurity increased, the need again arose for the invention ofan even more guilt-free form of idealism to live through, hence the development of The New
Age Movement (the forerunners of which were the Age of Aquarius and Peace Movements).
In this movement all the realities and negatives of our corrupted condition were transcendedin favour of taking up a completely escapist, think-positive, human-potential-stressing, self-

Part 3:11H

The final 200 years

199
affirming, motivational, feel-good approach. So in truth, the new age movement was nevergoing to transport humanity to an Aquarian new age of peaceful freedom from upset, it wasonly ever going to lead to an even greater state of deluded, dishonest alienation than thatespoused by socialism/communism. As the philosopher Thomas Nagel recognised, ‘Thecapacity for transcendence brings with it a liability to alienation, and the wish to escape this condition…can lead to even greater absurdity’ (The View From Nowhere, 1986).

The limitation of the new age movement, in terms of being an effective means of escapingthe horror of the human condition, was that while it did not stress the cooperative ideals likesocialism and communism did, in seeking to transcend humans’ upset state it still offered up aconstant reminder of the issue of our variously upset, embattled, troubled, estranged, alienatedcondition—a problem the next level of delusion sought to dispense with by simply denyingits existence; yes, the Feminist Movement maintained there was no real difference betweenpeople, especially not between men and women. In particular, it denied the legitimacy of theexceptionally egocentric, combative male dimension to life that, as will be explained in Part
7:1, had taken on the heroic frontline role in fighting the ignorance of our instinctive self.

Based on extreme dogma, the feminist movement could not and has not produced any realreconciliation between men and women, rather, as this quote points out, ‘What happened was thatthe so-called Battle of the Sexes became a contest in which only one side turned up. Men listened, in manycases sympathetically but, by the millions, were turned off ’ (Don Peterson, Courier Mail, June 1994). Only by
winning the battle to champion the ego—that is, explain the human condition and establish thatour egocentric conscious thinking self is good and not bad—could the polarities of life of socalled ‘good’ and ‘evil’, that women and men are in truth an expression of, be reconciled.
Again, as far as offering an effective way to transcend the realities of the humancondition, feminism’s flaw was that while it superficially dispensed with the problem ofhumans’ divisive reality, we still remained the focus of attention and that was confronting. Thesolution that emerged to counter this limitation was the Environmental or Green Movement,which removed all need to confront and think about the human state because all focus wasdiverted from self onto the environment. Of course, the truth is that by not addressing thecause of the destruction of the natural world, namely the issue of our human condition’smassively upset angry, egocentric and alienated state, there has been no real let up in the paceof our world’s devastation, as these quotes emphasise: ‘The trees aren’t the problem. The problemis us’ (Simply Living mag. Sept. 1989), and ‘We need to do something about the environmental damage in ourheads’ (TIME mag. 24 May 1993). The guilt-stripping dishonesty of the environmental movement was
recognised by the Australian businessman Ray Evans when he wrote that ‘Environmentalism haslargely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the
United States. It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, butwhich places no importance on telling the truth [about the real issue of our corrupted human condition]’
(Nine Facts About Climate Change, 2006, p.2 of 27).

So for all its guilt-relieving benefits, the environmental movement still contained acondemning moral component: if we were not responsible with the environment, ‘good’,we were behaving immorally, ‘bad’. Moreover, nature in its purity exists in stark contrast tohumans’ corrupted condition.

200

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

At this stage in the march of upset yet another form of pure pseudo idealism had to bemanufactured in which confrontation with the by now extremely confronting and depressingtruth of the dilemma of the human condition could be totally sidestepped. What was requiredwas a completely guilt-stripped dogma that was devoid of any need to confront and wrestlewith the issue of soundness and Godliness; with whether you are a cooperative, social person;with the issue of your troubled self; with the morality issue of men and women’s treatment ofeach other; and with the issue of whether or not you are being kind to the environment. Upsethad become so great that the need was to simply be ideal without question. This demand fora totally non-confronting form of relief from feeling ‘bad’ resulted in the establishment of the
Politically Correct Movement, which has had no other focus or requirement beyond simplychoosing, from the two simplistic, fundamental, ‘political’ options in life—of being either
‘good’ or ‘bad’—to be ‘good’.
The politically correct culture was a pure form of freedom-denying dogma that fabricated,demanded and imposed ideality or ‘correctness’, specifically that of an undifferentiatedworld, which was in complete denial of the reality of the underlying issue of the existence ofand reasons for humans’ variously embattled and upset states, and beyond that of the deeperquestion raised by those ‘non-ideal’ states of the issue of the human condition. For instance,the politically correct argue that the children’s nursery rhyme Baa Baa Black Sheep is racistand must instead be recited as ‘Baa baa rainbow sheep’ (London’s Daily Telegraph, 18 Feb. 1997).
Within the politically correct culture the need for relief from guilt was all-pervasive; themind was constantly on the hunt for opportunities and ‘good causes’ through which to be
‘idealistic’ and achieve that rush of psychological relief of feeling that at last you are a ‘good’rather than a ‘bad’ person. Wherever there was a victim of humanity’s battle, there was anopportunity to take up their cause and access that all-important relief. Shortly, we will seethat Christ described this development in much harsher terms when he said, ‘Wherever thereis a carcass [the extremely upset], there the vultures [the false prophets, the merchants of delusion
and escapism] will gather.’ With the levels of upset in the world becoming extreme, relief-
hunting became a huge industry, to the extent that we became, as the sociologist Frank Furedirecognised, ‘a society that celebrates victimhood rather than heroism’ (The Culture of Fear, 1997).
Again, while there was an ever increasing need for more dishonest, guilt-free forms ofidealism to live through, for humanity to arrive at this desperately insecure state where peoplewere only concerned with finding relief from their own guilt through supporting the cause ofthose who were suffering or less fortunate was an extremely dangerous development becauseit meant the human race had, in effect, abandoned the battle to find the all-important liberatingunderstanding of ourselves. This is not to say that in a critical battle, such as the one humanityhas been involved in, showing care and compassion towards those who were suffering fromthe effects of the battle was not important. It was very important, because although we haveall been involved in an upsetting battle, selflessness is still, as has been explained, what bindswholes together; it is the glue within humanity’s army. However, while caring for thosestruggling to keep up was important, it was obviously critical to support those on the frontlinewho were still carrying on the battle, otherwise the whole war would surely be lost. In thislight it can be seen how very dangerous and irresponsible the politically correct movement’sfocus and insistence on caring only for the victims of the battle was.

Part 3:11H

The final 200 years

201

In fact, while care and compassion for those suffering from the battle was (‘was’, becausethe battle is now over) certainly something a healthy society had to practice, caring for themin order to delude yourself you are an upset-free, ideal person seriously discredited the wholepractice of consideration and kindness itself. Indeed, using idealism to delude yourself thatyou were good gave idealism such a bad name that no relatively sound, secure person wantedto be part of the left-wing political movement where relief-hunting had become endemic.
In the end, there was no longer any authentic, trustable, credible, healthy, meaningfulidealistic movement in society to counteract any excessively selfish and destructive rightwing behaviour—there was only moderate factions within the right-wing that the sane andrationally-behaved could join and support.
The whole democratic process that our society depended on for there to be effectiveprogress and functionality was being destroyed by mad desperados—by a group of peoplewho were misusing democracy for their own selfish need to make themselves feel good,rather than for what democracy was designed to be: a tool to decide the right or wrongway to manage any particular course of action. How could you possibly have an effectivediscussion about how best to handle a certain situation if participants in that discussion werenot interested in whether the action was right or not, only in whether their participation wouldmake them feel good and/or whether the course of action itself would ultimately make themfeel good? The answer is you couldn’t. It was a derailed, ineffective, dysfunctional, highlyimperfect, pointless—in fact, defunct—debate. It was like being in mid-ocean on a life-boat,desperately trying to find your way to the safety of land, when someone on board decidesto hijack and destroy the mission by capsizing the boat because they had become obsessedwith wanting to cool off in the water. As has already been carefully explained, it was totallyirresponsible, selfish—in fact, mad—behaviour. The human race was trying to save itselffrom destruction by finding knowledge, ultimately understanding of the human condition,but the extreme practitioners of pseudo idealism were only interested in making themselvesfeel good. Contrary to what their banners said, pseudo idealists no longer cared about thefuture of the world. Theirs was completely selfish behaviour and not at all the idealisticbehaviour they made it out to be and deluded themselves it was. Thank goodness the arrival ofunderstanding of the human condition stops this madness, because it was only while it wasn’tpossible to explain humanity’s great heroic battle that it was possible to get away with suchmad behaviour—‘Can’t you see we are being idealistic, we are making a better world.’ Whatrubbish—such behaviour is nothing more than a selfish attempt to gain relief from the agonyof the human condition!
Idealism was being misused—in fact, extremely, horribly misused. A particularlydysfunctional aspect of the misuse was the arrogant extent of pseudo idealists’ delusion thatthey were actually ideal, that they held the moral high ground. In the situation that has existed,where the reality of the upsetting battle to find knowledge couldn’t be explained, idealism—albeit the bastardised form of ‘victim-hunting-to-make-yourself-feel-good, politically correct’,pseudo idealism—had a field day mocking realism as evil. In the vacuum where the reasonfor humans’ upset, corrupted state was not able to be explained, the ‘intellectuals’/ ‘liberal elites’/
‘chattering classes’/ ‘left-wing trendy café society’/ ‘chardonnay socialists’/ ‘radical chic’/ ‘Hollywood
Left’/ ‘CBS-New York Times, BBC-Guardian, ABC-Sydney Morning Herald, Time and National Geographic

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

202

The Biology

‘left-wing rags’, etc, etc axis’/ ‘high-minded do-gooders’/ ‘rainbow extremists’/ ‘strident bleeding hearts’/
‘feel good, warm inner glow, blissed out compassion junkies’, as the relief-hunting, pseudo idealistic
left-wing are variously referred to, conceitedly promenaded about with a holier-than-thouattitude, while the right-wing advocates of freedom (from the oppression of idealism inorder to participate in the corrupting search for knowledge) were arrogantly and disdainfullytreated as morally bankrupt and contemptible. For example, the right-wing so-called ‘Tea
Party’ that recently emerged in American politics was derided by the left-wing Democrats forbeing devoid of any sound arguments for their cause—they were accused of being nothingmore than promoters of ‘fear, xenophobia, cryptofascism, creationism, inequality and ignorance’ (froma cartoon by Turner in The Irish Times that was re-printed in The Australian, 3 Nov. 2010). It is no wonder politics
became so polarised—to the point where the two sides, rather than providing humanity with ahealthy equilibrium, existed in totally opposed and different continents, and may as well havelived completely apart on separate planets. The deluded arrogance of the extremely dangerousdishonesty of the left became insufferable, unbearable, overwhelming, terrifying, sickening.
Again, the problem at base was the inability to explain the human condition. While it waseasy to argue the case for the idealism of the left-wing, it was almost impossible to argue thecase for the realism of the right-wing. How could you justify any selfishness or inequality;how could you defend behaviour that appeared in every way to be inhumane; how could youargue that not being ideally behaved was good? The answer is that until we could explain theparadox of the human condition we couldn’t, well not sufficiently. Writers like the RussianAmerican Ayn Rand (1905-1982) did well to mount some sort of a case for right-wing freeenterprise, but countering such efforts were the ‘Capitalists are Pigs’ placards used in protestsat G8 summits, and left-wing advocates like Michael Moore, the American film maker andactivist who, at the conclusion of his 2009 documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, smuglyannounced that ‘Capitalism is evil.’ The truth is, it was capitalism that kept the human racegoing, not communism. Without the relief, reward and distraction of materialism/materialgoods that the exchange of money or capital facilitated humans would not have been able tocope with and carry on their upsetting, idealism-defying, heroic search for knowledge. Withunderstanding of the human condition we can now explain that socialism/communism, thepseudo idealistic dogmatic insistence that everyone be social and communal—live for societyand the communal good rather than seek a degree of material relief and reward for yourself—ignored the reality of the upsetting battle that humans have had to wage to find understandingof themselves, of their less-than-ideal human condition. With understanding of the humancondition finally found what is revealed is that it was, in fact, the left-wing that was morallybankrupt, not the right! The truth was not as it appeared. In the Adam Stork analogy, upsetangry, egocentric and alienated Adam is the hero of the story not the villain; it was hiscondemning, ridiculing, upsetting idealistic opponent, which the extreme pseudo idealist cameto represent, who was actually the villain and not the hero he deluded himself to be and wouldhave others believe he was.
At this point we need to return to the progression of the development of even moreguilt/truth stripped forms of idealism to live through and look at what emerged after thedevelopment of the politically correct movement. While being interested only in those whowere suffering was so extremely dishonest and dangerous, from the perspective of the do-

Part 3:11H

The final 200 years

203
good, feel-good politically correct supporter, relief from guilt/self-confrontation/depression/the agony of the human condition was all that mattered—when the truth is killing you, youhave no qualms about escaping it. So to help ensure no subversive questioning could creepin and undermine this strategy, a philosophical justification for truthlessness was bolted on tothe political correct culture. This was Postmodern Deconstructionism, ‘a bewilderingly complexschool of continental philosophy, or pseudo-philosophy’ of ‘intellectual assumptions—truth is a matter ofopinion, there is no real world outside of language and hence no facts independent of our descriptions ofthem’ (Luke Slattery, The Australian, 23 July 2005).

We saw how the politically correct culture considered the children’s nursery rhyme
Baa Baa Black Sheep racist and insisted it be recited as ‘Baa baa rainbow sheep.’ The 1994postmodernist teaching guide From Picture Book To Literary Theory similarly argued thatschool children shouldn’t be read stories about witches on broomsticks because they weresexist for ‘narrowly defining women’s roles’, or the Three Little Pigs fairy tale because of its elitistpromotion of ‘the virtues of property ownership and the safety of the private domain which are keyelements of capitalist ideology’. In his 2001 book The Liar’s Tale: A History of Falsehood, Jeremy

Campbell described ‘postmodern theory’ as having elevated ‘lying to the status of an art andneutralised untruth’. It ‘neutralised untruth’ because by denying the existence of the whole issue
of humans’ variously embattled and upset states it made any discussion of such differences—any pursuit of insight into the human condition—impossible.
With levels of upset in people becoming extreme and the associated levels of guiltbecoming unbearable, pseudo idealistic, politically correct, postmodern relief-hunters—empowered by their own self-righteousness and the right’s inability to defend itself—tookover almost everywhere. Drawn together by their shared overwhelming need to find causesthrough which to feel ‘good’ they captured such major institutions as the national broadcastersin the UK and Australia. As a former British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) correspondent,
Robin Aitken, said, ‘[I] could not raise a cricket team of Tories [conservatives] among BBC staff ’
(The Australian, 10 Oct. 2005). The British journalist Melanie Phillips similarly observed that ‘With
a few honourable exceptions, the BBC views every issue through the prism of left-wing, secular, antiWestern thinking’ (Daily Mail, 16 May 2005). As government-owned bodies, national broadcasters
like the BBC in Britain and the ABC in Australia (who, unsurprisingly, did everything theycould to destroy the honest, human-condition-confronting work of the WTM) are supposed torepresent all the people, not one extreme faction. A blogger who called himself ‘Marcellus’
(because, he said, ‘In 44BC the tribune Gaius Marcellus tried to prevent Julius Caesar overturning the
Roman Republic and becoming a tyrant…he failed at that time’) posted this alarm: ‘The broadcastersparticularly in the BBC are…acting like the militant wing of the Labour Party. They have completelylost all restraint and integrity. They are completely out of order…[it’s] a national outrage…[that they]are allowed to control the most influential power centre in the history of mankind. The BBC is run by anextreme, unrepresentative and unelected cult. The Left have finally ruined the BBC…The BBC is nowirreparably infiltrated and broken…All responses to the Tories are to give the impression that whateverthe Tories say, do or propose is immoral or incompetent, or imply that selfish, self-serving or somehowbad motives are the real reason for them—that they are not proposed altruistically for the genuinebenefit of the country and therefore cannot be a credible alternative to what is being done by Labour,who are altruistic’ (‘How the Left have corrupted broadcast news’, 1 Feb. 2010; see <www.wtmsources.com/124>). As

204

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
mentioned, the pseudo idealistic left-wing sanctimoniously strutted around as if they held themoral high ground while the right-wing was treated as morally bankrupt and contemptiblewhen, in truth, it was the left-wing that was morally bankrupt and contemptible.
The problem of pseudo idealism in the media was not confined to the nationalbroadcasters. A 2005 UCLA-led study into the political leanings of media in the US revealedthat ‘almost all major media outlets tilt to the left…there is quantifiable and significant bias’ (‘Media Bias Is
Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist’, UCLA News, 14 Dec. 2005). While ‘Marcellus’, like the original Gaius

Marcellus, was unable to prevent the ‘ruin[ing]’ of the BBC, there was at least some activeresistance to what was happening to the media in the US—in a 2010 campaign run by the
Media Research Center, a watchdog group that analyses the media for liberal bias in America,
‘Four billboard trucks bearing the message “Stop the Liberal Bias, Tell the Truth!” began circling the
Manhattan headquarters of ABC, CBS, NBC and the New York Times’ for ‘four weeks’ (‘Trucks Encircle
ABC, CBS, NBC, Challenge ‘Liberal’ Media to ‘Tell The Truth’, by Michael W. Chapman, 4 Oct. 2010, CNSnews.com).

Much of academia, the supposed home of higher learning, has similarly been hijacked byoverly upset, guilt-escaping, truth-hating relief-hunters. A ‘comprehensive’ survey undertakenin 2005 by political science professors at the University of Toronto revealed that ‘87 percent’of the teaching faculty ‘at the most elite’ ‘American universities’ were ‘left-wing’ ‘liberal’. A coauthor of the study, Professor Robert Lichter, commented that ‘What’s most striking is how fewconservatives there are in any field [of study in US universities]…It’s a very homogenous environment’
(‘College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds’, Washington Post, 29 Mar. 2005). That ‘87 percent’ of teachers
in the major American centres of learning held a distinct bias of thought was certainlya ‘most striking’—indeed truly frightening—statistic. The literary scholar Harold Bloomrecognised the danger of this hijacking of academia by truth-hating relief-hunters in his 1994book The Western Canon, which, as a TIME magazine review summarised, asserted that a
‘rebellion in U.S. schools against Dead White European Male authors’ (or ‘D.W.E.Ms’) would lead
to ‘the end of civilization’ through a ‘triumph of the forces of darkness’ (TIME mag. 10 Oct. 1994). In
The Western Canon, Bloom lamented that ‘Batman comics…will replace Chaucer, Shakespeare,
Milton, Wordsworth’ (p.485 of 560). A 2006 article in The Australian newspaper reported that

Australia’s then Prime Minister, John Howard, ‘believes the postmodern literature being taught inschools is “rubbish”…accusing state education authorities of “dumbing down” the English syllabus andsuccumbing to political correctness. [He said] “I feel very, very strongly about [this situation where]…traditional texts, are treated no differently from pop cultural commentary”’ (21 Apr. 2006). In the article,

Howard, Australia’s greatest ever Prime Minister (in my view), also referred to postmoderndiscourse as meaningless ‘gobbledegook’. In his insightfully titled 1987 book The Closing of the
American Mind, the political scientist Allan Bloom also wrote of the devastating effects ofpostmodern so-called ‘deconstructionist’ teaching in American universities, contending that
‘we are producing a race of moral illiterates, who have never asked the great questions of good and evil, ortruth and beauty, who have indeed no idea that such questions even could be asked…deprived of literaryguidance they [students] no longer have any image of a perfect soul, and hence do not long to have one.
They do not even imagine that there is such a thing…If the classics are studied at all in the universitiesthey are studied as curiosities in the humanities departments, not as vital centres of the liberal tradition,and not as texts offering profound insight into the human condition’ (The Australian, 25 July 1987).

Part 3:11H

The final 200 years

205

Not so long ago, HRH The Prince of Wales (whose mentor or main influence in hisphilosophical life was, like mine, Sir Laurens van der Post, and who also attended Geelong
Grammar School where, like me, he benefited from the influence of Sir James Darling’s soulrather-than-intellect-emphasising, Platonic education system) wrote a letter of deep concern tothe Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, questioning the extreme bias that is now also apparent inlegal thinking, stating that ‘The Human Rights Act is only about the rights of individuals. I am unableto find a list of social responsibilities attached to it and this betrays a fundamental distortion in social andlegal thinking’ (The Australian, 27 Sept. 2002).

Dr William Anderson, the Assistant Professor of Economics at Frostburg State Universityin the US, similarly observed that ‘Justice pretty much is dead in the United States…Like so many othertrends, this one has its intellectual underpinnings in that academic refuse pile we call Post-Modernism…aline of thinking that denies any possibility of Truth, and is the dominant “guiding light”—darkness?—inacademe these days…right now, the post-modernists are winning battle after battle. It is one thing whenpost-modern nonsense dominates a history or English class; it is quite another when it becomes the bedrockof modern law’ (‘Post-Modern Prosecutions’, 25 Nov. 2006; Accessed 31 Jan. 2011: see <www.wtmsources.com/115>).

The American lawyer Gary Saalman also wrote that ‘In recent years…postmodernism hasrisen to the forefront of legal theory. Postmodern theorists…claim the law cannot have any foundationbecause there is no foundation for objective knowledge of any kind…Principles of law could never reflectuniversal truths, they argue…According to these scholars, it is senseless to talk about whether a law isright or wrong or moral or amoral…most observers agree that postmodern theories of law are exertinga huge influence today in the courtroom and the legislature…Remember, these are not a lunatic fringeat the margins of legal practice. They include department heads, and leading professors of law schools…practicing lawyers and legal authorities’ (‘Postmodernism and You: Law’, Gary Saalman, 1996; Accessed 31 Jan.
2011: see <www.wtmsources.com/109>).

And, in his 2006 book Understanding the Times: The Collision of Today’s Competing
Worldviews, the American religious leader Dr David Noebel had this to say about the dangersof Postmodernism: ‘Harold J. Berman, former professor of law at Harvard Law School…explains thattoday…foundational beliefs are rapidly disappearing, not only from the minds of philosophers, but from
“the minds of lawmakers, judges, lawyers, law teachers…the historical soil of the Western legal traditionis being washed away in the twentieth century, and the tradition itself is threatened to collapse”…
Postmodernists are intent on eliminating religious roots and transcendent qualities from Western law.
They desire more fragmentation and subjectivity, and less objective morality than the Judeo-Christiantradition demands. In the end, they are intent on creating and using their own brand of social justicemerely for left-wing political purposes’ (‘Postmodern Law’; Accessed 31 Jan. 2011 at <https://www.allaboutworldview.org/postmodern-law.htm>).

The media, our centres of education and learning, the judiciary—these are all pillars ofsociety that were being destroyed. The world was in danger of being hijacked by those whowere no longer concerned with humanity’s heroic journey to enlightenment and who onlywanted to escape the depressing effects of the human condition. Total self-preoccupation,selfishness disguised as selflessness, had arrived. Terminal levels of alienation were upon us.
So, with understanding of the human condition finally explained, the truth that is revealedis that the underlying, real progression in all the great, so-called, ‘social reforms’ of the

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

206

The Biology
last 200 years was not to a more ideal world but to greater upset and its associated need forever more guilt-stripped forms of pseudo idealism through which to live. From Religion,the original, thousands-of-years-old, relatively honest, alienation-free form of pseudoidealism, developed Socialism and Communism, then the New Age Movement, then the
Feminist Movement, then the Environment or Green Movement, then the Politically Correct
Movement, and finally totally dishonest, completely alienated, extremely autistic Postmodern
Deconstructionism—‘autism’ being ‘a complex mental structure insuring against recurrence of…unthinkable anxiety’; in this case, ‘anxiety’ about being extremely corrupted/upset/hurt/soul-
damaged in your infancy and childhood.
The American psychologist Arthur Janov developed the technique of ‘primal therapy’in which adults are helped to work their way back in their minds to memories of the original
(primal) hurt to their soul that occurred in their infancy and early childhood as a result ofgrowing up in the extremely human-condition-embattled, insecure, have-to-somehowestablish-your-worth world of today. In the following extracts (which come from as wellas serve as a condensation of his famous 1970 book The Primal Scream), Janov describesvery clearly how the more upset humans became, the more they needed to find a way toescape their ‘personal horror’, summarising that ‘Some of us prefer the neurotic never-never landwhere nothing can be absolutely true [the postmodernist philosophy] because it can lead us away fromother personal truths which hurt so much. The neurotic has a personal stake in the denial of truth.’

Janov wrote: ‘Anger is often sown by parents who see their children as a denial of their own [humancondition-embattled] lives. Marrying early and having to sacrifice themselves for years to demandinginfants and young children are not readily accepted by those parents who never really had a chance to befree and happy [p.327 of 446] …neurotic parents are antifeeling, and how much of themselves they havehad to cancel out in order to survive is a good index of how much they will attempt to cancel out in theirchildren [p.77] …there is unspeakable tragedy in the world…each of us being in a mad scramble awayfrom our personal horror. That is why neurotic parents cannot see the horror of what they are doingto their children, why they cannot comprehend that they are slowly killing a human being [p.389] …Ayoung child cannot understand that it is his parents who are troubled…He does not know that it is nothis job to make them stop fighting, to be happy, free or whatever…If he is ridiculed almost from birth, hemust come to believe that something is wrong with him [p.60] …Neurosis begins as a means of appeasingneurotic parents by denying or covering certain feelings in hopes that “they” will finally love him [p.65]
…a child shuts himself off in his earliest months and years because he usually has no other choice [p.59] …
When patients [in primal therapy] finally get down to the early catastrophic feeling [the ‘primal scream’]of knowing they were unloved, hated, or never to be understood—that epiphanic feeling of ultimatealoneness—they understand perfectly why they shut off [p.97] …Some of us prefer the neurotic nevernever land where nothing can be absolutely true [the postmodernist philosophy] because it can lead usaway from other personal truths which hurt so much. The neurotic has a personal stake in the denial oftruth [p.395].’ What has been said here makes it very clear that Postmodern Deconstructionism
was extremely autistic behaviour; ‘a complex mental structure insuring against recurrence of…unthinkable anxiety’.

So, what is finally revealed about these claimed great, progressive, enlightened socialreforms is that instead of those involved being more ideal people, behaving in a more idealway and bringing about a more ideal world, as they trumpeted themselves to the world as being

Part 3:11H

The final 200 years

207
and doing, they were actually more corrupted/upset/hurt/soul-damaged people, behavingin a less ideal way and bringing about a more alienated, devastated world. The truth was thecomplete opposite of what the pseudo-idealists, especially the latter day, more-advanced-indenial pseudo idealists, were claiming. What was being presented to the world was a totallyfraudulent, dishonest sham—and, as emphasised, the great danger of the ever-increasing levelsof dishonesty was that humanity was being taken to the brink of terminal alienation.
We humans had to do what we had to do—create a guilt-free yet truthless environmentin order to stay alive—but the situation got way out of hand, taking humanity perilouslyclose to the perpetual darkness of terminal alienation. Humanity was facing a death bydogma, ‘The Closing of the…[human] Mind’, as Allan Bloom so accurately described it, and
‘the end of civilization’ through a ‘triumph of the forces of darkness’, as Harold Bloom predicted.

As necessary and tempting as it could become, to indulge dishonesty to the point of actuallyshutting down thought was the greatest weakness and failing possible on a planet wherethe fully conscious thinking mind is its culminating achievement. Preventing the search forknowledge represented a failure of all the effort and sacrifice made thus far by life on Earth. Itrepresented a complete loss of nerve—as Jacob Bronowski was recorded earlier as saying: ‘Iam infinitely saddened to find myself suddenly surrounded in the west by a sense of terrible loss of nerve, aretreat from knowledge…[which doesn’t] lie along the line of what we are now able to know if we devoteourselves to it: an understanding of man himself…Knowledge is our [proper] destiny. Self-knowledge.’

While the danger for humanity’s journey to enlightenment came from the increased levelsof delusion and denial that we humans had to employ in order to cope with our increasinglyinsecure condition, to be truly free we had to confront and understand our condition, notescape it by adding more and more layers of denial. Denial blocked access to the truth, thatbeing its purpose, but we had to find the truth, especially the truth about ourselves. As thegreat Greek philosopher Socrates (c.469-399 BC) famously said, ‘the only good is knowledge andthe only evil is ignorance’ (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, c.225 AD), and ‘the unexaminedlife is not worth living’ (Plato’s dialogue Apology, c.380 BC, tr. Benjamin Jowett)—but in the end a preference
for ignorance and the associated need to oppress any examination of our lives, oppressany freedom to think truthfully, question and pursue knowledge, threatened to become thedominant attitude throughout the world. George Orwell’s bleak prediction that ‘If you want apicture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face [freedom] – for ever’ was about to be
realised—as was Aldous Huxley’s fear (which he wrote about in his famous 1932 novel, Brave
New World) that we would become a trivial culture where ‘the truth would be drowned in a sea ofirrelevance’.

While the greed of capitalism was causing immense suffering and devastation, it was notgreed that was taking the world to the brink of destruction, as everyone was being told—no,our society was being taken over by a desperate and madly behaved faction. It was a very, veryserious matter that was made doubly so by the fact that almost no one was raising the alarm.
Pseudo idealism had almost everyone intimidated, bluffed or seduced. Warnings about thereal danger facing the world were only being voiced by a rare few, like those just mentioned—
Socrates, Orwell, Nietzsche and Allan Bloom. As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recognised, while ‘thegreat twin political problems of the age are the brutality of the right, and the dishonesty of the left’, it was
the dishonesty of the left that had the potential to—and was poised to—destroy the world.

208

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

I should explain that in the picture of the fossil skulls of our ancestors right through tomodern man, I described the last stage of Adolescence as ‘Pseudo Idealistic Adolescentman’.
The reason for this demarcation was that although extremely angry Hollowman was also anelement of this last stage, it was the pseudo idealism involved in this final stage that posedthe most danger and was thus its most significant feature. Of the three aspects of upset ofanger, egocentricity and alienation, alienation was the really dangerous one. Interestingly,anthropologists—in their defensive, mechanistic, denial-complying, dishonest mindset—named the final two varieties of humans in the series Homo sapiens and Homo sapienssapiens, which literally translates as ‘wise man’ and ‘wise wise man’, as ‘sapiens’ is Latin for
‘wise’ and ‘homo’ is Latin for ‘man’. Certainly, humans were gaining wisdom or knowledge,but the more truthful description of what we were really like, is ‘False or Alienated Man’, and
‘False False or Alienated Alienated Man’.
Nietzsche’s warning of the danger of the ‘many sickly people’ who ‘have a raging hate for theenlightened man and for that youngest of virtues which is called honesty’ can’t be emphasised enough.

To repeat what he wrote: ‘Purer and more honest of speech is the healthy body, perfect and squarebuilt: and it speaks of the meaning of the earth [to face truth and one day find understanding of the
human condition]…You are not yet free, you still search for freedom. Your search has fatigued you…But,by my love and hope I entreat you: do not reject the hero in your soul! Keep holy your highest hope!’ Yes,
yes, we could not afford to lose our nerve, but everyone nearly did.
Sir Laurens van der Post—who I regard to be, as I’ve mentioned already, the mostexceptional denial-free thinking prophet and philosopher of the twentieth century; indeed,in his full-page obituary in the London Times he was described as ‘a prophet out of Africa’ (20
Dec. 1996) (view Sir Laurens’ obituary that was reproduced in The Australian at <www.humancondition.com/
vanderpost-obituary>)—was another who was ‘pure’ and ‘honest’ and ‘square-built’ enough to
speak out strongly against the extreme danger of pseudo idealism, writing that ‘the so-calledliberal socialist elements in modern society are profoundly decadent today because they are not honestwith themselves…They give people an ideological and not a real idea of what life should be about, andthis is immoral…They feel good by being highly moral about other people’s lives, and this is immoral…
They have parted company with reality in the name of idealism…there is this enormous trend whichaccompanies industrialized societies, which is to produce a kind of collective man who becomes indifferentto the individual values: real societies depend for their renewal and creation on individuals…There is, infact, a very disturbing, pathological element—something totally non-rational—in the criticism of the [UK]
Prime Minister [Margaret Thatcher]. It amazes me how no one recognizes how shrill, hysterical and out ofcontrol a phenomenon it is…I think socialism, which has a nineteenth-century inspiration and was validreally only in a nineteenth-century context when the working classes had no vote, has long since been outof date and been like a rotting corpse whose smell in our midst has tainted the political atmosphere far toolong’ (A Walk with a White Bushman, 1986, pp.90-93 of 326).

Two of the Bible’s denial-free thinking, exceptionally sound, ‘pure’ and ‘honest’, ‘squarebuilt’ prophets—Daniel and Christ—also warned of the extreme danger of pseudo idealism
when they spoke of ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ taking over the world. The Bible has,without a doubt, been the most influential book in history because it contains extraordinaryhonesty; indeed, it has been the most denial-free book humans have had for guidance. As
Daniel said of his own contribution to the Bible, ‘I will tell you what is written in the Book of

Part 3:11H

The final 200 years

209

Truth’ (10:21)—and his ability to think in a denial-free, truthful and therefore effective way
meant Daniel was in a position to ‘explain to you what will happen to you people in the future’ (10:14).
However, since there was no science in his day to evidence his argument, all Daniel could dowas draw upon analogies to describe what he could see so clearly happening in the future.
In one analogy he described ‘The king of the South’ (which we can understand is the freedomupholding, answer-searching but immensely upsetting and corrupting right-wing) constantlyat war with ‘the king of the North’ (the freedom-oppressing, dogma-based, pseudo idealistic,dishonest left-wing). He described how, for a long time, power would switch between thesekings (as it did in democratic politics), until the complete polarisation of the two kingdoms,the two political states, came about (which has occurred), at which point ‘the abominationthat causes desolation’ of pseudo idealism would finally threaten to take over the world. After
describing many changes of power, Daniel said: ‘the king of the North will muster another armylarger than the first…The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will nothave the strength to stand [pseudo idealism becomes increasingly seductive and powerful as people
become increasingly upset]. The invader will do as he pleases; no-one will be able to stand againsthim…[but eventually ‘he’/pseudo idealism] will make an alliance with the king of the South…[some
bipartisanship between the left and right wing will occur, but then the left-wing] will stumble and fall…
[however, in time] He will be succeeded by a contemptible person [even more dishonest forms of leftwing pseudo idealism will emerge] who will not be given the honour of royalty [they will lack religion’shonesty]. He will invade the kingdom [the religious kingdom of honesty]…and he will seize it throughintrigue [through the dishonesty of extreme forms of pseudo idealism masquerading as real idealism].
Then an overwhelming army [from the South] will be swept away before him; both it and a prince ofthe covenant [religion] will be destroyed…when the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade themand will achieve what neither his father nor his forefathers did [no force has been able to overthrow
religion before]…His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the dailysacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation [pseudo idealistic causes and
fundamentalist misinterpretations of religious teaching will take over the world and lead humanity toterminal alienation]. With flattery [the truth-and-guilt-avoiding, do-good, feel-good self-affirmationthat pseudo idealism feeds off] he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant [pseudo idealismwill seduce the more upset away from religion’s infinitely more honest way of coping with the humancondition], but the people who know their God will firmly resist him [the more secure, less dishonest willnot be deceived and must strongly resist the seductive tide]…The [left-wing pseudo idealistic] king willdo as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of-things againstthe God of gods [such as Richard Dawkins, Oxford University’s Professor of Public Understanding of

Science, would you believe, who has said that ‘“faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to thesmallpox virus, but harder to eradicate. The whole subject of God is a bore”…those who teach religionto small children are guilty of “child abuse”’ (quoted by Garth Wood, The Spectator, 20 Feb. 1999)]. He will besuccessful until the time of wrath [until the all-exposing truth of understanding of the human condition
arrives to save the world, as it is doing in what you are reading right here]…He will invade manycountries and sweep through them like a flood…he will set out in a great rage [the stridency that I and Sir

Laurens van der Post talked about of those trying to persuade themselves and others that their pseudoidealistic causes represent real idealism] to destroy and annihilate many…Yet he will come to his end,and no-one will help him…[when understanding of the human condition arrives pseudo idealism will

210

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
be totally exposed and brought to an end. However, while ‘he’/pseudo idealism reigns] There will be atime of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then’ (from Dan. ch.11&12).

In another analogy that describes the same progression, but which in some ways is evenmore explicit, mentioning as it does how ‘truth was thrown to the ground’, Daniel, appropriatelyenough, used the symbols of a (determined) ram for the right-wing and a (stupid) goat for theleft-wing. He said that initially ‘No animal could stand against him [the ram], and none could rescuefrom his power. He did as he pleased and became great…[greed and indifference to others was so great
that even children, for instance, were put to work in coalmines, but then the] goat…charged at him ingreat rage…[the left-wing emerged and] The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knockedhim to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power. The goat becamevery great…It set itself up to be as great as the Prince of the host [it set itself up to be more important than
religion]; it took away the daily sacrifice from him, and the place of his sanctuary was brought low…Itprospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground…“How long will it take for the vision tobe fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrenderof the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot [the rebellion against religion’s honesty]…
It will take [a long time]…understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.”…[when humans] havebecome completely wicked [and], a stern-faced king [the extremely upset], a master of intrigue, will arise

[the left-wing pseudo idealistic, false prophet merchants of escapist denial and delusion will arise]…Hewill cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy the mighty men andthe holy people [even the strong will begin to succumb to the intimidating tide of pseudo idealism]. Hewill cause deceit [the misrepresentation of pseudo idealism as being real idealism] to prosper, and he willconsider himself superior [the extreme delusion that left-wing pseudo idealism is based on will spread
everywhere]…“The vision…concerns the distant future [that finally arrived]”’ (Dan. ch.8).

In the New Testament, Christ gave exactly the same warning as Daniel, even referring to
Daniel’s description of pseudo idealism as ‘the abomination that causes desolation’—but Christwent further, truthfully and courageously advising people to head for the hills, ‘flee to themountains’, when pseudo idealism and strident fundamentalist misinterpretations of religious
teachings threatened to destroy humanity. Referring to ‘the sign…of the end of the age’, Christsaid that ‘At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other [a greatdeal of upset will develop], and many false prophets [pseudo idealists claiming to be leading the wayto peace and a new age of goodness and happiness for humans] will appear and deceive many people…even the elect [even those less alienated, still relatively sound and strong in soul, will begin to be
seduced by pseudo idealism]—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time…Wherever thereis a carcass [the extremely upset], there the vultures [false prophet promoters of delusion and denial
to artificially make the extremely upset feel good] will gather. Because of the increase of wickedness
[upset], the love of most will grow cold. So when you see the “abomination that causes desolation,” spokenof through the prophet Daniel, standing where it does not belong [throwing out religion and falsely
claiming to be presenting the way to the human-condition-free, good-versus-evil-deconstructed,post-human-condition, better world]—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea fleeto the mountains. Let no-one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let noone in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and

Part 3:11H

The final 200 years

211
nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter because those will be days of greatdistress [mindless dogma and its consequences] unequalled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equalled again. If those days had not been cut short [by the arrival of the liberating
understanding of the human condition], no-one would survive’ (extracts from Matt. 24 & Mark 13 combined).

In summary, when Christ said to ‘Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, butinwardly they are ferocious wolves’ (Matt. 7:15), he was saying we had to be on guard for those who
hid their extreme upset behind pseudo idealistic causes in order to delude themselves thatthey were sound and ideally behaved people leading others to a sound and ideal world. Trueprophets confronted the issue of the human condition while false prophets were merchants ofdelusion, advocates of escapism from the issue of the human condition.
The most common criticism the WTM receives about our video presentations and theirtranscripts is the denunciation of pseudo idealistic causes such as environmentalism, butthat is a measure of just how seduced almost everyone was by pseudo idealism. As Danielforesaw, in the end ‘even their best troops will not have the strength to stand’ against the seductivetide of pseudo idealism. He said ‘no-one will be able to stand against’ it and it will ‘invade manycountries and sweep through them like a flood’ and ‘cause deceit to prosper’. Christ similarly warned
that ‘false prophets will appear and deceive many people…even the elect—if that were possible. See, Ihave told you ahead of time.’

For such exceptionally sound, ‘pure’ and ‘honest’, ‘square-built’ prophets throughout historywho weren’t living in denial and thus ‘who know their God’—from Daniel to Christ to Nietzscheto van der Post—to so ‘firmly resist’ and warn of the great danger of the ‘dreadful’ ‘abomination’that causes ‘astounding devastation’ ‘unequalled from the beginning of the world until now’ of thosewho have such a ‘raging hate [of]…honesty’ that they have created a pseudo idealistic ‘rottingcorpse whose smell in our midst has tainted the political atmosphere far too long’ where ‘truth wasthrown to the ground’ and ‘trampled underfoot’, emphasises just how extremely serious the threat
of ‘the end of civilization’ through a ‘triumph of the forces of darkness’ of pseudo idealism andfundamentalist misinterpretations of religious teachings became. Their influence and holdbecame so great that any remaining political opposition would soon, as Daniel predicted, havebeen ‘powerless to stand against’ it. The West defied and fought with all its might the spreadof oppressive dogma in the form of communism in the former USSR and South East Asia,but it was proving incapable of resisting the takeover of its own culture by the oppressivedogma of pseudo idealism. Humanity had reached the precipice of self-destruction, so thisunderstanding of the human condition arrived only just in time to ‘cut short’ that tragic end.
Humanity’s two million year journey to find understanding of the human condition finallycame down to a so-called ‘cultural war’ between the philosophy of the political left-wing andthe philosophy of the political right-wing. Both sides were determined they were right, butwith the human condition now explained what is revealed is that, in terms of a future for thehuman race, the philosophy of the left-wing was completely wrong and the philosophy ofthe right-wing was completely right. What is now revealed is that the left-wing was all aboutdogma, delusion and escapism, while the right-wing was comparatively all about realism,honesty and responsibility.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

212

The Biology

Interestingly, there is one final irony to the saga of humanity’s great journey throughignorance, which is that the ideal world that the left-wing was dogmatically demanding isactually achieved by the right-wing winning its reality-defending, freedom-from-idealism,corrupting-search-for-knowledge battle against the freedom-oppressing pseudo idealism of theleft-wing. As was explained in Part 3:10, with the freedom-from-dogma right-wing’s searchfor understanding of the human condition completed, the justification for the egocentricpower, fame, fortune and glory life of the right-wing ends and the ideal-behaviour-obeyingattitude that the left-wing sought takes over. In a sense, when the right-wing wins we allbecome left-wing; through the success of the philosophy of the right-wing we all adopt thephilosophy of the left-wing—but, most significantly, this time we are not abandoning thebattle, we are leaving it won.
In reality of course, finding understanding of the human condition ends the inabilityto explain what humanity’s journey has been about, the result being that the differentphilosophical positions of the left-wing and right-wing are completely obsoleted. Now thatit can be explained that humanity has been involved in a corrupting search for knowledge,corruption is explained, which in turn exposes the unrealistic position of the left-wing’sdogmatic insistence on idealism and in so doing brings it to an end. Similarly, for itspart, the right-wing’s corrupting search for knowledge is also brought to a close with thefinding of the key knowledge it was searching for, that being understanding of the humancondition. Of course, the search for knowledge continues, but it is no longer the priority.
The priority for the immediate future, as was explained in Part 3:10, is to take up the
TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING. Thus, with the arrival of understanding of the
human condition, the concept of ‘politics’ comes to an end, which will undoubtedly be ofgreat relief to everyone.
Finally, it should be reiterated that in the greater context of the human-conditionunderstood view that we now have, upset is a heroic state, with the most upset being themost heroic individuals of all because they have necessarily been involved in the battlethat humanity has been waging longer and/or more intensely than any others. While thestark descriptions that have been given of the extremely upset as being ‘wicked’, ‘sternfaced’, ‘cold’, ‘sickly’ ‘carcasses’, ‘vultures’ and ‘ferocious wolves’ involved in creating a ‘rottingcorpse’ of ‘abomination’ were necessary to match the no-holds-barred, totally brutal assault
on the truth that was being ‘thrown to the ground’ and left ‘trampled underfoot’ by pseudoidealists, in the human-condition-understanding new world such rhetoric is entirely wrongand redundant.
In fact, it shouldn’t even be necessary to talk about the old struggle between the left andright wing philosophies any more than what has now been done in this presentation. As wasexplained in Part 3:10, humanity now moves on to an entirely new existence. Thankfully, therewill be many subjects that no longer have to be discussed now that humanity is able to move onto another existence. We get the truth up and we move on. We leave our suitcase of experiencesthat took place in the old ignorant, human-condition-afflicted, power-fame-fortune-and-glory-

Part 3:11H

The final 200 years

213
seeking-and-pseudo-idealistic-coping world behind and move on to an entirely new, instinct-

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 1991-2011 Fedmex Pty Ltd
and-intellect-reconciled, human-condition-liberated, TRANSFORMED world.

The TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE

The following drawing should be included again to summarise humanity’s overall journeyfrom our species’ original innocent Childhood through an insecure, human-condition-afflicted,

Late
Childhood

CHILDHOOD

Now
–Shock Soonof change

2 mill yr agoor 12 yr old

–Shockof change
Beginnings of
Resignation
1.5 mill yr agoor 15 yr old

Difficult
+ to – Paradigm Shift

ADULTHOOD
ADOLESCENCE

A dying world of ever increasing andaccumulating anger, egocentricityand alienation

Easy
– to + Paradigm Shift,once over theshock of change

So that’s it—the greatest of all stories, our story, the story of humanity’s incredibly,unbelievably heroic journey from ignorance to enlightenment told for the first time!

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 1996 Fedmex Pty Ltd
immensely upset Adolescence, to a secure, human-condition-reconciled, mature Adulthood.

214

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 3:12 Anticipations of the arrival of our species’ liberation from the horror ofthe human condition and resulting TRANSFORMATION of the human race
The ability to at last explain the human condition means everything we humans have everdreamed of is now possible. As has been emphasised in Part 3:10, and as will be explained insome detail in Part 9, the arrival of understanding of the human condition allows everyone toimmediately be free of the human condition and as a result be TRANSFORMED into a state ofextraordinary joyful excitement.
To illustrate the magnificence of this breakthrough in ‘enlightenment’ or understanding andresulting ‘cave-prison’-‘released’ transfiguration of the human race that Plato talked about and intruth every human who has ever lived has worked tirelessly towards, all that is required is theinclusion of a few of the anticipations of this wondrous moment of FREEDOM from the humancondition and resulting TRANSFORMATION of the human race that can be found in all ancientas well as contemporary forms of human expression.
It is relevant to note the phenomenal consistency of description and imagery in all theseaccounts, in particular of being imprisoned and of the rising sun representing the arrival of thedreamed of liberating knowledge about our troubled condition. While the anticipation of ourspecies’ FREEDOM was clearly something we, for the most part, had to block out of our mindbecause it made living with the terrible emptiness of our existing lives too unbearable, it was,nevertheless, a fabulously exciting hope and dream that we have all carried just below thesurface of our conscious awareness. As such we couldn’t access it by simply deciding to try tothink about it—usually it had to bubble up from underneath our much-reinforced protective,defensive, denial-dependent, superficial, everyday state of awareness. Poetry and song weremarvellous vehicles for allowing this to occur because in their creation we allowed our mindto, as it were, semi-disconnect from its protective ‘cave prison’ state of ‘almost blind’ denial andsimply let rhyme express thoughts and emotions it otherwise wouldn’t.
Before going on to describe these honest expressions of hope and excitement, it shouldalso be mentioned that while the anticipation of our species’ liberation from the humancondition exists in everyone just below the surface of their conscious awareness, on theoccasion/s that it did bubble up and break through to the surface it usually wasn’t long beforethat awareness was once again repressed; it had to be, because, as I said, it made living withthe terrible emptiness of our existing lives too unbearable. The result of this limited access tothe truth of another human-condition-free state is that some of the composers of the songs thatwill be mentioned here have, in later life, denied the suggestion that there was any propheticelement to words that were written in their inspired youth and/or in an inspired state. Bob
Dylan has said something to that effect about his earlier songs, while in his 2008 memoir,
Thirteen Tonne Theory: Life Inside Hunters and Collectors, the Australian singer-songwriter
Mark Seymour spoke about ‘kook’ responses to his (soon-to-be-described) amazingly prophetic
1993 song, The Holy Grail—citing one of my own references to the lyrics of that song as an
example. Seymour dismissively said I was suggesting his lyrics were ‘somehow…connected withthe dawning of a new consciousness’ (p.343 of 388). Again, the problem with any acknowledgment
of another wonderful, human-condition-free world was that it made living with the terribleemptiness of our existing lives too unbearable. So while we do all carry an awareness of the

Part 3:12

Anticipations of humanity’s freedom from the human condition

215
potential for this fabulous other world just below the surface of our consciousness, it was onlyin rare, inspired moments that we could actually afford to allow that awareness to bubble tothe surface before having to block out once more the real significance, context and meaningof what we revealed. Of course, what has been said here doesn’t just apply to songwriters, itapplies across all forms of human expression: literature, art, poetry, etc.
Obviously some individuals are more capable than others of accessing the truths that thehuman race, as a whole, has had to repress, live in denial of. As is about to be described, John
Lennon, Bob Dylan, Jim Morrison and Bono were and are four exceptionally truth-revealing,prophetic songwriters. But well before their time we, of course, had the earliest recordedanticipations of the arrival of our species’ liberation from the horror of the human condition—those contained in religious scripture.
As already mentioned, the eternal hope, faith and trust we have all held onto of theeventual arrival of ‘peace on Earth’ is expressed in every religion, such as in the Bible in The
Lord’s Prayer where it says, ‘Your [cooperative, loving, harmonious, peaceful] Kingdom come,your will be done on earth as it is in heaven’ (Matt. 6:10 & Luke 11:2), and in Genesis where it says that
we ‘will be like God, knowing [understanding] good and evil’ (3:5), and in Buddhist scripture where
Buddha says, ‘every one’ ‘In domains in all directions’ will be living ‘on wisdom-thrones’ (The Lotus
Sutra, ch.9; tr. W.E. Soothill, 1987, p.148 of 275).

Returning, however, to contemporary mythology, when Jim Morrison of the rockband The Doors wrote and sang of wanting to ‘break on through to the other side’ (from Breakon Through, written in 1966, first released on The Doors’ 1967 album The Doors),
he too was anticipating a
time when humans could break through from living a human-condition-afflicted state to a
TRANSFORMED human-condition-free state. And when he sang that ‘At first flash of Eden, werace down to the sea. Standing there on freedom’s shore, waiting, waiting, waiting for the sun’ (from
Waiting for the Sun, written in 1968, first released on The Doors’ 1970 album Morrison Hotel),
what he was ‘waiting’
for was the liberating light of the redeeming and rehabilitating understanding of the humancondition to dawn across the world and take the human race back to a Garden-of-‘Eden’-likestate of upset-free innocence. Similarly also, the ‘yellow brick road’ that Dorothy had to followto reach the ‘Emerald City’ in The Wizard Of Oz (first published as the book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,by L. Frank Baum in 1900)
was really an intuitive anticipation of the Sunshine Highway that the
whole human race is now able to take to a peaceful, ‘Emerald’, Garden-of-Eden-like worldbathed in the warm, healing sunshine of dignifying, uplifting, liberating and relieving selfknowledge. It is, as already mentioned, the anticipation in Martin Luther King Jr’s ‘dream’ ofa harmonious world FREE of our species’ historic, immensely troubled state or condition—afabulous time when all humans would be able to proclaim that we are ‘Free at last! Free atlast! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!’ (‘I Have A Dream’ speech, 28 Aug. 1963) from our age-old
insecure fear and doubt about our worth and the resulting psychosis that made us humans sodefensive and retaliatory towards one another.
Yes, the quintessential shaking of our fist at the heavens was an affirmation by ushumans that one day, one day, we would be able to explain ourselves, explain that, despiteall appearances to the contrary, we are not fundamentally evil, god-defiling, meaninglessand worthless blights on this Earth after all—that there is a reason we became the angry,egocentric and alienated species we have been.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

216

The Biology

In his 1971 song Peace Train, Cat Stevens (who now calls himself Yusuf Islam)also wrote and sang about the dream of a TRANSFORMED, human-condition-amelioratedworld, when we could leave the terrible darkness of our cave-like prison of alienated selfestrangement and return to an untroubled, peaceful, integrated state: ‘I’ve been smiling lately,dreaming about the world as one. And I believe it could be, some day it’s going to come. Cause out onthe edge of darkness there rides a peace train. Oh peace train take this country, come take me homeagain.’ And then there are the lyrics to another of Stevens’ songs from 1971, Changes IV:
‘Don’t you feel a change a coming, from another side of time. Breaking down the walls of silence, liftingshadows from your mind…Yesterday has past, now let’s all start the living for the one that’s going tolast…when the clouds have all gone…and the beauty of all things is uncovered again…Don’t you feel theday is coming, and it won’t be too soon, when the people of the world can all live in one room, when weshake off the ancient chains of our tomb.’ The words of Walter Earl Brown’s 1968 song If I Can

Dream, which was performed by Elvis Presley, are equally prophetic: ‘There must be peaceand understanding sometime, strong winds of promise that will blow away all the doubt and fear. If Ican dream of a warmer sun where hope keeps shining on everyone…We’re trapped in a world that’stroubled with pain…Still I am sure that the answer’s gonna come somehow, out there in the dark, there’sa beckoning candle.’ The song Aquarius, from the rock musical Hair (which premiered in

1967), similarly anticipated a time of ‘Harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding.
No more falsehoods or derisions, golden living dreams of visions…And the mind’s true liberation …Wedance unto the dawn of day’ (Lyrics by James Rado & Gerome Ragni). Hair also contained the song that
pleaded to ‘Let The Sunshine In’ (ibid).
As mentioned, one of the founders of the New Age Movement, the American author
Marilyn Ferguson, was looking forward to a human-condition-ameliorated new world whenshe wrote, ‘Maybe [the French Jesuit priest, scientist and philosopher] Teilhard de Chardin wasright; maybe we are moving toward an omega point [final unification of our split selves]—Maybe wecan finally resolve the planet’s inner conflict between its neurotic self (which we’ve created and which isunreal) and its real self. Our real self knows how to commune, how to create…From everything I’ve seenpeople really urgently want the kind of new beginning…[that I am] talking about [where humans will
live in] cooperation instead of competition’ (New Age mag. Aug. 1982).

Sir Bob Geldof, the Irish rock singer, songwriter and political activist who wasknighted for his humanitarian initiatives in Africa, recognised how alienated from itstrue self or soul, and thus lost, the human race has become with his emphasis on thephrase ‘Deep in the Heart of Nowhere’ in the lyrics and title of a song from his 1986 album,also titled Deep in the Heart of Nowhere. In another song from the same album, Sir
Bob pleaded the desperate plight of the world with the words, ‘What are we going to dobecause it can’t go on…This is the world calling. God help us’ (This is the World Calling). His lyrics
to another song on the same album recognise just how desperate the human race hasbeen for answers: ‘Searching through their sacred books for the holy grail of “why”, but the totalsum of knowledge knows no more than you or I’ (August Was a Heavy Month). While religious texts
have been the best reservoir of denial-free knowledge the human race has had, there wasno scientific knowledge available at the time they were written to enable the denial-freethinkers or prophets involved in creating those great religious texts to answer all the ‘why’sabout our human condition.

Part 3:12

Anticipations of humanity’s freedom from the human condition

217

The words of many of singer-songwriter Bob Dylan’s early songs are deeply propheticyearnings for, and anticipations of, an end to our lonely, cave-dwelling, self-estranged, splitoff-from-our-true-self, alienated, seemingly lost and meaningless existence through the arrivalat last of a human-condition-understood-and-ameliorated world of FREEDOM—notably in Like
A Rolling Stone (1965), which asked, ‘How does it feel, how does it feel to be on your own with nodirection home, like a complete unknown, like a rolling stone’; and in Mr. Tambourine Man (1964),
when Dylan sang, ‘I’m not sleepy and there is no place I’m going to…I’m branded on my feet, I haveno one to meet, and the ancient empty street’s too dead for dreaming…Then take me disappearin’ throughthe smoke rings of my mind, down the foggy ruins of time…far from the twisted reach of crazy sorrow…
Hey! Mr. Tambourine Man, play a song for me’; and in When The Ship Comes In (1963) when

Dylan sang of ‘The hour that the ship [the dignifying, reconciling understanding of humans] comesin…And the morning will be a-breaking…And the words that are used for to get the ship confused [all
our false denials] / Will not be understood as they’re spoken [the denials will be seen through] / For thechains [holding the truth back] of the sea will have busted in the night and be buried on the bottom ofthe ocean…And like Goliath they’ll [all our denials will] be conquered’; and in The Times They Are

A-Changin’ (1963) when he anticipated how ‘the [human-condition-afflicted] present now will laterbe past’; and in All Along the Watchtower (1968) when he demanded that ‘There must be someway out of here…There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief…There are many here among us whofeel that life is but a joke…So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late. All along the watchtower,princes kept the view [waiting and watching for the time when understanding of the human condition
would finally arrive and humans would no longer have to live in a state of sad and pathetic confusionwhere everyone has to depend on denial to cope and as a result talk so falsely]…Two riders wereapproaching [the approaching duality of the wonderfully all-liberating but at the same time dreadfully
all-exposing truth about our human condition], the wind began to howl [the coming terrifying stormof the all-exposing truth—as it says in the Bible, you will know when the truth about the humancondition arrives because it will be ‘like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one endto the other’ (Luke 17:24 & Matt. 24:27)]’; and, finally, in Blowin’ In The Wind (1962) he pleaded, ‘howmany years can some people exist before they’re allowed to be free?’

Expressing a similar exasperation to Dylan’s ‘I can’t get no relief ’ were singer-songwriters
Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones with their 1965 song I Can’t Get No
Satisfaction—a track that in 2004 was voted by a panel of experts assembled by the world’sleading rock music magazine Rolling Stone as the second-greatest song of all time behind
Dylan’s Like A Rolling Stone: ‘I can’t get no satisfaction, I can’t get no satisfaction, ’cause I try and Itry and I try and I try…When I’m drivin’ in my car, and that man comes on the radio and he’s tellin’ memore and more about some useless [human-condition-denying, superficial] information supposed to firemy imagination…I can’t get no satisfaction, When I’m watchin’ my TV and that man comes on to tell mehow white my shirts can be, well, he can’t be a man, ’cause he doesn’t smoke the same cigarettes as me…Ican’t get no satisfaction, ’cause I try and I try. When I’m ridin’ ’round the world and I’m doin’ this and
I’m signin’ that and I’m tryin’ to make some girl who tells me, baby better come back later next week,
’cause you see I’m on a losing streak…I can’t get no satisfaction. That’s what I say.’ Singer-songwriter

Tracy Chapman’s 1986 release Why? also contains honest descriptions of the utter hypocrisyof our human-condition-afflicted lives before anticipating a time when the underlying truthabout that tragic state would finally be revealed: ‘Why do the babies starve, when there’s enough

218

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
food to feed the world. Why when there’re so many of us, are there people still alone. Why are the missilescalled peace keepers, when they’re aimed to kill. Why is a woman still not safe, when she’s in her home.
Love is hate, war is peace, no is yes, and we’re all free. But somebody’s gonna have to answer, the timeis coming soon, amidst all these questions and contradictions, there’re some who seek the truth. Butsomebody’s gonna have to answer, the time is coming soon, when the blind remove their blinders, and thespeechless speak the truth.’ (While I Can’t Get No Satisfaction and Like A Rolling Stone have
been voted the greatest songs of all time, I have both heard (in the case of Dancing Queen, Grant Denyer,
Channel 7’s Sunrise, 2 Mar. 2011) and read (in the case of Crazy, accessed Mar. 2011 at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Patsy_Cline>) that the two most played songs on jukeboxes are ABBA’s Dancing Queen (about
being ‘young and sweet, only seventeen…[and] having the time of your life…[where you] leave ’emburning’) and Patsy Cline’s Crazy (about being ‘Crazy for thinking that my love could hold you’)—
yes, for reasons that will be explained in Part 7:1, young women have owned the world, theirbeauty has been so extraordinary, so inspiring and exciting, that there was nothing comparableto it in the dead, human-condition-afflicted world; and yes, older women therefore sufferedfrom the loss of innocent youthfulness’ intoxicating effect.)
Creedence Clearwater Revival’s 1970 song Who’ll Stop the Rain, written and sung bythe band’s lead vocalist John Fogerty, contains these lyrics of hunger for FREEDOM fromall the confusion: ‘Long as I remember the rain’s been coming down. Clouds of mystery pouringconfusion on the ground. Good men through the ages trying to find the sun, and I wonder, still I wonderwho’ll stop the rain.’ As stated, it wasn’t until science had found sufficient understanding of
the mechanisms and workings of our world that the human condition could be explained.
As will be fully described in Part 4, until science had done its job and found sufficientknowledge to make explanation of the human condition possible, all the ‘good men’ in theworld couldn’t ‘find the sun’; find the liberating understanding of the human condition and
‘stop the rain’, stop the ‘clouds of mystery pouring confusion on the ground’. And even when
science had accumulated sufficient knowledge for the human condition to be explained therestill remained a great deal of fearful truth to have to face to reach that liberating insight—as
Billy Joel experienced and described in his 1993 song River of Dreams: ‘In the middle of thenight I go walking in my sleep, from the mountains of faith…through the valley of fear…through thejungle of doubt…through the desert of truth…to the river so deep…that is runnin’ to the promised land

[of our FREEDOM from our human-condition-imprisoned state]…but the river is wide and it’s toohard to cross [there are truths too terrifying to confront and try to think about]…I try to cross to theopposite side so I can finally find what I’ve been looking for…I’ve been searching for something takenout of my soul.’ We needed the reconciling understanding of the human condition that would
allow us to resuscitate and re-integrate ourselves with our original, innocent, soulful state—but finding that truth meant confronting the imperfections of our more recent past. In her
1994 song New Beginning, Tracy Chapman acknowledged our species’ current decimated,
corrupted, ‘fallen’, damaged, upset, hurt, dysfunctional condition and the path we had totake to a liberated and healed new beginning: ‘The world is broken into fragments and pieces thatonce were joined together in a unified whole…The whole world’s broke and it ain’t worth fixing. It’stime to start all over, make a new beginning…change our lives and paths; create a new world…There’stoo much fighting, too little understanding…We need to…make a new [truthful] language. With thesewe’ll redefine the world and start all over.’

Part 3:12

Anticipations of humanity’s freedom from the human condition

219

In his 1971 song Imagine, John Lennon, a member of the most famous band of the 1960s
(and perhaps of all-time), the wholesome The Beatles, asked us to ‘imagine there’s no heaven…no hell below us’, a world without the condemning differentiation of good and evil, a world
liberated from the insecurity of the human condition and thus the need for religion, wherethere is ‘Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too…all the people living life in peace…No need forgreed or hunger, a brotherhood of man…all the people sharing all the world…[when] the world will be asone.’ Absolutely exasperated with the dishonest, empty-of-any-truth, cave-dwelling world of
psychotic denial and delusion we humans have had to live in, and so eager for the arrival ofthe truth about the human condition that would finally bring about the healed and amelioratedworld that he could ‘imagine’, Lennon composed Just Gimme Some Truth (1971) in whichhe pleaded for honesty: ‘All I want is the truth, just gimme some truth. I’ve had enough of readingthings by neurotic…politicians…I’m sick to death of seeing things from tight-lipped…chauvinists…I’vehad enough of watching scenes of schizophrenic…prima-donnas…I’m sick and tired of hearing thingsfrom uptight…hypocrites…All I want is the truth now, just gimme some truth NOW.’ The ‘truth’ is
what the world has been desperate for, however, as we are going to see in all the comingdescriptions and analysis of the human condition, that ‘truth’ can be terrifyingly exposingand confronting—making the solution to all that frightening exposure of the TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE STATE so immensely precious.

All these lyrics about the hunger for the liberating understanding of the human conditionare reminiscent of the admonition the ancients had emblazoned across their temples: ‘Man,know thyself.’ Only through finding the relieving understanding of ourselves could we end our
imprisonment in a cave-dwelling state of alienation—or, to use religious terminology, end our
‘banished’ existence ‘from the Garden of Eden’ (Gen. 3:23) state of our original innocence and by so
doing return not to an innocent state, because we now have ‘the knowledge [the understanding]of good and evil’ (ibid. 2:9, 2:17, 3:5), but to a secure, integrated, peaceful state of being—and,
as a result of that change in us, enable the rehabilitation of our planet to its former state ofunexploited, unpolluted, unspoiled beauty.
Mark Seymour, the aforementioned lead singer and songwriter with the Australianrock band Hunters and Collectors, was prescient when, in his already cited 1993 song Holy
Grail, he sang about a ‘dream’ of a time when humans would be able to rise up from theirhuman-condition-depressed-oppressed-and-repressed state and take the all-crucial unifying,ego-freeing and Earth-healing understanding of our species that, for so long, we had beensearching for across the four corners of the world: ‘Woke up this morning from the strangestdream, I was in the biggest army the world had ever seen, we were marching as one on the road to the
Holy Grail [to liberating understanding]. Started out seeking fortune and glory, it’s a short song but it’sa hell of a story, when you spend your lifetime trying to get your hands, on the Holy Grail. Well have youheard about the Great Crusade? We ran into millions but nobody got paid [selfless cooperation replaced
selfish greed], yeah we razed four corners of the globe for the Holy Grail. All the locals scattered, theywere hiding in the snow. We were so far from home, so how were we to know there’d be nothing leftto plunder when we stumbled on the Holy Grail? We were so full of beans but we were dying like flies

[humans were pretending to be happy but in truth they were all but dead with alienation], and thosebig black birds, they were circling in the sky, and you know what they say, yeah nobody deserves to die

[humanity was entering the end play state of terminal alienation]. Oh but I’ve been searching for an

220

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
easy way, to escape the cold light of day [I have tried to live in denial]. I’ve been high and I’ve been low

[I have lived a manic depressive, bipolar existence of oscillating between being able to block out thereality of my immensely corrupted condition enough to feel some relief, and being unable to block itout], but I’ve got nowhere else to go [trying to live through denial had run its course]. There’s nowhereelse to go! I followed orders [I have tried to live through deferment to laws, rules and faith], God knowswhere I’ve been, but I woke up alone, all my wounds were clean [I woke up in the human-condition-
reconciled, liberated, TRANSFORMED state].’ In the Bible the prophet Joel expressed the exact
same anticipation: ‘Like dawn spreading across the mountains a large and mighty army comes, such asnever was of old nor ever will be in ages to come…Before them the land is like the garden of Eden, behindthem, a desert waste—nothing escapes them. They have the appearance of horses; they gallop along likecavalry. With a noise like that of chariots…like a mighty army…They all march in line, not swervingfrom their course. They do not jostle each other…The day of the Lord is great [the day of the arrival of
the out-of-cave, denial-free, honest words of liberating, egocentricity-ending, nature-repairing truthabout our human condition is great]’ (Joel 2). After saying that ‘the day of the Lord [truth] is great’,

Joel immediately goes on to warn of how frighteningly exposing of our corrupted humancondition the truth about the human condition will be, saying that that day is going to be so
‘dreadful. Who can endure it?’ As to how we ‘endure’ the arrival of the wonderfully dignifying,
healing, ameliorating and all-liberating—but at the same time all-exposing, ‘dreadful’—nakedtruth about ourselves is an immense problem for us, but thankfully there is an easy, totallyeffective and glorious solution. This wonderful solution that leads to the TRANSFORMED
STATE where we leave all our upset behind in a ‘suitcase’ as dealt with was described in Part
3:10 . In the Bible the prophet Isaiah also described the arrival of the world-changing, utterly
inspired TRANSFORMED WAY OF LIVING when he said: ‘He [understanding] lifts up a banner forthe distant nations, he whistles for those at the ends of the earth. Here they come, swiftly and speedily!
Not one of them grows tired or stumbles, not one slumbers or sleeps; not a belt is loosened at the waist,not a sandal thong is broken. Their arrows are sharp, all their bows are strung; their horses’ hoofs seemlike flint, their chariot wheels like a whirlwind. Their roar is like that of the lion, they roar like younglions; they growl as they seize their prey and carry it off with no-one to rescue. In that day they will roarover it like the roaring of the sea’ (Isa. 5:26–30).

The Irish rock band U2 has also made, and indeed continues to make, a great contributionto the stable of songs that convey the hunger for a human-condition-ameliorated, integratedworld—as the following examples attest. For starters, their immensely popular 1987 song I
Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For, which was written by the band’s members andsung by their lead singer Bono, contains the following powerful lyrics: ‘I have climbed thehighest mountain…Only to be with you…I have kissed honey lips [I have tried to believe in and live
through the inspiration of women’s beauty]…But I still haven’t found what I’m looking for…I haveheld the hand of a devil…I was cold as a stone [I’ve experienced the dark behaviour and loneliness
of a human-condition-afflicted existence] But I still haven’t found what I’m looking for…I believe inthe Kingdom Come when all the colours will bleed into one [the time when the human race will finally
be unified through dignifying, insecurity-eliminating self-knowledge] But yes, I’m still running [stillwaiting desperately for that great breakthrough insight that will make that possible] You…carriedthe cross of my shame, you know I believe it [I have also tried to live through religious faith] But Istill haven’t found what I’m looking for [but I/we still haven’t found the all-important, lynch-pin,

Part 3:12

Anticipations of humanity’s freedom from the human condition

221
unlocking liberating understanding of our human condition].’ In 1988 U2 recorded a version of

Dylan’s aforementioned song of yearning anticipation, All Along the Watchtower, and inthe same year Bono wrote and sang of his own human-condition-prison-defying, rock-androll-fired-up attitude to life in the band’s God Part II: ‘Don’t believe in excess, success is to give…
Don’t believe in the sixties, the golden age of pop. You [only] glorify the past when the future dries up…

[I’m determinedly] gonna kick the darkness till it bleeds daylight. [until it lets the truth out, because]
I, I believe in love [and I, like you too, are not going to give up on that dream].’ Spider-Man: Turn

Off the Dark, a 2011 rock musical about the superhero, also features music and lyrics by U2members Bono and The Edge. While the title’s reference to turning off the dark obviouslyrefers to the battle against evil, it is also imbued with a powerful double meaning, namelythat of the human race’s desperate need to find enlightening understanding of our humancondition—which only a denial-free thinking prophet, the superhero that, in truth, allsuperheroes represented the hope of, could find.
This desire for enlightenment and liberty from the darkness of the human condition isalso apparent in the band’s 1987 song Where The Streets Have No Name (also written and sungby Bono), which contains these exceptionally prophetic words: ‘I want to tear down the walls [ofour prison of having to live in denial/alienation] that hold me inside, I want to reach out and touch theflame [I want the truth even though it’s going to be searing], where the streets have no name [I want the
human-condition-resolved world where we no longer have to own and egocentrically put our nameson everything]. I want to feel sunlight [of liberating enlightenment] on my face, see that dust cloud [ofall the destructive effects of our upset] disappear without a trace, I want to take shelter from the poisonrain, where the streets have no name…We’re still building and burning down love, burning down love

[destroying beauty and denying truth]. And when I go there, I go there with you, (it’s all I can do) [all Ican do is live through the inspiration of women’s beauty]. The city’s a flood, and our love turns to rust
[the romantic dream of married togetherness when we are in truth all so differently and, in almost allcases, so extremely alienated is a dream that doesn’t easily last]. We’re beaten and blown by the wind,trampled in dust. I’ll show you a place, high on a desert plain, where the streets have no name’—and on
a few live recordings taken during U2’s 1997-98 ‘Popmart Tour’ Bono included these lyrics atthe song’s end: ‘Then there will be no toil or sorrow, then there will be no time of pain, then there willbe no time.’ Another sublime world ‘high on a desert plain, where the streets have no name’, where
‘there will be no toil or sorrow’, ‘no time of pain’, in fact ‘no’ emphasis on ‘time’ at all, is clearly
a TRANSFORMED place FREE of the insecurity of the human condition where, as mentioned,no one is having to egocentrically name their particular street. It is a marvellously poeticdescription of the dream of a world where humans’ insecure, ‘must-somehow-prove-that-Iam-not-bad’, embattled, conscious thinking ego has finally been satisfied at the fundamentallevel—which is with the trustable, first-principle-based, biological understanding of why,despite all appearances to the contrary, we humans are good and not a bad, evil, meaningless,worthless, flawed, throw-away species after all.
Bono’s reference to a time when ‘there will be no toil or sorrow, then there will be no time ofpain’ is exactly the same vision that is expressed in the Bible where it states that ‘Anotherbook [will be]…opened which is the book of life [the human-condition-explaining and humanity-
liberating book]…[and] a new heaven and a new earth [will appear] for the first heaven and the firstearth [will have]…passed away…[and the dignifying full truth about our condition] will wipe every

222

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
tear from…[our] eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old orderof things has passed away’ (Rev. 20:12, 21:1, 4). Buddhist scripture contains precisely the same
anticipation of this fabulous time that has now at last begun when humans ‘will with a perfectvoice preach the true Dharma [present the supreme wisdom, namely understanding of the human
condition], which is auspicious and removes all ill’, saying, ‘Human beings are then without anyblemishes, moral offences are unknown among them, and they are full of zest and joy. Their bodiesare very large and their skin has a fine hue. Their strength is quite extraordinary’ (Maitreyavyakarana, tr.
Edward Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, 1959, pp.238-242).

It should be emphasised that Bono singing of wanting ‘to reach out and touch the flame,where the streets have no name’ is an intuitive recognition that the dignifying and thus liberating
truth is also going to be the all-exposing and confronting naked truth about ourselves,something searing to go near. Recall that in his cave allegory of the human condition, Platoalso used the metaphor of fire to describe this problem of the exposure that the truth about ourcondition would unavoidably bring when he said, ‘And if he [the cave prisoner] were made to lookdirectly at the light of the fire [look at the confronting truth about our highly imperfect, less-than-ideal
human condition], it would hurt his eyes…And if he were forcibly dragged up the steep and rocky ascentand not let go till he had been dragged out into the sunlight [into the presence of the searing truth about
our immensely hurt/damaged/broken/corrupted/fallen/imperfect human state or condition], the processwould be a painful one, to which he would much object, and when he emerged into the light his eyes wouldbe…overwhelmed by the brightness of it’. Again, thankfully there is an easy, totally effective and
glorious solution to the problem of the exposure that occurs with the arrival of the naked truthabout ourselves, which is the TRANSFORMED WAY OF LIVING described in Part 3:10.
At this point it is worth including more lyrics from two of The Doors’ songs, Waitingfor the Sun and Break on Through. In Waiting for the Sun Jim Morrison (who, at 27, inessence, chose to die at the door of the new world demanding to be let through rather thanhave anything more to do with the effectively dead world of our current upset, all-busted-up,human-condition-afflicted existence) wrote and sang: ‘At first flash of Eden [at the first rays of thelight of liberating understanding of a human-condition-ameliorated new world] we race down to the sea.
Standing there on freedom’s shore, waiting for the sun [waiting for the liberating understanding of the
human condition to come flooding in], waiting for the sun, waiting for the sun. Can you feel it? [feel howgood it is going to be?] Now that Spring has come. That it’s time to live in the scattered sun [live with thesun/truth everywhere]. Waiting for the sun, waiting for the sun, waiting for the sun, waiting for the sun.
Waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting. Waiting for you to come along [‘you’
being the sun/truth]. Waiting for you to hear my song [pleading with you/the sun/the truth to come andliberate us from the human condition at last]. Waiting for you to come along, waiting for you to tell mewhat went wrong [explain the whole confusing mess]. This is the strangest life I’ve ever known [it’s
been a bewilderingly mad, devoid-of-any-truth world to have to live in]. Yeah! [scream] Can you feel?
Now that Spring has come. That it’s time to live in the scattered sun. Waiting for the sun, waiting for thesun, waiting for the sun, waiting for the sun.’ And from Break on Through, also written and sung
by Jim Morrison: ‘You know day destroys night [truth destroys the denial/lies], night divides the day
[our cave-dwelling, alienated denial separates us from the liberating light of truth]. Tried to run, triedto hide [tried to live in the cave state of denial, but ultimately humanity had to], break on through to theother side [cure ourselves of our human-condition-afflicted, cave-dwelling state of bondage, as Plato

Part 3:12

Anticipations of humanity’s freedom from the human condition

223
described it]. We chased our pleasures here, dug our treasures there [tried to find satisfaction throughescapist materialism], but can you still recall the time we cried, break on through to the other side. Yeah!
C’mon, yeah. Everybody loves my baby, she get high. I found an island in your arms, country in youreyes. Arms that chain us, eyes that lie [as will be explained later in Part 7:1, women’s beauty, their child-
like neotenous image of innocence—cute features of large eyes, snub nose, dome forehead, etc—hasinspired men to dream of a pure, human-condition-FREE world but the truth is women are necessarilyas psychologically corrupted as men, and thus women’s inspiration of ‘heaven’, of a human-conditionFREE, idyllic world, has only been an illusion and thus transitory], break on through to the other side.

Oh, yeah! Made the scene, week to week, day to day, hour to hour [tried to go along with the escapist,
deluded, artificial, superficial, effectively-dead world of denial]. The gate is straight, deep and wide [thereal path to our species’ FREEDOM lay in plumbing the terrifying depths of the issue of our corrupted,fallen, less-than-ideal state or condition, which had to be done if we were to], break on through tothe other side.’ Jim Morrison was certainly an extraordinarily courageous, truthful, prophetic
thinker. The best documentary I have seen on Morrison is When You’re Strange: A film about
The Doors (Directed by Tom DiCillo, 2009).
With the world entering unendurable, end-play levels of distress, dysfunction and evermore protective-but-deadening, ‘cave-dwelling’, escapist denial and its alienation to copewith the increasing horror of our condition, this breakthrough understanding of the humancondition comes at the eleventh hour for the human race. Now, instead of the imminentthreat of an endless darkness for the human race from terminal levels of the soul-less,bitterly-cold-and-lonely, self-estranged state of dishonest alienation, what we see beforeus is a fabulous vista of the human race transfigured by the glorification and exaltation ofdignifying, liberating, uplifting, ameliorating, healing, redeeming, integrating, unifying,soul-resuscitating self-knowledge. The title of U2’s 1988 song Love Rescue Me can be readas ‘Truth Rescue Me’ because the ultimate love for humans is really the truth. Written by
Bono with input from Bob Dylan (which, incidentally, is an extraordinary combinationbecause, along with John Lennon and Jim Morrison, Bono and Dylan are possibly the mostprophetic lyricists of all time—well, at least of contemporary times, because no doubt someof the ancient minstrels and bards, whose work I am not so familiar with, must have alsobeen capable of extraordinarily prophetic compositions), this phenomenally prophetic songacknowledges the despair of our current condition but concludes with the awesome visionof our species’ FREEDOM from that state: ‘Love [truth] rescue me / Come forth and speak to me /
Raise me up and don’t let me fall / No man is my enemy [I don’t want to be living with so much hate
inside me anymore] / My own hands imprison me [but I’m imprisoned by the unbearable dilemmaof my own flawed, imperfect, embattled, less-than-ideal human condition] / Love [truth] rescue me
// Many strangers have I met / On the road to my regret / Many lost who seek to find themselves in me
/ They ask me to reveal / The very thoughts they would conceal [many have wanted the hidden truths
about our species’ unendurable condition to be revealed and the human race to be liberated from itstortured state] / Love [truth] rescue me // And the sun in the sky / Makes a shadow of you and I [exposesthe imperfection of our lives] / Stretching out as the sun sinks in the sea [we have only ever been ableto cope by blocking out the glare of the issue of our deeply troubled and flawed state] / I’m herewithout a name [alienated] / In the palace of my shame [my dishonesty] / I said, love [truth] rescue me //
In the cold mirror of a glass / I see my reflection pass / I see the dark shades of what I used to be [see the

224

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
depressing contrast of what I am now with my lost state of innocence] / I see the purple of her eyes [seethe false enticement of the image of attractive innocence that women’s neotenous, child-like beautytricks men into believing is real innocence] / The scarlet of my lies [men’s deluded, massively arrogantegocentric lives]…Yeah I’m here without a name / In the palace of my shame / I said love rescue me //
[At this point in the song there is a very long pause, then suddenly the song picks up again but thistime describing a whole new situation and world] I’ve conquered my past / The future is here at last /
I stand at the entrance to a new world I can see / The ruins to the right of me / Will soon have lost sightof me / Love rescue me [I have finally found the dignifying, uplifting, loving, TRANSFORMING truth
that makes sense of our imperfect human state or condition and liberates me and the world from thedarkness of that human-condition-afflicted existence, thereby introducing a new, TRANSFORMEDworld for humanity where we all can leave our old psychotic and neurotic baggage behind forever].’

Bono wrote a similar exciting song of anticipation of our species’ TRANSFORMATION froma human-condition-afflicted existence in 1987, which U2 performed with blues legend B.B.
King. Titled When Love Comes To Town, the song features the lyrics, ‘I was a sailor, I waslost at sea / I was under the waves…But I did what I did before love [truth] came to town…I’ve seenlove conquer the great divide [through all my experiences of trying to live through romance, through
materialism, through religion, etc, etc, I know now that only the reconciling truth can heal our splitselves]…When love comes to town I’m gonna jump that train [when the liberating, TRANSFORMINGtruth about the human condition finally arrives I’m ‘out of here’; leaving the old dead world behindforever—as will be everyone else because, as Cat Stevens similarly anticipated, ‘out on the edge ofdarkness there rides a peace train’ that has at last arrived to ‘take’ us ‘home again’].’

What was ‘rock and roll’ if not totally optimistic, all-out, rock-solid ‘defiance,determination and resilience’ to one day achieve FREEDOM from our species’ historic stateof unjust condemnation—determination to, as Bono sang, ‘kick the darkness till it bleeds [the]daylight’ of the truth about us humans and end the damned condemnation of our species FOR

EVER! What did Dylan famously say about Elvis Presley—‘Hearing him for the first time was likebusting out of jail.’ John Lennon famously reiterated the sentiment, saying, ‘Before Elvis there wasnothing’—there was not all-out determination and optimism, there was no rock and roll, there
was just endless decades and epochs and ages of resigned, lonely music—although Ludwigvan Beethoven’s 1824 Ninth Symphony does contain a full chorus of human voices rising tothe final height of glorious anticipation of resolution and freedom from the human conditionwith the words ‘Joy’, ‘Joyful, as a hero to victory!’, ‘Join in our jubilation!’, ‘We enter, drunk with fire,into your sanctuary…Your magic reunites…All men become brothers…All good, all bad…Be embraced,millions! This kiss for the whole world!’ (Lyrics from Friedrich von Schiller’s 1785 poem Ode to Joy, Accessed 31 Jan.
2011 at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._9_(Beethoven)>).

Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry and Little Richard were also locked onto the immenselyexcited driving beat that lay at the heart of rock and roll of anticipation of our species’liberation from the horror of the human condition—especially that belt-it-out, blast-out-ofhere, boiling-with-excitement, completely-raging supernova from Ferriday, Louisiana, Jerry
Lee Lewis—who was rightly the first performer inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of
Fame. In the 1992 documentary Mojo Working: The Making of Modern Music, which containsa wonderful collection of footage and commentary about Jerry Lee Lewis, writer Charles ‘Dr
Rock’ White reported that ‘John Lennon came into Jerry Lee Lewis’ dressing room…and he walked

Part 3:12

Anticipations of humanity’s freedom from the human condition

225
over to Jerry Lee and…bent down and kissed Jerry Lee’s feet…[and then he] walked out speechless’. I
wholeheartedly agree with Lennon’s gesture. To me no one’s music channelled the excitementof the anticipation of the liberation of the human race from the human condition as purelyas Jerry Lee Lewis’ did. If you listen to the live recording of Jerry Lee’s April 5, 1964performance at the Star Club in Hamburg, Germany, especially the tracks Hound Dog, Long
Tall Sally and Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On, you will hear what ‘is regarded by many musicjournalists as one of the wildest and greatest rock and roll concert albums ever’ (Wikipedia 2011). The

Allmusic database said about that performance that Jerry Lee ‘sounds possessed’ and as ‘rockingharder than anybody had before or since…words can’t describe the music’ (<https://www.allmusic.com/album/live-at-the-star-club-hamburg-mw0000678925>). Jerry Lee’s performances were just drenched in
the excitement of breaking free from the dungeon of our species’ tortured condition. In fact,my vision is of a hysteria of millions and millions and millions of excited people with Jerry
Lee’s piano being held aloft out in front and Jerry Lee standing on top of it, flicking his hairback and hitching his pants up, as he used to do—and filling the air is the musical build-upto humanity’s great breakthrough to its FREEDOM in Prologue/Crunchy Granola Suite, from
Neil Diamond’s 1972 Hot August Night album. But then, to actually take us through the doorto the new world that understanding of the human condition now makes possible, instead of
Diamond’s Crunchy Granola Suite vocals coming in, Jerry Lee would start singing ‘Great
Balls of Fire, Let’s get out of here, LET’S GO!’, to an immense roar of unbelievable reliefand excitement from the flood of humanity bursting through that doorway to its FREEDOM.
One of our WTM members, Tony Gowing, has actually written a song titled LET’S GO that hesings with our WTM band, The Denialators—you can watch a rendition of this song at <www.humancondition.com/denialators>.

Maybe to be fair we should have all our rock and roll stars (and they were ‘stars’, beaconsof light in the terrible darkness of our human-condition-afflicted world) up on that piano with
Jerry Lee taking us through that great doorway to our FREEDOM—Big Joe Turner, Bill Haley,
Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, John Lennon, Jim Morrison, Bob Dylan,
Bono, Johnny O’Keefe, etc, etc. Bugger it, we all deserve to be up on that fucking piano, thewhole seven billion of us because, as we can now at last understand, we is all such incrediblelegends—we can all just yell our bloody heads off, even those like me who can’t sing a note.
What a party we are gonna have now!!
I can’t sing at all, however, in about 1969 (when I was 23 years old) I did writethe following poem that powerfully anticipates our species’ liberation from the humancondition—note the coincidence of using the analogy of horses with Joel’s and Isaiah’sdescriptions of the TRANSFORMED STATE: ‘This is a story you see, just a story—but for you /
Um—I remember a long time ago in the distant future a timeless day / a sunlit cloudless day when allthings were fine / when we all slow-danced our way to breakfast in the sun // You see the day awoke withmusic / Can you imagine one thousand horses slow galloping towards you across a vast plain / and weloved that day so much / We all danced like Isadora Duncan through the morning light // We skippedand twirled and spun about / Fairies were there like dragonflies over a pool / Little girls with wingsthey hovered and flew about / their small voices you could hear / You see it was that kind of morning //
When the afternoon arrived it was big and bold and beautiful / In worn out jeans and bouncing breastswe began / to fight—our way—into another day / into something new—to jive our way into the night /

226

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
from sunshine into a thunderstorm // We all took our place, rank upon rank we came / as an army with
Hendrix out in front / and the music busted the horizon into shreds / By God we broke the world apart /
The pieces were of different colours and there were so many people / We danced in coloured dust, we leftin sweat no room at all / We had a ball in gowns of grey and red / There were things that happened thatnobody knew / Bigger and better, I had written on my sweater / Where there was sky there was music,huge clouds of it / and there were storms of gold with coloured lights / It was so good we cried tears intoour eyes / In a tug of war of love we had no strength left at all / Dear God we cried but he only sighedand / whispered strength through leaves of laughter // On and on we came in bold ranks of silvered gold
/ to lead a world that didn’t know to somewhere it didn’t care / It couldn’t last, it had to end and yetit had an endless end / We were so happy in balloons of coloured bubbles that wouldn’t bust / and wecouldn’t, couldn’t quench our lust / There we were all together for ever and ever / and tomorrow hadbetter beware because / when we’ve wept and slept we will be there to shake its bloody neck.’ As I talk
about later in Part 10:4, this poem is an indication of how strong my vision has always been

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 2010-2013 Fedmex Pty Ltd
of being able to solve the human condition.

The poster I drew (above) for the WTM’s December 2010 1960s theme party to celebrateour project-saving-and-thus-world-saving victory in court also captures something of theexcitement of the human race set free from the human condition. (Our legal victory came aftera 15-year struggle against a defamatory 1995 Australian Broadcasting Corporation televisionprogram and Sydney Morning Herald newspaper feature article that sought to stigmatiseour organisation as a dangerous anti-social organisation and me as its deluded megalomanicleader. Ultimately both publications were completely discredited by a series of official rulings

Part 3:12

Anticipations of humanity’s freedom from the human condition

227
and public apologies culminating in a 2010 judgment that found my work was real sciencerather than the mindless dogma that characterises mind-controlling sects, which was howthe defamatory publications sought to portray my work. As the full-page advertisement weran in The Australian newspaper after our victory (see <www.humancondition.com/vindication>)explains, it was an incredibly hard-won and an incalculably precious victory against theinevitable ferocious backlash of persecution that we had to endure since the early 1990s fordaring to address the historically forbidden issue of the human condition.) Our excitementover our victory for our world-saving project is also evident in footage from our party, whichcan be viewed at <www.humancondition.com/denialators>. This is the video I mentioned earlier, inwhich Tony Gowing sings his song, LET’S GO.
I should explain more fully that the significance of the musical build-up in Diamond’s
Prologue/Crunchy Granola Suite is that it—like the build-up to the chorus of voices in
Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, and in the progression from quietness to blasting-withexcitement in my poem above—charts the whole of humanity’s two million year journey ofconscious thought and inquiry: from its beginnings in the lonely, cold, dark wilderness ofcomplete ignorance and bewilderment, to gradually accumulating more and more knowledge,but at the same time having to fight harder and harder against ever increasing levels of upsetbut all the time knowing we are getting closer to finding the liberating understanding ofour upset, corrupted, fallen condition—until, finally, we reach the crescendo of humanity’sbreakthrough of achieving that all-liberating and TRANSFORMING dignifying, reconciling,ameliorating understanding of ourselves. There is the same gradual build-up from ourbeginnings in a lonely dark wilderness to a great crescendo of excitement when we finallyfind liberating understanding in the sensationally exciting Irish stepdancing phenomenon
Riverdance that swept the world in the mid-1990s. YouTube has various clips of Riverdance,with some performances charting better than others humanity’s immensely heroic river ofprogress from lonely ignorance to TRANSFORMING enlightenment.
It is a bit long but I should include here Sir Laurens van der Post’s wonderful descriptionof humanity’s incredibly heroic journey all the way from the emergence of life to fullconsciousness to finally, at ‘the end of the road’, ‘awaken’ ‘pure and complete’. Sir Laurens wrote,
‘I was allowed to attend a victory parade, as it were, of all the life that has ever been. I saw all thathas ever been come streaming through the long lanes and corridors of my blood, through their arch ofadmiralty, round the inner-square and then straight down past my own white lighted Hall. Out of thedarkness that preceded Genesis and flood, it began with a glimmer and a worm of the unformed earthin love with the light to come. Yes! a worm with a lantern, a glow-worm with phosphorescent uniform,marched proudly at the head, and behind came great streams of being protozoic and pre-historic. Nothingwas excluded and everything included, their small fires of being clearly lit, tended and well beloved. This,it was said, is the true, the noble heroic and unique crusade of the love of life. For look, among them nota brain but only matter tentatively and awkwardly assembled. Yet remark on their bearing and the trustwith which they hurl themselves into the uncomprehended battle. Ah! tears of love and gratitude burnedin my eyes at so urgently moving and life confiding a sight. To feel, at last, the burden that they carry forme in my own blood, to know at every second several of these reflected in white corpuscle and scarlet cellare dying unflinchingly in battle for my all, to know that giant lizard and lion as well as unicorn cameafter, and were hurled too into similar struggle and defence of the totality of all. I was allowed, too, to

228

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
see the first man and registered the seismographic thrill of the marching column at the appearance of soskilled and complex a champion. I was allowed to speak to him and I touched his skin riddled with snakebite, his shoulder pierced by mastodon’s spike, his skull deep-scarred with sabre-tooth’s claw. And asreverently and tenderly I took his hand shaking with marshy malarial fever, I was moved to pity him bythe evidence of such dread and unending war. But he would have none of it. He looked me fearless in theeye and in a voice that boomed like a drum in his stomach said: “Brother, it was worth it. Whatever theytell you, add this, it was worth it.”
I spoke to a Bushman half-eaten by a lion in the Kalahari, his only vessel a brittle ostrich egg withred and black triangles painted neatly on it, now broken and sand scattered. He looked in my grey eyeswith the brown eyes of a people at dusk, slanted to bridge a chasm behind the face of a dying member ofa dying and vanishing race. He too, my dying nomad brother, said: “Add, add quick before I go, ‘it wasworth it’.” I spoke to an aborigine in the bight of the great gulf Tattooed with dung he said: “I vanish,but it was worth it.” In New Guinea, I met a stone-age Papuan, his black skin sheened with green aftercenturies in the jungle between basin and fall of water and spurting volcano, and he too said: “Doubt itnot, it was worth it.” Everyone said, “Lovely gift of a life that we blindly trust burns with such loving firein the dark that at any price, no matter how great, it is worth it.”
Yes, they all agreed and utterly convinced me, so that I can never doubt again. I wept when the greatprocession came to an end, for one and all, great and small—I loved them all. Yes, even to the worm thatbrought up the rear, with shaded night light and a nurse’s white, in its dress concealing a phial of thedrug of the greater sleep made with a touch of the hand of God’s great, good night. Yes…I love them all;
I believe them; I am ready for battle; and to continue at their head the journey of them all to the end ofthe road in my blood. At last, purified and complete, I am ready to awaken and defend my love’ (The Face
Beside the Fire, 1953, pp.292-294 of 312).

Interestingly, rock and roll music almost died in the late 1950s, and it never fully regainedthe raging raw power and excitement of its first few years.
For a start, its visionaries were all taken out one way or another. In May 1958, 22-year-old
Jerry Lee Lewis was publicly condemned when it was revealed that he had married his 13-yearold third cousin (which wasn’t illegal or all that unusual in Louisiana at that time), a controversyhis career never truly recovered from. In January 1958, 25-year-old Little Richard enrolled in
Bible College and denounced rock and roll—and almost everywhere else rock and roll wasbeing slammed by the establishment as sexually depraved ‘devil’s music’. In December 1959,
33-year-old Chuck Berry was sentenced to five years in jail, of which he was eventually forced
to serve three, from 1961 to 1963; a former employee of his had been arrested on a prostitutioncharge and, following a trial that was fuelled by racism, Chuck himself ended up in jail. On 3
February 1959, 22-year-old Buddy Holly died in a plane crash. Having been inducted into thearmy, 23-year-old Elvis Presley entered the ranks in March 1958 and as John Lennon famouslysaid ‘Elvis died in the army’, because after he was discharged in 1960 his songs, like It’s Now Or
Never and Are You Lonesome Tonight?, lacked the raw energy and power of his earlier songs.
As is often the case with visionary inspirations, their clarity is at a maximum when theyare initially conceived and from thereon they become confused, diluted and polluted withother less relevant and clear-sighted influences. In the case of the core vision behind rock androll of its incredibly exciting anticipation of the liberation of the human race (as all the rockand roll lyrics that have been included testify), the 1950s music of its visionaries, in particular

Part 3:12

Anticipations of humanity’s freedom from the human condition

229
the music of Jerry Lee, Elvis, Little Richard and Chuck Berry, was full of that pulsing, wildenergetic excitement. The music of the 1960s was still full of excited optimism that humanitywas going to break through to the sunrise of its FREEDOM from the human condition, but theraw energy from the excitement of that vision that was so apparent in the initial 1950s rockand roll music was gradually muted and eventually changed into angry, aggressive, upsetmusic—progressing from funk, to punk and on to the head-banging, totally hurt, alienated,mind-numbing, vibrating-with-distress ‘death’ music of today. Accurately representing therapid generational increase in alienation that has occurred in the last 60 years—which, in thelast 35 years, has gone from the 1970s-born ‘X generation’ to the 1980s-born ‘Y generation’ to theterminally alienated 1990s-born ‘Z’ generation—music has also regressed from celebration toretaliation, from happiness and joy to anger and hate, from innocence and fun to upset anddistress in only a few decades.
Epitomising this head-banging, totally hurt, alienated, mind-numbing, vibrating-withdistress ‘death’ music of today is the music and lyrics of the American heavy metal band With
Life In Mind. Their music is a terrifyingly honest reflection of the terminal level of alienationthat the human race as a whole has now arrived at, but they are certainly not unique. At thetime of writing this inclusion about the band With Life In Mind, which was February 2012, theonline store Relapse, which specialises in the heavy, ‘death’ metal music so popular amongstyoung people today, listed the following bands as their top selling artists: Death, Repulsion,
Toxic Holocaust/Midnight, Neurosis, Spawn of Possession and Brutal Truth. These bandnames alone reveal this end play state of alienation that the human race has arrived at.
The pain and honesty of the music of With Life In Mind is apparent in the lyrics of oneof their songs, which is actually titled The Human Condition: ‘We’re staring through the eyes ofa bitter soul. Constantly surrounded by this empty feeling…Never good enough for those ideals that seemto mean the most…Driven into madness, I see no end in sight, and inadequacy seems like the only meansto pass through this life. And I sit and ask myself when will it end? The art of contention is an uphillbattle I’m not ready to fight.’ Yes, if we didn’t resign ourselves to giving up trying to ‘conten[d]’
with it, confront it, stop trying to live ‘with’ the issue of ‘life in mind’, we certainly would be
‘driven into madness’ with ‘no end in sight’ to the unbearably depressing ‘empty feeling’ caused
by the terrible ‘inadequacy’ of our seemingly horrifically imperfect ‘human condition’! Denialof the human condition has been the only way we have been able to cope with the humancondition while we couldn’t explain it! More of the terrifyingly honest lyrics of With Life In
Mind will be included later in Part 7:5, but the following provides a further sample of theirdeadly accurate thoughts on the human condition: ‘It scares me to death to think of what I havebecome…This self loathing can only get me so far’; ‘Our innocence is lost’; ‘I can’t express all the hatethat’s led me here and all the filth that swallows us whole…A world shrouded in darkness…Fear is driveninto our minds everywhere we look’; ‘We’ve been lying to ourselves for so long, we truly forgot what itmeans to be alive…How could we ever recover? Lost in oblivion…Shackled in chains, bound and helddown…We could never face our own reflections in the mirror’; ‘We’ve all been asleep since the beginningof time. Why are we so scared to use our minds?’; ‘You’re the king of a world you built for yourself, butnothing more than a fraud in reality’; ‘How do we save ourselves from this misery…So desperate for theanswers…We’re straining on the last bit of hope we have left. No one hears our cries. And no one sees usscreaming’; ‘Our fight is the struggle of man…This is the end.’

230

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

So the incredible innocence, excitement and idealism of the post-war 1960s generationthat was so apparent in so many of the young people who attended the Woodstock Festivalin the state of New York in August 1969 didn’t last long. As the commentary in the My
Generation episode of the 2007 BBC documentary Seven Ages of Rock recognised, ‘afterthe 1967 climax of the summer of love…the innocent optimism of the 1960s gave way to more volatile,uncertain times…A utopia like 1967 couldn’t possibly last…no longer could you be an innocent flowerchild…The 1969 Woodstock Festival would see the sun set on the hippie dream…[After The Rolling

Stones’ December 1969 Altamont Festival where a man was murdered in the audience] the innocenceof the 1960s was lost forever’—but the ‘sun’ HAD NOT ‘set’ ‘forever’ on the ‘optimism’ of the 1950s
and ‘1960s’ ‘dream’ of a human-condition-reconciled ‘utopia’ BECAUSE IT HAS RE-EMERGED
AS THE INSPIRATION BEHIND THE FINDING OF THE HUMAN-RACE-TRANSFORMING
UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN CONDITION THAT IS BEING PRESENTED HERE. The
vision behind rock and roll has been realised. Although John Lennon is not here to see thefulfilment of all his imaginings, he did at least know what was coming for humanity, and was
‘around’ for its beginnings—as footage from a 2010 documentary about him indicates: ‘This
1960s bit was just a sniff, it was just waking up in the morning and we haven’t even got to dinner time yet,
and I just can’t wait, I just can’t wait, I’m so glad to be around.’ (Discovering Lennon, 3DD Productions).

Overall, the story of how rock and roll was nearly silenced provides a good example ofhow fragile any visionary undertaking is in its infancy. New ideas have to fight so hard tosurvive their inauguration, as we in the WTM know only too well.
The reason for the relative innocence of the post-war 1960s generation and theinspirational part it played in my capacity to find these insights into the human conditionwill be talked about in Part 5:1, however, I should mention here that the innocence of thatera was mainly due to the immense relief that followed the ending of the Second World War.
After such terrible bloodletting, which amounts to a valving off of upset, there is always aperiod of enormous relief and freshness, especially among those on the side of victory againsttyranny. In fact, there can’t have been any other period in modern history where there wasas much innocent idealism and optimism as the ‘flower power’, ‘Age of Aquarius’ era of the
1960s when the post-war ‘baby boom’ generation was growing up. Science, the organised and
systemised pursuit of knowledge, was sufficiently developed for the biological explanationof the human condition to be found, and there also seemed to be—and, as it turned out,was—enough sound innocence in the population for that explanation to be truthfully andthus effectively assembled by someone exceptionally innocent and thus exceptionally freeof denial. Much more will be said about how this understanding of the human condition wasfound in upcoming Parts of this presentation.
In conclusion, while upset humans normally couldn’t and wouldn’t allow themselvesto admit the existence of another TRANSFORMED, human-condition-FREE world—becauseit made living with their tortured, empty human-condition-afflicted existence unbearable—nearly all the rock and roll songs that have been included in this Part were ‘top of the chart’hit songs, songs that a great number of people gave their enthusiastic support to as beingmeaningful and relevant. In fact, these songs represent the most powerful of affirmationsthat, despite all appearances to the contrary, we humans are NOT fundamentally evil, bad,worthless creatures and ONE DAY, ONE DAY, we were going to explain in undeniable,

Part 3:13

The difficulty of the ‘deaf effect’

231
trustable, first principle, biological terms why that is true and, by so doing, end our tortured,human-condition-afflicted, condemned existence forever—and it is that wonderful day ofhumankind’s understanding-based, self-knowledge-achieved, ‘enlightenment’-found-of-‘ourhuman-condition’, ‘delusions’-‘cured’, ‘blind[ness]’-ending, ‘cave-prison’-‘released’ FREEDOM from
the human condition and resulting TRANSFORMATION of the human race that has now, atlast, finally, at the end of a long, long, cold night in the wilderness, ARRIVED—the time, asthe 1960s rock musical Hair anticipated, of our ‘mind’s true liberation’. That great influential
American folksinger and songwriter Woody Guthrie was right when he anticipated that thehuman race was ‘Bound for Glory’ (the title of Guthrie’s 1943 autobiography).

Part 3:13 The difficulty of the ‘Deaf Effect’ when reading about thehuman condition
Before continuing, it is worth reiterating the warning that was provided earlier in Part
2:3 about the problem of the ‘deaf effect’ that often occurs when reading about the subject of
the human condition. The fact of the matter is our minds have such an entrenched resistanceto trespassing anywhere near the subject of the human condition that when we try to readdiscussion about the human condition our protective denials begin to kick in and block thewords and their meaning from entering our conscious awareness. At a certain point the wordsjust wash over us, there is no absorption of them. Our minds effectively become ‘deaf ’ to anymore discussion of the human condition.
There has already been much to contend with—such as the mention of the term ‘humancondition’ itself and the dreaded ‘A’ word (alienation) many hundreds of times. The readerhas to expect to be in psychological shock and finding it difficult to ‘hear’ what is beingtalked about. You may even be reluctant to continue, despite the cautious encouragementgiven earlier at the end of Part 2:3, and by now hopefully having at least an awareness thatthe human condition has at last been safely explained and that humans are the all-meaningfulheroes of life on Earth and that a fabulous existence now awaits us.
The problem of the ‘deaf effect’ is so real that, unable to take in what has been said orwritten, our mind can infer that nothing of substance has been provided, or what has beensaid or written doesn’t make any sense and, unaware of the real reason our mind can’t ‘hear’what was said or written, decides it must be because the material was poorly expressed orlacking in persuasive argument or incomprehensively dense. Our mind becomes defensive ofits habituated way of thinking; it simply will not allow the transparency in. As was explainedin Part 3:10, this exposure of the human condition that necessarily has to accompany theexplanation of how we resolve that condition is really the exposure-day, truth-day, honestyday—in fact ‘judgment day’—we humans have long anticipated and feared. Importantly,however, this is not a time of condemning ‘judgment’, but a time of compassionateunderstanding—as a Turkish poet once said, judgment day is ‘Not the day of judgment but theday of understanding’ (Merle Severy, ‘The World of Süleyman the Magnificent’, National Geographic, Nov. 1987).

Thus, while this is a time of compassionate understanding of our embattled, alienated, humancondition-afflicted lives, re-engaging with the truth of it does, nevertheless, come as a greatshock, and shocks do take time to work through.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

232

The Biology

It is worth re-including part of the quote by Plato that was referred to in Part 3:10 as itillustrates how he foreshadowed this problem of the ‘deaf effect’. In The Republic, Platowrote that ‘if he [the cave prisoner] were made to look directly at the light of the fire [again the firerepresents the unconfrontable issue of our less-than-ideal human condition], it would hurt his eyesand he would turn back and take refuge in the things which he could see [take refuge in all the denials
that he has become accustomed to], which he would think really far clearer than the things being shownhim. And if he were forcibly dragged up the steep and rocky ascent [out of the cave of denial] and notlet go till he had been dragged out into the sunlight [shown the truthful liberating—but at the same
time exposing—explanation of the human condition], the process would be a painful one, to whichhe would much object, and when he emerged into the light his eyes would be so overwhelmed by thebrightness of it that he wouldn’t be able to see a single one of the things he was now told were real.’ Plato
has anticipated that the cave prisoner—humans living in denial of the issue of the humancondition—would ‘take refuge in the things which he could see, which he would think really far clearerthan the things being shown him’ and he ‘wouldn’t be able to see a single one of the things he was nowtold were real’—would be ‘deaf ’ to description and analysis of the human condition.

The Bible contains descriptions similar to Plato’s, of the extent of the historic resistance,denial and block-out that now exists in the human mind to any discussion of the humancondition, or of concepts that bring the issue into focus. The prophet Isaiah complainedabout the reception to his denial-free words, saying, ‘“You will be ever hearing, but neverunderstanding; you will be ever seeing, but never perceiving.” This people’s heart has become calloused

[alienated]; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes’ (Isa. 6:9,10, footnote).

Experiencing the same reception to his denial-free, ‘out-of-cave’ thoughts, Christ repeated
Isaiah’s words (see Matt. 13:13-15), saying, ‘Why is my language not clear to you? Because you areunable to hear what I say…The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God [your non-
ideal, seemingly ungodly, human-condition-afflicted state causes you to block-out or deny anyexposing and confronting truth about that state]’ (John 8:43-47).

Referring to the words of the prophet Amos in the Bible, the great psychiatrist R.D. Laingsummarised the situation as it exists today, saying, ‘There is a prophecy in Amos [Amos 8:11] thatthere will be a time when there will be a famine in the land, “not a famine for bread, nor a thirst for water,but of hearing the words of the Lord [the denial-free words of truth about the human condition].” Thattime has now come to pass. It is the present age’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967, p.118 of
156). The

Lebanese-American denial-free thinker or prophet Kahlil Gibran (1883-1931) lamented
the deafness of people to his denial-free thoughts when he said, ‘I am a stranger in this world,and there is no one in the Universe who understands the language I speak’ (The Lonely Poet, in The Treasured
Writings of Kahlil Gibran, p.152 of 902).

In intuitive recognition of this problem of the ‘deafening’ or, depending on whatmetaphor we like to use, ‘blinding’ effect of the truth about our human condition when itarrives, on Dorothy’s arrival at her Emerald City destination in the story of The Wizard of
Oz, she had to wear special green sunglasses because, as the gatekeeper to the Emerald Citywarned, ‘if you did not wear spectacles the brightness and glory of the Emerald City would blind you’
(The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Frank Baum, first published in 1900).

So people reading this presentation about the human condition for the first time shouldexpect to experience the ‘deaf effect’, as the following examples, some of which were

Part 3:13

The difficulty of the ‘deaf effect’

233
mentioned earlier in Part 2:3, illustrate. For instance, one reader of my books admitted that
‘When I first read your books all I saw were a lot of black marks on white paper’ (comment by WTM
Supporter Greg Plecko, Mar. 2000). Another
gave this very accurate description of the ‘deaf effect’:

‘reading Griffith is like reading another language—you know its English, you can understand the words,but the concepts are so basic and so different that they are almost incomprehensible—its a paradigm shiftof a read’ (Forum: “Governments across Europe tremble as angry people take to the streets”, comments by ‘straight’ on the
Members Forum. Accessed May 2009 at: <https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum-topic/governments-across-europe-trembleas-angry-people-take-to-the-streets/- comment-14909>). A lawyer
made this comment: ‘When I read your
book I found the content very difficult to absorb, so much so in fact I found it impossible telling someonewhat the book was even about’ (WTM records, 6 June 2009). A married couple said, ‘We have tried veryhard to read Beyond [my second book, published in 1991, Beyond the Human Condition]; in fact mywife and I would sit in bed and read a page together, and then re-read it a number of times, but still wecouldn’t understand what was written there’ (WTM Supporter H. Saunders reporting a friend’s comment, Oct.
1998).

Some viewers have found it so difficult ‘hearing’ the content of the Introductory Videos
that, in their frustration, they have requested ‘an executive summary’ (WTM records, 18 May 2010),even though the Introductions in those videos provide just that. Another reader recognised theproblem when he wrote that ‘The words in your books have in my experience brought up emotionalreactions in people and they reject the information, not able to get behind them and experience theprofundity of where you are coming from…Your insights are so head on as to cripple some people’ (WTMrecords, Jan. 1993).

Similarly, ‘From the reactions of people who have borrowed my copies of Free and

Beyond [Free: The End of the Human Condition, published in 1988, was my first book] I have startedto wonder if the complete holistic picture presented may be too much to accept and absorb in one hit’
(New Zealand WTM Supporter P. Sadler, letter to author, 8 Nov. 1995).

Another consequence of the ‘deaf effect’ is that even if, when reading about the humancondition, our mind does comprehend what is being written, often shortly afterwards it can’trecall what it was that was explained. This occurs because while our mind may have initiallycomprehended what was written, when it begins to absorb the confronting implications itblocks out what it ‘heard’. Marianne Velmans, a director of Doubleday publishers in the
UK, courageously and generously admitted that ‘I find your theories fascinating, but I also findyour arguments elusively receding from my mind as soon as I stop reading them. I can understand thatthis is totally a failing on my part’ (Letter to author, 3 June 1993). The following is another description
of how easy it is for the upset/resigned mind to slip back into denial when studying theseunderstandings of the human condition: ‘One thing I’ve found that occurs quite regularly [whenreading these explanations of the human condition] is I feel I understand something completely butthen have trouble “turning my mind” back to this sometime later (could be a couple of days, weeksetc). In some cases I have to “wade back through” to get back to the same level of understanding’ (anextract from a letter to the WTM from WTM member Jimmy, 31 Jan. 2012). As mentioned at the beginning of

Part 3:12, some of the composers of the songs quoted in that Part have, in later life, deniedthe suggestion that there was any prophetic element to the words they wrote when theywere younger and/or in an inspired state. The example was given of the Australian singersongwriter Mark Seymour (who wrote the prophetic lyrics of the song The Holy Grail)referring in his 2008 memoir Thirteen Tonne Theory: Life Inside Hunters and Collectors,to ‘kook’ responses to ‘The Grail’, dismissively saying about my own response that I was

234

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
suggesting his lyrics were ‘somehow…connected with the dawning of a new consciousness’ (p.343 of
388).

But as I explained at the beginning of Part 3:12, the problem with any acknowledgment
of another wonderful, human-condition-free world is that it makes living with the terribleemptiness of our existing lives too unbearable. While we do all carry an awareness just belowthe surface of our consciousness of the potential for this fabulous other world, it is only inrare, inspired moments that we can afford to allow that awareness to bubble to the surfacebefore having to block it out once more. We can get the truth up in an inspired moment, orduring an inspired period in our lives, but later on be unable to recall the real significance,context and meaning of what we described.
Another common response to my writing is that it is ‘too repetitive’. In order to explainthis response it first needs to be appreciated that, at best, our minds can only tolerate thesubject of the human condition being alluded to remotely and briefly. Acceptable glancingreferences to the human condition include: ‘the meaning of humans and their place in the world’,
‘our human predicament or situation’, ‘our troubled human state and nature’, ‘what it is to be human’,
‘the dark side of our nature’, ‘the riddle of life’, ‘why are we the way we are’ and ‘the root of humanconflict’. The truth is, we humans have only been able to talk about the human condition in
code, in ways that only the initiated can understand. We limit ourselves to esoteric inferenceand innuendo. We appeal to the shared intuitive awareness in others of the need to evade thedeeper confronting truths about human life. We talk of certain things being ‘self-evident’. Weintellectualise the truth, learn to live with it at arm’s length. At base we find a way to safelylive in Plato’s dark ‘cave’ of denial of the truth about ourselves. Continued direct and opendescription and analysis of the human condition greatly affronts our mind. Our mind doesn’twant to keep hearing description of the subject but it cannot admit this to itself withoutadmitting it is practicing denial, without admitting and confronting its alienation, which,obviously it cannot do otherwise it wouldn’t be living in alienation—we can’t be alienatedand not be alienated. Something is occurring repeatedly, but it is not repetition of the sameparticular concept or material, it is the repeated raising of a subject the human mind hasbecome deeply committed to blocking out—it is the continual elaboration and analysis of along-forbidden and exiled subject.
Importantly, the ‘deaf effect’ can be overcome with patient re-reading of what has beenwritten. Gradually the compassionate framework for both understanding and coping with ourcondition rescues our mind from feeling it has to defend itself by denying the truth and as thathappens so our mind becomes more able to take in, or ‘hear’, what is being said. A typicalexperience when giving introductory talks about the human condition is that people whoattend a second talk will very often say the second talk was a much, much better presentationthan the first which they thought was disjointed and hard to follow. It’s not the talk that hasimproved, in fact each presentation is virtually the same, rather it’s the listener’s capacity tohear what is being said that has dramatically improved. All new subjects take time to adjustto, but in the case of the human condition it’s not its ‘newness’ that is the problem that wehave to apply patience to, but our deep historic fear of a subject we know only too well.
What is new to us is having the subject raised. In his description of the human conditionin The Republic, Plato actually recognised that it is patience that makes human-conditionconfronting information accessible. When Plato warned that when the cave prisoner ‘emerged

Part 3:14

The non-falsifiable situation

235
into the light his eyes would be so overwhelmed by the brightness of it that he wouldn’t be able to see asingle one of the things he was now told were real’, he did add, ‘Certainly not at first, because he wouldneed to grow accustomed to the light before he could see things in the world outside the cave.’ Plato then
even emphasised how relieved the liberated prisoner would be to be free of his old dishonestexistence by saying that once he had become ‘accustomed to the light’, ‘when he thought of hisfirst home and what passed for wisdom there and of his fellow-prisoners, don’t you think he wouldcongratulate himself on his good fortune and be sorry for them?’ (tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.280 of 405). Patience
certainly is rewarded when it comes to absorbing understanding of the human condition.
The whole situation produced by the deaf effect problem was articulately summarisedin the following passage from an article that was published online in 2011: ‘I read it [Jeremy
Griffith’s book A Species In Denial] in 2005, and at the time it was not an easy read. The core conceptskeep slipping from my mental grasp, at the time I put it down to bad writing, however a second readingrevealed something the Author had indicated from the outset—your mind doesn’t want to understand thecontent. The second read was quick and painless…[and I was then able to see that] The cause of themalaise is exposed, remedied and the reader is left with at the very least an understanding of themselves,and for me something of an optimism for the future’ (‘Fitzy’, Humanitus Interruptus – Great Minds of Today, 21
Oct. 2011; see <www.wtmsources.com/106>).

It should be said that if the ongoing description of the human condition does becomeimpenetrable the reader can always progress to the next Part and return later when, havingbetter digested the dignifying defence of our species’ current embattled and corrupted state,the descriptions will be less ‘deafening’. The other option, which we highly recommend, isto participate in the WTM Deaf Effect Course which can be accessed at <www.humancondition.com/wtm-deaf-effect-course>.

Part 3:14 The non-falsifiable situation
This is an appropriate point to address the problem of the ‘non-falsifiable situation’.
There has been an inference that those who oppose this information are suffering from denial.
In fact, I will say that reading my books amounts to an alienation test—the more alienatedthe reader, the more their mind will resist the truth that is being presented. In support of this Icite Christ, who said, ‘everyone who does evil [has become corrupted] hates the light [the unevasive,denial-free truth], and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed’ (John 3:20), and

Plato, who has already been quoted as saying, ‘if he [the cave prisoner] were forcibly dragged upthe steep and rocky ascent [out of the cave]…into the sunlight…he would much object…his eyes wouldbe so overwhelmed by the brightness…he would turn back and take refuge in the things which he couldsee’ (Plato The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.280 of 405). Once you propose that alienation is almost
universal, people who then disagree with or oppose what you are putting forward can feel asthough they are being dismissed as being alienated, evasive and ‘in denial’, leaving them noway to disprove or falsify the explanation being put forward.
In addressing this conundrum, the first point to consider is that I did not create thedilemma of the human condition that produced alienation in humans. It is not a ploy to defeatcriticism, as some have implied.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

236

The Biology

Secondly, and more importantly, the problem only really exists at a hypothetical level,because the ideas being presented here can be tested as true or otherwise; they are notuntestable hypotheses that must be blindly accepted on faith. For example, the existenceof denial of the issue of the human condition can easily be established by scientificinvestigation. I have already quoted many references to and descriptions of denial as initialevidence of its occurrence. But since humans are the subject of this particular study, eachperson can experience and thus know the truth or otherwise of what is being put forward.
Once the explanations are presented and applied—as is done here and in my other books—you will discover they are able to make such sense of human behaviour that your own andeveryone else’s behaviour becomes transparent. As the Encarta summary of Plato’s allegorythat was referred to in Part 3:10 states, once free of the cave, the prisoners recognise that ‘theonly things they have seen heretofore are shadows and appearances’, not ‘the real world’ at all. This
new-found transparency confirms that this understanding is the long-sought explanation ofthe human condition.

Part 4
The Old Biology
The history of biology up to the arrivalof the psychosis-addressing-and-solving,real explanation of the human condition

Part 4:1 To explain the human condition science had to be invented, a process
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle initiated
As emphasised throughout Parts 1, 2 and 3, the liberation from the upset state of thehuman condition depended on finding sufficient knowledge to be able to explain the humancondition. As described in Part 3:10, Plato recognised that ‘enlightenment’ of our ‘imperfect’
‘human condition’ had to be found for the human race to be ‘released from’ the ‘bonds’ of our
‘cave’-like ‘prison’ of ‘almost blind’ alienated denial. In that same Part, Jacob Bronowski was
recorded as saying, ‘Knowledge is our destiny. Self-knowledge, at last bringing together the experienceof the arts and the explanations of science, waits ahead of us.’

Since time immemorial we have known the elements involved in the human conditionof instinct and intellect—they are, after all, recognised in the story of the Garden of Eden,which was written some 3,500 years ago by Moses—but we couldn’t explain how and whythese elements clashed to produce humans’ upset state. Every description of the humancondition simply ended with the conclusion that we humans are bad, evil, worthless beings.
For instance, in the story of ‘the Garden of Eden’ we were ‘banished’ as evil—we took the ‘fruit’
‘from the tree of…knowledge’, became conscious and went in search of knowledge and as a
result became destructively behaved, supposedly evil beings deserving of eviction from the
‘Garden’ of our original, pre-conscious, instinctive innocent state.
We have always known that other animals couldn’t reason like we humans could, that wewere ‘smart’ while they were ‘ignorant’, but we didn’t know the mechanisms behind the twostates of intellect and instinct. Vague, abstract, metaphorical, metaphysical, mythological andmystical accounts of our human state and predicament, like ‘taking the fruit from the tree ofknowledge in the Garden of Eden’, weren’t enlightening our situation. We were never goingto explain the human condition and end the underlying insecurity of our predicament untilwe committed ourselves to building up a first-principle-based, rational, testable and verifiableunderstanding of the nature, mechanisms and workings of our world. Science, from the Latinscientia, meaning ‘knowledge’, had to be invented, developed and formalised and it was thisrealisation and development that proved to be the most important, core contribution of thegolden era of Greece, a period that lasted from around 500 to 300 BC.
The Greek philosopher Socrates (c.469-399 BC) greatly contributed to the establishmentof science when, in response to every comment directed to him, he asked, ‘Why?’ In fact,
Socrates’ refusal to stop questioning the metaphysical descriptions of the gods of his dayresulted in his enforced suicide. As he famously said in his own defence at his trial, ‘the

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

238

The Biology
unexamined life is not worth living’ (Plato’s dialogue Apology, c.380 BC, tr. Benjamin Jowett), and similarly
‘the only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance’ (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers,c.225 AD).

Socrates knew that knowledge alone would be the clarifier and eliminator of
mystery and superstition, specifically the mystery of our seemingly horrifically imperfecthuman condition. He said we had to think—an instruction his student Plato (c.429-347 BC)took to the next level, beginning the thinking in earnest. The ‘problem’ with Plato’s thinking,however, was that it was unbearably honest. For instance, he asked the rhetorical question:
‘isn’t it obvious whether it’s better for a blind man or a clear-sighted one to keep an eye on anything?’
(Plato The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.244 of 405).

In other words, surely it made sense for the
exceptionally upset-free or uncorrupted and thus exceptionally alienation-free, ‘clear-sighted’,
‘blind[ness]’-free, sound and relatively innocent—‘the true philosophers…those whose passion isto see the truth’ (ibid. p.238), the ‘philosopher kings’ or ‘philosopher rulers’ or ‘philosopher princes’ or
‘philosopher guardians’ as he variously described them—to lead a society. Such honesty was
untenable because differentiation between individuals according to degrees of alienation orsoundness left those no longer innocent unjustly condemned as bad and unworthy. As willbe explained more fully as this understanding of the human condition is fleshed out, untilwe were able to explain the human condition and by so doing defend and understand theupset, corrupted state, any acknowledgement of who was upset and who wasn’t only led toprejudice, to the more innocent condemning the more upset as bad or evil. We can now seethat while some people became more upset than others as a result of humanity’s heroic battleagainst ignorance, no human is bad or evil or unworthy. Plato was too honest in what headvocated. Clearly a denial-based way of participating in the search for knowledge, namelyreductionist, mechanistic science, had to be developed, which is what Aristotle (c.384-322 BC),a student of Plato, went on to do.
This next quote alludes to this fundamental difference between the denial-freeapproach taken by Plato and the denial-committed strategy that Aristotle adopted. Whilethe denial-complying, human-condition-avoiding attitude of mechanistic science hasn’t yetbeen properly explained, and the negative-entropy-driven, order-developing, integrative,cooperative, selfless, loving theme and meaning of existence outlined only briefly in Part 3:4,it may be difficult for the reader to fully comprehend this reference to Plato and Aristotle,however, it should be possible to gain from it some insight into their different attitudes: ‘Platowas ever aspiring to intuitions of a truth which in this world [that most people live in] could never bewholly revealed,—a truth of which glimpses only could be obtained, partly by the most abstract powersof thought, partly by the imagination…Plato…was an artist, and clothed all his thoughts in beauty; andif there be (as there surely is) a truth which is above the truth of [mechanistic] scientific knowledge, thatwas the truth after which Plato aspired. Aristotle’s aspirations were for methodised experience and thedefinite’ (Aristotle, Sir Alexander Grant, 1877, p.6 of 196, from a series titled Ancient Classics). Plato was actually
just as scientifically rigorous—as ‘methodised’ and interested in the ‘definite’—as Aristotle,the primary difference between them was that Aristotle, like the great majority of the humanrace, wasn’t sound and secure enough in self to confront the ‘beauty’ of ‘a truth’ ‘as there surelyis’ ‘which is above the truth of [mechanistic] scientific knowledge’, ‘a truth of which glimpses only couldbe obtained’ by most people, ‘a truth which in this world [that most people live in] could never bewholly revealed’, namely the truth of the integrative, cooperative, selfless, loving meaning or

Part 4:2

‘Natural selection’ allowed the human condition to be explained

239
theme of existence, which Plato recognised in his books when he spoke of ‘the Good’ and ‘theabsolute’. Plato was one of the rare few people in history who was sound and secure enough
in self to confront the issue of the human condition (as the quote above acknowledged, ‘Platowas ever aspiring to intuitions of a truth which in this world [that most people live in] could never bewholly revealed’, namely the truth of Integrative Meaning). His ability to confront the issue of
the human condition enabled him to lay the foundations for denial-free, so-called ‘holistic’ or
‘teleological’ science. Aristotle, on the other hand, suffered from the upset state of the humancondition (like virtually everyone else) and therefore had to live in denial of the issue of thehuman condition and any truths that brought that issue into focus—most particularly, as willbe explained, the truth of Integrative Meaning. He wasn’t sound enough to confront this
‘truth’; for him it ‘could never be wholly revealed’. Aristotle intuitively understood that science,
humanity’s vehicle for inquiry into the mechanisms and workings of our world, would haveto comply with humanity’s almost universal need to live in denial of the issue of the humancondition and any truths that brought it into focus. Upset humans couldn’t be faced with theissue of the human condition until it could be solved because if they were such an encountercould lead to suicidal depression. As a result, Aristotle developed the discipline of denialcomplying, human-condition-avoiding, focus-down-on-the-details-not-up-at-the-unbearablewhole-view, so-called ‘mechanistic’ or ‘reductionist’ science.
And so it was that these men, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, from three inter-connectedgenerations in one brief period in human history, respectively formalised the principle ofscience of asking ‘why’, and the two approaches to scientific thinking: unevasive, denial-freeholistic, teleological science, and evasive, denial-complying mechanistic, reductionist science
(both approaches will be explained more fully shortly). It was an incalculably important andabsolutely extraordinary achievement. But while denial-based mechanistic thinking wasextremely valuable, ultimately it was the integrity of denial-free thinking that Plato initiatedthat could and would progress science fastest and furthest. The problem, as we shall see,however, is that denial-free thinkers are extremely rare.

Part 4:2 Even with the development of science, it wasn’t until Darwin introducedhis idea of natural selection that it finally became possible to explain thehuman condition
Once the discipline of science was established, it was then a matter of finding sufficientknowledge about the workings of our world to make possible the explanation of the humancondition that would liberate the human race from the horror of the insecurity and resultingpsychosis and neurosis of that condition forever. And it was that all-important process ofaccumulating knowledge, over many generations, that eventually led to Charles Darwinmaking his breakthrough insight into how species emerged through the process of naturalselection.
Darwin’s idea of natural selection was a critically important breakthrough not onlybecause it allowed us to understand how the great variety of life on Earth emerged, butbecause it finally enabled us to explain the human condition. This enlightenment of ourtroubled condition became possible after Darwin introduced his idea of natural selection

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

240

The Biology
because with understanding of the process of natural selection we were finally in a positionto explain that our instincts were only orientations to and not understandings of the worldaround us, which, as has now been revealed, is the key to explaining the human condition.
Of course, when molecular biologists James Watson and Francis Crick found themechanism behind natural selection of the DNA molecule in 1953 we were even betterequipped to explain that natural selection was only an orientating and not an understandingsystem, but with the publication of Darwin’s idea of natural selection in 1859 we had sufficientknowledge to explain the difference between being orientated by instincts and being able toconsciously understand the nature of change.
Darwin explained that some varieties of individuals succeed in reproducing morethan others in a given environment, which led to species becoming adapted or orientatedto situations, so although genes were yet to be discovered we had the necessary insight todetermine that instincts are only orientations and not understandings. Once we understood theprinciple of natural selection we had the potential to explain the human condition.
I should clarify an earlier statement I made in Part 3, when I said that it was with thearrival of the ability to explain the difference in the way genes and nerves process informationthat it first became possible to explain the human condition. This is not entirely correct.
Rather, it was the ability to understand the effect of the way genes process information,namely the process of natural selection, that allowed the human condition to be explained.
As mentioned above, Darwin’s explanation of the process of natural selection was not basedon being able to understand the way genes work—genes hadn’t even been discovered in
Darwin’s time. Darwin didn’t understand the physical mechanism behind natural selection. Hedidn’t know how traits passed from one generation to the next. That insight required Watsonand Crick’s discovery of the structure of the DNA molecule. What Darwin did work out washow species changed through the natural selection of individuals who were better adaptedto their environment. He explained how, through natural selection, species were orientatedto their environment both physically and behaviourally. These behavioural orientations werewhat we had long recognised as the innate or born-with instincts of animals.
What is so significant about Darwin’s breakthrough in terms of being able to explainthe human condition is that once we knew instincts were only orientations we were in aposition to realise the basic difference between our instincts and our intellect. We were in aposition to realise that our instinctive self ’s orientations to the world would have, in effect,been intolerant of our fully conscious mind’s experiments in managing our lives from abasis of understanding.
Similarly, with the discovery of the nervous system and nerves’ ability to rememberevents, which, as was explained in Part 3:3, is the basis for reasoning, insightful learning,we could clearly explain why consciousness was insightful—and, knowing that, we couldthen explain why an instinctive orientation would have, in effect, been intolerant of a fullyconscious, insightful, self-managing mind. The difference between knowing the mechanismbehind consciousness and knowing the mechanism behind instincts in terms of being able toexplain the human condition is that we already knew consciousness was a thinking, reasoning,intelligent, insightful learning system without having to know the mechanism that made thatpossible, whereas with instincts that wasn’t the case. With instincts we weren’t able to clearly

Part 4:3

Why the human condition wasn’t explained for over a century

241
know that they were only an orientation to the world until Darwin explained the principle ofnatural selection. Essentially, the greater our ability to understand the mechanisms by whichour instinct and our reasoning intellect worked, the easier it became to see into, explain andunderstand the dilemma of the human condition.

Part 4:3 Since the human condition could be explained once Darwin presentedhis idea of natural selection in 1859, why did it take well over a century forit to be explained?
The previous Part raised a very obvious question: if, after Darwin introduced his idea ofnatural selection, there was sufficient knowledge to explain the human condition, why did ittake well over a century for someone to actually do so?
The problem was that in order to explain the human condition it had to be confronted,but confronting the issue of the human condition without the explanation for it has been animpossibility for virtually all humans. If you suffered from upset—if you were selfishly selfpreoccupied with angers and frustrations, and with hurts to your ideal-world-expecting soul,which virtually all humans have been as a result of their encounters with the upset worldduring their infancy and childhood—then you could not afford to recognise any truths thatexposed and condemned such imperfect behaviour and soul-devastation. You could not affordto reach the conclusion that you were a destructive, corrupted, damaged, worthless, evil being,because if you did you would become so depressed you could very well suicide.
As explained in Part 3:8, it was this depressing confrontation with their apparentimperfection that adolescents encountered prior to deciding that they had no choice but toresign themselves to a life living in denial of the issue of the human condition. I included in that
Part a powerful description from Carl Jung to illustrate just how utterly devastating unrestrictedself-confrontation has been for upset humans: ‘When it [our ‘shadow’, the negative aspects ofourselves] appears…it is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of hisnature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil.’ To avoid the
‘shattering experience’ of having to ‘gaze into the face of absolute evil’ from looking at the ‘shadow’
of your corrupted condition it has been best to avoid any deep, penetrating, truthful thinking,because almost all thinking at a deeper level would bring you into contact with the issue of thehuman condition: ‘There’s a tree with lovely autumn leaves; isn’t it amazing how beautifulnature can be, I wonder why some things are beautiful while others are not—I wonder why
I’m not beautiful inside... aaahhhhh!!!!’ William Wordsworth certainly wasn’t exaggeratingwhen he wrote, ‘To me the meanest flower that blows can give thoughts that do often lie too deep fortears’ (Intimations of Immortality, 1807), for it is true that even the plainest flower can remind us of
the unbearably depressing issue of our ‘fallen’ condition. Yes, as Rod Quantock was quotedas saying, ‘Thinking can get you into terrible downwards spirals of doubt’; Albert Camus similarlyacknowledged the danger of thinking when he wrote that ‘Beginning to think is beginning to beundermined.’ And Bertrand Russell wasn’t overstating the issue when he observed that ‘Manypeople would sooner die than think.’ The fact of the matter is only an existence absolutely dedicated
to escapism and superficiality has been at all bearable for virtually all humans. Very few minds

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

242

The Biology
could afford to go anywhere near the issue of the human condition—hence the century-longlack of any effective work on, and thus progress with, and thus insight into, the all-importantissue of the human condition since Darwin made explanation of it possible.
The fundamental problem was that virtually everyone was resigned to not admitting thatthe issue of the human condition even existed, let alone trying to confront, think about andinvestigate it. It has been a bizarre case of virtually no one admitting to the existence of theall-important, underlying issue in all human affairs of the human condition—let alone anyonebelieving that it was a subject that needed to be explained or, more to the point, that it was thesubject that science had to solve if there was to be a future for the human race. People’s mindsweren’t focused on trying to think about the human condition, quite the reverse—virtuallyeveryone’s mind was focused on trying not to think about it.
Of course if you hadn’t experienced the depressing terror of trying to confront thehuman condition when you were an adolescent and hadn’t, as a result, become resignedto denying the subject ever existed, the human condition was the one great preoccupationand focus of your mind, as it was for children before they resigned—because it is the starkstaring obvious, real question about human behaviour. In the spectrum of upset and resultingalienation that has inevitably existed on Earth there have always been a rare few individualsat the exceptionally upset-free, alienation-free end of the spectrum. Unlike virtually the entirehuman race, these unresigned, denial-free thinkers, who have historically been referred to as
‘prophets’, were naturally desperately interested in the glaringly important question of whythe world was in such a state of chaos and why humans behaved so appallingly. While thiswas the position of a rare few unresigned, denial-free thinkers, the great majority of humanswho were resigned to living in denial of the issue of the human condition didn’t want to knowanything about that terrifying issue—which is why there has been so little analysis of thesubject, even though it is the most important of subjects.
As we will see shortly, few people have recognised even the two elements involved in thehuman condition of instinct and intellect, and even fewer have been sound enough—that is,sufficiently free of upset—to confront the subject of the human condition without becomingsuicidally depressed.
As Aristotle recognised, even science—humanity’s vehicle for enquiry into the natureof our world—has had to comply with this universal need to live in denial of the potentiallysuicidally depressing issue of the human condition. Yes, far from being practitioners of anallegedly rigorously objective and impartial ‘scientific method’, scientists have necessarilyhad to deny/avoid, by whatever dishonest means possible, any insights that brought theunbearably depressing and thus unconfrontable subject of the human condition into focus.
Ideas could only be followed up to the point where they didn’t condemn upset humans, whichmeant many critically important truths were either avoided or severely misrepresented. In fact,we will see that science, as it has been practiced, was a great castle of lies. Scientists havenecessarily been mechanistic not holistic; they have reduced their focus to only looking downat the details about the mechanisms of the workings of our world and avoided the whole viewof the issue of the human condition because for almost all humans that whole view has been

Part 4:4

The Six Unconfrontable Truths

243
dangerously depressing. Science has very much been part of Plato’s cave-world of living indenial of the human condition. It follows that since mechanistic science was practicing denialof the issue of the human condition and any truths that brought that issue into focus, it was inno position to explain the human condition. You can’t build the truth from lies.
Finding the explanation of the human condition required a denial-free approach, anapproach that progressed from a base that could admit some very important truths thathumans living in denial of the human condition could not afford to admit and confront—themost important of which are summarised next.

Part 4:4 Six Unconfrontable Truths blocking access to understanding of thehuman condition
Anyone wanting to think truthfully about the human condition—specifically about thetwo elements involved in the human condition of our instinct and intellect—and, by so doing,try to explain the human condition, had to be able to confront certain truths that have beenso unbearably depressing for the upset human race that they have been almost universallydenied: firstly, the truth of the issue of the human condition itself, the issue of why aren’thumans cooperative, selfless and loving?; secondly, the truth of Integrative Meaning; thirdly,the true nature of consciousness; fourthly, the truth that our species’ instinctive orientation isto behaving in an utterly cooperative, harmonious, gentle loving way; fifthly, the differencesin alienation between human individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisationsand cultures; and sixthly, the truth of the importance of nurturing in human life. Looking atthese truths we can see why they have been so unbearably confronting and therefore whythe upset human race and its vehicle for inquiry into the nature of our world—mechanisticscience—has lived in denial of them.

Part 4:4 A Firstly, we have been unable to confront the issue of the human conditionitself, the issue of why aren’t humans cooperative, selfless and loving?
Above all other truths, we, the upset human race could not afford to confront the issue ofthe human condition itself—the issue of why aren’t humans cooperative, selfless and loving?
Trying to face down the truth of our less-than-ideally-behaved, even ‘fallen’ or corruptedhuman condition without understanding of it could lead to suicidal depression—it is, as Jungdescribed the situation, a ‘shattering experience…to gaze into the face of absolute evil’. And themore the explanation of the human condition is fleshed out, the more apparent it will be justhow extremely upset—that is, angry, egocentric and alienated—the human race has becomeafter two million years of having lived with unjust condemnation that it couldn’t refute. Itis only now with the explanation and thus defence of the upset state that it becomes safe tobegin to confront the truth of the extent of the upset within the human race and the issue itraises of the human condition.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

244

The Biology

Part 4:4B Secondly, upset humans have had to deny the truth of
Integrative Meaning
The second unbearable truth that upset humans have had to deny is the most fundamentalof all truths—Integrative Meaning. While the concept of Integrative Meaning was brieflytouched upon in Part 3:4, it now needs to be more fully explained. (This topic will also belooked at in even greater detail in Part 8:1, as part of the overall description provided there ofthe development of order of matter on Earth.)
If we look around, everything we see is a hierarchy of ordered matter. A tree is a hierarchyof ordered matter, a collection of parts—it has a trunk, limbs, roots, leaves, bark and woodcells. Our bodies are a collection of parts. Our homes are an assemblage of parts. Everywherewe look there are hierarchies of ordered matter, collections of elements or parts. Furthermore,what we see happening across these collection of parts or arrangements of matter or wholes is atendency to develop ever larger and more stable wholes. Overall, everywhere we look matter isintegrating. Indeed, it’s even apparent that over the eons a chaotic universe has organised, andcontinues to organise, itself into stars, planets and galaxies.

Integration or harmony of all things
Integration of species
Integration of specie members into Specie Individuals
Multicellular organisms
Single-celled organismsetc
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc

Virus-like organisms
Compounds
Molecules
Atoms or the 94 naturally occurring elements
Complex nuclei
Simple nuclei
Fundamental particles
Development of Order or Integration of Matter on Earth
A similar chart appears in Arthur Koestler’s 1978 book, Janus: A Summing Up

The above chart summarises the very obvious development of order of matter on Earth.
Our world is constructed from some 94 naturally occurring elements—hydrogen, helium,lithium, beryllium, boron, etc. These elements came together to form stable arrangements.
For example, two hydrogen atoms with their single positive charges came together with oneoxygen atom with its double negative charge to form the stable relationship known as water.

Part 4:4B

Secondly, we couldn’t confront Integrative Meaning

245

Over time larger molecules and compounds developed. Eventually macro compounds formed.
These subsequently integrated to form virus-like organisms, which in turn came together orintegrated to form single-celled organisms, which in turn integrated to form multicellularorganisms, which in turn integrated to form societies of single species, which in turn integrateto form stable, ordered arrangements of different species.
The law of physics that accounts for this integration of matter is known as the ‘Second
Path of the Second Law of Thermodynamics’, or ‘Negative Entropy’, which states that in anopen system, such as that which exists on Earth, where energy can come into the system fromoutside it (in Earth’s case, from the sun), matter integrates; it develops order. Thus, subject tothe influence of Negative Entropy, the 94 elements from which our world is built develop everlarger and more stable wholes.
So what is happening everywhere we look is that order is developing—larger in spaceand more stable in time arrangements of matter are forming. It is as plain as day that that iswhat is happening in our world. Everything is a hierarchy of ordered matter and everywherematter is integrating, and yet we have denied this truth—but we have done so for an extremelygood reason, which is that the truth of Integrative Meaning has, in fact, been the mostconfronting and condemning of all truths for the upset human race.
The reason it has been so confronting and condemning is that for a collection of parts tostay together as a whole the parts of the whole must cooperate, behave selflessly, place themaintenance of the whole above the maintenance of themselves. For a larger whole to formand hold together, for matter to integrate, the parts of the developing whole have to, in effect,consider the welfare of the larger whole over their own because if they don’t cooperate, ifthey behave selfishly, then the whole disintegrates—the parts break down into the elementarybuilding blocks of matter from which they were assembled. Put simply, selfishness is divisiveor disintegrative while selflessness is integrative.
Selflessness is actually the theme of existence because it is the glue that holds wholestogether; it is, in fact, the true meaning of the word ‘love’—with the old Christian wordfor love being ‘caritas’, meaning charity or giving or selflessness (see Col. 3:14, 1 Cor.
13:1-13, 10:24 and John 15:13). Of these biblical references, Colossians 3:14 perfectly
summarises the integrative significance of love: ‘And over all these virtues put on love, whichbinds them all together in perfect unity.’ In John 15:13 we also see that Christ emphasised the
unconditionally selfless significance of the word ‘love’ when he said, ‘Greater love has no-onethan this, that one lay down his life for his friends.’ Yes, ‘love’ is cooperative selflessness—and
not just selflessness, but unconditional selflessness or altruism, the capacity, if called upon,to make a full, self-sacrificing commitment to the maintenance of the larger whole. Theproblem with this truth of the theme of the integrative process being selflessness, ideallyunconditional selflessness, is that it confronts us humans squarely with the issue of thehuman condition. If the meaning of existence is to be cooperative, loving and selfless,then why are we humans competitive, aggressive and selfish? If the theme of existence isto be integrative, why are we divisively behaved? Despite it being such an obvious truth,
Integrative Meaning has been so condemning of the upset human race that we have had nochoice but to live in deep denial of it.

246

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

The simple fact is, for a larger whole to form and hold together, for matter to integrate,the parts must cooperate not compete, they must be selfless not selfish. But since thecompetitive, aggressive and selfish divisive behaviour of upset humans is the polar oppositeof cooperative, loving and selfless integrative behaviour, this truth of Integrative Meaninghas been the most horrifically condemning of truths for upset humans. No other truth raisedthe issue of the human condition, the issue of the lack of ideal behaviour in our lives, ascompletely as the truth of Integrative Meaning.
Furthermore, the integrative, cooperative, loving theme of existence is also actually what
‘God’ is the personification of—a truth we recognise when we say ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:8,16).
Monotheism, the belief that there is only one God, is an insight that goes back as far as 4,000years ago to two very great denial-free thinkers or prophets, the pharaoh Akhenaton, whoreigned in Egypt from approximately 1,350 to 1,335 BC, and the Hebrew prophet Abraham,who was alive around 2,000 BC. With the human condition explained and our divisive stateunderstood, all humans can now safely admit and recognise that there has only been one God,one all-dominating truth, which is Integrative Meaning. Integration and the selflessness orlove that enables it to occur is the theme of existence, is ‘God’, is the all-dominating and allpervading universal truth about our world.
The problem was that until we could explain why we have been divisive and notintegrative (we were, by all appearances, ‘unlovable’), we couldn’t afford to demystify ourconcept of God and explain that God is Integrative Meaning. Until we could explain our humancondition we had no choice but to leave the concept of God in a safely abstract, undefinedstate, but with our divisive, non-integrative behaviour now defended we can safely demystifythis religious concept of God and explain in first-principle-based, scientific terms who, ormore precisely, what, God is—the personification of the Negative Entropy-driven integrative,cooperative, loving, selfless, order-developing ideals, theme, purpose and meaning of life.
So although the truth of Integrative Meaning is extremely obvious, with evidence of thehierarchy of the order of matter everywhere we look, it was important for humanity that denialcomplying mechanistic science found a way to deny what seemed such a totally condemningtruth. This was easily achieved through the simple assertion that there is no meaning orpurpose or theme in existence and that while change does occur it is a random, purposeless,directionless, meaningless, blind process. And, as stated, to cope with the imbued recognitionof integrative ideality and meaning in the religious concept of ‘God’, science simply left theconcept of ‘God’ undefined, maintaining it was a strictly abstract, metaphysical and spiritualconcept unrelated to the scientific domain—an inexplicable deity, a supernatural being seatedon a throne somewhere high above the clouds in a remote blue heaven who we can worshipas someone superior to us while avoiding any direct comparisons with our divisively behavedselves. Religion and science were firmly demarcated as two entirely unrelated subjects.
Only when understanding of the human condition was found, as it now is, would it besafe to demystify God—and reconcile religion and science. As the visionary French Jesuitpalaeontologist and philosopher (he was actually a denial-free thinker or prophet) Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) once said, ‘I can see a direction and a line of progress for life, aline and a direction which are in fact so well marked that I am convinced their reality will be universallyadmitted by the science of tomorrow’ (The Phenomenon of Man, 1938, p.142 of 320). With this statement,

Part 4:4B

Secondly, we couldn’t confront Integrative Meaning

247
de Chardin was recognising firstly how obvious the truth of the integrative, order-of-matterdeveloping theme of existence really is. And secondly that this truth of the integrative
‘direction’ or theme or purpose or meaning of existence wouldn’t be able to be ‘admitted’ until
the human-condition-resolved ‘science of tomorrow’ emerged. Yes, ‘yesterday’s’ mechanisticscientists have been reductionist and mechanistic, not teleological and holistic; they couldn’tadmit to Integrative Meaning because it was a suicidally depressing truth.
It should be noted that despite this need to deny the development of order of matter on Earth,or Integrative Meaning, and acknowledge that it is what we mean by ‘God’, there have been arare few scientists who have courageously acknowledged both. The very great German-bornphysicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and British physicist Stephen Hawking (1942-) are two suchscientists. As Hawking once said, ‘I would use the term God as the embodiment of the laws of physics’
(Master of the Universe, BBC, 1989). Three years later Hawking went further, saying, ‘The overwhelming
impression is of order [in the universe]. The more we discover about the universe, the more we find that it isgoverned by rational laws. If one liked, one could say that this order was the work of God. Einstein thoughtso…We could call order by the name of God’ (‘The Time of His Life’ by Gregory Benford, Sydney Morning Herald,
28 Apr. 2002). The 1997 PBS documentary Einstein Revealed reported Einstein as saying that ‘over
time, I have come to realise that behind everything is an order that we glimpse only indirectly [because it’s
unbearably confronting/condemning!]. This is religiousness. In this sense, I am a religious man.’ ‘Holism’
is also a term that recognises Integrative Meaning. Coined by the great South African denial-freethinker or prophet Jan Smuts (1870-1950), it means ‘the tendency in nature to form wholes’ (Concise
Oxford Dict. 5th edn, 1964). ‘Teleology’, another term that recognises Integrative Meaning, means ‘the
belief that purpose and design are a part of nature’ (Macquarie Dict. 3rd edn, 1998).

_______________________
It is getting a bit ahead of the sequence of concepts being presented, nevertheless, it shouldat least be briefly pointed out that coming off such a fundamentally false base as mechanisticscience has been—in denying such a fundamental truth as Integrative Meaning—has meantits ability to interpret its own findings has been deeply compromised, which is why it hasstruggled to make much sense of the real nature of life on Earth, specifically human nature.
Denial-complying mechanistic science has been a very superficial and thus ineffective formof enquiry, which is why so much of the world has lost faith in science. The American General
Omar Bradley, who rose to eminence during the Second World War, highlighted the extremedeficiency of mechanistic science when he said, ‘The world has achieved brilliance…withoutconscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants’ (Armistice Day Address, 10 Nov. 1948, Collected
Writings of General Omar N. Bradley, Vol.1). Carl Jung also recognised science’s failure to provide us
with enlightening information about ourselves when he said that ‘Man everywhere is dangerouslyunaware of himself. We really know nothing about the nature of man, and unless we hurry to get to knowourselves we are in dangerous trouble’ (Jung and the Story of Our Time, Laurens van der Post, 1976, p.239 of 275). My
professor of biology at Sydney University, Charles Birch (1918-2009), was another who bravelyspoke the truth when he said, ‘[mechanistic] science can’t deal with subjectivity…what we were alltaught in universities is pretty much a dead end’ (From recording of Birch’s 1993 FHA/WTM Open Day address—see
<www.humancondition.com/prof-charles-birch>). In short, mechanistic science hasn’t been able to deal
with the truth about ourselves and our world. The renowned English physicist and science

248

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
writer Paul Davies (1946-) recognised this deficiency when he said, ‘For 300 years science has beendominated by extremely mechanistic thinking. According to this view of the world all physical systems areregarded as basically machines…I have little doubt that much of the alienation and demoralisation thatpeople feel in our so-called scientific age stems from the bleak sterility of mechanistic thought’ (‘Living in anon-material world—the new scientific consciousness’, The Australian, 9 Oct. 1991).

Plato also recognised the destructive effect denial—especially denial of Integrative
Meaning—has had on our intellect’s capacity to think effectively, writing that ‘when thesoul [which, as will be explained when the fourth unconfrontable truth is described, is our species’
integratively orientated original instinctual self] uses the instrumentality of the body [uses the body’sintellect with its preoccupation with denial] for any inquiry…it is drawn away by the body into the realmof the variable, and loses its way and becomes confused and dizzy, as though it were fuddled [drunk]…Butwhen it investigates by itself [free of human-condition-avoiding, intellectual denial], it passes into therealm of the pure and everlasting and immortal and changeless, and being of a kindred nature, when it isonce independent and free from interference, consorts with it always and strays no longer, but remains, inthat realm of the absolute [Integrative Meaning], constant and invariable’ (Phaedo, tr. H. Tredennick).

Plato also referred to the need to be able ‘to look straight at reality’ if we are to effectively
‘learn’ when he wrote that ‘this capacity [of a mind…to see clearly] is innate in each man’s mind

[we are born with a truthful, instinctive orientation to the cooperative, loving, integrative meaning ofexistence], and that the faculty by which he learns is like an eye which cannot be turned from darknessto light unless the whole body is turned; in the same way the mind as a whole must be turned away fromthe world of change until it can bear to look straight at reality, and at the brightest of all realities which iswhat we call the Good [Integrative Meaning or God]’ (The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.283 of 405).

Mechanistic science has suffered very greatly from an inability to think truthfully andthus effectively—as we will see, it certainly has ‘los[t] its way and become confused and dizzy, asthough it were fuddled [drunk]’. Arthur Schopenhauer’s description of how dishonesty blocks
access to the truth has already been referred to, but his wise words are worth repeating here:
‘The discovery of truth is prevented most effectively…by prejudice, which…stands in the path of truthand is then like a contrary wind driving a ship away from land.’ As will be explained, we were never
going to get to the liberating truth about the crux problem facing our species of the humancondition through lies, most especially the denial of Integrative Meaning.
When Birch said that ‘what we were all taught in universities is pretty much a dead end’, hewas prescient in his choice of words, because ‘dead end’ is an apt description for the stalledstate of science today, in particular, as we will see, of the stalled state of that discipline withinscience of biology. In fact, he also once said, ‘Biology has not made any real advance since Darwin’
(In recorded conversation with this author, 20 Mar. 1987). The overall situation faced by mechanistic science
was summarised in this further quote from Birch: ‘the traditional framework of thinking in scienceis not adequate for solving the really hard problems’ (ABC Radio National, Ockham’s Razor, 16 Apr. 1997). As
we will see, the ‘hard[est] problem’ of all for denial-complying mechanistic science to solvehas been the all-important issue of the human condition.
It will become apparent as this presentation continues that living in denial of Integrative
Meaning, and many other important truths, has been very necessary, but it has also had tragicconsequences in terms of making progress in understanding our world and our place in it.

Part 4:4C

Thirdly, we couldn’t confront what consciousness really is

249

Part 4:4C Thirdly, we have had to live in denial of what consciousness really is
A phenomenon that should become abundantly clear by the end of this book is thatwherever there is polarised debate, it is a sure sign that the issue of the human conditionis involved. The subject of ‘consciousness’ is one such example, for it has caused as muchpolarisation as any issue debated by humans; indeed, anyone who has searched the term
‘consciousness’ will have found it to be a subject surrounded by extraordinary controversy,confusion and mystery. BUT, there is a very good reason for this, and it is not becauseconsciousness is an impenetrably complex subject, as we are often told—it is becauseconsciousness raises the unbearable issue of the human condition!
The truth is, the subject of consciousness brings our mind so quickly into contact withthe unbearably depressing issue of the human condition that ‘consciousness’ has becomesynonymous with—indeed code for—the problem of the human condition.
In his book Complexity, the science writer Roger Lewin described the great difficultyhumans have had trying to ‘illuminate the phenomena of consciousness’ as ‘a tough challenge…perhaps the toughest of all’ (1993, p.153 of 208). To illustrate the nature and extent of the difficulty,

Lewin relayed the philosopher René Descartes’ own disturbed reaction when he tried to
‘contemplate consciousness’: ‘So serious are the doubts into which I have been thrown…that I can neitherput them out of my mind nor see any way of resolving them. It feels as if I have fallen unexpectedly intoa deep whirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom nor swim up to thetop’ (p.154). Yes, consciousness has indeed been a fearful realm in which to delve!

Exactly why the subject of consciousness raised the hitherto unbearable issue of the humancondition and therefore why it caused such a fearful, all-our-moorings-taken-from-under-us,
‘deep whirlpool’ of terrible depression can be accounted for by two very good reasons.

The first reason is that trying to think about consciousness meant trying to understandwhat—when we humans are the only fully conscious, reasoning, intelligent, extraordinarilyclever, ‘can-get-a-man-on-the-Moon’ animal—is so intelligent and clever about being socompetitive, selfish and aggressive, in fact, so ruthlessly competitive, brutal and evenmurderous, that human life has become all but unbearable and we have nearly destroyedour own planet?! Any contemplation about the nature of our conscious intellect invariablybrought us into contact with the unbearable conclusion that it was the most destructiveforce the world has ever known. Yes, that our fully conscious, reasoning, intelligent,insightful, aware, knowing, understanding human mind has, it seems, unconsciously,irrationally, unintelligently, unthinkingly, indifferently, uncaringly and stupidly almostdestroyed the whole planet we live on, and also brought human existence to a state ofunbearably lonely, alienated, egocentricity-crazed, aggressive, hateful dysfunctionality, hasbeen an extremely confronting matter to think about. No wonder, as it says in Genesis inthe Bible, having taken the ‘fruit’ ‘from the tree of…knowledge’ (3:3, 2:17) that was ‘desirable forgaining wisdom’ (3:6)—that is, having become fully conscious, thinking, knowledge-finding
beings—we humans became so destructively behaved, so apparently lacking in ‘wisdom’,that we seemingly deserved to be condemned and ‘banished…from the Garden of Eden’ (3:23) asdefiling, unworthy, evil beings!

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

250

The Biology

So while our conscious mind or intellect is, without doubt, the culminating achievementof the grand experiment in nature that we call life, it also appeared to be the most destructiveand thus seemingly evil force to ever have appeared on Earth. Our conscious mind appearedto be to blame for all the devastation and human suffering in the world! Instead of beingwonderful, our conscious mind appeared to be the plague of the planet! That is how ‘seriousare the doubts’ that thinking about consciousness produced within us!

The second reason why the subject of consciousness has been so unbearably depressingto confront was because thinking about the nature of consciousness quickly brought us intocontact with the unbearably depressing truth of Integrative Meaning. The explanation of whatconsciousness actually is will reveal the problem because as we will see, while consciousnessitself is actually a simple and obvious phenomenon to explain, its meaning has veryconfronting implications.
As briefly explained in Part 3:3, and this will be more fully explained in Part 8:7A,nerves were originally developed for the coordination of movement in animals, but, oncedeveloped, their ability to store impressions—which is what we refer to as ‘memory’—gave rise to the potential to develop understanding of cause and effect. If you canremember past events, you can compare them with current events and identify regularlyoccurring experiences. This knowledge of, or insight into, what has commonly occurredin the past enables you to predict what is likely to happen in the future and to adjust yourbehaviour accordingly. Once insights into the nature of change are put into effect, the selfmodified behaviour starts to provide feedback, refining the insights further. Predictions arecompared with outcomes and so on. Much developed, and such refinement occurred in thehuman brain, nerves can sufficiently associate information to reason how experiences arerelated, learn to understand and become CONSCIOUS of, or aware of, or intelligent about,the relationship between events that occur through time. Thus consciousness means beingsufficiently aware of how experiences are related to attempt to manage change from a basisof understanding.
In the context of explaining the human condition, what is so significant about this processis that once our nerve-based learning system became sufficiently developed for us to becomeconscious and able to effectively manage events, our conscious intellect was then in a positionto wrest control from our gene-based learning system’s instincts, which, up until then, hadbeen controlling our lives. Basically, once our self-adjusting conscious mind emerged it wascapable of taking over the management of our lives from the instinctive orientations we hadacquired through the natural selection of genetic traits that adapted us to our environment.
However, it was at this juncture, when our conscious intellect challenged our instincts forcontrol, that a terrible battle broke out between our instincts and intellect, the effect of which,as explained in Part 3:2 using the Adam Stork analogy, was the extremely competitive, selfishand aggressive state that we call the human condition.
The problem with admitting this, in truth, obvious explanation of how our consciousbrain works is that it meant admitting information could be associated and simplified—itmeant admitting to insight—which was only a short step away from realising the ultimateinsight, which is the integrative theme or meaning or purpose or direction of existence, whichin turn immediately confronted us with our own inconsistency with that meaning.

Part 4:4C

Thirdly, we couldn’t confront what consciousness really is

251

Yes, as just explained in Part 4:4B, to admit to Integrative Meaning meant having to facethe fact that our competitive and aggressive behaviour is seemingly totally at odds with theintegrative direction of life, no less. The development and maintenance of the order of matterrequires that the parts of developing wholes cooperate not compete. Integrative meaningconfronts us squarely with our divisive human condition. Better to deny the existence ofpurpose in the first place by avoiding the possibility that information could be associated,refined and simplified. Admitting that our brain can associate information, reason, and becomeinsightful about how experiences are related, learn to understand and become conscious of therelationship of events that occur through time and refine those insights further, leading all theway to the deduction of the meaning of all experience, which is to order or integrate matter,was not something the upset human race wanted to do. In short, admitting that informationcould be simplified or refined meant admitting to an ultimate refinement or law, confrontingus with our inconsistency with that law, namely with the law of Integrative Meaning.
Demonstrating our masterful evasion of the nature of consciousness we used wordslike ‘conscious’, ‘intelligent’, ‘understanding’, ‘reason’ and ‘insight’ regularly without everactually identifying what we are conscious of, intelligent about, understanding, reasoningor having an insight into, which is how events or experiences are related. The conventionalobscure, evasive definition of intelligence is ‘the ability to think abstractly’. The otherimprecise, obscure, evasive phrase used whenever we wanted to refer to the uniqueness of ourintelligence without actually saying what our conscious, understanding, insightful intelligenceis, was to say that ‘We are the species that is able to reflect upon itself.’ So to name the areaof the brain that associates and simplifies information as the ‘association cortex’ was, in fact,a slip of our evasive guard. Of course, when we weren’t ‘on our guard’ against exposure fewwould deny that information can be associated, simplified and meaning found. In fact, mostof us would say we do it every day of our lives—if we didn’t, we wouldn’t have a word for
‘insight’. That is the amazing aspect about our denial of anything that brings the dilemma ofthe human condition into focus: it is not unusual for us humans to accept an idea up to a point,but as soon as it starts to lead to a confronting conclusion, pretend it doesn’t exist—and do sowithout batting an eyelid.
So, unable—until now—to answer this deepest and darkest of all questions of ourspecies’ consciousness-induced, ‘good-and-evil’-afflicted, less-than-ideally-behaved,seemingly-imperfect, even ‘fallen’ or corrupted, human condition, we learnt to avoid thewhole depressing subject of consciousness and the issue it raised of the human condition.
In terms then of the task of finding understanding of the human condition, it is clear that ifyou can’t think about what consciousness really is—again, recognise that the nerve-basedlearning system, unlike the gene-based learning system, can associate information, reasonhow experiences are related, learn to understand and become conscious of the relationship ofevents that occur through time—then you have not even arrived at the starting blocks in termsof thinking effectively about what produced the human condition.
A great deal more will be said in Part 8:7A about what consciousness really is, andwhy we have had to live in denial of that simple explanation. The other important questionof ‘How did we humans become fully conscious while other species didn’t?’ was brieflyanswered in Part 3:11 and will also be fully explained in Part 8:7B.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

252

The Biology

Part 4:4D Fourthly, the upset human race has had to deny the truth that ourspecies once instinctively lived in a completely integrated, cooperative,harmonious state
In the case of the other element involved in the explanation of the human conditionof our species’ original instinctive orientation—the part of us that unjustly condemned ourintellect—this element, as we will now see, has been an even more treacherous topic tonavigate than the nature of our conscious intellect. This is because thinking about our species’original instinctive orientation very quickly led our mind to the unbearably confrontingmemory, that all humans carry, of an upset-free, cooperatively orientated, innocent time in ourspecies’ instinctive past—a time before the fabled ‘fall’ that all our mythologies, such as thestory of the Garden of Eden, recognise occurred when we became a fully conscious species.
While we have had to deny it, we all intuitively know that our species’ preconscious instinctive state was one of living innocently in a harmonious, cooperative,loving, peaceful idyllic state—our awareness of which is apparent in our recognition ofthe existence of that ‘voice’ within all of us of an ideal-behaviour-demanding, altruistic,instinctive, ‘moral’ ‘conscience’.
As was explained in Part 3:4, in the explanation of the battle that emerged between ourinstinctive self and our intellect one very big question arose: ‘But what was our species’particular instinctive orientation? We once must have been controlled by instincts as otheranimals are, but since our original instinctive orientation obviously wasn’t to a migratoryflight path such as in the ‘Adam Stork’ analogy, what was our species’ original instinctiveorientation?’ The answer, as outlined in Part 3:4, is that our species’ original instinctive self orsoul’s orientation was, as we all intuitively know if we are honest, to behaving in an utterlycooperative, loving, harmonious, unconditionally selfless, altruistic way.
If it is true, which in truth we know it is, that our ancestors did once live in a cooperative,harmonious, loving state then that would certainly be an extremely confronting truth fortoday’s extremely upset, corrupted, angry, egocentric and alienated humans. In the Adam
Stork analogy, Adam became upset because he was defying an instinctive flight path, but ifour instinctive orientation was to behaving in an utterly cooperative, loving, unconditionallyselfless, altruistic, harmonious way then our upset must be infinitely greater than Adam’s. Sincethe meaning of existence is to be integrative, that is cooperative, loving and unconditionallyselflessly behaved, and we were behaving in a completely opposite way, namely competitive,aggressive and selfish, then when we defied our instincts we were defying the integrativeideals of existence—we were defying ‘God’! Such defiance would have made us extremelyguilt-ridden and thus extremely upset, which is exactly what happened. ‘Flying off course’ inour case, necessary as it was, was an incredibly upsetting act of defiance—which is why wehumans have been capable of extremely angry, mean, cruel and aggressive behaviour.
The next immense question to be answered, and this is a question for biologists, is
‘How could we humans have developed such a wonderful instinctive orientation?’ Toelaborate, ‘How could we have developed an instinctive orientation to behaving in an utterlycooperative, all-loving, harmonious, unconditionally selfless, altruistic way?’ Mythologiesmight assert that we once lived in an unconditionally selfless, fully cooperative, integrative,

Part 4:4D

Fourthly, we couldn’t confront the truth of our cooperative past

253
ideal way, and we all do carry an awareness that we did, but the question this raises forbiologists is how could a species possibly develop such an unconditionally selfless, fullyintegrated state? How did we develop our altruistic-behaviour-demanding moral conscience?
To appreciate why this is such a big question for biologists to answer we need toconsider how the gene-based learning system—the system that gives species their instinctiveorientations—works.
While much more will be said about the gene-based information processing or learningsystem later in Part 8, there is a particular limitation to developing the order of matteron Earth using the gene-based learning system that needs to be explained now. Geneticrefinement or learning—what Darwin described as ‘natural selection’—works by selectinggenetic traits that survive through time. Since only genetic traits that survive and carry oncan become established in a species, it follows that traits that don’t carry on, such as selfsacrificing, altruistic traits, normally can’t become established genetically. Natural selectioncan’t normally develop unconditionally selfless, altruistic traits in a species because suchtraits are self-eliminating. To elaborate, while selflessness, indeed not just selflessnessbut unconditional selflessness—the capacity to, if required, make a full, self-sacrificingcommitment to the maintenance of the larger whole—is the glue that best holds wholestogether, such unconditionally selfless, altruistic traits cannot normally be developedgenetically. In fact, the gene-based learning system could not develop selflessness beyondwhat is referred to as reciprocity, where a selfless act is reciprocated with a selfless act; insuch cases the selfless act is intrinsically still selfish, as traits have to be if they are to carryon and become established in a species. The fact is, only traits that are in effect selfish—traitsthat ensure their own reproduction—can become established in a species.
So while unconditional selflessness is the glue that best holds wholes together, if anunconditionally selfless trait emerges and practices such self-sacrificial behaviour it won’t tendto carry on and therefore it normally cannot become selected for genetically. This inability ofgenes in almost every situation to develop unconditionally selfless or altruistic traits meansthe gene-based learning system is limited in its ability to integrate matter. The best ‘glue’ fordeveloping wholes and holding them together is unconditional selflessness, but in almost everysituation genetics is unable to develop such ‘glue’. The result is that in almost every situationonly a degree of integration of members of species can be achieved genetically.
That was a brief description of the reason why genes can’t normally developunconditional selflessness or altruism, which we can now appreciate makes the question ofhow could we humans have ever developed unconditionally selfless, altruistic instincts sucha perplexing one for biology. How could we possibly have developed ‘give-your-life-forothers-without-care-for-self ’, altruistic genetic traits if such traits self-eliminate and thus,seemingly, cannot become established in a species? How could we humans have acquiredour altruistic moral conscience?
The reason I have said that ‘normally’, ‘in almost every situation’ genetics can’t developunconditional selflessness is because there was, in fact, one way it could, which was the wayour ape ancestors developed an instinctive capacity to behave unconditionally selflessly. Asoutlined in Part 3:4 (and again this will be explained in greater detail in Part 8:4B), that oneway was through nurturing.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

254

The Biology

While nurturing is a selfish trait, as genetic traits have to be (by nurturing and fosteringthe next generation—which has the parent’s nurturing trait—the nurturing trait is selfishlyensuring that it carries on from generation to generation), from an observer’s point of viewit appears to be selfless behaviour. The mother is giving her offspring food, warmth, shelter,support and protection for apparently nothing in return. This point is most significant,because it means from the infant’s perspective its mother is treating it with real love, whichis unconditional selflessness. The infant’s brain is therefore being trained or conditionedor indoctrinated or inscribed with unconditional selflessness, and with enough training inselflessness the infant will become an adult who behaves unconditionally selflessly.
The ‘trick’ in this ‘love-indoctrination’ process lies in the fact that nurturing isencouraged genetically because the better the infants are cared for, the greater are theirchances of survival, however, there is an integrative side effect, which is that the more infantsare nurtured the more their brain is trained in unconditional selflessness. There are very fewsituations in biology where animals appear to behave selflessly towards other animals—normally, they each selfishly compete for food, shelter, space and mating opportunities.
Maternalism, a mother’s fostering of her infant, is one of the few situations where an animalappears to be behaving selflessly towards another animal and it was this appearance ofselflessness that exists in the maternal situation that provided the integrative opportunityfor the development of love-indoctrination, the training of individuals in unconditionalselflessness. And with this unconditional selfless behaviour recurring over many generations,the unconditionally selfless behaviour will become instinctive—a moral soul will beestablished—because genes will inevitably follow and reinforce any development process,in this they are not selective. The difficulty was in getting the development of unconditionalselflessness to occur in the first place, for once it was regularly occurring it would naturallybecome instinctive over time.
To develop nurturing—this ‘trick’ for overcoming the genetic learning system’s seeminginability to develop unconditional selflessness—a species required the capacity to allowits offspring to remain in the infancy stage long enough for the infant’s brain to becomeindoctrinated with unconditional selflessness. As mentioned, zebras have to be capable ofindependent flight almost as soon as they are born, which gives them little opportunity tobe trained in selflessness. Primates, however, are especially facilitated for leaving offspringin infancy and thus developing love-indoctrination. Being semi-upright as a result of theirarboreal heritage, their arms are free to carry a helpless, dependent infant. Species thatcannot carry and easily look after their infants cannot develop love-indoctrination. Uprightwalking and its resulting bipedalism in humans is a direct product of the love-indoctrinationprocess, which means bipedalism must have emerged early on in the development ofhumans, as fossil records now confirm.
As mentioned in Part 3:4, and again this point will be more fully dealt with in Part 8:4,nurturing was the main influence or prime mover in human development—not tool use orupright walking or language development or mastery of fire or any one of the other evasiveexplanations that denial-complying biologists have been putting forward in the mountainof books that have been published on human origins. It was our ape ancestor’s exceptionalfacility to develop nurturing that enabled us to acquire an instinctive orientation to behaving

Part 4:4D

Fourthly, we couldn’t confront the truth of our cooperative past

255
in an utterly cooperative, non-competitive, fully harmonious and loving way towards eachother—that gave us our moral soul, the voice of which is our ‘moral conscience’. This timein our primate past when we lived in such an idyllic state—which the bonobos are currentlyon the threshold of living in—was our ‘time in the Garden of Eden’, our ‘Golden Age’, the
‘dream time’ in our past, as our mythologies have recognised. In his 1990 book Memories &
Visions of Paradise, the American author Richard Heinberg provides ample documentationof how our mythologies captured the truth of a cooperative, pre-human-condition-afflicted,innocent past for humanity, writing that ‘Every religion begins with the recognition that humanconsciousness 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’ (pp.81-82 of 282). The eighth century BC Greek poet Hesiod also referred to this ‘Golden

Age’ in our species’ past in his poem Works and Days: ‘When gods alike and mortals rose to birth
/ A golden race the immortals formed on earth…Like gods they lived, with calm untroubled mind / Freefrom the toils and anguish of our kind / Nor e’er decrepit age misshaped their frame…Strangers to ill,their lives in feasts flowed by…Dying they sank in sleep, nor seemed to die / Theirs was each good; the lifesustaining soil / Yielded its copious fruits, unbribed by toil / They with abundant goods ’midst quiet lands /
All willing shared the gathering of their hands.’

The immense problem with recognising the existence of such a wonderfully cooperative,pre-human-condition-afflicted, innocent and loving past is its complete contrast with ourpresent immensely upset, corrupted, competitive, aggressive and selfish, seemingly nonintegrative state. Until we could explain the human condition—explain why we becamecorrupted, ‘fell from grace’, lost our innocence, explain why we became such a competitive,aggressive and selfish species—this truth of an utterly cooperative, unconditionally-selflessbehaving past was devastatingly, unbearably, totally exposing, condemning and confronting;suicidally depressing in fact.
The question this, in turn, raises is: ‘How did we cope with the truth of our species’wonderfully cooperative and loving past while we didn’t have the explanation of the humancondition?’ Obviously we tried to deny that we ever once lived in such a wonderful state.
Although our mythologies recognised the truth that we did once live in a state of wonderfulinnocence, such assertions were invariably dismissed as nothing more than an unsubstantiated,without-any-factual-base, unscientific, fanciful, romantic dream of some impossible, neverdid-exist-in-reality, unrealistic, idyllic, utopian, beyond-this-world existence. As has beenmentioned and will be fully described later in Part 8:4, the truth is the bonobos provide ampleevidence for the possibility of the existence of a cooperative, harmonious existence in ourpast. But denial-complying mechanistic science simply didn’t want to recognise the existenceof such evidence. As a result, very little research has been done on bonobos, to the extent thatthey have been described as ‘the forgotten ape’ (Bonobos: The Forgotten Ape, Frans de Waal & Frans Lanting,
1997). We
can now understand why.

To maintain the denial that we ever once lived in such a wonderful state we also neededto come up with a biological justification for our divisive behaviour, which duly developedaround misrepresenting the fact that genes are selfish to excuse our selfish behaviour.
Denial-complying, mechanistic biologists simply asserted that humans are selfish becauseour genes are selfish. We were told we are competitive, aggressive and selfish because of

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

256

The Biology
our instinctive animal heritage; that we have savage animal instincts that make us selfishlyfight and compete for food, shelter, territory and a mate. Needing some justification for ourdivisive behaviour the upset human race held on to this excuse, even though, as has alreadybeen emphasised, this ‘selfish gene’ explanation for our human behaviour convenientlyoverlooked the fact that our behaviour involves our unique fully conscious thinkingmind—that descriptions of our behaviour, such as egocentric, arrogant, deluded, optimistic,pessimistic, artificial, hateful, mean, immoral, guilty, evil, depressed, inspired, psychotic,alienated, all imply there is a psychological dimension to our behaviour. We held on tothe ‘genes are selfish and that’s why we are selfish’ excuse despite there obviously beinga psychological issue involved in our behaviour. We have suffered from a consciousnessderived, psychological HUMAN CONDITION, not an instinct-controlled animal condition—our condition is unique to us fully conscious humans.
The fact that genes are selfish doesn’t mean that there is no other purpose to existenceother than to selfishly replicate your genes, as denial-complying mechanistic biologistsargue. Rather, it is simply a limitation of the gene-based information processing or learningsystem that genes are selfish. The meaning of existence is to integrate or develop the orderof matter, a process that is most assisted by unconditional selflessness, which means thegene-based learning system would develop unconditional selflessness if it could. The factthat it can’t simply reflects its limitation as a tool for developing the order of matter. Again,the history of denial of Integrative Meaning and of all the false excuses biology has givenus for our divisive behaviour will be explained and described in greater detail shortly inupcoming Parts of this book.
While the truth that we humans have cooperatively orientated, altruistic instincts hasbeen an unbearable truth for the upset human race to face, the question arises: why didn’tbiologists recognise that any instinctive orientation would have challenged and opposed ourfully conscious mind’s experiments in understanding? The story of Adam Stork, for example,explains how instincts became at odds with the intellect, but Adam Stork’s orientation wasonly to a flight path. Certainly, the development of cooperatively orientated moral instinctsin humans greatly compounded the ‘criticism’ our intellect received from our particularinstinctive orientation—for we weren’t just at war with some flight path like a stork whobecame fully conscious would have been, we were at war with cooperative, integrativemeaning of existence, with that all-pervading truth that we have personified as ‘God’ no less.
Our sense of guilt from our instinctive orientation was extreme, but the question remains: whydidn’t biologists recognise that any instinctive orientation would have in effect criticised anemerging self-managing consciousness?
The answer is that any thinking about the instinctive orientations of animals broughtinto focus the question of our species’ own instinctive orientation, which we have allknown is to behave in a cooperative, so-called moral way, yet we didn’t want to go nearthat acknowledgment. We saw with intelligence how we didn’t want to think about how ourrational, reasoning conscious mind worked because we didn’t want to have to face eitherthe truth of ‘Well, if I am so cleverly insightful why do I have to behave in such a dumb,apparently non-insightful destructively selfish, angry, egocentric and competitive way?’, or

Part 4:4E

Fifthly, we couldn’t confront differences in alienation

257
the truth that information could be simplified or refined because it meant admitting to theunconfrontable ultimate refinement or law of Integrative Meaning. To avoid having to facethese truths we employed a strategy of making sure we wouldn’t begin to think about how thereasoning conscious mind works. The same situation and strategy applied to thinking aboutthe mechanism behind instincts because any such thinking would all too soon bring us intocontact with the subject of, and truth of, our moral instincts and so to avoid such an encounterwe practiced not thinking about the nature of instincts at all. As a result, it is now very hard tofind any analysis of what instincts actually are and how they develop. We discussed at lengththe selective breeding of livestock such as of horses and cattle, for example, about how we arereadily, over only a few generations, able to change their physical appearance and instinctivebehaviour, but we never talked about how much the innumerable wars in Europe, for instance,must have bled mainland Europeans dry of a great deal of innocence and left them relativelyinstinctively upset, cynical and alienated compared with other populations who hadn’texperienced such bloodshed and anguish. Like the issue of what consciousness actually is,the whole issue of instincts has been a big ‘no-go zone’. The human race, and virtually all itsbiologists, have been hiding very deep inside Plato’s dark cave of denial.
In fact, the next great truth that the human race has practiced living in denial of while thehuman condition couldn’t be explained is this truth of the differences in alienation betweennot only individual humans but human races, genders, generations, civilisations and culturesas a result of their various exposure to the upsetting battle of the human condition.

Part 4:4E Fifthly, the upset human race has had to deny the differences inupset 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 extensionof the just described fourth great unconfrontable truth that we humans once livedinstinctively in an utterly integrated, cooperative, loving, harmonious state. If, in ourdistant past, we humans lived in a cooperative, loving state and then the upsetting searchfor knowledge began, which was the case, then naturally people are going to vary in howmuch exposure they have had with that upsetting struggle and how angry, egocentric andalienated they have become as a result. What this means is that admitting that our distantancestors lived in a cooperative, selfless and loving state was not only devastating becauseit confronted us with the truth of the present extremely corrupted competitive, selfish andaggressive state of the human race in general, it was also devastating because it confrontedus with the truth that individual humans are going to vary in how upset or soul-corruptedor innocence-destroyed they have become. While the human race as a whole is no longerinnocent, there is naturally also different degrees of angry, egocentric and alienated upsetamongst individuals, and while we couldn’t explain the corrupted state of humanity as awhole and thus face that overall truth, we also couldn’t face the truth that some humans andgroups of humans were more upset/corrupted than others.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

258

The Biology

The particular problem has been that without the redeeming explanation of the humancondition any admission of some humans being more or less upset/corrupted than others onlyled to the prejudiced view of some humans being better or worse, superior or inferior, moreworthy or less worthy, than others. To avoid the human race as a whole being condemnedas 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 thanothers, 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 isreally only an aspect, a sub-set, of the fourth great unconfrontable truth that we humans oncelived instinctively in an utterly integrated, cooperative, loving, harmonious state, it is such asignificant aspect, in terms of truth that has been unbearable to face, that it does deserve to berecognised 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 theirdiffering degrees of exposure to the upsetting battle of the human condition. Someonegrowing 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 upin the relatively sheltered, innocent countryside. It is the most obvious of truths but withoutthe dignifying and redeeming explanation of the human condition any discussion about somepeople being more innocent than others left those no longer innocent feeling condemned asbad, 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 presenceof relatively innocent people could be so confronting and condemning that those no longerinnocent couldn’t bear it and had to retaliate by attacking and even killing those moreinnocent in order to remove their condemning presence from their lives. Again, this is allperfectly 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 workedthe 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 increasinglyupset]…Cain was [became] very angry, and his face was downcast [he became depressed about hisupset, corrupted state and]…Cain attacked his [relatively innocent and thus unwittingly confrontingand 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 upsethumans became—and the simple fact that flows from this is that those people and raceswho have been in the thick of the battle a long time will be more upset—and also moreinstinctively adapted to upset, including becoming instinctively cynical and selfish—thanthose who haven’t been in the thick of the battle for as long—and the simple fact that flowsfrom that is that all manner of insecurities, inequalities and frustrations are going to arisefrom those differences.
Innocence has been affected by upset everywhere, and vice versa. As will be explainedin Part 7:1, men have oppressed women because of women’s relative innocence. Older peoplehave tended to limit young people’s access to power and position because young people could

Part 4:4E

Fifthly, we couldn’t confront differences in alienation

259
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 weare by the end of the day, such that our end-of-the-day-just-want-some-luxury-self wouldn’tentertain the more optimistic and altruistic enterprises of our more soulful, socially healthyand operational morning-self. By evening, most people are in need of a gin and tonic (or twoor three or four) to escape the tribulations of their day’s exertions under the duress of thehuman condition. Whatever idealistic, selfless, soul-inspired enterprises they might have beenthinking about in the morning have, by day’s end, been replaced by a selfish preoccupationwith a need for ego-reinforcement from others, relief from exertion, and for escape from thewhole 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 deeplyupset, human-condition-afflicted world has meant that in the course of one day in the life ofa resigned human he or she regresses from a state of fresh, boundless energy and enthusiasmall the way to a state of physical and emotional exhaustion. Such has been the change in themindset of humans over one day, let alone over a lifetime, over generations, and over thewhole two million year upsetting journey of humanity from its original state of innocentidealism 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 differencesin 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 differentdegrees of upset cohabitated. In the late 1800s British colonists brought Indians to Fiji asindentured 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 wecan now understand. The issue is the Indian Fijians, coming from an older and thus naturallymore cynical, human-condition-toughened, human-condition-realistic and thus opportunisticcivilisation, have been so industrious and materially successful that they now monopolisethe small business sector in Fiji to the extent that the native Fijians feel their country hasbeen taken over by the Indian Fijians; for their part, however, the Indian Fijians also feeldiscriminated against. Indian Fijian sugar growers in particular feel this inequity, for whilethey produce 90 percent of the country’s sugar, they are only allowed to lease land from thenative Fijians (who own 90 percent of the land). Furthermore, since gaining independencein 1970 the native Fijians have ensured their domination of the political process—a state ofaffairs that was reinforced in 1990 when the Fijian constitution restricted the Indians to amaximum of 27 seats in the country’s 71-seat Parliament. When this provision was amendedin 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 thenative 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 longgiven way to more upset-adapted humans. In comparison, the native Fijians are still relativelyinnocent, yet to become embattled, hardened and upset-adapted. They aren’t manically drivento win power and glory like more embattled, upset-adapted races, preferring to spend their daytranquilly occupied by such activities as playing music, drinking the sedating kava and eatingtaro roots from their gardens. It is akin to a 20-year-old, or thereabouts, equivalent race having

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

260

The Biology
to co-exist and compete with a toughened, cynical, more-upset-and-thus-more-insecure-abouttheir-goodness-and-thus-more-driven-to-find-ego-reinforcement, opportunistic 50-year-old, orthereabouts, equivalent race.
Trying to manage differences in upset between individuals, races, genders, generations,countries, civilisations and cultures has been extremely difficult, but once the prejudicedviews of some individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations or culturesbeing either good or bad, superior or inferior, more worthwhile or less worthwhile, aroseterrible atrocities and injustices very often followed. In the last century alone, we have seenthe 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 anestimated 800,000 of the more upset-adapted Nilotic Tutsi in 100 days of bloodshed in Rwandain 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 becausehe claimed ‘they [were] sabotaging the economy of the country’ (Jet mag. 14 Sept. 1972); the racialsegregation 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’tcompletely abolished until 1973.
Discrimination—the management of human interactions based on levels of innocenceor lack thereof—is not in itself bad or immoral; after all, we go to great lengths to protectthe innocence of children. What is wrong or immoral is to base those management decisionson judgments about the goodness or badness, superiority or inferiority, worthiness orunworthiness, of different states of innocence. Unable to explain the human condition, explainthe good reason for the upset, soul-and-innocence-destroyed, corrupted state of humans, anyacknowledgement of differences in upset almost always led to those who were more upsetfeeling 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’tdifferently upset but because it led to prejudiced/wrong views about some races being betteror 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 obviouswhether 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 theirown inadequacy from a political career, there can never be good government. They start fighting forpower…[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 donot love it [who don’t egocentrically hunger for power, fame, fortune and glory]…rulers [who] cometo their duties with least enthusiasm’ (p.286). Completely ‘obvious’ as Plato’s idea was of having

Part 4:4E

Fifthly, we couldn’t confront differences in alienation

261
the most innocent run society, such honesty was untenable and couldn’t be tolerated becausedifferentiation between individuals according to degrees of alienation or soundness leftthose no longer innocent unjustly condemned as bad and unworthy. (Once again it shouldbe pointed out that it wasn’t as though we didn’t know who was soul-corrupted, upset andalienated 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 donebecause we found their honest, truthful innocent soundness too confronting, we had to firstbe able to recognise it. It would have been as easy, indeed, probably much easier, to designexams 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 defendand understand the upset, corrupted state, any acknowledgement of who was upset andwho wasn’t only led to dangerous prejudice, especially so-called ‘racist’ views of someraces being viewed as being either superior or inferior or more worthy or less worthy thanothers. Without the defence for upset it was virtually impossible to talk about upset in away that didn’t infer that it was somehow bad. It is only now that the human condition isexplained that the essential equality of goodness of all people is at last established. While allhumans are variously upset, all humans are equally good because upset was a result of anunavoidable and necessary battle humanity has had to wage to find knowledge. The equalityof 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’, purelyon the basis that it is a ‘self-evident’ truth, as the United States’ Declaration of Independenceasserts, because we can now explain, understand and know that the equality of all humansis a fundamental truth. We can now understand why everyone is equally worthy, and that noone is superior or inferior, and that everyone deserves the ‘rights’ of ‘life, liberty and the pursuitof happiness’ (ibid). Prejudice, the view that some individuals, races, genders, generations,
countries, civilisations or cultures are either superior or inferior to others, is eliminated byunderstanding of the human condition. In fact, with understanding of the human conditionthe concepts of good and bad, superior and inferior, worthy or unworthy, disappear from ourconceptualisation of ourselves.
We haven’t been able to talk about different levels of innocence without condemningthose more corrupted as bad when they are not. In which case, a lie that said there was nodifference in alienation between people was less of a lie than a partial truth that said therewere differences with some people being ‘good’ and others ‘bad’. The end result of taking thisdenial to the extreme was the emergence of an unsaid, blanket rule where no one was allowedto say anything meaningful about human behaviour—to the extent that, as has already beenmentioned, even the children’s nursery rhyme Baa Black Sheep was said to be racist and shouldinstead be recited as ‘Baa baa rainbow sheep’ (London’s Daily Telegraph, 18 Feb. 1997). Political correctnesswas a dogma that became ridiculous and yet that is where the human race wound up—in a statewhere totally superficial, truthless non-sense reigned! Feminists are now saying there is no realdifference between the sexes and now even men can give birth through some weird surgery!

262

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Under this blanket rule, in order to avoid prejudice we were not allowed to talkabout different individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations or culturesbeing more or less innocent than other individuals, races, genders, generations, countries,civilisations or cultures. In science, denial of differences in the innocence of races wassuch 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’swork 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 thatwould make real sense of the different behaviours that each human exhibits. If we wanted tounderstand human behaviour, we had to look at how upset we humans have been, specificallyhow alienated we have been. As R.D. Laing said, ‘Our alienation goes to the roots. The realizationof this is the essential springboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-humanlife’ (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 ofsuch 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 reallyis, of the fact that our species once lived in a cooperative, loving state, and, as will beexplained next in Part 4:4F, of the importance of nurturing in our upbringing, science hasprovided us with more insights into the behaviour of elephants, and of tiny little insects liketree-hoppers, than it has about our own species’ behaviour!
To find understanding of the human condition all the great truths just referred to had tobe accepted, not denied. The whole denial-based scientific paradigm had to be defied andignored for the new human-condition-understood world to emerge. However, what nowhas to be explained is that when that new, truthful, human-condition-understanding worldfinally emerges, as it now finally has, a problem still remains, which is with the human racehaving practiced such extreme denial—having buried itself so deep inside Plato’s dark caveof 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 ofthe human race is unavoidably and necessarily also ‘judgment day’, exposure day, honestyday, 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/degreesof alienation have been concealing is now safely explained and defended it is still a shockto have it all exposed, particularly the differences in alienation between people and groupsof people. This outcome, where the differences in alienation between people is suddenlyrevealed, is also referred to in the Bible where, immediately after describing the arrival of theall-exposing, shocking truth about the human condition as being ‘like the lightning, which flashesand 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

Part 4:4F

Sixthly, we couldn’t confront the importance of nurturing

263
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 ofthe human condition no one is going to be ‘left’ behind. As already emphasised, and as willbe explained in Part 9 when the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE is described in detail, allhumans will be able to fully participate in the new human-condition-liberated world. Therewill be no inequality, no prejudice and no discrimination of anyone. Our species’ liberationfrom 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 tojoyously cope with that exposure.
Much more will be said about this denial of differences in alienation between individualhumans and groups of humans in Parts 5:2, 7:4 and 7:5.

Part 4:4 F Sixthly, the upset human race has had to deny that nurturing played theall-important role in both the maturation of our species and in the maturationof our own lives.
The sixth unbearably confronting truth that made thinking about the issue of the humancondition unbearably confronting for the upset human race is the truth of the importance ofnurturing in both the maturation of our species and in the maturation of our own lives.
As described in Part 4:4D, and this will be more fully explained in Part 8:4B, it wasnurturing that allowed our ape ancestors to develop an instinctive orientation to livingunconditionally selflessly and thus cooperatively. We humans still naturally carry instinctiveexpectations of receiving the amount of nurturing that all children received during thistime when we did live in a totally cooperative, all-loving state, but since the battle of thehuman condition emerged obviously no child has received that amount of nurturing and, as aresult, all children today are variously compromised/hurt/damaged/corrupted by that lack ofreinforcing unconditional love. Not surprisingly, it follows that this truth of the importanceof nurturing has been unbearably condemning for virtually all people today who haven’treceived adequate nurturing in their own upbringing, and for virtually all parents who havebeen trying but failing to adequately nurture their offspring. As the teacher and best-sellingauthor about children, John Marsden, acknowledged, ‘The biggest crime you can commit in oursociety is to be a failure as a parent and people would rather admit to being an axe murderer than beinga bad father or mother’ (‘A Single Mum’s Guide to Raising Boys’, Sunday Life mag. Sun-Herald, 7 July 2002). The
so-called ‘nature vs. nurture’ debate has in truth not been about the evidence for one argumentover the other, rather it is a manifestation of the terror most people have of confronting thetruth of the significance of nurturing in their own lives and in the lives of their children andwanting to deny it by any means they can find, no matter how dishonest. Attributing ourpersonalities to the influence of ‘nature’, to the influence of our genetic make-up, is so muchless condemning than having to admit the immensely important role nurturing played in theformation of our character.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

264

The Biology

Taking all of this into consideration, it is little wonder that the truth about the importanceof nurturing has been another of the unbearably condemning truths for the upset human race.

Summary of why the elements of instinct and intellect involved in producing the upset state ofthe human condition have been so difficult to acknowledge, think about and thus investigate.
The six truths that have been outlined are the main truths that the upset human race hasfound unbearable to think about, and being unable to think about them has meant that evenrecognising the obvious elements involved in the human condition of our instinct and intellecthas been too difficult for virtually all humans—let alone trying to think about the nature ofthose elements and how their differences might have produced the upset state of our humancondition! The result is that although the human condition has been the most important issueto solve, virtually no one has been able to go near it.
It should be said that these six truths are only some of the more prominent truths thatthe upset, insecure, human-condition-afflicted human race has had to live in denial of. Asthis presentation progresses it will become apparent that there have been many, many truthsthat have not been safe to admit. Only with the full truth, the explanation of the humancondition found, as it now is, does it become safe to acknowledge all these truths—onlynow can upset humans stop living in denial and leave Plato’s dark cave where they havebeen hiding and face the glaring light of the sun, which symbolises all the truth that, untilnow, has had to be denied.

Part 4:5 The history of the search for understanding of the human condition
The stalling point in finding the explanation of the human condition has been the almostuniversal inability to confront and think honestly about the obvious elements involved inproducing the upset state of the human condition—our instinct and our intellect. However,having now described the six truths that had to be admitted and confronted in order to explainthe human condition it can be appreciated why thinking about the human condition hasbeen impossible for virtually all humans. As mentioned, Rod Quantock, Albert Camus and
Bertrand Russell certainly weren’t exaggerating when they recognised the danger of thinkingtruthfully and thus deeply in the following, respective quotes: ‘Thinking can get you into terribledownwards spirals of doubt’, ‘Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined’ and ‘Many peoplewould sooner die than think.’

Only a truthful, denial-free, ‘out-of-cave’ approach could hope to confront, think aboutand explain the human condition, but, as we will now see, such denial-free thinking has beenalmost non-existent.
As mentioned, science—humanity’s designated vehicle for investigating the nature of ourworld and our place in it—was also stalled in its ability to look into and explain the humancondition. As humans who, like the rest of humanity, suffered from the human condition,the great majority of scientists have necessarily had to live in denial of the issue of thehuman condition and of any truths that brought that issue into focus; they have, in almost allcases, been mechanistic, focusing their thoughts away from the overarching whole view of

Part 4:6

First: those who admitted our moral instincts and corrupting intellect

265

Integrative Meaning and down into the details and mechanisms behind the workings of ourworld in the hope that if they could accumulate sufficient understanding of those details andmechanisms a non-mechanistic, denial-free-thinking scientist might one day be able to usethose insights to explain the human condition, at which point everyone could safely confrontthe whole view of Integrative Meaning and any truths that related to it—which is what has, atlong last, finally occurred.
I now need to outline the history of this all-important search for understanding ofourselves, understanding of our less-than-ideal, seemingly imperfect, good-and-evil-afflicted,upset state of the human condition. In doing so we will see that this search was undertaken byfour categories of thinkers.

The four categories of thinkers involved in the history of the search for understanding of thehuman condition:
The First Category comprises those thinkers who, despite the fearful difficulties almostall humans have of recognising even the elements of moral instincts and a corrupting intellect,managed to admit the involvement of those elements in producing the upset state of thehuman condition.
The Second Category comprises the few very brave individuals who managed to not onlyadmit the elements involved in the human condition of our moral instincts and a corruptingintellect, but also attempted to explain how those elements produced that upset psychosis.
The Third Category contains those who recognised the involvement of the elements ofinstinct and intellect in the psychosis of our human condition, but avoided the issue of thehuman condition by denying we have moral instincts.
The Fourth Category comprises the great majority of the human race, including thegreat majority of scientists. This category contains those who avoided the whole issue of apsychosis in our human situation by simply blaming our selfish and aggressive behaviour onsupposed brutish and savage animal instincts that lurk within us and which our intellect hasto control.

Part 4:6 First Category of Thinker: Those who admitted the involvement of ourmoral instincts and corrupting intellect in producing the upset state of thehuman condition
As has been emphasised, humans have known since time immemorial that our moralinstincts and corrupting conscious intellect are the elements involved in producing theupset state of the human condition, but without Darwin’s insight into the process of naturalselection, which revealed that instincts are only orientations, it was not possible to explainwhy the clash between our moral instincts and conscious intellect occurred. So when wehumans shook our fist at the heavens we were basically asserting our intrinsic belief that,despite that instinctive voice within us of our moral conscience making us feel guilty forbeing so competitive, aggressive and selfish, we, our conscious thinking self or sense of ‘I’,was not fundamentally bad.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

266

The Biology

Mythologies’, including religions’, recognition of the involvement of our moral instincts andcorrupting intellect in producing the upset state of the human condition
The elements of instinct and intellect involved in producing the upset state of thehuman condition are recognised in all mythologies. As mentioned in Part 4:4D, in his book
Memories & Visions of Paradise, Richard Heinberg described how every mythology containsa recognition that before becoming conscious and corrupted, humans lived in an upset-free,innocent instinctive state: ‘Every religion begins with the recognition that human consciousness hasbeen separated from the divine Source, that a former sense of oneness…has been lost…everywhere inreligion and myth there is an acknowledgment that we have departed from an original…innocence…thecause of the Fall is described variously as disobedience, as the eating of a forbidden fruit, and as spiritualamnesia [alienation].’

Within Christianity, in the Bible there is a passage in Ecclesiastes that reads, ‘God mademankind upright [uncorrupted], but men have gone in search of many schemes [understandings]’ (7:29).

Christ similarly spoke of a time when God ‘loved [us] before the creation of the [upset] world’
(John 17:24), and a time of ‘the glory…before the [upset] world began’ (John 17:5). The story of the

Garden of Eden in the book of Genesis, which was written by Moses some 3,500 years ago,recognised the underlying elements in the human condition of instinct and intellect; in it wewere told that we were ‘created…in the image of God’ (1:27), presumably meaning that we wereonce perfectly orientated to the cooperative, selfless, loving ideals of life, but that Adam and
Eve then ate the ‘fruit…from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ (ibid. 3:3, 2:17) because it was
‘desirable for gaining wisdom’ (ibid. 3:6), and as a result they/we had to suffer being ‘banished…fromthe Garden of Eden’ (ibid. 3:23) of our species’ original state of innocence because that act brought
forth the emergence of ‘sin’ (ibid. 4:7). Our upset state developed, which then had to one day beunderstood in order for us to become ‘like God, knowing good and evil’ (ibid. 3:3); one day we hadto find understanding of the upset state of our human condition and by doing so ameliorateit and return to the cooperative, Godly ideal state. In short, when we humans became fullyconscious and went in search of understanding our upset corrupted, ‘fallen’, innocencedestroyed, supposedly ‘sinful’, ‘guilty’ state emerged.
Zen Buddhism also recognises the loss of an uncontaminated, pure state as result of theintervening conscious mind, referring to ‘the affective contamination (klesha)’ or ‘the interference ofthe conscious mind predominated by intellection (vijnana)’ (Zen Buddhism & Psychoanalysis, D.J. Suzuki, Erich
Fromm, Richard Demartino, 1960, p.20). And, as mentioned in Part 4:4D, the eighth century BC Greek
poet Hesiod was another who referred to an innocent, upset-free, ‘Golden Age’ in our species’past in this passage from his poem Works and Days: ‘When gods alike and mortals rose to birth /
A golden race the immortals formed on earth…Like gods they lived, with calm untroubled mind / Freefrom the toils and anguish of our kind / Nor e’er decrepit age misshaped their frame…Strangers to ill,their lives in feasts flowed by…Dying they sank in sleep, nor seemed to die / Theirs was each good; the lifesustaining soil / Yielded its copious fruits, unbribed by toil / They with abundant goods ’midst quiet lands /
All willing shared the gathering of their hands.’

Although denial-complying mechanistic science has dismissed mythological and religiousassertions of a paradisal, ‘Golden Age’ in our past as nothing more than unsubstantiated,without-any-factual-base, impossible, fanciful, unscientific, romantic dreams (despite thescientific evidence provided by the bonobos), the fact that our mythologies all recognise that

Part 4:6

First: those who admitted our moral instincts and corrupting intellect

267
our distant ancestors did live in an idyllic, loving state shows that if we were prepared to thinktruthfully about the human condition it wasn’t too difficult to come to the realisation thatour ancestors did once live in such an idyllic state that we fully conscious, highly intelligenthumans have radically departed from.
The problem, however, was that at the time these mythologies were created even if wewere prepared to think in a denial-free, truthful way about the issue of the human conditionand, in doing so, came to the realisation that we have loving instincts and a corruptingintellect, we still would not have been in a position to explain HOW or WHY those elementsof instinct and intellect produced our corrupted state. We could not have explained that theintellect is actually the hero and not the villain it’s been portrayed as in all mythologiesbecause, as emphasised, the ability to explain the human condition wasn’t possible until
Darwin presented his idea of natural selection.

Plato’s admission of the involvement of our moral instincts and corrupting intellect inproducing the upset state of the human condition
As we’ve already established, Plato was an extremely honest, denial-free thinker whosemind was focused on ‘the enlightenment or ignorance of our human conditions’. Given the extremeaccuracy of his description of the human race being imprisoned in a dark cave of denial, itis not surprising that he also recognised and wrote about the conflict and struggle betweenour ideal-behaviour-demanding instincts and our corrupting intellect. In his 360 BC dialogue
Phaedrus, Plato described our underlying situation using the allegory of a two-horsed chariot:
‘Let the figure be composite—a pair of winged horses and a charioteer. Now the winged horses and thecharioteers of the gods are all of them noble and of noble descent, but those of other races are mixed;the human charioteer drives his in a pair; and one of them is noble and of noble breed, and the other isignoble and of ignoble breed; and the driving of them of necessity gives a great deal of trouble to him’ (tr.
Benjamin Jowett). Plato was saying that in an ideal situation, specifically that of the charioteer of
the ‘gods’, the instinct and intellect would be in harmony, that there would be no ‘trouble’ tohave to be managed or mediated by the ‘charioteer’, the owner of those two parts—they, theinstinct and the intellect, would be ‘all of them noble and of noble descent’.
Plato then said that while this would be the ideal situation the reality in all species otherthan humans, ‘those of other races’, is that the two elements have a ‘mixed’ influence. Clearlywhat he was saying was that in non-human animals the intellect has not become sufficientlydeveloped to attempt to take over management of the animal’s behaviour—as Aldous Huxleyso truthfully and insightfully said, ‘Non-rational creatures do not look before or after, but live in theanimal eternity of a perpetual present; instinct is their animal grace and constant inspiration; and theyare never tempted to live otherwise than in accord with their own…immanent law.’

Plato went on to say that in the case of humans, however, the ‘ignoble’ ‘horse’, which isclearly the intellect, dominates to the point of causing ‘a great deal of trouble’. He said that whenwe became fully conscious, the conflict within us between these main elements of instinctand intellect became such that ‘one of them is noble and of noble breed, and the other is ignobleand of ignoble breed; and the driving of them of necessity gives a great deal of trouble to him [to us, the
controller or ‘charioteer’ of our instincts and intellect]’.

268

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Further on in Phaedrus Plato returned to the two-horsed chariot allegory, elaborating that
‘one of the horses was good and the other bad…the right-hand horse is upright and cleanly made…his colouris white…he is a lover of honour and modesty and temperance…The other is a crooked lumbering animal…of a dark colour…the mate of insolence and pride, shag-eared and deaf…heedless of the [charioteer]…plunges and runs away, giving all manner of trouble to his companion and the charioteer…[until] atlast, when he persists in plaguing them, they yield and agree to do as he bids them.’ This is as clear a
description as we could wish for of the upset, ‘crooked lumbering’, ‘dark’, ‘mate of insolence andpride, shag-eared and deaf [alienated]’ intellect rising in defiant ‘heedless’ influence until it finally
usurps management from our cooperatively orientated, ideally behaved, ‘upright and cleanlymade’, ‘white’, ‘lover of honour and modesty and temperance’ original instinctive self or soul that we
acquired when our ape ancestors lived in an innocent, ‘Garden of Eden’, ‘Golden’ existence.
An exceptional denial-free thinker, Plato had no trouble admitting to an innocent, ‘uprightand cleanly made’, ‘Golden Age’ in humanity’s past, and he presented a flawless account of
how our intellect came to challenge our ideal-behaviour-demanding instincts. But like Moseswith his story of consciousness developing in the Garden of Eden, Plato was still only able toview our intellect as an evil, ‘bad’, ‘ignoble’ influence in our lives. Despite being the greatestof philosophers, Plato couldn’t explain the human condition. He could describe the situationperfectly but he still couldn’t deliver the clarifying, psychosis-addressing-and-relievingexplanation—he couldn’t explain HOW we humans could be good when we appeared to be bad.
_______________________

I should mention that there have been different interpretations of Plato’s twohorsed chariot analogy than the obvious one I have just given. The main denial-basedmisinterpretation argues that the charioteer is our reasoning mind that must learn to masterand control the two horses in our make-up of our supposed savage aggressive and selfishanimal instincts and wanton sexual desires. To illustrate this misinterpretation, Australia’sgreatest ever educator, Sir James Darling, described how the English poet laureate Robert
Bridges, in his 1927 poem The Testament of Beauty, referred to ‘Plato’s two-horsed chariot, thecharioteer Reason driving the two components of man’s character, the instincts of Selfhood and Breed, or
Sex’ (The Education of a Civilized Man, 1962, p.70 of 223).

Firstly, to look at Bridges’ misinterpretation of the charioteer as being our reasoningintellect. As described in Part 4:4C, we humans have been so insecure about our reasoningintellect, so unable to cope with the possibility that it has been the most destructive forcethe world has ever seen, so not wanting to see it as the ‘bad’ and ‘ignoble’ influence that Platoso honestly did, that we have tried to present it in the most positive light possible. In thiscase, Bridges has interpreted the charioteer as being our reasoning mind, the superior, noble,controlling master of our supposed brutish animal instincts and wanton sexuality, when, as hasbeen explained, Plato’s charioteer can be none other than us, the individual resulting from theeffects of both our instinct and our intellect.
Secondly, to look at Bridges’ misinterpretation of the two horses being ‘the instincts of
Selfhood and Breed, or Sex’. As just mentioned in Part 4:4D, rather than admit that our human
instinctive orientation was to behaving in an utterly cooperative, selfless, loving way—as the

Part 4:6

First: those who admitted our moral instincts and corrupting intellect

269

‘good’, ‘upright and cleanly made’, ‘white’, ‘a love of honour and modesty and temperance’ that Plato
so honestly acknowledged it as—many tried to blame our corrupt behaviour on supposedbrutish, savage, selfish and aggressive animal instincts in our make-up, just as Bridges didwhen he talked about our ‘instincts of Selfhood and Breed, or Sex’. Obviously, however, neitherof these supposed ‘horses’ of brutish, selfish animal instincts or wanton sexuality couldbe described as ‘good’, ‘upright and cleanly made’, ‘white’, ‘a love of honour and modesty andtemperance’, so this interpretation cannot be right.

In his poem, Bridges tried to explain this second anomaly by saying our ‘charioteer Reason’had to learn, through good nurturing and education, to control and master our supposedbrutish animal instincts and, in so doing, both develop a moral sense and learn to convertwanton sexuality into spiritual love. However, again, Plato didn’t describe the two horses asbad and then both of them becoming good—he described one as being bad and the other good,so by this reasoning Bridges is also incorrect.
In summary, once we are familiar with the classic denials of claiming that we humanshave brutish, savage, selfish, aggressive, divisive instincts, and making our intellect out to bethe noble, good aspect of ourselves that has to control our barbaric instincts (when the truthwas completely the reverse, namely that our instincts were noble and that the emergence ofour conscious intellect was what caused all our upset), it becomes very clear that Bridges’reasoning is a denial-based misinterpretation of Plato’s meaning.
_______________________

I should include with this presentation of Plato’s analogy of the two-horsed chariot hisrecognition of our cooperatively orientated, all-loving instinctive self or soul. Of the morethan two dozen dialogues Plato composed, The Republic and the Phaedo (both of which werewritten during his inspired middle period) are considered his greatest works. The dialogue inthe Phaedo commenced with the assertion that humans are born with the ability to recognisewhat is ideal and what is not, that humans have an innate ability to know when something
‘falls short’ of, or ‘inadequately resembles’, or lacks ‘equality’ with what is ideal (Phaedo, tr. H.
Tredennick). Plato went on to say that if we obtained ‘knowledge of these standards…these absolute
realities, such as beauty and goodness…before our birth, and possessed it when we were born, we hadknowledge, both before and at the moment of birth, not only of equality and relative magnitudes, but ofall absolute standards. Our present argument applies no more to equality than it does to absolute beauty,goodness, uprightness, holiness, and, as I maintain, all those characteristics which we designate in ourdiscussions by the term “absolute”’ (ibid). Plato was acknowledging that humans are born with not
only what we now refer to as a moral ‘conscience’, an ability to recognise what is ‘right’ and
‘wrong’ behaviour—in fact, what is consistent with the ‘absolute’ of Integrative Meaning—butwith an awareness of what is beautiful and what is not. Plato linked our innate awarenessof ‘these absolute realities, such as beauty and goodness’ with our soul, saying, ‘it is logically just ascertain that our souls exist before our birth as it is that these realities exist…[and our] soul is in everypossible way more like the invariable’, which he described as ‘the pure and everlasting and immortaland changeless…realm of the absolute’. In a beautifully unambiguous statement Plato went on to
say that our ‘soul resembles the divine’ (ibid).

270

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Plato clearly had no trouble confronting and admitting that we humans have an instinctiveorientation to the cooperative ideals of life. His capacity to think in a denial-free way was sogreat that had he known of Darwin’s idea of natural selection he would no doubt have beenable to explain the human condition, explain why ‘the driving of ’ the ‘two horses’ has ‘give[n]a great deal of trouble to’ us, the ‘charioteer’, and the ensuing 2,300 years of terrible bloodshed
and suffering would have been avoided—but, of course, the discipline of science that led to
Darwin’s great insight was only being formulated during Plato’s time; indeed, as has beenexplained, Plato played a significant part in its development.
_______________________

The sixteenth century English parliamentarian and author Lord Brooke Fulke Grevilledescribed our human condition in these partially honest and partially dishonest terms: ‘Ohwearisome Condition of Humanity! Borne under one Law, to another bound: Vainely begot, and yetforbidden vanity, Created sicke, commanded to be sound: What meaneth Nature by these diverse Lawes?
Passion and Reason, selfe-division cause’ (Mustapha, c.1594–96). Greville has been very truthful and
insightful in recognising that our ‘wearisome Condition’ arises from a war between our instinctsand reasoning intellect, however in using the Social Darwinist-type idea that our instinctswere brutal, savage, competitive and ‘vain’, and that these ugly ‘sick’ ‘Passion[s]’ had to becontrolled or ‘forbidden’ by both religious ‘command[ment]’ and ‘Reason[ing]’ thought in orderfor us to be ‘sound’, was a reverse of the truth lie, because it was our instincts that were ‘sound’and the emergence of our reasoning intellect that led us to become ‘sick’.
While discussing Greville’s quote I should mention that although Aldous Huxleyacknowledged how other animals live obedient to their instincts while we were tempted tochallenge them, saying, ‘Non-rational creatures do not look before or after, but live in the animaleternity of a perpetual present; instinct is their animal grace and constant inspiration; and they arenever tempted to live otherwise than in accord with their own dharma [law], or immanent [intrinsic]law’ (The Perennial Philosophy, 1946, p.141 of 352), unlike our mythologies and Plato, Huxley didn’t
acknowledge that we humans have cooperative, idealistic, moral instincts, because he wenton to say that ‘man…has no instincts to tell him what to do; [he] must rely on personal cleverness,rather than on inspiration from the divine Nature of Things’ (ibid). Huxley went further, agreeing
with Greville, saying that Greville’s ‘wearisome condition of humanity’ referred to a ‘chroniccivil war between passion and prudence and, on a higher level of awareness and ethical sensibility,between egotism and dawning spirituality’ (ibid).

We saw how Robert Bridges misinterpreted Plato’s honest description of the humancondition as our reasoning mind having to learn to control our supposedly brutish animalinstincts and our wanton sexuality. Greville and Huxley’s interpretation here, of the clashbeing between the ‘passion’ of ‘egotism’ and the ‘prudence’ of a ‘dawning spirituality’, is a similardenial-based misinterpretation of the real elements involved in the human condition of ourideal-behaviour-demanding instincts and our non-ideally-behaved intellect. Like Bridgesand Greville, Huxley was trying to suggest that the task for us conscious, reasoning humanswas to ‘pruden[tly]’ learn to control, even ‘spiritual[ly]’ aspire to transcend, our destructive
‘passion[ate]’ ‘egotism’ rather than be honest about it, confront the underlying issue of the

Part 4:6

First: those who admitted our moral instincts and corrupting intellect

271
human condition and, through doing so, explain and resolve that underlying dilemma. Itis dishonest, denial-based, defensive thinking rather than honest thinking, and althoughdefensive thinking can temporarily make us feel better about ourselves, it couldn’t bringabout healing understanding. Arguing that our ‘human’ ‘condition’ is about a battle between thepassion of our ego and the need for our reasoning mind to control that passion doesn’t makesense of what we all know the ‘human’ ‘condition’ to be all about, namely a battle between ourmoral instincts and our corruptly-behaved intellect. Also, we aren’t ‘born’ to be egocentric,rather we become egocentric as a result of the insecurity that develops in us as we grow up.
And it is obviously our instinctive moral conscience that ‘command[s]’ us ‘to be sound’ andnot act with ‘vanity’. Further, Greville’s discussion about the hypocrisy of our moral instinctsmakes it very clear it was our moral instincts that he was referring to, not our ego.
However, as mentioned in Part 4:4C, despite these dishonest, denial-based, defensiveviews, Huxley’s recognition that non-rational animals are obedient to their instincts andnever tempted to live otherwise is a truthful acknowledgment that non-rational animalsdon’t disobey their instincts, which leaves the insightful inference that we rational creatureshave been tempted to do so. Huxley made some real progress in thinking about the elementsinvolved in the human condition before veering off into denial, a pattern we will shortly seealso occurred in biology when scientists such as E.O. Wilson and Robert Wright set out with
Darwin’s truthful biological insights only to develop biological explanations that were deeplycommitted to denial of the issue of the human condition, dangerously so in Wilson’s case. Thetruth has been bearable up to a point, after which it was deemed intolerable.
The issue of the human condition was a very difficult subject to stay thinking truthfullyabout. In fact, as we will see, it couldn’t be penetrated unless you were sound enough to neverhave become resigned to living in denial—a fact William Wordsworth acknowledged when,as will be described below, he spoke of ‘Thou best Philosopher, who yet dost keep / Thy heritage,thou Eye among the blind / That, deaf and silent, read’st the eternal deep / Haunted for ever by the eternalmind / Mighty Prophet! Seer blest! / On whom those truths do rest / Which we are toiling all our lives tofind / In darkness lost, the darkness of the grave.’

William Shakespeare’s recognition of the dilemma of the human condition
In approximately 1601 the greatest of all playwrights, the Englishman William
Shakespeare (c.1564-1616), had the character Hamlet, from the play of the same name,famously say: ‘What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty! Inform and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel! In apprehension how likea god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence ofdust? Man delights not me’ (Hamlet, Act 2 Scene 2). While Shakespeare didn’t acknowledge the
involvement of moral instincts in the dilemma of the human condition in this passage, hehas recognised the core dilemma of our condition of being ‘like a god’ in our intellectualcapacity for ‘apprehension’ (which is our capacity to consciously understand cause and effectand be insightful) and yet capable of behaving in such an ‘un-Godly way as to be an ‘[un]delight[ful]’, ‘quintessence of dust’, nasty ‘piece of work’. Again, the intellect is still only able to
be regarded as bad or ‘un-Godly’.

272

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

William Wordsworth’s admission of the involvement of our moral instincts and corruptingintellect in producing the upset state of the human condition
Plato’s acknowledgment that our ‘soul resembles the divine’ is echoed in one of the greatest
(that is, most honest) poems ever written, the English poet laureate William Wordsworth’s
Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood (1807), in the mostwonderful line, ‘But trailing clouds of glory do we come / From God, who is our home.’
As we are about to see, while Wordsworth (1770-1850) wasn’t able to explain the conflictbetween our moral instinctive self and newer conscious self, with this poem he did mosttruthfully and accurately recognise the nature of the conflict, writing, ‘High instincts beforewhich our mortal Nature [our troubled, insecure, selfish, life-and-death-preoccupied conscious self] /
Did tremble like a guilty thing surprised.’

Wordsworth began his incredible poem by bravely recalling the fabled state ofcooperative harmony and enthralment that our distant ape ancestors lived in before ‘thefall’, before the emergence of our present good-and-evil-stricken state of upset—a state thatchildren still come into the world innocently expecting, and when they don’t encounter itare deeply troubled and then psychologically forced to resign to living a life of alienating,deadening, soul-destroying denial of that magically wonderful existence. He wrote: ‘Therewas a time when meadow, grove, and streams / The earth, and every common sight / To me did seem /
Apparelled in celestial light / The glory and the freshness of a dream / It is not now as it hath been of yore
/ Turn wheresoe’er I may / By night or day / The things which I have seen I now can see no more // The
Rainbow comes and goes / And lovely is the Rose / The Moon doth with delight / Look round her when theheavens are bare / Waters on a starry night / Are beautiful and fair / The sunshine is a glorious birth / Butyet I know, where’er I go / That there hath past away a glory from the earth.’

Wordsworth went on to describe how nature and the innocence of youth reminded himof this lost paradise, this soulful, all-loving, all-trusting and all-sensitive world that when heresigned he had to block out, live in denial of, become alienated from: ‘Thou Child of Joy / Shoutround me, let me hear thy shouts, thou happy Shepherd-boy! // Ye blessed Creatures, I have heard the call /
Ye to each other make; I see / The heavens laugh with you in your jubilee / …While Earth herself is adorning /
This sweet May-morning / And the Children are culling / On every side / In a thousand valleys far and wide.’

Wordsworth was then reminded of his own human-condition-afflicted state of lostinnocence and the associated alienation from his soul that had set in after he resigned, adding:
‘But there’s a Tree, of many, one / A single Field which I have looked upon / Both of them speak ofsomething that is gone / …Whither is fled the visionary gleam? / Where is it now, the glory and the dream? //
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting / The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star / Hath had elsewhere itssetting / And cometh from afar / Not in entire forgetfulness / And not in utter nakedness / But trailing cloudsof glory do we come / From God, who is our home / Heaven lies about us in our infancy! / Shades of theprison-house begin to close / Upon the growing Boy / …And by the vision splendid / Is on his way attended
/ At length the Man perceives it die away / And fade into the light of common day / …Forget the glories hehath known / And that imperial palace whence he came.’ Note again Wordsworth’s acknowledgment
that our species’ original self or soul’s instinctive memory is of a loving, harmonious existence:
‘The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star / Hath had elsewhere its setting / And cometh from afar / Not inentire forgetfulness / And not in utter nakedness / But trailing clouds of glory do we come / From God [the
representation of the integrative, cooperative, loving ideal state], who is our home.’

Part 4:6

First: those who admitted our moral instincts and corrupting intellect

273

Most remarkably, Wordsworth proceeded to acknowledge that only a denial-free thinkeror ‘prophet’ could plumb the depths of the much repressed, denied and forgotten realm wherethe truths needed to think effectively about the human condition reside: ‘Thou best Philosopher,who yet dost keep / Thy heritage, thou Eye among the blind / That, deaf and silent, read’st the eternaldeep / Haunted for ever by the eternal mind / Mighty Prophet! Seer blest! / On whom those truths do rest /
Which we are toiling all our lives to find / In darkness lost, the darkness of the grave.’ The ‘darkness lost,the darkness of the grave’, and the ‘Shades of the prison-house [that] begin to close’ that Wordsworth
referred to earlier, perfectly equates with Plato’s cave existence.
Even more extraordinarily, Wordsworth went on to very truthfully and thus accuratelyrecognise that our loss of innocence and sensitivity—the corrupted state of the humancondition—was due to a clash between our original innocent instinctive self and our morerecent conscious-thinking, self-managing intellectual self: ‘High instincts before which ourmortal Nature / Did tremble like a guilty thing surprised.’ Again, however, what is missing is the
biological explanation for WHY our conscious ‘mortal’ self was made to ‘tremble’ and feel
‘guilty’ by our moralising ‘High instincts’. He wrote: ‘But for those obstinate questionings / Of senseand outward things / Fallings from us, vanishings / Blank misgivings of a Creature / Moving about inworlds not realised / High instincts before which our mortal Nature / Did tremble like a guilty thingsurprised / But for those first affections / Those shadowy recollections / Which, be they what they may /
Are yet the fountain-light of all our day / Are yet a master-light of all our seeing / … Hence in a season ofcalm weather / Though inland far we be / Our Souls have sight of that immortal sea / Which brought ushither / Can in a moment travel thither / And see the Children sport upon the shore / And hear the mightywaters rolling evermore // Then sing, ye Birds, sing, sing a joyous song!’ Wordsworth’s reference
to ‘those obstinate questionings’ is a reference to our species’ historic inability to explain thehuman condition, which we eventually resigned ourselves to having to stop thinking about,hence those questions are ‘Fallings from us, vanishings’, resulting in a state of alienated ‘Blankmisgivings of a Creature / Moving about in worlds not realised’, in a place ‘far’ ‘inland’ from our true
self or soul. Wordsworth then wrote that although we humans had to become resigned to alife of deadening, ‘blank’ denial, in rare moments when our mind managed to find some relieffrom the agony of the human condition—‘a season of calm weather’—we could, ‘in a moment’ ofinspiration from ‘see[ing] the Children sport upon the shore’, be reconnected to the greater truthof our species’ destiny of one day finding relieving understanding of our human condition,at which time we will be able to ‘hear the mighty waters rolling evermore’—know and be able tosavour the all-wonderful, true world forever, which the finding of understanding of the humancondition has finally made possible.
Regarding the lines in his poem, ‘obstinate questionings / Of sense and outward things / Fallingsfrom us, vanishings’, Wordsworth once acknowledged that he was referring to an abyss of
depression that he as a boy, and in truth all adolescents, experienced when he/they tried toface down the issue of the human condition—struggled with the ‘obstinate questionings’—before resigning to a ‘blank’ life of denial, writing that ‘Nothing was more difficult for me inchildhood than to admit the notion of death as a state applicable to my own being…Many times whilegoing to school have I grasped at a wall or tree to recall myself from this abyss of idealism to the reality.
At that time I was afraid of such processes. In later periods of life I have deplored, as we have all reason todo, a subjugation of an opposite character, and have rejoiced over the remembrances’ (The Fenwick Notes of

274

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

William Wordsworth, dictated to Isabella Fenwick in 1843). Wordsworth’s description of having ‘grasped at a
wall or tree to recall myself [bring myself back] from this abyss of [the suicidally depressing comparison
of] idealism to the reality’ of a human-condition-afflicted ‘state’ of ‘being’ equivalent to ‘death’
is as powerful a description as we can hope to find of what adolescents experienced during
Resignation. (Later in Parts 6:1 and 9:1, I include a picture I have drawn of this ‘abyss’ ofsuicidal depression that trying to think about the human condition has caused humans.)
Wordsworth concluded his absolutely extraordinary honest poem with this description ofthe agony of our human condition: ‘The Clouds that gather round the setting sun / Do take a sobercolouring from an eye / That hath kept watch o’er man’s mortality / …To me the meanest flower thatblows can give / Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.’ Thus the emergence of our good-and-
evil-human-condition-stricken state made us red-eyed from being worried about our life’svalue, meaning and worth. Wordsworth was saying that our anxiety over our mortality nowis due to being insecure about our life’s value and worth—hence the reference in the poem’stitle to the ‘intimations of immortality’ we had during our species’ pre-‘fallen’, pristine, innocent,uncorrupted, secure, loved-and-loving ‘early childhood’. The thoughts that became buried sodeep that they were beyond the reach of our everyday emotional selves (they are ‘too deep fortears’) are the thoughts about our species’ present corrupted state that the beauty of even the
plainest flower can remind us of, if we let it—if we have not practiced mentally denying andburying the issue deeply enough.
Again, that assemblage of words in Wordsworth’s great poem—‘But trailing clouds of glorydo we come’—must surely be about the most beautiful description of any subject ever written,
so it’s fitting that the subject the description has been reserved for also happens to be the mostbeautiful of subjects, namely that child within us, our species’ Garden-of-Eden-nurseried,heavenly, cooperatively-nurtured-and-orientated, original, instinctive self or soul.

Sir Laurens van der Post’s admission of the involvement of our moral instincts and corruptingintellect in producing the upset state of the human condition
Much more will be said in Parts 5:2 and 10:4 about the work of Sir Laurens van der
Post, the pre-eminent philosopher of the twentieth century from South Africa, especiallyabout his writings about the relatively innocent Bushmen people of the Kalahari desert,however, in terms of his ability to acknowledge the involvement of our moral instincts andcorrupting intellect in producing the upset state of the human condition the following passagefrom his 1984 book Testament to the Bushmen is worth citing here. In it Sir Laurens bravelyacknowledged that ‘before the dawning of individual consciousness’ humans lived in a state of
‘togetherness’—a state that he said we have had such a hunger to return to that it has been ‘likean unappeasable homesickness at the base of the human heart’. He wrote: ‘This shrill, brittle, selfimportant life of today is by comparison a graveyard where the living are dead and the dead are aliveand talking [through our soul] in the still, small, clear voice of a love and trust in life that we have for themoment lost…[there was a time when] All on earth and in the universe were still members and family ofthe early race seeking comfort and warmth through the long, cold night before the dawning of individualconsciousness in a togetherness which still gnaws like an unappeasable homesickness at the base of thehuman heart’ (pp.127-128 of 176). In an even more explicit reference, Sir Laurens also recognised
the actual ‘war’ that exists between our original innocent instinctive self and our newer

Part 4:6

First: those who admitted our moral instincts and corrupting intellect

275
intellect when he wrote, ‘I spoke to you earlier on of this dark child of nature, this other primitive manwithin each one of us with whom we are at war in our spirit’ (The Dark Eye in Africa, 1955, p.154 of 159).

Significantly, while Sir Laurens was able to clearly recognise the ‘war’ between ouroriginal, innocent, instinctive soulful ‘child of nature’ and our newer ‘individual conscious’intellect or ‘spirit’ he wasn’t able to explain the reason for the ‘war’. As described in Parts 5:2and 10:4, his great vision was the ‘hope’ that by ‘reveal[ing]’ the ‘inner life’ of the ‘child’ in ‘man’he ‘might start the first movement towards a reconciliation’, a ‘hope’ of ‘reconciliation’ that has beenachieved in my book FREEDOM.
In recognising the relative innocence of the Bushmen people of the Kalahari, Sir Laurensdefiantly rebelled against the practice of denial of the truth that we humans did once live inan upset-free innocent state prior to the emergence of the human condition. For example, hewrote that ‘There was indeed a cruelly denied and neglected first child of life, a Bushman in each of us’
(The Heart of The Hunter, 1961, p.126 of 233). He even described the relatively uncorrupted harmony
and sensitivity of the more innocent state of the Bushman, writing that ‘He [the Bushman] andhis needs were committed to the nature of Africa and the swing of its wide seasons as a fish to the sea.
He and they all participated so deeply of one another’s being that the experience could almost be calledmystical. For instance, he seemed to know what it actually felt like to be an elephant, a lion, an antelope, asteenbuck, a lizard, a striped mouse, mantis, baobab tree, yellow-crested cobra, or starry-eyed amaryllis,to mention only a few of the brilliant multitudes through which he so nimbly moved. Even as a child itseemed to me that his world was one without secrets between one form of being and another’ (The Lost
World of the Kalahari, 1958, p.21 of 253). (Again, more will be said in Part 5:2 about science’s denial of
the relative innocence of so-called ‘primitive’ races.)
In discussing these primitive states, it might be mentioned that while the English novelistand poet D.H. Lawrence (1885-1930) did not acknowledge the elements of instinct and intellectinvolved in the upset state of the human condition, he did bravely recognise our species’ loststate of sensitive innocence when he wrote that ‘In the dust, where we have buried / The silent racesand their abominations [their confronting innocence] / We have buried so much of the delicate magicof life’ (Son of Woman: The Story of D.H. Lawrence, D.H. Lawrence, 1931, p.227 of 402). The French philosopher

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was another who bravely acknowledged the innocence ofour original instinctive state and our present corrupted state when he wrote that ‘nothing is moregentle than man in his primitive state’ (The Social Contract and Discourses, 1755; tr. G.D.H. Cole, pub. 1913, Book
IV, The Origin of Inequality, p.198 of 269)
and that ‘Man is born free but is everywhere in chains’ (Le Contrat

Social, 1762 [published in English as The Social Contract, 1791]).

Bruce Chatwin’s admission of the involvement of our moral instincts and corrupting intellectin producing the upset state of the human condition
In his best-selling 1987 book The Songlines, the English explorer and philosopher Bruce
Chatwin bravely and honestly recognised the harmony that originally existed between ourown instinct and still not fully developed intellect when he wrote that ‘[the third centurytheologian Origen argued that] at the beginning of human history, men were under supernaturalprotection, so there was no division between their divine and human natures: or, to rephrase the passage,there was no contradiction between a man’s instinctual life and his reason’ (The Songlines, 1987, p.227 of
325).

Chatwin was saying that prior to our species becoming fully conscious the emerging

276

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
conscious state wasn’t at odds with our instincts. Obviously the conscious mind was notsufficiently developed to challenge the instincts and take over management our life; the
‘divine’, integratively-orientated, ‘Godly’ instincts were still in control. But while Chatwin
implied that a ‘contradiction’ and ‘division’ occurred when ‘reason’ developed, he still didn’tprovide clarifying explanation for how and why it happened.
Also in The Songlines, Chatwin bravely acknowledges how all mythologies recognisethat our species did once live in a state of innocence, writing that ‘Every mythology remembersthe innocence of the first state: Adam in the Garden, the peaceful Hyperboreans, the Uttarakurus or “the
Men of Perfect Virtue” of the Taoists. Pessimists often interpret the story of the Golden Age as a tendencyto turn our backs on the ills of the present, and sigh for the happiness of youth. But nothing in Hesiod’stext exceeds the bounds of probability. The real or half-real tribes which hover on the fringe of ancientgeographies—Atavantes, Fenni, Parrossits or the dancing Spermatophagi—have their modern equivalentsin the Bushman, the Shoshonean, the Eskimo and the Aboriginal’ (p.227 of 325).

Summary of the admissions given so far of the involvement of our moral instincts andcorrupting intellect in producing the upset state of the human condition
To summarise to this point, mythologies, including Moses’ 3,500 year old story of the
Garden of Eden, truthfully acknowledged the two elements involved in producing the humancondition: the cooperatively orientated, idealistic, innocent instincts, and the emergence of theless-than-ideally-behaved fully conscious intellect.
Over 2,300 years ago Plato similarly acknowledged these elements of the instinctivemoral, ‘good’, ‘upright and cleanly made’, ‘lover of honour and modesty and temperance’, ‘white’
‘horse’ and the rebellious, ‘trouble[some]’, ‘bad’, ‘crooked’, ‘mate of insolence and pride, shag-earedand deaf ’, ‘black’ ‘horse’ of the conscious intellect.

In approximately 1595 Greville truthfully recognised that our wearisome condition arisesfrom a war between our instincts and reasoning intellect, but denied we have cooperative andloving, moral instincts and instead dishonestly asserted we have savage competitive instincts.
Around 1601 Shakespeare, while not recognising the element of ideal-behaviourdemanding, moral instincts, did acknowledge the element of our corrupted-behaviourproducing powers of apprehension or reasoning.
In 1807 Wordsworth recognised both elements of our ideal-behaviour-demanding, moralinstincts and our insecure, mortality-aware conscious mind.
In 1946 Aldous Huxley didn’t recognise the element involved of our cooperative instinctsbut did truthfully recognise that non-rational animals have stayed obedient to their instinctiveorientations, while, by inference, we rational beings haven’t.
In the mid to late 1900s Sir Laurens van der Post recognised the war between our originalpre-conscious, innocent instinctive self and our newer conscious self.
In 1987 Bruce Chatwin recognised that originally there was no contradiction between ouroriginal innocent instinctual state and our emerging rational mind.
Significantly, while considerable truth about the elements involved in the humancondition was acknowledged by all the men mentioned here, none were able to explain howand why the cataclysmic clash between our instincts and intellect occurred.

Part 4:7

Second: those who tried to explain the human condition

277

Thus, in the creation of our mythologies and amongst brave contemporary thinkers therehave been those who perfectly described the elements involved in the human condition.
I have described Wordsworth, van der Post, Lawrence, Rousseau and Chatwin as ‘brave’because each admitted to the truth that we humans once lived in a cooperative, harmonious,loving, innocent state—the instinctive memory of which is our moral conscience. Wordsworthacknowledged that our ‘Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star…cometh from afar…trailing clouds ofglory do we come / From God, who is our home.’ Chatwin bravely admitted that ‘at the beginning ofhuman history…[we had] divine…natures…[that were] instinctual’.

Before concluding this Part, I should mention that mythologies often expressed the truthabout our species’ past state of uncorrupted innocence in story form where their meaning isnot always clear. The benefit of presenting the truth in such a way was that it allowed peopleto recognise the truth that the mythology contained only to the extent that they were secureenough to do so. For example, even Plato’s two-horsed chariot allegory, the meaning of whichis relatively unambiguous despite being presented in story form, has been interpreted in a waythat avoided acknowledging that when Plato wrote of the ‘white’ ‘horse’ that was ‘noble’ andthe ‘dark’ ‘horse’ which was ‘ignoble’, ‘shag-eared’ and ‘trouble[some]’, he was in fact referringto our original instinctive, cooperatively orientated, innocent self and our newer immenselyupset, conscious self.

Part 4:7 Second Category of Thinker: Those who admitted the involvement of ourmoral instincts and corrupting intellect in producing the upset state of thehuman condition and who attempted to explain how those elements producedthat upset psychosis
In Part 4:6 it was shown that throughout history there have been honest thinkers who didacknowledge the role of the elements of moral instincts and a corrupting conscious intellect inproducing the upset state of the human condition.
While it was an immense contribution in its own right, the ability to describe the elementsinvolved in producing the upset state of the human condition, which some exceptionallysound thinkers like Moses and Plato have done, ultimately got us nowhere in terms of beingable to explain the human condition. What needed to be explained was how and why the twoparts of ourselves clashed because only then would we finally be able to explain that therewas a good reason for the clash and resulting upset. Insight into the how and why, however,depended on finding sufficient knowledge about the workings of our world to make thatexplanation possible. Science had to be invented and developed and it was that scientificenquiry that led to Darwin’s breakthrough idea of natural selection. As such, we now needto look at those individuals who went further and not only bravely admitted the involvementof these elements, but, in a display of even greater courage, also attempted to analyse andexplain how the conflict between our moral instincts and corrupting conscious intellectproduced the upset state of the human condition—and who did so with the benefit of knowingabout Darwin’s idea of natural selection.

278

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Nikolai Berdyaev’s admission of the involvement of our moral instincts and corruptingintellect in producing the upset state of the human condition and attempt to explain how thoseelements produced that upset psychosis
In his 1931 book The Destiny of Man, in a chapter actually titled ‘The Origin of Goodand Evil’, the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev (1874–1948) wrote that ‘The memory of alost paradise, of a Golden Age, is very deep in man, together with a sense of guilt and sin and a dream ofregaining the Kingdom of Heaven which sometimes assumes the form of a Utopia or an earthly paradise…
We are faced with a profound enigma: how could man have renounced paradise which he recalls solongingly in our world-aeon? How could he have fallen away from it?…The exile of man from paradisemeans that man fell away from God…Not everything was revealed to man in paradise, and ignorance wasthe condition of the life in it. It was the realm of the unconscious…Man rejected the bliss and wholenessof Eden and chose the pain and tragedy of cosmic life in order to explore his destiny to its inmost depths.
This was the birth of consciousness with its painful dividedness. In falling away from the harmony ofparadise and from unity with God, man began to make distinctions and valuations, tasted the fruit of thetree of knowledge and found himself on this side of good and evil…Man preferred death and the bitternessof discrimination to the blissful and innocent life of ignorance…Paradise is the unconscious wholenessof nature, the realm of instinct. There is in it no division between subject and object, no reflection, nopainful conflict of consciousness with the unconscious’ (tr. N. Duddington, 1960, p.36 & 38 of 310). Further
on he wrote that ‘man is an irrational, paradoxical, essentially tragic being in whom two worlds, twoopposite principles, are at war…Philosophers and scientists have done very little to elucidate the problemof man’ (p.49). Further on still he wrote that ‘For a long time psychology was one of the dullest andmost fruitless of sciences…It was as though psychologists could not find the lever which was to set theirwork in motion…The old psychologists were wrong in assuming that man was a healthy creature, mainlyconscious and intellectual, and should be studied from that point of view. Man is a sick being, with astrong unconscious life…The human soul is divided, an agonizing conflict between opposing elements isgoing on in it…the distinction between the conscious and the subconscious mind is fundamental for thenew psychology. Mental disorders are due to the conflict between the two’ (pp.67-68).

In these amazingly honest passages, Berdyaev is saying that the psychologicalrehabilitation of the human race could not begin until we were able to explain and thusunderstand the ‘agonizing conflict’ and resulting ‘painful dividedness’ ‘between’ our ‘conscious’intellect and our now much-denied-and-repressed-and-thus-‘subconscious’ instinctive self orsoul that once experienced a ‘Golden Age’ when we lived in ‘an earthly’ ‘harmony of paradise’in ‘unity with God’ that was ‘the bliss and wholeness of Eden’, ‘the unconscious wholeness of nature,the realm of instinct’. Only with that ‘lever’ found could our ‘dream of regaining the [‘God[ly]’,
‘harmony’, ‘unity’ and ‘wholeness’ of the] Kingdom of Heaven which sometimes assumes the form of a
Utopia or an earthly paradise’ be realised, as it now finally can.

Just as Moses recognised in his story of the Garden of Eden that taking the ‘fruit…from thetree of the knowledge of good and evil’ (Gen. 3:3, 2:17) was ‘desirable for gaining wisdom’ (ibid. 3:6), because
man ‘will [then] be like God, knowing [understanding] good and evil’ (ibid. 3:5), Berdyaev similarly sawthat man ‘began to make distinctions and valuations, tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge’ ‘in orderto explore his destiny to its inmost depths’. However, also like Moses, Berdyaev didn’t answer the
question of why finding knowledge meant that man ‘fell away from God’; he didn’t explain whyman ‘renounced paradise’ and ‘found himself on this side of good and evil’ ‘with a sense of guilt and sin’.

Part 4:7

Second: those who tried to explain the human condition

279

Berdyaev very perceptively recognised that ‘Mental disorders are due to the conflictbetween’ ‘the conscious and the subconscious mind’ and that ‘the distinction between the consciousand the subconscious mind is fundamental for the new psychology’ that will ameliorate or heal the
‘mental disorders’ that are ‘due to the conflict between the two’. In terms of what the all-important
‘distinction’ is, Berdyaev also accurately recognised that the ‘subconscious’ is a state of
‘ignorance’ while ‘consciousness’ involves being able ‘to make distinctions and valuations, taste…thefruit of the tree of knowledge’, but he didn’t explain what ‘the conflict’ actually was that arose from
those ‘distinctions’—he didn’t explain that the instincts were only orientations that were, ineffect, intolerant of the conscious intellect’s search for knowledge, its memory-based searchfor understanding of cause and effect, and that the intellect had to defy the instincts and thatit was that defiance that was so upsetting and caused humans to become sufferers of ‘good andevil’. It was Darwin’s clarification that instincts are only orientations, not understandings, that
made explanation of how the upset ‘evil’ state emerged possible—a clarification that Berdyaev,who lived after Darwin, had access to but personally wasn’t able to employ to explain whythe conflict between the ‘ignorance’ of ‘the realm of instinct’ and the ‘reflect[ive]’, ‘distinctions’recognising ‘conscious’ state occurred.
From reading Berdyaev’s books, it is clear he was thinking analytically, truthfully andaccurately about the problem of the human condition, but ultimately he was unable to reachall the way to the bottom of the problem and realise what ‘the distinction between the consciousand the subconscious mind [that] is fundamental for the new psychology’ actually was, and when
trying to explain the human condition if you miss by a little, you miss by a mile. As a result,
Berdyaev’s thinking ended up complex and intellectual, basically confused, when the truth,if you stay on its course and reach it, is simple and straightforward. ‘Staying on its course’doesn’t mean that a great deal of thinking is not required to find the simple truth; in fact, agreat deal of thinking back and forth with ‘this’ idea and then ‘that’ idea is needed before theanswer to a problem, the fully accountable, right idea, finally falls out.
The difficulty of ‘staying the course’ is that to keep on thinking back and forth aboutthe particular problem of the human condition, as Berdyaev had clearly begun to do, hasbeen an impossible task for almost all humans because the subject of the human conditionhas been so unbearably condemning and thus confronting and thus depressing for almost allhumans. Berdyaev himself recognised that the stalling point to thinking effectively, especiallyabout the issue of the human condition, was the need for an honest, denial-free, humancondition-confronting-not-human-condition-avoiding approach. In The Destiny of Man hewrote that ‘Knowledge requires great daring. It means victory over ancient, primeval terror. Fearmakes the search for truth and the knowledge of it impossible. Knowledge implies fearlessness…it mustalso be said of knowledge that it is bitter, and there is no escaping that bitterness…Particularly bitteris moral knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil [which is the issue of the human condition]. Butthe bitterness is due to the fallen state of the world, and in no way undermines the value of knowledge…it must be said that the very distinction between good and evil is a bitter distinction, the bitterest thingin the world…Moral knowledge is the most bitter and the most fearless of all for in it sin and evil arerevealed to us along with the meaning and value of life. There is a deadly pain in the very distinction ofgood and evil, of the valuable and the worthless. We cannot rest in the thought that that distinction isultimate. The longing for God in the human heart springs from the fact that we cannot bear to be faced

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

280

The Biology
for ever with the distinction between good and evil…Ethics must be both theoretical and practical, i.e.it must call for the moral reformation of life and a revaluation of values as well as for their acceptance.
And this implies that ethics is bound to contain a prophetic element. It must be a revelation of a clearconscience, unclouded by social conventions [most particularly unpolluted by the all-pervading attitude
of denial]; it must be a critique of pure conscience’ (pp.14-16). Berdyaev knew the human condition
had to be solved if the human race was to survive—as he said, ‘We cannot rest in the thoughtthat that distinction is ultimate. The longing for God in the human heart springs from the fact thatwe cannot bear to be faced for ever with the distinction between good and evil’—however, he also
recognised that solving it required ‘a prophetic’ ‘critique of pure conscience’ that was ‘uncloudedby social conventions’ of denial. Only those who weren’t made to feel ‘worthless’ when thinking
about the human condition—that is, only those who hadn’t been exposed to upset in theirinfancy and childhood and were thus relatively free or innocent of upset, only those witha ‘pure conscience’—could hope to ‘fearless[ly]’ face and investigate the issue of the humancondition. Otherwise a ‘deadly pain’ from the ‘ancient [two million-year-old], primeval terror’ thattrying to think about the human condition can cause would be encountered. Recall Carl Jung’sdescription of how encountering the ‘shadow’, the negative aspects of being human, could bea ‘shattering experience’ because it meant having ‘to gaze into the face of absolute evil’. Since theideals are to be cooperative, loving and selfless, the competitive, aggressive and selfish natureof the upset human condition is, if we face the full truth of it, the diabolical opposite state toideality—it is a ‘bitter’, apparently ‘evil’, ‘worthless’ state.
Without the explanation/defence for the human condition, trying to confront it meanthaving to admit you were ‘worthless’—a ‘shattering’, suicidally depressing conclusion foranyone to reach, which is why everyone who suffered from the upset state of the humancondition wouldn’t allow themselves to go on that thought journey. Virtually everyonehas been living deep inside Plato’s cave of denial of the issue of the human condition.
Since no one who was upset would allow themselves to go near the realisation that theywere ‘worthless’, it follows that virtually everyone has been living an extremely escapist,almost completely alienated artificial and superficial existence—which, with the defencefor the human condition now found, can thankfully all end. No longer can ‘thinking’, as
Quantock said, ‘get you into terrible downwards spirals of doubt’, or, as Camus said, lead to youbecoming psychologically ‘undermined’. We can go anywhere in our thinking now withoutencountering ‘a deadly pain’. The ‘distinction between good and evil’ has, as Berdyaev hoped,finally been eliminated.
Since thinking truthfully about the issue of the human condition for those who were upsetresulted in the ‘primeval terror’ and ‘shattering’ ‘deadly pain’ of the realisation that they were
‘worthless’, Berdyaev must have had a relatively well-nurtured upbringing and, as a result,
been relatively sound and secure in himself—he must have been, to a degree, a denial-free,sound ‘prophetic’ thinker—to think about the issue of the human condition as deeply as hedid, even though he evidently wasn’t sound enough to ‘stay on course’ and take his honestthinking all the way to the bottom of the problem. But at least Berdyaev survived the truthfulthought journey that he did go on—others did not, as we will now see.

Part 4:7

Second: those who tried to explain the human condition

281

(Note, the process of rehabilitating the human race from its ‘painful’, ‘fallen’, ‘sick’upset state through the ‘lever’ of ‘the new psychology’ of being able to explain how ‘thedistinction between the conscious and the subconscious mind’ caused the ‘good and evil’-afflicted
human condition is the TRANSFORMATION that was explained in Part 3:10 and which willbe elaborated upon in Part 9 and described by those practicing it in Section 3 of Freedom
Expanded: Book 2.)

Eugene Marais’ admission of the involvement of our moral instincts and corrupting intellectin producing the upset state of the human condition and attempt to explain how thoseelements produced that upset psychosis
The South African lawyer and naturalist Eugène Marais (1872–1936), who in the early
1900s was the first person to study primates in their natural habitat, was an exceptionally
honest thinker. His ground-breaking observation of baboons was documented in his seminalbook, The Soul of the Ape (written between 1916 and 1936, and published posthumously in 1969). Ifyou immerse yourself in this title, and that of another of his books, The Soul of the White Ant
(1937), you can sense that Marais was very unevasive: he did not live in Plato’s cave of denial
because he spoke openly about ‘soul’, which is forbidden in denial-complying mechanisticscience—as the psychologist Ronald Conway noted, ‘Soul is customarily suspected in empiricalpsychology and analytical philosophy as a disreputable entity’ (The Australian, 10 May 2000). The reason
‘soul’ has been ‘a disreputable entity’ is because, as stated in Part 4:4D, it represented the fourth
most unbearably confronting truth for upset humans to have to face. We humans once livedin an utterly cooperative, integrative, selfless, loving, innocent ideal state, the instinctivememory of which we refer to as our ‘soul’. Unable to explain our present corrupted, non-idealcondition, the upset human race has had no choice but to deny the truth of our species’ soulful,cooperative, integrative, selfless, loving, innocent past. Marais was breaking the rules ofdenial by mentioning ‘soul’. In fact, denial-complying mechanistic science didn’t even allowuse of the word ‘love’ and has no interpretation for it, even though ‘love’, like ‘soul’, is oneof our most used words and recognised emotions—indeed ‘soul’ is one of the most recognisedelements of our make-up. The linguist Robin Allott summarised mechanistic science’s attitudeto love when he said, ‘Love has been described as a taboo subject, not serious, not appropriate forscientific study’ (‘Evolutionary Aspects of Love and Empathy’, Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 1992, Vol.15,
No.4 353-370). As described in Part 4:4B (and this will be further explained in Part 8:1), love is the
selflessness that holds wholes together, it is the very theme of existence, the most ‘serious[ly]’important subject of all, as is the subject of our ‘soul’—but like ‘soul’, love has also been oneof the most condemning and thus depressing and thus ‘disreputable’, ‘taboo’ subjects of all.
What our soul really is, and what love really is, the upset human race didn’t want to know!
The problem with denying such ‘serious[ly]’ important issues as ‘soul’ and ‘love’ is thatit completely undermines your ability to think effectively. You can’t build the truth fromlies. Any thinking that went on in Plato’s cave of denial was extremely ineffective and thussuperficial and mostly meaningless. The great danger, however—as Marais was to discover—

282

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
with ‘fearless[ly]’ trying to think about such ‘serious[ly]’ important issues as ‘soul’ and ‘love’,and thus think effectively, was that it meant confronting the issue of the human condition andthat, as Berdyaev and Jung warned, could lead to the ‘primeval terror’ and ‘shattering’ ‘deadlypain’ of realising you were ‘worthless’.

Marais ‘fearless[ly]’ pursued the human-condition-confronting issue of our species’
‘communal’, ‘moral or altruistic’ instinctive self or soul. In 1926 he wrote: ‘I want to tell yousomething of our work…in comparative psychology. We set out to study the behaviour of our baboons, inthe first instance…It was here we first came into contact with the communal mind. In time, we realizedthe troop was dominated by a psyche which resided in no single individual. It induced behaviour which,in the case of human society, we call “moral” or “altruistic”…It was the study of this communal mindwhich directed us to the termites’ (The Road to Waterberg and other essays, 1972, p. 145 of 175). Marais’ mention
of his study of the ‘communal mind’ in ‘termites’ is a reference to another immensely truthful,integrative-meaning-confronting investigation that he undertook, which he described in The
Soul of the White Ant. In that book he ‘fearless[ly]’ talked about the ‘group psyche or soul’ (p.50 of
154)
of the termite colony, concluding with the revolutionary, integrative-meaning-recognising
insight that a termite colony is a single organism—that ‘the termitary is a separate and perfectanimal’ (ibid. p.64), a cooperative, fully integrated collection of parts like ‘our own bodies’ (ibid. p.60).

(Note, the biological means by which ants, termites and bees integrated to form the individualthat is the colony will be fully explained in Part 8:3.)
So Marais, through his observations of the baboons and termites and his great honesty—his truthful, effective thinking—was able to make some very penetrating insights. Indeed, inhis Introduction to The Soul of the Ape, the renowned American anthropologist Robert Ardreywrote the following of Marais: ‘As a scientist he was unique, supreme in his time, yet a worker in ascience then unborn’ (p.7 of 171). While Marais was ‘the first man in the history of science to conduct aprolonged study of one of man’s primate relatives in a state of nature’ (ibid. p.12), the real frontier for
science that was ‘then unborn’ that Marais pioneered was his study of ‘the evolutionary origins ofthe subconscious mind in man’ (ibid. p.8). While, as Ardrey pointed out, Sigmund Freud ‘presented uswith the concept of the unconscious mind’ (ibid. p.24-25), it was Marais who set out on the discovery
of ‘the evolutionary origins of the subconscious mind in man’. In fact, Ardrey referred to Marais asthe ‘prophet’ ‘of biology’s new challenge’ to be ‘concern[ed] with’ ‘the behaviour of men’ (ibid. p.32-33).
Use of the description ‘prophet’ for someone seeking to understand ‘the behaviour of men’ wasintuitively accurate because, as Berdyaev said, truthful thinking about the question of theimmorality of our human behaviour or ‘ethics is bound to contain a prophetic element. It must be arevelation of a clear conscience, unclouded by social conventions’ of lies/denial.

The power of Marais’ honest, relatively denial-free, ‘prophetic’, insightful thinking isparticularly evident in the inroads he made into the all-important issue of the ‘origins of ’ theimmoral ‘behaviour of men’, namely the issue of the human condition—and, in the process,into ‘the evolutionary origins of the subconscious mind in man’. In The Soul of the Ape Maraiswrote that ‘The great frontier between the two types of mentality is the line which separates non-primatemammals from apes and monkeys. On one side of that line behaviour is dominated by hereditary memory,and on the other by individual causal memory…The phyletic history of the primate soul can clearlybe traced in the mental evolution of the human child. The highest primate, man, is born an instinctiveanimal. All its behaviour for a long period after birth is dominated by the instinctive mentality…it has no

Part 4:7

Second: those who tried to explain the human condition

283
memory, no conception of cause and effect, no consciousness…As the new soul, the soul of the individualmemory slowly emerges, the instinctive soul becomes just as slowly submerged…For a time it is almostas though there were a struggle between the two’ (pp.77-79). In The Soul of the White Ant Marais
also recognised that the ‘instinct…is incapable of deviation from a certain fixed way of behaving…
This inherited memory is in every respect a terrible tyrant’ (p.45). He further realised that ‘the socalled “subliminal soul” in man—the “subconscious” mentality—is none other than this old “animal”

[instinctive] mentality which has been put out of action by the new mentality’ (The Road to Waterberg andother essays, p.149). Again, we can recognise much of the Adam Stork analogy in this description,
of becoming conscious and, as consciousness emerged, a ‘struggle’ with the inflexible,
‘tyran[nical]’ instincts erupting. Marais not only acknowledged the elements of instincts and
conscious intellect involved in the human condition, he, like Berdyaev, was considering howthe two elements interacted. Had he pursued and developed his insight into the emerging
‘struggle’ between the inflexible, ‘tyran[nical]’ ‘instinctive soul’ or ‘hereditary memory’ and the
new ‘conscious’ ‘memory’-based, ‘cause and effect’-understanding, ‘individual causal memory’, hecould have realised, as I did, that the good reason why the conscious intellect had to defy thetyrannical instincts was because the conscious mind had to search for understanding of ‘causeand effect’, and further that it was that particular guilt-producing ‘struggle’ that caused the upset
competitive, aggressive and selfish, corrupted human nature.
Again, to miss the truth by a little was to miss it by a mile, and Marais’ thinking endedup confused and lost—moreover, in thinking so honestly but not reaching the full truth,
Marais was left dangerously exposed to depressing self-confrontation and resulting self-doubt.
Indeed, Sir Laurens van der Post was warning of the dangers of the unbearable depressionthat lay in wait if you attempted to look into the human condition when you were not soundenough to do so, when he wrote that ‘He who tries to go down into the labyrinthine pit of himself,to travel the swirling, misty netherlands below sea-level through which the harsh road to heaven andwholeness runs, is doomed to fail and never see the light where night joins day unless he goes out of love insearch of love’ (The Face Beside the Fire, 1953, p.290 of 311).

In his thinking about what caused ‘the pain of consciousness’ (The Soul of the Ape, p.90 & 91), ‘mentalgloom’ (p.92), ‘pessimism and lack of joyousness…mental misery’ (p.93)—in fact, thinking about
humanity’s ‘march towards the madhouse’ (My Friends the Baboons, 1939, p.9 of 124), its march towardsterminal levels of alienation—Marais did accurately recognise that human depression camewith the emergence of consciousness; that it ‘is due to…some kind of suffering inseparable fromthe new [conscious] mind which…it [man] has acquired in the course of evolution’ (The Soul of the Ape,p.98); that ‘human consciousness [is]…the whole and only cause of this quality of psychological suffering’
(ibid. p.101). He also accurately recognised that our pre-conscious instincts were intruding into
our conscious mind and causing ‘havoc’ and ‘delusional insanity’—causing the ‘pain’, ‘misery’and ‘psychological suffering’ of the human condition—but he didn’t identify the right reason forhow the intruding instincts were causing the distress. For example, he recognised that ‘Normalmental pain in man, generally speaking, is tidal in character. With sunrise…it is at its lowest ebb, to reachits highest flow in the evening’ (ibid. p.101), but to explain this he said that ‘All communal animals,for instance, are “selected” to feel this moment of depression at sunset in order to bring the troop closelytogether at their time of greatest danger. It can be easily understood how these centres, long submerged inman, can become confusingly active in consciousness. If for any reason they become functional again while

284

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
the cortex is still active, they work havoc as delusional insanity…It is a real “possession”, a possession byhis [an insane person’s] own ancient “animal” mind, which thrusts its activity through into his normalconsciousness. Very few observers fail to recognize the essentially “animal-like” change which insanityentails’ (The Road to Waterberg and other essays, p.152-154). The truth is, in the mornings upset humans are
generally fresh from a night’s rest—it’s when their happy, instinctive soulful state is closestto the surface. It’s only as the day wears on that the ‘mental misery’ of thinking about theimperfections of the human condition begins to dominate. Our ‘animal’ instincts are instinctivememories of a loving, happy, ideal state, and it was when this ‘ancient “animal” [ideal-behaviourdemanding] mind…thrusts its activity through [from its long psychologically blocked-out/deniedand thus repressed, ‘subconscious’, ‘unconscious’ state] into…normal consciousness’ that ‘insanity’
occurred. Two million years living in a conscious state of horrific upset from criticism fromour instincts has been the real nightmare in the human brain, not the welling up of an ancientinstinctive fear of being attacked by predators once the sun went down.
I should say that when you have lots of love and generosity—lots of psychologicalsecurity of self—the losses and difficulties encountered in life are not unbearable ordestabilising. Baboons have not yet developed the fully nurtured, completely cooperative,integrated state that our Australopithecine ancestors developed and which bonobos are onthe threshold of developing—baboon societies are, for instance, still patriarchal. So they arenot as imbued with the security of self and certainty about the greater truth of the integrativepotential of life that comes with being fully orientated to Integrative Meaning and its themeof unconditional selflessness or love as our Australopithecine ancestors were. This meansbaboons won’t cope with anxieties, such as about the danger of predators, as well as our
Australopithecine ancestors would have. The point is, while there are some very good clues tobe found about the origins of our species’ instinctive self or soul in the behaviour of baboons,they don’t provide anything like as good an insight into our soul’s origins as bonobos.
Baboons are only in the very early stages of becoming integrated through nurturing.
Marais was close to the truth in blaming our ‘ancient “animal” mind, which thrusts itsactivity through into his normal consciousness’ for our ‘pain of consciousness’—because our ideal-
behaviour-demanding, integratively orientated, moral instinctive conscience is what upset our
‘memory’-based, ‘cause and effect’-‘concept[ualising]’, conscious intellect—but he was wrong
about how our ‘ancient “animal” mind’ made us so upset/‘insane’. (Note the ease with which
Marais acknowledges that consciousness is simply a product of nerves’ ability to rememberevents and thus understand or conceptualise the relationship between cause and effect. Aswas described in Part 4:4C, truth-avoiding, mechanistic scientists have lived in denial of thetrue nature of consciousness because it meant having to confront the unbearable issue of thehuman condition.) Marais was thinking truthfully about the origin of our moral instincts whenhe talked about the ‘group psyche or soul’, the ‘communal mind’ which is ‘moral or altruistic’, butthinking about that truth, and many other truths related to Integrative Meaning and our presentlack of compliance with it, could be suicidally depressing, and Marais did increasingly sufferfrom depression. He began taking drugs to try to escape the depression but, most tragically,did eventually commit suicide.

Part 4:7

Second: those who tried to explain the human condition

285

To elaborate, Marais courageously and accurately recognised that ‘If mankind wishes toescape the doom which now threatens its existence on earth [it must undertake]…the study of this evil

[of the pain of consciousness]’ (My Friends the Baboons, p.10-11), however, doing so and thinking about
human behaviour, namely the ‘pain of consciousness’ that is the issue of the human condition,led him to suicidal depression. It is true that Marais’s very beautiful young wife died as aresult of a uterine infection after giving birth to their only child, and Marais never got overlosing her. And it is also true that a ‘world famous’ ‘Nobel Prize’-winning ‘European author’ ‘tookhalf of Marais’s lifework and published it as his own’, and that this ‘plagiarizing’ (The Soul of the Ape,p.16-18) contributed to Marais’ despair. But the real reason behind the demons Marais faced
was his truthful thinking. While I never had to contend with the tragedy of the death of awife, some years ago an eminent scientist plagiarised my explanation of the human conditionand while that was very disappointing and we achieved redress, never at any point did I feeldevastated. Postulating about the causes of Marais’ suicide in his Introduction to The Soul ofthe Ape, Ardrey wrote that ‘Perhaps his tragic sense as a poet overcame the creative optimism of thescientist’ (ibid. p.44). The ‘tragic sense as a poet’ is about as close as the resigned, denial-practising
world could come to acknowledging the courageous ‘prophetic’, human-condition-confrontingtruthfulness of Marais’ thinking, which, again as Berdyaev and Jung warned, could lead to the
‘primeval terror’ and ‘shattering’ ‘deadly pain’ of realising you were ‘worthless’—although Ardrey
did manage to refer to the ‘inner pain’ that came with having ‘overwhelming insight’ when hedescribed Marais as being ‘the damned and the saved, with all his complexities of inner pain andoverwhelming insight’ (ibid. p.29). And Marais himself did acknowledge ‘the dim and remote regionsof the mind into which it [his enquiry] led me’ (ibid. p.20).

Ardrey honoured the ‘fearlessness’ of Marais’ thinking by dedicating his 1961 book African
Genesis to his memory. Unfortunately, African Genesis is a book about how man is naturallyan aggressive animal, which is a view Marais didn’t subscribe to—as mentioned, Marais’great interest was in ‘the study of [the] communal mind’ ‘which in the case of human society, we call
“moral” or “altruistic”’. As will be explained in Part 4:9, efforts to misrepresent our altruistic,
moral soul as brutish and aggressive was a way of avoiding the issue of the human condition.
I think Ardrey’s admiration of Marais was a subconscious love of a ‘fearlessness’ that hehimself didn’t possess.
_______________________

Trying to face down the truth about our corrupted human condition, as Marais socourageously attempted to do, but without having access to the explanation for the humancondition, has been, as emphasised, a suicidally depressing prospect for virtually all humans.
We can see that even for relatively sound people, as Marais must have been to even attemptto analyse the human condition, looking into the human condition has been an extremelydangerous exercise. Many who tried, like Marais and the scientist-philosopher Arthur
Koestler, whose work we will look at next, eventually took their own lives. The Swisspsychoanalyst Carl Jung (1875-1961) went mad when he tried to confront his deeper self andthe issue of the human condition that resides there, requiring three years to get over the

286

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
psychologically devastating effects of his journey—he did, however, unearth a lot of truthabout the human condition through thinking in an honest, human-condition-confrontingrather than a dishonest, human-condition-avoiding way. This extract from an article about
Ronald Hayman’s 2000 biography of Jung, Life of Jung, describes the journey Jung undertookinto his ‘unconscious counterposition’: ‘He [Jung] claimed to have acquired the knack of catchingunconscious material “in flagrante”, and his [1963] book Memories, Dreams, Reflections suggests hisbehaviour was heroic—that he was making a dangerous expedition into the unconscious for the sakeof scientific discovery. Several dreams involved subterranean staircases and caverns, which suggestedthat his fantasies were located somewhere underground. In December 1913, he says, he decided to dropdownwards. “I let myself fall. It was as if the floor literally gave way underneath me and I plummetedinto dark depths”…It took about three years to recover from the breakdown…It was during Jung’sbreakdown that he arrived at some of his most important concepts…Had it not been for his breakdown,
Jung might never have developed the technique he called active imagination, based on conversationswith his anima [the soulful, more female side of himself] and with fantasy figures. He told patients todraw or paint characters from dreams or fantasies, and to interrogate them. This was like praying to aninternal god, “for there are answers inside you if you are not afraid of them”. It was a matter of “lettingthe unconscious come up”’ (‘An edited extract from Life of Jung’, Good Weekend mag. Sydney Morning Herald, 5
Feb. 2000). Saying ‘there are answers inside you if you are not afraid of them’ is confirmation of what

Berdyaev said, that ‘Knowledge requires great daring. It means victory over ancient, primeval terror.
Fear makes the search for truth and the knowledge of it impossible. Knowledge implies fearlessness.’

Arthur Koestler’s admission of the involvement of our instincts and corrupting intellect inproducing the upset state of the human condition and attempt to explain how those elementsproduced that upset psychosis
While the Hungarian-born British scientist-philosopher Arthur Koestler (1905-1983) didn’t,to my knowledge, recognise that we humans have moral instincts, he, nevertheless, belongs inthis category because in every other aspect of his thinking he sought to confront and explainthe human condition. The courage and integrity of his thinking is particularly apparent in howprepared he was to acknowledge that the issue of the human condition was the all-importantissue that had to be addressed, that the dishonest approach of reductionist, mechanisticscience had to be changed for a solution to the human condition to be found, and that the mostimportant aspect of that change had to involve the recognition of Integrative Meaning.
In his 1978 book Janus: A Summing Up, Koestler wrote that ‘homo sapiens is not a reasonablebeing – for if he were, he would not have made such a bloody mess of his history…The first step towards apossible therapy is a correct diagnosis of what went wrong with our species’ (p.5 of 354).

Koestler courageously made the obvious, but almost universally denied, point that our
‘human condition’ is not the same as the non-human, competitive and aggressive, mustreproduce-your-genes, savage-instincts ‘animal condition’, writing that the murderous,paranoiac, duplicitous ‘symptoms of the mental disorder which appears to be endemic in our species…are specifically and uniquely human, and not found in any other species. Thus it seems only logicalthat our search for explanations [of our human condition] should also concentrate primarily on thoseattributes of homo sapiens which are exclusively human and not shared by the rest of the animal kingdom.
But however obvious this conclusion may seem, it runs counter to the prevailing reductionist trend.

Part 4:7

Second: those who tried to explain the human condition

287

“Reductionism” is the philosophical belief that all human activities can be “reduced” to – i.e., explained by
– the [competitive and aggressive, must-reproduce-your-genes] behavioural responses of lower animals
– Pavlov’s dogs, Skinner’s rats and pigeons, Lorenz’s greylag geese, Morris’s hairless apes…That is whythe scientific establishment has so pitifully failed to define the predicament of man’ (p.19).

In seeking the ‘causes’ ‘of the human condition’ (pp.8, 9), Koestler identified the elements ofinstinct and intellect involved in the human condition and sought an explanation for howthey might have produced the human condition by referring to the American neurologist Paul
MacLean’s theory (which will be looked at later in this Part) that human behaviour suffersfrom an inadequate co-ordination between the rational neocortex and the instinctual limbicareas of our brain—as Koestler described MacLean’s concept: ‘the brain explosion [in humans]gave rise to a mentally unbalanced species in which old brain and new brain, emotion and intellect, faithand reason, were at loggerheads’ (ibid. p.10). This recognition of humans having an old instinctive
brain and a newer cognitive brain that are at ‘loggerheads’ was on the right track to explainingthe human condition, but the cause of the conflict was not correctly identified by either
MacLean or by Koestler.
Koestler was always a brave, honest thinker. Bruce Chatwin, who we have alreadyidentified as a courageous thinker himself, made reference to Koestler’s honest recognitionthat our species’ present psychotic condition arose from a conflict between our instinctand intellect in his 1987 book The Songlines: ‘London, 1970: At a public lecture I listened to
Arthur Koestler airing his opinion that the human species was mad. He claimed that, as a result of aninadequate co-ordination between two areas of the brain—the “rational” neocortex and the “instinctual”hypothalamus—Man had somehow acquired the “unique, murderous, delusional streak” that propelledhim, inevitably, to murder, to torture and to war’ (p. 237 of 325).

In Janus, Koestler went on to complain of ‘the sterile deserts of reductionist philosophy’,asserting that ‘a correct diagnosis of the condition of man [had to be] based on a new approach tothe sciences of life’ (p.20). He then set about establishing that ‘new approach’ by courageously
acknowledging that ‘hierarchic organization is a fundamental principle of living nature’ (p.30)—usingthe diagram of the integrative development of order of matter to illustrate his point (pp.28-29).
(A version of this diagram was included earlier in Part 4:4B.) Koestler wrote courageouslyof ‘the active striving of living matter towards [order] [p.223]’, of ‘a drive towards synthesis, towardsgrowth, towards wholeness [p.224]’. He said, ‘the integrative tendency has the dual function ofcoordinating the constituent parts of a system in its existing state, and of generating new levels oforganization in evolving hierarchies [p.225]’. On the origin of the ‘integrative tendency’ he explained
that ‘One of the basic doctrines of the nineteenth-century mechanistic world-view was Clausius’ famous
“Second Law of Thermodynamics”. It asserted that the universe was running down towards its finaldissolution because its energy is being steadily, inexorably dissipated into the random motion of molecules,until it ends up as a single, amorphous bubble of gas with a uniform temperature just above absolutezero: cosmos dissolving into chaos [p.222] …It was in fact a physicist, not a biologist, the Nobel laureate
Erwin Schrödinger, who put an end to the tyranny of the Second Law with his celebrated dictum: “Whatan organism feeds on is negative entropy” [p.223] …Negative entropy is thus a somewhat perverse wayof referring to the power of living organisms to “build up” instead of running down, to create complexstructures out of simpler elements, integrated patterns out of shapelessness, order out of disorder. Thesame irrepressible building-up tendency is manifested in the progress of evolution [p.223].’

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

288

The Biology

I should mention that Koestler tried to cope with the fact that Integrative Meaningconfronts us with our selfish, disintegrative behaviour by saying we have a responsibility toboth maintain self and maintain the whole, but the truth is that ideally the priority alwayshas to be the whole. The real justification for our selfish nature is the instinct versus intellectexplanation of the human condition.
Koestler bravely and boldly emphasised the stalled situation of all of science, but ofbiology and psychology in particular, when he said that the human-condition-issue-avoiding,
Integrative-Meaning-denying, God-shunning, whole-view-evading, details-only-focused,blind, Plato’s-cave-dwelling attitude of mechanistic, reductionist science has ‘taken the lifeout of biology as well as psychology’, writing in Janus that ‘although the facts [of the integration of
matter] were there for everyone to see, orthodox evolutionists were reluctant to accept their theoreticalimplications. The idea that living organisms, in contrast to machines, were primarily active, and notmerely reactive; that instead of passively adapting to their environment they were…creating…newpatterns of structure…such ideas were profoundly distasteful to [Social] Darwinians, behaviourists andreductionists in general [p.222] …Evolution has been compared to a journey from an unknown origintowards an unknown destination, a sailing along a vast ocean; but we can at least chart the route…and there is no denying that there is a wind which makes the sails move…the purposiveness of all vitalprocesses…Causality and finality are complementary principles in the sciences of life; if you take outfinality and purpose you have taken the life out of biology as well as psychology [p.226].’

In trying to confront and explain the human condition, and in boldly recognising theextremely confronting truth of Integrative Meaning, Koestler was clearly an exceptionallybrave and, by inference, a remarkably sound, prophetic thinker. In fact, he was frequentlydescribed as a ‘prophet’, and it was even said of him that ‘It’s undeniable that Koestler had oneof the most highly developed messiah complexes of the twentieth century’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 1 Dec.
1986). Although
the term ‘messiah complex’ is often used derogatively, ‘messiah’ in dictionaries
means ‘liberator’ and since what is required to liberate humanity from the human conditionis, as Berdyaev said, the ‘fearless’ preparedness to confront the issue of the human condition,
Koestler was certainly messianic because, as has been explained, only by confronting thehuman condition could liberating understanding of the human condition ever be found. Itshould be emphasised, however, that the real ‘messiah’ or liberator of humanity is sciencewhich found the understandings of the way our world works, in particular the nature ofthe gene and nerve based learning systems, that made explanation of the human conditionpossible. We can even tell from the title of Koestler’s 1978 book Janus: A Summing Up, thathis life’s work was bravely focused on the issue of ‘Janus’, the two-faced, good-and-evil,human-condition afflicted state of humanity—‘Janus’ being the Roman deity depicted withtwo faces fixed in opposing directions.
But while Koestler was obviously an exceptionally courageous and a remarkably soundthinker, he, like Marais before him, was eventually overwhelmed by the truths he wasconfronting, committing suicide in 1983. While it is true that at the time of his death Koestlerwas suffering from debilitating diseases, the agony of looking into the human condition nodoubt played a significant part in his demise, as this review by Michael Pollak of the 1983book Arthur Koestler: The story of a friendship, written by Koestler’s close friend George
Mikes, recognised: ‘In the end, Arthur Koestler was crushed by overpowering physical pain, by

Part 4:7

Second: those who tried to explain the human condition

289

Parkinson’s disease and leukaemia. Combined with mystical self-doubts and overwhelming pessimism, hisburden became too much and he gathered up colossal self-discipline to carry out a suicide pact with hiswife Cynthia’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 21 Jan. 1984).

In his recent biography of Koestler, Michael Scammell included this accurate descriptionof him: ‘Koestler was the embodiment of an uncompromised, unafraid, international idealism’ (Koestler:
The Literary and Political Odyssey of a Twentieth-Century Skeptic, Michael Scammell, 2009, p.211 of 689). The

‘international idealism’—the ideal state, ‘the memory of a lost paradise’ that the human race has
been striving to ‘regain’, as Berdyaev described it—is a world free of the corrupted state of thehuman condition. Scammell noted that Koestler even dubbed his yearning for this absolutestate as ‘absolutitis’ (pp.75, 409).
I should mention that Koestler bequeathed his estate to establishing a school for the studyof the paranormal. Yes, the truth is that the intuitions and sensitivities that seem so beyond ournormal awareness that we call them ‘paranormal’ are really ‘ultra-normal’ or ‘ultra-natural’; itis just that we humans are so alienated that there is a world of sensitivity we have lost accessto, so it was another illustration of Koestler’s honesty of thought that he tried to stimulatestudy of our repressed sensitivities and awarenesses. As Berdyaev said, ‘Man is a sick being, witha strong unconscious life’. It is this ‘strong unconscious life’ that we have lost access to.

Paul MacLean’s admission of the involvement of our altruistic instincts and consciousintellect in producing the human condition
In the 1950s the American neurologist and author Paul MacLean (1913-2007) developedhis theory of ‘the triune brain’, which states that humans are a mentally unbalanced speciesbecause of an inadequate coordination between our emotional old brain and our cognitivenew brain. In his books A triune concept of the brain and behaviour (1973) and The Triune
Brain in Evolution: Role in Paleocerebral Functions (1990), MacLean proposed that humanshave not one brain but three, each originating from a different stage of our evolutionaryhistory. He said there is the inner original reptilian brain that comprises the brainstem andcerebellum, which tends to be rigid, compulsive and ritualistic, intent on repeating the samebehaviours over and over. This brain controls muscles, balance and autonomic functionssuch as breathing and heartbeat. Then there is the middle ‘limbic’ brain, which comprises theamygdala, hypothalamus and hippocampus and is prominent in lower mammals. Derived,he argued, from survival being dependent on the avoidance of pain and on the repetition ofpleasure, MacLean described the limbic brain as being concerned with emotions and instincts,in particular feeding, fight or flight reactions, sexual behaviour and maternal care. And thirdly,there is the outer neo or cerebral cortex brain of higher mammals, which is concerned withreason, invention and abstract thought. Although all animals have a neocortex, in most casesit is relatively small—the exception being primates, and in humans in particular it is massive,constituting five-sixths of our large brain. Scientists had assumed that the neocortex effectivelydominated the brain’s lower levels, but MacLean differed, arguing that having originated fromseparate stages of evolutionary history the three brains were relatively independent systems.
He said that ‘the three evolutionary formations might be imagined as three interconnected biologicalcomputers, with each having its own special intelligence, its own subjectivity, its own sense of time andspace, and its own memory, motor, and other functions’ (The Triune Brain in Evolution, p.9 of 672).

290

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Because of the independence between these three brains MacLean saw them as frequentlybeing dissociated and in conflict, with the lower limbic system that rules emotions even capableof hijacking the higher mental functions when it so chooses. As such, MacLean perceivedgreat danger in the limbic system’s power, viewing the limbic brain as the seat of our altruisticvalue judgments instead of the supposedly more appropriate advanced neocortex. According to
MacLean, the limbic system decides whether our higher brain has a ‘good’ idea or not, whetherit feels true and right. MacLean explained this concern in The Triune Brain in Evolution,documenting how, during seizures, certain epileptics experience what they variously describeas ‘feelings of eternal harmony’, ‘immense joy’, ‘paradisiacal happiness’, ‘feelings completely out of thisworld’, ‘what it was like to be in heaven’, ‘feelings of familiarity or déjà vu’, ‘feeling of enhanced awarenessor the feeling of clairvoyance’, of having ‘clear, bright thoughts’, that ‘seem as if “this is what the worldis all about—this is the absolute truth”’ and that their thoughts during these episodes or auras
‘seem so much more important and vital than they do in ordinary living’ (pp.446-449). Referring to such
studies of epilepsy where ‘a patient may experience during the aura free-floating, affective feelings ofconviction of what is real, true, and important’, MacLean was prompted to ask, ‘Does this mean thatthis primitive [limbic] part of the brain with an incapacity for verbal communication generates the feelingsof conviction that we attach to our beliefs, regardless of whether they are true or false? It is one thing tohave the anciently derived limbic system to assure us of the authenticity of such things as food or a mate,but where do we stand if we must depend on the mental emanations of this same system for belief in ourideas, concepts, and theories? In the intellectual sphere, it would be as though we are continually tried bya jury that cannot read or write’ (p.453). In the following extract from an interview recorded in the

1986 book The Three-Pound Universe, by J. Hooper and D. Teresi, MacLean elaborated, saying,
‘While the neo-cortex, with its sensory equipment, surveys the outer world, the limbic system takes itscues from within. It has a loose grip on reality.’ The interview went on to describe how ‘In the 1940’s
MacLean became fascinated with the “limbic storms” suffered by patients with temporal-lobe epilepsy.
“During seizures,” he recalls, “they’d have this Eureka feeling all out of context—feelings of revelation, thatthis is the truth, the absolute truth, and nothing but the truth.” All on its own, without the reality check ofthe neo-cortex, the limbic system seems to produce sensations of déjà-vu or jamais-vu, sudden memories,waking dreams, messages from God, even religious conversions…“You know what bugs me most aboutthe brain?” MacLean says suddenly. “It’s that the limbic system, this primitive brain that can neither readnor write, provides us with the feeling of what is real, true and important. And this disturbs me, becausethis inarticulate brain sits like a jury and tells this glorified computer up there, the neo-cortex, ‘Yes, youcan believe this”’…This is fine if it happens to be a bit of food or if it happens to be someone I’m courting “Yes, it’s a female, or yes, it’s a male.” But if it’s saying, “Yes, it’s a good idea. Go out and peddle this one,”how can we believe anything?’ (pp.48-49). In the electronic book Laws of Wisdom, the author, who is
known only as ‘Ralph’, provides this analysis of the above quote: ‘MacLean warns us not to fall forthe soul trap of the middle brain. The limbic system is likely to think anything is true, anything is sacred,and to build thought around desires. His insights underscore the need for thinking to not be the slave offeeling; it should stand in its own right. You shouldn’t leave your higher brain out of the value judgmentprocess anymore than you should leave your emotions out of choosing a mate.’

There are some very important points to make about MacLean’s triune braininterpretation. Firstly, citing an inadequate coordination between our old and new brain ison the right track to explaining the upset state of our human condition, but it doesn’t extendto the bottom of the problem. The limbic brain and the neocortex do have their ‘own special

Part 4:7

Second: those who tried to explain the human condition

291
intelligence’, their ‘own subjectivity’, their ‘own sense of time and space’, and their ‘own memory,motor, and other functions’, and these differences do produce dissociation and conflict between
the two brains, but what is it about the different intelligences and resulting subjectivitiesand senses of time and space and memories that actually causes the conflict between thesetwo particular brains? Even the 3,500-year-old story of the Garden of Eden recognised thattaking the fruit from the tree of knowledge—becoming conscious—led to our divisive,corrupted, ‘evil’ state.
In the 1930s the philosopher George Gurdjieff wrote Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson,a novel in which he recognised that man is a ‘three-brained being’—one brain for the spirit
(intellect), one for the soul (the emotional instinctive self) and one for the body (the primitive,foundation part of our mind). The outstanding question in all these accounts, however, is whatparticularly is it about the differences between our old brain and new brain that causes themto be in conflict? Why are they uncoordinated? Humans have known since time immemorialthat they have conflicting parts of themselves, in particular an altruistic conscience thatcondemns any divisive behaviour that our conscious mind might put into practice. Peoplehave even questioned whether the explanation of the human condition that I put forwardis original, citing others such as Arthur Koestler or Paul MacLean or Plato or Gurdjieff ashaving previously recognised the instinct versus intellect conflict. What is significant is thatnone of the other accounts recognised that the conflict between our instinct and intellectoccurred because instincts are only orientations so when the insightful nerve-based learningsystem became sufficiently able to understand cause and effect to wrest management of selffrom the instincts the instinctive orientations would have challenged that takeover, leaving theintellect no choice other than to defy that resistance, with that necessary defiance being theexplanation for our angry, egocentric and alienated human-condition-afflicted state. Once seenit is an extremely obvious explanation for our human condition, but as biologist Allan Savoryrecognised, ‘whenever there has been a major insoluble problem for mankind, the answer, when finallyfound, has always been very simple’.

The other very important point to make about MacLean’s account of the triune brainis that he failed to recognise the significance of the emotional instinctive self that ‘sits likea jury and tells the neo-cortex, “Yes, you can believe this.”’ He said it ‘bugs me’ that we have ‘thisprimitive brain’ that tells us ‘what is real, true and important’, adding that it ‘is fine’ for our
primitive instinctive brain to tell us what is a good ‘bit of food’ or a suitable mate, but not whatconstitutes ‘a good idea’. As has been emphasised, our instinctive orientation was to behavingin an utterly cooperative, integrative, harmonious way. We did once live compliant withthis integrative, cooperative meaning of existence. We did once live in an ideal, ‘Golden’,
‘Garden of Eden’, ‘Godly’, ‘heavenly’ state, free of corruption and the agony of the humancondition—hence the ‘feelings of eternal harmony’, ‘immense joy’, ‘paradisiacal happiness’, ‘feelingscompletely out of this world’, ‘what it was like to be in heaven’, ‘feelings of familiarity or déjà vu’, ‘feelingof enhanced awareness or the feeling of clairvoyance’, of having ‘clear, bright thoughts’, that ‘seem asif “this is what the world is all about—this is the absolute truth”’ that epileptic seizures can suddenly
give access to through the immensely alienated, denial-committed, cave-dwelling state thatblocks ‘normal’, human-condition-afflicted humans’ access to this ecstatic state. Later it willbe explained how drugs have been used throughout history to help traditional healers, suchas shamans, break through the now deeply habituated overburden of alienation in the human

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

292

The Biology
mind and re-access our instinctive self or soul’s original all-loving, integratively-orientatedand immensely happy free state. Far from our older instinctive limbic brain being a ‘soul trap’that has no ‘grip on reality’ and which we have to avoid being a ‘slave’ to, our instinctive self orsoul’s integratively-orientated, moral conscience is the only thing that has saved humans fromliving out their upset anger, egocentricity and alienation to the full! As for our instinctive selfor soul not being able to read or write or understand language, it can still sense if a behaviouris selfish or aggressive—after all, we weren’t initially adapted to understanding how tobehave cooperatively, only to the effects of behaving cooperatively. MacLean’s inability toproperly interpret what he is observing and, above all, to reach the deeper understanding ofwhy there has been conflict between our moral instincts and conscious intellect has to havebeen because of his inability to confront the issue of the human condition. We can see that theway MacLean was able to avoid properly confronting the human condition was to dismiss ourmoral instincts as being a ‘soul trap’ that has no ‘grip on reality’ which our superior consciousmind has to avoid being a ‘slave’ to.
So while MacLean truthfully recognised that there was a conflict between our old andour new brain due to there being differences between the two, he wasn’t able to properlyunderstand what is was about those differences that caused the conflict. Further, whilehe truthfully recognised that our species’ old instinctive limbic brain is idealistic in itsorientation, he denied that it had any moral authority.
Another significant achievement of MacLean’s thinking is that he did recognise that ‘Amother’s hand rocks the evolutionary cradle’, emphasising ‘the profound importance of social relationsin the evolution of the [human] brain’ (K.G. Lambert, ‘The life and career of Paul MacLean: A journey towardneurobiological and social harmony’, Physiology & Behavior, Sep. 2003), but he did not recognise that our
ancestors’ maternal care of infants is how they were able to overcome the selfish, ‘survival ofthe fittest’ natural selection process and develop altruistic, moral instincts.

In summary, there have been a few brave adults who tried to think truthfully aboutthe issue of the human condition despite not being sound enough to do so and while theymanaged to make penetrating insights into the dilemma of the human condition, some,namely Marais and Koestler, eventually paid the enormous personal price of sufferingsuicidal depression.

Part 4:8 Third Category of Thinker: Those who recognised the involvementof the elements of instinct and intellect in the psychosis of our humancondition, but who avoided the issue of the human condition by denyingwe have moral instincts
With the examples set by Marais and Koestler, we can now see very clearly howdangerously, suicidally depressing it has been for virtually all humans trying to confrontand think honestly about the issue of the human condition. It is now very clear why virtuallyeveryone has been committed to avoiding the subject—a practice we will see undertaken inearnest in the remaining two categories of approaches to the all-important issue that had to besolved of the human condition.

Part 4:8

Third: those who were partially honest

293

The third variety of thinkers who recognised instinct and intellect as the key elementsinvolved in our human predicament includes those who, while acknowledging the elements,denied that we humans did once live in an innocent, cooperative, harmonious, loving state.
These thinkers were, in fact, not trying to confront the human condition, but avoid it.

Erich Neumann’s recognition of the involvement of the elements of instinct and intellect inthe psychosis of our human condition but avoidance of the issue of the human condition bydenying we have moral instincts
Erich Neumann (1905-1960), an analytical psychologist who has been described as Carl
Jung’s most gifted student, also recognised the battle and rift between humans’ alreadyestablished non-understanding, ‘unconscious’, instinctual self and our newer ‘conscious’intellectual self. In his 1949 book The Origins and History of Consciousness, Neumann wrotethat ‘Whereas, originally, the opposites could function side by side without undue strain and withoutexcluding one another, now, with the development and elaboration of the opposition between consciousand unconscious, they fly apart. That is to say, it is no longer possible for an object to be loved and hatedat the same time. Ego and consciousness identify themselves in principle with one side of the oppositionand leave the other in the unconscious, either preventing it from coming up at all, i.e., consciouslysuppressing it, or else repressing it, i.e., eliminating it from consciousness without being aware of doingso. Only deep psychological analysis can then discover the unconscious counterposition’ (p.117 of 493).

In saying that once the instinct and intellect ‘fly apart’ it is ‘Only deep psychological analysis canthen discover the unconscious counterposition’, Neumann was recognising that you couldn’t get
back to the innocent state and all the truths that reside there if you were living in denial ofall the truths associated with the innocent state. Having denied all those truths you were inno position to think effectively—and for most people if they wanted to try to think truthfullyand thus effectively, as Carl Jung did, they faced terrible inner demons—a ‘primeval terror’, as
Berdyaev described the horror of facing the issue of the human condition.
Having recognised that denial blocks access to the truth Neumann, hypocritically, wenton to adopt just such denial. He avoided the issue of the human condition by denying thatwe humans did once live in a cooperative harmonious state—a paradisal, ‘Golden’, ‘Gardenof Eden’, innocent state from which we have departed, or as Berdyaev said, ‘fallen’ from.
While Neumann and a number of other analysts of our human situation, such as Carl Jung,
Ken Wilber and Carl Sagan, did recognise the involvement of the elements of instinct andintellect in our unique human situation, they dismissed the idea that we humans did oncelive in a cooperative, harmonious, peaceful, loving state as nothing more than a nostalgiafor the security of infancy—in fact, as nothing more than ‘a metaphor for the womb’ (Memories
& Visions of Paradise, Richard Heinberg, 1990, p.194 of 282).

For example, in The Origins and History of

Consciousness, Neumann wrote that ‘The dawn state of perfect containment and contentment wasnever an historical state’ (p.15), this time ‘before the coming of the opposites’ was ‘a prenatal time’
in ‘the uroborus’ or ‘the maternal womb’ (pp.12-13). Ken Wilber, the popular ‘new age’, ‘humanpotential’ advocate, similarly wrote that ‘mankind did not historically fall down from Heaven; it fellup and out of the uroborus’ or womb (Up From Eden: A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution, 1981, p.298-299of 372). The truth is that this time when we lived in a cooperative harmonious state did exist—it
was an historical state.

294

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

As stated, apart from a few like Berdyaev, Marais and Koestler, these thinkers weren’ttrying to confront and explain the human condition—they were actually trying to avoid theissue by denying that we have an instinctive moral conscience that was acquired during atime when our ancient Australopithecine ancestors lived in an utterly cooperative state. Theirstrategy was to maintain that there is no basis for our moral conscience, hence no guilt, henceno real confrontation with the issue of the human condition. Shortly, in Part 4:12, we willsee how this same tactic for avoiding having to truthfully confront the issue of the humancondition by maintaining there is no basis for our moral conscience was taken to the extremeby biologists, one of whom actually dismissed our moral conscience as nothing more than ‘aeuphemism’! The big difference between the presentations put forward by the biologists who
will be mentioned in Part 4:12 and that put forward by Neumann is that at least Neumannrecognised that there was an underlying psychosis involved in our human situation that had tobe explained, despite the ultimate dishonesty of his attempt to do so.
As initially emphasised, you could never reach the truth about the human condition froma position of denial, and that is why these thinkers who denied our moral soul couldn’t get tothe full truth about the human condition. The impasse and stalling point has been the inabilityto confront the issue of the human condition.

Julian Jaynes’ recognition of the involvement of the elements of instinct and intellect in thepsychosis of our human condition, but avoidance of the issue of the human condition
While his analysis of our human situation was flawed in a different way to that of
Neumann’s efforts, the American psychologist Julian Jaynes’ (1920-1997) theory of thebreakdown of what he called the ‘bicameral mind’ (as presented in his 1975 book, The Originof Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind) should be included in this Parton those thinkers who recognised the elements of instinct and intellect in the psychosis of ourhuman condition, but avoided the issue of the human condition.
In his 1985 book Bone Games, the American author and journalist Rob Schultheisprovided this good summary of Jaynes’ theory: ‘According to Jaynes, humankind was oncepossessed of a mystical, intuitive kind of consciousness, the kind we today would call “possessed”; modernconsciousness as we know it simply did not exist. This prelogical mind was ruled by, and dwelled in, theright side of the brain, the side of the brain that is now subordinate. The two sides of the brain switchedroles, the left becoming dominant, about three thousand years ago, according to Jaynes; he refers to thebiblical passage (Genesis 3:5) in which the serpent promises Eve that “ye shall be as gods, knowing goodand evil”. Knowing good and evil killed the old radiantly innocent self; this old self reappears from timeto time in the form of oracles, divine visitations, visions, etc.—see Muir, Lindbergh, etc.—but for the mostpart it is buried deep beneath the problem-solving, prosaic self of the brain’s left hemisphere. Jaynesbelieves that if we could integrate the two, the “god-run” self of the right hemisphere and the linear self ofthe left, we would be truly superior beings’.

Using Schultheis’ terms, Jaynes did recognise that there was a time when ‘modernconsciousness’ ‘did not exist’ and humans were purely ‘intuitive’ and that later the logical,
‘conscious’ ‘brain’ usurped management from and ‘killed’ the ‘old’ ‘prelogical’, ‘radiantly innocent’,
‘god-run’ ‘intuitive’, instinctive ‘brain’. However, it wasn’t a switching of dominance from the
more lateral and imaginative right side of our brain to the more sequential, logical left side of

Part 4:8

Third: those who were partially honest

295
our brain that caused the upset, corrupted, alienated, sensitivity-destroying human condition,but rather the difference in the way genes and nerves process information.
In the human brain, one side (the right) specialises in general pattern recognition while theother specialises in specific sequence recognition. One is lateral or creative or imaginative whilethe other is vertical or logical or sequential. One stands back to ‘spot’ any overall emergingrelationship while the other goes right in to take the heart of the matter to its conclusion. Weneed both because logic alone could lead us up a dead-end pathway of thought. For example,we can imagine that for a while our thinking mind could have assumed that the most obvioussimilarity between fruits was that they were brightly coloured. However, with more experiencethe similarity that proved to have the greatest relevance in the emerging overall picture wastheir edibility. Similar processes occurred in genetic ‘thinking’. Dinosaurs seemed like asuccessful idea at one stage, but due to changing influences, possibly the effects of a massivemeteorite hitting Earth, they ultimately proved to be a wrong idea, prompting ‘nature’ to backoff that avenue of approach and take up another, namely the development of warm-bloodedmammals. When one thought process leads to a dead-end our mind has to back track and findanother way in: from the general to the particular and back to the general, in and out, back andforth, until our thinking finally breaks through to the correct understanding. The first form ofthinking to wither during alienation was imaginative thought because wandering around freelyin your mind all too easily brought you into contact with unbearable truths such as Integrative
Meaning. On the other hand, if we got onto a logical train of thought that at the outset didnot raise criticism of us there was a much better chance it would stay safely non-judgmental.
Children have always had wonderful imaginations, but often not as adults—the reason beingthat children had yet to learn to avoid free/open/adventurous/lateral thinking; they had yet toresign themselves to living in denial of the issue of the human condition. Edward de Bono,who attempts to re-train people to use their imagination and has popularised the process underthe term ‘lateral thinking’, once said that ‘often the pupil who is not considered bright will be the bestthinker’ (The Australian, 3 March 1975). Because mental cleverness is what led us to defy our instincts,
it follows that the cleverer we were, the sooner we challenged our instincts and became upsetand alienated. Cleverness and alienation have been linked, hence the less clever have tended tobe the least alienated and thus the most truthful and thus the best thinkers.
Jaynes truthfully recognised that humans have lost access to a seemingly magical, allsensitive, and inspired original instinctive self, but to try to explain it by claiming, as hedid, that the capacity for self-awareness and introspection emerged with the developmentof language and then writing only some 3,000 years ago, and that prior to that people werenot capable of introspection—that, for example, the writers of the Iliad and sections of the
Old Testament lacked the ability to be self-aware—is absurd. The denial-based, immenselyalienated upset state of the human condition is a deeply ancient condition. All the psychosisand its resulting upset in us that led us to using sex as a way of attacking the innocence ofwomen, to covering our lust-inspiring naked bodies with clothes, to hunting animals becausetheir innocence unjustly condemned us, to women seeking to adorn their bodies to make themmore sexually attractive, to men becoming so angry that they went to war against each other,to the emergence of humour to lighten the load of the extraordinary extent of the dishonesty inour lives, etc, etc, all reveal, if we are prepared to be even slightly honest, that the upset stateof the human condition is an extremely ancient, in fact two-million-year-old, condition.

296

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Jaynes’ theory does not represent a profound analysis of the human condition. In fact, itis so superficial as to be dishonest and human-condition-avoiding. So although Jaynes doesn’tdeny our all-sensitive and loving moral soul like Neumann did, his treatise does belong in thiscategory of those who recognised the elements involved of instinct and intellect but avoidedthe issue of the human condition.

Robert A. Johnson’s recognition of the involvement of the elements of instinct and intellect inthe psychosis of our human condition but avoidance of the issue of the human condition
In his 1974 book He: Understanding Masculine Psychology, the American Jungiananalyst Robert A. Johnson (1921-) described the agony of adolescents having to resignthemselves to a life of denial of the unconfrontable issue of the human condition. In doing so,
Johnson recognised the ‘unconscious perfection’ of the pre-conscious ‘Eden’ state that humanshad to suffer the ‘pain’ of leaving in order to eventually achieve ‘a conscious reconciliation of theinner and outer’ worlds. He wrote: ‘It is painful to watch a young man become aware that the worldis not just joy and happiness, to watch the disintegration of his childlike beauty, faith, and optimism.
This is regrettable but necessary. If we are not cast out of the Garden of Eden, there can be no heavenly
Jerusalem…According to tradition, there are potentially three stages of psychological development fora man. The archetypal pattern is that one goes from the unconscious perfection of childhood, to theconscious imperfection of middle life, to conscious perfection of old age. One moves from an innocentwholeness, in which the inner world and the outer world are united, to a separation and differentiationbetween the inner and outer worlds with an accompanying sense of life’s duality, and then, hopefully, atlast to satori or enlightenment, a conscious reconciliation of the inner and outer once again in harmoniouswholeness…we have to get out of the Garden of Eden before we can even start for the heavenly Jerusalem,even though they are the same place. The man’s first step out of Eden into the pain of duality gives himhis Fisher King wound…Alienation is the current term for it’ (pp.10-11 of 97). (The ‘Fisher King’ is a
character in the great European legend of King Arthur and his knights of the round table. The
‘Fisher King’ and his ‘wound’ is explained in paragraph 1263 of FREEDOM.)

Johnson has here accurately described the psychological journey that the human racehas had to go on from ‘innocent wholeness, in which the inner world and the outer world are united,to a separation and differentiation between the inner and outer worlds with an accompanying sense oflife’s duality…to satori or enlightenment, a conscious reconciliation of the inner and outer once againin harmonious wholeness’ through the finding of understanding of the human condition. But
that is not Johnson’s meaning. He’s not talking about the actual finding of understanding ofthe human condition that leads to the end of the human condition, but of individual humansarriving at an intuitive reconciliation of the imperfections of human life as it has existedunder the duress of the human condition. He is counselling young men about the journeythey have to go on, telling them they have to strive towards eventually achieving a mature,sophisticated, somewhat peaceful appreciation that life isn’t meant to be ideal but is partof some greater struggle the human race is yet to complete—which is actually to endurethe upset state of the human condition until we found the understanding of it that wouldameliorate it, but that objective isn’t made clear by Johnson. However, in giving his counsel,what Johnson has unintentionally done is describe the actual nature of that journey. He hasinadvertently described the ‘tradition [of the]…three stages of psychological development for a man

Part 4:9

Fourth: whose who avoided the whole issue of the human condition

297

[including of the human race as a whole]…from the unconscious perfection of [the individual’s andhumanity’s] childhood, to the conscious imperfection of [the individual’s and humanity’s] middle life, toconscious perfection of [the individual’s and humanity’s] old age’.

Part 4:9 Fourth Category of Thinker: The great majority of the human race whoavoided the whole issue of a psychosis in our human situation by simplyblaming our selfish and aggressive behaviour on supposed brutish and savageanimal instincts within us that our intellect supposedly has to control
In the preceding three categories I have summarised the various admissions I haveeither come across or been told about of the involvement of the elements of our instinct andconscious intellect in the problem of the human condition. While some of the individualsreferred to veered away from trying to confront the issue of the human condition, they did atleast all take the first step that was required to find the explanation of the dilemma (and theresulting upset psychosis) of the human condition, of recognising the underlying elementsinvolved of our instincts and intellect. What we are going to see now is how almost everyoneelse in the world, including virtually all scientists, totally avoided the whole issue of the realdilemma and psychosis of our human condition by simply blaming our selfish and aggressivebehaviour on supposed brutish and savage animal instincts within us that our intellect has tocontrol.
To understand why the upset human race adopted the savage-animal-instincts-in-usexcuse for our divisive behaviour, we need to briefly revisit the predicament faced by upsethumans that led to this development.
Most people, in fact virtually all adults, have avoided anything to do with the issue ofthe psychological dilemma and resulting psychosis and neurosis of our human condition.
Even beginning to vaguely contemplate the nature of our human situation has been toopsychologically dangerous for upset humans—as described in Part 4:4C, even asking theobvious initial question of ‘What makes humans unique?’ has been a ‘no-go zone’. Clearlywhat is so unique about us humans is that we are conscious, but thinking about that was aslippery slope as it quickly raised the depressing question: ‘Well, if we are fully conscious,reasoning, intelligent, extremely clever animals, what is so intelligent, clever and smart aboutbeing so aggressive and selfish that we have nearly destroyed our own planet?’
Similarly, to start thinking truthfully about the other element that must play a significantrole in our situation of our instinctive heritage—the fact that like other animals we too musthave once been controlled by instincts—was even more treacherous as it very quickly led tothe unbearably confronting memory, that all humans carry, of an upset-free, cooperativelyorientated, innocent time in our species’ instinctive past, a time before the fabled ‘fall’ thatall our mythologies recognise took place when we became fully conscious—as Richard
Heinberg bravely acknowledged in his aforementioned book, Memories & Visions of
Paradise: ‘Every religion begins with the recognition that human consciousness has been separatedfrom the divine Source, that a former sense of oneness…has been lost…everywhere in religion and myththere is an acknowledgment that we have departed from an original…innocence.’ While we have had
to deny it, we all intuitively know that our species’ pre-conscious instinctive state was one

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

298

The Biology
of living innocently in a harmonious, cooperative, loving, peaceful state. As Berdyaev said,
‘The memory of a lost paradise, of a Golden Age, is very deep in man.’ Sir Laurens van der Post
was someone who was sound and thus secure enough in self to reveal this deeper awarenessthat all humans carry of our species’ innocent past that contrasts so completely with ourcurrent immensely upset state when he wrote, ‘This shrill, brittle, self-important life of today isby comparison a graveyard where the living are dead and the dead are alive and talking [through our
instinctive soul] in the still, small, clear voice of a love and trust in life that we have for the momentlost…[there was a time when] All on earth and in the universe were still members and family of theearly race seeking comfort and warmth through the long, cold night before the dawning of individualconsciousness in a togetherness which still gnaws like an unappeasable homesickness at the base ofthe human heart’ (Testament to the Bushmen, 1984, pp.127-128 of 176). Chatwin similarly admitted this
truth about our species’ past ‘divine’ innocent state when, as mentioned earlier, he said that
‘[the third century theologian Origen argued that] at the beginning of human history, men were undersupernatural protection, so there was no division between their divine and human natures: or, to rephrasethe passage, there was no contradiction between man’s instinctual life and his reason.’ Moses likewise
acknowledged this truth when he said that ‘God created man in his own image’ (Gen. 1:27)—in otherwords, the integrative process of developing the order of matter on Earth originally createdhumans in an unconditionally selflessly behaved, cooperative, loving, integrative state. Mosesalso said that ‘in the Garden of Eden [ibid. 2:15]…The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt noshame’ (ibid. 2:25). We did once live alongside nature in an innocent state.

There have been some very obvious truths that all humans have known but have hadto live in denial of. In fact, these truths—specifically that humans once lived in an upsetfree, cooperative, harmonious, loving instinctive state and that our more recent consciousstate has been characterised by anything but intelligent, smart behaviour—are so obviousthat, as was described in Part 3:8, when children, at the age of about 10 or 11, began to thinkphilosophically about life they were so aware of them and the questions they raised aboutthe extreme imperfections of humans’ present existence that it only took a few years ofcontemplation before they became so horrifically depressed that they resigned themselvesto a life of denial, determining never again to revisit those thoughts and the questions theyraised. The reason I talk about Resignation in the past tense is because with understandingof the human condition now found no child needs to resign his or her self to a life of livingin denial ever again.
As was made abundantly clear by what happened to Marais and Koestler, and, to a lesserextent, Jung, without understanding of the human condition it has been suicidally depressingfor upset humans to even begin to think truthfully about the human condition and make theinitial realisation that our human situation is characterised by a conscious self that has beensuperimposed on a pre-conscious, innocent instinctive self.
This situation raises an obvious question: if the issue of the human condition has beenimpossible for upset humans to even begin to think about, how has the upset human racebeen coping? We had to have some way of defending ourselves. We couldn’t just standaround refusing to think for fear of the consequences—after all, we had to continue tothink in order to accumulate the knowledge that would one day allow the human conditionto be explained. The upset human race had to find some way to argue that we were

Part 4:9

Fourth: whose who avoided the whole issue of the human condition

299
worthy beings, some way to validate ourselves. We had to find some justification for ourlives, however dishonest that justification might be, and that is exactly what we did—weinvented an excuse for our species’ seemingly highly imperfect, upset state. In fact, aswill be described shortly, not only did the upset human race find a way to think from adefensive, dishonest base, we went on to create a whole world of literature, analysis anddiscussion based entirely on those dishonest foundations. And this dishonest paradigm, orway of viewing existence, became so well established that virtually everyone believed itwas the true and only world. Indeed, the intellectual world of dishonesty eventually becameso refined and so well established that the very real possibility and great danger was thatit would be impossible for anyone to see through the lies and replace them with honestunderstanding. As we will see, that world of very deep denial-based delusion and illusion isthe world we humans inhabit today. Indeed, Plato, that greatest of all philosophers, was oneof the very rare humans who was sound and thus honest enough to see through and exposethis state of extreme denial with his cave allegory.
So what was the false excuse that the upset human race came up with that totallyavoided recognising the obvious elements of moral instincts and a corrupting intellectas being involved in producing the dilemma and resulting upset psychosis of our humancondition and yet allowed us to supposedly explain and justify our competitive, aggressiveand selfish behaviour, and upon which the upset human race has built this all-pervasivedishonest world in which we now live? The contrived excuse that we came up with wasto simply assert that ‘Such behaviour is only natural because, after all, other animals arealways competing with each other, fighting and killing each other; other animals are “redin tooth and claw” (from In Memoriam, Alfred Tennyson, 1850) so that is why we are.’ Upset humans
scanned the horizon for an excuse and said, ‘Well, animals aggressively attack each otherso that is why we behave like that.’ They argued that ‘Selfish, self-preservation behaviouris only natural because that is what every other species practices. When we behaveaggressively and selfishly it is just our animal instincts asserting themselves. The task forus conscious, intelligent humans is to use our marvellous reasoning mind to control thosesavage and brutish animal instincts within us.’
So instead of our conscious intellect being the guilty party, in the sense of being that partof ourselves that caused us to ‘fall from grace’ and have to be banished from the Garden of
Eden of our original innocent, cooperatively orientated, all-loving, moral instinctive state
(as Moses, Plato and all our mythologies have so honestly admitted), our conscious intellectwas made out to be the faultless, good part of ourselves—a manipulation of the truth thatcondemned our instincts as the villain: ‘Wonderful, we are good, our conscious self is good andour instincts are awful, what a relief, I, my conscious thinking self, feels terrific.’ Never mindthat this was all an outrageous, reverse-of-the-truth lie. What a trick! Instead of our instinctivepast being a ‘paradise’, ‘Golden Age’ of ‘togetherness’ before ‘the dawning of individual consciousness’brought about a world of highly intelligent people living an immensely insecure, ‘shrill, brittle,self-important life’, which in truth is ‘a graveyard where the living are dead’, our instincts were
deemed bad while our intellect was viewed as wonderful! What a complete and terrible assaulton the truth, but what a relief for our upset, corrupting intellect! We, our conscious thinkingself, had finally made ourselves out to be the hero that we have always intuitively believed

300

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
we were, but have never been able to prove, but it was a hollow ‘achievement’ based on anabsolute lie! We had lifted the burden of guilt, the psychological insecurity of the issue of ourless-than-ideally-behaved human condition, but we had done so fraudulently. The elementsinvolved in the human condition of moral instincts and a corrupting intellect weren’t beinglooked at honestly, rather, the complete opposite was occurring—those elements were beingtotally misrepresented. The human condition wasn’t being confronted—it was being hiddenbehind the biggest mountain of lies that could possibly be assembled!
Basically, by denying that we have moral instincts and that the influence of our intellectwas corrupting we could convince ourselves that there was simply no dilemma about ourexistence to have to be explained—no moral conscience that our conscious self was indefiance of, therefore no guilt and therefore no dilemma and resulting psychosis of the humancondition to have to be dealt with.
Berdyaev exposed the extreme dishonesty of this reverse-of-the-truth lie that ‘ourinstincts are the villains and our intellect is guiltless, secure, in-control, psychosis-free andhealthy’—a denial that reflects the all-dominant attitude on planet Earth today—when heobserved that ‘psychologists were wrong in assuming that man was a healthy creature, mainly consciousand intellectual, and should be studied from that point of view. Man is a sick being, with a strongunconscious life’ (The Destiny of Man, 1931, tr. N. Duddington, 1960, pp.67-68 of 310). He also clearly indicated
that understanding of the human condition depended on acknowledging, not denying, that
‘The human soul is divided, an agonizing conflict between opposing elements is going on in it…thedistinction between the conscious and the subconscious mind is fundamental for the new psychology.
Mental disorders are due to the conflict between the two’ (ibid). As Berdyaev accurately summarised,
‘man is an irrational, paradoxical, essentially tragic being in whom two worlds, two opposite principles,are at war…Philosophers and scientists have done very little to elucidate the problem of man’ (ibid. p.49).

Carl Jung similarly recognised that ‘Man everywhere is dangerously unaware of himself. We reallyknow nothing about the nature of man, and unless we hurry to get to know ourselves we are in dangeroustrouble’ (Jung and the Story of Our Time, Laurens van der Post, 1976, p.239 of 275).

Again, the reason ‘Philosophers and scientists have done very little to elucidate the problem ofman’—that is, ‘elucidate the problem of man’ in an honest, truthful, genuinely accountable way—
was because no one has been prepared to fully confront the subject of the human condition,and thus no one has been in a position to reach all the way to the bottom of the problemin their thinking and by so doing explain and resolve it. The English poet Gerard Manley
Hopkins (1844-1889) described the horror of looking into the problem of the human conditionand the consequences of doing so when he wrote, ‘O the mind, mind has mountains; cliffs of fall /
Frightful, sheer, no-man-fathomed’ (from the sonnet No Worst, There Is None, 1885). The issue of the human
condition hasn’t been ‘fathomed’ because no one has been able to survive the psychologicallydepressing ‘cliffs of fall / Frightful, sheer’ that thinking about the issue caused.
Shortly, we will follow the development of this great denial/lie that we humans arecompetitive, aggressive and selfish because we have brutish and savage animal instincts.
In particular, we will see how biologists took this great lie and fashioned it into a supposedrigorous, first-principle-based scientific explanation of human behaviour. We will see how

Part 4:10

The danger of excessive denial in science

301
they created a whole world of dishonesty, an immense castle of lies, a great paradigm ofmadness where everyone in the world swans around, seemingly confident that the mentalworld they are living in is completely rational and sound, making jokes and slapping eachother on the back in happy reassurance that all is well and good, awarding each other Nobel
Prizes for being brilliant, etc, etc—basically sinking deeper and deeper into a terrible swampof delusion! However, before describing this industrious development of an immense castleof lies about human behaviour, we need to look at the great and inherent danger of creating somuch dishonest delusion in the first place, necessary as it was prior to having the defence ofthe understanding of the human condition.

Part 4:10 The danger of excessive denial/dishonesty/alienation in science
In this Part I will describe how the extraordinarily dishonest excuse that ‘humans’competitive, aggressive and selfish behaviour is due to supposed brutal and savage animalinstincts within us’ was developed and advanced by denial-complying biologists into a wholeworld of dishonest explanation for human behaviour.
At the outset it needs to be re-emphasised that if we were to be honest, even for amoment, the descriptions we have for our human behaviour, such as egocentric, arrogant,evil, shameful, guilty, contemptuous, alienated, psychotic, depressed, deluded, artificial,fake, pretentious, superficial, escapist, defensive, hateful, mean, spiteful, vindictive, sadistic,denial-ridden, immoral, manic, inspired, pessimistic, optimistic, all imply a psychologicaldimension to our behaviour. Animals do kill each other, lions do stalk and tear the throatsout of zebras, but that has nothing to do with our behaviour—few would think to apply theadjectives listed above to any animal other than humans. It is completely dishonest, a totaldenial in fact, to argue that the reason we humans are so aggressive is because our animalinstincts ‘wired’ us that way.
Claiming that we are selfish because our genes are selfish contains no acknowledgmentof the obvious involvement in our unique human situation of our fully conscious thinkingmind. Ours is a psychologically derived condition. It really was absurd to try to relate ourspecies’ mind-controlled, psychologically troubled human condition to other animals’ genecontrolled, selfish animal condition—and yet that is what the upset human race had to do inits desperation to excuse its corrupted condition while it couldn’t truthfully explain it.
The savage-animal-instincts-in-us excuse also overlooked the fact that we humans havealtruistic, cooperative, loving moral instincts—what we recognise as our ‘conscience’—and these moral instincts are not derived from reciprocity, from situations where you onlydo something for others in return for a benefit from them (a claim, as we are about to see,biologists tried to argue), but from unconditionally selfless, fully altruistic, truly loving,genuinely moral instincts in us that, as explained in Part 4:4D, were acquired through thenurturing, love-indoctrination process. Our original instinctive state was the opposite of beingcompetitive, selfish and aggressive: it was cooperative, selfless and loving.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

302

The Biology

Using the Adam Stork analogy we can now see the extent of the dishonesty because thatanalogy explains that we humans became more upset as consciousness evolved. The Adam
Stork analogy undermines the excuse that ‘we-are-‘red in tooth and claw’-because-animals-are’because it reveals that we started out innocent, free of upset, living in a ‘paradise’, ‘Golden Age’of ‘togetherness’ and that the upset state is a newly acquired state. It explains that ‘We becameupset, we didn’t start out this way—we started out free of upset.’ We humans once lived in aharmonious, Garden-of-Eden-like, upset-free, innocent state, which all mythologies recognise,as Richard Heinberg documented.
Despite the transparent falseness of the ‘savage-animal-instincts-in-us’ excuse for ourdivisive behaviour, without the truthful explanation of the human condition adopting thatexcuse was necessary. What now needs to be described is how, with the development ofscience, this ‘our selfishness is only natural, it’s just our animal instincts’ necessary excuse butterrible lie was supposedly given a biological basis—and, as a result, became the springboardfor a great raft of supposedly rational, scientific, biological thinking on human behaviour.
Although biologists were the ones charged with the responsibility of the all-importantsearch for understanding of human behaviour, what we are about to see is that theydangerously and irresponsibly diverted that search down a deep and dark road of terribledishonesty. It is one thing for the layman to adopt the excuse that our selfish and aggressivebehaviour is no different from the selfish and aggressive behaviour we see in nature, but it’sa serious development indeed for that excuse to be adopted by science and society as thebasis of all supposedly rational thinking about human behaviour. To see how dangerouslydishonest biological thinking became, we need to revisit the role that science has had to play,and the strategy it had to adopt.
As brave as it was, the fact of the matter is that recognising the elements involvedin our human situation of our innocent instincts and corrupting conscious intellect (as allour mythologies did, and as Moses, Plato and some other thinkers did) ultimately got usnowhere, because we had to find sufficient knowledge to allow us to explain why and howthese elements produced the upset state of the human condition. Only knowledge couldliberate us. Science had to be invented and developed. The human race had to set aboutaccumulating a first-principle-based understanding of the mechanisms and workings ofour world in the hope and faith that one day, with sufficient knowledge found, we wouldfinally be able to explain how and why the elements in our make-up of our innocent,cooperatively orientated instincts and our conscious intellect produced the upset state ofour human condition.
Necessarily, while accumulating this knowledge, any truths that brought humanity intocontact with the unbearably depressing issue of the human condition had to be denied. Ashas been explained, science has not been holistic, it has been mechanistic and reductionist—it has avoided the whole view of the issue of the human condition. It has directed its focusaway from the whole overview of the issue of the human condition and down into findingunderstanding of the details of the mechanisms and workings of our world. Science set aboutaccumulating knowledge, while all the time avoiding any truths that brought the unbearablydepressing issue of the human condition into focus. Science has been objective not subjectivein its orientation; it has ardently avoided the subjective issue of the human condition. (Note,

Part 4:10

The danger of excessive denial in science

303
as mentioned, ‘holism’ actually means ‘the tendency in nature to form wholes’ (Concise Oxford Dict.
5th edn, 1964);
it is a recognition of Integrative Meaning, so it doesn’t itself mean to take ‘the
whole view’ of existence. Even though they sound the same, ‘holism’ is not ‘wholeism’.
Nevertheless, recognition of Integrative Meaning involves recognising ‘the whole view’because it is one of the great truths that any truthful, effective, human-condition-confrontingwhole view of life depends on.)
The obvious limitation, however, of this tactic of avoiding the whole view of the issue ofthe human condition was how was mechanistic science ever going to use the understandingsof the mechanisms and workings of our world to explain the human condition when it wasdenying any truths that brought the issue of the human condition into focus? As has beenemphasised a number of times already, you can’t build the truth with lies.
The answer to this riddle is that when mechanistic, reductionist science had accumulatedsufficient understanding of the mechanisms and workings of our world to make explanationof the human condition possible, someone, taking a denial-free, human-condition-confrontingnot human-condition-avoiding, holistic approach, would be able to use mechanisticscience’s hard-won insights into the mechanisms and workings of our world to assemble theexplanation of the human condition.
This ‘plan’ was all very well, but it ran the risk of producing a potentially very seriousproblem: the danger of the denial-complying, human-condition-avoiding, mechanistic,reductionist strategy becoming so well developed, so sophisticated in its refinement of lies,that it could become impossible to finally retrieve the truth from all those lies. Metaphoricallyspeaking, the world could become so shrouded in darkness (lies) that no light (truth) couldhope to penetrate it, and it was that degree of near total darkness, of near total denial of truth,that finally developed on Earth.
Nikolai Berdyaev recognised this great danger of alienation from the truth in mechanisticscience when he wrote that ‘Philosophy…regards him [man] as belonging to the kingdom of thespirit, while science studies man…as an object…Nothing that is an object…has meaning…The only wayradically to distinguish between philosophy and science is to admit that philosophy is…knowledge ofmeaning and participation in meaning. Science and scientific foresight give man power and security, butthey can also devastate his consciousness and sever him from reality. Indeed it might be said that scienceis based upon the alienation of man from reality and of reality from man…The historical method which…objectifies ideas, regarding them entirely from outside…[means that] the discovery of meaning becomesimpossible. It is the enslavement of philosophy by science—scientific terrorism’ (The Destiny of Man, 1931, tr.
N. Duddington, 1960, p.6-7 of 310).

The prophetic English poet and painter William Blake (1757-1827) similarly decriedmechanistic science’s ‘alienation of man’ ‘from reality’ when he wrote, ‘May God us keep fromsingle vision and Newton’s sleep!’ (Letter to Thomas Butt, 22 Nov. 1802).

The physicist Paul Davies also recognised the limitation and danger of mechanisticscience when, in a quote included earlier, he commented that ‘there is a deeper reason for thewide-spread antipathy. It is connected with the underlying philosophy of science itself. For 300 yearsscience has been dominated by extremely mechanistic thinking. According to this view of the world allphysical systems are regarded as basically machines…I have little doubt that much of the alienationand demoralisation that people feel in our so-called scientific age stems from the bleak sterility of

304

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
mechanistic thought…Mechanistic thought has undoubtedly had a stifling effect on the human spirit.
Liberation from this centuries-old straight jacket will enable human beings to re-integrate themselvesand the physical world of which they are a part’ (‘Living in a non-material world—the new scientificconsciousness’, The Australian, 9 Oct. 1991).

The aforementioned biologist Charles Birch was another who emphasised the limitationsand danger of the mechanistic approach when he wrote that ‘Reductionism or Mechanism…is thedominant mode of science and is particularly applicable to biology as it is taught today…[it is] A view ormodel of livingness that leaves out feelings and consciousness…[and] I believe it has grave consequences…
In the name of scientific objectivity we have been given an emasculated vision of the world and all that isin it. The wave of anti-science…is an extreme reaction to this malaise…I believe biologists and naturalistshave a special responsibility to put another image before the world that does justice to the unity of lifeand all its manifestations of experience—aesthetic, religious and moral as well as intellectual and rational’
(‘Two Ways of Interpreting Nature’, Australian Natural History, Vol.21 No.2, 1983).

HRH The Prince of Wales, the heir to the British throne, has said that ‘This imbalance,where mechanistic thinking is so predominant, goes back at least to Galileo’s assertion that there isnothing in nature but quantity and motion…As a result, Nature has been completely objectified…and weare persuaded to concentrate on the material aspect of reality that fits within Galileo’s scheme.’ He went
on to talk about humanity’s ‘deep, inner crisis of the soul’ (The Times, 9 Jun. 2010).
Arthur Koestler also recognised the consequences of mechanistic, reductionist science’savoidance of the real issue involved in our human condition of our consciousness-inducedpsychosis when he wrote that the ‘symptoms of the mental disorder which appears to be endemic inour species…are specifically and uniquely human, and not found in any other species. Thus it seems onlylogical that our search for explanations [of human behaviour] should also concentrate primarily on thoseattributes of homo sapiens which are exclusively human and not shared by the rest of the animal kingdom.
But however obvious this conclusion may seem, it runs counter to the prevailing reductionist trend.
“Reductionism” is the philosophical belief that all human activities can be “reduced” to – i.e., explainedby – the [non-psychosis involved] behavioural responses of lower animals – Pavlov’s dogs, Skinner’srats and pigeons, Lorenz’s greylag geese, Morris’s hairless apes…That is why the scientific establishmenthas so pitifully failed to define the predicament of man.’ Koestler complained of ‘the sterile deserts ofreductionist philosophy’, asserting that ‘a correct diagnosis of the condition of man [had to be] based ona new approach to the sciences of life’ (Janus: A Summing Up, 1978, pp.19, 20 of 354).

R.D. Laing emphasised the need for mechanistic science to investigate not just outerspace but inner space, our consciousness-derived-and-induced human condition, when hewrote, ‘The requirement of the present, the failure of the past, is the same: to provide a thoroughlyself-conscious and self-critical human account of man…Our alienation goes to the roots. The realizationof this is the essential springboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life
[pp.11-12 of 156] …We respect the voyager, the explorer, the climber, the space man. It makes far more
sense to me as a valid project—indeed, as a desperately urgently required project for our time—toexplore the inner space and time of consciousness. Perhaps this is one of the few things that still makesense in our historical context. We are so out of touch with this realm [so in denial of the issue of the
human condition] that many people can now argue seriously that it does not exist [p.105]’ (The Politics of
Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967).

Part 4:10

The danger of excessive denial in science

305

As mentioned in Part 4:4B, Plato recognised the destructive effect of denial on ourintellect’s capacity to think effectively, writing that ‘when the soul [our integratively orientatedoriginal instinctual self] uses the instrumentality of the body [uses the body’s intellect with itspreoccupation with denial] for any inquiry…it is drawn away by the body into the realm of the variable,and loses its way and becomes confused and dizzy, as though it were fuddled [drunk]…But when itinvestigates by itself [free of human-condition-avoiding, intellectual denial], it passes into the realmof the pure and everlasting and immortal and changeless, and being of a kindred nature, when it is onceindependent and free from interference, consorts with it always and strays no longer, but remains, in thatrealm of the absolute [Integrative Meaning], constant and invariable’ (Phaedo, tr. H. Tredennick). He also
referred to the need to be able ‘to look straight at reality’ if we are to effectively ‘learn’ whenhe wrote, ‘this capacity [of a mind…to see clearly] is innate in each man’s mind [we are born with atruthful, instinctive orientation to the cooperative, loving, integrative meaning of existence], and thatthe faculty by which he learns is like an eye which cannot be turned from darkness to light unless thewhole body is turned; in the same way the mind as a whole must be turned away from the world of changeuntil it can bear to look straight at reality, and at the brightest of all realities which is what we call the
Good [Integrative Meaning or God]’ (The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.283 of 405).

But for ‘Liberation from this centuries-old straight jacket’ and ‘scientific terrorism’ of ‘the bleaksterility of mechanistic thought’, ‘the sterile deserts of reductionist philosophy’, with its ‘confusedand dizzy’, ‘emasculated vision of the world’—and for ‘biologists and naturalists [to fulfil their]…special responsibility to put another image before the world that does justice to the unity of life and all itsmanifestations of experience—aesthetic, religious and moral as well as intellectual and rational’ and put
forward ‘a correct diagnosis of the condition of man’, and, as a result, for ‘human beings to re-integratethemselves’ and end the ‘sleep’ of ‘the alienation of man from reality’ and resulting ‘deep, inner crisisof the soul’—‘the discovery of meaning’ for humans, understanding of their context and worth,
understanding of the human condition in fact, had to be found, and that required defying allthe extreme ‘alienation’ in ‘mechanistic thinking’. In Part 3:11H we saw how the development ofpseudo idealism took humanity to the very brink of terminal alienation. As we are about tosee, the same danger to humanity of terminal alienation resulted from the dishonesty of thescientific establishment, particularly in the field of biology—which is ironic given it was fromwithin that field that the liberating understanding of the human condition had to be found.
The challenge was to take only the elements of truth about the mechanisms and workingsof our world that mechanistic science had found and avoid all the denials and dishonest
‘reasonings’ that mechanistic science has been employing—in particular, the denials of ourmoral instincts and corrupting intellect and use of the dishonest excuse that we are selfish andaggressive because we have selfish and aggressive animal instincts. As we are now going tosee there has been a veritable mountain of false biological thinking about human behaviourthat had to be defied for the truthful explanation of the human condition to be arrived at.
In fact, so immense was the mountain of denial, and so entrenched had it become, thathumanity ran the risk of making the truth impossible to reach. That was the great risk that thenecessary strategy of denial held—that the truth might never be able to be extracted from theever-accumulating mountain of lies. With everyone determinedly lying through their teeth,how was anyone supposed to defy all that dishonesty and think truthfully about our human

306

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
situation and find the real reason for all the upset madness in human behaviour. They weregoing to have to be exceptionally defiant of all the dishonest denial/bullshit flooding the Earth.
In fact, they would have to go off alone and think everything through about human life from atruthful base, independent of and defiant of the mountain of terrible lies, which is exactly what
I had to do and did. Not only that, when they finally brought back that truth about humansto all those living in denial they were then going to have to survive attacks from that worldfor daring to tell the truth—as psychologists and counsellors recognise, ‘habitual…patterns [ofdenial] have a life of their own, and their will to live is very strong. They fight back with a vengeance whenfaced with annihilation’ (Courage to Heal, L. Davis & E. Bass, 1988, p.175 of 495). It has been an extremely
difficult journey that is still not over because the resistance to virtually all the ideas beingpresented, which, as will be described later, has now subsided to a state of just-ignore-allthese-truthful-liberating-insights silence, still remains immense.
It has to be emphasised immediately that having necessarily been sound enough to defythe world of denial doesn’t in any way make me a better person than anyone else. Withunderstanding of the human condition we can appreciate that all humans are equally good,just variously upset as a result of different encounters with, and levels of participation in,humanity’s heroic battle to champion the intellect over the ignorant instincts. The wholeconcept of superiority and inferiority in people is completely eliminated with understandingof the human condition. In the great spectrum of alienation that necessarily exists in thehuman population there have always been a few who were fortunate enough to not encounterthe effects of the battle of the human condition and who were therefore relatively innocentand free of upset. According to their lot in the great battle that humanity was waging everyonehad different roles to play, and the role of the exceptionally sound was to defy all the denialsin the world as best they could. When humanity as a whole, through its vehicle for enquiryof mechanistic science, had found sufficient clues about the mechanisms and workings of ourworld then at that point there was a need for exceptional innocence to play a particular roleof synthesising the denial-free explanation of the human condition, that is all. The journey tofinding explanation of the human condition has required and involved the efforts of everyone.

Part 4:11 Darwin stopped short of participating in biological denial
Part 4:10 provided an overview description of the route science has taken—we now needto look more closely at what happened on that journey.
The area of enquiry within mechanistic science that was most relevant to finding the cluesthat would eventually make explanation of the human condition possible was biology, whichdeals with the science of life. As biological knowledge accumulated, questions, for instance,about the behaviour of different animals, were addressed and answers found. Eventuallythe question of the origin of the variety of life was addressed and the answer, discoveredindependently by both Charles Darwin and his contemporary Alfred Russel Wallace, was theprocess of ‘natural selection’. It was at this point that the origin of human behaviour came intofocus, which caused a great deal of nervousness because obviously human behaviour involvesthe issue of our human condition, the issue of why humans aren’t ideally behaved.

Part 4:11

Darwin stopped short of participating in biological denial

307

I will now follow what happened in the quest to explain human behaviour when Charles
Darwin put forward the idea of natural selection in his seminal 1859 book, The Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection.
Natural selection is the process by which some individuals in a population reproducemore than others in a given environment. Most significantly, in the first edition of The Originof Species Darwin rightfully left it undecided as to whether those individuals who reproducedmore could be viewed as winners, as being ‘fitter’, however, in later editions Darwin’sassociates, Herbert Spencer and the aforementioned Alfred Russel Wallace (see letter from Wallaceto Darwin, 2 Jul. 1866),
persuaded him to substitute the term ‘natural selection’ with the term

‘survival of the fittest’. While Darwin’s friend and staunch defender, the English biologist
Thomas Henry Huxley described the term ‘survival of the fittest’ as an ‘unlucky substitution’
(Charles Darwin, Sir Gavin de Beer, 1963, p.178 of 290),
from the point of view of humanity needing to
contrive an excuse for its divisive selfish, competitive and aggressive behaviour it was alucky substitution because it suggested that the object of existence was to survive, providingupset humans with an excuse for their divisive selfish, have-to-take-care-of-self, aggressiveand competitive behaviour.
As mentioned, the idea of natural selection states that some individuals reproduce andsome don’t, but as to whether that means that those that survive are ‘fitter’ or better, Darwinproperly left that undecided. To understand why I’ve said it was ‘rightfully’ left undecided,the process of natural selection needs to be explained more fully.
As explained in Part 4:4B, one of the truths that the upset human race has had to live indenial of is the truth of Integrative Meaning, the truth that matter tends to come together orintegrate to form ever larger and more stable wholes. For matter to integrate, and a largerwhole to form and hold together, the parts of that developing whole have to, in effect,consider the welfare of the larger whole over their own. Selfishness is disintegrative whileselflessness is integrative. Selflessness is the glue that holds wholes together; it is, in fact, thetheme of the integrative process and actually what we mean by the word ‘love’, with the old
Christian word for love being ‘caritas’, meaning charity or giving or selflessness (see Col. 3:14,
1 Cor. 13:1-13, 10:24 and John 15:13). Therefore, if God is our religious term for the integrative
theme and meaning of existence, then it is true that ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:8,16), or selflessness—and in fact, not just selflessness but unconditional selflessness, the capacity to, if required,make a full, self-sacrificing commitment to the maintenance of the larger whole. As explainedin Part 4:4D, the limitation of the gene-based learning system is that it normally can’t developunconditional selflessness, because if an unconditionally selfless trait develops it doesn’ttend to carry on, and in order to continue to exist genetically traits have to carry on. Whileunconditional selflessness is the glue that best holds wholes together, if an unconditionallyselfless trait emerges and practices such self-sacrificial behaviour it won’t tend to carry on andtherefore it normally can’t become selected for genetically. This inability of genes in almostevery situation to develop unconditionally selfless or altruistic traits means that the genebased learning system is limited in its ability to integrate matter. (The reason I have said that
‘normally’, ‘in almost every situation’ genetics can’t develop unconditional selflessness isbecause there was, in fact, one way it could, which was the way our ape ancestors developedan instinctive capacity to behave unconditionally selflessly. How this was achieved, which

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

308

The Biology
was through the nurturing, love-indoctrination process, was also briefly explained in Part
4:4D, and will be fully explained in Part 8:4B.)

We can now see why it was ‘right’ for Darwin to leave it undecided as to whetherindividuals who do manage to reproduce are ‘fitter’ or better than those who don’t. It canbe very meaningful for someone to give their life in the interest of the good of the wholeand thus not reproduce their genes, as humans frequently do in war and in situations, forinstance, where a person gives their life trying to save another from drowning. In fact, asmentioned, it can be completely consistent with the integrative meaning of existence forsomeone to give their life in the cause of maintaining the larger whole of their society andthus not reproduce. Self-sacrifice for the good of the whole is, in fact, the very theme ofexistence. While mechanistic science has not been able to admit the truth of Integrative
Meaning (because it is too dangerously condemning of humans’ divisive competitive,aggressive and selfish behaviour) and Darwin therefore couldn’t explain why it was wrongto replace the word ‘natural selection’ with ‘survival of the fittest’, at least he initially knewto limit his description of how organisms adapt to change to the term ‘natural selection’. In
Darwin’s Second Part of his Big Species Book (a book that Darwin wrote between 1856-1858but never published in his lifetime, which he was going to call Natural Selection and that
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was a summary of) he explained whathe meant by ‘nature’: ‘By nature, I mean the laws ordained by God to govern the Universe’ (1975
Cambridge edition, ed. R.C. Stauffer, p.224).

So Darwin was not an atheist, as many people believe—
rather, he was secure enough to not have to live in denial of Integrative Meaning; he wasable to recognise that natural selection was a process dedicated to developing the order ofmatter, as are all systems in the natural world (as has been explained in Part 4:4B). Further,
Darwin was secure enough to readily admit the existence of an altruistic moral sense in ushumans, writing in his 1871 book The Descent of Man that ‘the moral sense affords the bestand highest distinction between man and the lower animals’ (ch.4). While Darwin agreed to use
the term ‘survival of the fittest’ because he accepted that talking about ‘nature’ ‘selecting’was a somewhat misleading anthropomorphic personification of the process, he did prefer
‘natural selection’ because ‘“Survival of the Fittest”, he told [Alfred Russel] Wallace, lost theanalogy between nature’s selection and the [pigeon] fanciers’ (Darwin, Adrian Desmond & James Moore,
1992, p.535 of 856).

Unlike Wallace who determinedly wanted to deny it (see Darwin’s Metaphor and
the Philosophy of Science, by Robert M. Young. Accessed 14 Oct. 2010: see <www.wtmsources.com/194>),

Darwin
wanted to relate natural selection to humans’ purposeful, albeit artificial, selection becausehe wanted to preserve the idea of natural selection being a purposeful, teleological,integrative, order-developing, ‘Godly’ process. As mentioned, by ‘nature’ Darwin explicitlymeant ‘the laws ordained by God to govern the Universe’. Clearly Darwin wasn’t like mostof the human race, so upset and thus insecure that they desperately needed to embracewhatever excuse they could to escape the pain of the human condition and misrepresent

Part 4:11

Darwin stopped short of participating in biological denial

309
natural selection as a purposeless process. Like Moses and Plato, and the other truthfulthinkers mentioned in the First and Second Categories, Darwin had no trouble admittingboth Integrative Meaning and that we have an ideal-behaviour-orientated, moral soul.
Genetics is a way of processing information—some individuals and species manage toreproduce while others don’t—but genetics normally can’t develop unconditional selflessnessbecause if an unconditionally selfless, altruistic trait emerges it doesn’t tend to carry on. Soalthough unconditional selflessness is meaningful, unconditionally selfless traits normallycan’t be developed genetically. Genetics is a limited tool for learning how to integrate matterbecause it normally can’t learn unconditional selflessness—it would if it could, but the factthat it normally can’t has been used to justify upset humans’ selfish behaviour. The fact thatselfish behaviour is almost universal in nature led upset humans to say, ‘Well, that means thatthe meaning of existence is to be selfish.’ Selfish, self-preservation, it was argued, was thenatural way to behave. The most you can normally do in terms of supporting the integrationof matter using genetic refinement is to develop reciprocity, where you behave selflessly onthe condition that others will behave selflessly in return, which in the final analysis means thebehaviour is still intrinsically selfish, as traits have to be to carry on genetically. Reciprocityworks on the basis of ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.’
Most significantly, in The Origin of Species, apart from referring to the way humansselect pigeons and manipulate animals through breeding, Darwin made no attempt toexplain human behaviour, despite the fact his book was called The Origin of Species and byinference should also account for the origins of human behaviour. It was a stark omissionthat can now be understood.
While Darwin was, as will now be explained, a very honest thinker (in fact, he wasso honest he can be considered a denial-free thinker or prophet) he clearly knew he wasn’tupset-free and thus sound and thus secure enough in self to fully confront the issue of thehuman condition. Darwin would have known full well that the next issue in biology thathad to be confronted once the idea of natural selection was understood was obviously theissue of human behaviour, but he would have also been fully aware that doing so meanthaving to confront and try to explain the human condition, a confrontation he clearly felt hecouldn’t and, to his credit, didn’t undertake. It is true that 12 years after the publication of
The Origin of Species Darwin did publish a book titled The Descent of Man and Selection in
Relation to Sex that discussed the idea of sexual selection being involved in the developmentof humans, however, while this idea of sexual selection was very insightful (because sexualselection did play a part in the nurturing that gave our species our instinctive orientation tobehaving utterly cooperatively—as will be explained in Part 8:4D, females selected for moreintegrative males to mate with) it represented only a very tentative step in the exploration ofthe issue of the human condition.

310

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

While The Origin of Species contains no reference to human behaviour, it does featurethis one very significant sentence at the end of the book: ‘In the distant future I see open fieldsfor far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation…Light will bethrown on the origin of man and his history’ (p.458 of 477). With this statement Darwin has clearly
acknowledged that to undertake the ‘far more important’ research into the development ofour species’ way of behaving—to understand our ‘history’, our selves, our less-than-ideal,corrupted human condition no less—‘light’ was going to have to be ‘thrown on’ our ‘psychology’,on what has been going on in our species’ heads, with our species’ psychosis no less.
So Darwin knew that the next step biology had to take was to explain human behaviour,but he also knew that step, if truthfully undertaken, would involve confronting the issue of thehuman condition, the unbearably depressing issue for all but the exceptionally sound of theapparent imperfection of humans—for it would involve the issue of the psychosis and thusthe ‘psychology’ of humans—and by actively avoiding that step he clearly didn’t feel secureenough in self to take it. So while Darwin was secure enough to acknowledge our moral souland to cope with relating humans to animals, it’s clear he wasn’t sufficiently secure to fullyconfront the issue of the human condition.
Of course, there weren’t many who were secure enough in self to even cope with theinitial step that Darwin took of relating humans to animals, a situation Darwin was keenlyaware of and greatly distressed by, to the extent that he developed Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
(CFS), a debilitating illness that affected him for many years. (Although CFS hadn’t been
officially identified as an illness in Darwin’s day, we know it is what he suffered from becauseof the accurate description he gave of his condition, such as ‘I believe to a stranger’s eyes, I shouldlook quite a strong man, but I find I am not up to any exertion, & I am constantly tiring myself by verytrifling things’ (Letter to Charles Lyell, 1841, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vol.2, p.298). Indeed, there
has been some discussion about renaming CFS the ‘Charles Darwin Syndrome’ (Roger Burns,
‘Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Changing the Name’, Sep. 1996;. see <www.wtmsources.com/123>)). The responsibility

Darwin felt to bring his critically important, albeit limited, biological understanding of natureto an immensely insecure, human-condition-afflicted populous, many of whom were only ableto cope with a non-confronting, abstract interpretation of our world—in particular that wehumans weren’t related to animals, but were divinely created by a personal, cosmic-magiciantype, deity-in-the-clouds, abstract version of God—caused him immense anxiety and stress.
Indeed, when the insecure, paranoid response to ‘natural selection’ subsided some 10 yearsafter the publication of The Origin of Species Darwin’s health quickly recovered: ‘He wassending off letters to…his Cambridge friends and clergymen and he was saying “you long to crucify mealive” and so on…He felt the weight of the world on his shoulders. For 20 years he struggled against hisdestiny. For 20 years he had lived a double life, now his silence was over. In November 1859 he published
The Origin of Species and waited for the coming storm…It created an immediate uproar…[because] hesaid that monkeys and humans came from a common ancestor…[Then] In just a decade his ideas hadbecome part of the mainstream. With the great burden of evolution finally lifted from his shoulders hishealth improved dramatically. The miserable symptoms of over 30 years all but vanished’ (Charles Darwin:
Evolution’s Voice, Biography, A&E Television Networks, 1998). To know that you can and therefore must
bring demystifying understanding to humans who are entrenched in all manner of mysticismand denial is an extremely burdensome and stressful responsibility.

Part 4:12

The great denials in biology

311

Part 4:12 The great denials in biology of Social Darwinism, Sociobiology,
Evolutionary Psychology, Multilevel Selection and Eusociality

Part 4:12 A Denial-based mechanistic biology was bound to lose its way
Before presenting the great dishonest denials in biology of Social Darwinism,
Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, Multilevel Selection and Eusociality, the pointshould be made that trying to make sense of animal and plant behaviour, including our ownhuman behaviour, while avoiding such fundamental truths as Integrative Meaning, was liketrying to understand how a car functions having decided not to look under the bonnet at theengine—such thinking was bound to become lost and confused: ‘Right, I think the steeringwheel must have something to do with what makes the car go; yes, turning it initiates lateralforces of obtuse magnitude, verifying the monopoly of progress……No, it must be somethingto do with having an empty boot; yes, the vacant atmosphere catalyses the breeding of rats in
Russia, inversely liberating untold energy, and we have carried out studies from every angle toprove our new Russian Rodent Theory. The model fits the data admirably.’!!
This may sound like an absurdly exaggerated comparison, but unfortunately it’sfrighteningly close to the truth. As mentioned in Parts 4:4B and 4:10, Plato recognised thedestructive effect denial—especially denial of Integrative Meaning—has had on our intellect’scapacity to think effectively when he wrote that ‘when the soul [our species’ integrativelyorientated original instinctual self or soul] uses the instrumentality of the body [uses the body’s intellectwith its preoccupation with denial] for any inquiry…it is drawn away by the body into the realm of thevariable, and loses its way and becomes confused and dizzy, as though it were fuddled [drunk]…But whenit investigates by itself [free of human-condition-avoiding, intellectual denial], it passes into the realmof the pure and everlasting and immortal and changeless, and being of a kindred nature, when it is onceindependent and free from interference, consorts with it always and strays no longer, but remains, in thatrealm of the absolute [Integrative Meaning], constant and invariable’ (Phaedo, tr. H. Tredennick). Plato also
referred to the need to be able ‘to look straight at reality’ if we are to effectively ‘learn’ when hewrote that ‘this capacity [of a mind…to see clearly] is innate in each man’s mind [we are born with atruthful, instinctive orientation to the cooperative, loving, integrative meaning of existence], and thatthe faculty by which he learns is like an eye which cannot be turned from darkness to light unless thewhole body is turned; in the same way the mind as a whole must be turned away from the world of changeuntil it can bear to look straight at reality, and at the brightest of all realities which is what we call the
Good [Integrative Meaning or God]’ (The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.283 of 405).

Human-condition-avoiding, denial-complying, intellectual-not-instinctual, mechanistic,reductionist science has suffered very greatly from an inability to think truthfully and thuseffectively; it certainly has ‘los[t] its way and become confused and dizzy, as though it were fuddled
[drunk]’. And since biology deals with behaviour, it is in fact the field of science that is
most responsible for investigating the issue of the human condition, and since virtuallyall humans, including virtually all biologists, haven’t been able to go anywhere near theissue of the human condition, we can expect that it is within biology that we will finddishonest intellectualism running wild; it is where we can expect to find extraordinary,indeed fantastic, examples of dishonesty, and the most extreme intellectualism, employing

312

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
increasingly complex arguments, more and more convoluted sentences with bigger andbigger words, to the extent that what is being said or ‘reported’ has become virtuallyincomprehensible. But, the inability to genuinely approach the subject of the humancondition having taken on the task of doing so was a diabolically difficult situation forbiologists to be in, with the desperate end result being that in order to conceal their failingsthey feel they have no choice but to go all-out to create the impression of having presenteda brilliant analysis when, in truth, their theories are devoid of substance. Untangling suchextreme intellectualism is difficult—for students of biology it must have been a nightmare—but, since I have been able to decipher and explain the human condition, I should be able topenetrate and demystify any version of the human condition, even mechanistic biologists’extremely dishonest, highly intellectualised interpretations of the behaviour of animalsand plants. If I apply my soul-guided, human-condition-confronting-not-human-conditionavoiding mind that, as Plato said, can ‘look straight at reality’ and thus ‘see clearly’, I should beable to get to the bottom of what these biologists are psychologically attempting to do, aswell as to the essence of their supposed arguments.
I should explain that while I completed a Bachelor of Science degree in zoology at
Sydney University in 1971, I, like the biology students I mentioned above, found much of thebiological literature we were given to study very difficult to comprehend. But what I did gainwas sufficient grounding in the principles of biology, particularly the principles of Darwin’sidea of natural selection, to be in a position to take my truthful, human-condition-confrontingnot-human-condition-avoiding approach off on its own and start thinking effectively aboutbiology, especially about the biology of the human condition, the result of which is the trueexplanation of the development of order of matter that is presented in Parts 8:2 and 8:3 (abrief summary of which will be given next in Part 4:12B). While I maintained an interest in,and awareness of, what was taking place in the world of dishonest, mechanistic biology (asummary of which is given in my 2006 book, The Great Exodus), I basically left that worldand began thinking about behaviour, especially human behaviour, on my own, eventuallyestablishing, in 1983, an independent institution for the study and amelioration of the humancondition, which is now called the World Transformation Movement. What all this meansis that to provide this in-depth analysis of the great denials in biology of Social Darwinism,
Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, Multilevel Selection and Eusociality, I have had tolook at a lot of biological literature that I had not previously read because of its dishonesty.
What I learnt when, in April to July of 2012, I carried out this investigation into the world ofdishonest biological thinking was a great shock to me, as it will no doubt be for the reader, foras you will see, the journey that denial-complying, human-condition-avoiding, mechanisticscientific thought has been on is a truly amazing saga of intrigue and counter-intrigue thathas reached a very sad and lonely place; a place, as Plato predicted, that has ‘los[t] its wayand become confused and dizzy, as though it were fuddled [drunk]’. It has resulted in a situation
where there are now two polarised, left-wing and right-wing versions of biology, both ofwhich are completely ‘los[t]’ and ‘confused’—the same situation, in fact, that now afflicts thewhole human race. Thank goodness then for the arrival of the liberating understanding of thehuman condition that safely and compassionately brings to an end this whole terrible, humancondition-afflicted, messed-up and traumatised state of the world.

Part 4:12B

Brief summary of the development of order of matter on Earth

313

I might say that it does seem a shame to subject the reader to the task of having towade through all this human-condition-avoiding, denial-based, intellectualised biologicalthinking. Indeed, if you wish, you can avoid this nightmare and go straight to the denial-free,unadulterated, uncomplicated biological explanation of the story of the development of life on
Earth that is presented in Part 8.
On the other hand, the full account of all the dishonest biological theories that ispresented in Parts 4:12C to 4:12J is such an amazing saga of intrigue and counter-intrigue thatyou may actually want to read it, just as you would a high-drama, high-stakes crime novel—and a crime novel it certainly is, for there is just so much dishonesty involved, and on such anall-important issue as the biology of human nature!
If you do choose to read this 153 years of dishonest biology (from when Darwinpublished his idea of natural selection in 1859 to when this Part is being written in 2012)rather than go straight through to the honest biology, I will provide at least a brief summaryof the truthful account of the development of order of matter on Earth that is more fullypresented in Parts 8:2 and 8:3.

Part 4:12B Brief summary of the development of order of matter on Earth
As stated, the following is a very brief summary of the description of the developmentof order of matter on Earth that will be presented in Parts 8:2 and 8:3. It will provide a strongcounterbalance to all the dishonest biology that will be presented.
As described in Part 4:4D and summarised in Part 4:11, self-sacrifice for the good ofthe whole—unconditional selflessness—is the glue that holds wholes together and as suchis the very theme of the integrative process. Further, it was pointed out that the integrativelimitation of the gene-based learning system is that it normally (that is, outside thenurturing, love-indoctrination situation) can’t develop unconditional selflessness because ifan unconditionally selfless trait develops it doesn’t tend to carry on. The most selflessnessthat can normally be developed genetically is the selflessness that occurs in situations ofreciprocity where a favour is given on the condition that it is returned, which really means thatthe selflessness is not selfless at all but selfish.
So again, while genetics has proved to be a marvellous tool for integrating matter—itproduced the great variety of life that we have on Earth—it has this very significant limitationin that it normally can’t develop unconditional selflessness and thus full integration. Eachsexually reproducing individual plant or animal can develop traits for reciprocity, becausesuch traits are in essence still selfish—they don’t give away an advantage to other sexuallyreproducing individuals and therefore don’t compromise the chances of the sexuallyreproducing individual to reproduce—but they cannot normally go beyond that and developthe capacity to behave unconditionally selflessly.
That is really all straightforward. What now needs to be considered is just how thisinability to develop unconditional selflessness played out as the integration of matterdeveloped from atoms, to molecules, to compounds, to macro-compounds, to virus-likeorganisms, to single-celled organisms, to multicellular organisms, to the next larger whole

314

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
of the fully integrated association of multicellular animals. It makes sense that at the levelof integration where multicellular animals have been formed, the more those members of aspecies become integrated (or what has evasively been termed ‘social’, which basically meanscooperative), the more competition for available food, shelter, territory and a mate intensifies.
The more social or integrated sexually reproducing individual multicellular organismsbecome, the more competition develops between them, until it reaches a point where nofurther cooperative integration is possible. In the end, the selfish, divisive competitionbecomes so intense, in fact, that dominance hierarchy is the only way to bring some peacebetween the competing individuals. The benefit of dominance hierarchy is that, onceestablished, the only time competition breaks out is when an opportunity arises to move upthe dominance hierarchy; for the rest of the time there is relative peace. Dominance hierarchyis a sign that a species has developed as much integration as it possibly can. It is integratively
‘maxed-out’; taken integration to the limit; developed as much integration as it possibly can.
Due to the establishment of dominance hierarchies the intense competition thatintegration has led to in highly social/integrated species is often hidden from view. It isonly when an opportunity arises to move up the dominance hierarchy, or so-called ‘peckorder’, that we see the real intensity of the competition that exists between members of acooperative, or what we have called ‘social’, species. In my youth I remember feeding hensin our hen house and seeing a hen twist her leg and become temporarily crippled, at whichpoint all the other hens immediately attacked her. In that instant it was suddenly apparent tome just how closely and intensely each hen was watching all the others for an opportunityto literally move up the peck order. The hen house was not at all the gregarious, peacefulcommunity I thought it was; rather, it was a place of absolutely fierce competition! Charles
Darwin recognised this truth about the real struggle in the lives of most animals when hewrote that ‘It is difficult to believe in the dreadful but quiet war of organic beings, going on [in] thepeaceful woods and smiling fields’ (12 Mar. 1839, Charles Darwin’s Notebooks, Barrett et al., 1987, p.429). When
we humans become free of the human condition we are going to be shocked by the agony ofthe animal condition; we are going to finally feel the distress that all the non-human animalspecies live under, where each member is fiercely and relentlessly having to compete with theother members to make sure it reproduces its genes.
So, as will be explained more fully in Part 8:2, this is where most animals are stranded,stuck in the ‘animal condition’ of forever having to compete and make sure their genesreproduce. That is the essential fact or rule or law of the gene-based natural selectionprocess—genes are unavoidably selfish—but, again, that doesn’t mean the meaning ofexistence is to be selfish; it is simply the limitation of the genetic tool for developing theorder of matter. All of which raises the question: had the development of order of matter on
Earth progressed as far as it could go at this point where the intensity of competition betweensexually reproducing multicellular organisms had become so great that dominance hierarchyhad to be employed? Well, it makes sense that since the limiting factor is that each sexuallyreproducing individual has to ensure it reproduces, one possibility is to elaborate the sexuallyreproducing individual, make it bigger, develop it so that there is more integration of matterwithin each sexually reproducing individual. As will be more fully explained in Part 8:3,elaborating the sexually reproducing individual is how single-celled organisms were able to

Part 4:12B

Brief summary of the development of order of matter on Earth

315
integrate to form multicellular organisms such as our bodies, and it is also how the completelyintegrated/social/colonial ants/bees/termites/wasps/beetles/shrimps/aphids/mole rats, etc,were able to form the next level of order of the integrated whole of multicellular membersof a species. In multicellular organisms, each organism, while composed of many individualcells, remains one sexually reproducing individual. Similarly with ant/bee, etc, colonies, eachcolony, while composed of many ants/bees, etc, remains one sexually reproducing individual,one organism. As the prominent American biologist E.O. Wilson came to acknowledgein his 2012 book The Social Conquest of Earth, ‘The queen and her offspring are often calledsuperorganisms, but they may equally be called organisms’; ‘the mother queen and her progeny together

[are]…the target of selection’ (pp.144 & 146 of 330). In the case of bees (the other completely social
colonial species also employ a mechanism for retarding sexual maturation), the queen beefeeds a ‘royal jelly’ that causes sterility in all of her offspring that she intends to be workers.
To ensure the reproduction of their genes these offspring then have to, through naturalselection, develop the ability to support the queen because she carries their genes.
Elaborating the sexually reproducing individual allows the members of the elaboratedsexually reproducing individual to develop the ability to at least behave unconditionallyselflessly, which, as has been explained, is fundamental for the development of the fullycooperative integration of members into a new whole. The reason our body works so wellis because each part has sublimated its needs to the greater good of the whole body—eachpart behaves in an unconditionally selfless way. Our skin, for example, is constantly growingand dying to protect our body. As has been mentioned, the leaves that fall in autumn doso to ensure the tree survives through winter. Ants and bees readily sacrifice themselvesfor the colony. Importantly, however, our body’s skin, the tree’s leaves and the ants/bees,etc, have only behaved unconditionally selflessly because their selflessness is not actuallyunconditional selflessness, it is not true altruism. This is because the self-sacrificing skin,leaves and ants/bees, etc, are all indirectly selfishly ensuring that their own genetic existencewill be maintained by supporting the body or tree or ant/bee, etc, colony that carries the genesfor their existence. Genetically—from the point of view of the genes’ unavoidable need toreproduce—they are selflessly fostering the body/tree/colony to selfishly ensure their owngenetic reproduction. Their apparently unconditionally selfless behaviour is not actuallyunconditional and thus altruistic, but rather a subtle form of selfishness. As pointed out, suchreciprocity can develop genetically because it doesn’t compromise the chances of the sexuallyreproducing individual to reproduce.
It now needs to be explained that large animals couldn’t employ this device of elaboratingthe sexually reproducing individual to develop a fully cooperative, integrated association orwhole of their members because for them it involves too great a loss of the variability thatall species need to be able to adapt to changes in their environment. For example, if a femalebuffalo happened to be born with a particular mutation that caused her to produce a chemicalin her milk that retarded the sexual maturation of her offspring such that her offspringthen had to have selected mutations that inclined them to protect her for their genes to besuccessfully reproduced by her, and this became a common practice amongst buffalos, withevery queen buffalo having, say, nine protector sacrificial buffalos, then the genetic variety ofa population of 1,000 buffalos would be reduced to just 100, a drastic loss of variability. In the

316

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
case of ants/bees, etc, they are so small in relation to their environment that they can affordto have many fully integrated colonies in their environment without any significant loss ofvariability within their species.
Since integration is the theme of existence, all species are trying to become integratedand, according to how much their circumstances allow it given the limitation they areoperating under of genes having to reproduce, they will have become integrated to somedegree. It turns out that a number of large multicellular animal species have been partiallysuccessful in becoming integrated by temporarily elaborating the sexually reproducingindividual. Many bird species, such as the Australian kookaburra, postpone their ownreproduction for a few years after they fledge to selflessly help raise their parents’ subsequentoffspring; wolves, African wild dogs and meerkats do the same thing. However, to delaytheir chances of reproducing permanently would lead to too great a loss of variability intheir species. Colonial mole rats are underground-living mammals that form fully integratedcolonies of up to 300 members comprising one queen who uses hormones to inhibit thesexual maturation of nearly all the other rats who then act as workers and soldiers. A fewsexual disperser caste are allowed to reach sexual maturity and these periodically escapetheir natal burrow to access other colonies and, in doing so, contribute to the genetic varietyof the species. Significantly, mole rats are relatively small, typically maturing to only 8 to 10centimetres (3 to 4 inches) in length.
What has been explained here is very significant for humans because it means that, asrelatively large animals, we could not have employed the integrating device of elaboratingthe sexually reproducing individual either permanently, like ants and mole rats, or eventemporarily, like wolves, to create the pre-conscious fully integrated state that I have assertedour australopithecine human ancestors developed through love-indoctrination, the instinctivememory of which is our moral conscience. Further, I have asserted that during that fullyintegrated, idyllic time in our past, our instinctive orientation was not reciprocity’s subtleform of selfishness that the parts of a multicellular organism and workers in colonies of ants/bees, etc, practice, but to being truly altruistic, genuinely unconditionally selflessly behavedtowards all of life; thus, even if we could have employed the device of elaborating thesexually reproducing individual it would still not come close to accounting for the origins ofour unconditionally selfless, moral instinctive self or soul.
One last summarising point needs to be made about the stages of integration betweenmulticellular members of a species to form the fully integrated larger whole of the Specie
Individual. As was mentioned, all species are trying to become integrated, but the amountof integration they have been able to develop varies according to their circumstances. Inparticular it depends on how much selfless, cooperative behaviour they can develop beforethey reach the integration limit where they have to establish dominance hierarchy—andbeyond that situation, on whether they can temporarily or fully elaborate the reproductiveindividual—and beyond that situation, on whether they can develop love-indoctrination.
Many species have been able to develop a degree of selfless cooperation or socialnessthrough developing some reciprocal selflessness (which is ultimately selfish behaviour andthus can be developed by natural selection); African buffalos, for example, form semicooperative, ‘social’ herds as the herd provides individuals, in particular newborn calves,

Part 4:12C

Social Darwinism

317
with physical protection against predators. Grazing animals in general form semi-cooperative,
‘social’ herds because, for one thing, if you are a grazing animal and have to have your headdown feeding most of the time and you are in a herd it is likely that at least one member willhave their head up and see an approaching predator and give a signal to the others of thethreat. These are examples of reciprocal selflessness because while on occasion a memberhappens to be the selfless buffalo that most directly confronts the predator, or the grazinganimal that draws attention to itself by giving the alarm call, on average each individual herdmember benefits more than they risk from others making the defence or giving the alarm.
It has already been explained how temporarily or permanently elaborating the reproductiveindividual enables cooperation to develop. What is significant is that under the limitation ofthe gene-based, natural selection process, while a little integration can be developed throughoccasional acts of reciprocal selflessness (such as occurs in buffalo herds), and somewhatmore integration can be developed through temporarily elaborating the sexually reproducingindividual (such as occurs in wolf packs), and continuous and thus full integration can bedeveloped through permanently elaborating the sexually reproducing individual (as occursin ant colonies), the continuous and thus full integration of sexually reproducing individualsto form the Species Individual can only occur through love-indoctrination (as is occuring inbonobos and occurred in our ape ancestors).
This was a brief summary of the integration of matter on Earth, with particular focuson why and where integration has become stalled, as that will be particularly relevant in thediscussions that follow. Indeed, since what has been explained here is pivotal to the comingdiscussions, if any aspect remains unclear then I would recommend you read the fullerpresentation in Parts 8:2 and 8:3.

Part 4:12C The full description of the denial-based biological theories, beginningwith Social Darwinism
As explained in Part 4:11, when Darwin presented his theory of natural selection in 1859he intuitively knew that he could not pursue the next step in biology, of confronting theunbearably depressing question for virtually all humans of the less-than-ideal, imperfect,human-condition-afflicted state of humans. Other biologists, however, were far, far lessscrupulous. Unlike Darwin, who accepted that he wasn’t sound enough to take the next step inbiology of confronting the issue of the human condition and therefore stopped at that impasse,almost every biologist since has irresponsibly side-stepped that hurdle and gone on to developwhole libraries of fraudulent biological thinking about the behaviour of living organisms,including about the all-important issue of human behaviour.
Yes, human behaviour is the all-important issue for humanity, for science and forbiology in particular, because only by understanding ourselves could we end the underlyinginsecurities that have caused our species’ immensely destructive behaviour. And since thehuman condition is the all-important issue for biology, the advancement of a whole seriesof dishonest thinking about human behaviour by biologists was an extremely dangerousdevelopment because it threatened to subvert the real task for biologists of addressing andsolving the human condition. Indeed, beyond subversion, it threatened to completely destroy

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

318

The Biology
any chance humanity had of completing this task, because the way biologists side-steppedthe issue of the human condition was by simply denying it even existed. As we will shortlysee, this denial was attempted firstly by rejecting the existence of integrative purpose byclaiming change was random, and secondly by finding ways to repudiate the fact that wehumans have unconditionally selfless, altruistic moral instincts. After all, if there is no ideal,unconditionally selfless meaning to existence, and no unconditionally selflessly orientatedmoral nature in humans, then there is no dilemma of the human condition to have to explain!
No ideals or alignment to an ideal state, no guilt, no problem—lie, lie, lie, but relief, relief,relief from the human condition!
The irony is, however, that while Darwin did responsibly step back from attempting toconfront the issue of the human condition, refusing to engage in such disingenuous practiceshimself, he did, nevertheless, open the floodgates to the development of fraudulent, humancondition-side-stepping biological thinking when, as just explained in Part 4:11, he—this timeto his discredit as a biologist—allowed his honest term ‘natural selection’ to be substitutedby the dishonest term ‘survival of the fittest’. In time, this ‘survival of the fittest’ corruptionof Darwin’s idea of natural selection became known as Social Darwinism—an all-pervadingdoctrine for upset humans that essentially claimed that ‘when you dominated and defeatedothers you were simply meeting your biological obligations to be a success’. Through themisrepresentation of natural selection as a ‘survival of the fittest’ process, the so-called
‘savage’, ‘barbaric’, ‘primitive’, ‘backward’, ‘brutish’, ‘bestial’ animal behaviour excuse wasgiven a supposed biological basis—a contrived, supposedly rational, biological excuse hadfinally been found for upset, human-condition-afflicted humans’ extremely selfish egocentricneed for power, fame, fortune and glory!

Part 4:12D Sociobiology
While the ‘selfishness-is-natural’ excuse put forward by Social Darwinists greatlyrelieved upset humans of the insecurity of their condition, there was always in the backgroundan unsettling awareness that there were, in fact, situations in nature that challenged the ideathat selfishness is universal. So while it is undisputable that most of nature is ‘red in tooth andclaw’—that members of most species do selfishly compete and fight with each other for food,
shelter, territory and a mate—it is also true that not all of nature is characterised by suchselfishness, as evidenced by the three particular situations listed below.
FIRSTLY, selfless behaviour is not uncommon amongst animals, particularly in highly
social species. For example, wolves and African wild dogs bring meat back to members ofthe pack not present at the kill. In numerous bird species, such as the Australian kookaburra,a breeding pair receives support in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds who protect thenest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vampire bats regularly donate regurgitatedblood to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do notstarve. Many animals also give alarm calls to alert others in their group to the presence of apredator, even though in doing so they seemingly attract attention to themselves and increasetheir personal risk of attack.

Part 4:12D

Sociobiology

319

But while such occasional selfless behaviour certainly challenges the argument thatselfishness is a natural, universal characteristic of nature, the continually selfless behaviourof ants and bees and the few other completely social colonial species, such as termites, leavesthe argument in tatters. Indeed, in The Origin of Species Darwin considered the question ofhow the natural selection process, in which only traits that selfishly reproduce carry on, canpossibly develop selfless traits, such as those exhibited by social ants and bees, to be the mostserious challenge to his theory of evolution by natural selection.
When, in religious scripture, King Solomon said, ‘Go to the ant…consider its ways andbe wise’ (Proverbs 6:6), he has most often been interpreted as meaning, ‘Look at the ants and
acknowledge their industry.’ However, the real meaning of that proverb is to look at the antsand acknowledge how selflessly and cooperatively they are behaving and, as a result of thatbehaviour, how functional, effective and harmoniously integrated their societies are, and askourselves why don’t we humans behave like that? But whenever faced with human-conditionconfronting truths such as this, we upset, competitive, aggressive and selfish, humancondition-afflicted humans invariably found a way of denying them. In this case, insteadof advocating an examination of why ant societies function so well, which would quicklyreveal that ants are extremely selfless, and becoming ‘wise’ from making that observation,the proverb was evasively misinterpreted as referring to the industry of ants. Due to theirextremely selfless, consider-the-larger-whole-above-self behaviour, ant and bee colonies areextraordinarily functional and harmoniously integrated—so much so, in fact, that the colonycan be considered a single organism, a superorganism comprised of the queen and her manyworkers of different castes (such as food gatherers, soldiers, nest cleaners, nursery attendants,etc) selflessly working together for the greater good of the colony. The workers behave muchlike the parts of our body work together for its greater good; indeed, we can compare thefood gathering worker ants to the red blood cells that scurry throughout our body selflesslydelivering ‘food’ (oxygen) to all its parts. The 2004 award-winning documentary Ants—
Nature’s Secret Power admitted the power of selfless cooperation and its ‘superorganism’creating effect in ants when it concluded that ‘The secret of ant societies is their cooperation…[it’swhat has enabled them to] act as a superorganism…[and become] nature’s true world power’ (producedby Adi Mayer Films, ORF Austrian Broadcasting Company with Docstar and WDR). The extreme selflessness
of bees was also made clear in a documentary on bee colonies, which reported that ‘whenbees become sick they sacrifice themselves and leave the hive to die to prevent infecting the rest of thecolony’, and ‘in the summer, the workers only live around 30 days because they literally work themselvesto death’ (Silence of the Bees, produced by Partisan Pictures, Inc. and Thirteen/WNET for National Geographic Channel,
2007).

In his book The Soul of the White Ant, Eugène Marais also made the same point when he
observed that ‘the termite…never rests or sleeps’ (1937, p.61 of 154).
Significantly, however, not only has the extremely selfless behaviour of ants, bees,termites—and the two dozen or so other completely social, fully integrated colonial varietiesof multicellular animals, which includes some wasps, a species of beetle, several variety ofshrimp, some gall-making aphids and two independently evolved mole rat species—beenvery exposing, confronting and condemning of us upset, divisive, selfish, competitive andaggressive, dysfunctionally behaved, human-condition-suffering humans, it was also veryexposing, confronting and condemning because it presented stark evidence of the development

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

320

The Biology
of order of matter on Earth. As explained in Part 4:4B, atoms have come together or integratedto form molecules, which in turn have integrated to form compounds, which have integratedto form virus-like organisms, then single-celled organisms, which have then integrated to formmulticellular organisms, and now we have the example of how multicellular animals havecome together to form the next level of order and larger whole of a fully integrated associationof multicellular animals, the ‘superorganism’. Ants and bees and the few other completelysocial colonial animals just mentioned bear stark witness to the theme of existence, which isthe development of order or integration of matter, a theme that, as emphasised in Part 4:4B,has been unbearably condemning of our apparent divisive, non-integrative human-conditionafflicted lives. In short, ants and bees and their like challenged the defence we were usingagainst Integrative Meaning that change was directionless and random.
Yes, ants and bees and the few other completely social colonial species confronted uson all levels with the Godly, integrative meaning of existence—they confronted us with theelementary truth about existence, which is that selflessness is an ideal way to behave; andthey confronted us with the overall truth about existence of Integrative Meaning. Havingbecome a selflessly behaved, consider-the-larger-whole-above-self, fully integrated group ofmulticellular animals, within their colonies they were behaving in a way consistent with thenext level of the integrative process, which is the way we knew we should be behaving!
The SECOND situation in nature that contradicts the idea that selfishness is universalis the existence of our own instinctive moral conscience that informs us that it isn’t rightto be selfishly inconsiderate of others and not live in accordance with Integrative Meaning.
Our own charitable, consider-the-larger-whole-above-self, integration-orientated moralinstincts also strongly contradicted the excuses we were using that ‘selfishness is all thatis occurring in nature, there’s no such thing as an integrative process because change isdirectionless and random’.
Both situations listed thus far contribute to the THIRD situation in nature that contradictsthe selfishness-is-universal interpretation, which is the obvious overall theme in nature ofthe integration of matter. As described in Part 4:4B, not only do we have moral instinctsthat inform us that selfless, cooperative, integrative behaviour is meaningful, our everydayobservation of nature—be it animal, mineral or vegetable—reveals that truth. We aresurrounded by examples of ordered matter, by arrangements of matter where the parts of thearrangement are behaving cooperatively. A tree’s leaves, branches, trunk, roots and bark, andindeed all the cells of all those parts of the tree, live in a state of harmonious cooperation—even behaving selflessly, such as when leaves fall (in effect, give their life) in autumn so thatthe tree as a whole can better survive through winter. Again, our body is a similar collectionof cooperating parts. Almost everywhere we look we see arrangements of ordered matter andwe see how well those arrangements benefit from all the parts working together in a selflessfashion. In fact, in the instances where there isn’t such cooperation, such as where we seecompetition and fighting between organisms, we realise how destabilising, disintegrative anddivisive such behaviour is. Moreover, we are able to realise from observing our surroundingsthat there is a hierarchy of ordered matter—animals are a collection of parts, and, in the manysocieties of animals, each animal is a part of the larger whole of its society, and, in turn,societies of animals are all part of the larger whole of a developing ‘ecosystem’. Indeed, all of

Part 4:12D

Sociobiology

321
nature appears to be one vast system trying to create order out of an initial chaos of individualelements and parts. We even have a word, ‘holism’, which recognises ‘the tendency in nature toform wholes’ (Concise Oxford Dict. 5th edn, 1964).

So, in summary, far from selfishness appearing to be the universal characteristicof life on Earth, some animals were behaving selflessly—considering others, the largerintegrated whole, above their own interests. Such behaviour was particularly apparent inthe communalism of ant and bee colonies. Also contradicting the ‘selfishness-is-universalin-nature-so-that’s-why-we-are-selfish, there’s-no-such-thing-as-an-integrative-processbecause-change-is-directionless-and-random’ excuse for our divisive, selfish, competitiveand aggressive human condition was the existence of our moral conscience, as well asour everyday observations of the overall integrative theme in nature. These situationscertainly placed humanity in a pickle, in deep trouble: how were we to get out of this highlyexposing, confronting and condemning corner? Clearly what was desperately needed wasthe true dignifying and redeeming biological explanation of our less-than-ideally-behaved,competitive and aggressive human condition, but while that liberating insight remainedunknown all that was possible was to somehow contrive an even trickier excuse than Social
Darwinism for our divisive condition—one that could be used to counter the criticismemanating from these three situations.
Not only did a counter have to be found to these apparent contradictions to the notionthat nature is entirely competitive and selfish, a growing view that nature is characterisedby selflessness not selfishness had also to be countered. As was explained in some detailin Parts 3:11G and 3:11H, without the reconciling understanding of why humans becamecompetitive, aggressive and selfish when the ideals—which our moral conscience expectedus to behave in accordance with—are to be cooperative, loving and selfless, two opposingphilosophical positions emerged. When the upset that unavoidably developed from thehuman race’s search for knowledge became extreme some people, the right-wing, wanted tocontinue the upsetting, corrupting search for knowledge, while others, the left-wing, wantedto abandon that corrupting search and return to supporting more idealistic values. The resultin biology was that, while not wanting to admit to Integrative Meaning too directly and byso doing have to confront the unbearable issue of the human condition, left-wing-supportingbiologists did want to admit to a more integrative, ideal existence. So what happened is thatright up until the 1960s these biologists resisted the right-wing, selfishness-and-competitionjustifying Social Darwinist view and interpreted what was happening in the natural worldas one immense order-developing, cooperative, selfless, loving process, however this meantoverlooking the fact that the natural selection process involved in this development of order ofmatter is highly competitive and selfish.
There is a Negative-Entropy-driven, teleological, holistic, integrative, order-of-matterdeveloping direction to change, and natural selection has developed a great deal of integrated,ordered matter, namely the great variety of life we see on Earth, BUT, because of the limitationof the gene-based mechanism for developing that order of matter, which is that genetic traitshave to reproduce if they are to carry on, natural selection does operate from an individualistic,selfish and competitive basis. Even though, overall, natural selection does develop order, itis in practice a highly competitive and selfish process. This is the great paradox of the natural

322

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
selection process: overall natural selection is dedicated to developing integrative order but ithas to do it through extremely divisive competition! What this means is that those who opposedthe Social Darwinist’s emphasis on selfishness and stressed the development of order in naturewere correct in recognising that life and nature are concerned with developing cooperativeorder, they were incorrect in overlooking the fact that at the operational level natural selectionis a highly selfish and competitive process. What was basically occurring is that selfishnessemphasising right-wing biologists were rightly stressing the fact that the natural selectionprocess is extremely selfish and competitive, while socialistic left-wing biologists were naivelyoverlooking that reality and trying to emphasise the greater truth of the integration of matter.
What was missing was the reconciling understanding that, as emphasised in the previous Part
4:12B, natural selection is a limited tool for achieving the integration of matter—that limitation
being that only traits that are selfish can reproduce and thus carry on in the species.
Despite it being an extremely naive position to take to not recognise that natural selectionis an extremely selfish and competitive process, many left-leaning biologists took that positionanyway in an effort to counter the right-wing, selfishness-and-competition-justifying Social
Darwinist view. For instance, in 1880 the Russian zoologist Karl Kessler maintained that (theunderlinings are my emphasis) ‘the progressive development of the animal kingdom, and especially ofmankind, is favoured much more by [selfless] mutual support than by mutual struggle’ (Address titled On thelaw of mutual aid to the St Petersburg Society of Naturalists, Jan. 1880). The truth is, while there is an integrative,

‘progressive development of the animal kingdom’, the integrative limitation of the natural selection
process is that, apart from in the case of ‘mankind’, it only ‘favoured’ selfish ‘struggle’, not selfless
‘mutual support’. At the beginning of the twentieth century, another Russian zoologist, Peter

Kropotkin, who as an avowed communist, was being extremely naive when he wrote aboutnatural selection as being concerned with ‘the progressive evolution of the species’ (Intro.), writing inhis 1902 book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, for example, that ‘in all these scenes of animal lifewhich passed before my eyes, I saw Mutual Aid and Mutual Support carried on to an extent which mademe suspect in it a feature of the greatest importance for the maintenance of life, the preservation of eachspecies, and its further evolution’ (Intro.). Natural selection is part of a greater integrative, order-
of-matter-developing, ‘progressive’ process, but natural selection itself is limited to being onlyconcerned with competition between sexually reproducing individuals, which means virtually
‘all these scenes of animal life’ that we see ‘before’ our ‘eyes’ are not concerned with ‘Mutual Aid and
Mutual Support’ but with extreme competition between sexually reproducing individuals. This
misrepresentation of natural selection as being socialistic rather than individualistic was stilloccurring into the 1960s—for instance, in his 1963 book On Aggression, the Nobel Prize-winning
Austrian behaviourist Konrad Lorenz wrote frequently of behaviour having ‘a species-preservingfunction’ (pp.23, 29, 30, 46, 50, 72, 85, 86, 87, 92, 104, 113, 119, 140, 141 of 324). The development of species is
part of the integrative process, but the behaviour of a species is all about extreme competitionbetween its sexually reproducing members. Each sexually reproducing individual is interestedin its own ‘preserv[ation]’, not that of the ‘species’. In a similar misrepresentation of naturalselection being interested in more than what assists the sexually reproducing individual toreproduce, in 1962 the English zoologist V.C. Wynne-Edwards argued that individual organismsrestrain themselves from consuming food and from reproducing so that the population can avoidcrashing to extinction (Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behaviour). Also, when in 1960 the eminent

Part 4:12D

Sociobiology

323

American termite biologist Alfred E. Emerson put forward the view that all of nature was asfunctionally integrated as a termite colony (‘The evolution of adaptation in population systems’; Evolution after
Darwin, vol.1, ed. S. Tax, pp.301-348) he was naively overlooking the central principle of Darwin’s idea
of natural selection, which is that it is an extremely competitive and divisive process.
Yes, those who thought of the natural selection process in terms of sexually reproducingindividuals being concerned with preserving the species were rightly described in thescientific literature as ‘naive’. The principle of natural selection asserts that only thoseindividuals that successfully compete will manage to reproduce their characteristics, and thatit is through this competitive process that the great variety of species, the integration of matter,on Earth developed.
So right-wing biologists, who were defending humanity’s corrupting journey to findknowledge, were left with the task of countering the socialistic left-wing biologists’ naive,pseudo idealistic, ‘for the good of the group/species/larger whole’ biological thinking thatcame dangerously close to acknowledging the unconfrontable truth of Integrative Meaning.
They needed to remind everyone that natural selection is actually an extremely individualistic,competitive and selfish process, and they needed to maintain denial of the integrative themeof existence. Further, they needed to find a way to deal with the problem that the selflessbehaviour being practiced by some social animals, especially ants and bees, and our ownselfless, consider-the-welfare-of-others, moral conscience contradicts the selfishnessjustifying argument that selfishness is universal in nature and that’s why we are selfish. Thiswas a tall order indeed, but during the 1960s and early 1970s right-wing biologists did manageto achieve this. The solution was a theory called Sociobiology, which eventually developedinto the theory of Evolutionary Psychology, and its main architects were the British biologists
William Hamilton and John Maynard Smith, and the American biologists George Williamsand Edward (E.) O. Wilson.
This fight-back against the naive, pseudo idealism of left-wing biologists who wereverging on letting the condemning truth of Integrative Meaning out, began in earnest when,after attending a lecture in 1965 on why people age and die by the aforementioned left-wingbiologist Alfred E. Emerson, in which Emerson naively claimed that ‘We’ve evolved to do it
[die] so we get out of the way, so the young people can go on maintaining the species’, George Williams
stated that he ‘thought it was absolute nonsense’ (‘Stretching the Limits of Evolutionary Biology: A Profileof George Williams’, Carl Zimmer, Science, 28 May 2004). His disgust prompted him to write his now
famous 1966 book Adaptation and Natural Selection that basically reminded everyone thatnatural selection is an extremely individualistic, competitive and selfish process, so muchso that it would overcome any inclination by organisms to selflessly consider the welfare ofthe group/species above their own welfare. It was this publication that in particular led tothe kin-selection based theory of Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology that managed to reassert the selfishness-is-all-that-is-occurring-in-nature view and provide the means to counterany recognition of Integrative Meaning. Hamilton, Maynard Smith, Williams and Wilson’scontribution to the development of the ‘get out of jail’ (escape having to confront the humancondition) theory of Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology will now be described in theprocess of explaining the theory.
_______________________

324

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

We need to begin the description of how these men managed to get the human race
‘out of jail’ by explaining that incidences of apparent selfless behaviour practiced by somenon-human animals, including the apparent selfless behaviour practiced by colonial livingworker ants and bees and their kind, can be accounted for by the concept of reciprocalselflessness, which, as was described in the previous Part 4:12B, is not actually selflessbehaviour but selfish behaviour—which means that at least for these situations wherethere is apparent selfless behaviour, the ‘selfishness-is-all-that-is-occurring-in-nature’,
‘selfishness-is-just-the-way-life-works-and-that’s-why-we-are-selfish’, ‘survival of thefittest’, Social Darwinist account still stands. What will now also be described is that thisreciprocal selflessness argument could supposedly also be used to assert that our selflessmoral instincts were a manifestation of this ‘reciprocal-selflessness-that-is-actuallyselfishness’, in which case, the ‘selfishness-is-the-natural-way-to-behave’, ‘we-can’t-helpit-if-we-are-selfish’, ‘survival of the fittest’, Social Darwinist account would then be fullyconfirmed. HOWEVER, as will be explained, the ‘reciprocal-selflessness-that-is-actuallyselfishness’ argument wasn’t in itself sufficient to relieve humans of the agony of the humancondition—something even more was needed; as we will see, a way had also to be found toavoid having to confront the truth of Integrative Meaning.
Firstly, to further explain how the concept of reciprocal selflessness reveals that theapparent selfless behaviour practiced by some non-human animals, including that of thecolonial living worker ants and bees and their kind, is actually a form of selfishness.
While only developed as a theory in the early 1970s by biologists such as Robert Trivers,the reciprocal selflessness explanation for all apparent altruistic behaviour amongst non-humananimals is, nevertheless, reasonably obvious for anyone thinking about natural selection.
Clearly, unconditionally selfless traits tend to self-eliminate—that being the very definition ofunconditional selflessness: doing something for others without incurring any personal benefit.
As such, a self-eliminating trait can’t become established through natural selection. But, aselfless act towards another that resulted in the recipient returning the favour—a selfless actthat was reciprocated—clearly could be developed by natural selection, because the outcomewas ultimately and mutually beneficial, not detrimental. Reciprocated acts of selflessnessbenefit both parties, which, in the final analysis, means the selflessness is actually selfishness.
To reiterate, Darwin’s idea of natural selection revealed that organisms compete withother organisms to reproduce their characteristics, which, when the molecular biologists
James Watson and Francis Crick identified the actual mechanism behind natural selectionof the DNA molecule in 1953, we learnt meant reproducing their genes. If the gene for a traitdoesn’t manage to reproduce—if it doesn’t successfully compete—then it can’t becomeestablished in the species. Genes are intrinsically selfish. An unconditionally selfless trait—atrait that doesn’t tend to reproduce and carry on—cannot normally become established in aspecies (that is, outside the love-indoctrination situation that, as was briefly explained in Part
4:4D and will be fully explained in Part 8:4B, allowed humans’ unconditionally selfless moral
instincts to develop). What this means—and this has already been explained and emphasised,such as in the previous Part 4:12B—is that the most amount of selflessness that can normallybe developed genetically is reciprocal selflessness, where a favour is given in return for afavour, because the trait is still intrinsically selfish since both parties benefit. The trait is not

Part 4:12D

Sociobiology

325
unconditionally selfless—it is still meeting the requirements of natural selection, which is thatfor a trait to become established it has to selfishly carry on from generation to generation.
Reciprocal-selflessness-that-is-actually-selfishness does actually explain all apparentselflessness in nature—the only exception being the unconditionally selfless behaviour thatis characteristic of our moral instincts, which again was a result of the love-indoctrinationprocess. For example, a reciprocal-selflessness explanation for the seemingly altruistic alarmcalls given by vervet monkeys (which alert other monkeys to danger but seemingly exposethe caller to an increased risk of predation) is that while giving an alarm call does exposethe caller to increased risk, the caller also benefits from others giving the alarm call, so thatoverall there is a net benefit to each member in giving alarm calls. While the alarm-callingtrait appears to be a selfless one, it actually leads to the reproduction of that trait, which, in thefinal analysis, means it is intrinsically selfish. It might be mentioned that the precondition forthe development of this particular form of reciprocal selflessness, which is frequently called
‘reciprocal altruism’, is that those benefiting from the ‘selflessness’ remain present to returnthe favour. If a favour is given and the recipient is never seen again then the favour can’t bereciprocated. So what is required for ‘reciprocal altruism’ to develop is for groups not to betoo large and for the association with the others in the group to occur over a long period.
(Note that ‘reciprocal altruism’ should more properly be termed ‘reciprocal apparentaltruism’, or ‘reciprocal selflessness’ as I have been calling it, because, as explained, beingreciprocal the selflessness is actually a subtle form of selfishness—it is not real or trueselflessness. Altruism means unconditionally selfless behaviour and this ‘selfless’ behaviouris not unconditionally selfless. Biologists have been using the term ‘altruism’ to describeapparent selfless behaviour amongst non-human animals when they should not. Only humanshave been able to develop unconditionally selfless, truly altruistic behaviour, and we achievedthat through love indoctrination, a process that is fully explained in Part 8:4B.)
If we think about it, the reciprocal-selflessness-that-is-actually-selfishness situation caneven explain the apparent unconditionally selfless behaviour of the colonial-living workerants and bees. While the sterile individual workers in the colonies of ants and bees (and thisalso applies to the other two dozen or so completely social colonial varieties of termite, wasp,beetle, shrimp, aphid, mole rat, and others) appear to be behaving unconditionally selflessly,they are actually each behaving selfishly, because by selflessly looking after their colonyand queen, who carries the genes for their existence, they are indirectly selfishly ensuringthe reproduction of their own genes. The sterile workers support the queen and she in turnreproduces their genes, which means that, despite appearances, the workers aren’t behaving inan unconditionally selfless, truly altruistic way, but in a conditionally selfless way. The sterileworkers’ selfless support of the queen is conditional on the queen selflessly reproducing theirgenes. It is a situation of reciprocity where both parties benefit, which means that what isoccurring is still, in essence, selfish behaviour. The seeming unconditionally selfless behaviourof the workers is actually a subtle or indirect form of selfishness. As such, the completelysocial ants, bees, termites, wasps, beetles, shrimps, aphids and mole rats (and others) aren’tbehaving unconditionally selflessly after all; they are behaving selfishly—a situation that,as mentioned, could supposedly also be used to argue that our own selfless moral instinctsare a form of reciprocal-selflessness-that-is-actually-genetic-selfishness, thus supposedly

326

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
confirming ‘the selfishness-is-all-that-is-occurring-in-nature, selfishness-is-the-natural-wayto-behave, we-can’t-help-it-if-we-are-selfish, selfishness-is-just-the-way-life-works, ‘survivalof the fittest’, Social Darwinist account.
However, in terms of avoiding the unbearable issue of the human condition, a verysignificant problem remained, which was that the reciprocal-selflessness-that-is-actuallyselfishness account could still leave humans having to confront the truth of the integrative,development-of-order-of-matter theme of existence, which was unbearably condemningbecause, if accepted, it implied that we humans should be cooperative and selfless. Theproblem was that any recognition of the importance of the group, such as that worker antsand bees toil to preserve the group or society or larger whole of the colony, is a recognition ofthe integrative, hierarchical process, which, as has been mentioned, involves atoms comingtogether or integrating to form molecules, which in turn integrate to form compounds, whichintegrate to form single-celled organisms, which integrate to form multicellular organisms,which integrate to form groups or societies or unified associations of multicellular organisms.
Even the word ‘selflessness’ involved in the concept of ‘reciprocal selflessness’ is condemningof upset, competitive and aggressive, human-condition-afflicted humans, because beingselfless means showing consideration for the maintenance of a larger whole. It is a recognitionof Integrative Meaning. The word ‘sociality’ was similarly dangerous because it too raisedthe idea of the development and maintenance of a larger whole. In the case of ‘reciprocalaltruism’, such as exhibited by the alarm calls of vervet monkeys, while it is in the end selfishbehaviour, it has occurred as a result of the whole integration-of-matter, development-of-order,socialisation process. Clearly what was needed to save humans from unbearable condemnationwas a way of interpreting these situations in a way that didn’t involve any group/larger whole/socialisation/integration emphasis or recognition—a way to describe what is happening innature that avoided even the possibility of there being an integrative process, for example, away that eliminated the possibility that the behaviour of vervet monkeys could be interpretedas being part of some integrative, order-developing, socialisation process. And it was preciselythis no-larger-whole-emphasising, no-recognition-of-socialisation, no-integration-involvedinterpretation that Hamilton, Maynard Smith, Williams and Wilson ingeniously came up with.
The concept was called ‘kin selection’ and it was the foundation idea behind Sociobiology.
Kin selection is actually a particular variety of reciprocal selflessness that is based onrelatedness. It proposes that animals are more likely to behave selflessly towards relatives/kin who share at least some of their genes than towards those who are unrelated becauseby fostering their kin they are fostering the reproduction of their own genes that their kinshare. Further, kin selection maintains that the closer the relationship and thus the moregenes they share, the more selfless they are likely to be. In terms of relieving humans of theagony of the human condition, the great benefit of kin selection is that it is entirely focusedon the individual, not on the group/colony/society/larger whole/integration of matter. Asan encyclopaedic entry on kin selection notes (the italics are as they appear in the text): ‘kinselection…theory…apparently showed how altruistic behaviour could evolve without the need for grouplevel selection’ (Biological Altruism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008 revision). It was this ‘not-the-
group-but-the-individual’ focus of kin selection that was so precious in helping humans avoidthe unbearable issue of the human condition.

Part 4:12D

Sociobiology

327

To take up the description again of George Williams’ famous 1966 book Adaptation and
Natural Selection in which he presented by far the most influential of the attacks that occurredin the 1960s and 1970s on the ‘good of the species’ type arguments—on those who maintainedthat selection could occur between sexually reproducing individuals for the benefit of thegroup or larger whole. In Adaptation and Natural Selection Williams said that traits that are
‘for the good of the group’ might theoretically develop through a process of group selection or,
more accurately, ‘between-group selection’, but that was so unlikely it would not, in fact,occur. He argued that group selection is such a weak evolutionary force that it could neverovercome the power of individual selection, concluding that ‘group-related adaptations do not, infact, exist’ (p.93 of 307). Williams wrote: ‘Only by a theory of between-group selection could we achievea scientific explanation of group-related adaptations. However, I would question one of the premises onwhich the reasoning is based. Chapters 5 to 8 [of Adaptation and Natural Selection] will be primarilya defence of the thesis that group-related adaptations do not, in fact, exist’ (pp.92-93). Later, in Part
4:12H -i, group selection will be explained more fully, but the following is a brief explanation
of the ‘theory of between-group selection’ and Williams’ criticism of it. As has been emphasised,the biological reality is that genes are necessarily selfish; genetic traits have to reproduce ifthey are to become established in a species, and an unconditionally selfless, cooperative traitdoesn’t tend to reproduce. The result is that extreme competition exists amongst sexuallyreproducing individuals to ensure their genes reproduce; so much so that if an unconditionallyselfless trait were to emerge amongst a group of sexually reproducing individuals it wouldbe exploited by all those who were being selfish. There will always be individuals who ineffect say, ‘If you want to behave selflessly towards me, that’s absolutely fine because it willbenefit me, but don’t expect me to return the favour’. Selflessness is going to be subverted,undermined by opportunist cheaters or free riders. While that is the basic reality of the naturalselection process, the between-group selection theory argues that while within a groupof sexually reproducing individuals selflessness is going to be subverted, if there are twogroups in competition against each other and one has members who are more able to behaveselflessly and help each other then that group will have an advantage over the other group thatdoesn’t have such selfless, cooperative members, which means that unconditionally selflesscooperation supposedly could be able to be selected for. The problem with this theory, whichis what Williams pointed out, is that the forces of individual selection are so strong that agroup of selfless, cooperative sexually reproducing individuals is realistically never going todevelop even though they would have an advantage over a group of selfish, non-cooperativesexually reproducing individuals because those who are being selfless in the group will beexploited by selfish opportunists—and thus, ‘group-related adaptations do not, in fact, exist’.
Williams reiterated this view in his Preface to the 1996 reprint of Adaptation and Natural
Selection: ‘I concluded [in Adaptation and Natural Selection]…that group selection was not strongenough to produce…[an] adaptation…characterized by organisms’ playing roles that would subordinatetheir individual interests for some higher value, as in the often proposed benefit to the species’ (p.xii).

Most significantly, the above description of the improbability of between-group selectionworking was in relation to groups of sexually reproducing individuals. What happenedwas that not only did Williams dismiss group selection as being a biologically unsoundexplanation for social behaviour amongst sexually reproducing individuals, he maintained

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

328

The Biology
that all cooperative behaviour, including that of social ants and bees and their kind (and,as we will see later, kin selection theory was even used to supposedly explain our moralinstincts), was not due to larger-whole-focused group selection but only to individual-focusedkin selection, with any anomalies being either a product of ‘misplaced parental behavior’ or
‘incidental’ ‘consequences of individual activities’. He wrote in Adaptation and Natural Selection
that ‘Selection within a population can lead to cooperative relations among closely related individuals,because the benefits of cooperation would go mainly to individuals with the genetic basis of cooperation,rather than to those of alternative genetic makeup. Selection at the genic level thus explains insect societiesand analogous developments in other organisms. Other apparent examples of altruism are explained asmisplaced parental behavior. They represent imperfections in the mechanisms that normally regulatethe timing and execution of parental behavior. Benefits to the group often arise as incidental statisticalconsequences of individual activities, just as harmful effects may accumulate in the same way’ (p.vii).

While using kin selection to supposedly explain all social behaviour, including the socialbehaviour of ants and bees and their kind, and even our social/moral instincts, achieved thekey objective of eliminating any recognition of Integrative Meaning, it was an outrageous lieto do so. While it is true that between-group selection doesn’t seem at all possible betweengroups of sexually reproducing individuals, where the individuals are part of an elaboratedsexually reproducing individual, such as occurs in social ants and their kind, then of coursethe colonies/groups of these individuals do undergo between-group selection—coloniesthat are more cooperative will out-compete colonies that are not as cooperative. The issue iswhat constitutes the individual, but Williams/kin selection theorists didn’t make this criticaldistinction, which, while it conveniently eliminates recognition of Integrative Meaning, is anoutrageous lie. Between-group selection can take place when the groups involved are eachcomposed of members of one sexually reproducing individual.
What Williams did to try to ignore the truth that social ants and their kind are part of anintegrated, larger whole, an elaborated sexually reproducing individual, a ‘superorganism’as some have called it, was to argue that the focus of the workers in the colonies was not onthe queen and the maintenance of the colony, but on the reproduction of their own genes.
According to Williams, the individual, not the group, was the target of the natural selectionthat was occurring, basically that the group had no significance beyond providing anenvironment for the genes to operate in. By way of providing further explanation of insectsocieties Williams ‘directed [the reader] to Hamilton’s papers’, which he said dealt ‘admirably’with the subject (ibid. p.197).
Williams’ citation of ‘Hamilton’s papers’ is a reference to two papers that had beenpublished by William Hamilton two years earlier in 1964 and which featured the first formalmathematical treatment of kin selection theory for explaining the development of apparentaltruistic behaviour (‘The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour I and II’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16,
17-32). Although
the basic concept of kin selection was alluded to in the 1930s by biologists

R.A. Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane (Haldane famously said that ‘I would lay down my life for twobrothers or eight cousins), it was Hamilton who first developed it into a theory in these papers.

In the particularly Integrative-Meaning-revealing, human-condition-confronting case of ‘insectsocieties’, the big contribution to the ‘it’s-the-individual-not-the-group’ kin selection argument
that Hamilton ‘admirably’ made in the papers was the haplodiploid hypothesis. This hypothesis

Part 4:12D

Sociobiology

329
refers to a peculiarity of the genetic system known as ‘haplodiploidy’, which exists in ants andbees, where females (all worker ants and bees are females) share, on average, more genes withtheir sisters than they do with their own offspring. In which case, a female worker is able tohave more of her own genes survive into the next generation by helping the queen reproduce
(thus increasing the number of sisters she will have) than by having offspring of her own. Sothat is why, according to Hamilton, sterile workers evolved—not to help the queen developand maintain the colony, but to propagate their own genes. The point is that the haplodiploidhypothesis seemed to lend powerful credence to the theory of kin selection—in fact, it waswhat E.O. Wilson (whose work will be examined shortly) said for him ‘initially gave the [kinselection] formula its magnetic power’ (The Social Conquest of Earth, 2012, p.169 of 330)). Again, in terms
of the problem of colonial ants and bees being extremely revealing of the integrative themeof existence, the significance of kin selection theory is that it made the colony irrelevant, foraccording to kin selection theory, the colony and the sterile workers only evolved because itwas the best way for the workers to reproduce their genes.
As was mentioned, and as we are going to see, while kin selection supposedly provideda way of eliminating the extremely exposing and condemning problem posed by ant andbee societies, it was also used to eliminate the exposing and condemning problem posedby our own take-care-of-others, moral inclinations. Our moral instincts were said to notbe unconditionally selfless but selfish instincts because they were derived from selfishlyfostering relatives who shared our genes. Understandably, the human-condition-relievingpowers of kin selection’s ‘there-is-no-group/integration-of-matter-relevance’, ‘it’s-onlythe-individual-that-matters’ interpretation is the reason why so many biologists in thelast half of the twentieth century enthusiastically supported and adhered to ‘Williams’ firstcommandment: “Thou shall not apply the adaptationist [natural selection] program above the level ofthe individual”’ (David Sloan Wilson & Elliot Sober, 1994, ‘Re-Introducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral
Sciences’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): pp.585-654).

While it is true that the sterile workers in the fully integrated, completely social colonialspecies of ants and bees and their kind do foster the queen in order to reproduce their genes,the object or purpose of doing so is not to selfishly benefit the individual worker, as kinselection theory proposes, but to selflessly support the development and maintenance of thelarger whole of the colony. Again, we only have to look at what is occurring in the bodyof a multicellular animal to see very clearly what is happening. The individual parts (eyes,legs, heart, etc) of the body (and, as mentioned, the completely social colonies of animals dorepresent a fully integrated cooperative whole like a body) work to support the maintenanceof the entire being, they are not working for themselves; it is the body as a whole that is theconcern or focus or purpose of their existence, just as it is the development and maintenanceof the larger whole of a multicellular plant that is the target of the natural selection process.
When a tree loses its leaves in autumn, those leaves haven’t given their life so that thegenes for their existence will carry on in the tree that, as a result of their sacrifice, is betterequipped to survive through winter—they have sacrificed themselves to ensure the largerwhole of the tree survives. The object is the survival of the tree, not the survival of theleaves’ genes. Kin selection theorists seek to explain the behaviour of colonial ants andtheir kind in a way that avoids any group/Integrative Meaning recognition, but in doing

330

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
so they take the ‘no group relevance’ argument and the kin selection theory too far, in factto the point of ridiculousness, but such was the need to avoid the human condition. Later,when I describe how group selection theory was resurrected from this attack by Williamsand others, in the 1990s we will see that the American biologist David Sloan Wilson andthe American science philosopher Eliot Sober make the point that I have just made, writingthat denial of the ‘nested hierarchy of units’ in nature (the integration of matter) ‘was just plainwrong’. They pointed out that ‘According to [George] Williams and [Richard] Dawkins…evensexually reproducing organisms do not qualify as units of selection’, they are only what ‘Dawkins…called “vehicles of selection”’, ‘environments’ for the ‘selfish genes’ to achieve their goal of
reproduction. They wondered ‘why genes are suitable candidates for units of selection whereasorganisms, groups and so on are not’ and complained that ‘Gene-centered theorists frame-shiftdownward with enthusiasm but they are much more reluctant to frame-shift upward’ in ‘the biologicalhierarchy…[of] nested series of units’. They railed against ‘gene-centered theorists…who claimedto explain the social insects without invoking group selection’. This whole criticism of right-wing
‘gene-centered theorists’ was an obvious and easy criticism to make because of course ant and
bee superorganisms exist, and of course there is an integrating ‘nested hierarchy’ of order ofmatter on Earth, but that overlooks the strategy employed when denying an unbearable truth:right-wing Evolutionary Psychologists weren’t worried about the truth, only about findinga possible way of denying Integrative Meaning, which they sought to achieve throughpromoting their kin selection theory.
So, the great attraction of the kin selection interpretation of the cooperative/socialbehaviour of colonial ants and their kind was that it argued that ‘There is no groupsignificance, it’s all about the individual maximising its chance to reproduce and thereis nothing more to it than that.’ Yes, in terms of contriving an excuse for our upsetindividualistic, self-preoccupied, selfish, egocentric, competitive and aggressive, humancondition-suffering state, kin selection’s emphasis on the importance of the individual and notof the integration of the group/colony/larger whole was precious—especially for those whowere extremely upset sufferers of the human condition.
It was at this point that Edward (E.) O. Wilson, the Harvard University-based biologistwho had always been interested in ants, entered the scene. It will become quickly apparent tothe reader that Wilson has an extremely astute radar for ideas in biology that have the potentialto artificially relieve humans of the unbearable agony of the human condition. In the case ofkin selection, it was Wilson who developed it into a fully evolved theory for excusing humans’individualistic, self-preoccupied, selfish, competitive and aggressive, human-conditionafflicted behaviour—he even did the branding for it, naming it Sociobiology. As we will see,he used this kin-selection-based misrepresentation of social behaviour to dismiss and denigrateour wonderful unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic, truly loving moral instinctive selfor soul as nothing more than a selfish strategy for reproducing our genes. It was Wilson whotook the idea of kin selection and developed it into a super weapon to dishonestly and artificiallyremove those three problems that Social Darwinism encountered—namely that the apparentselfless behaviour of some animals, especially ants and bees, contradicted the argument thatselfishness is a universal characteristic in nature; that we humans have unconditionally selflessmoral instincts; and that there is an integrative theme in nature.

Part 4:12D

Sociobiology

331

Wilson first became aware of Hamilton’s kin selection idea in 1965, a year after it waspublished, and while initially sceptical, he (as described in his 2012 book The Social Conquestof Earth) soon ‘became enchanted by the originality and promised explanatory power of kin selection.
[And] In 1965, with Bill Hamilton at my side, I defended the idea before a mostly hostile audience at the
Royal Entomological Society of London’ (p.169 of 330). All humans suffer from the human condition
but it is evident that Wilson suffers from it a great deal. For example, as will be describedlater, he abhors religion and the concept of God almost as much as Richard Dawkins, Oxford
University’s Professor of Public Understanding of Science, which is saying a lot because
Dawkins absolutely loathes religion and the concept of God—to the point that the latter hassaid such things as ‘“faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus, but harderto eradicate. The whole subject of God is a bore”…those who teach religion to small children are guilty of
“child abuse”’ (quoted by Garth Wood, The Spectator, 20 Feb. 1999). As explained in Part 3:11H, the rejection
of religion and the concept of God is a position many people adopted when they becameoverly upset; to mention some of what was said in Part 3:11H, ‘By retaining the presence ofa prophet’s soundness and truth, religions reminded humans of their own corrupted state andtheir alienation from truth, which in turn accentuated their sense of guilt; as the author Mary
McCarthy once wrote about religion, ‘Only people who are very good can afford to become religious;with all the others it makes them worse’ (Memories of a Catholic Girlhood, 1957).’ I believe—and, as we
will see, Wilson’s unsurpassed record in contriving human-condition-avoiding, supposedlyfirst-principle-based-biological denials (I will later call him ‘the Lord of Lying’) supports thisopinion—that the reason Wilson ‘became enchanted’ with the ‘promised explanatory power of kinselection’ was its ‘promised’ ‘power’ to avoid the issue of the human condition.

In 1975 Wilson published his most well-known book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, inwhich he explained for the general public that the apparent unconditionally selfless behaviourof completely social ants, bees, termites, wasps, beetles, shrimps, aphids and mole rats, andthe other completely social colonial species, is actually reciprocal selflessness, which, asstated, means it is actually selfish not selfless behaviour. He went further, maintaining that
Hamilton’s haplodiploid hypothesis explanation for how sterile worker ants and bees evolvedlent credence to kin selection’s argument that the focus of natural selection was the individualnot the group or larger whole. But, most significantly, Wilson extrapolated beyond the antand bee situation to argue that kin selection also explained how ‘altruistic behaviour could evolvewithout the need for group-level selection’ in all situations where selfless behaviour had been
said to occur—including even our own moral instincts! He wrote (the underlining is mine):
‘Sociobiology is defined as the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior. For the presentit focuses on animal societies…[However,] One of the functions of sociobiology…is to reformulate thefoundations of the social sciences [the study of human societies] in a way that draws these subjects into the
Modern Synthesis’ (p.4 of 997).

Yes, it was Wilson’s intention to have Sociobiology dismiss our wonderfulunconditionally selfless, truly altruistic, genuinely loving, moral instinctive behaviour andnature as nothing more than kin selection’s reciprocal selflessness where individuals selflesslyhelp relatives because in doing so they are indirectly selfishly fostering the reproductionof their own genes that their relatives share, which if true, would mean our moral nature isfundamentally selfish and not selfless. In fact, this is the obvious reason why Sociobiology:

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

332

The Biology

The New Synthesis became a famous text of such popular appeal. Indeed, the great attractionof the kin selection theory for social behaviour is that it maintains the selfishness-is-universaland-natural-and-that-is-why-we-are-selfish excuse, and it is individualistic; its focus is onthe individual, not on the colony/group/integration/development-of-the-order-of-matter. A
2008 article in Wired Magazine perfectly summarised this appeal when it reported that ‘manyprominent biologists, led by Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, said no, there was no such thingas a superorganism: Evolution worked on the genes of self-serving individuals only, not groups’ (‘E.O.
Wilson Returns to the Hive With Superorganism Tome’, by Josh McHugh, 20 Oct. 2008).

Through the advancement of Sociobiology’s human-condition-side-stepping, selfishnessis-all-that-is-occurring-in-nature theory for social behaviour, dishonest biology had certainlygained a substantial head of steam!
_______________________

So, how was kin selection applied to ‘all social behavior’ so that no recognition of theintegrative, development-of-order-of-matter process could occur—even the social behaviour
‘of human societies’?

We can begin by looking at some examples of how kin selection supposedly explainedapparent selfless behaviour by and between multicellular non-human animal species whohave remained sexual (that is, not become sterile and, as a result, effectively enslaved totheir mother)—specifically those species who temporarily delay their own reproduction andduring that time help the parents raise the next generation, such as wolves, African wilddogs, meerkats, and a number of bird species, including the Australian kookaburra. In suchcases, kin selection argues that by successfully raising siblings these animals are indirectlyfostering the reproduction of their own genes. However, a possible alternative explanationfor this behaviour that doesn’t involve kin selection might be that by delaying leaving
‘home’ these animals are giving themselves a greater chance of inheriting the territoryoccupied by their parents and thus a greater chance of reproducing. In the particular caseof African wild dogs, individuals that delay their chances of reproducing and during thattime help the dominant female or queen dog raise the next generation have been describedas strongly kin-selected because such helpers were assumed to be invariably closely relatedto that offspring. However, a study has shown that this assumption is not always validbecause no less than 25 percent of the packs observed actually contained non-breedingadults that provided parental care to unrelated pups (J. Weldon McNutt, 1996, ‘Adoption in African wilddogs, Lycaon pictus’, Journal of Zoology, 240: pp.163-173).

For situations of apparent selfless behaviour among multicellular animal species thathaven’t fully (like ants, etc) or temporarily (like wolves, etc) abandoned their own sexualreproduction, we can revisit the alarm calls given by vervet monkeys, which, while they mayalert other monkeys to danger, seemingly expose the caller to an increased risk of predation.
A study of these monkeys showed that such calls are more likely to occur if offspring ispresent, suggesting kin selection (Eckhart Arnold, 2008, Explaining Altruism: A Simulation-Based Approach and
Its Limits, Vol. 1, p.151 of 310). However, an alternative explanation for the calls would be, as has
been mentioned, that while giving an alarm call does expose the caller to increased risk, thecaller also benefits from others giving the alarm call, so that overall there is a net benefit to

Part 4:12D

Sociobiology

333
each member in giving alarm calls. Interestingly, when a female vervet monkey is attacked,non-relatives will often come to her aid, and studies show that the likelihood that help comesfrom a non-relative is strongly correlated to how recently the distressed monkey groomedits rescuer—further suggesting ‘reciprocal altruism’, where one individual helps anotherindividual who is not necessarily related but with the expectation that the gesture will berepaid in-kind (Robert Seyfarth & Dorothy Cheney, 1984, ‘Grooming, alliances and reciprocal altruism in vervetmonkeys’, Nature, 308: pp.541-543).

A study of the alarm calls given by prairie dogs found that they modified their rateof calling when closer to both offspring and non-descendant kin (cousins, etc), however,another study found that while some prairie dog individuals with nearby kin refuse togive alarm calls, others with no nearby kin do sometimes call (studies by John Hoogland; Summaryof Research and Teaching for John Hoogland, accessed May 2012 at <https://www.umces.edu/sites/default/files/al/johnresearch.pdf>).

The point being that there is no definitive evidence that kin selection is
influencing the behaviour of all these animals.
While it is quite common for vampire bats to fail to feed on any given night, to gowithout food for a couple of days is potentially fatal. To offset this risk, however, bats areknown to donate blood (through regurgitation) to other members of their group who havefailed to feed, thus saving them from starvation. The kin selection explanation for suchbehaviour is based on the claim that feeding usually occurs between individuals of the samegroup who are, on average, cousins. However, researchers claim that such behaviour is acase of straightforward ‘reciprocal altruism’, for since vampire bats live in small groupsand associate with each other over long periods of time, the pre-conditions for ‘reciprocalaltruism’ are likely to be fulfilled. Further, in the same study it was shown that bats tend toshare food with their close associates, were more likely to share with others that had recentlyshared with them, and do not share blood easily with new members of their group—all ofwhich suggests that these blood-sharing ties are established over time (Gerald Wilkinson, 1984,
‘Reciprocal Food Sharing in the Vampire Bat’, Nature, 308: pp.181-184; Gerald Wilkinson, 1988, ‘Reciprocal altruism in Batsand Other Mammals’, Ethology and Sociobiology, 9: pp.85-100).

A study of sun-tailed monkey communities has apparently shown that maternal kin (kinrelated through their mothers) behaved more preferentially towards each other, althoughit is claimed that once kin were removed beyond that of half-siblings this bias droppedsignificantly (Marie Charpentier, 2008, ‘Relatedness and Social Behaviors in Cercopithecus solatus’, International
Journal of Primatology, 29 (2): pp.487-495). A possible alternative explanation for such behaviour would
be that being primates these monkeys have developed some love-indoctrinated empathy forthose they have been raised with.
I should mention the other variety of apparent selfless behaviour that quite obviouslydoesn’t involve any kin selection is the apparent selfless behaviour that occurs betweendifferent species, which is called ‘mutualism’ (the difference between ‘mutualism’ and
‘reciprocal altruism’ being that with ‘reciprocal altruism’ the benefits are spread over timerather than through a single interaction). For example, certain fish groom other species of fishto their mutual benefit, cleanliness on one hand and food on the other—a relationship thatobviously involves strong sanctions against cheating; after all, were the groomed to eat itsgroomer it could never again use that particular groomer!

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

334

The Biology

(Note again that I have described all the selfless behaviour referred to above as ‘apparentselflessness’ because all ‘selfless’ behaviour amongst animals, apart from the unconditionallyselfless behaviour developed through love-indoctrination, is actually reciprocal selflessness,which means it is actually selfishness—because genes have to ensure they reproduce. Allapparent selfless behaviour, outside of that which occurs through the love-indoctrinationprocess, has to ultimately lead to the reproduction of the genes that account for thatbehaviour in order for that behaviour to become established, which means there is a selfishbenefit to that behaviour—it is not unconditionally selfless behaviour, it is not genuinelyaltruistic. As such, non-human ‘selfless’ behaviour should be described as ‘apparent selflessbehaviour’, or ‘apparent altruistic behaviour’, or, at the very least, have quotation marksaround the world ‘selfless’ and ‘altruistic’ to indicate that such behaviour is not real or trueselfless, altruistic behaviour.)
With regard to kin selection’s supposed ability to explain ‘all social behavior’, includingthe social behaviour ‘of human societies’—that is, to supposedly explain our unconditionallyselfless, moral nature—that claim will be dealt with in the following Parts, however, Iwill quickly address the issue here. As briefly explained in Part 4:4D, and as will be fullyexplained in Part 8:4B, it was through the nurturing, love-indoctrination process that wehumans acquired an instinctive orientation to behaving unconditionally selflessly towardseach other, and indeed towards all of life. Humans’ capacity to behave unconditionallyselflessly, such as that demonstrated by charity workers in caring for the poor and thesuffering, is not based on any form of reciprocity; we humans have a moral conscience, aninstinctive orientation to behaving in an unconditionally selfless, truly altruistic, genuinelyloving way. It is ludicrous to suggest that through helping the poor and suffering in foreignlands a charity worker is somehow furthering their own chances of reproducing—theindividuals benefitting would be entirely unrelated to the charity worker. ‘[M]isplaced parentalbehavior’ or ‘incidental’ ‘consequences of individual activities’ hardly explains our capacity to be
universally benevolent. As the British journalist Bryan Appleyard pointed out about thisfundamental flaw in kin selection, biologists ‘still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explainaltruism. If, for example, I help a blind man cross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am beingprompted to do this because he is a close relation and bears my genes. And the animal world is full ofall sorts of elaborate forms of cooperation which extend far beyond the boundaries of mere relatedness’
(Brave New Worlds: Staying Human in a Genetic Future, 1998, p.112).

However, that ‘gaping hole’ in denial-
complying, mechanistic biology’s ability to explain the truly altruistic, unconditionallyselfless-to-all-humans behaviour that we are capable of is now filled by our capacity totruthfully explain the human condition and, in so doing, safely admit the whole integrativeprocess—namely how the process of integrating matter struggled under the limitationof genes’ inability to develop unconditional selflessness, and how our human ancestorswere able to overcome that limitation through the development of love-indoctrination anddevelop genuinely altruistic, unconditionally-selflessly-inclined-to-all-humans-and-indeedtowards-all-of-life moral instincts.
_______________________

Part 4:12D

Sociobiology

335

Before outlining exactly what is wrong with kin selection, I should mention the work of
John Maynard Smith, the second of the four main architects of the kin-selection-based theoryof Sociobiology.
In 1964, the same year that William Hamilton published his two papers on kin selection,
Maynard Smith, who has been described as ‘legendary [in his] opposition to group selectionistthinking’ (Samir Okasha, 2005, ‘Maynard Smith on the levels of selection question’, Biology and Philosophy, Vol.20, No.5:pp.989-1010), published a paper titled ‘Group Selection and Kin Selection’ that was critical of
naive group selection thinking and supported kin selection theory. It was in this paper that theterm ‘kin selection’ was introduced. However, while Maynard Smith was a main player in thedevelopment of kin selection theory, he is more noted for his development of Evolutionary
Game Theory (also called ESS theory for ‘evolutionarily stable strategy’). He argued thatby introducing mathematical models from ‘game theory’ into the study of animal behaviourhe could explain, among other things, how cooperation could evolve among non-relativeswithout the need for group selection. I’m not sure of the soundness or otherwise of hismathematical models, and I’m not sure that anyone else is, but what I am certain of is that totry to use evolutionary game theory in this way was another desperate effort to eliminate anyrecognition of the integrative process. The real significance of evolutionary game theory is itsability to demonstrate that natural selection can be an extremely subtle process. Evolutionarygame theorists have put forward many models evaluating the possible penalties and benefitsof different strategies and interactions between animals, some of them remarkable, if notimplausible—such as arguing that situations may arise where selfless behaviour is costlybut the behavioural alternatives more costly, in which case selflessness may occur withoutreciprocity simply because it is the more ‘cost-effective’ or less harmful alternative. Whatis definitely true is that over time natural selection will ensure animals are extremely finelytuned to how best to survive and reproduce. As I write this, a butcher bird is perched on theedge of the bird bath that sits outside our window. Watching him I am wondering how longnatural selection would allow him to sit in the sun and indulge in its warmth—my suspicionis that survival pressures are so intense for species that every action each individual performswill have been stripped of any behaviour that is at all frivolous. I think that one day when wehumans are free of the human condition and can immerse ourselves in the agony of the animalcondition we are going to be shocked at just how fiercely competitive and stressed their livesare. I love animals enormously, they are my great passion, they have always been my soul’strue friend and my world is empty without them—if I was in jail I would need at least amouse or a sparrow with me or I would die—but this love of animals doesn’t mean I need toromanticise their lives, not see their reality for what it is. Looking at life through biology onlymakes you more empathetic with it, not less.
I often wonder about what could be described as ‘short term successful vs long termunsuccessful’ strategies. For example, since larger males of many species tend to win outagainst smaller males, there must be a very strong evolutionary selection for larger size, buteventually a drought or some other devastating environmental event will occur and suddenly

336

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
those with a smaller body who don’t need as much food will have the advantage and thus bebetter able to survive. So, supposedly males of species in this situation are at the mercy ofan endless cycle of getting bigger only to then have to become smaller—but possibly naturalselection does eventually find a way of avoiding these boom-bust cycles, but just what thatmechanism is I am not sure. Can natural selection avoid the ‘short term successful, long termunsuccessful’ trap for example? Possibly there are game theory studies that I am not aware ofthat have put forward an answer to this question.
Similarly, for a long time I couldn’t believe how wasteful eucalyptus trees are. Unlikea beautifully ordered pine, or even a symmetrical oak, eucalypts have branches that grow inall directions and to different lengths, and they seem to be forever dropping dead branchesand generally behaving in a chaotic way. Why hasn’t natural selection ‘tidied them up’?
Eventually I worked out that eucalypts must be an ‘upstart species’—they must have hitupon a breakthrough in evolution that they are so rapidly exploiting that they haven’t hadtime to become refined in the new situation. Undoubtedly the breakthrough is that theyare extraordinarily fire-encouraging (because of their very waxy, oily leaves and bark) andextremely fire-adapted (because of their epicormic buds that are kept protected by the outerbark but grow quickly after fire). Indeed, the fires that now erupt every 10 to 20 years in theall-dominating gum forests of Australia incinerate virtually all other wildlife, animal andvegetable, that happens to be in their path. Interestingly, in the history of Australia’s flora ‘thegums are…all but absent until a few tens of thousands of years ago’ (from a review of Ashley Hay’s 2002 book
Gum, Bulletin mag. 19 Nov. 2002). It was the arrival of humans to Australia a few tens of thousands of
years ago, with their practice of burning off the scrub to both trap, and later attract, game tothe short regrowth, that apparently enabled these gum trees to become so pervasive becauseevidently fires ignited by lightning strikes are too infrequent to allow the fire-weed, gum treemonoculture to develop the way it has in Australia. If fires from lightning strikes had beennumerous enough to allow for the proliferation of gums then surely eucalypts would haveappeared much earlier in the fossil record. Nowadays, of course, eucalypts are so successfulin Australia that it is said that every variety of plant community will be dominated by avariety of eucalypt, with the one exception perhaps being the very dry inland that still seemsto be dominated by acacias. I have read that, be it heathland, scrub, open woodland or forest,
‘eucalypts always come out on top’. Australians have come to love their eucalypts but in some ways
they are like dangerous crocodiles planted tail-down everywhere—a ‘predator’ at the ready.
The point I am making is that ‘the animal and plant condition’ is an amazingly complex,refined and constantly refining existence, and evolutionary game theory is an evasive,superficial, pre-human-condition-understood, old-world recognition of the extraordinarysubtlety of the natural selection process.
_______________________

So what is the truth about the kin selection-based theory of Sociobiology? Certainlyant and bee and the other colonial species’ social behaviour can be explained by reciprocalselflessness—which is, of course, actually selfishness because by supporting the queenthe workers are ensuring she reproduces their genes. And certainly the social behaviour ofthe remaining non-human multicellular animal species can also be explained by reciprocal

Part 4:12D

Sociobiology

337
selflessness, which again is actually selfishness because whatever apparent selfless behaviourthey practice still needs to lead to the genes for that behaviour being reproduced. Bothsituations seemingly uphold the ‘selfishness is universal, we can’t help it if we behaveselfishly because that’s the way we were born’ excuse, but the highly confronting, exposingand condemning integrative development of larger wholes (which the colonial ants and beesand the few other completely social colonial species bear such stark witness to) still neededto be eliminated. And to achieve that required the individual-only-emphasising, kin selectionexplanation (rather than the group/society/integration-recognising, ‘reciprocal altruism’-typeexplanation) for the apparent selfless behaviour. The question is whether the kin selectionexplanation for ‘all social behaviour’ is valid. (Again, the reason kin selection had to explain
‘all’ social behaviour is because any social behaviour that wasn’t able to be explained by kin
selection would leave the door open to the possibility of social behaviour being evidence for
Integrative Meaning. For Integrative Meaning to be avoided all social behaviour had to beable to be explained in an individual-interest-only, not integration-developing, way.)
A great deal of mathematical modeling has certainly been carried out to show how therelatedness of one individual to another might influence how much it could afford to supportthe other—and indeed it makes sense to me that kinship or relatedness would have beenpicked up by natural selection as a factor influencing reproductive success and thereforewould be playing some part in the development of social/integrated behaviour of somespecies. However, I am sceptical that it plays as big a part as the proponents of kin selectionbased Sociobiology would have us believe—especially when there are often less complexand more straightforward biological explanations for the behaviour that don’t involve kinselection, such as those put forward in the situations described above. These examples alsoraise the issue of inconsistency, in that some species that share a lot of genetic material don’tbehave ‘selflessly’ and cooperatively, while other species that share little do. And despiteevery effort having been made to do so, kin selection certainly does not explain humans’genuinely altruistic, all loving, unconditionally selfless, moral instincts—our moral instinctivecapacity to behave unconditionally selflessly towards all humans, even those who are notnecessarily relatives, such as charity workers helping the poor and suffering in other countries.
Again, ‘misplaced parental behavior’ or ‘incidental’ ‘consequences of individual activities’ hardlyexplains our capacity to be universally benevolent. Above all, given these inconsistencies,and just how horrific the agony of the human condition is, it is extremely likely that theattachment to and excessive promotion of kin selection is precisely because of its ability todeny Integrative Meaning and thus relieve us of the implications of that truth.
I now need to describe how the architect of the whole get-out-of-jail, human-conditionavoiding Sociobiology explanation for social behaviour, E.O. Wilson, himself now admitsthat his sociobiological theory is wrong. Yes, Wilson now admits that his whole, massive, 997page, supposedly rigorously scientifically argued and evidenced tome is completely wrong!
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis has so many mathematical equations, diagrams and chartsyou do suspect you are looking at the smoke and mirrors kit of an illusionist, and now itsauthor has virtually admitted that it is indeed one big con job, although he plays it down as ‘aphantom mathematical construction’ ‘misadventure’ (The Social Conquest of Earth, 2012, pp.181, 182 of 330)!

Yes, in his latest—and reportedly last—book, The Social Conquest of Earth, Wilson appears

338

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
to have changed sides and stopped lying by admitting that ‘kin selection theory is…incorrect’
(p.143), is ‘inoperable’ (p.180), has ‘failed’ (p.181), and ‘does not work’ (ibid). As we are now going to
see, Wilson does, to my and no doubt many others’ enormous relief, admit his Sociobiologytheory is flawed; however, what will be revealed shortly is that he actually hasn’t changed histune at all. Far from it. In fact, as has been alluded to throughout this presentation, we willsee that with this new tome Wilson is actually introducing an even more sophisticated, trickyform of biological dishonesty—but, as I say, we will come to that shortly. For the presentdiscussion, what is important is that in The Social Conquest of Earth Wilson does admit thathis kin selection-based theory of Sociobiology is wrong.
Firstly, with regard to the haplodiploid hypothesis explanation for the development of antand bee colonies that supposedly lent such powerful credence to the theory of kin selection,and which Wilson said for him ‘initially gave the [kin selection] formula its magnetic power’, in
The Social Conquest of Earth Wilson has recognised that ‘In the 1960s and 1970s, almost allthe species known to have evolved eusociality were in the Hymenoptera [who are haplodiploid]. Thusthe haplodiploid hypothesis seemingly had powerful support…By the 1990s, however, the haplodiploidhypothesis began to fail. The termites had never fitted this model of explanation. Then, more eusocialgroups of species came to light [colonial species of beetle, shrimp, aphid and mole rats] that werediplodiploid [where the haplodiploid hypothesis doesn’t hold true] rather than haplodiploid in sexdetermination’ (p.170). So, the haplodiploid hypothesis argument that was said to powerfully
validate the theory of kin selection has been found to be unsustainable.
The most important concession in The Social Conquest of Earth is, however, Wilson’sacknowledgement that the whole principle of kin selection’s emphasis on the individual atthe exclusion of the social, integrative process is fundamentally wrong. In explaining why,
Wilson makes the same point I have always made, which is that it is the development andmaintenance of the larger whole that is the objective of the natural selection process. As Isaid earlier, ‘the individual parts (eyes, legs, heart, etc) of our body (and, the completelysocial colonies of animals do represent a fully integrated cooperate whole like a body) workto support the maintenance of our entire being, they are not working for themselves; it isthe body as a whole that is the concern or focus or purpose of their existence.’ In The Social
Conquest of Earth, Wilson wrote that (the underlinings are my emphasis) ‘The workers [in thecompletely social/integrated—what Wilson calls ‘eusocial’—ant, bee, termite, wasp, beetle, shrimp,aphid, mole rat and a few other colonies]…are extensions of the queen’s phenotype, in other wordsalternative expressions of her personal genes and those of the male with whom she mated. In effect,the workers are robots she has created in her image that allow her to generate more queens and malesthan would be possible if she were solitary…the origin and evolution of eusocial insects…is best trackedfrom queen to queen…with the workers…extensions of the mother queen. The queen and her offspringare often called superorganisms, but they may equally be called organisms. The worker…is part of thequeen’s phenotype, as teeth and fingers are part of your own phenotype [pp.143-144] …[Kin selection
theory, where] colonial evolution is regarded as the interests of the individual worker pitted against the

Part 4:12D

Sociobiology

339
interests of its colony, may no longer be a useful concept on which to build models of genetic evolution insocial insects [p.146]’. Yes, it is the ‘colony’, not the ‘individual worker’, that matters. Wilson went
on to describe how Darwin also ‘solved the puzzle’ ‘of how sterile workers could evolve by naturalselection’ by realising ‘the mother queen and her progeny together are the target of selection by theexternal environment. The ant colony is a family, he [Darwin] suggested, and “selection may be appliedto the family, as well as to the individual, and may thus gain the desired end” [The Origin of Species, ch.7]’
(The Social Conquest of Earth, pp.146-147). Yes, ‘the mother queen and her progeny together are the target
of selection’ because that is the sexually reproducing individual, not the individual worker.

The ‘ant colony’ constitutes the sexually reproducing individual, which competes with othersexually reproducing individual colonies.
In The Social Conquest of Earth Wilson further disowns kin selection theory becausehe, like me, believes there are often more straightforward explanations for apparent selflessbehaviour than those involving kin selection. He wrote: ‘Even in the most meticulouslyanalyzed cases presented by various authors as evidence for kin selection, it has been easy to deviseexplanations from standard natural-selection theory that are at least equally valid. They entailstraightforward individual or group selection, or both. Kin selection may occur, but there is no casethat presents compelling explanation for its role as the driving force of evolution’ (p.175). He goes
on to give examples, including some that I have provided above, of how ‘straightforwardindividual or group selection’ explanations can be ‘at least equally valid’ as ‘kin selection’
explanations. (I should emphasise that my support of ‘group selection’ is only in so far as itconcerns selection occurring between groups where the group is one sexually reproducingindividual, such as a multicellular organism or an ant colony, not in regard to selectionoccurring between groups with sexually reproducing individuals, which, as we will seelater when Wilson’s 2012 book The Social Conquest of Earth is more fully described, is aninterpretation Wilson has for group selection that I don’t agree with.) He also recognises theinconsistency problem, stating that ‘relatedness can be identical in two systems yet cooperation isfavoured in one system and not in the other. Conversely, two populations can have relatedness measureson the opposite ends of the spectrum and yet both structures be equally unable to support the evolutionof cooperation’ (p.181). He then concludes with this statement: ‘Kin selection, if it occurs at allin animals, must be a weak form of selection that occurs only in special conditions easily violated’
(p.181).

Yes, ‘there is no case that presents compelling explanation for its [kin selection’s] role as the
driving force of evolution’, and the reason is because the real driving force of evolution is the
development of order of matter, the integration of ever larger and more stable wholes—aprocess that Wilson virtually admits when he writes of the development of ‘levels of biologicalorganization, from molecule to population’ (p.173). The old evasive ‘evolution-is-not-a-directed-
but-random-process’ is slipping and integration/‘God’ is poking its head into biologicalthinking! But not very far—for as we will shortly see, despite his renouncement of hisformer lies, with his new book Wilson actually takes biology on a whole new, even moreoutrageously dishonest course than he did with kin selection.

340

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 4:12E Evolutionary Psychology
We will now follow, to its conclusion, Wilson’s kin selection-based attack on the truthand see how it eventually evolved into a theory that actually dismissed our wonderful moralsoul as ‘nothing more than a euphemism’, after which we will look at how a selfless-emphasisingbiological movement emerged to counter Wilson’s selfishness-emphasising biology.
As mentioned, in his 1975 book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Wilson wrote that
(again, the underlining is my emphasis) ‘Sociobiology is defined as the systematic study of the biologicalbasis of all social behavior. For the present it focuses on animal societies…[However] One of the functionsof sociobiology…is to reformulate the foundations of the social sciences [the study of human societies]in a way that draws these subjects into the Modern Synthesis’ (p.4 of 997). So, ‘For the present’, Wilson
was only focusing on non-human ‘animal societies’. With this comment, however, the door to afull-blown attack on our wonderful unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic, truly lovingmoral instinctive self or soul had been set ajar—so we now need to see how that door wasflung wide open and the all-out attack delivered.
Firstly, it cannot be stressed enough how extremely dishonest and dangerous this attackwas. While the selfless behaviour of all social non-human multicellular animal species can beexplained by reciprocal selflessness, which is actually an indirect, subtle form of selfishness
(because genes have to ensure they reproduce and carry on), humans’ capacity to behaveselflessly, such as charity workers caring for the poor and the suffering, is not based onreciprocity. We humans have an unconditionally selflessly orientated, genuinely altruistic,truly loving, moral conscience. As was briefly explained in Part 4:4D, and will be fullyexplained in Part 8:4B, while the highest level of selflessness that can normally be developedgenetically is reciprocity, where a favour is given on the proviso that it is returned, there wasa way for the integrative process of the development of order of matter to overcome thisimpasse and develop unconditionally selfless behaviour and that was through the nurturing,love-indoctrination process, which is how we humans acquired our unconditionally selfless,moral conscience. Therefore, since ‘God’ is the personification of the selfless, cooperative,loving, integrative ideal state, we humans were ‘created…in the image of God’ (Gen. 1:27) becausewe did once live in that fully integrated, unconditionally selflessly behaved, cooperative,loving ideal state. The eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant spoke the truth aboutthe magnificent purity of our moral capacity for unconditional selflessness when he wrote
(and, significantly, had inscribed on his tombstone) the following passage: ‘Two things fillthe mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe: the starry heavens above me and themoral law within me’ (Critique of Practical Reason, 1788). The exceptionally honest Darwin was no
less impressed when he said, ‘the moral sense affords the best and highest distinction between manand the lower animals’ (The Descent of Man, 1871, ch.4). And yet the ‘awe’-inspiring, marvellously
unconditionally selfless, al-true-istic, Integrative Meaning/God-representing moral grandeurof our species’ original instinctive orientation or soul or psyche (from the Greek word psykhe,meaning ‘breath, life, soul’ (Online Etymology Dictionary)) was poised to be dismissed as nothingmore than a reciprocity-based, subtle form of selfishness, an inconsequential ‘euphemism’!
But again, for upset humans such a dismissal of our moral sense was extremely relievingbecause it eradicated the guilt our moral conscience had been causing us—‘Hey, with the kin

Part 4:12E

Evolutionary Psychology

341
selection-based theory of Sociobiology we can dismiss our condemning, ideal-behaviourdemanding, guilt-producing, human-condition-causing moral sense as just a subtle form ofselfishness. Phew, I feel so much better!’ But while this dismissal of our moral conscienceas nothing more than a subtle form of selfishness was immensely guilt-relieving for upsethumans, it amounted to an all-out assault on the truth about the very nature of our species’instinctive self. In terms of the all-important need for biology to deliver understanding ofhuman behaviour, biologists had instead decided to implement the biggest lie imaginable! Forbiologists this was the highest form of irresponsibility because the human race was dependingon them to get to the truth about ourselves and deliver ameliorating insight into our troubledhuman condition, not bury us deeper in alienating lies. Unless humans found the biologicalunderstanding of ourselves we were doomed to live in tortured alienated darkness forever.
The truth is kin selection doesn’t even begin to explain our moral nature. As Bryan
Appleyard was quoted earlier as saying, biologists living in the denial-committed, mechanisticparadigm ‘still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explain altruism. If, for example, I help a blind mancross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am being prompted to do this because he is a close relation andbears my genes.’ But such has been the agony of the human condition that denial-committed
biologists weren’t put off from wrenching that ‘gaping hole’ even further apart with their lying.
And so only a year after Sociobiology: The New Synthesis was published the aforementioned,ardently truth-hating zoologist Richard Dawkins joined the great biological assault on truth,stating in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene that ‘We [humans] are survival machines—robot vehiclesblindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes [p.v of 352] …we, and all otheranimals, are machines created by our genes…Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal loveand the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense [p.2] …we are born selfish [p.3]’ (1976 edn).

Emboldened, Wilson took the step he threatened to take in Sociobiology: The New
Synthesis, when he predicted that Sociobiology would eventually be applied to ‘the study ofhuman societies’, publishing in 1978 (just two years after Dawkins’ book) the provocatively
titled On Human Nature, in which he focused directly on biology’s supposed ability toexplain (actually to dismiss) our wonderful moral soul as nothing more than a subtle formof reciprocity-based selfishness, asserting that our ‘Morality has no other demonstrable ultimatefunction’ other than to ensure ‘human genetic material…will be kept intact’ (p.167 of 260). It took a
decade or so after On Human Nature was published for this soul-destroying (literally andmetaphorically) application of kin selection to fully catch on, but by the 1990s it had—somuch so, in fact, that biologists gave this misinterpretation of selfless social behaviour,particularly the misinterpretation of human’s unconditionally selfless, moral, social behaviour,its very own title: ‘Evolutionary Psychology’. Yes, it was being claimed that biology couldnow explain the psychology of our human situation, our human condition no less! After all,they put the word ‘psychology’ into the name!
So how does kin selection-based Evolutionary Psychology claim to explain thepsychology of the human condition? It might initially be thought that asserting that humans’born-with, instinctive moral sense is nothing more than a subtle form of kin selection-basedselfishness was legitimising selfish behaviour, but as Dawkins explained in The Selfish Gene,
‘My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness

342

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deploresomething, it does not stop it being true…if you would extract a moral from it [from his book The Selfish

Gene, it would be to]…Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish’ (p.3).

In terms of avoiding the agony of the human condition, the value of dismissing our moralinstincts as a subtle form of kin selection-based selfishness and, by so doing, maintaining theargument that selfishness is the ‘universal’ characteristic of nature, is that it said that it wasn’tour fault that we are selfish; it said that we can’t help it if we are selfish because it’s just thenatural state ‘we are born’ with. It said we are excused, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t tryto do something to rectify that state—‘Let us try to teach generosity and altruism’, as Dawkinsadvised. So, according to Sociobiology, now called Evolutionary Psychology, ‘we are bornselfish’, an attitude we then have to try to control or overcome. We are born ‘bad’ but have
to try to be ‘good’, and since the dilemma of ‘good and bad’ in the human make-up is whatthe human condition is, Sociobiology and its elaboration, Evolutionary Psychology, wassupposedly explaining the human condition! The fundamental psychological predicament ofhumans had supposedly been explained using biological/evolutionary reasoning—hence thesupposed justification for re-badging Sociobiology as Evolutionary Psychology: evolutionarybiology was supposedly now explaining the psychology of the human condition!
In 1994 the science writer Robert Wright presented an introduction to Evolutionary
Psychology with his brazenly titled book, The Moral Animal—Why we are the way we are:
The new science of evolutionary psychology. In it he wrote that ‘What is in our genes’ interestsis what seems “right”—morally right, objectively right, whatever sort of rightness is in order’, ‘In short:
“moral guidance” is a euphemism’ (pp.325, 216 of 467)! Yes, here is the full-scale attack on our soul
that I foreshadowed—Evolutionary Psychology’s dismissal of our wonderful moral soulas nothing more than ‘a euphemism’! So, ‘We can forget our soul, forget the whole idea ofour moral sense of right and wrong having any real basis, that’s rubbish, it’s just our genesbeing subtly selfish, it’s just a form of kin selection-based reciprocity—in fact, the wholeidea that there is a cooperatively orientated, loving, unconditionally-selfless, other-peoplemust-be-considered, ideal-behaviour-demanding moral conscience in us humans has nofoundation. The sense of guilt we humans have been enduring from our moral consciencehas no biological basis’!! With regard to the specific issue of the human condition, Wrightthen wrote that ‘Evolutionary psychology professes to be the surest path to a complete explanation ofhuman behaviour, good and bad, and of the underlying psychological states: love, hate, greed, and so on.
And to know all is to forgive all. Once you see the forces that govern behavior, it’s harder to blame thebehaver’ (ibid. pp.347-348). So, here we see it being directly stated that ‘Evolutionary psychology’ is
presenting ‘the surest path to a complete explanation’ of the human condition, the ‘good and bad’aspect ‘of human behaviour’! Not only that, it was being stated that this explanation will bringabout the psychological amelioration and rehabilitation of the human race—that ‘to know all isto forgive all. Once you see the forces that govern behavior, it’s harder to blame the behaver’!!

There was no holding back now, but the truth is this kin selection-based theory of
Evolutionary Psychology doesn’t go anywhere near addressing the issue of the humancondition, let alone solving it and by so doing bringing about the amelioration of thatcondition. Rather, as has been carefully explained and evidenced throughout this Part 4:12,the whole kin selection argument is completely dedicated to avoiding the whole issue of the

Part 4:12E

Evolutionary Psychology

343
human condition. To claim that the human condition had been explained and could now beameliorated, when, in fact, the human condition was being determinedly avoided with theeffect that the psychosis and neurosis in humans was actually being greatly added to, notdiminished, was an extremely sophisticated form of delusion and deception.
I would now like to more fully spell-out how Evolutionary Psychology claimed to be ableto ‘explain’ the human condition. As just mentioned, the value of kin selection’s dismissalof our moral instincts as being selfish is that it said that ‘It isn’t our fault that we are selfishbecause it’s just the natural state ‘we are born’ with. We are excused, but that doesn’t meanwe shouldn’t have to try to do something about it’—‘Let us try to teach generosity and altruism’
(as Dawkins urged). So, according to Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology, ‘we areborn selfish’ which we then have to try to control. We are born ‘bad’ but have to try to be
‘good’, and since the dilemma of ‘good and bad’ in the human make-up is the human condition,

Evolutionary Psychology was supposedly explaining the human condition.
This trick of making our instincts appear to be what makes us capable of ‘universalruthless selfishness’, as Dawkins said, and our conscious mind the noble force that has to
control this supposed barbaric instinctive part of ourselves, that has to ‘try to teach generosityand altruism’, was explained earlier in Part 4:9, when, under the heading ‘Fourth Category
of Thinker: The great majority of the human race who avoided the whole issue of apsychosis in our human situation by simply blaming our selfish and aggressive behaviouron supposed brutish and savage animal instincts within us that our intellect supposedlyhas to control’, the following was stated: ‘So instead of our conscious intellect being theguilty party, in the sense of being that part of ourselves that caused us to ‘fall from grace’and have to be banished from the Garden of Eden of our original innocent, cooperativelyorientated, all-loving, moral instinctive state (as Moses, Plato and all our mythologieshave so honestly admitted), our conscious intellect was made out to be the faultless,good part of ourselves—a manipulation of the truth that condemned our instincts as thevillain: ‘Wonderful, we are good, our conscious self is good and our instincts are awful,what a relief, I, my conscious thinking self, feels terrific.’ Never mind that this was all anoutrageous, reverse-of-the-truth lie. What a trick! Instead of our instinctive past being a
‘paradise’, ‘Golden Age’ of ‘togetherness’ before ‘the dawning of individual consciousness’ brought
about a world of highly intelligent people living an immensely insecure, ‘shrill, brittle, selfimportant life’, which in truth is ‘a graveyard where the living are dead’, our instincts were
deemed bad while our intellect was viewed as wonderful! What a complete and terribleassault on the truth, but what a relief for our upset, corrupting intellect! We, our consciousthinking self, had finally made ourselves out to be the hero that we have always intuitivelybelieved we were, and in fact are, but it was a hollow ‘achievement’ based on an absolutelie! We had lifted the burden of guilt, the psychological insecurity of the issue of our lessthan-ideally-behaved human condition, but we had done so fraudulently. The elementsinvolved in the human condition of moral instincts and a corrupting intellect weren’t beinglooked at honestly, rather, the complete opposite was occurring—those elements were beingtotally misrepresented. The human condition wasn’t being confronted—it was being hiddenbehind an absolutely incredible mountain of lies!’ (Note, the sources of the few quoteswithin this text can be found in Part 4:9.)

344

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

So, our instincts are the villains while our conscious thinking self is the blameless mediating
‘hero’ that had to try to control those supposed vicious instincts within us—what a reverse-ofthe-truth lie, but what blessed relief it offered from the agony of the human condition.
In 1998, only a few years after Wright’s book was published, the lying continued with
Wilson’s release of another book, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, in which he tookthe art of denial to yet another level, suggesting Evolutionary Psychology’s alleged abilityto explain the moral aspects of humans meant biology and philosophy, the sciences and thehumanities, indeed science and religion, basically reality and ideality (ideality in the form ofour moral instincts, which had now been dismissed as a mere ‘euphemism’), the dilemma of thehuman condition no less, could at last be solved. In it he spoke of ‘the attempted linkage of thesciences and humanities…of consilience, literally a “jumping together” of knowledge…to create a commongroundwork of explanation’ (p.6 of 374), and went so far as to not just use the words ‘good’ and

‘bad’ as Wright had done, but actually use the words ‘human condition’, claiming that ‘Thestrongest appeal of consilience is…the value of understanding the human condition with a higher degreeof certainty’ (p.7). An extract from Consilience, published in the prestigious journal The Atlantic

Monthly (Apr. 1998), in an article boldly titled ‘The Biological Basis of Morality’, featured thisintroduction: ‘Philosophers and theologians have almost always conceived of moral instincts as beingtranscendent or God-given. Is it possible, though, that ethical reasoning derives not from outside butfrom our very nature as evolving material creatures?’ Just how bold Wilson was in his claim to
have made sense of the philosophical, spiritual and religious aspect of human life using kinselection is also apparent in one of the headings used in the extract, ‘The Origins of Religion’.
Religions have been the custodians—albeit using abstract, metaphysical terms—of Integrative
Meaning (represented as it is by the concept of ‘God’), of the existence of our ‘Garden of
Eden’, innocent, integrated past and its representation in us of our moral ‘soul’, and of ourspecies’ present corrupted, ‘fallen’, human-condition-afflicted, ‘sinful’, psychologically upsetstate. These truths certainly can be explained biologically without invoking a ‘transcendent’,interventionist, ‘creationist’, ‘intelligently-designing’ God, as has been done in thispresentation. Similarly, the deeper issue of ‘the human condition’, the dilemma of the existenceof ‘good and evil’ in the human make-up, can be explained biologically, as has also been donein this presentation. But to use biological lies to ‘explain’ these subjects and, by so doing,fraudulently ‘produce’ the reconciliation or ‘consilience’ of science and religion was an act ofdiabolical dishonesty, an outrageous assault on truth. Of course, in terms of needing to avoidthe scientific demystification of God and of what our soul actually is and of the true natureof our moral sense, the essential ‘achievement’ of Wilson’s work was that he had seeminglyprovided a way to deny these truths. Indeed, he made his overall point unequivocally whenhe wrote in Consilience that ‘[Jean-Jacques] Rousseau claimed [that humanity] was originally a raceof noble savages in a peaceful state of nature, who were later corrupted…[but what] Rousseau invented

[was] a stunningly inaccurate form of anthropology’ (p.37). It has been said that the most forceful
and thus effective lie is the lie that puts forward the complete opposite of the truth—well,this statement by Wilson is yet another example of an all-out, no-holds-barred, unrestrained,outrageous reverse-of-the-truth lie.
At this point we need to comprehend the enormity of what has occurred: Wilson hassaid that his kin selection-based biology explained the human condition and made possible

Part 4:12F

Backlash to Evolutionary Psychology’s denial of our moral instincts

345
the psychological rehabilitation of the human race, and explained the origins of religion andbrought about the consilience of all knowledge—and yet he has now dismissed and disownedall of these amazing claims as being entirely wrong. That is some incredible manoeuvring:
‘I have scientifically argued that I have saved the world, but no, it wasn’t science at all and Ihaven’t achieved anything of the kind.’ But Wilson’s capacity for what is clearly outrageouslyreckless hubris is, as we are going to see, not a one-off feat, for it is about to happen allover again. Yes, Wilson has gone on to invent another grand synthesis that he claims solveseverything, when in truth it solves nothing and actually buries the human race deeper in themire of alienated sickness. It is a track record of out-of-control delusion, madness no less;but that is, in fact, the reality of the situation that the human race as a whole has arrivedat—a state of out-of-control madness that Wilson is really only a reflection of. So while allthis lying has become absolutely extreme and it would seem that it couldn’t possibly get anyworse, we are going to see that it’s actually going to get a whole lot worse—to the extent thatif anyone were to be watching what is happening on Earth from outer space they would beglued to their Earth-watching channel in absolute astonishment at the level of lying takingplace in this corner of the universe.

Part 4:12 F A backlash of revulsion develops towards Sociobiology/ Evolutionary
Psychology’s denial of our moral instincts
Not surprisingly, a backlash of revulsion developed towards the lord of lying, dukeof denial, bishop of bullshit, king of ‘krap’, Wilson-led selfishness-justifying, right-wingdismissal and denigration of our moral instincts—a revulsion that was articulated by
Randolph Nesse, an American Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology, when, in 1996, hestated that ‘The discovery that tendencies to altruism are shaped by benefits to genes is one of themost disturbing in the history of science. When I first grasped it, I slept badly for many nights, tryingto find some alternative that did not so roughly challenge my sense of good and evil. Understanding thisdiscovery can undermine commitment to morality—it seems silly to restrain oneself if moral behavioris just another strategy for advancing the interests of one’s genes’ (The Origins of Virtue, Matt Ridley, 1996,p.126 of 295).

In the 2001 documentary series Testing God, in the part titled ‘Darwin and the

Divine’ that focused upon Evolutionary Psychology’s claimed biological explanation ofhumans’ moral sense, Reverend Martha Overall (from the South Bronx in the USA) deploredthe immense deficiency of such accounts, calling them ‘very superficial…the real truth lies in thegoodness in the hearts of people, especially the hearts of…children [and those]…who will go out and savesomebody who is homeless and drunk and addicted…that kind of relationship to another human beingon the basis of nothing more than their humanity and their basic goodness, one to another, is far moretruthful than a bunch of numbers’.

A ‘bunch of numbers’, scientific evaluation, is fine—but they had to relate to the issue andequate with the overall evidence to be true and Evolutionary Psychology’s ‘subtle form ofselfishness’ explanation doesn’t begin to explain our ‘awe’-inspiring, unconditionally selfless,genuinely altruistic, truly loving moral sense, or relate one little bit to our soul’s memory andawareness of a completely cooperative, fully integrated, ‘Garden of Eden’, ‘Golden Age’ inour species’ past and potential for the future.

346

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Everywhere we look we are surrounded by examples of humans behaving unconditionallyselflessly, such as those who sacrifice their lives for moral or ethical principles, or rescueunrelated individuals and even animals, or show charity to the less fortunate by donating toaid organisations and giving blood. And, in truth, these are only superficial examples of ourspecies’ extraordinary capacity for unconditional selflessness. As has been explained, since thehuman condition became fully developed some two million years ago—and even prior to thatwhen consciousness first began to emerge some five million years ago—every human who hasever lived has selflessly dedicated his or her life to the hope that a future humanity will be freeof the human condition. Every human who has ever lived during all those millions of yearshas dedicated his or her life to the tasks of accumulating knowledge and heroically defyingthe insinuation that we humans are fundamentally bad, in the belief that one day, which hasnow finally arrived, liberating understanding of the human condition would be found. That isthe greater truth about the extent of the selflessness of humans. We didn’t have to struggle tofind knowledge and prove our worth, at any stage we could have stopped struggling and givenin to the seemingly impossible task before us, but we didn’t. The members of each generationselflessly dedicated their lives to the hope, one day, of achieving our species’ freedom fromthe binds of the human condition. And in the process of doing so, each generation selflesslyresigned itself to the limitations imposed upon it by the times in which it was forced to live.
While the psychologically reconciling understanding of the human condition was still to befound, hunter-foragers had to be hunter-foragers; when we developed centres for living, citydwellers had to accept living in unnatural, alienating cities; egomaniacs had to endure beingegomaniacs; women had to endure a world of intolerably egocentric men—and the list goeson and on. Yes, the true extent of the selflessness of humans is a story that can now finally betold—and it is the most incredible, most fabulous, most wonderful story of sacrifice ever told!
Above all, it is a story about the ever-changing and developing psychology of our humansituation—how our original innocent, fully cooperative instinctive psyche or soul condemnedour intellect, leaving it no choice but to retaliate and repress that wonderfully integrativelyorientated part of ourselves, with the result that we became upset; that is, psychotic (soulrepressed) and neurotic (mind-distressed) psychological sufferers of the human condition.
But, unable to face and deal with this real and main psychological description of ourbehaviour, we ended up with completely artificial and superficial and deeply dishonestaccounts of ourselves—accounts that claimed to be presenting an account of the ‘evolutionarypsychology’ of our situation but were, in fact, not engaging in the psychology of our situationat all; in complete contrast, they were adding more layers of psychosis and neurosis to ourlives by burying us deeper into Plato’s cave of dark alienating denial.
For instance, using kin selection theory, Evolutionary Psychologists claim that ‘Women’sdesire to look like Barbie—young with small waist, large breasts, long blond hair, and blue eyes—isa direct, realistic, and sensible response to the desire of men to mate with women who look like her’,
and that men prefer to ‘mate with women who look like her’ because ‘they are healthier and morefertile than other women’ (‘Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature’, Alan Miller & Satoshi Kanazawa,
Psychology Today, 1 Jul. 2007). The true, psychological explanation (which is presented in Part 7:1) is
that sex, as psychologically upset humans practice it, has been all about attacking innocence
(innocence being a psychological state where an individual has had relatively little exposure

Part 4:12F

Backlash to Evolutionary Psychology’s denial of our moral instincts

347
to the psychologically upset state of the human condition and thus lacks familiarity with andawareness of that upset state) for its unwitting criticism of upset. Men, in particular, sexuallyviolated the innocence of women because of their relative lack of appreciation of the upsetmen were enduring from having taken on the responsibility of championing the consciousthinking self or ego over the ignorance of our instinctive self. The more innocent a womanwas and/or looked, which basically means the younger a woman was and/or looked, the more
‘attractive’ they were to men for sexual destruction.
The kin selection theory for male homosexuality, which is ostensibly a behaviour thatcan’t reproduce itself, includes the claim that ‘research has demonstrated that Samoan maleandrophiles [homosexuals] (known locally as fa’afafine) exhibit significantly higher altruistic tendenciestoward nieces and nephews than do Samoan women and gynephilic [heterosexual] men…and altruistictendencies toward nonkin children was significantly weaker among fa’afafine than among Samoan womenand gynephilic men…These findings are consistent with the kin selection hypothesis, which suggests thatandrophilic males have been selected over evolutionary time to act as “helpers-in-the-nest”, caring fornieces and nephews and thereby increasing their own indirect fitness’ (Paul Vasey & Doug VanderLaan, ‘An
Adaptive Cognitive Dissociation Between Willingness to Help Kin and Nonkin in Samoan Fa’afafine’, Psychological
Science, Jan. 2010). But, as even the Evolutionary Psychologist Robert Wright pointed out in

The Moral Animal in response to similar kin selection theories for homosexuality: ‘First ofall, how many homosexuals spend an inordinate amount of time helping siblings, nephews, and nieces?
Second, look at what many of them do spend their time doing: pursuing homosexual union about asardently as heterosexuals seek heterosexual union. What’s the evolutionary logic in that? Sterile antsdon’t spend lots of time caressing other sterile ants, and if they did it would constitute a puzzle’ (p.384).

The human-condition-confronting rather than human-condition-avoiding, real, psychologicalexplanation for male homosexuality (a more comprehensive account of which is presentedin A Species In Denial in the chapter titled ‘Bringing peace to the war between the sexes’at <www.humancondition.com/asid-men-and-women>) is that young men are the last bastion ofpsychological innocence that can be found for sexual destruction because men, being themain perpetrators of the sexual destruction of innocence, aren’t normally exposed to havingtheir own innocence destroyed through sex like women have been, and so when men becomeoverly psychologically upset and, as a result, lose their naivety and are able to actually realisethat women are no longer truly innocent but merely the image of innocence, it is the enduringinnocence in young men that they become attracted to.
So, the attractiveness of women depends on how little psychological upset/hurt/soul-damage they have, and/or have appeared to have, experienced in infancy andchildhood, while male homosexuality is a sexual orientation that results from being overlypsychologically upset/hurt/soul-damaged in infancy and childhood. But these are extremelyconfronting truths to have to face, and as emphasised, kin selection-based Evolutionary
Psychology is all about finding ways to avoid the real psychological issue of the humancondition—no matter how absurd the form of evasion. It maintains that the attractivenessof younger women has nothing to do with them being less psychologically corrupted, orat least the appearance of that state, rather it’s due to a genetic reproductive strategy; and,similarly, that male homosexuality is not due to a psychosis, but is also due to a geneticreproductive strategy. And the ‘blame-it-on-savage-instincts-rather-than-a-psychosis’ excuse

348

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
goes on: ‘Humans don’t kill each other in wars because they are psychologically upset,they kill each other in order to reproduce their genes in the same way bulls fight and killother bulls to ensure they win the mating opportunities.’ But such ‘explanations’ are absurdbecause our human condition involves our fully conscious mind; humans suffer froma psychological human condition, not a non-psychological genetic-opportunism-based,animal condition. Arthur Koestler summarised mechanistic, reductionist science’s deliberateblindness to the issue of the ‘mental disorder’ of our ‘unique’ human condition when he wrotethat ‘symptoms of the mental disorder which appears to be endemic in our species…are specificallyand uniquely human, and not found in any other species. Thus it seems only logical that our searchfor explanations [of human behaviour] should also concentrate primarily on those attributes of homosapiens which are exclusively human and not shared by the rest of the animal kingdom. But howeverobvious this conclusion may seem, it runs counter to the prevailing reductionist trend. “Reductionism”is the philosophical belief that all human activities can be “reduced” to – i.e., explained by – thebehavioural responses of lower animals – Pavlov’s dogs, Skinner’s rats and pigeons, Lorenz’s greylaggeese, Morris’s hairless apes…That is why the scientific establishment has so pitifully failed to define thepredicament of man’ (Janus: A Summing Up, 1978, p.19 of 354).

It should be apparent by now that kin selection-based Evolutionary Psychology isa contrivance that enables the upset human race to avoid having to face the unbearableagony of the devastating truth of the psychosis and neurosis of its condition. It is a wayof pretending that the ‘psychology’ of the human condition is being faced and dealt withwhen, in fact, the absolute opposite is occurring; it is effectively advocating ‘runningfrom the truth of the psychology of the human condition as fast as your legs can carryyou’! Apart from in the term Evolutionary Psychology itself, Wilson doesn’t, in any of hisbooks, even refer to human psychology or psychosis or neurosis or alienation or insecurityof self or depression or self-confrontation. Contrast this with my books that do addressthe psychology of the human condition head-on, and do mention these terms thousandsof times—because, as R.D. Laing recognised, ‘Our alienation goes to the roots. The realizationof this is the essential springboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-humanlife’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967, p.12 of 156). The actual psychology of
the human condition is the very last thing Wilson wants to think about. All of his workon kin selection/Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology has been entirely concernedwith finding a way to ‘deal with’ (actually ‘to dismiss’) the human condition so that hedoesn’t have to think about, or ‘realiz[e]’, his/humans’ psychosis. Evolutionary Psychologyis not evolutionary psychology, it is evolutionary anything-but-psychology! To term it
‘Evolutionary Psychology’ is another ultimate lie, another reverse-of-the-truth lie; it is allabout mimicking the truth because its proponents are, in fact, totally unable to face thetruth—they are, in effect, saying, ‘I can’t go near the truth, even though I know I should, sowhat I will do is pretend I am going near it, which at least will make me feel good, and tohell with the consequences, which are that I am horribly abusing the truth and threateningto make it permanently inaccessible’! This is in reality the meanest, most angry andvengeful state imaginable—but that is the level of upset that has developed in much of thehuman race now—‘I don’t care about the human race anymore, I only care about findingsome relief from my upset condition.’

Part 4:12G

By-products of natural selection explanation

349

So, how did humans maintain this tragic game of pretending to ‘deal with’ the truthwithout actually going anywhere near it? How did this incredibly dangerous game of pretenceand delusion progress? In terms of this explanation of the development of the great denials inbiology, we are now up to the point where Evolutionary Psychology’s right-wing emphasis onselfishness had become insufferable, to the extent that a backlash movement emerged to try topresent a more selflessness-emphasising interpretation of biology. Again, however, it has to bestressed that since no one was prepared to go anywhere near the actual psychological issue ofthe human condition, what we are talking about is merely a shift from a selfish-emphasisingform of biological lying to a selfless-emphasising form of biological lying. As explained in
Parts 3:4, 4:1 and 4:4B, science—and this applies to both right-wing selfish-emphasising andleft-wing selfless-emphasising science—has been mechanistic and reductionist, not holisticand teleological. It has avoided the critically important truths of Integrative Meaning, thenurturing, love-indoctrination origins of our moral soul, and the psychologically upsettingconsciousness versus moral instincts origins of our human condition. Its intention wasonly to pretend to confront the issue of the human condition—to create the illusion that thehuman condition was being confronted so that we could delude ourselves that we were beingresponsible when we were, in fact, being the total opposite.

Part 4:12G The by-products of natural selection explanation for ourunconditionally selfless moral instincts
As will be described in Part 4:12H, the main theory that developed to counter theright-wing, selfishness-emphasising biology of the Wilson-led Sociobiology/Evolutionary
Psychology camp was the extremely dishonest Multilevel Selection ‘explanation’ for ourunconditionally selfless, moral instincts. However, while this account, which was put forwardby left-wing, selflessness-emphasising biologists, was (as will be discussed in Part 4:12H)extremely dishonest, its proponents did start out on the truthful, right track by recognisingthat an extra element, or ‘step’, must have been involved for the fundamentally selfish naturalselection process to produce our unconditionally selfless moral instincts.
If I very briefly restate how the love-indoctrination process was able to produce ourunconditionally selfless moral instincts, the existence of this ‘step’ becomes clear.
As briefly described in Part 4:4D, and as will be fully explained in Part 8:4B, the loveindoctrination process accounts for one of the three great mysteries in biology of how thefundamentally selfish natural selection process could have produced our unconditionallyselfless, genuinely altruistic, moral instincts. (The other two great mysteries, which have nowalso been truthfully explained in this presentation, in Parts 3:2 and 8:4C respectively, are whatcaused the human condition, and how did our fully conscious mind emerge.) The process oflove-indoctrination is made possible by the fact that genetic traits for nurturing are selfish
(which genetic traits normally have to be if they are to carry on and become established in aspecies), for through the nurturing and fostering of offspring who carry her genes the mother’sgenetic traits for nurturing are selfishly ensuring their reproduction into the next generation.
However, while nurturing is a genetically selfish trait, from an observer’s point of view itappears to be unconditionally selfless behaviour—the mother is giving her offspring food,

350

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
warmth, shelter, support and protection for apparently nothing in return. This point is mostsignificant because it means from the infant’s perspective, its mother is treating it with real,unconditionally selfless love. The infant’s brain is therefore being trained or conditioned orindoctrinated with unconditional selflessness and so, with enough training in unconditionalselflessness, that infant will grow into an adult who behaves unconditionally selflessly. Applythis training across all the members of that infant’s group and the result is a fully integratedsociety. The ‘trick’ in this ‘love-indoctrination’ process lies in the fact that the traits fornurturing are encouraged, or selected for genetically, because the better infants are cared for,the greater are their, and the nurturing traits’, chances of survival. This process does, however,have an integrative side effect in that the more infants are nurtured, the more their brains aretrained in unconditional selflessness.
So, the selfish natural selection process fostered maternalism, which had the by-producteffect, or side-effect—which is the aforementioned ‘step’—of training an infant’s brain inunconditional selflessness. When I came up with the idea of love-indoctrination in the 1970s,my mind had abandoned trying to work out how the selfish natural selection process couldhave created our unconditionally selfless, moral instincts and had started searching for someby-product of natural selection that might have enabled such instincts to develop. It waswhen I started carrying out this search and recognised the potential significance of a mother’smaternal care appearing to her infant as real love, or unconditional selflessness, that the ideaof love-indoctrination occurred to me. So looking for a secondary, by-product of naturalselection was the right path to take in cracking the riddle of how the selfish natural selectionprocess could have created unconditional selflessness, and it was this path for a by-productof natural selection that the left-wing biologists who were trying to contest the ‘nature is allabout selfishness’ account also first started down, but their thinking soon diverged into a culde-sac of dishonesty. The following is a description of what transpired.
In a series of articles and papers that were released between the late 1970s and thelate 1990s, the prominent selflessness-emphasising, left-wing American biologist Stephen
Jay Gould railed against the selfishness-emphasising right-wing biology of Sociobiologyand Evolutionary Psychology. In 1986 he labelled Sociobiology ‘Cardboard Darwinism’
(‘Cardboard Darwinism’, The New York Review of Books, 25 Sept. 1986), and, eleven years later, referred to
its successor, Evolutionary Psychology, as ‘Darwinian fundamentalism’ and ‘ultra-Darwinism’
(‘Darwin Fundamentalism’, The New York Review of Books, 12 Jun. 1997). In the 1997 article, Gould accurately
recognised the fallacy of kin selection’s ‘there-is-no-group-significance-involved-rather-it’sentirely-about-the-individual-ensuring-it-reproduces-its-genes’ interpretation, writing that
‘genes struggling for reproductive success within passive bodies (organisms) under the control of genes’ is
‘a hyper-Darwinian idea that I regard as a logically flawed and basically foolish caricature of Darwin’s…intent’ (ibid). However, when it came to actually countering the ‘selfishness-is-a-universal-
biological-truth, get-used-to-it, we-humans-don’t-have-an-unconditionally-selfless-instinctivemoral-instincts-rather-we-have-selfish-ones’, all Gould could do (like me) was basicallygive up and accept that natural selection is a fundamentally selfish process, writing that ‘Theanswers to moral questions cannot be found in nature’s factuality in any case, so why not take the “coldbath” of recognizing nature as nonmoral, and not constructed to match our hopes? After all, life existedon earth for 3.5 billion years before we arrived; why should life’s causal ways match our prescriptions for

Part 4:12G

By-products of natural selection explanation

351
human meaning or decency?’ (ibid). But, in giving up on the ability of natural selection (‘nature’sfactuality’, as he described it) alone to ‘answer’ the ‘moral questions’ and fulfil ‘our hopes’ of
explaining the origin of humans’ extraordinary unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic,truly moral instincts—‘our prescriptions for human meaning or decency’—what Gould did (like Idid) was start searching for secondary, by-products (or side-effects) of natural selection thatmight have enabled our moral instincts to develop.
The main argument given by Gould in his 1986 and 1997 publications to counter the
‘selfishness-is-all-that-is-occurring-in-nature’ account was actually first presented in 1979 by
Gould and another prominent selflessness-not-selfishness emphasising, left-wing Americanbiologist, Richard Lewontin. In a famous joint paper, Gould and Lewontin argued for theimportance of the by-products (what they referred to as ‘spandrels’) of natural selection inexplaining some biological outcomes. They complained of ‘natural selection…[being regarded]as so powerful…it…becomes the primary cause of nearly all organic form, function and behavior…[such
that other influences] are usually dismissed as unimportant’, and called for a ‘pluralistic approach’
that involves both natural selection and ‘alternatives to the adaptationist [natural-selection-only]programme’ (‘The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme’,
1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Vol.205, No.1161, pp.581-598). To
support their case
for a ‘pluralistic approach’—one involving both natural selection and by-products of naturalselection—they referred to Darwin, who, having acknowledged in his Introduction to The
Origin of Species that there is ‘much remaining as yet unexplained in regard to the origin of species’,concluded that same Introduction with the sentence: ‘I am convinced that natural selection hasbeen the main but not exclusive means of modification.’ Yes, being such a truthful and thus effective
thinker, Darwin would have also been coming down this road of realising some by-productof natural selection must have been involved in creating our extraordinary unconditionallyselfless, moral instincts.
In developing the ‘pluralistic’ idea—which, again, involved natural selection and byproducts of natural selection—Gould suggested in his aforementioned 1997 ‘Darwinianfundamentalism’ article ‘that the platform of evolutionary explanation houses an assortment of basiccranes, all helping to build the edifice of life’s history in its full grandeur…Natural selection may be thebiggest crane [but]…you need a lot of cranes to build something so splendid and variegated [as life’shistory in its full grandeur]’. Gould’s inference here was that the ‘grande[st]’, most amazing
creation of all in ‘life’s history’, which is humans’ unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic,truly moral instinctive self or soul, must have been developed by a matrix of by-products ofnatural selection; ‘a lot of cranes’, not only ‘natural selection’.
So, it was being recognised that by-products of natural selection must play a significantpart in explaining some biological outcomes, particularly our unconditionally selfless,
‘moral’ instincts. The question then being, which by-products? It was at this point that the
truthful thinking that had been going on became derailed. Examples of biological outcomesthat required more than adaptations from natural selection to explain them were certainlyprovided by Gould and Lewontin—even the example of the extinction of dinosaurs beingcaused by a meteorite, a scenario entirely outside the scope of natural selection, was referredto—but no accountable by-product of natural selection explanation was put forward to explainour unconditionally selfless, moral instincts. It was simply argued that the involvement of

352

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
by-products of natural selection was possible, which is true, but the actual origin of ourunconditionally selfless, moral instincts remained unanswered.
All that had happened was that the idea of pluralism to explain our unconditionallyselfless moral instincts had been developed in a way that created the illusion that the originof our moral instincts had been explained. You can see the illusion emerging in Gould’scomment that ‘you need a lot of cranes to build something so splendid and variegated’ as ‘life’shistory in its full grandeur’. Since the ‘grande[st]’ creation of all in ‘life’s history’ is humans’
unconditionally selfless, moral instincts, what Gould was implying was that obviously amatrix of by-products of natural selection, ‘a lot of cranes’, created our moral soul and that’sall we need to know. The thinking was to the effect that ‘Our unconditionally selfless, moralinstincts exist and they had to have emerged somehow, and natural selection on its own can’texplain how, so clearly they must have been created by a matrix of by-products of naturalselection, so that’s all we need to know; our moral instincts exist and they were created by amatrix of by-products of natural selection!’
This simplistic and duplicitous ‘pluralistic’ argument employed by left-wing,selflessness-emphasising, kin-selection-defying biologists of an ‘assortment of basic cranes, allhelping to build the edifice of ’ our ‘moral’ ‘decency’ or nature has continued. In the Preface to
the 2011 book Origins of Altruism and Cooperation (an assemblage of presentations givenat a 2009 conference held at Washington University on ‘Man the Hunted and the Origin and
Nature of Human Sociality, Altruism and Well-Being’), the anthropologist Robert Sussmanand the psychiatrist and geneticist Robert Cloninger wrote that ‘Social scientists and biologistsare learning that there is more to cooperation and generosity in both human and nonhuman groupliving animals than an investment in one’s own nepotistic patch of DNA. Research in a great diversityof scientific disciplines is revealing that there are many biological and behavioral mechanisms thathumans and nonhuman primates use to reinforce pro-social or cooperative behavior. For example,there are specific neurobiological and hormonal mechanisms that support social behavior. There arealso psychological, psychiatric, and cultural mechanisms.’ So, it was being alleged that a matrix
of ‘many biological and behavioral mechanisms’ created ‘pro-social or cooperative behavior’, buthow exactly? Certainly ‘hormonal’ and ‘neurobiological’ ‘psychological’ and ‘psychiatric’, alongwith ‘cultural’, influences are involved in the ‘support’ of ‘social behavior’, but that doesn’texplain our social behaviour at all! Yes, a by-product of natural selection, namely thelove-indoctrination process, did create our ‘pro-social or cooperative behavior’, and then thoselove-indoctrinated moral instincts did clash with our emerging conscious mind to create thepsychologically upset state of our human condition—at which point all our ‘neurobiological’
‘psychological’ and ‘psychiatric’ behaviours emerged and then different ‘cultur[es]’ were
created to try to manage that upset. Our hormonal system was also obviously affectedby, and became involved in, the development of this upset state. Yes, all the ‘hormonal’,
‘neurobiological’, ‘psychological’, ‘psychiatric’ and ‘cultural’ aspects of our make-up are by-
products of natural selection and they are all involved in human behaviour—but thatdoesn’t explain the ‘origins of altruism and cooperation’ at all. The illusion is that that ourmoral instincts have been explained when they haven’t—but in the desperation to counterthe right-wing doctrine that ‘cooperation and generosity in both human and nonhuman group-livinganimals’ is nothing more ‘than an investment in one’s own nepotistic patch of DNA’ such extreme

Part 4:12G

By-products of natural selection explanation

353
illusion was deemed necessary. It was all just more ‘smoke and mirrors’, but this timefrom the left-wing camp. (More will be said about the 2011 book Origins of Altruism and
Cooperation in Part 4:12J.)
_______________________

The reason why, at the point of recognising that by-products of natural selection musthave been involved in creating our unconditionally selfless moral instincts, the honest,effective thinking diverged into a cul-de-sac of dishonesty is because this next step dependedon recognising that the particular by-product involved in creating our moral instincts wasthat of nurturing. And, as was explained in Part 4:4F, the problem with acknowledging theimportance of nurturing in human life was that it was an unbearably confronting truth forupset, human-condition-afflicted humans to have to face.
As described in Part 3:11H, while those in the left-wing typically sided with selflessnessemphasising forms of idealism to relieve themselves of the agony of the human conditionbecause they had become too upset to continue fighting against idealism (a responsibilitythat was left to those in the right-wing), because of that extreme upset they have actuallybeen more afraid of encountering the ideals and confronting the human condition than thosein the right-wing; in short, those in the left-wing needed a form of idealism to support buthave typically been the most afraid of any ideals or truths that brought the issue of the humancondition into focus. Their strategy was to mimic selfless idealism, to appear ideal withoutactually being ideal and thus able to truthfully acknowledge and face the real issue of theirown and the human race’s upset human condition. Part 3:11H charts the development of evermore guilt-relieving but dishonest forms of idealism that the left-wing took up to support, butin the case here, while supporting the ideals of selflessness was fine, when it came to actuallyconfronting the agony of the human condition itself, which the truth of the importanceof nurturing required, they stopped dead in their tracks and wouldn’t go any further. Thedifference between the right-wing and the left-wing is that, unlike the right-wing, the leftwing were promoting themselves as supporters of the real truth (in this case, the truth of ourunconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic moral instincts), but when that support actuallyrequired confronting the truth of the human condition (which the truth of nurturing raised),they suddenly stopped being supporters of the real truth! This fundamental difference betweenthe right-wing and the left-wing is the reason why the left has posed a far more dangerousthreat to the human journey than the right. To be pretending to let the truth out when youactually weren’t and, moreover, couldn’t, was a far more dishonest, subversion-of-thetruth and irresponsible practice than the outright lying being perpetrated by the right-wing.
Masquerading lies as the truth is so much more sinister than lying itself.
I should reiterate that even Darwin, who was remarkably secure in self and thus notsomeone needing to join the ranks of the pseudo idealistic left, found himself unable to gothe next step of recognising the importance of nurturing. While at one point in The Descentof Man he did actually touch on the idea of nurturing being the origin of our social instincts,writing that ‘The feeling of pleasure from society is probably an extension of the parental or filialaffections, since the social instinct seems to be developed by the young remaining for a long time withtheir parents; and this extension may be attributed in part to habit, but chiefly to natural selection’ (1871,

354

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
ch.4), he didn’t develop the idea into a full account of the origins and consequences of humans’
moral nature. As discussed in Part 4:11, he baulked at that step, presumably because he didn’tfeel secure enough to engage in ideas that involved fully confronting the human condition.
The overall problem, therefore, for biologists from both the left-wing and the right-wingis that they have been operating in a mechanistic, reductionist paradigm that determinedlyresisted any encounter with the human condition, which meant they couldn’t hope to explainsuch fundamental questions as the human condition and how we acquired our unconditionallyselfless moral instincts—which is the fundamental point being made about this ‘Fourth
Category of Thinker: The great majority of the human race who avoided the whole issue of apsychosis in our human situation (…etc).’ If you’re avoiding ‘the whole issue of a psychosisin our human situation’ you are in absolutely no position to explain it. Again, as R.D. Laingpointed out, ‘Our alienation goes to the roots. The realization of this is the essential springboard for anyserious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life.’

The great questions in biology, indeed the three holy grails of biology, have been totruthfully explain the human condition, which is done in Part 3:2; to truthfully explain theorigins of humans’ unconditionally selfless moral instinctive self or soul, which is what thelove-indoctrination explanation given in Part 8:4B does; and to truthfully explain how wedeveloped full consciousness when other species haven’t been able to, which is explainedin Part 8:4C. What we are particularly concerned with here, however, is the second of theseholy grails in biology of the origin of our unconditionally selfless moral instincts. How coulda fundamentally selfish process have produced unconditionally selfless instincts in a species,namely the human species? The immense frustration of mechanistic, reductionist biology is itsinability to solve any of the three holy grails of biology, including this question of the originof our moral instincts. Unarguably, mechanistic, reductionist biology has made progress inmany areas of inquiry into the nature of our world but biologists now realise that any furtheradvancement depends on solving these three questions, and their inability to do so meansmechanistic, reductionist biology is now stalled, piled up and festering at this gateway thatit can’t seem to get through no matter how hard it perseveres. And the reality is it will neverget through because, in the case of our moral instincts, the ability to solve the riddle of how afundamentally selfish process could have produced unconditionally selfless instincts dependson not living in denial of Integrative Meaning, or the fundamental psychosis/alienation ofour human situation, or, most particularly, the importance of nurturing both in the maturationof our species and in our own lives. The extent of Stephen Jay Gould’s insecurity of self andthus inability to complete the honest path he set out on and find the particular by-product ofnatural selection that explains the origins of our moral soul, namely nurturing, is reflected inhow determinedly he resisted the idea of reconciling science and religion, maintaining thatthey are ‘nonoverlapping magisteria’ (‘Nonoverlapping Magisteria’, Natural History 106, Mar. 1997). Of course,as will be emphasised in Part 8:1, religion and science must ultimately be reconciled for, asthe Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles H. Townes has observed, ‘they [religion and science]both represent man’s efforts to understand his universe and must ultimately be dealing with the samesubstance. As we understand more in each realm, the two must grow together…converge they must’ (The
Convergence of Science and Religion, Zygon, Vol.1 No.3, 1966). For the exceptionally insecure, however,
recognising the science-and-religion-reconciling truth of Integrative Meaning has been an

Part 4:12G

By-products of natural selection explanation

355
anathema—in his ‘Darwinian Fundamentalism’ article that was mentioned earlier Gouldactually asserted that ‘natural selection’ is ‘directionless, nonteleological’. Gould was someone whowas only prepared to imitate the truth, not confront it.
Proof of how mechanistic, reductionist science has been both unwilling and unable toface the truth of the significance of nurturing in explaining the origins of our unconditionallyselfless moral nature, is that I, and the supporters of the ideas contained in this presentation,have tried many times to have not only this nurturing explanation for our moral naturerecognised by the scientific establishment, but also all the other critically importantexplanations, such the origin of the human condition and how we humans became conscious—and yet every time these efforts have been rebuffed. These attempts are documented in
Part 8:6, however, to present just one example, in 2005 I submitted an abstract of a papertitled ‘Nurturing as the Prime Mover in Primate Development and Human Origins’ forthe International Primatological Society’s 2006 Congress in Uganda, but was rejected onthe grounds that ‘Both reviewers felt this abstract presents no data nor a testable hypothesis and istherefore inappropriate for this congress.’ Despite arguing that my nurturing, love-indoctrination
explanation for humans’ moral instincts ‘contains a great deal of supportive evidence in the form ofmany summaries of data-supported studies of bonobos and other primates by leading primatologists’,
and ‘is an entirely testable, validatable hypothesis, as the evidence just described about bonobosshows’, and submitting this protest to the President and 38 members of the IPS Congress

Committee (including the primatologist Richard Wrangham in his capacity as President ofthe IPS), the rejection was upheld! (My full correspondence with the IPS can be read at <www.humancondition.com/ips-2006-congress>). Of course, science has a long history of deriding new
ideas as ‘untestable’. For instance, Bishop Wilberforce, the opponent of natural selection inthe great debate about Darwin’s theory at Oxford in 1860, said it was a ‘theory which cannot bedemonstrated to be actually impossible’ (Wilberforce’s review of Origin of Species in Quarterly Review, 1860, p.249);
while the geologist and bishop Adam Sedgwick said it was ‘not a proposition evolved out of thefacts’ (‘Objections to Mr Darwin’s Theory of the Origin of Species’, The Spectator, 7 Apr. 1860) and that it was ‘basedupon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved’ (Sedgwick in a letter to Darwin, 24 Nov. 1859).

The palaeontologist Louis Agassiz similarly complained that ‘absolutely no facts…can be referredto as proving evolution’ (William Penman Lyon, Homo versus Darwin: A judicial examination of statements recentlypublished by Mr Darwin regarding ‘The Descent of Man’, 1872, p.140); while more recently—and revealingly, I
would say, in terms of an apparent prejudice—the philosopher Karl Popper commented, beforelater changing his mind, that ‘Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory’ (Unended Quest, 1976, p.168).
Further powerful evidence that it is the human-condition-confronting nature of thenurturing explanation for our moral soul that was the cause of the rejection is the fact thatthe rejection (of the nurturing explanation) has a significant precedent. As documented in
Part 8:5B, the American philosopher John Fiske first put forward the essence of the nurturingexplanation for our moral instincts only 15 years after Darwin published his idea of naturalselection in The Origin of Species in 1859. But despite some very eminent scientists of thatera describing Fiske’s hypothesis of ‘altruistic Love’ having ‘developed in the course of evolutionfrom the necessities of maternity’, as a ‘far more important’ ‘principle’ than Darwin’s selfish, ‘naturalselection by means of the struggle for survival’, in fact, as ‘one of the most beautiful contributions evermade to the Evolution of Man’, it was eventually totally ignored and left to die!

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

356

The Biology

The fundamental issue here is that until the human condition was explained humanscouldn’t cope with the truth of the importance of nurturing in human life, and while I amfinally presenting the compassionate framework that makes it psychologically safe to admitthe importance of nurturing, the explanation is still being rejected because although humansare now defended the problem remains of having to confront so much denied truth aboutour human condition. As pointed out in Part 3:10, truth day is also exposure day; it is, infact, the long anticipated ‘judgment day’—so while it is ultimately a ‘day’ of compassionateunderstanding, not condemning ‘judgment’, there is still a great deal of denied truth tohave to suddenly encounter and accept. In terms of the progress of new ideas in science,especially ideas that challenge established paradigms, their reception invariably follows apattern whereby the old paradigm doesn’t want to move to the new one, not only because it’sconfronting but because scientists are attached to the paradigm they have either created (orcontributed to) or become accustomed to. The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer summarisedthe stages of resistance new ideas in science have historically had to undergo when he ‘saidthat the reception of any successful new scientific hypothesis goes through predictable phases beforebeing accepted’. First, ‘it is ridiculed’ and ‘violently opposed’. Second, after support begins to
accumulate ‘it is stated that it may be true but it’s not particularly relevant’. Third, ‘after it has clearlyinfluenced the field [including members of the establishment quickly remodelling/plagiarising the ideas
as their own discoveries, which unfortunately is something I have experienced] it is admitted to be trueand relevant but the same critics assert that the idea is not original’. Finally, ‘it is accepted as being selfevident’ (compiled from two references to Schopenhauer’s quote—New Scientist, 15 Nov. 1984 and PlanetHood, Ferencz
& Keyes, 1988). The physicist Max Planck succinctly described the historical reality of scientific
progress when he said that ‘science progresses funeral by funeral’ (see his Scientific Autobiography, 1948),while the famous playwright George Bernard Shaw warned of the true nature of progresswhen he wrote that ‘All great truths begin as blasphemies’ (from his play Annajanska, 1919).

Part 4:12 H The Multilevel Selection theory

Part 4:12 H -i

Introduction

In Part 4:12E it was described how humans’ wonderful moral instinctive self or soul hasbeen dismissed by Evolutionary Psychologists as not the unconditionally selfless, genuinelyaltruistic, truly loving entity it really is, but as a form of reciprocal selflessness—basicallyas nothing more than a subtle form of selfishness. Among those making this assertion were
Richard Dawkins, who said, ‘Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and thewelfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense…we are bornselfish’, and Robert Wright, who said, ‘“moral guidance” is a euphemism’, and E.O. Wilson,
who summarised that ‘Rousseau claimed [that humanity] was originally a race of noble savages in apeaceful state of nature, who were later corrupted…[but what] Rousseau invented [was] a stunninglyinaccurate form of anthropology.’

In Part 4:12F I described how a backlash of revulsion developed towards this denigrationof our wonderful moral instinctive self as nothing more than a subtle form of selfishness. Irecounted how Stephen Jay Gould attacked the right-wing, selfishness-justifying biological

Part 4:12H

The Multilevel Selection theory

357
thinking as ‘Cardboard Darwinism’, ‘Darwinian fundamentalism’, ‘ultra-Darwinism’ and ‘hyperDarwinian’, and how, in 1979, Gould and Richard Lewontin attempted to present a left-
wing, selflessness-emphasising counter theory based on a by-products-of-natural-selectionexplanation to argue for the existence of our unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruisticmoral instincts. In summarising his argument in 1997, Gould stated that ‘Natural selection maybe the biggest crane [but]…you need a lot of cranes to build something so splendid and variegated [aslife’s history in its full grandeur]’. He was arguing that the ‘grande[st]’, most amazing creation
of all in ‘life’s history’, which is humans’ unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic, trulyloving, moral instinctive self or soul, was developed by a matrix of by-products of naturalselection—‘a lot of cranes’ acting in conjunction with ‘natural selection’. As pointed out in Part
4:12G, our unconditionally selfless, moral instincts did come about as a result of a by-product
of natural selection, namely the nurturing, love-indoctrination process, but, unable to admitthis unbearably confronting truth of the importance of nurturing, Gould and Lewontin’sunspecified by-products-of-natural-selection explanation couldn’t and ultimately didn’tsucceed in actually explaining the origins of our unconditionally selfless moral instincts—they only created the illusion that it had been explained.
Basically, this matrix, unspecified by-products of natural selection attempt by the leftwing to counter Evolutionary Psychology’s abhorrent dismissal of our moral soul as nothingmore than a subtle form of selfishness had failed, leaving the left-wing scrambling to findsome way to defend their pseudo idealistic, selflessness-justifying philosophy for living withthe agony of the human condition. A human-condition-avoiding, yet unconditionally-selflessmoral-instincts-admitting counter to the right-wing’s selfishness-justifying denigration of ourmoral instincts still had to be found.
But what could left-wing biologists come up with? The biological reality they faced isthat genes are necessarily selfish; genetic traits do have to reproduce if they are to becomeestablished in a species, and an unconditionally selfless trait doesn’t tend to reproduce—that being the definition of unconditional selflessness: doing something for others withoutincurring any personal benefit, such as ensuring your genes reproduce. A very powerfulreason why unconditionally selfless traits don’t tend to reproduce is because extremecompetition exists amongst sexually reproducing individuals to ensure their genes reproduce,so if an unconditionally selfless trait were to emerge it would be exploited by all thosewho were being selfish—if someone in a group says, in effect, ‘I’m going to help others’,the others are going to, in effect, reply, ‘By all means, go right ahead because it can onlyhelp me reproduce my genes—but don’t expect me to help you.’ Selflessness is going to besubverted, undermined by opportunist cheaters or free riders. So the reality seemingly is thatan unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic, truly loving, completely concerned-withthe-larger-whole-not-yourself, moral instinctive orientation to life cannot, outside the loveindoctrination opportunity, become established within a species.
Certainly, self-sacrificing genetic traits that do reproduce and therefore aren’tunconditionally selfless can be developed by natural selection, but an unconditionally selfsacrificing moral instinctive orientation to life, such as we humans have, seemingly cannotbe developed by natural selection outside the love-indoctrination situation. As described inmy brief denial-free description of the development of order of matter on Earth in Part 4:12B,

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

358

The Biology
self-sacrificing genetic traits that do reproduce and therefore aren’t unconditionally selflesscan be developed within a sexually reproducing individual—such as leaves sacrificing theirlives when they are dropped by a tree in winter; or our body’s skin cells giving their lives sothat our body can carry on; or, in the elaborated sexually reproducing individual situation,when worker bees give their lives to protect their colony; or, in the temporarily elaboratedsexually reproducing individual situation, when hunting dogs delay their own reproductionto selflessly help raise their parents’ subsequent offspring—because the reproductive part ofthe sexually reproducing individual, namely the tree’s or our body’s reproductive parts, orthe queen bee, or the queen dog, reproduces them. The genes for the leaves/skin cells/workerbees/helper dogs do reproduce, which means their self-sacrifice is not unconditionallyselfless, truly altruistic.
So how could the left-wing find a human-condition-avoiding argument for thedevelopment of unconditionally selfless, moral instincts among sexually reproducingindividual humans? There was only one situation that had ever been envisaged that offered away for human-condition-avoiding left-wing biologists to argue the case for unconditionallyselfless moral instincts, and that was group selection, or, more accurately, ‘between-groupselection’. The argument for between-group selection, which was very briefly described in
Part 4:12D, runs like this, while within a group of sexually reproducing individuals selflessnessis always going to be subverted, if there are two groups in competition against each otherand one has members who are more able to behave selflessly and help each other then thatgroup will have an advantage over the other group that doesn’t have such selfless, cooperativemembers, which means that unconditionally selfless cooperation supposedly could be ableto be selected for. While within groups the selfish are more likely to succeed, in competitionbetween groups, those that are able to behave selflessly, consider the welfare of the groupabove their own welfare, and thus be more cooperative, are more likely to succeed. Putsimply, within groups the selfish are likely to succeed, but in competition between groups,groups of altruists are more likely to succeed; theoretically, groups of cooperators can outcompete groups of non-cooperators, thereby ensuring their genes, including the ones thatpredispose them to cooperation, are handed down to future generations.
In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin canvassed this possibility of between-groupselection developing unconditional selflessness, writing that ‘It must not be forgotten thatalthough a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and hischildren over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed menand advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe overanother. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism,fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrificethemselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be naturalselection’ (1871, ch.5). But while Darwin did think about the theoretical possibility of between-
group selection developing unconditional selfless instincts in humans, he never pursuedthe idea—presumably because when, as mentioned earlier, Darwin said that our ‘moralsense affords the best and highest distinction between man and the lower animals’ (ibid, ch.4) he was
recognising just how extraordinary and wonderful humans’ moral instincts are; he was soundenough to acknowledge that our moral instincts are truly altruistic, that they want to be

Part 4:12H

The Multilevel Selection theory

359
unconditionally selfless towards all of life, that they are universally loving. As is going to beemphasised, the very idea that our moral instinctive self or soul is derived from aggressivelyattacking and warring against other groups of humans does not ring at all true, just as itwould not have rung true for Darwin. It does not equate at all with what we all intuitivelyknow about what our born-with, instinctive moral conscience wants us to feel and how itwants us to behave towards all humans, and even towards all creatures—indeed towards allof life—which is to feel and behave lovingly towards all things. Our instinctive orientationis to love, not be at war with other people, and to argue otherwise is, in truth, as abhorrentas the right-wing’s denigration of the nature of our moral soul as nothing more than a subtleform of selfishness.
And so, in his soundness and integrity of thought, Darwin would have felt uncomfortablewith the idea that our moral instincts could possibly be derived from strategic warringbetween groups, and that discomfort would have led to his resistance to developing it intoa full-blown theory to explain our moral instincts. As has been described already, Darwindabbled with the idea of by-products of natural selection being involved in the creation ofour moral instincts, and he also canvassed the notion of nurturing playing a role, but hechose not to develop even these ideas that do resonate as being honest into an explanationfor the origin of our moral instincts—because, as has been mentioned, he presumably didn’tfeel secure enough to engage in ideas that involved fully confronting the human condition.
Being a biologist of great integrity, Darwin was cautious in all his thinking about the biologyof human behaviour, as evidenced by the fact that he avoided that all-important issue in hismain book, The Origin of Species. So while Darwin did canvas the merits of between-groupselection in The Descent of Man, he didn’t pursue it. As William Hamilton recognised, whilein the early, ‘naive’ 1900s, ‘almost the whole field of biology stampeded in the direction [of acceptingthe idea of group-emphasising selection]…Darwin had gone [there] circumspectly or not at all’ (‘Innate
Social Aptitudes of Man: An Approach from Evolutionary Genetics’, Biosocial Anthropology, ed. R. Fox, 1975, p.331).

However, while Darwin chose not to develop the idea of between-group selection beingable to produce unconditionally selfless instincts into a theory, other biologists haven’t beenso scrupulous. And so, when the left-wing needed to counter the right-wing’s abhorrentselfishness-justifying dismissal of our moral instincts as nothing more than a subtle form ofselfishness, it was the between-group selection for unconditionally selfless instincts argumentthat they resorted to.
But to do so was not easy, because for left-wing biologists to take up the betweengroup selection argument for unconditional selflessness they not only had to overlook what,in truth, we all know about our born-with, instinctive moral conscience, which is that itdoesn’t want us to war with other humans, they also had to find a way to counter a particularproblem that all thoughtful biologists could see lay with the idea of between-group selectionof unconditional selflessness. Obviously within a group of sexually reproducing individualsselflessness is always going to be exploited and subverted by opportunistic cheaters ormercenary free-riders, however, even in the situation where a group with altruists were tosucceed in competition with other groups, the winning altruistic group would still likely besubverted by cheaters within the group. Even if altruism is advantageous in the betweengroup situation, within any group at all, one successfully competing with another group

360

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
or not, altruists are liable to be exploited by selfish free-riders who refrain from behavingaltruistically. In a group of altruists there will almost certainly be a dissenting minority whorefuse to make any sacrifice, and if there is just one selfish rebel prepared to exploit thealtruism of the rest, then that individual will be more likely to survive and have children whowill tend to inherit his selfish traits and so, after several generations, this altruistic group willbe over-run by selfish individuals. Further, even if by chance a purely altruistic group withoutany opportunistic rebels occurs it is very difficult to see how it would not eventually becontaminated by the migration of selfish individuals from neighbouring groups. As mentionedin Part 4:12D, in his devastating critique of group-emphasising biological thinking that appearsin his book Adaptation and Natural Selection, George Williams emphasised that while
‘between-group selection’ of unconditional selflessness is theoretically possible, he concluded
that in reality it is ‘not strong enough’ to overcome genetic selfishness. As he emphasised inhis Preface to the 1996 reprint of Adaptation and Natural Selection: ‘I concluded [in Adaptationand Natural Selection]…that group selection was not strong enough to produce…[an] adaptation…characterized by organisms’ playing roles that would subordinate their individual interests for somehigher value, as in the often proposed benefit to the species’ (p.xii).

Further, the evidence for the improbability, indeed impossibility, of between-groupselection actually being able to develop a completely concerned-with-the-larger-whole-notyourself, moral instinctive orientation to life, such as we have, is that it has never been ableto be achieved—or, if it was, then sustained over the long-term so as to be in existence today.
As emphasised, our species was able to develop such a state but we achieved it through loveindoctrination, not through between-group selection.
Further, as was also explained and emphasised in Part 4:12B, the reality amongst sexuallyreproducing individuals that haven’t been able to develop love-indoctrination is that the morecooperative integration they develop, the more intense becomes the selfish competition toreproduce until eventually the competition becomes so fierce that only dominance hierarchycan contain it. The apparent universality of dominance hierarchy amongst non-human social
(relatively integrated) species is evidence that the selfishness of the gene-based naturalselection learning or refinement system can’t, outside of love-indoctrination, develop acompletely unconditionally selfless, moral instinctive orientation to life like we have.
The reality is that if that most effective form of cooperation of all, namely unconditionalselflessness, could have been developed into a complete moral instinctive orientation to lifein sexually reproducing individuals then we can expect that it would have been developedmany times over in the history of life on Earth—but it hasn’t, except in our situation, andalmost amongst bonobos who, as described in Part 8:4, are in the final stages of the loveindoctrination process. (Again, it has to be remembered that self-sacrificing traits can bedeveloped within the sexually reproductive individual, but such traits are not unconditionallyselfless like ours are because the reproducing parts of the individual, such as the tree/body/queen ant/queen dog in the examples mentioned earlier, do reproduce the genes for the trait.)
As described in Part 4:12D, as a result of what Williams and many other biologistspointed out about the limitations of between-group selection, the whole between-groupselection idea was virtually eliminated from biological thinking from the mid to late 1900s—as Richard Lewontin wrote in 1998, ‘group selection has been regarded as an anathema by nearly

Part 4:12H

The Multilevel Selection theory

361
all evolutionary biologists’ (‘Survival of the Nicest?’, The New York Review of Books, 22 Oct. 1998). Certainly,
as described in Part 4:12D, the right-wing were particularly concerned with eliminatingthe concept of group selection because it meant recognising integration, which involvedrecognising Integrative Meaning, nevertheless, the points they made about the unlikelihoodof between-group selection being able to develop an unconditionally selfless moral instinctiveorientation to life seem very true.
BUT, despite all these factors—despite between-group selection being an affront to the
truth that we have morals that are all-loving; and despite all the arguments made against itby Williams and many others (in particular that it was difficult to imagine how even winninggroups of altruists would not become subverted by selfish opportunists); and despite theleft-wing having just as much need as the right-wing to avoid emphasising group selectionbecause of its Integrative Meaning implications—at the end of the day between-groupselection remained the one possible theory that left-wing biologists could use to argue that ourmoral instincts are not a subtle form of selfishness but actually unconditionally selfless; andit was the one possible theory that the left-wing had to resort to using if they were to preservetheir pseudo idealistic, selflessness-not-selfishness-emphasising, feel-good-and-thus-relievedof-the-agony-of-the-human-condition strategy for living.
As I often say, when the need for denial is critical any excuse will do—the trick is to havejust some excuse, one excuse, any excuse, and then stick to it. And so despite having falleninto near total disrepute amongst biologists, group selection was resurrected by selflessnessemphasising left-wing biologists. The leading advocate and architect of its resurrection, andits staunchest defender, is the American biologist David Sloan (D.S.) Wilson. In 1994 heand the American science philosopher Elliot Sober published a paper titled ‘Re-introducing
Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences’ in a bid to, as they said, ‘re-introducegroup selection to human sociobiology as well as to the more traditional branches of the human sciences’
(Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): pp.585-654). In the paper they mentioned that ‘Group-selection models
are the favored turf of biologists and others who feel that people are genuinely altruistic’, and said
that ‘We have emphasized group-level functional organization in humans as an antidote to the rampantindividualism we see in the human behavioral sciences.’ Four years later, in 1998, D.S. Wilson and

Sober published an expanded description of their between-group theory in a book titled Unto
Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior.
To differentiate it from the early 1900s ‘naive’, ‘good-of-the-species’ type group selection,this selflessness-emphasising left-wing account of the origin of unconditional selflessness wasoriginally called ‘new group selection theory’, but eventually became known as Multilevel
Selection theory (MLS) because it encompasses the influence of natural selection at boththe individual and group levels, as well as the involvement of cultural and psychologicalinfluences. In Unto Others, D.S. Wilson and Sober wrote of ‘Replacing kin selection theory withmultilevel selection theory’ (p.332 of 394), and said they were presenting an argument for a ‘pluralityof causes of evolutionary change, which can and do occur in different combinations’ (p.331). Referring
to natural selection as ‘functionalism’, they wrote that ‘We think that multilevel selection theoryprovides the beginning of a unified framework within which the legitimate claims of individual levelfunctionalism, group-level functionalism, and antifunctionalism can each be given their due’ (p.331).

In addition to having selfish instincts, which they claimed arose from competition between

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

362

The Biology
individuals (from ‘individual level functionalism’), and unconditionally selfless instincts, whichthey claimed arose from between-group competition (‘group-level functionalism’), D.S. Wilsonand Sober argued that there were other ‘antifunctional’ influences involved in the evolution ofanimal behaviour. They explained that by ‘antifunctionalism’ they mean ‘traits [that] have evolvedfor reasons having nothing much to do with natural selection’, that ‘there is more to evolution thannatural selection. In the case of human beings and perhaps of other species, it emphasizes the importanceof culture in addition to genes and shows how behaviors can evolve that make sense only through thecontext of cultural systems that support them’ (p.331). They spoke of ‘variations in customs that existacross cultures’ (p.336), and argued that ‘Natural selection based on cultural variation has producedadaptions that have nothing to do with genes’ (p.337), and referred to ‘the process of some groupsreplacing other groups’ (p.193) through this claimed ‘cultural group selection’, giving the example
of how ‘the Nuer [tribe’s] social system replaced the Dinka [tribe’s] social system because it was betterorganized at the level of large groups’ (p.189).

What D.S. Wilson and Sober were, in effect, arguing was that animal behaviour,including human behaviour, resulted from natural selection operating not only at the level ofthe sexually reproducing individual, but also at the level of the group of sexually reproducingindividuals, and specifically in the between-group situation. They were also arguing thatinfluences outside the gene-driven natural selection process, in particular cultural influences—so-called ‘antifunctional’ forces—also played a part in the development of behaviours,including the development of unconditionally selfless behaviour in humans.
These multilevel influences will be looked at next, after which I will conclude theiranalysis with an overall evaluation of its truthfulness or otherwise.

Part 4:12 H -ii

The individual and group level influence

In launching their defence of group selection in their 1994 paper titled ‘Re-introducing
Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences’, D.S. Wilson and Sober referred to
Darwin’s recognition of between-group selection, which, to their credit, they admitted
Darwin hadn’t pursued, writing in the expanded version of their paper, their 1998 book Unto
Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, that Darwin’s ‘practice was toappeal to this process only rarely’ (p.4). From that point on in their 1994 paper, the main focus
of D.S. Wilson and Sober’s argument was on convincing their readers that Evolutionary
Psychology’s denial of the importance of the group, basically denial of the integrative themeof existence, the ‘nested hierarchy of units’ as they refer to it (such as Williams asserting ‘grouprelated adaptations don’t exist’, and Dawkins saying ‘there was no such thing as superorganisms’),
‘was just plain wrong’. They pointed out that ‘According to Williams and Dawkins…even sexuallyreproducing organisms do not qualify as units of selection’, they are only what ‘Dawkins…called
“vehicles of selection”’, ‘environments’ for the ‘selfish genes’ to achieve their goal of reproduction.

They wondered ‘why genes are suitable candidates for units of selection whereas organisms, groups andso on are not’ and complained that ‘Gene-centered theorists frame-shift downward with enthusiasmbut they are much more reluctant to frame-shift upward’ in ‘the biological hierarchy…[of] nestedseries of units’. They railed against ‘gene-centered theorists…who claimed to explain the social insectswithout invoking group selection’. This whole criticism of right-wing ‘gene-centered theorists’ was

Part 4:12H

The Multilevel Selection theory

363
an obvious and easy criticism to make because of course ant and bee superorganisms exist,and of course there is an integrating ‘nested hierarchy’ of order of matter on Earth, but thatoverlooks the strategy employed when denying an unbearable truth: right-wing Evolutionary
Psychologists weren’t worried about the truth, only about finding a possible way of denying
Integrative Meaning, which they sought to achieve through promoting their kin selectiontheory. Again, when the need for denial is critical any excuse will do—it only has to be areasonably accountable argument and then you simply stick to it like glue. You can see thisprinciple at work in a football match where it doesn’t matter that your team wins only by apoint in a very close and long fought game, which in fact indicates that there is virtually nodifference in the quality of the two teams—a win is a win, your team’s the best and you have
‘won’ some much-needed relief for your embattled ego and that’s all that matters, unrealor unwarranted as that may be! Players are, very often, not even from the country or regionthey are representing, so the truth is the win doesn’t at all prove your country or region isthe best, but, again, that doesn’t matter, just make sure you come out on top any way youcan! So yes, pointing out what is obviously false about Evolutionary Psychology was a goodstarting point for D.S. Wilson and Sloan’s attack on the right-wing, but, of course, what theywere doing by acknowledging group selection was admitting Integrative Meaning and, by sodoing, exposing humanity to fearful self-confrontation—but such was the desperation of theleft to resist the right that they were prepared to pay that price. I might mention that it appearsthat the way the left-wing coped with their acknowledgment of Integrative Meaning was bydeluding themselves that since they weren’t advocating the involvement of a divine being,a cosmic-magician-type God, there was no problem with recognising Integrative Meaning/teleology/holism; as D.S. Wilson and Sloan put it in Unto Others, ‘Thinking of groups oforganic units subject to their own laws of behavior smacked of mysticism, and once holism was purged ofmysticism’ (p.329)—with the unsaid words following this phrase seeming to be that ‘there was
no problem with holism’. And indeed, in Unto Others Integrative Meaning is fully recognised:
‘Some evolutionary biologists have proposed that the history of life on earth has been marked by anumber of major transitions in which previously autonomous units became integrated into higher-levelunits (J. Maynard Smith & E. Szathmary, 1995) (The Major Transitions of Life). Molecules became organizedinto “hypercycles” during the origin of life itself (M. Eigen & P. Schuster, 1977, 1978a-b) (3 papers: ‘The
Hypercycle: A Principle of Natural Self-Organization’: ‘A: Emergence of the Hypercycle’, Naturwissenschaften 64, 1977;
‘B: The Abstract Hypercycle’ and ‘C: The Realistic Hypercycle’, Naturwissenschaften 65, 1978) [and] (R. Michod 1983)

(‘Population Biology of the First Replicators’, American Zoologist 23), genetic elements became neatly arranged into
chromosomes, prokaryotic (bacterial) cells formed into elaborate communities that we call eukaryotic cells
(L. Margulis 1970) (Origin of the Eukaryotic Cells), and single-celled organisms built themselves into multicelled organisms (L. Buss 1987) (The Evolution of Individuality) [and] (R. Michod 1996, 1997a-b) (‘Cooperationand Conflict in the Evolution of Individuality II’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 263, 1996; and ‘Cooperationand Conflict in the Evolution of Individuality I’, American Naturalist 149, 1997; and ‘Evolution of the Individual’, American
Naturalist 150, 1997). The social insects are a more recent example of lower-level units coalescing into higher-
level units (T. Seeley 1996) (The Wisdom of the Hive). The transition is never complete and every unit, nomatter how tightly integrated, has rogue elements that succeed at the expense of the unit. In addition, forevery major coalescing event there must be thousands of other events in which the coalescence is onlypartial, with higher-level organization struggling to emerge from lower-level organization’ (pp.97-98).

364

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

The other part of D.S. Wilson and Sober’s attack on selfishness-justifying, right-wing
Evolutionary Psychologists was to argue that there is a way in which, in the between-groupselection situation, the winning group of altruists don’t end up becoming subverted by selfishopportunists. This point raises the keystone in their strategy because, remember, the subversionfrom within even a group of winning altruists was the big problem the left were going to haveto disprove in order to successfully resurrect the between-group selection theory.
And so, in Unto Others, D.S. Wilson and Sober put forward an explanation involvingbetween-group selection for how unconditional selflessness/altruism could be developeddespite such behaviour being constantly undermined by selfish opportunism. I find it difficultfollowing formulaic, game-theory type arguments, that ‘If you have three apples in thecupboard and you take one out from under the sink then they’ll all pop up in the back shed!’,but we need to consider their thesis, which does have a surprising logic. Using the figures inthe theoretical model presented on p.25 of Unto Others, if we imagine there are two groupsthat both have 100 members and Group S (‘S’ for more Selfish) has 20 percent altruists and
Group A (‘A’ for more Altruists) has 80 percent altruists, then the percentage of altruists in theglobal population would be 50 percent ([0.2x100 + 0.8x100]/200). In the offspring generation,the altruists would have, as predicted, declined in frequency within each group because of theemergence of selfish opportunism, such that Group S now has 18.4 percent altruists and Group
A 78.7 percent; however, because altruists are more cooperative and thus more successfulin between-group competition, the group with more altruists grows larger than the groupwith fewer altruists, such that Group S now has 1080 members compared to Group A’s 1320members—so while the proportion of altruists has declined within each group, altruists haveactually increased in frequency across the global population from 50 percent to 51.6 percent
([0.184x1080 + 0.787x2400]/2400)!! The success of altruism in this model is an example of a
statistical phenomenon known as Simpson’s Paradox (see Unto Others, p.23)—meaning, in thisinstance, that although altruists are diminishing within each group (because of the ‘subversionfrom within’ problem), they are increasing overall because the group with a greater proportionof altruists are more successful in competing and reproducing offspring than those in the othergroup. So, according to this D.S. Wilson and Sober-formulated two-group model, altruists canincrease in frequency in the global population, despite the fact that they decrease in frequencywithin each group. In summarising ‘what is required to produce this interesting (and for many peoplecounterintuitive) result’, D.S. Wilson and Sober wrote that ‘To be sufficient, the differential fitness ofgroups…must be strong enough to counter the differential fitness of individuals within groups…[Thus]
Altruism can evolve if the process of group selection is sufficiently strong’ (ibid. pp.26-27). In other words,
the degree to which the more altruistic group outperforms the more selfish group (in terms ofthe number of progeny they leave) must be great enough to counter the degree to which theselfish are outperforming the altruists within the groups.
As D.S. Wilson and Sober pointed out, for this model to work, ‘the progeny of both groupsdisperse and then physically come together before forming new groups of their own’, but if this can
occur, and ‘the process be repeated over many generations, altruists will gradually replace the selfishtypes, just as the selfish types replace the altruists in the one group example’ (ibid. p.25-26). D.S. Wilson
and Sober added that ‘Of course, we must still explain how, generation after generation, altruiststend to find themselves living with altruists, and selfish individuals tend to associate with other selfish

Part 4:12H

The Multilevel Selection theory

365
individuals’ (p.26). Conceding that these ‘assumptions of our two-group model…may have seemedunlikely’ (p.29), D.S. Wilson and Sober then presented an example from nature where they say
this two-group model for the development of altruism is ‘biologically plausible’ (p.29), which isin the life cycle of the Dicrocoelium dendriticum, a trematode parasite that spends the adultstage of its life cycle in the livers of cows and sheep, then two generations within land snails,and then yet another stage in ants, where the parasite migrates to the ant’s brain and formswhat is known as the brain worm. Without going into detail of the brain worm’s entire cycle,in terms of the requirement for ‘altruistic and selfish types to become concentrated into differentgroups’, D.S. Wilson and Sober wrote that in the case of the brain worm, ‘This is accomplishedbiologically by reproduction within the snails, which concentrates the progeny of the mutant altruist into asingle group’ (p.29). They then addressed other issues and concluded that ‘The brain worm remainsa fascinating prima facie example of altruism from the field of natural history, but the conceptuallyrelevant details have only been guessed’ (p.30).

In a review of D.S. Wilson and Sober’s theory, Richard Lewontin summarised theirargument thus: ‘If [as a result of between-group selection] some group has, by chance, a higherfrequency of altruistic individuals, and if the consequence is a larger number of offspring for the groupas a whole, then even though there is some selection against the altruists within each group, altruism maycome to characterize the species’ (‘Survival of the Nicest?’, New York Review of Books, 22 Oct. 1998).

To further support their belief that between-group selection can develop unconditionallyselfless traits, D.S. Wilson and Sober described how evidence suggests that between-groupselection can explain both the occurrence of female-biased sex ratios that some smallinvertebrate species have (Unto Others, pp.35-43), and the evolution of reduced virulence in somedisease organisms (ibid. pp.43-50). They concluded that ‘We have reviewed the examples of sex ratioand disease virulence in detail [because]…they show that group selection is more than “just a theory” andhas been documented as well as any theory in evolutionary biology’ (p.50).

In describing the history of the idea of how between-group selection might be able toexplain the development of unconditionally selfless traits, D.S. Wilson and Sober referredto William Hamilton, one of the architects behind the demise of group selection theory inthe 1960s, reconsidering his position and agreeing that group selection may play a role inevolution. They also referred to that other architect of the demise of group selection, George
Williams and his own revised views on group selection, writing that ‘[the reader] may besurprised to learn that even G. C. Williams, the icon of the individual selection movement, has acceptedthe evidence for group selection as the best explanation of important biological adaptations such asfemale-biased sex ratios and reduced virulence in disease organisms’ (ibid. p.7). It should be explained
that while Williams did change his mind about group selection in regard to some veryspecific traits, namely instances of female biased sex ratios and reduced virulence in diseaseorganisms, he remained unconvinced about group selection’s wider applicability, as D.S.
Wilson admitted in a later publication ‘In general, however, George retained his worldview and Ididn’t convince him about group selection’ (‘Rest in Peace George C. Williams, ScienceBlogs, 10. Sep. 2010).

They also discussed John Maynard Smith’s influential 1964 ‘haystack model’ (thustermed because it involved a species of mouse that lived in haystacks) which greatly helpedto establish the view ‘that group selection models were too implausible to be taken seriously’ (ibid.p.71).

Without going into detail, D.S. Wilson and Sober referred to D.S. Wilson’s 1986 re-

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

366

The Biology
analysis of the model in which he ascribed what he regards as more realistic values tothe benefits to selfish mice and the costs to altruistic mice. D.S. Wilson has, elsewhere,summarised this modified ‘haystack model’ by saying that ‘It turns out that altruism can evolveby group selection, using reasonable values of b [benefit to recipient] and c [cost to altruist], even whenthe altruistic gene is initially rare in the total population. The model that led to the rejection of groupselection is favorable for group selection after all’ (Blog titled Truth and Reconciliation for Group Selection IX:
Anatomy of a Model (continued), 17 Apr. 2009).

So, D.S. Wilson and Sober maintained that ‘altruism can evolve’ by between-groupselection ‘after all’, and that group-level natural selection should therefore be included withindividual-level natural selection in explaining the evolution of behaviour, especially humanbehaviour. As mentioned, the validity or otherwise of this argument that we humans haveselfish instincts derived from competition between individuals, and selfless instincts arisingfrom competition between groups, will be examined at the conclusion of this analysis of
Multilevel Selection, in Part 4:12H-vi. However, I might say here that these situations wherebetween-group selection of unconditionally selfless traits is said to have occurred, namelyin the occurrence of female-biased sex ratios that some small invertebrate species have, andthe evolution of reduced virulence in some disease organisms, seem so improbable as to beimpossible for large mammals who don’t have complex life cycles.

Part 4:12 H -iii

The influence of culture

In this review of D.S. Wilson and Sober’s Multilevel Selection theory involving the
‘plurality of causes of evolutionary change’ of ‘individual level functionalism, group-level functionalism,and antifunctionalism’, we have, at this stage, looked at their arguments relating to ‘individuallevel functionalism, group-level functionalism’. What remains to consider are their views on
‘antifunctionalism’, which are ‘traits [that] have evolved for reasons having nothing much to do withnatural selection’—specifically, ‘In the case of human beings…the importance of culture’ (Unto Others,p.331). In short, they argued that ‘Natural selection based on cultural variation has produced adaptions
that have nothing to do with genes’ (p.337).

The following is an expanded description of D.S. Wilson and Sober’s human culturalevolution argument, in their own words (the italics are as they appear in the text, the underlinings,however, have been added for emphasis): ‘we will make a specific claim about human culturalevolution: In most human social groups, cultural transmission is guided by a set of norms that identify whatcounts as acceptable behavior. People who violate the norms are subject to punishment or exclusion fromthe group’ (Unto Others, p.150). ‘Consider two imaginary cultures, the squibs and the squabs. The squibsfollow the social norm “Be altruistic to fellow squibs, punish those who don’t, and punish those who failto punish.” The squabs have the norm “Solve your own problems.” They freely exploit fellow squabs…
The altruistic squibs will outperform the quarrelsome squabs in all situations that involve betweengroup processes…The problem of cheaters and freeloaders within groups, which is so often used toargue against the evolution of altruism, is not a problem for the squibs because cheaters and freeloadersare severely punished’ (p.151). ‘Our imaginary example of the squibs and squabs informally describesa theory of cultural group selection that has been developed by Boyd and Richerson’ (p.152). D.S.

Wilson and Sober argue that ‘virtually all cultures possess strong social norms that appear designed

Part 4:12H

The Multilevel Selection theory

367
to promote the well-being of the group’ (p.183) and that ‘Seeing rewards and punishments as productsof group selection goes a long way toward explaining how human social groups can be organismic

[integrated] even though they do not have the same population structure as clonal organisms or socialinsect colonies’ (p.149). They claim that ‘mechanisms that substitute for genealogical relatednessprobably operate in many species, but they do so especially in human populations, because they requiresophisticated cognitive abilities and (in some cases) the cultural transmission of behavior. Thus, multilevelselection theory has the potential to explain not only why humans are ultrasocial, but why they haveexperienced a unique variety of group selection’ (p.158). To illustrate ‘the process of some groupsreplacing other groups’ (p.193) through this claimed ‘cultural group selection’, D.S. Wilson and

Sober offer the example of how ‘the Nuer [tribe’s] social system replaced the Dinka [tribe’s] socialsystem because it was better organized at the level of large groups’ (p.189).

So, D.S. Wilson and Sober are arguing that because of humans’ ‘sophisticated cognitiveabilities’—namely our fully conscious mind—we are able to put in place ‘strong social norms’
or controls to ward against selfish behaviour. This is certainly true, but the questions remainas to how and why humans became fully conscious and divisively behaved in the first place;why did we fully conscious humans become competitive, selfish and aggressive when ourinstinctive moral conscience’s ideals are to be cooperative, selfless and loving? What isthe origin of the human condition, the origin of our less-than-ideal behaviour? Why havewe needed both self discipline and imposed discipline? Why did we need to develop suchcultural laws of constraint as the Ten Commandments? Certainly, the ‘fallen’, corrupted,psychologically upset state of the human condition emerged and we then had to find ways tocontrol it until we could find the clarifying, reconciling, exonerating, dignifying, uplifting,redeeming, relieving, healing, ameliorating understanding of that ‘fallen’, corrupted,psychologically upset state, but where is the description of that bigger picture that imposeddiscipline is only a part of? Where is the deeper analysis? The true story about our humancondition that biologists are charged with having to scientifically explain is that whichappears in the Bible: ‘God created man in his own image’ (Gen. 1:27) (we did once live in thatcompletely integrated, unconditionally selflessly behaved, cooperative, loving ideal state),and then we took the ‘fruit’ ‘from the tree of…knowledge’ (Gen. 3:3, 2:17) (became conscious), andthen we ‘fell from grace’ (derived from the title of Gen. 3, ‘The Fall of Man’) (became corrupted,psychologically upset, angry, egocentric and alienated), and, as a result, were ‘banished…from the Garden of Eden’ (Gen. 3:23) state of our original innocence (became insecure/guilt-
ridden about our fundamental goodness and worth) and became ‘a restless wanderer on theearth’ (Gen. 4:14) (became psychotic and neurotic) until we could find the reconciling, healing
understanding of the ‘good and evil’ (Gen. 3:5) in our make-up and, by so doing, become ‘like
God, knowing [understanding] good and evil’ (ibid). From being ‘in the image of God’ (Gen. 1:27)—that
is, instinctively orientated to the integrative, Godly ideals of being cooperative, selfless andloving—we then had to search for the understanding of our psychologically upset, corrupted,
‘fall[en]’ state that would enable us to become ‘knowing’—that is, cognisant of the integrative,

Godly ideals and why we departed from them.
Yes, that is the story we biologists are charged with having to explain—and which nowhas been explained here in Freedom Expanded: Book 1, but which D.S. Wilson and Soberdon’t deal with at all, let alone explain! To argue that ‘norms’ or forms of cultural restraint

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

368

The Biology
were important completely misses the bigger issue of the whole journey that the human racehas been involved in of seeking ameliorating understanding of our psychologically upsetcondition. In fact, as will be pointed out shortly in Part 4:12H-vi when the question of ‘Whatis the truth about Multilevel Selection theory?’ is addressed, D.S. Wilson and Sober’s theoryabout altruism is just a contorted, bewildered, dishonest—alienated—interpretation of thenature of our human condition.

Part 4:12 H -iv

Psychological influence

A parallel movement to the right-wing, selfishness-emphasising biological account of theorigin of altruism has occurred within the social sciences, with some of those working in thefields of psychology, philosophy, economics and political theory seeking to avoid the agonyof the human condition by contriving a defence for selfishness that suggests that when wehumans do behave selflessly towards others we are only doing so to selfishly derive a futurebenefit—or at least the warm inner ‘glow of satisfaction’ (Unto Others, p.243) that comes from ‘doinggood’. Towards the end of Unto Others, D.S. Wilson and Sober explore this concept of socalled psychological altruism; as they explain it, while ‘evolutionary biologists define altruismentirely in terms of survival and reproduction…Philosophical and psychological discussions of altruismoften concentrate…heavily on motives’ (p.17). According to the latter, ‘The act of helping others doesnot count as (psychologically) altruistic unless the actor thinks of the welfare of others as an ultimate goal’
(p.6). By way of illustration, D.S. Wilson and Sober refer to the view that ‘Even saints could be
regarded as selfish if they perceived their lives of sacrifice as tickets to heaven’ (p.17).

As a result of this abhorrent argument put forward by some in the social sciencesthat all selfless acts undertaken by humans are actually acts of ‘psychological egoism’ (p.251),or, as it is sometimes termed, ‘competitive altruism’, the truth that humans have anunconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic, truly loving moral nature fell out of favouramongst psychologists, philosophers, economists and political theorists—just as the truthabout our unconditionally selfless moral nature fell out of favour amongst biologists. As D.S.
Wilson and Sober put it, just as belief in the existence of ‘Genuinely altruistic traits…becamean endangered species in evolutionary biology’ (because ‘such apparently altruistic traits…as humanmorality…are said to be only apparently altruistic because individuals who help others receive benefits inreturn [reciprocity] or promote their “genetic self-interest” by helping copies of their own genes that arefound in the bodies of others [kin selection]’), so the existence of ‘genuine psychological altruism…

[became] an endangered species in the social sciences’ (ibid. p.6). So, D.S. Wilson and Sober were
now keenly attempting to counter both the selfishness-justifying, right-wing arguments beingput forward by Evolutionary Psychologists and this dismissal in the social sciences of ourunconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic, truly loving moral nature.
Given how desperate humans have been to contrive a way of escaping the agony of thehuman condition it is not at all surprising that the upset human race actually developed anargument that suggested that when humans were being selfless and caring they were actuallybeing motivated by self-interest—that, for example, people only do charitable acts to earn thepraise and respect of others—BUT, such a defence is a disgraceful denigration of the true natureof our wonderful unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic, truly loving, fully empathetic

Part 4:12H

The Multilevel Selection theory

369
moral nature. Apart from it being a complete denial of what we all, in truth, do intuitivelyknow about the nature of our wonderful moral instincts, which is that they are unconditionallyselfless, trying to separate biological/evolutionary altruism from psychological altruism, whenthe latter has to be derived from the former, doesn’t make sense. We have moral instincts—our conscience—that makes our conscious mind aware that to think and behave selfishly iswrong and that to think and behave selflessly is right; we have moral instincts that criticise ourconscious mind’s decisions (just as we have instincts that tell our conscious mind to abate ourthirst with water; to have a drink), and this criticism from our moral instincts of our mind’sthoughts is central to the creation of our psychologically upset state of the human condition.
Our psychological condition is derived from, and related to, our biological condition.
We, the whole of our beings, are biologically derived. All the elements involved inour psychologically upset human condition, namely our instincts and conscious mind, arebiologically derived, which makes biology the key to understanding human behaviour. Ourpsychologically upset state does overlay our moral instinctive soul, but, nevertheless, oursoul remains—we are still capable of real love, namely unconditional selflessness, of helpingothers without any regard for self. Certainly, after we developed our unconditionally selflessmoral soul and became conscious, the insecure state of the human condition emerged and webecame angry, egocentric and alienated, and, as a result, do often have ulterior motives, suchas wanting ‘tickets to heaven’, to derive a warm inner ‘glow of satisfaction’ from being idealistic,and to want to earn the praise and respect of others, but that doesn’t eliminate our ability tothink and behave unconditionally selflessly. The existence of our moral soul wasn’t destroyedby the advent of the human condition; indeed, as pointed out, its continued presence in theform of our conscience is why we have suffered so acutely from the insecure state of thehuman condition—it has made us feel guilty when we behave selfishly. Our capacity to beunconditionally selfless is real, even though we are also capable of being duplicitous andhaving ulterior motives as a result of suffering from the upset state of the human condition.
When Joe Delaney, a professional footballer, acknowledged that ‘I can’t swim good, but I’vegot to save those kids’, just moments before plunging into a Louisiana pond and drowning in
an attempt to rescue three boys (‘Sometimes The Good Die Young’, Sports Illustrated, 7 Nov. 1983), it waspossible, indeed highly probable, that he was being unconditionally selfless. So, while, as
I will shortly explain, I don’t agree that D.S. Wilson and Sober’s between-group selectiontheory explains how we acquired our unconditionally selfless moral instincts, I do agreewith their assertion about psychological altruism, that ‘We will not suggest that everyone has athoroughgoing and saintly dedication to helping others—that people always treat the well-being of othersas an end in itself and never think of their own welfare. Rather, our objective will be to show that concernfor others is one of the ultimate motives that people sometimes have’ (Unto Others, p.9).

The central question we need to keep asking ourselves is are our moral instinctsunconditionally selfless or not, because if they are—and indeed they are—then we do havea conscious awareness that it is right to treat others with unconditional selflessness, andtherefore we do have the ability to consciously decide to behave unconditionally selflesslytowards others. As D.S. Wilson and Sober put it, ‘If evolutionary altruism is absent in nature, whyshould psychological altruism be present in human nature?’ (ibid. p.6). Yes, why is it present? That is
the real question.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

370

Part 4:12 H -v

The Biology

Summary of the Multilevel Selection theory

D.S. Wilson and Sober summarise their theory as follows: ‘Altruism can be removed fromthe endangered species list in both biology and the social sciences. Groups can qualify as organismicunits. Culture can play a vital role in the evolutionary process. And the study of psychologicalmechanisms can be as evolutionary as the study of behavior. It is heartening to contemplate theemergence of a legitimate pluralism—for evolutionary theories of social behavior, for theories ofpsychological motivation, and for the larger intellectual traditions that influence how we think aboutourselves and the world around us’ (Unto Others, p.337).

Part 4:12 H -vi

What is the truth about the Multilevel Selection theory?

So, what is the truth about D.S. Wilson and Sober’s Multilevel Selection theory; inparticular, what is the truth regarding their argument that unconditional selflessness can bedeveloped through between-group selection? Having now considered D.S. Wilson and Sober’stwo-group model, it may be possible for between-group selection to develop unconditionallyselfless traits in a few situations (such as in the brain worm, female-biased sex ratios andvirulence situations perhaps), however, I maintain that the virtual universality of dominancehierarchy amongst social animals evidences just how strong natural selection at the individuallevel is and therefore that, even in a between-group situation, unconditional selflessnesscannot be developed amongst sexually reproducing individual animals. As D.S. Wilsonand Sober admitted themselves, the process does ‘seem’ ‘unlikely’. Yes, this between-groupselection model where ‘the progeny of both groups disperse and then physically come together beforeforming new groups of their own’, and where, if this can occur, and ‘the process be repeated overmany generations’, and where ‘generation after generation, altruists [somehow] tend to find themselvesliving with altruists, and selfish individuals [somehow] tend to associate with other selfish individuals’,
then ‘altruists will gradually replace the selfish types’, does ‘seem’ ‘unlikely’ even though it is,supposedly, ‘biologically plausible’ and is theorised to have occurred in the brain worm situation.
The only biological models that have been presented that appear to overcome this problemof genetic selfishness always prevailing are so complex and convoluted they seem highlyimplausible, in that they involve the disbanding of a population into new, separate colonies,formed by solitary fertilised females, some of whom only have selfish genes and some ofwhom have altruistic genes, with those altruistic colonies outcompeting those with just selfishgenes to build larger, more altruistic populations. Then, before the colonies with altruisticgenes ‘quickly lose…[their] altruism through natural selection favoring cheaters’, the coloniespeacefully merge back into one population, after which fertilised females separate out againto breed new, isolated groups (and so on). Essentially the model requires a process of constantmerging and disbanding in order to ‘outrun’ the genetic imperative in nature to exploitaltruism or selflessness. The situations where this between-group selection of unconditionallyselfless traits is said to have taken place are in the occurrence of female-biased sex ratios insome small invertebrate species, and in the evolution of reduced virulence in some diseaseorganisms (see David Sloan Wilson & Elliot Sober, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior,
1998, pp.35-50 of 394).

However, for large mammals especially, who don’t have complex life
cycles, the mechanism is so implausible it has to be considered impossible.

Part 4:12H

The Multilevel Selection theory

371

Richard Dawkins has been extremely critical of the between-group selection argument forthe development of unconditionally selfless instincts, saying it is ‘poorly defined and incoherent’and that ‘Convincing examples are vanishingly hard to find’ (‘The descent of Edward Wilson’, Prospect mag.
24 May 2012).

I think these comments do capture the sense that between-group selection is
such a complex and devious mechanism—involving individuals repeatedly dispersing andthen coming together to form groups in which, somehow, altruists associate with altruistsand the selfish associate with the selfish—that it is an extremely unlikely mechanism fordeveloping unconditionally selfless instincts in animals. While another comment by Dawkinsthat ‘biologists with non-analytic minds warm to multilevel selection’ (ibid) is untrue in that supportersof Multilevel Selection are no more ‘non-analytic[al]’, human-condition-avoiding-and-thusunable-to-think-truthfully-and-thus-effectively—or, as R.D. Laing said, ‘alienated’, ‘asleep’,
‘unconscious’, ‘dead’ and ‘blind’—than Evolutionary Psychologists, the comment does recognise
and reveal that supporters of between-group selection are being prejudicially driven by aleft-wing, dogmatic, don’t-question-or-think-about-our-imperfect-human-condition-justbe-ideally-behaved agenda to derive a feel-good, ‘warm’ inner glow from supporting theidealistic, selflessness-emphasising between-group selection explanation that says we humansdo have unconditionally selfless moral instincts.
In 2011 another prominent right-wing biologist, Jerry Coyne, presented this summary of theperceived limitations of between-group selection’s ability to develop unconditional selflessness,which, aside from the last sentence, I agree with (as usual, the underlinings are my emphasis):
‘Group selection isn’t widely accepted by evolutionists for several reasons. First, it’s not an efficient way toselect for traits, like altruistic behavior, that are supposed to be detrimental to the individual but good forthe group. Groups divide to form other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form otherorganisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group toquickly lose its altruists through natural selection favoring cheaters. Further, we simply have little evidencethat selection on groups has promoted the evolution of any trait. Finally, other, more plausible evolutionaryforces, like direct selection on individuals for reciprocal support, could have made us prosocial’ (‘Can
Darwinism improve Binghamton?’, The New York Times, 9 Sep. 2011). It wasn’t ‘reciprocal support’ that ‘made us
prosocial’, it was another ‘more plausible evolutionary force’—love-indoctrination. Similarly, the
right-wing psychologist Stephen Pinker said in his essay ‘The False Allure of Group Selection’that ‘group selection sounds like a reasonable extension of evolutionary theory and a plausible explanationof the social nature of humans…this reasonableness is an illusion. The more carefully you think about groupselection, the less sense it makes, and the more poorly it fits the facts of human psychology and history’ (18
Jun. 2012, accessed Feb. 2013 at: <https://www.edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection>).

The point should also be made that being unaware of the love-indoctrination explanationfor our unconditionally selfless moral instincts meant that both right-wing and left-wingbiologists were prone to be seduced by their respective Evolutionary Psychology andbetween-group selection ‘explanations’ for our moral instincts. They couldn’t help but think,
‘Humans’ moral instincts do exist, so there must be a biological explanation for them and,since there are no other possible explanations for them that aren’t prejudiced [because, ofcourse, they are unable to recognise their own prejudice], it simply has to be due to the theorythat I’m putting forward.’ Comments such as ‘If altruism manages to evolve, this indicates that thegroup-selection process has been strong enough to overwhelm the force pushing in the opposite direction’

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

372

The Biology

(Unto Others, p.33) smack of this ‘It-exists-and-since-there-is-no-other-valid-explanation-it-has-to-
be-this-explanation’ seduction and delusion.
So, I don’t at all agree with D.S. Wilson and Sober’s view that ‘group selection [is]…asignificant evolutionary force’ (ibid. p.51), and, as I will explain, I don’t at all agree that between-
group selection could have created our completely concerned-with-larger-whole-not-yourself,moral instinctive orientation to life.
I should mention that I do get the impression that D.S. Wilson and Sober are aware thattheir between-group selection explanation for our unconditionally selfless moral instinctsis flimsy and that to bolster its ‘credibility’ they have resorted to using the same ‘matrixof mechanisms’ device that, as I described in Part 4:12G, other left-wing biologists, like
Gould, Lewontin and Sussman, clung to. Yes, D.S. Wilson and Sober’s ‘Multilevel’ accountis another ‘matrix of mechanisms’-type explanation where, as they say in their conclusion,along with individual-level selection, ‘Groups can qualify as organismic units. Culture canplay a vital role in the evolutionary process. And the study of psychological mechanisms can be asevolutionary as the study of behavior.’ For example, when they said that culture ‘goes a long waytoward explaining how human social groups can be organismic’, it was as if they recognised that
their between-group selection explanation needed significant help. The truth is that ratherthan being a factor involved in ‘explaining how human social groups can be organismic’ (canbecome integrated), cultural restraints actually developed after we became integrated, andafter the ‘sophisticated cognitive abilities’ of our conscious mind developed, and, as a resultof the conflict that occurred between those two forces, the human condition emerged, atwhich point all our upset behaviour had to be contained by such cultural restraints as selfdiscipline and then imposed discipline (as explained in Parts 3:11D and 3:11G). Also, theonly ‘psychological’ aspect of the human condition referred to by D.S. Wilson and Soberwas the issue of the ‘motivation’ or intent behind selfless acts. There was no analysis ofthe psychology of the human condition at all. So, for them to assert that ‘It is hearteningto contemplate the emergence of a legitimate pluralism—for evolutionary theories of social behavior,for theories of psychological motivation, and for the larger intellectual traditions that influence howwe think about ourselves and the world around us’ is a complete bluff. Basically, D.S. Wilson
and Sober were desperately throwing everything into the melting pot of possibilities totry to create a ‘heartening’, ‘matrix of mechanisms’-type illusion that they had provided a
‘legitimate’ selflessness-emphasising counter to the right-wing’s selfishness-emphasising

Evolutionary Psychology!
I will now explain why D.S. Wilson and Sober’s explanations for how we acquired ourselfless moral instincts and for why we are selfish are both completely wrong.
_______________________

Firstly, with regard to how we acquired our selfless moral instincts, even if there are afew complex situations where between-group selection has contributed to the development ofunconditionally selfless instincts, it could not possibly have developed our species’ completelyconcerned-with-the-larger-whole-not-yourself, moral instinctive orientation to life.
As I have stressed, the idea that our moral instinctive self or soul is derived from groupvs group conflict does not equate at all with what we all know about what our born-with,instinctive moral conscience wants us to feel and how it wants us to behave towards all

Part 4:12H

The Multilevel Selection theory

373
humans, and even towards all creatures—indeed towards all of life—which is to feel andbehave lovingly towards all things. Our instinctive orientation is to love, not to be at war withother people, and to argue otherwise is in truth as abhorrent as the right-wing’s advocacy of
Evolutionary Psychology’s denigration of our moral soul as nothing more than a subtle formof selfishness. No human who is prepared to be truthful (which I appreciate that under theduress of the human condition almost no humans have been prepared to be) would acceptthat our species’ completely concerned-with-the-larger-whole-not-yourself, moral instinctiveorientation to life is driven by an extremely selfish, competitive and divisive cause, namely togive warring groups a competitive advantage. The truth that we all do know about our bornwith, instinctive moral conscience is that it doesn’t want us to be at war with other humans—that is the very last thing our moral instincts desire. No, our moral instincts are not derivedfrom competition between groups of humans, they are universally loving.
Further, for our moral instinctive orientation to be as deeply, completely and truly lovingas it is requires nurturing in an environment of love—not, as suggested by the between-groupselection model, an environment that is firstly one where everyone is basically selfish, andsecondly where any selflessness that does occur is continually undermined and under siegefrom selfish cheaters. Unlike the between-group selection situation, love-indoctrination bothdevelops from and creates a whole environment of love. We are born with an instinctiveexpectation of being unconditionally loved that comes from a time when our species lived in anurturing, all-loving situation—but there is no recognition of this in D.S. Wilson and Sober’s
Multilevel theory.
Further, the complex, devious, subtle mechanism of repeatedly dispersing and thencoming together in groups in which altruists somehow associate with altruists, and theselfish associate with the selfish, isn’t at all consistent with how our universally andalways loving, unsophisticated, unsubtle, straightforward, uncomplicated, moral instinctiveorientation to life operates.
And further still, instead of creating just a few unconditionally selfless/loving traits, loveindoctrination has given us a complete orientation to love in the sense that while betweengroup selection may have enabled a rare few unconditionally selfless traits to emerge, itsability to develop unconditional selflessness en masse—many, many unconditionally selflessinstincts together—indeed, to develop an entire genetic ethos of unconditional selflessness, anot-occasional-but-in-all-situations, universal, completely concerned-with-the-larger-wholenot-yourself, moral instinctive orientation to life, such as we have, has to be impossible.
In stark contrast, D.S. Wilson and Sober actually concede that their between-groupselection theory has not given us a universal, not-occasional-but-in-all-situations, completelyunconditionally selfless, concerned-with-the-larger-whole-not-yourself, all-loving, moralinstinctive orientation to life. As they say, they are putting forward a multilevel account ofhuman behaviour that involves both selfish instincts derived from individual-level selectionand unconditionally selfless instincts that they claim have resulted from between-group conflictat the group level—and even from ‘antifunctional’ influences such as culture. Indeed, they saythat ‘our goal in this book is not to paint a rosy picture of universal benevolence. Group selection doesprovide a setting in which helping behavior directed at members of one’s own group can evolve; however,it equally provides a context in which hurting individuals in other groups can be selectively advantageous.
Group selection favors within-group niceness and between-group nastiness’ (Unto Others, p.9).

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

374

The Biology

So, according to D.S. Wilson and Sober, our original instinctive state was not oneof ‘universal benevolence’, but one with instincts for both ‘niceness’ and ‘nastiness’—but thatis absolutely untrue. So much of the great literature of the world (especially the work ofour greatest thinkers), and all our mythologies, and all our great religious teachings, andeven the observations of honest scientists, have recognised that we humans did once livein a completely concerned-with-the-larger-whole-not-yourself, fully cooperative, all-loving,utterly harmonious, totally empathetic, absolutely innocent, ‘Garden of Eden’-like (Gen. 3:23),
‘Golden Age’—the instinctive memory of which is our moral soul. To summarise thesemany references to our species’ all-loving instinctive past it is worth recalling the followingpassage from Richard Heinberg’s 1990 book, Memories & Visions of Paradise, which wasincluded earlier in Part 4:6: ‘Every religion begins with the recognition that human consciousnesshas been separated from the divine [Integrative Meaning orientated] Source, that a former sense ofoneness…has been lost…everywhere in religion and myth there is an acknowledgment that we havedeparted from an original…innocence…the cause of the Fall is described variously as disobedience, asthe eating of a forbidden fruit, and as spiritual amnesia [alienation]’ (pp.81-82 of 282). For instance,
in the Bible, a passage in Ecclesiastics states that ‘God made mankind upright [uncorrupted],but men have gone in search of many schemes [understandings]’ (7:29). Similarly, Christ spoke of a
time when God ‘loved [us] before the creation of the [upset, human-condition-afflicted] world’ (John
17:24),
and a time of ‘the glory…before the [upset] world began’ (John 17:5). The eighth century

BC Greek poet Hesiod similarly recognised the pre-human-condition-afflicted, upset-free,
completely innocent ‘Golden Age’ in our species’ past in his poem Works and Days:
‘When gods alike and mortals rose to birth / A golden race the immortals formed on earth…Like gods

[Integrative-Meaning-orientated beings] they lived, with calm untroubled mind / Free from the toilsand anguish of our kind / Nor e’er decrepit age misshaped their frame…Strangers to ill, their lives infeasts flowed by…Dying they sank in sleep, nor seemed to die / Theirs was each good; the life-sustainingsoil / Yielded its copious fruits, unbribed by toil / They with abundant goods ’midst quiet lands / Allwilling shared the gathering of their hands.’

In a more recent literary work, the poet William Wordsworth referred to the instinctivememory that we are born with of a fully cooperative, all-loving, completely IntegrativeMeaning-orientated past existence when he wrote that ‘The Soul that rises with us, our life’s
Star…cometh from afar…trailing clouds of glory do we come / From God, who is our home’ (Intimationsof Immortality, 1807). In his 1931 book The Destiny of Man, the philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev
wrote that ‘The memory of a lost paradise, of a Golden Age, is very deep in man’ (tr. N. Duddington, 1960,p.36 of 310). The philosopher Bruce Chatwin was another who recognised the harmony that
originally existed between our own instinct and still not fully developed conscious mind whenhe wrote that ‘[the third century theologian Origen argued that] at the beginning of human history, menwere under supernatural protection, so there was no division between their divine and human natures:or, to rephrase the passage, there was no contradiction between a man’s instinctual life and his reason’
(The Songlines, 1987, p.227 of 325). Chatwin also recognised mythology’s acknowledgement that
our species did once live in a state of innocence, writing that ‘Every mythology remembers theinnocence of the first state: Adam in the Garden, the peaceful Hyperboreans, the Uttarakurus or “the
Men of Perfect Virtue” of the Taoists. Pessimists often interpret the story of the Golden Age as a tendencyto turn our backs on the ills of the present, and sigh for the happiness of youth. But nothing in Hesiod’s

Part 4:12H

The Multilevel Selection theory

375
text exceeds the bounds of probability. The real or half-real tribes which hover on the fringe of ancientgeographies—Atavantes, Fenni, Parrossits or the dancing Spermatophagi—have their modern equivalentsin the Bushman, the Shoshonean, the Eskimo and the Aboriginal’ (ibid. p.227). The philosopher Sir

Laurens van der Post also acknowledged that ‘before the dawning of individual consciousness’humans lived in a state of ‘togetherness’ when he wrote that ‘This shrill, brittle, self-importantlife of today is by comparison a graveyard where the living are dead and the dead are alive and talking

[through our soul] in the still, small, clear voice of a love and trust in life that we have for the momentlost…[there was a time when] All on earth and in the universe were still members and family of theearly race seeking comfort and warmth through the long, cold night before the dawning of individualconsciousness in a togetherness which still gnaws like an unappeasable homesickness at the base of thehuman heart’ (Testament to the Bushmen, 1984, pp.127-128 of 176). He had also previously written that ‘Ispoke to you earlier on of this dark child of nature, this other primitive man within each one of us withwhom we are at war in our spirit’ (The Dark Eye in Africa, 1955, p.154 of 159), and that ‘There was indeed acruelly denied and neglected first child of life, a Bushman in each of us’ (The Heart of The Hunter, 1961, p.126of 233), describing the relative innocence and empathy of this ‘first child of life’ in us as follows:

‘He [the Bushman] and his needs were committed to the nature of Africa and the swing of its wide seasonsas a fish to the sea. He and they all participated so deeply of one another’s being that the experience couldalmost be called mystical. For instance, he seemed to know what it actually felt like to be an elephant,a lion, an antelope, a steenbuck, a lizard, a striped mouse, mantis, baobab tree, yellow-crested cobra,or starry-eyed amaryllis, to mention only a few of the brilliant multitudes through which he so nimblymoved. Even as a child it seemed to me that his world was one without secrets between one form of beingand another’ (The Lost World of the Kalahari, 1958, p.21 of 253). The poet D.H. Lawrence was another who
recognised our species’ lost state of sensitive innocence when he wrote that ‘In the dust, wherewe have buried / The silent races and their abominations [their confronting innocence] / We have buriedso much of the delicate magic of life’ (Son of Woman: The Story of D.H. Lawrence, D.H. Lawrence, 1931, p.227 of
402). The
philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau also acknowledged the innocence of our original
instinctive state and our present corrupted state when he wrote that ‘nothing is more gentle thanman in his primitive state’ (The Social Contract and Discourses, 1755; tr. G.D.H. Cole, pub. 1913, Book IV, The Originof Inequality, p.198 of 269) and ‘Man is born free but is everywhere in chains’ (Le Contrat Social, 1762 [publishedin English as The Social Contract, 1791]). (Science’s denial of the relative innocence of so-called

‘primitive’ races will be discussed in Part 5:2.)
As has been mentioned, the philosopher Immanuel Kant was so impressed by our allloving, fully altruistic moral instincts that he had inscribed on his tomb the words, ‘Two thingsfill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe: the starry heavens above me and themoral law within me’ (Critique of Practical Reason, 1788). The philosopher John Fiske wrote that ‘inthe study of the moral sense we contemplate the last and noblest product of evolution…the existence ofa moral sense and moral intuitions…We approve of certain actions and disapprove of certain actionsquite instinctively. We shrink from stealing or lying as we shrink from burning our fingers…In short,there is in our psychical structure a moral sense which is…quickly and directly hurt by wrong-doingor the idea of wrong-doing’ (Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, 1874, Vol.IV, Part II, pp.104, 106, 126). A few years
earlier, Charles Darwin had recognised this truth of our species’ fully integrated orientationto behaving unconditionally selflessly when he wrote that ‘the moral sense affords the best andhighest distinction between man and the lower animals’ (The Descent of Man, 1871, p.495). And we cannot

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

376

The Biology
discuss the truth of the existence within us all of an unconditionally selfless, all-loving,innocent, pure, aligned-with-the-ideals, original instinctive self or soul without citing thewords of history’s greatest philosopher, Plato, who, long ago, in around 360 BC, wrote thathumans have ‘knowledge, both before and at the moment of birth…of all absolute standards…[of]beauty, goodness, uprightness, holiness…our souls exist before our birth’. He continued, ‘the soul isin every possible way more like the invariable’, which he described as ‘the pure and everlasting andimmortal and changeless…realm of the absolute…[our] soul resembles the divine’ (Phaedo, tr. H. Tredennick).

A less effusive yet still accurate acknowledgement of humans’ instinctively cooperativestate appears in the summary of an assemblage of presentations given by leading thinkers ata 2009 conference on the ‘Man the Hunted and the Origin and Nature of Human Sociality,
Altruism and Well-Being’, compiled by the anthropologist Robert Sussman and thepsychiatrist and geneticist Robert Cloninger, in which they wrote that ‘We suggest that humanbeings are naturally cooperative when healthy and only revert to violence under abnormal conditions, aswhen stressed, abused, neglected or mentally ill’ (Origins of Altruism and Cooperation, 2011, p.ix of 439).

Indeed, even the meaning behind the words used in psychology recognise the truth thathumans once lived in an Integrative-Meaning-orientated, fully cooperative, sound soulful stateand that it is our behaviour today that is ‘abnormal’. For a start, the word ‘psychology’ literallymeans the ‘study of the soul’, derived as it is, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary,from psyche, which comes from the Greek word psykhe, meaning ‘breath, life, soul’, and the
Greek word logia, meaning ‘study of ’. Yes, ‘psyche’ is another word for soul, as the Penguin
Dictionary of Psychology confirms: ‘psyche: The oldest and most general use of this term is by theearly Greeks, who envisioned the psyche as the soul or the very essence of life’ (1985). Tellingly, the
word ‘psychiatry’ literally means ‘soul-healing’, derived as it is from the term psyche (whichagain means soul) and the Greek word iatreia, which, according to The Encyclopedic World
Dictionary, means ‘healing’. Similarly revealing of what the study of psychology is reallyall about is the word ‘psychosis’, which literally means ‘soul-illness’, coming as it does frompsyche (which again means soul) and osis, which, according to Dictionary.com, is also of
Greek origin and means ‘abnormal state or condition’. While dictionary definitions of ‘soul’ aresomewhat evasive they still manage to reveal the real significance of the word. For instance,the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘soul’ as ‘the immaterial…moral and emotional part ofman’, and as the ‘animating or essential part’ of us, while The Macquarie Dictionary describes

‘soul’ as the ‘principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans’, and as being ‘the spiritual partof humans regarded in its moral aspect…the seat of the feelings or sentiments’.

Yes, the truth is that we do ‘come from God, who is our home’—our instinctive self or ‘soulresembles the divine’, ‘the very essence of life’, its ‘breath’. And since integrativeness is the theme
of existence and thus universal and eternal, our soul is fully representative of the ‘eternal’,
‘pure and everlasting and immortal and changeless…absolute’. D.S. Wilson and Sober’s claim that
our original instinctive state is not one of ‘universal benevolence’ but one with instincts forboth ‘niceness’ and ‘nastiness’ is absolutely untrue; it’s completely inconsistent with all weknow about the nature of our wonderful original instinctive self or soul—which is a state of
‘universal benevolence’!!

_______________________

Part 4:12H

The Multilevel Selection theory

377

Secondly, with regard to why we are selfish, D.S. Wilson and Sober maintain that ourselfish behaviour comes from selfish instincts derived from individual-level selection—fromsexually reproducing individuals competing with each other for food, shelter, territory and amate. The truth, as has now been biologically explained, is that through the love-indoctrinationprocess humans were able to overcome the selfish, competitive ‘animal condition’ and developa completely unconditionally selfless, concerned-with-the-larger-whole-not-yourself, allloving, moral instinctive orientation to life, which all the quotes above bear witness to theexistence of and which we all know is true if we are prepared to be honest. So the questionis, having become completely selflessly behaved, why did we become capable of selfishness,and not just selfishness but extreme anger, brutality and hatred towards our fellow humans?
That is the real issue about our less-than-ideally behaved ‘human condition’ that biology hadto explain. And the answer to that question is that when our fully conscious mind emergedafter the instinctive blocks that exist in all other species’ minds against thinking selflessly andthus truthfully and thus effectively had been breached by the love-indoctrination process (thisexplanation for how we became conscious was briefly provided at the beginning of Part 3:11and will be fully presented in Part 8:7B), an upsetting battle broke out between our consciousmind and our already established perfect instinctive orientation to behaving cooperatively andlovingly (this upsetting battle was explained in Parts 3:2 and 3:4). It was this psychologicalupset, this anger, egocentricity and alienation, that made us capable of selfishness. Untilwe could explain this reason for why we defied our perfectly loving instincts, we werecondemned to a state of insecurity, or what was historically referred to as ‘guilt’, about ourfundamental worth and goodness, and, as a result, were forever trying to prove and demonstrateour goodness and worth, and forever trying to relieve ourselves of that insecurity throughmaterial reinforcement—and it was this relentless self-preoccupation with trying to prove anddemonstrate that we were good and not bad, and to find relief from our insecurity, that explainsour selfish behaviour. We became selfish as a result of being psychologically upset.
Again, our human condition is not a result of having developed instincts for being selfishand instincts for being selfless, the conflicting influences of which we then had to consciouslytry to manage—no, the psychologically upset state of the human condition emerged afterwe became completely instinctively orientated to a fully integrative, utterly cooperative,unconditionally selfless, all-loving way of living, and after we became fully conscious. Ourhuman condition is a result of a deep insecurity about our meaning and worth as humans, aguilty conscience—the result of which is immense psychosis and neurosis.
That is the fully accountable and thus true explanation of all that we know about ourhuman condition. To again present that perfect description (for it is not an explanation—thathad to wait for science to find understanding of the different ways genes and nerves processinformation) of what we all know about the nature of our human condition from that mostvoted-for-for-its-truth document in human history, the Bible: ‘God created man in his own image’
(Gen. 1:27)

(we did once live in that completely integrated, unconditionally selflessly behaved,
cooperative, loving ideal state), and then we took the ‘fruit’ from the tree of…knowledge’ (Gen.
3:3, 2:17)

(became conscious), and then we ‘fell from grace’ (derived from the title of Gen. 3, ‘The

Fall of Man’)

(became corrupted, psychologically upset, angry, egocentric and alienated), and,
as a result, were ‘banished…from the Garden of Eden’ (Gen. 3:23) state of our original innocence

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

378

The Biology

(became insecure/guilt-ridden about our fundamental goodness and worth) and became ‘arestless wanderer on the earth’ (Gen. 4:14) (became psychotic and neurotic) until we could find
the reconciling, healing understanding of the ‘good and evil’ (Gen. 3:5) in our make-up and,by so doing, become ‘like God, knowing [understanding] good and evil’ (ibid). From being ‘inthe image of God’ (Gen. 1:27)—that is, instinctively orientated to the integrative, Godly ideals
of being cooperative, selfless and loving—we would search for the understanding of ourconsciousness-derived-and-induced psychologically upset, corrupted, ‘fall[en]’ state thatwould finally enable us to become ‘knowing’ (Gen. 3:5)—that is, cognisant of the integrative,
Godly ideals and why we departed from them.
So, claiming that the reason we are selfish is because we have selfish instincts derivedfrom having to compete for food, shelter, territory and a mate doesn’t even begin to explainall that we know about the nature of our human condition. It overlooks the fact that ourhuman behaviour involves our unique fully conscious thinking mind. Descriptions of ourbehaviour, such as arrogant, deluded, optimistic, pessimistic, artificial, superficial, guilty,depressed, inspired, psychotic, alienated, all imply a consciousness-derived psychologicaldimension to our behaviour. We humans suffer from a consciousness-derived, psychological
HUMAN CONDITION, not an instinct-controlled ANIMAL CONDITION—it is unique to us
fully conscious humans.
Yes, our selfish condition is psychologically derived, and further, our selfishness is butone expression of our psychologically upset, divisive condition—for beyond selfishnessthere is the entirety of our psychosis, in particular our egocentricity, anger, depressionand alienation, to consider and account for. The truth is there is an immense amount ofconsciousness-involved psychosis and neurosis in our human condition, not just thepsychological ulterior motives that D.S. Wilson and Sober superficially focused on. And asemphasised, culture has played a big part in the human journey, but not in creating the humancondition, as D.S. Wilson and Sober assert, but in trying to manage it.
The fact is, D.S. Wilson and Sober’s account of human behaviour contains noacknowledgement of the whole consciousness-involved psychology of our human condition.
As such, it’s a completely superficial and artificial interpretation. Any real description andexplanation of human nature would deal with the absolute agony of our condition, and theconsciousness-derived-and-induced, upset, psychological sickness of alienation, anger andselfish egocentricity that it has produced in us, but none of this real analysis, descriptionand accountable explanation of our human condition is present in D.S. Wilson and Sober’s
Multilevel Selection, instincts-for-‘niceness’-and-‘nastiness’-but-not-for-‘universal benevolence’
‘explanation’. It offers no real confrontation with the issue of the human condition, with ourpsychosis and neurosis, with our soul and mind sickness, at all, and because it doesn’t, ithas not really contributed to or furthered our understanding of human nature. Again, as R.D.
Laing said, ‘Our alienation goes to the roots. The realization of this is the essential springboard for anyserious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life.’ Realising/addressing the issue of our
psychological and neurological alienation is ‘the essential springboard for any serious reflection onany aspect of present inter-human life’.

_______________________

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

379

In summary, our original instinctive state wasn’t composed of selfish instincts derivedfrom individual-level selection and selfless instincts derived from group-level selection as
D.S. Wilson and Sober maintain, rather our original instinctive orientation was to behavingin a completely unconditionally selfless, concerned-with-the-larger-whole-not-yourself, allloving, moral way, an orientation that resulted from the love-indoctrination process. Wethen became conscious and then psychologically upset and then selfishly self-preoccupied.
So, to say that our original instinctive state entailed both selfish and selfless instincts, withthe selfless instincts resulting from aggressive warring with other humans, is completelyand entirely inconsistent with what we have always known about the nature of our humancondition. It is just a contorted, bewildered, dishonest—alienated—interpretation of thenature of our human condition. It is just the sort of rubbish people conjure up when theyhave lost all access to what it is that we need to explain about ourselves—namely how ouroriginal innocent, ‘Garden of Eden’-like state of ‘universal benevolence’ became corrupted, andour ‘fall[en]’, immensely alienated, psychotic and neurotic selfish, self-preoccupied state thatwe live in today emerged.
Basically, this left-wing, Multilevel Selection account of the origin of our selfishbehaviour and of our unconditionally selfless, moral instinctive orientation to life is justas desperate, superficial and ‘smoke-and-mirrors’-dishonest as the kin-selection-based,
Evolutionary Psychology, right-wing account that dismissively asserted that ‘“moralguidance” is a euphemism’ and that ‘Rousseau claimed [that humanity] was originally a race of noblesavages in a peaceful state of nature, who were later corrupted…[but what] Rousseau invented [was]a stunningly inaccurate form of anthropology’. What D.S. Wilson and Sober have put forward
is essentially the old Social Darwinist, ‘The reason we are selfish is because we haveinstincts derived from having to compete for food, shelter, territory and a mate’-account,with some selfless instincts that were supposedly derived from warring with other groupsthrown into the mix. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever of the involvement of that
‘essential springboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life’ of our
consciousness-involved, derived and induced psychologically upset, ‘alienation’ that in truth
‘goes to the roots’ of our condition.

Part 4:12I The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

Introduction

The question that may arise from what has just been explained about how completelyuntrue and dishonest D.S. Wilson and Sober’s Multilevel Selection theory is, is why giveit all this attention? The answer is because it has been parlayed into the most dangerous liein human history—so dangerous because the lie is so seductive that it has the potential tokeep humanity living in the darkness of alienated denial forever; or at least until the humanrace becomes extinct from terminal levels of alienation. The Multilevel Selection theory hasbecome the basis of a whole new, supposedly biology-based excuse for humans to use toavoid any confrontation with their psychologically upset human condition—and this latestincarnation is by far the trickiest of all the excuses we have seen.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

380

The Biology

What has happened is that someone was watching the emergence of the between-groupselection argument and saw that it had the potential to be developed into the equivalentof nothing less than a new Bible for the human race, a new description and contexting ofthe whole issue of our troubled human condition—but, in this instance, it’s a completelydishonest interpretation. It is not hard to guess who that perpetrator is: yes, it is none otherthan that lord of lying, duke of denial, bishop of bullshit, king of ‘krap’; that master ofkeeping humanity away from any truth; indeed, the quintessential anti-Christ—Edward O.
Wilson himself.
As mentioned in Part 4:12D when his development of Sociobiology was beingpresented, E.O. Wilson has an extremely astute radar for ideas in biology that have thepotential to artificially relieve humans of the unbearable agony of the human condition.
Indeed, his antenna for ways to evade the human condition is as astute as St Paul’s was inseeing the potential of Christianity to save the human race from self-destruction while itwas waiting to find self-understanding—the big difference being that E.O Wilson’s antennawas for spotting ideas that, while immensely influential, actually have the potential todestroy the human race, not save it.
Paradoxically, D.S. Wilson’s intention when developing the Multilevel Selectiontheory was to provide a way to counter the right-wing’s selfishness-emphasising theory of
Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology, but what E.O. Wilson could see was that the theorycould be used to justify selflessness and selfishness, thereby supposedly satisfying both the leftwing and right-wing camps; moreover, it could be used to provide a completely fake, humancondition-avoiding-not-human-condition-confronting biological explanation for our ‘goodand evil’-afflicted human condition!! While D.S. Wilson and Sober were recognising a ‘goodvs evil’, ‘niceness’ vs ‘nastiness’, human-condition-like duality when they wrote that ‘our goal inthis book is not to paint a rosy picture of universal benevolence. Group selection does provide a setting inwhich helping behavior directed at members of one’s own group can evolve; however, it equally provides acontext in which hurting individuals in other groups can be selectively advantageous. Group selection favorswithin-group niceness and between-group nastiness’, they were seemingly so intent on countering the
selfishness-emphasising theory of Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology that they failed torecognise how their Multilevel Selection theory could be used as a way to supposedly explainthe human condition. In fact, the term ‘human condition’ is only mentioned four times in Unto
Others, once in reference to George Price’s personal philosophy, and three times in referenceto the ancestral hunter-forager way of living, but never in reference to the theory’s potential toprovide an explanation for the human condition—and this omission was not because they knewit would be dishonest to use it to explain the human condition; it was simply a failure to applytheir concept to the issue. D.S. Wilson, for example, has written that ‘what he [E.O. Wilson] saysabout group selection deserves our attention’ (‘Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, and the Consensus of the Many’,
<https://www.prosocial.world/posts/richard-dawkins-edward-o-wilson-and-the-consensus-of-the-many>, May 2012).

E.O. Wilson was not so distracted; he could see that a Multilevel Selection theory thatput forward the idea that we have both selfish instincts derived from individual-level selectionand selfless instincts derived from between-group selection could present an ‘explanation’of that most perplexing of all issues of our human condition. He saw that it could be arguedthat we have to live with instinctive potentials for both ‘niceness’ and ‘nastiness’ that we are

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

381
forever having to consciously try to manage—in other words, that we suffer from the dilemmaof ‘the human condition’. As was fully explained in the previous Part 4:12H-vi, D.S. Wilsonand Sober’s instincts for ‘niceness’ and instincts for ‘nastiness’ explanation is a completely andutterly superficial, artificial, unaccountable, insincere and dishonest description of humannature, but once again, when the need for denial is critical any excuse will do, and what isso extremely seductive—and sinister—about this Multilevel ‘explanation’ of the humancondition is that it presents a way of ‘explaining’ the human condition without having toactually confront the human condition!!
At the end of the previous Part 4:12H-vi, it was emphasised that the Multilevel accountof human nature fails to recognise, acknowledge and address the underlying consciousnessderived-and-induced psychologically upset state involved in the human condition. To brieflyrecap the criticisms that were made of D.S. Wilson and Sober’s Multilevel account of humannature, it was emphasised that the idea that our moral instinctive self or soul is derived fromaggressively warring with other groups of humans does not equate at all with what we allknow about what our born-with, instinctive moral conscience wants us to feel and behavetowards all humans, which is to be loving. And it was emphasised that no human who isprepared to be truthful would accept that our species’ completely concerned-with-the-largerwhole-not-yourself, moral instinctive orientation to life is driven by an extremely selfish,competitive and divisive cause, namely to give warring groups a competitive advantage.
Further, it was pointed out that to be as deeply, completely and truly loving as our moralinstinctive orientation is, you have to be nurtured in an environment of love—not, as occursin the between-group selection model, in an environment where everyone is basicallyselfish, and where any selflessness that does occur is continually under siege from selfishcheaters. We are born with an instinctive expectation of being unconditionally loved whichcomes from a time when our species lived in a nurturing, all-loving situation, but there is norecognition of this in this Multilevel theory.
It was also stated that a complex, devious, subtle mechanism of repeatedly dispersingand then coming together in groups where somehow altruists associate with altruists andthe selfish associate with the selfish, isn’t at all consistent with how our universally andalways loving, unsophisticated, unsubtle, straightforward, uncomplicated, moral instinctiveorientation to life operates. It was also emphasised that instead of creating just a fewunconditionally selfless/loving traits, love-indoctrination has given us a complete orientationto love in the sense that while between-group selection may have enabled a rare fewunconditionally selfless traits to emerge, its ability to develop unconditional selflessness enmasse—many, many unconditionally selfless instincts together—indeed, to develop an entiregenetic ethos of unconditional selflessness, a not-occasional-but-in-all-situations, universal,concerned-with-the-completely larger-whole-not-yourself, moral instinctive orientation to life,such as we have, has to be impossible.
Further, it was pointed out that claiming that our original instinctive state was not oneof ‘universal benevolence’ but one where we have instincts for both ‘niceness’ and ‘nastiness’was completely inconsistent with what all the great literature of the world, and all ourmythologies, and all our great religious teachings, and even honest scientists, have recognised,which is that we humans did once live in a completely concerned-with-the-larger-whole-

382

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
not-yourself, fully cooperative, all-loving, utterly harmonious, totally empathetic, absolutelyinnocent, ‘Garden of Eden’-like, ‘Golden Age’, the instinctive memory of which is our moralsoul. Many quotes that resonate with this truth were included to evidence this, startingwith Richard Heinberg’s observation that ‘Every religion begins with the recognition that humanconsciousness has been separated from the divine [Integrative Meaning orientated] Source, that a formersense of oneness…has been lost…everywhere in religion and myth there is an acknowledgment that wehave departed from an original…innocence…the cause of the Fall is described variously as disobedience,as the eating of a forbidden fruit, and as spiritual amnesia [alienation].’

And, lastly, it was pointed out that D.S. Wilson and Sober’s assertion that our selfishbehaviour comes from selfish instincts derived from individual-level selection—from sexuallyreproducing individuals competing with each other for food, shelter, territory and a mate—iscompletely inconsistent with what we all know about the nature of our human condition.
Again, it overlooks the fact that our human behaviour involves our unique fully consciousthinking mind. After all, the terms used to describe our behaviour—such as arrogant, deluded,optimistic, pessimistic, artificial, superficial, guilty, depressed, inspired, psychotic, alienated—all imply a consciousness-derived psychological dimension to our behaviour. We humanssuffer from a consciousness-derived, psychological HUMAN CONDITION, not an instinctcontrolled ANIMAL CONDITION; our condition is unique to us fully conscious humans. Yes,
D.S. Wilson and Sober’s account completely failed to recognise that our selfish behaviourresults from a consciousness-derived-and-induced psychosis and neurosis—a psychologicallyand neurologically upset and insecure state in which we are selfishly having to try to proveour goodness and worth, and selfishly seek relief through material reinforcement.
Basically, the Multilevel theory failed to acknowledge, let alone account for, all thefundamental aspects that we know are involved in the human condition, which, as waspointed out, are summarised in that most voted-for-for-its-truth document in human history,the Bible—that ‘God created man in his own image’ (we did once live in that completelyintegrated, unconditionally selflessly behaved, cooperative, loving ideal state), and then wetook the ‘fruit’ ‘from the tree of…knowledge’ (became conscious), and then we ‘fell from grace’
(became corrupted, psychologically upset, selfishly preoccupied with anger, egocentricityand alienation), and, as a result, were ‘banished…from the Garden of Eden’ state of our originalinnocence (became insecure/guilt-ridden about our fundamental goodness and worth) andbecame ‘a restless wanderer on the earth’ (became psychotic—our instinctive self or soulbecame repressed because it condemned our intellect; and neurotic—our conscious mindbecame distressed because it couldn’t explain itself) until we could find the reconciling,healing understanding of the ‘good and evil’ in our make-up and, by so doing, become ‘like
God, knowing [understanding of our] good and evil [afflicted lives]’. Yes, any truthful account
of the human condition would acknowledge and explain that we humans did once livein an innocent Garden-of-Eden-like state, and that we then became conscious, and thenbecame psychologically upset and corrupted, at which point we had to find the reconcilingunderstanding of why we had become psychologically upset and corrupted. And it shouldbe added that finding that true reconciling understanding of our human condition leads toboth our liberation from the human condition and, unavoidably at the same time, confrontingexposure of the extent of our corrupted condition; it couldn’t be any other way—the truth

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

383
about the human condition necessarily exposes the extent of our own corrupted condition.
Again, this arrival of understanding of the human condition that leads to the liberation from,and also the exposure of, that condition is acknowledged in all the great religious texts. Forexample, the Bible refers to a time when ‘Another book [will be]…opened which is the book oflife [the human-condition-explaining and thus humanity-liberating book]…[and] a new heaven anda new earth [will appear] for the first heaven and the first earth [will have]…passed away…[and the
dignifying full truth about our condition] will wipe every tear from…[our] eyes. There will be no moredeath or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away’ (Rev. 20:12, 21:1,4).

Buddhist scripture contains exactly the same anticipation of this fabulous time when humans
‘will with a perfect voice preach the true Dharma [present the supreme wisdom, namely reconciling,
healing understanding of the human condition], which is auspicious and removes all ill’, saying,
‘Human beings are then without any blemishes, moral offences are unknown among them, and theyare full of zest and joy. Their bodies are very large and their skin has a fine hue. Their strength is quiteextraordinary’ (Maitreyavyakarana, tr. Edward Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, 1959, pp.238-242). Yes, the end result
of the arrival of understanding of the human condition is the emergence of a human race thatis free of the human condition, but obviously there has to be a period of transition when weeach have to face the aforementioned exposure of the extent of our own corrupted condition,and this great honesty day, truth day, exposure day, come-clean day—in fact, judgment day—is recognised in the Bible as the ‘day of judgment’ (Matt. 10:15, 11:22, 24, 12:36; Mark 6:11; 2 Pet. 2:9, 3:7;
1 John 4:17)
and ‘the day when God will judge men’s secrets’ (Rom. 2:16). It is also described by the
prophet Isaiah, who said that the liberation that ‘gives you relief from suffering and turmoil andcruel bondage…will come with vengeance; with divine retribution…to save you. Then will the eyes of theblind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped…Your nakedness will be exposed’ (14:3; 35:4, 5; 47:3).

The prophet Muhammad also referred to ‘the Day of Reckoning’ (The Koran, ch.56) and ‘the Last
Judgement’ (ibid. ch.69), providing this similar description of it: ‘when the Trumpet is blown with asingle blast and the earth and the mountains are lifted up and crushed with a single blow, Then, on thatday, the Terror shall come to pass, and heaven shall be split…On that day you shall be exposed, not onesecret of yours concealed’ (ibid. ch.69).

Of course, it is not only in religious texts that we find accounts of the true story ofhumans’ journey from innocence to the emergence of consciousness and, with it, thecorruption of our original innocent instinctive state, to the eventual finding of the reconciling,ameliorating human-race-transforming, soundness-resurrecting understanding of the humancondition. The following description from more recent times, which was referred to in Part
4:7, comes from the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev’s 1931 book, The Destiny of Man,
from a chapter actually titled ‘The Origin of Good and Evil’: ‘The memory of a lost paradise,of a Golden Age, is very deep in man, together with a sense of guilt and sin and a dream of regainingthe Kingdom of Heaven which sometimes assumes the form of a Utopia or an earthly paradise…We arefaced with a profound enigma: how could man have renounced paradise which he recalls so longinglyin our world-aeon? How could he have fallen away from it?…The exile of man from paradise meansthat man fell away from God…Not everything was revealed to man in paradise, and ignorance was thecondition of the life in it. It was the realm of the unconscious…Man rejected the bliss and wholeness of
Eden and chose the pain and tragedy of cosmic life in order to explore his destiny to its inmost depths.
This was the birth of consciousness with its painful dividedness. In falling away from the harmony of

384

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
paradise and from unity with God, man began to make distinctions and valuations, tasted the fruit of thetree of knowledge and found himself on this side of good and evil’ (tr. N. Duddington, 1960, p.36 & 38 of 310).

Further on, he wrote that ‘man is an irrational, paradoxical, essentially tragic being…Philosophers andscientists have done very little to elucidate the problem of man’ (p.49), and, ‘psychologists were wrongin assuming that man was a healthy creature, mainly conscious and intellectual, and should be studiedfrom that point of view. Man is a sick being…the distinction between the conscious and the subconsciousmind is fundamental for the new psychology’ (pp.67-68). Earlier in The Destiny of Man, Berdyaev
also described very clearly why ‘Philosophers and scientists have done very little to elucidate theproblem of man’ and, by so doing, bring about ‘the new psychology’—the reason, of course, being
humans’ great ‘fear’, in fact, ‘primeval terror’, of confronting the truth of our psychologically
‘sick’ condition; as he wrote, ‘Knowledge requires great daring. It means victory over ancient,primeval terror. Fear makes the search for truth and the knowledge of it impossible. Knowledge impliesfearlessness…it must also be said of knowledge that it is bitter…Particularly bitter is moral knowledge,the knowledge of good and evil [which is the issue of the human condition]. But the bitterness is due tothe fallen state of the world…it must be said that the very distinction between good and evil is a bitterdistinction, the bitterest thing in the world…There is a deadly pain in the very distinction of good andevil, of the valuable and the worthless. We cannot rest in the thought that that distinction is ultimate. Thelonging for God in the human heart springs from the fact that we cannot bear to be faced for ever with thedistinction between good and evil (pp.14-15). Yes, to not be ‘faced for ever with the distinction betweengood and evil’ we HAD TO face the ‘deadly pain in the very distinction of good and evil’—BUT while
the great flaw in the Multilevel account of our human condition is that it doesn’t deal with thisreal, ‘painful’, ‘ancient, primeval terror’ of the psychological issue of our human condition, E.O.
Wilson was astute enough to see that that flaw was precisely its greatest asset, for it offered away to supposedly explain the human condition without having to acknowledge and engagethe agonising, real, true, alienated, core, ‘deadly pain’ of the psychological condition withinourselves! The truth is, the Multilevel account of the human condition is a completely fake,deliberately trivialising account of the human condition. And in advocating such a dishonestaccount, its proponents were effectively condemning humanity to be ‘faced for ever with thedistinction between good and evil’—because, as Berdyaev said, such ‘fear’ of the real human
condition ‘makes the search for truth and the knowledge of it impossible’. Only the ‘fearless’ ‘searchfor truth’ could deliver the actual, human-race-liberating explanation of the human condition,
which has now been carried out with this, the fully accountable, ameliorating ‘truth and theknowledge’ about our condition, the product.

Yes, the Multilevel theory provided a ‘get out of jail free’ card for humans, a way toavoid having to confront the issue of the immense psychosis and neurosis of our real humancondition while arguing that the human condition had been addressed and explained—‘Whatguilt? What insecurity of self? What psychosis and neurosis? What ‘sickness of the soul’that we are supposed to experience? What ‘deadly distinction between good and evil’? What
‘inner depression from our fallen condition’? What ‘deeply troubled state’? What ‘alienation’?
What ‘deadly pain in the very distinction of good and evil, of the valuable and the worthless’? What
‘fallen state of the world’? What ‘[p]articularly bitter’ ‘moral knowledge’? What ‘primal terror’ that,
in order to understand and ameliorate, requires a ‘new psychology’? What ‘redemption’ is itthat I need? What ‘horror and agony of the human condition’? What ‘Resignation’ that I’m

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

385
supposed to have gone through? What ‘Golden Age, soulful innocent past’? What great truthof a Godly Integrative Meaning to existence? What great hunger for a human-conditionhealed world? What great dream of the arrival of ‘peace on Earth as it is in heaven’? Whatgreat psychological scourge of the human race that philosophers have written about? Whatgreat day of self-confrontation is coming? What ‘day of judgment’? What ‘day’ when ‘not onesecret’ of mine will be ‘concealed’, which religious teachings have predicted? What ‘auspicious’
reconciling understanding that ‘removes all ill’? I don’t know what the hell you are talkingabout—the human condition is nothing more than the manifestation of selfish instincts thatare virtually universal in nature and some additional selfless instincts that we acquired as aresult of groups of humans fighting against other groups of humans; so fuck off with all yourpsychological crap, I have no idea what you are talking about. On a good day I might try to benice to people just so they will like me, but on most days I honestly couldn’t give a flying fuckabout anyone else!’ (Yes, this is where humanity is at! Please God [the truth of the existenceof universal love and meaning], help me to stop all this madness, this horrific sickness ofdenial that is destroying humanity.)
But given how horrifically agonising the issue of the human condition actually is,this way of pretending to address the issue of the human condition without actuallyaddressing it was an extremely seductive concept for overly upset humans. Sure it meantburying humanity deeper into the cave of denial, and by so doing leading it to the brinkof terminal alienation and the extinction of the human race, but as I said earlier, humanshave become so upset, embattled and embittered by the human condition that many nolonger care about the future of the human race, they only care about finding some wayto relieve themselves of their human condition. So rather than being the solution to allour problems, this Multilevel fake explanation of the human condition is the ultimateexpression of the end play, end game situation that the human race is now in. Either thisgreat lie, the most seductive and thus sinister lie to have ever been invented, is resisted andexposed, or humanity dies! That is how dangerous this Multilevel account of the humancondition is. And, again, it’s made so much more seductive and thus sinister by appearingto satisfy both the left-wing and right-wing camps—for while it acknowledges that wehave unconditionally selfless moral instincts, it also supposedly explains and, in effect,justifies our selfish behaviour as a natural part of our make-up. In fact, since selfishnessstill supposedly has a powerful presence in our instinctive make-up, it could be viewed asmore of a selfishness-justifying, right-wing-supporting theory than an idealistic selflessnessemphasising, left-wing-supporting theory, which must have been somewhat of a shock to
D.S. Wilson and Sober whose whole intention in putting forward the Multilevel theory was,as they said, ‘as an antidote to the rampant individualism’.
The great fake explanation of the human condition had arrived! That greatest mysteryof all of the human condition has supposedly finally been solved! Explanation of the ‘good’and ‘evil’ aspects of the human condition has supposedly been found! Our great quest forself-knowledge is supposedly finally over! The breakthrough of breakthroughs in the humanjourney has supposedly finally occurred and we can now understand ourselves! What a terrible,unconscionable lie, but what a relief for denial-committed, ‘avoid-the-human-condition-byany-means-you-can-and-don’t-worry-about-the-future-of-the-human-race’ humans!

386

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

E.O. Wilson could see all this potential and, being the psychologically embattled enemyof truth that he is (he actually epitomises the time predicted by Christ in the Bible when ‘thelove of most will grow cold’ (Matt. 24:12), which I talk about in Part 3:11H) he grasped it with both
hands, even commandeering the idea as largely his own discovery, even re-branding it the
‘New Theory of Eusociality’. In fact, D.S. Wilson, the recognised developer of Multilevel
Selection theory, isn’t even mentioned in E.O. Wilson’s 2012 book The Social Conquest of
Earth (to be introduced shortly) that launched his ‘new theory’ on the world—apart from inthe References at the back of the book where he writes that ‘Sequenced multilevel theory owes itsorigins to many sources, but the main thrust of its development occurred through the following articles,in which the present author played a role’, citing a 2007 paper and a 2008 paper that E.O. Wilson
managed to co-author with D.S. Wilson, ten years after D.S. Wilson and Sober’s Unto Otherswas published—a book that E.O. Wilson doesn’t even mention in The Social Conquest of
Earth! This is all a re-run of what occurred with kin selection where E.O. Wilson attachedhimself to William Hamilton and then virtually usurped the concept as his own, re-branding itas ‘Sociobiology’. At 83 years of age at the time of the publication of The Social Conquest of
Earth in 2012, E.O. Wilson has had plenty of time to hone his techniques.
To context E.O. Wilson’s complete change of allegiance from being the main architectand promoter of the kin-selection-based, selfishness-emphasising, Sociobiology/Evolutionary
Psychology theory, to completely disowning kin selection and instead advocating themultilevel ‘New Theory of Eusociality’, what E.O. Wilson had realised from all the hatefulresistance to Evolutionary Psychology’s dismissal of our moral instincts as nothing morethan a subtle form of selfishness was that that excuse for our divisive condition had run itscourse—it had become too abhorrent and patently dishonest to continue to be used. And so anew excuse had to be found, and the absolute miracle from E.O. Wilson’s perspective is thatthe Multilevel, between-group-selection-emphasising theory not only justified right-wingselfishness, it could also satisfy the selflessness-emphasising left-wing that wanted to admitwe have unconditionally selfless moral instincts. As pointed out in a 2011 article reportingon this New Theory of Eusociality alternative explanation to kin selection’s dismissal of ourmoral instincts as nothing more than a subtle form of selfishness, ‘Those who bristle at the notionthat all altruistic behavior can be recast, via kin selection, as being indirectly self-interested—those whowould like to think there’s room in nature for a more genuine form of altruism—may find it appealing’
(Leon Neyfakh, ‘Where does good come from?’, Boston Globe, 17 Apr. 2011). E.O. Wilson could see that both
the right and the left could supposedly be satisfied by this Multilevel theory—indeed, he couldsee that they could now join forces in preventing the issue of the human condition from everbeing truthfully confronted, acknowledged, understood, reconciled and healed!
Many Sociobiologists/Evolutionary Psychologists were caught on the hop by theirleading advocate’s shift from supporting their kin-selection-based theory to supportingthe new Multilevel Selection theory, but if E.O. Wilson could talk to them truthfully abouthis change of position, he would argue: ‘Can’t you see what I’m doing? We have to admitaltruism exists—the subtle form of selfishness dismissal of our moral instincts is a spenttactic, everyone is sick of it, so what I have done is find an even trickier way for humansto evade the agony of the human condition, one that doesn’t deny that we have genuinelyaltruistic moral instincts but still excuses our selfish behaviour—and not only that, what is

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

387
even more wonderful is that it provides an explanation of the human condition that doesn’trequire that we have to actually confront the psychosis of our human condition.’
And people have begun to ‘get it’, to catch on, as E.O. Wilson acknowledged in 2012when writing about the reception he received after he and the mathematicians Martin
Nowak and Corina Tarnita introduced the Eusociality explanation in a 2010 paper titled ‘Theevolution of eusociality’ that was published in Nature magazine (Vol.466, 26 Aug. 2010): ‘A strongreaction from supporters of kin selection not surprisingly ensued, and soon afterward more than 130 ofthem [in a letter published in Nature magazine, Vol.471, 24 Mar. 2011] famously signed on to protest ourreplacement of kin selection by multilevel selection, and most emphatically the key role given to groupselection…Since that protest, the number of supporters of the multilevel selection approach has grown,to the extent that a similarly long list of signatories could be obtained’ (‘Evolution and Our Inner Conflict’, The
New York Times, Opinionator, 24 Jun. 2012).

In the article, E.O. Wilson justified this growing support
by saying that ‘at no time have our mathematical and empirical arguments been refuted or evenseriously challenged’, but, as I say, he can’t talk truthfully about the real reason people would
want to adopt an evasive Multilevel theory.
So, E.O. Wilson abandoned Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology and became theringleader for Multilevel Selection theory as a way to explain (but, in truth, avoid) the humancondition. Naming it the ‘New Theory of Eusociality’ (The Social Conquest of Earth, 2012, p.183 of 331),
E.O. Wilson presented his account of it to the general public in 2012 in his book The Social
Conquest of Earth, in which he explained that ‘eusociality’ (which is derived from the Greekeu meaning ‘good/real’, and the word ‘social’) is ‘the condition of multiple generations organized intogroups by means of an altruistic division of labor’ (p.133). Yes, the fully integrated state is the ‘good/real social’ state, but E.O. Wilson’s Eusociality explanation of its origins is completely unreal.

The book’s promotion—E.O. Wilson pitches himself as ‘Darwin’s heir’!!

As has been explained, E.O. Wilson’s The Social Conquest of Earth is the biggest, mostdangerous con job the world has ever seen. It represents the height of sophistication in theart of denial, and the scam begins with the book’s presentation. Unlike the voluminous tomeof his earlier, supposedly human-race-explaining book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,which he now completely disowns, ‘E.O. Wilson’s Theory of Everything’ (The Atlantic mag. Nov. 2011)is usefully hand-sized—like a Bible is designed to be! With its short, digestible chaptersand uncomplicated illustrations it is clear that a lot of thought has gone into its production.
But just how outrageous this book is (‘outrageous’ because of how patently dishonest E.O.
Wilson’s ‘Theory of Everything’ is) can be gauged from the promotional blurb attached to it.
The book’s dust jacket cites a commendation that effectively serves as a subtitle to the book
(the underlinings are my emphasis)—‘A monumental exploration of the biological origins of the humancondition.’ The promotional blurb on the leaves of the jacket continues in the same fashion:
‘From the most celebrated living heir to Darwin comes this groundbreaking book on evolution, the summawork of Edward O. Wilson’s legendary career…In refashioning the story of human evolution, he…present[s] us with the clearest explanation ever produced as to the origins of the human condition. Indoing so, Wilson also brilliantly reveals how “group selection” can be the only model for explaining man’sorigins and domination…[The book] is the single most important new history of animal and human

388

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
evolution in a generation…Wilson is regarded as one of the world’s preeminent biologists’. Further
commendations on the back of the jacket refer to Wilson’s ‘urgent reflections on the humancondition. At the core of The Social Conquest of Earth is the unresolved, unresolvable tension in ourspecies between selfishness and altruism’, while others state that ‘Once again, Edward O. Wilson haswritten a book combining the qualities that have brought his previous books Pulitzer Prizes and millionsof readers: a big but simple question, powerful explanations, magisterial knowledge’, and ‘[this book]could transform our understanding of human nature…advancing human self-understanding’. (Note that
even though Sociobiology and its progeny Evolutionary Psychology were said to explain thehuman condition—for example, in Consilience E.O. Wilson wrote that ‘The strongest appeal ofconsilience is…the value of understanding the human condition with a higher degree of certainty’ (1998,p.7)—Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology were never strongly promoted as providing
explanation of the human condition. However, with the theory of Eusociality, Wilson’s claimthat it has solved the human condition is front and centre in its publicity—the inference beingthat what he is presenting now is the definitive explanation of the human condition.)
E.O. Wilson certainly has been ‘celebrated’ and is considered a ‘legendary’ ‘preeminentbiologist’. To mention just a few of his accolades, he has been awarded two Pulitzer Prizes,
the U.S. National Medal of Science and in 1995 was named one of TIME magazine’s 25 Most
Influential People in America. He has as many medals, ribbons and gongs on his chest as an
African dictator, and the truth is they are about as justified and meaningful. He is the completefake, the very opposite of the ‘heir to Darwin’. Whereas Darwin was an honest thinker, acontributor of light to the world, E.O. Wilson is the prince of darkness, the archetypalbaddie with the black hat, the Lord of Lying—and what we have in this, his latest book, The
Social Conquest of Earth, is the devil’s Bible. While Christ and his words represent the veryessence of truth (as evidenced by my constant reference to his words to illustrate the truthfulbiological explanation of the human condition), E.O. Wilson and his words represent the veryopposite of truth. Yes, E.O. Wilson is the quintessential anti-Christ. That is the reality: E.O.
Wilson’s ‘summa work’ represents the grand finale in the two million year long story of thedevelopment of denial on Earth—it is the final great push to have the world of lies with all itssickness, darkness and ugliness swamp the world. If I’m being harsh it is because I need to be:this lying has to be stopped. Make no mistake, E.O. Wilson is trying to kill the human race,prevent it from ever reaching liberating understanding. The long anticipated last great battleon Earth, the fabled battle of Armageddon, is actually the battle between the entrenched darkworld of denial and the emerging new enlightened, true world of denial-free understanding—which basically boils down to a battle between E.O. Wilson’s fake, superficial, not-genuinelybiological, human-condition-trivialising account of the human condition, and the true, humancondition-confronting-and-penetrating biological explanation of the human condition beingpresented here in Freedom Expanded: Book 1. Choose your side.
So, The Social Conquest of Earth alleges that it is going to explain ‘the biological origins ofthe human condition’, and that this will have the effect of ‘advancing human self-understanding’.

As has been explained, it does absolutely nothing of the sort. It is the great fake explanationof the human condition that doesn’t advance our understanding of ourselves, not one iota—letalone bring about the long anticipated and needed reconciling, ameliorating, healing of ourhuman condition. As the just mentioned publicity attached to the book claims, E.O. Wilson’s

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

389
version of the human condition sees the condition as ‘unresolvable’, we simply have to livewith and try to consciously manage the ‘unresolvable tension in our species between selfishness andaltruism’. Again, the true description of our consciousness-induced-and-derived psychological
human-condition-afflicted journey is that we were ‘created…in the image of God’ (we once livedin that completely integrated, unconditionally selflessly behaved state), then we took the ‘fruit’
‘from the tree of…knowledge’ (became conscious), then we ‘fell from grace’ (became corrupted,
psychologically upset), and, as a result, were ‘banished…from the Garden of Eden’ state of ouroriginal innocence (became insecure/guilt-ridden) and became ‘a restless wanderer on the earth’
(became psychotic and neurotic) until we could find the reconciling, healing understandingof the ‘good and evil’ in our make-up and by so doing become ‘like God, knowing [understandingof our] good and evil [afflicted lives]’, at which point ‘Another book [would be]…opened which isthe book of life [the human-condition-explaining and humanity-liberating book]…[and] a new heavenand a new earth [will appear] for the first heaven and the first earth [will have]…passed away…[and
the reconciling and healing full truth about our condition] will wipe every tear from…[our] eyes. Therewill be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away’, but
during the transition stage to this time of ‘relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage’ wewill unavoidably go through a period when ‘the eyes of the blind [will] be opened and the ears of thedeaf unstopped’ and our ‘nakedness will be exposed’ and not one secret of ’ ours will be ‘concealed’.

So, far, far, far from our human condition being ‘unresolvable’, it is resolvable, and resolvingit, healing it, ameliorating it was the fundamental expectation of what would happen whenwe found understanding of the human condition. So E.O. Wilson’s account of the humancondition, which states that we just have to live with instincts for ‘niceness’ and ‘nastiness’ inperpetuity, is completely inconsistent with all our expectations of what happens when wetruly solve the human condition. (All the anticipations of the arrival of a truly reconciling,completely human-race-transforming understanding documented in Part 3:12 provideoverwhelming evidence of this expectation.)
Ironically, E.O. Wilson’s The Social Conquest of Earth does actually begin with anaccurate statement about the importance of solving the human condition: ‘There is no grailmore elusive or precious in the life of the mind than the key to understanding the human condition’
(p.1)—a
statement that echoes another of his earlier references to this critical search: ‘The
human condition is the most important frontier of the natural sciences’ (Consilience, 1998, p.298 of 374). So
he is fully aware of how critically important solving the human condition is to the humanrace, which means he must also be fully aware of how deeply criminal it is to be presentingsuch a completely false explanation for it. But unlike Charles Darwin, who had sufficientintegrity not to pursue or develop ideas that weren’t consistent with what we all do knowabout the true psychological nature of our human condition, E.O. Wilson obviously has nosuch scruples—quite the opposite in fact, for at every stage in the thought journey about thehuman condition that his mind has gone on he has been fully committed to finding a way toavoid the true psychological nature of our condition. And not only is it the very opposite ofbeing ‘the only model for explaining man’s origins and domination’, E.O. Wilson’s model is alsopatently dishonest, whereas the other model being presented here in Freedom Expanded:
Book 1 is patently honest and fully accountable of all that we know about the real ‘tension inour species between selfishness and altruism’.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

390

The Biology

In a further demonstration of his duplicity, E.O. Wilson is even prepared to begin hisbook with a fake display of empathy with the depth of our species’ troubled psychotic state,writing that ‘Humanity today is like a waking dreamer, caught between the fantasies of sleep and thechaos of the real world. The mind seeks but cannot find the precise place and hour. We have created a
Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology. We thrashabout. We are terribly confused by the mere fact of our existence, and a danger to ourselves and to therest of life’ (p.7). Yes, as R.D. Laing truthfully wrote, ‘The condition of alienation, of being asleep, ofbeing unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man [p.24 of 156] …between usand It [our true self or soul] there is a veil which is more like fifty feet of solid concrete. Deus absconditus.
Or we have absconded [p.118] …The outer divorced from any illumination from the inner is in a state ofdarkness. We are in an age of darkness. The state of outer darkness is a state of sin—i.e. alienation orestrangement from the inner light [p.116] …We are all murderers and prostitutes—no matter to whatculture, society, class, nation one belongs…We are bemused and crazed creatures, strangers to our trueselves, to one another, and to the spiritual and material world [pp.11-12]’ (The Politics of Experience and The
Bird of Paradise, 1967). ‘We are dead, but think we are alive. We are asleep, but think we are awake. We are
dreaming, but take our dreams to be reality. We are the halt, lame, blind, deaf, the sick. But we are doublyunconscious. We are so ill that we no longer feel ill, as in many terminal illnesses. We are mad, but have noinsight [into the fact of our madness]’ (Self and Others, 1961, p.38 of 192). Of course, the great difference
between what E.O. Wilson wrote and what Laing wrote is that the latter explicitly stated thatin order to solve our sleeping, thrashing about, confused, lost, estranged state we have toreflect upon that immensely alienated condition, not go all out to avoid such reflection as E.O.
Wilson has done throughout his career; again, as R.D. Laing said, ‘Our alienation goes to theroots. The realization of this is the essential springboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of presentinter-human life (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, p.12); or as Berdyaev said, in order to
achieve ‘victory over ancient, primeval terror’ of ‘the fallen state of the world’ and by so doing notbe ‘faced for ever with the distinction between good and evil’ we HAD TO face the ‘deadly pain in thevery distinction of good and evil’, which is the truth of our immensely alienated condition.

The question is, how did E.O. Wilson go about explaining the human conditionwhile denying the essential psychosis involved in that condition; how did heconstruct his great lie?

E.O. Wilson’s first step in formulating this latest greatest lie was to somehow dismissthe recognitions given by all the great religious teachers, such as Abraham, Moses, Christ,
Muhammad and Buddha, and all the great philosophers, such as Plato, of the essentialcharacteristics of our psychologically upset, fallen, integrative/Godly-ideal-state-corrupted,alienated condition. The outrageously dishonest and astonishingly brazen way he did sowas by claiming ‘the mythic foundations of religion’, such as the idea of ‘a divine, all-powerful’
God, and the ‘creation stories’, were nothing more than adaptive devices to ensure groupsstayed together, ‘a Darwinian device for survival’; and, in the case of philosophers, by assertingthat ‘consciousness’ ‘was not designed for self-examination’ and that the thoughts of philosophersamounted to nothing more than ‘failed models of the mind’! In The Social Conquest of Earth,
E.O. Wilson wrote: ‘Religion will never solve this great riddle [of the human condition]…In the desert-

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

391
dwelling patriarchies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, prophets conceived, not surprisingly, a divine,all-powerful patriarch who speaks to his people through sacred scripture. The creation stories gave themembers of each tribe an explanation for their existence. It made them feel loved and protected…Thecreation myth is a Darwinian device for survival. Tribal conflict, where believers on the inside were pittedagainst infidels on the outside, was a principal driving force that shaped biological human nature…Canthese two worldviews [of religion and science] ever be reconciled? The answer, to put the matter honestlyand simply, is no. They cannot be reconciled…If the great riddle of the human condition cannot be solvedby recourse to the mythic foundations of religion, neither will it be solved by introspection [pp.7-8] …
Consciousness…was not designed for self-examination. It was designed for survival and reproduction…
Moreover, we look in vain to philosophy for the answer to the great riddle…Most of the history ofphilosophy consists of failed models of the mind…the solution of the riddle has been left to science…I willpropose that scientific advances…are now sufficient for us to address…the identity of the driving forcesthat brought it [advanced social life] into existence [pp.9-10].’ So, as for the prospect of the great
insights and truths enshrined in religion ever being reconciled with scientific understandings,
E.O. Wilson simply asserts that it is not possible—that ‘They cannot be reconciled.’ In May
2006, National Geographic magazine featured an interview with E.O. Wilson in which he
said that he had ‘another book in progress…called The Creation [published in 2006], and its subtitle is
A Meeting of Science and Religion [in which] I take a very strong stance against the mingling of religionand science.’ Yes, many scientists like E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins have coped with the
great truths contained in religion of Integrative Meaning represented by the concept of ‘God’,of the existence of our ‘Garden of Eden’ innocent soulful past, and of our corrupted ‘fallen’,human-condition-afflicted, ‘sinful’ present state, by simply maintaining that religion andscience are completely unrelated. Contrast this view with the common sense exhibited by the
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles H. Townes when he said, ‘they [religion and science]both represent man’s efforts to understand his universe and must ultimately be dealing with the samesubstance. As we understand more in each realm, the two must grow together…converge they must’ (‘The
Convergence of Science and Religion’, Zygon, Vol.1 No.3, 1966).

We have already established how much E.O. Wilson loathes religion and in The Social
Conquest of Earth his determination to undermine the substance and value of religionscontinues apace with his assertion that they have no contribution to make to ‘the search fortruth’! He writes that ‘conflict among religions is often…an accelerant, if not a direct cause, of war.
Devout believers value their faith above all else and are quick to anger if it is challenged. The power oforganized religions is based upon their contribution to social order and personal security, not to the searchfor truth. The goal of religions is submission to the will and common good of the tribe. The illogic ofreligions is not a weakness in them, but their essential strength. Acceptance of the bizarre creation mythsbinds the members together… Such an intensely tribal instinct could, in the real world, arise in evolutiononly by group selection, tribe competing against tribe’ (p.259). The immensely sound and logical—not
‘illogic[al]’ or ‘bizarre’—truths elevated by the great religious teachers (such as the great truths
mentioned above and many others such as that ‘God is love’, which we can now understandas meaning that the theme of the integrative process is unconditional selflessness) are the corereason their teachings have attracted the support of billions of humans throughout history.
Similarly, the reason why philosophers like Plato have been regarded with awe through theages is precisely because of how much truth they were able to contribute to humanity’s search

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

392

The Biology
for knowledge. This comment captures the true significance of two of the great religious andphilosophical texts: ‘It has been said that after the Bible, Plato’s dialogues are the most influentialbooks in Western culture’ (from the front flap of Plato’s Symposium and Phaedrus, published by Everyman’s Library in
2001).

Earlier, I stated that Moses, Plato and Christ made the most important contributions to
humanity’s great journey to enlightenment: that Moses’ Ten Commandments gave humanitythe most effective form of Imposed Discipline for containing the ever increasing levels ofpsychological upset in the human race; that Christ gave humanity the soundest and thusmost effective corruption-and-denial-countering Religion; and that Plato gave philosophy
(the actual business of studying ‘the truths underlying all reality’ (Macquarie Dict. 3rd edn, 1998), inparticular studying and finding the all-important understanding of the human condition) thebest possible orientation and assistance. But instead of honouring their immensely importantcontribution to humanity’s great journey to enlightenment, E.O. Wilson dismisses their workas selfish, self-preservation-derived, essentially meaningless rubbish!!
Claiming ‘consciousness’ is not capable of ‘self-examination’ is basically a projection of
E.O. Wilson’s own great fear and inability to look into or examine himself—in fact, to lookinto the human condition per se—and yet he claims to have explained what he is incapableof looking into! One way to disarm an opponent is to articulate their position so clearlythat you give the impression that you couldn’t and wouldn’t be able to do so unless youhad an effective counter to their position. In The Social Conquest of Earth, E.O. Wilson isdisarmingly honest about the true nature of the human condition, writing that human nature’s
‘true identity has remained elusive. There may be an emotional, very human reason for this persistentambiguity. If raw, untransformed human nature were to be revealed…what would it be? What wouldit look like? Would we love it? A better question may be: Do we really want to know? Perhaps mostpeople, including many scholars, would like to keep human nature at least partly in the dark. It is themonster in the fever swamp of public discourse’ (p.191). Yes, the human condition is ‘the monsterin the fever swamp of public discourse’, the great unconfrontable and unmentionable ‘elephant
in the living rooms’ of the lives of humans, but, immediately after writing so truthfullyand eloquently about the deep, dark, unbearable real psychological issue of the humancondition, E.O. Wilson reverted to his default position—a completely superficial, trivialised,non-psychological, non-‘monster in the fever swamp of public discourse’-confronting accountof it. Claiming that science can now give us ‘a clear definition of human nature’ (p.192), he putforward his outrageously superficial, non-penetrating multilevel ‘gene-culture coevolution’
(p.195)
explanation of human nature. Clearly it is not the ‘consciousness’ of all humans that is
incapable of ‘self-examination’, but E.O. Wilson’s conscious mind.
Indeed, what E.O. Wilson has done with his fake, trivialised, extraordinarily superficial
‘explanation’ of the human condition is diminish what the human condition actually is. Hehas made it seem like it’s nothing special at all, merely the existence of two different instinctswithin us that are sometimes at odds. But if we read what has been written about the extremeagony that children endure through their interactions with the silent, adult world or, morespecifically, what adolescents go through during Resignation we are swiftly reconnected withthe true horror and fear of the real human condition—but E.O. Wilson’s version of the humancondition contains no such horror, which of course is its great appeal, but the risk is that fromthe time of the publication of The Social Conquest of Earth onwards the human condition

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

393
may never be talked about truthfully again. When adolescents going through Resignation aregiven E.O. Wilson’s account of the human condition they are going to find it laughable it’sso patently dishonest in its superficiality. The subject of the human condition used to be analmost sacred subject, one that was only referred to in moments of deep profundity, but nowit can be talked about as if it’s nothing extraordinary at all. What E.O. Wilson has done is notexplain the human condition but nullify it, render it benign, virtually inconsequential. Whenthe core issue about what it is to be human is finally completely trivialised, as it now is, wehave the ultimate example of how denial is taking humanity to the very brink of terminaldishonesty/alienation/superficiality/darkness/death.

To support his human-psychosis-avoiding, fake account of the human condition, E.O.
Wilson had to find a way to argue that the fundamentally weak mechanism of betweengroup selection could develop our unconditionally selfless moral instincts.

In order to support the between-group selection argument for the origin ofunconditionally selfless instincts, E.O. Wilson most heavily relied on the superficiallypersuasive logic that within groups the selfish are more likely to succeed but that incompetition between groups, it’s the groups of altruists that are most likely to succeed. Forexample, the 2007 paper that he co-authored with D.S. Wilson concluded with this ‘summary’of the ‘new’ between-group selection theory: ‘Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruisticgroups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary’ (‘Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of
Sociobiology’, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol.82, No.4, Dec. 2007). Similarly, in The Social Conquest
of Earth E.O. Wilson stated that ‘an iron rule exists in genetic social evolution. It is that selfishindividuals beat altruistic individuals, while groups of altruists beat groups of selfish individuals’ (p.243).

While anyone unfamiliar with biology will likely find this logic very persuasive in explaininghow altruism might be selected for, for a biologist it simply doesn’t hold water because, asthey know, selfishness is such a dominant force in natural selection that even a winning groupof altruists will, in all likelihood, become subverted by selfish opportunists. Certainly, it isperfectly obvious—so obvious that ‘Everything else is commentary’, that it is ‘an iron rule’—that agroup with members who are selflessly considerate and supportive of each other will be moresuccessful in competition with groups that aren’t, but that is not the issue at hand, the issuehere is can such selflessness become established in a group? Is between-group selection astrong enough force to overcome genetic selfishness?
On that key issue, it was explained in Part 4:12B that while it is certainly true that selflesscooperation is the best way to develop and maintain integrative order—it is why ant and beecolonies work so extremely well—the biological reality is that under the limitations imposedby the fact that genetic traits have to reproduce if they are to carry on, selfless cooperation isnormally (that is, outside of the love-indoctrination process) impossible to develop while eachmember of a species retains its ability to sexually reproduce. Evidence of this ‘agony of theanimal condition’ is the universality of dominance hierarchy in social species, where the moremembers of the species become integrated, the more intense becomes the selfish competitionfor food, shelter, territory and a mate—until only the establishment of dominance hierarchy,a ‘pecking order’, can bring some peace between the competing individuals. Yes, if that most

394

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
effective form of cooperation, unconditional selflessness, could have been developed amongsexually reproducing individuals we can expect that it would have appeared many times overin the history of life on Earth, but it hasn’t—except in our human situation, and to a degreein bonobos, through love-indoctrination. As Jerry Coyne stated about the between-groupselection argument, ‘altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly loseits altruists through natural selection favoring cheaters’.

As explained in Part 4:12B, ants and bees and the few other completely social colonialspecies have achieved full integration by elaborating the reproductive individual, but largeanimals such as humans couldn’t employ this device because it meant too great a loss ofgenetic variability. Each human has had to remain sexual.
So, as superficially persuasive as the ‘iron rule’ is that groups of altruists will defeatgroups of selfish individuals and that, as a result, genes for altruism will be handed downto future generations, the key biological question is can between-group selection be strongenough to overcome ‘the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural selectionfavoring cheaters’? In The Social Conquest of Earth E.O. Wilson did raise this key biological
question that has to be answered about between-group selection, but only briefly and verysuperficially—and, dismissively, not until a third of the way into the book. On page 72 hewrote: ‘The key question remaining in the dynamics of human genetic evolution is whether naturalselection at the group level has been strong enough to overcome the powerful force of natural selection atthe level of the individual. Put another way, have the forces favoring instinctive altruistic behavior to othermembers of the group been strong enough to disfavor individual selfish behavior? Mathematical modelsconstructed in the 1970s showed that group selection can prevail if the relative rate of group extinction ordiminishment in groups without altruistic genes is very high. As one class of such models suggests, whenthe rate of increase of group multiplication with altruistic members exceeds the rate of increase of selfishindividuals within the groups, gene-based altruism can spread through the population of groups. Morerecently, in 2009, the theoretical biologist Samuel Bowles has produced a more realistic model that fits theempirical data well. His approach answers the following question: if cooperative groups were more likelyto prevail in conflicts with other groups, has the level of intergroup violence been sufficient to influence theevolution of human social behavior? The estimates of adult mortality in hunter-gatherer groups from thebeginning of Neolithic times to the present, shown in the accompanying table, support that proposition.’

But as seductive as the obvious ‘iron rule’ argument is that an altruistic group will beat aselfish group, the fact is it actually holds no weight. What is needed to support the betweengroup selection argument is an explanation of how between-group selection can be strongenough to overcome the powerful forces of genetic selfishness, and on this key issue all thatis provided in The Social Conquest of Earth is this one brief and unconvincing paragraph ofexplanation. While it is not one of the ‘Mathematical models constructed in the 1970s’, and whilehe doesn’t acknowledge it as D.S. Wilson’s mathematical model (presumably, as suggestedearlier, because he doesn’t want to credit D.S. Wilson as the developer of Multilevel
Selection theory), the mathematical model referred to where, ‘when the rate of increase of groupmultiplication with altruistic members exceeds the rate of increase of selfish individuals within the groups,gene-based altruism can spread through the population of groups’ does describe D.S. Wilson’s
mathematical model that was presented in Part 4:12H. That was the model where for betweengroup selection to work, ‘the progeny of both groups disperse and then physically come together before

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

395
forming new groups of their own’, and where, if this can occur, and ‘the process be repeated overmany generations’, and where ‘generation after generation, altruists [somehow] tend to find themselvesliving with altruists, and selfish individuals [somehow] tend to associate with other selfish individuals’,
then ‘altruists will gradually replace the selfish types’, which all ‘seemed unlikely’ even though it wassupposedly ‘biologically plausible’ and has apparently occurred in the brain worm situation. Had
E.O. Wilson presented these details about this complex and improbable model then the readerwould have very likely not been persuaded that in such ‘Mathematical models…group selectioncan prevail’ in explaining the origin of unconditionally selfless instincts such as our moral
nature. So in truth, up to this point in that critical paragraph, no convincing argument hadbeen presented. E.O. Wilson then stated that ‘More recently, in 2009, the theoretical biologist Samuel
Bowles has produced a more realistic model that fits the empirical data well.’ So, while E.O. Wilson
has acknowledged here that there is some doubt about how realistic the mathematical modelsare, he still maintains that Bowles’ more recent and ‘more realistic model…fits the empirical datawell’. He then indicated that the particular ‘data’ that has ‘been sufficient to influence the evolutionof human social behavior’ is ‘the level of intergroup violence’ that has occurred in human prehistory,
referring at that point to a chart documenting the ‘Fraction of adult mortality due to warfare’ (p.70)over the last 14,000 years.
Basically, E.O. Wilson has argued that it is violent warfare between groups that causednatural selection of selfless cooperation to be strong enough to overcome selfish opportunism.
Yes, a group with cooperative altruists will defeat a group without such altruists, but, unless
Bowles’ model can persuade us otherwise, we are entitled to believe that a group with altruistswill ‘quickly lose its altruists through natural selection favoring cheaters’. So E.O. Wilson’s wholetheory depends on knowledge of Bowles’ supposedly ‘more realistic model’, but he providesno details of that model! This key paragraph in the book is, like the whole book, scant onsubstance and full of bluff. Clearly E.O. Wilson is depending on the superficially persuasivebut not actually persuasive ‘iron rule’ that an altruistic group will beat a selfish group to carrythe day in persuading the reader of the soundness of his theory. Aside from this paragraph,the rest of The Social Conquest of Earth focuses on building evidence for how being forcedtogether around campfires, food shortages and other influences led to the extreme warfare thathe has supposedly, but not actually, established, is needed to develop unconditionally selflessinstincts. His whole theory is based on bluff.
So, by sleight of hand, E.O. Wilson has supposedly brought the reader to the situationwhere all they need to be shown is how extreme warfare developed in order to be persuadedthat unconditionally selfless instincts were able to be developed by our ancestors, even thoughthe evidence is that if a completely moral instinctive orientation to life in sexually reproducingindividuals could have been developed it would have been developed many times over in thehistory of life on Earth, but again it hasn’t—except in our human situation (and to a degree inbonobos) where it was achieved through love-indoctrination.
Since E.O. Wilson hasn’t established the fundamental biological reasoning for hisargument that extreme warfare gave us our moral instincts, it’s not really necessary to presenthis arguments for how being forced together around campfires, food shortages and otherinfluences led to extreme warfare, nevertheless, for the sake of completeness I’ll brieflyaddress those arguments. But before doing so, I should point out that despite admitting that

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

396

The Biology
while we humans are ‘eusocial’ like ants ‘there are major differences…even aside from our uniquepossession of culture, language, and high intelligence. The most fundamental among them is that allnormal members of human societies are capable of reproducing’ (The Social Conquest of Earth, p.16), E.O.

Wilson has continually and inappropriately misused the situation of colonial insects such asants as a model for how we humans became eusocial. For example, in the May 2006 editionof National Geographic magazine, where I first saw E.O. Wilson adopting the group selectionargument, he said, ‘The [ant] colony, by group selection, has developed traits that could not be possibleotherwise—communication, the caste system, cooperative behavior. It’s a unit of activity and of evolution.
One colony against another is what’s being selected…ants are constantly at war. Well, so are we!…Itmay turn out that highly evolved societies with this level of altruism tend strongly to divide into groupsthat then fight against each other. We humans are constantly at war and have been since prehistory.’

Upon reading this I warned, in a publication that I was working on at the time, that ‘So,according to Wilson, we now must accept that we humans are biologically capable of beingcooperative and even altruistic, but that such behaviour is driven by an extremely selfish,competitive and divisive cause: to give warring groups a competitive advantage!’ (The Great
Exodus, 2006). Yes,

E.O. Wilson is right, unlike ants we humans are in ‘unique possession’ of a
conscious mind and have managed to become integrated as sexually reproducing individuals,
BUT what this means is that our eusociality is completely different from that of the colonial
insects; we suffer from a consciousness-derived, psychosis-and-neurosis-afflicted humancondition, and our ancestors couldn’t have and didn’t develop full integration by elaboratingthe reproductive individual as ants did.
To look further at the basic argument in E.O. Wilson’s grand ‘Theory of Everything’, onpages 54 and 55 of The Social Conquest of Earth he acknowledges the fundamental problemthat altruistic/unconditionally selflessly behaved, fully integrated, ‘eusocial’ societies have
‘been rare in the history of life because group selection must be exceptionally powerful to relax the gripof individual selection’, but asserts altruistic ‘Group-selected traits typically take the fiercest degreeof resolve during conflicts between rival groups’, and that it is from these ‘fiercest’ of ‘conflicts’
that altruism in groups could have been forged to such a degree ‘to relax the grip of individualselection’ and become established. This is E.O. Wilson’s basic bluff, that fierce conflict
between groups could have been a strong enough force to overcome ‘the grip of individualselection’. The biological reality is that fierce conflict between groups of highly social sexually
reproducing individuals has been present throughout the history of life on Earth, and all it hasever produced is dominance hierarchy, never complete altruism-dependent integration. But
E.O. Wilson was certainly not going to be put off by that reality; humans have moral instinctsand there must be a basis for them, so, as far as he is concerned, they must have been acquiredthrough between-group selection—and, coupled with the Multilevel Selection theory that sayswe have instincts for both selfishness and selflessness, he is clearly extremely happy to havedevised a psychosis-avoiding, fake explanation for our human condition.
Fighting against biological reality, E.O. Wilson acknowledged that ‘the human conditionis a singularity’, then, to the fundamental question of ‘why the likes of it has occurred only onceand took so long in coming’, he answered that, ‘The reason is simply the extreme improbability of thepreadaptations necessary for it to occur at all’ (ibid. p.45). He then describes these preadaptations as ‘alarge body size’ to carry a large ‘brain’ capable of ‘advanced reasoning and culture’, then ‘grasping

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

397
hands’, ‘free…from locomotion in order to manipulate objects easily’ (p.46). The next preadaptation,
he claimed, ‘was a shift in diet to include a substantial amount of meat’ which ‘yields higher energy…than does vegetation’ (p.46). He then asserted that ‘The advantages of cooperation in the harvestingof meat led to the formation of highly organized groups’, and that ‘An expanded population was anadvantage in the conflicts inevitably arising among different groups’ (p.47). Then ‘About a million yearsago the controlled use of fire followed’ and ‘With the sharing of cooked meals came a universal meansof social bonding’ (p.47). ‘With meat, fire, and cooking, campsites lasting for more than a few days at atime, and thus persistent enough to be guarded as a refuge, marked the next vital step. Such a nest, asit can also be called, has been the precursor to the attainment of eusociality by all other known animals.
There is evidence of fossil campsites and their accouterments as far back as Homo erectus’ (p.47). ‘Alongwith fireside campsites came division of labor’ (p.47). He then claimed that ‘The stage was now set forthe biggest-brained of African primates to make the truly defining leap to their ultimate potential’ (p.48).
‘What genetic evolutionary forces pushed our ancestors to the eusociality threshold, then across it?’
(p.139). ‘The cohesion forced by the concentration of groups to protected sites was more than just a step
through the evolutionary maze. It was…the event that launched the final drive to modern Homo sapiens’
(p.44). ‘The precursors of Homo sapiens, if archaeological evidence and the behavior of modern hunter-
gatherers are accepted as guides, formed well-organized groups that competed with one another forterritory and other scarce resources’ (p.53), and it was these ‘fiercest’ of ‘conflicts’ that were ‘powerful

[enough] to relax the grip of individual selection’ and allow altruism to become established in
humans. ‘War…[is] Humanity’s Hereditary Curse. History is a bath of blood…Our bloody nature…is ingrained because group-versus-group was a principal driving force that made us what we are’ (p.62).
‘From April to June in 1994, killers from the Hutu majority in Rwanda set out to exterminate the Tutsiminority…In a hundred days…800,000 people died…Russia’s Great Terror under Stalin resulted in thedeliberate starvation to death of more than three million Soviet Ukrainians during the winter of 1932–33
’ (p.63). ‘Wars and genocide have been universal and eternal, respecting no particular time or culture’
(p.65). ‘Tools from the earliest Neolithic period include instruments clearly designed for fighting’ (p.67).

‘Bushmen of South Africa…also engaged in tribal wars’ (p.68). ‘Tribal aggressiveness thus goes well backbeyond Neolithic times, but no one as yet can say exactly how far. It could have begun at the time of
Homo habilis’ (p.72). ‘Jane Goodall…documented the murders within chimpanzee groups and lethal raidsconducted between groups’ (p.73). ‘Chimpanzees and bonobos occupy and defend territories…Chimps andbonobos alternatively break into subgroups and re-aggregate. They advertise the discovery of fruit-ladentrees by calling back and forth but do not share the fruit they pick. They occasionally hunt in small packs.
Successful members of the pack share the meat among their fellow hunters, but charity mostly comes toan end there. Of greatest importance, the apes have no campfire around which to gather’ (p.42).

Thus E.O. Wilson claims that ‘The dilemma of good and evil was created by multilevelselection…Individual selection is responsible for much of what we call sin, while group selection isresponsible for the greater part of virtue. Together they have created the conflict between the poorer andthe better angels of our nature’ (p.241). ‘Human beings are prone to be moral—do the right thing, holdback, give aid to others, sometimes even at personal risk—because natural selection has favored thoseinteractions of group members benefitting the group as a whole’ (p.247). ‘Selection at the individual leveltends to create competitiveness and selfish behavior among group members—in status, mating, and thesecuring of resources. In opposition, selection between groups tends to create selfless behavior, expressedin greater generosity and altruism, which in turn promote stronger cohesion and strength of the group as a

398

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
whole. An inevitable result of the mutually offsetting forces of multilevel selection is permanent ambiguityin the individual human mind, leading to countless scenarios among people in the way they bond, love,affiliate, betray, share, sacrifice, steal, deceive, redeem, punish, appeal, and adjudicate. The struggleendemic to each person’s brain’ (p.274). ‘Multilevel selection (group and individual selection combined)also explains the conflicted nature of motivations. Every normal person feels the pull of conscience, ofheroism against cowardice, of truth against deception, of commitment against withdrawal. It is our fate tobe tormented…We, all of us, live out our lives in conflict and contention’ (p.290).

We see that E.O. Wilson’s basic assumption is that human prehistory has beencharacterised by warfare—he says that ‘Wars and genocide have been universal and eternal,respecting no particular time or culture’—but is that true? Wilson writes that ‘Early humans hadthe innate equipment—and likely the tendency also—to use projectiles in capturing prey and repellingenemies. The advantages gained were surely decisive. Spear points and arrowheads are among the earliestartifacts found in archaeological sites’ (ibid. p.29), but as the archaeologist Steven Mithen says about
this: ‘No, the earliest artifacts are from around 2.5 million years ago, but spear points are not made untila mere 250,000 years ago and arrowheads might have first been manufactured no longer ago than 20,000years’ (‘How Fit Is E.O. Wilson’s Evolution?’, The New York Review of Books, 21 Jun. 2012). And in response to

Wilson’s claim that ‘Archaeologists have found burials of massacred people to be a commonplace’ and
‘archaeological sites are strewn with the evidence of mass conflict’, Mithen argues that ‘No, both arequite rare, especially in pre-state societies, and those that are known are difficult to interpret’ (ibid).

As to the possibility of our distant ape ancestors being cooperative and not warlike, wehave the evidence of the extraordinarily cooperative and peaceful nature of bonobos, a specieswhose behaviour Wilson lumps together with chimpanzees. For instance, on page 40 he citesa single instance of bonobos hunting in a group and uses that ‘evidence’ to draw erroneouscomparisons with the more aggressive common chimpanzees; ‘That’s one more problem outof the way’, he seems to be saying, but, as many primatologists will attest, bonobo behaviouris very different to common chimpanzees—consider this from Barbara Fruth: ‘up to 100 bonobosat a time from several groups spend their night together. That would not be possible with chimpanzeesbecause there would be brutal fighting between rival groups’ (Paul Raffaele, ‘Bonobos: The apes who make love,not war’, 2003, Last Tribes on Earth.como). Yes, the truth, as will be described in detail later in Part 8:4,
is that, unlike chimpanzees, bonobos are extraordinarily cooperative, loving and gentle—behaviour that they, like us, achieved through love-indoctrination.
As I have explained in Part 3:11, where all the stages of ever-increasing upset in ourhuman-condition-afflicted journey are presented, the psychologically upset state of thehuman condition emerged some two million years ago when our conscious mind becamesufficiently confident in understanding the relationship of events that occur through timeto take over management of our lives from our original, all-loving instincts. Thus, upset inhumans has been increasing for two million years, which means that while humans living amere 14,000 years ago in the Neolithic period will be somewhat less upset or more innocentthan humans living today, they will still be far from free of upset. So yes, tribal warfarehas been occurring for a long time, but that doesn’t mean that competitive and aggressivewarfare characterised the lives of our earliest ancestors, as E.O. Wilson would have usbelieve; it does not mean that our species’ original instinctive orientation wasn’t to livingin an unconditionally selfless, all-loving, fully cooperative and harmonious integrative

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

399
state—and it doesn’t mean that the relative innocence of hunter-forager tribes still living,like the Bushmen of South Africa and the Yanomamö of South America, don’t reveal a greatdeal about how extremely upset the great majority of the human race has become. (Muchmore will be said in Part 5:2 about science’s denial of the relative innocence of so-called
‘primitive’ races.) As all the quotes from the great thinkers included earlier in Part 4:12Hvi indicate, our distant ancestors did once live in a ‘Garden of Eden’-like, ‘Golden Age’of upset-free, all-loving innocence. Children are born innocent and happy, not bedevilledby two conflicting instinctive states; and the human race emerged innocent and happy, notbedevilled by selfish and selfless conflicting instinctive states. We individually start out,and as a species started out, innocent and then our conscious mind develops/developed andthen we become/became sufferers of the human condition. Where is the acknowledgementof the innocence of children and of the innocence of original humans in this Multilevelexplanation? Who is being honest, E.O. Wilson or the following? The founders of thegreat religions whose works, as Richard Heinberg said, all ‘begin with the recognition…that aformer sense of oneness…has been lost’; and Bruce Chatwin when he wrote that ‘Every mythologyremembers the innocence of the first state’; and Nikolai Berdyaev when he wrote that ‘Thememory of a lost paradise, of a Golden Age, is very deep in man’; and Plato when he wrote that
humans have ‘knowledge, both before and at the moment of birth…of all absolute standards…[of]beauty, goodness, uprightness, holiness…our souls exist before our birth’, and ‘the soul’ he described
as ‘the pure and everlasting and immortal and changeless…realm of the absolute…[our] soul resemblesthe divine’; and William Wordsworth when he wrote that ‘The Soul that rises with us, our life’s
Star…cometh from afar…trailing clouds of glory do we come / From God [the fully integrated state],who is our home’; and Jean-Jacques Rousseau when he wrote that ‘nothing is more gentle thanman in his primitive state’ and ‘Man is born free but is everywhere in chains’; and, finally, Laurens
van der Post when he wrote that ‘This shrill, brittle, self-important life of today is by comparison agraveyard where the living are dead and the dead are alive and talking [through our soul] in the still,small, clear voice of a love and trust in life that we have for the moment lost…[there was a time when]
All on earth and in the universe were still members and family of the early race seeking comfort andwarmth through the long, cold night before the dawning of individual consciousness in a togethernesswhich still gnaws like an unappeasable homesickness at the base of the human heart’, and ‘He [the

Bushman] and his needs were committed to the nature of Africa and the swing of its wide seasons as afish to the sea. He and they all participated so deeply of one another’s being that the experience couldalmost be called mystical. For instance, he seemed to know what it actually felt like to be an elephant,a lion, an antelope, a steenbuck, a lizard, a striped mouse, mantis, baobab tree, yellow-crested cobra,or starry-eyed amaryllis, to mention only a few of the brilliant multitudes through which he so nimblymoved. Even as a child it seemed to me that his world was one without secrets between one form of beingand another.’ Today, when I am writing this Part, which happens to be 28 July 2012, there is a
front-page pictorial in The Weekend Australian newspaper about a 63-year-old retired schoolteacher named Russell Bathard who, for 30 years now, has been riding his bicycle literallyall over outback Australia, camping every night in a swag beside his bike under the stars.
He described how ‘A couple of weeks ago I saw a whole flock of parrots turning at the same time, andtheir colours glinted in the sun’, and of how ‘I can smell rain well before I can see it or feel it when
I’m out here.’ Basically all Bathard’s cycling through the endless outback had disconnected

400

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
him from ‘This shrill, brittle, self-important life of today’ that van der Post so honestly spoke of,and allowed the ‘still, small, clear voice of a love and trust in life that we have for the moment lost’of his/our soul to re-surface and connect him to all the sensitivities and beauty of our world.
It is a vicious lie that we humans don’t have a completely concerned-with-the-larger-wholenot-yourself, fully cooperative, all-loving, utterly harmonious, totally empathetic, absolutelyinnocent original instinctive self or soul—but then again, the psychological agony of ourhuman condition has been so great that while we humans couldn’t truthfully explain ourcondition all we had to protect ourselves from the vicious, unbearable self-confrontation wassuch matching, equally vicious, retaliatory lies.
In contrast to the descriptions provided above from some of history’s most honestthinkers, the following quotes from The Social Conquest of Earth indicate E.O. Wilson’sown views on human nature: ‘Are people innately good, but corruptible by the forces of evil? Or, arethey instead innately wicked, and redeemable only by the forces of good? People are both. And so it willforever be unless we change our genes, because the human dilemma was foreordained in the way ourspecies evolved, and therefore an unchangeable part of human nature. Human beings and their socialorders are intrinsically imperfectible’ (p.241). ‘In summary, the human condition is an endemic turmoilrooted in the evolution processes that created us. The worst in our nature coexists with the best, andso it will ever be’ (p.56). As has already been emphasised, E.O. Wilson’s view that the conflict
within humans of the human condition is ‘forever’ ‘unchangeable’, ‘intrinsically imperfectible’—that ‘The worst in our nature coexists with the best, and so it will ever be’—flies in the face of allwe humans have ever known about the real nature of ‘the human condition’ and its eventualamelioration, which is that one day a true-not-fake, psychosis-reconciling and redeeming/healing understanding of our human condition would be found (which it now has been withthe explanation being presented here in Freedom Expanded: Book 1) and that, as a result,humans would be permanently liberated and transformed from the duress of that condition (a
TRANSFORMATION that is further explained, described and evidenced in Freedom Expanded:

Book 2). Again, all the anticipations of the arrival of a reconciling, completely humanrace-transforming understanding of ourselves that are documented in Part 3:12 provideoverwhelming evidence of this expectation.
To quickly look at a few remaining issues that E.O. Wilson raises in The Social Conquestof Earth. With regard to the important question of why we humans became so intelligent
(developed full consciousness), E.O. Wilson wrote of ‘The necessity for fine-graded evaluation byalliance members…The strategies of this game were written as a complicated mix of closely calibratedaltruism, cooperation, competition, domination, reciprocity, defection, and deceit. To play the game thehuman way, it was necessary for the evolving populations to acquire an ever higher degree of intelligence.
They had to feel empathy for others, to measure the emotions of friend and enemy alike, to judge theintentions of all of them, and to plan a strategy for personal social interactions. As a result, the humanbrain became simultaneously highly intelligent and intensely social’ (ibid. p.17). We humans certainly
have become a devious, cunning, calculating species, but, as was pointed out in Part 4:12H-v,not as a result of a conflict of instincts for selfishness and instincts for selflessness, but as aresult of a psychological upset state. We didn’t become a fully conscious, highly intelligentspecies as a result of having to manage the human condition, rather our human conditionresulted from becoming fully conscious. We took the fruit from the tree of knowledge, became

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

401
conscious, and then we fell from grace, became corrupted, became sufferers of the humancondition. The real reason we humans became conscious while other animals haven’t isbriefly explained in Part 8:4C, and fully explained in Part 8:7B.
Like D.S. Wilson and Sober, E.O. Wilson also uses culture to bolster his between-groupselection explanation for how we became socially intelligent beings. For example, he wrotethat ‘meat and campfire are not enough by themselves to explain the rapid increase in size of the brainthat occurred [in humans]. For the missing piece we can turn, I believe with some confidence, to thecultural intelligence hypothesis’ (ibid. p.226). ‘Gene-culture coevolution, the impact of genes on cultureand, reciprocally, culture on genes, is a process of equal importance to the natural sciences, the socialsciences, and the humanities. Its study provides a way to connect these three great branches (p.236). ‘Theintricacies of gene-culture coevolution are fundamental to understanding the human condition’ (p.240). As
was explained in Part 4:12H-vi, culture has played a big part in the human journey, but not increating the human condition, but in trying to manage it.
‘E.O. Wilson’s Theory of Everything’ even has a completely dishonest psychosis-denying
explanation for our ego, which claims that ‘To form groups, drawing visceral comfort and pridefrom familiar fellowship, and to defend the group enthusiastically against rival groups—these are amongthe absolute universals of human nature…People must have a tribe. It gives them a name in additionto their own and social meaning in a chaotic world. It makes the environment less disorienting anddangerous…People savor the company of like-minded friends, and they yearn to be in one of the best—acombat marine regiment, perhaps, an elite college, the executive committee of a company, a religioussect, a fraternity, a garden club—any collectivity that can be compared favorably with other, competinggroups of the same category’ (ibid. p.57). As the Adam Stork story describes in Part 3:2, the real
psychological reason for humans’ extremely egocentric state of mind is because we sufferfrom, and have been perpetually trying to disprove, an immense insecurity about our sense ofgoodness and worth.
E.O. Wilson also has a psychosis-denying explanation for why humans have ‘continuoussexual activity’, which is that it ‘promotes female-male bonding and biparental care’ (ibid. p.79).

And on the issue of homosexuality, he says, ‘a low dose of homosexual-tending genes may givecompetitive advantages to a practicing heterosexual. Or, homosexuality may give advantages to the groupby special talents’ (p.254). The psychological reason for humans’ continual sexual activity and
homosexuality was briefly explained in Part 4:12F, and is more fully explained in my book A
Species in Denial in the chapter titled ‘Bringing peace to the war between the sexes’ at <www.humancondition.com/asid-men-and-women>. E.O. Wilson also claims that ‘Prolonged childhood’ was
for ‘allowing extended learning periods under the guidance of adults’, when the real reason for it wasto allow for the maternal, nurturing, love-indoctrination of infants.
E.O. Wilson concludes The Social Conquest of Earth by saying that his hope is that
‘out of an ethic of simple decency to one another, the unrelenting application of reason, and acceptanceof what we truly are, our dreams will finally come home to stay’ (p.297). Yes, a future for the human
race depends on ‘the unrelenting application of reason, and acceptance of what we truly are’, but ifwe were to find ‘what we truly are’ and, by so doing, permanently ameliorate that conditionand finally be capable of ‘decency to one another’ it had to be as a result of HONEST reasoning,
NOT E.O. Wilson’s extremely DISHONEST reasoning! Lying was never going to get us to the
liberating truth about our condition.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

402

The Biology

Summary assessment of the theory of Eusociality

In Part 4:9, which marks the beginning of this analysis of the development of dishonest,denial-complying mechanistic/reductionist biology, it was pointed out that virtually allscientists since Darwin have totally avoided the real issue involved in the human condition ofa psychologically upset state by simply blaming that upset competitive, selfish and aggressivebehaviour on supposed brutish and savage animal instincts within us that our intellect hasto somehow control or overcome. While the recent theory of Eusociality added supposedgroup selection-derived selfless instincts to these supposed selfish animal instincts in us, therehas, in truth, been no change to this basic strategy of avoiding any acknowledgement of theinvolvement of a consciousness-induced psychologically upset state in our troubled condition.
So, in E.O. Wilson’s ‘New Theory of Eusociality’ the situation essentially ends at thesame place it did with his old theory of Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology, with norecognition of a consciousness-involved psychosis in our human condition, despite the word
‘psychology’ appearing in the description of that theory. In the new theory, apart from anextremely superficial reference to ‘personality traits’ (p.101), Wilson still refrains from referringto the psychology of our human condition, to our psychosis or neurosis or alienation orinsecurity of self or depression or the problem of self-confrontation. Contrast this with mybooks that do address the psychology of the human condition head-on, and do mention theseterms and issues thousands of times—because, as R.D. Laing recognised, ‘Our alienation goesto the roots. The realization of this is the essential springboard for any serious reflection on any aspectof present inter-human life.’

The fact is, the real psychologically upset state of the human condition is the very lastthing E.O. Wilson wants to think about. His whole career has been entirely dedicated tofinding ways to deal with the human condition that don’t require him to have to confrontthe issue of ‘our alienation’ that, in truth, ‘is the essential springboard for any serious reflectionon any aspect of present inter-human life’. Further, the point that was initially made in Part 4:9
about dishonest mechanistic/reductionist science as a whole, and again in Part 4:12E about
Evolutionary Psychology, has to be made yet again for the theory of Eusociality—which isthat the argument still being dogmatically pursued is that ‘Selfish, self-preservation behaviouris only natural because that is what every other species practices and that is what we stillhave instincts for and the task for us conscious, intelligent humans is to use our marvellousreasoning mind to control these savage and brutish animal instincts within us.’ So insteadof our conscious intellect being the guilty party, in the sense of being that part of ourselvesthat caused us to ‘fall from grace’ and have to be banished from the Garden of Eden of ouroriginal innocent, cooperatively orientated, all-loving, moral instinctive state (as Moses,
Plato and all our mythologies have so honestly admitted), our conscious intellect is, again,being made out to be the faultless, good part of ourselves—a manipulation of the truth that,again, condemns our instincts as the villain: ‘Wonderful, we are good, our conscious self isgood and our instincts are awful, what a relief, I, my conscious thinking self, feels terrific.’
Never mind that this was all an outrageous, reverse-of-the-truth lie. What a trick! Insteadof our instinctive past being a ‘paradise’, ‘Golden Age’ of ‘togetherness’ before ‘the dawning ofindividual consciousness’ brought about a world of highly intelligent people living an immensely
insecure, ‘shrill, brittle, self-important life’, which in truth is ‘a graveyard where the living are dead’,

Part 4:12I

The Theory of Eusociality—the most dangerous lie in human history

403
as Sir Laurens van der Post and others recognised, our instincts were deemed bad while ourintellect was viewed as wonderful. What a complete and terrible assault on the truth, but whata relief for our upset, corrupting intellect. We, our conscious thinking self, had finally madeourselves out to be the hero that we have always intuitively believed we were, and in fact are,but it was a hollow ‘achievement’ based on an absolute lie. We had lifted the burden of guilt,the psychological insecurity of the issue of our less-than-ideally-behaved human condition,but we had done so fraudulently. The elements involved in the human condition of moralinstincts and a corrupting intellect weren’t being looked at honestly, rather, the completeopposite was occurring—those elements were being totally misrepresented. The humancondition wasn’t being confronted—it was being hidden behind the biggest mountain of liesthat could possibly be assembled!
As was emphasised at the end of the Part on Evolutionary Psychology, the truth is that ourstory is one about the ever-changing and developing psychology of our human situation—howour original innocent, fully cooperative instinctive psyche or soul condemned our intellect,leaving it no choice but to retaliate and repress that wonderfully integratively orientated partof ourselves, with the result that we became upset; that is, psychotic (soul-repressed) andneurotic (mind-distressed) psychological sufferers of the human condition. But, unable toface and deal with this real and main psychological description of our behaviour, we ended upwith completely artificial and superficial and deeply dishonest accounts of ourselves, like E.O.
Wilson’s latest theory of Eusociality, which doesn’t refer to our species’ psychosis anywhere;it doesn’t admit that we are a fundamentally sick species.
The fact is, a true account of human nature would acknowledge and address the realissue of our alienated, sick, psychotic and neurotic condition. Again, as that most truthful ofpsychiatrists, R.D. Laing, wrote, ‘The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man…between us and It [our true self or soul]there is a veil which is more like fifty feet of solid concrete. Deus absconditus. Or we have absconded…
The outer divorced from any illumination from the inner is in a state of darkness. We are in an age ofdarkness. The state of outer darkness is a state of sin—i.e. alienation or estrangement from the innerlight…We are all murderers and prostitutes—no matter to what culture, society, class, nation onebelongs…We are bemused and crazed creatures, strangers to our true selves, to one another, and to thespiritual and material world.’ ‘We are dead, but think we are alive. We are asleep, but think we are awake.
We are dreaming, but take our dreams to be reality. We are the halt, lame, blind, deaf, the sick. But we aredoubly unconscious. We are so ill that we no longer feel ill, as in many terminal illnesses. We are mad, buthave no insight [into the fact of our madness].’

As already mentioned, Arthur Koestler summarised mechanistic, reductionist science’sdeliberate blindness to the issue of the ‘mental disorder’ of our ‘unique’ human condition whenhe wrote that ‘symptoms of the mental disorder which appears to be endemic in our species…arespecifically and uniquely human, and not found in any other species. Thus it seems only logical that oursearch for explanations [of human behaviour] should also concentrate primarily on those attributes ofhomo sapiens which are exclusively human and not shared by the rest of the animal kingdom. But howeverobvious this conclusion may seem, it runs counter to the prevailing reductionist trend. “Reductionism”is the philosophical belief that all human activities can be “reduced” to – i.e., explained by – the [non-
psychosis involved] behavioural responses of lower animals – Pavlov’s dogs, Skinner’s rats and pigeons,

404

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Lorenz’s greylag geese, Morris’s hairless apes…That is why the scientific establishment has so pitifullyfailed to define the predicament of man.’ Koestler complained of ‘the sterile deserts of reductionistphilosophy’, asserting that ‘a correct diagnosis of the condition of man [had to be] based on a newapproach to the sciences of life’ (Janus: A Summing Up, 1978, pp.19, 20 of 354).

Earlier, in Part 4:7, I also referred to how Nikolai Berdyaev exposed the extremedishonesty of the reverse-of-the-truth lie that ‘our instincts are the villains and our intellect isguiltless, secure, in-control, psychosis-free and healthy’ when he observed that ‘psychologistswere wrong in assuming that man was a healthy creature, mainly conscious and intellectual, and shouldbe studied from that point of view. Man is a sick being, with a strong unconscious life’ (The Destiny of
Man, 1931, tr. N. Duddington, 1960, pp.67-68 of 310). He also clearly indicated that understanding of the
human condition depended on acknowledging, not denying, that ‘The human soul is divided, anagonizing conflict between opposing elements is going on in it…the distinction between the conscious andthe subconscious mind is fundamental for the new psychology. Mental disorders are due to the conflictbetween the two’ (ibid). As Berdyaev accurately summarised, ‘man is an irrational, paradoxical,essentially tragic being in whom two worlds, two opposite principles, are at war…Philosophers andscientists have done very little to elucidate the problem of man’ (ibid. p.49). Yes, the real description
of the conflicting elements in our psychologically upset, ‘sick’ human condition involves ‘thedistinction between the conscious and the [instinctive] subconscious mind’.

Again, the reason ‘Philosophers and scientists have done very little to elucidate the problem ofman’, and ‘why the scientific establishment has so pitifully failed to define the predicament of man’, was
because the human condition wasn’t being truthfully confronted. Instead, as was described in
Part 4:9, what we have been fed by ‘the scientific establishment’ is a whole world of dishonesty,an immense castle of lies, a great paradigm of madness where everyone in the world swansaround, seemingly confident that the mental world they are inhabiting is completely rationaland sound, making jokes and slapping each other on the back in happy reassurance that allis well and good, awarding each other Nobel Prizes for being brilliant, etc, etc—basicallysinking deeper and deeper into a terrible swamp of delusion!
With specific regard to E.O. Wilson’s ‘New Theory of Eusociality’, the points that weremade earlier about the nullification of the subject of the human condition also need to be restated. While denial was necessary while we couldn’t truthfully explain the human condition,the great danger of taking the art of denial to such extremes as E.O. Wilson has done withthis latest fake, trivialised, extraordinarily superficial ‘explanation’ of the human conditionis to permanently discredit what the human condition actually is. He has made it seem like itis not profoundly distressing at all, just two different instincts within us that are sometimesat odds. The subject of the human condition used to be an almost sacred subject, one thatwas only referred to in moments of deep profundity, but now it can be talked about as ifit is nothing extraordinary at all. The most serious of subjects has been rendered benign,virtually inconsequential! Already, in 2013, a school teacher has written to me saying, ‘Insupport of what you wrote about the term Human Condition not being sacred anymore, on Friday myyear 12s were trying to write an introduction to an essay and one of them said “I love the term The
Human Condition, I can use it in just about any essay for any subject”’ (WTM records, 15 Feb. 2013). What

E.O. Wilson has done is not explain the human condition but nullify it. When the core issueabout what it is to be human is finally completely trivialised, as it now is with E.O. Wilson’s

Part 4:12J

Desperationville/End Game/Terminal Alienation

405
account of it, we have the ultimate example of how denial is taking humanity to the verybrink of terminal dishonesty/alienation/superficiality/darkness/death. Yes, E.O. Wilson is thequintessential anti-Christ, the embodiment of the very opposite of truth. That is the reality:
E.O. Wilson’s ‘summa work’ represents the grand finale in the two million year long story ofthe development of denial on Earth—it is the final great push to have the world of lies with allits sickness, darkness and ugliness take over the world. Make no mistake, with his seductivebut completely dishonest account of the human condition E.O. Wilson is trying to kill thehuman race, prevent it from ever reaching liberating understanding. The long anticipatedlast great battle on Earth, the fabled battle of Armageddon, is actually the battle between theentrenched dark world of denial and the emerging new enlightened, true world of denialfree understanding—which basically boils down to a battle between E.O. Wilson’s fake,superficial, not-genuinely-biological, trivialising account of the human condition, and the true,human-condition-confronting-and-penetrating biological explanation of the human conditionbeing presented here in Freedom Expanded: Book 1. Choose your side.

Part 4:12J Desperationville/ End Game/ Terminal Alienation
As has now been explained, although the multilevel theory of Eusociality supports thetruth that we humans do have unconditionally selfless moral instincts, which is a more honestfinding than Evolutionary Psychology’s assertion that we don’t have such unconditionallyselfless moral instincts, its assertion that we also have selfish instincts doesn’t ring true towhat we all know about the nature of our original instinctive self or soul, which is that it is acompletely concerned-with-the-larger-whole-not-yourself, fully cooperative, all-loving, utterlyharmonious, totally empathetic, absolutely innocent state. Further, the idea that our selflessmoral instincts were derived from vicious warring with other groups similarly doesn’t ringtrue to what we all know about the nature of our original instinctive self or soul, which is thatit is universally loving. The multilevel theory of Eusociality is also a patently dishonest denialof the fact that the human condition is a psychologically upset state. And further still, since
Eusociality argues that selfishness has a powerful presence in our instinctive make-up, selfishindividualism is, in effect, still being justified as a natural part of our make-up—indeed,as pointed out earlier, the theory of Eusociality could be viewed as more of a selfishnessjustifying, right-wing theory than an idealistic selflessness-emphasising, left-wing theory.
What all this means for the left-wing, whose essential strategy is to pretend to be supportingtruth and ideality (which is how its proponents derive their human-condition-relieving senseof feeling good about themselves) is that while the theory of Eusociality appeared to cater toboth the left and right wing as E.O. Wilson hoped (as the heading of an article in The Atlanticabout this new theory proclaimed, ‘The Radical Theory of Evolution That Explains Democrats and
Republicans’ (Larrie D. Ferreiro, 11 Jun. 2012)), it didn’t actually satisfy the left-wing.

This failure of the multilevel between-group selection theory of Eusociality to satisfythe left-wing meant that in the ever-escalating ‘cultural war’ between the blatant lying ofthe right-wing and the pseudo idealistic left-wing’s need to mimic the truth without actuallyconfronting it, the latter were left in a desperate situation. Unlike the right-wing who couldblatantly lie, the left-wing had to pretend to be on the side of truth and idealism, and the

406

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
situation had now arisen where, in order to continue to pretend to be ideal, a superficiallymore honest account of human nature had to be found, but how? The reality for the left-wingwas that there was no truly accountable explanation available that would enable them tomaintain their position, which meant they were basically stranded in Desperationville.
So, all the pseudo idealistic left-wing could do was try to fabricate some sort ofselflessness-emphasising argument and, beyond that, revert to the old vague by-productsof-natural-selection, matrix-of-biological-mechanisms, bluff, illusionary, non-explanationfor our unconditionally selfless moral soul that was described in Part 4:12G—and that isexactly what left-wing biologists did. In Part 4:12G, reference was made to the 2011 book
Origins of Altruism and Cooperation as being an example of the ‘by-products of naturalselection’ argument (the book is actually an assemblage of presentations that were given ata 2009 conference, held at Washington University, on ‘Man the Hunted and the Origin and
Nature of Human Sociality, Altruism and Well-Being’). We can now understand why, havingbeen rejected and replaced by, firstly, the theory of Evolutionary Psychology, and then the
Multilevel theory of Eusociality, the old Stephen Jay Gould-led argument—that a vaguematrix of biological mechanisms operating either outside or alongside genetics made thedevelopment of unconditional selflessness possible—was resurrected in 2011.
As was also mentioned in Part 4:12G, in the Preface to Origins of Altruism and
Cooperation, the book’s editors—the anthropologist Robert Sussman and the psychiatristand geneticist Robert Cloninger—wrote that ‘Social scientists and biologists are learning thatthere is more to cooperation and generosity in both human and nonhuman group-living animalsthan an investment in one’s own nepotistic patch of DNA. Research in a great diversity of scientificdisciplines is revealing that there are many biological and behavioral mechanisms that humans andnonhuman primates use to reinforce pro-social or cooperative behavior. For example, there are specificneurobiological and hormonal mechanisms that support social behavior. There are also psychological,psychiatric, and cultural mechanisms’ (viii of 439). Yes, it was being alleged that a matrix of ‘manybiological and behavioral mechanisms’ created ‘pro-social or cooperative behavior’, but the question
is how exactly did it do that? Certainly, ‘hormonal’ and ‘neurobiological’ ‘psychological’ and
‘psychiatric’, along with ‘cultural’, influences are involved in the ‘support’ of ‘social behavior’, but
that doesn’t explain our social behaviour at all. Yes, a by-product of natural selection, namelythe love-indoctrination process, did create our ‘pro-social or cooperative behavior’, and then thoselove-indoctrinated moral instincts did clash with our emerging conscious mind to create thepsychologically upset state of our human condition—at which point all our ‘neurobiological’
‘psychological’ and ‘psychiatric’ behaviours emerged and then different ‘cultur[es]’ were created
to try to manage that upset. Our hormonal system was also obviously affected by, and becameinvolved in, the development of this upset state. Yes, all the ‘hormonal’, ‘neurobiological’,
‘psychological’, ‘psychiatric’ and ‘cultural’ aspects of our make-up are by-products of natural
selection and they are all involved in human behaviour—but that doesn’t explain the ‘originsof altruism and cooperation’ at all. The illusion is that the origin of our moral instincts has
been explained when it hasn’t—but, again, in the desperation to counter the right-wing’sselfishness-emphasising doctrine such extreme illusion was deemed necessary.
In light of what has now been explained about the unsatisfactory nature of D.S. Wilsonand E.O. Wilson’s Multilevel explanation of human behaviour for the left-wing, further

Part 4:12J

Desperationville/End Game/Terminal Alienation

407
consideration can be given to what is said in Origins of Altruism and Cooperation. Oneof the book’s contributors, the Italian biological philosopher Telmo Pievani, stated in thebook that ‘Edward O. Wilson…and his colleague David Sloan Wilson proposed a theory whereselection acts at “multiple levels” and upon different “units” (Wilson and Wilson, 2007)’ (p.49). Their
‘hypotheses concerning the central role of cooperation and altruism in primate and human life arereduced to competition arguments, at different levels of selection’ (p.50). In a further reference to
the multilevel theory, Sussman and Cloninger referred to biologists who ‘suggest that humanbeings are “bipolar apes” with conflicting dispositions for waging war (like aggressive chimpanzees) andmaking love (like sociable bonobos), so that human beings must constantly strive to engage in emotionalreconciliation to maintain social harmony’ (p.ix). Presenting their left-wing counter view to this,

Sussman and Cloninger then stated that ‘We suggest that human beings are naturally cooperativewhen healthy and only revert to violence under abnormal conditions, as when stressed, abused, neglected,or mentally ill’ (p.ix). This alternative view is then elaborated on, with Sussman and Cloninger
writing that ‘The traits of altruism and cooperation often are assumed to be among humanity’s essentialand defining characteristics…Data are presented [in Origins of Altruism and Cooperation] supportingthe idea that the normal pattern for most diurnal primates and for humans is to be social. People whodevelop the need for psychiatric intervention are those who become alienated and antisocial. It is humannature to want to work together and cooperate’ (p.vii). ‘In fact, cooperative sociality is a necessity forwell-being in anthropoid primates’ (p.viii).

In a reference to the unconscionable, ‘ethically unpleasant’ idea that our moral instincts arederived from competitive warring with other groups of humans, Pievani stated that ‘what isinteresting in this [Wilson and Wilson group selection] model from the point of view of the philosophy ofbiology is that altruism seems founded on conflict between groups, and the exclusion of outsiders’ (p.49).

He pointed out that this ‘group selection…could have ethically unpleasant consequences: parochialisminside the group and aggressiveness against others in a competitive system’ (p.57).

Instead of arguing that our moral nature resulted from warring between groups, as D.S.
Wilson and E.O. Wilson claimed, the contributors to Origins of Altruism and Cooperation putforward a more idealistic, left-wing, non-aggressive-and-competitive argument for the originof our moral nature—this is the fabricated selflessness-emphasising argument that I saidthe left-wing had to come up with. So rather than arguing that the cooperation arose frombetween-group warfare, they argued that it arose from having to defend ourselves againstpredators. Pievani stated that ‘The function of widespread cooperation as defence against predators,instead for the promotion of more coordinated and aggressive hunting, is one of the bridges betweenthe social behaviours seen among living primates and the hypothetical social behaviours in groups ofour hominid ancestors [p.51] …If we discover that, for the greater part of our evolutionary history, thedefence of ourselves and of our families from predators, and not the contrary, has been the main driverof our survival; that sociality and cooperation have had a function connected to avoid predators, and notto the glorious aim of hunting and dominating environments, we will have to change the major paradigmthat has dominated our views of our essential selves from the earliest days of paleoanthropology [p.57] …
The “Man the Hunted” paradigm is “positive”, with respect to the opposite “Man the Predator” notion,because it offers much more effective and realistic evolutionary explanations (Hart and Sussman, 2009).
Without denying that humans are extremely able in warfare, it removes the idea that egotism is naturaland cooperation a cultural epiphenomenon. It also eliminates the concept that cooperation and sociality

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

408

The Biology
are marginal contingencies that may be explained merely as anomalies tolerated by an alleged “universal
Darwinian algorithm”. And it does away with the idea of a supposed evolutionary determinism ofselfishness, frequently used as a support for conservative and class-conscious ways of putting questions insociological researches and biased questionnaires of evolutionary psychology (Dupré, 2001)…We are bornto cooperate as well as to be human [p.58].’ Incidentally, Pievani’s reference to ‘Man the Hunted’
comes from Robert Sussman’s 2005 book, Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators, and Human
Evolution where he first put forward the argument that cooperation arose from having todefend ourselves from predators. In summarising his theory, Sussman, for example, said in
2006, ‘Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have as modern humans developed fromour attempts to out-smart the predator’ (presentation at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s
Annual Meeting, 19 Feb. 2006).

Also, in a further reference to their vague matrix of mechanisms, by-products of naturalselection argument that only created the illusion that the biological origins of our moralsoul had been explained, Pievani wrote that ‘it is the logic itself of our evolutionary explanationsthat needs to be extended: this is not only a matter of “interactors” belonging to genetic pools but also amatter of the economy of survival, immediate physical benefits, responses to contingent conditions in thesurrounding ecological systems, the ability to learn new behaviours, phenotypic and behavioural plasticityand the flexibility of social patterns of interactions—all of them macro-evolutionary independent factorsin a hierarchy of evolutionary levels (Eldredge, 1985, 1995, 1999; Gould, 2002) (p.52). He also wrote that
‘This debate can take place in the context of an extended and pluralistic, although still Darwinian, theoryof evolution. The multifactorial and integrated approach involved brings together, in a viable and testableway, genealogical, ecological and cultural logics that are not reducible to standard arguments based oncompetition. This allows us to approach the problem of human behavioural origins without having toadopt “universal laws” for evolution (as in the universal strong Darwinian “algorithm”), but instead byseeking at evolutionary law-like “patterns”, that are repeated schemes of regular events (Eldredge, 1999)’
(p.56). (I might mention to the reader that if you had trouble following what was said in the
above extract, don’t worry—I am also hanging in by my mental fingertips and I’m supposedto have some idea of what is being talking about! As I’ve mentioned before, the moredesperate the need to fabricate a persuasive argument, the more intellectual and convolutedthe writing becomes.)
In summarising their argument, Sussman and Cloninger wrote that ‘The paleontological,behavioral, neurobiological, and psychological evidence provided in this book gives a more optimistic andrealistic view of human nature than the more popular, conventional view of humans being naturally andbasically aggressive and warlike’ (p.viii).

To respond now to these assertions. Firstly, with regard to the theory that the defenceagainst and avoidance of predators was ‘the main driver’ in making us social, certainly thethreat of predators encouraged cooperation, but, once again, that was not going to make ussocial. It was not going to overcome the fundamental problem of genetic selfishness, whichis that wherever selflessness develops it is going to be subverted by selfish opportunists.
The fact is, species have been living with the threat of predators since life first emerged andit has never been able to bring about full integration. What we see instead is the eventualdevelopment of dominance hierarchy as a means to try to contain the rampant selfishcompetition and opportunism. The whole reason E.O. Wilson and D.S. Wilson put forward

Part 4:12J

Desperationville/End Game/Terminal Alienation

409
the argument that warring between groups was the eusociality threshold breaker was becausethere had to be an extreme need for cooperation if selfish opportunism was going to bedefeated; there had to be a situation of conflict where groups of cooperators would defeatgroups of non-cooperators. Arguing that groups of cooperators survived the threat of predatorsbetter than groups of non-cooperators doesn’t create anything like the same selection pressureas actual conflict between groups. Indeed, this ‘defence against predators’ argument neglects thewhole driving force behind the development of the between-group warfare argument. And, asfor the credibility of the between-group warfare model itself, even if it does create an extremeneed for cooperation, it is not a sound argument—for the reasons that were listed when welooked at the theory of Eusociality. Again, the overall reality out there in nature is that effortsto cooperate and integrate have resulted only in the establishment of dominance hierarchy asa means to try to contain the excessive competition that inevitably develops between sexuallyreproducing individuals—with the exception, of course, of the fully integrated state, whichwas achieved through love-indoctrination. So, the by-products of natural selection, matrixof mechanisms idea, even when bolstered by the supposed ‘main driver’ of the ‘defence againstpredators’ argument, provides no real explanation for the origin of our moral soul.

Basically what the left-wing have done is replace the right-wing ‘conventional view ofhumans being naturally and basically aggressive and warlike’ with a non-aggressive, ‘defence againstpredators’ argument and attached that to the old matrix of mechanisms argument in the hope
that the combined effect would be enough to finally get them across the line in terms ofarguing that our unconditionally selfless moral soul has been explained in a non-aggressive,non-selfishness-emphasising way. And that is precisely why it could not, and did notsucceed, for despite the addition of the supposed ‘main driver’ of the ‘defence against predators’thesis, the left-wing selflessness-emphasising, ‘conservative and class-conscious’-defying, ‘moreoptimistic’ biologists were, at the end of the day, still relying heavily on the old, discredited
matrix of mechanisms argument. On the issue of the matrix of mechanism concept, aswas pointed out in Part 4:12G, the basic thinking involved in that simplistic, illusionary,duplicitous and desperate, ‘multifactorial’, ‘pluralistic’ approach was along the lines of, ‘Ourunconditionally selfless, moral instincts exist and they had to have emerged somehow, andnatural selection on its own can’t explain how (the need for defence against predators isn’ta sufficient explanation), so clearly our moral instincts must have been created by a matrixof by-products of natural selection, so that’s all we need to know!’ And, having supposedly
(but not actually) ‘succeeded’ in explaining the origin of our moral instincts, and in theprocess having supposedly (but again not actually) ‘explained’ the origin of our psychotic,
‘alienated and antisocial’ human condition, these left-wing biologists felt they were justified in
raising all manner of human-condition-confronting, psychosis-exposing truths. But since theorigin of our moral instincts had not actually been explained, and since, unlike the Wilsonand Wilson model, no specific arguable explanation had been given for our conflicted
‘psychological’ and ‘psychiatric’ human condition, this ‘Damn it, I’m just going to let the truth
out anyway because the situation for humans in the world has become so dire that us leftwing biologists have to start getting some truth up’ attitude was extremely reckless. Upsethumans were being confronted with the truth of their corrupted condition without it havingfirst been explained and defended.

410

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

This desperate, reckless, ‘just-let-the-truth-out’ attitude in Origins of Altruism and
Cooperation is apparent from the very first page of the book, where the dedication reads (theemphasises are as they appear): ‘We dedicate this book to Walter Goldschmidt who reminded us at theconference that: “You talk about cooperation and altruism, but what you really mean is LOVE. We shouldn’tbe afraid to use the word LOVE. That is what makes us truly human.”’ As has been explained before,
love actually means ‘unconditional selflessness’ and the problem with admitting this truth isthat it confronts upset humans with the question of why don’t they behave unconditionallyselflessly—so, without understanding of the human condition, it was better to leave theconcept of love abstract and undefined. As has been mentioned, the linguist Robin Allottsummarised denial-complying, human-condition-psychosis-avoiding mechanistic/reductionistscience’s ‘afraid’ attitude to the concept of love when he wrote, ‘Love has been described as ataboo subject, not serious, not appropriate for scientific study.’

Looking at the content of the book, it is completely true and honest to say that ‘Thetraits of altruism and cooperation often are assumed to be among humanity’s essential and definingcharacteristics’, and that ‘human beings are naturally cooperative when healthy and only revertto violence under abnormal conditions, as when stressed, abused, neglected, or mentally ill’, and
that ‘People who develop the need for psychiatric intervention are those who become alienated andantisocial. It is human nature to want to work together and cooperate’, and that ‘cooperative socialityis a necessity for well-being in anthropoid primates’, but to confront humans with the truth about
their corrupted condition like this while pretending to have provided them with the safe,relieving understanding of that corrupted condition, was to simply add to, not alleviate, thedeluded, alienated, psychotic state of humanity. Certainly, R.D. Laing was being even morehonest than the contributors to Origins of Altruism and Cooperation about the extent of ouralienated condition, but, unlike the contributors to that book, he wasn’t pretending to bepresenting an explanation of human nature. R.D. Laing was saying that we needed to lookinto the human condition, he wasn’t pretending to have looked into it or solved it himself. Hewasn’t being delusional. What the contributors to Origins of Altruism and Cooperation aredoing is basically just letting out schizophrenic fragments of honesty amongst an intellectualmaelstrom of biological dishonesty. It’s desperate, mad, irresponsible behaviour, not truthful,honest, deeply thoughtful, sound behaviour.
These truth-imitating-but-not-genuinely-truth-confronting, pseudo idealistic left-wingbiologists weren’t really interested in confronting the human condition at all—far from it.
As has been explained before, the whole strategy of the left-wing was to support idealisticcauses in order to make yourself feel as though you were free of the human condition soyou wouldn’t have to actually confront the human condition. A stark example of the extentto which these left-wing biologists have been committed to avoiding thinking truthfullyabout the human condition and the origin of our moral soul is how an observation made by
Charles Darwin is treated in Origins of Altruism and Cooperation. In The Descent of Man,
Darwin wrote that ‘The feeling of pleasure from society is probably an extension of the parental or filialaffections, since the social instinct seems to be developed by the young remaining for a long time with theirparents; and this extension may be attributed in part to habit, but chiefly to natural selection’ (1871, ch.4).

Darwin was an exceptionally sound, human-condition-confronting-not-avoiding, genuinelyhonest and thus effective thinker, and he was on the right track with what he said here

Part 4:12J

Desperationville/End Game/Terminal Alienation

411
because, as has been explained, it was the nurturing, love-indoctrination process that gave usour moral instincts. However, while on pages 2 and 5 of Origins of Altruism and Cooperationthe contributors to that book did cite this quote from Darwin about the role of nurturing indeveloping our ‘social instincts’, they failed to follow through on the idea he was raising toarrive at the nurturing, love-indoctrination explanation for our moral soul, opting instead tolimit their focus to the ‘pleasure’ aspect of the quote. The answer to the great question theywere seeking of the origin of our moral soul was in front of them but they couldn’t—in fact,wouldn’t allow themselves to—see it. It is true that ‘cooperative sociality is a necessity for wellbeing in anthropoid primates’, but that ‘cooperative sociality’ didn’t arise from having to cooperate
to protect ourselves from predators. It arose from the nurturing, love-indoctrination processthat, as explained in Part 8:4, primates have been variously able to practice and develop.
In summary, the resurrection of the pluralistic, matrix of mechanisms ‘explanation’for the origins of our moral soul, bolstered as it supposedly was by the ‘need to cooperateto avoid predation’ argument, is still no more accountable than it was when the matrix ofmechanisms concept was first put forward by Stephen Jay Gould and others.
(Another recent (2012) left-wing, cooperation-emphasising hypothesis that has beenput forward to explain our moral nature is the Self-Domestication Hypothesis (SDH), byprimatologists Brian Hare, Victoria Wobber and Richard Wrangham. However since the SDHis addressed in detail in Part 8:5H where its dishonesty and dangers are exposed, it is sufficientto just make mention of it here.)
_______________________

A response to such reckless and dangerous truth-admitting-but-not-explaining dogma ofthe left-wing, as has just been described, has been for right-wing biologists to desperately try toat least point out the danger of such truth-admitting-but-not-explaining dogma. An example ofthis is the book Pathological Altruism (published in December 2011), in which the bioengineer
Barbara Oakley argues that altruism and empathy can lead to ‘codependency’, ‘burnout’, ‘suicidebombing’, ‘self-righteous political partisanship’ and ‘ineffective social programs’. Yes, to admit but
not explain the truth that we humans have an innocent, uncorrupted, ideal, soul-infused moralnature while not providing a bridging understanding of our present extremely corrupted, nonideal human-condition-afflicted reality, can lead to more innocent people being so bewilderedby reality and thus unable to defy it that they do become ‘codependen[t]’ to it, seduced by itslies—which can lead to ‘burn[ing]’ ‘out’ in an effort to idealistically try to reform the corruptworld—or, in the case of the pseudo idealistic, excessively soul-corrupted situation, can leadto brazenly imitating moral idealism to feel good, which very often has led to ‘self-righteouspolitical partisanship’ and ‘ineffective social programs’—and in the case of ‘suicide bombing’, can
lead to fanatical insistence on a rigidly ideal world. What’s needed to solve all these problemsis the reconciling and ameliorating understanding of the real origin of our moral nature andthe reason why we departed from it. Dogma, ‘Pathological Altruism’—the expectation of, eveninsistence on, idealism without any reconciling explanation for the reality of our corruptedcondition—has been the essential problem of the human condition. We humans needed mindfull understanding not more mind-less dogma.
_______________________

412

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Desperate, reckless, dogmatic assertions that our human world is not ideal but should begot us nowhere. The whole purpose of science is to demystify and, by so doing, end dogma,not add to it. Equally, for right-wing scientists to put forward patently dishonest accountsof human nature was also improper science. To solve the desperate situation that humanitynow finds itself in we needed real insights into the human condition, not more dishonestright-wing biological lies such as the theory of Eusociality, or, alternatively, more artificialand superficial pseudo idealistic, dogmatic expressions of idealism, such as the left-wingpluralistic explanation for our moral nature.

Part 4:12K Science became a farce
For a summary of just how devastatingly corrupted by the human condition we humansare now, and how farcically hopeless science has become in its efforts to do anything aboutit, we need look no further than the acclaimed 2010 documentary Secrets of the Tribe on the
Yanomamö Indians of the Amazon—a relatively innocent, happy, soulful tribe who lived intotal isolation from the outside world until cultural anthropologists descended upon themin the 1960s to study their behaviour. In addition to describing 30 or so years of sordid andappalling mistreatment by some of these anthropologists, including the sexual abuse of awhole generation or more of young Yanomami, the program also documented the ferociousconflict that emerged between the right-wing and left-wing anthropologists who werestudying the tribe. Briefly, the right-wing tried to highlight the infighting and intertribal warsof the Yanomami, with a book that even described them (in the title no less) as ‘The Fierce
People’, and a theory that the hostilities arose because they were competing for the chance
to reproduce their genes—that war is a result of aggressive instincts in humans. The leftwing anthropologists attempted to counter the right-wing’s aggression-and-selfishness-isonly-natural argument with their own equally dishonest ‘cultural materialism’ argument thatclaimed the fighting was a cultural development that arose from fighting for strategic materialresources, such as the steel tools the anthropologists were providing them with and highprotein game. The right-wing sociobiologists blamed our supposed selfish genes, while theleft-wing socialists blamed the development of a materialistic culture. As already mentioned,the human-condition-confronting-rather-than-human-condition-avoiding true explanation forthe aggression apparent in the Yanomami is that while they are undoubtedly more innocentthan the majority of humans in the world today, they are still nowhere near as innocentas humans were some two million years ago when the battle of the human condition firstemerged. The Yanomami are a relatively innocent, happy, well-adjusted, peaceful race—asvirtually all those outsiders who spent time with them felt very keenly.
For the scientific establishment to support the misrepresentation of these obviouslyrelatively innocent people as ‘The Fierce People’, which is an outrageous reverse-of-the-truthlie, and allow one of their own to sexually destroy the innocence of an entire generation ofthis pristine tribe, shows just how festered science had become by its practice of denial of thehuman condition—as Barbara Rose Johnston, one of the anthropologists who briefly appears

Part 4:12K

Science became a farce

413
in the documentary wrote, ‘Secrets of the Tribe exposes the secrets of my tribe, of anthropologists’
(Secrets of the Tribe, pub. in political newspaper Counterpunch, accessed 9 Jan. 2012 at <https://www.counterpunch.org/
2010/03/19/secrets-of-the-tribe/>).

Basically, the Yanomami’s innocence was felt to be so confronting
and exposing that it had to be annihilated with an atomic-bomb-sized attack that wassanctioned at the highest levels in our society! This behaviour is extremely revealing of wherehumanity has arrived at; it provides the starkest evidence of just how psychologically upsetand insecure we humans have become—and, it should also be said, that pseudo idealists’human-condition-avoiding, superficial focus on materialism was so pathetic and cowardly itwas even more sickening than those attacking innocence/truth head on. It is all deeply, deeplyshocking, but again, that is the end play state that the world has arrived at. The human-racetransforming, reconciling understanding of the human condition has come at the absoluteeleventh hour for our species and our planet. (Much more will be said in Part 5:2 aboutscience’s denial of the relative innocence of so-called ‘primitive’ races.)
The point should be made that in terms of the so-called ‘discipline of science’, it’sobvious that the left-wing and the right-wing explanations of human behaviour couldn’t bothbe correct—and in fact, neither of them are—and yet they both cited acres of research papersthat allegedly supported what they were putting forward, which is simply more evidence ofjust how lacking in any objective impartiality science has been. The song played at the endof the Secrets of the Tribe documentary, with its lyrics, ‘Things have come to a pretty pass…
It looks as if we two will never be one…You like potato and I like potahto…Let’s call the whole thingoff ’, perfectly captures the whole farcical, ‘no-one-cares-about-the-pursuit-of-understanding-
anymore-only-about-imposing-their-own-twisted-philosophy-on-the-world’ joke that sciencehas been reduced to. The truth is, while there has been much emphasis placed on scientificresearch, the real need was for some honest, penetrating scientific thought. It wasn’t a lackof research papers holding science back, but a lack of mental integrity. The answers werethere to find, the problem was no one was prepared to think truthfully enough to find them.
As has now been described, since Darwin presented his idea of natural selection in 1859 andrevealed that instincts are only orientations not understandings, there has been sufficient baseinformation to explain the human condition and all the other crucial biological questionsfacing the human race—the problem was that no one was prepared to think truthfully enoughto arrive at those explanations. The need was not for the mental cleverness that all universityentrance exams basically select for, but mental soundness. The impasse was alienation, notlack of information. The bottom line truth is that while ever scientists are committed to livingin denial of the real psychological issue of the human condition they are going to be incapableof honesty—a point that was made in an amazingly frank comment that was posted on a
Christian website in 2009: ‘if there really is hope beyond the human condition, then the Truth thatleads to it has to have been established by someone beyond the human condition. Us [denial-complying]humans are way too good at rationalizing truth into any shape that pleases us’ (Jonathan Wise, The Emerging
Church, 29 Mar. 2009, accessed 4 Jul. 2009 at: <https://www.jonandnic.com/topics/faith-ministry/the-emerging-church>).

It’s only now that understanding of the human condition has finally been found that we aregoing to see the emergence of a world of trustworthy science.

414

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

With regard to ‘humans’ being ‘way too good at rationalizing truth into any shape that pleases’,the great burden for denial-complying mechanistic scientists has been to somehow presentor ‘rationaliz[e]’, and supposedly support with scientific research, lies. Lying—practicingdenial—is hard work. The end result has been that scientific papers are now so incrediblyintellectualised, especially in their wording and in the weight of supposed evidence in termsof the references that are supplied, that all scientists now complain of how taxing it is ontheir mental powers trying to actually decipher the flood of these sophisticated dissertations,even in their own field of work. While lying requires great intellectual dexterity because youessentially have to bluff, pretend to be in possession of the truth when you really are not,
‘truthing’ doesn’t. The paradigm that I operate in where the truth is confronted and not deniedis a much simpler paradigm in which to operate. I don’t need to intellectualise, indulge inconvoluted arguments and create acres of scientific citations. However, although my work ismost rigorously grounded in logic and evidence, it is so different in its simplicity and contentto the work coming from the intellectualised mechanistic world that the latter has never beenable to cope with it. As will be described shortly in Part 4:14, I have never ceased trying tohave my work considered, debated and published in the scientific community, but despitesuch efforts it has, in almost every instance, been rejected—even though I have truthfullyexplained the psychologically upset state of the human condition and, by so doing, madethe truths that I am presenting safe to confront. The intellectualised world of denial is like adifferent universe to the one I operate in, which is why I had to create my own institution tofund, support and promote my work.
From these efforts, however, I have managed to extract some positive feedback—forinstance, Scott Churchill, the Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department at the
University of Dallas, has written the following about my analysis of the biological theoriesthat have emerged since Darwin: ‘I have recommended his [Griffith’s] more recent work to mystudents precisely for his razor-sharp clarifications of positions of contemporary authors like Edward O.
Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Robert Wright. Griffith manages to summarise book-length expositionsof these oftentimes obtuse and varying perspectives on human evolution with clarity and brilliance’
(Expert Report tendered in the 2007 NSW Supreme Court trial regarding the scientific standard of Griffith’s work—see the
Persecution of the WTM section on our website <www.humancondition.com/persecution>). What is astonishing to
me, however, is how all the ‘book-length expositions’ on all the theories of biology that haveemerged since Darwin’s time that I ‘summarise’ have managed to complexify the core conceptthey were putting forward to the extent of creating what are often very large and intellectuallyimposing books. But that is the very point I am making—having to practice denial was atricky business, you essentially had to bluff, pretend to be in possession of the truth whenyou really weren’t—and persuade others in the process. It was all about ‘smoke and mirrors’,
‘obtuse’ intellectualised deception and pretension. In the end, the artificiality of it all, and also
the delusion and arrogance involved, was ridiculous and appalling. Yes, it really was a caseof ‘Things have come to a pretty pass…It looks as if we two will never be one…You like potato and Ilike potahto…Let’s call the whole thing off ’! Again, however, this development was only another
indication of the end play state of terminal alienation that was happening everywhere in theworld, no matter where we chose to look.

Part 4:13

Summary of why biology had not made any real advance since Darwin

415

Part 4:13 Summary of why biology had not made any real advance since Darwin
This analysis of dishonest, denial-complying, human-condition-avoiding mechanistic,reductionist biology began at Part 4:9 under the heading, the ‘Fourth Category of Thinker:
The great majority of the human race who avoided the whole issue of a psychosis in ourhuman situation by simply blaming our selfish and aggressive behaviour on supposed brutishand savage animal instincts within us that our intellect supposedly has to control’. Thereit was stated that ‘What we are going to see now is how almost everyone…in the world,including virtually all scientists, totally avoided the whole issue of the real dilemma andpsychosis of our human condition by simply blaming our selfish and aggressive behaviouron supposed brutish and savage animal instincts within us that our intellect has to control.’
It was explained that ‘Most people, in fact virtually all adults, have avoided anything to dowith the issue of the psychological dilemma and resulting psychosis and neurosis of ourhuman condition. Even beginning to vaguely contemplate the nature of our human situationhas been too psychologically dangerous for upset humans—as described in Part 4:4C, evenasking the obvious initial question of ‘What makes humans unique?’ has been a ‘no-gozone’. Clearly what is so unique about us humans is that we are conscious, but thinkingabout that was a slippery slope as it quickly raised the depressing question: ‘Well, if weare fully conscious, reasoning, intelligent, extremely clever animals, what is so intelligent,clever and smart about being so aggressive and selfish that we have nearly destroyed ourown planet?’ Similarly, to start thinking truthfully about the other element that must playa significant role in our situation, namely that of our instinctive heritage, was even moretreacherous as it very quickly led to the unbearably confronting memory, that all humanscarry, of an upset-free, cooperatively orientated, innocent time in our species’ instinctivepast, a time before the fabled ‘fall’ that all our mythologies recognise took place when webecame fully conscious.
What we have now seen is how true that prediction was, for apart from some recentdesperation-motivated exceptions that were just described in Part 4:12J, the journey thatbiology has undergone since Darwin has been one of completely avoiding any encounter withthe truth that we humans once lived in an innocent, upset-free, completely unconditionallyselflessly orientated instinctive state, and that we then we became conscious, after which webecame sufferers of a psychologically upset human condition. Basically, Social Darwinism,
Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, the by-products of natural selection account, the
Multilevel theory and the Theory of Eusociality all avoided acknowledging that the humancondition is, in fact, a psychologically derived condition, a psychosis. If we are honest evenfor a moment, the descriptions that we give of our human behaviour, such as egocentric,arrogant, evil, shameful, guilty, contemptuous, alienated, psychotic, depressed, deluded,artificial, fake, pretentious, superficial, escapist, defensive, dishonest, hateful, mean, etc, etc,all imply a psychological dimension to our human behaviour. Not one of these theories leadsto the fulfilment of Carl Jung’s requirement that ‘wholeness for humans depends on the abilityto own their own shadow’. Ours is a psychologically derived condition, we have a ‘shadow’ to
understand and ameliorate. It really is absurd to try to relate our species’ mind-controlled,psychologically-troubled human condition to other animals’ gene-controlled animal condition.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

416

The Biology

As already pointed out in Part 4:12G when talking about the by-products of naturalselection explanation for our moral soul, the overall problem for biologists from both theleft-wing and the right-wing is that they have been operating in a mechanistic, reductionistparadigm that determinedly resisted any encounter with the psychological agony of the humancondition, which meant they couldn’t hope to truthfully explain such fundamental questionsas the human condition, how we acquired our unconditionally selfless moral instincts or howwe humans became fully conscious. If you’re avoiding the whole issue of a psychosis in ourhuman situation you are in no position to explain it—as R.D. Laing pointed out, ‘Our alienationgoes to the roots. The realization of this is the essential springboard for any serious reflection on anyaspect of present inter-human life.’

Again, the great questions in biology, indeed the three holy grails of biology, have beento truthfully explain the human condition, which is done in Part 3:2; to truthfully explainthe origins of humans’ unconditionally selfless moral instinctive self or soul, which is whatthe love-indoctrination explanation given in Part 8:4 does; and to truthfully explain how wedeveloped full consciousness when other species haven’t been able to, which is explained in
Part 8:4B. The immense frustration of mechanistic, reductionist biology has been its inabilityto solve any of these fundamentally important biological questions, which is why biologybecame stalled, piled up and festering at this gateway that it couldn’t seem to get through nomatter how determinedly it tried. And the reality is it could never get through because, in thecase of our moral instincts for example, the ability to solve the riddle of how a fundamentallyselfish process could have produced unconditionally selfless instincts depends on not livingin denial of Integrative Meaning, or of the fundamental psychosis/alienation of our humansituation, or, most particularly, of the importance of nurturing both in the maturation of ourspecies and in our own lives.
In summary, the interpretations of human behaviour put forward by the proponentsof Social Darwinism, Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology, the by-products of naturalselection account, the Multilevel theory and the Theory of Eusociality were not advancesin sound biological thinking where human behaviour was concerned, rather, they wereincreasingly sophisticated ways for upset humans to avoid the issue of our human condition.
As my professor of biology at Sydney University, Charles Birch, so truthfully said, ‘Biologyhas not made any real advance since Darwin’ (In recorded conversation with this author, 20 Mar. 1987). Indeed,

Birch went further in speaking the truth when he said, ‘Science can’t deal with subjectivity…what we were all taught in universities is pretty much a dead end’ (From recording of Birch’s 1993 FHA/WTM
Open Day address). He later said that ‘the traditional framework of thinking in science is not adequate
for solving the really hard problems’ (ABC Radio National, Ockham’s Razor, 16 Apr. 1997), and we know that
the ‘hard[est] problem’ of all for humans to confront and solve was the ‘subjective’ issue of ourpsychologically upset human condition.
As R.D. Laing wrote about both the importance and difficulty of investigating ourconsciousness-derived-and-induced human condition: ‘The requirement of the present, the failureof the past, is the same: to provide a thoroughly self-conscious and self-critical human account of man…
Our alienation goes to the roots. The realization of this is the essential springboard for any seriousreflection on any aspect of present inter-human life [pp.11-12 of 156] …We respect the voyager, the explorer,

Part 4:13

Summary of why biology had not made any real advance since Darwin

417
the climber, the space man. It makes far more sense to me as a valid project—indeed, as a desperatelyurgently required project for our time—to explore the inner space and time of consciousness [the issue of
the human condition]. Perhaps this is one of the few things that still make sense in our historical context.
We are so out of touch with this realm [so in denial of the issue of the human condition] that manypeople can now argue seriously that it does not exist. It is very small wonder that it is perilous indeedto explore such a lost realm [p.105]’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967). (It should be
mentioned in passing here that with E.O. Wilson’s trivialisation of the subject of the humancondition ‘many people’ will ‘now argue’ that the subject of the human condition does exist, butthey won’t be thinking ‘seriously’ about what the human condition actually is—which meansthe subject has, in truth, become ever more of ‘a lost realm’!)
So Darwin advanced biology as far as it could go if you weren’t prepared to lie and if youweren’t prepared to truthfully confront the issue of the human condition—and that is wherebiology, and science as a whole, has been stalled, because almost every biologist since Darwinfailed to take up the path that led to the truthful explanation of the human condition that isbeing presented here in Freedom Expanded: Book 1, and which Darwin’s understanding ofnatural selection made possible. They failed to admit that we humans have unconditionallyselfless moral instincts that are at odds with our conscious mind, and from there realise thatthese two learning systems, the gene-based and the nerve-based, differ in the way they processinformation, and from there realise the nature of the difference, which is that the gene-basedlearning system can give species orientations, but orientations are not the understandings thatthe nerve-based learning system requires, hence the battle between the two learning systemsthat produced the psychologically upset state of the human condition. But with understandingof the human condition now found, by taking that human-condition-confronting, denial-freepath through to its conclusion, the consilience of all information (which E.O. Wilson at onestage deceitfully claimed to be achieving) can finally occur. In the future, instead of childrenbeing taught unrelated subjects like spelling, mathematics, history, chemistry, biology,physics, religion, etc, all subjects will be associated under the broader subject of what itmeans to be human. Instead of having to live in a cave of denial all of humanity can finallycome out into the sunshine of the truth about ourselves and be forever TRANSFORMED to astate that is free of the upset state of the human condition.
So what I said when summarising the dishonest Multilevel Selection account of humanbehaviour at the end of Part 4:12H-vi applies to all the post-Darwin accounts of humannature: from Social Darwinism to Sociobiology to Evolutionary Psychology to the byproducts of natural selection account to the Multilevel theory to the Theory of Eusociality.
While these theories certainly made us feel as though we had some excuse for our corrupted,fallen, alienated, split, bipolar, manic depressive, psychotic condition, in truth, all that theywere was contorted, bewildered—alienated—interpretations of human behaviour. Yes, justthe sort of rubbish people conjure up when they have lost all access to what it is that wehave to explain about ourselves, namely our ‘fall[en]’ from a Garden of Eden’ state of originalinnocence, corrupted, immensely alienated, psychotic and neurotic lives. In Part 4:12A Iwarned that what was going to be presented would be a nightmare of dishonest thinking,and that is what it has been.

418

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

The fact is, both the left and the right weren’t interested in going anywhere near the realissue of the human condition, only in pretending to—and this pretence has led to literallya mountain of supposedly scholarly papers and books; billions and billions of words abouttheories supposedly supported by mathematical models, formula, graphs and charts, which,unfortunately, amounted only to a great pile of bullshit/lies/denial/dishonesty/alienation—but, again, it is simply a reflection of what has happened across all areas of human life; thehuman race has entered the end play state of terminal alienation. Thank goodness the trueunderstanding of our human condition has arrived to save us from this unthinkably torturousform of death of the human race.

Part 4:14 Understanding of the human condition has had to be independentlydeveloped and promoted
Although the human condition has at last been explained and humanity can be free ofthe horror of its condition, a problem remains. As has now been explained and evidenced,the discipline of biology has coped with the issue of the true, psychologically upset state ofour human condition by denying its existence. The problem for biology—in fact, for scienceas a whole—is how is it going to cope with the true explanation of the human condition nowthat it has arrived when it is so habituated to living in denial. The answer is that, to date,the scientific establishment hasn’t, in the main, been able to cope with it, which is why wehave had to create an independent organisation, the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT,to develop and promote the true, human-psychosis explaining understanding of the humancondition that is presented in Part 3:2, along with all the other vitally important denial-free,truth-based explanations, in particular of the origin of our species’ cooperatively orientated,moral instinctive self or soul that is presented in Part 8:4B, and the origin of our fullyconscious mind that is presented in Part 8:4C.
What should happen when this full synthesis of explanation is presented to the scientificestablishment is that it recognises its accountability and promotes it, but tragically theestablishment is so habituated to living in denial that it won’t acknowledge and support theseall-precious, human-race-liberating understandings, even though that is its mandate. Since
‘consciousness’ is the code word often used for the issue of the human condition—because
consciousness is what caused the horror of the upset state of the human condition, it lies at thecore of the issue—when Charles Birch said that ‘Biology right now awaits its Einstein in the realmof consciousness studies’ (ABC Radio National, Ockham’s Razor, 16 Apr. 1997) he was truthfully recognising
that denial-based mechanistic science had failed to produce the insights humanity neededand that an inspired, different approach was necessary, specifically a denial-free approach.
But when those desperately needed insights are finally found by a denial-free approach, noone wants to know about them! In a sense, all the claims made by our innumerable scientificinstitutions to want to assist the human race to find knowledge prove to be fraudulent.
In short, the scientific establishment will welcome new ideas and insights as long asthey are not too insightful. The quote from Berdyaev that was mentioned in Part 4:10—that
‘reality’-‘sever[ed]’, ‘alienation of man’-‘based’, ‘meaning’-‘impossible’, ‘philosophy’-‘enslav[ing]’,

Part 4:14

Study of the human condition had to be independently developed

419
mechanistic-‘objecti[vism]’ is ‘scientific terrorism’—turns out to be all too true. The truth aboutus humans has been, and continues to be, prohibited by mechanistic science.
And it is not as though we in the WTM haven’t tried mightily to interest the scientificestablishment in these all-important insights. In December 1983, when the full synthesis ofexplanation of the human condition—including the explanation of our moral soul and theexplanation of the origin of our fully conscious mind—was completed, I travelled to Englandto personally submit an 8,000 word summary of this all-problems-of-the-human-race-solvingbreakthrough synthesis to John Maddox (later Sir John Maddox), the then editor of Naturemagazine, which at the time was considered the world’s leading science journal. I responsiblytook the answers that save the world to the person in the world in charge of the search forit. I also submitted it to Colin Tudge, the then Features Editor of New Scientist magazine.
Both declined to publish the article. In fact, it took much insistence by me of the importanceof my submission for Maddox to even agree to see me. However, when I began the meetingby trying to convince him of the foundation truth of Integrative Meaning he became quiteanimated in his denial of it, saying to me twice that the concept of Integrative Meaningarising from Negative Entropy is ‘wrong’ (from audio recording of the 15 Dec. 1983 meeting). Soon afterhe terminated the meeting. My 1983 submission to Nature and to New Scientist can be read at
<www.humancondition.com/nature>. In March 1989 over 800 review copies of my first book Free:

The End Of The Human Condition, which contains a concise presentation of the synthesis,were sent to nearly all the scientific journals in the world. Other review copies were sent toleading scientists. There was virtually no response. There have been many other unsuccessfulattempts since 1989 to interest scientific institutions in these ideas, including the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, the International Primatological Society and the
John Templeton Foundation. While some significant support for the synthesis was generatedamong eminent holistic scientists for my 1991 book Beyond The Human Condition (see <www.humancondition.com/ReviewsScientific>), and also in 2004 when I presented the synthesis as part
of a proposed documentary about the issue of the human condition (commendations for thedocumentary proposal, such as from world-leading physicist Professor Stephen Hawkingand Nobel Laureate Professor Charles Townes, can be viewed at <www.humancondition.com/doco-responses>), that support never led to wider interest in the synthesis in the scientific
community.
While some of the interest generated as a result of the documentary proposal continues tothis day, the overall situation remains that since there is no institution or structure or fundingbody that we can go to for support of these truthful insights into the human condition, itremains entirely up to the few people who comprise the WTM to develop and promote theseworld-saving insights.
That is a 2012 snapshot of what has happened—or ‘not happened’—on the science frontin terms of the acceptance of these humanity-saving, fully accountable truthful insightsinto the human condition. A summary of the 30 years’ worth of submissions to the scientificestablishment of these world-saving insights into the human condition, into the originsof our moral nature and conscious mind, and into the integrative meaning of existence isdescribed in Part 8:6, and the full presentation can be read at <www.humancondition.com/full-

420

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
history-of-rejection>. In terms of what acceptance or otherwise these insights have received
from the general public, the story is even more dire because the overall response so far hasnot merely been the rejection of these concepts, but outright vilification and opposition. As isdocumented on our website at <www.humancondition.com/persecution>, over 20 years ago nowa vicious campaign began against myself, those of us involved in supporting these ideas,and the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT itself. In 1995 this campaign of persecution,vilification and misrepresentation went public with the publication of a defamatory Australian
Broadcasting Corporation television program and Sydney Morning Herald newspaperfeature article. Produced by a minister of the Uniting Church, both these publications soughtto stigmatise our organisation as a dangerous anti-social organisation and me as a deludedmegalomanic leader. Ultimately, both publications were completely discredited by a series ofofficial rulings and public apologies culminating in a 2010 court judgment that found my workwas real science rather than the mindless dogma that characterises mind-controlling sects,which was how the defamatory publications sought to portray my work. As the full-pageadvertisement we ran in The Australian newspaper after our major court victory (see <www.humancondition.com/vindication>) explains, it was an incredibly hard-won and an incalculably
precious victory against those who wanted to destroy us for daring to address the historicallyforbidden issue of the human condition—the one issue that had to be addressed and solvedfor there to be a future for the human race. Dealing as it does with the subject of self, thesubjective dimension to life, and being the realm of enquiry where religion and science, faithand reason finally overlap, the issue of the human condition is naturally contentious. But thatdoesn’t justify throwing out the rule book on democratic, fair behaviour.
People are sometimes tempted to think that a good idea will withstand whateverresistance it encounters, but that is not true. In the English political philosopher John Stuart
Mill’s 1859 essay On Liberty—a document considered a philosophical pillar of westerncivilisation—Mill emphasised this point when he said, ‘the dictum that truth always triumphsover persecution is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they passinto commonplaces, but which all experience refutes. History teems with instances of truth put downby persecution. If not suppressed for ever, it may be thrown back for centuries’ (American state papers; Onliberty; Representative government; Utilitarianism, 1952, p.280 of 476). The science historian Thomas Kuhn
similarly argued that there is no guarantee truth will survive prejudice when he wrote, ‘Inscience…ideas do not change simply because new facts win out over outmoded ones…Since the factscan’t speak for themselves, it is their human advocates who win or lose the day’ (Shirley C. Strum, Almost
Human, 1987—Strum’s references are to Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second edn, 1970, p.164of 294). Interestingly, Kuhn also recognised ‘that revolutions in science are often initiated by an
outsider—someone not locked into the current model, which hampers vision almost as much as blinderswould’ (ibid). Even Charles Darwin was ‘a lone genius, working from his country home without anyofficial academic position’ (Geoffrey Miller, The Mating Mind, 2000, p.33 of 538). While there are certainly
advantages to not being ‘hamper[ed]’ by ‘the current model’, the inherent danger of not beingpart of the establishment is that the ‘outsider’ is an easy, undefended target for those in theestablishment who feel threatened by the outsider’s new ideas.

Part 4:14

Study of the human condition had to be independently developed

421

As mentioned in Part 4:12G, the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer summarised thebaptism of fire new ideas in science have historically had to undergo when he ‘said thatthe reception of any successful new scientific hypothesis goes through predictable phases beforebeing accepted’. First, ‘it is ridiculed’ and ‘violently opposed’. Second, after support begins to
accumulate ‘it is stated that it may be true but it’s not particularly relevant’. Third, ‘after it has clearlyinfluenced the field [including members of the establishment quickly remodelling/plagiarising the ideas
as their own discoveries, which unfortunately is something I have experienced] it is admitted to be trueand relevant but the same critics assert that the idea is not original’. Finally, ‘it is accepted as being selfevident’ (compiled from two references to Schopenhauer’s quote—New Scientist, 15 Nov. 1984 and PlanetHood, Ferencz
& Keyes, 1988). Note that each stage of recognition is achieved in a way that protects the ego of
the onlookers. The extent of the insecurity caused by the human condition is very apparent.
Because the ego or sense of self worth of each generation becomes attached to its view ofthe world, paradigm shifts typically have to be introduced by new generations. The physicist
Max Planck succinctly described the historical reality of scientific progress when he said that
‘science progresses funeral by funeral’ (see his Scientific Autobiography, 1948). Kuhn similarly recognised
that ‘the old scientists who became established within the dominant paradigm have to die off first: theywill virtually never accept the new paradigm. Only the younger generation of scientists, who don’t havethe emotional attachment to the old paradigm, will be willing to change their minds’ (a reference to thework of Kuhn by Marilyn Ferguson, New Age mag. Aug. 1982). The playwright George Bernard Shaw was
another who warned of the true nature of progress when he said that ‘All great truths begin asblasphemies’ (from his play Annajanska, 1919).

But most importantly, in this, the greatest paradigm shift of all for the human race,from living in denial of the human condition to not living in denial of it, the TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE STATE solves all the problems of the unbearably confronting exposure of our
corrupted human condition that the arrival of the true understanding of our human conditionunavoidably brings. The reason I said Max Planck was describing the ‘historical’ reality whenhe said that ‘science progresses funeral by funeral’ is because the TRANSFORMED STATE allowseveryone to immediately leave behind the old paradigm and participate in the new humancondition-acknowledged-and-free paradigm.

BLANK PAGE

Part 5
Our Denials Exposed
Part 5:1 How understanding of the human condition was found
The Adam Stork story reveals that we humans became upset when we became conscious.
Our pre-conscious, instinct-controlled ancestors weren’t the ‘savage’, ‘barbaric’, ‘primitive’
(in the sense of being divisively behaved), ‘wild-animal’, ‘beast-like’ ‘brutes’ they have beenportrayed as in every documentary and movie about early humans—rather, we immenselyupset modern humans are all of those things. But without the explanation of the humancondition the upset human race had to defend itself somehow, and so the contrived excusewe came up with was to blame our present-day angry, egocentric and aggressive behaviouron supposed savage competitive and aggressive animal instincts from our pre-conscious past.
This contrivance didn’t admit that there is a psychosis involved in our human behaviour,even though so many of the words we use to describe our behaviour acknowledge thisunderlying influence, such as ‘alienated’, ‘psychotic’, ‘depressed’, ‘deluded’ and ‘artificial’.
Nor did this ‘genes are selfish and that is why we are’ defence recognise the obvious influenceconsciousness—a uniquely human feature—has on our behaviour. It also ignored what all ourmythologies recognised—that our ancient ancestors lived in a Garden-of-Eden-like state ofgentle and cooperative innocence, the instinctive ‘voice’ of which is our moral conscience.
But despite the fact that blaming our upset on our instincts is such a flawed and transparentlyfalse excuse, upset humans had to believe in it because it was all that was holding at bay thesuicidal depression that thinking about their immensely corrupted state caused. Facing theissue of the human condition has been impossible for the upset human race.
The quote that the pre-eminent philosopher of the twentieth century, Sir Laurens vander Post (1906-1996), most frequently cited in his writing is one I mentioned earlier, by theesteemed English poet Gerard Manley Hopkins: ‘O the mind, mind has mountains; cliffs of fall /
Frightful, sheer, no-man-fathomed’ (from the sonnet No Worst, There Is None, 1885). As his writings reveal,

Sir Laurens’ great interest was the human condition and this passage obviously summarisedfor him the essence of the problem of the suicidal depression—the ‘cliffs of fall’—that waspreventing upset humans from confronting the human condition and thus enabling it to beunderstood or ‘fathomed’.
Unless you were exceptionally well-nurtured in your infancy and childhood and thereforefree of upset, the issue of the human condition was an impossible subject to go near. Havinglooked into and found the understanding of the human condition, I necessarily had to havebeen exceptionally well-nurtured. Within the spectrum of upset that has naturally existedacross the human race since upset first emerged, with its degrees of denial and alienation,there have always been some denial-free, alienation-free, unresigned, truthful thinkers. Whilein earlier, pre-scientific times, religions were sometimes formed around the sound, truthfullives and words of these rare unresigned, denial-free thinkers or prophets, in contemporarytimes they simply represent another variety of thinker. Once mechanistic science found

424

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
sufficient insights into the mechanisms and workings of our world for the truth about thehuman condition to finally be able to be assembled, these denial-free thinkers were needed toundertake that task. All that I have done to find the understanding of the human condition isassemble the relevant clues about the mechanisms and workings of our world that mechanisticscience found through centuries of painstaking enquiry. It follows that to have done this—and
I was assisted in the assemblage of that truth by the work of other denial-free thinkers—I hadto be an unevasive, denial-free thinker.
Most importantly, the fundamental truth that emerges from the biological understandingof the human condition is that all humans are equally good, just differently upset fromtheir various encounters with the heroic battle that the human race has been engaged in. Ina nutshell, all humans are variously embattled but we are all equally good. We no longerhave to rely on a dogmatic assertion that ‘all men are created equal’, purely on the basis thatit is a ‘self-evident’ truth, as the United States’ Declaration of Independence proclaims—because we can now explain, understand and know that that is a fundamental truth. Humanupset is a result of humans’ unavoidable and necessary heroic struggle against ignorance.
Understanding the cause of the upset state of the human condition eliminates the possibilityof the prejudicial views of some people being good and therefore superior and others beingbad, evil, ungodly and therefore inferior and unworthy. Now that we have understanding ofthe great and necessary battle that humanity has been waging, the whole concept of ‘good’and ‘evil’, of superior and inferior, disappears from our conceptualisation of ourselves. So,those who have been lucky enough to not have been caught up in the most intense part of thebattle that humanity has been waging, and who are thus relatively free of upset or innocent,are no better or superior or more worthy than anyone else—they simply represent just one ofthe innumerable, different states of upset that humanity can and had to draw on to completeits heroic journey to find the liberating understanding of the human condition. All humanscan now talk freely about all the different states of upset without there being any implicationof either superiority or inferiority, worthiness or unworthiness; more to the point, we need totalk about those different states now in order to make sense of the world in which we have allbeen living. Alienation is the subject that makes sense of human behaviour, so to understandhuman behaviour, which is what we have to do to understand ourselves, alienation has to beacknowledged. As mentioned earlier, the great Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing acknowledgedthis when he wrote that ‘Our alienation goes to the roots. The realization of this is the essentialspringboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life.’

The simple truth is that to have been able to look into and explain the human condition
I had to have been exceptionally sheltered from all the upset in the world—and I was. Igrew up in this historically extremely isolated country of Australia, probably the last placeof innocence in the world, and I grew up in the Australian countryside or bush, which iseven further removed from all the upset that concentrates in towns and cities. I also benefitedvery greatly from being born immediately after the Second World War, on 1 December 1945,seven months after Germany surrendered on 8 May 1945 and four months after the atomicbombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945 respectively—acts that brought the Second World War to an end. As previously mentioned, after suchterrible bloodletting as occurred in the Second World War, which amount to a valving off

Part 5:1

How understanding of the human condition was found

425
of upset, there is always a period of enormous relief and freshness, especially among thoseon the side of victory against such tyranny. In fact, there can’t have been any other periodin modern history where there was as much innocent idealism and optimism as the ‘flowerpower’, ‘Age of Aquarius’ era of the 1960s when the post-war ‘baby boom’ generation wasgrowing up. Science, the organised and systemised pursuit of knowledge, was sufficientlydeveloped for the biological explanation of the human condition to be found, and there alsoseemed to be—and, as it turned out, was—enough sound innocence in the population forthat explanation to be truthfully and thus effectively assembled by someone exceptionallyinnocent and thus exceptionally free of denial.
I was also fortunate to have attended two of the best schools in the world, both of whichwere also situated in rural Australia: Tudor House school at Moss Vale in New South Walesfor my junior schooling, and Geelong Grammar School (GGS) in Victoria for my senioreducation. The ethos of GGS, which was established by Australia’s greatest ever educator, Sir
James Darling, focused on fostering the souls of students, rather than their intellect (virtuallyall schools focus on academic achievement and egocentric competition in sport). For example,as part of GGS’ curriculum students spend a year in the Victorian mountains at a campuscalled ‘Timbertop’, where everyone goes bushwalking every weekend. I absolutely thrivedat Timbertop, winning the Natural History Prize and being judged runner-up for Best Boyof The Year even though I performed very poorly in my academic studies. I had all kindsof collections, even of all the different animal droppings. I will talk more about Sir James
Darling and GGS shortly. Of course, the most important factor by far in my ability to confrontthe issue of the human condition was the nurturing I received from my mother. As I willdescribe shortly, it was her soul strength that cultivated and strengthened my soul sufficientlyto be able to defy the false world of denial.
I might include this comment about the significance of being conceived towards thevery end of the Second World War. I have been involved with a number of adults undergoingprimal therapy who, bit by bit, are helped by supportive, encouraging and delving questioningto go back into their memories to therapeutically relive their childhood traumas and to hearthe extreme anguish that many of them express from their time in the womb there can be nodenying how acutely aware the foetus is of its environment. Unlike most denial-complyingmechanistic scientists, practitioners of primal therapy, such as the American Arthur Janov
(1924-) (see his many books), know all too well the sensitivity of the foetus to the human-
condition-afflicted state of mothers today. An article in TIME magazine (4 Oct. 2010) titled ‘Howthe first nine months shape the rest of your life: The new science of fetal origins’ recordedthis evidence of the sensitivity of the foetus: ‘a study of the health records of more than 88,000people born in Jerusalem between 1964 and 1976 found that the offspring of women who were in theirsecond month of pregnancy in June 1967—the time of the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War—were significantlymore likely to develop schizophrenia as young adults.’ With the upset state of the human condition
now explained/understood/defended we can at last safely admit that our ape ancestors livedin an utterly cooperative, harmonious, loving state, and that as a result of that heritage humaninfants still expect to encounter such an ideal state. In light of this expectation, we can admittherefore how utterly devastating it must be for the foetus to encounter the extreme oppositeof that happy, secure, nurturing, loving state—as it was for those developing in the womb of

426

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
mothers traumatised by the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War. Conversely, it follows that if someoneis conceived and raised at a time when there is extraordinary relief and happiness in theirsociety, as I was at the conclusion of the Second World War, that their instinctive self or soulwill be exceptionally content, secure and well-adjusted. As I say, the whole post-war 1960sgeneration was relatively extraordinarily secure and happy and, as a result, idealistic andsound in its thinking and thus visionary—anticipating, as the 1967 ‘Summer of Love’ song
Aquarius described, a time of ‘Harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding. No morefalsehoods or derisions, golden living dreams of visions…And the mind’s true liberation …We dance untothe dawn of day’ (from the rock musical Hair that premiered in 1967, lyrics by James Rado & Gerome Ragni).

I had an idyllic upbringing that enabled me to look at this subject of the human conditionwhen no one else would. My great fascination and interest is with wildlife, what all the birdsand the other animals are doing. As Tim Macartney-Snape mentioned in his Introduction,prior to and after finishing university I spent six years looking for the Thylacine, or
Tasmanian Tiger, in the wilds of Tasmania—you can read more about my search at <www.humancondition.com/tasmanian-tiger-search>. I never wanted to be a biologist who sat writing at a
desk all day; actually, I don’t at all enjoy writing all day, but I kept finding I could make senseof biological questions. The problem, however, was that the issues that seemed so obviousand important to me—in particular, that there is something extremely wrong with the wayhumans behave—didn’t seem to bother anyone else. In fact, everyone was carrying on asif the way humans behaved was the way they have always behaved and should behave. As
I now understand, adults have lived in a resigned state of denial of the truth of the extremeimperfection of human behaviour today.
Throughout not only my adolescent years but my entire life, I have been consumed withall the issues that denial-free, pre-resigned adolescents struggled with about the apparentwrongness of human behaviour. As I described in Part 3:8, when adolescents started thinkingabout the issue of the human condition, which is the imperfection of human behaviourtoday, they almost invariably found they had to resign themselves to living in denial of thesubject because their thinking about it eventually brought them into contact with the issueof their own imperfections that arose from their encounters with the upset world during theirown infancy and childhood. In my case, while I was consumed with the issue of the humancondition like all pre-resigned adolescents have been, unlike other adolescents I didn’tencounter the depressing issue of the human condition within myself and so never had toresign to a life of living in denial of it. Unlike virtually everyone else, I have confronted theissue of the human condition and sought to understand it all my life—the result being theexplanation of it that I have presented.
Not having resigned to living in denial of the issue of the human condition, the thoughtsthat have consumed my mind throughout my life have been vastly different to those ofresigned humans who have been practicing all manner of denial, to which they never admit.
I was continually running into views that seemed totally wrong to me, and yet everyoneexcept me was upholding those views as true and right. As I have mentioned before, for allthose living in denial it is self-evident why denial is such a universal practice but for therelatively innocent who are not yet resigned it is a total mystery—an extremely bewilderingsituation that, in my case, was only relieved when in my late teenage years my mother gave

Part 5:1

How understanding of the human condition was found

427
me a copy of a book by the exceptionally innocent and sound, denial-free thinker, Sir Laurensvan der Post (I think it was his 1952 book Venture to the Interior). It was this book, and then
Sir Laurens’ two main books about the relatively innocent Bushmen, The Lost World ofthe Kalahari (1958) and Heart of the Hunter (1961), which I sought out soon after readingthe first book, that saved my life—well, saved my soul’s life. These books saved my soul’slife because through Sir Laurens’ depiction of the relatively innocent Bushmen they toldme the truth that humans were once, before the emergence of the human condition, totallyinnocent and free of upset and that the way humans behave now is extremely distorted orcorrupted. Sir Laurens’ writings gave me the confirmation I needed to know that my verydifferent unresigned, denial-free way of thinking wasn’t some form of madness. He gave myunresigned, denial-free, innocent instinctive self or soul the strength to carry on and defy theworld of denial. When your soul is full of enthusiasm for another true world—a number of myreport cards from Tudor House school, which I still have, said I was ‘filled with a great zest forlife’—you don’t need a lot of help in life but at some stage you do need someone to reassure
you that your view of the world isn’t wrong.
As Tim described in his Introduction, my idealistic, quixotic (labels I was often givenas a young man), truthful view of the world first expressed itself in my desire to save the
Tasmanian Tiger from extinction. I then switched my focus from the effects of humans’ madbehaviour, such as our destruction of the natural world, to the issue of human behaviour itself.
I thought that what was needed was to create a world for humans that was free of extravagantartificiality, so I went off into the bush and built a massive pole-framed workshop and thendesigned and built a range of furniture that was devoid of that artificiality and ornamentation.
In time, however, I realised that there was a deeper issue behind humans’ extravagant way ofliving and that was the issue of the human condition. Thus in 1975 I began to think and writeabout that issue, a practice I have carried out every day since then. Typically I write in theearly hours of the morning when everyone else is asleep and the air is free of angst and mysoul can run free and tell me all the truths and give me all the guidance I need to plumb thedepths of the human condition. From the beginning I have trusted my soul and not the worldaround me; it is the only thing that has never disappointed me.
Hopkins wrote, ‘O the mind, mind has mountains; cliffs of fall / Frightful, sheer.’ We can nowunderstand exactly what he meant—if you try to plumb the depths of the human conditionyou are going to face suicidal depression, unless you go in a state of innocence. Sir Laurensemphasised this fact that only those free of upset can safely investigate the human conditionwhen he wrote that ‘He who tries to go down into the labyrinthine pit of himself, to travel the swirling,misty netherlands below sea-level through which the harsh road to heaven and wholeness runs, is doomedto fail and never see the light where night joins day unless he goes out of love in search of love’ (The
Face Beside the Fire, 1953, p.290 of 311). The need to live in denial of truth obviously stops access to
truth, that being its purpose—as this amazingly honest posting on a Christian website thatwas included in Part 4:12J recognised: ‘if there really is hope beyond the human condition, then the
Truth that leads to it has to have been established by someone beyond the human condition. Us [denial-
complying] humans are way too good at rationalizing truth into any shape that pleases us’ (Jonathan
Wise, The Emerging Church, 29 Mar. 2009, accessed 4 Jul. 2009 at: <https://www.jonandnic.com/2009/03/29/the-emergingchurch/>). You can’t look into the human condition if you suffer from the human condition.

428

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

As described in Section 4:1 of Freedom Expanded: Book 2, Australia’s most celebratedpoem is Banjo Paterson’s 1895 The Man From Snowy River. While Australia has an ancientmythology that is grounded in the Dreamtime stories of the Aborigines, it also has a powerfulcontemporary mythology and The Man From Snowy River is at the centre of them. In fact,
Australia’s $10 note (see following image) features Paterson’s image and, in microprint, all thewords to The Man From Snowy River.

Mythologies only develop and endure if they contain a resonating deep truth and The
Man From Snowy River certainly does. Ostensibly the poem is about a great and potentiallydangerous ride undertaken by mountain horsemen to recapture an escaped thoroughbredthat joined the brumbies (wild horses) in the mountain ranges, but what the poem is reallyrecognising is that Australia is where the answers about the human condition would finallybe found. In the poem the character Clancy of the Overflow persuades the station owner
Harrison to let a ‘stripling’ ‘lad’—a boy—on his hardy mountain pony join their expeditionto retrieve the escaped thoroughbred; he argues, ‘I warrant he’ll be with us when he’s wanted atthe end.’ A boy is the embodiment of the innocence that is needed by mechanistic science
‘at the end’ of its search for understanding of the mechanisms and workings of our world to
assemble, from those hard-won but evasively presented insights, the liberating explanation

Part 5:1

How understanding of the human condition was found

429
of the human condition. So in the poem that ‘stripling’ ‘lad’ goes beyond where the rest of thehorsemen (the alienated adults) dare to go, following the brumbies down the ‘terrible descent’of a steep mountainside (note the same imagery as Hopkins’ ‘O the mind, mind has mountains;cliffs of fall / Frightful, sheer’), where (if you weren’t sufficiently innocent and thus sound
enough) ‘any slip was death’ (to confront the unconfrontable issue of the human condition), torecapture the thoroughbred from the impenetrable mountain ranges (retrieves the all-preciousescaped truth from the depths of denial/alienation). The poem describes how the boy ‘ran
[the brumbies]…till their sides were white with foam / He followed like a bloodhound on their track /
Till they halted, cowed and beaten—then he turned their heads for home’ and ‘brought them back’ (he
fought all the denial and its alienation that has been enslaving the world to a standstill until itfinally gave up the truth).
Whilst innocence was unbearably confronting during the search for understandingand was therefore often persecuted, it was needed ‘at the end’ to synthesise the denial-freeexplanation of the human condition from mechanistic science’s hard-won but evasivelypresented insights.
The Biblical story of David and Goliath contains the same recognition of innocenceeventually slaying the giant, which is our species’ alienated state of denial.
In the great European legend of King Arthur, the wounded (alienated) Fisher Kingwhose realm was devastated (humans unavoidably made their world an expression of theirown madnesses) could only have his wound healed, and his realm restored, by the arrivalin his kingdom of a simple, naive boy. The boy’s name is Parsifal, which, according tothe legend, means ‘guileless fool’. To the alienated only a naive, ‘guileless fool’ would dareapproach and grapple with the confronting truths about our divisive condition. The American
Jungian analyst Robert A. Johnson gave an interpretation of this legend in his 1974 book He,
Understanding Masculine Psychology. Johnson said firstly that ‘Alienation is the current termfor it [the state of humans today]. We are an alienated people, an existentially lonely people; we have the
Fisher King wound’ (p.12 of 97). He then described how ‘The court fool had prophesied that the Fisher
King would be healed when a wholly innocent fool arrives in the court. In an isolated country a boy liveswith his widowed mother [as I will explain later it is the male ego that can be especially oppressive of
the souls of children—fortunately my father was saint-like in the degree to which he avoided imposinghis ego on others]…His mother had taken him to this faraway country and raised him in primitive
[innocent] circumstances. He wears homespun clothes, has no schooling, asks no questions. He is a simple,naive youth’ (p.90). Johnson went on to recount that in the myth it is this boy, Parsifal, who,
when he becomes an adult, is able to heal the Fisher King’s wound of alienation, so that ‘theland and all its people can live in peace and joy’ (p.94).

430

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

The Danish author and poet Hans Christian Andersen’s 1837 fable The Emperor’s New
Clothes contains the same resonating truth that it would take a small boy to break the spell of

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 1988 Fedmex Pty Ltd
the denial that has enslaved the human race.

While these and other mythologies have recognised the truth about innocence leadinghumanity home from its lost state of alienation, they were not the central mythology oftheir civilisations that The Man From Snowy River has been for Australia. I think that deepin their bones all humans know that Australia is the last place in the world where there issufficient innocence to explain the human condition, and, not only that, I think they knowthat this great breakthrough would occur here. As I mention in Section 1:14 of Freedom
Expanded: Book 2, in an interview with the Australian television presenter Andrew Denton,
Bono, the prophetic lead singer of the rock band U2, said, ‘You do get the feeling in Australiathat there’s…something going on down here, a new society being dreamt up…[that in Australia there
is] the opportunity to lead the world…to actually just take some moral high ground’, to which

Denton joked, ‘You say this to every country you visit.’ Bono responded, ‘The only other country
I think has the chance in leadership in terms of creating a new model as Australia would be Canada’
(Enough Rope, ABC-TV, episode 97, 13 Mar. 2006).

Another relevant factor has to be my ancestry. As will be explained in Part 7:4, justas innocence is eroded in individuals through exposure to the upset state of the humancondition, so races of humans have had their innocence eroded through exposure to the

Part 5:1

How understanding of the human condition was found

431
upset state of the human condition. This means that those races that have been most isolatedfrom all the upset in the world will be the most innocent. Thus the Celts who have lived onthe fringes of Europe in Ireland, Scotland, Scandinavia and England (where the Angles and
Saxons from Denmark in southern Scandinavia, and the Normans originally from Norway,settled) have to be amongst the most innocent of European races. It makes sense, therefore,that the fact that my father’s great, great, great grandfather was a protestant from County
Cavan in Ireland, and presumably his ancestors originally came from Wales where Griffithwas originally called Gruffydd, while my mother’s ancestors came from England and
Scotland, must have played a part in my ability to look into the human condition. (You canread more about the Celts in my 2003 book A Species In Denial in the section titled ‘Thedenial-free history of the human race’, which you can go directly to at <www.humancondition.com/asid-the-denial-free-history-of-the-human-race>.)

In truth, you could sit down and work out exactly where these understandings of thehuman condition were going to come from—you would ask ‘What is a relatively innocent race,what is the most innocent country now, what is the most innocent region of that country, whatwas the most fortunate period in that country’s recent history, what are the most innocencecultivating-and-preserving schools in that country?’, and you would come up with the answer.
(A Species In Denial contains a section titled ‘Australia’s role in the world’ that talks about thisawareness, which you can go directly to at <www.humancondition.com/asid-australias-role>.)
Sir Laurens van der Post, whose deeply influential work I refer to throughout thispresentation, grew up in Africa before the human situation there descended into suchturmoil—when it was still a place where innocence could survive. Not only that, since Africawas our species’ instinctive self or soul’s original home, it was a place that was exceptionallynourishing of our soul. Interestingly, Sir Laurens was struck by the physical similaritybetween Africa and the Australian outback or bush, where I grew up, observing: ‘When I firstwent to Australia…my senses told me at once that here, beyond rational explanation, was a land physicallyakin to Africa’ (The Dark Eye in Africa, 1955, p.35 of 159). Australia is physically similar to Africa, but
without its teeming megafauna. Sir Laurens came out of the innocent realm of natural Africaand that is partly why his soul was still alive and he could write with so much honesty aboutthe human condition.
In his books about the relatively innocent Bushmen race, Sir Laurens acknowledgedthat we humans do have an innocent, loving soul within us and that we weren’t once brutalsavages. I have mentioned how valuable Sir Laurens’ honest writing about the innocence oforiginal humans has been for me—as some indication of just how precious his writing hasbeen to me, my original copies of The Lost World of the Kalahari and Heart of the Hunter arenow so tattered from use they are held together by lots of tape and some string.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

432

The Biology

As I mentioned earlier, Geelong Grammar School was another soul-fostering influencein my life. GGS played down competition in all activities and especially so in sport. Itencouraged any talent or interest a boy might have and kept students close to nature bysending them to its wilderness campus, Timbertop, for a whole year of their education, whereeveryone, including the masters, went on long bushwalks every weekend. Basically GGS waslike a supportive, loving, functional parent rather than an indifferent, stand-offish, brutal,tough dysfunctional one. Astonishing as it may sound, Sir James Darling (1899-1995), whosevision made GGS into such a special school, came out to Australia from England at the age of
30 specifically to foster the soundness needed to solve the human condition. Part 10:5, titled

‘Sir James Darling’s Vision of Fostering the Ability to Undertake the ‘Paramount’ Task of
Solving the Human Condition in Order to ‘Save the World’, documents in some detail Sir
James’ absolutely extraordinary vision, and there is also a longer essay about Darling’s visionavailable at <www.humancondition.com/darling-longer-essay>. The longer essay describes how
Sir James was influenced by the attitude of Kurt Hahn who created Gordonstoun school in
Scotland. Kurt Hahn, in turn, was influenced by Plato who, in his great work The Republic,said that the object of education should be to cultivate ‘philosopher guardians’ or ‘philosopherrulers’, who he described as ‘the true philosophers, those whose passion is to see the truth’ (Plato The
Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.238 of 405). Plato explained: ‘But suppose…that such natures were cut
loose, when they were still children, from the dead weight of worldliness, fastened on them by sensualindulgences like gluttony, which distorts their minds’ vision to lower things, and suppose that when sofreed [during their upbringing] they were turned towards the truth [during their education], then thesame faculty in them would have as keen a vision of truth as it has of the objects on which it is at presentturned’ (p.284). He argued, ‘isn’t it obvious whether it’s better for a blind man [an alienated person]or a clear-sighted one [a relatively innocent, ego-unembattled, denial-free person] to keep an eyeon anything’ (p.244), adding that ‘If you get, in public affairs, men who are so morally impoverishedthat they have nothing they can contribute themselves, but who hope to snatch some compensation fortheir own inadequacy from a political career, there can never be good government. They start fightingfor power…[whereas those who pursue a life] of true philosophy which looks down on politicalpower…[should be] the only men to get power…men who do not love it [who are well-nurtured with
unconditional love in their upbringing and encouraged during their education to be enterprising andwho are thus not insecure and egocentric, excessively in need of reinforcement]…rulers [who] come totheir duties with least enthusiasm’ (p.286). It was this Platonic attitude of preserving and fostering
the sound, loving, cooperatively orientated, original instinctive self or soul in students that Sir
James followed at GGS.
I have been told that the despair Sir James felt after losing so many giftedcontemporaries in the First World War, in which he served as an artillery officer, led him todecide that the only way that he could live with the fact that he survived while they did notwas to try to live the life of 10 men. So he came here at the age of 30, knowing that Australiawas a last refuge for innocence, to take up the headmastership of this small school that drewmost of its boys from the rich farming countryside of Victoria and over 30 years he builtit up to be one of the most esteemed schools in the world—HRH The Prince of Wales wassent there from the other side of the world for part of his education, which, incidentally, alsoincluded Hahn’s Gordonstoun.

How understanding of the human condition was found

433

Part 5:1

Jeremy’s Egg Collection Box

I mentioned how I thrived at Timbertop where I kept all kinds of collections. On the wallof this theatre we have put up an old glass case of mine that holds, amongst other personaltreasures, what is left of my egg collection from when I was a boy. These mementos helppreserve my soul that still has to fight against a world that is so habituated to living in denialthat it is afraid of the truth when it arrives and determinedly resists it.
As emphasised, above all else it was my mother’s strength of character and nurturing thatmade these understandings of the human condition possible, which is why her photographand that of her mother and grandmother hang on our theatre wall. My mother’s family treecomprises a line of extraordinarily strong women and the following photographs pay tributeto their strength. In the WTM we call such remarkable strength ‘Matata strength’ (after anexceptionally secure, centred and brilliant-at-nurturing-infants female bonobo named Matata,who I will introduce in a moment and whose photo appears alongside the three matriarchs)because, as will be explained in Part 8:4, it dates from when humanity’s female ape ancestorshad to have sufficient force of character to bring male aggression from competing for matingopportunities under control.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

434

Clockwise from top left – Norman and Jill Griffith in 1959;
Enid Rush in 1963; Mackie McPherson in the early 1900s; and Matata and Kanzi

Part 5:1

How understanding of the human condition was found

435

The top left photograph is of my mother and father, Jill and Norman Griffith. The photowas taken in 1959 at our sheep station, ‘Totnes’, near the town of Mumbil in the Central Westof New South Wales. I would have been 14 years old when this photo was taken. The top rightphotograph is of my maternal grandmother, Enid Pountney (later Rush), and on the bottomright is my maternal great grandmother, Emily ‘Mackie’ McPherson. You can see in theirbearing an indication of their strength of character. As I have said before, the only reason Iam able to think about this issue of the human condition is because of my mother’s strengthof character. She was so defiant and dismissive of the corrupt ways of our human-conditionafflicted world that she taught me not to believe in it either and instead to believe in anothertrue world, the world of our soul. People would come to our house when I was a boy and mymother was so centred and secure and believing in another true world that they could sensethat their alienated state was being dismissed as inconsequential, even irrelevant, even thoughmy mother was never ever rude in her treatment of people. She simply had no time for thefrailties of the alienated world. She lived in another true world in which the alienated worldhad no relevance; it had no meaning for her, as it hasn’t had for me, except for the mystery ofit. As I said, you can see in the photographs of my mother and her mother and grandmotherthe same core strength, the same uprightness, the same defiance and dismissal of all thefalseness of this upset, alienated, human-condition-afflicted world. Tim Macartney-Snape’smother had the same core strength.
The bottom left photograph is of the bonobo Matata with her adopted infant Kanzi.
The importance of nurturing and of strong-willed matriarchs in developing a cooperative,integrative society will be explained in Part 8:4, however, to touch upon it briefly now,in matriarchal bonobo society we have living evidence of how important secure andcentred females have been in the nurturing of offspring and how strong-willed femaleshave brought the male’s aggressive competition for mating opportunities under control.
In common chimpanzee societies there is not the same focus on nurturing, males stilldominate and their societies are patriarchal. Matata’s picture is included here in recognitionof this strength in women that can be traced right back to our ape ancestors and which
Matata, who is an exceptionally centred and secure individual, exemplifies. Those whohave studied primates will typically tell you of an extraordinarily secure and strongwilled female in their study group. All primates are trying to develop the nurturing ofintegrativeness but it is only our ancestors and the bonobos who had the right conditions toachieve it.
The American primatologist Dian Fossey studied gorillas in the mountain forests of
Rwanda in Africa for some 18 years. In her 1983 book Gorillas in the Mist, Fossey wroteabout a remarkable female gorilla named ‘Old Goat’ who was such ‘an exemplary parent’
(p.174 of 282)
that her son ‘Tiger’ ‘was a contented and well-adjusted individual whose zest for living
was almost contagious’ (p.186). Fossey is eulogised as a gorilla conservationist but that label
presents completely the wrong emphasis. People can’t deal with the true significance ofher work, which was that she recognised how social and cooperative gorillas are. Fosseyis buried in a grave alongside Digit, a male gorilla who gave his life defending his groupagainst poachers.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

436

Plaster cast of a stone axe Jeremy found in Africa

In 1992 my partner Annie Williams and I went to Africa and while there the primatologist
Dr Shirley Strum invited us to visit the Pumphouse Gang, a group of baboons she wasstudying in northern Kenya and about which National Geographic magazine had been writingregular features. (Incidentally, in my egg box on the theatre wall there is a plaster cast of astone axe, the original of which I found when I was walking across the savannah with the
Pumphouse Gang to their night time roost on a huge boulder. As an actual item from the livesof our African ancestors, the original axe head was my most treasured possession and, as such,
I sent it to Sir Laurens van der Post as a gift in recognition of how important his life’s workhad been to me—he later thanked me, mentioning that he had put it amongst his collection ofhundreds of stone axes from Africa!) During our visit I noticed that Strum had on her desk theskull of a baboon named Peggy. Keeping a skull is a bit macabre but she did so in memoryof Peggy because she was such an extraordinarily self-assured, strong-willed, authoritative,charismatic individual who led the Pumphouse Gang successfully for many years. In Strum’swords: ‘She [Peggy] was the highest-ranking female in the troop, and her presence often turned the tidein favor of the animal she sponsored. While every adult male outranked her by sheer size and physicalstrength, she exerted considerable social pressure on each member of the troop. Her family also outrankedall the others…another reason for the contentment in this particular family was Peggy’s personality. Shewas a strong, calm, social animal, self-assured yet not pushy, forceful yet not tyrannical’ (Almost Human: ajourney into the world of baboons, Shirley C. Strum, 1987, pp.38-39 of 294). As will be explained in Part 7:1, this
ancient strength that was developed in females has sadly had to be oppressed by men for twomillion years because of its ignorant defiance of men’s corrupt state, and, as a result, is rareamongst women today—but the fact that it is still present in some is a measure of just howstrong it must have originally been to have survived this long. It is this exceptional strength insome women, which is so defiant of the upset, false, alienated world, that they can encouragea male child to so believe in another true world that when that boy grows up he is so imbuedwith awareness of how the world should and could be that he can defy the false world of upset

Part 5:1

How understanding of the human condition was found

437
humans. As I say, the importance of my mother’s strength of character and sound, loving,nurturing influence in my life has been so great that this breakthrough understanding of the

The woman who saved the world

In summary, I owe my ability to look into, find and assemble the explanation of the humancondition to the relative innocence of my Celtic ancestors and relative innocence of Australia,together with the relative innocence of the 1960s for the presence of a strong soul in the firstplace; to my mother for nurturing that soul; to Sir James Darling for fostering it; and finallyto Sir Laurens van der Post for giving it the confirmation it needed to take on and finallyoverthrow the alienated world of denial and bring out the truth about the human condition.

438

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 5:2 Descriptions of our lost state of innocence and the extent of our denial of it
I would like now to read some passages from Sir Laurens van der Post’s books thatillustrate how important his writing about our species’ lost state of innocence has been inconfirming the truths my instinctive self or soul was telling me. As has been mentioned, the
Adam Stork analogy presents a very exposing and confronting truth because it says thathumans started out innocent and then became upset. Even though what we were taught inschool was that humans’ aggressive nature comes from our animal instincts, the truth is we arenow in our most upset, brutal, savage, barbaric state. Our animal instincts were just heavenly,for if heaven is the cooperative, gentle, harmonious, unconditionally selfless, loving ideal statethen we have been there once already. In a world that is practicing so much denial of this paststate of innocence, you can imagine how Sir Laurens’ writings about it helped me—and howthey would help someone like Ken here in the audience, an adolescent boy who still playsall day with his pet ferrets and other animals. I know that when I questioned his father Tonyabout the suitability of Ken coming to this talk when his final school exam is in a fortnight’stime, Tony said, ‘Don’t worry, when there is an exam coming Ken goes down to the dam andcatches yabbies (small crayfish).’ This made so much sense to me because exams were trulyterrifying for me; I am almost 64 (as at 2009) and yet I still have nightmares about them. I hadno idea what the relevance was of the subjects we were being taught at school—they certainlyweren’t talking about the issues my mind was thinking about and interested in. I’d love to beable to talk to children about the upset-free, true world and why it became corrupted, and intime we will make videos here in this theatre about exactly that. I will present to children thecompassionate truth about this world which will enable them to stay alive inside themselves—boys, like Ken, and young girls will stay alive inside themselves, their souls will never have todie again in a sea of silent denial.
Sir Laurens wrote about the Bushmen or San people of southern Africa, the most ancientrace of humans living in the world today according to recent DNA studies, using them toresurrect the truth that humans once did live in an upset-free, innocent state before theemergence of the human condition some two million years ago. For example, he wrote that
‘He [the Bushman] and his needs were committed to the nature of Africa and the swing of its wide seasonsas a fish to the sea. He and they all participated so deeply of one another’s being that the experience couldalmost be called mystical. For instance, he seemed to know what it actually felt like to be an elephant,a lion, an antelope, a steenbuck, a lizard, a striped mouse, mantis, baobab tree, yellow-crested cobra,or starry-eyed amaryllis, to mention only a few of the brilliant multitudes through which he so nimblymoved’ (The Lost World of the Kalahari, 1958, p.21 of 253). The Bushmen were so free of preoccupation
with upset that they could sense what it felt like to be a baobab tree or an antelope. Membersof the WTM know that this is what I can do; I can walk a mile in people’s shoes as it were,
I can put myself in their situation and empathise with where they are living, because I’mnot preoccupied with pain. The Bushmen had the freedom within themselves to empathisewith each other’s situations and with the lives of the birds, animals and plants in their world.
Humans were a mystery to me until through empathising with them (because they wouldn’ttell me what was going on inside them) I finally worked them out, but I never found thebehaviour of animals and birds strange. I can tell you all about the birds out there, what they

Part 5:2

Descriptions of our lost state of innocence

439
are doing. I can whistle their calls. What the animals and birds are doing, and why, is whatinterests me, as it did the Bushmen.
Sir Laurens wrote, ‘Even as a child it seemed to me that his [the Bushman’s] world was onewithout secrets between one form of being and another’ (The Lost World of the Kalahari, 1958, p.21 of 253).

Reading Sir Laurens’ books it becomes clear that it was the Bushmen who kept his truthfulsoul alive. As a boy growing up in South Africa he listened to his parents talk about the
Bushmen, who by then had been eradicated from their area. Sir Laurens wrote, ‘He [the
Bushman] built no home of any durable kind, did not cultivate the land, and did not even keep cattle orother domestic chattel’ (ibid. p.25). ‘You know I once saw a little Bushman imprisoned in one of our gaolsbecause he killed a giant bustard which according to the police, was a crime…He was dying becausehe couldn’t bear being shut up and having his freedom of movement stopped…Physically the doctorcouldn’t find anything wrong with him but he died none the less!’ (ibid. p.236). The Bushman died of a
broken heart, because he wasn’t sufficiently toughened to the human condition to cope withthe wrongness of the world in which he found himself (which, incidentally, is why, while a
Bushman would be innocent enough and thus sound enough to look into the human condition,he wouldn’t be toughened enough to stand up to all the denial and dishonesty in the world andby so doing find understanding of the human condition). Children spiritually die today for thesame reason. The Bushmen are just like we all were when we were young and vulnerable, as
Sir Laurens recognised: ‘There was indeed a cruelly denied and neglected first child of life, a Bushmanin each of us’ (The Heart of the Hunter, 1961, p.126 of 233).

As mentioned before, Sir Laurens also wrote these extraordinarily honest words: ‘Thisshrill, brittle, self-important life of today is by comparison a graveyard where the living are dead andthe dead are alive and talking [through our soul] in the still, small, clear voice of a love and trust inlife that we have for the moment lost…[there was a time when] All on earth and in the universe werestill members and family of the early race seeking comfort and warmth through the long, cold nightbefore the dawning of individual consciousness in a togetherness which still gnaws like an unappeasablehomesickness at the base of the human heart’ (Testament to the Bushmen, 1984, pp.127-128 of 176). And:
‘Perhaps this life of ours, which begins as a quest of the child for the man, and ends as a journey by theman to rediscover the child, needs a clear image of some child-man, like the Bushman, wherein the twoare firmly and lovingly joined in order that our confused hearts may stay at the centre of their briefround of departure and return’ (The Lost World of the Kalahari, 1958, p.13 of 253). Yes, to find the liberating
understanding of the human condition the truth of the innocent, soulful state had to beresurrected from its denied state, which was precisely Sir Laurens’ contribution to the world.
To write so honestly about humanity’s collective loss of innocence was Sir Laurens’great inspiration and vision. It was an incalculably important contribution to the worldbecause it brought light to an area of denial that was crippling the human race. I can’t writevery well, it has taken me years to learn to write with some degree of competence (and thatis even with the help of WTM founding member Fiona Cullen-Ward’s editing skills—Fionais actually related to Banjo Paterson whose writing skills we have already encountered), but
Sir Laurens was a most beautiful writer, and what he did was a great trick. He wrote thesewonderful books about the Bushmen and even made a documentary about them that, at thetime, attracted the biggest television audience next to the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II
(see The Heart of the Hunter, p.117). People were fascinated by the beautifully written descriptions of

440

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
his ventures into the Kalahari Desert to find the remnants of the lost Bushmen, but throughhis books Sir Laurens also managed to thread in the truth about the relative innocence ofthe Bushmen and for someone like me those truths were pure gold. However, not everyonefailed to see the truth that Sir Laurens discreetly weaved through his books. For some people,hearing about the magic world of our soul was unbearable, and just as determined deniersof truth tried to destroy me for my honesty, so they tried to crucify Sir Laurens. After Sir
Laurens’ death, the British journalist J.D.F. Jones (1939-2009) wrote a book that set out todenigrate Sir Laurens as a charlatan—which is a ridiculous accusation when it could not bemore clear from his writings how sound and secure he was. Nevertheless, the attack wasso incredibly vicious and completely unrestrained in its dishonesty and bias (as attacks oninnocents have always been because upset people have feared exposure of their alienatedstate almost more than they feared death itself) that some people were persuaded by it.
For example, a review of Jones’ book in Australia, titled ‘Charming Charlatan’, concludedwith the assumption that ‘you might…be inclined to offer a wheelbarrow of his books to the nearestsecond-hand shop, or to junk them all’ (Luke Slattery, The Weekend Australian, 19-20 Jan. 2002). Jones’ deep
allegiance to the world of denial is apparent in this emotionally charged comment he made inan interview: ‘the academic experts on the Kalahari [Bushmen] are absolutely berserk with rage aboutthe things he [Sir Laurens] said, because, if you read The Lost World of the Kalahari, you must not believethat this is the truth about the Bushmen; it’s not’ (ABC Radio, Late Night Live, 25 Feb. 2002). In his book,

Jones said that academics accused Sir Laurens of ‘a romantic and no doubt inaccurate portrait ofthis dying social group’ (J.D.F. Jones, Teller of Many Tales, 2002, p.230 of 528). What it was that Sir Laurens
was saying about the Bushmen that made academic experts—and Jones—‘berserk with rage’was that the Bushmen were a relatively innocent race. This was heresy for two reasons: firstly,what Sir Laurens was saying destroyed the contrived excuse that our ancestors were brutalsavages; secondly, it defied one of the main strategies of denial of not acknowledging theabsolutely obvious truth of there being differences in alienation between individuals, genders,generations, races, civilisations and even cultures.
The academic experts in universities were the custodians of denial—we were not going toget any truth from them. In fact, Sir Laurens once complained about the refusal by ‘academicexperts’ to study the life of the Bushmen: ‘It seemed a strange paradox that everywhere men andwomen were busy digging up old ruins and buried cities in order to discover more about ancient man,when all the time the ignored Bushman was living with this early spirit still intact. I found men willingenough to come with me to measure his head, or his behind, or his sexual organs, or his teeth. But when
I pleaded with the head of a university in my own country to send a qualified young man to live with the
Bushman for two or three years, to learn about him and his ancient way he exclaimed, surprised: “Butwhat would be the use of that?”’ (The Lost World of the Kalahari, p.67). Mechanistic science has not been
able to deal with the subjective, human condition dimension to life, as Professor Charles
Birch acknowledged when he said, ‘Science can’t deal with subjectivity…what we were all taught inuniversities is pretty much a dead end’ (From recording of Birch’s 1993 FHA/WTM Open Day address).

Not only did mechanistic scientists seek to escape the unbearably confrontingimplications of the Bushmen’s innocence by reducing the focus of their studies to ‘measur[ing]his head’ etc, they also went further and sought to denigrate them as ‘savages’ by highlighting
their violence and aggression. For example, in his 1978 book On Human Nature, E.O. Wilson

Part 5:2

Descriptions of our lost state of innocence

441
wrote that ‘their homicide rate per capita equalled that of Detroit and Houston’ (p.100 of 260). Incontrast, Lorna Marshall, regarded as ‘the doyenne of American anthropology’ (Sandy Gall, The Bushmenof Southern Africa, 2001, ch.10) and one of the only Westerners to live with the Bushmen before they
became contaminated through contact with more modern races, described honestly, like Sir
Laurens, ‘their [the Bushmen’s] predominantly peaceful, well-adjusted human relations’ (The !Kung of
Nyae Nyae, 1976, p.286 of 433). Her daughter, Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, who accompanied her
on her expeditions in the 1950s, was the author of the classic 1959 book about the Bushmen,
The Harmless People. In direct response to E.O. Wilson, Marshall Thomas wrote (in a 1989addition to her book), ‘To my knowledge Wilson has never visited the Ju/wasi [Bushmen]. His book
[On Human Nature] never mentions how important it was to them to keep their social balance, howcarefully they treated this balance, and how successful they were. That he discusses them at all is perhapsdue to the fact that in the 1970s they were selected by academics as a sort of living laboratory in whichstudies could be made on attributes of human nature, the most intriguing of which at the time seemedto be aggression’ (p.283 of 303). Indeed, summarising both her and her mother’s observations
about the Bushmen, Marshall Thomas wrote that ‘we both emphasized the absence of violence andcompetition. Indeed, we were struck by it…The relatively few outbreaks of violence seemed isolated andwere discussed over and over, since they caused such distress’ (The Harmless People, 1989. p.286 of 303).

As was explained in Part 4:4E, the acknowledgement of the existence of relativeinnocence in one race would unfairly condemn the more upset, less innocent races as ‘bad’,unworthy and inferior, so such reports of the relative innocence of the Bushmen couldnot be tolerated. And just as Sir Laurens pointed out the superficial, mechanistic studiesanthropologists were making of the Bushmen, Marshall Thomas pointed out the urgentattempts to misportray the Bushmen as violent: ‘In the ten to twenty years after we started ourwork, many academics developed an enormous interest in the Bushmen. Many of them went to Botswanato visit groups of Kung Bushmen, and for a time in Botswana, the anthropologist/Bushman ratio seemedalmost one to one. Yet although the investigators were numerous, the range of some of their investigationsseemed narrowed to an emphasis on questions of violence and aggression’ (ibid p.284). Yes, to escape the
agony of the human condition, some excuse had to be found—some evidence of aggressionhad to be identified and then gone all out to stress! As has been repeatedly pointed out, whenthe need for denial is critical any excuse will do, and the art of denial is to then stick like glueto that excuse because doing so saves you from suicidal depression; just keep banging onabout it, no matter how transparently false it really is!
One of the more prominent anthropologists whose ‘investigations [into the Bushmen] seemednarrowed to an emphasis on questions of violence and aggression’ was Melvin Konner, who stressed
‘findings that seemed to confirm what might be called the darker side of !Kung life’ (Melvin Konner &
Marjorie Shostak, ‘Ethnographic Romanticism and the Idea of Human Nature’, The Past and Future of !Kung Ethnography,eds. Megan Biesele with Robert Gordon & Richard Lee, 1986, p.73 of 423). When Konner wrote a clearly biased
review of Marshall Thomas’s 2007 book The Old Way: A Story of the First People, Marshall
Thomas felt compelled to respond, writing that ‘the moment I saw Konner as the reviewer, I knewwe were back where we started. I measured the length of his review—141 inches or 11¾ feet in all—andsaw he was averaging four attacks per foot of column. And in the barrage, I’d say only one criticism hadsubstance. Even then he distorted what I’d said’ (‘Response to Dim Beginnings’, The New York Review of Books, 29
Mar. 2007). Another who ‘attack[ed]’ Marshall Thomas was the primatologist Richard Wrangham

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

442

The Biology

(who as described in Part 8:5E put forward the Chimpanzee Violence Hypothesis), whoaccused Marshall Thomas as having ‘conjured’ the idea of ‘Peaceful primitives’ (Demonic Males,
1997, p.76 of 350).

So Marshall Thomas’ reports of the relative innocence of the Bushmen were
attacked, as were Sir Laurens’.
Again, as has been explained throughout this book, while there is violence in primitivepeoples, the true explanation for the aggression apparent in their societies is that while theyare undoubtedly more innocent than the majority of humans in the world today, they are,as mentioned above, still members of the extremely upset stage of humanity, H. sapienssapiens, and are, therefore, nowhere near as innocent as humans were some two millionyears ago when the battle of the human condition first emerged. Moreover, while basic levelsof restraint are instinctive in primitive hunter-forager people such as the Bushmen, as wasexplained in Part 3:11G, they do not possess the more sophisticated levels of self-disciplinethat more upset races adopted following the advent of agriculture and herding some 11,000years ago, and which has subsequently become, to a degree, instinctive. As a result, to drawupon data on homicide rates, as academics such as E.O. Wilson do, and use that comparisonto argue that more primitive peoples are not more innocent than more modern races, is tototally ignore the effect increasing levels of restraint have on upset behaviour. As any motherwill attest, a nine-year-old child is more innocent than an adult, and yet during the ‘naughtynines’ phase, as was described earlier (in Part 3:11A), they will lash out at the world in a waythat a more restrained or ‘civilised’ adult would not.
The effect of restraining violence was well demonstrated by the successful ‘Iroquois
Confederacy’ of the North American Indians. As was described in Part 3:11G, by the time
Europeans arrived in North America, a grand league of American Indian tribes had beenestablished to prevent, through adherence to certain restraining rules that were enforceablethrough punishment, the endless rounds of payback warfare that had been occurring betweenand within the tribes. The absurdity of evaluating a peoples’ level of innocence through theirdisplay of violence is apparent if we were to imagine anthropologists measuring homicidelevels the month before and after the Confederacy was established. While homicide rateswould have dropped dramatically, the only difference or reason for that change would be thatthe levels of restraint had increased dramatically, not the degree of innocence, which wouldhave, of course, remained unchanged. The fear of punishment was simply preventing eachmember from expressing or living out their upset.
The whole story of the human journey during the last two million years that wasdescribed in Part 3:11, has really the story of the emergence of ever-increasing levels of upset,and the development of ever more sophisticated ways to restrain and contain those newlevels of upset. The recognition in all our mythologies and in the work of our most profoundthinkers of a wonderful, all-loving, innocent past for the human race wasn’t some romantic,fanciful dream of some impossible, unrealistic, idyllic, utopian existence, as mechanisticscience has tried to dismiss it as, but a completely real time in our species’ distant past thatrecently discovered fossil evidence is now confirming, and that bonobos provide ample livingevidence of. The true story of human life over the last two million years is that of the loss of

Part 5:2

Descriptions of our lost state of innocence

443
innocence—our ‘fall from grace’, our departure from the ‘Garden of Eden’, the corruption ofour soul, our ever-increasing levels of anger, egocentricity and alienation! Everyone does, intruth, know that under the duress of the human condition we each, and our species as a whole,started life in an innocent state and ended up in a variously psychologically upset, embattled,soul-corrupted state. Innocence is associated with youth, not old age.
So yes, tribal warfare and outbreaks of individual violence have been occurring for a longtime, but that doesn’t mean that the relative innocence of hunter-forager tribes still living,like the Bushmen of South Africa, the Australian Aborigines and the Yanomamö of South
America, don’t reveal a great deal about how extremely upset the great majority of the humanrace has become, and how much civility, and other pseudo idealistic means of restraint,humans now rely upon to mask and contain that extreme upset. But again, the psychologicalagony of our human condition has been so great that while we humans couldn’t truthfullyexplain our condition all we had to protect ourselves from the vicious, unbearable selfconfrontation of such relative innocence were equally vicious, retaliatory, denial-based lies.

So the ‘academic experts’ were ‘berserk with rage’ with what Sir Laurens revealed about the
Bushmen. The truth is Sir Laurens was persecuted because he was an extraordinarily honest,denial-free thinker or prophet—indeed, as was mentioned in Part 3:11H, in his full-pageobituary in the London’s The Times he was described as ‘a prophet out of Africa’ (20 Dec. 1996)
(view Sir Laurens’ obituary that was reproduced in The Australian at <www.humancondition.com/vanderpostobituary>). The former Prime Minister of Britain, Baroness Margaret Thatcher, recognised

Sir Laurens’ extraordinary soundness when she described him as ‘the most perfect man I haveever met’ (mentioned in the J.D.F. Jones interview on Late Night Live, ABC Radio, 25 Feb. 2002). Throughout
history denial-free thinkers like John the Baptist and his protégé Christ were often brutallypersecuted, or, as in these instances, even killed for telling the truth. The great danger of suchpersecution was that while it protected upset humans from unbearable condemnation it alsothwarted the expression of truths needed to explain the human condition. In fact, as was madevery clear in Part 3:11H about the danger of pseudo idealism, and in Part 4 about the dangerof excessive dishonesty in science, the real threat facing the human race was terminal levelsof denial/alienation—a world where humans were walking around in such terrible truthlessand meaningless darkness that they could never hope to find their way back to a world ofliberating and relieving light/knowledge.
With the human condition now explained and defended the truth about our species’immensely angry, egocentric and alienated upset state can and must, if we are to heal ourspecies’ world-destroying psychoses and neuroses, be revealed. We can and now needto admit what our mythologies have long recognised, the truth of our species’ originalinnocence—again, as Richard Heinberg summarised in his book Memories & Visions of
Paradise: ‘Every religion begins with the recognition that human consciousness has been separatedfrom the divine Source, that a former sense of oneness…has been lost…everywhere in religion andmyth there is an acknowledgment that we have departed from an original…innocence’ (Memories &
Visions of Paradise, 1990, pp.81-82 of 282).

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

444

Africa: Our soul’s home – the Garden of Eden

Seeking permission to reproduce this photograph of natural Africa in my 1991 book
Beyond The Human Condition, I corresponded with Mary Smith, who was then Senior
Editor Assistant of National Geographic magazine. The photograph was taken by Gilbert
M. Grosvenor, who at the time of my correspondence with Smith was President of National
Geographic. Smith said that despite an official policy to never permit the use of Grosvenor’sphotographs outside of National Geographic they were so moved by my letter that theymade the first ever exception and allowed me to use the image. In that letter I told National
Geographic that the photograph was so important to me because it evoked the memory ofour species’ original instinctive self or soul’s time in Africa. In the 1950s, when I was a youngboy at Tudor House boarding school, I saw a film called Where No Vultures Fly that hadan amazing impact on me, as evidenced by the fact that I still remember the film’s name. Itwas a simple story filmed in Africa with people running around shooting each other, but thebackground was teeming with all the wonderful wildlife of Africa. Africa is in our psyche, itis in our ancient memory: it is our soul’s home. We once lived in the scene in this photograph.
Our Homo sapiens sapiens ancestors only left Africa some 60,000 years ago so the greatmajority of our instinctive memory is of living in this landscape where all the animals wereour companions. Our species grew up in Africa—we know this place. If you go to natural
Africa it is like a time warp, you feel like you have been hit with a stick, it is mind-exploding.
Tim Macartney-Snape grew up in Tanzania, and Annie and I have been there, and I wantthe founding members of the WTM to visit natural Africa next year if possible so they canpersonally experience how moving it is.

Part 5:2

Descriptions of our lost state of innocence

445

In her 1967 book, the appropriately titled A Glimpse of Eden, Evelyn Ames, a poet andnovelist, recorded the experiences of a month-long safari undertaken in East Africa: ‘Wethought we knew what to expect. Several friends had been there and told us about it; some, even, hadmade the same trip we were…going to make, but we discovered that nothing, really, prepares you forlife on the East African Highlands. It is life (I want to say), making our usual existences seem oddlyunreal and other landscapes dead; that country in the sky is another world…It is a world, and a life,from which one comes back changed. Long afterwards, gazelles still galloped through my dreams orstood gazing at me out of their soft and watchful eyes, and as I returned each daybreak, unbelieving,to my familiar room, I realized increasingly that this world would never again be the same for havingvisited that one. Nor does it leave you when you go away. Knowing its landscapes and sounds (evenmore in silence), how it feels and smells—just knowing it is there—sets it forever, in its own special light,somewhere in the mind’s sky’ (pp.1-2 of 224). ‘Each day in Africa my heart had almost burst with Walt
Whitman’s outcry: “As to me, I know of nothing else but miracles”’ (p.204). In Henry IV, William

Shakespeare wrote of ‘A foutra for the world and worldlings base! I speak of Africa and golden joys’
(Part 2, Act V, Scene iii, c.1597). A sign
at the entrance to the Serengeti National Park reads: ‘This
is the world as it was in the beginning.’ Sir Laurens wrote that ‘We need primitive nature, the First
Man in ourselves, it seems, as the lungs need air and the body food and water…I thought finally that ofall the nostalgias that haunt the human heart the greatest of them all, for me, is an everlasting longingto bring what is youngest home to what is oldest, in us all’ (The Lost World of the Kalahari, 1958, p 151 of 253).

Natural Africa is the ‘cradle of the human race’, it is our species’ spiritual home; it is themost sacred place on Earth.

Edward Hicks’ Peaceable Kingdomwith Seated Lion (detail) 1833-1834

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

446

The Biology

This painting by the American folk painter Edward Hicks represents a bubbling up fromour subconscious psyche or soul of this memory of our innocent time in Africa, a time whenwe lived harmoniously with all animals, even lions. Did you know that the relatively innocent
Bushmen talk to the lions? They say, ‘Don’t, no, hey, woo, no’ and the lions obey them. Lionshave learnt instinctively to respect the Bushmen because they have poison arrows, but the
Bushmen do know lions so well that they can communicate with them. As Sir Laurens said, the
Bushmen actually know all the creatures’ personalities. They walk around asking, ‘How are yougoing mate? What are you doing? I know what you do, you’re always scampering around therearen’t you?’ That is their world. They are fascinated with nature and can relate to it and so theydo have these serious out-loud talks with lions, in which they can get very stern but the lions doactually back off. Bushmen can, like our ancient forebears could, talk lions out of a kill.
I want to include again this marvellous description of our original innocent state by theeighth century BC Greek poet Hesiod, from his poem Works and Days: ‘When gods alike andmortals rose to birth / A golden race the immortals formed on earth…Like gods they lived, with calmuntroubled mind / Free from the toils and anguish of our kind / Nor e’er decrepit age misshaped theirframe…Strangers to ill, their lives in feasts flowed by…Dying they sank in sleep, nor seemed to die /
Theirs was each good; the life-sustaining soil / Yielded its copious fruits, unbribed by toil / They withabundant goods ’midst quiet lands / All willing shared the gathering of their hands.’ We once lived in
this idyllic state.
In his 1989 book What Am I Doing Here, Bruce Chatwin acknowledged that Christwas the innocent, uncorrupted expression of our species’ integratively-orientated, originalinstinctive self when he wrote that ‘There is no contradiction between the Theory of Evolutionand belief in God and His Son on earth. If Christ were the perfect instinctual specimen—and we haveevery reason to believe He was—He must be the Son of God. By the same token, the First Man wasalso Christ’ (p.65 of 367). This reference to ‘the First Man’ being ‘also Christ’ makes sense of
this comment by Sir Laurens about a missionary who sought to convert the Bushmen to
Christianity: ‘The pastor, Dominee Ferdie Weich, though much loved by the Bushmen, could reportno permanent conversion to Christ in 21 years’ (Testament to the Bushmen, 1984, text accompanying photograph
91). The

Bushmen, being Christ-like themselves in their relative innocence, weren’t in need
of Christianity. They didn’t need a sound person to defer to, to live through, to be ‘bornagain’ through, to be ‘resurrected’ from their upset state through, because they were not soupset themselves that they could no longer afford to trust in and live through themselves. Inhis 1985 book Black Robe, the Northern Irish novelist Brian Moore recorded this revealingcomment made by an American Indian to Jesuit missionaries in Canada about the comparativeinnocence of native people: ‘It is because you Normans are deaf and blind that you think this worldis a world of darkness and the world of the dead is a world of light’ (p.184 of 256). I should mention that
as a member of the Jewish race, Christ would have benefited from the genetic toughness ofthat race because it would have allowed his exceptionally well nurtured innocence to survivecontact with the upset world where someone less genetically toughened may have not. As myheadmaster at Geelong Grammar School, Sir James Darling (who in his full-page obituaryin The Australian newspaper was described as ‘a prophet in the true biblical sense’ (3 Nov. 1995)),said in one of his famous speeches about sensitive, innocent soundness not being enough forsomeone to be able to defy the alienated, dishonest world of denial and find the explanation

Part 5:2

Descriptions of our lost state of innocence

447
of the human condition, ‘he must be sensitive and tough’ (The Education of a Civilized Man, 1962, p.34 of
223)—which
is why a member of the Bushman race, which is a genetically relatively innocent
race, could not have found the explanation of the human condition. (Note, later in Part 10:5 Icite more of Sir James Darling’s speech, in which he spoke about needing to ‘be sensitive andtough’—and much more can be read there about his incredibly visionary education program
at Geelong Grammar School, where he deliberately set out to cultivate the innocence neededto solve the human condition.) Sir Laurens van der Post also recognised that the Bushmen,although relatively innocent, did not have sufficient instinctive toughness to withstand theupset world when he described how ‘mere contact with twentieth-century life seemed lethal to the
Bushman. He was essentially so innocent and natural a person that he had only to come near us for a sortof radioactive fall-out from our unnatural world to produce a fatal leukaemia in his spirit’ (The Heart ofthe Hunter, 1961, p.111 of 233). A further difference between Christ and the more innocent so-called

‘primitive’ races such as the Bushman is the greater level of self restraint that accompaniestoughness, which Christ, being a member of the more upset adapted Jewish race, would havepossessed. The story of how restraint has accompanied the rise in upset during the humanjourney was described throughout Part 3:11.
So while they are still bouncing around, relatively secure and happy inside themselves,even the Bushmen are to a degree upset, and that upset can be expressed in physical violence.
You have to go back a lot further in time to get truly innocent humans. Even so, the Bushmenare the most innocent variety of humans living today. What upset that does develop in the
Bushmen is able to be exorcised or valved off by performing trance dances in which theindividual uses exhaustion to shut down their troubled conscious mind and let their soul riseto the surface of their awareness and by so doing become realigned to the true world. I meanthe Bushmen just wander around with nature all day, talking to the lions, talking to lizards andmucking around here and getting a bit of food there, that’s just all they do and that’s what wealways did—and yet when the Bushmen make, for example, a good arrow, they quickly giveit to another to avoid jealousy, because there is still some upset in them.
Indeed, to find what original innocent man was like you have to go back two millionyears. If an original innocent person walked in this room, honestly we’d all die, because wewouldn’t be able to cope with their purity—they would be so free of any sign of corruption;they would be so unaware of anything to do with upset. You would see in their eyes such pureinnocence and complete trust, such freedom, such joy and happiness, it would be unbearable.
The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) acknowledged the innocenceof our original instinctive state when he wrote that ‘nothing is more gentle than man in his primitivestate’ (The Social Contract and Discourses, 1755; tr. G.D.H. Cole, pub. 1913, Book IV, The Origin of Inequality, p.198of 269) and ‘Man is born free but is everywhere in chains’ (Le Contrat Social, 1762 [published in English as The
Social Contract, 1791]).

Recall in Part 4:12, how E.O. Wilson, the Harvard professor of biology developed theextremely dishonest theory of Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology to dismiss our moralnature as nothing more than reciprocity, a subtle form of selfishness—and then, whenthat proved too unsavoury, put forward the extremely dishonest theory of Eusociality tomisrepresent our moral soul as being derived from warring between groups of humans. Withthe theory of Eusociality, Wilson even sought to trivialise the human condition as nothing

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

448

The Biology
more than a conflict between selfish and selfless instincts within us! Wilson has been theleading biologist at Harvard University, one of the leading universities in the world. He hasbeen frequently described as one ‘of the 20th century’s greatest biologists’ and is ‘among the mostdecorated and celebrated biologists of…[his] generation’ (‘Wilson, Watson reflect on past trials, future directions’,
Harvard Gazette, 10 Sept. 2009).

He has been awarded two Pulitzer Prizes, the U.S. National Medal
of Science and in 1995 was named one of TIME magazine’s 25 Most Influential People in
America. The key question that had to be answered for there to be a future for the humanrace was the issue of the human condition, and that is a question for biologists, and Wilsonis, by all these accounts, the leader of the world in the field of biology, so in his lap lay thegreatest of all responsibilities and yet, instead of seeking an honest answer to the issue of thehuman condition, he was intent on trivialising the issue, basically subverting humanity fromfinding the desperately needed, real explanation of our psychologically troubled condition!
The captain of the world, as it were, was leading humanity to destruction! I once described
Wilson as the ‘Antichrist’ because if Christ was the most innocent, denial-free, honest thinkerin recorded history, which he was, then Wilson was the opposite. While Christ was the
Lord of Truth, Wilson was the Lord of Lying, the Archdeacon of Denial! Biology has beenspreading some diabolical lies around the world. Darwin tried to avoid lying but Wilson hadno compunction about doing so. That this has happened is an expression of how upset thehuman race has become and thus how desperate humans have been to contrive an excusefor their extremely upset behaviour, but, as I have emphasised, the great danger of suchextreme lying was that it risked burying the truth forever and thus condemning humanity toextinction! The amount of lying that has been going on, and the eulogising of it, has been avery serious matter indeed. The world of humans has become completely mad. Alienationhad all but seduced the world.
As was described in Part 4:12, in his 1998 book Consilience, which claimed that
Evolutionary Psychology’s reciprocity-explanation-for-social-behaviour explained humans’moral nature, Wilson, the ‘captain of the world’, said that ‘Rousseau claimed [that humanity] wasoriginally a race of noble savages in a peaceful state of nature, who were later corrupted…[but what]
Rousseau invented [was] a stunningly inaccurate form of anthropology’ (p.37). This statement is as
outrageously dishonest as J.D.F. Jones’ accusation that ‘the academic experts on the Kalahari
[Bushmen] are absolutely berserk with rage about the things he [Sir Laurens] said’ about the Bushmen.

You may wonder why the WTM is out here, stuck under a few gum trees, promotingthese ideas. As I described in Part 4:14, these human-condition-confronting explanationshave not been embraced by the human-condition-denying scientific establishment. I oncepresented a lecture to the psychology department at Sydney University. Well, they hatedand rejected what I had to say—they did go ‘berserk with rage’. There was uproar and peoplewalked out—basically I was spat out the door because I started to put forward all theseideas that are based on such truths as the original innocence of humans. I mean I can keepgoing on like this, talking the truth about the world of innocence and our corrupted state andfrom that truthful basis explain all manner of phenomena for hours on end. But those in thepsychology department didn’t want to know about it, their whole edifice of denial was beingdismantled brick by brick and they hated it. I mean how dare they? They are supposedly themasters of a field of study that deals with human psychosis—as was explained in Part 3:8,

Part 5:2

Descriptions of our lost state of innocence

449

‘psychosis’ literally means ‘soul-illness’, derived as it is from psyche meaning ‘soul’, and osis
which means ‘abnormal state or condition’; thus we can understand that ‘psychology’ means the
‘study of the soul’, while the associated field of ‘psychiatry’, as practiced by medical specialists,
literally means ‘soul-healing’, derived as it is from psyche meaning ‘soul’ and iatreia whichmeans ‘healing’. Well, let’s talk about the ‘soul’ and why it became ‘ill’ or corrupted from anobviously innocent state and therefore has to be ‘healed’. Why aren’t these ‘specialists of thesoul’ talking about that? What was our ‘soul’’s original state and how and why did it become
‘abnormal’, corrupted? They are not even asking those fundamental questions and yet they
are the supposed authorities on the subject. Very often people who are the least secure wantto become psychiatrists and psychologists, not because they have the greatest need for whatit has to offer, but because they either want to find what all the denials are that they can useto hide behind, or because by becoming a psychologist they have somehow disproved thepossibility that they suffer from psychosis, in which case denial ends up fostering denial. Suchis the end play state of terminal levels of alienation at which the human race has arrived.
As the custodians of denial mechanistic science can’t tolerate the ideas I present. It is notabout to publish these ideas in its literature or have the ideas debated there, which is why theyhave had to be promoted by an independent organisation that I and the supporters of theseideas have had to establish, fund and run ourselves.
So Wilson said Rousseau was ‘stunningly inaccurate’, and Jones said the ‘academic experts’were ‘berserk with rage’ with Sir Laurens. You ought to hear what the captains of denial triedto do to me, it would make your ears curl—how I’m still on my feet I don’t know. This isthe first public talk I’ve given in 15 years because the enemies of all the truth I’m daring topresent made a program that was televised throughout Australia by our national broadcaster,the ABC, would you believe, that portrayed me as such a monster that I’ve had to fight tosurvive let alone do any work (and Sir James Darling was a former Chairman of the ABC!
How they have lost their way, become bankrupt of any relevance to the human journey). Infact I had to fight so hard to survive that I came down with Chronic Fatigue, from which I’veonly just recovered after my partner Annie Williams nursed me through it for 10 years. I oncegave lots of public talks and the last time I did one I was a vital, radiantly excited young man.
I’m now an old man but thank God I fought hard enough to survive and I’m still alive to givethis presentation. Not only do I need to thank Annie for all her support through the last 20years of horrible persecution, I also need to thank my brother Simon, the other directors andpatrons of the WTM, and all the founding members of the WTM for their unwavering courage.
The English poet laureate William Wordsworth was, like Rousseau, extraordinarilyhonest. As was described in Part 4:6, he wrote this wonderful poem in 1807, probably thegreatest poem ever written, titled Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early
Childhood. Even the title Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhoodcontains exceptional honesty. If you bore down into that title, unpack it, dismantle it,
Wordsworth is saying that humans were once so innocent that it didn’t matter to us if welived or died—which echoes Hesiod, who said, ‘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 / Nor e’erdecrepit age misshaped their frame…Strangers to ill, their lives in feasts flowed by…Dying they sank insleep, nor seemed to die.’ When we were innocent we were so in tune with everything around

450

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
us and so happy inside and so alive that death was not an issue. Death is only an issue whenwe live a wretched life, where we become so selfish that it matters if we die or not. Fear ofdeath is a product of selfishness, which in turn is a product of alienation, which in turn isthe loss of the generosity and meaning we once had before we became upset. In our ‘Early
Childhood’ we have ‘Intimations of Immortality’—when we are innocent and free of upset we
are not concerned with the issue of mortality. For secure people mortality is not an issuebecause their love for this world is universal and everything is saturated and full of that love.
So how much truth is in that title alone! In this marvellous poem Wordsworth wrote, ‘Therewas a time when meadow, grove, and streams / The earth, and every common sight / To me did seem /
Apparelled in celestial light / The glory and the freshness of a dream / It is not now as it hath been ofyore / Turn wheresoe’er I may / By night or day / The things which I have seen I now can see no more

[because I’ve become alienated, I have had to block out all truth of another true world because it hasbecome too condemning] // The Rainbow comes and goes / And lovely is the Rose / The Moon doth withdelight / Look round her when the heavens are bare / Waters on a starry night / Are beautiful and fair /
The sunshine is a glorious birth / But yet I know, where’er I go / That there hath past away a glory fromthe earth…something that is gone / …Whither is fled the visionary gleam? / Where is it now, the gloryand the dream? [Where is my memory of that magic time I lived in?] // Our birth is but a sleep and aforgetting [alienation] / The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star / Hath had elsewhere its setting / Andcometh from afar / Not in entire forgetfulness / And not in utter nakedness [and the following words are
the most beautiful I’ve ever read] / But trailing clouds of glory do we come / From God, who is our home
[God is the integrative, cooperative, selfless, loving ideals and since we once lived in the cooperativeideal state, ‘trailing clouds of glory do we come’. We come from an uncorrupted, cooperative, innocent,loving state—‘From God, who is our home’] / Heaven lies about us in our infancy! / Shades of the prisonhouse begin to close / Upon the growing Boy / …And by the vision splendid / Is on his way attended / Atlength the Man perceives it die away / And fade into the light of common day / …Forget the glories hehath known / And that imperial palace whence he came.’

Wordsworth goes on to say that it is only a denial-free thinker or ‘prophet’ who hasn’tbecome resigned to living in denial and had to ‘Forget’ the true world who, from that honestbasis, can plumb the depths of humanity’s estranged state: ‘Thou best Philosopher, who yet dostkeep / Thy heritage, thou Eye among the blind / That, deaf and silent, read’st the eternal deep / Hauntedfor ever by the eternal mind / Mighty Prophet! Seer blest! / On whom those truths do rest / Which we aretoiling all our lives to find / In darkness lost, the darkness of the grave.’

So in all these quotes about the innocence of our original instinctive state we can gainan appreciation of how dishonest mechanistic science has been to have denied so manytruths related to this magic world of our soul. These quotes and the truth they resurrect of theexistence of our lost state of innocence also raise the serious question of how are we supposedto cope with the exposure of having the truth of how corrupted the human race has becomerevealed? It is this very important question that will be looked at next.

Part 6
The Solution to Exposure
Part 6:1 Although the upset state of the human condition is now explained anddefended, how is the human race supposed to cope with having the immenseextent of its corrupted condition suddenly revealed?
While acknowledgments like those just given of our species’ upset-free, cooperative,harmonious, innocent past helped to preserve my soul and allowed me to go on andassemble the explanation of the human condition, they also raise a very serious issue: whilethe redeeming and rehabilitating understanding of the human condition has at last beenfound and humans’ upset state is now properly and compassionately defended, how is theupset human race supposed to cope with having all the truth about its immensely corruptedstate suddenly revealed?
In fact, the problem of how are we to cope with the arrival of the all-exposing truth aboutour corrupted condition is such a serious issue that the answer to it is the most importantconcept in this whole presentation next to the explanation of the human condition itself.
As such, this answer, which is the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING, was morefully explained in Part 3:10. A detailed presentation of the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY
OF LIVING will also be given later in Part 9, while Affirmations from those putting it into
practice can either be viewed at <www.humancondition.com/affirmations>, or read in Section 3of Freedom Expanded: Book 2. This chapter, which will provide an overview of the problemand its all-important solution, also introduces a drawing that is designed to starkly depict thepredicament facing the human race.
Yes, the arrival of understanding of the human condition unavoidably brings with it truthday, honesty day, transparency day, revelation day—exposure day. Indeed, it is the arrivalof the historically feared, so-called ‘judgment day’—although that is an unfortunate termbecause this breakthrough is all about bringing dignifying understanding, not condemning
‘judgment’. As an anonymous Turkish poet once said, judgment day is ‘Not the day of judgmentbut the day of understanding’ (Merle Severy, ‘The World of Süleyman the Magnificent’, National Geographic,
Nov. 1987).

Nevertheless, while what has arrived is all about compassionate ‘understanding’,
not condemning ‘judgment’, this understanding does at first leave upset humans feelingextremely exposed; naked; stripped of all the contrived defences they have been employingto cope with their condition while they couldn’t explain it. A focus of religious texts hasalways been on how all-liberating yet at the same time all-exposing the truth about ourspecies’ condition was going to be when at last it arrived. The Bible, for instance, contains

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

452

The Biology
references to the ‘day of judgment’ (Matt. 10:15, 11:22, 24, 12:36; Mark 6:11; 2 Pet. 2:9, 3:7; 1 John 4:17) and ‘theday when God will judge men’s secrets’ (Rom. 2:16), as well as descriptions of it, such as that from
the prophet Isaiah, who said that the liberation that ‘gives you relief from suffering and turmoil andcruel bondage…will come with vengeance; with divine retribution…to save you. Then will the eyes of theblind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped…Your nakedness will be exposed’ (14:3; 35:4, 5; 47:3).

So, the big question is this: having lived for two million years in a deathly dark, cavelike state of extreme denial and thus alienation, how is the upset human race expected tocope with ‘the Terror’ of suddenly having the blinds drawn and all the exposing light oftruth stream in upon us? These explanations of the human condition are initially fascinatingbecause they make sense of so much of human life, however, when reading on theytypically become increasingly confronting and exposing, and ultimately unbearable. Forexample, reading through all the quotes just given from Sir Laurens, Hesiod, Rousseau,
Wordsworth and others about our lost innocence can become overwhelmingly exposing.
How are upset humans supposed to cope with learning just how much innocence they havelost? This problem of exposure is part of the difficulty we in the WTM term the ‘Mexican
Standoff ’, which is slang for reaching an impasse or deadlock—in this case, the situationwhere you intellectually know the information is true and that it explains and defendsthe upset state, but find actually confronting it all excruciating. The American writer andfuturist Alvin Toffler coined the term ‘future shock’, which he described as ‘the shatteringstress and disorientation that we induce in individuals by subjecting them to too much change intoo short a time’ (Future Shock, 1970, p.4 of 505). When Toffler wrote of this ‘future shock’ he was
actually intuitively anticipating this time when understanding of the human conditionwould emerge and humans would suddenly be faced with too much truth to have to adjustto in too short a time.
There is a terrifying abyss of depressing truth to have to face when understanding ofthe human condition arrives. Carl Jung described in dramatic terms just how ‘shattering’unrestricted self-confrontation has been for upset humans: ‘When it [our ‘shadow’, the negativeaspects of ourselves] appears…it is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize therelative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absoluteevil’ (Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, 1959, tr. R.F.C. Hull; in The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol.
9/2, p.10). Although
we now know that upset is not an ‘evil’ state, Jung’s quote makes it very
clear just how much corruption exists within upset humans, and that an abyss of depressionawaits any who delve too deeply into their corrupted condition—which brings us to thefollowing drawing of Humanity’s Situation, an image almost as important as the Adam Storkpicture in terms of what it depicts.

How is humanity to cope with exposure of its upset state?

453

Part 6:1

Humanity’s Situation: the Sunshine Highway to Freedom, the Abyss of Depression,our Cave-like Dead Existence and the Spiralling Pit of Terminal Alienation

At the top of the picture we can see humans revelling in the human-conditionameliorated freedom of sun-drenched liberating understanding. Beneath them, however, isa terrible abyss with the word ‘DEPRESSION’ written prominently across the bottom of it,

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

454

The Biology
representing all the exposing truth about the human race’s immensely corrupted conditionthat is unbearable to confront. You can see that this abyss consumes two-thirds of thewhole picture, which is an accurate reflection of just how big the problem of exposure isthat unavoidably accompanies the arrival of understanding of the human condition. On theother side of the abyss lies a narrow strip of land that is coloured the grey-green of deadflesh and which features the words ‘CAVE-LIKE DEAD EXISTENCE’ and a throng of peoplewalking around like zombies. This is a truthful depiction of the state of extreme alienationthat humans currently live in. So, the question is, how are we to cross that terrifying abyssof depression, how are we to cope with unbearable exposure? As Enrico, a reader of mybooks, put it: ‘Diving into a sea of truth where everything is completely transparent one can’t but ask,
“how will anybody cope with this; how in the world can anybody cross such darkness to reach light?!”’
(WTM records, 24 Feb. 2011). And
yet if the human race does not cross that abyss it will reach
terminal levels of alienation. The bottom corner of the picture contains a big black spiral pitthat has written beside it, ‘Extinction of the human species from terminal levels of alienation.’ Yes,if understanding of the human condition was never found, or if there was no way for theupset human race to cope with the exposing understanding of the human condition once itwas found, as it now has been, then eventually the human race would become extinct fromterminal levels of alienation.
So this impasse is where the human race appears to be trapped—between having toface unbearably exposing truths or extinction from terminal levels of alienation. Mercifully,however, there is a way to cope, and in this drawing that solution is depicted by the ‘Sunshine
Highway’ bridge over the Abyss of Depression.

Stated simply, the way the upset human race copes with the arrival of exposure day or
‘judgment day’ is by supporting the truth without overly confronting it. When the liberatingunderstanding of the human condition arrives after two million years of living without it,there is necessarily going to be far too much exposing and confronting truth to, all of asudden, be able to process—but that does not prevent us from supporting the truth. Once youhave studied these understandings sufficiently to verify to your own satisfaction that theyare the true explanation of the human condition then there is no need to study them furtherand become overly confronted by them. The generations who grew up in the dark as it were,without understanding of the human condition, can’t suddenly expect to be able to copewith the blinding glare of the light of truth. All that the first generations who encounter theliberating but exposing truth about the human condition need to do is support it so that thetruth can successfully reach the next generation, who in turn won’t have to grow up adoptingall the false, alienating denials that the first generations (and all those who came before)had to employ. Confronting the truth naturally has to be a generation-by-generation process.
What is so wonderful is that this way of living, where you support the truth without overlyconfronting it, is so relieving and exciting that it totally TRANSFORMS humans, as those livingthat way attest to in the Affirmations in Section 3 of Freedom Expanded: Book 2.
While the transitional generations who take up the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATEwon’t be entirely free of all their insecurities, alienations and psychoses, their ability to live

Part 6:2

Plato’s anticipation of resistance to insight into the human condition

455
in support of the understanding of the human condition will be so fabulously exciting thatall their/our psychoses, all their/our ‘baggage’ from the old, human-condition-unresolvedworld, will be rendered immaterial and insignificant. The fact is, having lived in such adead, alienated, dark, cave-like state of dishonest denial and resulting estrangement fromour true soulful self for so long, coming out into the truthful world of liberating sunshineof understanding will be so redeeming and exalting it will be almost more exciting,transfiguring, rapturous and exhilarating than the human body is capable of handling. Tofinally be FREE from having to—and we did have to—live such a world-destroying, selfish,mean and egocentric existence for so long is such a relief. To now be able to live a lifeof TRANSFORMED FREEDOM from the dark, effectively dead state of denial and be ableto participate fully in the true, human-condition-liberated world with all its beauty andsensitivity is something so exciting that appreciating just how exciting it is going to be isalmost beyond our present powers of imagination.
There is not simply a way of coping with the truth about humans when it arrives, but thealmost unbearably exciting way of living it brings about.

Part 6:2 The initial reaction of intolerant resistance to the exposing truth, which
Plato anticipated
The arrival of understanding of the human condition is an extremely exposing andconfronting development for upset humans but thankfully there is a way of coping—in fact,coping is too slight a word—the arrival of understanding of the human condition brings abouta fabulous new way of living for humans! In truth, the human race would not have had thewill and determination to persevere through two million years of the darkness of alienationif it didn’t believe deep within itself that there would be a way to live with the truth when itfinally arrived.
Unfortunately, however, there was always a danger that we could lose sight of this faithand trust in the eventual liberation of the human race from the human condition and thatwhen understanding of the human condition finally arrived some would be intolerant of theemerging information and try to reinstate the historical denials that have been used to blockexposure to the issue of the human condition. As mentioned previously, psychologists andcounsellors recognise that ‘habitual…patterns [of denial] have a life of their own, and their will to liveis very strong. They fight back with a vengeance when faced with annihilation’ (Courage to Heal, L. Davis & E.
Bass, 1988, p.175 of 495). Resistance is the automatic, historical response to the threat of exposure,
however, where human-condition-confronting new ideas and movements are concernedtolerance is essential because, as emphasised, it has been humanity’s central hope that someday, some where, some how understanding of the human condition would finally emerge andthe possibility of that occurring always had to be considered. If there wasn’t this tolerance,and instead people immediately attacked and obliterated new confronting information theycould be obliterating the one chance humanity had to achieve its freedom—they might, ineffect, be killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

456

The Biology

Plato gave a very clear warning of this great danger of intolerance threatening to preventthe emergence of understanding of the human condition in his allegory of the cave in his greatwork The Republic. Plato’s amazingly insightful analysis of the human condition in his caveallegory has already been described in Part 3:10, however, given how revealing it is of thedanger of intolerance to the arrival of understanding of the human condition, a further analysisshould now be included.
Plato began his allegory with an actual reference to the human condition, saying, ‘I wantyou to go on to picture the enlightenment or ignorance of our human conditions somewhat as follows.
Imagine an underground chamber, like a cave with an entrance open to the daylight and running a longway underground. In this chamber are men who have been prisoners there’ (The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955,p.278 of 405). He then described how between the natural, radiant, all-visible, sunlit world and
humans’ ‘cave’ existence stands a ‘brightly burning fire’ that prevents humans from leaving thecave: ‘the light of the fire in the prison [cave] corresponds to the power of the sun’ (ibid. p.282). Whatthe ‘sun’ and its Earthly representation, the ‘brightly burning fire’, represent is the condemningcooperative ideals of life, the ideals that bring the depressing issue of the human conditioninto focus—the question of why, when the ideals are to be cooperative, loving and selfless, arehumans competitive, aggressive and selfish? The ‘sun’/‘fire’ represents the confronting glare ofthe ideals and the burning heat of the issue of the human condition that those ideals cause andwhich the upset human race has had to live in denial of—metaphorically speaking, hide fromin a dark ‘cave’. Imprisoned in the cave, all that can be seen are ‘shadows’ cast by the ‘fire’,which Plato said are only an ‘illusion’ of the real world outside the cave. The allegory makesclear that while ‘the light of the fire in the cave prison corresponds to the power of the sun’ (ibid. p.282),with ‘the sun…making things we see visible’ (ibid. p.273) such that without it humans can only ‘seedimly and appear to be almost blind’ (ibid. p.272), having to hide in the ‘cave’ of ‘illusion’ and endure
‘almost blind’ alienation was infinitely preferable to facing the ‘painful’ light of the ‘fire’/‘sun’
that would make ‘visible’ the unbearably depressing issue of ‘the imperfections of human life’
(ibid. p.282), namely the issue of the human condition. Plato’s description of humanity having
to live in a cave of blind alienation is clearly a description of humanity having to live in deepdenial of the unbearably exposing (the ‘sun’) and confronting or burning (the ‘fire’) issue of thehuman condition, and of any truths that bring that unbearably depressing issue into focus.
Given Plato’s ability to describe humanity’s state of denial and resulting alienationso honestly, it is no wonder Alfred North Whitehead, one of the most highly regardedphilosophers of the twentieth century, referred to the history of philosophy as merely ‘aseries of footnotes to Plato’ (Process and Reality [Gifford Lectures Delivered in the University of Edinburgh Duringthe Session 1927-28], 1979, p.39 of 413). Plato’s work has rightly drawn comparisons with some of
the great religious texts. For example, ‘It has been said that after the Bible, Plato’s dialogues arethe most influential books in Western culture’ (from the front flap of Plato’s Symposium and Phaedrus, publishedby Everyman’s Library in 2001), and ‘Among secular books, Plato only is entitled to Omar’s fanatical
compliment to the Koran, when he said, “Burn the libraries; for their value is in this book”’ (Americanphilosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Complete Works, Vol. 4; Representative Men, Riverside Edition reprinted, ed. J.
Elliot Cabot, 1903, p.41). There have only been a few denial-free books in the history of the world—
in addition to Plato’s dialogues, they include Sir Laurens’ books and obviously the great

Part 6:2

Plato’s anticipation of resistance to insight into the human condition

457
religious texts. Incidentally, if you would like to read a powerful demystification of some ofthe religious texts, because with understanding of the human condition such clarifications arenow possible, go to Part 10:1, titled ‘Moses, Christ and Plato’. This Part demystifies Moses’first five books of the Bible, including what he meant by Abraham being instructed by God to
‘sacrifice’ his own ‘son’ (Gen. 22:2).

R.D. Laing raised this truth about the rarity of denial-free books when he wrote that ‘Fewbooks today are forgivable. Black on the canvas, silence on the screen, an empty white sheet of paper, areperhaps feasible. There is little conjunction of truth and social ‘reality’. Around us are pseudo-events,to which we adjust with a false consciousness adapted to see these events as true and real, and even asbeautiful. In the society of men the truth resides now less in what things are than in what they are not. Oursocial realities are so ugly if seen in the light of exiled truth [the unevasive truth], and beauty is almost nolonger possible if it is not a lie’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967, p.11 of 156).

Having described this state of being imprisoned by denial of the issue of the humancondition, Plato went on to describe what would happen when understanding of the humancondition was found, which is the issue being addressed in this Part of my presentation.
(The following quote comes from a helpful summary of the cave allegory that appears in the
1996 Encarta Encyclopedia, under the entry for ‘Plato’. The underlinings are my emphasis):
‘Breaking free, one of the individuals escapes from the cave into the light of day. With the aid of the sun

[living free of denial of the issue of the human condition and of any truths that bring that issue intofocus], that person sees for the first time the real world and returns to the cave with the message that theonly things they have seen heretofore are shadows and appearances and that the real world awaits themif they are willing to struggle free of their bonds. The shadowy environment of the cave symbolizes for
Plato the physical world of appearances. Escape into the sun-filled setting outside the cave symbolizes thetransition to the real world, the world of full and perfect being, the world of Forms, which is the properobject of knowledge’ (by Professor Robert M. Baird. Accessed 11 Jul. 2008: see <www.wtmsources.com/101>). To
return to Plato’s actual words, he warned that ‘if he [the cave prisoner] were made to look directlyat the light of the fire [again the fire represents the unconfrontable issue of our less-than-ideal human
condition], it would hurt his eyes and he would turn back and take refuge in the things which he couldsee [take refuge in all the denials that he has become accustomed to], which he would think really farclearer than the things being shown him. And if he were forcibly dragged up the steep and rocky ascent

[out of the cave of denial by the person who has broken free of the cave] and not let go till he had beendragged out into the sunlight [shown the truthful all-liberating—but at the same time all-exposing
and confronting—explanation of the human condition], the process would be a painful one, to whichhe would much object, and when he emerged into the light his eyes would be so overwhelmed by thebrightness of it that he wouldn’t be able to see a single one of the things he was now told were real [this
inability to absorb discussion of the human condition is what we in the WTM refer to as the ‘deafeffect’]’. Plato then said, ‘they would say that his [the person who tries to deliver understanding of thehuman condition] visit to the upper world had ruined his sight [they would treat him as if he was mad,which is how I’ve been treated], and [they would say] that the ascent [out of the cave] was not wortheven attempting. And if anyone tried to release them and lead them up, they would kill him if they couldlay hands on him [my detractors have done everything they can, short of physical attack, to kill me]’
(The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.280, 281).

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

458

The Biology

Reverend David Millikan, who persecuted me and the WTM, then known as the
Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood, in two defamatory publications in 1995 (an ABCTV Four Corners program and a feature article in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper)
revealed his real motivation and prejudice—and confirmed Plato’s prediction that they wouldsay ‘that the ascent [out of the cave of denial] was not worth even attempting’—when he said,
‘You realise you are attempting the impossible, you will be fighting to have this material accepted rightdown to the last person on the planet’ (WTM records, 16 Feb. 1995). The other architect of the attack
on my work, one of a very few intolerant parents of WTM members, revealed a similarmotivation, and a similar confirmation of Plato’s prediction, when he said to me, ‘You knowyou are encroaching on the personal unspeakable inside people and you won’t succeed’ (WTM records, 12
Feb. 1995).

He similarly told his son, ‘You are trying to rattle the black box inside people and you just
can’t do that’ (WTM records, 18 Mar. 1995). These men were right in the sense that these truths I am
revealing about the human condition are extremely confronting, but they were fundamentallywrong because, as Plato said, the ‘proper object of knowledge’ was to find the ‘enlightenment…of our human condition’ that would enable the ‘transition to the real world’ and they were not
allowing for that greatest of all possibilities for the human race, which is the most seriousact of oppression of thought possible. The whole principle of democracy was established,and fought and died for by Australian soldiers in France, Gallipoli, and elsewhere, so that wecould keep the door to freedom of expression open, most especially in this critical area ofenquiry into the issue of the human condition.
Incidentally, I should explain more clearly why these comments by my detractors—aboutme ‘encroaching on the personal unspeakable’, ‘black box’ ‘inside people’ and that I will be ‘fighting tohave this material accepted right down to the last person on the planet’—reveal their real motivation
and prejudice. In a campaign akin to J.D.F. Jones’ demonisation of Sir Laurens van der Post,
Reverend Millikan used selective editing and extreme misrepresentation to cast me as adangerous anti-social pariah in both his Four Corners program and Sydney Morning Heraldarticle. The fact of the matter is I simply cannot be sound enough to confront and look into thehuman condition, as my detractors’ comments acknowledge I have done, and at the same timebe so unsound as to be a monster in our society. Christ pointed out this obvious truth when,in responding to his truth-hating persecutors’ accusation of him being ‘possessed by Beelzebub…the prince of demons’ (Mark 3:22), he said, ‘How can Satan drive out Satan?’ (Mark 3:23). He was making
the same point when he said that ‘A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear goodfruit’ (Matt. 7:18). Sir Laurens also made this same point when, in a comment that was included
earlier in Part 5:1, he said, ‘He who tries to go down into the labyrinthine pit of himself, to travelthe swirling, misty netherlands below sea-level through which the harsh road to heaven and wholenessruns, is doomed to fail and never see the light where night joins day unless he goes out of love in searchof love.’ Alienation cannot look into the human condition—one precludes the other. The truth
is, the lack of soundness lies within the person who cannot tolerate someone looking into thehuman condition. The accusation that I am a dangerous pariah in society was a deliberate,fear-inducing, reverse-of-the-truth lie fabricated to try to prevent the emergence of these ideasagainst which the attackers held monumental prejudices.

Part 6:2

Plato’s anticipation of resistance to insight into the human condition

459

The point being made is that if people don’t want to study these ideas sufficiently to beable to recognise that they are the all-important, all-liberating full truth about humans, theyshould at least trust in the democratic principle of freedom of expression to evaluate thepotential importance to the human race of the ideas being put forward. They don’t have tothrow out the rule book on fair behaviour as Reverend Millikan did in his defamatory Four
Corners program and Sydney Morning Herald article—or as J.D.F. Jones did in his attackon Sir Laurens.
Of course, the principle of freedom of expression should be applied in all areas ofenquiry. Again, as John Stuart Mill emphasised, ‘the dictum that truth always triumphs overpersecution is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass intocommonplaces, but which all experience refutes. History teems with instances of truth put down bypersecution. If not suppressed for ever, it may be thrown back for centuries.’

So Plato was right when he warned that when understanding of the human conditionwas found many people would be deaf to what was being said (‘he wouldn’t be able to see asingle one of the things he was now told were real’); that some would say that all human-condition-
confronting information should be destroyed on sight (‘that the ascent [out of the cave] was notworth even attempting’); that some would accuse the presenter of the understanding of being
mad (‘his visit to the upper world had ruined his sight’); and that some would even try to destroythe deliverer of the understanding (‘if anyone tried to release them and lead them up [out of thecave], they would kill him if they could lay hands on him’).

After fighting this intolerant resistance for 20 years now and having finally receivedcomplete vindication—a journey that is documented on our website at <www.humancondition.com/persecution>—we in the WTM feel and hope this intolerant stage is now over. We
hope that in terms of Schopenhauer’s stages that new ideas have to survive before beingaccepted—from firstly being ‘ridiculed’ and ‘violently opposed’, to secondly having it ‘statedthat it may be true but it’s not particularly relevant’, to thirdly having it ‘admitted to be true andrelevant but the same critics assert that the idea is not original’ to finally having ‘accepted as beingself-evident’—that we have now moved to the second stage. We, our small group of some

50 individuals, are also immensely relieved to have not failed to defend these all-precious
understandings against immense and ferocious opposition from not only two of Australia’sbiggest media institutions in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Fairfax Mediagroup, but many other powerful and influential people and factions in our community—because, as the science historian Thomas Kuhn said, ‘In science…ideas do not change simplybecause new facts win out over outmoded ones…Since the facts can’t speak for themselves, it is theirhuman advocates who win or lose the day.’

So, to recap, the cave depicted in our FREEDOM poster (see the beginning of Part
3:5) is where the upset human race has been imprisoned and, while humanity has finally
achieved its glorious freedom, the truth about the upset state is still extremely confrontingand exposing and thus painful, which brings us back to the predicament depicted by the
Humanity’s Situation picture, in which the human race is stranded between unbearableexposure and terminal alienation.

460

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

As mentioned, the solution to this problem of being stranded is the Sunshine Highwayof supporting the truth without confronting it—a path that leads to the TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE STATE. We can now live in support of the reconciling understanding of the human
condition rather than allow our habituated reactions of denial and angry resistance prevent theemergence of a human-condition-free world. There is no point in procrastinating and tryingto reassert the old denials when the dignifying truth about humans makes such behaviourunnecessary and obsolete. Why stay in the old dead world when we no longer have to? Thecatch cry now is ‘Let’s go! Let’s get out of here!’—let’s leave all that pain and anguish behindand move to the human-condition-understood new world. All humans can now immediatelybe effectively FREE from the terrible, cave-dwelling, alienated state by supporting andparticipating in the new, understanding-drenched, truthful, FREE World-In-Sunshine. To livein support of these liberating understandings makes possible the most exciting life we fullyconscious humans have ever known. All humans can now come out of the terrible cave wherethey have had to live for so long and join the FREE in the truth-and-understanding-supporting
Sunshine Army on the Sunshine Highway to the World-In-Sunshine. This, finally, is the birthof The Kingdom of Light and The Empire of the Sun in The World of the FREE. After such aterrifyingly long journey and struggle through a cavernous world of darkness into this newworld of light, the whole human race is going to have such a big celebration and party nowthat it will go on for generations. Everywhere we are going to be hoppin’ and boppin’, rompin’and stompin’, hollerin’ and howlin’, movin’ and groovin’, rollickin’ and rollin’, hootin’ andtootin’, jumping and jiving, jolting and somersaulting, skipping and skating, shaking andshimmering, hugging and laughing, embracing and gyrating, twisting and shouting, dancingand singing, slipping and sliding, jamming and slamming, ripping and roaring, whirling andtwirling and reelin’ and rockin’. This is it, the great breakthrough and breakout for all humansfrom our species’ ancient prison into a fabulous TRANSFORMED world of FREEDOM for thehuman race. This is the time that the most esteemed piece of music ever written, Beethoven’s
1824 Ninth Symphony, anticipates with its full choir of human voices rising to the final height
of glorious unison and excitement with the words, ‘Joy’, ‘Joyful, as a hero to victory!’, ‘Join inour jubilation!’, ‘We enter, drunk with fire, into your sanctuary…Your magic reunites…All men becomebrothers…All good, all bad…Be embraced, millions! This kiss for the whole world!’ It is little wonder
the piece was adopted by the European Union, the EU, as its anthem in 1985.

Part 6:3 The threat of terminal levels of alienation
The depressingly exposing descriptions of our lost state of innocence given by Sir
Laurens, Hesiod, Rousseau, Wordsworth and others provided a powerful illustration of theproblem of the Abyss of Depression from unbearable exposure that existed on one side of ourspecies’ seemingly stranded position. What now needs to be provided is evidence of the threatof terminal levels of alienation that lay in wait on the other side of that Abyss of Depression.
As explained in Parts 1 and 2 of this book, and in Section 1:6 of Freedom Expanded: Book
2, the real threat to the world was not from environmental destruction, as devastating as thatwas—it was from terminal levels of alienation, and that threat to humanity was approaching

Part 6:4

The dysfunctional ‘Power Addicted’ state

461
extremely rapidly. For instance, in Parts 4:10 to 4:14 it is described how in the world of sciencelying had become so entrenched that no one was seeing through it and calling its bluff—to thecontrary, everyone was lauding it.
What happens when alienation, the practice of denial or lying, becomes extreme is thatsociety becomes so dysfunctional it collapses. We can gain an excellent insight into theapproaching terminal levels of dysfunctionality by looking at what happened when excessiveegocentricity developed, most especially in men, but also in women.

Part 6:4 The dysfunctional ‘Power Addicted’ state
When humanity set out in search of understanding some two million years ago, only thefinding of that understanding could stop the ever-increasing levels of upset, which meansby the end of that two million year period, which is now, the human race was going to beextraordinarily upset. As was explained in Part 3:11D, we learnt to ‘civilise’ that upset, whichsimply means to conceal it, but underneath that facade of civility lies immense upset. Aswill be explained shortly in Part 7:1, it was men’s role to take up the task of championing theconscious thinking self or ego over the ignorance of our instinctive self. It follows then that bythe end of two million years of ever-increasing upset men in particular were going to becomeextremely egocentric, punch drunk with the need for validation, desperate for the power,fame, fortune and glory relief from the insecure state of the human condition. Part 3:11F, thefinal ‘Hollowman’ stage, described this overly upset punch-drunk state.
By examining how this extreme egocentricity, in men in particular, affected children wecan see how quickly alienation produced a dysfunctional generation.
Everywhere now we see expressions of the punch-drunk egocentric state, this end playsituation of the development of upset in the world of having to get a win, a victory, successat any cost. We see parents on the sideline of sports fields, watching their children play andprojecting their embattled need for a win onto those children, yelling, ‘win, win, win’! Theeffect this pressure has on their children is psychologically devastating because, as I will nowexplain, it produces a new generation who are either psychologically crippled or turned into
‘power addicts’, both of which are extremely dysfunctional states.
Only last month (at time of filming, Sept. 2009) the Australian journalist Miranda Devinewrote an honest article on poor parenting and the narcissistic behaviour or power addictionit produces in individuals. Titled ‘Face it, we are all narcissists now’, the piece reported that
‘“Parents are becoming increasingly self absorbed [believing] ‘the single most important thing in theworld is for me to work like a dog and get the house, the car and the holiday house’ and don’t realise alltheir kids want is to be loved and to have one-on-one time with their parents.” He [renowned Australian
adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg] says an “epidemic of poor parenting” is to blame for adrastic rise in psychological problems in young people. “Generation Y is being ravaged by depression,anxiety disorders and stress disorders”’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 3 Sept. 2009). In the article Devine
discussed the development of the narcissistic personality disorder where adults develop ‘agrandiose sense of self importance; preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance…aneed for excessive admiration; a sense of entitlement; exploitive personal relationships; a lack of empathy;

462

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
envy and arrogant, haughty behaviour…Everyone’s a potential narcissist these days.’ The article
mentions ‘a long-term study of…American college students [that found]…the incidence of narcissisticpersonality traits increased on a scale rivalling obesity’. The reason, the article reported, for this
recent explosion in narcissism is ‘poor parenting’.
Having lived in denial of the truth that our species once lived in a cooperative,unconditionally-selfless, loving, harmonious state, the nurtured origins of which has alreadybeen explained and will be more fully explained in Part 8:4B, there has been almost norecognition of the importance of nurturing children with unconditional love. Children comeinto the world instinctively expecting to receive unconditional love and when they don’t getit—receiving conditional love instead—they are so innocent, so trusting in a true, all-loving,upset-free world that the only conclusion they can come to for not being unconditionallyloved is that for some reason they haven’t deserved it and are therefore a worthless, unlovable,bad person. Children are so naive, they are born so instinctively unaware of the existenceof the upset state of the human condition, that they can’t believe it is the adults’ fault thatthey are not being given unconditional love; they are so trusting in the world around them,so codependent to it, they can only presume it’s their fault. (Psychologists coined the word
‘codependent’ to describe someone who is ‘reliant on another to the extent that independent actionis no longer possible’ (Macquarie Dict. 3rd edn, 1998). In this case, children are so trusting of, and thus
reliant upon, the adult world they are incapable of thinking independently enough to trust thatthey are not at fault.) This conclusion by children that they are, in effect, bad either hurts themso deeply that they block all the pain of it out of their mind and become a psychologicallydetached, extremely alienated, crippled person, or they try desperately to prove they aren’tworthless and spend the rest of their lives desperately seeking reinforcement.
To reiterate, if a child is not given unconditional love, but instead is intimidated, frozenout and made to prove themselves all the time by ‘my way or the highway’, arrogant,tyrannical, authoritarian, tough, extremely egocentric, overly embattled parents, then thatchild will either be psychologically crippled by the situation, or made into a narcissistic poweraddict who has to succeed at all times and at all costs—where only success can keep at baythe terrifying conclusion that they are somehow unworthy. Power addicts need to win at allcosts. They will say anything, do anything, no matter how immoral, to gain power, the upperhand. Powerpaths or psychopaths, as narcissistic power addicts are also known, are describedas ‘ruthless’, ‘quick to blame others for their mistakes’, ‘manipulative’, ‘belligerent’, ‘bullying’,
‘totally self-centred’, ‘egocentric’, ‘cold’, ‘obsessed with wielding power over others’, ‘deceitful’, ‘selfimportant’, and ‘lacking any ability to empathise with others’ (‘Are you living with a socialised psychopath?’,
Robert Matthews, published in Focus mag., May 1994 and Sunday Telegraph Review, April 1997).

Regarding the power addict’s inability ‘to empathise with others’, the truth is, they areso preoccupied—in fact, utterly consumed—by their own pain that instead of empathisingwith and being considerate of others, they impose their condition on the world around them;they intimidate and frighten everyone with their angry, often silent embattled state; to ‘haveeveryone walking on eggshells’ is a common description of how they operate. The psychiatrist
Frank Lake articulated this problem of adults who were under attack as infants and childrentreating everyone and every situation they encounter as if they were still under attack whenhe wrote that such an adult ‘complains as if it remembered the bad times it had been through. It reacts

Part 6:4

The dysfunctional ‘Power Addicted’ state

463
to the world around it as if it were still in the bad place, still having to “feel its keenest woe”. It reactsdefensively as if the attack were still going on’ (Supplement to Newsletter No.39—Clinical Theology Newsletter
No.39, Dec. 1981, p.4).

Basically, the power addict’s life is stranded or arrested in the childhood state of needingreinforcement. You can quickly extrapolate just how absolutely desperate the power addict’smind is for reinforcement—how they aren’t able to care about anyone or anything other thangetting that reinforcement, how every moment of every day their mind can’t afford to beanything other than singularly focused on how they can get that power or glory or attention orany other form of validation—if you imagine a child fighting with all their might to avoid thedevastating conclusion that they are an unworthy, bad person. When all the evidence from theway a child is being treated seems to unequivocally indicate to that innocent, trusting, naive,ideal-world-expecting child that they are unworthy and bad, the child naturally fights backwith all their being to resist that soul-destroying conclusion. If that evidence is overwhelming,however, the child has no choice but to give in and conclude that they are indeed worthlessand bad. Then, to cope with that terrifying, absolutely unbearable conclusion, all the childcan do is determine never again to allow their mind to connect with that conclusion thatthey are an unlovable, bad person ever again, and since that core issue of their worthiness iswhere their true self is preoccupied, avoiding that issue amounts to separating or dissociatingor splitting from their true state and thus true self. This is the split, false, psychologicallycrippled state. If, on the other hand, the evidence that they are an unworthy, bad person isimmense but not quite overwhelming the child will be stuck in a lifelong battle fightingwith all their might to not surrender to the psychologically crippling conclusion that theyare an unworthy, bad person. And that is where power addicts live, stranded in that state ofterrible fear that they are unworthy, fighting with all their might to ‘stay on their feet’ anddefy that implication. Necessarily, after two million years of the development of upset in theworld, all adults are stranded somewhere on the spectrum of insecurity of self due to lackof reinforcement/love in their upbringing. The actress Mae West famously articulated thissituation of arrested development, within males in particular, when she said, ‘If you want tounderstand men just remember that they are still little boys searching for approval.’ The power addict
state and, beyond that, the psychologically crippled state are simply the extreme states of thehuman condition. Again, it has to be emphasised that it is at last safe to admit this because wehave now found the redeeming, dignifying understanding of how all the upset in the worldstarted, and how it can be TRANSFORMED and eventually ameliorated. All the upset in theworld is now defended; the basis for our insecurity about being upset has gone.
Just one of the many extremely dysfunctional features of the power addict mind is itsextraordinary ability to accumulate grievances. The narcissistic, power addict is so unableto accept any criticism, so desperately preoccupied avoiding any implication that they areunworthy, so extremely insecure, that all day, every day, they seek out only reinforcement,only ‘wins’, such as power, fame and glory. There is no room to accept any criticism andsince most situations in life contain a spectrum of positives and negatives, of reinforcementsand criticisms, such minds are simply unable to tolerate any of the negative, criticising aspectsof a situation. In fact, the power addicted mind will find a way to avoid all criticism, no matterhow much there is or how legitimate, and instead search for and find some fault or flaw in the

464

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
situation, imagined or real, that brings reinforcement to them. Their totally defensive mindlocks on to these ‘grievances’ as being all-significant at the exclusion of all other aspects ofthe situation. Over time, any interaction with a power addict, no matter how fair or generous,will leave them harbouring a mountain of grievances and totally incapable of recognising theunfairness of their view. The desperation of the power addict mind to avoid any threat to theirpower base is extremely difficult for the more balanced mind to comprehend. I have watcheddocumentaries showing the former US President Franklin D. Roosevelt being overly cordialto the Russian dictator Joseph Stalin in the futile hope that Stalin would be fair minded duringtheir negotiations over the future of Europe at the end of the Second World War. Stalin alwayspresented a benign, open, balanced and fair minded expression on his face when underneathhe was, in fact, a furious monster who, out of paranoia, oversaw the murder of millions andmillions of his own people—including all of his closest friends who he was terrified mightchallenge his power. Power addicts learnt to disguise their extraordinarily defensive mindset,

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © Fedmex Pty Ltd 2007-2009
but their behaviour could often be absolutely, unbelievably selfish.

I have drawn this picture of the narcissism-producing and psychologically cripplingsituation to help children understand the world we live in. Since adults own the world therehas been very little focus on the wellbeing of children. They can’t fight for themselves.

Part 6:4

The dysfunctional ‘Power Addicted’ state

465

They can’t write books. In fact, in their bewilderment children can’t even tell adults whatthey are going through. If children were able to express themselves and be properly heard—for instance, if they were able to vote, if they had some power—the care and concern fortheir wellbeing would have been much greater than it has been. As the upsetting searchfor knowledge progressed, however, parents’ ability to adequately nurture their childrendecreased to the point now where we almost have to choose to either stop participating inhumanity’s upsetting battle in order to have time for children, or continue participating in thebattle and not have children—a choice the contraceptive pill has afforded us.
Children need so much love and among less human-condition-embattled races theygenerally receive it. In Australian Aboriginal society ‘All observers agree upon the extraordinarytenderness which parents display towards their children, and indeed, to all children whether of their ownfamily and race or not’ (Coming into being among the Australian Aborigines, Ashley Montagu, 1974, p.345 of 426). In
the case of the Bushman of the Kalahari, ‘Their love of children, both their own and that of otherpeople, is one of the most noticeable things about the Bushman’ (Tribes of the Kalahari Desert; Accessed 13 Jun.
2010 at:see <www.wtmsources.com/103>). The ‘Bushmen…mother carries her child with her at all times up to
four years of age’ (Population Pressure and Cultural Adjustment, Virginia Abernethy, 2005, p.34 of 189). ‘Childrenare breast-fed for up to 3½ years, and among the Bushmen lactation suppresses ovulation’ (Hunter-gatherereconomy in prehistory: a European perspective, G.N. Bailey, 1983, p.114 of 247). ‘!Kung [Bushmen]…infants
hardly ever cry’ (Cultures without Colic: Breastfeeding & Other Baby Lessons from the !Kung San, by Dr Harvey Karp,accessed 2 Apr. 2012: see <www.wtmsources.com/117>). This report on the studies of more natural-living
and nurturing societies that was made by the American dentist Dr Weston Price provides agood summary of the physical and mental health of the members of such societies: ‘For thenext ten years [during the 1930s], he [Dr Price] travelled to various isolated parts of the earth, where theinhabitants had no contact with “civilisation” in order to study their health and physical development…
Price took photograph after photograph of beautiful smiles, and noted that “healthy primitives” wereinvariably cheerful and optimistic. Such people were characterized by “splendid physical development”.
The women gave birth with ease. Their babies rarely cried and their children were energetic and hearty.
Many others have reported a virtual absence of degenerative disease, particularly cancer, in isolated,so-called “primitive” groups’ (Sally Fallon Morell, ‘Nasty, Brutish and Short?’, The Western A. Price Foundation; see
<www.wtmsources.com/110>).

Unable to explain why we humans have become so embattled, parents in the so-called
‘developed world’ haven’t been able to cope with any criticism of their inability to adequatelynurture their children. As the teacher and best-selling author about children, John Marsden,said, ‘The biggest crime you can commit in our society is to be a failure as a parent and people wouldrather admit to being an axe murderer than being a bad father or mother’ (‘A Single Mum’s Guide to Raising
Boys’, Sunday Life mag. Sun-Herald, 7 July 2002). In Part 4:4F the importance of nurturing in human
life was described as one of the six unconfrontable truths. But parents’ inability to cope withany criticism of their inability to nurture overlooks, indeed disregards, the fact that childrenalso can’t cope with not being loved. Parents have had it all their way. The powerlessness ofchildren has made them victims of the adults’ powerfulness. The truth is, we live in an antichild world today where children are irritants—and yet children are the next generation andto have no regard for them is to have no regard for the future. It is akin to trying to build ahouse while destroying the raw materials the house is to be built from. It is madness—pure

466

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
generational selfishness. Denial of the immense importance of nurturing in the maturation ofour lives has been part of the abuse that has stemmed from parents having all the power, butnow that we have found the dignifying understanding of the human condition the immenseimportance of nurturing children can at last be admitted and this denial brought to an end.
The drawing above shows a tyrannical father and the effect his behaviour is having on hischild. Professor Charles Birch put it extremely succinctly (if somewhat bluntly) when he and Ispoke about the destructive effect power addict fathers have on their children, saying, ‘Haven’tyou heard Jeremy, the best thing that can happen in a man’s life is that his father dies when he is born’
(WTM records, 12 Nov. 1998). Some fathers claim it is necessary to toughen their children, kill off
their inspired, truth-filled, happy, excited, inspired, nothing-is-too-difficult, world-conquering,loving original instinctive self or soul! Alienation is a tragically lost, dark, effectively deadstate that the whole human race has been working desperately hard to escape from, not stayin. The week after Miranda Devine’s article appeared, a cartoon in the same newspaperdepicted this appalling point of view with the following exchange between a father and son:
‘Son you’re a liar, you’re a bully, you’re greedy, you’re manipulative, you’re self serving. You’ll go far’
(Alan Moir, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 Sept. 2009). When speaking on radio in New Zealand once, a
listener rang up to say, ‘We’re having children and my husband says he wants to toughen thekids up because he wants them to be able to meet reality head on.’ I tried my best to explain toher that such an approach is wrong—that you have to try to love children, preserve their soulabsolutely as long as possible.
The real issue in the situation where parents want to toughen up their children is theextent of the upset anger, egocentricity and alienation in the parents, because it is extremeupset in the parents that causes them to project onto their children the need to be a successat all costs. It is their need for glory, not the need to turn their children into ‘survivors’, thatis the real motivation. Parents saying they ‘want to toughen up their kids so they can facethe real world’, as though they are doing their children a favour, is the convenient excusefor ‘poor parenting’ because all parents do intuitively know how critically important it is thatchildren receive unconditional love if they are to grow into truly creative, functional andsuccessful adults. As will be explained in Part 8:4B, how to nurture children is one of themost ancient instincts in humans.
Devine wrote that ‘an “epidemic of poor parenting” is to blame for a drastic rise in psychologicalproblems’, citing ‘a long-term study of…American college students [that found]…the incidence ofnarcissistic personality traits increased on a scale rivalling obesity’. What happens as upset anger,
egocentricity and alienation increases is that eventually a threshold is reached where thereis so much anger, egocentricity and alienation in the population that the great majority ofchildren can no longer cope with the extent of the upset they encounter and a dysfunctionalgeneration appears where there is a predominance of individuals who are either narcissisticpower addicts or psychologically crippled. It is this threshold, this terminal level of alienation,that Devine has described as having now been reached in the Western world.
The British-American anthropologist Ashley Montagu (1905-1999) was exceptionallybrave in his admission of the critical importance of nurturing in a child’s well-being and thehorrific consequences that lack of unconditional love has. For example, in his profoundlyhonest paper titled ‘A Scientist Looks at Love’, he wrote ‘love is, without question, the most

Part 6:4

The dysfunctional ‘Power Addicted’ state

467
important experience in the life of a human being…The newborn baby…wants love. He behaves as ifhe expected to be loved, and when his expectation is thwarted, he reacts in a grievously disappointedmanner…not only does a baby want to be loved, but also that it wants to love; all its drives are orientatedin the direction of receiving and giving love. If it doesn’t receive love it is unable to give it—as a child oras an adult. From the moment of birth the baby needs the reciprocal exchange of love with its mother…
It has, I believe, been universally acknowledged that the mother-infant relationship perhaps more thanany other defines the very essence of love…The infant can suffer no greater loss than deprivation of themother’s love…Criminal, delinquent, neurotic, psychopathic, asocial, and similar forms of unfortunatebehavior can, in the majority of cases, be traced to a childhood history of inadequate love…Show me amurderer, a hardened criminal, a juvenile delinquent, a psychopath, or a “cold fish” and in almost everycase I will show you the tragedy that has resulted from not being properly loved during childhood…maternal rejection may be seen as the “causative factor in…every individual case of neurosis or behaviorproblem in children.”…Endowed at birth with the need to develop as a loving, harmonic human being,the child learns to love by being loved…children who have not been adequately loved grow up to bepersons who find it extremely difficult to understand the meaning of love…they tend to be thoughtlessand inconsiderate. They have little emotional depth…they often seek ways of achieving power…
Occasionally, when they attain prodigious political power as in the case of such unloved creatures as
Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, they commit horrendous atrocities and subject humanity to irreparabledamage. It is quite evident that the tragedy these men brought to the world was principally due to theirincapacity to love…To love one’s neighbor as oneself requires first that one must be able to love oneself,and the only way to learn that art is by having been adequately loved during the first six years of one’slife. As Freud pointed out, this is the period during which the foundations of the personality are eitherwell and truly laid—or not. If one doesn’t love oneself one cannot love others. To make loving order inthe world we must first have had loving order made in ourselves…Nothing in the world can be moreimportant or as significant…love is demonstrable, it is sacrificial, it is self-abnegative [self-denying]. Itputs the other always first. It is not a cold or calculated altruism, but a deep complete involvement withanother. Love is unconditional…Love is the principal developer of one’s capacity for being human, thechief stimulus for the development of social competence, and the only thing on earth that can producethat sense of belongingness and relatedness to the world of humanity which is the best achievement ofthe healthy human being…In an age in which a great deal of unloving love masquerades as the genuinearticle, in which there is a massive lack of love behind the show of love, in which millions have literallybeen unloved to death, it is very necessary to understand what love really means. We have left the studyof love to the last, but now that we can begin to understand its importance for humanity, we can seethat this is the area in which the men of religion, the educators, the physicians, and the scientists canjoin hands in the common endeavor of putting man back upon the road of his evolutionary destiny fromwhich he has gone so far astray—the road which leads to health and happiness for all humanity, peaceand goodwill unto all the earth’ (The Phi Delta Kappan, 1970, Vol.51, No.9, pp.463-467).

Under the duress of the human condition there has basically been three varieties ofalienated humans: those who received unconditional love; those who received conditionallove (basically non-love) and are still trying to resist the implication that they are unworthyand bad and as a result have become power addicts; and those who received either no loveor so much conditional love that they were unable to resist the implication that they areunworthy and bad and as a result have had to dissociate from that terrifying, unbearable

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

468

The Biology
conclusion and, as a result of that, are psychologically crippled. The first category are thosethat our society has been recognising as ‘functional’ and the second and third categories arethose that have been described as ‘dysfunctional’. Another honest description we have hadfor these three states was, respectively, ‘relatively secure’, ‘very insecure’ and ‘extremelyinsecure’. However, with the world reaching end play states of upset, the proportion of thepopulation that is dysfunctionally alienated is becoming near total.
As a result, finding a secure, well-adjusted, functional ‘soft handed’ manager in acompany now is almost unheard of, for they are nearly all power addicts. Once power addictsgain control of a company it is the beginning of the end for that company—it will becomedysfunctional because they are tyrannical. It will also become dysfunctional because, asmentioned, power addicts find anything that resembles criticism unbearable, such as criticismof their own ideas or having their mistakes pointed out. They are simply not effective freethinkers, which good business leaders need to be. And nor do they tolerate any perceivedthreat to their power base—as the adage goes, “A’s employ A’s and B’s employ C’s”. ‘A’s’are those who have been nurtured and are relatively secure and therefore not threatened bytalented people and eager to employ other ‘A’s’. Insecure ‘B’s’, on the other hand, will onlyemploy ‘C’s’ because once in power they don’t want anybody usurping them. As a result, thecompany becomes dysfunctional.
As with individuals and companies, the same process can also be applied in the contextof entire countries. What happened when the proportion of power addicts in a countryincreased to a certain critical point was that ‘right’ could suddenly no longer win out over
‘might’—at which point dysfunctional tyrants would take over the government with terrifyingconsequences for both their country’s population and that of neighbouring countries. The riseof Mussolini’s totally ruthless, fascist ‘Blackshirts’ in Italy prior to the Second World War is acase in point. Tyrants like Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin have only been able to takecontrol when the number of power addicts in a population surpassed a critical point where theremaining soundness was no longer able to stand up to their extreme intensity and defy them.
Just as children and wives of tyrannical men in family situations were unable to fight backand were crushed, tyrannical dictators could crush entire populations. The reason England hasso often in the history of Europe been able to defeat tyrants there (and elsewhere) can be putdown to its island isolation, which meant it was still sheltered enough from all the upset inthe world, still sound enough, still free enough of power addicts, to stand against those tyrantswho had taken over control of countries on the continent where, by inference, the tippingpoint of too many power addicts in the population had been surpassed. As I said, what hashappened in households and companies is exactly the same as what has occurred in countries,just on a smaller scale.
The existence of sufficient strength of character amongst the English to resist tyrants wasclearly demonstrated when they threw out one of their own kings for his tyranny. To quotefrom the 2010 documentary Empire of the Seas: How the [British Royal] Navy Forged the
Modern World: ‘[King Charles II] died in 1685…He was succeeded by his brother James. Now he’dhad a rather successful career as an Admiral in the Royal Navy—could he be the man who could worktogether with politicians and financiers and businessmen to build a new kind of constitutional monarchy

[to ensure the Royal Navy stayed strong]? Well, no. And this extraordinary portrait tells us why.

Part 6:4

The dysfunctional ‘Power Addicted’ state

469

James has had himself painted in the garb of a Roman Emperor with a haughty stare, his golden tunic,magnificent purple robe flowing off his shoulders, and decked out in jewels at his throat, sword hilt andsandals. And out at sea his Navy, his play thing, the Royal banner flying from the main top mask. Thiswas not how the English wanted their kings to see themselves…This was not a man to protect the legacyof Drake and Hawkins. He would have to go. In July 1688 a figure dressed as a common sailor arrived in
Holland. Beneath the disguise was England’s premier naval officer, Admiral Arthur Herbert—or ratherex-Admiral. He had resigned weeks earlier refusing to serve under King James. Herbert was carryingan extraordinary letter. It was signed by seven Englishmen, all grandees in the armed forces, churchand state, and it was addressed to the Dutch Prince William of Orange, who…was married to James II’sdaughter, Mary…It was an appeal for William’s help against their tyrannical king. This was high treasonbut Herbert and his fellow conspirators were the desperate men from an exasperated nation, and in
William they found their man…[James II] was replaced as king [of England] by William’ (Part 1 of 4 ‘Heartof Oak’, BBC). Contrast this with the inability of the Romans to stop the rise of the tyrant Julius

Caesar—to quote from a blog on the internet: ‘In 44BC the tribune Gaius Marcellus tried to prevent
Julius Caesar overturning the Roman Republic and becoming a tyrant…he failed’ (Accessed 27 Jan. 2011: see
<www.wtmsources.com/124>).

In an essay titled The English Record, Sir James Darling—my headmaster at Geelong
Grammar School and an exceptionally profound, honest, prophetic thinker—wrote about therelatively sound character of the English: ‘The truth seems to be this, that there is a genius of the
English character which shows itself in its institutions, in its practical inventiveness, and under stimulusin its fighting quality. There is a stubborn determination to live its own life, and to brook no interferencefrom a foreign power, which has put England five times in history into the position of protagonist againsta European power which threatened to dominate the world; but this same determination has been coupledwith a recognition that others also have a right to self-government and that the function of Empire isto educate rather than to oppress.’ Sir James even went on to say that England has ‘an unbeatenrecord in the history of civilization’ (The Education of a Civilized Man, 1962, pp.134, 136 of 223). Another of the
soundest, most innocent, most denial-free, prophetic people in recorded history, Sir Laurensvan der Post (who was a South African of Dutch origin), similarly concluded that ‘There isnot another people in the history of the world which has been less corrupted by great power than the
British, in spite of the poor view they themselves take of their own imperial past. They possess a capacityfor self-criticism unequalled in any other nation, and a sense of decency so imaginative and searchingthat less scrupulous opponents in the modern world have frequently used it as a weapon against them’
(The Heart of the Hunter, 1961, p.116 of 233). An article in TIME magazine recorded that ‘A quarter of
the world’s population speak English…English is increasingly becoming entrenched as the languageof choice for business, science and popular culture. Three-quarters of the world’s mail, for example, iscurrently written in English’ (7 July 1997). Amongst Anglo-Saxons and Celts there remains some
functionality in the world but, as Miranda Devine acknowledged, this is fast disappearing.
Again, the all-important fundamental truth that understanding of the human conditionreveals is that upset is a heroic not bad, evil, unworthy state. While all humans are differentlyupset as a result of their different encounters with humanity’s heroic battle to overthrowignorance, all humans are equally good and worthwhile. Understanding the cause of theupset state of the human condition eliminates the possibility of the prejudicial viewsof some people, genders, generations, races, countries or civilisations being good and

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

470

The Biology
therefore superior and others being bad, evil, ungodly and therefore inferior and unworthy.
Now that we have understanding of the great and necessary battle that humanity has beenwaging, the whole concept of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, of superior and inferior disappears from ourconceptualisation of ourselves. The longer and or more intensely a person or a gender or ageneration or a race or a country has been engaged in humanity’s great battle to overthrowignorance the more upset and embattled they unavoidably will have become. It is a simpletruth. Innocence was not going to survive very long in the red light district of Kings Cross in
Sydney, but it would last a long time in a happy family, sheltered somewhere in the remotecountryside, removed from all the upset in the world. All humans can now talk freely aboutall the different states of upset or lack thereof without there being any implication of eithersuperiority or inferiority, and we need to talk about those different states now to make senseof the world we have been living in. Upset is the essential feature of our current humancondition, and degrees of upset is an essential feature of that upset condition. Again, as
R.D. Laing said ‘Our alienation goes to the roots. The realization of this is the essential springboardfor any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life’. Shortly in Part 7:4 I describe
the differences in upset between races—and even more description and explanation of thedifferences between races can be read in my book A Species In Denial in the section titled
‘The denial-free history of the human race’ at <www.humancondition.com/asid-the-denial-freehistory-of-the-human-race>. Also, the overall increase in upset of the human race as a whole was
described in Part 3:11.
Of course, the same process of a threshold of dysfunctionality eventually being reached inindividuals, families, genders, generations, companies, races and countries can also be appliedto whole civilisations. When history books talk of great civilisations, such as the Greek and
Roman Empires, and many others, becoming decadent, the main feature of that decadencewas the dysfunctionality that resulted from having a majority of overly egocentric, insecurepower addicts: there was simply not enough sound, functional soulful generosity, fairness,honesty, sensitivity, humility and equanimity left in the system for it to remain operational.
Once everyone wanted glory at all costs and there was no interest in truth or fairness—basically no interest in others—the system simply collapsed.
As I mentioned, it is this threshold of power-addict-produced, decadent, dysfunctionalitythat has now been reached in Western civilisation, having, as our history books describe,already been reached in older civilisations around the world. Recall the title of Miranda
Devine’s article: ‘Face it, we are all narcissists now.’ And since communication technology hasshrunk the world in the sense of making it one civilisation, the whole world has, in essence,reached the end play state of terminal alienation. This breakthrough understanding of thehuman condition and the TRANSFORMATION of the human race it makes possible has arrivedwithout a moment to spare.
With regard to the power addict state, it should be emphasised that it is really only theextreme, end play result of the human condition, of humans trying to prove that they aregood and not bad. Of course any lack of reinforcement—and it has to be remembered thathumans’ original instinctive expectations are of receiving complete reinforcement duringtheir infancy and childhood—can cripple or egocentrically embattle a person. For example,children who are exposed to extreme ill-treatment, such as sexual abuse, can also become

Part 6:4

The dysfunctional ‘Power Addicted’ state

471
horrifically psychologically crippled—but one of the biggest crippling influences on childrenis the oppression from egocentricity, especially the extreme egocentricity of males. The otherbiggest psychologically crippling influence in society, which will now be talked about, is theeffect of the inability of neurotic mothers to love their infants. Again, this is only anotherresult of the end play state of terminal levels of alienation in the world. The upset state of thehuman condition in both fathers and mothers has had devastating psychological effects onchildren—mothers during their infancy and fathers during their childhood.
Before looking at how the upset state of the human condition in mothers has affected eachnew generation, I would like to include another cartoon I have drawn in defence of children,because, as I have said, parents have had it all their own way. They have been protected bysociety’s avoidance of any criticism of their inability to nurture their children, but that systemeffectively denied children any recognition of the pain that they were having to endure as aresult. It has been a one-way street in terms of empathy and sympathy. Basically children havebeen sacrificed to the power of adults. So this cartoon is an attempt to right the balance. Sincewe give accolades to adults who exhibit great courage, but never to children for the absolutelyextraordinary courage they so often have had to exhibit, I have drawn the Queen of England

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 2011 Fedmex Pty Ltd
knighting a child ‘for exhibiting phenomenal courage’.

Apparently I have spelt ‘arise’ incorrectly, but anyway I got pretty close, and a spare
‘r’ might come in handy. There should be two r’s in it anyway—ar-rise! Spelling hasn’t gotanything to do with anything anyway. I mean, how did I manage to spell ‘phenomenal’—especially the ‘p’, where did they get that from! Spelling is almost as irrelevant as a warthogis to a good night’s sleep or something, I mean it has no relevance at all. In the world where

472

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

I live no one is interested in spelling at all because it is so irrelevant when there are questionslike ‘Why are humans so superficial and artificial and dishonest and brutal and hateful, etc,etc?’ to be thought about and answered. Getting ‘phenomenal’ right should result in a nationalholiday! I don’t know why such a fuss was made over spelling at school, it just terrorisedme never being able to spell, so this is another thing I’m squaring the ledger on for children!
And don’t start me on grammar (‘i’ before ‘e’ except after breakfast) or mathematics (Pieare squared and all that)—or chemistry (‘put this with that and it goes boom’) which alsoabsolutely terrorised me—I’m 65 as I write this and I honestly still regularly have nightmaresabout exams. In the case of chemistry and mathematics, they were such difficult subjectsfor my mind to think about and focus on that I had to keep taking first year chemistry andmathematics at university for three years before I finally managed to gain the compulsorypass needed in those subjects for a biology degree—and those passes were only achievedwith additional tutoring. I remember once becoming so distressed in a mathematics class inschool (because I couldn’t understand for the life of me why I was being asked to understandand remember all these seemingly endless weird and, to me, totally irrelevant equations andformulas) that I stood up and demanded to know from the teacher ‘Why are we learningmathematics?’ Well, the teacher looked at me like I was a fool and angrily berated me fordisrupting the class! I should say that incident happened at a public high school that I attendedfor one year in 1959 when I was 14 years old so my mother could organise special tuition forme at home on our sheep station because I was having so much trouble with my studies at
Tudor House—while my school report cards said I had ‘a tremendous zest for life’, I was forevercoming second last in the class! Tudor House is an absolutely wonderful private boardingschool for boys near Sydney that I attended for four years from 1955 to 1958. It wasn’t
Tudor House’s fault that I was having difficulties with my studies, rather the denial-based,mechanistic education system that has dominated the education system everywhere on Earth,because Tudor House was probably one of the least mechanistic schools in the whole world—which is why my parents made great sacrifices to enable myself and my three brothers to gothere because we weren’t wealthy and the fees at the two very special private schools thatthe four of us attended, namely Tudor House for our junior schooling and Geelong Grammar
School for our senior schooling, were significant. The extraordinary soul-rather-than-intellectemphasising, Platonic education system that Sir James Darling established at Geelong
Grammar School (which I attended for four years from 1960 to 1963) has already been talkedabout here in Freedom Expanded: Book 1, but just to give the reader some appreciation ofhow soul-rather-than-intellect emphasising a school Tudor House was and still is, a front pagearticle in The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper only a few days ago featured a large photoof a couple of Tudor House schoolboys on their scooters, and the accompanying text: ‘John
Stewart, the headmaster of Tudor House, a private boys’ school at Moss Vale, is adding an extra recess tothe day with classroom doors locked…[He said] “For boys to be sitting in a classroom, contained behinda desk for hours on end, just skilling and drilling that can help you improve in a test score, is not onlyarchaic, it is cruel. We felt boys needed more time to play and that social and emotional learning is justas important as reading and writing skills.” Children at the kindergarten to year 6 school are encouragedto ride bikes, skateboards, fly kites, build bases and climb trees during recess and lunchtime. Electronicgames, computers and mobile phones are banned’ (21 Oct. 2011). Schooling is ‘cruel’, ‘extra recess’,

Part 6:5

Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

473

‘classroom doors locked’, ‘encouraged to’ ‘climb trees’, ‘computers and mobile phones are banned’—
how absolutely incredibly enlightened! God knows the debt I (and now the world) owe myparents. It is more than I can bear to think about—my heart just splits, it just disintegratesinto little pieces if I try to think about my parents. To be as innocent as I was in the worldwas torturous and if it wasn’t for the sensitivity towards soul shown by my parents in thefirst instance and then Tudor House and Geelong Grammar, that innocence could never havesurvived to go on and stand up to all the false denial in the world and finally overcome it andreach all the way to the liberating full truth about humans. It has been an amazing journey ofabsolutely extraordinarily good fortune.

Part 6:5 Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

(Note, the codependency of children to the silent, resigned adult world and its affectsthat were just described in Part 6:4, and the causes and nature of autism and ADHD that areabout to be described here, are also described later in Part 8:10 in the presentation on howthe nurturing of our infants will now become one of the most important activities of a posthuman-condition world. The purpose of the description and analysis of autism and ADHDthat is about to be presented here is to evidence how the human race is now approachingterminal levels of alienation. While these two descriptions of autism and ADHD, and also ofthe codependency of children, do contain similar material, there are significant differences,which means the fullest analysis of autism, ADHD and of the codependency of children willbe gained from reading both these presentations.)
The epidemic incidence of Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD),for which the drug Ritalin is being mass prescribed, is a product of children becomingincreasingly unable to cope with the extreme levels of upset anger, egocentricity andalienation in the world. While a few cases of autism are caused by physical damage to thebrain, most are the result of extreme instances of infants not receiving the love, in particularfrom their mother, that their instincts expect, and, as a result, the infant has had to dissociatepsychologically from its reality to cope with the violation and hurt to its instinctive self orsoul. Able to safely admit now that our species’ original instinctive orientation was to living in

474

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
a harmonious, happy, loving, non-alienated, non-egocentric, non-angry state, and that childrencome into the world expecting to encounter such a state, we can understand the incredibleshock it must be for them to encounter the extreme upset that now exists. Many children can’tpsychologically bridge the gap and have to adopt all manner of block-out of, and compulsiveand obsessive distraction from, the mental anguish to cope, which is why we are seeingepidemic rates of ADHD and autism.
In his 1996 posthumously published book Thinking About Children, the formerpresident of the British Psychoanalytical Society, psychiatrist D.W. Winnicott (1896-1971),who is described on the book’s cover as being ‘increasingly recognized as one of the giants ofpsychoanalysis’, gave the following honest description of the cause of autism. Winnicott
wrote that in ‘a proportion of cases where autism is eventually diagnosed, there has been injury orsome degenerative process affecting the child’s brain…[however] in the majority of cases…the illnessis a disturbance of emotional development…autism is not a disease. It might be asked, what did I callthese cases before the word autism turned up. The answer is…“infant or childhood schizophrenia”

[Note, the etymology of the word ‘schizophrenia’ is schiz meaning ‘split’ or ‘broken’, and phrenosmeaning ‘soul or heart’]’ (p.200 of 343). ‘There are certain difficulties that arise when primitive thingsare being experienced by the baby that depend not only on inherited personal tendencies but also onwhat happens to be provided by the mother. Here failure spells disaster of a particular kind for the baby.
At the beginning the baby needs the mother’s full attention, and usually gets precisely this; and in thisperiod the basis for mental health is laid down [p.212]…the essential feature [in a baby’s development]is the mother’s capacity to adapt to the infant’s needs through her healthy ability to identify with thebaby. With such a capacity she can, for instance, hold her baby, and without it she cannot hold herbaby except in a way that disturbs the baby’s personal living process…It seems necessary to add to thisthe concept of the mother’s unconscious (repressed) hate of the child [p.222]…it is the quality of earlycare that counts. It is this aspect of the environmental provision that rates highest in a general reviewof the disorders of the development of the child, of which autism is one’ (p.212). ‘Autism is a highlysophisticated defence organization. What we see is invulnerability…The child [develops]…a complexmental structure insuring against recurrence of…unthinkable anxiety [that results from the mother’s
failure to provide her full attention]’ (pp.220, 221).

The following is a typical case history of an autistic child from one of the manydocumented by Winnicott: ‘When I first saw Ronald at the age of 8, he had very exceptional skillin drawing…Apart from drawing he was, however, a typical autistic child…I will look and see howthings [Ronald’s behaviour] developed. The mother herself was an artist, and she found being a motherexasperating from one point of view in that although she was fond of her children and her marriage wasa happy one, she could never completely lose herself in her studio in the way that she must do in order toachieve results as an artist. This was what this boy had to compete with when he was born. He competedsuccessfully but at some cost…At two months the mother remembers smacking the baby in exasperationalthough not conscious of hating him. From the start he was slow in development…His slowness madehim fail to awaken the mother’s interest in him, which in any case was a difficult task because of herunwillingness to be diverted from her main concern which is painting’ (pp.201, 202).

As will be explained in Part 8:4, it was ‘nurture’ not ‘nature’ (our genetics) that had byfar the greatest influence on our own upbringing and make-up, and on the maturation of ourspecies. Children come into the world expecting to be unconditionally loved. As has been

Part 6:5

Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

475
explained before, and as will be fully explained in Part 8:4, unconditional love is what laidthe foundations for our species’ moral conscience and sense of wellbeing. As a result of thisheritage, and because it is fundamentally meaningful regardless, unconditional love is alsowhat lays the foundations for our individual sense of what is right, true and worthwhile, andgives us our sense of relevance, meaning and overall wellbeing.
The problem with this truth of the importance of nurturing unconditional love in thedevelopment of our species and in the development of our own lives is that it confrontsparents, mothers especially, with their inability to nurture their children as much astheir children’s instincts expect. The truth of children’s deeply sensitive expectation ofencountering an all-loving world, and of the immense importance of nurturing children withunconditional love, are terrifying truths for two-million-year-embattled, extremely upsetparents of today to have to face. As John Marsden was quoted earlier as saying, ‘The biggestcrime you can commit in our society is to be a failure as a parent and people would rather admit to beingan axe murderer than being a bad father or mother.’ Far better are the ‘blame-all-our-ailments-
on-genetics-or-disease-or-immunisation’ excuses that are flooding the scientific literaturetoday. The child psychologist Oliver James acknowledged that ‘Our first six years play a criticalrole in shaping who we are as adults’, and then said ‘One of our greatest problems is our reluctance toaccept a relatively truthful account of ourselves and our childhoods, as the polemicist and psychoanalyst
Alice Miller pointed out’, adding that ‘believing in genes [as the cause of psychoses] removes anypossibility of “blame” falling on parents’ (They F*** You Up: How to Survive Family Life, 2002, p.7,9,13 of 370).

The American writer Andrew Solomon acknowledged in The Noonday Demon, his 2001 bookabout severe depression, ‘Being told you are sick is infinitely more cheering than being told you areworthless.’ How could a mother with an autistic child possibly have been expected to cope
with accepting her cold, alienated state caused the autism? How much more bearable was itto blame autism on chemicals in our industrial world, childhood immunisation programs, agenetic predisposition or some contracted disease? Winnicott’s truthful account of the causeof autism was a rare and brave admission—and he knew it, cautioning himself and others to
‘expect resistance to the idea of an aetiology [cause] that points to the innate processes of the emotionaldevelopment of the individual in the given environment. In other words, there will be those who prefer tofind a physical, genetic, biochemical, or endocrine cause, both for autism and for schizophrenia’ (Thinking
About Children, 1996, p.219 of 343).

It is only now with the ability to understand that there has been a good reasonwhy nurturing has been so compromised that the truth of the importance of nurturingbecomes at all bearable, but even with that understanding the truth of the importanceof nurturing is one of those truths that people won’t be able to fully confront for a fewgenerations. The fact is that since the upset battle of the human condition emerged nochild has been able to be given the amount of love that all children received before thebattle imposed itself. While nurturing created an integrated humanity—gave our species itsinstinctive orientation to behaving unconditionally selflessly—the subsequent emergence ofconsciousness compelled humanity to enter into a great battle against our instinctive selfor soul’s ignorance of our conscious self ’s need to understand the world. That necessaryconsciousness-centred, ‘ego-centric’, male-led battle unavoidably intruded upon andcompromised women’s ability to fully nurture their offspring.

476

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

In another rare admission of the importance of nurturing and the effects of mothers’failure to provide it, the great South African author Olive Schreiner (1855-1920) wrote: ‘Theysay women have one great and noble work left them, and they do it ill…We bear the world, and we makeit. The souls of little children are marvellously delicate and tender things, and keep for ever the shadowthat first falls on them, and that is the mother’s or at best a woman’s. There was never a great man whohad not a great mother—it is hardly an exaggeration. The first six years of our life make us; all that isadded later is veneer…The mightiest and noblest of human work is given to us, and we do it ill’ (The Storyof an African Farm, 1883, p.193 of 300). The human race is naturally extremely embattled after two
million years of its heroic search for knowledge. This means that virtually no mother now canhope to love her infants as much as their instincts expect to be loved. For their part, virtuallyno father now can hope to restrain their extreme egocentricity to the degree necessary to avoidoppressing their children somewhat—the effect of which, as Miranda Devine conceded, is that
‘we are all narcissists now’. Thankfully, however, we can now explain why nurturing has been so
compromised, why mothers ‘do it ill’. Since virtually all humans now are so upset that virtuallyno one can hope to love their children as much as their children’s instincts expect, parents dohave to be realistic. If there is too great an expectation on parents no one will be prepared tohave children, which is obviously not the answer. However, with understanding of the humancondition and the subsequent ability to admit how delicate our soul is, parenting will, andmust, take on a whole new meaning and responsibility.
One of the people I have drawn looking down into the Abyss of Depression (see Part 6:1),holding their head in horror, could be a mother with an autistic child trying to face the truth thatlack of love is the main reason for autism—or it could be any human for that matter, trying toconfront the extent of their human-condition-afflicted, alienated imperfections. The situationof the mother of an autistic child provides just one stark example of how immense the Abyss of
Depression depicted in the Humanity’s Situation drawing really is that is blocking humanity’spath to the truthful, sunlit, TRANSFORMED, human-condition-FREE new world—and thereforehow immensely precious and thus important the new Sunshine Highway, TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING is where we support the truth while avoiding overly confronting it.

Part 6:6 Our libraries are all going to become museums but the same ‘let’s get outof here’ solution applies
There are so many unconfrontable truths for humans who weren’t able to grow up withthe reconciling understanding of the human condition and who are therefore deeply attachedto their almost infinite number of denials that they have been using to cope, but thankfullythis doesn’t mean they can’t take up support of the denial-free new world. The examples areendless of the shock of exposure day or so-called ‘judgment day’, but thank goodness there isa way to cope without retreating to denying the truthful paradigm that the human race is nowdependent upon if it is to continue—the Sunshine Highway, TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY
OF LIVING. We mustn’t, and thankfully don’t have to, let our alienation prevent the emergence
of a human-condition-free world for all future humans to live in.

Part 6:6

Our libraries are all going to become museums

477

With understanding of the human condition, and the ability to be truthful that it makespossible, all the books on psychology are going to have to be re-written. What particularlychanges everything in psychology is the truth about the cooperatively-orientated, all-lovinginstinctive expectations we humans are born with, and therefore how easily children in theirtrusting naivety blamed themselves for any shortfall in love, and therefore how devastatinglyhurtful such conclusions that they are a bad, unworthy person were for children, and thereforehow much children had to block out any thinking about that terrible conclusion, and thereforehow alienated they became from their true self, and therefore how that lack of access totheir true self compromised their ability to nurture the next generation with real love whenthey in turn became parents. It is our all-loving and thus all-trusting soul that has not beenacknowledged in psychology—in fact, it has not been acknowledged in thinking across allaspects of human life.
Indeed, there are so many truths that can and now must be revealed that nearly allacademic books will have to be re-written—which is yet another unbearably confronting truthto have to face. Science, for instance, as it has been practiced, will be faced with changingfrom complying with the practice of denial to having to be honest, which will mean its wholeevasive, intellectualism-emphasising-instinctualism-denying structure, including its traditionaluniversities and academic departments and millions of denial-drenched research papers
(as has been described and evidenced, the human condition is such that humans have beenincapable of being objective), will be faced with obsolescence.
A stark indication of the immense change that comes with the arrival of understanding ofthe human condition is that with the exception of just a handful of titles (the main ones beingthe great religious texts), virtually all the world’s books have been deeply denial-compliant intheir content and will therefore be largely obsoleted by the new denial-free paradigm.
So, all our libraries will become museums—indeed, if it wasn’t for the new
TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE that allows everyone to fully participate in the human-
condition-understood new world, the whole, current, denial-saturated human race itself wouldbe a museum piece.
While phenomenal change occurs with the ending of the denial-based existence, thischange can be managed. People are afraid of change almost as much as they are afraidof self-confrontation, but the same, let’s-get-out-of-here solution applies. Let’s take the
Sunshine Highway to the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE and end this effectively deadexistence we humans have been enduring for so long. We can procrastinate and try to stayin the old, essentially dead, hell-on-earth world, or we can join the new all-exciting worldthat will be opening up right across the planet. There is now so much to do in support ofthe liberated existence that the range of new opportunities, needs, positions, industries,services, etc, etc, will be endless—and the best part of it all is the new world for humanswill be filled with immense excitement, happiness and fellowship. With understanding of thehuman condition found there is no longer any justification for staying in the old, effectivelydead world. Before long everyone will be going to work for the fabulously exciting humancondition-understood new world.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

478

The Biology

The rapid increase of power addict dysfunctionality in society and the epidemic of autismand ADHD provide powerful examples of the end play, terminal levels of alienation situationthat humanity was fast arriving at. The rate of increase of alienation is exponential and we hadreached that part of the curve where it was rising at a vertical rate. Thankfully, the threat ofterminal alienation can now be averted through understanding of the human condition and theadoption of the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE that it makes possible. As Richard Nevillesaid, it was ‘a race between self destruction and self discovery’.
What I am going to say now is no exaggeration: we humans are currently livingin a place of such pain and deathly alienation it is equivalent to living in a cesspit ofexcrement—it’s dark, it stinks, it’s revolting, it’s awful—but now there is a ladder up outof it through the man-hole at the top to complete FREEDOM, sunshine and amazing beautyeverywhere. All we have to do is climb up and out of the cesspit forever. There is nothingstopping every human now from escaping the horror of the human condition except theirhabituation to living in the excrement of it all. Our FREEDOM comes as such a shock wedon’t quite know how to take it initially, but the truth is there is absolutely nothing thatjustifies not taking it.
In Part 7 we will see further descriptions of just how upset the human race now is andtherefore just how precious the Sunshine Highway TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE solution is.

Part 7
How Upset the
Human Race Became
Part 7:1 The battle of the sexes
As explained in Part 3:11, the upset state of the human condition became fully developedsome two million years ago with the emergence of the large-brained genus Homo, whichof course includes us modern humans. Knowing this—that we have lived with the injusticeof the human condition for such an immense amount of time—gives us some insight intojust how upset we humans must have become. Importantly, while we have had to live indenial of our extremely upset state because we couldn’t explain and defend it, now that wecan understand ourselves the truth about the extent of our extremely upset state can at lastbe acknowledged—and, in fact, needs to be acknowledged in order to truly appreciate theopportunity everyone now has to leave their horrifically upset, human-condition-victimisedexistence behind and adopt the liberated TRANSFORMED WAY OF LIVING.
We can begin this truthful analysis and appreciation of what two million years of livingwithout the ability to explain ourselves has done to us by looking at what happened to, and

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 1991 Fedmex Pty Ltd
between, men and women under the duress of the human condition.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

480

The Biology

If we return to the Adam Stork analogy, we can imagine that when Adam and Eve Storkbecame fully conscious and began their corrupting search for knowledge that they wouldhave sat down together on a log and had a very serious discussion about this terrible newdevelopment, at which point Adam would have said to Eve, ‘Look, this search for knowledgeis going to be so corrupting that it doesn’t make sense for both of us to take on that role,especially since you need to retain all the innocence and soundness you can to effectivelynurture the next generation.’ It makes complete sense that a role differentiation wouldhave been established, where men would have taken up the immensely upsetting job ofchampioning the conscious thinking self or ego over the ignorance of our original instinctiveself, while women preserved as much innocence as they could to maintain their role ofnurturing the next generation.
As such, our ancestors’ social structure underwent a seismic change—for from ninemillion years ago to two million years ago the priority amongst our human ancestors was thatof nurturing and since females conceived, carried, gave birth to and suckled the young it wasa role that naturally fell to them. And so throughout that period of time we were a soul-centric,female-led or matriarchal society. But once that priority shifted to championing the consciousthinking self or ego over the ignorance of our instinctive self—a responsibility that naturallyfell to men—humanity changed to being an ego-centric, male-role-led, patriarchal society.
This was because prior to two million years ago, the role of males was that of group protector.
Male gorillas, for instance, are massive in size in order to best protect the group frompredatory threats such as leopards. Later in Part 8:4G, we will see how in Dian Fossey’s studyof mountain gorillas she describes the gorilla Uncle Bert as a ‘protective group leader’. Andso, since the threat of ignorance from our instinctive self—our instinctive self ’s resistanceto searching for knowledge—posed a threat to the group, namely humanity, and the role ofprotecting the group fell to males, men had to take it on.
In Part 8:4 we will see how the bonobos are in the process of developing, throughnurturing, the fully cooperative integrative state. Bonobos are the most gentle, cooperativeand intelligent of all the apes and have achieved that state through nurturing and throughcultivating a female-centric, or female-dominant, society—having fostered females whohave exceptional strength of character in order to rein in the aggressive competition amongstmales for mating opportunities. As a result of these developments bonobos are now on thethreshold of where humans once lived, which is in the utterly integrative, unconditionallyselfless, ‘Garden of Eden’-like state; they are a living example of how we developed our fullycooperative, moral instincts.
But to return to the analogy of Adam and Eve Stork and their encounter with the onset ofconsciousness. It was suggested that, in keeping with their already established roles, it madesense for Adam to take on the loathsomely upsetting job of championing the ego over theignorance of our original instinctive self while Eve maintained her role of nurturing a newgeneration, a task that required the preservation of her innocence. When giving presentationsabout the emergence of this role differentiation using the analogy of Adam and Eve Stork,at this point in the story I usually go out to an adjoining room where I bang on the wall and

Part 7:1

The battle of the sexes

481
scream and shout—basically I imitate Adam becoming extremely upset from undertaking thejob he’s been sent out to do. When Adam returns to Eve, I then emulate her reaction, which is,
‘You’ve turned into a monster Adam, I don’t want anything more to do with you!’ So while
Eve agreed that Adam should take up the role of fighting ignorance, in not participating in thatterrible battle she is somewhat naive or unaware of the ramifications of fighting that battle.
She is, in effect, unsympathetic to the battle, which places Adam in the awful predicament offeeling misunderstood and unjustly condemned by Eve.
Men have had a horrible job: they have had to be strong enough, in effect, to killsoul! They have had to be strong enough to ‘fly off course’ in search of knowledge anddefy our beautiful, cooperatively orientated, original instinctive self or soul! In the Adam
Stork drawing, you can see the other wide-eyed innocent stork screaming at him, ‘You’rebad Adam, you’re flying off course, come back here where you should be!’ But Adamhas to defy this censure without being able to explain why, without being able to explainhis actions. However, as emphasised in Part 3:4, for us humans the situation was vastlymore diabolical than this because our instinctive orientation wasn’t to a flight path butto behaving in an utterly cooperatively, loving, unconditionally selfless, integrativelyorientated, ‘Godly’ way, so when we ‘flew off course’ and became angry, egocentricand alienated—all divisive traits—we were, in effect, in violation of ‘God’! So from aninitial state of upset, men had then to contend with a sense of guilt, which very greatlycompounded their insecurity and frustrations and made them even more angry, egocentricand alienated. How tough were men going to have to be to continue to do their job withoutreceiving any respect or appreciation for why they were having to do what they were havingto do, not from within themselves, from their own instinctive self or soul, or anyone else!
No wonder men have become so incredibly upset.
But what could men do? They couldn’t explain themselves to women because theycouldn’t explain the human condition—they weren’t able to defend their corrupted state.
Adam Stork couldn’t explain why he had become so upset, so egocentric, etc. So whatmen, in their desperation, did is they turned on women and attacked their innocence—adevelopment I will come to in a moment because I first need to explain that women werenot the original victims of men’s upset. As mentioned in Part 3:11C, that tragic distinctionwent to animals because their innocence—the innocence of all of nature in fact—alsocriticised men. Remember, nature was a friend of our original instinctive self or soulbecause we grew up with nature—humanity spent all its infancy and childhood alongsidenature in the ‘Garden of Eden’ that was Africa—so by association the natural world alsocriticised us. Hunting animals was not about food—that was our species’ first great contrivedexcuse for our divisive behaviour—it was about getting even with innocence for its unjustcondemnation of men. As mentioned in Part 3:11C, research shows that 80 percent of the foodof existing hunter-foragers is supplied by the women’s foraging, so what were the men doinghunting all day? They were getting even with innocence. Hunting—human domination overanimals—was the first expression of the conscious thinking self or ego’s determination toprove that it was good and not bad.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

482

Telling the Hunt

These photographs were included in Part 3:11C, however, I have also included them herebecause they epitomise what is being explained about the different situations of men andwomen. Telling the Hunt shows male Bushmen of the Kalahari attentively hearing about—andpresumably sharing in—the success of the hunt. We can imagine the hunter recounting howhe relentlessly pursued his prey, methodically stalking and finally vanquishing it, to the cheersof his audience. With their backs turned to nature, you can sense the oppression men feel fromthe world at large. And so in a world that condemns them they sought fellowship and support

Photograph by Marjorie Shostak/Anthro-Photo
in each other’s company.

Women with infants digging roots

Part 7:1

The battle of the sexes

483

While the men are thus preoccupied satisfying their egos, we find the women in thissecond photograph having to gather the food and nurture the children; again, as the femalenarrator in the soundtrack of the 1986 African musical Ipi Tombi complained, ‘The women hadto do all the work because the men were so busy being big, strong and brave.’

What makes these images such good illustrations is that they are of the relatively innocentrace, the Bushmen of the Kalahari. While aboriginal races are necessarily more innocent thanthose that have advanced further along the soul’s exhaustion curve, they are still members ofthe highly embattled, sophisticated-in-the-art-of-denial, soul-devastated, alienated, pseudoidealistic, Homo sapiens sapiens, as these pictures confirm. The basic adaptations humansmade to the human condition are clearly well established in the Bushmen—these could aseasily be photos of businessmen discussing a company takeover and women shopping.
But to return to the division unfolding between men and women, as illustrated by Adamand Eve Stork. ‘Adam’ has returned from doing his job in a state of extreme upset that ‘Eve’ isnot sympathetic towards. Although she agreed that he should ‘take up the sword’ of searchingfor knowledge because she can’t appreciate that job and its corrupting ramifications she iscritical of his extremely egocentric, upset state. But what could Adam do? He couldn’t explainhimself but nor could he just stand there and take the criticism—he had to do something todefend himself. But because Adam needed Eve to reproduce the species he couldn’t kill herthe way he destroyed animals over their unjust condemnation, so instead he/men violatedher/women’s innocence or ‘honour’ through rape. Men perverted ‘sex’, as in ‘fucking’ ordestroying, making it discrete from the act of procreation. What was being fucked, violated,destroyed, ruined, degraded or sullied was women’s innocence. Through these meanswomen’s innocence was oppressed and they too came to share men’s upset. Interestingly, in
Christianity Christ’s mother is described as a ‘virgin’ (Matt. 1:23, Luke 1:27, 34), which we can nowunderstand is a perfect metaphor for a mother who, as was explained in Part 5:1, is sufficientlyinnocent to nurture an innocent offspring such as Jesus. The renowned English writer D.H.
Lawrence recognised the essential innocence of the ‘Virgin’ Mary when, in reference to her,he wrote, ‘Oh, oh, all the women in the world are dead, oh there’s just one’ (mentioned in Lawrence Durrell:
Conversations, Lawrence Durrell & Earl Ingersoll, 1998, p.178 of 261).

To reiterate, men’s burden was that they had to suffer self-corruption, they had to ‘march intohell for a heavenly cause’, as the words from The Man of La Mancha state—a state of corruption
that was compounded by the criticism inherent in women’s innocence and naivety. To subduethis criticism, men violated women’s innocence through sex. While among humans sex wasoriginally purely a means of procreation (in the case of some species, such as bonobos, it is ameans of pacification), it became ‘perverted’, used as a way to attack innocence, particularlywomen’s innocence. On this level, sex became rape. The feminist Andrea Dworkin recognisedthis underlying truth in her 1987 book Intercourse, when she wrote that ‘All sex is abuse.’
In time, however, the image of innocence in women, their physical beauty that
‘attracted’ sex, also became a means of inspiring men on humanity’s journey to selfunderstanding. This aspect means that while, at base, sex was rape, on a nobler level itbecame an inspirational act of love, an act of faith in and affection for men. A sublimepartnership between men and women did develop, for when all the world disowned men for

484

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
their unavoidable divisiveness, women, in effect, stayed with them, bringing them the onlywarmth, comfort and support they would know. As it says in Genesis, ‘The Lord God said, “Itis not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him”…Then the Lord God made a

The German supermodel Claudia Schiffer,
Australian Elle magazine Aug. 1992

We can see now how women’s innocence fell victim to men’s upset. Throughout thebattle to find understanding women were forced to suffer the destruction of their soul, theirinnocence, yet all the while their trappings of innocence were being cultivated. As will beexplained in Part 8:4D, originally—during humanity’s long 10-million-year nurturing Infancyand Childhood stage—cute, neotenous, childlike features (domed forehead, snub nose,large eyes and hairless skin) were considered ‘beautiful’, and were favoured because theywere the hallmarks of innocence and indicative of a potentially integrative individual; as
Charles Darwin realised, sexual or mate selection played an important part in our species’development. But when, during humanity’s recent two-million-year upset Adolescence,ignorant innocence became a threat, men sought out such ‘beauty’, such indicators ofinnocence, for sexual destruction. We’ve evasively described such cute, neotenous looks as
‘attractive’ but avoided admitting that what was being attracted was the destruction, throughsex, of women’s innocence. So while all other forms of innocence were being destroyed, thisimage of innocence—‘the beauty of women’—was the only form that was actually cultivatedduring humanity’s upset adolescence. What this means is that the image of innocence (thecute, neotenous, childlike domed forehead, snub nose, large eyes and hairless skin) was being

Part 7:1

The battle of the sexes

485
selected for throughout humanity’s ape Infancy, Australopithecine Childhood and Homo
Adolescence, even though the reason for the selection changed between Childhood and
Adolescence. If we look at the skulls of our ancestors again, pictured in Part 3:11, we can seethere is an increase in the neotenous traits of a domed forehead, snub nose and large eyes fromthe time of our ape ancestors right through to the present.
So during humanity’s upset Adolescence women’s beauty became men’s only equivalentfor, and measure of, the beauty of their lost pure world. The following quotes reveal just howinspiring women’s image of innocence became for men: ‘we lose our soul, of which woman is theimmemorial image’ (Laurens van der Post, The Heart of the Hunter, 1961, p.134 of 233); ‘I believe hers to have beenthe kind of beauty in which the future of a whole continent sings, exhorting its children to renounce whatis out of accord with the grand design of life’ (ibid. p.86); ‘Woman stands before him [man] as the lure andsymbol of the world’ (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Let Me Explain, 1966; trs René Hague & others, 1970, p.67 of 189);
‘Women are all we [men] know of paradise on earth’ (Albert Camus, The Fall, 1956, p.73 of 108); ‘Beauty willsave the world’ (Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Idiot, 1868, pt.3, ch.5); ‘You give me a reason to live’ (Joe Cocker’s 1986song You Can Leave Your Hat On); ‘I, I who have nothing / I, I who have no one / Adore you and want you so’
(Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller’s 1963 song I Who Have Nothing); ‘Sex is life’ (graffiti on a granite boulder at Meekatharrain Western Australia). Friedrich Nietzsche was another who recognised the role women played
in inspiring the world with their illusion of innocence when he wrote, ‘her great art is the lie,her supreme concern is appearance and beauty. Let us confess it, we men: it is precisely this art and thisinstinct in woman which we love and honour’ (Beyond Good and Evil, 1886; tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1972, p.145 of 237).

So it is little wonder men ‘fell in love’ with women. Again, their representation ofinnocence, their representation of our now lost pure world, has been the only form of thatpurity that has been continually cultivated since we were apes—which is why the beauty, theattractiveness of the image of innocence in women, has had absolutely extraordinary power,as the quotes above recognise.
The great ‘mystery of women’ was that it was only the physical image or object ofinnocence that men were falling in love with. The illusion was that women were bothpsychologically and physically innocent. For their part, women were able to fall in love withthe dream of their own ‘perfection’ that men projected—of their being truly innocent. Menand women fell in love: we abandoned reality in favour of the dream. It was the one timein our life when we could romance—when we could be transported to how life once wasand how it could be again. The lyrics of the song Somewhere, written by Stephen Sondheimfor the 1956 blockbuster musical and film West Side Story, perfectly describe the dream ofthe heavenly state of true togetherness that humans allow themselves to be transported towhen they fall in love: ‘Somewhere / We’ll find a new way of living / We’ll find a way of forgiving /
Somewhere // There’s a place for us / A time and place for us / Hold my hand and we’re halfway there
/ Hold my hand and I’ll take you there / Somehow / Some day / Somewhere!’ Cole Porter’s 1928
song Let’s Fall In Love also contains lyrics that reveal how falling in love is about allowingyourself to dream of the ideal state, of ‘paradise’: ‘Let’s fall in love / Why shouldn’t we fall in love?
/ Our hearts are made of it / Let’s take a chance / Why be afraid of it / Let’s close our eyes and makeour own paradise.’ The escape from the horror of a world oppressed and upset by the human
condition that falling in love promised is also expressed in the lyrics of the 1977 Fleetwood
Mac song Sara: ‘Drowning in the sea of love / Where everyone would love to drown.’

486

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

The silent recognition that women become invisible when they grow old is anacknowledgment that the role they have played, as sex objects, is behind them. It’s theinnocence of youth that has been both attractive to men for sexual destruction and aninspiration to them because it represented the image of their lost pure world that they wereultimately fighting to re-establish, and as such it is that youthful innocence that women havestrived to emulate—long, healthy hair, eyes made large with make-up, legs made longer withhigh heels to imitate the coltish, long legs of pubescent teenagers, etc, etc. Since sex wasabout attacking innocence, for a woman to be attractive she needed to look innocent. Men’spreoccupation with youthfulness has nothing to do with younger women having greaterpotential to reproduce their genes, as dishonest mechanistic scientists have told us—it hasto do with sex being about attacking innocence, which means you can’t be attractive for sexif you’re not innocent looking and the most innocent age is that of the thin, long-legged,pubescent teenager, so that is what women had to imitate to be most attractive, regardless ofhow unnatural that is for adult, wide-hipped-for-child-bearing women.
While different cultures exhibit different perceptions of female beauty, essentiallymen have been ‘attracted’ by innocent looks, which are youthful, neotenous features. Thepopular saying ‘Blondes have more fun’ illustrates the tendency in Caucasian cultures toregard blondes as more attractive because many young Caucasians have blond hair, a signof youth/innocence. In his 1940 detective novel Farewell, My Lovely, Raymond Chandleracknowledged the appeal of blondes when he wrote, ‘It was a blonde. A blonde to make abishop kick a hole in a stained glass window’ (ch.13). Long, healthy hair is associated with youth,
which is why men find long hair on women attractive. In general, any feature unique towomen will be attractive and signal a sex object to men, hence the desirability of breasts,shapely hips and a narrow waist. Different cultural and historical definitions of beauty canalso be explained in terms of what signifies innocence. For instance, in times when fewcould afford to eat or live well, women we would now consider overweight were deemedbeautiful because their appearance indicated that they had been well cared for, betternurtured and thus less embattled and more innocent.
What all of this means is that men and women became highly adapted to their roles underthe duress of the human condition. Women’s beauty—their image of innocence—became valuedas a reminder and an inspiration to men of their lost pure world that they were fighting to restore

Part 7:1

The battle of the sexes

487
through the finding of sufficient knowledge that would finally end the unjust criticism emanatingfrom our instinctive self. Women’s and men’s magazines serve as a powerful illustration of howadapted women and men have become to their roles. Almost exclusively, women’s magazinescontain nothing but instructions on how to become a better sex object—from cover to cover theyare all about being glamorous and seductive, specifically through trying to maintain a youthfulappearance. Women’s magazines reveal just how reliant, to the point of codependency, womenhave become on reinforcement from men for their beauty. Men’s magazines on the other hand,apart from some material about chasing sex, are all about competition—in business and in sport,the latter of which is really a ritualised battle for success, basically emblematic of men’s need tochampion the ego or conscious thinking self over an ignorant world.
So while relations between men and women did develop into a partnership, thereremained between them an underlying conflict, a lack of understanding, a ‘war of the sexes’.
Women’s ignorance and thus lack of sympathy for men’s role in the world is starkly apparentin this statement by the leading feminist Germaine Greer: ‘As far as I’m concerned, men arethe product of a damaged gene. They pretend to be normal but what they’re doing sitting there withbenign smiles on their faces is they’re manufacturing sperm’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 14 Nov. 1991). Greer
believes that the wilful, competitive, egocentric nature of men is nothing more than a selfishdrive to reproduce their genes. The truth is, rather than being driven by selfishness, men havebeen involved in serving humanity in a most remarkable way. Their role in the world hasbeen entirely honourable, brave and selfless. Another influential feminist, Gloria Steinem,expressed a similar complete lack of sympathy for men’s role in the world when she said,
‘A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle’ (TIME mag. 18 Sept. 2000). These two statements are
two of the most embarrassingly wrong statements made in history, and yet, in her secret self,every woman has been making them for two million years—which we can now understandis why men have ‘fucked’ women, attacked and violated their innocence. The cruelleststatement I have ever heard a man make about women is that ‘they don’t even exist’. Thankheavens then that with men now finally able to explain themselves to women the horrificbattle between the sexes can be brought to an end and men and women can finally be unitedin real love for one another. Stacy Rodger’s affirmation in Section 3:7 of Freedom Expanded:
Book 2 says it all about just how relieving it is for women to finally be able to understandmen’s extremely upset, silent state.

488

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

In his brilliantly insightful cartoon, included in Part 3:7 and reproduced in the nextimage, Michael Leunig was accurate in his depiction of women’s lack of empathy with thehorrifyingly difficult and immensely upsetting task men have had of defying the ignorance ofour naive, innocent, ideal-world-demanding instinctive self or soul. In this cartoon, while Eveis shown as not disowning or deserting her man, as natural selection has taught women not todo, she is, nevertheless, deeply perturbed and distressed by his behaviour.

Cartoon by Michael Leunig that appeared in Melbourne’s The Age newspaper on 31 Dec. 1988

It has been an astronomically difficult job being a man. They have had to be tough enoughto defy innocence, have the whole world criticise them and never be able to explain themselves;even their womenfolk considered them monsters, just useless, immensely destructive blightson Earth. But the truth, as we can now see, is that, instead of being the villains, men are in factthe heroes of the whole story of life on Earth. Consciousness is nature’s greatest invention andto have championed consciousness, to have found the greater dignifying understanding of thehuman condition, as men have now done, means men are the heroes of the story of life on Earth.

Part 7:1

The battle of the sexes

489

Not surprisingly, men’s movements have, in recent years, been growing in popularityas men try to rebuild their self-esteem because, after living with such condemnation, suchcrippling accusations that they are meaningless blights on this planet, they are now hardlyable to show their faces to the world. The feminist movement has been so intimidating thatmen are now supposed to disown their masculinity and become ‘metrosexual’, effeminateversions of themselves. As described in Part 3:11H, pseudo idealism, the dogmatic, artificialimposition of the non-embattled, men-should-stop-being-egocentric-and-aggressive, idealworld, has virtually taken over the planet, destroying truth and burying humanity in thedeepest and darkest corner of Plato’s cave of alienation. It is true that men’s job of conqueringignorance had produced so much upset that the world was almost destroyed by it, at whichpoint the upset behaviour had to be harnessed, but having to resort to lies, such as that men areno different from women and irrelevant meaningless monsters, was dangerously dishonest.
The question no one was asking was ‘But why are men so angry and egocentric? Why havethey been destroying nature?’ And the reason no one asked those real questions was becausethey raised the unconfrontable issue of the human condition. Everyone has just been skatingaround on the surface of life, with no real questions asked or real answers sought. A tidalwave of total superficiality had swamped the world.

Cartoon by Michael Leunig (detail) that appearedin Melbourne’s The Age newspaper on 31 Dec. 1988

The tragedy of the situation was that the more men tried to do their job of fighting todefeat ignorance and protect the group (humanity), the more embattled, upset and corruptedthey became and thus the more they appeared to worsen the situation. In the end they wereturning the world into the wasteland that Michael Leunig so honestly depicted in his Adamand Eve cartoon (above). The ‘Give me liberty or give me death’, ‘No retreat, no surrender’, ‘Deathbefore dishonour’, ‘Death or glory’ scenario was erring dangerously on the side of ‘death’. In
short, the harder men tried to do their job of protecting humanity the more they appearedto endanger humanity. As a result, many men did become almost completely ineffective orinoperable, paralysed by this paradox—cowered not only by condemnation from the worldat large, but by their own awareness of the extent of their self-corruption and its effects. Asa result, women have had to usurp some of the day-to-day running of affairs. Not oppressed

490

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
by the overwhelming responsibility and extreme frustration that men felt, women could, toan extent, remain effective. Further, when men crumpled women had to take over otherwisethe family, group or community involved would disintegrate. The trend toward a return tomatriarchy, such as we have recently seen in society, was a sign that men in general hadbecome almost completely exhausted. However, total matriarchy has not emerged because aslong as the fundamental battle still existed men could not afford to stand aside completely—they still needed to stay in control and vigilant against the threat of ignorance. So whilesome elements in the recent feminist movement seized the opportunity to avenge men’soppression, the movement was in general borne out of necessity—but, as we saw in Part
3:11H, it was a dangerous development.

The danger of relinquishing power to women was that they were not appreciative of thenature of the battle that humanity was waging. They have not been, as it were, ‘mainframed’to the battle—just as men have not been ‘mainframed’ to the role of nurturing as womenintuitively are. For example, in the 1987 film Three Men and a Baby the men pass the babyaround hoping one of the other men will change the nappy, even bribing one another todo it. Not appreciating the nature of the battle, women could be overly idealistic in theirdecision-making, or even overly realistic in the sense of being unduly vengeful. If you arenot appreciative of and sympathetic towards the battle it is hard to know where the balancelies. The American author Camille Paglia recognised this truth when she famously said, ‘Ifcivilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts’ (Sexual Personae, 1990).

This ‘grass huts’ comment can be understood both literally and metaphorically because thefundamental situation was that if our instinctive self or soul (which women represented) had itsway the intellect would never have been allowed to search for knowledge. The soul’s ignorancehad to be defied if knowledge and ultimately self-understanding was to be found. To give in tosoul was to go nowhere, to give-up, to remain in ‘grass huts’. Incidentally, Paglia also defied thefeminist code when she said, ‘Wake up, men and women are different’ (The Australian, 4-5 Jul. 1992).
So while both men and women have had to live in denial of the battle of the humancondition, men have been astutely aware of the issue of the human condition and their job ofchampioning the ego to solve it; they had to maintain an awareness of the battle because theywere the ones who had to fight it. Women, on the other hand, have trouble identifying withthe discussion in my books about the battle of the human condition—to them, it has all largelybeen a mystery. If you look at the quotes used throughout my books, and there are hundredsof them, the vast majority come from male philosophers, scientists, writers, songwriters,etc. It was men’s job to champion the ego, to find the liberating understanding of the humancondition, and so while all men share this awareness of the underlying battle, women do not.
In Bob Dylan’s 1968 song All Along the Watchtower he referred to men, the ‘princes’ who ‘keptthe view’ ‘all along the watchtower’ ‘while all the women came and went’. Men waited steadily for
the answers to the human condition to arrive but women weren’t so focused. This limitationon the part of women was described by Sir Laurens van der Post in his 1976 book Jung andthe Story of Our Time, when he related a dream Carl Jung had about a blind woman named
Salome. Sir Laurens wrote that ‘Salome was young, beautiful and blind’, explaining the symbolismof Salome’s blindness with ‘Salome was blind because the anima [the soulful, more feminine aspectof humans] is incapable of seeing’ (p.169 of 275).

Part 7:1

The battle of the sexes

491

I could talk for days about the differences and dynamics between men and womenbecause there is so much now that we can explain and needs to be explained about theworld of men and women, but in doing so we once again come face to face with unbearablyconfronting truths. Men, for instance, have to face the truth of how diabolically upset theyhave become; how massively arrogant and deluded and brutal they have been—in particular,how destructive they have been of women, of nature, in fact of innocence in all its forms.
Women, on the other hand, have to face the truth that they unjustly condemned men andthat they have not been ‘mainframed’. They also need to face the truth about their role assex objects and that being a sex object is about imitating innocence and that sex destroyswomen’s innocence, and—finally—they need to face the truth of the importance of nurturingtheir children.
Importantly, however, it is not necessary to fully face the truth of the extent of ourupset condition. As has been explained and will be further fleshed out in Part 9, ‘The
Transformation of the Human Race’, we can support the truth without fully confrontingit, however, it is important to know that the truth does exist and has finally been explainedbecause that is the all-precious ingredient for a new world that we will be defending when wetake up the Sunshine Highway, TRANSFORMED WAY OF LIVING.
Now, at last, the world of men can be understood and through that understanding thebattle between the sexes can finally be brought to an end—but not artificially throughdogmatic feminist demands that men disown their masculinity and wash the dishes, etc, butrather through men being able to say, ‘This is why I am upset, there was a good reason formy upset, I happen to be good, in fact, not just good but an absolute legend, the hero of thestory of life on Earth! And I have had the most horrific job that wasn’t made any easier byyou women criticising me.’ And for their part women can respond with, ‘I understand thatnow, but our job was to keep the soulful true world alive as much as possible and to nurturea fresh generation which wasn’t made any easier by you men being so egocentric and selfpreoccupied.’ So with dialogue now possible between men and women, the war between thesexes can finally come to an end.
However, as stated earlier, the problem was that the longer it took to find this reconcilingunderstanding of the human condition the more upset amplified. Eventually, humanityarrived at the precipice of self-destruction at which point panic set in and instead of carefullypersevering with the upsetting battle to find liberating understanding of ourselves, a stridentmajority advocated abandoning the battle and ‘flying back on course’. But to do so wassuicide—a ‘loss of nerve’, as the British science historian Jacob Bronowski summed upthe danger of this march of pseudo idealism: ‘I am infinitely saddened to find myself suddenlysurrounded in the west by a sense of terrible loss of nerve, a retreat from knowledge into—into what?
Into…falsely profound questions about, Are we not really just animals at bottom; into extra-sensoryperception and mystery. They do not lie along the line of what we are now able to know if we devoteourselves to it: an understanding of man himself. We are nature’s unique experiment to make the rationalintelligence prove itself sounder than the reflex [instinct]. Knowledge is our destiny. Self-knowledge, at lastbringing together the experience of the arts and the explanations of science, waits ahead of us’ (The Ascentof Man, 1973, p.437 of 448). What has happened is that give-up-the-battle, ‘fly-back-on-course’, left-
wing political ideology has threatened to take over the world.

492

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

One of the great dangers of left-wing political ideology was that it operated under thedelusion that giving up the battle was the ideal, responsible path to take. The left-wing deludeditself that it held the moral high ground when, as we can now explain, it was the right-wing, inits preparedness to pursue the upsetting battle to find liberating understanding, that actually layclaim to that mantle. We have always known that when the truth arrived it was going to shattermany illusions and delusions. For example, instead of men being the absolute villains of thestory of life on Earth they are suddenly revealed to be the heroes of that story. The truth wasnot as it appeared. Left-wing advocates weren’t the idealists they presented themselves to be;we can see now that they were actually advocating giving up the battle to overthrow ignorance.
At the end of the day, the right-wing is revealed to have been the true idealists because only bycontinuing the heroic, albeit corrupting, search for knowledge could freedom from the humancondition be achieved. All along, the right-wing has been doing the right thing and yet theyhave been erroneously labelled ‘neocons’, short for ‘neoconservatives’. The left-wing love thatnickname because it is almost saying that the right-wing are ‘con men’, but we can now seethat it was the left-wing that was conning us, not the right-wing. Real idealism, as opposed topseudo idealism, involved continuing the corrupting search for knowledge.
The danger of pseudo idealism, especially those increasingly dishonest forms thatemerged in the last 200 years, was described in Part 3:11H. There it was described how, in the
Bible, the prophets Christ and Daniel anticipated the development of pseudo idealistic causes,describing such causes as ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ (see Daniel:11, Matt:24, Mark:13)—‘theabomination’ that leads nowhere except to even greater levels of alienation. Christ warned
that when pseudo idealism threatens to take over the world we should ‘flee to the mountains’
(Matt. 24:16), because by then the artificiality of the world would be so great that there was
a very real risk that the associated truthless, nerveless, terminal levels of alienation couldvery well destroy the world. Everywhere pseudo idealistic, left-wing causes like feminism,environmentalism and political correctness dominated.
But taking up the option of ‘flying back on course’ was never going to lead to theanswers, it was only ever going to add more dishonesty, more denial, more alienationthat would one day have to be seen through and dismantled. As described in Part
3:11G, the great beauty of religions, especially Christianity, was that they contained a
degree of honesty. In the case of Christianity, by deferring to Christ you were indirectlyacknowledging your own alienation and corruption and Christ’s lack thereof. Pseudoidealistic causes like environmentalism, on the other hand, required no honesty, noconfrontation with the truth of your corrupted condition, no recognition of the underlyingissue of the human condition—as the editor of TIME magazine, Richard Stengel, recognised,
‘The environment became the last best cause, the ultimate guilt-free issue’ (TIME mag. 31 Dec. 1990).

In fact, the honesty inherent in religions such as Christianity is precisely the reason theyhave waned in popularity in recent years. As we humans became more upset we found itincreasingly difficult to accept any confrontation with the truth of our condition, and soany emphasis on guilt became unbearable. Not surprisingly, Buddhism has been growingin popularity because it places no emphasis on guilt or on a confronting idealistic ‘God’.
As one Buddhist convert said, Buddhism is ‘non-judgemental, there’s no notion of sin, there’s no

Part 7:1

The battle of the sexes

493
notion of good and evil, you don’t embrace negativity’ (from Light at Edge of the World: Science of the Mind of
Buddhism, National Geographic Channel, 2006).

But to completely strip religions of their emphasis on
guilt was to strip them of their aligning honesty.
Indeed, one of the most dishonest, sophisticated-in-the-art-of-denial of the pseudoidealistic causes was postmodernism, which took guilt stripping to the extreme by actuallymaintaining that there was no such thing as ‘truth’! What rubbish! The whole purpose ofhuman endeavour was to find the truth, not to give up and argue that it doesn’t even exist.
However, while pseudo idealistic denials have been spreading like wildfire across theworld—about men being useless and about there being no real difference between men andwomen, and there being no such thing as ‘truth’ anyway, etc, etc—the real truth about therole differentiation between men and women, and the impact of that differentiation on theirlives under the duress of the human condition, has been sitting there, openly acknowledged,in the Bible for some 3,500 years. In Genesis, Moses said, ‘the Lord God made a woman…andhe brought her to the man…[to] be united to his wife…The man and his wife were both naked, and theyfelt no shame’ (2:22-25). Moses then said that when the ‘fruit’ ‘from the tree of…knowledge’ (3:3, 2:17)
was taken and the search for knowledge began, ‘the eyes of both of them [Adam and Eve] wereopened, and they realised that they were naked; so they…made coverings for themselves’ (3:6-7). Then,
acknowledging that it became a patriarchal world after the upsetting search for knowledgebegan, Moses said, ‘To the woman he [God] said…Your desire will be for your husband, and he willrule over you’ (3:16). In other words, before the patriarchal search for knowledge began, humans
were innocent and during this time of innocence men did not use sex, or any other means,to attack the innocence of women, but then men became upset and turned on women andattacked their innocence through the perversion of sex, at which point humans had to inventclothes in order to conceal our bodies because our nakedness incited lust. So while clothesbecame necessary to keep neotenised, hairless humans warm, they also became necessary todampen lust. Even the relatively innocent Bushmen, who go about semi-naked most of thetime, wear loincloths to conceal their genitals. Once humans became extremely upset eventhe glimpse of a woman’s face or ankle became dangerously exciting to men, which is whyin some cultures women are completely shrouded and persecuted if any part of their bodyis revealed in public. It was a reverse-of-the-truth lie to say, as it is frequently argued, thatthis concealment of women was introduced out of ‘respect for women’. The truth is, it wasenforced because women were being disrespected.
So that is why the world has been patriarchal, what sex, as humans practice, is and whyinnocence has been attacked everywhere. It has been an utterly tragic story. The deeper youlook into the human condition the more horrific it becomes, but thank God we can now lookinto it, understand it and leave it behind forever.
(Much more can be read about the life of men and women under the duress of the humancondition—including explaining such battle-to-find-knowledge-sympathetic women as Ayn
Rand and Margaret Thatcher, and the non-reproducing, seemingly-biologically-impossiblesexual state of homosexuality—in my freely available, online book A Species In Denial inthe chapter titled ‘Bringing peace to the war between the sexes’ at <www.humancondition.com/asid-men-and-women>.)

494

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 7:2 How Angry did we become?
Understanding the extent to which we have become upset after having to live on thisplanet unjustly condemned for two million years will help us appreciate the magnificence ofthe solution to our upset state of the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING. Of the threemain elements of our upset—anger, egocentricity (which our selfishness is a subset of) andalienation—we will begin by examining how angry we became.
The truth is, we humans have been capable of horrendous atrocities. Our planet isencrusted with the blood spilt by our immense anger. To provide just a single example, inone book (and it doesn’t matter what its title is because such examples are innumerable) it isdescribed how members of a persecuted faith were ‘blown from cannon mouths, hacked to deathby axes and swords, and led to their deaths with burning candles inserted into open wounds in theirbodies’. I have previously read about this particular incident, which occurred in Persia (now

Iran) in the mid-1800s. The victims had their stomachs removed while they were still alive,had large saucer shaped candles placed inside their stomach cavity and were then forced towalk the streets until they died.
While we have learnt to civilise our upset, disguise it, underneath our manufacturedfacade of restrained peacefulness, even a manufactured happiness, lies volcanic anger—because the people who committed those atrocities are us, humans; within the make-up ofall humans is a capacity for extraordinary violence. But we can at last understand the originof this cauldron of anger that lies within us humans: we have been unjustly condemned fortwo million years! We have had to live on a planet where everything on it—innocent nature,the integrative theme of existence, others more innocent than ourselves, indeed the wholenatural world—was screaming at us, ‘You are bad, evil, God (Integrative Meaning) defyingand defiling, worthless, destructive, meaningless monsters!’ We never were those things, butwe couldn’t explain why we weren’t! In reality, we were the opposite of evil—we were theabsolute heroes of the whole story of life on Earth, but we had no way of arguing our case!
Could a more horrible torture be imagined? And could you imagine one that had to be enduredfor so long? It would hardly seem possible.
It is difficult to think of an analogy to describe this torturous existence, but just imagineliving in a community where, for instance, it is decreed that no one can plant roses, but forsome reason that you can’t explain, you have to plant roses. What would happen? After acouple of days people would stop talking to you, then the shopkeepers would stop servingyou, then children would start putting dead cats in your letterbox. And that is only after oneweek. Now try to imagine how two million years of such ostracism by our whole worldwould have impacted upon us. There must be an almost bottomless well of frustrated furyinside us humans! So it is fortunate, for the sake of our species’ survival, that over time theimmensely upset human race did learn to civilise its upset—to restrain its anger, concealit, hide it, contain it—but that upset, with all its volcanic anger, could never be eliminateduntil the dignifying and thus relieving understanding of it was found. Despite all our effortsto restrain, contain and disguise our upset it was always building, always intensifying,which means by now, two million years after upset began, the levels within us must bemountainous, which they are!

Part 7:2

How Angry did we become?

495

Indeed, like the Persian incident provided above, history abounds with heinous examplesof unleashed upset; for instance, the thirteenth century Mongol conqueror Genghis Khanwas certainly someone who lived out his upset to the full. He let it all hang out. Everyday hesatisfied his anger through bloodletting, his egocentricity through domination of others, andhis mind or spirit by blocking out any feeling of guilt or remorse emanating from his moralinstincts. As Genghis Khan is reputed to have said, ‘Happiness lies in conquering one’s enemies,in driving them in front of oneself, in taking their property, in savouring their despair, in outraging theirwives and daughters.’ And the Mongols did exactly that. They would attack vast cities and kill
every person living there. They even employed specialised troops who knew all the desperatetricks people would use to try to escape, such as digging holes in which to hide. These troopswould stay behind after the initial massacre and wait until those who were in hiding emergedand then they would kill them too. They were ruthless, leaving great mounds of human bonesin their wake. Such is the level of fury inside of all humans now after two million years ofhaving to live unjustly condemned on this planet.

Ralph Steadman’s The Lizard Lounge 1971

The drawings of the British cartoonist and caricaturist Ralph Steadman have alwaysmanaged to wrench to the surface the truth of the full horror of our human condition. In thisparticularly revealing drawing, titled The Lizard Lounge, Steadman depicts humans as reptiles.
The drawing, which I referred to in Part 3:11F, first appeared in the American author Hunter
S. Thompson’s classic 1971 novel about the utter madness of the human condition, Fear and
Loathing in Las Vegas. The arrogantly deluded, egocentric pretentiousness of all the male

496

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
lizards, with their lurid looks and attitudes towards the victims of men’s upset, the sicklylooking old female crows, are all frighteningly truthful renditions of our human condition.
The fierce expression of the central dragon is an honest depiction of just how angry humans,especially men, have become. We see beside the main dragon others who have lost their nerveand are ingratiating themselves to the main dragon, looking to him to do all the fighting.

Cartoon by Michael Leunig (detail) that appearedin Melbourne’s The Age newspaper on 31 Dec. 1988

Notice how the ferociously angry expression on Steadman’s central dragon is exactlythe same as the ferociously angry countenance Leunig gave Adam in his cartoon about ourbanishment from the Garden of Eden. We didn’t deserve to be banished from the Garden of
Eden and in that cartoon Adam expresses just how resentful we humans became as a result.
But this is where men have got to—hollow eyes devoid of any sensitivity or empathy foranything real in the world, interested only in the glory that gives them relief from the criticismthat they are bad when they are not; men who are totally punch-drunk with the need for powerand glory; men who are taking the saying ‘give me liberty or give me death’ all the way to thewire or finishing line of ‘death’! ‘I want more glory, I want to buy 10 more companies, I’mgoing to conquer the world, I’ve trodden on so many people to get here and, if necessary, I’lltread on as many more again to get the glory and relief I crave!’ We see in men’s clubs howincredibly arrogant men are. With their big armchairs and limousines parked out the back,they swagger about posturing here and there, careful not to tread on each other’s egos, onlytalking about the weather and the last football game, although occasionally saying ‘sell thoseshares’, ‘email my secretary’, ‘have your people get in touch with my people’, etc, etc. Men’slives have been so artificial and fragile it is truly tragic.
Although it is mostly concealed from view by hundreds of thousands of years of practicedcivility, the truth, as has been emphasised, is that there are volcanic levels of upset in humans.
Our ability to at last admit this truth, because we can at last explain and thus understandit, means we can finally explain the ritual of human sacrifice, something that occurred innearly all ancient cultures, including the Inca civilisation. While the sacrifice (actuallymurder) of our instinctive self or soul’s friends, the animals, which also often occurred, wasshockingly offensive to our cooperatively-orientated, all-loving original instinctive self or

Part 7:2

How Angry did we become?

497
soul, sacrificing (actually murdering) a fellow human was astronomically offensive to oursoul. However, the upset in humans has been so great that only such astronomically shockingacts as murdering our fellow humans could exceed our astronomical levels of upset, and byexceeding the upset temporarily quell it. The associated feeling of shock overrode the feelingof upset and, in so doing, temporarily eliminated the latter. To illustrate, it was mentioned in
Part 5:1 that the terrible bloodletting that took place during the Second World War representedsuch a valving off of upset that it brought about a period of freedom from upset, whichgave rise to the freshness of the 1960s post-war generation. The ‘valving off of upset’ canbe better understood as the souls of those involved being so revolted and shocked by all thebloodletting that the upset in those involved was, for a time, nullified.
It’s a phenomenon that also occurs when we shoot animals (and must have also occurredwhen our ancestors ritually sacrificed the life of an animal)—the shock to our soul of whathunting truly involves temporarily subsides the immense anger in us, which is why somepeople become addicted to shooting animals. In fact, in order for professional hunters ofwildlife to shoot accurately they first have to learn to overcome the momentary mental
‘blackout’ that is brought about by the shock of what they are about to do. All hunters—indeed, anyone about to kill an animal—are aware, if they are honest, of the momentary
‘blackout’ their mind experiences when they are about to kill an animal.
Interestingly, referring to an article published in New Scientist magazine (20 Aug. 2005) titled
‘Sexy images cause temporary blindness’, the journalist Petra Newman wrote that ‘Researchsuggests that when shown erotic or gory images, the brain fails to process images seen immediatelyafterward. This phenomenon is known as “emotion-induced blindness.”…[or] short-vision blackout’
(from the publishing website Helium. Accessed April 2010: see <www.wtmsources.com/176>). While the researchers
cited in the article weren’t able to explain this phenomenon, we now can. In Part 7:1 it wasdescribed how sex, as humans practice it, has been a way of attacking the innocence ofwomen for their lack of appreciation of men’s upsetting battle to champion the consciousthinking self or ego over the ignorance of our original instinctive self or soul. Therefore, sexhas been extremely offensive to our instinctive self or soul, which is why it causes the same
‘emotion-induced’ shock to our soul and thus temporary ‘blackout’ in our mind as killing animals
or our fellow humans. The ‘emotion’ is our soul communicating extreme distress to our mind.
Humans don’t remember sexual episodes very well and the reason we don’t is because sex, ascurrently practiced, is a violation of our soul and we don’t want to remember such violation.
The extraordinary extent of the innocence of our soul, and the extraordinary extentof the upset in humans now, especially in men, are two immensely confronting truths thatunderstanding of the human condition now reveals, but what is so wonderful about the
TRANSFORMED WAY OF LIVING is that we don’t have to fully confront the truth of the extent
of the upset within us. Popular songs typically focus on the exciting potential of the humanrace, not on the truth of the extent of the devastation within us and around us, and they do thatbecause it is the future of a human-condition-ameliorated world alone that is worth dreamingof, holding on to, and working towards. The abyss of confronting truths in the Humanity’s
Situation drawing (shown in Part 6:1) is immense. It really is exposure day, honesty day, truthday, transparency day, revelation day, shake down day, come clean day—in fact ‘judgmentday’—when we’ll be stripped naked and exposed, but thankfully there is a way to cope.

498

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 7:3 How Egocentric did we become?
So, it has been a case of ‘Give me liberty or give me death’, ‘No retreat, no surrender’, ‘Deathbefore dishonour’, ‘Death or glory’—‘I am going to pursue as much reinforcement as I can
through winning power, fame, fortune and glory because I will never accept that I am bad.’
In truth, no amount of power, fame, fortune and glory could establish that we weregood—only clarifying explanation of the human condition could achieve that—but at leastthe upset human race could derive some relief from the implication that we were bad throughwinning power, fame, fortune and glory. And because it was the only thing that couldsustain us, the selfish greed from egocentrically seeking power, fame, fortune and glorywas never going to subside until understanding of the human condition was found—eventhough that selfish greed was destroying the Earth and would eventually destroy humanitythrough terminal levels of alienation, as the explanation given in Part 6:4 made clear when itdescribed how egocentricity turned children into power-addicted adults. Only the arrival ofunderstanding of the human condition could stop the march to self-destruction.
‘Power’, ‘fame’ and ‘glory’ were to do with achieving success—becoming the best,dominating, receiving accolades, etc. ‘Fortune’, as in wealth or money, could buy us goodsand services and a lifestyle that would relieve the implication that we were bad—it suppliedus with material success. We were forever talking about materialism without ever stoppingto ask what we really mean by the term, but in truth, materialism became the poor substitutefor the spiritualism we couldn’t have: we couldn’t find sustenance for our mind or spirit, wecouldn’t explain that we were good and not bad, so all we could do was seek material relief.
A bigger house and a bigger car were statements of defiance of the implication that we werebad when we rightly didn’t accept that we were. Ultimately, we built not just bigger houses,but buildings that were so big they ‘scraped’ the sky. Skyscrapers were giant statements ofdefiance of the implication that we humans were bad. There was no end to our will to neverback down and accept that we were bad—but, by inference, there was also no limit to thedestruction we were prepared to wreak in our pursuit of relief from that criticism.
And such rampant materialism is now a global phenomenon; today the immensepopulations of China and India are seeking all the material trappings of the Western world.
These, and many other once-labelled second and third world nations, have tried all the falsestarts to an upset-free new world, such as socialism/communism, but dogma—the insistenceto just be social and communal despite the reality of humans’ embattled condition—wasnever going to work. Only through the opposite of mind-less dogma, which is mind-fullunderstanding, could an upset-free, cooperative new world emerge. Artificially restrainingpeople, pretending that they are not enormously upset and therefore enormously in need ofmaterial reinforcement and self-distraction, was not realistic. Socialism and communism werelies that denied reality; they said that everyone could live in humble sackcloth, but that wasa complete denial of the fact that people needed something to embellish their lives, anythingto make them feel better about themselves. These movements pretended that the humancondition didn’t exist. Of course, to supply material reinforcement required money or capital,and so capitalism accompanied materialism.

Part 7:3

How Egocentric did we become?

499

Self-distraction and entertainment were also part of the materialistic lifestyle, thematerialistic way of gaining relief from the agony of the insecurity of the human condition.
As the American film director, writer, actor and comedian Woody Allen once said, ‘Don’tunderestimate the power of distraction to keep our minds off the truth of our situation’ (interview with Bob
Costas, titled ‘Woody’, Dateline NBC, 29-30 Nov. 1994).

So yes, the human race has been on an all-out bender to find distraction, find relieffrom the human condition, so much so that we were prepared to destroy the planet if needbe—‘Death before dishonour.’ Greed, greed, greed, selfishness, selfishness, selfishness—nothingcould stop our march to destruction, except the arrival of dignifying understanding of thehuman condition. We even had to block out nature because since our original instinctive selfor soul grew up with nature, by its association with our instinctive self it too criticised us. Theinnocence of nature also confronted us with our own lack of innocence. In fact, the reasonspiky plants like cactus and palms became popular in landscaping was because they look asalienated as we humans are—they are ‘punk’, angry, aggressive and dead-looking. Mosquesin the Islamic culture invariably feature soothing, stop-the-pain-in-the-brain blue colours andrunning water, while other decoration is restricted to stylised lettering, or occasionally verystylised images of nature. Generally, any images that relate to humans or to nature are avoidedbecause they can trigger thoughts about the issue of our imperfect human condition. Theextent of the insecurity of humans now is extreme.
Blocking out the subject of our rapidly increasing upset, corrupted condition throughdistracting and entertaining ourselves—or even through mentally not allowing ourselvesto think about such unpleasant subjects—meant that we humans became more and moresuperficial and artificial, more and more disconnected from our true self or soul. In theend, as mentioned earlier, even our political stance became a superficial farce in which weadopted pseudo forms of idealism such as feminism, environmentalism and postmodernpolitical correctness as a supposed solution to our and the world’s problems. Our worldwas quietly going completely mad. ‘Quietly’ in the sense that no one was seeing throughwhat was happening, seeing the extreme danger of the situation. There was once concernabout the dogma of socialism taking over the world but the threat of the dogma of pseudoidealism has been far more real and dangerous and yet virtually no one was recognising andacknowledging that threat; in contrast, many of the world’s political leaders, and its press,noisily advocate its ‘merits’.
Essentially, the emergence of the upset state of the human condition meant that wehumans became self-preoccupied—preoccupied trying to validate ourselves by whatevermeans possible while we lacked the understanding that would, once and for all, explain ourfundamental goodness. For men, as the party who had to champion the ego, those meanstranslated into power and glory, while women channelled their efforts into being ‘attractive’because that was their way of gaining reinforcement, gaining relief from the insecurity oftheir condition. Of course, when men became so embattled, so punch-drunk for power andglory and women so desperate for attention and as a result had their innocence destroyedthrough sex, it all had a devastating effect on the next generation who are born innocent andunaware of such upset in the world.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

500

The Biology

As mentioned in Part 6:4, Adam Stork has a child, Adam Stork Junior, who comes into theworld expecting his or her father to be at home and emotionally present and not preoccupiedwith some terrible battle—not punch-drunk, narcissistic, angry and preoccupied, with noempathy for anything or anyone aside from his own circumstances. But given this was thecase under the duress of the human condition, when Adam Stork Junior did receive someattention from his or her father it was conditional on proving his or her self worth, therebycontributing to his or her father’s ego castle. In the case of mothers, they were preoccupiedwith having to pander to their husband’s every need. Men have been so embattled and needingof endless attention that they have been like black holes in space from which nothing canescape, so somehow mothers had to juggle the task of nurturing and raising children aroundtheir husbands’ insatiable need for attention. And worse, having been used as sex objectstheir relatively innocent, soulful true self had been sullied or corrupted; in fact, women’sencounter with the immensely upset world in general so compromised their innocent soulthat many ended up neurotic. As described in Part 6:5, children in their innocence could sensethis neurosis in their mothers and somehow had to adjust to it—many, however, could notadapt and instead were forced to dissociate from the world, become autistic, or extremelymentally distressed, which is what Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is.
Children come into the world so innocent they are like little Christs and while parents can’tsee their own alienation, children can and are forced to adjust to it very quickly by blockingout the pain of it, and as a result dissociating from their true, innocent, ideal, happy andloving soulful self that is trying to understand why the world has become so wrong—as thefollowing quotes make very clear. The great Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing recognised howinnocent all children are to begin with when he said that ‘Each child is a new beginning, a potentialprophet’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967, p.26 of 156). The American architect and
philosopher Buckminster Fuller also recognised the fleeting nature of children’s innocencewhen he described the odds of such innocence surviving in the world today: ‘All children areborn geniuses. 9999 out of every 10,000 are swiftly, inadvertently de-geniused by grown-ups’ (Education for
Human Development: Understanding Montessori, by Mario M. Montessori Jr., Paula Polk Lillard & Buckminster Fuller,
1987, Foreword). The

Irish writer Samuel Beckett was another who wrote about the brevity of the
life of the soul today: ‘They [humans] give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it’snight once more’ (Waiting for Godot, 1955). The British artist Francis Bacon made this brutally honest
admission on the topic, ‘the shadow of dead meat is cast as soon as we are born’ (The Australian, 15 June
2009, reprinted from The New Republic),
while the nineteenth century French poet Stéphane Mallarmé
bravely acknowledged that ‘L’enfant abdique son extase’, ‘To adapt to this world the child abdicatesits ecstasy’ (Prose pour des Esseintes, 1885; tr. from R.D. Laing’s book, The Politics of Experience and The Bird of
Paradise, 1967, p.118 of 156). William Wordsworth also truthfully said that ‘something that is gone / …

Whither is fled the visionary gleam? / Where is it now, the glory and the dream? // Our birth is but a sleepand a forgetting’ (Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood, 1807). Similarly, in House
of Cards, a 1993 film based on a screenplay by Michael Lessic, one of the characters makesthe following intuitive comment about how sensitive and vulnerable innocent children havebeen to the horror of the alienated world of adults: ‘I used to watch Michael [a character in thefilm] about two hours after he was born and I thought that at that moment he knew all of the secrets ofthe universe and every second that was passing he was forgetting them [he was having to live in denial

Part 7:4

How Selfish did we become?

501
of them].’ These quotes provide a measure of how alienated we humans now are because if our
soul died as much as has been described in the first moments of life, how much would it havedied off by the end of the first day of our life, let alone the first week or even year. Truly, as
Laing said, by the time we are adults there must be ‘fifty feet of solid concrete [denial]’ betweenus and our true selves. Again, these are all terrifying truths that exist deep in the middle of theabyss of depression in the Humanity’s Situation picture.
The point is, the Adam Stork picture describes the pristine situation where there is noprior upset. In reality, once a generation has become upset then the next generation notonly has to contend with the upset that comes about as a result of their own search forknowledge, but, before they even reach that stage, they have to cope with the impact theirparents’ upset has upon them. They have to cope with inadequate love and reinforcement,and worse, a world of utter silence and denial—because everything their resigned parentssay is shot through with denial/lies, which children in their innocence recognise. Theembattled egocentric world of adults has devastated not only the world but also the nextgeneration, the future.

Part 7:4 How Selfish did we become?
While anger, egocentricity and alienation are the three fundamental components of upset,selfishness, while a subset of egocentricity, is such an important aspect of upset it could beidentified as a fourth fundamental component in its own right. So, before describing howalienated we became, a description of the ever-increasing levels of cynicism and selfishness inhuman society will now be included.
In Part 6:4 I described at some length how egocentricity has been increasing at such arapid rate that the extremely egocentric ‘power addict’ state was becoming so universal thatit was about to render all parts of the world dysfunctional. Another aspect of this end play,terminal situation facing the human race was the spread of selfishness, especially cynicism.
As the Adam Stork story reveals, the human race started out in a state of innocence.
Our species was once instinctively orientated to behaving in a cooperative, unconditionallyselfless, loving, altruistic, consider-the-welfare-of-the-whole-above-your-own-welfare way,however, as the upsetting/corrupting search for knowledge developed, humans naturallybecame more and more adapted to that upset/corrupted life. It follows that, given thistrajectory, humans could eventually become so adapted to an upset/corrupt world that theywere born cynical, to a degree instinctively expecting the world to be so corrupt that if youbehaved selflessly your goodness would only be exploited by others and therefore you shouldlook after yourself, be selfish.
The section ‘The Denial-Free History of the Human Race’ from my book A Species In
Denial (see <www.humancondition.com/asid-the-denial-free-history-of-the-human-race>) describesin some detail how humans became increasingly adapted to life under the duress of thehuman condition, with some races becoming more adept at that adaptation than others. Justas individual humans vary in their degree of alienation from our species’ original instinctiveselfless, all-loving and trusting soulful true self, so races of humans naturally vary intheir degree of alienation. The longer an individual or a race of people were subjected to

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

502

The Biology
life under the duress of the human condition, the more they naturally became adapted tothat corrupt existence. While a relatively innocent person or relatively innocent race stillbehaved relatively ideally themselves and expected others to do the same (‘innocence’being lack of exposure to and familiarity with the upset state of the human condition),other individuals and races became so adapted to the upset/corrupt world that they nolonger behaved ideally themselves and no longer expected others to behave ideally either.
The longer humans were exposed to the human-condition-afflicted state the more cynicalthey became about human existence—a ‘cynic’ being ‘one who doubts or denies the goodnessof human motives’ (Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd edn, 1998). As mentioned in Parts 3:8 and 3:11B, the

Austrian psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich wrote honestly about the effects of the different levelsof upset in the human race when he described how ‘The living [those relatively free of exposureto upset]…is naively kindly…It assumes that the fellow human also follows the laws of the living andis kindly, helpful and giving. As long as there is the emotional plague [the flood of upset in the world],this natural basic attitude, that of the healthy child or the primitive…[is subject to] the greatestdanger…For the plague individual also ascribes to his fellow beings the characteristics of his ownthinking and acting. The kindly individual believes that all people are kindly and act accordingly. Theplague individual believes that all people lie, swindle, steal and crave power. Clearly, then, the living isat a disadvantage and in danger’ (Listen, Little Man!, 1948, p.8 of 109).

The consequences for a society of its people becoming overly cynical was that it meantthat there would be too little soulful, selfless idealism and too much upset-adapted cynicismderived selfishness for the society to operate effectively. In the situation where it wasn’tpossible to explain and thus defend the upset state of the human condition, the closest peoplecould come to admitting and talking about the fact that people became adapted to the humancondition was to describe individuals or families or races or civilisations as having become
‘dysfunctional’ and ‘decadent’—and, especially in the case of civilisations, as having ‘passed theirprime’ or ‘peaked’ in terms of their creative powers.

Conversely, some races, like some individual humans, have, in fact, been too innocentto function in the extremely upset-adapted, human-condition-afflicted, corrupt world. Asmentioned in Part 5:2, Sir Laurens van der Post once described how a member of the relativelyinnocent Bushmen race found it impossible to cope with having his innocent, natural spiritcompromised: ‘You know I once saw a little Bushman imprisoned in one of our gaols because he killeda giant bustard which according to the police, was a crime, since the bird was royal game and protected.
He was dying because he couldn’t bear being shut up and having his freedom of movement stopped. Whenasked why he was ill he could only say that he missed seeing the sun set over the Kalahari. Physically thedoctor couldn’t find anything wrong with him but he died none the less!’ (The Lost World of the Kalahari,
1958, p.236 of 253).

Sir Laurens was more specific when he stated that ‘mere contact with twentieth-
century life seemed lethal to the Bushman. He was essentially so innocent and natural a person that hehad only to come near us for a sort of radioactive fall-out from our unnatural world to produce a fatalleukaemia in his spirit’ (The Heart of the Hunter, 1961, p.111 of 233). The honey-coloured Bushmen are
probably the most instinctively/genetically innocent race of people living today. They aremore innocent, less soul-corrupted, less human-condition-adapted, less adapted to upset,less toughened, than dark-skinned Bantu Africans, but in turn Bantus are not as toughenedand thus as operational and successful in the human-condition-afflicted corrupted world

Part 7:4

How Selfish did we become?

503
as Caucasian races. For example, I once saw a documentary in which a black African saidsomething to the effect that ‘My people can’t compete with white people, you go to sleep at night onlyto wake up in the morning to find white people own everything.’ In turn, Caucasian races aren’t as
cynical, toughened and opportunistic—selfish—as races from even more ancient civilisations,like the Chinese from the ancient Yellow River valley civilisation, the Indians and Pakistanisfrom the ancient Indus and Ganges River valley civilisations, and the Arabs and Jews from theancient Tigress, Euphrates and Nile River valley civilisations.
As mentioned in Part 4:4E, when the problem of prejudice was briefly introduced, thesituation in Fiji provides a good case-study of what invariably took place when races ofvarying degrees of upset cohabitated.
In the late 1800s British colonists brought Indians to Fiji as indentured labour to farmsugar cane, and so by the mid-1960s half the Fijian population was Indian. As a result, aserious conflict arose between the Indian and native Fijians, which we can now understand.
The Indian Fijians, coming from an older and thus naturally more cynical, human-conditiontoughened, human-condition-realistic and thus opportunistic civilisation, have been soindustrious 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 thecountry’s sugar, they are only allowed to lease land from the native Fijians (who own 90percent of the land). Furthermore, since gaining independence in 1970 the native Fijians haveensured their domination of the political process—a state of affairs that was reinforced in 1990when 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 1999. This situation,however, was overthrown in 2000 when the native Fijians led a coup—and they have remainedin power ever since. As mentioned, the Indian Fijians come from a very ancient civilisationin India, one where innocence has long given way to more upset-adapted humans. Incomparison, the native Fijians are still relatively innocent, yet to become embattled, hardenedand 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 activitiesas playing music, drinking the sedating kava and eating taro roots from their gardens. It isakin to a 20-year-old, or thereabouts, equivalent race having to co-exist and compete with atoughened, cynical, more-upset-and-thus-more-insecure-about-their-goodness-and-thus-moreegocentrically-driven-to-try-to-prove-they-are-good-and-not-bad, opportunistic 50-year-old,or thereabouts, equivalent race.
Some races are so relatively innocent and naive about life under the duress of the humancondition that they lack the toughened self discipline and insecure egocentric drive to succeedof the more upset-adapted races and, therefore, can’t legitimately compete with such races, sowhen they do see an opportunity to obtain money or power they can’t resist taking it, whetherit’s rightfully due or not. When my partner Annie and I travelled through central Africa in 1992everywhere we went, at every level of society, there was dysfunction, graft and corruption—even when we landed in Kenya we couldn’t leave Nairobi airport until we paid certain ‘fees’

504

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
to various airport officials. At the top of such societies you invariably find completely despoticregimes—for instance, we were told that the reason the roads beyond the centre of Nairobiweren’t sealed and were in a terrible state was because all the money for such infrastructurehad been syphoned off by the country’s leaders to buy villas on the French Riviera and otherluxuries. At the other end of the spectrum of alienation, however, there are races whereeveryone is so upset-adapted and cynically selfish that graft and despotism is similarlyendemic in their societies. In early 2011 the extreme despotism of almost every, if not every,
Arab country right across North Africa and the Middle East provoked democracy-demandinguprisings throughout the region—a revolutionary wave that continues today. It is only at themiddle of the spectrum of alienation, amongst 30-and-40-year-old, or thereabouts, equivalentraces where there is enough upset-adapted self discipline and toughness, but not so muchthat there is excessive cynicism and thus selfishness, that you get maximum functionalityand operable behaviour in life under the duress of the human condition. The Anglo-Saxonsare the stand-out example of such functionality, coming as they do from the more isolatedand sheltered-from-upset north-western edge of Europe—they are actually more 30-year-oldequivalents than 40-year-old equivalents. As mentioned in Part 6:4, although Anglo-Saxonscome from a small, resource-deficient island country, they have been so operable and thussuccessful and thus influential that they have led the so-called ‘globalisation of the world’ tothe point where ‘A quarter of the world’s population speak English…English is increasingly becomingentrenched as the language of choice for business, science and popular culture. Three-quarters of theworld’s mail, for example, is currently written in English’ (TIME mag. 7 July 1997).

I should clarify that if all the humans who have lived in the last 50,000 years belong to the
40-year-old, Born-Again, Pseudo Idealistic Late Adulthood Stage of Adolescent Humanity,
as is asserted in Part 3:11E where the stages of humanity’s maturation are described, thenwhy am I referring to humans of today as inhabiting all these different stages, such as the
20-year-old, or thereabouts, equivalent stage, or the 50-year-old, or thereabouts, equivalent
stage? The answer is that these descriptions refer to another level of refinement of the alreadyestablished stages of maturation. To elaborate, while the first T-model Ford car had all thebasic elements of a car in place, that didn’t mean the elements could not become muchmore refined over time. Well, the relatively innocent hunter-gatherer Bushmen people of the
Kalahari have all the basic adjustments in place for managing extreme upset. They are, forinstance, civilised, instinctively restrained from living out all their upsets; they don’t generallyattack when they feel frustrated and angry. They have a form of marriage to artificially containsexual adventurousness. They clothe their genitals to dampen lust. The women love to wearadornments such as jewellery; they are adapted to being sex objects. The men love huntinganimals; they find relief from attacking innocence. Men and women don’t relate to each otheras well as they do with their own gender; there is a lack of understanding between the sexes.
They make jokes about their fraudulent state; they employ a sense of humour to lighten theload of the agony of being so corrupted and false. They employ fatigue-inducing dance toaccess their repressed soul. In short, they are members of ‘Born-Again, Pseudo Idealistic Late
Adulthood Stage of Adolescent Humanity’. But while they have these basic adjustments formanaging extreme upset firmly in place, they are still a relatively innocent race compared toother more human-condition-embattled-and-adapted races living today.

Part 7:4

How Selfish did we become?

505

Before continuing to describe how races of humans have become more or less adaptedto the upset state of the human condition, I should mention some of the human-conditionavoiding, denial-based reasons that have been put forward to explain the dysfunctionalityof African countries like Kenya. It is claimed that such countries are on the same journeyas European nations, which went through their own dysfunctional stage before organisingthemselves into upset-restraining, so-called ‘civilised’ democracies—basically that black
African races aren’t any more innocent than European races and will, in time, be able todevelop functional democracies. In keeping with this theory, instead of using terms like
‘First, Second and Third World countries’, the current politically correct description for thedifferent states of functionality of countries is to refer to them as being either ‘developing’or ‘developed’. But if time, rather than degrees of innocence, or lack thereof, was the issuethen races from ancient civilisations should not be dysfunctional—and yet they are. The
Greeks gave us Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and the foundations of ‘western civilisation’ and yet,in 2011, through their present innocence-destroyed, selfish greed and resulting dysfunction,brought the world’s economy to its knees—and they continue to undermine its stability.
Another excuse for the dysfunctionality of these African societies was to blame colonialism.
As I mentioned in Part 3:11C, colonialism certainly had negative repercussions and it didseriously disrupt the old tribal system that operated throughout most of Africa, but whiletribalism, an authoritarian, dictatorial system in which the most powerful ruled, brought somepeace and order (as it effectively does in all non-human societies, such as in wolf packs or inany herd animal species), it was still dysfunctional for human societies in that it oppressedindividual freedoms/liberties. Of course, you can manage humans by tying them all down, aswas done in tribal situations and communist/socialist regimes, but then they will no longer behumans—they will no longer be conscious beings fulfilling their fundamental responsibilityof exercising their minds and learning to understand existence. Colonialism gave individualsmany freedoms they hadn’t had that the individual then had to manage—but the challengefor humans has been to manage their consciousness-derived freedom effectively. As has beenexplained, the lack of effectiveness of that management across a social structure was due toraces being either too sensitive and naive about life under the duress of the human condition,or too toughened, soul/innocence-destroyed, cynical and selfish.
In one of his famous speeches, Sir James Darling (the denial-free thinking prophet whowas headmaster at Geelong Grammar School when I was a student there) recognised whatis really an obvious truth, which is that for a person to be as functional as possible under theduress of the human condition they needed both human-condition-adapted toughness andsensitive, selfless, innocent, soulful soundness. While he was specifically talking about thequalities that education should strive to cultivate in an individual, what he said also applies towhat a society of people needed if they were to be functional in the human-condition-afflictedworld. In his address to The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in 1960 Sir James said:
‘The quality which, above all other, needs to be cultivated [in education] is sensitivity…[Education’s]objective is a development of the whole man, sensitive all round the circumference…the future…lies notwith the predatory [selfish] and the immune [alienated] but with the sensitive [innocent]…There is athreefold choice for the free man…He may [become overly selfish and] grasp for himself what he canget and trample the needs and feelings of others beneath his feet: or he may try to withdraw from the

506

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
world to a monastery [find himself too innocent to cope with the upset world, like the Bushman who
died in jail]…or he may “take up arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing [all the selfish, corruptbehaviours] end them”…[and so] There remains the sensitive, on one proviso: he must be sensitive andtough…Only by a growth of sensitivity can man progress from the alpha of original chaos to the omegaof God’s [ordered] purpose for him…Sensitivity is not enough. Without toughness it may be only a thinskin…[only from] an inner core of strength are [you] enabled to fight back [against all the wrongness
in the world]…Can such men be? Of course they can: and they are the [real] leaders whom others willfollow. In the world of books there are, for me, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, or Laurens van der Post’ (The
Education of a Civilized Man, 1962, pp.28-36). To be most operational under the duress of the human
condition required a balance of innocent, soulful sensitivity and human-condition-adaptedtoughness, which is what the 30-year-old equivalent state represents.
The end result of this, in truth, very obvious difference in functionality under the duressof the human condition was that the less functional and thus less materially successful racesnaturally became extremely resentful and thus angry towards the more materially successfulraces. Their self-esteem suffered so much that angry retaliations, like the flying of thoseplanes into The Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, occurred—
Osama Bin Laden actually said the 9/11 attacks ‘were revenge for Western humiliation of Muslims’
(TIME mag. 7 May 2012). The real debate about both the horrific inequality in the world and about
the terrorism and frightening instability in the world requires analysis of the differences inupset-adaption or alienation-from-soul between individuals, races, genders, generations,countries, civilisations and cultures, but until the human condition could be explained andthe upset state of the human condition compassionately understood and thus defended thatdebate could not take place. The problem of selfishness in the world was not being addressedhonestly and thus properly anywhere.
While holidaying with Annie in Fiji in 1997 a resident there gave us this description ofthe structure of Fijian society: ‘The Chinese [who he said were ‘the Jews of the East’] own all the bigtourist resorts where the big money in Fiji is made, the Indians run all the shops and smaller businessesand produce all the sugar cane, and the Caucasians run the country in that they occupy so many of theimportant administrative positions, providing the good structure and order required for the whole societyto function.’ ‘Fiji,’ he added, ‘is one of the few countries in the world where the indigenous people stillcontrol the country even though they are the least materially productive and successful.’ When I asked
other residents, including an Indian Fijian and a native Fijian, if they thought this was anaccurate description they agreed it was but said that they would never say so publicly for fearof being labelled a racist. The human-condition-understanding-reconciled interpretation ofthis description is that as soon as you have an unavoidable and necessary battle such as theone that the human race has been involved in, it is inevitable that everyone involved is goingto become variously adapted to that battle depending on how long they have been exposed toit—with the result that the Chinese and Indians are the cynical 50-year-old equivalent races,the Caucasians are the toughened, but not too toughened, too insensitive or too selfish, moreoperational 30year-old equivalent race, while the native Fijians are the 20-year-old equivalent,overly innocent race. Such differences are simply and obviously what manifest when youhave an upsetting battle such as the one the human race has been involved in, where somepeople will have been involved in the battle longer and/or more intensely than others. If you

Part 7:4

How Selfish did we become?

507
are going to have the truthful, meaningful, productive, effective discussion about humanbehaviour—which is both possible and necessary now that the upset state of the humancondition has been explained and defended—then the inevitable differences in upset (inparticular differences in alienation from our species’ all-trusting, sensitive, loving, selfless andsharing original instinctive self or soul) have to be acknowledged.
Again, such admissions of the relative innocence, or lack thereof, of different individuals,races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations or cultures have, until now, had tobe avoided because they led to prejudiced views that some individuals, races, genders,generations, countries, civilisations or cultures are either good or bad, superior or inferior,when the truth is that while humans do vary in their degree of upset, all humans are equallygood—because, as understanding of the human condition finally makes clear, upset was theinevitable result of the necessary and heroic battle humanity had to wage in order to findknowledge. Upset is not a bad, evil state, but a good, heroic one. Trying to manage differencesin upset between individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations and cultureshas been extremely difficult, but once the prejudiced views of some individuals, races,genders, generations, countries, civilisations or cultures being either good or bad, superioror inferior, more worthwhile or less worthwhile, arose terrible atrocities and injustices veryoften followed. For instance, in the last century alone, we have seen the Holocaust in whichapproximately 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 ofthe more upset-adapted Nilotic Tutsi in 100 days of bloodshed in Rwanda in 1994; Idi Aminliterally throwing out of Uganda, in 1972, all the Indians and Pakistanis, some 40,000-80,000people, 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 just mentioned terrorist attacks
on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; the racial segregationof 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’tcompletely abolished until 1973.
The difficulty in managing differences between individuals, races, genders, generations,countries, civilisations or cultures is that not all discrimination between individuals, races,genders, generations, countries, civilisations or cultures has necessarily been wrong, althoughthey could be said to be fundamentally unjust. For example, Geelong Grammar School wasoriginally a school for boys only. It was only after Sir James Darling’s tenure as headmasterended that it became co-educational. It could be argued, and probably was, that having aboys-only policy was discriminatory and unjust, but I believe Sir James Darling’s approachof educating boys and girls separately was right. With so much upset in humans, placingboys and girls together during their senior school years is too distracting and problematical,especially if you are trying to preserve and foster innocence, as I believe schooling shouldbe focused on doing. Even though there is a need, as Sir James said, to cultivate qualities oftoughness as well as preserving innocent, soulful sensitivity, I agree with Sir James’ beliefthat the central, ‘prime’ objective in raising new generations has to be the preservation oftheir innocent, sound original instinctive self or soul for as long as possible. As Sir Jamessaid about schooling, ‘the needs of the moment demand more than they ever have done the most acute

508

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
sensitivity…It should be the prime object of education…to develop this sensitivity…the truly sensitivemind is both susceptible and penetrating: it is open to new ideas, and it seeks truth at the bottom of thewell’ (The Education of a Civilized Man, 1962, p.63-64 of 223). Sir James similarly said, ‘It is the awakeningand vivifying of the conscience…which ought to be the chief purpose of a Church school…because…conscience [our instinctive self or soul’s moral sense] is the executive part of consciousness’ (ibid. p.96).

(I should include an aside here that now that we can admit that sex, as humans have practicedit, has been all about attacking innocence—as was explained in Part 7:1—we need to carefullyreview the whole issue of the interaction between boys and girls. Indeed, we are going torealise that a significant amount of the rapid increase in upset in generations today has beendue to sexual liberalism. Under the unbearable burden of the human condition sex has been awonderful way of relieving our upset, of making our lives more interesting and exciting, andeven of expressing our love for someone, but it also involved the destruction of innocence.
Sex has been a medium by which the more innocent have been psychologically destroyed bythe more upset, and no one has been admitting this—and certainly no one has been tellingchildren this. Magazines for young people, for example, are full of presentations about howto make yourself more attractive—for sex—and stories about how to improve your sexlife, etc, etc. It is extraordinary how unrestrained sex has become and the consequences arecontributing greatly to the drab and miserable lives of young people everywhere. As Darlingsaid, ‘conscience’, soul, ‘is the executive part of consciousness’: destroy the innocent soul and lifebecomes uninspired, empty, drab and meaningless.)
In another example of an argument existing for discrimination, in Section 4:1 of Freedom
Expanded: Book 2 I describe how incredibly important the survival of Celtic, Irish innocencewas in Australia—that its presence basically allowed the human condition to be solved andhumanity saved from extinction—and the fact is, the survival of that Celtic, Irish innocencewas in large measure due to the extremely unjust, discriminatory ‘White Australia Policy’. Ashas been emphasised, discrimination in the form of the management of human interactionsbased on levels of innocence or lack thereof is not in itself bad or immoral; after all, we go togreat lengths to protect the innocence of children. What is wrong or immoral is to base thosemanagement decisions on judgments about the goodness or badness, superiority or inferiority,of different levels of innocence or lack thereof. Unable to explain the human condition,explain the good reason for the upset, soul-and-innocence-destroyed, corrupted state ofhumans, any acknowledgement of upset invariably led to those who were more upset being,and feeling, condemned as bad or inferior or worthless, and, in response, retaliating, in whichcase 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 differentlyupset, but because it led to prejudiced/wrong views about some races being better or superiorthan others, which often, in fact invariably, led to serious and damaging consequences.
As I mentioned in Parts 4:1, 4:4E and 5:1, Plato quite sensibly wanted to have the leastego-embattled/most innocent—the ‘philosopher kings’ or ‘philosopher rulers’ or ‘philosopherprinces’ or ‘philosopher guardians’ as he variously described them—lead society. He wrote, ‘isn’tit 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

Part 7:4

How Selfish did we become?

509
that they have nothing they can contribute themselves, but who hope to snatch some compensation fortheir own inadequacy from a political career, there can never be good government. They start fighting forpower…[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 donot love it [who don’t egocentrically hunger for power, fame, fortune and glory]…rulers [who] cometo 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 becausedifferentiation between individuals according to degrees of alienation or soundness left thoseno longer innocent unjustly condemned as bad and unworthy. And, as was mentioned in Part
4:4C, 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 thepoint even, in the case of Christ, of crucifying innocence, as we have done because we foundtheir honest, truthful innocent soundness too confronting, we had to first be able to recogniseit. It would have been as easy, indeed, probably much easier, to design exams that testeda person’s level of alienation or soundness or soulfulness quotient, their SQ, than it was todesign exams that tested their intelligence quotient or IQ.
Again, until we were able to explain the human condition and by so doing defend andunderstand the upset, corrupted state, any acknowledgement of who was upset and whowasn’t only led to prejudice, led to the more innocent condemning the less innocent as bad orunworthy or even evil.
Not only have the expressions of prejudice been innumerable and varied, they go rightback to when extreme upset first developed in humans—as perfectly summarised in thatgreatest of all reservoirs of denial-free truth, the Bible, in the aforementioned story of Cainand Abel: ‘Abel kept flocks, [he lived the nomadic life of a shepherd, staying close to nature andinnocence] and Cain worked the soil [he cultivated crops and domesticated animals and as a result wasable to become settled and develop towns and cities and through greater interaction with other humansbecame increasingly upset]…Cain was [became] very angry, and his face was downcast [he becamedepressed about his upset state and]…Cain attacked his [relatively innocent and thus unwittinglyconfronting 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 upsethumans became—and the simple fact that flows from this is that those people and raceswho have been in the thick of the battle a long time will be more upset—and also moreinstinctively adapted to upset, including becoming instinctively cynical and selfish—thanthose who haven’t been in the thick of the battle for as long—and the simple fact that flowsfrom that is that all manner of insecurities, inequalities and frustrations are going to arise fromthose differences.
Everywhere innocence has been affected by upset, and vice versa. As 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 betoo innocent and naive about the realities of life under the duress of the human condition, andit would also involve relinquishing their own power base. As mentioned in Part 4:4E whenthe problem of prejudice was briefly introduced, when we get up in the morning we are muchfresher, more enthusiastic and idealistic than we are by the end of the day, such that our end-

510

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
of-the-day-just-want-some-luxury-self wouldn’t entertain the more optimistic and altruisticenterprises of our more soulful, socially healthy and operational morning-self. By evening,most people are in need of a stiff drink to escape the tribulations of their day’s exertions underthe duress of the human condition. Whatever idealistic, selfless, soul-inspired enterprisesthey might have been thinking about in the morning have, by day’s end, been replaced bya selfish preoccupation with a need for ego-reinforcement from others, relief from exertionand for escape from the whole horror of life under the duress of the human condition. Themost productive and creative time of the day is when we are, as we say, ‘fresh’, which is themorning. That is the time of day when I do all my writing. As the day wears on I quicklylose my enthusiasm and inspiration. My life has followed the same path. Albert Einsteinonce commented that ‘a person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of
30 will never do so’ (Selig Brodetsky, ‘Newton: Scientist and Man’, Nature, 1942, Vol.150), and certainly, while
my most creative years were not ‘before the age of 30’ they were very soon afterwards when
I had accumulated enough experience of life under the duress of the human condition butstill had lots of youthful enthusiasm and soul-guided inspiration. Indeed, my early 30s was aperiod of absolutely fabulous creativity when, in a few short years between 1975, when I was
30 and began to actively write down my thinking on the problem of the human condition,
to 1983, when I was 38, I solved all the great questions in biology; it was during this timethat I explained the human condition (as summarised in Part 3:2), explained the meaning ofexistence (Part 8:1), explained how we humans acquired our unconditionally selfless moralinstincts (Part 8:4B), and explained how and when we humans became conscious (Part 8:4C).
As I mentioned in Part 4:14, in 1983 I went to London in an unsuccessful attempt to interestthe leading science journals in the world at that time, namely Nature and New Scientist,in the complete synthesis—my submission, which can be read on our website at <www.humancondition.com/nature>, was, however, unsuccessful because denial-based, mechanistic
science would not tolerate my denial-free ideas. Again, I need to emphasise that finding theseinsights was due to the fact that I was thinking in a denial-free way and doesn’t at all meanthat I am in any way special or gifted. The point being made here is that having to live with allthe stresses from a deeply upset, human-condition-afflicted world has meant that in the courseof one day in the life of a human he or she regresses from a state of fresh, boundless energyand enthusiasm to a state of physical and emotional exhaustion. Such has been the overallchange in the mindset of humans over one day, over a lifetime, over generations, and overthe whole two million year upsetting journey of humanity from its original state of innocentidealism 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 differencesin upset with all manner of consequences, some horrifically tragic.
What people are really doing through their efforts to either try to or actually removetyrants/despots like Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak,etc, etc, from power in the hope that those countries will become functional democracies istrying to make 20-year-old equivalents and 50-year-old equivalents behave like 30-and-40year-old equivalents. But, as explained, societies of 20-year-old equivalents and 50-year-oldequivalents are going to revert to selfishness, at which point a selfish power struggle willoccur where, in the end, the most ruthless will take over once again. Having solved nothing

Part 7:4

How Selfish did we become?

511
at a fundamental level, the society will invariably remain dysfunctional, resulting in yetanother flood of refugees from that country to countries populated by more functional 30-and40-year-old equivalent races. Efforts to avoid this cycle, or at least contain it somewhat, in
countries where there is too much cynical selfishness led to the creation of authoritarian,dictatorial, freedom-and-democracy-denying, free-thinking-restricted, human-mindoppressive regimes—which were therefore still fundamentally tyrannical and despotic—likethose that have been established in China, and (to a degree) by Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore.
The other form of tyranny that developed to contain excessive cynical selfishness was strictobedience to fundamentalist interpretations of religious teachings—as has been the case inmany parts of the Arab world.
In the old human-condition-afflicted-pre-TRANSFORMED world, it was not realistic tobelieve you could make a family with a selfish power addict father functional—becauseit is a contradiction in terms: you can’t be dysfunctionally selfish and at the same time befunctionally selfless. Similarly, therefore, if there wasn’t a significant proportion of functional
30-and-40-year-old equivalents in a society then that society was not going to be functional.

The cynical 50-year-old equivalent Jews have managed to remain operational and, as a result,extremely materially successful by living amongst relatively selfless, functional 30-and40-year-old equivalent races—which is the real reason they have been persecuted in the
predominately 30-and-40-year-old equivalent countries where they settled. The Pygmies andthe Bushmen resent the Bantu for being more operational and materially successful than theyare, and in turn the Bantu resent the Caucasians for being more operational and materiallysuccessful than they are—and in turn the Caucasians resent the Jews for being moreoperational and materially successful than they are. Everywhere the inevitable differences inupset between individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations and cultureshave caused immense problems, so the greater truth is that it is a very great tribute to thecharacter and courage of the human race as a whole that it has managed to maintain somesemblance of functionality under that almost impossible situation.
We can see then in hindsight that colonisation under the rule of 30-year-old equivalentsdid make significant sense—as Sir James Darling was quoted as saying earlier in Part 6:4about the British Empire, ‘the function of Empire is to educate rather than to oppress’, and the
British have ‘an unbeaten record in the history of civilization’. All the history books written bytruth-denying-in-order-to-artificially-make-everyone-equal postmodernists that condemnedcolonialism as the worst evil are going to have to be re-written truthfully. Although
‘stereotype’ concepts about the character of different races have been much denigrated anddismissed in the human-condition-avoiding, denial-compliant world as unfounded, there wasoften truth in them, which is not surprising given such concepts were conventional, widelyheld. In fact, most of the time I’m expressing truths that we all at least intuitively know buthaven’t been able to adequately express—that is, express in a way that wasn’t prejudiciallyunbalanced—because we haven’t had the compassionate framework of understanding of upsetneeded to safely acknowledge them. Without the defence for upset it was virtually impossibleto talk about upset in a way that didn’t infer that it was somehow bad. As will be emphasisednext in Part 7:5, with understanding of the human condition at last found the essential equalityof goodness of all people is at last established. While all humans are variously upset, all

512

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
humans are equally good because upset was a result of an unavoidable and necessary battlehumanity had to wage to find knowledge. The equality of goodness of all people is a firstprinciple-established, fundamental and universal truth now. We can now explain, understandand know that that is a fundamental truth. The prejudiced views of some individuals, races,genders, generations, countries, civilisations or cultures being either superior or inferior,good or bad, are eliminated by understanding of the human condition. With this truth ofthe fundamental equality of goodness of all people established it at last becomes safe—andnecessary if we are to understand ourselves and by so doing ameliorate and heal our upsetlives—to truthfully analyse human behaviour by recognising differences in upset betweenindividuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations and cultures. The liberationof the human race is unavoidably and necessarily also ‘judgment day’, exposure day, honestyday, truth day, transparency day, revelation day—the time when ‘your nakedness will be exposed’
(Isa. 47:3). Our species’ liberation from terminal alienation and thus extinction 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.

During January and February 2011, the British Prime Minister David Cameron, German
Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, former Spanish Prime Minister
Jose Maria Aznar and former Australian Prime Minister John Howard all declared that
‘multicultural policies’ have been a ‘failure’ because ‘immigrants’ had ‘not successfully integrated’
(UK’s Daily Mail, 11 Feb. 2011). Just as an individual person’s lifestyle was inevitably going to
largely be a response to that person’s particular level of upset, so too a race’s culture wasinevitably going to largely be a response to that race’s particular level of upset, which meansdifferent races with their different cultures inevitably found it difficult co-existing. You don’tvery often see 30-year-olds forming close friendships with 50-year-olds, or even 20-yearolds with 30-year-olds. Most people relate much better to their own age group. In fact, thestages that occurred with different ages under the duress of the human condition changed sorapidly and were so dramatically different that 18-year-olds typically found it difficult relatingeven to 21-year-olds. Outside of family situations, everyone tended to fraternise with theirown age group. The same situation of incompatibility obviously applied between races ofpeople. Different levels of upset had different needs. For example, as mentioned in Part 7:1,once humans became extremely upset even the glimpse of a woman’s face or ankle becamedangerously sexually exciting to men, which is why in some cultures women are completelyshrouded and persecuted if any part of their body is revealed in public. Imagine how difficultit has been for individuals from such extremely upset cultures to see young women from lessupset cultures running around at liberty in bikinis and mini-skirts.
Add envy of the material success of the more operational to the situation where the moreupset found women’s beauty overly exciting and the whole situation became unbearablefor the more upset—especially when, with the advent of television and the internet, theycould actually see the material success and the exposed beauty of women. Imagine howdistressing it has been for the less materially successful to see such luxurious surroundingsand the beautifully groomed, half-naked, Californian beach babes on television programs like
Baywatch. The envy and resentment in less materially successful countries of all the luxuryin the West that television had made them aware of is palpable in this stark, firsthand account

Part 7:4

How Selfish did we become?

513
from the psychiatrist Professor Clancy McKenzie: ‘While visiting Machu Picchu in Peru in 1979
I noted very poor persons, living in the mountains, who had only the clothes they wore and perhaps alama or two, but had beautiful, warm smiles and seemed content and happy. Days later I was in Bogotain Colombia. It was a very hot day and we asked the driver to stop at an outdoor tavern to buy cold beer.
The people were very impoverished, but there was a TV playing and they were able to view the “outsideworld” where everyone seemed to have more, and luxury was abundant. I offered to go in with the driverand he urged me to wait in the car. I soon learned why. The absolute hatred was so intense that it waspalpable. These people did not have less than those in Machu Picchu but they saw others who had more,and their needs were intensified’ (Letter to Prof. Harry Prosen, 27 Mar. 2006).

Aside from the fact that with the speed-up of technology-led globalisation (especiallyphone, television and internet technologies) no longer can any group live unaffected by andthus independent of other groups, the truth is the stresses arising from the upset state of thehuman condition have become so great that even if different races/cultures/societies couldstay separate (as Abraham Lincoln advocated at one stage in his US presidency to stop thefriction between white and black Americans), the differences in the level of upset betweenmembers of the same race/culture/society has made cohesion impossible even within thoseraces/cultures/societies. Indeed, the reality is that upset is now so great everywhere thatpeople can’t even live with themselves, let alone anyone else. As mentioned in Part 3:11H,
Australia has been, and, to a degree, still is one of the most sheltered and isolated and thusinnocent countries left in the world, but even our society is on the brink of disintegrationbecause of people’s inability to live with each other, as this 2011 news report, which featuredon the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, indicated: ‘The well-being of Australia’s childrenand young people has declined alarmingly in the past decade—and plunging marriage rates are partlyto blame, a major study has found. Growing rates of child abuse and neglect, of children being placed infoster care, and of teenage mental health problems, including a rise in hospital admissions for self-harm,are rooted in the rise of one-parent families and de facto couples, violent and unstable relationships, anddivorce, the report says’ (‘Decline in marriage blamed for neglect’, 6 Sept. 2011). It is end game wherever we
like to look in the world. We have reached the point where only understanding of the humancondition and the TRANSFORMED WAY OF LIVING that leaves the whole upset state of thehuman condition behind forever can save the world. What finally brings all the horror of lifeunder the duress of the human condition to an end is the TRANSFORMED WAY OF LIVING.
Managing upset was always going to become impossible once upset reached a certainlevel. Only the finding of understanding of the human condition and the TRANSFORMED STATEthat it made possible could save the human race from terminal levels of upset. We certainlyhave been, as Richard Neville said, ‘locked in a race between self destruction and self discovery’.
Thankfully the ‘race’ was won by ‘self discovery’, but it was a very near thing!
Tragically, because of our monumental insecurity about our human condition, wehumans have a better understanding of the behaviour of elephants and of tiny little insectslike tree-hoppers, and even of grass, than we do about our own behaviour, so if youwould like to learn more about the social effects of our different states of upset read ‘The
Denial-Free History of the Human Race’ chapter in my book A Species In Denial. (Toread this chapter, go to <www.humancondition.com/asid-the-denial-free-history-of-the-human-race>.)
My biology professor at Sydney University, Charles Birch, was making this point about

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

514

The Biology
the almost complete black-out—actually, ‘block-out’—of any understanding of the allimportant subject of our human behaviour when, in launching our WTM website in 1998 atthe Australian Museum in Sydney, he said in his speech about the importance of our workthat ‘We [humanity] are drowning in information—just look at the internet—but we are starving forwisdom’ (16 Oct. 1998).

Indeed, given this need for ‘wisdom’ in this all-important subject area of human behaviour,
I should conclude this description of the different levels of upset in races of humans with thefollowing balancing overview from the ‘The Denial-Free History of the Human Race’ essay.
‘With understanding of the human condition it at last becomes possible to explainpsychologically what was actually happening when history books talked of civilisationshaving ‘peaked’ and become ‘decadent’. Under the duress of the human condition all raceseventually became overly corrupted, corruption of our original instinctive self or soul beingthe price of humanity’s heroic search for knowledge. In this journey from innocence toexhaustion of soul the most creative period was the toughened and disciplined, but not yetoverly corrupted, 30-year-old equivalent stage. As each race and its associated civilisationpassed through this stage it made its particularly creative contribution to the human journey.
This was when civilisations were at their ‘peak’, however, inevitably, they entered a morecorrupted ‘decadent’ stage. The Mediterranean, Middle East and Indian civilisations allmade extensive contributions to the human journey during their energetic and creative
30-year-old equivalent stage. The Egyptians and peoples from the fertile crescent of the

Tigris and Euphrates delta in the Middle East began the civilisation of the ‘known world’,for example they invented the wheel, mathematics and writing. Greeks and Romans laid thefoundations for ‘western civilisation’ during this most creative stage of their journey throughever-increasing levels of upset. The great religions of the world, Hinduism, Buddhism,
Judaism, Christianity and Islam, were developed in India and the Middle East when therewas still enough soundness left in their populations to produce some exceptionally sound,denial-free thinkers or prophets.
With understanding of the human condition the various stages of soul corruption canbe compassionately understood. To become corrupted was an unavoidable consequence ofhaving to participate in humanity’s heroic journey to defy ignorance and find understanding,ultimately self-understanding. To illustrate how races progress from innocence to corruptionof soul I have used [in ‘The Denial-Free History of the Human Race’ essay] the history ofthe Aryan Anglo-Saxons and Celts. I have done this because they are currently in their ‘peak’state of contributing to the human journey to enlightenment, and because that journey is inits crucial final stage where a great deal of honest explanation of the events that are takingplace is needed. However, I could have chosen the history of the Aryan Greeks and Romans,the Aryan Indians, the Middle Eastern Semites, the Chinese (who during their most creativestage contributed to the human journey such wonderful inventions as paper, moveable type,the compass and gunpowder) and other races of Asia, or the Aztecs and Incas of Centraland South America to illustrate the same journey. Each of their rich histories would haveshown the same pattern of progressing from a state of innocence through an operational,exceptionally creative 30-year-old equivalent stage and on to a more corrupted, soul-burntout, selfish, cynical, ‘decadent’ state.

Part 7:4

How Selfish did we become?

515

Every civilisation has contributed to the advance of knowledge. Just where the leadingedge in the advancement of knowledge was occurring at any one time depended on what stagein the human journey from innocence to exhaustion or decadence the various civilisationswere at, so it is in truth meaningless passing out accolades to any particular individual, raceor civilisation. For example, I have employed the commonly used terms of ‘East’ and ‘West’descriptions for the world’s different civilisations but that Europe-centric view is in truthunjustly prejudiced.
It should also be emphasised that even races at the more corrupted end of the alienationspectrum still contribute to the human journey. Every individual and every race always soughtto contain and minimise the negative aspects of their particular condition and develop andmaximise the positive aspects of that condition. The 40-year-old equivalent, or thereabouts,
Italians, for instance, despite having progressed past their ‘peak’, still contribute to the humanjourney on many fronts. For example, their mature sophistication has made them masters inthe creative world of design.’
I might add, to what was said in the above extract from ‘The Denial-Free History of the
Human Race’ essay, a balancing comment regarding my earlier statement about the Jewishrace having benefited from living amongst more innocent, soulful, selfless 30-and-40-yearold equivalent races. In Part 3:11C, when analysing the graph of The Development of Mental
Cleverness, I mentioned that the graph indicated that brain volume rose rapidly from twomillion years ago onwards, only to plateau towards the end of that two million year period,and that anthropologists haven’t been able to account for why this growth in brain volumeplateaued, however, with understanding of the human condition, we can now explain theslowdown: it is because a balance was struck between the need for cleverness and the needfor soundness—between knowledge-finding yet corrupting mental cleverness and conscienceobedient yet non-knowledge-finding lack of mental cleverness. The average IQ todayrepresents that relatively safe conscience-subordinate compromise. It is true that the abilityto find answers didn’t necessarily accompany increased intelligence because, as described,increased intelligence tended to lead to an increase in upset and thus alienation, and alienationmade thinking truthfully and thus effectively very difficult, however, a high degree ofintelligence was still required to find knowledge, most especially in complex subject areas likehigher mathematics and physics. Thus, if the human race couldn’t develop exceptionally highlevels of intelligence then many crucial understandings about the nature and workings of ourworld would not have been able to be found. The Jews are renowned for being exceptionallyintelligent and it is from within their ranks that some of the greatest minds and insights haveemerged: Albert Einstein, with his breakthrough insights into the physical nature of ouruniverse, is the most obvious example. It is true that Einstein must have had an exceptionaldegree of soundness to have been as an effective thinker as he was, but he also must havebeen exceptionally intelligent to so successfully grapple with the extremely complex subjectshe was dealing with. I haven’t ever tried to collect together and list all the contributions to thehuman race that the Jews have made but it would be very significant. By, in effect, allowingexceptional cleverness/intelligence to develop by countering its corrupting effects with thepresence of people who were not so intellectually clever and thus not so upset and thus not soupset-adapted was, in the bigger picture, a fortuitous outcome for the human race.

516

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Basically, the human journey has been such a complex story that a perfectly balancedview is beyond the powers of effective interpretation in this very early stage of viewing thehistory of the human race in a denial-free way. And such a detailed interpretation can actuallywait because what is so important now is that the human race can leave behind its whole upsethistory as compassionately dealt with—our history is finally, as the saying goes, just that—it’s
‘all just history’ now. As emphasised, what brings all the horror of life under the duress of thehuman condition to an end is the TRANSFORMED WAY OF LIVING.
Before beginning the next Part I want to include the following piece of writing becauseit adds to some of the points I have been making. In thinking about the obvious, buthistorically denied, truth that individuals and races do differ in how adapted to upset theyhave become, I have written that basketball players are typically very tall because the gameis geared towards tall players, and cars are streamlined to cut down air resistance—thepoint is, everything becomes adapted to its environment. Humans have been involved in anupsetting battle, so the longer humans have been in the battle and/or the more intensely theyhave been exposed to it, the more affected by, and adapted to upset they will have become.
It’s simply the truth. All I am saying is not ‘simply not true’, or ‘maybe only somewhattrue’, as the denial-complying, defensive mind will try to assert, but both obviously trueand extremely true—in fact, much truer than I’m even capable of describing it as—maybe Ishould try: what I’m saying is as obvious as the sky is blue. All I ever do when I’m thinkingis let my mind say what is obvious. As I mentioned in Part 3:11C, I call it ‘thinking like astone’, or ‘thinking like a child’. I have learnt over and over again that if I can’t solve aproblem I am thinking about, explain something, it’s because I’m not thinking simply andstraight-forwardly enough. ‘Let your inner, soul-guided true self say the obvious and you willhave the answer’, is what I say to myself, because it will make sense of what I am lookingat and trying to find the explanation for—what did Sir James Darling say, ‘‘conscience…is theexecutive part of consciousness’. That is how I found the explanation of the human condition and
the hundreds of other answers I have found.

Part 7:4

How Selfish did we become?

517

I should explain that through understanding the human condition we can understandwhy this ‘thinking like a stone/child’ was necessary. We humans are so saturated with theinsecurity caused by the issue of the human condition that all our thinking is tainted by it. Thetruth is, we hardly want to think honestly at all, which means we hardly want to think—truly,
Bertrand Russell wasn’t exaggerating when he said, ‘Many people would sooner die than think.’
With our minds so trained and so steeped in dishonesty the only way to avoid the dishonestyis to not engage in any conventional thinking—you have to avoid that tainted practice, startagain, go back to the most elementary thoughts and stay with them, ‘think like a stone/childwould think’, say the simple, obvious, untainted, unadulterated truth. And I should say aboutall my thinking, that my job, as the deliverer of understanding of the human condition, is toget at least the main descriptions of all the hard truths up and dealt with so that humanity canmove well out into the clear of the past. As I have emphasised, we get the truth up and thenwe move on. We leave the old effectively dead, dishonest, human-condition-afflicted worldbehind forever. That is the indescribable magnificence of the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE
STATE. As Bono sang, ‘I’ve conquered my past / The future is here at last / I stand at the entranceto a new world I can see / The ruins to the right of me / Will soon have lost sight of me.’ Also, as

Beethoven’s symphony anticipated, ‘Joy’, ‘Joyful, as a hero to victory!’, ‘Join in our jubilation!’,
‘We enter, drunk with fire, into your [understanding’s] sanctuary…Your magic reunites…All men becomebrothers…All good, all bad…Be embraced, millions! This kiss for the whole world!’

Honestly, ‘who’s fucked and who isn’t fucked’—it just doesn’t fucking matter anymore.
WE ARE OUT OF THERE—GONE—THAT’S ALL OVER, IT’S HISTORY. WE, THE HUMAN
RACE, IS FREE! It no longer matters who is more cynical, more human-condition-adapted,
because the TRANSFORMED STATE leaves all that behind. The greater truth is we have allbecome well and truly fucked/stuffed/corrupted/upset anyway, and it all doesn’t matter nowbecause we are out of there, we have won the match and we now all head for the showers andget ready for humanity’s great victory party—and soon even the different scars we all carryfrom the match will be gone, soon the human race will be psychologically healed. It is allhistory now, ‘the ruins to the right of [us], will soon have lost sight of [us]’.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

518

The Biology

Part 7:5 How Alienated did we become?
The final element of our upset is our alienation, the truth of the extent of which is evenmore shocking than the just-described extent of the anger and egocentricity (and cynicalselfishness) in humans. So, the question this raises is: just how alienated are we humans aftertwo million years of not having any other psychological defence for our corrupted conditionother than to block the truth of it out of our minds?
As described in Part 6:2, Plato said our species’ alienation was so great that it was as ifwe were imprisoned in a cave ‘a long way underground’, where we could see only ‘shadows’that were ‘illusions’ and ‘delusions’ of the real world outside the cave. As mentioned earlier in
Part 3:5, the cover of my book A Species In Denial (pictured below) features two powerfulpaintings by William Blake: Cringing in Terror (c.1794-96), which shows a person in a foetalposition, screaming in terror—yet another accurate depiction of our horrifically estranged,alienated state—and Albion Arose (c.1794-96), which symbolises our liberation from ourterrible state of cave-dwelling alienation; in this picture Blake has even included a bat flying

The most honest description I have ever read of the extent of alienation of the human racecomes from the aforementioned great Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing, who wrote that ‘Ouralienation goes to the roots. The realization of this is the essential springboard for any serious reflectionon any aspect of present inter-human life’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967, p.12 of 156).

Before presenting more of this quote, we should consider what Laing has said here—‘ouralienation goes to the roots’ of our condition, but if we are not prepared to admit that then we

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

519
are not even beginning to think effectively about human behaviour; we are not in a positionto undertake ‘any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life’. Darwin, for example,didn’t try to look into human behaviour because he responsibly recognised that he wasn’tprepared to take this, according to Laing, necessary step and look into our species’ alienatedcondition. But, as has been described, other biologists weren’t so scrupulous—they foundways to deny the issue of the human condition and therefore didn’t conduct a ‘serious reflectionon any aspect of present inter-human life’.

As described in Part 7:4, the situation is that humans have become so insecure, so unableto make ‘the realization’ that ‘our alienation goes to the roots’, that no one has been allowed toeven acknowledge differences in alienation between individuals, races, genders, generations,countries, civilisations and cultures. Sir Laurens van der Post made the ‘academic experts’
‘berserk with rage’ when he dared to talk about the relative innocence of the Bushmen
of the Kalahari. In Parts 6:4 and 7:4, but more so in my book A Species In Denial in theaforementioned chapter, ‘The Denial-Free History of the Human Race’, I talk about the relativeinnocence of the Aryans of northern Europe. The original Greeks and Romans also came from
Aryan stock, but they had their innocence bled dry through endless wars and other agonisingstruggles that arose from being overly exposed to the upset state of the human condition, as didother races around the Mediterranean, so that in the end the only relatively innocent people leftin Europe were those isolated in the northern outreaches of the continent. But such descriptionsabout different levels of innocence that feature in my books and in this presentation would beregarded as heretical; indeed, I could be falsely accused of being racist, such has been the extentof pseudo idealistic, politically correct, postmodern denial in the world today. There has beenno tolerance of truth at all. Denial/alienation has been plunging the world into total darkness.
Truth has been denied in favour of fabricating equality by denying there are any differencesbetween individuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations and even cultures.
The problem was that while we couldn’t explain the human condition and thereforedefend the upset state, any acknowledgment of people being differently upset would haveled to the more upset being accused of being evil and bad, and worse, actually believingthey were evil or bad, in which case they could, in desperation, go out and shoot themselves.
Descriptions of some people being more alienated than others would only lead to prejudiceagainst such people. The deeper truth that we have always intuitively believed in, whichhas now at last been explained, is that no human is fundamentally bad, which is why wehave always tried to be compassionate towards overly upset humans—for example, mostcountries have abandoned the practice of capital punishment, keeping the worst of criminalsin jail rather than killing them. Obviously, despite displays of compassion, we haven’t beenable to tolerate or manage or rehabilitate upset beyond a certain point because we have notbeen operational enough or, more importantly, had the psychological insights into the humancondition to do so, but enlightened societies at least chose to remove the death penalty.
But with understanding of the human condition now found the essential equality ofgoodness of all people is finally established. As the story of Adam Stork at last makes clear,while all humans are variously upset, all humans are equally good because upset was aresult of an unavoidable and necessary battle. Some people are taller or shorter than others,but they are all equally good. In exactly the same way, some people have been more or less

520

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
involved in humanity’s great heroic battle than others and are thus more or less embattled/upset, but they are all equally good. The equality of goodness of all people is a firstprinciple-established, fundamental and universal truth now. Humanity no longer has to relyon dogmatic assertions that ‘all men are created equal’ because it is a ‘self-evident’ truth, as the
United States’ Declaration of Independence asserts. We can now explain, understand andknow that our equality is a fundamental truth. Prejudice, the view that some individuals,races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations or cultures are either superior or inferior toothers, is eliminated by understanding of the human condition. In fact, with understanding ofthe human condition the concepts of good and bad, superior and inferior, disappear from ourconceptualisation of ourselves.
So we haven’t been able to talk about different levels of innocence without condemningthose more corrupted as bad when they are not. In effect, a lie that said there was no differencein alienation between people was less of a lie than a partial truth that said there were differenceswith some people being ‘good’ and others ‘bad’. The end result of taking this denial to theextreme has been the emergence of an unsaid, blanket rule where no one is allowed to sayanything meaningful about human behaviour—to the extent that even the children’s nurseryrhyme Baa Black Sheep is said to be racist and must instead be recited as ‘Baa baa rainbow sheep’
(London’s Daily Telegraph, 18 Feb. 1997). Political correctness is a dogma that has become ridiculous
and yet that is where the human race has wound up—in a state where totally superficial,truthless non-sense reigns! Feminists are now saying there is no real difference between thesexes, and even men can now give birth through some weird surgery. Under this blanketrule, in order to avoid prejudice we are not allowed to talk about different individuals, races,genders, generations, countries, civilisations or cultures being more or less innocent than otherindividuals, races, genders, generations, countries, civilisations or cultures. No one is allowedto talk about such differences and yet they are the only differences that will make any real senseof the different behaviours that each human exhibits. Our different personalities reflect ourvarious states of alienation, how hurt we were in our childhood, etc, so if we want to understandhuman behaviour, we have to look at how upset we humans are—in particular at how muchdenial we are practicing. As Laing said, ‘the essential springboard for any serious reflection on anyaspect of present inter-human life’ depends on acknowledging that ‘our alienation goes to the roots’.

As outlined in Part 4:4E when the problem of prejudice was introduced, since the basisof coping with the issue of our upset, corrupted human condition has been denial—the resultof which is alienation—when understanding of the human condition arrives that denial isobsoleted: the lies are replaced with the truth and the alienation is revealed. It can’t be anyother way. We can’t have the truth and not have the truth, but the problem is that while all theupset that the denials/lies/degrees of alienation have been concealing is now safely explainedand defended it still comes as a shock to have it all laid bare. The situation where there was noacknowledgment of differences in alienation between individuals, races, genders, generations,countries, civilisations or cultures suddenly changes to having all those previously hiddendifferences exposed—such as the Anglo-Saxons being acknowledged in Parts 6:4 and 7:4 asbeing sufficiently free of alienation and its cynicisms to still remain functional, or prophetsbeing acknowledged in Part 5:1 as being sufficiently free of alienation to think truthfully andthus effectively. This outcome is actually described in the Bible where, immediately after

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

521
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’ toheaven 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.
When the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE is described in Part 9 it will be explained thatall humans will fully participate in the new human-condition-liberated world. There will beno inequality, no prejudice and no discrimination of anyone. Implying that the more upsetwould be ‘left’ behind when understanding of the human condition arrived was simply away of trying to dissuade people from allowing their upset to continue to express itself; itwas to stop them ‘sinning’. Like using the dishonest threat of going to a burning hell if yousinned, it was a way of intimidating people into behaving in a less upset, destructive way bymisrepresenting the future. As the Turkish poet, who was cited earlier, said, ‘judgment day’is ‘Not the day of judgment but the day of [compassionate] understanding’ (Merle Severy, ‘The World of
Süleyman the Magnificent’, National Geographic, Nov. 1987). The paradox of being wonderfully liberated
but at the same time agonisingly exposed was captured by the prophet Isaiah when he saidthat the liberation that ‘gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage…will come withvengeance; with divine retribution…to save you. Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears ofthe deaf unstopped…Your nakedness will be exposed’ (Bible, 14:3; 35:4, 5; 47:3).

Following on from Laing’s comment that any ‘serious reflection’ of human behaviourdepended on recognising that ‘our alienation goes to the roots’, Laing went on to practice whathe preached, confronting the truth of the extent of our alienation by saying, ‘We are born into aworld where alienation awaits us. We are potentially men, but are in an alienated state [p.12 of 156] …theordinary person is a shrivelled, desiccated fragment of what a person can be. As adults, we have forgottenmost of our childhood, not only its contents but its flavour; as men of the world, we hardly know of theexistence of the inner world [p.22] …The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man [p.24] …between us and It [our true self
or soul] there is a veil which is more like fifty feet of solid concrete [p.118]’ (The Politics of Experience and
The Bird of Paradise, 1967). What Laing has said here is supported by a quote from the Russian
philosopher George Gurdjieff, who said that ‘It happens fairly often that essence dies in a man whilehis personality and his body are still alive. A considerable percentage of the people we meet in the streetsof a great town are people who are empty inside, that is, they are actually already dead’ (In Search of the
Miraculous, P.D. Ouspensky, 1950, ch.8, p.164). The prophet Isaiah in the Bible similarly described the
extent of humans’ alienation when he said, ‘“You will be ever hearing, but never understanding;you will be ever seeing, but never perceiving.” This people’s heart has become calloused [alienated]; theyhardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes’ (Isa. 6:9,10, footnote).

I should say that Laing’s phrase about our alienation being like ‘fifty feet of solid concrete’is probably the most used phrase in my writing. There is ‘fifty feet of solid concrete’ betweenus and our true self or soul—that is how deep the human race has dug itself into the caveof denial. We have blocked all the light of truth. It is as if our whole world is now encased

522

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
in a fifty foot layer of solid concrete—worse, it is as if the outside of that layer of concreteis enclosed in another layer of steel that has been bolted on so no light gets in at all, so thatno truth exists on Earth! So heavily blocked out was the truth, so deeply in denial has thehuman race been living, that E.O. Wilson could swan around unchecked as ‘captain of theworld’—the recognised leader of humanity in its quest to find the biological understandingof humans—spreading all his dishonest thinking about human behaviour for the rest of theworld to gladly, and gratefully, believe in.
That one person managed to penetrate all that denial, all that concrete and steel, andremain on their feet and bring this truth out about the human condition is incredible. Again,being able to do so has nothing to do with being special in any way, it is simply the result of theextraordinary set of circumstances described in Part 5:1. Historically people have talked abouta ‘second coming’ of innocence, but, as I mentioned in Part 5:1, in the spectrum of alienationthat has necessarily existed in humanity’s great battle against ignorance, there have alwaysbeen a few individuals left out on the fringes of the battle who were still relatively innocent.
Thankfully, even in this end play stage of that great battle where the exhausted state of extremealienation has become all but universal, that situation still applied and there was enoughinnocence left to finally make its contribution to the battle. Importantly, it was science—andhumanity as a whole as the support base for science—that had to do all the hard work ofaccumulating sufficient understanding of the mechanisms and workings of our world thatwould finally make it possible for denial-free innocence to assemble the clarifying explanationof the human condition. Innocence played an important but miniscule concluding role. It isscience, and in fact humanity as a whole, that is the ‘messiah’ or liberator of humanity. As Imention in Section 1:14 of Freedom Expanded: Book 2, it is like in a game of gridiron footballwhere the team as a whole, with one exception, does all the hard work, gaining yardage downthe field. Finally, when the side gets within kicking distance of the goal posts, a specialistkicker, who until then has played no part, is brought onto the field. While he—in his unsoiledattire—kicks the winning goal, the win clearly belongs to the team of exhausted players whodid all the hard work. Soul/instinct was the synthesiser and science/knowledge/intellect was theliberator. In the end all the fundamental elements in our mind’s make-up came to play a role.
Following on from his statement that ‘between us and It [between our current alienated,estranged state and our true self or soul] there is a veil which is more like fifty feet of solid concrete’,

Laing continued his deadly honest treatise on the extent of alienation in the world today,saying, ‘Deus absconditus. Or we have absconded [p.118] …The outer divorced from any illuminationfrom the inner is in a state of darkness [the darkness of Plato’s cave]. We are in an age of darkness.
The state of outer darkness is a state of sin—i.e. alienation or estrangement from the inner light [p.116]
…We are all murderers and prostitutes—no matter to what culture, society, class, nation one belongs…
We are bemused and crazed creatures, strangers to our true selves, to one another, and to the spiritualand material world [pp.11-12]’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967). ‘We are dead, butthink we are alive. We are asleep, but think we are awake. We are dreaming, but take our dreams tobe reality. We are the halt, lame, blind, deaf, the sick. But we are doubly unconscious. We are so ill thatwe no longer feel ill, as in many terminal illnesses. We are mad, but have no insight [into the fact of
our madness]’ (Self and Others, 1961, p.38 of 192).

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

523

This cartoon by the American artist Skip Williamson, which appeared in Playboy magazine in May 1982,bares out the truth about ‘our modern condition’ of ‘alienation’ that R.D. Laing so honestly described.

Laing wrote his above description of our state of alienation in the relatively innocent
1960s. Since then, the levels of alienation have become much, much worse—if that were
possible! As mentioned in Part 3:12, recent generations have been revealingly labelled the ‘Xgeneration’, the ‘Y generation’, and now the ‘Z generation’, which, according to Wikipedia,comprises ‘people born between the mid-1990s and late 2000s’. The Canadian writer Douglas
Coupland defined a Generation X’er as one who ‘lives an X sort of life—cerebral, alienated,seriously concerned with cool’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 22 Aug. 1994). These are all qualities associated
with having had to adjust to an extremely soul-exhausted world. In Part 3:11H, the adolescentpsychologist Michael Carr-Gregg was reported as saying that ‘Generation Y is being ravaged bydepression, anxiety disorders and stress disorders’ (‘Face it, we are all narcissists now’, Miranda Devine, Sydney
Morning Herald, 3 Sept. 2009). The obvious question that was also asked was what exactly did we
mean when we said the X, Y, Z generations? The answer is the end game state of alienation,terminal alienation. After all, what comes after Z? Look at the colours in the clothing thatare considered fashionable now, it’s all black, charcoal, grey, dark blue, dirty browns—drab,depressed, alienated colours. If you look at a crowd of people now there is hardly any brightlycoloured clothing to be seen. Young people slouch around in hooded jackets and dark glassesthat they hide away from the world in, seemingly eking out a living like depressed souls fromsome dark underworld. Life for humans had become unbearably painful.
A 2008 documentary on the destructive effects of all the consumer advertising directed atchildren featured a montage of powerful news clips from American television that providesa graphic snapshot of the symptoms of terminal levels of alienation being reached in society.
In the first clip the newsreader reported that ‘Forty times as many young people are now beingdiagnosed with bipolar disorder [the less confronting term now being used for what was once more
honesty termed manic depression] than 13 years ago.’ The second clip reported that ‘Almost
4.5 million children in this country have been diagnosed with ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder.’ The third clip said that ‘Doctors are writing a growing number of prescriptions for antidepressants for children, as many as eight million a year.’ The fourth clip reported that ‘One inthree children born in the year 2000 will develop diabetes.’ The fifth clip said that ‘For the first timein decades the rate of hypertension in children is rising [with a medical journal cover in background

524

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
saying] 2 million + American children may have high blood pressure.’ The sixth clip reported that
‘This generation of children is the heaviest in American history. An estimated 16% of all childrenand teenagers are overweight—four times as many since the 1960s. Life expectancy of children todaywill be shorter than that of their parents—the first such decline in modern times’ (Consuming Kids: The
Commercialization of Childhood, Media Education Foundation).

I should comment that while technology is helping the alienated human race by givingit a means to further distract itself from its immensely upset condition, it is also rapidlyincreasing and spreading the level of alienation in society. In a 2010 BBC documentary seriesabout the world wide web called Virtual Revolution, in the episode Homo Interneticus,the presenter, Dr Aleks Krotoski, comments that ‘Burners Lee [who invented the web in 1990]built into it what is called hyperlinks, the ability to link from one piece of information to another. Butthe question is whether hyperlink associative thinking is good for us. In mirroring the way the brainfunctions by darting from subject to subject in a click, does this make us lazy and easily distracted?’

Nick Carr, author of Is Google Making Us Stupid?, is then quoted as stating, ‘I think scienceshows us that our brain wants to be distracted and what the web does by bombarding us with stimuliand information it really plays to that aspect of our brain, it keeps our brain hopping and jumping andunable to concentrate.’ Krotoski continues: ‘We used to be trained in the discipline of reading andwriting and language. Now the generation raised on the web of associative links seem unable to face therigours of such lineal thinking—even it seems at our top universities.’ David Runciman, a Political

Scientist at Cambridge University, then says, ‘What I notice about students from the first day Isee them when they arrive at university is that they ask nervously “What do we have to read?” Andwhen they are told the first thing they have to read is a book they all now groan, which they didn’t useto do five or ten years ago, and you say, “Why are you groaning?”, and they say “It’s a book, how longis it?”’ The great attraction of the web and its offshoots, like Facebook and Twitter, is of
course not that ‘it makes us easily distracted’ but that it allows us to be ‘easily distracted’; that,as Nick Carr who, as the program said, wrote the book with the title that appropriately asks
Is Google Making Us Stupid?, said, ‘our brain wants to be distracted’. In the case of Facebook,it allows people to be preoccupied/distracted (from the human condition) all day long withinane, frivolous, narcissistic, superficial gossip. As Krotoski said herself, ‘In my life it isincreasingly rare that I have time on my own, time to think. I have a Twitter account and several blogsto maintain, plus my Facebook status updates, my photo diary, my video blogs and my podcasts that Ihave to record. And that’s the content that I create, there is also the content that I consume. Not least ofwhich is the emails that are in my inbox and all the messages on my answering machine. I was away fora week and I had 283 emails that I had to go through.’

The program tried to present the web age in a positive light because obviously peopleweren’t going to admit how superficial and trashy their lives have become—how couldthey live with that truth without the defence of the explanation of the human condition! Itnoted, for example, that in the 1960s the Canadian maverick thinker Marshall McLuhanactually anticipated the internet age but saw it as a positive development because he saideveryone would be more connected and, as a result, more informed, warning that ‘We go onsinging the old song of fragmentation and alienation because every society always looks at the precedingage while living in the new, current age. It never sees the age it’s living in.’ It’s true that all kinds

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

525
of massive generation gaps occur, but the fact is increase in ‘alienation’ is the underlyingand overwhelming trend, and being more informed doesn’t necessarily mean more deeplyinformed, better able to think deeply or understand and comprehend more effectively. Asthe Australian journalist and newspaper editor Peter Hartcher said about Facebook: ‘Usersget attention from hundreds or thousands of people on a scale that, before now, only the famous or thefreakish could expect’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 25 Jan. 2011). Facebook feeds the overly embattled and
insecure self-esteem or ego of current generations by making each person feel as thoughthey are the centre of attention, but that egalitarian equality of attention is at the expense ofattention being directed to what is meaningful in terms of our species’ core responsibility tofind and accumulate knowledge. Put simply, Facebook has become the greatest facilitator ofalienation ever invented, single-handedly threatening to derail the whole human race fromthe pursuit of knowledge—it is another illustration of humanity entering dangerous end play.
The internet is the ultimate communication technology, but it is currently being used to spreadand increase alienation, not knowledge. Television and materialism in general also fed andspread escapism and alienation but, unlike the internet, they haven’t threatened the pursuit ofknowledge. To use the Adam Stork analogy to make the situation clear, the only way Adamcan stop the upsetting criticism coming from his instinctive self is to find sufficient knowledgeto explain why he has had to defy his instincts. His core task and responsibility is to find thatknowledge and until he succeeds he will only become more upset—more angry, egocentricand alienated. So, to paraphrase Richard Neville, Adam is in a race between self-discoveryand self-destruction from becoming excessively upset—excessively angry, egocentric andalienated. Since upset is the unavoidable price he has to pay to search for knowledge, heneeds ways to express his anger to some degree; and he needs to contrive ways to find somereinforcement for his ego or sense of self-worth; and he needs to employ some escapismand denial from the guilt or criticism he is having to live with if he is to continue the task ofsearching for knowledge—but he can’t afford to become too corrupted/upset/angry, egocentricand alienated. Television and materialism have, in general, supplied a degree of escapism, butdevelopments such as Facebook are so powerfully self-distracting they are fast leading thehuman race to excessive, indeed terminal, levels of alienation.
Overall, what has happened is that communication technology has accelerated humanity’salready rapid progress towards excruciating, unbearable levels of alienation, so much sothat humanity has arrived at the situation where levels of alienation in humans are nowalmost terminal. The problem raised by this situation is that while the need for the relievingunderstanding of the human condition has become absolutely desperate, the levels ofalienation now, of deafness, of inability to take in and think about any deeper analysis of ourhuman predicament, have become so great that there is a very great risk that the arrival now ofthe liberating understanding of the human condition will not be able to rise above the ruckusand be heard! In 2011, a writer, identified only as ‘Fitzy’, published an online article about mywork, in which he recognised its importance, writing that ‘The cause of the malaise [in the world]is exposed, remedied and the reader is left with the very least an understanding of themselves, and for mesomething of an optimism for the future.’ However, he also recognised the danger of these answers
going unheard when, in the same article, he commented that ‘We have a lot of competing noise for

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

526

The Biology
our attention these days, and it would be criminal to let that overwhelm our true potential, by masking

[this] useful information with hideous noise’ (Humanitus Interruptus – Great Minds of Today, 21 Oct. 2011; see
<www.wtmsources.com/106>). Yes, there is a real danger of all the extremely superficial, escapist,
me-only-focused, ‘hideous noise’ in the world now making it impossible for these all-preciousanswers about the human condition to be heard—but thankfully, as this response from ‘Fitzy’demonstrates, there are still people who can hear this information. There is naturally a ‘deafeffect’ for everyone who is resigned when they try to listen to or read discussion of the humancondition—in fact, ‘Fitzy’ himself acknowledged that he too initially encountered this deafeffect with my writing when he wrote in his article that ‘The core concepts keep slipping frommy mental grasp, at the time I put it down to bad writing, however a second reading revealed somethingthe Author had indicated from the outset—your mind doesn’t want to understand the content. The secondread was quick and painless.’ But, again, at least there are still people like ‘Fitzy’ who aren’t so
deafened by the ‘hideous noise’ in the world now that they eventually can still hear analysis ofthe human condition. As predicted in the Bible, by the time the liberating understanding of thehuman condition was finally found the levels of alienation amongst humans will have likelybecome extreme, so much so, in fact, that the liberating understanding will at first be ‘rejectedby this generation’ (Luke 17:25) and few ‘will understand, but those who are wise will understand’ (Dan.
12:10). Yes,
thankfully there ‘will’ still be enough ‘hearability’ left in the world for the truth
about the human condition to be recognised now that it has finally arrived.
To return to the main discussion about how alienated the human race has become.
Plato and R.D. Laing were both extremely honest about the true extent of alienationin humans and we can now add to their honesty the truthful expression and descriptionsof the alienated state of humanity that can be found in music. Part 3:12, ‘Anticipations ofthe arrival of our species’ liberation from the horror of the human condition and resulting
TRANSFORMATION of the human race’, documented the many, many honest descriptions of
the human condition that I have come across in music. As I mentioned there, while some ofthe lyrics referred to, most particularly the lyrics of Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Jim Morrisonand Bono, were extraordinarily prophetic in their anticipations of our species’ liberation fromthe human condition, the lyrics and music most deeply revealing of the actual agony of thehuman condition are those of the American heavy metal band, With Life In Mind.
If you search the band With Life In Mind on the internet and listen to a YouTube videoof their music, what you will hear is basically an intense, excruciating droning barrage ofunabated pain! As mentioned in Part 3:12, their music is a terrifyingly honest portrayal ofthe terminal level of alienation that the human race has now arrived at—which, as describedabove, Generations Y and Z so suffer from. At the time of writing this inclusion in Freedom
Expanded: Book 1 about the band With Life In Mind (which was February 2012), the onlinestore Relapse, which specialises in the heavy, ‘death’ metal music so popular amongst youngpeople today, listed the following bands as their top selling artists: Death, Repulsion, Toxic
Holocaust/Midnight, Neurosis, Spawn of Possession and Brutal Truth. These names alonereveal the end play state of alienation that the human race has arrived at.

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

527

Set against a blood red background, the cover of With Life In Mind’s first album, titled
Grievances (see next image), which was released in 2010, depicts a person being ruthlesslybeaten up, with the victim’s hand seen clawing at the air in horrific pain and a desperate pleafor help. It’s an absolutely deadly honest metaphor of how horribly we humans have beenbrutalised by the human condition for some two million years, and how desperate our need forrelease from that condition has become!

The cover of the metal band With Life In Mind 2010 Grievances album

This album, with its Biblical-Job-like, human-condition-protesting title, contains thefollowing songs whose titles fully reveal the whole horror and saga of the human condition:
Grievances, King of Frauds, The Collapse of Men, Anxiety Ridden, Surroundings, One Day
It Will All Make Sense, The Human Condition, Plagued, Silenced, Self-Righteous and Our
Endless Existence!! The song that the band actually titled The Human Condition contains thisamazingly honest description of the human condition: ‘We’re staring through the eyes of a bittersoul. Constantly surrounded by this empty feeling…Never good enough for those ideals that seem to meanthe most…Driven into madness, I see no end in sight, and inadequacy seems like the only means to passthrough this life. And I sit and ask myself when will it end? The art of contention is an uphill battle I’mnot ready to fight.’ Yes, we would be ‘driven into madness’ with ‘no end in sight’ to the unbearably
depressing ‘empty feeling’ caused by the terrible ‘inadequacy’ of our seemingly horrifically

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

528

The Biology
imperfect ‘human condition’ if we didn’t resign ourselves to giving up trying to ‘conten[d]’ withit, confront it, stop trying to live ‘with’ the issue of ‘life in mind’! Denial of the human conditionhas been the only way we have been able to cope with the human condition while we couldn’texplain it. What has happened in recent times, the last 20 years or so, is that the agony of thehuman condition has become so great for humans that any representation of life that doesn’texpress this agony is inappropriate and meaningless—which is why the music of youngpeople today is so saturated with this pure pain; any other description of life today wouldbe completely dishonest, hypocritical. Terminal alienation is the subject the current Y and Zgenerations are the absolute specialists in.
To illustrate something of the extraordinary honesty about the human condition thatyoung people’s music of today reveals I have compiled some of the other lyrics from
With Life In Mind’s Grievances album. You will see that many of the lyrics are very, verysimilar to the truthful poems that people wrote during Resignation, such as Fiona Miller’s
Resignation poem that was reproduced in Parts 3:8 and 3:11B. These parallels are notsurprising since Resignation was the time when people most acutely felt the agony of thehuman condition before learning to block it out, and, as just pointed out, this agony of thehuman condition has now become so great that trying to block it out, live in denial of it, hasbecome all but impossible. The agony of the human condition is now so great that even theresigned—those committed to living in denial of the human condition—can’t deny the agonyof it. So, in addition to the lyrics that were included earlier from their ‘Human Condition’track, the following are some of With Life In Mind’s other song titles and lyrics from their
Grievances album that are so indicative of the end play state of terminal alienation that thehuman race has arrived at:
From ANXIETY RIDDEN: ‘It scares me to death to think of what I have become…I feel so lost inthis world…This self loathing can only get me so far.’

From OUR ENDLESS EXISTENCE: ‘Our innocence is lost.’
From SURROUNDINGS: ‘I scream to the sky but my words get lost along the way. I can’t expressall the hate that’s led me here and all the filth that swallows us whole. I don’t want to be part of all thisinsanity. Famine and death. Pestilence and war. [Famine, death, pestilence and war are traditional
interpretations of the ‘Four Horsemen’ described in Revelation 6 in the Bible. In Matthew 24:6-8 and
Luke 21:10-11, Christ referred to similar ‘Signs of the End of the Age’ (as those sections of the Bibleare titled) and all of these descriptions from Revelation, Matthew and Luke are accurate because suchextreme disintegration is the end play state of terminal alienation that occurs at the conclusion ofhumanity’s heroic search for knowledge.] A world shrouded in darkness…Fear is driven into our mindseverywhere we look. We’ll never forget all the sadness of this world and this tragedy that surrounds us.
This tragedy that consumes our lives.’

From THE COLLAPSE OF MEN: ‘We’ve been lying to ourselves for so long. We truly forgot whatit means to be alive. Trying so hard for a life with such little purpose. How could we ever recover? Lost inoblivion. Through our failed attempts, we try to find meaning in this chaos. Shackled in chains, bound andheld down. We’re constantly repressed by our actions to live a lie. We could never be content. We couldnever face our own reflections in the mirror.’

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

529

From SILENCED: ‘Your hands tied. You are bound and gagged. Everything you’ve been told hasbeen a lie…We’ve all been asleep since the beginning of time. Why are we so scared to use our minds?…
We pretend as if it [the human condition] doesn’t even exist. Muzzles are tied to our mouths…What will ittake for us to come alive?’

From KING OF FRAUDS: ‘How long do you have to live a lie before you’ve convinced everyonethat it’s true? Realize that what everyone sees in you was nothing more than a well stacked ten stories…
The man you are is not the man you were meant to be. A coward. A fake. Keep pretending; soon enoughthings will crumble to the ground. You’re the king of a world you built for yourself, but nothing more thana fraud in reality…If they could only see the truth they would coil in disgust. How much longer until thepressure makes you break? You have been exposed as the monster that you are’.

From SELF-RIGHTEOUS: ‘How do you judge the ones that are carbon copies of yourself?…Youfeed on the power; the idea that you’re superior. You raise your head so high…Judge so blindly to a worldyou don’t understand. Your ignorance displays shallow existence.’

From PLAGUED: ‘How do we save ourselves from this misery…So desperate for the answers,we search for a reason to survive. We spend our days staring at the sun, only to be blinded by the merethought…We’re straining on the last bit of hope we have left. No one hears our cries. And no one sees usscreaming.’

From GRIEVANCES: ‘Our fight is the struggle of man…we search for this form of clarity. Hopingthat this life has any purpose. This is the end.’ And finally, ONE DAY IT WILL ALL MAKE SENSE, an
instrumental without lyrics.
With Life In Mind’s lyrics absolutely beg for relief from the human condition: ‘I feelso lost in this world’, ‘Lost in oblivion…we try to find meaning in this chaos…We could never faceour own reflections in the mirror’, ‘I scream to the sky but my words get lost along the way’, ‘Whatwill it take for us to come alive?’, ‘How could we ever recover?, ‘How do we save ourselves fromthis misery…So desperate for the answers, we search for a reason to survive…We’re straining on thelast bit of hope we have left. No one hears our cries. And no one sees us screaming’ and ‘we searchfor this form of clarity’. Thankfully, since the pain they are expressing is so, so terrible,

With Life In Mind have been able to look forward to a time when ‘one day it will all makesense’—and at last it has all made sense—the human condition has been explained and
humans have been dignified and redeemed. As ‘Fitzy’ also said in his online article aboutmy work, ‘In light of Griffith’s work, this [dark] behaviour is easily understandable, we can arriveat conclusions about our Human dark behaviour, that are compassionate and humane, better still wecan be left with enthusiasm and a realistic hope for the future. When we stop damning ourselves,because we understand how we arrived at this junction, we can start living free and fair lives based onknowing what we are.’

The lyrics ‘No one hears our cries. And no one sees us screaming’ from the song Plaguedremind me of the artist Edvard Munch’s famous 1895 painting The Scream (see next image).
This painting has become an iconic representation of the end play state of terminal alienationthat the human race has arrived at. Indeed, in announcing its May 2012 auction of the only oneof four versions of the Scream that was still held privately, Sotheby’s auction house described
Munch’s work as ‘the defining image of modernity’ and said they were expecting it to attract one

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

530

The Biology
of the highest prices ever for a painting (The Australian, 23 Feb. 2012). And indeed it did, selling foralmost $US120 million—$US40 million above expectations!

Edvard Munch’s The Scream 1895

With the subject of visual representations of the agony of the human condition nowintroduced, it is necessary to move discussion onto the British painter Francis Bacon’sextraordinarily honest depictions of humans’ alienated state. In fact, if no one, prior to thehuman condition being explained, had managed to describe the situation of the human conditionas well as Plato, and no one had managed to write about the extent of the alienation involved inour species’ condition as well as Laing did, and no band had managed to create music about theagony of the human condition as truthfully as With Life In Mind, then no one has been able tovisually depict the human condition more truthfully than Francis Bacon (1909-1992).
The following three paintings by Bacon provide an indication of the nature of hiswork. Even on quick inspection, there is no mistaking the agony of the human condition in
Bacon’s twisted, smudged, distorted, death-mask-like—alienated—human faces and tortured,contorted, arms-pinned, psychologically imprisoned bodies, and in his frequent use of thegrey-green of decaying flesh and the purple-red of a carcass to accentuate the deadness of ourimmensely alienated state. (As an aside, these images recall Irish step dancing—made famousby the aforementioned Riverdance phenomenon of the mid-1990s—in which the feet dancebut the arms remain rigidly in place beside the dancer’s body, which is really an accuraterepresentation of how humans have lived in a psychologically imprisoned or shackled state—especially white people because black people seem to exude so much more rhythm andfreedom in their movement.)

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

While Bacon’s subject matter is unmistakable, we humans are so in denial of ourcondition that most struggle to recognise what it is that he is depicting. In shocked

531

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

532

The Biology
bewilderment his work has been described as ‘obscene’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 29 April 1992),
‘enigmatic’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 30 April 1992), and ‘embodying a singularly bleak view of humanexistence’ (ibid). It’s not a ‘bleak’ view in the sense of being unjustified, rather it is an honest
view—as Bacon himself said in an interview with the distinguished art critic David
Sylvester: ‘I am trying to…set a trap…to catch the fact at its most living point [p.54 of 176]’ with
‘facts’ being ‘what used to be called truth [p.48]’, ‘you unlock the areas of feeling which lead to adeeper sense of the reality of the image [p.66]’ (Interviews with Francis Bacon, David Sylvester, 1975 & 1980).

In the interview Sylvester referred to some of the bewildered interpretations that have beenapplied to Bacon’s work, saying that ‘people seem to feel in looking at your figures that they areseen in moments of crisis, moments of acute awareness of their mortality, moments of acute awareness oftheir animal nature’ (ibid. p.80). It’s clearly not ‘moments of crisis’, or an ‘acute awareness’ of one’s
‘mortality’, or humans’ supposed ‘animal nature’ that is being portrayed—as Bacon himself
acknowledged. When Sylvester asked Bacon directly to ‘tell me what you feel your painting isconcerned with’, Bacon replied, ‘it’s concerned with my kind of psyche, it’s concerned with my kindof—I’m putting it in a very pleasant way—exhilarated despair’ (ibid. p.83). That’s what the human
condition is: excruciatingly heightened ‘despair’. The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaardmade that abundantly clear in his book The Sickness Unto Death where he gave this accountof the near suicidal, worse-than-‘death’ depression that the human condition has causedthe human race: ‘the torment of despair is precisely the inability to die [and end the torture of ourunexplained human condition]…that despair is the sickness unto death, this tormenting contradiction
[of the human condition], this sickness in the self; eternally to die, to die and yet not to die’ (1849, tr. A.
Hannay, 1989, p.48 of 179).

The philosopher Michael Leiris, who was a friend of Bacon’s, spoke
the truth about Bacon depicting our species’ present tortured state of near total alienationwhen he said that his ‘searing’ paintings ‘express the human condition as it truly and peculiarly istoday; man dispossessed of any durable paradise’ (The Times, 15 Sept. 1983).

Not surprisingly, the brutal honesty of Bacon’s paintings has been unbearable forsome. In a review of a retrospective exhibition of Bacon’s paintings that in 2009 toured the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Tate in London and the Prado in Madrid, theart critic Jed Perl described Bacon’s works as ‘angst for dummies’, ‘the 20th century’s most augustvisual claptrap’, ‘high-style bummers, bad dreams with fashionable upholstery’, ‘cheap sensation’, a
‘freakshow’, Bacon as a ‘poseur’, and the whole show as a ‘hideous spectacle of an artist in theprocess of eviscerating the art of painting’ (The Australian, 15 June 2009, reprinted from The New Republic).

Throughout the ages, there have always been people who became extremely angry towardsanyone who dared to reveal the truth about the human condition. As has been mentioned, Ihave had such fury and dishonest vitriol directed at me in buckets full, but the depth of theanger is just a measure of how confronting the issue of the human condition has been. Whathas to be understood now is that with redeeming understanding of the human condition foundit is at last possible, and indeed necessary, to be honest about the human condition. At least

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

533
the extraordinary integrity/honesty of Bacon’s work is now being recognised in dollar value,with one of his triptychs in 2013 fetching $US142.4 million, making it ‘the most expensive workof art ever sold at auction, breaking the previous record, set in May 2012, when a version of Edvard
Munch’s The Scream [another exceptionally honest, human-condition-revealing painting] sold for
$119.9 million’ (TIME mag. 25 Nov. 2013).

Of Bacon’s paintings, the one I like the most is one I have included above, his Studyfor self-portrait (1976), which happens to be held at the Art Gallery of New South Walesin Sydney. I noticed that a recent book about his work (Bacon, ed. Rudy Chiappini, 2008) uses thatparticular painting on its cover. Bacon’s painting on the top left of the three, of the screamingpope, is of Pope Innocent X. He doesn’t look so innocent!
In terms of art being able to reveal the underlying tortured state of our condition, thedrawings of the renowned British cartoonist and caricaturist Ralph Steadman, along with thework of the great Spanish artist Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes (1746-1828) should also bementioned.
Steadman’s The Lizard Lounge drawing has already been included twice—first toillustrate Hollow Adolescentman in Part 3:11F, and again in Part 7:2 to illustrate how angrywe became—but it is so revealing of all aspects of the human condition that it should beincluded once more to illustrate just how alienated we became. The empty, hollow eyes ofthe main dragon in the very middle of the picture especially reveal how lost and derangedwe humans have become.

Ralph Steadman’s The Lizard Lounge 1971

534

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Like Bacon and Steadman, Goya was an artist who throughout his career bravely triedto penetrate the facade of denial and its fabrication of an artificially happy state and reach theunderlying truth of our tortured, human-condition-afflicted reality. I have included here twopaintings that encapsulate Goya’s heroic journey and which are best introduced through thewords of someone who has been described as ‘the best known art critic in the world’ (The Bulletinmag. 11 Nov. 2003), the Australian Robert Hughes, who for many years was TIME magazine’s art
critic. Once again we can see in the following comment how much it escapes people whatit is that is being portrayed by the likes of Bacon and Goya, namely the agony of the humancondition. In a documentary Hughes made in 2002, titled Goya: Crazy Like A Genius, hecommented that ‘ever since I started writing art criticism more than 40 years ago…I have always beenfascinated by one artist…Goya. For years I have been trying and failing to write a book about him…Fora long time now he has haunted my dreams…I have wanted to understand him…There are two paintingsof the same subject that sum up the huge changes that took place in Goya across his long career. [The
paintings are of] a big religious festival, that of St. Isidro. On that day thousands of citizens, in their
Sunday best, converged on a pilgrimage chapel outside Madrid and had a picnic.

Francisco Goya’s St. Isidro’s Meadow (detail) 1788

[In the first representation, shown above, titled] St. Isidro’s Meadow…the girls are in their whiteparasols, the men in their finery, the scene is of social pleasure and jollity…

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

535

Francisco Goya’s The Pilgrimage of St. Isidro (detail) 1821-1823

Thirty years later Goya returned to the same theme. In this picture [above, titled]… The Pilgrimageof St. Isidro, instead of these happy fashionable well-dressed young people, you have this horrible snakeof…dark figures…like demons crawling across an ash heap. The faces are…of madmen and hysterics…
The whole picture is deeply threatening, deeply irrational, profoundly weird…[This is what] Goya sawthrough the filter of his old age and his intense pessimism.’ In his 2003 best-selling book Goya, which
accompanied the documentary, Hughes again began by focusing on these two paintings andthe profound mystery they presented to him. In the book, Hughes referred to Goya’s so-called
‘Black Paintings’, a series that includes The Pilgrimage of St. Isidro, as ‘deeply enigmatic’
(p.11 of 429). He also mentioned that ‘it is not so long ago…that most people who thought about Goya
considered him mad’ (p.25). It is only a measure of how in denial we are of our actual practice
of denial that The Pilgrimage of St. Isidro, and so much of Goya’s work, could be viewed as
‘deeply irrational’, ‘profoundly weird’ and ‘deeply enigmatic’ because in truth what Goya sought to
depict was very rational, un-weird and clear. It wasn’t Goya who was ‘mad’; it is our extremeestrangement or alienation from the truth of our condition that is the real madness on Earth.
As Laing was quoted earlier as saying, ‘We are dead, but think we are alive. We are asleep, but thinkwe are awake. We are dreaming, but take our dreams to be reality. We are the halt, lame, blind, deaf, the

536

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
sick. But we are doubly unconscious. We are so ill that we no longer feel ill, as in many terminal illnesses.
We are mad, but have no insight [into the fact of our madness].’ Goya knew humanity was living a
completely fraudulent, escapist, deluded existence. In an accompanying text to his Capricho
6 etching he even wrote that ‘The world is a masquerade. Looks, dress and voice, everything isonly pretension. Everyone wants to appear to be what he is not. Everyone is deceiving, and no one everknows himself.’ ‘No one ever knows himself ’ echoes Laing’s observation that ‘we are mad, but haveno insight’ into the fact of our madness. Goya knew that ‘The world is a masquerade’ and he
sought to unmask it. As part of this courageous journey to bring out the underlying truth ofour alienation, Goya did utilise horrific pictures of humans being tortured, inmates in madhouses, strange apparitions and weird creatures, but these were only situations and forms thathe could draw upon as being emblematic of our inner, underlying condition—as this commentaccurately recognises: ‘In [Goya’s] later plates, however, phantoms, witches, goblins and a varietyof metamorphosed animals begin to vie for centre stage. Brilliantly utilizing these creatures as symbolicforces, Goya’s examination of the human condition leaves the particular and enters the universal’ (<https://www.artoftheprint.com/artistpages/goya_francisco_quienlocreyera.htm>). The fact is, it wasn’t, as Hughes
asserted, an ‘intense pessimism’ from his ‘old age’ that Goya was revealing in his series of
‘Black Paintings’, which were painted in his final years, but hard-won insight into the truthof our condition. Indeed, towards the end of the documentary, Hughes reported that a friendof Goya’s observed that in his old age the artist was ‘so happy and so anxious to try everything’.
Having finally succeeded in reaching the truth about humans in his art it is reasonable tosurmise that Goya would have been content and expansive.
In Goya, Hughes wrote that ‘The book I meant to write on him [Goya] had hit the wall; I hadbeen blocked for years before the [car] accident [that led to Hughes writing Goya]’ (p.9). ‘The wall’ that

Hughes hit and couldn’t get through (and still didn’t get through in Goya) was the ‘fifty feet ofsolid concrete’ wall of denial that Laing referred to. As mentioned, the incredible thing about

Goya is he did finally get back through that all-but-impenetrable wall of denial and reachthe truth of the horrific pain that we humans have been experiencing from the insecurity ofour tortured condition. So it is a measure of how almost totally lacking in ‘insight’ (as Laingpointed out) we are that such an acclaimed art critic as Hughes could have failed to recognise,despite lifelong efforts, what such a central figure in art as Goya was seeking to depict. Butalthough Hughes couldn’t decipher his meaning, he did at least recognise that Goya heldthe secret to what is going on in human life, namely an utterly escapist preoccupation withevasion and denial of the unbearably depressing issue of our human condition.
Mention must again be made of the exceptional human-condition-revealing honestyof the ceremonial masks that have been used in almost all cultures. In Part 3:11C it wasexplained how masks were a powerful means of exorcising both the truth of the extent to

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

537
which our soul has been brutally repressed, and the depth of the anger of our consciousmind. Having learnt to contain and restrain our, in truth, extremely upset state, and alsoconceal it from view so that we weren’t confronted with the extent of it—having, as wesay, learnt to ‘civilise’ our upset—such denial of our true situation could also becomeunbearable, in fact, psychologically and physically sickening, at which point some purging,cathartic, exorcising honesty was needed. The wearing of masks that revealed the truedepth of how either soul-dead or furiously angry we humans had become was a powerfullyeffective way of bringing some relieving, therapeutic honesty to our lives. Reference wasmade to this quote from Picasso, in which he recognised the healing purpose of masks:
‘The [African] masks were not simply sculptures like any other. Not at all. They were magic objects…
They were weapons. To help people stop being ruled by spirits, to free themselves. Tools. If we givea form to these spirits, we become free…I understood why I became a painter…Les Demoisellesd’Avignon must have come to me that very day [when I visited the museum and saw the African
masks], but not at all because of the forms; because it was my first exorcism painting’. Picasso’s
painting of Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, a detail of which is included in the next image, wasalso shown in Part 3:11C.
The following extraordinary similarities between some of the tribal masks that wereincluded in Part 3:11C and the faces from Bacon’s Study for self portrait 1976, Steadman’s The
Lizard Lounge, Goya’s The Pilgrimage of St. Isidro and Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignonshow just how brilliantly revealing of our alienation and anger masks have been. Since thesepaintings and drawings are representatives of our greatest works of art, and these variousmasks are equally powerful in what they reveal about our true condition, it follows thatthese masks must also rank amongst our greatest works of art. Indeed, as described at somelength in Part 3:11C, the African masks, like the two shown here, were the actual inspirationfor modern art! In titling his 1985 book I Am Not Myself: The Art of African Masquerade,the African art historian Herbert Cole was recognising how the mask allowed the wearer todisengage from his everyday ‘pretension’/‘masquerade’ that Goya referred to when he wrote,
‘The world is a masquerade. Looks, dress and voice, everything is only pretension. Everyone wants toappear to be what he is not. Everyone is deceiving, and no one ever knows himself.’ Masks allowed the
wearer to momentarily relieve themselves of their extremely dishonest everyday ‘masquerade’of being a secure, sound, well-adjusted, happy person, and let the truth out, which could bevery therapeutic for both the wearer and the observer. Interestingly, the same inability ofhumans to recognise in their everyday, alienated state what was being depicted in Baconand Goya’s paintings also applied to their observations of tribal masks—in the book African
Masks: The Barbier-Mueller Collection, it records that ‘Some observers…described them [Africanmasks] as “horrible, ugly, devil’s grimaces”’ (Hahner, Kecskési & Vajda, 2007, p.11 of 287)!

538

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

539

At this point it should be reiterated that while humans have been as torturously alienated as
Plato, Laing, With Life In Mind, Bacon, Steadman, Goya and the mask-makers have revealed,this is not the full story about humans. As has been emphasised throughout this presentation,the greater truth is that humans have also been the most courageous, heroic, successful andmeaningful creatures to ever exist on Earth. We are not the awful beings we appeared to be;rather, given the magnificence of our fully conscious mind, nature’s greatest invention, andgiven all the injustice we humans have had to endure for some two million years, we fullydeserve to be considered divine beings. While there has been much conjecture as to whether thatmost contemporary of artists, Britain’s Damien Hirst (1965-), did sell his now famous diamondencrusted human skull (see next image) in 2007 for the £50 million he claims, or whether it wassold for a figure half or even a fifth of that, or even whether Hirst still owns it, the fact is it is anextraordinarily value-deserving emblematic representation of what humans are: we humanshave appeared to be the walking dead, but the truth now revealed is that we are such incrediblywonderful beings that we do indeed deserve to be encrusted in diamonds. The paradox of thehuman condition is perfectly captured by this diamond-encrusted skull.
We can even make sense of the seeming sacrilege of the title Hirst gave his creation, Forthe Love of God. With understanding of the human condition now found we can see that whilewe humans did become walking corpses, we did so in order to fulfil the potential of nature’s/
Integrative Meaning’s/God’s most magnificent invention, namely the fully conscious thinkingmind—so we did suffer becoming corrupted For the Love of God! Hirst’s skull appears to besmiling, which is also a just representation of the final paradox of the human condition wherewe can jubilantly rejoice in our victory of having established that we humans are good andnot bad after all.

For the Love of God by Damien Hirst, 2007

540

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

So although we had to pay the price of becoming immensely upset/corrupted/alienated/dead, we humans ARE the heroes of the story of life on Earth. Furthermore, as a result offinding this greater dignifying understanding of the human condition, our species’ torturedstate of alienation is about to end, and virtually overnight—well, in only a number of decadeswhich, in the scheme of things, is a very short time—because being able to understandthe human condition makes it possible for everyone to finally escape the tortured humancondition-afflicted state and fully participate in a glorious, truthful, sun-filled, effectivelyalienation-free world. It has already been emphasised, and will be further explained in Part
9, that while we won’t be able to eradicate all the psychosis of alienation from human life
for a number of generations, humans can immediately be TRANSFORMED and live effectively
FREE of the alienated state through their support of a denial-free, truthful, human-condition-
understood world. This is the new, all-exciting, Sunshine Highway, Liberated, Exhilaratedand Empowered, TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING that is going to sweep the worldand become universal in an extremely short time once this incredible opportunity to be FREEof the horror of the human condition catches on. (Affirmations from people practicing this
TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING can be read in Section 3 of Freedom Expanded:

Book 2, or viewed at <www.humancondition.com/affirmations>.)
If we deliver these reconciling understandings of our corrupted, damaged, less-than-idealhuman condition to new generations of humans they will not have to grow up employing denialto cope with their corrupted condition and, not having to adopt a false existence, will be ableto remain secure in self, free of the artificiality and superficiality of our alienated state—andvery soon after the emergence of these secure generations other generations will appear whoaren’t corrupted and damaged in self. It is these damage-free generations who will know of anexistence that for us immensely heroic but at the same time immensely embattled, exhaustedand alienated humans will be so glorious it is beyond our comprehension. We can see herethat the liberation of humanity from the human condition is a three-stage undertaking—commencing with us present day insecure generations, progressing to secure generations, andthen finally concluding with the emergence of human-condition-free generations.
While past and current generations have had to live in near total denial of the truth of ourupset in order to cope with the horror of it, our struggle with the human condition has been sopreoccupying, so dominating, so oppressive and so destructive of our lives that our ability toaccess the true potential of existence has been stymied to the point where we have been livingonly on the surface meniscus of life, confined to a dark, deadened, estranged, blocked-out,alienated, cave-like, almost totally superficial and artificial state. Clearly when this horrificsiege of the human condition is lifted a near total change comes to humans—we will be likea new species, able to access all the dimensions and depths of existence that have previouslybeen denied us. Indeed, the TRANSFORMATION and transmutation—in fact, transfiguration—

Part 7:5

How Alienated did we become?

541
will be so great we will be virtually unrecognisable as humans, so much so that the name
‘humans’ should be changed. Instead of being ‘the alienated ones’, we will be an utterlyintegrated, harmonious, upset-free, all-loving species with such great sensitivities towardseach other and the world and indeed the universe around us that we will be properly termed
‘UNIVERSAL BEINGS’. In Buddhist scripture there is a reference to this time when humans
‘will with a perfect voice preach the true Dharma [preach the supreme wisdom, namely understanding
of the human condition], which is auspicious and removes all ill’; it states that ‘Human beings are thenwithout any blemishes, moral offences are unknown among them, and they are full of zest and joy. Theirbodies are very large and their skin has a fine hue. Their strength is quite extraordinary’ (Maitreyavyakarana,tr. Edward Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, 1959, pp.238-242). The Bible similarly describes how ‘Another book

[will be]…opened which is the book of life [the human-condition-explaining and humanity-liberatingbook]…[and] a new heaven and a new earth [will appear] for the first heaven and the first earth [willhave]…passed away…[and the dignifying full truth about our condition] will wipe every tear from…
[our] eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain [insecurity, suffering or sickness],for the old order of things has passed away’ (Rev. 20:12, 21:1,4).

Some glimmer of an indication of this coming time, when ‘Human beings are…without anyblemishes, moral offences are unknown among them, and they are full of zest and joy’, can be gleaned
from another photograph from my picture collection. Included overleaf, it is a photograph oftwo young girls from a Hare Krishna commune that featured on the cover of LIFE magazinein April 1980. The photograph accompanied an article about ‘an austere commune in the West
Virginian hills’ in the United States called ‘New Vrindavan’ where children are ‘raised…accordingto…ascetic practices’ and where ‘The elders hope to prevent their children’s “contamination” by theculture outside.’ The article reported that ‘To prevent the children’s “corruption” by the “materialworld” adults restrict the books, photos and television programs the children see.’ It also mentioned
that ‘the virtue of chastity is repeatedly impressed upon the women, and the sexes are segregatedwhenever possible.’ The group’s leader said that ‘Some children produced here are very special…Theparents’ souls are pure and they attract a pure soul in the womb.’ Maintaining such extreme austerity
in the midst of the immensely upsetting battle that the human race has had to wage in order tofind redeeming understanding of the human condition has not been realistic for most people—and I don’t know how many of these communes still exist, I suspect not many; it is certainlymany years now (2011) since I saw the orange-robed Hare Krishnas on Sydney’s streets like
I once did. But whether such communes have been realistic or not, we can see something ofwhat a human-condition-free face will look like in these children’s faces. It seems to me thatwhile the elements of each face, the eyes, nose, mouth and overall shape and proportion ofeach face, are not aesthetically perfect in terms of what is considered classically beautiful,there is so much purity and freedom in each child’s face that they are both perfectly beautiful.
True beauty does indeed come from our soul.

542

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Children from West Virginian Hare Krishna commune
Photo by Ethan Hoffman; featured on the cover of LIFE magazine, April 1980

I might comment on the fact that in the 1980 article on the Hare Krishna commune, oneof the commune’s teachers said that ‘girls don’t have an inclination towards philosophic exploration’,while the group’s leader was quoted as saying that ‘feminism is a trap’ because ‘women needmen to protect them’. These are brave statements that few would be game to make publicly
under the current intimidation of political correctness, and it is true that acknowledgmentsof differences between men and women have often led to unjust prejudice against women—indeed, the article said that in their ‘school, girls receive less instruction than boys’ because of theirlack of interest in philosophy, and that if couples don’t seek permission from their leader tobear children they ‘may be “punished” by giving birth to a female baby’!! As explained in Part 7:1,men and women have had different roles to play in humanity’s battle to find understanding ofthe human condition—and as a result women haven’t been as responsible as men for seekingthat understanding; and as a result of that women haven’t been as aware of the nature of thatbattle—as ‘mainframed’—as men have been; and as a result of that women have needed mento not only help protect them physically from all the upset in the world but also help themjudge where the realistic balance lies in situations involving the highly imperfect, non-idealstate of the human condition. But thankfully, with understanding of the human conditionnow found there is no longer any reason for women not to be as cognisant of the battle thathumanity has been through as men. It is understanding of the human condition that alonecould achieve the freedom that feminists—indeed, all women—have yearned for.

Part 8
The New Biology
The denial-free, real biological story of life on Earth

Before presenting the real, fully accountable, truthful biological story of life on Earth itshould be emphasised that what is to be described does not bear any relationship whatsoeverto all the human-condition-avoiding, dishonest, mechanistic/reductionist biological thinkingthat has been filling the biology shelves of libraries the world over since Charles Darwinfirst put forward his truthful concept of natural selection in 1859. Indeed, when Charles Birchobserved that ‘Biology has not made any real advance since Darwin’ (In recorded conversation with this author,
20 Mar. 1987)
he was acknowledging what has happened—or, more accurately, ‘not happened’—
in biology as a direct result of its practitioners taking the evasive, human-condition-avoiding,denial-complying, mechanistic/reductionist-not-holistic/teleological path.
In Part 4:12 I documented and analysed the litany of dishonest biological thinking thatfollowed the original denial-complying misrepresentation of Darwin’s idea of natural selectionas being a divisive, selfish, ‘survival of the fittest’ process. From that initial corruption—whichtook the form of Social Darwinism—to Sociobiology, and then Evolutionary Psychology, andthen the by-products of natural selection theory, and then Multilevel Selection theory, throughto the theory of Eusociality, we have seen how biologists desperately sought to find a wayto explain human behaviour without having to confront the real, psychological issue of ourhuman condition—and we saw how, as a result of that approach, they got absolutely nowherein their thinking. You can’t find the truth with lies. So again, the biology that is about to bepresented here in Part 8 bears no relationship to all that dishonest biological thinking. Whatfollows is the fully accountable and thus true biological story of life on Earth.

Part 8:1 Integrative Meaning and our necessary denial of it
A very important question that needs to be addressed is what was humans’ originalinstinctive orientation? While it certainly wasn’t to the migratory flight path that instinctivelyguides Adam Stork, we humans must have had an instinctive orientation to life before webecame a fully conscious species, and indeed that instinctive orientation must still existwithin us, so what was it? The answer, which will now be explained, is that our instinctiveorientation was to behaving in a completely cooperative, unconditionally selfless, fullyaltruistic, loving way. If you are a biologist the query that should immediately arise in yourmind on reading this is, ‘But how can such unconditionally selfless behaviour possiblydevelop when the fundamental situation is that genetics can’t develop unconditionally selflesstraits because such self-sacrificing traits tend to self-eliminate and for a trait to develop andbecome established it needs to reproduce and carry on?’ Self-eliminating traits apparentlycannot develop in animals.

544

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

As has already been discussed, the most selflessness that can seemingly be developedgenetically is reciprocity, where an animal behaves selflessly on the condition it is or willbe treated selflessly in return, which means the trait is, in fact, intrinsically selfish and thusable to carry on from generation to generation. So how could our species have developed anoriginal instinctive orientation to behaving in an unconditionally selfless, truly altruistic way?
To answer this question, it is first necessary to more fully explain Integrative Meaningbecause the integrative, cooperative theme or meaning of existence that we humans wereinstinctively orientated to is actually what ‘God’ is the personification of—so when we defiedour instincts we were in effect defying the integrative ideals or ‘God’, which produced anextremely guilt-ridden state. Thus, an understanding of Integrative Meaning will account forthe extraordinary sense of guilt that lies at the base of the problem of the human condition.
(Note: While Integrative Meaning was briefly introduced in Parts 3:4 and 4:4B, a much moredetailed explanation now needs to be presented.)
The most obvious characteristic of our world is that it is full of ‘things’, ‘objects’—enduring arrangements of matter, in fact—such as trees, animals, houses, rocks and clouds,etc. When we look around that is what we see, all these things, these enduring arrangementsof matter, these collections of parts that stay together in a fixed arrangement through time.
And not only that, it is obvious that all these arrangements of matter consist of a hierarchyof ordered parts; a tree, for instance, is a hierarchy of ordered matter—it has a trunk, limbs,roots, leaves, bark and wood cells. Our bodies are a similar collection of parts, as are ourhomes, which are built from different molecular compounds. Everywhere we look there arehierarchies of ordered matter, collections of elements or parts. Furthermore, what we see hashappened over time to these arrangements of matter is that there has been a progression fromsimple to more complex arrangements. From the fundamental ingredients of our world ofmatter, space and time, matter has become ordered into ever larger in space and more stableor durable in time arrangements.
To elaborate, our world is constructed from some 94 naturally occurring elements—hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, etc—that came together to form stablearrangements. For example, two hydrogen atoms with their single positive chargescame together with one oxygen atom with its double negative charge to form the stablerelationship known as water. Over time, larger molecules and compounds developed.
Eventually macro compounds formed. These then integrated to form virus-like organisms,which in turn came together or integrated to form single-celled organisms, that thenintegrated to form multicellular organisms, which in turn integrated to form societies ofsingle species that then integrate to form stable, ordered arrangements of different species.
Clearly, what is happening on Earth is that matter is integrating into larger and more stablewholes. And this development of order is not only occurring here, it is also happeningout in the universe, where, over the eons, a chaotic cosmos has organised itself into stars,planets and galaxies. As two of the world’s greatest physicists, Stephen Hawking and
Albert Einstein, have said, respectively, ‘The overwhelming impression is of order…[in] theuniverse’ (‘The Time of His Life’, Gregory Benford, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 Apr. 2002), and that ‘behindeverything is an order’ (Einstein Revealed, PBS, 1997).

Part 8:1

Integrative Meaning

545

The following is a chart of the development of order of matter on Earth.

Integration or harmony of all things
Integration of species
Integration of specie members into Specie Individuals
Multicellular organisms
Single-celled organismsetc
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc

To account for this integration of matter, it is necessary to introduce the Second Lawof Thermodynamics, which, like gravity, is one of the physical laws of existence. This lawstates that over time all forms of energy, and matter is a form of energy, tend to end up asheat energy. This Second Law of Thermodynamics can also be stated in terms of the conceptof entropy, which is the degree of randomness of a system at the atomic, ionic, or molecularlevel. Stated in terms of the concept of entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says thatthe entropy, or randomness, of a system increases with time.
Importantly, however, this natural direction of energy transfer is reversible but to reverseit requires the use of energy from an outside source if the system is not to eventually winddown to heat energy, to the maximum degree of randomness or entropy. This reverse directionwhere, instead of breaking down, matter builds up and becomes more ordered and complex isrecognised in physics as the ‘Second Path of the Second Law of Thermodynamics’ or ‘Negative
Entropy’. Earth, as it happens, is not a closed system but an open system because it has anoutside inflow of energy from the sun and, as such, an opposite direction to this breakdowntowards heat energy has been possible. On Earth, instead of matter breaking down there has beena steady building up or integration of matter into ever larger and more stable arrangements ofmatter; there has been a steady development of order. Thus, subject to the influence of Negative
Entropy, the 94 elements, of which our world is built, develop ever larger and more stablewholes. (Incidentally the universe may not be a closed system either—thus the possibilities ofmaximum entropy, the so-called ‘heat death of the universe’, is not yet able to be determined.)

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

546

The Biology

In summary, Negative Entropy causes, or allows, or has led to, matter self-organisinginto larger and more stable wholes. It has led matter to integrate, develop order—a path, asmentioned above, that has resulted in atoms arranging themselves, or coming together, orintegrating, to form molecules. Those molecules have, in turn, integrated to form compounds,which have then integrated to form single-celled organisms, which have then integrated toform multicellular organisms. The next larger whole to form is integrations of multicellularorganisms, which societies of multicellular organisms represent the beginnings of.
So the theme of existence, the overall direction or destiny of change, or, from a consciousobserver’s point of view, the overall purpose or meaning of existence, is the ordering orintegration or complexification of matter.
In fact, the concept of ‘holism’ is an acknowledgment of this Integrative Meaning ofexistence. The ‘alternative’ culture has embraced the word holism on the superficial basis thatit refers to the interconnectedness of all matter; however, the true, deeper, core meaning ofholism is ‘the tendency in nature to form wholes’ (Concise Oxford Dict. 5th edn, 1964). The concept was firstintroduced by the great South African denial-free thinker or prophet, the statesman, philosopherand scientist Jan Smuts (1870-1950) in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution. Smuts conceived
‘holism’ as ‘the ultimate organising, regulative activity in the universe that accounts for all the structuralgroupings and syntheses in it, from the atom, and the physico-chemical structures, through the cell andorganisms, through Mind in animals, to Personality in Man’ (p.341 of 380). ‘Teleology’, ‘the belief thatpurpose and design are a part of nature’ (Macquarie Dict. 3rd edn, 1998), is, like holism, another term that
has been used to describe the integrative purpose or meaning or theme or design in the universe.
But while the integrative meaning of existence is the most obvious of all truths, it hasalso been the most difficult of all truths for us humans to acknowledge, and for an extremelygood reason.
The difficulty arises from the fact that for a collection of parts to stay together as awhole, the parts of the whole must cooperate, behave selflessly, place the maintenanceof the whole above the maintenance of themselves. Put simply, selfishness is divisive ordisintegrative while selflessness is integrative. But, if the meaning of existence is to behaveintegratively, which means behave cooperatively and selflessly, why do we humans behave inthe completely opposite way, in a competitive and selfish divisive way? The integrative themeof existence confronts us humans squarely with the issue of the human condition, the issue ofour non-ideal behaviour. So the situation has been that until we could explain why we humanshave been divisively rather than integratively behaved, Integrative Meaning has been anunbearable truth. To admit the truth of Integrative Meaning we first had to explain the humancondition. So it’s only now that we can explain the human condition, explain the good reasonwhy we have been divisively behaved, that it has become psychologically safe to admit andtalk about the truth of Integrative Meaning.
To reiterate, the reason why the cooperation-dependent truth of Integrative Meaning hasbeen so unbearable prior to finding the reconciling understanding of our divisive conditionis that for a larger whole to form and hold together, for matter to integrate, the parts of thedeveloping whole have to, in effect, consider the welfare of the larger whole over their ownbecause if they don’t cooperate, if they behave selfishly, inconsiderately towards each other,then the whole disintegrates—the parts break down into the more elementary building blocks

Part 8:1

Integrative Meaning

547
of matter from which they were assembled. For integration to occur, the parts of a developingwhole must cooperate not compete, they must behave selflessly not selfishly. Selflessnessis actually the theme of existence because it is the glue that holds wholes together; it is, infact, the true meaning of the word ‘love’, with the old Christian word for love being ‘caritas’,meaning charity or giving or selflessness (see Col. 3:14, 1 Cor. 13:1-13, 10:24 & John 15:13). So
‘love’ is cooperative selflessness, and not just selflessness but unconditional selflessness, thecapacity, if called upon, to make a full, self-sacrificing commitment to the maintenance of thelarger whole. Again, the immense problem with this truth is that if the meaning of existenceis to be cooperative, loving and selfless, then why are we humans competitive, aggressive andselfish? If the theme of existence is to be integrative then why are we divisively behaved?
And so despite it being such an obvious truth, Integrative Meaning has been so horrificallycondemning of the competitive, aggressive and selfish human race that we have had no choicebut to live in near total denial of it.
When I first started thinking about the human condition I tried to figure out whatthe theme or meaning of existence was and after some thought I realised that it was thisdevelopment of order of matter. As I say, Integrative Meaning is actually a completelyobvious truth, although almost everyone lives in denial of it. This is an important point: Iwasn’t clever to find the understandings of the human condition and the many other insights Ihave found, such as how we humans developed an unconditionally selfless moral instinctiveself or soul and how we became conscious when other animals didn’t, all of which will beexplained shortly, I was simply not living in denial of truths that everyone else knew but wereliving in denial of—and by acknowledging those truths I was able to think truthfully and thuseffectively and thus explain all manner of phenomena that those who were living in denial hadno access to. To deny something you first have to know it, so when I ‘discovered’ the truth of
Integrative Meaning I wasn’t discovering anything that everyone else didn’t already know.
Recall earlier in Part 5:1, in the mythology of King Arthur and the Holy Grail, how a ‘guileless’,
‘wholly innocent’, ‘simple, naive youth’, ‘an isolated country…boy’, raised in ‘primitive circumstances’,
was the only person who could ‘heal’ the ‘wound’ in the ‘existentially lonely’ ‘alienated people’ ofhis kingdom. Everyone knows the truth of Integrative Meaning but virtually everyone spendsevery moment blocking that truth out from their mind because it is so unbearable; I, on the

My original 1977 Development of Order drawing

So, on 2 June 1977, I summarised what I could see was going on in the world by drawingthree dots in the shape of a triangle. I then put an arrow to those three dots repeated, onlythis time semi-connected with dotted lines, and then added another arrow to the threedots repeated again but fully connected by solid lines. For me this pattern described the

548

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
development of order of matter that I could see occurring everywhere in nature. I thenshowed this diagram to some friends at the time to see if they knew what this process wascalled and what was causing it. One friend, Dave Angliss, who had studied Rural Scienceat the University of New England in regional New South Wales (and also attended Geelong
Grammar School when I was a student there), told me that what I was looking at was
‘systems’. He said he was taught that a woolshed (where sheep are shorn) represents a system,a collection of parts, but the woolshed was also part of a sheep farm or property, whichwas a collection of parts, and in turn the property was part of a district, and so on. I thensearched the library at Sydney University where I had been a student and found a Russianbook titled Modeling of Thinking and the Mind (N.M. Amosov, 1965) that explained systemsanalysis even more clearly. It described how the development of systems had certain universalcharacteristics and once you understood those characteristics you could apply them to anysystem development. So just as pulling the cork out of a bottle is difficult until it suddenlygives way, solving a problem is difficult until you hit upon the answer and the logic suddenlybecomes apparent. Clouds merge into a mass and produce rain, ideas similarly come togetherand, at a certain point, produce a surprising outcome. You can approach a problem fromall manner of weird angles and thoughts, and by so doing hit upon ideas that throw up asolution to the problem. I have learnt that the ability to think laterally, which is so importantin problem solving, comes from recognising that the principles behind the development ofsystems are universal. You don’t know where the solution to a problem will come from, butthe more you open your mind up to what is happening in other situations the more likely youare to find the clue that solves your problem. Indeed, the universal principles involved in thedevelopment of systems are so important in our ability to find understanding of the worldaround us that in the denial-free future they will be one of the main subjects taught at school.
The point I wanted to make here is that of all the principles in system development that Ihave learnt about, it is the integration of systems into larger wholes that is the main principle.
Another friend, Mike Rigg, told me about a book that another friend, Deeta Colvin (who latermarried Rod McGeoch, a key person in Sydney’s successful bid for the 2000 Olympics) hadbeen reading, titled Janus: A Summing Up (1978) by Arthur Koestler, which contains a similardevelopment of order of matter chart to the one included at the beginning of this Part. I haddrawn my own version of this chart, of circles within circles, but it was not as simple in itslayout as Koestler’s version. I’m not certain but I think it was from reading Janus that I firstlearnt that the law of Negative Entropy was the law of physics that causes matter to integrate.
In Janus, in the chapter titled ‘Strategies and Purpose in Evolution’, Koestler wrote that
‘One of the basic doctrines of the nineteenth-century mechanistic world-view was Clausius’ famous
“Second Law of Thermodynamics”. It asserted that the universe was running down towards its finaldissolution because its energy is being steadily, inexorably dissipated into the random motion of molecules,until it ends up as a single, amorphous bubble of gas with a uniform temperature just above absolute zero:cosmos dissolving into chaos. Only fairly recently did science begin to recover from the hypnotic effect ofthis gloomy vision, by realizing that the Second Law applies only in the special case of so-called “closedsystems” (such as a gas enclosed in a perfectly insulated container), whereas all living organisms are “opensystems” which maintain their complex structure and function by continuously drawing materials andenergy from their environment [222 of 354] …It was in fact a physicist, not a biologist, the Nobel laureate

Part 8:1

Integrative Meaning

549

Erwin Schrödinger, who put an end to the tyranny of the Second Law with his celebrated dictum: “Whatan organism feeds on is negative entropy” [p.223] …Schrödinger’s revolutionary concept of negentropy,published in 1944 [p.224] …is a somewhat perverse way of referring to the power of living organisms to
“build up” instead of running down, to create complex structures out of simpler elements, integratedpatterns out of shapelessness, order out of disorder. The same irrepressible building-up tendency ismanifested in the progress of evolution, the emergence of new levels of complexity in the organismichierarchy and new methods of functional coordination [p.223] …The origin of the concept dates back to
Aristotle’s entelechy, the vital principle or function which turns mere substance into a living organism andat the same time strives towards perfection [p.224].’ Koestler spoke of ‘the active striving of living mattertowards [order] [p.223]’, of ‘a drive towards synthesis, towards growth, towards wholeness [p.224]’. He
said that ‘the integrative tendency has the dual function of coordinating the constituent parts of a systemin its existing state, and of generating new levels of organization in evolving hierarchies [p.225]’. (More
was included earlier in Part 4:7 about Koestler’s acknowledgement of Integrative Meaning.)
Significantly, in terms of behaviour, Koestler observed that ‘the integrative tendency’requires ‘coordination’; as I have emphasised, it requires that the parts of the new wholecooperate, behave selflessly, place the maintenance of the whole above the maintenanceof themselves. A leaf falling from a tree in autumn does so in order for the tree to survivethrough winter and carry on. It puts the maintenance of the whole, namely the tree, abovethe maintenance of itself. The effective functioning of our body depends on the cooperationof all its parts, on every part doing what is best for the whole body. Our skin, for example,is constantly growing and dying to protect our body. Cancer cells, on the other hand,destroy the body precisely because they violate this principle and follow their own selfish,independent agenda. Indeed, as I have mentioned before, the very reason ant and beesocieties work so well is because all the parts, the worker ants and bees, behave selflessly—they consider the welfare of the larger whole over their own welfare. Consider the honeybee—it gives its life in the defence of its colony when it stings a person, because once it hasused its sting this type of bee dies.
Thus selflessness, specifically unconditional selflessness or altruism, is the glue that holdswholes together. It is the theme or meaning of existence. And since love means unconditionalselflessness, love is the theme of existence—it is the meaning of life. The truthful, denialfree-thinker or prophet Christ emphasised the unconditionally selfless significance of theword ‘love’ when he said, ‘Greater love has no-one than this, that one lay down his life for hisfriends’ (John 15:13), and ‘if anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all’
(Mark 9:35). Of the biblical references to love provided earlier, Colossians 3:14 perfectly
summarises the integrative significance of love: ‘And over all these virtues put on love, whichbinds them all together in perfect unity.’ But, unfortunately, while virtually all the great truths,
such as the unconditionally selfless nature of love, are acknowledged in the Bible, in oureveryday, resigned world we couldn’t admit that love is unconditional selflessness until wecould explain why humans don’t behave lovingly—why we are so selfish, competitive andaggressive when the meaning of existence is to be selfless, cooperative and loving. In fact,in the human-condition-avoiding mechanistic scientific paradigm it is considered improper,unscientific even, to use the word ‘love’—which again is a measure of just how deeplywe humans have been living in denial. As mentioned in Part 4:7, the linguist Robin Allott

550

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
summarised mechanistic science’s attitude to love when he said, ‘Love has been described as ataboo subject, not serious, not appropriate for scientific study’ (‘Evolutionary Aspects of Love and Empathy’,
Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 1992, Vol.15, No.4 353-370). Indicative of this aversion is the
fact that ‘more than 100,000 scientific studies have been published on depression and schizophrenia
(the negative aspects of human nature), but no more than a dozen good studies have been published onunselfish love’ (Science & Theology News, Feb. 2004). So mechanistic science has no interpretation of
one of humanity’s most used, valued and meaningful concepts! How extremely upset andtherefore insecure have we humans been!
Indeed, in an address titled The Nature of Love, delivered by the American psychologist
Harry F. Harlow in 1958 on his election as President of the American Psychological
Association, Harlow made this opening observation: ‘Psychologists, at least psychologists whowrite textbooks, not only show no interest in the origin and development of love or affection, but theyseem to be unaware of its very existence. The apparent repression of love by modern psychologists standsin sharp contrast with the attitude taken by many famous and normal people. The word “love” has thehighest reference frequency of any word cited in Bartlett’s book of Familiar Quotations’ (‘The nature oflove’, American Psychologist, 1958, Vol.13, No.12). In his 1989 book Peacemaking Among Primates,

Frans de Waal recounts an anecdote from Harlow and his colleague Clara E. Mears thatpowerfully illustrates this discord: ‘For some scientists it was hard to accept that monkeys may havefeelings. In [the 1979 book] The Human Model…[authors] Harlow and Mears describe the followingstrained meeting: “Harlow used the term ‘love’, at which the psychiatrist present countered with theword ‘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 hadprobably ever come to love was proximity.”’

So, even as an undefined term, ‘love’ has been an unbearable concept for some, and yet
‘love’ or unconditional selflessness is only an aspect of Integrative Meaning, so how muchmore unbearable has the overall tenet of Integrative Meaning itself been? The answer is the
Negative Entropy-driven integrative, cooperative, loving, selfless, order-developing themeor meaning or purpose of existence has been an almost completely unconfrontable truth forthe psychologically upset, competitive, aggressive and selfish human-condition-afflictedhuman race. In fact, we have lived in such fear of the truth of Integrative Meaning, lived insuch terrified awe of it, been so confronted, condemned and intimidated by it, so unable todeal with it on any sort of an equal footing, that we termed it ‘God’. Indeed, the integrative,cooperative, loving meaning of life has become deified as not just a God, but the one and only
God—the most universal and fundamental, yet completely unconfrontable, of truths.
Monotheism, the belief that there is only one God, is an insight that goes back as faras 4,000 years ago to two very great denial-free thinkers or prophets—the Hebrew prophet
Abraham, who lived around 2,000 BC, and the pharaoh Akhenaton, who reigned in Egypt fromapproximately 1,350 to 1,335 BC. Around 360BC the denial-free-thinking prophet, Plato, alsorecognised that God is Integrative Meaning, writing that ‘God desired that all things should begood and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable. Wherefore also finding the whole visible sphere not atrest, but moving in an irregular and disorderly fashion, out of disorder he brought order, considering thatthis was in every way better than the other’ (Timaeus, tr. Benjamin Jowett, 1877).

Part 8:1

Integrative Meaning

551

But until we could explain why we humans have been divisive and not integrative, untilwe could explain the human condition and explain in first-principle-based, scientific termswho, or more precisely, what God is—namely our personification of the Negative Entropydriven integrative theme, purpose and meaning of life—we had no choice but to leave thereligious concept of God in a safely abstract, undefined state. And so despite the truth of
Integrative Meaning being extremely obvious, with evidence of the hierarchy of the orderof matter everywhere we look, prior to finding understanding of our condition it was bothimportant and necessary for humanity that human-condition-avoiding mechanistic sciencefound a way to deny such a seemingly totally condemning truth. This was easily achievedthrough the simple assertion that there is no meaning or purpose or theme in existence andthat while change does occur, it is a random, purposeless, directionless, meaningless, blindprocess. And, as stated, to cope with the imbued recognition of integrative ideality andmeaning in the religious concept of ‘God’, science simply left the concept of ‘God’ undefined,maintaining it was a strictly abstract, metaphysical and spiritual notion unrelated to thescientific domain—just an inexplicable and undefinable deity seated on a throne somewherehigh above the clouds in a remote blue heaven who can be worshipped from afar as someonesuperior to us while avoiding any direct comparisons with ourselves. Religion and sciencewere firmly demarcated as two entirely unrelated subjects. As the leading mechanisticbiologist, E.O. Wilson, has said, ‘I take a very strong stance against the mingling of religion andscience’ (National Geographic mag. May 2006).

But as stated in Part 4:12, the truth of the matter is, to use Nobel Prize-winning physicist
Charles H. Townes’ words, ‘they [religion and science] both represent man’s efforts to understand hisuniverse and must ultimately be dealing with the same substance. As we understand more in each realm,the two must grow together…converge they must’ (‘The Convergence of Science and Religion’, Zygon, Vol.1
No.3, 1966). And with understanding of the human condition now found, ‘converge’ they have.

Ideality, which religion and the truthful, denial-free-thinking, God-confronting-not-avoiding,unresigned prophet it was founded around represented, and our search for understandingof our non-ideal reality, which science (the word ‘science’ literally means ‘knowledge’)represented, have finally been reconciled. Yes, with the human condition now explained andour divisive, seemingly non-integrative state finally understood, all humans can at last safelyadmit and recognise that there has only been one ‘God’, one all-dominating and all-pervadinguniversal truth, which is Integrative Meaning. Yes, integration and the selflessness or love thatenables it to occur is the theme of existence, is ‘God’—a truth we recognise when we say ‘Godis love’ (1 John 4:8, 16).

And remarkably, despite the fact that the admittance of Integrative Meaning firstrequired solving the issue of our divisive human condition, a rare few holistic scientistshave courageously defied the almost universal need to deny the development of order ofmatter on Earth, or Integrative Meaning, and acknowledge that it is what we mean by ‘God’.
If we include more of what Hawking and Einstein said earlier about order being the maincharacteristic of change in the universe, we can see that they both regarded ‘God’ as thepersonification of Integrative Meaning. In 1989 Hawking said, ‘I would use the term God as theembodiment of the laws of physics’ (Master of the Universe, BBC, 1989). In 2002 he went further when,

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

552

The Biology
in an article titled The Time of His Life (Sydney Morning Herald, 28 Apr. 2002), Gregory Benford,a professor of physics at the University of California, chronicled a meeting he held with
Hawking, in which Hawking elaborated on this observation about God being the laws ofphysics. Benford reported that in the course of discussion he had commented that ‘there isamazing structure we can see from inside [the universe]’, to which Hawking agreed, saying, ‘Theoverwhelming impression is of order. The more we discover about the universe, the more we find thatit is governed by rational laws. If one liked, one could say that this order was the work of God. Einsteinthought so…We could call order by the name of God.’ The 1997 PBS documentary Einstein Revealed
reported Einstein as saying that ‘over time, I have come to realise that behind everything is an orderthat we glimpse only indirectly [because it’s unbearably condemning]. This is religiousness. In this sense,
I am a religious man.’ Yes, this ‘order’ is apparent everywhere and it is what our ‘religiousness’,
our belief in ‘God’, is concerned with acknowledging.
The Templeton Prize-winning physicist Paul Davies is another leading scientist whohas acknowledged that ‘God’ is Integrative Meaning. In his 1995 acceptance speech for the
Templeton Prize (at approximately US$1.5 million, a financially rewarding honour that isgiven for the bold objective of ‘increasing man’s understanding of God’ [The Templeton Prize, Vol.3,
1988-1992, p.108 of 153])

Davies said, ‘So where is God in this story [of physics]? Not especially in the
big bang…To me, the true miracle of nature is to be found in the ingenious and unswerving lawfulness ofthe cosmos, a lawfulness that permits complex order to emerge from the chaos…It points forcefully to adeeper underlying meaning to existence. Some call it purpose, some design’ (‘Physics and the Mind of God:
The Templeton Prize Address’, 3 May 1995). On other occasions Davies has also said that ‘these laws of
physics are the correct place to look for God or meaning or purpose’ (‘God Only Knows’, Compass, ABC-TV,
23 Mar. 1997),
and ‘humans came about as a result of the underlying laws of physics’ (Paul Davies—More Big

Questions: Are We Alone in the Universe?, SBS-TV, 1999). Further, in his 1987 book The Cosmic Blueprint,

Davies actually went so far as to protest against the denial of Integrative Meaning in theworld of science: ‘We seem to be on the verge of discovering not only wholly new laws of nature, butways of thinking about nature that depart radically from traditional science…Way back in the primevalphase of the universe, gravity triggered a cascade of self-organizing processes—organization begetsorganization—that led, step by step, to the conscious individuals who now contemplate the history of thecosmos and wonder what it all means…There exists alongside the entropy arrow another arrow of time

[the Negative Entropy arrow], equally fundamental and no less subtle in nature…I refer to the fact thatthe universe is progressing—through the steady growth of structure, organization and complexity—to evermore developed and elaborate states of matter and energy. This unidirectional advance we might call theoptimistic arrow, as opposed to the pessimistic arrow of the second law…There has been a tendency forscientists to simply deny the existence of the optimistic arrow. One wonders why’ (ch.10, 9 & 2 respectively).

The reason ‘why’ ‘scientists’ ‘deny’ ‘the optimistic arrow’ of Integrative Meaning is because it wasfar too psychologically dangerous to acknowledge without first finding the biological reasonfor our divisive, apparently non-integrative, ‘un-Godly’ human condition.
But again, while our earliest unresigned, denial-free thinking, truthful prophets and abrave few holistic scientists have admitted that God is Integrative Meaning, it is only nowwith understanding of the human condition found that humanity as a whole can afford todemystify the concept of God, explain what we mean by ‘God’, and bring understandingto our relationship (or our lack thereof) with ‘God’. On the face of it, Integrative Meaning

Part 8:1

Integrative Meaning

553
implied that we humans were out-of-step with creation—at odds with God no less—seemingly bad, unworthy, guilty, sinful, defiling, even evil beings, so it is no wonder wehave been, as we say, a ‘God-fearing’, in fact, God-revering to the point of being Godworshipping—not a ‘God-confronting’—species; as Nikolai Berdyaev put it, ‘He [man] cannot
[struggles to] break through to paradise that lies beyond the painful distinction between good and evil,and the suffering connected therewith. Man’s fear of God is his fear of himself, of the yawning abyss ofnon-being [alienation] in his own nature’ (The Destiny of Man, 1931, tr. N. Duddington, 1960, p.41 of 310).

When I was assembling my ideas about the human condition I took my emergingsynthesis to the biologist Ronald Strahan for feedback. Ron, who was head of Sydney’s
Taronga Zoo at the time, had helped and encouraged me during my search for the Tasmanian
Tiger. After a number of visits to Ron to discuss the synthesis he eventually told me, ‘Jeremy,
I can’t keep reading this material you are sending me. Don’t you understand I am a God-fearing person’
(29 Dec. 1982). I remember Ron turning around to walk back into his house and his wife, who
had been standing beside him, looking me straight in the eye and saying words to the effect:
‘Jeremy, you can’t keep sending your writings to Ron because he just can’t cope with what you are writingabout, please stop.’ When Ron said he was ‘God-fearing’ he was acknowledging that he couldn’t
confront the truth of Integrative Meaning and all the other truths I had been writing aboutthat follow from it. He was being extraordinarily honest because it is very hard for humansto betray themselves, for to admit you are living in denial is to completely undermine thatprotective denial.
As has been mentioned before, in approximately 360BC Plato wrote what many considerto be his greatest work, The Republic, central to which is the allegory of a cave in whichhumans are imprisoned, chained together and able only to envisage the outside world viashadows cast on the back wall of the cave. These shadows, which symbolise our limited anddistorted, human-condition-avoiding, dishonest, immensely alienated view of the world, arethrown by the light of a fire that, situated in the entrance to the cave, effectively prevents anyescape from it. Explaining the symbolism of the fire, Plato wrote that ‘the light of the brightlyburning fire in the [cave] prison corresponds to the power of the sun [p.282 of 405]’, and explained that
the sun represents the ‘universal, self-sufficient first principle [p.277]’, the ‘absolute form of Good
[p.282]’ and the ‘highest form of knowledge [p.268]’, and that ‘if he [a prisoner in the cave] were made
to look directly at the light of the fire, it would hurt his eyes and he would turn back [p.280]’ (from H.D.P.
Lee’s 1955 translation of The Republic). We can now understand that Plato’s ‘universal, self-sufficient first
principle’, the ‘absolute form of Good’ and the ‘highest form of knowledge’ is Integrative Meaning,
the truth that so condemns humans that we have had to live in denial of it—metaphoricallyspeaking, in a dark cave, hidden from the scrutiny of its scorching glare.
Fire appears in many mythologies as a metaphor for the integrative ideals of life, thecondemning implications of which prevented our ‘escape’ from our restricted, chained-up,alienated condition. In the Zoroastrian religion, ‘Fire is the representative of God…His physicalmanifestation…Fire is bright, always points upward, is always pure’ (Eastern Definitions, Edward Rice, 1978,p.138 of 433). In Christian mythology, the story of Genesis features ‘a flaming sword flashing back
and forth to guard the way to the tree of life’ (Gen. 3:24). In an acknowledgment of how suicidally
confronting and depressing the truth of Integrative Meaning can be for humans, the Bible alsorecords the Israelites as saying, ‘Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire

554

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
any more, or we will die’ (Deut. 18:16). And in another biblical account, Job pleaded for relief from
confrontation with the unbearably depressing integrative, Godly ideals when he lamented,
‘Why then did you [God] bring me out of the womb?…Turn away from me so I can have a moment’s joybefore I go to the place of no return, to the land of gloom and deep shadow, to the land of deepest night

[depression]’ (Job 10:18, 20-22). Job’s ‘land of gloom and deep shadow…land of deepest night’, the state
of deepest and darkest depression that resulted from trying to confront the issue of the humancondition, equates perfectly with life in Plato’s cave. Humans could only avoid the terribledepression by turning from the ‘sun’/‘fire’, by living psychologically in denial of the truth of
Integrative Meaning and all the truths that related to it. Christ was another who understoodthe problem of the exposing ‘light’ of truth—which he, in his necessarily sheltered-fromexposure-to-the-human-condition-childhood, fully-loved-and-nurtured, relatively innocent,denial-and-therefore-alienation-free, sound state, also represented—when he said, ‘the lightshines in the darkness but…everyone who does evil [becomes upset sufferers of the human condition]hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed’ (John 1:5, 3:20).

So again, while Integrative Meaning is one of the most obvious, profound and thusimportant of all truths it is clearly also the truth that has appeared to most condemn humans,and which humans have therefore most feared and found most difficult to confront andaccept. We humans have sensibly avoided the subjective dimension to life, the issue of ‘self ’.
Instead of hopelessly and dangerously trying to confront the issue of our non-ideal, corruptedhuman condition we have sensibly taken one of two options: we either practiced denial of
Integrative Meaning, and even of God, and thus of the issue of our self-corruption, or weindirectly acknowledged our self-corruption by acknowledging the existence of God andembracing some expression of faith that a greater dignifying understanding of our divisivecondition does exist and would one day be found. To cope with our less-than-ideal humancondition there has only ever been either denial or faith. Understanding just how insecure wehumans have been in the presence of the integrative ideals or God allows us to understandand thus demystify the origins of the religious impulse. (This subject of the origin of religionwas looked at in some detail in Part 3:11G.)
Indeed, in his acceptance speech for the Templeton Prize, Paul Davies also made thiscomment about the demystification of the religious concept of God: ‘Yet among the generalpopulation there is a widespread belief that science and theology are forever at loggerheads, that everyscientific discovery pushes God further and further out of the picture. It is clear that many religious peoplestill cling to an image of a God-of-the-gaps, a cosmic magician invoked to explain all those mysteries aboutnature that currently have the scientists stumped. It is a dangerous position, for as science advances, sothe God-of-the-gaps retreats, perhaps to be pushed off the edge of space and time altogether, and intoredundancy.’ In truth, until understanding of the human condition was found the truly ‘dangerousposition’ was to demystify God and eliminate the ability for people to ‘cling to an image of a Godof-the-gaps’. The fact is, understanding that God is Integrative Meaning is not something that
has ‘stumped’ scientists, rather it is something that all humans intuitively know but have almostuniversally had to conscientiously practice denying. Davies acknowledged this resistance whenhe said, ‘A lot of people are hostile to science because it demystifies nature. They prefer the mystery. Theywould rather live in ignorance of the way the world works and our place within it’ (ibid). Yes, until the
human condition was explained people weren’t able to face the truth of Integrative Meaning.

Part 8:1

Integrative Meaning

555

Our ability now to appreciate how important our denial of Integrative Meaning hasbeen means we can finally understand why it has been so important for science to avoiddemystifying the concept of God. For instance, the final episode of Evolution (a TV series coproduced by WGBH/NOVA Science Unit and Clear Blue Sky Productions in 2001)
examined the controversy
in American schools and universities over the teaching of Charles Darwin’s concept of
‘natural selection’ as a Godless, meaningless, blind process. The episode’s title, ‘Whatabout God?’, asked why God is excluded from science’s interpretation of existence. Theanswer is that direct acknowledgment of Integrative Meaning was excluded for humans’own sake, for it saved us from suicidal depression. Ensuring the concept of God remainedabstract and undefined in scientific terms saved us from direct confrontation with the truthof Integrative Meaning, a confrontation we could not survive until understanding of thehuman condition was found.
We can also understand now that what supporters of ‘Creationism’ and ‘Intelligent
Design’ were attempting to do was introduce the concept of God into science, but in a waythat didn’t involve having to admit to Integrative Meaning and, by so doing, have to confrontthe suicidally depressing issue of the human condition. They were trying to counter theextreme dishonesty of Integrative Meaning/God-denying mechanistic science with their ownform of dishonesty that treated God in a fundamentalist way in which God took the form ofan actual being who ‘designed’ life on Earth, or ‘created’ the world in just six days. Of course,both positions were immensely dishonest, as they had to be because without understanding ofthe human condition it was too psychologically dangerous to confront the truth of Integrative
Meaning. The difference, however, was that mechanistic scientists wanted to pretend to berational and either deny any semblance of Integrative Meaning by refuting the existence ofthe concept of God, or acknowledge the concept of God but claim it has nothing to do withscience, while supporters of Creationism and Intelligent Design chose to admit to a semblanceof Integrative Meaning in the form of a God who is literally a special person or being or deitywho lives in a remote blue heaven surrounded by people with wings, with the downside beingthat such a stance necessarily meant abandoning all attempts at rationality. (Again, the role ofreligions and the reason they became more and more simplistic/literalist/fundamentalist wasexplained earlier when the ever increasing levels of alienation in society was explained in
Parts 3:11G and 3:11H.)
We can see that the real issue that neither party was willing or able to acknowledge isthe issue of Integrative Meaning and its human-condition-confronting implications. Andso, in an attempt to keep the issue even further at bay, mechanistic science has, in recentyears, evasively shifted its focus away from Integrative Meaning onto the tangential topic ofwhether the concept of God has been destroyed by science’s ability to explain the origins ofthe universe; of whether physicists’ discoveries about the Big Bang origin of the universe,the extinction of time before the Big Bang and, more recently, the possibility of multipleuniverses (and the search for an ultimate understanding of the cosmos continues), haveundermined the concept of God! In other words, can we now understand the origins of theuniverse without invoking the involvement of a divine agent, someone ‘twiddling the dials’?
This debate has stalled, however, because the more physicists discover, the more they realisethere is to discover. They are unable to give a logical and rational explanation for everything,

556

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
such as how did the laws that govern the universe come into being in the first place. Asemphasised, this debate has failed to acknowledge the involvement of the issue of the humancondition—the existence within our species of a collective, shared-by-all psychosis that isresisting recognition of the existence of meaning and purpose in our existing world and thedemystification of the concept of God that that makes possible. As will be explained shortlywhen the development of order of matter is explained, the truth is that, starting with theboundaries of our reality of matter, space and time, and drawing on the laws of physics withwhich we live, we can construct the human condition, and also solve it—and, by so doing,make it possible to demystify God, and, indeed, bring to an end the whole debate about ‘His’existence. Paul Davies was right when, as mentioned earlier, he said, ‘So where is God in thisstory? Not especially in the big bang…To me, the true miracle of nature is to be found in the ingenious andunswerving lawfulness of the cosmos, a lawfulness that permits complex order to emerge from the chaos.’

And so, the upset human race has been ‘God-fearing’ not ‘God-confronting’, to the extentthat God was left un-demystified as a great truth ‘out there’ that was deemed impossible toconfront. The real issue in the debate about the validity of Creationism and Intelligent Designis the issue of the human condition, our inability to confront truths that are condemninguntil we can explain the human condition. Creationists and supporters of Intelligent Designrecognised that mechanistic science was denying a great truth about our world, which theywanted to stop, but they were not recognising that in order to stop the denial the humancondition had to be confronted and explained. Creationists and supporters of Intelligent
Design tried to counter the denial of Integrative Meaning in mechanistic science with dogma;they wanted the abstract concept of God to be taught in schools, but science—indeed alleducation—is about demystifying abstract concepts. Again, the word ‘science’ actually means
‘knowledge’. If they were serious about ending the dishonesty of mechanistic science theyshould have started looking into the issue of the human condition and tried to explain it, butthat was typically the last option they wanted to take. After all, they were advocates of dogmanot knowledge, but dogma got us nowhere. The whole Creationism and Intelligent Designdebate, like the whole scientific debate about whether God has been destroyed by science’sability to explain the origins of the universe, was a fraud, a distraction from the real issue ofthe human condition that no one was prepared to talk about.
Only now that we can understand the human condition is it at last psychologically safe todemystify God—and, by doing so, reconcile religion and science; as the scientist-philosopherand denial-free thinking prophet Pierre Teilhard de Chardin recognised, ‘I can see a directionand a line of progress for life, a line and a direction which are in fact so well marked that I am convincedtheir reality will be universally admitted by the science of tomorrow’ (The Phenomenon of Man, 1938, p.142 of
320).

Mechanistic science couldn’t admit to Integrative Meaning because it was a suicidally
depressing truth, but now that the human condition has been explained the ‘so well marked’truth of the integrative meaning of existence can at last be safely ‘admitted’.
It should, at this point, be emphasised that the integrative, holistic, teleological meaningor purpose or design in nature is simply a product of possibilities. The differing properties ofmatter mean that some arrangements of matter break down towards heat energy, while othersstay stable and still others become part of larger stable associations of matter. In time, allthe possible associations of matter will be automatically investigated until the largest stable

Part 8:1

Integrative Meaning

557
association is naturally found. Standing back and observing this process we can say that whathappens overall is that larger and more stable wholes of matter develop. There is a grandtheme or design or purpose or meaning to what is occurring, which is the development of everlarger and more stable wholes. But this doesn’t mean that there is some overviewing, guidinghand managing and directing this process; no ‘God’ or ‘Intelligent Designer’ in the sense ofsome agent ‘overseeing’ our world. The term ‘teleonomy’ has been used by some scientists torecognise the apparent purposefulness and goal-directedness of the integrative process withoutinvoking the misinterpretation of teleology that some might make that infers the benefit orinvolvement of some intangible guiding foresight.
The problem with the concept of ‘teleonomy’ was that while it avoided themisinterpretation that there is some overviewing, guiding hand managing and directing life,its admission of Integrative Meaning left humans unbearably condemned for being divisivelybehaved. As has been emphasised, the responsible sequence of events was to firstly explainthe human condition, explain the reason why humans have had to be divisively behaved, andonly then admit the truth of the holistic, teleological, integrative meaning of existence. But asillustrated by the aforementioned statements from Paul Davies, a few scientists have jumpedthe gun and admitted to Integrative Meaning before the human condition was explained—andnot surprisingly, their work has met with much resistance from the mechanistic scientificestablishment. Indeed, the Australian journalist Deidre Macken wrote an article titled ‘Science
Friction’ about those scientists who have dared to recognise order/complexity/teleology/holism/purpose/meaning and the hostility they encountered as a result. In the article, Mackenwrote of a ‘scientific revolution’ and a coming ‘monumental paradigm shift’, reporting that the fewscientists who have ‘dared to take a holistic approach’ are seen by the scientific orthodoxy ascommitting ‘scientific heresy’. She went on to write that scientists taking the ‘holistic approach’,including the scientists ‘physicist Paul Davies and biologist Charles Birch’ (as has been mentioned,
Birch was my biology professor at Sydney University), are trying ‘to cross the great dividebetween science and religion’, and are ‘not afraid of terms such as “purpose” and “meaning”’, adding
that ‘Quite a number of biologists got upset [about this new development] because they don’t want toopen the gates to teleology—the idea that there is goal-directed change is an anathema to biologists whobelieve [evade the condemning truth of Integrative Meaning by saying] that change is random…Theemerging clash of scientific thought has forced many of the new scientists on to the fringe. Some of thepioneers no longer have university positions, many publish their theories in popular books rather thanjournals, others have their work sponsored by independent organisations… Universities are not cateringfor the new paradigm’ (Good Weekend mag. Sydney Morning Herald, 16 Nov. 1991).

These scientists who ‘dared to take a holistic approach’ were committing a very profound
‘heresy’ indeed because they were defying the human race’s need to deny Integrative Meaning
until the human condition was explained. The real ‘scientific revolution’ and coming ‘monumentalparadigm shift’ when ‘the great divide between science and religion’ is ‘cross[ed]’ occurs when
understanding of the human condition is found, as it now is, because only then does it becomesafe to admit Integrative Meaning.
I might add that in addition to Hawking, Einstein, Koestler, Davies and Birch, there haveactually been quite a few scientists who have ‘jumped the gun’, admitted Integrative Meaningbefore the human condition had been explained, which the titles (particularly the words I have

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

558

The Biology
underlined) of the following books illustrate (Davies’ and Birch’s works are also includedin this list): Professor John Morton wrote Man, Science and God in 1971 and Redeeming
Creation in 1984; Professor David Bohm wrote Wholeness and The Implicate Order in 1980;
Professors Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers wrote Order Out of Chaos in 1984; Professor
Paul Davies wrote God and the New Physics in 1983, The Cosmic Blueprint in 1987 and The
Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning in 1992; Professor Charles Birchwrote Nature and God in 1965, On Purpose in 1990 and Biology and The Riddle of Life in
1999; Dr M. Mitchell Waldrop wrote Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order
and Chaos in 1992; Roger Lewin wrote Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos, the majornew theory that unifies all sciences in 1993; Professor Stuart Kauffman wrote The Origins of
Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution in 1993, At Home in the Universe: The
Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity in 1995 and Anti-chaos in 1996; and
Dr Richard J. Bird wrote Chaos and Life: Complexity and Order in Evolution and Thoughtin 2003. The terms ‘wholeness’, ‘order’, ‘self-organisation’ and ‘complexity’ used in thesetitles are all aspects of the purposeful, meaningful, goal-directed, holistic, teleological, Godly,integrative theme of existence.
As emphasised in Part 4:4B, coming off such a fundamentally false base as mechanisticscience has been, by maintaining that change is ‘random’, that there is no meaning orpurpose in existence, that there is no direction or goal—by denying such a fundamentaltruth as Integrative Meaning no less—has meant its ability to interpret its own findings hasbeen deeply compromised, which is why it has struggled to make much sense of the realnature of life on Earth, in particular make sense of human nature. In fact, denial-complyingmechanistic science has been such a superficial and thus ineffective form of enquiry thatthere is a world-wide loss of faith in science. The American General Omar Bradley, whorose to eminence during the Second World War, highlighted the extreme deficiency ofmechanistic science when he said, ‘The world has achieved brilliance…without conscience. Oursis a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants’ (Armistice Day Address, 10 Nov. 1948, Collected Writingsof General Omar N. Bradley, Vol.1).

Carl Jung recognised science’s failure to enlighten us about
ourselves when he said that ‘Man everywhere is dangerously unaware of himself. We really knownothing about the nature of man, and unless we hurry to get to know ourselves we are in dangeroustrouble’ (Jung and the Story of Our Time, Laurens van der Post, 1976, p.239 of 275). Charles Birch spoke the
truth when he said, ‘[mechanistic] science can’t deal with subjectivity…what we were all taught inuniversities is pretty much a dead end’. Mechanistic science hasn’t been able to deal with the
truth about ourselves and our world, something Paul Davies certainly identified when hesaid, ‘For 300 years science has been dominated by extremely mechanistic thinking. According to thisview of the world all physical systems are regarded as basically machines…I have little doubt thatmuch of the alienation and demoralisation that people feel in our so-called scientific age stems from thebleak sterility of mechanistic thought’ (‘Living in a non-material world—the new scientific consciousness’, The
Australian, 9 Oct. 1991).

The Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev also recognised the problem
of alienation from meaning in mechanistic science when, in an aforementioned quote,he wrote that ‘Philosophy…regards him [man] as belonging to the kingdom of the spirit, whilescience studies man…as an object…Nothing that is an object…has meaning…The only way radicallyto distinguish between philosophy and science is to admit that philosophy is…knowledge of meaning

Part 8:1

Integrative Meaning

559
and participation in meaning. Science and scientific foresight give man power and security, but theycan also devastate his consciousness and sever him from reality. Indeed it might be said that scienceis based upon the alienation of man from reality and of reality from man…The historical methodwhich…objectifies ideas, regarding them entirely from outside…[means that] the discovery of meaningbecomes impossible. It is the enslavement of philosophy by science—scientific terrorism’ (The Destiny of
Man, 1931, tr. N. Duddington, 1960, p.6-7 of 310).

Plato recognised the consequences of denial of such fundamental truths as Integrative
Meaning when he wrote that ‘the Good [Integrative Meaning]…gives the objects of knowledgetheir truth and the mind the power of knowing…[just as] the sun…makes the things we see visible…
The Good therefore may be said to be the source not only of the intelligibility of the objects ofknowledge, but also of their existence and reality’ (Plato The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.273). Plato
also said that ‘when the soul [our integratively orientated original instinctual self] uses theinstrumentality of the body [uses the body’s intellect with its preoccupation with denial] for anyinquiry…it is drawn away by the body into the realm of the variable, and loses its way and becomesconfused and dizzy, as though it were fuddled [drunk]…But when it investigates by itself [free of
human-condition-avoiding, intellectual denial], it passes into the realm of the pure and everlasting andimmortal and changeless, and being of a kindred nature, when it is once independent and free frominterference, consorts with it always and strays no longer, but remains, in that realm of the absolute

[Integrative Meaning], constant and invariable’ (Phaedo, tr. H. Tredennick). Plato also referred to the
need to be able ‘to look straight at reality’ if we are to effectively ‘learn’ when he wrote,
‘this capacity [of a mind…to see clearly] is innate in each man’s mind [we are born with a truthful,
instinctive orientation to the cooperative, loving, integrative meaning of existence], and that thefaculty by which he learns is like an eye which cannot be turned from darkness to light unless thewhole body is turned; in the same way the mind as a whole must be turned away from the world ofchange until it can bear to look straight at reality, and at the brightest of all realities which is what wecall the Good [Integrative Meaning or God]’ (The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.283 of 405).

This loss of ‘the power of knowing’ has been very serious. Mechanistic science has sufferedvery greatly from an inability to think truthfully and thus effectively, it certainly has, as
Plato said, ‘los[t] its way and become confused and dizzy, as though it were fuddled [drunk]’. Indeed,
Arthur Koestler bemoaned the ‘fuddled’, stalled situation of all of science, but of biology andpsychology in particular, when he said that the human-condition-issue-avoiding, IntegrativeMeaning/God-shunning, whole-view-evading, details-only-focused, blind, reductionist,mechanistic science’s denial of Integrative Meaning has ‘taken the life out of biology as well aspsychology’, writing that ‘although the facts [of the integration of matter] were there for everyone tosee, orthodox evolutionists were reluctant to accept their theoretical implications. The idea that livingorganisms, in contrast to machines, were primarily active, and not merely reactive; that instead ofpassively adapting to their environment they were…creating…new patterns of structure…such ideas wereprofoundly distasteful to [Social] Darwinians, behaviourists and reductionists in general [p.222 of 354] …
Evolution has been compared to a journey from an unknown origin towards an unknown destination,a sailing along a vast ocean; but we can at least chart the route …and there is no denying that there is awind which makes the sails move…the purposiveness of all vital processes…Causality and finality arecomplementary principles in the sciences of life; if you take out finality and purpose you have taken thelife out of biology as well as psychology [p.226]’ (Janus: A Summing Up, 1978).

560

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Towards the end of his momentous book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, Charles Darwin anticipated that ‘In the distant future I see open fields for far moreimportant researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation…Light will be thrown on the originof man and his history’ (1859, p.458 of 477). Given Koestler’s comment that ‘if you take out finality and

[integrative] purpose you have taken the life out of biology as well as psychology’, what was required
to bring about Darwin’s ‘new’ en-‘light’-ening ‘foundation’ for ‘far more important research’in ‘biology as well as psychology’ was acknowledgment of ‘integrative’ ‘purpose’. As Arthur
Schopenhauer pointed out, ‘The discovery of truth is prevented most effectively…by prejudice,which…stands in the path of truth and is then like a contrary wind driving a ship away from land’
(Essays and Aphorisms, tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1970, p.120 of 237). This ‘prejudice’, ‘contrary wind’ that has been

‘driving’ biologists away from insight into the nature of our world and our place in it is the
practice of, as Koestler described it, ‘denying that there is a wind which makes’ matter integrate,
‘the purposiveness of all vital processes’.

So yes, we were never going to get to the liberating truth about the crux problem facingour species of the human condition using lies, most especially denial of Integrative Meaning.
When Charles Birch said, ‘what we were all taught in universities is pretty much a dead end’, hewas prescient in his choice of words, because ‘dead end’ is an apt description for the stalledstate of science today, in particular of the stalled state of that discipline within science ofbiology. In fact, he also once said that ‘Biology has not made any real advance since Darwin’ (Inrecorded conversation with this author, 20 Mar. 1987). Birch also summarised the overall situation faced
by mechanistic science when he said that ‘the traditional framework of thinking in science is notadequate for solving the really hard problems’ (ABC Radio National, Ockham’s Razor, 16 Apr. 1997). Well, the
‘hard[est] problem’ of all for denial-complying mechanistic science to solve has been the all-
important issue of the human condition.
Science, which, as mentioned, literally means knowledge, has been so deeply committedto denial that it has been failing in its responsibility to find knowledge, ultimately selfknowledge, understanding of the human condition no less—indeed, it has been failing in itsresponsibility to even assist or encourage those engaged in this all-important realm of enquiry.
Not only has my work of studying the human condition been resisted by conventional science,it has very often been ruthlessly attacked by those sympathetic to maintaining all the denialin science. There has been an all-out effort to destroy my work—and me. It is a very serioussituation that I am only just still on my feet and working to bring liberating understanding tothe all-important issue of the human condition. In her article, Macken wrote that ‘many [holisticscientists have had to] publish their theories in popular books rather than journals, others have theirwork sponsored by independent organisations’. I had to found an organisation that could nurture
and support enquiry into the human condition. We in the WTM, who are dedicated to bringingunderstanding and amelioration to the all-important issue facing the human race of the humancondition, have had no assistance at all from the establishment, quite the contrary—we havebeen viciously attacked by it. In contrast, mechanistic scientists are paid by universities andgiven access to all manner of facilities, support and encouragement. Sadly, history shows thatthe present doesn’t just resist the future, it actively despises it.
The physicist Max Planck succinctly described this resistance between old science andnew science when he wrote that ‘science progresses funeral by funeral’ (see his Scientific Autobiography,

Part 8:2

The history of the development of order of matter on Earth

561

1948)—a sentiment shared by the science historian Thomas Kuhn who said that ‘the old scientists
who became established within the dominant paradigm have to die off first: they will virtually never acceptthe new paradigm. Only the younger generation of scientists, who don’t have the emotional attachmentto the old paradigm, will be willing to change their minds’ (a reference to the work of Kuhn by Marilyn Ferguson,
New Age mag. Aug. 1982). Schopenhauer summarised the journey that new ideas in science have
historically had to undergo when he famously said that ‘the reception of any successful newscientific hypothesis goes through predictable phases before being accepted’. First, ‘it is ridiculed’ and
‘violently opposed’. Second, after support has begun to accumulate, ‘it is stated that it may be truebut it’s not particularly relevant’. Third, ‘after it has clearly influenced the field it is admitted to be trueand relevant but the same critics assert that the idea is not original’. Finally, ‘it is accepted as being selfevident’ (compiled from two references to Schopenhauer’s work—New Scientist, 15 Nov. 1984 & PlanetHood, Ferencz &
Keyes, 1988). Note that each stage of recognition is achieved in a way that protects the ego of the
onlookers. The extent of insecurity in the human make-up is very apparent.
Relievingly, with understanding of the human condition now found, religion and science,faith and reason, the abstract acknowledgment of the ideal truths and our first principle-basedenquiry into reality, are finally reconciled. Indeed, ‘God’ and man are finally reconciled—de
Chardin’s ‘omega point’ has been reached!

Part 8:2 The history of the development of order of matter on Earth
I have said that prior to becoming fully conscious and before the upset state of thehuman condition emerged, we humans lived in a completely cooperative, harmonious,loving, unconditionally selfless, fully integrated state—which raises the question: how coulda gene-based learning system develop such unconditionally selfless, altruistic traits giventhat unconditionally selfless traits self-eliminate and so, it would follow, can’t becomeestablished genetically?
To answer this question it is necessary to firstly look truthfully at the history of thedevelopment of order of matter on Earth. As was pointed out towards the end of the previous
Part 8:1, Darwin anticipated that ‘In the distant future I see open fields for far more importantresearches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation…Light will be thrown on the origin of man andhis history’, and given Koestler’s comment that ‘if you take out finality and [integrative] purpose youhave taken the life out of biology as well as psychology’, what was required to bring about Darwin’s
‘new’ en-‘light’-ening ‘foundation’ for ‘far more important research’ in ‘biology as well as psychology’
was acknowledgment of ‘integrative’ ‘purpose’. So, to end the current crippled, atrophied,stalled state of biological thinking requires putting aside all the denial-distorted thinking thatso saturates biological dialogue and texts up until now, and, starting from the ‘new foundation’of the acceptance of the purpose of developing the order of matter, think simply, cleanly andfreshly through the whole biological story from its beginning. We need to assume Integrative
Meaning and examine the fundamental ingredients of our world and follow where the processof integration takes us.
Firstly we need to replace the word ‘evolution’ with the word ‘development’. Evolutionimplies that organisms do change or evolve but avoids acknowledging that there is a directionand purpose to that change, which is to develop the order of matter.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

562

The Biology

To begin: the study of physics has revealed that our world consists of three fundamentalingredients—time, space, and energy, with energy taking the form of the 94 or so naturallyoccurring elements of matter—hydrogen, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, etc. Theseingredients are subject to the laws of physics. As has been explained, when subjected to thelaws of physics, particularly the law of Negative Entropy, matter in space and time becameordered or integrated. It formed more stable or enduring (in time) and ever larger (in space)arrangements.
This development of order of matter involved the initial mixture of the Earth’s elementsand their gradual formation into stable arrangements called molecules—earlier I providedthe example of a water molecule being the stable arrangement of two single positivelycharged hydrogen atoms with one double negatively charged oxygen atom. In time, throughthe mixing of different elements, each with their own particular properties, many otherstable arrangements were found or developed, leading to even more and greater order andcomplexity of arrangements. In time, molecules became organised or integrated into verycomplex macromolecules involving many different elements.
The problem, however, for the development of order was that the more complexthese macromolecules became, the more unstable they tended to be. Highly complexmacromolecules would only occasionally form and when they did they didn’t tend to holdtogether for long before breaking down into their separate parts. Eventually an impassewas reached where instability set a limit on how complex macromolecules could become.
When this instability limit was reached it appeared Negative Entropy, or ‘God’ if we were topersonify the process, could not develop any more order of matter on Earth.
However, one day in the primordial soup a complex macromolecule occurred with anunusual property—DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid. What was unusual about DNA was that itcould replicate. It could split, allowing the two halves to draw material from the environment tobuild two complete DNA molecules. The significance of this replication was that it meant DNAcould defy breakdown. It could turn a relatively brief lifetime for a complex macromoleculeinto a relatively indefinite one. DNA’s ability to replicate meant that even though some of thereplicates disintegrated into smaller parts, others would survive and go on to replicate further.
With slight variations called mutations occurring from the effects of solar radiation, replicateswere ‘found’ that were even more stable/enduring (in time) and more ordered/complex/larger
(in space). The process of natural selection of more stable and larger arrangements of matter—and the origin of an indefinite lifetime, or ‘life’ as we call it—appeared.
In this process, each replicating arrangement of matter or reproducing individual wasin effect being tested both for its ability to survive and reproduce in its lifetime and, overgenerations of offspring, for its ability to adapt to changes in the environment in which itlived, with those that managed to survive and adapt inevitably, whenever possible, finding/refining/achieving/growing/developing even greater order of matter. The effect of thisprocess over time was that more and greater order of matter was integrated. It was theability to survive and adapt that supplied the opportunity for more and greater order ofmatter to develop. Thus, using the tool of replicating DNA, Negative Entropy was ableto integrate matter into larger wholes—it was able to develop ever more and ever greaterorder of matter on Earth.

Part 8:2

The history of the development of order of matter on Earth

563

DNA is actually a very complex crystal. Crystal molecules abound—common salt,
sodium chloride, for instance, is one—and in a suitable nutrient environment they all have thecapacity to reproduce, of growing their structure from their structure. However, being muchsimpler than DNA—having far less variety of elements within their molecules—they havelittle or no potential for adaption and development of greater order.
Variability is so critical to this DNA process of developing greater order of matterthat ‘sexual reproduction’ of DNA molecules developed where the split halves from twoclosely related DNA molecules were made, through natural selection, to come together
(be ‘attracted to and mate with each other as males and females’) to form a new, slightlydifferent whole DNA-based sexually reproducing individual. This greatly increased thevariety of a particular DNA type or ‘species’ and, by so doing, greatly increased its chancesof finding/achieving/growing/developing larger and more stable arrangements of matter.
Sexual reproduction, therefore, soon replaced non-sexual or ‘asexual’ reproduction asthe most successful or effective form of DNA reproduction in this business of finding ordeveloping greater order of matter.
As has been mentioned, Negative Entropy is really only a product of possibilities. Thediffering properties of matter mean that some arrangements of matter break down towardsheat energy, while others stay stable and still others become part of larger stable associationsof matter. In time, all the possible associations of matter will be automatically or, as Darwincalled it, ‘naturally’ investigated until the largest stable association is naturally left or foundor, as Darwin described it, ‘selected’. What happened with DNA was that it not only turneda relatively short lifetime for extremely complex molecules into a relatively indefinite one, italso made a business, as it were, of this negentropy direction—both of resisting breakdownand of developing order. The replicating DNA molecule gave rise to a process that activelyresisted breakdown and actively developed ever more and greater order of matter. This is
‘the active striving of living matter towards order’, ‘a drive towards synthesis, growth and wholeness’,
the ‘active’, ‘creating’, ‘purposiveness’ of life that Koestler wrote of. As has been mentioned,this negentropy surviving and building process does require energy from an external source,which in Earth’s case is provided by the sun.
If we want to know what is occurring on Earth—‘what is the meaning of life?’—we onlyhave to cut off many short lengths of wire (representing the different elements), bend theminto different shapes such as hooks, loops and spirals (representing the different properties ofthose building blocks of our world), put them into a box (representing space), shake the boxup (representing time), and then lift the lid and look inside and see what has occurred. Whatwe will see is that the wire pieces have formed themselves into all sorts of tangles; they havedeveloped larger arrangements or wholes of matter. Again, Integrative Meaning is a simpleand obvious truth but for all its obviousness it has been the main truth we insecure humanshave had to learn to block-out or deny.
To continue our analysis of the involvement of DNA in the development of order, the DNAunit of inheritance is called a gene, and the study of the process of change that genes undergohas been labelled ‘genetics’. As a tool for Negative Entropy’s development or refinement ofthe order of matter on Earth, the genetic process was very powerful—it was able to develop thegreat variety of ordered matter we call life. From DNA, virus-like organisms developed, then

564

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
from virus-like organisms developed single-celled organisms, and from single-celled organismsdeveloped multicellular organisms. The next level of order to be developed or integrated by
Negative Entropy was societies or colonies or ordered arrangements of multicellular organisms.
It was at this point that Negative Entropy or ‘God’ encountered another major impasse.
While genetics has proved to be a marvellous tool for integrating matter it has one verysignificant limitation, which arises from the fact that each sexually reproducing individualorganism has to struggle, compete and fight selfishly for the available resources of food,shelter, territory and a mate that it needs if it is to successfully reproduce its genes. Whatthis means is that integration, and the unconditionally selfless cooperation it depends on,cannot normally develop between one sexually reproducing individual and another. Indeed,the competition between sexually reproducing individuals is the basis of the natural selectionprocess that gave rise to the great variety of life on Earth. The word ‘selection’ in ‘naturalselection’ implies competition—comparison between sexually reproducing individuals fortheir ability to survive, adapt and develop greater order of matter. So integration beyond thelevel of the sexually reproducing individual—that is, the coming together or integration ofsexually reproducing individuals to form a new larger and more stable whole or associationor aggregation or assemblage or amalgamation or unification or conglomeration of sexuallyreproducing individuals—could not, normally, develop. This was the second major impassethat Negative Entropy (or ‘God’) encountered. The development of order of matter on Earthhad seemingly come to a stop at the level of the sexually reproducing individual.
Each sexually reproducing individual normally has to ensure its own genes reproduce,which means sexually reproducing individuals can’t normally develop the ability to behaveunconditionally selflessly towards other sexually reproducing individuals—which, as wasexplained in the previous Part 8:1, is what full cooperation and thus complete integrationrequires. Certainly sexually reproducing individuals can develop conditionally selflessbehaviour towards other sexually reproducing individuals. Situations of reciprocity candevelop where one sexually reproducing individual selflessly helps another on the provisothat they are selflessly helped in return, which in effect means both parties are still selfishlybenefiting. So sexually reproducing individuals can develop reciprocity because it is,in essence, still selfish behaviour: it doesn’t give away an advantage to other sexuallyreproducing individuals and therefore doesn’t compromise the reproductive chances ofthe sexually reproducing individual practicing the behaviour. Unconditionally selfless,altruistic traits, on the other hand, do give away an advantage to other sexually reproducingindividuals—that being the meaning of unconditional selflessness, that you are givingwithout receiving—and therefore unconditionally selfless, altruistic, self-sacrificing traits docompromise the reproductive chances of the sexually reproducing individual practicing suchbehaviour and therefore cannot normally develop.
So cooperation between sexually reproducing individuals cannot normally be developedbeyond a situation where there is reciprocal/conditional selflessness, and, since conditionallyselfless behaviour is still basically selfish behaviour, full cooperation and thus completeintegration cannot normally be developed between sexually reproducing individuals. Thisinability to develop unconditionally selfless, altruistic behaviour leaves sexually reproducingindividuals competing relentlessly with each other for available resources of food, shelter,

Part 8:2

The history of the development of order of matter on Earth

565
territory and a mate. So much so, in fact, that what we see happening between sexuallyreproducing individuals as they try to develop more integration under this limitation of notbeing able to develop unconditionally selfless behaviour is that the competition between thembecomes so intense that the only way they can contain it at all is by establishing a dominancehierarchy, where each individual accepts its position in a hierarchy that is ordered accordingto the competitive strengths of the various individuals involved. The benefit of a dominancehierarchy, or a so-called ‘peck order’, is that, once established, the only time competitionbreaks out is when an opportunity arises to move up the hierarchy; for the rest of the timethere is relative peace. The emergence of a dominance hierarchy is a sign that a species hasdeveloped as much integration as it possibly can.
It should be pointed out that in situations where a dominance hierarchy breaks down,where, for instance, male elephants or whales or kangaroos or birds or solitary insects, etc, etc,chase a female in estrous, it’s not simply because the female wants to discover which is thestrongest male with which to mate to ensure her offspring is the strongest, most competitivelysuccessful individual it can be, as is currently taught, but because the Negative Entropyintegrative tendency has driven the males and the females to that extreme state of competition.
Such extreme competition is a result of trying to develop greater order of matter. More will besaid about this shortly, but the real story is about integration, not selfish competition.
Although dominance hierarchy hides it from view for most of the time, the reality isthat extreme competitiveness characterises the behaviour of the more cooperative and thusintegrated, or what has evasively been called ‘social’, species. In my youth I rememberfeeding hens in our hen house and seeing a hen twist her leg and become temporarily crippled,at which point all the other hens immediately attacked her. In that instant it was suddenlyapparent to me just how closely and intensely each hen was watching all the other hens for anopportunity to literally move up the peck order. The hen house was not at all the gregarious,peaceful community I thought it was; rather, it was a place of absolutely fierce competition!
Charles Darwin recognised this truth about the real struggle in the lives of most animals whenhe wrote that ‘It is difficult to believe in the dreadful but quiet war of organic beings, going on [in] thepeaceful woods and smiling fields’ (12 Mar. 1839, Charles Darwin’s Notebooks, Barrett et al., 1987, p.429).

This situation where sexually reproducing individuals relentlessly compete for availableresources is the situation, the condition, that almost all animals have to endure—it is thegreat, agonising ‘animal condition’, about which much more will be said in Part 8:4C. Whenwe humans become free of our numbed, alienated human condition we are going to beshocked by the agony of the animal condition: we are going to feel the distress that all nonhuman animal species live under, where each sexually reproducing individual is having torelentlessly and fiercely compete to reproduce its genes. Unfortunately, because animals’innocence confronts us with our lack of innocence, we humans presently so hate, despiseand resent animals that we hunt and shoot them for ‘sport’; but one day we are going tohave so much sympathy for animals because of what they have to endure trapped in a lifeof having to relentlessly compete with each other, often with their closest friends! Certainlythe same extremely competitive state exists for plants, insects and microbes, but not havingthe developed nervous system of animals their awareness of the agony of that horrificallycompetitive existence could not be as great as it is for animals.

566

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

What now needs to be explained is firstly that while sexually reproducing individualscannot normally be integrated, the sexually reproducing individual itself could be elaborated,made bigger, which, as will be explained next, is how single celled organisms developed intomulticellular organisms, and how multicellular colonial ants and bees integrated into their fullycooperative and thus completely integrated colonies. Significantly, in these ‘elaborated sexuallyreproducing individuals’, the cells of the multicellular body, or the individual ants and beesin their fully integrated colonies, are no longer sexually reproducing individuals themselves,but part of a larger sexually reproducing individual which is the body, or, in the case of antsand bees, the colony. Secondly, it has to be explained why I have been saying it is ‘normally’not possible for sexually reproducing individuals to become fully integrated. There was, infact, one species who managed to achieve the development of the next larger whole in theintegration of matter on Earth of the integration of sexually reproducing individuals: our humanape ancestors. As will be fully explained in Part 8:4, this amazing step in the development ofmatter was achieved through the nurturing of our offspring, which has been another of thoseunbearable truths that we couldn’t face until we could explain the human condition.
To summarise what has been explained so far: in the development of order of matteron Earth, all non-human animal species are stuck in the ‘animal condition’, with eachsexually reproducing individual member of the species forever having to compete to ensureits genes reproduce and carry on. That is the essential fact or rule of the gene-based naturalselection process—genes are unavoidably selfish, they have to ensure they reproduce ifthey are to carry on. It is important to note, however, that even though this selfishness andthe extreme competition between the sexually reproducing individuals it gives rise to is thecharacteristic of virtually all of nature, the truth is such selfishness is only occurring becauseof the limitation of the genetic process of normally being unable to develop unconditionalselflessness between sexually reproducing individuals. In his 1850 poem In Memoriam, the
English poet laureate Alfred Tennyson famously wrote: ‘Who trusted God was love indeed / Andlove Creation’s final law / Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw / With ravine [in violent contradiction],shriek’d against his creed.’ While Integrative Meaning or ‘God’ and its theme of unconditional
selflessness or ‘love’ is the ‘creed’ or ‘final law’ of ‘creation’ that the competitive, selfish andaggressive, ‘red in tooth and claw’ characteristic of so much of ‘Nature’ seems to be in violentcontradiction ‘against’, we can now understand that this selfish characteristic doesn’t meanthat the overall biological reality of existence—life’s meaning and theme—is to be selfish,as the dishonest theories of Social Darwinism, Sociobiology, Evolutionary Psychology,
Multilevel Selection and Eusociality would have us believe. As will be explained shortly in
Part 8:4, in the case of humans, we don’t have selfish instincts like other species, rather wehave unconditionally selfless instincts. And the selfishness that is characteristic of so muchof nature is only occurring because of the limitation of the gene-base refinement process,its inability to develop unconditional selflessness. The genetic process would developunconditionally selfless, fully cooperative behaviour between all sexually reproducingindividuals if it could—because such selflessness is what is required to maintain a fullyintegrated whole—but, because of its particular limitation, it can’t. Integrative selflessness,not divisive selfishness, is the real nature or characteristic of existence, the theme of life.

Part 8:3

Elaborating the sexually reproducing individual

567

Part 8:3 Elaborating the sexually reproducing individual
As stated, while sexually reproducing individuals cannot normally be integrated, thesexually reproducing individual itself could be elaborated, made bigger, which, as will nowbe explained, is how single celled organisms developed into multicellular organisms, andhow multicellular colonial ants and bees integrated into their fully cooperative colonies.
Struggling to find a way to develop greater order of matter by integrating sexuallyreproducing individuals, it was as if Negative Entropy (or ‘God’) decided, ‘Well, what
I’ll do is develop greater order of matter within each genetically reproducing individual,making it bigger.’
As was also mentioned, in these ‘elaborated sexually reproducing individuals’, the cellsof the multicellular body, or the individual ants and bees in their fully integrated colonies,are no longer sexually reproducing individuals themselves, but part of a larger sexuallyreproducing individual which is the body, or, in the case of ants and bees, the colony.
The biological mechanism for elaborating the sexually reproducing individual involvedthe member cells, or the multicellular bees/ants, leaving the task of sexual reproduction toanother part of the whole that specialises in reproduction. In the case of the integration ofsingle-celled organisms, the green algae known as Volvox provides an example of an organismin transition from the single-celled to the multicellular state, as this quote describes: ‘Volvoxis…a small, green sphere…composed of thousands of flagellates embedded in the surface of a jelly ball…
Volvox is a colony of unicellular animals rather than a many-celled animal, because even the simplestmany-celled animals have considerably more differentiation between cells than appears among the cellsof Volvox. The colony swims about, rolling over and over from the action of the flagella; but, remarkablyenough, the same end of the sphere is always directed forward…Its behaviour can be explained only bysupposing that the activities of the numerous flagellates are subordinated to the activity of the colony as awhole. If the flagella of each member of the colony were to beat without reference to the other members,the sphere would never get anywhere. In such subordination of the individual cells of a colony to the goodof the colony as a whole we see the beginnings of individuality as it exists in the higher animals, whereeach animal behaves as a single individual, although composed of millions of cells…The co-ordination ofnumerous components into an individual is usually followed by the specialisation of different individualsfor different duties. Only the slightest degree of specialisation is seen in the Volvox colony; the flagellatesof the back part of the colony are capable of reproduction, while the front members never reproduce buthave larger eyespots and serve primarily in directing the course of the colony’ (Animals without Backbones, R.
Buchsbaum, 1938, p.50 of 401).

The marine invertebrates known as siphonophores, which include the Portuguese man-ofwar, live in colonies composed of ‘zooids’—individual animals that are not fully independent;indeed, their reliance upon, and integration with, each other is so strong that the colonyattains the character of one large organism. In fact, most of the zooids are so specialised thatthey lack the ability to survive on their own. Thus siphonophorae, like Volvox, exist at theboundary between colonial and complex multicellular organisms.
We can imagine the path to the creation of Volvox and siphonophores began with cloning,the asexual reproduction of identical offspring where competition between the clones is

568

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
pointless and unnecessary since each individual is genetically the same and therefore divisionof labour and cooperation can develop and exist between the clones. One concern with cloningis loss of variability—for example, if one colony kept reproducing asexually it could becomeso big it monopolised the available resources of food, space and territory, so that other coloniescouldn’t survive, leading to a lack of variability in the species. We can imagine that eventuallya limited, functional size would be arrived at, which presumably is the size at which Volvox andsiphonophores operate. Obviously to maintain variability it would also be beneficial for sexualreproduction to occur from time to time, as it does amongst both Volvox and siphonophores.
In the case of bees (ants also employ a similar chemical retardant), the queen bee feedsall of her offspring that she intends to be workers a ‘royal jelly’ that causes sterility. Toensure the reproduction of their genes these sterile offspring then have to support the queenbecause she carries their genes. (It should be mentioned that saying the queen ‘intends’ andthe offspring ‘have to’ is obviously personifying the genetic process. The queen and theoffspring are obviously not conscious thinking organisms, deciding they ‘intend’ and ‘haveto’ do something or other as we humans do, however, such anthropomorphism is simply auseful way of describing what in effect occurs. For example, the way genetics actually causesoffspring to ‘have to’ support the queen is that out of the many different mutational varietiesof offspring that appear over time only those that happen to have a genetic make-up thatinclines them to support the queen will tend to reproduce, naturally selecting that particularbehaviour for all subsequent generations and eventually the whole species.)
Elaborating the sexually reproducing individual allows the members of the elaboratedindividual to develop the ability to at least behave unconditionally selflessly, which, as hasbeen explained, is fundamental for the fully cooperative integration of members into a newwhole to develop. The reason our body works so well is because each part has sublimatedits needs to the greater good of the whole body; each part behaves unconditionally selflessly.
Our skin is constantly growing and dying to protect our body. The leaves that fall in autumndo so to ensure the tree survives through winter. Bees and ants readily sacrifice themselvesfor their colony; for example, when a bee stings to protect its hive, its innards are attachedto the sting that is left in its victim, so when it stings it dies. The skin, leaves and bees/antshave behaved unconditionally selflessly—they have, in effect, considered the welfare of thegreater good above their own welfare.

Part 8:3

Elaborating the sexually reproducing individual

569

Significantly, however, our body’s skin, the tree’s leaves and the bees/ants have onlybehaved unconditionally selflessly because their selflessness is not actually unconditionalselflessness, it is not true altruism. This is because the self-sacrificing skin, leaves and bees/ants are all indirectly selfishly ensuring their own genetic existence will be maintained bysupporting the body, tree, or bee/ant colony that carries the genes for their existence andso reproduces them when it reproduces itself as a whole. Genetically they are selflesslyfostering the body/tree/colony to selfishly ensure their own genetic reproduction. Theirapparently unconditionally selfless behaviour is not actually unconditional and thus altruistic,but rather a subtle form of selfishness. As explained earlier, such reciprocity can developgenetically because it doesn’t compromise the chances of the sexually reproducing individualreproducing its genes. (As pointed out in Part 4:12, the dishonest biological theory of
Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology was truthful to the extent that it did recognise this factthat the selfless behaviour of social ants and bees is due to reciprocity—where the theory wasdishonest was in its application of ‘kin selection’ to explain all social behaviour, even our ownunconditionally selfless, universally benevolent, fully altruistic moral instincts.)
It now needs to be explained that large animals couldn’t employ this device ofelaborating the sexually reproducing individual to develop a fully cooperative, integratedassociation or whole of their members because for them it involves too great a loss of thevariability that all species need to be able to adapt to their environment. For example, if afemale buffalo happened to be born with a particular mutation that caused her to producea chemical in her milk that retarded the sexual maturation of her offspring such that heroffspring then had to have selected mutations that inclined them to protect her to ensuretheir genes are successfully reproduced by her, and this became a common practice amongstbuffalos with every queen buffalo having, say, nine protector sacrificial buffalos, then thegenetic variety of a population of 1,000 buffalos would be reduced to just 100, a drastic loss ofvariability. In the case of bees/ants, they are so small in relation to their environment that theycan afford to have many fully integrated colonies in their environment without any significantloss of variability within their species.
The following two photographs illustrate the point. While there are millions of termitesin the termite mounds, in terms of the genetic variety present in the territory shown, thesemounds do, in fact, represent a similar number of sexually reproducing individuals to the

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

570

The Biology
number of sexually reproducing individual buffalos shown in a corresponding area in the

Photograph by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 2010 Fedmex Pty Ltd
second photograph.

Magnetic Termite Mounds, Litchfield National Park, Northern Territory, Australia, 2010.

Asian Buffalo, Northern Territory, Australia, 2010. Photographs by Jeremy Griffith.

Part 8:3

Elaborating the sexually reproducing individual

571

Quite a number of species that are much larger than ants and bees are attempting tocreate the integrated society of members by temporarily elaborating the sexually reproducingindividual. Many bird species, such as the Australian Kookaburra, delay their sexualmaturation for a few years after they fledge, during which time they selflessly help raise theirparents’ subsequent offspring. Wolves, African wild dogs and meerkats do the same thing.
However, what they have obviously found is that to delay their sexual maturation permanentlyleads to too great a loss of variability in their species.
Underground-living colonial naked mole rats form fully integrated colonies of up to
300 members comprising one queen who uses hormones to inhibit the sexual maturation
of nearly all the others who then act as ‘workers’ and ‘soldiers’. A few ‘sexual dispersercaste’ are allowed to reach sexual maturity and these periodically escape their natal burrowto access other colonies and, in doing so, help maintain the genetic variety of the molerat species. Significantly, like colonial ants and bees, and the dozen or so other varietiesof multicellular organisms that have been able to permanently elaborate the sexuallyreproducing individual, mole rats are relatively small, typically individuals are only 8 to 10centimetres (3 to 4 inches) long.
What has been explained here is very significant for humans because it means that,as large animals, we could not have employed the integrating device of elaborating thesexually reproducing individual to create the pre-conscious and pre-human-conditionafflicted, fully cooperative, completely integrated, ‘Golden’, ‘Garden of Eden’-like statethat our distant ancestors lived in. Further, during that fully integrated, idyllic past ourinstinctive orientation was not to reciprocity’s subtle form of selfishness that the partsof multicellular organisms and bee/ant colonies practice, as the theory of Sociobiology/
Evolutionary Psychology claims, but to being truly altruistic, genuinely unconditionallyselflessly orientated towards all of life. Thus, even if we could have employed the deviceof elaborating the sexually reproducing individual it would not even begin to account forour unconditionally selfless, moral soul. I italicised ‘all of life’ because while ant and beecolonies have members who are dedicated to supporting each other, each colony is, in fact,engaged in fierce competition with other colonies. Worker ants and bees are not interestedin behaving selflessly towards all of life, which, contrary to what the theory of Eusocialityclaims, our moral self is interested in. Our ability to love unconditionally didn’t arise froman ability to war successfully!
The question therefore remains: how did we humans manage to develop our absolutelywonderful and astonishing unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic, all-loving moralinstinctive orientation to the world? How did we humans become unconditionally selflesslybehaved such that we had become a fully integrated association of sexually reproducingindividuals—indeed, a fully integrated species? Yes, elaborating the sexually reproducingindividual does allow greater order of matter to be developed but it doesn’t achieve the nextlevel of integration, which is the coming together or integration of sexually reproducingindividual members of a species to form the Specie Individual or whole, which is what ourape ancestors managed to achieve. As was mentioned at the end of Part 8:2, and as will befully explained shortly in Part 8:4B, the reason I said that ‘normally’ it is not possible to

572

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
integrate sexually reproducing individuals is because Negative Entropy or ‘God’ did find oneway to integrate sexually reproducing members of a species to form the Specie Individual,which was through the nurturing of offspring, which is the device our human ape ancestorsemployed to become fully integrated, the instinctive memory of which is our unconditionallyselfless, genuinely altruistic, all-loving moral instinctive self or soul.
Before explaining how humans acquired our unconditionally selfless, moral instincts,this summarising point needs to be made about the stages of integration betweenmulticellular members of a species to form the fully integrated larger whole of the
Specie Individual. As has been emphasised, all species are trying to become integrated,but the amount of integration they have been able to develop varies according to theircircumstances. In particular it depends on how much selfless, cooperative behaviour theycan develop before they reach the integration limit where they have to establish dominancehierarchy—and beyond that situation, on whether they can temporarily or fully elaboratethe reproductive individual—and beyond that situation, on whether they can develop loveindoctrination. Many species have been able to develop a degree of selfless cooperationor socialness through developing some reciprocal selflessness (which is ultimately selfishbehaviour and thus can be developed by natural selection); African buffalos, for example,form semi-cooperative, ‘social’ herds as the herd provides individuals, in particularnewborn calves, with physical protection against predators. Grazing animals in generalform semi-cooperative, ‘social’ herds because, for one thing, if you are a grazing animaland have to have your head down feeding most of the time and you are in a herd it islikely that at least one member will have their head up and see an approaching predatorand give a signal to the others of the threat. These are examples of reciprocal selflessnessbecause while on occasion a member happens to be the selfless buffalo that most directlyconfronts the predator, or the grazing animal that draws attention to itself by givingthe alarm call, on average each individual herd member benefits more than they riskfrom others making the defence or giving the alarm. It has already been explained howtemporarily or permanently elaborating the reproductive individual enables cooperation todevelop. What is significant is that under the limitation of the gene-based, natural selectionprocess, while a little integration can be developed through occasional acts of reciprocalselflessness (such as occurs in buffalo herds), and somewhat more integration can bedeveloped through temporarily elaborating the sexually reproducing individual (such asoccurs in wolf packs), and continuous and thus full integration can be developed throughpermanently elaborating the sexually reproducing individual (as occurs in ant colonies), thecontinuous and thus full integration of sexually reproducing individuals to form the Species
Individual can only occur through love-indoctrination (as is occurring in bonobos andoccurred in our ape ancestors).

Part 8:4

How humans acquired our moral soul and conscience

573

Part 8:4 How humans acquired our moral soul and conscience — our originalinstinctive orientation to behaving unconditionally selflessly

Part 8:4 A Introduction
While a description of how we humans acquired our unconditionally selfless moralinstinctive self or soul and conscience was very briefly presented in Parts 3:4 and 4:4D, acomprehensive description now needs to be provided.
As has previously been described in Parts 4:6 and 5:2, our mythologies and most profoundthinkers have recognised that our distant ancestors lived in a pre-conscious, pre-humancondition-afflicted, innocent, unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic, fully cooperative,universally loving, peaceful state. As Richard Heinberg’s summary of his research into thesubject of our memory of a ‘Garden of Eden’ ‘Golden Age’ in our species’ past states, ‘Everyreligion 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 anacknowledgment that we have departed from an original…innocence’ (Memories & Visions of Paradise, 1990,pp.81-82 of 282). The eighth century BC Greek poet Hesiod also referred to this ‘Golden Age’ in
our species’ past in his poem Works and Days: ‘When gods alike and mortals rose to birth / A goldenrace the immortals formed on earth…Like gods they lived, with calm untroubled mind / Free from thetoils and anguish of our kind / Nor e’er decrepit age misshaped their frame…Strangers to ill, their lives infeasts flowed by…Dying they sank in sleep, nor seemed to die / Theirs was each good; the life-sustainingsoil / Yielded its copious fruits, unbribed by toil / They with abundant goods ’midst quiet lands / All willingshared the gathering of their hands.’

Even the meaning and origin of the words associated with our moral nature revealour awareness of the extraordinarily loving, ideal-behaviour-expecting, ‘good-and-evil’differentiating, sound nature of our instinctive self or ‘psyche’ or ‘soul’, the ‘voice’ orexpression of which is our ‘conscience’. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines our
‘conscience’ as our ‘moral sense of right and wrong’, and our ‘soul’ as the ‘moral and emotional partof man’, and as the ‘animating or essential part’ of us. And the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology
says: ‘psyche: The oldest and most general use of this term is by the early Greeks, who envisioned thepsyche as the soul or the very essence of life’ (1985). Indeed, the ‘early Greek’ philosopher Plato said
about our born-with, instinctive self or soul’s ideal or ‘Godly’ behaviour-expecting moralnature, that we humans have ‘knowledge, both before and at the moment of birth…of all absolutestandards…[of] beauty, goodness, uprightness, holiness…our souls exist before our birth’ (Phaedo, tr. H.
Tredennick). He went on to write that ‘the soul is in every possible way more like the invariable’, which
he described as ‘the pure and everlasting and immortal and changeless…realm of the absolute…[our]soul resembles the divine’ (ibid).

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

574

The Biology

The philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev also truthfully acknowledged the recognition withinus all of a past innocent, uncorrupted instinctive self or soul when he wrote that ‘The memoryof a lost paradise, of a Golden Age, is very deep in man’ (The Destiny of Man, 1931, tr. N. Duddington, 1960, p.36of 310); while the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau also expressed what we all intuitively do
know is the truth about our species’ past innocent existence when he wrote that ‘nothing is moregentle than man in his primitive state’ (On The Origin of Inequality, 1755; The Social Contract and Discourses, tr.
G.D.H. Cole, 1913, p.198 of 269).

Yes, as philosopher John Fiske wrote about our moral nature: ‘We approve of certain actionsand disapprove of certain actions quite instinctively. We shrink from stealing or lying as we shrink fromburning our fingers’ (Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, 1874, Vol. IV, Part II, p.126). And our moral instinctive
self or soul is not only concerned with not ill-treating others, it is also deeply concerned withtheir welfare. When Joe Delaney, a professional footballer, acknowledged that ‘I can’t swimgood, but I’ve got to save those kids’, just moments before plunging into a Louisiana pond and
drowning in an attempt to rescue three boys (‘Sometimes The Good Die Young’, Sports Illustrated, 7 Nov.
1983),
he was considering others above his own welfare. The truth is everywhere we look we
see examples of humans behaving unconditionally selflessly, such as those who sacrificetheir lives for moral or ethical principles, or show charity to the less fortunate. Indeed, nowthat we can explain the human condition it becomes clear that since the human conditionemerged when we became conscious some two million years ago, every generation of humanshas suffered becoming self-corrupted in an unconditionally selfless effort to add to theaccumulation of knowledge that might one day liberate humanity from the human condition—to again use the words from The Man of La Mancha, every generation has altruistically
‘march[ed] into hell for a heavenly cause’ (The Impossible Dream, Joe Darion, 1965).

Our species’ unconditionally selfless moral nature is indeed a wonderful phenomenon.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant was so impressed with it he had these words inscribed on histomb: ‘there are two things which fill me with awe: the starry heavens above us, and the moral law withinus’ (Critique of Practical Reason, 1788). Charles Darwin was similarly awed by the existence of our
moral instincts, writing that ‘the moral sense affords the best and highest distinction between man andthe lower animals’ (The Descent of Man, 1871, ch.4).

Part 8:4A

Introduction

575

The poet Alexander Pope, however, was not so impressed by our ‘divine’-like, ‘absolutestandards…[of] beauty, goodness, uprightness, holiness’-expecting, ‘animating’, ‘very essence of life’,
‘awe’-inspiring, ‘best and highest distinction’-deserving, ‘moral and emotional’, ‘essential part’ of
us, pointing out that ‘our nature [is]…A sharp accuser, but a helpless friend!’ (An Essay on Man, Epistle
II, 1733). And
he was right in the sense that, as has been made very clear, our conscience has
been ‘a sharp accuser, but a helpless friend’; it has criticised us aplenty when what we needed wasredeeming understanding of our ‘good-and-evil’-afflicted, corrupted or ‘fallen’ present humancondition—which, thank goodness, we now at last have.
Yes, paradoxically we couldn’t afford to face the truth that our ‘awe’-inspiring, ‘best andhighest distinction’-deserving, moral soul is our instinctive memory of an unconditionally
selfless, all-loving past until we could explain our present ‘sharp accus[ation]’-from-ourconscience-deserving, soul-devastated, innocence-destroyed, angry, egocentric and alienatedcondition—as the psychologist Ronald Conway noted about our human-condition-avoiding,mechanistic attitude to the subject of our soul: ‘Soul is customarily suspected in empiricalpsychology and analytical philosophy as a disreputable entity’ (The Australian, 10 May 2000). But now that
we have the fully accountable, human psychosis-addressing-and-solving, truthful explanationof the human condition we can acknowledge what our soul is, and, most significantly, healour species’ psychosis or ‘soul-illness’. Yes, since psyche means ‘soul’ and osis, accordingto Dictionary.com, means ‘abnormal state or condition’, we can at last ameliorate or heal ourspecies’ psychosis, its alienated, psychologically ‘ill’, ‘abnormal state or condition’.
While we can now heal our species’ psychosis, and while our mythologies, profoundthinkers and the meanings behind some of the most used words recognise that we humansdid once live in an unconditionally selfless, all-loving, moral instinctive state, a very greatmystery remains, which is how could we humans have possibly acquired such a ‘distinct’ fromother ‘animals’, ‘awe’-inspiring but ‘sharp accus[ing]’ instinctive orientation?
To look at the biology involved in the question of the origin of our species’extraordinary moral nature. As was explained in Parts 8:2 and 8:3, while the gene-basedsystem for developing the order of matter on Earth is powerfully effective—it developedthe great variety of life we see on Earth—it has one very significant limitation, which

576

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
arises from the fact that each sexually reproducing individual organism has to struggleand compete selfishly for the available resources of food, shelter, territory and a mate itrequires if it is to successfully reproduce its genes. What this means is that integration,and the unconditionally selfless cooperation that it depends upon, cannot normallydevelop between one sexually reproducing individual and another; which then means thatintegration beyond the level of the sexually reproducing individual—that is, the comingtogether or integration of sexually reproducing individuals to form a new larger and morestable whole of sexually reproducing individuals, the Species Individual—can also notnormally develop. Thus, it appeared that Negative Entropy’s, or ‘God’s’, developmentof order of matter on Earth had come to a stop at the level of the sexually reproducingindividual. The integration of the members of a species into the larger whole of the Specie
Individual could seemingly not be developed.
What all this means is that only a degree of cooperation and thus integration could bedeveloped between the sexually reproducing individual members of a species before thecompetition between them became so intense that a dominance hierarchy had to be employedto contain the divisive competition; and, in fact, that is where most animal species are stalledin their ability to integrate. They could become to a degree integrated (what has been termed
‘social’), but not completely integrated into one new larger organism or whole. Certainly eachsexually reproducing individual could be either temporarily (in the case of large animals likewolves) or permanently (in the case of small animals like ants and bees) ‘elaborated’, madelarger, thus allowing greater integration of matter to develop within the sexually reproducingindividual, but the sexually reproducing individuals (the wolf packs or the ant/bee colonies) ofsuch species were still engaged in competition with each other. It seemed that the integrationof sexually reproducing members of a species and thus the full integration of the membersof a species into a Specie Individual could not be achieved; Negative Entropy, or ‘God’, hadseemingly developed as much order of matter on Earth as it could.
HOWEVER, the integration of matter hadn’t come to an end because a way was found
by Negative Entropy, or ‘God’, to integrate the members of a species into the larger wholeof the Specie Individual, AND it was our ape ancestors who achieved this extraordinary step.
As it says in Genesis in the Bible, we humans once lived ‘in the image of God’ (1:27), we wereonce a fully cooperative, unconditionally selflessly behaved, completely integrated species;we did once live in ‘the Garden of Eden’ (3:23) state of original cooperative, loving, innocenttogetherness, then we became conscious, took the ‘fruit’ ‘from the tree of…knowledge’ (3:3, 2:17),and, as a result, ‘fell from grace’ (derived from the title of Gen. 3, ‘The Fall of Man’) because webecame divisively behaved sufferers of the human condition, supposedly deserving of being
‘banished…from the Garden of Eden’ (3:23) of original innocent togetherness, and left ‘a restlesswanderer on the earth’ (4:14); left in our present, immensely upset, psychologically distressed
condition, a state we can now at last emerge from because we can finally explain and thuscompassionately understand why we had to search for ‘knowledge’ and suffer becomingcorrupted. We can explain that we upset humans are not ‘unGodly’ after all; that we had tomaster our conscious mind in order to be able to securely manage the development of order ofmatter from our knowing, understanding position.

Part 8:4A

Introduction

577

In his wonderful 1807 poem Intimations of Immortality, William Wordsworth gave thisrare honest description of our species’ tragic journey from its original soulful, innocent,instinctive, moral state to its present soul-devastated, often-immoral, apparently—but, as hasnow been explained, not actually—non-ideal or, to use religious terminology, ‘unGodly’ state:
‘The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star…cometh from afar…trailing clouds of glory do we come /
From God, who is our home.’ In the poem Wordsworth described how quickly this ‘life’s Star’ of

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

578

The Biology
our ideal, moral, ‘God[ly]’ ‘Soul’ that is ‘with us’ when we are born becomes corrupted as wegrow up in the human-condition-afflicted world of today: ‘There was a time when meadow, grove,and streams / The earth, and every common sight / To me did seem / Apparelled in celestial light / Theglory and the freshness of a dream / It is not now as it hath been of yore / Turn wheresoe’er I may / Bynight or day / The things which I have seen I now can see no more… I know, where’er I go / That therehath past away a glory from the earth…Thou Child of Joy / Shout round me, let me hear thy shouts, thouhappy Shepherd-boy! // Ye blessed Creatures…Whither is fled the visionary gleam? / Where is it now, theglory and the dream? // Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting… Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
/ Shades of the prison-house begin to close / Upon the growing Boy…Forget the glories he hath known /
And that imperial palace whence he came.’

So THE GREAT QUESTION is, how did Negative Entropy, or ‘God’, achieve the amazingintegration of our human forebears into the Specie Individual? How did our human ancestorsdevelop the fully integrated state, the instinctive memory of which is our unconditionallyselfless, genuinely altruistic, moral self or ‘soul’, the ‘voice’ or expression of which in us isour conscience? What is the biological origin of our species’ extraordinary moral nature?

Part 8:4B Love-Indoctrination
As stated in Part 8:2, while the integrative limitation of genes of having to alwaysselfishly ensure their own reproduction was the normal situation, Negative Entropy did findone way to overcome this limitation, which was through nurturing—a mother’s maternalinstinct to care for her offspring. Throughout this Part it will be shown that evidence,from the anthropological record as well as that provided by living non-human primates,overwhelmingly indicates that it was this nurturing path to integration that our distant apeancestors took.
Genetic traits for nurturing are selfish (which, as stated, genetic traits normally have tobe), for through the nurturing and fostering of offspring who carry her genes the mother’sgenetic traits for nurturing are selfishly ensuring their reproduction into the next generation.
However, while nurturing is a genetically selfish trait, from an observer’s point of view itappears to be unconditionally selfless behaviour—the mother is giving her offspring food,warmth, shelter, support and protection for apparently nothing in return. This point is mostsignificant because it means from the infant’s perspective, its mother is treating it with reallove, which, as explained in Part 8:1, is unconditional selflessness. The infant’s brain istherefore being trained or conditioned or indoctrinated with unconditional selflessness andso, with enough training in unconditional selflessness, that infant will grow into an adult whobehaves unconditionally selflessly. Apply this training across all the members of that infant’sgroup and the result is a fully integrated society.
The ‘trick’ in this ‘love-indoctrination’ process lies in the fact that the traits for nurturingare encouraged, or selected for genetically, because the better infants are cared for, the greaterare their, and the nurturing traits’, chances of survival. This process does, however, have an

Part 8:4B

Love-Indoctrination

579
integrative side effect in that the more infants are nurtured, the more their brains are trainedin unconditional selflessness. There are very few situations in biology where animals appearto behave unconditionally selflessly towards other members of their species—normally, theyeach selfishly compete for food, shelter, territory and mating opportunities. Maternalism,a mother’s nurturing of her infant, is one of the few situations where an animal appears tobehave selflessly towards another animal and it was precisely this appearance of selflessnessthat provided the opportunity for the development of love-indoctrination or training inunconditional selflessness in our ape ancestors.
I would now like to explain in more detail how the process of ‘love-indoctrination’overcame the inability of genes to develop love or selflessness.
In Part 8:2 it was pointed out that the most amount of selflessness that can as a ruleor normally develop genetically (that is, not taking into account the love-indoctrinationopportunity) is reciprocity, where one individual ‘selflessly’ helps another on the proviso thatthey are ‘selflessly’ helped in return, which in effect means that both parties are behavingselfishly with their own benefit in mind—so far from being selfless, reciprocity is actuallyentirely driven by selfish behaviour.
Normally, only traits that are selfish—that is, traits that tend to reproduce—can becomeestablished in a species. Whenever a selfless genetic mutation, a selfless trait, appears ina species it undermines its chances of reproducing, that being what selflessness means—putting others before yourself, advantaging others at your own expense. Apart from theopportunity presented by love-indoctrination, the only way selflessness could develop wouldbe if all members of a group have the selfless gene/trait because as soon as one memberdoesn’t have it they will be advantaged by the selfless treatment it would receive from theothers, prospering to their detriment. For example, imagine if a mother was born with amutation that meant all her offspring were born with an inclination to behave selflessly.
If she were to live isolated from others it is feasible that she could produce a small groupof offspring who all behaved selflessly. So, in such circumstances it would be possible todevelop a group where every member had the selfless trait, BUT the problem then wouldbe how to maintain that delicate equation against outside influences—for any pressure fromlimited food, shelter or territory would inevitably result in a breakout of competition forthose limited resources, thus threatening that selfless behaviour. The greater the deficiencyin needed resources, the harder it would be for selflessness to be maintained. Since idealconditions of there being ample food, shelter and territory are going to be rare, and if orwhen they do occur are unlikely to last, the reality is that even this scenario for establishinga selflessly behaved fully integrated new species is not going to be sustainable. The fact is,selfless behaviour cannot become established except through love-indoctrination. (Again,by ‘selfless behaviour’ I mean ‘unconditionally selfless behaviour’ because, as explained,the conditional selflessness involved in reciprocity, where others are selflessly helped on theproviso that the selfless favour is returned, is in truth selfish behaviour because it is onlydone on the basis of mutual benefit.)

580

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

What is significant about the nurturing, love-indoctrination opportunity to developselflessness is that it is not based on a selfless genetic mutation that, as just described, is inreality impossible to establish in a species, but rather nurturing, which is a behaviour favouredby genetics; in fact, nurturing is a well established behaviour, at least among mammals whosuckle their young. As will become clear, this nurturing of selflessness or love does dependon, firstly, the ability to develop nurturing by selecting for more maternal mothers and longerinfancy periods for the training of love, and, secondly, on there being ideal conditions: amplefood, territory and shelter, including an absence of competition for resources from otherspecies. A shortage of any of these factors will cause a breakout of selfish competition for thelimited resource, with those who are inclined to be selfless losing out to those who are selfish.
BUT—and this is most significant—nurturing is a behaviour that does keep occurring, which
means it is not eliminated by a breakout of selfish opportunism like a selfless genetic mutationwould be. The traits for nurturing don’t disappear when selfish competition occurs—they arealways there to be developed if a species finds itself in a position to be able to develop loveindoctrination. As will become clear, while love-indoctrination is an extremely difficult andfragile process to develop, it can be developed; setbacks can be overcome and full integrationfinally achieved. As we are going to see, such integration occurred in our ape ancestor, theresult being our fabulous unconditionally selfless instinctive moral self or soul, the expressionor ‘voice’ of which within us is our ‘conscience’.
Yes, as we will see, love-indoctrination is a fragile, difficult development because itdoes depend on a species being both exceptionally able to develop nurturing and fortunateenough to live in ideal conditions—but it also has the advantage of being able to survive abreakout of selfishness. Certainly, if a species can develop this nurturing love-indoctrination
‘trick’, there is still the fundamental genetic difficulty that while the nurturing of infants isstrongly encouraged genetically because it ensures greater infant survival, the side effectof training infants to behave selflessly as adults is that selflessly-behaving, and even selfsacrificing, adults tend not to reproduce their genes as successfully as selfishly-behavedadults. The genes for the exceptionally maternal mothers so necessary for the development oflove-indoctrination tend not to endure because their offspring tend to be the most selflesslybehaved—they are too ready to put others before themselves, leaving the more aggressive,competitive and selfish individuals to take advantage of their selflessness, with males inparticular seizing any mating opportunities for themselves. Such break-outs of selfishopportunism can, however, be substantially countered by ensuring all members of the groupare equally well nurtured with love, equally trained in selflessness—this situation beinganother of the delicate balances that has to be maintained if love-indoctrination is to develop.
As emphasised, any breakdown in nurturing across a group that is in the midst of developinglove-indoctrination would see the whole situation revert to the old state of the ‘each-forhis-own’, opportunistic, all-out-competition-where-only-dominance-hierarchy-can-bringsome-peace, selfish-genes-rule, ‘animal condition’. So, while the love-indoctrination processhas some robustness, some ability to keep occurring and therefore to survive a breakout ofselfish opportunism (a tenacity the selfless mutation didn’t have) it is certainly still a delicateand difficult development—but the whole point is that, delicate as it is, love-indoctrination

Part 8:4B

Love-Indoctrination

581
did provide a way for Negative Entropy or ‘God’ or the integrative development of order ofmatter process to integrate sexually reproducing individuals and produce a fully integratedlarge multicellular animal species, which, as we will see, was our australopithecine ancestors.
Negative Entropy or ‘God’ did find a way to develop the Specie Individual, the integrationof the sexually reproducing individual members of a species into one fully integrated,cooperatively behaved, ordered species.
To now look more closely at how love-indoctrination developed. In order to fosternurturing—this ‘trick’ for overcoming the gene-based learning system’s seeming inabilityto develop unconditional selflessness—a species required the capacity to allow its offspringto remain in the infancy stage long enough for the infant’s brain to become trained or

Photograph by Wolfgang Suschitzky
indoctrinated with unconditional selflessness or love.

Rhesus monkey with infant. This picture illustrates the difficultyof carrying an infant and suggests the reason for bipedalism.

In most species, infancy has to be kept as brief as possible because of the infant’s extremevulnerability to predators. Zebra foals, for example, have to be capable of independentflight almost as soon as they are born, which gives them little opportunity to be trained inselflessness. As the above photo of a rhesus monkey trying to carry its infant illustrates,being semi-upright as a result of their tree-living, swinging-from-branch-to-branch, arborealheritage meant primates’ arms were largely freed from walking and thus available to holddependents. Infants similarly had the capacity to latch onto their mothers’ bodies. Thisfreedom of the upper body meant primates were especially facilitated for prolonging theiroffspring’s infancy and thus developing love-indoctrination. A species that cannot carry andthus easily look after its infants, and where infants can’t easily hold onto their mothers, cannotprolong infancy and thus develop love-indoctrination.

582

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

The exceptionally maternal, matriarchal, cooperatively behaved bonobo species (Panpaniscus) provide living evidence of a species in the final stages of developing this trainingin-love process. Indeed, not only are bonobos extraordinarily loving and nurturing of theirinfants and the most cooperative and peaceful of all non-human primates, they are also thenon-human primate that is most often seen walking upright, which, along with their peacefulcooperative nature, we can now explain. The longer infancy is delayed, the more and longerinfants had to be held, and thus the greater selection for arms-freed, upright walking.
Humans’ bipedalism is, therefore, a direct result of the love-indoctrination process and,as such, must have developed early on in the emergence of humans. Indeed, when I first putforward this nurturing, ‘love indoctrination’ explanation for humans’ unconditionally selflessmoral soul in my 1983 submission to Nature and New Scientist magazines (which can beread at <www.humancondition.com/nature>), I pointed out at the time that, contrary to prevailingviews, it meant bipedalism must have developed early in this nurturing of love process, andin fact the early appearance of bipedalism in the fossil record of our ancestors is now beingfound. For example, in 2009 it was reported that a ‘4.4 million-year-old skeleton of a likely humanancestor known as Ardipithecus ramidus’, discovered in Ethiopia in 1994, has features that indicate
it ‘walked upright on two legs’ (‘A Long-Lost Relative’, TIME mag. 12 Oct. 2009).
While bipedalism was the key factor in developing nurturing and thus loveindoctrination, other influences also played a pivotal role, most notably the presence ofideal nursery conditions. This of course entailed uninterrupted access to food, shelter andterritory, for if any element was compromised, or other difficulties and threats from predatorsexcessive, then we can assume that there would have been a strong inclination to revert tomore selfish and competitive behaviour. The successful nurturing of infants therefore requiredample food, comfortable conditions and security from external threats. However, it wasn’tenough to simply look after them—in addition to these practical factors, the infants had tobe loved, and so maternalism became about much more than mothers simply protecting andproviding for their young: it became about actively loving them. Significantly, we speak of
‘motherly love’, not ‘motherly protection’.
So, in addition to needing to select for the ability to prolong infancy periods to allow forthe training of unconditionally selfless love, and requiring ideal nursery conditions to supportthis process, a further factor needed to occur—the selection for more maternal mothers.
But as just pointed out, the difficulty with selecting for more maternal mothers is that theirgenes don’t tend to endure because their offspring tend to be the most selflessly behaved, tooready to put others before themselves, leaving the more aggressive, competitive and selfishindividuals to take advantage of their selflessness—but, again, such selfish opportunism couldbe avoided if all members of the group were equally well nurtured with love, equally trainedin selflessness—as tenuous as that was in itself.

Part 8:4B

Love-Indoctrination

583

Taking into account all of these considerations, love-indoctrination was obviously anextremely difficult development even for the advantageously-built primates. It also has tobe remembered that delaying maturity, as love-indoctrination does, postpones the additionof new generations that are so vital for the maintenance of a species whose reproductionis limited mostly to single offspring births. New generations ensure variety. Indeed, thenumerous and not incidental challenges involved would explain why almost all primatespecies have not been able to complete the development of love-indoctrination to the point ofbecoming fully integrated.
For instance, bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees as they were once called, have livedin the food-rich, shelter-affording ideal nursery conditions of the rainforests south of the
Congo River and are by far the most cooperative/harmonious/cohesive/social/selflesslybehaved/integrated of the non-human primates. The comfort of the bonobos’ environmentand their cooperativeness compared to that of their chimpanzee cousins (or Pan troglodytes)who live north and east of the Congo River, is apparent in this quote: ‘we may say that thepygmy chimpanzees historically have existed in a stable environment rich in sources of food. Pygmychimpanzees appear conservative in their food habits and unlike common chimpanzees have developeda more cohesive social structure and elaborate inventory of sociosexual behavior. In contrast, commonchimpanzees have gone further in developing their resource-exploiting techniques and strategy, andhave the ability to survive in more varied environments. These differences suggest that the environmentsoccupied by the two species since their separation by the Zaire [Congo] River has differed for some time.
The vegetation to the south of the Zaire River, where Pan paniscus is found, has been less influenced bychanges in climate and geography than the range of the common chimpanzee to the north. Prior to the
Bantu (Mongo) agriculturists’ invasion into the central Zaire basin, the pygmy chimpanzees may haveled a carefree life in a comparatively stable environment’ (The Pygmy Chimpanzee, ed. Randall L. Susman,ch.10 by Takayoshi Kano & Mbangi Mulavwa, 1984, p.271 of 435).

It is an indication of just how difficult
it is to develop love-indoctrination that even the bonobos, living as they do in their idealconditions—and who ‘have developed a more cohesive social structure’ than their chimpanzeerelatives—have found it necessary to employ sex as an appeasement device to help subsideresidual tension and aggression between individuals; this is the ‘elaborate inventory ofsociosexual behavior’ referred to in this quote.

Of the key resources animals need of food, shelter, territory and a mate, while asituation can be reached of there being sufficient food, shelter and territory, from agenetic point of view there can usually never be enough mates, simply because the moresuccessfully an individual can breed, the more their genes can carry on and multiply. Sincefemales are obviously limited in how often they can reproduce due to pregnancy and, in thecase of mammals, lactation, it is the males who have the opportunity to breed continuously,and so it is the competition for mating opportunities by the males that is the most difficult

584

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
form of genetic selfishness to overcome. Making mating opportunities available to everyoneall the time, as bonobos do, would be one way of rendering competition for matingopportunities obsolete—after all, if everyone is regularly mating with everyone else thenthere really isn’t any competition. Further, what aggression and tension does still occurwould be greatly appeased by making readily available the feelings of pleasure, excitementand fulfilment that have historically become biologically associated with mating to ensureand encourage its occurrence. Shortly, it will be explained that monogamy is an evenmore effective way of containing sexual opportunism, but for that to develop, and, as willbe explained, it would have developed in our australopithecine forebears, selfishness hadto already have been completely overcome, which, at the bonobo’s stage of developingintegration, is not the case. Even making mating opportunities available to everyone, andconcealing ovulation, which is also practiced by bonobos to reduce the aggression frommales competing for mating opportunities, could not be developed until the typical fiercecompetition for mating opportunities that exists amongst mammal males had largely beenbrought under control by love-indoctrination. This is because whilst ever competition tomate is intense, if a female makes mating available to every male, and/or doesn’t advertiseshe is ready for fertilisation, she can’t ensure she mates with the strongest, most virile maleand her offspring won’t be successful competitors. Making sex continually available andconcealing ovulation could assist love-indoctrination but not initiate the development oflove/unconditional selflessness.
I will continue this analysis of bonobo behaviour in further detail in Part 8:4F, but itshould already be clear that although the process is not yet complete, this species has beenable to develop a great deal of love-indoctrination, which means a great deal of trainingin unconditional selflessness. Like all primates, bonobos are exceptionally facilitated bytheir arms-free arboreal heritage to prolong the infancy period needed to develop loveindoctrination. They have also especially benefited from the ideal nursery conditions oftheir home in the food-rich Congo River basin. The result is that bonobos have been able todevelop the nurturing that love-indoctrinated training in selflessness depends on to such ahigh degree that they have even been able to bring to an end that most difficult of all forms ofselfish competitiveness, male competition for mating opportunities (although they still haveto employ sex as a way of appeasing residual tension and aggression). In fact, bonobos havebeen so successful at reining in male competition for mating opportunities that within bonobosociety there has been what could be described as a gender-role reversal, with bonobo femalesforming alliances and dominating social groups, both of which are distinctly male activities inchimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan and other non-human primate societies. As will be explainedmore fully in Parts 8:4F and 8:4G, when further comparison is made between bonobos andchimpanzees, bonobo society is matriarchal, female-dominated, controlled and led. Further,in bonobo society, the entire focus of the social group does seem to be on the maternal orfemale role of nurturing infants. The following photographs of bonobos with infants revealsomething of just how exceptionally nurturing bonobo females are—and even males, becausethe bottom left photo is of a male lovingly playing with an infant. Bonobos clearly have theenvironmental comfort and the freedom from fighting and tension in their world needed todevelop the ability to love their infants.

Part 8:4B

Love-Indoctrination

Bonobos nurturing their infants

585

586

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

This gender-role reversal in bonobo society is a stupendous achievement, a very greatbreakthrough in the development of integration. When watching wildlife documentariesor observing animals in nature, what is so very apparent is how the females of most animalspecies taunt the males—letting them fight with each other furiously, having them chase themendlessly, encouraging (in the case of birds) the growth of ever more exotic plumage, etc, etc—so that they can establish which is the strongest, most virile male to mate with, obviously toensure their offspring will also inherit the strongest, most virile genetic make-up. So, to bringabout a change where instead of the strongest and most aggressive males being successful inwinning mating opportunities, the most gentle, least aggressive are the most successful andfavoured is a truly extraordinary turnaround, but that is what the bonobos (and our own apeancestors) achieved! As extremely difficult as it is to develop, such is the awesome power ofthe love-indoctrination tool for developing integration! Importantly, to achieve this amazinggender-role reversal, this incredible change from patriarchy to matriarchy, love-indoctrinationwas assisted by an emerging conscious mind. Just how love-indoctrination enabledconsciousness to emerge and come to the assistance of the love-indoctrination process will beexplained next in Parts 8:4C and 8:4D, but one of the other amazing attributes of bonobos is thatthey are the most conscious, the most intelligent of all animals next to humans.
In the context of our own human origins, it follows from what has been said that forour ape ancestors to have become totally cooperative and integrated—to have developedan unconditionally selfless, altruistic, moral instinctive self or ‘soul’, as I am assertingoccurred—they must have been blessed with all the conditions necessary to complete thelove-indoctrination process; in particular, they must have lived in ideal nursery conditions intheir home somewhere in Africa. (We know from fossil evidence that our original ancestorsemerged in Africa—as we intuitively recognised, Africa was, as we say, ‘the cradle ofmankind’—but we don’t as yet know the exact location of this original ‘nursery’.)

It has to be emphasised again that while the bonobos have almost completed the loveindoctrination process and become a fully integrated Specie Individual like our ape ancestorsdid, the fact that they still have to employ sex as an appeasement device to quell remainingtension and aggression indicates they haven’t quite succeeded. Similarly, while chimpanzees,gorillas, orangutans and even baboons and some other monkeys have also been able todevelop love-indoctrination to the point of achieving a high degree of integration, they toohave failed to complete the love-indoctrination development of integration—indeed, as willbe described more fully shortly, they have yet to overcome the problem of male matingopportunism because their societies are still male-led or patriarchal. The fact that all theseprimates are still unable to complete the love-indoctrination process demonstrates that it is anextremely difficult development. The reality is that developing love-indoctrination to the pointwhere the indoctrinated love or unconditional selflessness or altruism or morality becomesinstinctive (a process that will be explained shortly) was akin to trying to swim upstream toan island—any difficulty or breakdown in the nurturing process and you are invariably ‘sweptback downstream’ once more to the old competitive, selfish, each-for-his-own, opportunisticsituation. Powerful illustrations of how any disruption to the love-indoctrination processquickly can lead to a regression back to the more competitive, opportunistic, pre-loveindoctrination, animal-condition-afflicted situation will be provided shortly in Part 8:4G.

Part 8:4B

Love-Indoctrination

587

Thus, while the development of unconditional selflessness through the loveindoctrination process of a mother’s nurturing care of her infant was possible, it was avery difficult, and also a very slow, process. What the situation needed was a mechanismto assist, speed up and help maintain love-indoctrination’s development of integration—assistance that came from the emergence of a conscious mind. What began to occurwas the conscious self-selection of integrativeness, especially the female sexual or mateselection of less competitive and aggressive, more integrative males with which to mate.
(It might be mentioned that in his 1871 book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relationto Sex, Charles Darwin suggested the role mate selection could have played in our humandevelopment, although he didn’t understand its significance in the context of the loveindoctrination process.)
Later, in Part 8:7B, ‘Why, how and when did consciousness emerge in humans?’, it willbe fully explained how the nurturing, love-indoctrination process liberated consciousness inour ape ancestors and that it was the emerging conscious intellect in our forebears that beganto support the development of selflessness, for when our ape ancestors became consciousthey were able to recognise the importance of selflessness and, having realised that, begin toactively select for it.
However, in the interim and for the purposes of explaining this conscious self-selectionof selfless cooperativeness process, a brief summary of the full explanation that appearsin Part 8:7B will be provided next, in Part 8:4C. But before doing so, I should quicklypoint out that with love-indoctrination and mate selection of cooperative integrativenessrecurring over many generations, unconditional selflessness or love would have eventuallybecome instinctive or innate. This is because once unconditionally selfless individuals werecontinually appearing, the genes ‘followed’ the whole process, reinforcing that selflessness.
Similarly, when the conscious mind fully emerged within humans and went its own way—embarked on its course for knowledge—genetic adaptation followed, reinforcing thatdevelopment. Generations of humans whose genetic make-up in some way helped them copewith the human condition were selected naturally—making, amongst other adjustments,humans’ alienated state somewhat instinctive today. We have been ‘bred’ to survive thepressures of the human condition; to block out or deny the issue of the human conditionhas been our main way of coping with the dilemma it represented. Genes inevitably followand reinforce any development process—in this they are not selective. The difficulty layin getting the development of unconditional selflessness to occur, for once it was regularlyoccurring it would naturally become instinctive over time. Thus, with unconditionalselflessness or love occurring over many generations and becoming instinctive or innate, ourinstinctive moral self or soul, the ‘voice’ of which is our ‘conscience’, became established inour ape ancestors. A powerful illustration of this moral instinct in us that continues to guideus to behave in this all-loving way was given in a Sports Illustrated magazine article thatreported how Joe Delaney, a professional footballer, acknowledged that ‘I can’t swim good, but
I’ve got to save those kids’, just moments before plunging into a Louisiana pond and drowning
in an attempt to rescue three boys (‘Sometimes The Good Die Young’, 7 Nov. 1983). This is but oneexample of our moral, altruistic nature in action, but no doubt we have all heard, seen, orread of similar situations.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

588

The Biology

In terms of developing love-indoctrination, obviously the more instinctiveunconditional selflessness or love became, the more any regression to selfish behaviourwas able to be resisted. Instincts have their own power, their own ability to ensure thatwhat they expect happens, so as love became instinctive so love, unconditional selflessness,became a stronger force.
An important point that should also be made before presenting the summary of howconsciousness emerged is how difficult it has been for denial-complying, human-conditionavoiding, mechanistic science to even consider, let alone accept, the love-indoctrinationexplanation for human origins; in fact, for what gave us our unique, unconditionally selflessmoral instinctive self or soul. It turns out that I’m not the first person to realise and putforward the love-indoctrination explanation for our extraordinary unconditionally selflessmoral sense. As will be described in Part 8:5B, when the American philosopher John Fiskefirst presented the idea only 15 years after Charles Darwin published his idea of naturalselection in his 1859 book The Origin of Species, it prompted some very eminent scientistsof that era to describe Fiske’s hypothesis of ‘the Struggle for the Life of Others’ or ‘altruistic
Love’ (which was said to be ‘the real law of evolution’, and as having ‘developed in the courseof evolution from the necessities of maternity’) as a ‘far more important’ ‘principle’ than Darwin’s
selfish, ‘natural selection by means of the struggle for survival’; in fact, as ‘one of the most beautifulcontributions ever made to the Evolution of Man’! However, in Part 8:5B I also record that
despite this recognition of the immense importance of Fiske’s nurturing hypothesis for ouraltruistic moral nature, the idea also ‘attracted a good deal of opprobrium [abuse]’ at the timeand was eventually totally ignored and left to die! Again, as pointed out in Parts 4:4D and
4:4F when the six great unconfrontable truths were described, the two truths that are being
admitted in this whole nurturing, love-indoctrination explanation for our moral nature—thathumans have selfless, loving instincts and that nurturing has been, and still is, so importantin human development—have been unbearable to face and acknowledge. The problem isthey beg the question, ‘Why aren’t we humans now loving and selflessly behaved, andwhy aren’t we capable of adequately nurturing our infants?’ The fact is, it is only now thatwe can explain our upset, corrupted, embattled, little-time-for-nurturing, human-conditionafflicted lives that we can afford to admit these truths. The truth that can now at last beadmitted is that nurturing was the main influence or prime mover in human development—not tool use or bipedalism or language development or mastery of fire or any one of theother evasive explanations that denial-complying biologists have been putting forward in themountain of books that have been published on human origins. The nurturing explanationfor human origins is actually a reasonably obvious truth if you are thinking in a denialfree truthful way because in time it should occur to you that in the maternal situation therealready exists an apparently unconditionally selfless relationship and thus the potential fortrue integration to develop. But as with so many historically unbearable truths, it is onlynow that the human condition has been explained that it finally becomes psychologicallysafe to admit all these unbearable truths, including the importance of nurturing and theexistence of our moral soul.

Part 8:4C

A brief summary of how consciousness emerged

589

Part 8:4C A brief summary of how consciousness emerged
As foreshadowed in the previous Part, the following is a brief summary of the fullexplanation that will be provided in Part 8:7B of how consciousness emerged. (Note, whilea description of how consciousness emerged should begin with a description of whatconsciousness actually is—and such a complete description will be provided in Part 8:7—thefollowing very brief description of at least the emergence of our consciousness is necessaryhere to enable the reader to understand the explanation that is about to be given for howconsciousness was able to support the love-indoctrination process.)
Since a conscious, self-adjusting mind would seem to be a very great asset for an animalto have, the obvious initial question when thinking about consciousness is, ‘Why haven’tmany animals developed it?’ Despite this being an obvious question, it is conventionallyargued that consciousness only emerged in humans because of our need to manage complexsocial situations—an argument known as the ‘Social Intelligence Hypothesis’ (which willbe discussed more in Parts 8:5D and 8:7B). For example, E.O. Wilson relies upon this theoryin The Social Conquest of Earth, when he says that ‘to feel empathy for others, to measure theemotions of friends and enemy alike, to judge the intentions of all of them, and to plan a strategy forpersonal social interactions…the human brain became…highly intelligent’ (2012, p.17 of 330). Social
problem solving is an obvious benefit from being conscious, but all activities that animalshave to manage would benefit enormously from being able to understand cause and effect, soit is completely illogical to argue that it wasn’t until the need to manage extremely complexsocial situations that consciousness developed. Any sensible analysis of the question ofthe emergence of consciousness must be based on the question of what has prevented itsdevelopment in other animals? It is such a powerful asset for an animal to have that somethingmust have stopped it being selected for in other species. The lack of social situations doesn’texplain why the fully conscious mind hasn’t appeared in non-human species. There wasample need for a conscious mind prior to the appearance of complex social situations.
As emphasised, one of the limitations of the gene-based learning system is that itnormally can’t select for unconditionally selfless, altruistic, self-sacrificing behaviour becausealtruistic traits tend to self-eliminate—they tend not to carry on and so normally can’t becomeestablished in a species. The effect is that the gene-based learning system actively resistsaltruistic behaviour. It follows then that in terms of the development of consciousness, thegene-based learning or refinement system was, in effect, totally opposed to any altruistic,selfless thinking. In fact, genetic refinement developed instinctive blocks in the minds ofanimals to prevent the emergence of such thinking. And it is this block against truthful,selflessness-recognising-thinking in the minds of almost all animals that prevents them frombecoming conscious of the true relationship or meaning of experience.
An example of how genes resist self-destructive behaviour may be helpful here. In whatare termed ‘visual cliff ’ experiments, newborn kittens are placed on a table and while theywill venture towards the edge of the table, they won’t allow themselves to go beyond the edgeand fall—a sheet of glass is actually placed over the table to prevent them from accidentally

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

590

The Biology
slipping off the edge, but the point is the glass is unnecessary because the kittens instinctivelyknow not to travel beyond the table’s edge. Presumably, this instinctive orientation againstdoing so evolved because any cat that did venture too close to a precipice invariably fell toits death, leaving only those that happened to have an instinctive block against such selfdestructive practices. Natural selection or genetic refinement develops blocks in the mindagainst behaviour that doesn’t tend to lead to the reproduction of the genes of the individualswho practice that behaviour.
Just as surely as cats were eventually selected for their instinctive block against selfdestruction, most animals have been selected with an instinctive block against selflessthinking because such thinking also tends not to lead to the reproduction of the genes ofthe individuals who think that way. The effect of this block was to prevent the developingintellect from thinking truthfully and thus effectively.
As pointed out when Integrative Meaning was explained in Part 8:1, selflessness or loveis the theme of existence, the essence of integration, the meaning of life. While the upset,alienated human race has learnt to live in denial of this truth of the selfless, loving, integrativemeaning of existence, it is in fact an extremely obvious truth and one that is deduced veryquickly if you are able to think honestly about the world. We are surrounded by integration.
Every object we look at is a hierarchy of ordered matter, witness to the development oforder of matter. It follows then that if you aren’t able to recognise and thus appreciate thesignificance of selfless, Integrative Meaning you are not in a position to begin to think straightand thus effectively; you can’t begin to make sense of experience. All your thinking is comingoff a false base and is therefore effectively derailed from the outset from making sense ofexperience. As Arthur Schopenhauer said, ‘The discovery of truth is prevented most effectively…byprejudice, which…stands in the path of truth and is then like a contrary wind driving a ship away fromland’ (Essays and Aphorisms, tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1970, p.120 of 237). You can’t think effectively with lies in
your head, especially with such important lies as denial of selflessness-dependent Integrative
Meaning. Your mind is, in effect, stalled at a very superficial level of intelligence with littleability to understand the relationship of events occurring around you.
To elaborate, any animal able to associate information to the degree necessary torealise the importance of behaving selflessly towards others would have been at a distinctdisadvantage in terms of its chances of successfully reproducing its genes. It follows then thatthose animals that don’t recognise the importance of selflessness are genetically advantaged,which means that eventually a mental block would have been ‘naturally selected’ to preventthe emergence of the ability to make sense of experience, to prevent the emergence ofconsciousness. At this point in development, genetic refinement favoured individuals thatwere not able to recognise the significance of selflessness, thus ensuring animals remainedincognisant, unconscious of the true meaning of life.
Having denied the truth of Integrative Meaning and the importance of selflessness, it isnot easy for the alienated human race to appreciate that conscious thought depends on theability to acknowledge the significance of selflessness/love/Integrative Meaning. However,our own mental block or alienation is, in fact, the perfect illustration of and parallel for thisblock in the minds of animals. Unable to think truthfully about the selfless, loving integrativetheme of existence, all our thinking has also been coming off a false base and, as a result, we

Part 8:4C

A brief summary of how consciousness emerged

591
too have been unable to think effectively. Alienation has rendered us almost stupid, incapableof deep, penetrating, meaningful thought.

Wallace & Gromit by Nick Park and Bob Baker of Aardman Animations

When it comes to thinking truthfully and thus soundly, humans are now almost asmentally incognisant as animals—a state of affairs that is played on in the popular animatedcartoon Wallace & Gromit (pictured above). In the series, Wallace is a lonely, sad—alienated—human figure whose dog Gromit is very much on an intellectual par with him inhis world. Both wear the same blank, stupefied expression as together they muddle their waythrough life’s adventures.
Again, much more will be explained in Part 8:7 about the nature of consciousness, howblocks developed against its development in the minds of most animals, and the similaritieswith our own alienation, however, the reality is that the human mind has been alienated fromthe truth twice in its history: once when we were like other animals, instinctively blockedfrom recognising the truth of selflessness, and then again in our species’ current adolescentstate, during which we became insecure about our divisive nature with no choice but to live in
Plato’s dark cave of denial of the selfless, loving integrative meaning of existence.
While humans have gradually retreated from consciousness into virtual unconsciousnessbecause of our insecurity about our non-ideal, soul-corrupted, ‘fallen’, human-conditionafflicted state, we were, to our knowledge, the first animals to become fully conscious. So,the next question is, how were our ape ancestors able to overcome this block that exists in theminds of the great majority of animals and become capable of making sense of experience,become conscious? (As will be explained later in Part 8:4G, all animals are trying to developlove-indoctrination and to what degree they have been able to develop it will dictate to whatdegree they have been able to develop at least a rudimentary level of consciousness, but noother species has developed full consciousness like humans have, and bonobos almost have.)
Understanding how the nurturing love-indoctrination process was able to develop selfless,moral instincts in our ape ancestors (and in some other primates today) allows us to answerthis crucial question. The reason we were able to become fully conscious is that, quite byaccident, the nurturing of selfless instincts breached the block against thinking truthfully

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

592

The Biology
by superimposing a new, truthful, selflessness-recognising mind over the older, effectivelydishonest, selfless-thinking-blocked one. Since our ape ancestors could develop an awarenessof cooperative, selfless, loving meaning, they were able to develop truthful, sound, effectivethinking and so acquired consciousness, the essential characteristic of mental infancy.
To use a comparative example, chimpanzees are currently in mental infancy—they havethe conscious mental powers of, approximately, a two-year-old human and demonstraterudimentary consciousness, making sufficient sense of experience to recognise that they areat the centre of the changing array of events they experience. They are beginning to relateinformation or reason effectively. Experiments have shown that they have an awareness ofthe concept of ‘I’ or self and are capable of reasoning how events are related sufficientlywell to know that they can reach a banana tied to the roof of their cage by stacking andclimbing upon boxes.
In the case of bonobos, evidence suggests that they are now the most intelligent orconscious animals next to humans. This level of intelligence or consciousness is evident inthis quote: ‘Everything seems to indicate that [Prince] Chim [a bonobo] was extremely intelligent. Hissurprising alertness and interest in things about him bore fruit in action, for he was constantly imitatingthe acts of his human companions and testing all objects. He rapidly profited by his experiences…Neverhave I seen man or beast take greater satisfaction in showing off than did little Chim. The contrast inintellectual qualities between him and his female companion [a chimpanzee] may briefly, if not entirelyadequately, be described by the term “opposites”’ (Almost Human, Robert M. Yerkes, 1925, p.248 of 278).

Part 8:4D

Self-selection of integrativeness through sexual or mate selection

593
blocks working against such training; our mind had, at last, been stimulated by the truth. Ofcourse, it must be remembered that in this early stage of development the emphasis was ontraining in love, not on the liberation of the conscious ability to think, which was incidentalto Negative Entropy’s push for our forebears to become an integrated group of largemulticellular animals. While, as will now be described, the development of conscious thoughtgreatly assisted the love-indoctrination process by allowing for the conscious selection of lessaggressive mates, its development would have only been gradual. As evidenced by the pictureof the skulls of our ancestors included later in Part 8:4H, the association cortex didn’t developstrongly until thinking took on a critical role in humanity’s adolescence when we had to findunderstanding in order to defend ourselves against ignorance.

Part 8:4D Self-selection of integrativeness through sexual or mate selection
Part 8:4C provided a brief description of how our ape ancestors, and some other primatespecies living today, developed consciousness. What now needs to be explained is how thisemerging consciousness began to support love-indoctrination’s development of selflessness,thus helping to both accelerate and maintain the development of the integration of our apeancestors. To be more precise, I need to explain how the emerging consciousness enabledself-selection of integrativeness—especially through the sexual or mate selection by femalesof less competitive and aggressive, more cooperative and selfless and thus integrative maleswith which to mate.
In beginning this explanation it needs to be emphasised again that unconditionalselflessness or love is the real objective of existence; it is the meaning of life. Having hadto live in such deep denial of the integrative, selfless, loving theme of existence while wecouldn’t explain our seemingly unloving, non-integrative, ‘unGodly’ human condition,it is now very difficult for the alienated human race to appreciate that selfless love is theobvious theme of existence and universal objective for behaviour. But the truth is that love,selflessness—in fact, unconditional selflessness or altruism or true kindness—is an extremelyobvious theme and meaning of existence and objective for behaviour. Everything, all of life, istrying to develop order, is trying to integrate—is, in effect, desirous of achieving a state wherelove/unconditional selflessness, and the fully integrated state that it makes possible, reigns.
The immense problem, however, for virtually all living organisms is that they havebeen ‘locked out’ of becoming fully integrated by the gene-based learning system’s inability
(except through the use of love-indoctrination) to develop unconditional selflessness. Whileall living organisms owe their origins to the gene-based learning system, that system’sinability to develop unconditional selflessness ultimately limited the amount of order, theamount of integration, that they could achieve. It is as though the gene-based learning systemhas been a great tease: it gave life but prevented that life from achieving real harmony andpeace. To use religious terminology, living things were allowed to approach the ‘Godly’,
‘heavenly’, fully integrated state but were then denied the opportunity to actually enter thatstate. This is the great problem, the great ‘agony’ of the ‘animal condition’: almost all animalshave been ‘locked out’ of ‘heaven’. In fact, the ‘animal condition’ has, in its own way, beenjust as torturous as the ‘human condition’!

594

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

An excellent description of the agony of the ‘animal condition’ can be found in Part 3:11Cwhere I discuss the extraordinary 30,000-year-old Neolithic cave drawings in the Chauvet
Cave in southern France. I wrote there that when our current human-condition-afflicted mindsbecome preoccupied with upset, with soul-repression or psychosis and thought-repressionor neurosis, we lose the ability to take an interest in the world around us. The pain in ourbrain prevents us from truly feeling or seeing or engaging in our surroundings. It followsthen that as the human race became more and more upset, so its ability to feel and savour theworld around it shrank. So although the humans responsible for the drawings in the Chauvet
Cave were not anything like as upset-free/innocent as humans were two million years agowhen upset first began to develop in earnest, their ability to draw the animals around them sovividly indicates they were much, much more innocent than humans today. Clearly alienationhas increased at an extremely rapid rate in the final stages of humanity’s two-million-yearjourney to find self-understanding. When all the upset in humans subsides, as it now willwith understanding of the human condition finally found, the world is going to open up forus humans enormously—we are going to be able to feel everything around us. We are goingto have so much kindness and love and empathy for each other and our fellow creaturesbecause we will, once again, be able to feel everything they are experiencing, includingjust how embattled the lives of other animals are. While the nurturing, love-indoctrinationprocess enabled our ape ancestors to break free from the tyranny of genes having to ensuretheir own reproduction, other animals are stuck having to perpetually compete for food,shelter, territory and a mate; unlike humans, they can’t develop full unconditionally selflesscooperative instincts. And so, in the amazing Chauvet Cave drawings, above all else, it is thisempathy with, this feeling for, the relatively short, brutish, forever-having-to-fight-for-yourchance-to-reproduce lives of animals that those who made these drawings have so sensitivelyexpressed. You can sense the whole internal struggle of the animals’ lives in these drawings.
Their huge chests heave with their brutal and tough battle to reproduce their genes—they arestruggling so much to endure their lot it is as if they have asthma! One day, when we humansget over the terrible agony of our ‘human condition’, we will again be able to empathisewith the terrible agony of the ‘animal condition’. It’s not very nice to have to belt the livingdaylights out of others to ensure your genes reproduce! It’s not at all easy being a non-humananimal—and that is an extreme understatement! It was mentioned in Part 8:2, but it shouldbe mentioned again here, that the competitive state that exists amongst animals obviouslyalso exists amongst plants, insects and microbes, however, not having the developed nervoussystem of animals their awareness of the agony of that horrifically competitive existencecould not be as great as it is for animals.
Yes, the ‘animal condition’, being ‘locked out’ of ‘heaven’, is an awful existence tohave to endure—as I said, it’s as horrific in its own way as our current immensely upset andalienated ‘human condition’. We can appreciate therefore how immensely relieving it musthave been when our ape ancestors were finally liberated from the agony of their ‘animalcondition’! While love-indoctrination’s development of selflessness was a difficult and fragileprocess, once it succeeded in creating a selflessly trained and thus truthfully wired braincapable of the level of consciousness that we term ‘infancy’, the block to not being able tocultivate love/unconditional selflessness and thus the fully integrated, ‘Godly’, ‘heavenly’

Part 8:4D

Self-selection of integrativeness through sexual or mate selection

595
state was finally completely breached—the biological gate stopping the development ofintegration had finally been swung right open.
For a mind to be set free—both instinctively and consciously—must feel like the wholeworld has opened up, almost as if everything can be seen and experienced for the first time.
Indeed, when humans leave behind the human condition (as now occurs when they take upthe TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING (see Section 3 of Freedom Expanded: Book
2), or even when they have a near-death experience) the world does suddenly open up, theycan suddenly access feelings and sensitivities and awarenesses that are almost overwhelmingin their intense beauty and excitement. Similarly, as explained in Part 7:1, when we humansfell in love we let go of our attachment to the human-condition-afflicted world of reality andallowed ourselves to dream of and be transported to a world free of the human condition, andagain, the feelings we experienced in that state were overwhelmingly wonderful and thrilling.
So it can be appreciated that species emerging from the stupor of the animal condition wouldsimilarly experience those exciting feelings and awarenesses that come from being liberatedfrom an immensely oppressed situation and at last accessing the integrative, all-loving trueworld. But above all, it is the sheer excitement, thrill and power that comes with this freedomto finally be part of the all-loving, true world that would have given our ape ancestors, and begiving the bonobos today, the ability to finally stop being owned by the world of competitionand change sides and take up support of the world of selfless love. And, as will be describedshortly, it was the females who were the first to be able to begin to savour this amazingfreedom from the competitive, have-to-reproduce-your-genes, fight-for-every-matingopportunity animal condition and change sides and take up support of the loving, true world.
As mentioned earlier, the normal situation amongst animals is for the females to taunt themales—letting them fight with each other ferociously, making them chase them endlessly,encouraging (in the case of birds) the growth of ever more exotic plumage, etc, etc—so thatthey can establish which is the strongest, most virile male to mate with, obviously to ensuretheir offspring will also inherit the strongest, most virile genetic make-up. So to have a changewhere instead of this competitive situation where the strongest and most aggressive malesdominate and succeed in reproducing, the most gentle and least aggressive are successful andfavoured, is a truly extraordinary turnaround.
Again, under the duress of the human condition, it is virtually impossible for humanstoday to appreciate the power that comes with being able to access the true world, but it isan absolutely awesome power and one our ape ancestors gained access to—as have nowthe bonobos. Later, in Part 8:4G, a horrific description will be given of male chimpanzeeswho have had their developing love-indoctrinated world devastated by environmentalpressures and, as a result, have been turned into brutal, murderous, blood-thirsty beasts.
It will be explained there that such demonic behaviour arises from the fact that knowingboth instinctively and consciously of the existence of the all-loving, animal-condition-free,true world, and then being denied access to it, effectively rejected from it, left them feelingextremely distressed, resentful and angry—even furious to the point of being hateful andsadistic. Once you have a situation of love then you also have the potential for the reversalof that situation, for the possibility of the situation of there not being love—there exists anegative counter-position. For once animals know love, to then find themselves deprived of it

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

596

The Biology
and/or unable to be loving is a very frustrating, upsetting and even guilt-producing situationto be in. In the case of the human condition, what the human race did to artificially rid itselfof the agony of that condition was to say that there is no integrative meaning/purpose tolife because then there was no problem with not being integrative, no dilemma and thus noagony of the human condition from which to suffer. We got rid of the positive situation sowe wouldn’t experience the negative situation—actually, we only deluded ourselves wehad eliminated the positive situation; as stated, we only ‘artificially’ rid ourselves of it—butthe point being revealed is that once you have the positive situation then you also have thepotential for the distressing negative situation to occur. Once a species was liberated from theanimal condition and knew love, whenever there was a subsequent breakdown in nurturing,or a break-out of competition for resources, those animals then knew what they were missingout on and/or not behaving in accordance with, which could make them extremely upset,psychotic (psyche/soul-hurt) and neurotic (neuron/mind-distressed); it could make them
‘demonic’. The point here is that the degree that these chimpanzees became sadistic and
demonic as a result of not being able to be loving and/or experience love is also a measure ofhow aware their species must be of the fabulous all-loving, true world. They know all aboutlove and its value, and, just as they can behave and act in an upset way as a result of thatknowledge, so they can also behave and act in a loving way as a result of that knowledge—they can actively favour selfless behaviour in others; females can choose less aggressivemales with which to mate.
To describe what took place when love-indoctrination had developed sufficient love forthe conscious mind to appear and start supporting the love-indoctrination development ofthe all-wonderful, ‘Godly’, ‘heavenly’, unconditionally selfless, all-loving, integrated stateit will be helpful to very briefly revisit the stages of maturation that a conscious mind goesthrough, as initially outlined in Part 3:11. ‘Infantman’ was our ape ancestor who developed thenurturing training in selflessness that liberated consciousness. Then, when this consciousnesshad developed sufficiently to begin to experiment in self-adjustment and manage events to itsown chosen ends, ‘Infantman’ became ‘Childman’, the australopithecines. The main phaseswithin childhood were ‘Early Happy Childman’ (Australopithecus afarensis), who evolvedinto ‘Middle Demonstrative Childman’ (Australopithecus africanus), who then developed into
‘Late Naughty Childman’ (Australopithecus boisei). At each stage greater experimentationin conscious self-management took place—from demonstrating the power of free will inmid-childhood, to beginning to challenge the instincts for the right to manage events in latechildhood. When the conscious mind broke free of the influence of the instincts and tookover management of events—which occurred at an ever increasing rate from the beginningof childhood onwards—the instincts began to, in effect, resist that takeover, a tension that ataround two million years ago resulted in the distressing, sobering upset state of the humancondition, a development that saw the transition from ‘Childman’, the australopithecines, to
‘Adolescentman’, Homo. But now, with the finding of understanding of the human condition,the human race matures from insecure adolescence to secure adulthood—‘Adultman’emerges. (Note, while the descriptions ‘infancy’, ‘childhood’ and ‘adolescence’ are sometimesused to describe the early stages of maturation of many species they are particularly usedto describe the stages of maturation that a conscious mind goes through; in non-conscious

Part 8:4D

Self-selection of integrativeness through sexual or mate selection

597
species, terms such as ‘the young’, ‘juveniles’ and ‘subadults’ are mostly used to describetheir early stages of maturation. It needs to be emphasised that in this presentation the terms
‘infancy’, ‘childhood’, ‘adolescence’ and ‘adulthood’ are referring to the stages of maturationthat a conscious mind goes through.)
Of these stages of maturation, the one that we are particularly interested in here interms of understanding how consciousness came to support the love-indoctrination processis infancy—the stage when consciousness, understanding of cause and effect, developssufficiently for the conscious mind to realise that it is at the centre of constantly changingexperiences, that ‘I exist.’ Self-awareness is one of the first consequences of being ableto make sense of experience. Another expression of this emerging power to understandcause and effect and therefore manage events was cited earlier, using as an example thechimpanzees’ ability to reason that by stacking boxes they could climb up and reach abanana tied to the roof of their cage. However, while such self-awareness and ability tomanage events over a very short time interval were the first expressions of the emergence ofconsciousness that occurred in infancy, it wasn’t until childhood that active experimentationwith the ability to effectively understand and thus manage change began.
Infancy is all about receiving unconditionally selfless treatment or ‘love’. It is only inearly happy, innocent childhood that the outward expressions of the emerging intellectualability to experiment in self-management begins. As described in Part 3:11A, it is inchildhood that the power of free will is innocently tested or played with; it is duringchildhood that the conscious mind starts to experiment with the awesome ability thatconsciousness provides of managing events to bring about its own desired outcome. Wecall it ‘play’ in recognition of the naive unawareness children have at this stage of theproblems associated with having free will, particularly their unawareness of the conflict itinevitably leads to with our instincts. At this stage we are still, as it were, holding onto ourmother’s apron strings, our instinctive orientations, with one hand, while carrying out shortexperiments in conscious self-management with the other.
This reference to still ‘holding onto our mother’s apron strings’, still depending on ourinstinctive orientations for the management of our life, is significant when understandinghow consciousness came to support our love-indoctrination process. Throughout infancyand childhood we still depend on our established instinctive responses, namely our nurturedorientation to love, for the overall management of our life, and further, it is not until childhoodthat we begin to actively experiment in managing our life from a basis of understanding.
Infancy is when we are fully immersed in the state of loving integrativeness, which,incidentally, is why when the young of most species are in this stage they are so incrediblyjoyous. In the case of our ape ancestors, and some other primates living today, infancy is whentheir brain was/is indoctrinated or inscribed or trained with unconditional selflessness, which,as has been explained, eventually became/becomes instinctive. It is when the unconditionallyselfless, moral instinctive self or soul is created, and it is when this selflessly inscribed andthus truthful brain begins to make sense of experience, become conscious of the relationshipbetween cause and effect. Love-indoctrination produced a mind instinctively orientated tobehaving selflessly, which also happened to be a mind that was conscious. The instinctivelyorientated instinctive self is also a conscious mind—in this infancy stage they are one and the

598

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
same thing. What happens in childhood is that this ‘sameness’ begins to fragment because theconscious mind becomes sufficiently developed, sufficiently understanding of cause and effect,to begin experimenting with understandings, the effect of which is to begin challenging theinstincts’ control of the individual—a process that culminates in the upset state of the humancondition. It is only when the conscious mind begins to experiment in self-management that aschism develops between the instincts and the conscious mind. In infancy, which is the stagebefore this experimentation in self-management begins, the instincts and the conscious mind arefully immersed in feelings of both appreciating and wanting love (in the case of the instincts), aswell as thoughts that similarly appreciate and want love (in the case of consciousness).
In infancy, the love-indoctrinated instinctive self and the conscious thinking self are inharmony, both liberated from the selfish opportunistic ‘animal condition’ and aligned with,inspired by, committed to and desirous of producing loving behaviour. Within this state wecan expect that, to begin with, the love-indoctrinated instincts would be the dominant forcein maintaining unconditionally selfless, loving behaviour, however, it also makes sense thatas the conscious mind developed it would have played an ever-increasing role in seekingand maintaining such loving behaviour. To make the point, if we were to put a 20-year-oldhuman’s conscious brain in an animal that had totally selfless instincts, and if we imaginethat the 20-year-old conscious brain was free of any human-condition-type conflicts withthe instincts and thus totally able to appreciate the importance of loving selflessness, then itmakes sense that that individual’s insistence on selfless behaviour would largely be driven bythe all-powerful, self-adjusting, self-managing conscious mind, with the instincts very muchonly of secondary influence. Extrapolating backwards then, the influence of the consciousmind of a one-year-old in maintaining selfless behaviour would not be very great, with themaintenance of that selflessness largely dependent on the selflessness-demanding instincts. Infact, it is not until around two years of age that the power of the developing conscious mindfinally becomes effective in maintaining selflessness.
This previous line begs the question: what happens to consciousness at around twoyears of age that makes such a difference in the maintenance of selflessness? Psychologistsrecognise that it is only after about the age of two that infant humans are able to recognisethemselves as an entity separate to their mother. This time of ‘differentiation’, as it is termed,is a natural consequence of discovering ‘I’, of becoming self-aware that was described earlier.
If we replace ‘mother’ with the love-indoctrinated instinctive training in love—which isreasonable since it has the equivalent role of a mother—then it follows that a pre-two-year-oldinfant isn’t able to recognise itself as separate from its training in love, which means it isn’table to act independently of it. However, when at two the infant is able to see itself as separatefrom that training in love it is then in a position to act independently of that training—it canknowingly start implementing the immense desire for the world to be loving that comes withbeing free of the animal condition. It can consciously self-select for loving integrativeness,especially through the sexual or mate selection of less competitive and aggressive, morecooperative and selfless and thus integrative individuals with which to mate.
With regard to infants being capable of having, as I said, ‘an immense desire for theworld to be loving that comes with being free of the animal condition’, it should be pointedout that while the level of consciousness that occurs in infancy is not sufficiently developed to

Part 8:4D

Self-selection of integrativeness through sexual or mate selection

599
begin experiments in managing life from a basis of understanding, it is still a highly consciousstate of awareness. In fact, as the human race leaves the human-condition-afflicted situationof having lived in so much denial of so many truths, we are going to be astonished at justhow much conscious awareness infants have of the world. The level of consciousness thattwo to three year old humans have—which is the level of consciousness that the great apes
(the bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans) have, and the level of consciousness ourape ancestors had when they began to complement the love-indoctrination process with theself-selection of cooperativeness through mate selection—is very aware of what representsan ideal, all-loving, integrative, ‘heavenly’, true world and what doesn’t, of what is desirablebehaviour and what isn’t. Just how extraordinarily aware the human mind is has been revealedby the experiences of those who have undergone primal therapy, which involves memoryregression back to traumas that occurred during their infancy, at birth, and even as a foetus inthe womb—and the awareness of even the foetus is astonishing. A pioneer of primal therapy,the psychiatrist Frank Lake (1914-1982), wrote that ‘fetal life is not drifting on a cloud, [but is as]eventful as the nine months that come after birth. The foetus is not unaware of itself, or of the emotionalresponse of the mother to its presence, but acutely conscious of both and their interaction’ (Mutual Caring,ed. Stephen Maret, 1982, p.58). The literature on primal therapy is full of examples of the level of
awareness that a foetus has, such as the following: ‘I myself [Dr Farrant] am a survived abortionattempt and in Denver it took me four months of [regular primal therapy sessions to connect with the
full trauma]. I had a toxic headache, confusion state, irritability, terror, rage, all confusedly mixed. Itwas like a jigsaw puzzle that I would put a piece of each time I primaled and one day the final piece wentin and I knew. So profound was the knowing that I rang my 79-year-old mother and told her what shehad done…My mother in 1927 was a fashion model…with a svelte-like figure…When I came along thefigure changed shape, so she didn’t like that…So she took a bunch of pills and got into a hot bath, whichis exactly what I told her [in other words, what the foetus knew] she had done. She burst into tearsand revealed that I couldn’t possible know that because she had not even told my father, she never toldanybody’ (psychiatrist Graham Farrant, M.D., Keynote address at the 14th International Primal Association Convention,
30 Aug. 1986). As
we are going to discover, the level of awareness of human infants is such that
they have been deeply cognisant of the whole dilemma of the human condition, deeply awareof what the world should ideally be like and therefore how seemingly wrong it currently is.
Although infants haven’t been consciously mature enough to try to actually understand andexplain the imperfections of the world like older children and adolescents attempted to do,they have been deeply aware of the problem of the imperfections of the human condition andhave been distressed by it. Indeed, much of the difficulties associated with the stage known asthe ‘terrible two’s’ that infants have gone through have probably been due to their struggleswith, and protests against, the ‘wrongness’ of the human condition, and I am not just talkingabout instinctive expectations not being met, but conscious awarenesses of what is rightbehaviour not being enacted; I am talking about both psychosis and neurosis. Some evidenceof the awareness infants have of the wrongness of the human-condition-afflicted world isthat the infants of relatively innocent, less human-condition-afflicted races of humans today,such as the Bushmen of South Africa and the Australian Aboriginal, rarely cry—to quote arenowned paediatrician, ‘!Kung [Bushmen]…infants hardly ever cry’ (Cultures without Colic: Breastfeeding
& Other Baby Lessons from the !Kung San, by Dr Harvey Karp, accessed 2 Apr. 2012: see <www.wtmsources.com/117>).

600

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

In terms of when our ape ancestor inhabited the two-year-old infancy stage ofconsciousness, and other primates who are currently in that stage of development, theywould have had, and have, in the case of the other primates, an extremely strong consciousawareness of what constitutes ideal behaviour and what doesn’t, and therefore they wouldhave wanted to, and would want to, and been able to, and be able to, favour and select forideal behaviour. Other animals certainly have strong instincts against any treatment thathinders their genes’ chances of reproducing, they don’t in effect like being ill-treated, butbecause they suffer from the animal condition they haven’t been able to develop lovinginstincts that actually desire love—and because they aren’t conscious they cannot consciouslyappreciate and consciously want love. As has been described, while other animals havebeen locked out of love/‘heaven’, this is not the case for two-year-old equivalent primates.
Love-indoctrinated two-year-old equivalent primates can behave selflessly themselves, andcan seek to ensure others in their group behave selflessly—and they can consciously deeplyappreciate and favour non-aggressive behaviour.
If you have a genetic/instinctive block against selfless behaviour it means two things:firstly, that you can’t start behaving selflessly because selfless behaviour can’t be selectedfor genetically; and secondly, that you can’t begin to think truthfully and thus effectively andtherefore can’t become conscious of the importance and magnificence of selfless behaviour.
To recap, if you have a genetic/instinctive block against selfless behaviour your genes won’tlet you behave selflessly and you also aren’t able to think truthfully and thus realise thatselflessness is the right behaviour. You are blocked on both fronts. BUT, once you breach thefirst block of not being able to develop selfless instincts you can then breach the second blockand become conscious, thus allowing you to both behave selflessly and consciously appreciatethe importance of selflessness, and, through that conscious appreciation, actively favour thosewho are more selfless/integrative. (Again, by ‘selfless’ I mean ‘unconditionally selfless’,because the selflessness involved in reciprocity is actually selfishness.)
Species that can’t develop love-indoctrination can’t overcome the instinctive block theyhave against behaving unconditionally selflessly. For example, dogs have an instinctive blockin their brain that prevents them from thinking that selflessness is meaningful and, as a result,behaving selflessly, and, as a result of that, becoming conscious of the true relationship ofevents that occur through time. The only way dogs could become conscious would be todevelop love-indoctrination, have what unfilled cortex is available in their brain inscribed inselfless training, BUT the problem for dogs, and nearly all other species, is they can’t developlove-indoctrination because they haven’t been able to afford to leave their young in infancylong enough to inscribe sufficient love/selflessness/truth into that cortex.
Interestingly, in chapter 4 of The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote that ‘The followingproposition seems to me in a high degree probable—namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with wellmarked social instincts, the parental and filial [offspring] affections being here included, would inevitablyacquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as welldeveloped, as in man.’ Yes, ‘as soon as’ an animal’s ‘intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as

Part 8:4D

Self-selection of integrativeness through sexual or mate selection

601
well developed, as in man’ (in other words, as soon as the animal had become conscious) it ‘wouldinevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience’ because it would recognise and appreciate that the
theme or meaning of existence is to be integrative, which means cooperative and loving—especially if it is living in a ‘social’ situation where conflict causes disorder, but even if it is notin a social situation it would realise the importance of integration because order is an obviousuniversal objective. Darwin was certainly a denial-free, honest and thus effective thinker.
With regard to infancy being a state that is fully immersed in love, it should be mentionedthat by mid-childhood, when the conscious experimenting in self-management got underwayand the conflict with the instincts emerged that gave rise to the human condition, this stateof being both instinctively and consciously in love with love, immersed in the desire to haveand maintain a fully integrated state, did start to rupture, but by that point the fully integratedinstinctive state had become fully established. Our moral soul and its ‘voice’ within us, whichis our ‘conscience’, was by then firmly in place.
So, it wasn’t until the level of consciousness of a two-year-old emerged that consciousself-selection for less aggressive behaviour could begin in earnest. Thus, it was when loveindoctrination allowed primates to develop the level of consciousness of a two-year-old thatwe can expect that conscious self-selection for integrative, cooperative, loving selflessnesswould have greatly assisted love-indoctrination’s development of integration.
What now needs to be stressed is that while chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutanshave this two-year-old, or thereabouts, equivalent level of consciousness where they haveindependent self-awareness and therefore can assertively select for selfless behaviour,especially by the females trying to favour less aggressive males to mate with, they stillhaven’t been able to completely bring an end to the animal condition because they stillendure the situation of a male-dominated world where males aggressively compete formating opportunities. The fact that they have the independent consciousness of a two-yearold and therefore must have highly love-indoctrinated instincts for love/selflessness wellestablished and yet still haven’t been able to bring to an end the competition amongst malesfor mating opportunities that results in male dominance is witness to just how difficult itis to complete the love-indoctrination, mate selection process and develop full integration.
As will be described shortly in Part 8:4G, the limiting factor for these primates is that theylack a sufficiently food-rich environment. As explained, our ape ancestor and bonobos areseemingly the only primates to have been blessed with all the conditions necessary to developfull integration. But again, even the bonobos who have been able to develop much more loveindoctrinated integration than chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans—to the point of beingable to bring to an end male competition for mating opportunities and the male dominancethat goes with it—have still not yet fully completed the nurturing infancy stage because theyhave to use sex as an appeasement device to counter a residual tension and aggression. Ifbonobos had been able to complete the infancy stage and become a fully integrated speciesthey would no longer need to use sex as an appeasement device and, in fact, would havedeveloped monogamous relationships.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

602

The Biology

To explain, once competition for mating opportunities was brought under control,monogamy would have become the natural state because, firstly, each female pairing witha different male maintains more variability than the situation where one male dominates agroup of females, and, secondly, because it provides infants with the greatest stability andcontinuity of love. Although the multiple partners, ‘free love’ strategy that bonobos arehaving to employ for appeasement while selflessness is still being perfected does providemore variability than monogamy, it doesn’t offer infants the same stability and continuity oflove as monogamy. Again, the reason variability is advantageous is because it gives a speciesthe greatest chance to genetically adapt to different situations, and it has to be rememberedthat the longer life span that accompanied the longer infancy period in the love-indoctrinationprocess limited variability and thus adaptability, so monogamy helped counter that limitation.
With regard to humans having lived in monogamous relationships, as was explained in Part
7:1, with the emergence of the upset state of the human condition sex became perverted,
used as a means of attacking innocence, particularly the innocence of women. When thishappened the original monogamous state of human relationships that we would have livedin since the end of our species’ infancy stage began to break down as men in particularbecame preoccupied seeking out more ‘attractive’ innocent looking younger women forsexual destruction. As explained in Part 3:11C, it was at this point that the convention ofmarriage was introduced to try to lock men and women into permanent relationships,especially because such breakdowns in relationships were so hurtful to children who notonly instinctively expect to grow up in a monogamous family situation, but consciouslywant the world to be loving. The saying ‘the first cut [the first falling out of love] is the deepest’is an acknowledgment of the deep and total commitment humans make to their first love; itreveals that the original, relatively innocent relationship between a man and a woman was amonogamous one.
To return now to the description of consciousness’ support of the love-indoctrinationprocess.
In terms of being able to consciously favour the more selfless/integrative in order toachieve greater selflessness and with it integration, the fastest, most effective way of doing sowould be through selecting mates who are more selfless because that way you are eliminatingselfishness at the fundamental level of your species’ genetic make-up. Further, since it is themales who are most preoccupied with competing for mating opportunities, it is the femaleswho are in the best position to implement this selection of less aggressive individuals withwhich to mate. Despite being unaware of this process of love-indoctrination that liberatedconsciousness, which in turn allowed self-selection of integrativeness, especially throughmate selection, primatologists have verified this selection of cooperative integrativeness byfemales: ‘Male [baboon] newcomers also were generally the most dominant while long-term residents

Part 8:4D

Self-selection of integrativeness through sexual or mate selection

603
were the most subordinate, the most easily cowed. Yet in winning the receptive females and special foods,the subordinate, unaggressive veterans got more than their fair share, the newcomers next to nothing.
Socially inept and often aggressive, newcomers made a poor job of initiating friendships’ (Shirley Strum,
National Geographic mag. Nov. 1987); and ‘The high frequencies of intersexual association, grooming, and
food sharing together with the low level of male-female aggression in pygmy chimpanzees may be a factorin male reproductive strategies. Tutin (1980) has demonstrated that a high degree of reproductive successfor male common chimpanzees was correlated with male-female affiliative behaviours [‘affiliative’ is an
evasive, denial-complying, mechanistic term meaning friendly/cohesive/social/loving/integrative].
These included males spending more time with estrous females, grooming them, and sharing food withthem’ (The Pygmy Chimpanzee, ed. Randall L. Susman, ch.13 by Alison & Noel Badrian, 1984, p.343 of 435).

While the observations made in the popular documentary series Orangutan Island
(about a group of juvenile orphaned orangutans being rehabilitated on a protected island ina river in Borneo) probably can’t be considered a product of rigorous scientific research,they do provide revealing footage and interesting commentary about orangutan behaviour. Inthe 2007 episode ‘House of Cards’, an orangutan named Daisy, who is the dominant youngfemale in the island group (in the series she is described as ‘Sheriff Daisy’), is seen stronglyreprimanding another young female, Nadi, who repeatedly behaves selfishly. The narratorsays, ‘As usual, Daisy is keeping a watchful eye on all the action and she spies someone who is not playingfair—it’s repeat offender Nadi who is refusing to share [a jackfruit]…Daisy decides it’s her duty to stepin…Daisy is refusing to allow Nadi anywhere near the eating platform because Nadi’s been upsetting theorder in this peaceful community…Daisy is making Nadi pay for her behaviour, so to avoid starving Nadihas no choice but to leave.’ Whether or not it is an accurate interpretation of events, the footage
appears to fully support the commentary—a female is seen to be maintaining ‘the order in thispeaceful community’. Many more illustrations of strong-willed, female primates insisting on
integrative behaviour will be given shortly in Part 8:4F.
Yes, since it is the males who are the most preoccupied with competing for matingopportunities, the females must have been the first to select for selfless, cooperativeintegrativeness by favouring integrative rather than competitive and aggressive mates—andit was this process of the conscious self-selection of integrativeness, especially the sexualselection of less aggressive males with which to mate, that greatly helped love-indoctrinationsubdue the males’ divisive competitiveness. Moreover, by seeking out less aggressive,more integrative mates the females were, in essence, selecting those who have been mostlove-indoctrinated. This raises the next point to be explained, which is that the most loveindoctrinated and thus most integrative individuals will be those who have experienceda long infancy and exceptional nurturing and are closer to their memory of their loveindoctrinated infancy; in a word, younger. During the development of love-indoctrination,when unconditionally selfless, loving behaviour had not yet become instinctive, the older

604

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
individuals became, the more their infancy training in love wore off. In the case of our apeancestors (and this recognition would be occurring amongst all the great apes), they beganto recognise that the younger an individual, the more integrative he or she was likely to beand, as a result, began to idolise, foster, favour and select for youthfulness because of itsassociation with cooperative integration. The effect, over many generations, was to retardphysical development so that adults became more infant-like in their appearance—whichexplains how we first came to regard neotenous (infant-like) features, like large eyes, domeforehead, snub nose and hairless skin, as beautiful and attractive.
The neotenous or infant-like large eyes of seal pups and frogs, and the large eye spotmarkings together with the soft, typically infant-like, moppish ears of giant pandas, are whatmakes these animals so ‘appealing’. The following drawing of a panda depicted without itstrademark spotted eyes and round ears, but with pricked ears and small eyes, shows just how

Illustration by Robert Parkinson
quickly it loses its ‘cute’ appeal.

‘Would we care if they weren’t so cute? White out the black eye spots and give theears points, and the panda loses much of its appeal.’ Illustration by Robert Parkinson.
Good Weekend supplement, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 Sept. 1989

The following three photographs, of an adult chimpanzee, an infant chimpanzee andan adult bonobo, show the similarity between the infant chimpanzee and the adult bonobo,

Taronga Zoo; M. Rayner; Animals Animals
indicating the effects of the love-indoctrination, mate selection neotenising process.

Adult chimpanzee; infant chimpanzee; and an adult bonobo

Part 8:4D

Self-selection of integrativeness through sexual or mate selection

605

These photographs below of an infant and adult chimpanzee show the greaterresemblance humans have to the infant, also illustrating the effect of neoteny in humandevelopment.

The following photograph of a chimpanzee foetus at seven months shows body hair onthe scalp, eyebrows, borders of the eye lids, lips and chin—precisely those places wherehair is predominantly retained in adult humans today, again illustrating the effect of neotenyor pedomorphosis in human development. Clearly, humans are an extremely neotenised—love-indoctrinated—ape. ‘Pedomorphosis’ (derived from the Greek pais meaning ‘child’and morphosis meaning ‘shaping’) was the term given by the biologist Walter Garstang in
1894 to a mode of evolution in which the adult form of the descendant resembles the young
form of the ancestor. Garstang showed that it was from the free-swimming larval formsof echinoderms that the evolution of chordates and hence of vertebrates, could be mostsatisfactorily traced.

606

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

So, we humans did learn to recognise that the older individuals became the more theirinfancy training in love wore off and therefore that the younger an individual, the moreintegrative he or she would likely be, and this selection for youthfulness had the effect ofretarding our development so that we became more infant-like in our appearance as adults. Asstated, this was how we came to regard neotenous features—large eyes, dome forehead, snubnose and hairless skin—as attractive.
It should be noted that, as initially described in Part 7:1, when the upset state of thehuman condition fully emerged some two million years ago the selection for youthful,neotenous-featured, selfless integrativeness that took place during the love-indoctrinationprocess began to be supplanted by selection for youthful, neotenous-featured innocencefor sexual destruction. When upset emerged in humans, innocence, particularly women’sinnocence, became sought-after for sexual destruction—sex for procreation was perverted,used instead as a way of attacking innocence for its implied criticism of the upset, corruptedstate. What this means is that while neotenous features have been continually selectedfor thousands of generations, from the beginning of the love-indoctrination process inour earliest ape ancestors right up to the present day in modern humans, the reasoningbehind the selection for neotenous features changed significantly along the way. (Note,this ‘selection’ is not the ‘natural selection’ of the gene-based refinement system but ‘selfselection’ through conscious choice.) At two million years ago, instead of selecting forneotenous features because they signalled a cooperative individual, such features began tobe selected for because they signalled an innocent individual who was ‘attractive’ for sexualdestruction. So while humans are an extremely neotenised ape and the love-indoctrinationprocess explains how we first came to regard neotenous features—large eyes, domeforehead, snub nose and a hairless body—as attractive, love-indoctrination isn’t the onlyreason for the extent of the extremely neotenised state of humans today, or the reason wenow regard neotenous features as beautiful and attractive.
_______________________

It should be pointed out that the assumption might arise that since juvenile animalshaven’t yet entered the adult stage where there exists extreme competition and aggressionfor food, shelter, territory and a mate, that selecting for juvenileness so that eventually theless competitive and aggressive juvenile characteristics are carried through into adulthoodmight be a way of eliminating aggression from a species, but it isn’t. Certainly, as will bedescribed in detail in Part 8:5H, we humans have domesticated dogs and even foxes byselecting for more friendly and social juvenile characteristics, the effect of which was toretard the development of some dogs and foxes so that they retain the more friendly and socialbehaviour of juveniles into adulthood—with the juvenile neotenous physical characteristicsof floppy ears, more neotenous faces, etc, also carrying through into adulthood. Retardingdevelopment does bring the tamer, more friendly, social characteristics of the juvenilestages to adulthood, but it still doesn’t free the genes from their need to be selfish, and sodoesn’t eliminate selfish competition and aggression—only love-indoctrination can do that.
Juvenileness is a form of more friendly socialness but it isn’t in itself a selfless state—in

Part 8:4D

Self-selection of integrativeness through sexual or mate selection

607
fact, dogs and foxes who have been ‘puppyfied’ still aggressively compete for the resourcesof food, territory and mating opportunities. The adult stage of having to reproduce can bedelayed and partially submerged by selecting for youthfulness but not eliminated. Again,only love-indoctrination can remove the intrinsic selfishness in a large multicellular animalspecies, make it a truly selflessly behaved species. This is why I said that in the loveindoctrination process the reason for selecting for youthfulness was not because the younghaven’t yet become aggressive competitors for resources, especially for opportunities tomate, but because ‘the older individuals became, the more their infancy training in lovewore off ’. What is important is the training in love/selflessness, not in delaying the onset ofadult competitiveness and aggression. The famous ‘dog whisperer’ Cesar Millan is forevertelling dog-owners that the mistake they are making in trying to control their dogs is thatthey are attempting to love them into behaving less aggressively when what they have to doif they want to achieve control and reduced aggression in their dogs is impose dominance.
This is the point: our human development, our humanisation, the elimination of competitiveaggression and the formation of our instinctive all-loving, unconditionally selfless, moral soul,was achieved using love-indoctrination supported by mate selection, but love-indoctrinationdoesn’t work with dogs because even if they have been tamed/domesticated through humanselection of more juvenile characteristics, they haven’t overcome the ‘animal condition’of selfishly having to ensure their genes reproduce, which is why dogs are still highlycompetitive for food, shelter, territory and a mate—a competitiveness that only dominancehierarchy can abate. Dog owners try to, as it were, fill the heads of their dogs with love, tryto train their dogs in selfless love, try to nurture them into behaving integratively, in fact, tryto love-indoctrinate them, but our selection of dogs has only been for juvenile tameness, notfor unconditional selfless love. Incidentally, this is why the taming/domestication of dogsand even foxes has been able to be achieved in a relatively short time, a much shorter timethan it takes to achieve love-indoctrination, which, as has been explained, is a difficult, timeconsuming process because it has to overcome the powerful intrinsic selfishness of the genes.
The fact is, there is a huge difference between the love-indoctrination supported by mateselection process and our domestication of dogs and foxes. Domesticated dogs and foxes arestill ‘locked out’ of the fully integrated, ‘heavenly’, unconditionally selfless, all-loving state.
As Cesar Millan teaches, dogs are trying to dominate all the time. Real love, giving away acompetitive advantage, is not a consideration of theirs. Friendliness, or tameness, and loveare, in truth, very different.
Mindful of this immense difference, the human domestication of dogs and foxes doesdramatically illustrate some of the aspects involved in the love-indoctrination, mate selectionprocess, particularly how powerfully effective in producing a change conscious selfselection can be, and how the development of stages of maturation is retarded by selectingfor youthfulness—which is why description of our domestication of dogs and foxes is aworthwhile inclusion here. Again, the huge difference between the love-indoctrinationsupported by mate selection process and our domestication of dogs and foxes is described inmuch greater detail in Part 8:5H.
_______________________

608

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

In summary, love-indoctrination enabled genetic refinement’s seeming inability todevelop unconditional selflessness to be overcome, and the love-indoctrinated emergenceof unconditional selflessness allowed consciousness to emerge, and with the emergenceof consciousness came the ability to support the love-indoctrination process by activelyconsciously self-selecting for cooperative integrativeness, especially by females selectingmore cooperative individuals with which to mate.
While love-indoctrination can be seen developing in some species particularly primatesand especially bonobos, so far the evidence indicates that it has only been our ape ancestors whomanaged to complete the process, the result of which is our species’ unconditionally selfless,genuinely altruistic, universally loving instinctive self or ‘soul’, the ‘voice’ or expression ofwhich is our moral ‘conscience’—a hypothesis the fossil record is now corroborating.

Part 8:4E Fossil evidence confirming the love-indoctrination process
Although the fossil record has been slow to yield evidence of our ape ancestors wholived during humanity’s infancy (which, as was explained in Part 3:11, lasted from some 12to 4 million years ago), fossils of our direct ancestors from this period have been found veryrecently, and they are confirming the love-indoctrination process. These recently discoveredancestors are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (who lived some 7 million years ago and is thoughtto be the first representative of the human line after we diverged from chimpanzees); Orrorintugenensis (who lived some 6 million years ago); and the two species of Ardipithecus:kadabba (who lived some 5.6 million years ago), and ramidus (who lived some 4.4 millionyears ago). Incidentally, Sahelanthropus means ‘Sahel man’ (Sahel is an area near the Sahara);
Orrorin tugenensis means ‘original man whose fossils were found in the Tugen region in
Kenya’; Ardipithecus means ‘ground ape’, with kadabba meaning ‘oldest ancestor’, andramidus meaning ‘root’ or basal family ancestor.
It is worth emphasising that these fossils have all been found very recently.
Sahelanthropus was only discovered in 2002 (in the form of a skull) and decisively identifiedas a human ancestor in April 2013, while fragments of a skull, jaw and thigh bone belonging to
Orrorin were first unearthed in 2001. Although fragments of Ardipithecus were first discoveredin 1992, and the unearthing of a largely intact skeleton (which was nicknamed ‘Ardi’) beganin 1994, the remains of the latter—one of only six reasonably complete skeletons of earlyhumans older than 1 million years—were in such poor condition that it took until 2009—over 15 years of analysis—for reports to be published. With studies on all of these recentlydiscovered ancestors now becoming available, including the series of 2009 Ardipithecusreports, which Science magazine deemed ‘Breakthrough of the Year’, it is exciting to see thatconfirming evidence of the love-indoctrination process that led to the establishment of ourextraordinary unconditionally selfless moral instincts is slowly but surely emerging.
So, how does this new evidence confirm the love indoctrination process? How, forinstance, does it affect our understanding of the emergence of bipedalism, the first keyfactor in developing unconditionally selfless moral instincts? When I first put forward thenurturing, ‘love-indoctrination’ explanation for such instincts in 1983, I said, contrary to

Part 8:4E

Fossil evidence confirming the love-indoctrination process

609
prevailing views, that it meant bipedalism must have developed early in this nurturing of loveprocess and, therefore, early in our ancestors’ history, and, indeed, this is what these recentfossil discoveries now show. Scientists can infer whether a species was bipedal by severalmethods, including the position of the foramen magnum (the opening at the base of the skullthrough which the spinal cord enters), because in species that stand upright the openingappears toward the centre of the skull rather than at the rear. Using information such as this,the current scientific thinking is that bipedalism arose at least as early as Sahelanthropustchadensis, with anthropologists now saying, ‘Bipedalism is one of very few human characteristicsthat appears to have evolved at the base of the hominin clade [species more closely related to modernhumans than to any other living species]. Recent fossil discoveries have apparently pushed back the originof the hominin clade into the late Miocene, to 6 to 7 million years ago (Ma). The oldest known potentialhominin [human line] fossils [are] attributed to Sahelanthropus tchadensis’ (Brian G. Richmond & William
L. Jungers, ‘Orrorin tugenensis Femoral Morphology and the Evolution of Hominin Bipedalism’, Science, 2008, Vol.319,
No.5870).

The analysis of the fossils belonging to the slightly more recent Orrorin Tugenensisprovide further evidence of bipedalism. In addition to the evidence presented in the fragmentsof its skull, the analysis of Orrorin tugenensis’ femur (thigh bone) has allowed scientists toconclude ‘that Orrorin was a habitual biped as shown by a suite of features in the proximal femur’ (Martin
Pickford et al, ‘Bipedalism in Orrorin tugenensis revealed by its femora’, Comptes Rendus Palevol, 2002, Vol.1, No.4),
and that ‘O. tugenensis is a basal hominin adapted to bipedalism, and current evidence suggests that an
Australopithecus-like bipedal morphology evolved early in the hominin clade and persisted successfullyfor most of human evolutionary history’ (Brian G. Richmond & William L. Jungers, ‘Orrorin tugenensis Femoral
Morphology and the Evolution of Hominin Bipedalism’, Science, 2008, Vol.319, No.5870).

Fossils of Ardipithecus, and particularly Ar. ramidus, confirm that bipedalism was wellestablished by 4.4 million years ago with studies of ‘Ardi’ (the relatively intact skeleton),leading the respected anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy to conclude that ‘Ar. ramidus was fullycapable of bipedality and had evolved a substantially modified pelvis and foot with which to walk upright’
(‘Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949). Furthermore,

Lovejoy confirmed the long history of bipedalism that preceded Ar. ramidus when he saidthat Ar. ramidus ‘has been bipedal for a very long time’ (Ann Gibbons, ‘A New Kind of Ancestor: Ardipithecus
Unveiled’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949).

The second requirement for love-indoctrination to occur is the existence of idealnursery conditions, namely an environment that provides uninterrupted access to food,shelter and territory. You would perhaps expect such conditions would be found in humidforests and woodlands, where food is plentiful and trees provide shelter and refuge frompredators, however, the scientific community’s traditional view has been that the juncture inour ancestral history that separated our ancestors from the other apes was when the formerventured onto the savannah. However, in light of the fossil evidence that has emerged inthe 10 years prior to the time of writing, which is in 2013—and in the 30 years since I firstproposed the nurturing, love-indoctrination explanation—the scientific community nowaccepts that this separation of our human ancestors from other primates occurred whileour ancestors lived in forests and woodlands, the sort of environment I identified as beingrequired for the love-indoctrination process to begin.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

610

The Biology

Scientists are now able to reconstruct the habitats of Sahelanthropus, Orrorin and
Ardipithecus based on those species’ physical characteristics, the information provided bythe fossils of other animals and plants found accompanying them, as well as climate data.
While Sahelanthropus fossils are so limited they don’t provide the information needed toconfirm that they were adapted to climbing trees and thus lived in forests or woodlands,reconstructions of their environment have narrowed Sahelanthropus’ habitat to ‘a mosaicof environments from gallery forest at the edge of a lake area to a dominance of large savannah andgrassland’ (Patrick Vignaud et al, ‘Geology and palaeontology of the Upper Miocene Toros-Menalla hominid locality,
Chad’, Nature, 2002, Vol.418, No.6894). As we move forward in time to Orrorin some 6 million years
ago, this species’ skeletal structure shows tree climbing adaptations, which clearly point tothem living in an arboreal habitat. Associated animal and plant fossils have allowed scientiststo infer that ‘Orrorin tugenensis may have evolved in well wooded to forested conditions margining lakesand streams with open country-side in the vicinity’ (Soizic Le Fur et al, ‘The mammal assemblage of the hominidsite TM266 (Late Miocene, Chad Basin): ecological structure and paleoenvironmental implications’, Naturewissenschaften,
2009, Vol.96, No.5);
and that ‘the surroundings of the site were probably open woodland, while the presence
of several specimens of colobus monkeys indicate that there were denser stands of trees in the vicinity,possibly fringing the lake margin and streams that drained into the lake’ (Martin Pickford & Brigitte Senut,
‘The geological and faunal context of Late Miocene hominid remains from Lukeino, Kenya’, Comptes Rendus de l’Academiedes Sciences – Series IIA - Earth and Planetary Science, 2001, Vol.332, No.2). Forest and woodlands continued
to be the preferred habitat of Ar. ramidus some 4.4 million years ago, as indicated by itsretention of tree climbing features such as a pelvis that supported large climbing muscles,flexible wrists that allowed walking on all fours along the top of branches, and an opposablebig toe that allowed it to grasp the branches with its feet: ‘Ar. ramidus preferred a woodland-toforest habitat rather than open grasslands’ (Tim D. White et al, ‘Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of
Early Hominids’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949). In fact, the wealth of surrounding evidence from the

Ar. ramidus fossil site in Ethiopia allowed the paleoanthropologist Andrew Hill to remarkthat ‘There’s so much good data here that people aren’t going to be able to question whether earlyhominins were living in woodlands’ (Ann Gibbons, ‘Habitat for Humanity’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949), and
fellow researcher Giday WoldeGabriel to state that Ar. ramidus lived ‘in an environment thatwas humid and cooler than it is today, containing habitats ranging from woodland to forest patches’
(Giday WoldeGabriel et al, ‘The Geological, Isotopic, Botanical, Invertebrate, and Lower Vertebrate Surroundings of
Ardipithecus ramidus’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949). Indeed, this ‘good data’ associated with the ‘Ardi’
dig has meant that palaeobiologists have been able to reconstruct Ar. ramidus’ habitat toan extraordinary level of detail: ‘Ardi lived on an ancient floodplain covered in sylvan woodlands,climbing among hackberry, fig, and palm trees, and coexisting with monkeys, kudu antelopes, andpeafowl’ (Ann Gibbons, ‘Breakthrough Of The Year: Ardipithecus ramidus’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5960) where
‘doves and parrots flew overhead’ (Ann Gibbons, ‘Habitat for Humanity’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949).

Combine this environment with our knowledge of Ar. ramidus’ diet, which indicates Ar.ramidus ‘was a generalized omnivore and frugivore [fruit eater]’ (Gen Suwa et al, ‘Paleobiological Implicationsof the Ardipithecus ramidus Dentition’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949), and our knowledge of existing ape
behaviour, which indicates Ar. ramidus ‘almost certainly slept and fed in trees’ (Craig B. Stanford,
‘Chimpanzees and the Behavior of Ardipithecus ramidus’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 2012, Vol.41), and a picture
begins to emerge of the ideal nursery conditions that enabled love-indoctrination to develop.

Part 8:4E

Fossil evidence confirming the love-indoctrination process

611

These ideal nursery conditions also refute the long-held nurturing-avoiding theory thatupright walking supposedly developed when our ancestors moved out onto the savannah: ‘Ar.ramidus did not live in the open savanna that was once envisioned to be the predominant habitat of theearliest hominids’ (Giday WoldeGabriel et al, ‘The Geological, Isotopic, Botanical, Invertebrate, and Lower Vertebrate
Surroundings of Ardipithecus ramidus’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949). In fact, the evidence that bipedality
developed in ‘forest or wooded environments’ is now so conclusive that Hill was able to assertthat ‘Savannas had nothing to do with upright walking’ (Ann Gibbons, ‘Habitat for Humanity’, Science, 2009,
Vol.326, No.5949). Yes, because the development of bipedality is closely associated with the
love-indoctrination process it had to have occurred while our ancestors were inhabiting idealnursery conditions, which clearly suggested an arboreal environment, as I maintained when Ioriginally put forward the love-indoctrination process in 1983.
These recent fossil discoveries also confirm the third requirement for love indoctrinationto occur: the presence and influence of more maternal mothers. Scientists are able todeduce a remarkable amount of information about the social behaviour of our ancestorsfrom their fossils, and, as a result of this evidence, are now beginning to acknowledge thatthese species exhibited low levels of aggression toward one another, and that females werenot only not dominated by males, but dictated mate choice by choosing non-aggressive,cooperative males to reproduce with—hallmarks you would expect of a society highlyfocused on maternal nurturing of their infants.
The first striking evidence provided by the fossil record to support these deductions isthat these early humans had small canine teeth: ‘male canine size and prominence were dramaticallyreduced by ~6 to 4.4 Ma’ (Gen Suwa et al, ‘Paleobiological Implications of the Ardipithecus ramidus Dentition’,
Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949). This is relevant because ‘canines function as weapons in interindividual
aggression in most anthropoid species’ (ibid), particularly in aggressive male-to-male sexual
competition for mating opportunities, and so canines ‘inform aspects of social structure andbehavior’ (ibid), where small canines are ‘indicative of minimal social aggression’ (Tim D. White et al,
‘Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949).

Furthermore, comparisons of canine size in Ar. ramidus with current apes indicate that
Ar. ramidus males ‘retained virtually no anatomical correlates of male-to-male conflict’ (C. Owen
Lovejoy, ‘Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949), a situation
that would apply to our earlier ancestors Sahelanthropus and Orrorin since they too hadsmall canines. Given that the reality of the animal kingdom involves fierce competitionbetween sexually reproducing individuals seeking to reproduce their genes, this reduction inaggressive male competition for mating opportunities is an extremely significant anomaly,as Lovejoy recognises: ‘Loss of the projecting canine raises other vexing questions because this toothis so fundamental to reproductive success in higher primates. What could cause males to forfeit theirability to aggressively compete with other males?’ (ibid). Traditional attempts to answer this ‘vexing’
question have argued either that large canine teeth were made redundant when humansadopted hand-held weapons—the so called ‘weapons replacement’ hypothesis; or thatlarge, overlapping canines made eating certain foods difficult and, therefore, were selectedagainst; or that large canines had to make way for the large teeth of robust Australopithecus.
However, the fossil record now shows that canines were reduced well before the emergenceof the australopithecines; and as mentioned, it also shows that Ar. ramidus ‘was a generalized

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

612

The Biology
omnivore and frugivore [fruit eater]’, which is not unlike baboons and many other species of
current primates who have retained their large canines. And with regard to weapon usemaking large canines redundant, the fossil record now shows that our ancestors had developedsmall canines at least as early as Sahelanthropus, which is millions of years before any fossilevidence of weapon or tool use—and even if those ancestors brandished weapons such asbranches or bones that would not leave ‘evidence’, the argument still fails to explain whyhaving weapons and large canines would not be an advantage in any contest. A 1992 paperdescribed the confusion that has surrounded the evolution of human canine reduction: ‘theissue of human canine evolution has continued to be controversial and apparently intractable’ (Leonard O.
Greenfield, ‘Origin of the human canine: A new solution to an old enigma’, American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
1992, Vol.35, No.S15). And
the new discoveries have only increased this confusion. But as we can
now see, the answer to the ‘vexing’ and ‘apparently intractable’ question of ‘what could cause malesto forfeit their ability to aggressively compete with other males’ is the love-indoctrination process. As
will be explained in more detail below, conscious self-selection of integrativeness, especiallythe female sexual or mate selection of less competitive, less aggressive, more integrativemales developed to assist, speed up and help maintain love-indoctrination’s development ofintegration. Indeed, male competition for mating opportunities is so ‘fundamental to reproductivesuccess’ that only active sexual selection against it can account for its reduction, as is made
clear in this quote, ‘Canine reduction did not result from a relaxation of selection pressure for largecanines, but rather a positive selection against them’ (Arthur Klages, ‘Sahelanthropus tchadensis: An Examinationof its Hominin Affinities and Possible Phylogenetic Placement’, Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of
Anthropology, 2008, Vol.16, No.1). Indeed, it is now so clear that canine reduction could only be
caused by ‘a positive selection against them’ that the importance of sexual selection is now beingrecognised by anthropologists such as Lovejoy, Gen Suwa, Berhane Asfaw, Tim White andothers, who write, ‘In modern monkeys and apes, the upper canine is important in male agonistic
[aggressive] behavior, so its subdued shape in early hominids and Ar. ramidus suggests that sexualselection played a primary role in canine reduction. Thus, fundamental reproductive and social behavioralchanges probably occurred in hominids long before they had enlarged brains and began to use stone tools’
(Gen Suwa et al, ‘Paleobiological Implications of the Ardipithecus ramidus Dentition’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949).

As these authors make clear, the reduction in the size of canines was such a remarkableachievement that it required ‘fundamental reproductive and social behavioral changes’ in which
‘sexual selection played a primary role’. These scientists are describing a society that switched
from being patriarchal—dominated by male sexual selection with males aggressivelycompeting for mating opportunities—to matriarchal, dictated by female sexual selectionwhere females choose mates that are less aggressive; however, these scientists don’t explainthe only mechanism that could allow such a switch: love-indoctrination. This remarkablereversal where females are empowered, and males ‘forfeit their ability to aggressively compete withother males’, is discussed in more detail in Part 8:5, however, it is sufficient to emphasise at this
point that the fossil record is increasingly providing compelling evidence that female sexualselection was occurring very early in human history, at least as early as Sahelanthropus some
7 million years ago, and that it ‘emerged in concert with habituation to bipedality’ (C. Owen Lovejoy,
‘Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949), which again is in
accord with love-indoctrination, all of which I first predicted in 1983.

Part 8:4E

Fossil evidence confirming the love-indoctrination process

613

Another significant factor revealed by the fossil record is the difference in the size betweenmales and females, including their canines, a phenomena known as sexual size dimorphism.
Since ‘sexual size dimorphism is generally associated with sexual selection via agonistic male competitionin nonhuman primates…if a species showed very strong size dimorphism, it probably was characterizedby intense male mate competition’ (J. Michael Plavcan, ‘Sexual Size Dimorphism, Canine Dimorphism, and MaleMale Competition in Primates’, Human Nature, 2012, Vol.23, No.1). Conversely, scientists recognise that a low
level of sexual size dimorphism is an indicator of a society in which males do not aggressivelycompete for mating opportunities. As mentioned, the fossil records for our human ancestorsshow that ‘There is no evidence of substantial canine dimorphism in earlier hominins, including
Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus, and Australopithecus anamensis, or later hominins’ (ibid). In addition to this
low level of canine dimorphism, Ar. ramidus exhibited low levels of body size dimorphism,which, in terms of behaviour, ‘were probably the anatomical correlates of comparatively weak amountsof male-male competition, perhaps associated with…a tendency for male-female codominance as seen in P.paniscus [bonobos]’ (Gen Suwa et al, ‘Paleobiological Implications of the Ardipithecus ramidus Dentition’, Science, 2009,
Vol.326, No.5949). As will be described shortly, the prevailing view about bonobos is that rather
than having achieved ‘male-female codominance’, they have in fact gone further and achievedfemale dominance, a matriarchy.
So the three requirements of the love-indoctrination process of bipedality, ideal nurseryconditions and selection for more maternal mothers are now being dramatically confirmed bythe fossil record. However, as I mentioned earlier and will elaborate on shortly, the problemwith this nurturing, true explanation, and why its early permutations were discarded by thescientific establishment, is that it has been an unbearably confronting, exposing truth for ourpresent human-condition-afflicted human race that has been so unable to adequately nurtureour infants to the extent our instincts expect. This new evidence has left those scientistswho continue to deny the importance of nurturing in our development in a predicament inwhich they are forced to ask the right questions even though they are ‘vexing’, but refuse toacknowledge the truthful answer, because until the human condition was explained nurturingwas an off-limits subject. The following passage from Lovejoy exemplifies this predicament:
‘Why did early hominids become the only primate to completely eliminate the sectorial canine complex

[large projecting canines that are continuously sharpened against a lower molar]? Why did they becomebipedal, a form of locomotion with virtually no measurable mechanical advantage? Why did body-sizedimorphism increase in their likely descendants? These are now among the ultimate questions of humanevolution’ (‘Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949). Lovejoy
further reduced these ‘ultimate questions’ to this one, final sentence that admits the realityof a cooperative past: ‘Even our species-defining cooperative mutualism can now be seen to extendwell beyond the deepest Pliocene [5.3 million years ago]’ (ibid). The great outstanding mystery for
biologists has been how could the cold, selfish, competitive, gene-based natural selectionprocess have possibly created such warm, unconditionally selfless, cooperative, lovinginstincts in us humans? It is only with the explanation of the human condition that we canfinally understand why we haven’t been able to adequately nurture our infants—and with thatcompassionate insight it at last becomes psychologically safe to admit that nurturing is whatmade us human, thus allowing these ‘ultimate questions of human evolution’ to be answered.

614

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 8:4 F Bonobos evidence the whole love-indoctrination, self-selection ofintegrativeness through mate selection process
While these recent fossil discoveries are providing exciting confirmation that our apeancestors completed the development of the love-indoctrination process, of the living primatespecies, only bonobos have not only developed love-indoctrination but appear to have comeclose to completing the love-indoctrination process to become a fully integrated Specie
Individual; they are certainly by far the most cooperative/harmonious/gentle/loving/integratedof the non-human primates. It follows then, that although there is no suggestion that bonobosor chimpanzees are a living human ancestor, comparisons have been made between bonobosand our ancestors. For instance, the physical anthropologist Adrienne Zihlman first proposedin 1978 ‘that, among living species, the pygmy chimpanzee (P. paniscus) offers us the best prototype ofthe prehominid [pre-human] ancestor’ (Adrienne L. Zihlman et al, ‘Pygmy chimpanzee as a possible prototype forthe common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas’, Nature, 1978, Vol.275, No.5682), using the then earliest
known early human, Australopithecus, to compare the two species’ physical characteristics,including their bipedality, canine teeth and sexual size dimorphism. In 1996 Zihlman refinedher assessment to include similarities with the, at the time, newly discovered Ardipithecus.
In a further example, the primatologist Frans de Waal notes the extraordinary similaritybetween our ape ancestor and bonobos, saying, ‘The bonobo’s body proportions—its long legs andnarrow shoulders—seem to perfectly fit the descriptions of Ardi, as do its relatively small canines’ (The
Bonobo and the Atheist, 2013, p.61 of 289). Yes, bonobos are physically extremely similar to our fossil
ancestors, but beyond the physical similarities, scientists are suggesting bonobo behaviouralso corresponds with that of our ancestors. In addition to the view expressed above, that, likebonobos, Ardipithecus were not male dominated, Zihlman has suggested that ‘the Pan paniscusmodel offers another way to view the social life of early hominids, given their sociability, lack of maledominance and the female-centric features of their society’ (‘Reconstructions reconsidered: chimpanzee modelsand human evolution’, Great Ape Societies, eds. William C. McGrew et al, 1996, p.301 of 352).

Further comparison between bonobos and common chimpanzees clearly evidences whathas been said about the love-indoctrination, sexual or mate selection process, for the bonobosmake visible the entire process.
As mentioned, chimpanzees are found in equatorial Africa, north and east of the Congo
River. The social model of the chimpanzee is patriarchal or male-dominated. Although thereis a focus on nurturing of the young by chimpanzee mothers, the climatically unstable andgeographically challenging environments in which chimpanzees live means their socialbonds are periodically subjected to stress, such as from food scarcities during drier times.
This has meant that the environment in which the females live is often disturbed by malesaggressively competing for mating opportunities. This pressured existence also results infierce inter-group confrontation. To allay food pressures, chimpanzees also regularly huntcolobus monkeys as a source of protein.
In contrast, bonobos live, as mentioned, in the ideal nursery conditions of the warmclimate south of the Congo River, a stable environment that offers ample food and thesheltering safety of the jungle’s canopy for sleeping, eating and travelling. As a result, theirsocial model is vastly different to that of chimpanzees. Firstly, as has been mentioned,the social dynamic of the bonobo society features a gender-role reversal to that of the

Part 8:4F

Bonobos evidence the whole love-indoctrination process

615
chimpanzees in that bonobo females form alliances and dominate social groups, both of whichare distinctly male activities in chimpanzee society. Bonobo societies are matriarchal, femaledominated, controlled and led, and the entire focus of the social group seems to be on thematernal or female role of nurturing infants. Bonobo females have, on average, one offspringevery 5 to 6 years and provide better maternal care than chimpanzees. Bonobo infants are bornsmall, develop more slowly than other ape species, and stay in a state of infancy and totaldependence for a relatively long period of time—being weaned at about 5 years of age andremaining dependent on their mothers up until between 7 and 9 years of age. Chimpanzeesare weaned at about 4 years of age and remain dependent for an average of 6 years. Notsurprisingly, amongst the primates only bonobos have well-developed breasts similar to thoseof female humans—as the upcoming photos of bonobos show—presumably due to theiremphasis on nursing.

Human
H. sap.sap

60 yrs

Bonobo

23 yrs

26 yrs

38 yrs

Age 21
Adolescence
12 yrs

Subadult
8 yrs

9 yrs

5 yrs

34 wks

38 wks

Childhood
Age 5

6 yrs

6 mths

Age 12

18 mths

Infancy
4 yrs

18 wks
Gestation

24 wks

34 wks

Primate Life Spans

This chart shows the length of the infancy period for a number of primates. As indicated,lemurs have an infancy period of 6 months, whereas with macaque monkeys it is 18 months.

16 yrs

20 yrs

Lemur

Female Reproductive Period 28 yrs

Macaque
Monkey

Adult 38 yrs

Chimpanzee

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

616

The Biology

In chimpanzees it is, as just mentioned, 3 to 4 years. Bonobos’ infancy period can last for upto 5 years, and in humans it does last 5 years. As mentioned, to develop love-indoctrination,selection has to occur for long infancies, for exceptionally maternal mothers and for femaleswho have sufficiently strong characters to rein in male aggression. Also necessary arethe exceptional nursery conditions of a peaceful and food-abundant environment, whichthe bonobos have had within the dense forests of the Congo basin in Africa (although thehuman race’s human-condition-afflicted, upset destructive behaviour is now threatening thathaven). As explained, any breakdown in the nurturing process would result in a return to thepre-love-indoctrination, competitive state where male aggression from fighting for matingopportunities dominates.
It is possible that the selection for a longer infancy period had the side effect oflengthening all the stages of maturation—perhaps the stages are all linked genetically so thatthe extension of one stage results in the extension of all stages—because the age at whichbonobos of both sexes reach sexual or reproductive maturity is 13 to 15 years, whereas inchimpanzees it is only 10 to 13 years for females and 12 to 15 years for males. This extensionof all stages of maturation as a result of selecting for a longer infancy may explain how wehumans acquired our comparatively long life span.
The primatologist Takayoshi Kano is one of the world’s leading experts on bonobosand since 1973 has led the long-running study of bonobos in their natural habitat, at a site in
Wamba in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire). In an interview conductedwith Kano, his long-time collaborator Suehisa Kuroda contributed the following observation:
‘The long dependence of the son may be caused by the slow growth of the bonobo infant, which seemsslower than in the chimpanzee. For example, even after one year of age, bonobo infants do not walk orclimb much, and are very slow. The mothers keep them near. They start to play with others at aboutone and a half years, which is much later than in the chimpanzee. During this period, mothers are veryattentive…Female juveniles gradually loosen their tie with the mother and travel further away fromher than do her sons’ (Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, Frans de Waal & Frans Lanting, 1997, p.60 of 210). The bond
between mother and son is of particular importance in bonobo society. The son will maintainhis connection with his mother for life and will depend upon her for his social standing withinthe group. The son of the society’s dominant female, the strong matriarch that maintainssocial order, will rise in the ranks of the group, presumably to ensure the establishment andperpetuation of unaggressive, non-competitive, cooperative male characteristics, both learnedand genetic, within the group. Again, historically, it is the male primates who have beenparticularly divisive in their aggressive competition to win mating opportunities and thereforethe gender most needing of love-indoctrination—as this quote makes clear: ‘Patient observationover many years convinced [Takayoshi] Kano that male bonobos bonded with their mothers for life. Thatcontrasts with chimpanzee males who rarely have close contact with their mothers after they grow up,instead joining other males in never-ending tussles for dominance’ (‘Bonobos: The apes who make love, not war’by Paul Raffaele, Last Tribes on Earth.com website).

The biologist and psychologist Sue Savage-Rumbaugh is America’s leading ape-languageresearcher. In Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind (1994), she and co-author

Part 8:4F

Bonobos evidence the whole love-indoctrination process

617

Roger Lewin offered this insight into bonobo society and its emphasis on nurturing: ‘Bonobolife is centered around the offspring. Unlike what happens among common chimps, all members of thebonobo social group help with infant care and share food with infants. If you are a bonobo infant, you cando no wrong. This high regard for infants gives bonobo females a status that is not shared by commonchimpanzee females, who must bear the burden of child care all alone. Bonobo females and their infantsform the core of the group, with males invited in to the extent that they are cooperative and helpful. Highstatus males are those that are accepted by the females, and male aggression directed toward females israre even though males are considerably stronger’ (p.108 of 299).

As mentioned, bonobos are much gentler than their chimpanzee cousins. They arerelatively placid, peaceful and egalitarian, exhibiting a remarkable sensitivity to others—andnot just sensitivity towards their own kind, as will be shown shortly when it is described howa bonobo cares for an injured bird. In fact, while physical violence is customary amongstchimpanzees it is rare among bonobos where, although the males are stronger, male aggressionhas been tamed and, unlike other great apes, there is actually little difference in size betweenthe male and female of the species. Bonobos also have reduced canine teeth, another indicationthey are less aggressive. As mentioned, even sex has been employed by bonobos as anappeasement device for subsiding conflict and tension. The practice of infanticide, while notuncommon amongst chimpanzees, also appears to be non-existent within bonobo societieswhere even orphan bonobos are cared for by the group. In chimpanzee society orphans areoccasionally adopted by a female but are not especially cared for by the group. Social groupsof bonobos also have much greater stability than social groups of chimpanzees, with bonobosperiodically coming together in large, harmonious, stable groups of up to 120 individuals. Forinstance, the anthropologist Barbara Fruth, who had spent many years studying bonobos intheir natural habitat, observed that ‘up to 100 bonobos at a time from several groups spend their nighttogether. That would not be possible with chimpanzees because there would be brutal fighting between rivalgroups’ (Paul Raffaele, ‘Bonobos: The apes who make love, not war’, 2003, Last Tribes on Earth.com).

Unlike chimpanzees, bonobos also regularly share their food and while the former restricttheir plant-food intake to mainly fruit, bonobos eat leaves and plant pith as well as fruit, adiet more like that of gorillas. While bonobos have been known to capture and eat smallgame, they are not known to routinely hunt down and eat large animals such as monkeys, likechimpanzees do.
The following extract from the 1995 National Geographic documentary The New
Chimpanzees provides a good example of the important role a strong matriarchy plays inthe prevention of divisive selfish and aggressive behaviour. To quote from the narration: ‘Animpressively stern [bonobo] female enters and snaps a young sapling. Once she picks herself up shedoes something entirely surprising for a female chimp, she displays [the female is shown assertively
dragging the sapling through the group], and the males give her sway [a male is shown cowering out ofher way]. For this is the confident stride of the group’s leader, its alpha female, whom [Takayoshi] Kanohas named Harloo.’ As mentioned in Part 5:1, those who have studied primates will typically
tell you of an extraordinarily self-assured, secure-in-self and strong-willed female in theirstudy group. All primates are trying to develop the nurturing of integrativeness but only our

618

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
ancestors and the bonobos have had the right conditions to achieve it. In that Part, whenillustrating the strength of character that had to be developed to curtail male aggression andthe centred security of self needed to be a good mother, it was mentioned how the Americanprimatologist Dian Fossey, whose work will be further referred to shortly, studied gorillas inthe mountain forests of Rwanda in Africa for some 18 years. In her 1983 book Gorillas in the
Mist, Fossey wrote about a remarkably assured female gorilla named ‘Old Goat’ who was such
‘an exemplary parent’ (p.174 of 282) that her son ‘Tiger’ ‘was a contented and well-adjusted individualwhose zest for living was almost contagious’ (p.186). During a trip to Kenya in 1992, my partner

Annie Williams and I were invited to visit anthropologist Shirley Strum’s ‘Pumphouse Gang’study troop of baboons, which had been made famous through numerous articles in National
Geographic magazine. During our visit I noticed that Strum kept on her desk the skull of ababoon named Peggy. Displaying a skull is, as I said earlier, a bit macabre but Strum said shedid so in memory of Peggy who was an extraordinarily confident, strong-willed, authoritative,charismatic individual who successfully led the Pumphouse Gang for many years. As Strumhas written: ‘She [Peggy] was the highest-ranking female in the troop, and her presence often turned thetide in favor of the animal she sponsored. While every adult male outranked her by sheer size and physicalstrength, she exerted considerable social pressure on each member of the troop. Her family also outrankedall the others…another reason for the contentment in this particular family was Peggy’s personality. Shewas a strong, calm, social animal, self-assured yet not pushy, forceful yet not tyrannical’ (Almost Human: ajourney into the world of baboons, 1987, pp.38-39 of 294).

Physically, bonobos have more slender upper bodies than chimpanzees, are more arborealand often walk upright; in fact, they are by far the most upright of the great apes. It has longbeen claimed that it was the move to savannah and the associated need to see over tall grassthat led to bipedalism, yet the bonobos live in the jungle, so some other influence must be atwork selecting for upright walking/bipedalism and, as described, the evidence indicates thatinfluence was the need to develop nurturing.
Indeed, the integrative, neotenising effects of nurturing and its role in the emergence ofbipedalism, together with the effect of exceptionally strong-willed females helping to rein inany aggression resulting from males’ competition for mating opportunities, is apparent in thepre-four-million-year-old fossil evidence that was referred to earlier: ‘The 4.4 million-year-oldskeleton of a likely human ancestor known as Ardipithecus ramidus’, discovered in Ethiopia in 1994,
shows ‘males lacked the daggerlike fangs of gorillas and chimps’, while other features showed they
‘walked upright on two legs’ (‘A Long-Lost Relative’, TIME mag. 12 Oct. 2009). Since reduced canines are a
feature of the more juvenile state we can attribute such reduction in adults to the neotenisingselection of less aggressive mates. I might mention that this TIME article erroneouslysuggested that ‘bipedality arose’ for ‘carrying food’. Again, as was pointed out earlier, and as willbe elaborated upon in Part 8:5, the all-important role of nurturing in human origins that led tobipedalism has been too confronting to admit for us upset humans who have understandablybeen incapable of adequately nurturing our children while the battle of the human conditionraged. It is only now that the human condition is explained that it becomes safe to confrontand admit the significance of nurturing in both the maturation of our species and in thematuration of our individual lives.

Part 8:4F

Bonobos evidence the whole love-indoctrination process

619

Upright Bonobos

These photographs show the aforementioned large breasts so characteristic of femalebonobos as well as the species’ exceptionally upright stance—they are, as stated above, themost bipedal of all the non-human living primates. The longer our ape ancestors had to holdinfants, the greater the need became to stand upright, so if we want to assess how much

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

620

The Biology

‘love-indoctrination’ a primate species has been able to develop we only have to look at howbipedal they have become.
In addition to their remarkably neotenous physical appearance, there is also a markedvariance in features between individual bonobos, suggesting the species is undergoing rapidchange. This in turn suggests that the bonobo species has hit upon some opportunity thatfacilitates a rapid development, which evidence indicates is the ability to develop integrationthrough love-indoctrination and mate selection.
We can see then that of all the non-human primates bonobos are by far the mostintegrated—that is, cooperative and thus peaceful. As has already been mentioned, bonobosare also exceptionally intelligent, almost certainly the most intelligent species after humans.
As explained, nurturing liberated consciousness and with it insightful intelligence, so the factthat the bonobos have been able to develop such a high degree of nurturing and are also sointelligent evidences that explanation for the origin of consciousness.
This quote, part of which was included earlier in Part 8:4C, reveals how much moreintelligent bonobos are than chimpanzees—as well as their nurtured happy disposition andgreater psychological ‘room’: ‘Everything seems to indicate that [Prince] Chim [a bonobo] wasextremely intelligent. His surprising alertness and interest in things about him bore fruit in action, for hewas constantly imitating the acts of his human companions and testing all objects. He rapidly profited byhis experiences…Never have I seen man or beast take greater satisfaction in showing off than did little
Chim. The contrast in intellectual qualities between him and his female companion [a chimpanzee] maybriefly, if not entirely adequately, be described by the term “opposites” [p.248 of 278]…Prince Chim seemsto have been an intellectual genius. His remarkable alertness and quickness to learn were associated witha cheerful and happy disposition which made him the favorite of all [p.255]…Chim also was even-temperedand good-natured, always ready for a romp; he seldom resented by word or deed unintentional roughhandling or mishap. Never was he known to exhibit jealousy…[By contrast] Panzee [the chimpanzee]could not be trusted in critical situations. Her resentment and anger were readily aroused and she wasquick to give them expression with hands and teeth [p.246]’ (Almost Human, Robert M. Yerkes, 1925). It will be
described shortly in Part 8:4H how this conscious intelligence that we can see rapidly emergingin the bonobos led to one variety of ape, or perhaps some varieties of apes, to develop into whatwe recognise in the fossil record as the australopithecines, and from the australopithecines intothe upset, human-condition-afflicted genus Homo—us modern humans.
The following section of dialogue about bonobos, from a 1996 Discovery Channeldocumentary titled The Ultimate Guide: Great Apes, confirms some of the main points thathave been made about the species thus far. The segment commences with this observation bythe primatologist Jo Myers Thompson: ‘A female chimpanzee’s life is rugged. They have hardshipsjust in daily activities. They are probably lower on the hierarchy, the social status, than males throughoutthe society and for instance males beat them up, chase them, bully them around and that doesn’t happenin bonobo society. The female bonobos are not bullied and chased. Although there can be some maleaggression it’s very minor. Female bonobos are never raped as far as we know; they have first choice atfeeding sites. Their life is much more peaceful.’ The program’s narrator then states: ‘The physicaldifference between chimps and bonobos are quite telling. Bonobos have shorter, smaller faces and a moreslender physique retaining many of the features seen in juvenile chimps. They’re rather like chimps frozeninside adolescent bodies. Even their voices are high-pitched and child-like. The male aggression that is

Part 8:4F

Bonobos evidence the whole love-indoctrination process

621
so common in chimps is much reduced in bonobos and even relations between neighbouring groups areoften peaceful.’ Thompson concludes: ‘Why do they [bonobos] need to be aggressive? They don’thave to fight for food, they don’t have to fight for sex, they don’t have to fight for inter-relationships, theydon’t have to fight for space. Why would they be aggressive?’ As has been pointed out, ideal nursery
conditions alone aren’t enough to develop love-indoctrination—there also had to be the abilityto hold a dependent infant and thus be able to select for the longer infancy period necessaryfor the love-indoctrination to take place. If all that was required to produce an integrated, fullycooperative species of large animal was the presence of ideal nursery conditions then it wouldhave been developed many times over because such ideal nursery conditions would not havebeen that uncommon over the millions of years of biological evolution.
The following quotes offer further insight into how extraordinarily integrativelyorientated bonobos are and just how wonderful our species’ time in the innocent,cooperatively-behaved, loving, ‘Garden of Eden’, fully integrated, ‘heavenly’ ‘Golden Age’must have been. In fact, I doubt you will find a better clue to our glorious past, and nowfuture, than what you are about to read.
Firstly, this extract from an article titled ‘The Bonobo: “Newest” apes are teachingus about ourselves’ demonstrates how extraordinarily sensitive, cooperative, loving andintelligent bonobos are, as well as how few exist in captivity: ‘Barbara Bell…a keeper/trainerfor the Milwaukee County Zoo…works daily with the largest group of bonobos (5 males and 4 females,ranging in age from 3 to 48 years) in North America, making it the second largest collection in the world
(the largest can be found at the Dierenpark Planckendael, in Mechelen, Belgium). There are only 120captive worldwide. “It’s like being with 9 two and a half year olds all day,” she [Bell] says. “They’reextremely intelligent.”…“They understand a couple of hundred words,” she says. “They listen veryattentively. And they’ll often eavesdrop. If I’m discussing with the staff which bonobos (to) separate intosmaller groups, if they like the plan, they’ll line up in the order they just heard discussed. If they don’t likethe plan, they’ll just line up the way they want.” “They also love to tease me a lot,” she says. “Like duringtraining, if I were to ask for their left foot, they’ll give me their right, and laugh and laugh and laugh.
But what really blows me away is their ability to understand a situation entirely.” For example, Kitty, theeldest female, is completely blind and hard of hearing. Sometimes she gets lost and confused. “They’ll justpick her up and take her to where she needs to go,” says Bell. “That’s pretty amazing. Adults demonstratetremendous compassion for each other.” The bonobo’s apparent ability to empathize, in contrast with themore hostile and aggressive bearing of the related chimpanzee, has some social scientists re-thinking ourbehavioral heritage’ (Anthony DeBartolo, Chicago Tribune, 11 Jun. 1998).

It should be explained that the reason the term ‘newest’ ape is used in the article above,and in the title of the documentary referred to earlier, is because bonobos were only identifiedas a species separate from chimpanzees in 1928. I might also mention that while they are anendangered species, rare both in the wild and in captivity, many zoos have been reluctant toexhibit bonobos because their overt sexual behaviour has been deemed too embarrassing forthe public—surely a problem that can be managed with the right educational informationand a sensitive presentation. Such censorship is also a very great shame because it deniesthe public the chance to view the species that more than any other throws light on the true,loving, soulful nature of our own human origins. Next to humans, bonobos are the mostastonishing animals on Earth because, for a large animal, they are so extraordinarily loving

622

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
and thus integrated. In fact, they are presently more loving than we are—which is obviouslya contributing reason for the reluctance to put them on display: they have just been far tooconfronting for us upset humans!
In 1997 the primatologist Frans de Waal and photographer Frans Lanting released a booktitled Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape that features another example from Barbara Bell of the trulyextraordinary empathy and kindness that exists between bonobos. Fittingly, the extract comesfrom a chapter titled ‘Sensitivity’: ‘Kidogo, a twenty-one-year-old bonobo at the Milwaukee County
Zoo suffers from a serious heart condition. He is feeble, lacking the normal stamina and self-confidenceof a grown male. When first moved to Milwaukee Zoo, the keepers’ shifting commands in the unfamiliarbuilding thoroughly confused him. He failed to understand where to go when people urged him to movefrom one place to another. Other apes in the group would step in, however, approach Kidogo, take him bythe hand, and lead him in the right direction. Barbara Bell, a caretaker and animal trainer, observed manyinstances of such spontaneous assistance and learned to call upon other bonobos to move Kidogo. If lost,
Kidogo would utter distress calls, whereupon others would calm him down or act as his guides’ (p.157 of 210).

The same book contains this description of the bonobo’s apparent sensitivity towardsother creatures: ‘Betty Walsh, a seasoned animal caretaker, observed the following incident involvinga seven-year-old female bonobo named Kuni at Twycross Zoo in England. One day, Kuni captured astarling. Out of fear that she might molest the stunned bird, which appeared undamaged, the keeperurged the ape to let it go. Perhaps because of this encouragement, Kuni took the bird outside and gentlyset it onto its feet, the right way up, where it stayed, looking petrified. When it didn’t move, Kuni threwit a little way, but it just fluttered. Not satisfied, Kuni picked up the starling with one hand and climbedto the highest point of the highest tree, where she wrapped her legs around the trunk, so that she hadboth hands free to hold the bird. She then carefully unfolded its wings and spread them wide open, onewing in each hand, before throwing the bird as hard as she could towards the barrier of the enclosure.
Unfortunately, it fell short and landed onto the bank of the moat, where Kuni guarded it for a longtime against a curious juvenile. By the end of the day, the bird was gone without a trace or feather. It isassumed that, recovered from its shock, it had flown away’ (p.156).

In the aforementioned book, Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind, Sue
Savage-Rumbaugh recounts the extreme elation and affection shown by her famous bonoboresearch subject, the young adult male Kanzi, when reunited with his mother Matata after anumber of months apart: ‘I sat down with him [Kanzi] and told him there was a surprise in the colonyroom. He began to vocalize in the way he does when expecting a favored food—“eeeh….eeeh….eeeh.” Isaid, No food surprise. Matata surprise; Matata in colony room. He looked stunned, stared at me intently,

Part 8:4F

Bonobos evidence the whole love-indoctrination process

623
and then ran to the colony room door, gesturing urgently for me to open it. When mother and son saweach other, they emitted earsplitting shrieks of excitement and joy and rushed to the wire that separatedthem. They both pushed their hands through the wire, to touch the other as best they could. Witnessingthis display of emotion, I hadn’t the heart to keep them apart any longer, and opened the connecting door.
Kanzi leapt into Matata’s arms, and they screamed and hugged for fully five minutes, and then steppedback to gaze at each other in happiness. They then played like children, laughing all the time as onlybonobos can. The laughter of a bonobo sounds like the laughter of someone who has laughed so hard thathe has run out of air but can’t stop laughing anyway. Eventually, exhausted, Kanzi and Matata quieteddown and began tenderly grooming each other’ (pp.143-144 of 299).

Further wonderful descriptions of the extraordinarily integrative behaviour of bonoboscan be found in the Australian primatologist Vanessa Woods’ 2010 book, Bonobo Handshake.
To conclude this description of the incredible world of bonobos I should again emphasisetheir ability to nurture their infants, especially since this ability to nurture is the key to thewhole love-indoctrination process. While some remarkable photographs of bonobo motherswith their infants were included earlier in Part 8:4B, the most revealing evidence I have seenof the ability of bonobos to nurture their infants and the wondrous effects such nurturing hason their offspring appears in the 2011 French documentary Bonobos, which was directed by
Alain Tixier. A short segment from the documentary showing the tenderness of the bonobomothers and the absolute joy and zest for life of their infants can be seen at <www.wtmsources.com/107>. Copies of the documentary are difficult to obtain, however, we managed to order
one through <www.amazon.fr>. If you can’t understand the French commentary, it is a storyabout a young bonobo called Beny who is sold as a pet after his mother is killed by poachersand then rescued by Claudine André who takes him to her wonderful sanctuary called Lola Ya
Bonobo before eventually releasing him back into the Congo forest. While the commentary issuperficial, there are these two very revealing comments in the short film about the making ofthe documentary. Alain Tixier says to camera, ‘The choice to do a film about bonobos was becausethey’re surely the most fascinating animals on the planet. They’re the closest animals to man. They’re theonly animals capable of creating the same “gaze” as a human. When you look at a bonobo you’re takenaback because you can see behind the eyes it’s not just curiosity, it’s understanding. We see human beingsin the eyes of the bonobo.’ And the film’s animal advisor, Patrick Bleuzen, says to camera, ‘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 adifficult situation and came and took me by the hand and moved my hair back, like they do. So they live oncompassion, and that’s really interesting to experience.’

624

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 8:4G The fragility of the love-indoctrination, mate selection process
In Parts 8:4B and 8:4D it was explained that love-indoctrination is an extremely difficultprocess to develop, but not impossible. Its difficulty was illustrated by the fact that whilechimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans have been able to develop a high degree of loveindoctrinated selflessness and the equivalent (or thereabouts) level of consciousness of thatof a two-year-old human, where they have self-awareness and can recognise, appreciateand favour selfless behaviour, not one of these species has been able to completely bringan end to the ‘animal condition’ because they still live in a male-dominated, patriarchalworld where males aggressively compete for mating opportunities. It was also stressedthat even the bonobos who have been able to develop love-indoctrination to the point ofbringing to an end male competition for mating opportunities and the male dominated worldthat results from it, have not yet completed the process because they still need to use sexas an appeasement device to contain residual aggression. So although the development oflove-indoctrination assisted by mate selection meant the impasse to developing the fullyintegrated state had been finally completely breached, that didn’t mean the fully integratedstate would automatically develop. Rather, the technology was in place for it to be developedbut the process was still a difficult one to complete. What follows are some powerfulillustrations that show just how difficult and fragile the development of integration throughlove-indoctrination and mate selection is.
To provide background to these illustrations I first need to introduce the work of thelegendary and visionary palaeontologist Louis Leakey (1903-1972). The son of Britishmissionaries in Kenya (where he was born), Leakey so believed ‘that knowledge of the past wouldhelp us to understand and possibly control the future’ (Disclosing the Past, Mary Leakey, 1984) that in 1959,
against prevailing views, he began the search for fossil evidence of the emergence of humansin Africa. This search, which was to prove stunningly successful, wasn’t Leakey’s onlyincredibly inspired initiative, he also handpicked three women to study the great apes in theirnatural habitat—Jane Goodall, who began her field study of chimpanzees in Tanzania in 1960;
Dian Fossey, who began her field study of gorillas in Rwanda in 1967; and Birute Galdikas,who began her field study of orangutans in South East Asia in 1971. As part of his plan toonly study the African apes Leakey originally wanted Galdikas to study bonobos but becauseof the difficulties involved in living in the Congo she ended up studying the orangutans in
Borneo instead. So impressed by, and thankful for, Leakey’s initiatives in palaeontologyand primatology—the former of which his wife Mary, son Richard and his wife Meave, andgranddaughter Louise have carried on—that I dedicated my 1991 book Beyond The Human
Condition to him (alongside Sir Laurens van der Post and Sir James Darling).
With Dian Fossey Leakey ‘struck gold’, for she fearlessly acknowledged the truth in whatshe was observing about the crucial role nurturing was playing in producing the exceptionalgentleness and cooperativeness of gorillas. Fossey was a remarkably strong-willed womanand the universally practiced denial-complying variety of mechanistic science held little swayover her. It seems entirely appropriate that after she was murdered at her research station in
Rwanda in 1985 she was buried alongside her gentle gorilla friend Digit, who had given hislife defending his group from poachers.

Part 8:4G

The fragility of the love-indoctrination, mate selection process

625

Without the relief from unbearable self-confrontation that comes from being able tounderstand the human condition, few, if any, have been able to cope with the honesty of
Fossey’s studies and, as a result, she has been misrepresented as merely a fanatical gorillaconservationist—such as in the 1988 film of her life, Gorillas in the Mist. However, Fossey’swonderful treatise on gorilla behaviour—the 1983 book Gorillas in the Mist upon whichthe film was based—shows just how courageous a scientist she was. As mentioned in Part
8:4F, and prior to that in Part 5:1, when illustrating the strength of character that had to
be developed to curtail male aggression and the centred, security of self needed to be aneffective, love-indoctrinating mother, Fossey, in Gorillas in the Mist, wrote about how ‘Old
Goat’ was ‘an exemplary parent’ and that, as a result, her son ‘Tiger’ was ‘a contented and welladjusted individual’. While gorillas have not been able to develop as much love-indoctrination
as bonobos, seemingly because they have lacked ideal nursery conditions, denial-free, honeststudies of their behaviour, in particular Fossey’s, have revealed the strong relationshipbetween nurturing and integrativeness that is the love-indoctrination process. The followingextracts from Gorillas in the Mist reveal more about Old Goat’s nurturing of Tiger. Not onlythat, they also reveal the extreme fragility of the love-indoctrination process, showing howany disruption to it would result in a regression back to the competitive, each-for-his-own,opportunistic, divisive, ‘animal condition’ existence. Again, the underlinings have been addedfor emphasis: ‘Like human mothers, gorilla mothers show a great variation in the treatment of theiroffspring. The contrasts were particularly marked between [the gorilla mothers] Old Goat and Flossie.
Flossie was very casual in the handling, grooming, and support of both of her infants, whereas Old Goatwas an exemplary parent’ (p.174 of 282). The effect of Old Goat’s ‘exemplary parenting’ of Tiger is
apparent in the following extract: ‘Like Digit, Tiger also was taking his place in Group 4’s growingcohesiveness. By the age of five, Tiger was surrounded by playmates his own age, a loving mother, anda protective group leader. He was a contented and well-adjusted individual whose zest for living wasalmost contagious for the other animals of his group. His sense of well-being was often expressed by acharacteristic facial “grimace”’ (pp.186-187). The ‘growing cohesiveness’ (developing integration)
brought about by ‘loving mother[s], and a protective group leader’ is love-indoctrination.
Incidentally, with regard to the ‘protective group leader[s]’, namely the male silverbackgorillas, their large size is not only due to having to compete for dominance but also reflectsthat while bonobos depend on the safety of trees for the secure, threat-free environment,gorillas evidently selected for physical size and great strength, particularly in the males, toprotect their groups from external, predatory threats—as the anthropologist Adolph H. Schultznoted, the adult male gorilla ‘is a remarkably peaceful creature, using its incredible strength merely inself-defence’ (The Life of Primates, 1969, p.34 of 281).

Fossey’s account of the love-indoctrinated Tiger later in life illustrates how nurtured loveis necessary to produce the integrated group. It describes how the secure, integrative, loving
Tiger tried to maintain integration or love in the presence of an aggressive, divisive gorillaafter the group’s integrative silverback leader, Uncle Bert, was shot by poachers: ‘The newlyorphaned Kweli, deprived of his mother, Macho, and his father, Uncle Bert, and bearing a bullet woundhimself, came to rely only on Tiger for grooming the wound, cuddling, and sharing warmth in nightlynests. Wearing concerned facial expressions, Tiger stayed near the three-year-old, responding to his crieswith comforting belch vocalizations. As Group 4’s new young leader, Tiger regulated the animals’ feeding

626

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
and travel pace whenever Kweli fell behind. Despondency alone seemed to pose the most critical threat to
Kweli’s survival during August 1978. Beetsme…was a significant menace to what remained of Group 4’ssolidarity. The immigrant, approximately two years older than Tiger and finding himself the oldest malewithin the group led by a younger animal, quickly developed an unruly desire to dominate. Although stillsexually immature, Beetsme took advantage of his age and size to begin severely tormenting old Flossiethree days after Uncle Bert’s death. Beetsme’s aggression was particularly threatening to Uncle Bert’slast offspring, Frito [son of Flossie]. By killing Frito, Beetsme would be destroying an infant sired by acompetitor, and Flossie would again become fertile. Neither young Tiger nor the aging female was anymatch against Beetsme. Twenty-two days after Uncle Bert’s killing, Beetsme succeeded in killing fiftyfour-day-old Frito even with the unfailing efforts of Tiger and the other Group 4 members to defend themother and infant…Frito’s death provided more evidence, however indirect, of the devastation poacherscreate by killing the leader of a gorilla group. Two days after Frito’s death Flossie was observed solicitingcopulations from Beetsme, not for sexual or even reproductive reasons—she had not yet returned tocyclicity and Beetsme still was sexually immature. Undoubtedly her invitations were conciliatory measuresaimed at reducing his continuing physical harassment. I found myself strongly disliking Beetsme as Iwatched his discord destroy what remained of all that Uncle Bert had succeeded in creating and defendingover the past ten years…I also became increasingly concerned about Kweli, who had been, only a fewmonths previously, Group 4’s most vivacious and frolicsome infant. The three-year-old’s lethargy anddepression were increasing daily even though Tiger tried to be both mother and father to the orphan.
Three months following his gunshot wound and the loss of both parents, Kweli gave up the will tosurvive…It was difficult to think of Beetsme as an integral member of Group 4 because of his continualabuse of the others in futile efforts to establish domination, particularly over the indomitable Tiger…Tigerhelped maintain cohesiveness by “mothering” Titus and subduing Beetsme’s rowdiness. Because of Tiger’sinfluence and the immaturity of all three males, they remained together’ (pp.218-221).

It is clear from this account how very easily any disruption to the love-indoctrinationprocess can cause a regression back to the competitive, opportunistic, each-for-his-own, prelove-indoctrination, ‘animal condition’ situation.
A further example of the difficulty of completing the love-indoctrination processcomes from studies of chimpanzees, particularly Jane Goodall’s studies of chimpanzeesat the Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania. In 1996 the British primatologist Richard
Wrangham published a book titled Demonic Males in which he suggested that ouraggressive human nature can be traced back to the kind of aggression found in chimpanzees.
To support his theory, Wrangham particularly referred to the killing and partial eating ofa human child by a male chimpanzee named Frodo, and the killing by one group of malechimpanzees of nearly all the members of a neighbouring group—both incidences involving
Goodall’s research troops at Gombe. The following is a condensation of dialogue from the
2004 BBC documentary, The Demonic Ape, which was based on Wrangham’s demonic male
hypothesis and featured Goodall.
Early in the documentary, to illustrate the similar level of consciousness a chimpanzeehas with a young human, footage is shown of a human child demonstrating that she iscapable of what is called ‘theory of mind’, which is being able to know what another personis thinking. Goodall is then seen to observe that ‘chimpanzees’ also ‘clearly…do have theoryof mind’. Further on the narrator says that ‘we discovered the so-called [chimpanzee] vegetarians

Part 8:4G

The fragility of the love-indoctrination, mate selection process

627
are hunters, they’re particularly fond of baby monkeys’, to which Wrangham comments, ‘Youget incredibly excited when you watch chimps hunting…because you identify so strongly with thechimpanzee. They are so intent and they are so excited, the passion that they feel [in killing and eating
a monkey] is just so extraordinary…there is far more meat eating going on in chimpanzees than thereis in any other species of primate than humans.’ The narrator then says that Goodall found that
chimpanzees ‘did something else that was far more chilling, they killed their own kind. In the sixtiesthe group that Goodall studied split into two factions, Kasakela & Kahama. The rivalry between the twoturned into a bloody civil war…One by one the males in the Kasakela group killed every male and someof the females in their neighbouring group. Only a few years before the victims had been their constantcompanions.’ The program then reported how chimps from one community killed, mutilated
and pounded on the body of a neighbouring chimp: ‘They’d ripped his trachea out, they’d removedhis testicles.’ Wrangham commented that ‘There is a sense in which this looks sadistic, the joy, thisis kind of hard to take you know because again it’s got horrible echoes of what happens with humans attimes. The males who attack, they do seem to take a certain joy in the attack, their drinking of the bloodsometimes…They look as though they’re in a state of intense excitement and maybe joy.’ The narrator
then says, ‘Chimpanzees can be described as sadistic because they have theory of mind, they knowwhen they’re inflicting pain. Not all animals have this ability.’ The primatologist Frans de Waal then
observes that ‘You cannot have cruelty in creatures that don’t have empathy…I don’t think a sharkcan be cruel, it doesn’t have the brains to understand what the effect is of its actions. Now chimpanzeesdo have that kind of understanding. Chimpanzees have empathy and sympathy and so as a result theycan also inflict pain on purpose I think.’ The narrator then comments that ‘There is only one otheranimal on the planet that has a similarly dark side, human beings…Because of these revelations Richard
Wrangham…put together…[a theory] about the origins of human behaviour [claiming that] whatchimpanzee aggression seems to show is that we, like them, are programmed to be violent. Wranghamcalls his theory the demonic male hypothesis’, because, according to Wrangham, ‘of course essentiallyfemales don’t do it’. The narrator adds that ‘In Britain men are 24 times more likely to kill or assaultanother person, and 263 times more likely to commit a sexual offence than a woman.’

The narrator then says that ‘Of all the demonic males there have been at Gombe the most demonicis Frodo.’ Goodall adds, ‘Frodo was aggressive from a very small age…[and grew up to be] a realbully.’ The narrator then reports that ‘In 1998 Frodo…became the dominant male. From the startit was clear that Frodo would rule through brute force…he attacked Jane Goodall herself…Not only is
Frodo the most powerful chimpanzee at Gombe he is also its finest hunter. In four years he reduced the
Colobus monkey population by 10 percent single-handedly…In May 2002 Frodo battered to death…[a
human] baby girl…The baby’s body had been gruesomely mutilated.’

The narrator then says, ‘So had Frodo behaved like a predatory animal, or was this a partiallyhuman act, a murder? There is a third possibility…Deep in the heart of the Congo in an area known asthe Goualougo Triangle, a young American scientist [Crickette Sanz] has recently begun to study a groupof chimpanzees…[who had] never seen a human being before…[and, while] The chimpanzees of the
Goualougo are like those at Gombe, [in that] they too use tools and they have their own culture…there isone crucial difference, they are not as aggressive.’ Sanz confirms this saying, ‘we’ve never seen chimpskilling other chimps. We haven’t seen highly elevated territorial disputes.’

The narrator then points out that ‘The place where most violence in chimpanzees has beenwitnessed is Gombe, and the circumstances are indeed special…Once Gombe was surrounded by forest

628

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
but now the trees have been felled. There is a village within the park which is expanding, refugeessurround it. The chimps are completely cut off from the rest of the rainforest.’ The primatologist

Christophe Boesch adds, ‘People are to realise that this encroachment that humans do on nature…including chimpanzees…can present a tremendous stress on them.’ The narrator then comments that
‘Chimpanzees in these long term study sites are losing out to logging companies and to poachers whoinvade the rainforest and snare them for bush meat…Some now believe that stress caused by humanscan make chimpanzees more violent.’ Jane Goodall then says, ‘I didn’t see aggression to start with.
There’s no question that chimpanzees become more aggressive as a result of crowding, as a result ofcompetition for food.’ The anthropologist Robert Sussman then notes that ‘she [Goodall] actuallystated that the chimpanzees were much less aggressive than they were after provisioning [them with
food to attract them to her study area, which she had been doing for many years]’. After which, the
narrator concludes that ‘In our desire to understand ourselves we may have distorted the very animalswe were using as a mirror. We do share much with our closest ancestors, but ultimately chimpanzees arenot windows into the human soul.’

Yes, this last comment is perceptive: chimpanzee (and gorilla) behaviour does ‘not’provide a window into our human nature. It does provide a window into the origins of ourmoral ‘soul’ but not into our present aggressive, human-condition-afflicted behaviour—and
I’m sure that in saying ‘into the human soul’ what was meant was ‘into human nature’ becausethe documentary is all about the origins of our aggressive nature, not the origins of our moralsoul. It is about the ‘demonic male hypothesis’; ‘that we, like them [chimpanzees], are programmedto be violent’; that ‘the origins of human behaviour’, our ‘dark side’ can be found in the brutal
behaviour of these chimpanzees. As we are now able to understand, the immensely upset,brutally angry, aggressive and murderous state of the human condition that we suffer fromis a result of the conflict that emerged well after this two-year-old-equivalent infancy stageof consciousness that chimpanzees and gorillas are presently in. In fact, as all the relativelyinnocent races, such as the Bushmen of the Kalahari, evidence, it is us modern humans todaywho are the extremely upset, aggressive variety of humans. We humans progressed from anoriginal innocent, upset-free state to an increasingly upset, angry and aggressive state. Thereare millions of years between the time when we were living in our primate infancy stage andour present extremely upset, human-condition-afflicted, late adolescence stage. To say that
‘we, like them [chimpanzees], are programmed to be violent’ provided a convenient excuse for our
extremely divisive behaviour—and, no doubt, many people felt relieved to be able to blameour violent behaviour on our distant ape ancestry—but it is not true: we humans have anunconditionally selfless, all-loving instinctive heritage, not a brutal, aggressive one.
But if our aggressive behaviour is not related to this aggressive behaviour in chimpanzees,what is the cause of this ‘demonic’ behaviour in these chimpanzees? Firstly, as the evidenceprovided in the documentary reveals, the lives of the demonically behaved chimpanzees at
Gombe have suffered extreme disruption. The ideal nursery conditions that the process oflove-indoctrination is so reliant on have been decimated; in terms of the analogy of beingswept back downstream, the lives of these chimpanzees have been hit by a tsunami ofdisruption. But why would this disruption make them ‘demonic’? In Part 8:4D it was describedhow relieving and exciting it would have been for our ape ancestors—and for bonobos now—to be liberated from the horrible oppression of the ‘animal condition’ and at last allowed to

Part 8:4G

The fragility of the love-indoctrination, mate selection process

629
be part of the all-loving, true, integrative, ‘Godly’, ‘heavenly’ state. It was emphasised thatbeing afflicted by the human condition where we have practiced living in deep denial ofthe existence of the all-loving, integrative, true world makes it virtually impossible for ushumans to now recognise the excitement, relief and satisfaction that comes with being able toaccess the integrative, all-loving true world, nevertheless, the truth is that it is an awesomelywonderful state to be able to access. While chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans haven’tbeen able to become fully liberated from the competitive and aggressive animal conditionand become fully part of the all-loving, integrative, ‘Godly’, ‘heavenly’ true world, they havebeen able to be part of it to a significant degree, significant enough for these chimpanzees at
Gombe to be psychologically devastated from having lost access to it. The demonic behaviourof the Gombe chimpanzees (especially Frodo who, like the gorilla Beetsme, obviouslysuffered from a lack of nurturing as an infant) would have arisen from the fact that knowingboth instinctively and consciously of the existence of the all-loving, animal-condition-free,true world, and then being denied access to it, effectively rejected from it, left them feelingextremely distressed, resentful and angry—even furious to the point of being hateful andsadistic. Once you have a situation of love then you also have the potential for the reversalof that situation, for the possibility of the situation of there not being love—there exists anegative counter-position. For once animals know love, to then find themselves deprived of itand/or unable to be loving is a very frustrating, upsetting and even guilt-producing situationto be in. In the case of the human condition, what the human race did to artificially rid itselfof the agony of that condition was to say that there is no integrative meaning/purpose tolife because then there was no problem with not being integrative, no dilemma and thus noagony of the human condition from which to suffer. We got rid of the positive situation sowe wouldn’t experience the negative situation—actually, we only deluded ourselves wehad eliminated the positive situation; as stated, we only ‘artificially’ rid ourselves of it—butthe point being revealed is that once you have the positive situation then you also have thepotential for the distressing negative situation to occur. Once a species was liberated from theanimal condition and knew love, whenever there was a subsequent breakdown in nurturing, ora break-out of competition for resources, those animals then knew what they were missing outon and/or not behaving in accordance with, which could make them extremely upset, psychotic
(soul-hurt) and neurotic (mind-distressed); it could make them ‘demonic’.
The commentary in the documentary actually seems to recognise that there is psychosisand neurosis involved in the behaviour of the chimpanzees, with the narrator having notedthat ‘Chimpanzees can be described as sadistic because they have theory of mind, they know when they’reinflicting pain. Not all animals have this ability.’ Similarly, Frans de Waal was recorded as saying,
‘You cannot have cruelty in creatures that don’t have empathy…I don’t think a shark can be cruel, itdoesn’t have the brains to understand what the effect is of its actions. Now chimpanzees do have that kindof understanding. Chimpanzees have empathy and sympathy and so as a result they can also inflict painon purpose I think.’ Recognising that chimpanzees ‘understand’ the ‘effect[s]’ of their ‘actions’
and ‘have empathy and sympathy’ leaves the inference that something has happened in the
‘understanding’ mind of these chimps for them to no longer be ‘empath[etic]’ and ‘sympath[etic]’;
it infers that they have been psychologically and neurologically upset—that their psyche orsoul has been hurt and their conscious mind has become distressed and angry.

630

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Yes, as has been emphasised, any breakdown in nurturing, or any disruption to the allequally-nurtured situation, invariably leads to a reversion to the old ‘each-for-his-own’,opportunistic, selfish-genes-rule, competitive and aggressive ‘animal condition’, which canbe extremely upsetting because it is such a retreat from the ideal, all-loving state. We saw at
Gombe how ‘Frodo was aggressive from a very small age…[and grew up to be] a real bully’, and how
‘From the start [of the time he became the dominant male] it was clear that Frodo would rule throughbrute force.’ We similarly saw in Fossey’s studies of mountain gorillas how ‘Beetsme…was asignificant menace to what remained of Group 4’s solidarity’, how he ‘quickly developed an unrulydesire to dominate’, how he began ‘severely tormenting old Flossie three days after Uncle Bert’s death’
despite ‘the unfailing efforts of Tiger’ to stop ‘his continuing physical harassment’, and how Fosseyfound herself ‘strongly disliking Beetsme as [she] watched his discord destroy what remained of all that
Uncle Bert had succeeded in creating and defending over the past ten years’.

So, our upset human condition is not a result of ‘we, like them [chimpanzees]’ havingbeen ‘programmed to be violent’, as the ‘demonic male hypothesis’ claims, rather ‘the origins ofhuman behaviour’, our ‘dark side’, results from a psychological and neurological conflict that
developed after the infancy stage that the great apes are presently in. It was during the latterstages of childhood, when our conscious mind began to experiment in self-management in thepresence of instincts that are ‘programmed to be’ loving, not ‘violent’, that our upset conditionemerged. As usual with our practice of denial, while using the reverse-of-the-truth lie that ourinstincts are ‘violent’ relieved our conscious mind of its sense of guilt it only served to bury usdeeper into Plato’s dark cave of deathly alienation.
It should also be clarified that while women are less aggressive than men—that, touse the statistic cited earlier, ‘In Britain men are 24 times more likely to kill or assault anotherperson, and 263 times more likely to commit a sexual offence than a woman’—the reason men are
so aggressive is because, as explained in Part 7:1, they were the ones who had to take upthe extremely upsetting task of championing the conscious thinking self or ego over theignorance of our original instinctive self. As explained, the aggression of male chimpanzeesis a result of that species having not yet reined in the animal condition where malesrelentlessly compete for mating opportunities. There is a world of difference between thehuman condition and the animal condition.
Another powerful illustration of the effect of a breakdown in nurturing is supplied byzookeeper Barbara Bell and Professor Harry Prosen’s work with bonobos at the Milwaukee
County Zoo in the USA, which has one of the largest collections of captive bonobos inthe world. Harry Prosen, who is Professor Emeritus at the Medical College of Wisconsin,provided the wonderfully enthusiastic commendation in Part 2:2 of our work at the WTMof bringing understanding to the human condition. Barbara Bell was also introduced earlierin Part 8:4F when describing the integrative behaviour of bonobos. The following is acondensation of a radio interview that was conducted in 2012 with Harry Prosen and Barbara
Bell about a very disturbed bonobo named Brian whose condition had, fifteen years earlier,prompted the Milwaukee County Zoo to seek Professor Prosen’s assistance. (The full interview,which was broadcast on the Lake Effect program on Milwaukee Public Radio on 21 February 2012, canbe listened to at: <www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SW0re1LGOs>).

Part 8:4G

The fragility of the love-indoctrination, mate selection process

631

Barbara Bell: ‘Brian came to us as a very young individual from another institution. He had nothad a normal social upbringing [later in the interview Bell said that unfortunately Brian never had amother…so that’s half his problem]…What we didn’t understand was how severely disturbed [Brian] wasmentally…Brian was seven years old and he had developed a lot of behaviours that were self-destructive.
Some were physical, like he would sit and bang his head on the wall, he would pick his fingernails off.
I think we could consider him bulimic, with the vomiting that he would do. When an animal is selfdestructing to a point where you have self-mutilation that has to be stopped or the animal will notsurvive…that is where Harry came in because we had no clue what to do.’

Harry Prosen then said that ‘I proceeded to do what I had done for many years with humans indifficulty and that was to have a case conference…which actually led me to a psychiatric human diagnosis.
I thought that Brian had a social anxiety disorder, with a lot of infantile aspects to it, that his developmenthad been regressed or held back. As Brian developed he began to try to act like a mature male and thenhe’d get torn apart, not literally, but pretty badly [by the other bonobos because, according to Bell
further on in the interview, Brian had absolutely no social culture and as a result they didn’t considerhim worthy of being in the troop]…I realised that mimicry was a way of surviving for some of theseadolescent males who are mature in body but had not gone through the normal developmental processesfor a bonobo male. And then, using that knowledge, we worked together and Barbara tried many differentsocial groupings. We put Brian on a little medication for his anxiety and it took probably a year or two tobegin to see some changes in behaviour but the self-destruction diminished and Brian began to thrive.’

Bell then said, ‘We talked to Dr Prosen…[and from his] advice…[we worked out] what we coulddo…Brian had his whole day planned out, we didn’t deviate one minute, every day was predictablebecause this animal lived in fear of change…bonobos’… brains are very plastic, they go with the flow [but
that left]…Brian swimming in the deep end. So he had to go all the way back and learn how to be a littleboy again, and learn how to have joy. So one thing we did was to pair him up with kids [two to three yearold bonobos] who were much younger than him to teach him proper play behaviour…so Brian had to goall the way back, learn the right sequence of play behaviours in order to grow mentally.’

Prosen concluded: ‘It is very significant to realise that a lot of bonobo psychological difficulty isalmost identical to that that we see in humans…Barbara and I gave a paper [about our work with Brian
that]…got worldwide attention and invitations to talk and a multitude of consultations…[from otherinstitutions about] problems they were having with bonobos.’

In commenting on this interview, I would firstly like to point out that there is strongevidence of bonobos favouring integrativeness in Barbara Bell’s comment that the reasonthe bonobo troop attacked Brian was because ‘he had absolutely no social culture’ and as aresult ‘they didn’t consider him worthy of being in the troop’. But more significantly, I shouldsay that what is ‘almost identical’ about the psychology of bonobos and humans is not thatbonobos suffer from an instinct versus intellect type human condition, but that throughlove-indoctrination they, like humans, have developed a deep appreciation of love bothinstinctively and consciously and therefore, like humans, psychologically suffer when theyare deprived of that love. In terms of how much nurturing bonobos have been able to developand, as a result, how sensitive they are to the ideal, all-loving true world, Harry Prosenhad this to say in the interview: ‘I think what I found extremely interesting is that bonobos are amatriarchal society whereas chimpanzees are patriarchal and that makes for a lot of very interesting

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

632

The Biology
differences between the two species. I became interested because my background work has always beenin empathy and very quickly…I realised that bonobos are extremely empathic and that really turned myinterest on…Empathy is kind of the realisation of the feelings of somebody else…Bonobos are I thinkthe most empathic creatures next to Homo sapiens…brain imaging has also shown that bonobos haveempathic brain centres just as humans do.’

In terms of Harry Prosen’s enthusiastic support of my work, I think this comment, alsomade in the interview, is particularly relevant: ‘My background is that of a psychotherapist. I’vebeen treating people in psychotherapy for many, many years and my original training was in dynamicstherapy…by that I mean I have to understand where my patients are coming from, their background,which is why I wanted a history on Brian, and out of that I can build a picture—I think I can understandwhy many of the symptoms that we see are there. And once you understand then you can begin to designtreatment programs or therapeutic programs.’ Yes, as Harry Prosen has often said to us at the

WTM, what he values so highly about the explanation of the human condition that we are
putting forward is that it supplies the ‘understand[ing]’ of where all the pain in humans is
‘coming from’, which is the crucial understanding we need to ‘begin to design treatment programs’
for the entire human race.
I might mention that Harry Prosen and his wife Yvonne have become very great friendsof mine and of us all in the WTM. They stayed with us in Sydney in 2007 and I have spoken onthe phone to Harry in America on average two or three times a month since he first respondedto our documentary proposal in 2005 to the present time of writing, which is 2012, andthroughout this time, he has been consistently enthusiastic in helping and encouraging us all.
I should also say that Harry’s recognition of the importance of the explanation of the humancondition is no surprise given his life’s work studying empathy closely parallels my own studyof the human condition—after all, ‘empathy’ is simply mechanistic science’s evasive word for
‘love’, for the consideration of others; so studying empathy means studying love, the effect ofit and the effect of the lack of it, which is what study of the human condition boils down to.
Harry is a most wonderful psychotherapist, capable of a truly extraordinary co-presence, andhe has deep insight into human and animal nature, all of which is apparent if you listen to himin the 2012 radio interview that the above extracts are taken from. In fact, Harry is a denialfree, prophetic thinker, someone blessed with an ability to look into the human condition, andwe in the WTM are so very, very fortunate to have his great love and support.
To return now to our comparative analysis of primates, the distressing situation of havingbeen ‘locked out of love’, then to finally being allowed into the world of love, only to bethrown out of love once more, has also occurred in the lineage of orangutans.
What inhibited the development of love-indoctrinated integration in the lives oforangutans is the scarcity of food in their native forests of South East Asia. Orangutan infantsare nurtured with love in a long infancy only to suffer being thrown out of love when, as

Part 8:4G

The fragility of the love-indoctrination, mate selection process

633
adults, they have to live mostly solitary lives due to shortage of food. Older orangutans have areputation for being morose and bad-tempered and it makes sense that this ‘outcast’ existencewould be the cause. In fact, an article published in 2006 in Scientific American described astudy comparing orangutans living in the isolated, food abundant Kluet swamp in Sumatra withthose cut off from the swamp and that abundant food supply by the wide Alas River. The Kluetorangutans are more social, outgoing and gregarious. They also show a greater propensity toinnovate and use tools, presumably because the greater interaction allows for innovations to beshared, passed on and thus accumulated (Scientific American, Vol.16, no.2, 2006, pp.30-37).
Of the monkeys, in the case of baboons, as the quote from Shirley Strum’s study of her
Pumphouse Gang troop of baboons in Kenya that was included earlier indicated, the femalesof the species are beginning to contain competitive male sexual opportunism, which impliesthey have been able to develop some integration through love-indoctrination and mateselection. It was described how Peggy, who was an extraordinarily self-assured, strong-willed,authoritative, charismatic individual, successfully led the Pumphouse Gang for many years.
In Strum’s words: ‘She [Peggy] was the highest-ranking female in the troop, and her presence oftenturned the tide in favor of the animal she sponsored. While every adult male outranked her by sheer sizeand physical strength, she exerted considerable social pressure on each member of the troop. Her familyalso outranked all the others…another reason for the contentment in this particular family was Peggy’spersonality. She was a strong, calm, social animal, self-assured yet not pushy, forceful yet not tyrannical’
(Almost Human: a journey into the world of baboons, Shirley C. Strum, 1987, pp.38-39 of 294). As with chimpanzees,
gorillas and orangutans, the difficulty for baboons is that their natural environment is normallynot one in which food is plentiful.
At this point, it would be interesting to look at the lives of some other monkey species.
The capuchins from South America have by far the largest brain to body size ratio andare considered much more intelligent than other monkeys—but they have not yet attainedthe level of consciousness where they have an awareness of the concept of ‘I’ or self and canrecognise themselves in a mirror, as the great apes can. As has been briefly explained, loveindoctrination liberated consciousness, so the degree to which love-indoctrination can bedeveloped in a species is the degree to which that species can become conscious. Capuchinfemales are extremely maternal and nurse their infants for a longer period than othermonkeys, weaning them in their second year. Both male and female capuchins live for over 40years compared to the 20 or so years managed by most other monkeys, possibly reflecting thedrawn out stages of maturation mentioned earlier that may result from extending the infancystage to allow for longer nurturing. Female capuchins decide when and with which individualto mate and have been observed forming successful coalitions against males. Male againstmale competition is less obvious amongst capuchins than in other monkeys and, like thebonobos, capuchins frequently engage in same-sex sexual interactions.

634

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

It should be mentioned that the weaning of offspring, which all species have to practicebecause offspring have to grow up and take their place in the adult world at some stage, isitself an example of having to be thrown out of love, of having to leave the love-indoctrinatedstate. Offspring typically don’t like being weaned, they don’t like being thrown out of love,and this resistance is evidence of the beauty and magnificence of the fully integrated maternalsituation. Weaning for any species, especially for mammals who suckle their young andtherefore develop a lot of love-indoctrinated integration, is akin to being thrown out of the allloving situation into the hard reality of the animal condition.
The following descriptions of the endangered muriqui or woolly spider monkeys indicatethat this species has also been able to develop some degree of love-indoctrination: ‘Wranghamand Peterson suggest that a South American monkey, the muriqui, displays similar behaviours to thebonobo, with females being co-dominant, males less aggressive and females more sexual than othermammals’ (from website of Stuart Birk, senior lecturer at Massey University, New Zealand: see <www.wtmsources.com/196>). ‘The mating system [of the muriqui] is polygamous, with individuals being promiscuous.

Embracing is a behavior important to maintaining social bonds. There is very little aggression among groupmembers. Males spend a large amount of time close together without aggressive encounters’ (references:
Emmons & Feer 1997, Flannery 2000, Nowak 1999, from Animal Info—Muriquis on website <www.animalinfo.org>).

With regard to other animal species, dolphins and elephants, like the great apes, have alsopassed the mirror test and demonstrated the ability to recognise themselves, demonstrated thatthey have a sense of self-awareness, but obviously they are not as facilitated as primates tohold and look after a helpless infant and thus leave their infants in infancy for the protractedperiod necessary for training or indoctrination in unconditional selflessness or love to occur.
However, every species would try to develop as much love-indoctrinated integration as theircircumstances permit and the extended lifespan that larger size seems to permit has apparentlyallowed elephants and dolphins to leave their infants in infancy for a relatively long time,and thus to develop a degree of love-indoctrination. They are also nursing mammals, whichmeans they have already established a bond between mother and offspring, which is the basisfor love-indoctrination and thus rudimentary consciousness. Also, the size of elephants hasgreatly reduced the threat of predation thus allowing them to prolong infancy. (This lack ofpredators may also be relevant in the potential for dolphins to develop love-indoctrination.)
And yes, elephants also have a trunk that they can use to cuddle, protect and reassure theiryoung—and they do become psychotic and neurotic when they are not loved or when they aresubjected to an extremely unloving situation, which suggests they have become aware of theall-magic, ‘heavenly’ world of love. It’s no wonder then that we humans are especially drawnto elephants and dolphins, because they, and possibly whales, have at least broken part-wayinto the love-indoctrinated, all-loving, integrative true world, which we intuitively recognise.
To conclude this summary of the effects of love-indoctrination on non-human species,at the end of Part 3:11H it was stated that we have now at last presented the true story of theemergence of the human race—well, now that we have explained the animal condition andhow love-indoctrination was able to variously liberate animal species from it, we can nowalso finally present the true story of the emergence of all species. We can explain and describe

Part 8:4H

Human development of integration through love-indoctrination and mate selection

635
where all animals are on the ‘ladder’ of integration—starting with the bonobos, which areby far the most advanced of all primates behind humans who, as will be summarised nextin Part 8:4H, reached the top of the integration ladder some five million years ago. Sincechimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are still patriarchal or male-dominated they are lessintegrated than bonobos. And so it goes on; according to how much love indoctrination theycan develop, other species are variously stranded down the rungs of that ladder. Yes, the fullstory of life on Earth can be, and has at last been, told!
It might be pointed out that in order to explain the origins of humans’ moral natureand the human condition that it gave rise to, and to also explain the differences betweenother animal species in terms of how much integration they have been able to develop, thetruth of Integrative Meaning and the unconditional selflessness or love needed to achieveit had to be discussed. As such, this whole presentation has been one long dissertation onlove. Given mechanistic biology was living in such deep denial of any truths that broughtthe issue of the human condition into focus that it couldn’t even recognise ‘love’ as ameaningful concept it is no wonder it hasn’t been able to make any real sense of eitherhuman or animal behaviour—as mentioned in Parts 4:7 and 8:1, the linguist Robin Allottneatly summed up mechanistic science’s attitude to love when he wrote that ‘Love has beendescribed as a taboo subject, not serious, not appropriate for scientific study’! Much more will be
said in Part 8:13 about mechanistic science’s denial of the concept of love, but this extract
(from Part 8:13) powerfully illustrates just how extremely insecure mechanistic science hasbeen: ‘In his 1989 book Peacemaking Among Primates, Frans de Waal records: ‘For somescientists 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 usedthe term ‘love’, at which the psychiatrist present countered with the word ‘proximity’. Harlow thenshifted to the word ‘affection’, with the psychiatrist again countering with ‘proximity’. Harlow startedto simmer, but relented when he realized that the closest the psychiatrist had probably ever come tolove was proximity.”’’ Yes, without the defence for our corrupted human condition there have
been so many truths that have been unbearable to confront, most especially the truth of thesignificance of love; it is no wonder that, to adopt Charles Birch’s observation, biology hadnot made any real progress since Darwin!

Part 8:4 H Humans’ development of integration through love-indoctrination andmate selection
In the case of our ape ancestors, it is being suggested that love-indoctrination andmate selection of cooperativeness occurred for a sufficiently long period for cooperativeintegrativeness to become an instinctive part of their make-up, thus creating our ‘moralsense’. It is important to remember, however, that this process involved an indoctrination ortraining in unconditional selflessness, not an understanding of it. The search for knowledgestill had to take place, which is why the human-condition-producing clash between ourinstincts and intellect occurred.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

636

The Biology

To continue this explanation of our own species’ path to integration, a comparative lookat the physique of bonobos, the most integrated variety of primates, and the fossil evidenceof our human ancestors is informative. ‘Lucy’, the 3.5 million year old Australopithecusafarensis fossil ancestor of humans discovered in the Rift Valley of Africa in 1974 by ateam headed by the American paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson, shows an amazingsimilarity to the bone structure of the bonobo. The two are very similar in brain size, statureand in the length of the lower limbs, and are fairly similar in overall body proportions.
Lucy’s pelvis shows that she walked fully upright. The pelvis of a bonobo, while not quiteas adapted to bipedalism/upright walking as Lucy’s, is significantly more adapted than thatof a chimpanzee. Interestingly, the finger bones of the australopithecines are more curvedthan those of chimpanzees (Stern and Susman, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 60:279-313 1983,p.198).

Since curved fingers are an adaption suited to climbing this may indicate that the
australopithecines’ immediate forebears were apes that frequently lived in trees, possibly likethe bonobos, which are the most arboreal of the African apes. Possibly this arboreal aspectis related to jungle living as opposed to savannah life. And perhaps it was a similar foodrich tropical environment to that which the bonobos benefit from that our ape ancestor alsobenefited from in terms of being able to develop love-indoctrination.

Left side: Bonobo skeleton. Right side: Early australopithecine, Australopithecus afarensis, skeleton.
Drawing by Adrienne Zihlman from ‘Pygmy chimps, people, and the pundits’, New Scientist, 15 Nov. 1984.

Part 8:4H

Human development of integration through love-indoctrination and mate selection

637

I would now like to revisit the psychological stages of maturation that humans haveprogressed through from infancy to adulthood (that were initially outlined in Part 3:11), which,with understanding of the origins of our moral instincts and conscious mind, we can nowfully understand. (This will also involve a comparative look at the level of psychologicalmaturation that the bonobos have been able to achieve.)
In starting, I should reiterate that while we have not traditionally thought of humanity’smaturation as progressing through the same stages we as individuals go through in our ownlives, since all the members of a variety of early humans would have shared a relativelysimilar mental and psychological state it makes sense that each variety of early humans canalso be described collectively by that shared mental and psychological state.
Individually, we each mature from ‘infancy’ to ‘childhood’ to ‘adolescence’ to ‘adulthood’.
To elaborate, infancy is when we develop sufficient consciousness to discover that we are at thecentre of the changing array of experiences around us. We become aware of the concept of ‘I’ orself, which, as mentioned, is what bonobos and the other great apes are capable of. Childhood iswhen we begin to actively experiment or ‘play’ with the power of conscious free will, the powerto manage events to our own desired ends. In the case of humanity, it was this experimentationin self-management that led to a conflict with our instincts and the emergence of the upsetangry, egocentric and alienated state of the human condition. Adolescence is when we go insearch of our identity, in search of who we are—in fact, go in search of understanding of ourupset, corrupted human condition, for it was only understanding of why we became upset thatcould end our uncertainty about whether we were evil, worthless beings or not. Adulthood iswhen we finally gain understanding of ourselves, specifically understanding of why we becamedivisively behaved, and as a result are able to mature from insecure adolescence to secureadulthood and become upset-free conscious managers of our world. In short, infancy is ‘I am’,childhood is ‘I can’, adolescence is ‘but who am I?’ and adulthood is ‘I know who I am’.
In the case of humanity, love-indoctrination took place in our species’ infancy when wewere trained in unconditional selflessness or love and became cooperative and integrativelybehaved. As briefly explained in Parts 8:4C and 8:4D, and as will be fully explained in Part
8:7B, infancy was also the period when that training in love liberated our consciousness. Since
bonobos are approaching the state of complete integration and are exceptionally conscious orintelligent they are clearly approaching the end of the infancy stage; they are on the brink of
‘childhood’—they are a species living on the threshold of the metaphorical ‘Garden of Eden’,
‘Golden’, totally integrated, cooperative, harmonious, peaceful state that our ape ancestorswere able to develop and which our australopithecine ancestors inhabited. To further contextwhere bonobos are in the journey negotiated by our human forebears: our ape ancestor was
‘Infantman’, who appeared some 12 million years ago with the emergence of apes and duringwhose time the nurturing, love-indoctrination process took place. Infantman gave rise tofully integrated, happy, untroubled, upset-free, playful ‘Childman’, the australopithecines,who emerged some 5 million years ago. Thus, bonobos are approaching where our humanforebears were some 5 million years ago, as confirmed by the similarity between bonoboskeletons and the early australopithecine fossil skeleton known as ‘Lucy’.

638

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

As described in Part 3:11, the first Childman was Australopithecus afarensis, who was
‘Early Happy, Prime of Innocence Childman’. They evolved into A. africanus who was
‘Middle Demonstrative Childman’, who in turn developed into A. boisei, ‘Late Naughty
Childman’. At each stage consciousness was asserting itself more and more, from beingintellectually demonstrative to being ‘naughty’ and challenging the instincts. As alreadyexplained, and this will be fully elaborated upon in Part 8:8, since we humans developedcooperative, loving, unconditionally selfless, ‘moral’ instincts, the confrontation with ourinstincts would have been extreme, much more than the basic conflict between instinctsand intellect that the Adam Stork story describes. When we ‘flew off course’ in search ofknowledge we weren’t defying an instinctive orientation to a flight path, we were defying aninstinctive orientation to integrativeness, to ‘God’ no less! When we became upset, angry andegocentric, these reactions didn’t just contradict an instinctive flight path—they contradictedthe integrative ideals, which means the guilt we felt from deviating from our instinctiveorientation has been astronomical. The story of Adam Stork revealed that when Adam becameconscious he became very upset as a result of defying his instinctive orientation to a flightpath, but if that was upsetting then how much more upsetting must we humans have becomefrom defying our instinctive orientation to behaving cooperatively. After all, we were indefiance of ‘God’! We have been at war with the ideals of life!
To reiterate, we humans haven’t just been defying an instinctive orientation—which,irrespective of the nature of the orientation, would make us feel guilty—we have been defyingcooperative, loving, ideal-behaviour-demanding instincts, which means when we becameangry and egocentric, which are divisive not cooperative behaviours, we were going to feeldoubly guilty! Our human condition has been a diabolically upsetting situation to have toendure, which makes complete sense of why the human race has been as angry as describedin Part 7:2, as egocentric as described in Part 7:3, as selfish as described in Part 7:4, and asalienated as described in Part 7:5.
To complete this description of our human journey, some two million years ago theaustralopithecines matured into fully conscious, thoughtful, troubled, extremely upset, humancondition-burdened and insecure ‘Adolescentman’, Homo, us. (The stages of developmentthat Homo progressed through under the duress of the human condition were described insome detail in Part 3:11.) But, with understanding of our upset, human-condition-afflicted statenow found humanity’s insecure adolescent stage is finally brought to an end. The search forour species’ identity, for understanding of itself, particularly for understanding of WHY webecame divisively behaved, is over and so our species can now, at long last, enter its secure,fulfilled, peaceful adulthood. With understanding of the human condition now found we are

Part 8:4H

Human development of integration through love-indoctrination and mate selection

639
about to change from UPSET, ALIENATED ADOLESCENTMAN to TRANSFORMED, PEACEFUL
ADULTMAN, and after only a few generations, to MATUREMAN, the fully secure UNIVERSAL
BEINGS. How this wondrous TRANSFORMATION occurs will be explained shortly in Part 9.

These fossil skulls of our ancestors (see next image), along with the descriptionsunderneath, provide a summary of the different stages of maturation that our species hasprogressed through. In this picture chart, which was first presented in Part 3:11, you canclearly see the emergence of the large brain case that was needed to house the developing
‘association cortex’ (where the association of information necessary for thinking takes place)
that followed the nurturing infancy stage and triggered the breakout of the problem of thehuman condition. What happened was that the full emergence of the upset state of the humancondition around two million years ago brought about the rapid development of our brain
(as indicated by the sudden increase in brain case volume), because once the upset state ofthe human condition began only understanding could relieve that condition and to find thatunderstanding required greater and greater intelligence. The race for answers was on—as
Richard Neville said, it was ‘a race between self destruction and self discovery’. In recognitionof this sudden change having taken place around two million years ago the name of ourancestors was, at that point in the chart of human evolution, changed by anthropologistsfrom Australopithecus to Homo. (It should be mentioned again that more varieties ofaustralopithecines and Homo have been found by anthropologists than those depicted here,

Photographs by David L. Brill
however, these remain representative of the main varieties.)

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

640

The Biology

The following two graphs were included and explained earlier in Part 3:11C, however,they are also worth including here because those parts of the graphs that encompass the periodfrom 12 million years ago to 2 million years ago should be more easily understood now thatwe’ve explained at some length the love-indoctrination, mate selection process that eventuallygave rise to us modern humans, Homo.

Fig. 2: The Development of Mental Cleverness

(Brain volume is used as a guide to mental cleverness)

A.
af
an
sis

Our Ape Ancestor

H
ro
bustus
us

400ccaverage

450

H H. s
.s aap p.ie sans p.us

.e
re
ab
ili
ct
s

Childman

Infantman

A.
af
ric
aren

Adolescentman
530

650

900–1100 1350

1400
1400
1300

Common chimpanzees inmid infance also have abrain volume of 400 cc.

1200
1100
1000

Brain Volume cc

900
800

Conscious Mistakes Outstrip Conscience Repair

700

Mind’s Confidence Threshold

600
Love-Indoctrination Develops
500
400
300
200
100
0

1.5

0.5 0.05

Million Years Ago

Fig. 3: The Development of Integration
Period when
Consciousnessappeared and wasupset by the
Conscience

Period over which we acquired our Soul and our
Conscience (our instinctive orientation to integration)

.s
H

Adulthood

.
.e

Australopithecines

Our Ape Ancestor

Adolescence

Childhood

Humanity’s Infancy

Million Years Ago

Line of perfect integration
Resignation Stage
Deviation fromintegration

Rehabilitation Stage

Stage where we refined allour ways for coping with the
Human Condition
Switch-over pointfrom idealist to realist
Stage where upsetreached a crescendo
Religious Stage

Social Disintegration

Departure or
Exhaustion Curve

Part
8:4I A summary of how humans acquired our unconditionally selfless moral soul

641

Part 8:4I A summary of how humans acquired our unconditionally selflessmoral soul
It is clear that bonobos are exceptionally peaceful and cooperative animals. Indeed, allthe evidence provided indicates that they are a relatively large, multicellular species that iswell on its way to developing the fully integrated state where the reproducing individualmembers live together in complete harmony and cooperation. Bonobos are living proof thatthrough the love-indoctrination, mate selection process Negative Entropy did find a way tointegrate members of a large multicellular animal species, and therefore evidence that our apeancestors were able to develop the totally integrated ‘Garden of Eden’, ‘Golden’, completelycooperative state that all our mythologies recognise we once inhabited.

(It might be mentioned that Matata and Kanzi, the bonobos pictured on the left in thiswonderfully evocative photo of nurturing above, are famous participants in the groundbreaking studies of language development that was undertaken by the aforementioned biologist,ape-language researcher and author Sue Savage-Rumbaugh at the Great Ape Trust in Iowa.)
Yes, all the evidence points to the fact that it was through nurturing that we humansacquired our instinctive orientation to behaving in an unconditionally selfless, loving,cooperative way; that it was through nurturing that humans acquired our moral ‘soul’, theguiding ‘voice’ of which is our ‘conscience’. As emphasised earlier, nurturing was the maininfluence or prime mover in human development—not tool use or bipedalism or languagedevelopment or mastery of fire or any one of the other evasive explanations that denialcomplying biologists have been putting forward in the mountain of books that have beenpublished on human origins. Again, much more will be said about the whole problem ofdenial that surrounds the study of human evolution in Part 8:5, but imagine how different allthe interpretations gathered through our studies of primatology and anthropology and evenarchaeology are going to be now that we have explained the human condition and can finallystop practicing denial—particularly denial of two of those six great previously unconfrontable

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

642

The Biology
truths of the importance of nurturing in both the maturation of our species and the maturationof our own lives, and that we humans did once live in an unconditionally selfless, fullyintegrated, cooperative, harmonious, loving state. Imagine how our understanding of almostevery aspect of human history will change when we are prepared to acknowledge our species’ever-increasing levels of alienation from an original state of innocence and soundness. Imaginehow our ability to acknowledge that early humans were happy and altruistic and could thinktruthfully is going to change our perception of all the events that have led to the immenselyupset state of humans today! Well, this whole presentation is witness to how much clarificationof our history and behaviour is made possible by being truthful instead of dishonest.
The denial of truth has become a plague, preventing all access to truth—as Jonathan
Wise’s exceptionally honest comment, included in Part 5:1, recognised: ‘if there really is hopebeyond the human condition, then the Truth that leads to it has to have been established by someonebeyond the human condition. Us humans are way too good at rationalizing truth into any shape thatpleases us.’ Yes, this is so true—you couldn’t look into the human condition from within it, the
dishonesty going on within that old paradigm was far too rampant.
The truth is it was our ape ancestor’s exceptional facility to develop nurturing that enabledus humans to acquire an instinctive orientation to behaving in an utterly cooperative, noncompetitive, fully harmonious, unconditionally selfless, genuinely altruistic, truly loving waytowards each other—but until we found understanding of the human condition this fact, thatour human ancestors once lived in a fully cooperative state, could not afford to be admitted bydenial-complying mechanistic science. It was only in our mythologies and through the words ofa few brave thinkers that the truth of a wonderful ‘Golden Age’ of cooperative existence in ourspecies’ past survived.

Indeed, this photo of bonobos certainly evokes the recognition that we too once lived ina ‘Garden of Eden’ state, and confirms that when our myth-makers spoke of our forebears

Part
8:4I A summary of how humans acquired our unconditionally selfless moral soul

643
living in a ‘Garden of Eden’, fully cooperative, loving state they were not indulging insome romantic fantasy as E.O. Wilson accused Rousseau of doing, but describing an actualhistorical state that did once exist. And from the evidence provided we can establish that thislove-indoctrination process started some twelve million years ago and was perfected aboutfive million years ago, after which we lived in a fully cooperative state until the upset state ofthe human condition fully emerged some two million years ago.
In summary, all the evidence indicates that it was through nurturing, the process oflove-indoctrination, and the accompanying mate selection of cooperativeness, that humanswere able to develop an instinctive orientation to behaving unconditionally selflessly and,as a result, become a totally integrated multicellular species. The evidence shows that inour instinctive past, prior to our conscious mind becoming extremely upset and afflictedby the burden of the human condition some two million years ago, all humans wereselfless and considered the welfare of the group above their own welfare. An instinctivememory within us of this upset-free, loving, cooperative, moral, innocent, alienationfree, all-sensitive, heavenly childhood state is what we have termed our ‘soul’, oneexpression of which is our ‘conscience’, the instinctive expectation within us that webehave morally—that is, selflessly, lovingly and cooperatively towards all of existence.
These explanations and the evidence for them shows that humans do have genuinelyaltruistic instincts—that our selfless moral nature is not derived from the subtle form ofselfishness that is reciprocity, but from an instinctive orientation to behaving in a trulyunconditionally selfless way.
So, love-indoctrination enabled genetic refinement’s seeming inability to developunconditional selflessness to be overcome, and the love-indoctrinated development ofunconditional selflessness allowed consciousness to emerge, and with the emergence ofconsciousness came the ability to support the love-indoctrination process by actively ‘selfselecting’ for cooperativeness by selecting more cooperative individuals with which tomate. If we add to that progression the emergence of the upset state of the human condition,and then the development of science, and then having to overcome our denial of any truthsthat brought the issue of the human condition into focus, it was an absolutely extraordinarysequence of events that the human race has journeyed through.
With the human condition now explained, we can finally understand and thus safelyadmit that nurturing, a mother’s love, is what made us human; it is what gave our species itsawe-inspiring moral sense. The female gender created humanity.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

The following drawing summarises the development of humanity.

644

Part
8:4I A summary of how humans acquired our unconditionally selfless moral soul

645

Flow chart of the journey that the human racehas undergone to achieve full and permanent integration
Integrative Meaning
The integration of matter is the theme or purpose or meaning of existence, and unconditionalselflessness is the main requirement, the ‘glue’, for integration. The first great tool for integrating matterwas the gene-based information learning or refinement system, which developed a great deal of order ofmatter on Earth—what we term the great variety of life. (see Parts 8:1 and 8:2)

ê
Elaborating the reproducing individual
The problem for the gene-based refinement system was that since unconditionally selfless genetic traitstend to self-eliminate, the most integration that the gene-based refinement system could normallydevelop was the limited integration based on reciprocity. Reciprocity was the basis of the integrationthat occurred in ant and bee colonies, where the reproductive unit was effectively elaborated or enlargedthrough the workers subordinating their reproduction to the queen whose genes they share and who theythen have to support to ensure the genes for their existence are reproduced. (see Part 8:3)

ê
Love-Indoctrination
While maternalism is a selfish trait, as it has to be to reproduce, in appearance it is unconditionallyselfless behaviour, which means it has the potential to train or inscribe the developing brain of an infantin unconditionally selfless behaviour. Any species that can afford to prolong infancy for a protractedperiod of time and thus develop this training in unconditional selflessness, such as primates, can developunconditionally selfless behaviour. (see Part 8:4)

ê
The liberation of consciousness
This training in selflessness had an accidental by-product: it produced brains trained to think selflesslyand thus truthfully because, as mentioned, selflessness, not selfishness, is the theme or meaning ofexistence. Truthful-thinking brains enabled effective thinking and so the nerve-based refinementsystem of mental consciousness emerged. (see Part 8:7)

ê
Self-selection through mate selection
Gradually, as consciousness emerged as a by-product of the love-indoctrination process, it becamepossible to recognise the importance of selflessness and, as a result, actively select for it by consciouslyselecting integrative rather than divisive mates. This self-selection through mate selection greatlyaccelerated the development of full integration in our ape ancestors, giving rise to completelyintegrated human societies. (see Part 8:4D)

ê
The upset state of the Human Condition emerged
With the emergence of consciousness a battle broke out between our already established integrativelyorientated instincts and our newer conscious mind that needed to find understanding of existence.
Because instinctive orientations are not understandings, when the understanding-dependent consciousmind emerged it had to challenge the instincts, and the instincts then resisted the conscious mind’s needto experiment in self-management. Then, unable to explain why we had to challenge our wonderfullyintegratively orientated instinctive self or soul, we had no choice but to attack the implied criticism fromit, try to prove it wrong, and block its implied criticism from our minds. We unavoidably became angry,egocentric and alienated. The upset, corrupted state of the human condition emerged. (see Part 3:2)

ê
Amelioration of the Human Condition
With the finding of understanding of the human condition all the upset anger, egocentricity andalienation subsides, allowing the human race to return to a fully integrated state. (see Part 3:10)

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

646

The Biology

Part 8:5 The denial of the nurturing origins of humans’ moral nature has been leadinghumanity to terminal alienation

What now has to be described is how science, the designated vehicle for human enquiry,has evaded the unbearable truth of the importance of nurturing in the development ofour species, and in our own lives, by inventing theories about our origins that are now sodangerously dishonest, they threaten the human race with extinction.

Part 8:5A 140 years of madness
The truth of our corrupted human condition and of the integrative meaning or purposeof existence were two extremely obvious truths that, until we found the compassionateexplanation and understanding for both, were so unbearably exposing, condemning andconfronting that we, the human race, had no choice but to live in complete denial ofthem. For exactly the same reason, the truth of the importance of nurturing in both thematuration of our species and in the maturation of our own lives that was described in Part
8:4 has been another extremely obvious truth that has had to be denied because it too was
unbearably condemning of our present unloved and unloving, human-condition-afflictedlives. And as we will see in Part 8:7A, the nature of consciousness is a further obvioustruth that has also been so unbearably condemning that it too has been fiercely denied,to the extent that our conscious mind—nature’s greatest creation—has been deemed aninexplicable mystery.
In light of all this unavoidable denial, it is not surprising that these four great outstandingmysteries in science—of the explanation of the human condition, of the meaning of ourexistence, of the origin of our unconditionally selfless moral instincts, and of why we humansbecame conscious when other animals didn’t—hadn’t been solved. If you can’t confront thehuman condition you are in no position to find the explanation for it; and if you can’t admitto Integrative Meaning you obviously can’t explain what the meaning of our lives is; and ifyou can’t admit to the importance of nurturing you are in no position to explain the origin ofhumans’ unconditionally selfless moral nature; and if you can’t confront the truth of the natureof consciousness you are in no position to explain how it arose and what has prevented itsdevelopment in other species.
Yes, the truth cannot be found from an evasive and thus dishonest position. Living indenial of the human condition and of any truths that bring it into focus means your searchfor truth and understanding is only ever going to end in a completely lost state of confusedmadness. For instance, as we saw in Part 4:12, mechanistic science initially tried to deny theexistence of the human condition by dishonestly claiming that our selfish and competitivebehaviour was a natural consequence of a supposed ‘survival of the fittest’ natural selectionprocess, and that our selfless moral nature was actually a selfish strategy to help relatives

Part 8:5A

140 years of madness

647
or kin reproduce our genes. But that extreme dishonesty was both contrary to and offensiveof the fact that we humans do have unconditionally selfless, loving, moral instincts, and so,in response to that backlash, a much cleverer way was then concocted to deny our species’extreme sickness, its psychosis (as has been mentioned, the word psychosis literally means
‘soul-illness’). This contrivance was E.O. Wilson’s theory of Eusociality, which maintainsthere is no psychosis involved in the human condition, but that we simply have someunconditionally selfless instincts that exist alongside competitive, ‘survival of the fittest’selfish ones, and that our human condition is the product of a conflict between those twoinstinctive states! Yes, the theory of Eusociality renders the human condition inconsequential,virtually benign—with the consequence of this extremely sophisticated denial being that thehuman race now faces terminal alienation, madness. Indeed, if this extreme dishonesty on thepart of mechanistic science had not been exposed, as it has been through this presentation,then the stage was set for the extinction of our species.
In the case of humanity’s denial of Integrative Meaning, it was explained in Parts 4:4Band 8:2 that the way the upset human race eventually found to eliminate that truth was bymaking the integrative theme or purpose of existence out to be a supernatural deity we termed
‘God’, a subject or realm that supposedly had no place in science—an outrageous displayof dishonesty that has led to all manner of blind, purpose-less, ultimately unaccountable,ridiculous interpretations of the natural selection process. And—as we will see in Part 8:7—asimilar fate has also befallen the study of consciousness, which has been so characterised bydenial and dishonesty that it too has resulted in the human race becoming lost in a completelybewildered state of intellectual confusion about the all-important issues of what consciousnessactually is and how it emerged. And, lastly, in the case of that other key issue that is socritical to our understanding of ourselves, namely the origins of our moral nature, what willbe revealed in this Part is that the denial of the importance of nurturing in the maturation ofour species and in the maturation of our own lives has seen the 140 years that have passedsince the American philosopher John Fiske first presented the nurturing explanation for ourmoral nature squandered through the development of extremely dishonest, alienated, madbiological theories—a tragic journey that has now culminated in the immensely dangerous
Social Ecological Model, and its latest incarnation, the Self-Domestication Hypothesis, forour species’ altruistic instincts.
In short, what has just been outlined illustrates how, even though mechanistic sciencehad no choice other than to practice denial of any truths that brought the issue of the humancondition into focus until we found the true explanation of the human condition, suchdenial was an extremely dangerous practice. Yes, what has been described illustrates that, asnecessary as they have been, the longer denials are practiced the more refined they become, sothat in the end, after many decades of development, they inevitably become so sophisticated,so cleverly refined and so entrenched they effectively lock humanity onto a path to terminalalienation—to total derangement, death and extinction.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

648

The Biology

Part 8:5B John Fiske’s 1874 recognition of the obvious truth that nurturing createdour moral sense
Like the truths of our corrupted human-condition-afflicted state and of Integrative
Meaning, the importance of nurturing in both the maturation of our own lives and in thematuration of our species is an obvious truth. While we have had to live in denial of it, we allintuitively know that a mother’s love is crucial to the creation of a well-adjusted human andthat we are all born with an instinctive expectation of receiving unconditionally selfless lovefrom our mother. And it’s also obvious that such powerful instincts to nurture with love and benurtured with love can’t have come from nowhere. To be so strong in us they must have playeda significant role in our species’ development. So yes, if we weren’t living in denial of theimportance of nurturing in human life, it wouldn’t be hard to work out that our unconditionallyselfless moral instincts were borne out of the mother-infant relationship. Charles Darwin, forexample, who was a remarkably sound, secure, relatively denial-free, honest and thus effectivethinker, could see that our ‘social instinct’—the ‘most noble of all attributes of man, leading himwithout a moment’s hesitation to risk his life for that of a fellow creature’, as he described it—‘seems’
to be ‘developed’ from ‘parental’ ‘affections’. While Darwin didn’t develop the idea that nurturingcreated our moral sense, he did make the following two comments in his 1871 book The Descentof Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex that indicate the idea was apparent to him (again theunderlinings are my emphasis): ‘The feeling of pleasure from society is probably an extension of theparental or filial [family] affections, since the social instinct seems to be developed by the young remainingfor a long time with their parents; and this extension may be attributed in part to habit, but chiefly tonatural selection. With those animals which were benefited by living in close association, the individualswhich took the greatest pleasure in society would best escape various dangers, whilst those that cared leastfor their comrades, and lived solitary, would perish in greater numbers. With respect to the origin of theparental and filial affections, which apparently lie at the base of the social instincts, we know not the steps bywhich they have been gained; but we may infer that it has been to a large extent through natural selection.’

And: ‘The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable—namely, that any animalwhatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included,would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well,or nearly as well developed, as in man’ (ch.4 & 5). And although the renowned anthropologist Richard

Leakey wasn’t thinking honestly when he wrote that the ‘bond between mother and infant’ occursso that her infant can have a period of ‘prolonged learning’ about its ‘environment’ (the dishonestyof this thinking will be explained shortly), he was thinking truthfully when he then emphaticallyasserted that ‘the basis of all primate social groups is the bond between mother and infant. That bondconstitutes the social unit out of which all higher orders of society are constructed’ (Richard Leakey & Roger
Lewin, Origins, 1977, p.61 of 264). In his acclaimed television series and accompanying book that
was dedicated to explaining ‘the ascent of man’, the great science historian Jacob Bronowskialso recognised that the ‘real vision of the human being’—of an unconditionally selfless, loving,sound, integratively behaved individual, which Christ so exemplified—is a direct product ofthe nurturing that takes place between a mother and her child, saying that ‘But, far more deeply, [asound mind] depends on the long preparation of human childhood…The real vision of the human being isthe child wonder, the Virgin and Child, the Holy Family’ (The Ascent of Man, 1973, pp.319-320 of 352). It’s true,

Part 8:5B

John Fiske’s 1874 recognition that nurturing created our moral sense

649
the ‘family’, especially the ‘Virgin [uncorrupted, soul-intact, innocent, psychologically sound and securemother] and child’, is ‘Holy’; ‘that bond’ does lie at the heart of what makes us, and made us as a
species, truly human—namely loving and cooperative.
Yes, the crucial role played by the nurturing, loving ‘bond between mother and infant’ in ‘theascent of man’ is a truth we are all intuitively aware of. That awareness is apparent when, for
example, Africa is described as ‘the cradle of mankind’—Africa is where humanity was nurturedinto existence. When the anthropologist Loren Eisely wrote that ‘Man is born of love and exists byreason of a love more continuous than in any other form of life’ (An Evolutionist Looks at Modern Man, c.1959),
he was recognising the truth that humanity was ‘born of love’.
In fact, the nurturing explanation for our extraordinary unconditionally selfless, allloving, social, moral instinctive self or soul is so obvious that only three years after Darwintentatively ascribed the origin of our ‘social instinct’ to ‘parental’ ‘affections’, it was put forwardas a developed theory by the aforementioned John Fiske in his 1874 book Outlines of
Cosmic Philosophy: based on the Doctrine of Evolution. Indeed, if we were to prioritise theinformation that we humans need in order to understand our world and our place in it, the firstitem would be to explain the origins of the variety of life, which is what Darwin did with hisidea of natural selection. The second would have to be to explain the origins of the particularvariety of life that is the cooperative organism we call humanity, which is what Fiske did withhis nurturing explanation for our species’ original instinctive unconditionally selfless, loving,moral, social sense. However, while both these fundamentally important insights were madeavailable to us way back in the mid-1800s, the only one I was taught at school and universitywas Darwin’s idea of natural selection. It wasn’t until 2004 that I happened upon a commentabout Fiske that I learnt of his remarkable contribution—which was many years after I hadworked out that nurturing was the obvious explanation for our moral instincts. (As I havealready pointed out, I first presented the nurturing, love-indoctrination explanation that Idescribed in Part 8:4B to the scientific community in 1983 in a submission to Nature magazine.
I have submitted it elsewhere many times since, but to no avail, with each submission eitherrejected or ignored—something I will talk further about later in this Part.)
I would now like to describe the sequence of events that led me to Fiske’s prior publicationof the nurturing origins of humans’ moral sense.
While researching scientists to whom to send the 2004 Human Condition Documentary
Proposal, we at the WTM found a summary compiled by the aforementioned linguist Robin
Allott of some current biological explanations for the origins of human love. (Allott’s paper,
‘Evolutionary Aspects of Love and Empathy’, published in 1992 in the Journal of Socialand Evolutionary Systems [Vol.15, No.4 353-370], can be viewed at <http://cogprints.org/3393/1/lovempat.htm>.) In his summary, Allott firstly noted mechanistic science’s deep psychological
denial of the subject of love, saying, as included earlier, that ‘Love has been described as ataboo subject, not serious, not appropriate for scientific study.’ He then tried to define love but
found it virtually impossible to find a definition for it. Allott then asked ‘how did human loveevolve?’, answering perceptively that it must have evolved out of the ‘mother/infant bond’. In
explaining this bond, Allott presented an explanation by the journalist Betty McCollister
(which will also be put forward shortly in Part 8:13) in which she argues that given the sizeof our brain and, it follows, the size of our skull expanding, our human ancestors were forced

650

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
to give birth to increasingly premature offspring so that the infant’s skull was sufficientlyunder-developed to fit through the pelvis, leaving the remainder of the skull’s growth to befinished after birth. The result of this development, it is claimed, was that these increasingly
‘unfinished’ and helpless infants required increasingly intensive and extensive care. Allottand McCollister both argued that having been thus developed this nurturing care is now aninstinctive expectation of infants and if not received leaves infants seriously psychologicallydistressed. As will be emphasised when the McCollister version of this explanation for theimportance of nurturing is reviewed in Part 8:13, this account does not recognise the realsignificance of nurturing of training our infants in unconditional love. In Allott’s paper, apartfrom recognising that ‘Love then would become essential…insofar as the success of the group…depended on effective coherence of the group’, the concepts of altruism, morality or training
in cooperative, integrative selflessness are not mentioned—except for this one reference,in which Allott cites historian Dorothy Ross’ biography of the American psychoanalyst
Granville Stanley Hall: ‘Amongst psychologists, Stanley Hall (see Ross, Dorothy, 1972, G. Stanley
Hall: The Psychologist as Prophet) in the United States attracted a good deal of opprobrium [abuse] bymaking love a central topic…“altruistic love”, he suggested, developed in the course of evolution fromthe necessities of maternity’ (p.262 of 482).

Continuing on the trail of this nurturing-of-love idea, Granville Stanley Hall (1844–1924)has been described as ‘the founder of organized psychology as a science and profession, the father ofchild psychology, and as a national leader of educational reform in America’ (PSI Cafe—psychology resourcesite, and Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology). According
to Ross, Hall was concerned with ‘constructing
a synthetic view of psychology along evolutionary lines’—an undertaking he completed and
presented in 1896. Relevantly, Ross revealed ‘an important catalyst’ in Hall’s endeavour ‘was amore popular biological treatise, Henry Drummond’s Ascent of Man, published in 1894 from his Lowell
Lectures of the previous year’. Ross wrote: ‘Drummond presented evolution as “the final revelationof the unity of the world” which could…“explain everything by one great end.” To Darwin’s principleof natural selection by means of the struggle for survival, he added another principle that he consideredfar more important—“the Struggle for the Life of Others,” or “altruistic Love,” which developed in thecourse of evolution from the necessities of maternity. The human mother he regarded as virtually thehighest product of evolution.’ Interestingly, in terms of the theme of existence of love having
been acknowledged by other early scientists (unlike their contemporary counterparts), afootnote on page 262 of Ross’ book states that ‘Hall also knew Patrick Geddes and J. Arthur
Thomson’s, The Evolution of Sex (London: Walter Scott, 1889), which likewise described love as theuniversal dynamic in nature and altruistic love as the real law of evolution.’

Henry Drummond (1851–1897) was a Scottish scientist, evangelist and author. In his 1894book The Ascent of Man, his account of how ‘altruistic love’ developed ‘from the necessitiesof maternity’ is given in the chapter titled ‘The Evolution of a Mother’. The following is a
condensation of this chapter: ‘The…pinnacle of the temple of Nature…is…The Mammalia, THE
MOTHERS…[it is] That care for others, from which the Mammalia take their name…All elementaryanimals are orphans…they waken to isolation, to apathy, to the attentions only of those who seek theirdoom. But as we draw nearer the apex of the animal kingdom, the spectacle of a protective Maternitylooms into view…[the] love of offspring…That early world, therefore, for millions and millions of yearswas a bleak and loveless world. It was a world without children and a world without Mothers. It is good to

Part 8:5B

John Fiske’s 1874 recognition that nurturing created our moral sense

651
realize how heartless Nature was till these arrived…the ethical effect…of this early arrangement was nil…
There was no time to love, no opportunity to love, and no object to love…Now, before Maternal Love canbe evolved out of this first care…Nature must…cause fewer young to be produced at a birth…make themhelpless, so that for a time they must dwell with her…And…she…dwell with them…In this [Mammal]child…infancy reaches its last perfection. Housed, protected, sumptuously fed, the luxurious children keepto their Mother’s side for months and years, and only quit the parental roof when their filial education

[in love] is complete…[these] drawings together of parent and child are the inevitable preliminariesof the domestication of the Human Race…On the physiological side, the name of this impelling poweris lactation; on the ethical side, it is Love. And there is no escape henceforth from communion between
Mother and child…Mother teaches a Child, but in a far deeper sense it is the Child who teaches the Mother

[to be loving]. Millions of millions of Mothers had lived in the world before this, but the higher affectionswere unborn. Tenderness, gentleness, unselfishness, love, care, self-sacrifice—these as yet were not, or wereonly in the bud. Maternity existed in humble forms, but not yet Motherhood. To create Motherhood and allthat enshrines…required a human child…The only thing that remains now is…that they [human mother
and child] shall both be kept in that school as long as it is possible to…give affection time to grow…Noanimal except Man was permitted to have his education [in love] thus prolonged…Why…The questionhas been answered for us by Mr. John Fiske, and the world here owes to him one of the most beautifulcontributions ever made to the Evolution of Man. We know what this delay means ethically—it wasnecessary for moral training that the human child should have the longest possible time by its Mother’sside—but what determines it on the physical side?…a human brain…[where relatively speaking] nostorage of habit has been handed down from the past…the higher brain is comparatively a new thing inthe world…[and] are in perfect order only after a considerable interval of adjustment and elaboration.
Now Infancy…means the fitting up of this extra machinery within the brain…Childhood in its early stageis a series of installations…In the savage state, where the after-life is simple, the adjustments [for life] aremade with comparative ease and speed; but as we rise in the scale of civilization the necessary period of
Infancy lengthens step by step until in the case of the most highly educated man, where adjustments mustbe made to a wide intellectual environment, the age of tutelage extends for almost a quarter of a century.
The use of all this to morals, the reactions especially upon the Mother, are too obvious…A sheep knows itslamb only while it is a lamb. The affection in these cases, fierce enough while it lasts, is soon forgotten, andthe traces it left in the brain are obliterated before they have furrowed into habit [Note here confirmation
that the training in love wears off with age, which, as has been explained, is why there was selectionfor neotenising youth in the love-indoctrination process]…To her [the human mother] alone was given acurriculum prolonged enough to let her graduate in the school of the affections…It may or may not be thatthe child will acquire its Mother’s virtue. But unselfishness has scored; its child has proved itself fitter tosurvive than the child of Selfishness…A few score more of centuries, a few more millions of Mothers, andthe germs of Patience, Carefulness, Tenderness, Sympathy, and Self-Sacrifice will have rooted themselvesin Humanity…However short the earliest infancies, however feeble the sparks they fanned, however longheredity took to gather fuel enough for a steady flame, it is certain that once this fire began to warm thecold hearth of Nature and give humanity a heart, the most stupendous task of the past was accomplished.
A softened pressure of an uncouth hand, a human gleam in an almost animal eye, an endearment in aninarticulate voice—feeble things enough. Yet in these faint awakenings lay the hope of the human race.

[And here Drummond quotes Fiske] “From of old we have heard the monition, ‘Except ye be as babes yecannot enter the kingdom of Heaven’; the latest science now shows us—though in a very different sense of

652

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
the words—that unless we had been as babes, the ethical phenomena which give all its significance to thephrase ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ would have been non-existent for us. Without the circumstances of Infancywe might have become formidable among animals through sheer force of sharp-wittedness. But except forthese circumstances we should never have comprehended the meaning of such phrases as ‘self-sacrifice’ or
‘devotion.’ The phenomena of social life would have been omitted from the history of the world, and withthem the phenomena of ethics and religion.”’

Drummond acknowledges Fiske’s ‘beautiful contribution’ as the originator of the idea ofthe long infancy creating a sense of morality in humans, sourcing the remarkable quote thatconcludes the above extract to Fiske’s 1874 Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy: based on the
Doctrine of Evolution (Vol.IV, Part II, ch.XXII ‘Genesis of Man, Morally’, p.162).
To introduce him more fully, John Fiske (1842–1901) was an American philosopher,historian and author. In the preface to one of his books he wrote that ‘The detection of the partplayed by the lengthening of infancy in the genesis of the human race is my own especial contributionto the Doctrine of Evolution’ (Through Nature to God, 1899). The following is a condensation of the

‘Genesis of Man, Morally’ chapter from Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy: ‘There are two things,said [Immanuel] Kant, which fill me with awe…the starry heavens above us, and the moral law withinus…in the study of the moral sense we contemplate the last and noblest product of evolution…it is wellto state, at the outset, that the existence of a moral sense and moral intuitions in civilized man is fullygranted…emotions, leading him to seek the right and avoid the wrong… actions deemed right are thosewhich conduce to the fulness of life of the Community…We approve of certain actions and disapproveof certain actions quite instinctively. We shrink from stealing or lying as we shrink from burning ourfingers…In short, there is in our psychical structure a moral sense which is as quickly and directly hurtby wrong-doing or the idea of wrong-doing…It is now time to propose an answer to the question…Howdid social evolution originate?…In the permanent family we have the germ of society…while the nervousconnections accompanying a simple intelligence are already organized at birth, the nervous connectionsaccompanying a complex intelligence are chiefly organized after birth. Thus there arise the phenomenaof infancy…the period during which the nerve connections…are becoming permanently established.
Now this period, which only begins to exist when the intelligence is considerably complex, becomes longerand longer as the intelligence increases in complexity. In the human race it is much longer than in anyother race of mammals, and it is much longer in the civilized man than in the savage. Indeed among theeducated classes…it may be…more than a quarter of a century…Throughout the animal kingdom theperiod of infancy is correlated with feelings of parental affection…The prolongation [of infancy] must…have been gradual, and the same increase of intelligence to which it was due must also have prolongedthe correlative parental feelings, by associating them more and more with anticipations and memories.
The concluding phases of this long change may be witnessed in the course of civilization. Our parentalaffections now endure through life…I believe we have now reached a… satisfactory explanation of…
Sociality…The prolongation of infancy accompanying the development of intelligence, and the correlativeextension of parental feelings…The prolonged helplessness of the offspring must keep the parents togetherfor longer and longer periods in successive epochs… primeval…family groups…differ widely…frommodern families…The sociality is but nascent: infants are drowned, wives are beaten to death…in modernfamilies evanescent barbarism shows itself in internal quarrels…Savages are not unfrequently capable ofextreme devotion and self-sacrifice when the interests of the tribe are at stake…But…savage virtues are,in general, confined to the clan. The…savage…is also capable of the most fiendish cruelty…toward the

Part 8:5B

John Fiske’s 1874 recognition that nurturing created our moral sense

653
members of another clan…Fijis, are exceptionally ferocious…though the savage has the germ of a moralsense, which prompts him…to postpone his personal welfare to that of his clan, he can by no means beaccredited with a fully developed moral sense…In asserting that we possess an instinctive and inheritedmoral sense, it is not meant that we possess, anterior to education and experience, an organic preferencefor certain particular good actions, and an organic repugnance to certain particular bad actions. We donot inherit a horror of stealing, any more than the Hindu inherits the horror of killing cattle. We simplyinherit a feeling which leads us, when we are told that stealing is wrong, to shun it, without needing tobe taught that it is detrimental to society…the civilized man surpasses the lowest savage by a far greaterinterval than that by which the lowest savage surpasses the highest ape; just as the gulf between thecerebral capacity of the Englishman and that of the non-Aryan dweller in Hindustan is six times greaterthan the gulf which similarly divides the non-Aryan Hindu from the gorilla…In this new suggestion as tothe causes and the effects of the prolonged infancy of man, I believe we have a suggestion as fruitful as theone which we owe to Mr. Wallace.’ The chapter then concludes with the quote Drummond used to
end his dissertation—‘From of old we have heard the monition, “Except ye be as babes ye cannot enterthe kingdom of Heaven”’, etc (see end of Drummond’s Ascent of Man quote above for the rest of
this, ‘Except ye be as babes…’, passage).
Fiske was right in recognising the immense significance of the long infancy andthe presence, therefore, of exceptionally maternal mothers as providing the basis for thedevelopment of a sense of morality in humans. In doing so, he recognised the basic elementsof the love-indoctrination process. In 1874, which as emphasised was only 15 years after thepublication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, we see that Fiske described his own workas ‘the latest science’. Dorothy Ross accurately recognised the full significance of Fiske’sexplanation when she recorded Drummond’s 1894 assessment of it: ‘To Darwin’s principle ofnatural selection by means of the struggle for survival, he [Drummond] added another principle thathe considered far more important—“the Struggle for the Life of Others,” or “altruistic Love,” whichdeveloped in the course of evolution from the necessities of maternity.’ In this assessment, Drummond
recognised firstly that unconditional selflessness or ‘altruistic Love’ is the very theme ofexistence with natural selection being less material as merely a means for its development,and secondly that the all-important unconditionally selfless ‘altruistic Love’ was able to be
‘developed in the course of evolution from the necessities of maternity’.

Not long after Drummond’s 1894 re-emphasis of Fiske’s nurturing-of-love idea, Hallagain brought it to the public attention’s in 1896. BUT, following Hall’s efforts, this ‘latestscience’, ‘one of the most beautiful contributions ever made to the Evolution of Man’ of the mechanism
for developing the unconditionally selfless, ‘altruistic Love’ that was a ‘far more important’
‘principle’ than Darwin’s selfish, ‘natural selection by means of the struggle for survival’, was
ignored and left to die—in fact, even by Hall’s time it had already ‘attracted a good deal ofopprobrium [abuse]’—to only now be independently re-admitted and resurrected, over a
century after Fiske’s admission of the concept in 1874. As emphasised, that ideas do keepresurfacing is what you would expect of a universal truth; further, the fact that such anobvious universal truth hasn’t been frequently put forward is evidence of the extent of ourdenial of such a truth, which is in turn evidence of the magnitude of the problem of ourhuman condition—our species’ insecurity about its loveless state. As Allott said, love hasbecome a subject that is ‘not appropriate for scientific study’.

654

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Again, the fundamental necessity for accepting the nurturing hypothesis for humanorigins was that it be accompanied by the explanation of the human condition, becauseonly when our inability to nurture our children was able to be understood would it bepsychologically safe for humans to admit the importance of nurturing. Humanity neededthe whole truth, all the explanations that make confronting the human condition possibledelivered together, and that is what is being presented here. With the explanation of thehuman condition now found, the truth of Integrative Meaning, the truth of our unconditionallyselfless moral soul, the truth of how nurturing created it, and all the other truths that humanityhas been living in denial of, can finally be admitted.
There are deficiencies in Fiske’s explanation of the origin of our morality, which isnot surprising given the infancy of the field and the scarcity of scientific knowledge in histime. Firstly, ‘Prolonged infancy’ didn’t ‘accompany the development of intelligence’; rather, aswill be explained in the coming Part 8:7B, ‘How, why and when did consciousness emergein humans?’, prolonged infancy, and the nurturing of selflessness, liberated consciousness,which only strongly developed after the love-indoctrination process was well established.
The large brain didn’t develop until after the extended infancy and intense nurturing tookplace, as evidenced by bonobos, which do not have a very large brain but are intenselynurturing and already neotenous.
Secondly, how the trained love became instinctive is particularly unclear in theexplanations put forward by both Fiske and Drummond. While Drummond is specific abouthow the instinct for strong nurturing affections of tenderness, self-sacrifice, etc, becameinstinctive in mothers, he doesn’t say whether the selfless qualities become instinctive inthe offspring. In fact, he said, ‘It may or may not be that the child will acquire its Mother’s virtue.’
On this matter, Fiske began by saying, ‘We [humans] approve of certain actions and disapprove ofcertain actions quite instinctively. We shrink from stealing or lying as we shrink from burning our fingers’
and ‘there is in our psychical structure a moral sense.’ However, he later stated that ‘In asserting thatwe possess an instinctive and inherited moral sense, it is not meant that we possess, anterior to educationand experience, an organic preference for certain particular good actions, and an organic repugnance tocertain particular bad actions. We do not inherit a horror of stealing, any more than the Hindu inheritsthe horror of killing cattle. We simply inherit a feeling which leads us, when we are told that stealing iswrong, to shun it, without needing to be taught that it is detrimental to society.’ This last quote seems
to imply that Fiske believed that the extent of our instinctive conscience didn’t go beyond akind of predisposition to acquiring a conscience, this despite having said, ‘We approve of certainactions and disapprove of certain actions quite instinctively.’

It is clear that both Fiske and Drummond had difficulty reconciling humans’ currentmorality-defying, upset, corrupted state—the fact that people can be extremely brutal andaggressive—with the view that we have moral instincts. They attempted to resolve theproblem by asserting that such instincts for love only emerged in relatively recent timeswithin ‘civilized’ people who have a fading, ‘evanescent barbarism’, despite the fact this theorydoes not allow anything like sufficient time for altruistic training to become instinctive.
Drummond said: ‘In the savage state, where the after-life is simple, the adjustments [for life] are madewith comparative ease and speed; but as we rise in the scale of civilization the necessary period of Infancylengthens step by step until in the case of the most highly educated man, where adjustments must be

Part 8:5B

John Fiske’s 1874 recognition that nurturing created our moral sense

655
made to a wide intellectual environment, the age of tutelage extends for almost a quarter of a century.’

Fiske similarly noted that infancy ‘is much longer in the civilized man than in the savage. Indeedamong the educated classes…it may be…more than a quarter of a century’. He then proceeded to say:
‘primeval…family groups…differ widely…from modern families…The sociality is but nascent: infantsare drowned, wives are beaten to death…in modern families evanescent barbarism shows itself in internalquarrels…Savages are not unfrequently capable of extreme devotion and self-sacrifice when the interestsof the tribe are at stake…But…savage virtues are, in general, confined to the clan. The…savage…isalso capable of the most fiendish cruelty…toward the members of another clan…Fijis, are exceptionallyferocious…though the savage has the germ of a moral sense, which prompts him…to postpone hispersonal welfare to that of his clan, he can by no means be accredited with a fully developed moral sense.’

Overall, what Fiske and Drummond were unaware of was what happened since weacquired an instinctive orientation to cooperative integration, namely the intervention of theimmensely upsetting battle of the human condition; innocent, completely integrated manwas the australopithecines who lived from five to two million years ago, but we neededunderstanding of what took place since, and who we became as a result.
And finally, Fiske’s claimed moral superiority of ‘civilized’ people, and ‘cerebral capacity’comparisons between the ‘Aryan’ ‘Englishman’ and the ‘Hindustan’ are false and morallyabhorrent. As has been explained before, civility is the mask humans have used to concealthe full extent of our upset, human-condition-afflicted state. Indeed, to some degree, themore upset we have become, the greater need we have had for civility. As has been pointedout, there are very substantial differences in alienation between individual humans andindeed between races of humans as a result of their different encounters with the necessaryand heroic, but upsetting, battle of the human condition—but no human, or race of humans,is ‘better’ than or ‘superior’ to another. Understanding of the necessary but upsettingbattle of the human condition entirely eliminates the concept of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ from allconceptualisation of ourselves.
The outstanding question is, why did Fiske’s fundamentally important explanation forthe origins of our moral instincts that created ‘humanity’—‘one of the most beautiful contributionsever made to the Evolution of Man’—virtually vanish from scientific discourse; why wasn’t I
taught the nurturing explanation for our altruistic moral nature at school, or when I studiedbiology at university; why did I have to work the idea out myself? Why was this ‘altruistic’
‘principle’ that was ‘considered far more important’ than the ‘principle of natural selection’,
and which Fiske explained was able to be developed in our forebears by ‘the necessities ofmaternity’, allowed to so disappear from biological discourse that in the 140 years that have
elapsed since Fiske presented his explanation a veritable mountain of books have beenpublished presenting all manner of unaccountable, dishonest theories for the origins ofour species’ extraordinary moral nature? Why, when we had the truth, has there been sucha colossal amount of tragically misguided effort that, as we will see, has now resulted inthe dangerously dishonest, misleading Social Ecological/Self-Domestication explanationsfor our moral soul? And why, in turn, has this nurturing, love-indoctrination explanationfor our moral soul—and, indeed, all my work—not just been rejected and ignored, but (as
I will document later) so ruthlessly attacked that I was made a pariah, and those helpingdisseminate these insights ostracised?

656

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Incidentally, in a further illustration of how obvious the nurturing explanation for our moralsoul really is, while writing this Part an internet search for references to John Fiske turned upan article that reveals that the love-indoctrination explanation was actually first put forward,albeit in a crude form, back in 1834, which is even prior to Darwin’s publication of his theory ofnatural selection. In an essay titled ‘On the Helpless State of Infancy’, which is simply signed
“V.F.”, it says: ‘Thus gracious hath Providence been to man, in rendering the ties of parental and filialaffection so much more permanent in this His noblest work, than in any of His inferior creatures…onaccount of the helpless condition of man in his state of infancy and childhood; because this very helplessness,by demanding the constant and long-continued attention of parents, gives rise to, and renders habitual, thetender charities of domestic and social life’ (see Wesley Raymond Wells’ paper ‘An Historical Anticipation of John
Fiske’s theory regarding the value of infancy’, Journal of Philosophy, 1922, Vol.19, No.8). So, the love-indoctrination
explanation has indeed been continually found and continually left to die! Why?

Part 8:5C The problem has been that the nurturing origins of our moral soul hasbeen devastatingly, unbearably, excruciatingly condemning
As explained in Part 4:4F, the answer to all these why’s is that the nurturing explanationfor our moral soul has been devastatingly, unbearably, excruciatingly condemning of humans’present inability to nurture children with the real, unconditional love that their instinctsexpect. Indeed, in his aforementioned 1992 paper, Allott noted that when the nurturingexplanation for our moral instincts was put forward by Fiske, and supported by a few others,it ‘attracted a good deal of opprobrium [abuse]’. But as I also pointed out in Part 4:4F, since theupset state of the human condition emerged some two million years ago, no child has beenable to be given the amount of love its instincts expect, and unable, until now, to explain thehuman condition and thus provide the explanation for why this provision of love has beenso compromised, the human race has had no choice but to deny the role nurturing has playedin the development of humanity and in the maturation of our own individual lives. The greatdifficulty we have admitting the importance of nurturing in human development is evident inthe comment that ‘The biggest crime you can commit in our society is to be a failure as a parent andpeople would rather admit to being an axe murderer than being a bad father or mother’ (‘A Single Mum’s
Guide to Raising Boys’, Sun-Herald, 7 July 2002).

In my 40 years of constant thinking and writing about the human condition I haveassembled a collection of the rare occasions when the human-condition-avoiding, denialpracticing, dishonest world we live in momentarily dropped its guard and let some truththrough. The following two quotes are cases in point—they are the most honest admissions
I have come across of both the importance of nurturing in human life and the now direinability of mothers to adequately nurture their children due to the corrupting effects of ourspecies’ heroic search for self-understanding. Firstly, consider this quote from the writer Olive
Schreiner that featured in Part 6:5: ‘They say women have one great and noble work left them, andthey do it ill…We bear the world, and we make it. The souls of little children are marvellously delicate andtender things, and keep for ever the shadow that first falls on them, and that is the mother’s or at best awoman’s. There was never a great man who had not a great mother—it is hardly an exaggeration. The

Part 8:5C

The nurturing origins of our moral soul has been unbearably condemning

657
first six years of our life make us; all that is added later is veneer…The mightiest and noblest of humanwork is given to us, and we do it ill.’

Then there is this powerful extract from the anthropologist Ashley Montagu’sextraordinarily honest 1970 paper ‘A Scientist Looks at Love’ (some of which was includedearlier in Part 6:4): ‘love is, without question, the most important experience in the life of a humanbeing…One of the most frequently used words in our vocabulary…[yet] love is something about whichmost of us are still extremely vague…There is a widespread belief that a newborn baby is a selfish,disorganized wild creature who would grow into a violently intractable savage if it were not properlydisciplined. [However] The newborn baby is organized in an extraordinarily sensitive manner…He doesnot want discipline…he wants love. He behaves as if he expected to be loved, and when his expectationis thwarted, he reacts in a grievously disappointed manner. There is now good evidence which leadsus to believe that not only does a baby want to be loved, but also that it wants to love; all its drives areorientated in the direction of receiving and giving love. If it doesn’t receive love it is unable to give it—asa child or as an adult. From the moment of birth the baby needs the reciprocal exchange of love with itsmother…It has, I believe, been universally acknowledged that the mother-infant relationship perhapsmore than any other defines the very essence of love…survival alone is not enough—human beingsneed and should receive much more…We now know that babies which are physically well nurturedmay nevertheless waste away and die unless they are also loved. We also know that the only remedy forthose babies on the verge of dying is love…The infant can suffer no greater loss than deprivation of themother’s love. There is an old Eastern proverb which explains that since God could not be everywherehe created mothers…maternal rejection may be seen as the “causative factor in…every individual caseof neurosis or behavior problem in children.”…Endowed at birth with the need to develop as a loving,harmonic human being, the child learns to love by being loved…To love one’s neighbor as oneself requiresfirst that one must be able to love oneself, and the only way to learn that art is by having been adequatelyloved during the first six years of one’s life. As Freud pointed out, this is the period during which thefoundations of the personality are either well and truly laid—or not. If one doesn’t love oneself one cannotlove others. To make loving order in the world we must first have had loving order made in ourselves…
Nothing in the world can be more important or as significant…love is demonstrable, it is sacrificial, it isself-abnegative [self-denying]. It puts the other always first. It is not a cold or calculated altruism, but adeep complete involvement with another. Love is unconditional…Love is the principal developer of one’scapacity for being human, the chief stimulus for the development of social competence, and the only thingon earth that can produce that sense of belongingness and relatedness to the world of humanity which isthe best achievement of the healthy human being…Scientists are discovering…that to live as if to live andlove were one is the only way of life for human beings, because, indeed, this is the way of life which theinnate nature of man demands. We are discovering that the highest ideals of man spring from man’s ownnature…and that the highest of these innately based ideals is the one that must enliven and inform all hisother ideals, namely, love…Contemporary scientists working in this field are giving a scientific foundationor validation to the Sermon on the Mount and to the Golden Rule: to do unto others as you would havethem do unto you, to love your neighbor as yourself…In an age in which a great deal of unloving lovemasquerades as the genuine article, in which there is a massive lack of love behind the show of love, inwhich millions have literally been unloved to death, it is very necessary to understand what love reallymeans. We have left the study of love to the last, but now that we can begin to understand its importancefor humanity, we can see that this is the area in which the men of religion, the educators, the physicians,

658

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
and the scientists can join hands in the common endeavor of putting man back upon the road of hisevolutionary destiny from which he has gone so far astray—the road which leads to health and happinessfor all humanity, peace and goodwill unto all the earth’ (The Phi Delta Kappan, Vol.51, No.9).

But while these quotes are incredibly honest, with understanding of the psychologicallyupset state of the human condition finally found (the explanation of which was presented in
Part 3:2), we can at last explain what is, in fact, fundamentally wrong with what Schreiner and
Montagu have said, which is that rather than loving our infants being ‘the mightiest and noblestof human work’, and of there being ‘nothing in the world…more important’ than being loved, there
has actually been a ‘mightie[r]’ and ‘more important’ task assigned to humans, which was topersevere with humanity’s corrupting, love-destroying search for knowledge until we foundthe understanding of the human condition that liberates the human race from that condition.
So there has been a very good reason for why humans ‘have literally been unloved to death’,but until we could explain that reason we had no choice but to leave ‘the study of love to thelast’. It is only now that we can explain the human condition, explain that humanity has had
to be preoccupied with its corrupting, love-destroying, anger-egocentricity-and-alienationproducing heroic search for knowledge, and thus explain why we have been so alienatedas parents that we have been unable to give our offspring anything like the alienation-free,sound, secure, unconditional love needed to create ‘The real vision of the human being’ ofthe sound child, the ‘child wonder’. Yes, it is only now that we can afford to admit that theplaywright Samuel Beckett was only slightly exaggerating the brevity today of a truly loved,soulful, happy, innocent, secure, sane, human-condition-free life when he wrote, ‘They givebirth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more’ (Waiting for Godot, 1955), or
admit that R.D. Laing was right when he wrote that ‘To adapt to this world the child abdicates itsecstasy’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967, p.118 of 156).

Such is the enormous paradox of the human condition: we humans appeared to behorribly bad but are, in fact, heroically wonderful—but until that reconciling biologicalunderstanding was found we had no choice but to be prepared to create and live in a worldthat was devoid of truth—and love! As the song The Impossible Dream described thispredicament, we had to be prepared ‘to march into hell for a heavenly cause’. So what is reallyneeded to balance Schreiner’s and Montagu’s honest but unfairly condemning revelationsabout how unloving parents have been, and, as a result, how hurt and alienated children havebeen, is an essay about how incredibly, amazingly, extraordinarily heroic all parents havebeen to have even had children while they were living under the horrific duress of the humancondition. Yes, a balancing essay is needed about how the human race has had to live withtwo million years of unjust condemnation—about how every day humans have had to getout of bed and face a world that in effect hated them, that considered them horrible mistakes,blights on Earth, defiling, bad, awful, even evil, sinful creatures, when, as explained in Part 3,humans are nothing less than the heroes of the whole story of life on Earth!!
It follows then that there has been a justifiable reason for each of the why’s that werelisted earlier—except for the last one of why I and those advocating my work have beenso thoroughly persecuted for presenting the nurturing explanation for our moral instincts.
As emphasised, it was only when we could explain the human condition and thus finallyunderstand our inability to nurture our offspring that it would be safe to admit the critically

Part 8:5D

To deny importance of nurturing, the Social Intelligence Hypothesis was invented

659
important understanding of our species’ nurtured origins and, as Montagu said, put ‘man backupon the road of his evolutionary destiny from which he has gone so far astray’ and transform the
human race, restore ‘health and happiness for all humanity, peace and goodwill unto all the earth’, andsince it is precisely that explanation of the human condition that I have presented, inclusive ofthat nurturing explanation, there is no justification for the rejection, ostracism and persecutionthat I have been subjected to. Quite the reverse, in fact—such a response represents the veryheight of irresponsibility and an abuse of science’s mandate to support endeavours that seekto understand and ameliorate the plight of man. The seriousness of this ill-treatment will berevisited at the end of this Part.
From the perspective, however, of mechanistic science, this need to deny the importanceof nurturing in our human origins until we could explain the human condition has meantthat biologists had to find some way of supporting this denial. And, as we are now going tosee, this denial—like that which led to the corruption of Darwin’s idea of natural selectioninto a ‘survival of the fittest’ process, through to the development of E.O. Wilson’s theoryof Eusociality—was achieved through the invention of the Social Intelligence Hypothesis.
(Obviously, the entire need for denial should have been eradicated 30 years ago when Ipresented the nurturing explanation in accompaniment with the explanation of the humancondition, but, again, this is an issue I will return to later.)

Part 8:5D To deny the importance of nurturing, the Social Intelligence Hypothesiswas invented
Since humans are primates, the obvious area of research that has the most potentialto shed light on our origins is the field of primatology, but it is in this most enlighteningof subjects that some of the most dishonest thinking about the origins of our species’moral sense has been taking place. Despite John Fiske having presented the nurturingexplanation for our moral nature way back in 1874, the great majority of primatologists havebeen so fearful of the truth of nurturing that they have been completely dishonest in theirinterpretations of primate behaviour. This is particularly apparent if we compare their studieswith the work of the rare few honest primatologists who have dared to recognise the rolenurturing is playing in primate society.
For instance, the obviousness—if you’re not practicing denial—of the nurturing, loveindoctrination process, and how extremely confronting a truth it is, is apparent in Dian
Fossey’s study of gorillas. As described in the Part 8:4G, Fossey was an extraordinarily strongwilled woman for whom the universal practice of denial in mechanistic science held no sway.
Few, if any, however, have been able to cope with the honesty of Fossey’s studies, and, as aresult, she has been misrepresented as merely a fanatical gorilla conservationist—such as inthe 1988 film of her life, Gorillas in the Mist. A read, however, of her wonderfully insightfultreatise on gorilla behaviour—the 1983 book Gorillas in the Mist upon which the film wasunfaithfully based—shows just how courageous a scientist Fossey was. She watched the livesof troops of gorillas over many generations and gave a denial-free, honest account of whatshe saw, which was the whole love-indoctrination process at work. Fearlessly, she wrote that
‘Like human mothers, gorilla mothers show a great variation in the treatment of their offspring…Flossie

660

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
was very casual in the handling, grooming, and support of both of her infants, whereas Old Goat was anexemplary parent’. Old Goat’s offspring, the ‘exemplary parent[ed]’ ‘Tiger’, ‘was taking his placein Group 4’s growing cohesiveness. By the age of five, Tiger was surrounded by playmates his own age,a loving mother, and a protective group leader. He was a contented and well-adjusted individual whosezest for living was almost contagious for the other animals of his group…[However,] The immigrant…menace…Beetsme…developed an unruly desire to dominate…I found myself strongly disliking Beetsmeas I watched his discord destroy…[the group’s] cohesiveness’. On reading this, one can appreciate
why the whole nurturing, love-indoctrination process has been so determinedly denied—Old
Goat was an ‘exemplary parent’ who created a ‘well-adjusted’ offspring with a wonderful ‘zestfor living’, while the ‘menac[ing]’, ‘unruly’, ‘discord’-creating, ‘cohesiveness’-‘destroy[ing]’, non‘loving’, and by inference unloved, Beetsme was ‘dislik[able]’; the implication for humans being
that if you don’t love your child you’re a bad person, and, as has been stated, humans ‘wouldrather admit to being an axe-murderer to being a bad father or mother’.

In his 1989 book, Peacemaking Among Primates, the primatologist Frans de Waalrecounts a meeting that was held between an unnamed psychiatrist and Harry F. Harlow, apsychologist who, in the 1950s, studied the extremely damaging effect isolation and touchdeprivation had on rhesus monkey infants; their discussion shows just how unbearableand confronting both the concept and the importance of nurturing love has been for thosestudying primates, and just how fearless Fossey was in her honesty: ‘For some scientists it washard 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 relentedwhen he realized that the closest the psychiatrist had probably ever come to love was proximity”’ (pp.13-14of 294). Yes, humans’ present human-condition-afflicted, unloved and unloving lives—where
the ‘closest’ the immensely upset human race has ‘probably ever come to love’ is ‘proximity’—hasmeant that our ability to even acknowledge the existence of love, which is what nurturingessentially is, has been nigh impossible. No wonder mechanistic science practices the extremedishonesty that Allot described in his aforementioned 1992 paper, when he reported that ‘Lovehas been described as a taboo subject, not serious, not appropriate for scientific study’—this despite, as

Montagu acknowledged, ‘love’ being ‘One of the most frequently used words in our vocabulary’!
It follows then that the bonobos—whose extraordinarily maternal, nurturing, lovingtreatment of their infants and the resulting remarkable integrative, loving behaviour they exhibitas adults was described at length in Part 8:4F—have been extremely exposing, confrontingand condemning of the unloved and unloving human race. As I mentioned in Part 8:4F, thebiologist, psychologist and bonobo authority Sue Savage-Rumbaugh has bravely admitted thatnurturing is the focus of bonobo society; like Fossey, she has let the truth out of the bag that thecooperative behaviour of bonobos is a product of the infant-focused, nurturing of love, loveindoctrination process—writing, with the assistance of her co-author, the writer Roger Lewin,that ‘Bonobo life is centered around the offspring. Unlike what happens among common chimps, allmembers of the bonobo social group help with infant care and share food with infants. If you are a bonoboinfant, you can do no wrong…Bonobo females and their infants form the core of the group.’ But also
like Fossey, Savage-Rumbaugh’s honesty appears to have made her the target of the human-

Part 8:5D

To deny importance of nurturing, the Social Intelligence Hypothesis was invented

661
condition-avoiding, nurturing-denying, mechanistic scientific establishment, because in 2012 acampaign was launched to discredit and marginalise her ground-breaking work with bonobos. Ihave been told by a scientist whom I respect and who knows Savage-Rumbaugh personally thatshe has become somewhat erratic, but if that is the case I strongly suspect the genesis of suchinstability would be years of unfair criticism from the mechanistic establishment.
So the question now is, how was denial of the obvious role nurturing plays in the livesof more developed/integrated/social mammals, especially primates, and most especiallybonobos—which the studies of Fossey and Savage-Rumbaugh bear witness to, and whichprovide such powerful evidence for how we acquired our cooperative, unconditionallyselfless, moral instincts—achieved? Clearly, such a denial wasn’t going to be easy, butlooking an obvious truth in the face and finding a way to deny it—such as finding a wayto deny the extremely obvious truths of Integrative Meaning and of our corrupted humancondition—is something we humans are masters at!
So yes, how did mechanistic science manage to look the obvious truth of the importanceof nurturing in the face and deny it? There have been two ways. The first was to portraymaternalism as nothing more than a mother providing her dependent offspring with foodand protection. As was explained in Part 8:4B, the truth is that mothers’ maternal instincts tonourish and protect their offspring did provide the base from which the love-indoctrinationprocess was able to develop, however, in love-indoctrination, maternalism became aboutmuch more than a mother looking after her infant—it became a case of actively loving thatinfant. Significantly, we speak of ‘motherly love’, not ‘motherly protection’. The problem,however, with this method of denying the nurturing, loving significance of maternalism is thatin the case of the extremely exposing-of-the-truth, infant-focused, maternal bonobo society,their environment has historically been food-rich and competitor-and-predator-free, so itdoesn’t make sense to argue that their exceptionally maternal behaviour has been driven bythe need to either source food or provide protection.
The second method used to deny the significance of nurturing in bonobo life, and, byinference, its significance in the lives of our ape ancestors, is the one Leakey referred to—thatthe extended infancies in primates is due to the infant’s need for ‘prolonged learning’ abouttheir ‘environment’. A more complete rendition of this alleged explanation for the need for thenurturing that we see in the society of more developed mammals, particularly in bonobos andhumans, is that ‘The more sophisticated species also exhibit longer infant and juvenile stages, which areprobably related to the time required for their more advanced mental development and their integrationinto complex social systems’ (Encyclopedia Britannica, cited on <https://pages.uoregon.edu/jschombe/glossary/primate.html>, accessed Feb. 2013). As will be explained in more detail in Part 8:7B, this so-called

‘Social Intelligence Hypothesis’ (sometimes referred to as the ‘Machiavellian Intelligence
Hypothesis’), and its more sophisticated version, the Ecological Dominance-Social
Competition (EDSC) Model, essentially maintain that the long mother-infant association isneeded to ensure the infant learns the skills necessary to manage ‘complex social’ situations,and that it was this need that also led to ‘more advanced mental development’, ultimately thefully conscious, intelligent mind in humans. For example, as was mentioned in Part 8:4C,
E.O. Wilson says in The Social Conquest of Earth that, ‘to feel empathy for others, to measure

662

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
the emotions of friends and enemy alike, to judge the intentions of all of them, and to plan a strategy forpersonal social interactions…the human brain became…highly intelligent’ (2012, p.17 of 330).

However, as will be described in Part 8:7B when the truthful explanation of the origins ofconsciousness is presented, even human-condition-avoiding mechanistic scientists have raisedserious concerns over the viability of both the Social/Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis
(S/MIH) and the EDSC Model, but from the human-condition-confronting, truthful view
of biology, some very obvious flaws with both models can be pointed out immediately—particularly in regard to their core argument that our fully conscious intelligent mind emergedas a result of having to learn to manage complex social situations, a process that supposedlyrequired and explained the long infancy.
Social problem-solving is, of course, an obvious benefit of being conscious, butall activities that animals have to manage would benefit enormously from consciousintelligence—from the ability to reason how cause and effect are related, to understandchange, to make sense of experience, to be insightful—so it is completely illogical tosuggest that it wasn’t until the need arose to manage complex social situations thatconsciousness developed. No, any sensible analysis of how and when consciousnessemerged must be based on the question of ‘what has prevented its development in otheranimals?’ A lack of social situations doesn’t explain why the fully conscious mind hasn’tappeared in non-human species because there was ample need for a conscious mind prior tothe appearance of complex social situations.
No, as was briefly explained in Parts 3:11 and 8:4C and will be fully explained in Part
8:7B, the only accountable explanation for the emergence of the fully conscious mind in
humans and for what is blocking its emergence in other species is the nurturing, loveindoctrination explanation—which, to recap very briefly, states that the nurturing ofselflessness liberated the fully conscious, intelligent mind from the block that exists in nonhuman species’ minds against thinking selflessly and thus truthfully and thus effectively.
Another obvious flaw with both the S/MIH and the EDSC Model is that if it wasn’t forthe psychologically upset state of the human condition there would be no need to learn, andbecome intelligent enough to master, the art of managing ‘complex social systems’. Through theprocess of love-indoctrination, we humans became so instinctively integrated that there wasno disharmony/conflict/discord/‘complex[ity]’ to have to manage. We lived instinctively as oneorganism. What did the Greek poet Hesiod say? ‘Like gods they lived, with calm untroubled mind,free from the toils and anguish of our kind…They with abundant goods ’midst quiet lands, all willingshared the gathering of their hands.’ The pre-human-condition-afflicted, integrated, cooperative,
social, Specie Individual state, such as that which largely exists in bonobo society today,simply wasn’t a situation that called for infants to be skilled in social management techniques.
And the even more blatant flaw with the two arguments used to dismiss the importantrole nurturing played in the lives of our forebears, and continues to play in the development/integration/socialisation of other mammals, especially other primates, and most especiallybonobos, is that they suggest nurturing is nothing more than a mother providing her dependentinfant with food and protection, and that the long mother-infant association is needed onlyto allow the time to impart social skills. But, as stated earlier, humans can’t have developedsuch powerful instincts to nurture our offspring with love, or such powerful expectations

Part 8:5D

To deny importance of nurturing, the Social Intelligence Hypothesis was invented

663
of being unconditionally loved as children, if nurturing hadn’t played a fundamental role inthe history of our species’ development—as I said, such instincts and expectations do notappear out of thin air. The response to this statement, however, from advocates of the S/MIHand the EDSC Model would be that mothers simply don’t have powerful instincts to nurturetheir offspring with love, and children simply don’t have expectations of being loved; rathermothers have powerful instincts to teach their offspring how to manage ‘integration into complexsocial systems’, and children have instinctual expectations of being taught such skills. In other
words, it is not a case of instincts to love and be loved ‘coming out of thin air’, but a caseof such instincts never existing in the first place. But that is absurd; indeed, it is offensivelydishonest, because everyone actually does know that what Schreiner and Montagu wroteabout infants’ need for love is true. Yes, what an infant needs from its parents—and from itsmother in particular—is unconditional love, not training in the management of complex socialsituations! Certainly, when the need for denial is critical any excuse will do, and the art ofdenial is to then stick to that excuse like glue, but that does not mean we are so unaware weare practicing denial that we are unable to recognise and admit the truth when that denial is nolonger needed—which, with the human condition now explained, it no longer is.
We all do actually know that to achieve the ‘loving order in the world’ that Montagurecognised, the cold, ruthlessly selfish, competitive, must-reproduce-your-genes ‘animalcondition’ had to be overcome, and the only means by which that could be achieved wasthrough the mother-infant, nurturing-of-love situation: the love-indoctrination process. Aswas emphasised in Part 8:4, the difficulty is that love-indoctrination is an extremely difficultprocess to develop and maintain to the point where the fierce competition to reproduceyour genes is contained and integration achieved. Only our ape ancestors managed todevelop love-indoctrination to the point where competition amongst males especially wascontained and unconditional love and integration developed, something the fossil recordis now confirming, as was described in Part 8:4E. Bonobos are well on their way, but allthe other relatively developed/integrated/social mammals are still battling to develop loveindoctrination to the point where it has overcome selfish competition amongst males toreproduce their genes. But they are trying to do so, they are trying to indoctrinate theirinfants with love to the degree their circumstances allow. Reports from anyone who hasworked with the relatively developed/integrated/social mammals and who is not under thecontrol of the thought police—the truth-denying, mechanistic scientific constabulary—give accounts of the development of love through nurturing, such as this of the nurturing,loving behaviour of elephants: ‘After years of research and scientific observation it has been shownthat elephant’s social structure and familial bonds are similar, if not deeper, than the bonds developedamong [present immensely psychologically upset] human beings. There are deeply stirring accounts,by such scientists as Joyce Poole, Cynthia Moss and Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick, of elephants weepingand expressing grief at the loss of their calves…and other herd members. There are recorded behaviorsof near spiritual proportion…Calves frequently die of heartbreak from the loss of their mothers andabuse by human beings…There are also great displays of affection and mutual respect rarely viewed inthe social structure of humans. Joyce Poole, internationally known expert on elephants, states, “I havenever seen (wild) calves ‘disciplined’. Protected, comforted, cooed over, reassured and rescued, yes, butpunished, no. Elephants are raised in an incredibly positive and loving environment”’ (‘The Heart of Africa’,

664

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
accessed Feb. 2013: see <www.wtmsources.com/102>). Note that Poole’s comment that elephant calves
are never ‘disciplined’ echoes Savage-Rumbaugh’s observation that bonobo infants ‘can do nowrong’. Revealingly, like elephant orphans, orphaned ‘Gorillas and bonobos…just die. They seetheir mothers killed and they give up’ (Vanessa Woods, Bonobo Handshake, 2010, p.67 of 278)—because, as
stated above, they suffer ‘heartbreak’; their emotional desire for, their instinctive expectationof receiving, and their attachment to, a loving true (Integrative-Meaning-compliant) world isso great they literally cannot survive without it. In Part 8:4F, a quote from Savage-Rumbaughwas included that described the rapturous joy expressed by the bonobos Matata and heradopted son Kanzi at their loving reunion. When the Friends of Bonobos charity designedtheir fundraising ‘A Bonobo Mother’s Love T-shirt’ to have a picture of a mother bonobo cradlingher infant, they weren’t ‘anthropomorphising’ or inappropriately humanising bonobos, asthe mechanistic thought police would argue, they were unwittingly conveying the simpletruth. Bonobo mothers aren’t merely giving infants training in how to manage ‘integration intocomplex social systems’, that is an absurd suggestion—they are giving them ‘love’. But, again,
when the need for denial is desperate, any excuse will do. The truth is that in the relativelydeveloped/integrated/social species of mammals, nurturing has moved beyond the primitive
‘must nourish and protect’ maternal situation to the ‘must love’ maternal situation—they areattempting to develop love-indoctrination.

Part 8:5E Dismissing maternal love as training to manage complex social situationsstill left the extraordinarily cooperative lives of bonobos, and of our apeancestors, to somehow be explained
While both the dishonest S/MIH and the EDSC Model have been relied upon to dismissthe mother-infant bond as being nothing more than a mother nourishing and protecting heroffspring, and training them in the art of managing complex social situations, a big problemremained: how to account for the remarkable cooperative behaviour of bonobos, and ourown unconditionally selfless moral instincts? So the question now is, what nurturing-of-lovedenying ‘explanation’ did mechanistic scientists come up with to ‘solve’ this problem?
Initially, they tried to portray the competitive aggression and violence that can be foundin all ape species (except bonobos) as evidence of what our ape ancestors were supposedlylike. But when it was found that bonobos didn’t fit this model, human-condition-avoidingmechanistic scientists tried to ignore the anomaly they represented. And then, when thosescientists could no longer ignore the extraordinary integration that is so apparent in bonobosociety, they conceded that bonobos are cooperative but found a way to explain how theybecame cooperative that did not invoke, or credit in any way, nurturing. (At this point, itshould be stated that, just as our fear of the human condition and resulting denial of it hasbeen so great that we, the upset human race, have hardly been aware that we are living indenial of it, our fear of the truth of the importance of nurturing in human development andresulting denial of it has also become so developed and entrenched in us that we are hardlyaware that we are practicing it. It is almost instinctive in us now to avoid the significanceof nurturing in human history, as though it’s a rule we live by but with only a subliminalawareness that we are abiding by it.)

Part 8:5E

Maternal love as training for social situations doesn't explain cooperativeness

665

In regard to the initial strategy stated above—of relating our aggressive behaviour tothat of apes—as was explained in Part 4:11, ever since Darwin presented his idea of naturalselection, humans have been misrepresenting it as a ‘survival of the fittest’ process, and usingthat misinterpretation to support the reverse-of-the-truth-lie that, just like other animals, wehumans have competitive, selfish and aggressive instincts that our intellect has to heroicallycontrol. Chimpanzees appeared to support this lie—they were obviously human-like, andso were used as a model for our ancestors, with anthropologists such as Raymond Dart and
Robert Ardrey pointing to chimpanzees’ intense and violent male competition, rape, infanticideand inter-group warfare as being indicative of the behavioural heritage of our ancestors.
Dart argued for the ‘predatory transition from ape to man’ (‘The Predatory Transition from Ape to Man’,
International Anthropological and Linguistic Review, 1953, Vol.1, No.4), while Ardrey was even more emphatic,
saying that ‘Man had emerged from the anthropoid background for one reason only: because he was akiller’ (African Genesis, 1961, p.29 of 380). More recently, in 1999, a leading anthropologist and author
of Demonic Males, Richard Wrangham, put forward the so-called Chimpanzee Violence
Hypothesis, which claimed that ‘selection has favored a hunt-and-kill propensity in chimpanzeesand humans, and that coalitional killing has a long history in the evolution of both species’ (‘Evolutionof Coalitionary Killing’, Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1999, Vol.42). Both theories were immensely
popular obviously because the idea that our instincts are wildly aggressive made our intellect’ssupposed role as mediator seem all the more heroic. While it all amounted to a reverse-of-thetruth lie (because, as explained in Part 4:6, our instincts are loving while our intellect is theoffending, divisive influence), it was, nevertheless, a very human-condition-relieving thesis.
Incidentally, even though we do now have fossil evidence supporting the loveindoctrination explanation for our moral instincts, without the living evidence that thebonobos provide, it would be very difficult to prove the nurturing of love explanation for ourunconditionally loving moral nature. Thank goodness for bonobos!
Yes, with their peaceful and gentle society, the bonobos exposed this initial strategy forthe lie it was, but in doing so exposed themselves to the wrath of mechanistic science as anunbearably exposing and confronting reminder of our now immensely angry, egocentric andalienated, unloving and unloved lives. So, as stated, mechanistic science’s strategy to dealwith this problem was to simply ignore the anomaly that bonobos represented. Indeed, thisstrategy was so successful that the first in-depth study of bonobos, which only occurred in
1954, was ‘ignored and forgotten by the scientific community’ (Frans de Waal & Frans Lanting, Bonobo: The
Forgotten Ape, 1997, p.11 of 210) because it dared to describe them as ‘an extraordinarily sensitive, gentle
creature, far removed from the demoniacal primitive force of the adult chimpanzee’ (E. Tratz & H. Heck,
‘Der africkanische Anthropoide “Bonobo”: Eine neue Menschenaffengattung’, Säugetierkundliche Mitteilungen, Vol.2).

In fact, it was this ongoing denial that led de Waal and the photographer Frans Lanting totitle their 1997 collaboration, Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape. This book, which acknowledgedrather than ignored the extraordinary sensitivity of bonobos, was, not surprisingly, vilified:
‘De Waal’s bonobo research came under sustained attack’ (Douglas Foster, The Future of Bonobos: An Animal
Akin to Ourselves, accessed Sept. 2004 at: see <www.wtmsources.com/122>) from anthropologists such as Craig

Stanford who wrote in a paper that ‘It is clear that much of the research on these two intensivelystudied apes [in the case of bonobos, I would argue ‘superficially’ studied] remains fraught withuntested assumptions’ and that ‘reported differences have been inflated’ (‘The Social Behavior of Chimpanzees

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

666

The Biology
and Bonobos: Empirical Evidence and Shifting Assumptions’, Current Anthropology, 1998, Vol.39, No.4). Responding
to Stanford’s criticisms, de Waal insightfully wrote that ‘Two strategies have emerged tokeep bonobos at a distance so as to preserve chimpanzee-based scenarios of human evolution, whichtraditionally emphasize warfare, hunting, tool use, and male dominance. The first strategy is to describethe bonobo as an interesting but specialized anomaly that can be safely ignored as a possible model of thelast common ancestor (see Wrangham and Peterson 1996). The second strategy, adopted by Stanford, is tominimize the differences between the two Pan species: if bonobos behave, by and large, like chimpanzees,there is no reason to question the latter species’ prominence as a model’ (ibid).

The problem that emerged with these dismissive strategies was that modern technologyhas increasingly made the bonobos more accessible, and their extraordinarily integrativebehaviour, that is so different to chimpanzees, almost impossible to ignore. Bonobos, the
French documentary that was referred to in Part 8:4F, is a case in point.
The fact is, with their extraordinarily loving behaviour, bonobos have represented anever-growing thorn in the side of a mechanistic scientific fraternity that desperately wantedto avoid their significance. And since bonobos couldn’t be ignored forever, something hadto be done to at least minimise their confronting presence. What happened was that whiletheir ‘extraordinarily sensitive, gentle’, peaceful, cooperative behaviour could not very well bedenied (and, in any case, there was a growing desire among ideal-behaviour-emphasisingbut-human-condition-avoiding left-wing biologists to be able to emphasise cooperativenessand gentleness), it was hoped that at least a way could be found to explain why bonobos werecooperative in a manner that still avoided acknowledging the unbearable significance of theirremarkable nurturing, maternal behaviour. And the way that was found was through a theoryknown as the ‘Social Ecological Model’ that sought to explain social behaviour in terms ofecological factors that influence social interactions.
Before describing this Social Ecological Model it should be mentioned that mechanisticscience has employed a similar strategy of evasion to dismiss fossilised evidence of ourspecies’ cooperative past.

Part 8:5F Fossilised evidence of our species’ cooperative past has also beendismissed and then ignored by mechanistic science
Yes, just as the evidence provided by bonobos of our species’ cooperative past has beendenied by mechanistic science—first by claiming that our ancestors behaved competitivelyand aggressively ‘like most ape species’, and, when bonobos clearly didn’t fit that model,by simply ignoring the anomaly of bonobos altogether—the fossilised evidence of ourcooperative past has also been dismissed as irrelevant and, when that strategy becameuntenable, it too was simply ignored.
For instance, it was stated in Part 8:4E that the fossil record reveals that our apeancestors had small canine teeth. Although it was explained there that the only accountableexplanation for the reduction in canine size in our ape ancestors is that it was caused byfemale sexual selection against male mating aggression—that small canines are ‘indicativeof minimal social aggression’—mechanistic scientists initially tried to avoid the implications
of these small canines by maintaining that they were only a recent development, and thatthe fossil record would inevitably provide evidence of an aggressive heritage. For example,

Part 8:5F

Fossilised evidence of our cooperative past ignored by mechanistic science

667
in 1915 it was said, ‘That we should discover such a race [a human race in which the canine teethwere pointed, projecting, and shaped as in anthropoid apes], sooner or later, has been an article of faithin the anthropologist’s creed ever since Darwin’s time’ (Sir Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, 1925, p.459of 519).

However, as subsequent fossil discoveries pushed back, by millions of years, the
age at which our ape ancestors still had small canines it became increasingly impossibleto maintain this ‘article of faith’ of an aggressive ‘human race’. As noted in Part 8:4E, otherattempts to account for our ancestors’ canine reduction that did not cite a reduction inaggression have also been rendered untenable by these ongoing discoveries, such as by whatwe now know of their diet.
So, through the recent discoveries of Ardipithecus, Orrorin, and the 7 million yearold Sahelanthropus, and the conclusive evidence they provide of our species’ cooperativeheritage, it appears that human-condition-avoiding, mechanistic scientists have beencornered into simply ignoring this evidence. For example, Richard Wrangham published the
Chimpanzee Violence Hypothesis in 1999, and yet failed to mention the discovery, only 7years earlier, of Ardipithecus—a find that had confirmed the existence of small canines at least
4.4 million years ago. Similarly, E.O. Wilson’s attempt in his 2012 book The Social Conquest
of Earth to portray war as a ‘universal and eternal’ presence in human history (a claim that wasrepudiated in Part 4:12I), makes no mention of the fact that small canines characterise our apeancestors, despite Wilson discussing both Australopithecus and Ardipithecus in his book. In
2009 the popular science magazine Scientific American (a subsidiary of the leading journal

Nature) failed to make a single reference to a suite of papers—which had been some 15 yearsin the making—on Ardipithecus ramidus that had been published in a 2009 special editionof Science, ‘the most extensive special issue of Science since Apollo 11’ (Tim D. White, Letters, Scientific
American, 2010, Vol.302, No.1). As Tim White, team leader of the Ardipithecus researchers, asked,

‘How and why did the Scientific American editorial miss that story?’ (ibid). It is as if the fossil evidence
of a cooperative past has become too strong to refute but the implications too daunting toacknowledge, rendering the majority of mechanistic scientists speechless. While a handfulof scientists have broken the silence since the Ardipithecus discoveries were published,predictably most have done so in order to deny their cooperative implications on the onlygrounds left, which is by arguing that Ardipithecus, Orrorin and Sahelanthropus are not partof the human lineage, despite all the evidence indicating that they are.
Yes, mechanistic science’s strategies for dealing with the fossil record’s evidence of acooperative past have followed a pattern similar to that which they employed to deal withthe bonobos—first denounce the evidence as irrelevant on the false basis that our past isaggressive, and, when that position becomes untenable, simply ignore the evidence.
A further point of significance, and one that was also raised in Part 8:4E, is that thefossil record, particularly the 1992 discovery of Ardipithecus, clearly shows the physical andbehavioural similarities between our pre-australopithecine ape ancestors and bonobos. But ifbonobos themselves needed to be ignored, it follows that any evidence that links our ancestorsto them will be treated the same way—as indeed it has. As Frans de Waal explains in his 2013book, The Bonobo and the Atheist, ‘a scientist on the Ardi [Ardipithecus] team…could think only ofchimps as a comparison…[despite] The bonobo’s body proportions—its long legs and narrow shoulders—seem[ing] to perfectly fit the descriptions of Ardi, as do its relatively small canines. Why was the bonobooverlooked?’ (pp.60-61 of 289).

668

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 8:5G The Social Ecological Model
To return now to mechanistic science’s determination to avoid the unbearable significanceof bonobos’ remarkable nurturing, maternal behaviour through the development of the theoryknown as the Social Ecological Model (SEM).
In essence, the SEM holds that the abundance of food available to the bonobos waswhat gave rise to their extraordinary harmony and cooperation. The model maintains that aplentiful supply of food meant that groups of bonobos no longer had to split up to feed, whichgave females the opportunity to socialise more and, in time, to form coalitions to protectthemselves against aggressive male competition for mating opportunities, thus forcing malesto adopt more cooperative strategies. To quote from a description of the SEM in a 2001 paperby the anthropologists Richard Wrangham and David Pilbeam: ‘The absence of gorillas madehigh-quality foliage more available for proto-bonobos than for chimpanzees. As a result, proto-bonobosexperienced a reduced intensity of scramble competition compared to chimpanzees. Reduced scramblecompetition allowed more stable parties, which then made several forms of aggression more dangerousand costly, and less beneficial, to the aggressors. This change in the economics of violence led throughvarious social consequences to female-female alliances, concealed ovulation, and reduced individualvulnerability to gang attacks. All these favored a reduction in the propensity for male aggressiveness’
(‘African apes as time machines’, All Apes Great and Small: Volume 1: African Apes, 2002, p.12 of 316). So, under
the dictates of the SEM, bonobos were able to become, to quote Wrangham again, ‘a speciesbiologically committed to the moral aspects of what, ironically, we like to call “humanity”: respect forothers, personal restraint, and turning aside from violence as a solution to conflicting [social] interests’
(Demonic Males, 1997, p.230 of 350). Wrangham is also reported to have referred to ‘those loving
bonobos’ (Steve Sailer, ‘Chimps and Chumps’, National Review, 1999, Vol.51, No.18).

So this model claimed to explain bonobos’ extraordinary ‘respect for others’, ‘personalrestraint’, ‘loving’, ‘moral’, cooperative nature without a single mention of the importance of
nurturing! Its appeal, however, can be judged by its adoption, in one form or another, byalmost all the leading bonobo researchers (including Alison and Noel Badrian, Ben Blount,
Christophe Boesch, Barbara Fruth, Brian Hare, Gottfried Hohmann, Takayoshi Kano,
Suehisa Kuroda, Toshisada Nishida, Amy Parish, David Pilbeam, Barbara Smuts, Randall
Susman, Frans de Waal, Frances White and Richard Wrangham), and by the fact that itremains virtually uncontested since being put forward in the early 1980s. While not all thesescientists necessarily agree with Wrangham that bonobos behave in a ‘loving’ way—withsome maintaining bonobos are capable only of reciprocal selflessness—all acknowledge thatbonobos are extraordinarily cooperative and all use the SEM to explain it.
But while the SEM serves the purpose of denying the significance of nurturing in bonobosociety, the mechanisms it uses to do so—namely that females have been able to formcoalitions to counter male aggression, and that those coalitions are successful in dominatingmales—are, in fact, seriously flawed.
Firstly, with regard to bonobo females being able to form coalitions to protectthemselves against male aggression, the SEM argues that the opportunity to spend more timetogether—which, in the case of bonobos, they say was made possible by an abundance offood—allowed bonobos to form ‘stable parties’ that in time allowed the formation of ‘female-

Part 8:5G

The Social Ecological Model

669
female alliances’ to protect themselves against ‘male aggressiveness’ arising from competition
for mating opportunities.
However, while it is not uncommon amongst mammals for situations to occur where
‘stable parties’ are able to and do form, it is rare for such ‘stable parties’ to lead to ‘female-femalealliances’ that have the power to prevent ‘male aggressiveness’—which is surprising because
such an alliance would certainly seem beneficial since male aggression does come at a costto females, as these quotes indicate: ‘Sexual harassment has significant negative consequences forfemales even when it doesn’t end up in coerced sex; it can increase stress and interfere with normalactivities, reducing health, fitness and longevity. Some forms of harassment may even culminate ininjury or death’ (Linda Mealey, Sex Differences: Developmental and Evolutionary Strategies, 2000, p.130 of 480); and
‘Females in many mammalian species experience both sexual aggression and infanticide by males’ (Barbara
Smuts & Robert Smuts, ‘Male Aggression and Sexual Coercion of Females in Nonhuman Primates and Other Mammals:
Evidence and Theoretical Implications’, Advances in the Study of Behavior, 1993, Vol.22). If ‘stable parties’ were all
that were required to form ‘female-female alliances’ that could stop ‘male aggressiveness’ then suchalliances would be common amongst mammals, but they aren’t. In short, the formation ofsuch alliances do occur within primate societies (especially among bonobos), but if the SEMis correct it should also be regularly occurring in non-primate mammals, but it isn’t. To quotethe anthropologists Barbara and Robert Smuts: ‘the use of female coalitions to thwart aggressivemales appears to be rare in other mammals compared with nonhuman primates’ (ibid).

The only conclusion for why the strategy of forging ‘female-female alliances’ to prevent
‘male aggressiveness’ is rare outside primate species is that the strategy is not genetically
successful—in other words, it is not in the interest of the female’s chances of reproducingher genes, otherwise natural selection would have ‘discovered’ it and the practice would bea common one amongst all mammals. As such, there has to be some other factor aside from
‘stable parties’ enabling females to form these types of coalitions, and the regularity with which
these alliances appear within primates compared with non-primate mammals suggests it issomething unique to primates. But while the SEM cannot account for this peculiarity, thelove-indoctrination explanation certainly does. As was explained in Part 8:4B, primates, whosearms are semi-freed from walking and are thus able to hold a helpless infant, are uniquelyplaced to develop love-indoctrination should conditions be favourable—and, as we’veestablished, the bonobos have the most favourable environmental conditions amongst theprimates and, as a result, have been able to develop the most love-indoctrinated integration.
Yes, it would appear that it is only amongst primate species, where more nurturing is ableto be selected for and both males and females are able to be indoctrinated with unconditionalselfless love, that the ‘economics of violence’ changes enough for it to be possible to form ‘femalefemale alliances’ to help rein in ‘male aggressiveness’.

So the differing degrees of success that the various primate species are having in formingfemale coalitions is a reflection of how favourable their environment is for developing loveindoctrination. For example, bonobos do live in a more food abundant environment thanchimpanzees, something the SEM recognises, which is why bonobos have been far moresuccessful in developing love-indoctrination and thus forming effective ‘female-female alliances’to stop ‘male aggressiveness’—but, as stated, the SEM does not account for why chimpanzeesand bonobos are, to varying degrees of success, able to form female coalitions against

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

670

The Biology
male aggression when that is a behaviour that ‘appears to be rare in other mammals’. No, onlylove-indoctrination explains why ‘female-female alliances’ to stop ‘male aggressiveness’ appearsprimarily in primates.
It should also be noted that even with love-indoctrination operating within primatespecies, the obstacles against forming successful female coalitions are significant, whichaccounts for why, without love-indoctrination, it ‘appears to be rare in other mammals’. Forexample, primate males are stronger than their female counterparts, which means thateven if ‘female-female alliances’ were to form, females would still likely be injured if theyattempted to defy the males, so a better strategy would be to join a male coalition—‘astrategy that carries far less risk than 2 females attempting to retaliate against the aggression of aphysically larger and socially dominant adult male’ (Nicholas Newton-Fisher, ‘Female Coalitions Against
Male Aggression in Wild Chimpanzees of the Budongo Forest’, International Journal of Primatology, 2006, Vol.27,
No.6).

While there is less size difference between male and female bonobos than there is
between male and female chimpanzees, bonobo males are, nevertheless, larger and strongerthan females, and this dimorphism was probably more pronounced when the split withchimpanzees occurred between one and two million years ago, as indicated by the sizedisparity between male and female chimpanzees today.
Another factor working against the formation of female coalitions against maleaggression is that temporary male alliances among chimpanzee males—a widely reportedoccurrence—are used for the purpose of moving up the male hierarchy, and it is recognisedthat ‘males sometimes gang up on females’ (Barbara Smuts & Robert Smuts, ‘Male Aggression and Sexual Coercionof Females in Nonhuman Primates and Other Mammals: Evidence and Theoretical Implications’, Advances in the Study of
Behavior, 1993, Vol.22), so there is a precedent of males forming coalitions, which could then be
used to counter female coalitions.
Additionally, as further evidence that female coalitions in primate species are notforming simply in order to increase the females’ genetic fitness but as a consequence oflove-indoctrination, research shows that coalitions aren’t the best response to infanticide;instead, ‘where a female carries her offspring or is at least directly associated with them (allanthropoids, many prosimians) her best option is to get male protection for them. This can comefrom the male who sired the infant, or, in multi-male groups, from the most likely father’ (Elisabeth
Sterck, David Watts, Carel van Schaik, ‘The evolution of female social relationships in nonhuman primates’, Behavioral
Ecology and Sociobiology, 1997, Vol.41, No.5).

As mentioned in Part 8:4F, there is no record of
male bonobos committing infanticide, and it appears that groups of bonobos will evencare for orphans, which is a further indication of how successful this species has been indeveloping love-indoctrination.
Secondly, in attempting to explain how male aggression could be quelled by ‘female-femalealliances’, the SEM relies on the superficially persuasive but biologically flawed argument that
biologists have desperately been resorting to more and more (especially left-wing biologists,who are wanting to promote cooperation and gentleness), which is that cooperation is moreadvantageous than competition and can, therefore, be selected for. This reliance is evident in
Wrangham’s argument that ‘female alliances’ made male ‘aggression more dangerous and costly, andless beneficial, to the aggressors’ and that ‘turning aside from violence’ was ‘a solution to conflicting

[social] interests’. While it may appear persuasive to suggest that males could stop competing

Part 8:5G

The Social Ecological Model

671
for mating opportunities once female coalitions formed—because aggression became more
‘dangerous and costly, and less beneficial’ than cooperation, or simply because ‘turning aside fromviolence’ is a ‘solution to conflicting [social] interests’—the biological reality is that, without love-
indoctrination, genetic selfishness will see males continue to aggressively compete for anyand all mating opportunities. This fact of life was pointed out by C. Owen Lovejoy when, indiscussing our ape ancestors, he said, ‘Loss of the projecting canine raises other vexing questionsbecause this tooth is so fundamental to reproductive success in higher primates. What could cause malesto forfeit their ability to aggressively compete with other males?’ (‘Reexamining Human Origins in Light of
Ardipithecus ramidus’, Science, 2009, Vol.326, No.5949). The same ‘vexing’ question arises in regard to
bonobos, something that was pointed out by the anthropologist Gottfried Hohmann when heobserved that ‘The [bonobo] males, the physically superior animals, do not dominate the females, theinferior animals?…It is not only different from chimpanzees but it violates the rules of social ecology’
(Ian Parker, ‘Swingers: Bonobos are celebrated as peace-loving, matriarchal, and sexually liberated. Are they?’, The New
Yorker, 30 Jul. 2007). Frans de Waal made a similar observation when he wrote about bonobos that

‘dominance by the “weaker” sex constitutes a huge violation of every biologist’s expectations’ (Bonobo: The
Forgotten Ape, 1997, p.76 of 210).

This biologically flawed argument that cooperation can be selected for by naturalselection because it is more advantageous than competition is, in fact, the same biologicallyflawed argument that E.O. Wilson relied upon in his theory of Eusociality. Recall in Part
4:12I how Wilson argued that a group comprised of selfless members who consider the
welfare of the group above that of their own will be more cooperative and thus successfulwhen competing against groups who have selfish, non-cooperative members, and thereforethat competition between groups can lead to the selection of unconditionally selfless traits.
Again, while it is superficially persuasive to suggest that a group with cooperative memberswill defeat a group with competitive members, the genetic reality is that whenever anunconditionally selfless, altruistic trait appears those that are selfish will take advantageof it, thus negating the establishment of a group of cooperators in the first place. Anyselflessness that might arise through group selection will be constantly exploited byindividual selfishness from within the group; as the biologist Jerry Coyne pointed out,
‘group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly loseits altruism through natural selection favoring cheaters [selfish individuals]’ (‘Can Darwinism improve
Binghamton?’, The New York Times, 9 Sep. 2011).

The flawed reasoning of this second aspect of the SEM can be seen even more clearly inthis description of it by the anthropologist Brian Hare: ‘there are some species that outcompetedothers by becoming nicer…[because] it’s very costly to be on top. Often in primate hierarchies, you don’tstay on top very long. Everyone is gunning for you. You’re getting in a lot of fights. If you don’t have todo that, it’s better for everybody’ (Brandon Keim, ‘Why Some Wild Animals Are Becoming Nicer’, Wired, 7 Feb.
2012). While
it is superficially persuasive to argue that ‘it’s better for everybody’ if ‘you don’t
have to’ ‘fight’ to stay ‘on top’, the idea ‘violates’ the fundamental fact about the gene-based
natural selection process, which is that you do have to be constantly ‘gunning’ to ‘stay on top’because if you are not others will be and you won’t reproduce your genes. That’s the realityof the ‘animal condition’: fierce competition exists between sexually reproducing individualsseeking to reproduce their genes.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

672

The Biology

It should be mentioned that advocates of the SEM argue that the bonobos’ practice of
‘concealed ovulation’ (to not give signs of their fertile period) and of making sex continually
available have contributed to the reduction of male competition for mating opportunities,however, these practices can only develop once competition for mating opportunities hasbegun to subside because while ever competition to mate remains intense, if a female makesmating available to every male, and/or doesn’t advertise she is ready for fertilisation, shecan’t ensure she mates with the strongest, most virile male and, therefore, that her offspringwill be successful competitors. Making sex continually available and concealing ovulationcould assist love-indoctrination, but not initiate the development of love/unconditionalselflessness. No, these practices do not lead to a reduction in competition, rather they area result of male competition having largely been contained, which, as explained, ‘selectionagainst aggression’ can’t achieve.

So even though it is seductive to run the argument that cooperation can be selectedfor by natural selection because it is more advantageous than competition, it is so blatantlybiologically incorrect that for biologists to employ it means they are deliberately lying—resorting to a desperate form of bluff—but such has been the extent of the need to avoid thenurturing explanation for bonobos’ unconditionally selfless behaviour, and, by extrapolation,for humans’ ‘moral’ natures. And, as we will soon see, this now insatiable need to account forour moral instincts in a non-confronting way has led to the development of a somewhat morerefined form of the SEM.
Given its significance, the ‘rules of social ecology’ should be elaborated upon. Sincemales can produce enough sperm to fertilise an almost unlimited amount of females, theybenefit from mating with as many females as possible; females, on the other hand, can onlybe fertilised once, and so benefit from being selective. The resultant tension between thesexes is described as ‘virtually universal’ (Barbara Smuts, ‘Male Aggression Against Women: An Evolutionary
Perspective’, Human Nature, 1992, Vol.3, No.1), and is naturally resolved in favour of the physically
stronger sex, which in most species is the males because competition between males formating opportunities leads to natural selection for size and strength. The ‘violation’ of the ‘rulesof social ecology’ referred to earlier is that bonobo males, who are physically stronger than the
females, do not dominate. (Incidentally, while it is true that there are some species, includinga few mammals, where females are the dominant sex, further examination reveals their socialsituations, and the circumstances leading to the establishment of that matriarchy, to be verydifferent to that of bonobos. For example, spotted hyenas are matriarchal, but the femalesare physically stronger than the males, and competition within the clans also remains rife, asituation that, again unlike that of the bonobo, is in accordance with the ‘rules of social ecology’.)
It follows that natural selection dictates that any male in this ‘universal’ environment whorefrains from using his strength to mate will be out-bred by more aggressive rivals, leadingto the discontinuation of those less aggressive genes. The only way to minimise this costlyaggression a little is through the establishment of a dominance hierarchy amongst the males,whereby conflict is reduced to only those occasions when an individual has the opportunityto move up the hierarchy. So, while comments such as Hare’s—that ‘it’s very costly to be ontop…You’re getting in a lot of fights. If you don’t have to do that, it’s better for everybody’—may be
superficially persuasive, they are, in fact, blatant lies, because you do ‘have to do that’ and ‘beon top’ because if you aren’t, genetics will inevitably find someone else who is.

Part 8:5G

The Social Ecological Model

673

As described in Part 4:12, outside of the love-indoctrination situation, the mostsuperficially persuasive scenario that has ever been envisaged for cooperation to be ableto defeat competition between sexually reproducing individuals and for fully cooperative,unconditionally selfless traits to be selected for lies in E.O. Wilson’s argument that a groupwith cooperative members will defeat a group with non-cooperative members. HOWEVER,as stated, the biological reality is that individual self-interest makes it impossible for acooperative group of sexually reproducing individuals to emerge in the first place. As thebiologist George Williams states, ‘Only by a theory of between-group selection could we achieve ascientific explanation of group-related [selfless, consider-the-welfare-of-others] adaptations. However,
I would question one of the premises on which the reasoning is based’ (Adaptation and Natural Selection, 1966,pp.92-93 of 307). In describing that premise and the reason for his questioning of it, Williams
wrote that ‘group selection was not strong enough to produce…[an] adaptation…characterized byorganisms’ playing roles that would subordinate their individual interests’ (p.xii). His overall conclusion
was that ‘group-related adaptations do not, in fact, exist’ (p.93). (It should be noted that while
Williams later changed his mind about group selection in regard to some very specific traits
(namely instances of female biased sex ratios, and reduced virulence in disease organisms),he remained unconvinced about group selection’s wider applicability, as the group selectionadvocate David Sloan Wilson concedes, ‘In general, however, George retained his worldview and Ididn’t convince him about group selection’ (‘Rest In Peace George C. Williams’, ScienceBlogs, 10 Sep. 2010)). So,
it must follow that if the situation where (outside of love-indoctrination) cooperation has thebest chance of defeating competition, which is in the between-group selection situation, isn’tpossible, then cooperation is not going to defeat competition in any situation. So, unless theyare love-indoctrinated, males are not going to stop competing for mating opportunities.
So yes, while Eusociality’s cooperation beats competition theory for the emergenceof unconditionally selfless cooperative traits is flawed, E.O. Wilson has at least recognisedabout that supposed explanation that an extraordinary force would be required to overcomesubversion by selfish opportunists; in his case by proposing that group warfare was a strongenough force to enable selfless traits to emerge. In contrast, proponents of the SEM do noteven acknowledge the seriousness of the challenge of overcoming genetic selfishness, whichis revealed by their suggestion that stable parties simply allowed cooperation to evolve. That
‘stable parties allowed cooperation’ is an even weaker argument than Wilson’s ‘betweengroup selection’ theory in that it doesn’t even provide the equivalent of a powerful force tocounter the problem of selfish subversion.
What has essentially happened is that unable to confront and thus recognise the truth of thenurturing explanation for bonobos, and our own original unconditionally selfless, all-lovingstate, biologists—especially selflessness-emphasising, left-wing biologists—have resortedto the desperate rationale that ‘Well, bonobos are extraordinarily cooperative and we do haveunconditionally selfless moral instincts, so these states must have emerged somehow, andit must be because of the reasoning we are putting forward—that cooperation has to have agenetic advantage over competition’! In other words, the biologists aren’t completely awarethat they are avoiding the significance of nurturing; in this sense they are not deliberately lying.
As explained earlier, their denial of the role of nurturing is so entrenched they do it unwittingly,which does leave them thinking that stable parties can allow alliances against male aggressionto occur, and that cooperation must somehow have a genetic advantage over competition.

674

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

It should be emphasised again here that, as explained in detail in Part 4:12D, the seductivebut patently untrue argument that cooperation is more advantageous than competition and cantherefore be selected for has a long history of use by cooperation-not-competition-supporting,selflessness-not-selfishness-emphasising, human-journey-to-find-knowledge-opposing leftwing biologists. For example, in 1880, the zoologist Karl Kessler said that ‘the progressivedevelopment of the animal kingdom…is favoured much more by mutual support than by mutual struggle’
(Address titled On the law of mutual aid to the St Petersburg Society of Naturalists, Jan. 1880). Even up to the 1960s
this so-called ‘naive’ misrepresentation of natural selection as being socialistic rather thanindividualistic was still occurring, with, for instance, the behaviourist Konrad Lorenz writingfrequently of behaviour having ‘a species-preserving function’ (there are many mentions of this phrase inhis 1963 book On Aggression). As was explained in Part 4:12D, the development of species is part of
the integrative process, but the behaviour of a species is characterised by extremely selfishcompetition between its sexually reproducing members. In fact, it was George Williams’exasperation with this misrepresentation of natural selection as not being a selfish processthat motivated him to write his famous 1966 book Adaptation and Natural Selection—apublication that laid the foundations for the selfishness-justifying, right-wing theory of
Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology. When, as described in Part 4:12G, however, thistheory was dishonestly used to misrepresent our cooperative, moral instincts as being nothingmore than a product of kin-selection-based selfish reciprocity (only assisting others who shareyour genes in order to propagate your own), left-wing biologists initially tried to maintainthat we do have unconditionally selfless moral instincts by arguing that they are derived fromby-products of natural selection—what the biologist Stephen Jay Gould described in 1979 as
‘a lot of [building] cranes’ acting in conjunction with ‘natural selection’. However, when Gould
and his colleagues were unable to specify what the particular by-products/cranes were thatachieved this feat of creating our genuinely moral instincts (the by-product was nurturing butthey couldn’t confront and admit that truth), the left-wing was left with nowhere to go butback to the now highly discredited ‘cooperation is more advantageous than competition andcan therefore be selected for’, group-selection-type argument. As described in Part 4:12H, in
1994, despite the situation where ‘group selection has been regarded as an anathema by nearly allevolutionary biologists’ (Richard Lewontin, ‘Survival of the Nicest?’, The New York Review of Books, 22 Oct. 1998),
the biologist David Sloan (D.S.) Wilson desperately tried to ‘re-introduce group selection…asan antidote to the rampant individualism we see in the human behavioral sciences’ (David Sloan Wilson &
Elliot Sober, ‘Re-Introducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1994,
Vol.17, No.4). In fact, it was D.S. Wilson’s theory of Multilevel Selection that argued that natural
selection operated at the group level as well as the individual level that (as described in Part
4:12I) E.O. Wilson commandeered to re-assert the right-wing emphasis on selfishness by
claiming that even though multilevel selection supposedly confirmed we have unconditionallyselfless instincts derived from group-level selection, it still allowed for the existence within usof selfish instincts derived from individual-level selection.

Part 8:5G

The Social Ecological Model

675

Clearly, avoiding the nurturing explanation for our moral instincts meant that neither theright-wing nor the left-wing were ever going to provide an accountable explanation of ourmoral instincts. While the selflessness-emphasising-but-human-condition-avoiding left-winghad to rely on the patently dishonest ‘cooperation beats competition’ group-selection-typeargument, the selfishness-emphasising-but-still-human-condition-avoiding right-wing hadthe advantage of being able to truthfully emphasise that natural selection is a selfish process.
Basically, what happened was that since both the right and the left were avoiding the humancondition and therefore denying Integrative Meaning, it wasn’t possible to explain that eventhough the gene-based natural selection process is dedicated to developing the order ofmatter it couldn’t, outside of the love-indoctrination scenario, select for the self-eliminating,unconditionally selfless traits that would allow full integration. In their inability to accessthis reconciling explanation of the paradoxical nature of the gene-based natural selectionprocess, two positions emerged: the right-wing position, which stressed the fact that genes areselfish, which led to the selfishness-justifying theories of Social Darwinism
Evolutionary Psychology

→

Sociobiology/

Multilevel Selection/Eusociality; and the idealism-stressing
left-wing position, which attempted to stress the greater truth that natural selection is anintegrative process—the journey of these two positions was described in detail earlier in Part
4:12. Of course, without the reconciling explanation of these two, right-wing and left-wing
positions, both were bound to become sillier and sillier, and, in the end, completely mad—and, as is being described, that is what happened: the right-wing ended up developing theextremely mad and dangerous theory of Eusociality, while the left-wing ended up developingthe extremely mad and dangerous theory of the SEM.
Significantly, in relation to the two mechanisms employed by the SEM to explainbonobo behaviour—that stable parties allowed bonobo females to form coalitions tocounter male aggression for mating opportunities, and that those coalitions are successfulin dominating males and eliminating aggression—in 2009 the leading architect of the
SEM, Richard Wrangham, admitted that ‘The circumstances in which females are able to formeffective alliances among each other, and the frequency and effectiveness of this strategy, remainimportant [unexplained] problems for detailed examination in bonobos, chimpanzees, and otherprimates’ (Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans, 2009, p.464 of 504). So the whole basis of the SEM,
of the ‘circumstances in which females are able to form effective alliances among each other’, andthe ‘effectiveness of this strategy’ in stopping male aggression, is being undermined by itsleading architect and proponent! This is somewhat like E.O. Wilson conceding therewere serious problems with his theory of Sociobiology when he moved on to develophis theory of Eusociality! But where else could nurturing-avoiding biologists go in theirefforts to explain bonobos? Nowhere—so, despite its ‘important problems’, support of the
SEM continued. What will now be described is how nurturing-avoiding, mechanistic
biologists tried to make the SEM more accountable of bonobos’, and our ape ancestors’,extraordinarily integrative, moral behaviour.

676

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 8:5H The Self-Domestication Hypothesis
In terms of providing a nurturing-avoiding, human-condition-escaping explanation forbonobo behaviour, the problem with the SEM is that it only offers a supposed explanationfor bonobos’ lack of aggression, and so still falls well short of being able to provide asupposed explanation for bonobos’ extraordinary ‘personal restraint’, ‘respect for others’,
‘loving’, ‘moral’, cooperative, harmonious, gentle state. There is a big difference between not
being aggressive and being loving. Given this shortfall, nurturing-avoiding, mechanisticbiologists clearly needed to come up with a more sophisticated version of the SEM, onethat could supposedly account for the bonobos’ extraordinary cooperative, gentle, peaceful,loving nature. This supposed solution was provided in 2012, with the presentation of theso-called Self-Domestication Hypothesis (SDH) by anthropologists Brian Hare, Victoria
Wobber and Richard Wrangham (one of the originators of the SEM) in a paper titled ‘Theself-domestication hypothesis: evolution of bonobo psychology is due to selection againstaggression’ (Animal Behaviour, 2012, Vol.83, No.3).
The first point to note is the use up front in this title of the paper of the idea that the
‘evolution of bonobo psychology is due to selection against aggression’, as if being able to ‘select…against aggression’ is a normal, acceptable biological principle, a fait accompli, when it isn’t. As
emphasised, genes are selfish; outside of the love-indoctrination situation they don’t allow for
‘selection against aggression’ between sexually reproducing individuals. What is being put forward
is the superficially persuasive but biologically flawed ‘cooperation is more advantageous thancompetition and therefore cooperation can be selected for’ argument that the SEM relies on,but to be putting it up front in their title is an outrageous bluff, a desperate deception, an all-outeffort to create the illusion that ‘selection against aggression’ is sound, acceptable biology.
Another point that should be made before looking at the soundness or otherwise ofthe SDH is that its proponents suggest that it not only explains bonobo cooperation butpotentially human morality as well by concluding their 2012 paper with the statement: ‘Theself-domestication hypothesis is therefore a potentially powerful tool for understanding the processesby which selection shapes both psychological and other seemingly unrelated traits, including those inhumans.’ (Incidentally, the ‘psychological’ ‘traits’ they refer to are behaviours, such as tolerance
and playfulness, not a psychosis—so like the theory of Eusociality, the SDH does not addressthe psychology of the human condition, rather it is another desperate attempt to deny it.)
Which brings us to the accountability of the SDH. Supposedly inspired by research intodomestic dogs and the experiments of the Russian scientist Dmitri Belyaev in domesticatingsilver foxes for the fur industry, the SDH proposes that ‘selection against aggression’ inadvertentlyinvolves selection for youthfulness or juvenileness, so that adults in subsequent generationsend up retaining juvenile traits. Hare, Wobber and Wrangham’s paper describes these juveniletraits as being the ‘pro-social’ behaviours of ‘increased tolerance’, ‘increased adult play’, a ‘decrease inpredatory motivation’, and ‘decreased xenophobia [fear of outsiders]’, and says they are accidental or
‘correlated by-products’ of the original SEM-derived ‘selection against aggression’ process. Because
this cascade of juvenile ‘by-products’ resulting from an original ‘selection against aggression’ is alsothought to account for changes between wild animals and their domestic descendants, such aschanges between wolves and dogs, it is also known as the ‘domestication syndrome’.

Part 8:5H

The Self-Domestication Hypothesis

677

Essentially, when the proponents of the SDH say that ‘In addition to showing less severeforms of aggression compared to chimpanzees, bonobos show differences…that appear analogous to thedomestication syndrome’ (ibid), what they are claiming is that the increase in ‘pro-social’ behaviour
that characterises the ‘domestication syndrome’ bridges the gap between the mere ‘lack ofaggression’ that the SEM could only hope to account for, and bonobos’ extraordinary ‘personalrestraint’, ‘respect for others’, ‘loving’, ‘moral’, cooperative, harmonious, gentle behaviour.

However, juvenile ‘pro-social’ behaviour does not replace or override the selfish genetic needto aggressively compete for the fundamental biological needs of food, shelter, territory andmates. In fact, species that have been domesticated, like dogs and foxes, still aggressivelycompete for food, territory and mating opportunities, something that is almost entirely absentin bonobo behaviour. So the SDH’s claim to bridge the gap and explain bonobos’ selfless,loving behaviour is simply another giant bluff. The truth is that without the involvement oflove-indoctrination to first establish unconditionally selfless love in the system, retardingstages of maturation alone can’t create a state of unconditionally selfless love.
Certainly, as will be more fully described below, we humans have domesticated dogsand even silver foxes by selecting for tamer and more social juvenile characteristics, theeffect of which has been to retard the development of these animals so that they retain thetamer, more tolerant and more ‘pro-social’ behaviour of juveniles into adulthood—with thejuvenile physical characteristics of floppy ears, more neotenous faces, etc, also carryingthrough into adulthood. However, while retarding development does bring the tamer, moretolerant, more ‘pro-social’ characteristics of the juvenile stages to adulthood, it doesn’t freethe genes from their need to be selfish, and so doesn’t eliminate selfish competition andaggression—only love-indoctrination can do that. Juvenileness is a form of more ‘friendly’and tolerant socialness but it isn’t a selfless state. In fact, as stated, dogs and foxes who havebeen ‘puppyfied’ still aggressively compete for the resources of food, territory and matingopportunities, behaviour that lies in stark contrast to bonobos’ selfless and loving behaviour.
Being more friendly, prepared to mingle and socialise—like domesticated dogs—is animprovement on the SEM’s reduced aggression theory for bonobo behaviour, but the truth is itstill falls well short of being able to account for bonobos’ unconditionally loving behaviour.
A brief summary of the love-indoctrination process that was described in Part 8:4 mayhelp clarify this failure of both the SEM and the SDH.
The love-indoctrination process states that by selecting for longer infancies (whichprimates, with their arms semi-freed from having to walk on all fours, were able to dobecause they could hold a helpless infant), and for more maternal mothers, all within anideal nursery environment of ample food and few predators, an infant’s brain is able to beinscribed or indoctrinated with unconditionally selfless love, thus allowing it to grow up tobehave selflessly. An accidental, but fortuitous, side-effect of this indoctrination or training ofa mind in selfless, truthful, effective thinking, however, was the emergence of consciousness,for once liberated, the conscious mind could then support the development of selflessness byconsciously favouring (especially in mate selection) more selfless individuals, thus greatlyspeeding up the development of selflessness. Since the training in selfless love tended towear off with age, selection for selflessness became, to a degree, a selection for youthfulness,resulting in more youthful, neotenous characteristics in adults. Both the SEM and the SDH, in

678

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
effect, describe this process but without the key element of the involvement of the nurturingof unconditional selflessness; they omit the whole process of love-indoctrination—a glaringomission that created two problems. First, it necessitated the development of the flawed,dishonest ‘selection against aggression’ argument to attempt to explain how selfless cooperationcould emerge without love-indoctrination. And, second, since this ‘selection against aggression’could not, in fact, create unconditionally selfless love, only a supposed reduction in aggression,it could only ever lead to less aggressive, tamer, more tolerant, more social characteristics inadults. The point is, unconditionally selfless love is not produced by the situation espoused byeither the SEM or the SDH, whereas love-indoctrination does produce love, which can thenbe actively selected for. So neither the SEM or the SDH explain the extraordinary ‘personalrestraint’, ‘respect for others’, ‘loving’, ‘moral’, unconditionally selfless, cooperative, harmonious,
gentle behaviour we see in bonobos and in our own moral instincts. The delaying of the onsetof adult competitiveness and aggression that the SEM and the SDH describe does not producean unconditionally loving individual; to produce that you have to be selecting for individualsthat have been nurtured with love, but that is a process neither the SEM or the SDH recognise.
To suggest that selecting for juvenileness can lead to less aggressive juvenile ‘psychology’being carried through to adulthood to the point of eliminating selfishness was simply adeception—another bluff—by the proponents of the SDH. In interviews Hare has conductedabout the SDH we can see him trying to bridge this gap between the extraordinarilycooperative, gentle, peaceful, unconditionally selfless, ‘loving’ behaviour that bonobos display,and what the SDH is able to supposedly explain, namely ‘pro-social’ traits such as tamenessand ‘increased tolerance’, when he describes bonobos as ‘peaceful’ (Claudia Dreifus, ‘Why Bonobos Don’t
Kill Each Other’, The New York Times, Science, 5 Jul. 2010) and ‘kind’ creatures (Brian Hare speech at Poptech 2010:see <www.wtmsources.com/139>) who ‘absolutely are upset if there is any hint of aggression in the group’
(‘Bonobos – Making Love Not War’, Catalyst, ABC-TV, 20 Sep. 2007), and who find ‘joy in working with others’
(Virginia Morell, ‘Dogged’, Smithsonian mag. Oct. 2007)—as if those traits and emotions are what his
hypothesis is able to explain the origins of.
This attempt by Hare to bridge the gap between the extraordinarily cooperative, selflessbehaviour that bonobos display, and what the SDH is allegedly able to explain, is very similarto Wrangham’s earlier claim that the SDH is able to account for bonobos’ extraordinary
(and these are his words) ‘personal restraint’, ‘respect for others’, ‘loving’, ‘moral’ behaviour.
Furthermore, it was also described earlier how, in their 2012 paper, Hare, Wobber and
Wrangham said their ‘self-domestication hypothesis is…a potentially powerful tool for understandingthe…psychological…traits…in humans’—‘a potentially powerful tool for understanding’ the origin of
our unconditionally selfless moral nature no less! Hare has also proposed that ‘bonobos display…what might be thought of as our better angels’ (Seth Borenstein, ‘“Hippie chimp” genome may shed light on our darkside’, Science on NBCNews.com, 13 Jun. 2012), which again is our unconditionally selfless moral nature!

The truth is, domestication or juvenilisation cannot create this type of behaviourwithout there having been love-indoctrination, it can only stymie the growth of adult typesof behaviour, and so Hare and Wrangham are having to exaggerate its effect to account forbonobos’ love and gentleness. Yes, it is only as part of the nurturing, love-indoctrinationprocess that juvenilisation can produce real ‘loving’, ‘moral’, ‘peaceful’, ‘kind’, ‘joy’ incooperation, ‘personal restraint’, and ‘respect for others’, and an abhorrence ‘of aggression’.

Part 8:5H

The Self-Domestication Hypothesis

679

All my publications have included a description of the love-indoctrination, mate selectionprocess, with an account of humans’ domestication of dogs appearing in my 1988 book
Free: The End of the Human Condition (see <www.humancondition.com/free-love-indoctrination>),and a description of humans’ domestication of both dogs and foxes appearing in the 2009edition of my book The Great Exodus (see <www.humancondition.com/exodus-mate-selection>). (Ishould note that Wrangham was sent Free in 1988, and in 2005-2006 all three SDH authorswere sent another of my publications, The Human Condition Documentary Proposal, whichalso contains a description of the love-indoctrination, mate selection process (see <www.humancondition.com/doco-maternalism>)). The reason I referred to how ‘domesticated dogs are derivedfrom their common ancestral wild type by neoteny—retarding development at some juvenile stage’ (Free:
The End of the Human Condition, p.142 of 228) was because the domestication of dogs and foxes does
dramatically illustrate some of the aspects involved in the love-indoctrination, mate selectionprocess, particularly how powerfully effective conscious selection can be in producing achange (it ‘Explains [the] speed of human development’ (ibid. p.142)), and how the development ofstages of maturation is retarded by selecting for youthfulness (it ‘is a marvellous illustrationof the development of neoteny’ (ibid. p.141)). However, I explained that ‘self-selection’ (as I termed
the process that bonobos and our ape ancestors employed to assist in the development ofunconditionally selfless behaviour) differs to the selection we employed to domesticatedogs and foxes in that without love-indoctrination to create the unconditionally selflesslove that could then be selected for, ‘self-domestication’ (or, again, as I originally termed theprocess in all my books, ‘self-selection’) can only achieve tamer, more tolerant and more socialcharacteristics in adults, not unconditionally selfless, love. As I emphasised in Free, ‘On theirown genes could not develop selflessness but once there was love-indoctrination [they could]’ (p.47).

An illustration of the difference between the effects of love-indoctrination and the effectsof domestication put forward by the SDH, which is merely selecting against aggression,can be seen in the work of the famous ‘dog whisperer’ Cesar Millan. As mentioned in Part
8:4D, Millan is forever informing dog-owners that the mistake they are making in trying to
control their dogs is that they are attempting to love them into behaving less aggressivelywhen what they have to do to achieve control and reduce aggression is impose dominance.
Millan is, in effect, recognising that domesticated dogs haven’t overcome the ‘animalcondition’ of selfishly having to ensure their genes reproduce, which is why they are stillhighly competitive for food, shelter, territory and a mate—a competitiveness that can only bepartially overcome through the imposition of a dominance hierarchy, where each individualaccepts its position in a hierarchy that is determined according to the competitive strengthsof the various individuals involved. Dog owners try to, as it were, fill the heads of their dogswith love, try to train them in selfless love, try to nurture them into behaving integratively,in fact, try to love-indoctrinate them, but our selection of dogs has only been for juveniletameness, not for unconditional selfless love, which can’t be selected for unless the loveindoctrination process has established it in the system in the first place. Incidentally, thisis why the taming/domestication of dogs and even foxes has been able to be achieved in arelatively short time, a much shorter time than it takes to achieve love-indoctrination, which,as has been explained, is a difficult, time-consuming process because it has to overcome thepowerful intrinsic selfishness of genes. The fact is, there is a huge difference between the

680

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
love-indoctrination supported by mate selection process and our domestication of dogs andfoxes. Domesticated dogs and foxes are still ‘locked out’ of the fully integrated, ‘heavenly’,unconditionally selfless, all-loving state. As Millan teaches, dogs are competitively trying todominate all the time. Real love, giving away a competitive advantage, is not a considerationof theirs. ‘Pro-social’ or ‘tolerant’ behaviour and love are very different.
The following extract from my first book, Free: The End Of The Human Condition (1988),describes how humans have been able to select for both more friendly, social behaviour andcute, neotenous features in dogs: “There is a marvellous illustration of the development ofneoteny in an article that appeared in the April 1982 edition of the Smithsonian magazinetitled ‘Livestock-guarding dogs that wear sheep’s clothing’. The authors, Lorna and Raymond
Coppinger, ‘believe the many breeds of domesticated dogs are derived from their common ancestralwild type by a process of neoteny—retarding development at some juvenile stage’. The authors divide
the maturation of a puppy into four stages. The first stage is characterised by such behaviouras the puppy licking its mother’s face to stimulate food delivery, some fighting over spoilswith litter mates and the tendency to scurry for the den yelping if threatened. Second stagepups play with objects. The third stage is characterised by ‘stalking’ behaviour, pouncing andshort chases to cut (‘head’) off a litter mate’s retreat. In the fourth, pre-adult, stage the pupsstart following a parent (‘heeling’) and may even participate in a hunt. The authors argue thatcattle driving dogs or heelers such as Welsh Corgis and Australian Blue Heelers have had theirmental and anatomical development retarded at the fourth stage. For instance, they have thepricked ears characteristic of this stage in wild dogs. Collies that muster or round up sheepbelong to the third ‘heading’ stage and have the characteristic half pricked or ‘tulip’ ears.
Most pet breeds fall into the second stage: flop-eared, broad-headed, object players, chasers ofsticks and balls. Hounds, retrievers and spaniels are retarded or ‘stuck’ in this stage. Shaggy
‘livestock [sheep]-guarding’ dogs that stay with the flock day and night to protect themfrom predators are of the first type. They have the looks of mop-eared fluffy puppies. Theyplay with each other and ignore sticks and balls. They lick the faces of the sheep and theirbehaviour towards the sheep are the responses of a puppy in ‘loose association’ [integration]with the rest of its litter. Their apparent aggressiveness—their barking—is derived from thatfirst-stage adverse reaction to novelty and change. The article says that ‘In a relatively shortperiod of time, perhaps as little as 10,000 years, the dog has adopted many shapes. Breeders continue tochange these shapes and behaviour by speeding up or slowing down (retarding) the developmental rate.’”

Alongside a bookmark containing the words ‘Explains speed of human development’,
I continued in Free: The End Of The Human Condition with the following reference tothe work of Jacob Bronowski: “To reveal how important self-selection was in humandevelopment what has been said above about the speed of the development of breeds ofdogs can be compared with a statement made by Jacob Bronowski in the book, The Ascentof Man (1973), which accompanied his TV series of the same name: ‘We have to explain thespeed of human evolution over a matter of one, three, let us say five million years at most,’ Bronowski
stated. ‘That is terribly fast. Natural selection simply does not act as fast as that on animal species. We,the hominids, must have supplied a form of selection of our own; and the obvious choice is sexual [mate]selection.’” Yes, Bronowski was right, ‘Natural selection simply does not act as fast’ as the changes
that took place in ‘human evolution’, and therefore ‘We, the hominids, must have supplied a form

Part 8:5H

The Self-Domestication Hypothesis

681
of selection of our own; and the obvious choice is sexual [mate] selection.’ As emphasised, ‘sexualselection’ did greatly assist and ‘speed’ up the development of the love-indoctrination process—
as Bronowski said, ‘human evolution’ occurred ‘over a matter of one, three, let us say five millionyears at most’—but that speed was nothing like as fast as our domestication of dogs and foxes
has been, which, as has been explained, was a lot easier, albeit a less integrative, process.
For brevity’s sake, I didn’t include in Free: The End Of The Human Condition thefollowing diagram from the Smithsonian article, but it is so revealing of the neotenisingprocess that it should be included here.

Diagram of the neotenising of dogs from the April 1982 Smithsonian magazine

As mentioned, humans have not only domesticated dogs by neotenising them, we havealso employed the process to domesticate foxes. As described in the 2009 version of my book
The Great Exodus, on 5 November 2000 I saw and taped a 1998 documentary titled The Secret
Life of the Dog about the domestication of dogs, which also described the domestication ofsilver foxes for the Russian fur industry. (Note, this documentary directed and produced by
David Malone and David Paterson, is not the similarly titled documentary that was directedand produced in 2010 by Dan Child.) Attempting to explain how wolves were transformedinto dogs, the documentary reported researchers postulating that ‘By choosing the cutest lookingand friendliest puppies we inadvertently helped the dog evolve to be better at exploiting us.’ The
commentary continued: ‘No one really knows if domestication of the dog was simply a matter of itbecoming more friendly, could it really be that simple? This mystery has been solved by an astonishing
40-year long experiment on domestication. Zoologist Dr Liudmilla Trut and colleagues at an experimental
farm in Central Siberia have…transformed wild silver foxes, a cousin of the dog, which…are usuallyaggressive and afraid of people and can’t respond to human affection…into not just a tame animal but

682

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
one that actually is domesticated. To mimic evolution the experiment was simplicity itself. Only thosethat didn’t bite would be allowed to breed the next generation…These tame ones are the result of 40generations but the original aggression disappeared after only three or four generations. After that theexperiment tried to increase the positive reactions. After five generations they created foxes that hadlost the worst of their fear and aggression, but they were still a long way from being domesticated…
After 10 generations the wild fox had been transformed from a creature afraid of humans to one likethe dog which craved human contact…The first physical changes happened in parallel with profoundbehavioural changes. It was only after the tenth generation that they began to have these physicalchanges [such as white markings, floppy ears and curly tails]…they finally had not just tame foxes buttruly domesticated foxes. Animals that were themselves born childlike in their openness and playfulness.
For wild foxes the period of friendly socialisation stops when they are two months old…In the tamefoxes this friendly period never does end, they stay playful and never do become fearful. The Russianexperiment had proved that simply breeding for friendliness they could tap into the deepest level ofthe fox’s brain, unhinging the animal’s natural adult instincts and kept it forever young, trapped ina playful childlike state’ (Equinox, Channel 4 in assoc. with Discovery Channel; aired on ABC-TV 5 Nov. 2000).

Since watching that 1998 documentary I have seen many similar reports on the Russian furbreeders’ experiment in ‘taming’ foxes.
Again, humans have been able to ‘domesticate’ dogs and even foxes by selecting for thejuvenile characteristics of ‘tameness’, less ‘aggression’, more ‘openness and playfulness’ in dogsand foxes, the effect of which has been to retard the development of some dogs and foxesso that they retain these ‘tame’ and tolerant characteristics into adulthood—in addition to thejuvenile, neotenous physical characteristics of floppy ears, curly tails, etc. However, whileretarding development does bring the more tolerant juvenile stages into adulthood, it won’tfree the genes of their need to be selfish—only love-indoctrination can do that. Juvenilenessis a more tolerant state but it isn’t in itself selfless—in fact, dogs and foxes who have been
‘kept…forever young’ still aggressively compete for resources such as food, territory and
mating opportunities. So yes, while the domestication of dogs and foxes does illustrate someof the aspects involved in the love-indoctrination, mate selection process—particularlyhow powerfully effective in producing change conscious self-selection can be, and how thedevelopment of stages of maturation is retarded by selecting for youthfulness—it is not thesame as the love-indoctrination training in selflessness practiced by our ape ancestors and bysome primates today, especially bonobos.
With regard to domestication occurring in the wild through ‘self-selection againstaggression’, Hare, Wobber and Wrangham suggest that not only does the SDH account for
bonobos’ evolution, it also raises ‘the possibility that self-domestication has been a widespreadprocess in mammalian evolution’. They suggest that self-domestication may operate in at least
three other situations: in urban ecosystems where greater tameness could allow an animalsuch as the Florida Key deer an advantage over less tame individuals (in a similar way tohow proto-dogs evolved from wolves); in highly competitive, densely populated habitatslike islands where animals such as the Central American spiny rat have been observed to beless aggressive than their mainland brethren; and lastly, they suggest that self-domesticationmight account for the relatively high level of tolerance Sulawesi macaques displaycompared with other species of macaques.

Part 8:5H

The Self-Domestication Hypothesis

683

While populations in the first two situations may exhibit relatively less aggression,using them to support the explanation for bonobos’ highly cooperative society is irrelevantand misleading, because in both cases the selection for less aggressive traits is being drivenby environmental factors, or natural selection, rather than by sexual selection, which iswhat is occurring in bonobos, where female individuals are dictating mate selection. Tamerdeer and rats are not proactively selecting for tame partners, rather those individuals whohappen to be tamer are better able to exploit a new niche (in the case of deer), or aren’twasting energy defending an undefendable territory (in the case of island rats), and so areat a fitness advantage compared with other individuals, and hence more likely to survive.
As we have seen, a fundamental flaw of the SEM and the SDH is that they claim sexualselection is able to reduce mating aggression between individuals, and, outside of the loveindoctrination scenario, it isn’t. There may be particular circumstances in nature, as in thespecies cited, and in dogs and domesticated foxes, where natural selection may favour aslight reduction in aggression, or increase in tameness, but it has nothing to do with sexualselection by females against aggressive males. Natural selection against aggression canonly occur to the degree that individuals retain a competitive fitness advantage—and soindividuals still need to aggressively compete for food, shelter, territory and mates. Speciesin these environments do not begin to show any tendency toward the love or selflessness soreadily apparent in bonobo society.
On the other hand, it is possible that the third example given by the SDH authors,
Sulawesi macaques, including the Tonkean macaque, have actually begun the loveindoctrination process and so do show characteristics similar to bonobos, but, importantly,not because of ‘self-domestication’. As described in Part 8:4B, being semi-upright as a resultof their tree-living, swinging-from-branch-to-branch, arboreal heritage meant primates’ armswere largely freed from walking and thus available to hold dependents. This means thatprimates are particularly well placed to increase maternalism where conditions are conducive,and as the Tonkean macaques ‘have no non-human primate competitors or strong predators’ (B.
Thierry, et al, ‘Tonkean macaque behaviour from the perspective of the evolution of Sulawesi macaques’, Current
Primatology, Vol. 2: Social Development, Learning and Behaviour, 1994, pp.103-117) it is likely that they have
begun the love-indoctrination process, which would explain their tolerance.
It should be mentioned that in addition to claiming that the SDH explains bonobos’cooperative ‘psychology’, self-domestication also claims to account for the emergence ofconsciousness. As Hare puts it, ‘we would not have evolved the kind of intelligence we have…if wehadn’t had a shift in temperament…Controlling one’s fears, paying attention to others, finding joy inworking with others—that’s the path to intelligence…whether for dogs, apes or humans’ (Virginia Morell,
‘Dogged’, Smithsonian mag. Oct. 2007), or more succinctly, ‘Humans got their smarts only because we got
friendlier first’ (Brian Hare & Vanessa Woods, ‘Out of Our Minds: How did Homo sapiens Come Down from the Treesand Why Did No One Follow?’, What’s Next? Dispatches on the Future of Science , ed. Max Brockman, 2009, p.180 of 237).

What is, in effect, being argued is a more sophisticated version of the Social/Machiavellian
Intelligence Hypothesis where complex social situations were said to give rise to consciousintelligence. As was explained earlier, social problem solving is an obvious benefit from beingconscious, but all activities that animals have to manage would benefit enormously from aconscious mind’s ability to reason how cause and effect are related, to understand change, to

684

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
make sense of experience, to be insightful, so it is completely illogical to argue that it wasn’tuntil the need to manage complex social situations that consciousness developed, whetherthat was enabled by tolerance towards others or not. As explained earlier, the nurturing ofselflessness liberated the fully conscious, intelligent mind from the block that exists in nonhuman species’ minds against thinking selflessly and thus truthfully and thus effectively.
A comparison between the predictions made by the SDH and those made by the loveindoctrination process further highlights the limitations of the former. Because the selfdomestication hypothesis uses aspects of the truth, such as the fact that female bonobosdo select for more cooperative mates, and that bonobos are neotenised, it does account forcertain aspects of bonobo morphology and behaviour. But its limitations are made very clearby what it does not account for. For example, self-domestication cannot account for the factthat nurturing and infants are the primary focus of bonobo society; it does not account for theexpectation of nurturing that is instinctive in bonobos infants, and why they are so distressedwhen they don’t receive it that they die; it does not account for bonobos’ increased lengthof infancy; it does not account for the reliance of males upon their mothers throughout theirlives; it does not account for bonobos’ more prominent breasts; and it does not account forwhy bonobos are more bipedal than chimpanzees. As Part 8:4 shows, all of these traits can beaccounted for by the love-indoctrination process, as they are all adaptations that have occurredeither to facilitate nurturing or as the result of it.
In summary, there is a quantum difference between the claimed reduction in aggressionthat both the SEM and the SDH can supposedly produce and the very real love we see inbonobos. Neither the SEM or the SDH begin to offer an accountable explanation of thatspecies’ extremely loving behaviour, whereas the nurturing, love-indoctrination explanationfully accounts for it. Although genes are a tool for developing order, they are limited inthe sense that they can’t normally develop unconditional selflessness, which means thatgenetics is a selfish, cold, loveless process; it is not going to produce bonobos’ warm, gentle,cooperative, loving behaviour—unless the love-indoctrination path is taken, for it alonehas the power to superimpose love on an essentially selfish system. As Drummond said ofnurturing love, it was only ‘once this fire began to warm the cold hearth of Nature and give humanity aheart, the most stupendous task of the past was accomplished’. In contrast, the SEM and the SDH are
desperate and hopelessly flawed attempts to explain bonobo behaviour and the origins of ourmoral nature without admitting the critical role of nurturing.
Having now analysed the mechanisms of both the SEM and the SDH, we now need todescribe the immense danger they present to the human race.

Part 8:5I End play for the human race
As stated at the beginning of

Part 8:5A, the great danger of the practice of denial is that,
in the end, it becomes so entrenched and sophisticated that it locks humanity onto a path toterminal alienation; to total madness and extinction. The development of the denial of thetruth that nurturing created humanity, firstly in the form of the SEM, and in its most recent andmost sophisticated incarnation, the SDH, dramatically illustrates this great danger.

Part 8:5I

End play for the human race

685

The bonobos offer the most powerful evidence of the nurturing origins of ourunconditionally selfless moral soul, but the SEM and, to an even greater extent, the
SDH attempt to not only deny that evidence but bury it with seductive yet totally false
explanations for their gentle, loving, cooperative nature. Misappropriating aspects of thetruth about bonobos, such as their extraordinarily loving cooperation, their neoteny, andeven burgeoning intelligence, and using them to evidence the SDH, is a very sophisticatedway of giving credibility to the lie that nurturing had no role to play in the developmentof our moral soul. But to bury such evidence of the origins of our unconditionally selflessmoral soul that created the cooperative, integrative state that is humanity, is to threaten thehuman race with permanent estrangement from the truth about our all-loving true self orsoul, which is the truth we need if we are to properly understand and, by so doing, heal ourpsychologically alienated condition. Burial of the truth about our soul stands in the wayof us ever gaining an honest, ameliorating understanding of ourselves—of our origins, ourpresent condition and future potential.
Further, to deny the importance of nurturing is to deny the importance of the mainactivity we need to practice if we are to produce humans who are sound and secure in self.
At the practical level, it is only through the nurturing of our offspring that the human racecan hope to become healthy and integrated/cooperative/social once again—to, as Montagusaid, put ‘man back upon the road of his evolutionary destiny from which he has gone so far astray’and transform the human race; restore ‘health and happiness for all humanity, peace and goodwillunto all the earth’.

Yes, if we refuse to admit the critical role nurturing has played in the emergence ofhumanity and, as a direct result of that heritage, in the sound upbringing of humans today,then levels of alienation will only increase and terminal alienation will soon destroy thehuman race. Like E.O. Wilson’s Eusociality denial of the true nature of the human condition,the SEM’s and the SDH’s denial of the importance of nurturing is such an alienating lie that itwill lead the human race into a state of irretrievable madness.
Indeed, as if the danger just described wasn’t enough, the even greater threat posed bythe SEM/SDH is that it is being developed into another denial of the true nature of the humancondition that is even more seductive and thus dangerous than Wilson’s because it appearsto take into account the most crucial evidence we have about human origins from our closestrelatives, the bonobos! As the lead author of the SDH, Brian Hare, has said, ‘They [bonobos]have done something in their evolution that even humans can’t do. They don’t have the dark side we do…
If we only studied chimps, we’d get a skewed view of human evolution’, and ‘bonobos display…whatmight be thought of as our better angels’ (Seth Borenstein, ‘“Hippie chimp” genome may shed light on our dark side’,
Science on NBCNews.com, 13 Jun. 2012). So, according to Hare, chimpanzee-like instincts in humans
account for our ‘dark side’, while the instincts allegedly accounted for by the SEM/SDH, asdemonstrated by the bonobos, gave rise to our goodness, our unconditionally selfless moralinstincts, our ‘better angels’. This argument presents a model for our ‘good and evil’-afflictedhuman condition that is similar to that provided by Wilson’s Eusociality account, except thatour ‘good’ instincts are supposedly derived from factors espoused by the SEM/SDH, ratherthan cooperation forged through warring with other groups, as Wilson suggested. As was

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

686

The Biology
emphasised about the Eusociality ‘explanation’ for the human condition, we humans do haveunconditionally selfless, loving, ‘good’ instincts but they were derived from the nurturinglove-indoctrination process that bonobos are developing; and we do practice divisive, ‘bad’behaviour, but, again, that is derived not from genetic competitiveness but from a psychosisthat emerged when our conscious mind was liberated by the love-indoctrination process, and,once liberated, rapidly developed to challenge our completely loving (not partially loving andpartially selfish) ‘good’ instincts for the role of managing our lives. So, what Hare, Wobber and
Wrangham are doing is precisely what Wilson was doing with his theory of Eusociality, whichwas to bring the human condition to our attention, but only in order to trivialise it; basically tosubvert the truth about the all-important issue of our psychologically troubled condition!
This is all overwhelming; there are so many dangers associated with the SEM/SDH that ithardly bears thinking about. With E.O. Wilson’s Eusociality’s all-out atomic bomb attack onthe truth about the human condition, and now Hare, Wobber and Wrangham’s no-holds-barredasteroid attack on the best evidence we have for the origins of our moral soul, and also on thetruth about the human condition, the honesty and resulting insight needed to save the humanrace is being buried at the bottom of the deepest, darkest ocean trench that has been filledwith reinforced concrete for good measure. It’s truth-hating behaviour of the highest order.
Basically, mechanistic science has become completely deranged—and since science is thefacility charged with delivering us from the human condition, this state of affairs representsend play for the human race!
Without the exposé being presented in this book all hope for humanity would be lost.
But this exposé still has to be recognised by the scientific establishment—a recognition that,as will now be described, has so far not occurred; indeed, for 30 years now all it has receivedfrom the scientific establishment is obscenely irresponsible, stone-wall resistance.

Part 8:5J T he great obscenity
I and the 50 founding members of the World Transformation Movement (the organisation
I established in 1983 to research and promote understanding of the human condition becausemechanistic science wouldn’t approach this all-important subject) have been trying to interestthe scientific community in the world-saving insights into the human condition that are beingpresented in this book for a full 30 years now, but, save for a handful of supportive scientistsand some positive responses from other eminent scientists and thinkers, it has so far allbeen to no avail. All our submissions have been either ignored or rejected by the scientificestablishment. In fact, the situation is much, much worse than this, for instead of attractinginterest, debate and support, I and the World Transformation Movement (WTM) have beenso ferociously attacked by the two biggest, left wing (dogmatic, pseudo-idealistic, ‘let’spretend there’s no human condition and the world should just be ideal’, dishonest) mediaorganisations in Australia, including its national public broadcaster, that I was made a pariahand the WTM completely marginalised. We endured this situation until, after 15 years ofemotionally exhausting, and, for such a small group, financially taxing, defamation actionstaken by us (which, we’ve been told by legal experts, involved the then biggest defamation

Part 8:5J

The great obscenity

687
case in Australia’s history), we finally managed to right the extremely serious wrong. Ourmonumental struggle against persecution—which has been so great that we have had to forgohaving children to ensure we have sufficient resources of time, energy and funds to effectivelyresist the persecution and maintain our efforts to ensure these ideas lead to the transformationof the human race—is documented at <www.humancondition.com/persecution>. After all thatwe have been put through, the fact that our little, but mighty, band of brothers and sisterssupporting these human-race-liberating insights are still standing on our feet and able tomount this further assault on the citadel of denial/lying (mechanistic science) to try to crack itopen and free the human race, is an absolute miracle.
Yes, this denial—this ignoring, rejecting and persecuting—has been completely andutterly unjustified; in fact it has been totally irresponsible, obscenely irresponsible. Certainlyall these world-saving insights bring the historically unbearably confronting issue of thehuman condition into stark focus, but all the insights are presented within the frameworkof the compassionate explanation of the human condition, which means the need for denialof them has been removed. As emphasised from the beginning of this book, the human racehas always lived in hope, faith and trust that one day the redeeming explanation of ourpsychologically distressed and insecure human condition would be found, and the mostfundamental reason of all for freedom of expression to be maintained in the world is tokeep the door open to that possibility. Science especially, having been charged with thatgreatest of responsibilities of finding these human-condition-liberating insights, must remainopen to human-condition-confronting-and-explaining insights. Science holds the ultimateresponsibility to consider, not ignore, or worse, persecute, scientific analysis of the humancondition! What has been happening has been obscenely irresponsible.
So you can imagine our shock when, in 2012, we learnt that the three leadinganthropologists responsible for putting forward the SDH, Wrangham, Hare and Wobber—all of whom, as has been mentioned, were made aware many years ago of my loveindoctrination explanation for the origins of our and the bonobos’ moral instincts—hadmade no acknowledgement or even mention of my synthesis in their 2012 paper, despiteacknowledging the work of many other researchers in a detailed section on ‘evolutionaryexplanations for reduced aggressiveness in bonobos relative to that in chimpanzees’. Worse, it would
appear that since they were each informed of my synthesis (in the case of Wrangham, onfour separate occasions, the earliest being in 1988), what they have done is take virtually allthe elements from my synthesis—such as the bonobos’ ability to throw light on our origins,and specifically the origins of our morality; that their social groups are much more stablethan those of chimpanzees; the role of females in taming male aggression; the liberation ofconsciousness; the role of self-selection; the neotenising, juvenilisation process; the use of thedomestication of dogs and foxes as an illustration of the neotenising, juvenilisation process;the significance of ideal ecological conditions; the use of sex as a device to reduce tension;the reduced dimorphism between the sexes; the reliance of males on their mothers for socialstanding; the lack of aggression between groups of bonobos; the lack of routine hunting bybonobos, etc, etc—and, leaving out anything to do with nurturing, presented it as ‘A newhypothesis’ (Ed Yong, ‘Tame Theory: Did Bonobos Domesticate Themselves? A new hypothesis holds that natural selectionproduced the chimpanzee’s nicer cousin in much the same way that humans bred dogs from wolves’, Scientific American, 25

688

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Jan. 2012). While it is extremely irresponsible to ignore and reject world-saving insights into the
human condition, it is so, so much worse to actually take those insights and wantonly subvertthe truth they contain. If that is indeed the case, and we believe there is no other plausibleinterpretation, then that is the very greatest of crimes against humanity.
What must be clear to the reader overall is that the obscenely irresponsible treatmentof these world-saving insights simply must stop. The obscenity of the situation was madedramatically clear when in December 2012 it was announced that an American billionaire hadpledged $200 million to Columbia University’s ‘accomplished scholars whose collective mission isboth greater understanding of the human condition and the discovery of new cures for human suffering’
(The Educated Observer, Winter 2013); and, on 2 April 2013, the President of the United States, Barack

Obama, announced a ‘Brain Initiative’, giving ‘$100 million initial funding’ (The Sydney Morning Herald,
4 Apr. 2013) to mechanistic science to also find ‘the underlying causes of…neurological and psychiatric
conditions’ afflicting humans in order to ‘develop effective ways of helping people suffering from thesedevastating conditions’ (US National Institutes of Health, accessed Apr. 2013 at: <https://braininitiative.nih.gov/>).

The mechanistic scientific paradigm, including all of its universities, have proved completelyincapable of adopting a denial-free approach and addressing the human condition, and yetnow, when the world is absolutely on its knees and desperate for the neurosis-and-psychosisaddressing-and-healing real insight into the human condition, that same mechanistic paradigmhas been given $US300 million to turn around and do what it can’t, but what I and the WTM havealready done! And, I might add, we have done this, 40 years of work in all, without any outsidefinancial support—from academic institutions or from public or private benefactors. We havefunded the whole effort from our own self-sufficient initiatives, efforts, and contributions.
Indeed, as has been mentioned, rather than receiving any encouragement or financial supportfrom the world at large, we have been attacked by the establishment and had to generatethe wherewithal ourselves to fight and defeat that enormously powerful institution-backedattack! For example, as I have mentioned already, the principal media attack against us wascarried out by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a body which receives over a billiondollars annually in government funding. We have never been invited to participate in anymajor scientific or public forums, or been given a wage or grant by an academic institution toinvestigate any of the subjects that we have so effectively studied; quite the reverse—we’vebeen brutally ostracised and forced to sustain and pay our own way to carry on our work and tofight the massive forces opposing it. Talk about David and Goliath! And it is not as though thesehuge financial initiatives that are now, in desperation, being made to specifically investigatethe human condition can be oblivious to our existence and work because, for one thing, the
WTM has the domain name ‘humancondition.com’ and any planned attempt, such as these, to
supposedly properly address the human condition would, one would assume, have to be awareof our existence. So the mechanistic paradigm is saying it is finally going to bring ‘greater

Part 8:5J

The great obscenity

689
understanding of the human condition’, but has not changed tack at all and acknowledged those
who have done just that! The hypocrisy and obscenity of what is going on is astronomical.
A summary of the 30 years’ worth of submissions to the scientific establishment of theseworld-saving insights into the human condition, into the origins of our moral nature andconscious mind, and into the integrative meaning of existence is described next in Part 8:6,while the full presentation can be read at <www.humancondition.com/full-history-of-rejection>.
(Incidentally, both provide details of the presentations of the whole synthesis, includingthe nurturing explanation for our moral soul, that have been made to Hare, Wobber and
Wrangham.) These documents represent an extraordinarily long and determined yet futileeffort—in fact, the ill-treatment they document is horrific, truly obscene—to have all thesefully accountable insights properly considered by the scientific establishment and conveyedto the wider world. As has been emphasised, in the case of the origins of our moral instincts,there has been 140 years of dishonest biological thinking on this issue, mountains of bookswritten and oceans of wasted effort since Fiske first solved the problem with the nurturingexplanation—and 30 years now since I presented the nurturing answer to the problem inaccompaniment with the explanation of the human condition, which is 30 years of terriblehuman suffering and acts of atrocity that have occurred on Earth from a lack of selfunderstanding in humans that should never have happened!!!
History certainly teems with examples of those who have been persecuted for tellingthe truth, for daring to defy the great denial blanketing our planet—what’s that rhetoricalquestion in the Bible: ‘was there ever a prophet [a denial-free thinker] your fathers did not persecute’
(Acts 7:52)—HOWEVER, when all the truth about human existence is accompanied by the
greater, dignifying, compassionate, redeeming and rehabilitating full truth of the explanationof the human condition, that denial is no longer justified. And of course that denial is sohabituated—our fear of the truth has soaked into our bones—but, nevertheless, that doorto the possibility of understanding the human condition must be kept open. There has to besufficient strength of character, soundness, left on Earth for the full truth to be recognised andsupported when it emerges, which—as has been fully evidenced—it now has, because if thereisn’t then all is lost.
Since the great achievement of life on Earth has been the development of consciousness,it follows that for those charged with the responsibility of overseeing its maturity toenlightenment and sanity—namely the scientific establishment—to abuse that responsibility isthe greatest of obscenities; worse, it is a spear through the very heart of all of life and meaningon Earth. It is the meanest, most bitter, most selfish, most bloody-minded, most hateful of thetruth, most unnecessary behaviour this planet has ever witnessed. Our efforts at the WTM tohave these world-saving ideas recognised by the scientific establishment are continuing andour hope is that those efforts will be successful.

690

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 8:6 Summary of the history of efforts to seek support for—and the subsequentrejections, vilification and lack of acknowledgment of—the biologicalexplanations for the human condition, for the origins of our moral soul andconscious mind, and for the truth of the integrative meaning of existence thatare contained in this book
(Note: The full presentation of this history can be found at
<www.humancondition.com/full-history-of-rejection>.)

•

In 1983 I wrote to Sir David Attenborough and Professor Stephen Jay Gould, presenting

•

Later in 1983, when the full synthesis of explanation of the human condition—including
these insights, but received no real response.
the explanation of our moral soul and the explanation of the origin of our fully consciousmind—was completed, I travelled to England to personally submit an 8,000 word summaryof this all-problems-of-the-human-race-solving breakthrough synthesis to John Maddox
(1925-2009), later Sir John Maddox, who was the then editor of Nature magazine, whichat the time was considered the world’s leading science journal—this submission can beread at <www.humancondition.com/nature>. I responsibly took the answers that save theworld to the person in the world in charge of the search for it—but he initially refusedto even see me! It was only after I wrote an offended letter of protest saying I had come
‘half way around the world to see you’ and Maddox had made me feel like ‘a piece of mudthat had been scraped off on your doorstep’ that Maddox granted me an audience. However,
when I began the meeting by trying to convince him of the foundation truth of Integrative
Meaning, Maddox became animated in his denial of it, saying to me twice that the conceptof Integrative Meaning arising from negative entropy ‘is wrong’ (from audio recording of the 15
Dec. 1983 meeting), terminating the meeting soon after. While in England I also personally
submitted my synthesis to Colin Tudge, the then Features Editor of New Scientistmagazine. Both Maddox and Tudge declined to publish the article.

•

In 1988, 800 copies of my first book Free: The End of the Human Condition, whichcontains all the insights being presented in this book, were sent as part of a firstrate publicity package to every relevant scientist and journal in the world for review,including Richard Wrangham and 70 other key primatologists. Commendations werereceived from pre-eminent philosopher Sir Laurens van der Post, archaeologist, geologistand prehistorian Professor Henry de Lumley, conservationist Dr Ian Player and Professor
John Wren-Lewis but apart from Sir Laurens’ support, which included an appeal to hispublishers to publish Free, and Wren-Lewis becoming a strong supporter of the ideasand a number of excellent book reviews, there was no real response. The cover letter thataccompanied their copy of Free stated: ‘I think you might find the work of special interest. Thebook interprets our human development in terms of what was happening to us psychologically as aspecies. In so doing many insights become accessible such as the prime mover in human developmentof “love-indoctrination” or nurturing. The concept accounts for so many aspects of our developmentsuch as our neoteny, why it was the primates that developed consciousness, why and when we learnt

Part 8:6

History of rejection of the biological explanation of the human condition

691
to walk upright and the role of matriarchy in our past. Love-indoctrination and material relatingto the pygmy chimps is introduced on page 46 and in full later on page 138.’ Free explained in
detail how ‘self-selection was to play a part’ (p.47) in early human development; how ‘themind also began to support the process [of selection]. We self-selected integrative traits by seekingmates who were loving’ (p.141); ‘how important self-selection was in human development’ (p.142);
and discussed the neotenisation of wild dogs into the domestic breeds we see today (onpage 142)—issues highly relevant to the Social Ecological Model and Self-Domestication
Hypothesis theories that claim to explain many elements of bonobo, and by inferencehuman, behaviour.

•
•

In 1989 Professor Wren-Lewis presented Free to 10 science journals including Nature, New
Scientist and Endeavour, but for no response.
In 1989 a booklet summarising the explanation of the human condition titled
Reconciliation was circulated to 600 scientists, scientific journals (again including Richard
Wrangham) and other relevant parties, for little response.

•

In 1991 over 1,000 copies of my second book Beyond The Human Condition, with first-ratepublicity packages, were circulated to scientists, journals, universities, relevant institutionsand media. Beyond reiterated the importance of self-selection for less aggressive males,for example, ‘females were first to self-select for integrativeness by favouring integrative ratherthan competitive and aggressive mates’ (p.142). I also met with and received some supportive
commendations from several notable scientists, including biologists Professor Charles
Birch and Professor John Morton, anthropologist Professor Colin Groves, physicist
Professor Paul Davies and Professor John Wren-Lewis. There was however little responsefrom the scientific establishment.

•

In 1992 I travelled to Africa to launch Beyond at the National Museum of Kenya; gave over
70 copies of Beyond to eminent scientists and influential people, with many of whom I
held meetings, including Dr Meave Leakey, Dr Shirley Strum, Dr Iain Douglas-Hamilton,
Dr Cynthia Moss, Dr Joyce Poole, Dr Mark Stanley-Price, Dr Ros Aveling, Prof Simiyu
Wandibba, Dr Pieter Kat, Dr Kathy Alexander, Dr Kay Holekamp, Dr Susanne Abildgaard
Anderson, Allan Root, Annette Lanjouw, Simon Trevor and Tom Sambrooke. Professor
Phillip Tobias invited me to give a lecture at the University of the Witwatersrand, butunfortunately due to timing problems the lecture didn’t go ahead. Shirley Strum invited meto visit her group of study baboons in Northern Kenya and report back to her which I didwith a written report; and I was also invited to spend time at the Jane Goodall Chimpanzee
Rehabilitation Centre in Burundi which I did. Although many of these scientists wereenthusiastic about these insights, no lasting support eventuated.

•

I should mention that also in 1992, Professor Wren-Lewis, one of the few scientists who hadbeen supportive of my work (he had provided this commendation for use on the back coverof Beyond: ‘At the core of Jeremy Griffith’s argument lies a brilliantly original insight into the basicnature of human conflict’, and even had become a director of the Foundation for Humanity’s

Adulthood—now the WTM), published a paper in which he plagiarised it, claiming theinsights were his own! Redress was achieved and Wren-Lewis ceased his involvement.

692

•

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

In 1993 I again travelled to England and the USA to promote these insights and madeenquiries about a possible publisher and/or distributor for Beyond in the UK and USA.
In total 76 first-rate publicity packages with copies of Beyond were sent to all theleading literary agents and publishers in the world for no acceptance, with one publisherrevealingly saying, ‘I find your theories fascinating, but I also find your arguments elusivelyreceding from my mind as soon as I stop reading them. I can understand that this is totally a failingon my part’ (Marianne Velmans, Doubleday Publishing, UK). Whilst in the UK I met with Sir Laurens
van der Post; and returned to Australia via the USA where I met with Professor Adrienne
Zihlman and tried to meet with Professor Donna Haraway, but she was unable to at shortnotice, and wildlife photographer Frans Lanting, who was interstate.

•

In 1995, two highly defamatory publications—an Australian Broadcasting Corporation
(ABC) television program; and a full page Sydney Morning Herald newspaper article—were made about me, my work and its supporters which resulted in a 15 year legal actionthat eventually exonerated us. A detailed description of the legal action and our eventualstunning victory can be read at <www.humancondition.com/persecution>.

•

In 2002, my third book, A Species In Denial was completed, and in an attempt to have thebook published, 70 copies of the manuscript were sent to the leading literary agents inthe world, and another 70 copies to the major international publishers, but all declined torepresent or publish the book. While one found it ‘far too dense and in parts incomprehensible’
(Gail Winston, Executive Editor, HarperCollins, USA, 12 Jun. 2002), and another was ‘not convinced that
there is a cohesive argument there’ (Tim Whiting, Commissioning Editor, Time Warner Books, UK, 25 Jun.
2002), others found it presented ‘a formidable work synthesizing philosophical, historical, religious,
scientific and cultural currents’ (Anne Jump, Andrew Wylie, UK, 26 Mar. 2002), and was ‘extraordinarilyrich and well researched’ (Roland Philipps, Publishing Director, Hodder & Stoughton, UK, 1 Jun. 2002), and ‘anoriginal and carefully conceived idea and the writing is clear and accomplished’ (Sebastian Godwin, David
Godwin Associates, UK, 15 Apr. 2002). The extraordinary range of contradictory comments strongly
suggests that it was not the merit of the book that was the problem but that publishers andliterary agents were variously confronted by the content. The comment that the material is
‘far too dense and in parts incomprehensible’ is a classic ‘deaf effect’ response (see Part 3:13).

•

In 2003, a further 800 copies of A Species In Denial, with first-rate publicity packages,were circulated to scientists, journals, universities, relevant institutions and media,once again containing explanation of the origins of human morality, for example, ‘Itwas through nurturing, the process of love-indoctrination and the accompanying self-selectionof cooperativeness or selflessness, that humans were able to develop an instinctive orientation tobehaving unconditionally selflessly and as a result become an utterly integrated cooperative, selfless,loving species’ (p.110). Despite a foreword by Professor Charles Birch, a commendation by

Professor John Morton, and becoming a bestseller in Australia and New Zealand where itsold more than 10,000 copies, the scientific community all but failed to respond.

•

Between 2004 and 2006, 2,500 copies of a documentary proposal on the human condition (a
76-page synopsis and DVD video presenting these ideas illustrated with chimpanzee and
bonobo footage, which can be viewed at <www.humancondition.com/doco-proposal>) were

Part 8:6

History of rejection of the biological explanation of the human condition

693
sent to scientists, scientific publications and organisations, philanthropic organisations,filmmakers and eminent figures. This presentation again contained all the insightscontained in this book: for example the four Parts of the documentary proposal were titled
‘God: The Question of God, Meaning and Purpose – and the Human Condition’, ‘Soul:
The Question of the Existence of Moral Instincts in Humans – and the Human Condition’
(which posed—and answered—the questions, ‘How could a species selfishly driven only by theneed to survive create notions of selfless morality? How does the ‘selfish gene’ theory reconcile withevidence of good in humans? How could a selfish motor create within us a sense of caring, selflessconcern for others?’ (p.15)), ‘Consciousness: The Question of Consciousness, What Is It and

How did it Emerge – and the Human Condition’ (which concluded, ‘In summary, the processesof nurturing love-indoctrination and the selection by females of non-aggressive, cooperative males asmates not only gave us our moral, instinctive orientation to behaving cooperatively—our soul—it alsoliberated consciousness in our forebears’ (p.61)), and ‘The Human Condition: The Question of

How to Reconcile and Ameliorate Our Estranged, Alienated Human Condition’.

•

The proposal did receive over 100 endorsements from leading scientists and thinkers,but, apart from Professor Harry Prosen, no substantial follow up interest has resulted.
Relevantly, copies (and follow-up emails) were sent to all three Self-Domestication
Hypothesis (SDH) authors: Brian Hare, Victoria Wobber (who was a student under Hareat the time) and Wrangham (who supervised Hare’s PhD); Animal Behaviour journal,publisher of their paper; and Scientific American and Discover magazines, both of whomran detailed publicity stories on the SDH in 2012. Animal Behaviour Managing Editor,
Dr Angela Turner, replied saying, ‘the Executive Editors and Presidents of the societies are thepeople you need to contact about this matter. I see from your email that you have sent this appeal tothem already so I suggest you await a reply from them’, and Scientific American Editor in Chief,

Dr John Rennie, replied saying ‘Thank you for your offer to contribute to Scientific American. Iregret to say that the piece you propose is not suited to our somewhat limited editorial needs.’ While

Discover, Wobber and Wrangham did not reply at all, Hare, and his then communicationcoordinator, now wife and fellow primate researcher Vanessa Woods, did respond, saying
‘Brian is interested in participating’, then subsequently Hare himself responded saying: ‘I tooshare your enthusiasm for sharing with others the importance of research on human evolution’, and
in a further communiqué: ‘good luck with the project!’

•

In addition, all the primatologists mentioned in Part 8:5G who endorse the SEM weresent a copy of the documentary proposal; David Sloan Wilson was also sent it; andevery relevant scientific journal and organisation received it including International
Journal of Primatology, American Journal of Primatology, Folia Primatologica,
Primates, Evolution and Human Behavior, Human Nature, Science, Nature, Animal
Behaviour, Scientific American, Discover Magazine, American Anthropological
Association, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Max Plank
Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Jane Goodall Institute, Leakey Foundation,
Wenner-Grenn Foundation, Smithsonian, MacArthur Foundation, John Templeton
Foundation, Carnegie Institution, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Nuffield Foundation and
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

694

•

The Biology

In 2005 I submitted a proposal to present a symposium, titled ‘The Citadel Of The
Darwinian Revolution—The Biology Of Our Human Condition—At Last Explained’,at the AAAS Annual Meeting titled Grand Challenges, Great Opportunities in February
2006, however the proposal was rejected by the Program Committee who stated that it was
‘Not appropriate…Needs extensive revision…Unclear how it will be integrated with other views.’

•

Also in 2005 I also submitted an abstract of a paper titled ‘Nurturing as the Prime Moverin Primate Development and Human Origins’ for presentation at the International
Primatological Society’s (IPS) 2006 Congress in Uganda (the submission and subsequentcorrespondence can be viewed at <www.humancondition.com/ips-2006-congress>), but it wasrejected on the grounds that ‘Both reviewers felt this abstract presents no data nor a testablehypothesis’. This is the absurd rebuttal that was also used against Darwin’s theory of
natural selection when the geologist and bishop Adam Sedgwick, amongst others, saidthat it was ‘based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved’ (Sedgwick in a letter to
Darwin, 24 Nov. 1859). Despite pointing out that my nurturing, love-indoctrination explanation
for humans’ moral instincts ‘contains a great deal of supportive evidence in the form of manysummaries of data-supported studies of bonobos and other primates by leading primatologists’,
and ‘is an entirely testable, validatable hypothesis, as the evidence just described about bonobosshows’, and submitting this protest to the President and 38 members of the IPS Congress

Committee (who were all either Officers of the IPS (including Richard Wrangham in hiscapacity as President of the IPS), or Editorial Board members of the International Journalof Primatology), the rejection was upheld!

•

In 2006, in a similar refusal to tolerate presentation of the nurturing explanation of bothhumans’ and bonobos’ moral nature, Jo Sandin was unable to include a reference to mynurturing explanation for human and bonobo moral behaviour in my 2007 book about thebonobos at the Milwaukee County Zoo, Bonobos: Encounters in Empathy. This despitethe request of Professor Harry Prosen who is highly respected at the Zoo for being such aneffective psychiatric consultant for all their social animals, and despite wanting to herself.
My work was mentioned in the concluding chapter of Sandin’s book, but the key referenceto ‘the nurturing explanation for empathy and altruism’ wasn’t included.

•

In 2006 my book The Great Exodus: From the horror and darkness of the humancondition was published online. Despite a publicity campaign, including personal emailsto many of the scientists who had responded positively to the documentary proposal,including self-domestication hypothesis author Brian Hare, and a condensed version ofthe book being included as a chapter in the 2006 book Living a Life of Value by Jason
Merchey (see <www.humancondition.com/great-exodus-essay>, there was no response from thescientific community.

•

By 2008 it had become apparent that presenting the biology of the human condition alone,as the documentary proposal had done, is not enough—the problem of confronting thehuman condition has to be addressed, as does the problem of coping with the exposure

Part 8:6

History of rejection of the biological explanation of the human condition

695
of our less-than-ideal condition that understanding of the human condition brings. Tocover these additional aspects, in 2008 the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT beganproduction of videos explaining the breakthrough understanding of the human conditionand the TRANSFORMED life for humans that it makes possible (see <www.humancondition.com>). Despite becoming available on our website in 2009, and in the highly accessible
format of video, there has been little response from the scientific establishment to theseintroductory videos.

•

In 2009 Freedom Expanded was published online, to no real response.

•

In 2011 The Book of Real Answers to Everything! was published online but has so far

•

In 2012 Wrangham, Hare and Wobber published their paper ‘The self-domestication
failed to attract significant support from the scientific community.
hypothesis: evolution of bonobo psychology is due to selection against aggression’,making no acknowledgment or even mention of my love-indoctrination synthesis, despite,as is detailed above, each being previously informed of it (in the case of Wrangham onfour separate occasions)—even appearing to subvert and misappropriate virtually all theelements of my synthesis, while leaving out anything to do with nurturing.

•

In 2014, despite the explanation of the human condition that is presented in my booksbeing the fulfilment of the core vision of Geelong Grammar School of cultivating thesensitivity needed to achieve that specific, all-important-if-there-is-to-be-a-future-forthe-human-race task, the school chose not to include an essay on my life’s work that wascommissioned by its publishers for possible inclusion in its Corio anniversary book 100
Exceptional Stories which ‘celebrates the lives of 100 exceptional past students’—see <www.humancondition.com/100-exceptional-stories>.

•

From July to September in 2014 a special edition of my new book FREEDOM: The
End Of The Human Condition that was orientated to scientists (it was even given itsown title that focused on the very serious plight of the world: IS IT TO BE Terminal
Alienation or Transformation For The Human Race?) was sent to 930 leading scienceorganisations, scientists and science commentators in the English-speaking world,including the scientists involved with the main Brain Initiatives. But despite each copybeing accompanied by a personal appeal for support for the book’s insights from Professor
Harry Prosen, and undertaking two trips to the US and UK to discuss the book withinterested scientists and commentators, the situation in early 2015 is that while there hasbeen a few positive responses from individual scientists, our publishers are still waitingfor appreciative responses from the scientific establishment.

(Note again that the full presentation of this history can be found at
<www.humancondition.com/full-history-of-rejection>.)

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

696

The Biology

Part 8:7 Consciousness

Part 8:7A What is consciousness?
The subject of consciousness and how we have had to live in denial of what it means wasbriefly discussed in Part 4:4C—the contents of which will be used again here to commencethis more complete description of the nature of consciousness.
Anyone who has searched the term ‘consciousness’ will have found it to be a subjectcloaked with mystery and confusion, but there is a very good reason for this, and it is notbecause consciousness is an impenetrably complex subject, as we are often told—it is becauseit raises the unbearable issue of the human condition.
The truth is, the subject of consciousness brings our mind so quickly into contact withthe unbearably depressing issue of the human condition that ‘consciousness’ has becomesynonymous with—indeed code for—the problem of the human condition. Indeed, in hisbook Complexity, the science writer Roger Lewin described the great difficulty humanshave had trying to ‘illuminate the phenomena of consciousness’ as ‘a tough challenge…perhapsthe toughest of all’ (1993, p.153 of 208). To illustrate the nature and extent of the difficulty, Lewin
relayed the philosopher René Descartes’ own disturbed reaction when he tried to ‘contemplateconsciousness’: ‘So serious are the doubts into which I have been thrown…that I can neither put themout of my mind nor see any way of resolving them. It feels as if I have fallen unexpectedly into a deepwhirlpool which tumbles me around so that I can neither stand on the bottom nor swim up to the top’
(p.154). Yes, consciousness has indeed been a fearful subject to face!

As mentioned, there have been two very good reasons why the subject of consciousnessraised the unbearable issue of the human condition and therefore why examination of it ledto such a fearful, all-our-moorings-taken-from-under-us, ‘deep whirlpool’ of terrible depressionfor humans.
The first reason is that trying to think about consciousness meant trying to understandwhat—when we humans are the only fully conscious, reasoning, intelligent, extraordinarilyclever, ‘can-get-a-man-on-the-Moon’ animal—is so intelligent and clever about beingso competitive, selfish and aggressive, in fact, so ruthlessly competitive, brutal and evenmurderous, that human life has become all but unbearable and we have nearly destroyed ourown planet?! Even beginning to vaguely contemplate the nature of our human situation hasbeen too dangerous for upset humans; indeed, merely asking the obvious initial question of
‘What makes humans unique?’ has been a ‘no-go zone’ because clearly what is so uniqueabout us humans is that we are conscious, but thinking about that was a slippery slope as itquickly raised the depressing question: ‘Well, if we are such a clever species why do we treateach other and our planet so appallingly?’
Any thinking about the nature of our conscious intellect invariably brought us intocontact with the unbearable conclusion that it was the most destructive force the world hasever known. Yes, that our fully conscious, reasoning, intelligent, insightful, aware, knowing,understanding human mind has, it seems, unconsciously, irrationally, unintelligently,unthinkingly, indifferently, uncaringly and stupidly almost destroyed the whole planet we liveon, and also brought human existence to a state of unbearably lonely, alienated, egocentricity-

Part 8:7A

What is consciousness?

697
crazed, aggressive, hateful dysfunctionality, has been an extremely confronting matter to thinkabout. No wonder, as it says in Genesis in the Bible, having taken the ‘fruit’ ‘from the tree of…knowledge’ (3:3, 2:17) that was ‘desirable for gaining wisdom’ (3:6)—that is, having become fully
conscious, thinking, knowledge-finding beings—we humans became so destructively behaved,so apparently lacking in ‘wisdom’, that we seemingly deserved to be condemned and ‘banished…from the Garden of Eden’ (3:23) as defiling, unworthy, evil beings! While our intellect is surely the
culminating achievement of the grand experiment in nature that we call life, it also appearedto be the most destructive and thus seemingly evil force to ever have appeared on Earth. Ourconscious mind appeared to be to blame for all the devastation and human suffering in theworld! Instead of being wonderful, our conscious mind appeared to be the plague of the planet!
That is how ‘serious are the doubts’ that thinking about consciousness produced within us!
Our previous inability to explain the dichotomy of being the most clever and brilliantbut also the most apparently destructive and stupid animal on the planet has meant that wehumans have understandably been extremely insecure and defensive about our supposedlywonderful intellect.
The second reason why the subject of consciousness has been so unbearably depressingto confront was because thinking about the nature of consciousness quickly brought usinto contact with the unbearably depressing truth of Integrative Meaning. The explanationof what consciousness actually is will reveal the problem, because as we will see, whileconsciousness itself is actually a simple and obvious phenomenon to explain, its meaning hasvery confronting implications.
Humans can be distinguished from other animals by the fact we are fully conscious; thatis, sufficiently able to understand and thus manage the relationship between cause and effectto wrest management of our lives from our instincts—and even to reflect upon our existence,specifically the problem of our immensely upset human condition that wresting managementfrom our instincts brought about.
This consciousness is a product of the nerve-based learning system’s ability to remember,for it is memory that allows understanding of cause and effect to develop. To elaborate, nerveswere originally developed as connections for the coordination of movement in multicellularanimals. An incidental by-product of the development of nerves was that of memory. Theactual mechanism by which nerves are able to store impressions is not yet fully understoodalthough we know it involves chemical processes. What is important is that nerves do havethe capacity for memory because once you have memory you have the ability to developunderstanding of cause and effect.
Nerves have the ability to remember past events, compare them with current eventsand identify regularly occurring experiences. This knowledge of, or insight into, what hascommonly occurred in the past enables the mind to predict what is likely to occur in the futureand to adjust behaviour accordingly. Thus, the nerve-based learning system (unlike the genebased learning system) can associate information, reason how experiences are related, learnto understand and become CONSCIOUS of the relationship of events that occur through time.
In the brain, nerve information recordings of experiences (memories) are examined fortheir relationship with each other. To understand how the brain makes these comparisons,think of the brain as a vast network of nerve pathways onto which incoming experiences

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

698

The Biology
are recorded or inscribed, each on a particular path within that network. Where differentexperiences share the same information, their pathways overlap. For example, long beforewe understood the force of gravity we had learnt that if we let go of an object it wouldinvariably drop to the ground. The value of recording information as a pathway in a networkis that it allows related aspects of experience to be physically related. In fact, the area inour brain where information is related is called the ‘association cortex’. Where parts of anexperience are the same they share the same pathway, and where they differ their pathwaysdiffer or diverge. All the nerve cells in the brain are interconnected, so with sufficient input ofexperiences onto a nerve network of sufficient size, similarities or consistencies in experienceshow up as well-used pathways, pathways that have become highways. (It has been found thatin the vast convolutions of our brain’s cortex there are about eight billion nerve cells with tentimes that number of interconnecting dendrites which, if laid end to end, would stretch at leastfrom Earth to the Moon and back.)
An ‘idea’ represents the moment information is associated in the brain. Incominginformation could reinforce a highway, slightly modify it or add an association (an idea)between two highways, dramatically simplifying that particular network of developingconsistencies to create a new and simpler interpretation of that information. For example,the most important relationship between different types of fruit is their edibility. Elsewherethe brain has recognised that the main relationship connecting experiences with living thingsis that they appear to try to stay alive, at least for a period of time. Suddenly it ‘sees’ ordeduces (‘tumbles’ to the idea or association or abstraction) a possible connection betweeneating and staying alive which, with further experience and thought, becomes reinforced as
‘seemingly’ correct. ‘Eating’ is now channelled onto the ‘staying alive’ highway. Subsequentthought would try to deduce the significance of ‘staying alive’ and, beyond that, compare theimportance of selfishness and selflessness. Ultimately the brain would arrive at the truth of
Integrative Meaning.
The process of forgetting would also play a part in understanding the relationship betweenexperiences. Since duration of nerve memory is related to use, our strongest memories will beof those highways, those experiences that have the greatest relativity. Our experiences not onlybecome related or associated in the brain, they also become concentrated because the braingradually forgets or discards inconsistencies or irregularities between experiences. Forgettingserves to cleanse the network of less consistently occurring information, preventing it frombecoming cluttered with meaningless (non-insightful) information.
Our language development took the same path as the development of understanding.
Commonly occurring arrangements of matter and commonly occurring events were identified
(became clear or stood out). Eventually all the main objects and events became identified and,as language emerged, named. For example, we named those regularly occurring arrangementsof matter with wings ‘birds’ and what they did as ‘flying’.
Once insights into the nature of change are put into effect, the self-modified behaviourstarts to provide feedback, refining the insights further. Predictions are compared withoutcomes, leading all the way to the deduction of the meaning of all experience, which is toorder or integrate matter.

Part 8:7A

What is consciousness?

699

Thus consciousness is the ability to understand the relationship of events sufficiently wellto effectively manage and manipulate those events. For example, chimpanzees demonstrateconsciousness when they effectively reason that by placing boxes one on top of the other theycan create a stack that they can then climb upon to reach a banana tied to the roof of theircage. Consciousness is when the mind becomes effective, able to understand how experiencesare related. It is the point at which the confusion of incoming information clears, starts to fittogether or make sense and the mind becomes master of change.
It should be pointed out that it is one thing to be able to stack boxes to reach bananas—to manage immediate events—but quite another to manage events over the long term, to besecure managers of the world. In fact, as explained in Part 3:11, infancy is when we developsufficient consciousness to recognise that we are at the centre of the changing array ofexperiences around us. We become aware of the concept of ‘I’ or self, which is what bonobosand the other great apes are capable of. Infancy is also when we discover conscious freewill, the power to manage events. Childhood is when we revel in this free will, ‘play’ orexperiment with it, while adolescence is when we encounter both the sobering responsibilityof free will and the agonising identity crisis brought about by the dilemma of the humancondition, the question of whether or not we are meaningful beings.
As has been pointed out, consciousness has been a difficult subject for humans toinvestigate, not because of the practical difficulties involved in understanding how our brainworks, as we’re often told, but because we did not want to know how it worked. Whilewe couldn’t explain our upset state of the human condition we had to avoid admitting tooclearly how the brain functions because admitting information could be associated andsimplified—admitting to insight—was only a short step away from realising the ultimateinsight, which is the integrative theme or meaning or purpose or direction of existence,which in turn immediately confronted us with our own inconsistency with that meaning.
Yes, to admit to Integrative Meaning meant having to face the fact that our competitiveand aggressive behaviour is seemingly totally at odds with the integrative direction of life,no less. The development and maintenance of the order of matter requires that the parts ofdeveloping wholes cooperate not compete. Integrative meaning confronts us squarely withour divisive human condition. Better to evade the existence of purpose in the first place byavoiding the possibility that information could be associated, refined and simplified. It isthe same reason we sidestepped the term ‘genetic refinement’ for the process of the geneticrefinement of the integration of matter on Earth, preferring instead the much vaguer term,
‘genetics’. We had to evade the possibility of the refinement of information in all its formsbecause admitting that information could be simplified or refined was admitting to anultimate refinement or law, confronting us with our inconsistency with that law, namely withthe law of Integrative Meaning.
In fact, we have avoided not only the idea of meaningfulness but also any deep,meaningful thinking that might lead to confrontation with Integrative Meaning, against whichwe had no defence. Ensuring deeper insights remained elusive saved us from exposure butin the process buried the truth. As a result, we became extremely superficial in our thinking,masters of not thinking; in short, alienated beings.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

700

The Biology

Demonstrating our masterful evasion of the nature of consciousness we used wordslike ‘conscious’, ‘intelligent’, ‘understanding’, ‘reason’ and ‘insight’ regularly without everactually identifying what we are conscious of, intelligent about, understanding, reasoningor having an insight into, which is how events or experiences are related. The conventionalobscure, evasive definition of intelligence is ‘the ability to think abstractly’. The other imprecise,obscure, evasive phrase used whenever we wanted to refer to the uniqueness of ourintelligence without actually saying what our conscious, understanding, insightful intelligenceis, was to say that ‘We are the species that is able to reflect upon itself.’ So to name the areaof the brain that associates and simplifies information as the ‘association cortex’ was, in fact,a slip of our evasive guard. Of course, when we weren’t ‘on our guard’ against exposure fewwould deny that information can be associated, simplified and meaning found. In fact, mostof us would say we do it every day of our lives—if we didn’t, we wouldn’t have a word for
‘insight’. That is the amazing aspect about our denial of anything that brings the dilemma ofthe human condition into focus: it is not unusual for us humans to accept an idea up to a point,but as soon as it starts to lead to a confronting conclusion, pretend it doesn’t exist—and do sowithout batting an eyelid.
We see this practice of admitting a truth up to a point then evading it at work with theissue of the human condition as a whole. For instance, we recognise that most illnesses arepsychosomatic, and we talk a great deal about people’s psychoses without allowing ourselvesto consider what we are actually admitting. As explained in Part 3:8, ‘psychosis’ literally means
‘soul-illness’, derived as it is from psyche meaning ‘soul’, and osis, which means ‘abnormalstate or condition’. Similarly, ‘psychiatry’ literally means ‘soul-healing’, derived as it is from
psyche meaning ‘soul’ and iatreia, which means ‘healing’. In using these terms, we are actuallyadmitting that our soul has been hurt or upset by our intellect, because the only aspect thathas changed in our species to cause us humans to become psychotic or soul-destroyed is ourconscious reasoning state. The elements involved in the human condition are in our languageyet, as was documented in Parts 4:6 to 4:9, we have mostly failed to recognise them.
To illustrate how we avoided acknowledging the fundamental ability of the brain toassociate and reduce information to essentials (and thus be forced to deduce the integrativemeaning or theme or purpose in experience), take the following case from my files of a
Newsweek magazine cover story (7 Feb. 1987). While the title and subject of the nine-page articleraised the crucial question of ‘How the brain works’, the author referred to the associationcapability of the brain in such a garbled way it was effectively buried: ‘Productive thoughtrequires not just the rules of logic but a wealth of experience and background information, plus the abilityto generalise and interpret new experiences using that information.’ The ‘ability to generalise’ is the
ability to associate information, but the meaning is all but lost in the sentence.
In case it is thought this ‘garbled’ description may have been due to poor expressionrather than deliberate evasion on the part of the author, it should be pointed out that apart froma mention of ‘chunking or grouping of similar memories together’ and one unavoidable mention ofthe ‘association cortex’, there is no other reference to the brain’s fundamental ability to associateinformation. The entire nine-page article, on how our brain works, hangs on this one ineptsentence. If we are not intending to be evasive then it is not difficult to clearly describe themind’s ability to associate information, as demonstrated in the next paragraph.

Part 8:7A

What is consciousness?

701

Our ability to evade the truth has never been completely successful—if we looked longand hard enough it would always slip out from under our guard somewhere. (Indeed, thiswhole book is illustrated with quotes from people who momentarily exposed the truth. Whileeach of these quotes was undoubtedly only intended as a bearable flash of honesty, I havehauled them all out and assembled them together as an avalanche of truth to evidence the fulltruth, now that it has been safely found.) For instance, in a one-page Newsweek article (9 Aug.
1982)
that dealt with a slightly less sensitive (that is, less confronting) subject than the human
brain and was possibly therefore not written as cautiously as the aforementioned cover story,the guard was dropped and the truth exposed. Referring to the development of a ‘superbrain’mechanical computer (sometimes referred to as the fifth generation computer), the articlestated the following (the underlinings are my emphasis): ‘We’ll be trying to set up in the machinean associative memory like the one in the human brain…Instead of giving each piece of information anumerical address in the computer’s memory, the new system would tag it with an equation that showsits relationship to other pieces of information…The objective is a machine that can memorise images andstore them by association…Our ideal…is to create a computer that programs itself…that will have thecapacity to “learn” on its own…to organise that knowledge for its own use [like the human brain can].’

Remember Rod Quantock’s comment that ‘Thinking can get you into terrible downwards spirals ofdoubt’? Well thinking about thinking could do that too.

Incidentally, should such an information-relating computer be developed, it would soondeduce the theme of integration in changing events. Indeed, its operation would be basedupon integration and the development of order. If the biological understanding of the humancondition was not found before this occurred humans would have been left dangerouslyexposed to criticism of our divisive state. To quote another Newsweek story on computers:
‘Mankind has long been…frightened by the prospect of creating machines that think’ (4 July 1983).

Our evasion and denial is often obviously false and yet we believed it, because wehad to. For instance, in the case of Integrative Meaning, we are surrounded by examplesof integration everywhere—every object we look at is a hierarchy of ordered matter,testament to the development of order of matter—and yet we deny it. Just like mechanisticscience couldn’t even provide a definition for two of humanity’s most commonly used andimportant words/concepts—‘love’ and ‘soul’. The hypocrisy inherent in denial is palpable yetunderstandable.
In summary, ‘insight’ was the term given to the nerve highways, the correlation our brainmade of the consistencies or regularities it found between events through time. Once humanscould deduce these insights—these laws governing events in time past—we were in a positionto predict or anticipate the likely turn of events. We could learn to understand what happenedthrough time. Our intellect could deduce or distil the purpose to existence or the designinherent in change in information; it could learn the predictable regularities or commonfeatures in experience.
This description of consciousness is so obvious and straight forward it really does beg thequestion: ‘Why was it not explained to us by science, why weren’t we taught this at school?’
As now explained, there were two very good reasons: firstly, the issue of our consciousintelligent mind raises the unbearable self-realisation, ‘Well, if I’m so cleverly insightful whydo I have to be so destructively selfish, angry, egocentric, competitive and aggressive; if I’m

702

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
so smart that I can manage cause and effect why can’t I manage it in a way that is not so meanand indifferent to others; why, if I am such a brilliantly intelligent person, am I such an angry,distressed and self-absorbed monster?’ The second reason we have been so insecure aboutconsciousness was because explaining the nature of consciousness quickly brought us intocontact with the unbearably depressing truth of Integrative Meaning.
An appropriate definition of ‘consciousness’ is ‘the ability to make sense of experience’.
Applying such a definition, however, immediately highlights the problem with the issue ofconsciousness, for due to the depressing implications humans haven’t wanted to ‘make senseof experience’, in particular recognise the truth of Integrative Meaning. To ask people to lookinto the issue of consciousness was to expect them to confront the issue of their own less thanideal, human-condition-afflicted state. The issue of consciousness is tantamount to the issue ofthe human condition, which humans have found virtually impossible to accept and confront.
Indeed, as has been mentioned, ‘consciousness’ has become a relatively safe, ‘keep-at-armslength’ code word for the issue of the human condition.
It was such a short step from thinking about how consciousness is concerned with makingsense of experience to thinking about having to make sense of our own behaviour and life, thatit was far better to leave the whole issue of what consciousness actually is completely alone.
Again, when Descartes tried to ‘contemplate consciousness’ it caused him such fearful depressionthat he said, ‘It feels as if I have fallen unexpectedly into a deep whirlpool which tumbles me around sothat I can neither stand on the bottom nor swim up to the top’! In his book Complexity, Roger Lewin
records an interview he conducted with the philosopher Colin McGinn in which McGinn said,
‘an understanding of consciousness is beyond the reach of the human mind…complete cognitive opennessis not guaranteed for human beings and it should not be expected…an understanding of [consciousness]is simply closed to us…because consciousness fundamentally is a subjective experience’ (p.167). As
explained, mechanistic science is not holistic, it cannot deal with the ‘subjective experience’,namely the experience of the human condition. The biologist Charles Birch referred to theeffects of this limitation when he said, ‘[mechanistic] science can’t deal with subjectivity…what wewere all taught in universities is pretty much a dead end’. Yes, mechanistic science has presented
us with virtually no truthful analysis of what our most distinguishing characteristic, whichis our fully conscious intelligent state, actually is and yet, as we have seen, the explanationis both simple and obvious. R.D. Laing acknowledged both the importance of the issue ofconsciousness (the human condition), and how truly difficult a ‘realm’ it has been for humansto study when he wrote, ‘The requirement of the present, the failure of the past, is the same: to providea thoroughly self-conscious and self-critical human account of man…Our alienation goes to the roots. Therealization of this is the essential springboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of present interhuman life [pp.11-12 of 156] …We respect the voyager, the explorer, the climber, the space man. It makes farmore sense to me as a valid project—indeed, as a desperately urgently required project for our time—toexplore the inner space and time of consciousness. Perhaps this is one of the few things that still make sensein our historical context. We are so out of touch with this realm [so in denial of the issue of the human
condition] that many people can now argue seriously that it does not exist. It is very small wonder that it isperilous indeed to explore such a lost realm [p.105]’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967).

Part 8:7A

What is consciousness?

703

Just as the debate over the question of God, meaning and purpose became evasivelyfocused away onto the irrelevant issue of whether God has been destroyed by science’sability to explain the origins of the universe, the debate about consciousness has likewisebecome evasively focused away onto spurious questions like ‘How do we know we areconscious?’ and ‘How do we know other people are conscious?’ The inhibiting subjectiveissue of the human condition aside, surely the real questions about consciousness are, ‘What isconsciousness?’ and ‘Why and how did it develop in humans?’
In Part 3:8, when the concept of Resignation was explained, it was described howwhen upset humans were around 14 years of age they tried to face down the issue ofthe imperfection of their behaviour—the issue of the human condition—and found it asuicidally depressing exercise. As Carl Jung said, ‘When it [our ‘shadow’, the negative aspectsof ourselves] appears…it is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize the relativeevil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absoluteevil.’ To avoid subjecting themselves to that ‘shattering experience’ ever again, adolescents
decided to resign themselves to never revisiting the issue. In fact, every moment thereafterwas spent carefully avoiding any encounter with the subject. And not only did adolescentsavoid the issue of the human condition when they resigned, they also contrived a positiveway of viewing themselves. Unable to refute the negative they could only counter it, byfocusing on, emphasising and developing whatever positive view of themselves they couldfind, create or develop. They found a way to not only avoid confronting—a way to blockout or deny—the issue of the human condition, but also a way to convince themselves thatthey were the opposite of flawed and corrupted and seemingly ‘the face of absolute evil’. Theupset human race became ego-centric, consciously centred or focused or preoccupied withfinding ways to reinforce themselves, ways to feel good about themselves.
We can visualise the situation by imagining a room, with one end containing allmanner of depressing truths about the lives and world of resigned humans, and the otherend a few positive aspects about themselves. Well, not surprisingly, resigned humanschose to live entirely at the end of the room where they could be surrounded by thosefew positives. And not only did they stay jammed right up against the wall at that positiveend, as removed as humanly possible from any negative truths, they made sure they stoodwith their nose flat against the wall so they couldn’t even see the other side of the room.
That is how narrow and limited the existence of a resigned human has been. The upset,resigned mind has been fixated on a few positives about themselves while blocking out awhole ‘room’—in fact, a whole universe—of subjects and thoughts and awarenesses. In thislight, we can appreciate the accuracy of Plato’s analogy of humans living imprisoned deepunderground in a cave where all they could see were shadowy illusions of the real world.
As mentioned in Part 3:11B, Resignation is a form of autism, a form of extreme detachmentfrom the real, true world; recall Winnicott’s description of autism as ‘a highly sophisticateddefence organization. What we see is invulnerability…The child carries round the (lost) memory ofunthinkable anxiety, and the illness is a complex mental structure insuring against recurrence of theconditions of the unthinkable anxiety.’

704

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

This ‘jammed-down-one-end-of-the-room’ description of how the upset, resignedhuman race has had to live in denial of the whole issue of the human condition also appliesto the aspect of the human condition that involves our species’ apparently mean, selfish,aggressive and destructive, reasoning, self-managing conscious intelligence. Unless wewere exceptionally free of upset behaviour, exceptionally loved and nurtured in our infancyand childhood and thus secure in self, thinking truthfully about what consciousness is wasonly ever going to raise the question of why aren’t we cognisant of change and insightfulenough to behave in an ideal way? To avoid raising those depressing questions the upset,resigned-to-living-in-denial-of-the-human-condition human race avoided any truthfulanalysis of what consciousness actually is. And not only that, we shifted our focus entirelyaway from the issue of what consciousness is onto any positives we could muster up aboutour intellect. We focused on telling ourselves that our intellect is a brilliant talent, capable ofinventing a machine to take man to the Moon. To cope with the whole issue of the goodnessor otherwise of our intellect we maximised all the positive aspects about our intellectand minimised all the negative aspects, with the best method of minimising the negativesbeing simply not to think about and acknowledge what the nature of conscious intelligencereally is. We learnt to just say ‘I’m smart’ and not allow our thinking about the nature ofintelligence to travel beyond that assertion.
For instance, we measured people for their level of mental cleverness with IQ tests andformed societies for the most mentally clever, such as Mensa. We created game shows thatglorified those with the best memories for mundane, superficial facts or for successfullyspelling words or completing sums. We only allowed people into university who had high IQsand could pass exams that tested for a person’s intellectual brilliance, never for their soulfulsoundness. We tested children for their ability to remember endless streams of ridiculouslysuperficial and meaningless facts such as Queen Isabella the 5th married King Arnold the 12thin 1522 and together they fought The War Of The Old Donkey Poo In Outer Mongolia in 1591,or something like that, etc, etc—never asking the real questions of why there were kings andqueens and poor people—selfishness, inequality and indifference to others—and why humansfought and killed others in wars. Ours was an escapist, evasive intellectual world, not a sound,soulful instinctual world. The emphasis was entirely on intellectual brilliance, not on soulfulsoundness. We never measured people for how alienated, mentally dead they were, or forthe speed at which their minds could block out confronting truth, or the speed at which theycould override their instinctive moral sense and exploit others, or for how mentally insecureand thus egocentrically self-preoccupied and thus indifferent to others they were. Nor didwe measure for how non-upset or innocent or sound or alienation-free people were. We onlystressed how smart we were, never how corrupted and destructive our intellect was. And itwasn’t as though we didn’t know who was soul-corrupted, upset and alienated and who wasrelatively 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 wouldhave been as easy—indeed, probably much easier—to design exams that tested a person’slevel of alienation or soundness or soulfulness quotient, their SQ, than it was to design examsthat tested their intelligence quotient, or IQ.

Part 8:7B

Why, how and when did consciousness emerge in humans?

705

The truth is, our intelligence has been an extremely insecure and defensive entity. It hasbeen an instrument of dishonest denial, not an instrument of honest thoughtfulness. It hasbeen preoccupied with escapist, superficial, alienated intellectualism, not with confronting,penetrating, truthful, thoughtful instinctualism. Such has been the human condition—a messof mental lies, delusions and artificiality, a trash heap of superficiality, where everyone haslived jammed into a tiny dark corner of the real world, unable to go anywhere near that realand true world that radiates in every direction away from that dark corner. Plato’s analogy iseven better—he had us living deep underground in a dark cave, hidden away from a wholeworld of flooding sunlight.
In approximately 1601 the playwright William Shakespeare summed up the core dilemmaof our species’ condition when he had his character Hamlet honestly exclaim, ‘What a pieceof work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express andadmirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! theparagon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me’ (Hamlet, Act
2 Scene 2). Yes,
we have been ‘like a god’ in our intellectual capacity for ‘apprehension’ (which
is our capacity to consciously understand cause and effect and be insightful) and yet wehave also been capable of behaving in such an ‘un-Godly’ way as to be an ‘[un]delight[ful]’,
‘quintessence of dust’, nasty ‘piece of work’. If we substitute the personal ‘I’ for the general ‘man’
in Shakespeare’s quote it becomes very clear why we haven’t gone down the road of thoughtthat Shakespeare so honestly travelled—‘What a piece of work am I! how noble in reason!how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like anangel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! Andyet I am this quintessence of dust. I don’t take any delight in myself at all.’ In essence, ‘I reallyam a nasty piece of work.’
Thank goodness we can at last explain the human condition and bring all this terriblydebilitating denial to an end forever.

Part 8:7 B Why, how and when did consciousness emerge in humans?
While the explanation of why, how and when consciousness emerged in humans wasvery briefly presented in Parts 3:11 and 8:4C, a much more detailed explanation of this veryimportant series of questions now needs to be given.
We can begin the explanation by asking ‘Why haven’t other animals become fullyconscious?’ As mentioned in Part 8:5D since consciousness occurs at a certain point inthe development of a mind’s efficiency in associating information, and since consciousintelligence, the ability to reason how cause and effect are related, to understand change, tobe insightful, would obviously be a great asset for any animal to acquire, one would assumefully developed consciousness would have been actively selected for as soon as animalswere able to develop a reasonably elaborate central nervous system, and thus would haveappeared in many species. Despite this being an obvious assumption, the conventionalexplanation for the emergence of consciousness in humans is that it occurred because of theneed to manage complex social situations—for example, in The Social Conquest of Earth,
E.O. Wilson says that ‘to feel empathy for others, to measure the emotions of friends and enemy

706

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
alike, to judge the intentions of all of them, and to plan a strategy for personal social interactions…thehuman brain became…highly intelligent’ (2012, p.17 of 330). This is the so-called ‘Social Intelligence

Hypothesis’ (sometimes referred to as the ‘Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis’), of whicha more sophisticated version is known as the Ecological Dominance-Social Competition
Model (EDSC), both of which were introduced in Part 8:5D. Social problem solving is anobvious benefit from being conscious, but all activities that animals have to manage wouldbenefit enormously from being able to understand cause and effect, so it is completelyillogical to argue that it wasn’t until the need to manage extremely complex social situationsthat consciousness developed. Any sensible analysis of the question of the emergence ofconsciousness must be based on the question of what has prevented its development inother animals? It is such a powerful asset for an animal to have that something must havestopped it being selected for in other species. The lack of social situations doesn’t explainwhy the fully conscious mind hasn’t appeared in non-human species. There was ample needfor a conscious mind prior to the appearance of complex social situations. The reason thisobvious and sensible analysis hasn’t taken place is because the explanation for how andwhy consciousness emerged in humans depends on—as we are about to see—being ableto acknowledge many previously unbearable human-condition-confronting truths, such as
Integrative Meaning and the significance of selflessness in that integrative process, and howhumans developed selfless moral instincts through nurturing. Unable to acknowledge thesetruths and thus think truthfully about consciousness, arguing that we were the only species todevelop consciousness because of our supposed unique need to manage extremely complexsocial situations provided a convenient, albeit dishonest, way of eliminating the question ofthe origin of consciousness. The evasive, denial-based human mind simply avoided thinkingabout the problem deeply enough to see how illogical what was being put forward was.
Interestingly, since writing this paragraph I have learnt that both the Social/Machiavellian
Intelligence Hypothesis (S/MIH) and the EDSC Model, are being challenged by humancondition avoiding, mechanistic scientists. The S/MIH is being challenged on the basisthat there are highly social species such as meerkats and hyenas that haven’t developedintelligence beyond that of less social species. Studies are finding ‘that no association existsbetween sociality and encephalization [brain size in proportion to body size] across Carnivora [which
include meerkats and hyenas] and that support for sociality as a causal agent of encephalization increasedisappears for this clade [group]’ (John Finarelli & John Flynn, ‘Brain-size evolution and sociality in Carnivora’,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009, Vol.106, No.23, pp.9345-9349). And the EDSC Model,
which holds that a species must first somehow overcome or dominate its environment beforethe S/MIH can apply, is being challenged by mechanistic, human-condition-avoiding scientistson the basis that brain sized increased in our ancestors before they became ecologicallydominant, as this study points out: ‘a great deal of encephalization [brain size relative to bodysize] occurred before humans were dominant…The EQ [encephalization quotient] of the first instanceof Homo, Homo habilis, had already doubled relative to our nearest relatives today, chimpanzees (Pantroglodytes). These hominins were still largely foragers, scavengers (not yet organized hunters), and preyfor more powerful predators’ (R.D. Horan, J.F. Shogren & E.H. Bulte, A Paleoeconomic Theory of Encephalization,
Selected paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Economic Association, San Francisco, Jan. 2009). So I
don’t know where dishonest thinking will go now for an explanation for consciousness!

Part 8:7B

Why, how and when did consciousness emerge in humans?

707

It is true that other animal species have been able to develop all manner of extraordinarymental abilities, many superior to our own, yet never full consciousness. (I will go throughthe evidence for other animals not having developed full consciousness shortly.) For instance,in the United States the nutcracker bird buries around 30,000 nuts throughout the summermonths, each in a different location, but come winter and the cover of snow it can recall thelocation of 90 percent of them. The goby fish can memorise the topography of the tidal flatsat high tide so that when the tide retreats it knows the exact location of the next pool to flipto when the one it is in evaporates. And then there is the male common canary, which has aspecific part of its brain that expands dramatically every spring in order to learn new matingsongs, only to shrink again once the mating season ends. So again the question is, if otheranimals have been able to develop such extraordinary mental abilities, what’s stopping themfrom developing full consciousness?
The explanation begins by re-stating what was pointed out in Part 8:2, ‘The brief historyof the development of matter in Earth’, which was that one of the limitations of the genebased learning system is that it normally can’t select for unconditionally selfless, altruistic,self-sacrificing behaviour because altruistic traits tend to self-eliminate—they tend not tocarry on and so normally can’t become established in a species. The effect is that the genebased learning system actively resists altruistic behaviour.
For instance, whenever a female kangaroo comes into season, the males pursue herrelentlessly. Despite both parties almost falling with fatigue, the chase continues. It is easy tosee how this behaviour developed. If a male relaxed his efforts he would lose his opportunityto reproduce. Self-interest is fostered by natural selection with the result that geneticselfishness has become an extremely strong force in animals. It is clear then that there wouldbe no chance of a variety of kangaroo that considered others above itself developing. Unless,of course, they could develop love-indoctrination, but while a kangaroo can look after a joeyin its pouch, the pouch is more an external womb, allowing little behavioural interactionbetween mother and infant. It is the selfless treatment—the active demonstration of love—thattrains the infants in selflessness or love. Also, because grass is not very nutritious marsupialshave to spend most of their time grazing, which leaves relatively little time for socialinteraction between mother and infant and thus limited training in love.
Genetic refinement normally acts against any inclination towards selfless behaviourbecause selflessness disadvantages the individual that practices it and advantages therecipients of the selfless treatment—such is the meaning of selflessness. Selflessness normallycan’t be reinforced by genetic refinement; indeed, it is emphatically resisted by it.
It follows then that in terms of the development of consciousness, the gene-based learningor refinement system was, in effect, totally opposed to any altruistic, selfless thinking. In fact,genetic refinement developed blocks in the minds of animals to prevent the emergence of suchthinking. And it is this block against truthful, selflessness-recognising-thinking in the mindsof almost all animals that prevents them from becoming conscious of the true relationship ormeaning of experience.
To explain more fully how these blocks against selflessness-recognising-thinkingdeveloped, an example of how genes resist self-destructive behaviour will be helpful. In whatare termed ‘visual cliff ’ experiments, newborn kittens are placed on a table and while they

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

708

The Biology
will venture towards the edge of the table, they won’t allow themselves to go beyond the edgeand fall—a sheet of glass is actually placed over the table to prevent them from accidentallyslipping off the edge, but the point is the glass is unnecessary because the kittens instinctivelyknow not to travel beyond the table’s edge. Presumably, this instinctive orientation againstdoing so evolved because any cat that did venture too close to a precipice invariably fell toits death, leaving only those that happened to have an instinctive block against such selfdestructive practices. Natural selection or genetic refinement develops blocks in the mindagainst behaviour that doesn’t tend to lead to the reproduction of the genes of the individualswho practice that behaviour.
Just as surely as cats were eventually selected for their instinctive block against selfdestruction, most animals have been selected with an instinctive block against selflessthinking because such thinking also tends not to lead to the reproduction of the genes ofthe individuals who think that way. The effect of this block was to prevent the developingintellect from thinking truthfully and thus effectively.
As pointed out when Integrative Meaning was explained in Part 8:1, selflessness or loveis the theme of existence, the essence of integration, the meaning of life. While the upset,alienated human race has learnt to live in denial of this truth of the selfless, loving, integrativemeaning of existence, it is in fact an extremely obvious truth and one that is deduced veryquickly if you are able to think honestly about the world. As mentioned, we are surroundedby integration. Every object we look at is a hierarchy of ordered matter, witness to thedevelopment of order of matter. It follows then that if you aren’t able to recognise and thusappreciate the significance of selfless, Integrative Meaning you are not in a position to beginto think straight and thus effectively; you can’t begin to make sense of experience. All yourthinking is coming off a false base and is therefore effectively derailed from the outset frommaking sense of experience. As Arthur Schopenhauer said, ‘The discovery of truth is preventedmost effectively…by prejudice, which…stands in the path of truth and is then like a contrary winddriving a ship away from land’. You can’t think effectively with lies in your head, especially with
such important lies as denial of selflessness-dependent Integrative Meaning. Your mind is,in effect, stalled at a very superficial level of intelligence with little ability to understand therelationship of events occurring around you.
To elaborate, any animal able to associate information to the degree necessary torealise the importance of behaving selflessly towards others would have been at a distinctdisadvantage in terms of its chances of successfully reproducing its genes. It follows then thatthose animals that don’t recognise the importance of selflessness are genetically advantaged,which means that eventually a mental block would have been ‘naturally selected’ to preventthe emergence of the ability to make sense of experience, to prevent the emergence ofconsciousness. At this point in development, genetic refinement favoured individuals thatwere not able to recognise the significance of selflessness, thus ensuring animals remainedincognisant, unconscious of the true meaning of life.
Having denied the truth of Integrative Meaning and the importance of selflessness, it isnot easy for the alienated human race to appreciate that conscious thought depends on theability to acknowledge the significance of selflessness/love/Integrative Meaning. However,our own mental block or alienation is, in fact, the perfect illustration of and parallel for this

Part 8:7B

Why, how and when did consciousness emerge in humans?

709
block in the minds of animals. Unable to think truthfully about the selfless, loving integrativetheme of existence, all our thinking has also been coming off a false base and, as a result, wetoo have been unable to think effectively. Alienation has rendered us almost stupid, incapableof deep, penetrating, meaningful thought.

Wallace & Gromit by Nick Park and
Bob Baker, produced by Aardman Animations

Elaboration on this point of how alienation has stopped humans today from thinkingeffectively
One of the themes of this book is how our human-condition-produced alienation hasdeliberately kept the human mind ignorant, unable to recognise many obvious and veryimportant scientific truths. The ability to think and find knowledge is not dependent on howclever a person is, how high their IQ is, as all our learning institutions stress. As mentioned,the average IQ of humans today is quite adequate for finding knowledge. The critical factoris how free of denial/alienation a person is, not how high their IQ is. Consider how manyinsights into our human situation have already been presented in this book by not having toavoid human-condition-confronting truths. There have been breakthrough insights in almostevery paragraph—and it should be emphasised that now that no one has to avoid the issue ofthe human condition all humans will be able to think honestly and thus effectively. The truthis the all-important liberating explanations in this presentation, in particular the explanationof the integrative meaning of existence, of how the nurturing, love-indoctrination, mateselection-for-cooperativeness process gave us our integratively orientated moral soul and, asis about to be explained, liberated consciousness, and of how the battle between this emerged

710

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
conscious intellect and our already established instinctive moral soul produced the upset stateof our human condition, are not clever discoveries but sound, denial-free revelations in thesense that these ideas consider subjects and truths all humans are aware of, but have beenliving in deep fear and denial of.
Although some of the following quotes have been included before, they need to beincluded again here because they emphasise just how seriously alienation has prevented thehuman mind from thinking effectively.
Firstly, in his remarkably insightful book Thinking about Children, the psychoanalyst
D.W. Winnicott described how when in denial of a subject that subject ‘cannot be rememberedbecause of its being associated with painful feeling or some other intolerable emotion. Energy has to beall the time employed in maintaining the repression, and…there is relatively little energy left for a directparticipation in life’ (1996, p.9 of 343). This inability to properly ‘participate in life’ infers an inability
to think freely about life. As described in Part 4, mechanistic science has fully conformed withhumanity’s very necessary strategy of denial so that while it prided itself in being rigorouslyobjective it has, in fact, been rigorously biased in its approach, determinedly avoiding anytruths that brought the human condition into focus.
Plato recognised the destructive effect our denial-compliant intellect has had on ourcapacity to think effectively, stating: ‘when the soul [our integratively orientated original instinctualself] uses the instrumentality of the body [uses the body’s intellect with its preoccupation with denial]for any inquiry…it is drawn away by the body into the realm of the variable, and loses its way andbecomes confused and dizzy, as though it were fuddled [drunk]…But when it investigates by itself [free
of human-condition-avoiding, intellectual denial], it passes into the realm of the pure and everlastingand immortal and changeless, and being of a kindred nature, when it is once independent and free frominterference, consorts with it always and strays no longer, but remains, in that realm of the absolute

[Integrative Meaning], constant and invariable’ (Phaedo, tr. H. Tredennick). He also spoke of the need to
‘put sight into blind eyes’ and identified what was required to end our historic ‘confused’, ‘dizzy’,
‘fuddled’ state of denial: ‘this capacity [of a mind…to see clearly] is innate in each man’s mind [we are
born with an instinctive orientation to Integrative Meaning], and that the faculty by which he learns islike an eye which cannot be turned from darkness [the upset state of living in denial] to light [the truth]unless the whole body is turned; in the same way the mind as a whole must be turned away from the worldof change until it can bear to look straight at reality, and at the brightest of all realities which is whatwe call the Good [Integrative Meaning or God]’ (The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.283 of 405). Humans
had to stop living in denial of Integrative Meaning, ‘the Good’, if they were to begin to thinkeffectively. Explaining the human condition and ending the need to live in denial—havingour mind ‘turned from darkness to light’—is the objective of this whole presentation and of the
WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT.

While our capacity to see is, as Plato said, ‘innate’, denial and its alienating effects cameabout through our encounter with the upset, human-condition-afflicted, corrupt world. Sincethis encounter began at birth and continued throughout our lives, so the extent of our insecurityabout our corrupted state and associated block-out or alienation also increased throughout ourlives, until eventually we were walking around free of criticism but totally in the dark in termsof our access to truth and meaning—which, as described in Part 3:11H, was the ‘closing-ofthe-human-mind’-end-state that the ever-increasing stripping of criticism and its guilt pseudo

Part 8:7B

Why, how and when did consciousness emerge in humans?

711
idealistic, left-wing process led to. It follows then that we are least alienated from truthful,effective thinking when we are young—as the following quotes so vividly illustrate. Recall
Sigmund Freud’s observation: ‘What a distressing contrast there is between the radiant intelligenceof the child and the feeble mentality of the average adult’ (The Freud Reader, ed. P. Gay, 1995, p.715). Christ
also recognised the mental integrity of the young when he said, ‘you have hidden these thingsfrom the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children’ (Matt 11:25). Albert Einstein famously
said, ‘every child is born a genius’, while Richard Buckminster Fuller acknowledged that ‘Thereis no such thing as genius, some children are just less damaged than others’ (NASA Speech, 1966), and that
‘All children are born geniuses. 9999 out of every 10,000 are swiftly, inadvertently de-geniused by grownups’ (Education for Human Development: Understanding Montessori, by Mario M. Montessori Jr., Paula Polk Lillard &
Buckminster Fuller, 1987, Foreword). R.D. Laing also said that ‘Each child is a new beginning, a potential
prophet [denial-free, truthful, effective thinker]’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967, p.26of 156) and pointed out that ‘Children are not yet fools, but [by our treatment of them] we shall turn
them into imbeciles like ourselves, with high I.Q.’s if possible’ (ibid. p.49). Many exceptionally creative
people have made statements to the effect that genius is the ability to think like a child. Forexample, as one of the most accomplished artists of all time, Pablo Picasso, famously saidabout his struggle to paint well, ‘It’s taken me a lifetime to learn to paint like a child.’
In Part 3:8 it was explained how, historically, when children reached the age ofapproximately 15 they went through a process of resigning themselves to a strategy ofliving in denial of the depressing issue of the human condition. It further explains that oncethey adopted this denial they lost the ability to think truthfully and thus effectively; theybecame alienated from the truth. Only pre-resigned children, or the very rare adult who wassufficiently nurtured and sheltered from upset in their upbringing to not have had to becomeresigned to a life of denial, can think effectively.
The extent of the alienation in adult humans today was made very clear in this quote fromthe writings of R.D. Laing: ‘We are born into a world where alienation awaits us. We are potentiallymen, but are in an alienated state [p.12 of 156] …the ordinary person is a shrivelled, desiccated fragmentof what a person can be. As adults, we have forgotten most of our childhood, not only its contents but itsflavour; as men of the world, we hardly know of the existence of the inner world [p.22] …The condition ofalienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normalman [p.24] …between us and It [the Godly, ideal state and the issue it raises of our inconsistency with it]there is a veil which is more like fifty feet of solid concrete. Deus absconditus. Or we have absconded [p.118]
…The outer divorced from any illumination from the inner is in a state of darkness. We are in an age ofdarkness. The state of outer darkness is a state of sin—i.e. alienation or estrangement from the inner light
[p.116]’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967). In another of his books Laing spelt out
the consequences of alienation: ‘We are dead, but think we are alive. We are asleep, but think we areawake. We are dreaming, but take our dreams to be reality. We are the halt, lame, blind, deaf, the sick.
But we are doubly unconscious. We are so ill that we no longer feel ill, as in many terminal illnesses. Weare mad, but have no insight’ (Self and Others, 1961, p.38 of 192). The term ‘asleep’ was also used by the

English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822) to describe humans’ current state: ‘Our boatis asleep on Serchio’s stream / Its sails are folded like thoughts in a dream’ (Shelley: The man and the poet,
Desmond King-Hele, 1960, p.335 of 390). (The Serchio is a river in Italy); as did William Wordsworth in
his poem, Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood. In describing our

712

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
species’ loss of innocence—he wrote ‘of something that is gone…the visionary gleam…the glory andthe dream’—Wordsworth summarised that ‘Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting.’

For a written description of the confronting horror of the human condition we had Nikolai
Berdyaev’s reference to ‘a deadly pain in the very distinction of good and evil, of the valuable andthe worthless’, Søren Kierkegaard writing of ‘the sickness unto death, this tormenting contradiction,this sickness in the self; eternally to die, to die and yet not to die’, and, in Part 8:13 the psychologist

Arthur Janov is also included, saying, ‘there is unspeakable tragedy in the world…each of us beingin a mad scramble away from our personal horror’ (The Primal Scream, 1970, p.389 of 446). For an artist’s
depiction of the alienated state of the human condition that is as honest as anyone has evermanaged to write about it we can go to the paintings of Francis Bacon that were includedin Part 7:5, in particular his Study for Self Portrait (reproduced again in next image), whichfeatures one of his characteristic twisted, smudged, distorted—alienated—human faces,which in this case happens to be his own, a nuance that significantly adds to the honestyof the painting. The figure’s arms appear tied behind his back while his entire body—knotin the belly, eyes asleep and all—is confined to a box. The painting represents the humanpredicament under the duress of the human condition and is reminiscent of Plato’s analogy inwhich humans are confined in chains to a cave-like prison of deathly alienation.

Our alienated intellectual self is committed to avoiding and blocking out the truthful,beautiful, natural world to which our intuitive, instinctual self has clear access. Thus tothink truthfully and thus effectively, to access all the truth and beauty the world has to offer,to create and behave naturally without inhibition or distortion, requires freedom from theintellectual state of living in deep denial and alienation. Necessary as it has been, alienationhas massively thwarted humans’ real potential. Arthur Schopenhauer recognised this when hewrote: ‘The unpremeditated, unintentional, indeed in part unconscious and instinctive element whichhas always been remarked in the works of genius owes its origin to precisely the fact that primal artisticknowledge is entirely separated from and independent of will, is will-less’ (Essays and Aphorisms, tr. R.J.

Part 8:7B

Why, how and when did consciousness emerge in humans?

713

Hollingdale, 1970, p.158 of 237). Genius requires freedom from the alienated intellect, as indicated in
the aforementioned quotes about the creative powers of a child’s mind.
Laing described how humans are so alienated and our capacity to think so limited thatonly ‘an intensive discipline of un-learning’ can reconnect us with the true world: ‘Our capacityto think, except in the service of what we are dangerously deluded in supposing is our self-interest, andin conformity with common sense, is pitifully limited: our capacity even to see, hear, touch, taste andsmell is so shrouded in veils of mystification that an intensive discipline of un-learning is necessary ofanyone before one can begin to experience the world afresh, with innocence, truth and love’ (The Politicsof Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967, p.23 of 156). As is emphasised throughout this book, this

‘un-learning’, this dismantling of alienation, depended on finding the greater dignifying
understanding of the human condition.
In the Bible, the prophet Isaiah described the extent of humans’ alienation when he said,
‘“You will be ever hearing, but never understanding; you will be ever seeing, but never perceiving.” Thispeople’s heart has become calloused [alienated]; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closedtheir eyes’ (Isa. 6:9, 10, footnote). The Russian philosopher George Gurdjieff described the alienated
state truthfully when he wrote: ‘It happens fairly often that essence dies in a man while his personalityand his body are still alive. A considerable percentage of the people we meet in the streets of a great townare people who are empty inside, that is, they are actually already dead’ (In Search of the Miraculous, P.D.
Ouspensky, 1950, ch.8, p.164).

That humans have been prepared to pay the price of such deadening alienation, as thesequotes reveal, offers clear insight into just how painful the dilemma of the human condition hasbeen. Deep, meaningful thinking has been so painful for humans we have learnt to avoid all butsuperficial thoughts, as the aforementioned Australian comedian Rod Quantock pointed outwhen he said, ‘Thinking can get you into terrible downwards spirals of doubt’ (‘Sayings of the Week’, Sydney
Morning Herald, 5 July 1986). Nobel Laureate Albert Camus wasn’t exaggerating either when he wrote
that ‘Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined’ (The Myth of Sisyphus, 1942); nor was Bertrand
Russell when he said, ‘Many people would sooner die than think’ (quoted in Antony Flew’s Thinking About
Thinking, 1975). Aldous Huxley also summarised the situation of our refusal to make sense of the
world when he wrote, ‘We don’t know because we don’t want to know’ (Ends and Means, 1937, p.270). T.S.
Eliot was also acknowledging this truth when he wrote that ‘human kind cannot bear very muchreality’ (Burnt Norton, 1936). In short, mindlessness saved us from depressing mindfulness.

While adults will readily intellectually focus on a safely sectioned-off area of inquiry oractivity—such as solving a maths equation, or mastering a computer problem, or debatingwhether God has been destroyed by the big bang theory of the origins of the universe, orordering our wardrobe, or polishing our car, or making a cake, or even sending man to the
Moon—we won’t go beyond those safety limits and risk encountering anything to do withthe issue of ‘self ’, the depressing subject of the human condition. We will even read a booksuch as this one that is full of world-saving insights into the all-important issue of the humancondition only to then write a review dismissing it on the basis of such extraneous complaintsas ‘bad grammar’, ‘unnecessary underlining emphasis in quotes’, ‘the “canary’s brain” doesn’t “expand”during the mating season, only one small area of it does’ (this ‘fault’ has now been rectified), ‘it is ahodge-podge of incoherent, impenetrably dense repetition and hyperbol’, ‘there is nothing new in it’, ‘thisbook must be some sort of religious propaganda [because it dares to demystify such concepts as God

714

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
and prophets]’, ‘who is funding all this bad, pseudo science?’ etc, etc (from WTM records)—basically be,
as Christ said, ‘blind guides…[who] strain out a gnat [small insect] but swallow a camel’ (Matt. 23:24).
The result of all this evasion is an immense disparity between our superficial intellectual outerworld and the miles-deep inner world that we won’t go near. As ‘Albert the alligator’ in theold Pogo comic strip said, ‘The inner me? Naw, got no time fer him…he goes his way, Ah go mine’
(mentioned in Charlton Heston’s autobiography, In The Arena, 1995).

Yes, the real frontier is not outer space but inner space. This extraordinary, indeed mad,situation was well summarised by General Omar N. Bradley when he said, ‘The world hasachieved brilliance…without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants’ (Armistice
Day Address, 10 Nov. 1948, Collected Writings of General Omar N. Bradley, Vol.1). As described in some detail in

Part 3:11H, we will apply all our vigour to protesting an environmental cause or the rights ofan indigenous race or the demand for peace, or any one of a number of other politically correctcauses, but we will not look at the nightmare of angst in ourselves, the real devastation andissue of our own condition and beyond that, the human condition that needs to be addressedif we are to bring about a caring, equitable and peaceful world—because the fact is no matterhow much we try to restrain and conceal our upset eventually our world will become anexpression of ourselves and thus as devastated as we are. To fix the world we have to first fixourselves. The truth is that the main function of politically correct causes has been to allowupset humans to feel that they are doing good when they are actually avoiding what is requiredto make a difference—namely confronting the issue of the human condition. Human life hasbeen preoccupied with maintaining the many delusions and false ways of making us feel goodabout ourselves and with all manner of escapisms from reality rather than with meaningfulthinking and progressive actions as we claim it is. In short, the human condition is the allimportant issue that had to be looked at to free ourselves from our condition, yet it is the oneissue we refused to look at. As the psychoanalyst Carl Jung recognised, ‘Man everywhere isdangerously unaware of himself. We really know nothing about the nature of man, and unless we hurryto get to know ourselves we are in dangerous trouble’ (Jung and The Story of Our Time, Laurens van der Post,
1976, p.239 of 275). The human condition is the elephant in our living rooms that we pretend not
to see, the all-important issue that we assiduously practice denying. As R.D. Laing said, ‘Ouralienation goes to the roots…We are mad, but have no insight [into the fact of our madness].’

Schopenhauer’s point about ‘The discovery of truth is prevented most effectively…by prejudice,which…stands in the path of truth and is then like a contrary wind driving a ship away from land’ is so
true. The greatest ‘prejudice’ of all in our upset human situation has been our prejudice againstany truths that brought the issue of our corrupted human condition into focus and the mostimportant of all those confronting truths is the truth of Integrative Meaning and its theme ofselflessness. Humans’ current immensely alienated, superficial, virtually mentally dead stateis a result of having blocked from our minds so many important truths, in particular the realsignificance of selflessness or love in our world.
So, the point is, when it comes to thinking truthfully and thus soundly, humans are nowalmost as mentally incognisant as animals.
It should be emphasised that all these descriptions of just how alienated the humanrace has become and how lacking in ability to think truthfully and thus effectively—howconsciously dead the human race has become—are extremely confronting, but it has to be

Part 8:7B

Why, how and when did consciousness emerge in humans?

715
remembered that we can all access THE TRANSFORMED WAY OF LIVING that completely solvesthe problem of ‘exposure day’ or ‘judgement day’.

Return to the description of how consciousness emerged
The point is that the human mind has been alienated from the truth twice in its history:once when we were like other animals, instinctively blocked from recognising the truth ofselflessness, and then again in our species’ current adolescent state, during which we havebecome insecure about our divisive nature with no choice but to live in Plato’s dark cave ofdenial of the significance of the selfless, loving integrative meaning of existence.
While humans have gradually retreated from consciousness into virtual unconsciousnessbecause of our insecurity about our non-ideal, soul-corrupted, ‘fallen’, human-conditionafflicted state, we were, to our knowledge, the first animals to become fully conscious. So,the next question is, how were our ape ancestors (and other primates today, such as bonobos,chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and even baboons) able to overcome this block that existsin the minds of almost all other animals and become capable of making sense of experience,become conscious?
Understanding how the nurturing love-indoctrination process was able to develop selfless,moral instincts in our ape ancestors (and in some other primates today) allows us to answerthis crucial question. The reason we were able to become fully conscious is that, quite byaccident, the nurturing of selfless instincts breached the block against thinking truthfullyby superimposing a new, truthful, selflessness-recognising mind over the older, effectivelydishonest, selfless-thinking-blocked one. Since our ape ancestors could develop an awarenessof cooperative, selfless, loving meaning, they were able to develop truthful, sound, effectivethinking and so acquired consciousness, the essential characteristic of mental infancy.
To use a comparative example, chimpanzees are currently in mental infancy—they havethe conscious mental powers of, approximately, a two-year-old human—and demonstraterudimentary consciousness, making sufficient sense of experience to recognise that they areat the centre of the changing array of events they experience. They are beginning to relateinformation or reason effectively. Experiments have shown that they have an awareness ofthe concept of ‘I’ or self and, as mentioned in the previous Part, are capable of reasoning howevents are related sufficiently well to know that they can reach a banana tied to the roof oftheir cage by stacking and climbing upon boxes.
In the case of bonobos, as mentioned in Part 8:4, evidence suggests that they are nowthe most intelligent or conscious animals next to humans. This level of intelligence orconsciousness is evident in this quote: ‘Everything seems to indicate that [Prince] Chim [a bonobo]was extremely intelligent. His surprising alertness and interest in things about him bore fruit in action, forhe was constantly imitating the acts of his human companions and testing all objects. He rapidly profitedby his experiences…Never have I seen man or beast take greater satisfaction in showing off than did little
Chim. The contrast in intellectual qualities between him and his female companion [a chimpanzee] maybriefly, if not entirely adequately, be described by the term “opposites” [p.248 of 278] …Prince Chim seemsto have been an intellectual genius. His remarkable alertness and quickness to learn were associated with acheerful and happy disposition which made him the favorite of all [p.255] …Chim also was even-temperedand good-natured, always ready for a romp; he seldom resented by word or deed unintentional rough

716

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
handling or mishap. Never was he known to exhibit jealousy…[By contrast] Panzee [the chimpanzee]could not be trusted in critical situations. Her resentment and anger were readily aroused and she wasquick to give them expression with hands and teeth [p.246]’ (Almost Human, Robert M. Yerkes, 1925).

So how did the process of nurturing overcome the instinctive block? It makes sense thatat the outset the brain was relatively small with a limited amount of cortex, the matter inwhich information is associated. These brains had instinctive blocks preventing the mind frommaking deep meaningful/truthful/selflessness-recognising perceptions. At this stage, however,these small, inhibited brains were being trained in selflessness, so although there was not agreat deal of unfilled cortex available, what was available was being inscribed with a truthful,effective network of information-associating pathways. The mind was being taught the truthand given the opportunity to think clearly, in spite of the existing instinctive blocks or ‘lies’.
While at first this truthful ‘wiring’ would not have been very significant due to the small sizeof the brain, it had the potential for much greater development. Further, as was explainedin Part 8:4B, with this selfless training of the brain occurring over many generations, theselfless ‘wiring’ in the brain would have gradually become instinctive or innate. Genes wouldinevitably follow and reinforce any development process—in this they were not selective.
The difficulty lay in getting the development of unconditional selflessness to occur, for onceit was regularly occurring it would naturally become instinctive over time, which it did—ourinstinctive moral soul, the ‘voice’ of which is our ‘conscience’, was formed. We are born witha brain that has instinctive orientations that incline us to behave unconditionally selflessly,and to expect to be treated in the same way. A graphic example of this moral instinct in us thatguides us to behave in an unconditionally selfless way was given in a 1983 Sports Illustratedmagazine article that described how, just before plunging into a Louisiana pond and drowningin an attempt to rescue two boys, Joe Delaney, a professional footballer, said, ‘I can’t swimgood, but I’ve got to save those kids’ (‘Sometimes The Good Die Young’, 7 Nov. 1983). This is but one
example, but no doubt we have all heard, seen, or read of similar situations.
Thus, the mind was trained or programmed or ‘brain-washed’ or ‘indoctrinated’ withthe ability to think in spite of the blocks working against such training; it had, at last,been stimulated by the truth. Of course, it must be remembered that in this early stage ofdevelopment the emphasis was on training in love, not on the liberation of the consciousability to think, which was incidental to Negative Entropy’s push for our forebears tobecome an integrated group of multicellular animals. While the development of consciousthought greatly assisted the love-indoctrination process by allowing for the consciousselection of less aggressive mates, its development would have only been gradual. Asevidenced by the picture of the skulls of our ancestors, the association cortex didn’t developstrongly until thinking took on a critical role in humanity’s adolescence when we had to findunderstanding in order to defend ourselves against ignorance. As explained in Part 3:11B,adolescence is the time when the search for identity takes place and in the case of the humanrace, this identity crisis was centred on the need to understand itself, particularly understandwhy it was divisively rather than cooperatively behaved. It is not surprising then to learnthat the large association cortex is a characteristic of Adolescentman Homo who emergedaround two million years ago.

Part 8:7B

Why, how and when did consciousness emerge in humans?

717

Incidentally, there would also not have been a strong call for language until the adolescentstate emerged some two million years ago when the battle of the human condition developedand, with it, alienation. The australopithecines, or Childman, lived from five million yearsago to two million years ago and were instinctively coordinated and instinctively empatheticwith little need for language. It was only when we became variously alienated in self and thusvariously alienated from each other that a strong need to try to justify and explain ourselvesto one another arose. Anthropological evidence supports this assertion that language emergedwith the onset of Homo two million years ago. According to Richard Leakey and Roger
Lewin, the study of brain cases in fossil skulls for the imprint of Broca’s area (the wordorganising centre of the brain) suggests ‘Homo had a greater need than the australopithecines for arudimentary language’ (Origins, 1977, p.205 of 264).

As part of this explanation for language, is it not likely that infants stopped being silentwhen mothers stopped being able to properly respond to them because of their now twomillion years in development alienated condition? For instance, even the infants of relativelyinnocent, less alienated races of humans today, such as the Matabele of South Africa and the
Australian Aborigine, rarely cry. Also, is it not likely that motherese language developed as away for alienated humans to try to pacify their distressed innocent infants?
Historically (meaning, for the purposes of this book, ‘during the time when humanshad to find ways of denying confronting truths’), the long primate infancy was said tohave developed so infants could be taught survival skills; that is, have time enough to havepassed onto them learnt traditions or culture imperative to their survival. Evidence, however,indicates that learning wasn’t strongly required nor promoted until adolescence—after theextended infancy. The long infancy was solely for the development of integration. Moreover,the ‘need to learn survival skills’ argument implies that survival was an issue, but for thetraining in love to develop there had to be ideal nursery conditions, which in itself translatesto an environment free of survival pressures. For instance, selfless training and consciousnessare more developed in bonobos than in the chimpanzees as a result of the extra comfort andsecurity of the bonobos’ natural environment.
The following quote about the comparative comfort of the bonobos’ environmentappeared in Part 8:4B but is included once more here with a slightly different emphasis: ‘wemay say that the pygmy chimpanzees historically have existed in a stable environment rich in sourcesof food. Pygmy chimpanzees appear conservative in their food habits and unlike common chimpanzeeshave developed a more cohesive social structure and elaborate inventory of sociosexual behavior. Incontrast, common chimpanzees have gone further in developing their resource-exploiting techniques andstrategy, and have the ability to survive in more varied environments. These differences suggest that theenvironments occupied by the two species since their separation by the Zaire [Congo] River has differedfor some time. The vegetation to the south of the Zaire River, where Pan paniscus [bonobo] is found, hasbeen less influenced by changes in climate and geography than the range of the common chimpanzee tothe north. Prior to the Bantu (Mongo) agriculturists’ invasion into the central Zaire basin, the pygmychimpanzees may have led a carefree life in a comparatively stable environment’ (The Pygmy Chimpanzee,ed. Randall L. Susman, ch.10 by Takayoshi Kano & Mbangi Mulavwa, 1984). This observation would seem to
indicate that chimpanzees, having to live in more variable and less food-rich environments,

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

718

The Biology
have the greater need for intelligence. Only nurturing, however, can liberate that intelligence,and, as has been described, bonobos are the more conscious or intelligent of the two species.
Regarding the work of Allott, Drummond, Fiske (see Part 8:5B), and Betty McCollister
(whose work will be mentioned in Part 8:13), all four believed our increased intelligence andthe emergence of our large brain accompanied the extended infancy and increase in nurturing.
However, it can now be understood that both came after, and not during, the longer infancy,nurturing phase of our development.
An understanding of how consciousness and the large brain emerged depends firstlyon being able to recognise the truth of Integrative Meaning and its theme of unconditionalselflessness—and from there why animals would have developed blocks in their mindspreventing selfless, truthful, effective thinking and thus consciousness—and from there howthe nurtured training of selflessness in humans would have liberated truthful thinking andthus consciousness—and from there how the emergence of consciousness would have led toits battle with our instinctive self—and from there how the alienation of our human conditionthat resulted from the battle would have demanded a more developed, intelligent, bigger brainin order to both understand and defend ourselves. Incidentally, what has been described hereis clear evidence of how, if you are living in denial of truth, you have no chance of makingsense of our world and place in it—as is evidenced by the mountain high pile of books thathave been written about consciousness without ever managing to penetrate the subject.
In summary, the processes of nurturing love-indoctrination and the conscious selectionby females of non-aggressive, cooperative males as mates not only gave us our moral,instinctive orientation to behaving cooperatively—our soul—it also liberated consciousnessin our forebears. As already pointed out, since nurturing is largely a female role andfemales controlled the selection of cooperative mates, it is true to say that the femalegender created humanity.
As explained in Part 8:4, throughout humanity’s infancy and childhood, a period of timethat lasted from 12 to 2 million years ago, nurturing played the most important role in thegroup. It was a matriarchal society in which males had to support this focus on nurturing andprotect the group from external threats. As also explained earlier, humanity’s matriarchalstructure came to an end when the threat of ignorance from our instinctive self emergedduring its adolescence and males, in their role as group protectors, went out to tackle thethreat. At this point, the patriarchal society came into being.
Incidentally, another consequence of love-indoctrination was that it freed our hands tohold tools and carry out innumerable tasks. In Part 8:4 it was explained that the more loveindoctrination developed and the longer infants were kept in infancy and the more dependentthey became, the more we had to stay upright in order to hold and care for them. This freedomof our hands from walking proved extremely useful later when the intellect needed to assertitself, because it could direct the hands to manipulate objects. A fully conscious mind in awhale or a dog would be frustrated by its inability to implement its understandings.

Part 8:7B

Why, how and when did consciousness emerge in humans?

719

As was also explained in Part 8:4, it appears that the love-indoctrination process was also acontributing factor in humans having a relatively long life, which has been instrumental in theaccumulation of knowledge. If we only lived to 30, which is considered a long life for manyanimals, instead of the 70 plus years we do, we would likely not have had sufficient time toproperly assimilate and manage in our minds all the difficult nuances of the human condition.
It can be seen that love-indoctrination was an extremely fortuitous development.
Incidentally, people wonder how we can know that other species aren’t fully consciouslike we humans are—for instance, I have often even read and heard claims that otheranimals, such as dolphins and elephants, are just as intelligent as humans. The fact is, asall good animal trainers—such as horse and dog ‘whisperers’(who seem to have such anuncanny ability to control those animals that it is as though they are ‘whispering’ instructionsto them)—know, the secret to managing and training non-human animal species, of bothsexes, is to recognise that their great preoccupation is in achieving dominance, movingup the ‘pecking order’ whenever possible. Once you think about their behaviour fromthat basis you are then in a position to effectively interpret and thus manipulate theirbehaviour. Humans’ fundamental preoccupation, however, is with being loved (treatedwith unconditionally selflessness) and giving love, a preoccupation we mistakenly projectonto other animals, especially our pets, resulting in all the problems we have in effectivelymanaging other animals. As explained in Part 8:4D, because animals are still victims of the
‘animal condition’, controlling them requires dominance. Other large animal species arestill essentially driven by a preoccupation with competitive dominance whereas humans areessentially driven by a very deep appreciation of cooperative love (despite the recent overlayof our upset angry, egocentric and alienated state), and the only way to have overcome thecompetitive, each-for-his-own limitation of genetics that still controls the lives of otheranimal species and become orientated to unconditional selflessness or love, as we humansclearly have, and through that orientation become fully conscious, is to have been able todevelop the nurturing, love-indoctrination process. If other animal species had achieved fullconsciousness they would not still be stranded in a world preoccupied by selfish, competitivedominance hierarchy but would be preoccupied by giving love and being loved as wehumans fundamentally are.
In terms of presenting the denial-free account of the biological origins of the humancondition, the integrative meaning of existence has now been explained—as has theemergence of the variety of life on Earth; how we humans became instinctively orientatedto behaving in an unconditionally selfless, fully integrative way; and how that orientation toselfless cooperation liberated our brains to become fully conscious. To complete the storyof the development of the upset state of our human condition, it now needs to be explainedhow the emergence of our fully conscious state in the presence of our particular instinctiveorientation to cooperative ideality greatly compounded the upset we experienced from defyingthat instinctive orientation.

720

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Part 8:8 How our particular instinctive orientation greatly compounded our upset
It is now necessary to return to the imaginary example of our conscious bird, Adam
Stork, who unavoidably became upset when he challenged his instinctive orientation, andconsider what actually happened when humans became fully conscious. As has now beenexplained, our original instinctive orientation was to behaving in a completely integrated,unconditionally selfless, fully cooperative, harmonious, loving, Godly, moral, ideal way.
Having this particular instinctive orientation meant that when we humans became upsetfrom searching for knowledge—that is, angry, egocentric and alienated—that response initself offended our instinctive self, greatly compounding our upset. When our imaginaryfully conscious bird Adam flew off course from his instinctive flight path and became angry,egocentric and alienated that upset behaviour wasn’t at odds with his instinctive flight path;however, when we humans began searching for knowledge and became angry, egocentric andalienated that upset behaviour was very much at odds with our particular cooperative, selfless,loving instincts. Not only have we humans been condemned for defying our instincts, wehave also been condemned for responding in a way that further offended our instincts, makingthem even more critical of our behaviour. Worse still, our upset response wasn’t at odds withjust any instinctive orientation: we were challenging the actual integrative meaning or purposeor theme of existence itself, since that is what our particular instincts’ cooperative, lovingbehaviour is consistent with. Metaphorically speaking, we were defying God! Yes, as initiallypointed out in Part 3:4, when we humans set out in search of knowledge we encountered asituation that was much worse than that faced by our imaginary Adam Stork, we were facedwith a diabolically upsetting situation.
What this situation meant overall was that from an initial state of upset we humans thenhad to contend with a sense of extreme guilt and it was this heightened sense of extreme guiltthat very greatly compounded our insecurity and frustration, making us immensely angry andegocentric and very much needing to live in denial of any confrontation with the problem ofour corrupted condition. We had to live totally separated or alienated from our true situation,
(metaphorically) hidden deep in a dark cave where no exposure of ourselves was possible—as
Plato so accurately described our terrible predicament.
Extrapolate this situation over the two million years since our species became fullyconscious and the struggle against our perfectly orientated but ignorant instinctive selfemerged and it is not hard to comprehend how much hurt, frustration and anger has developedin humans. Indeed, imagine living just one day with the injustice of being condemned asevil, bad and worthless when you intuitively knew—but couldn’t explain—that you wereactually the complete opposite, namely awesomely wonderful, good and meaningful. Howtormented and furious—how upset—would you be by the end of that day? So yes, extrapolatethat experience over two million years and you will begin to get some appreciation of justhow much anger there must actually be inside ourselves! While we have, as will be describedshortly, learnt to significantly restrain and conceal our phenomenal amount of upset—‘becivilised’ as we term it—it follows that we must, under the surface, be boiling mad withanger, and that sometimes, when our restraint can no longer find a way to contain it, that angermust express itself. We can now, at last, understand humans’ capacity for astounding acts ofaggression, hate, brutality and atrocity.

Part 8:8

How our particular instinctive orientation greatly compounded our upset

721

At this point, a whole book could be included to evidence humans’ capacity for atrocity,but that is really unnecessary because we all know that propensity too well. Instead, thebrief description of how angry we became that was provided in Part 7:2, and the followingpassage will suffice—it is an account of some of those killed during World War I: ‘The flowingblood of these murdered men, ten million gallons of steaming human blood could substitute for a wholeday the gigantic water masses of the Niagara…Make a chain of these ten million murdered murderers,placing them head to head and foot to foot, and you will have an uninterrupted line measuring tenthousand miles, a grave ten thousand miles long’ (Roumania Yesterday and To-day, Mrs Will Gordon, 1918,p.251 of 270).

In more recent history, we have been witness to extreme examples of humans’
capacity for inhumanity in the attempted genocides that took place in Rwanda and Bosniain the 1990s. And, as we can now understand, this capacity for inhumanity exists in us all—as the Australian author Morris West so bravely acknowledged in his memoir, A View fromthe Ridge: ‘brutalise a child and you create a casualty or a criminal. Bribe a servant of the state andyou will soon hear the deathwatch beetles chewing away at the rooftrees of society. The disease of evil

[now able to be understood as upset] is pandemic; it spares no individual, no society, because all arepredisposed to it. It is this predisposition which is the root of the mystery [of evil that is now explained].
I cannot blame a Satan, a Lucifer, a Mephistopheles, for the evils I have committed, the consequencesof which have infected other people’s lives. I know, as certainly as I know anything, that the roots are inmyself, buried deeper than I care to delve, in caverns so dark that I fear to explore them. I know that,given the circumstances and the provocation, I could commit any crime in the calendar’ (A View from the
Ridge: The Testimony of a Pilgrim, 1996, p.78 of 143).

Clearly it is an understatement of the grandest proportions to say that thankfully the
‘caverns so dark’ where the ‘mystery’ of our grotesquely upset human condition lies have at
last been ‘explore[d]’ and the greater dignifying, liberating, ameliorating explanation for thatcondition found.
To restate the fundamentals of the all-important understanding: the inherent problemwas that our instincts had no sympathy for our pursuit of knowledge and would havestopped that search if possible. But the reality was that we had no choice but to defy ourperfectly integratively orientated, ‘Godly’, all-sensitive instinctive self or soul, the voiceof which was our conscience, and suffer its unjust and thus upsetting criticism, massivelycompounding as that upset was of our conscience. The poet Alexander Pope acknowledgedthe pain of the criticism emanating from our conscience when he wrote, ‘our nature
[conscience—is]…A sharp accuser, but a helpless friend!’ (An Essay on Man, Epistle II, 1733). It was a
sentiment echoed by William Wordsworth in his great poem, Intimations of Immortality:
‘High instincts before which our mortal Nature / Did tremble like a guilty thing surprised.’ Albert

Camus was another who felt the pain of the criticism from the naive, ignorant, innocentstate when he wrote, ‘[can] innocence, the moment it begins to act…avoid committing murder [?]’
(L’Homme Révolté, 1951, [pub. in English as The Rebel, 1953]).

Considering then how unjustly hurtful our instinctive self or soul’s world has been it islittle wonder we learnt to psychologically block it out, deny and bury it to the point wherewe now refer to it as ‘the child within’ and the ‘collective unconscious’. Sir Laurens van der
Post wrote about the repression of our soul when he acknowledged that ‘Human beings know farmore than they allow themselves to know: there is a kind of knowledge of life which they reject, althoughit is born into them: it is built into them’ (A Walk with a White Bushman, 1986, p.142 of 326). Our conscious,

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

722

The Biology
intellectual self banished our soul to our subconscious where it only now occasionally bubblesup in dreams and on other occasions when our conscious self is subdued, such as whenpraying or meditating. As Carl Jung wrote, ‘The dream is a little hidden door in the innermost andmost secret recesses of the psyche [soul], opening into that cosmic night which was psyche long beforethere was any ego consciousness’ (Civilization in Transition (The Collected Works of C.G. Jung), Vol.10, 1945).

The truth is, there is immense upset within us humans from living for so long with theinjustice of being condemned as evil when we intuitively knew we weren’t but couldn’texplain why we weren’t. The length of time we have had to live with the injustice is criticalbecause the more we searched for knowledge the more we offended our instincts and the morethey criticised us and the more upset we became by that criticism and the more that upsetangry, egocentric and alienated response fuelled the criticism from our instincts etc, etc. It wasan ever-escalating situation that could only be resolved by finding the relieving, ameliorating,dignifying understanding of the reason for why we became upset in the first place.
For two million years our conscious intellect has been seen as the villain of the pieceand our soul the epitome of goodness, but the truth that we can finally explain turns out tobe the exact opposite in the sense that it was our instincts’ unjust criticism that caused us tobecome upset. As mentioned in Part 3:5, this paradoxical turn of events in which our ‘goodside’ is revealed to have been the ‘bad side’ is the theme of Agatha Christie’s famous play
The Mousetrap. First performed in 1952, The Mousetrap is just another ‘whodunnit’ murdermystery and yet it has become the longest running play in history and is still going strongto this day. All enduring myths and stories contain truths that resonate. In the case of The
Mousetrap, the police inspector involved in the murder investigation, held up as the pillar ofgoodness and justice throughout the play, is revealed at the very end to be the culprit. This isthe essential story of humanity where the apparent ideals of the soul’s selfless, loving worldare revealed, at the very last moment, to have been the unjustly condemning villains. Aswith so many aspects of the human condition, the truth was not as it appeared. We discoverat the very end of our journey to enlightenment that conscious humans, immensely corruptas we are, are good and not bad after all. In fact, not only are we good, we are the heroes ofthe whole horrible tragedy.
In G.K. Chesterton’s 1908 book The Man Who Was Thursday, a policeman representingthe ‘good’ side has to infiltrate and expose the sinister members of a quintessentially corruptorganisation, but consecutively each of the apparently corrupt members are also revealed to beforces for good commissioned to fight evil. Again, it is a story of the essential paradox of thehuman situation: that which was apparently ‘bad’—humans in our competitive and divisivestate—turns out to be ‘good’, and that which was ‘good’ turns out to be the cause of our ‘sin’.
As initially emphasised when the explanation of the human condition was first presented,while the underlying elements involved in the battle that produced our upset human conditionof our instinct and intellect have long been recognised within our mythologies and byprofound thinkers, it is only through the insights that science has found in the last centuryabout the different ways the gene and nerve based learning systems process information—specifically, that genes can give species orientations but only nerves can understandexperience—that the clarifying, dignifying, ameliorating explanation of why our intellecthad to challenge our instinct was made possible. Only understanding could liberate us from

Part 8:9

Summary of our journey to enlightenment

723
the sense of guilt that has plagued humanity for two million years, and caused us to have tolive in an extremely angry and egocentric state and dwell in a dark, truth-denying and souloppressing, effectively dead, cave-like state of denial, delusion and alienation.
The historic ‘burden of guilt’ has finally been lifted from the human race by science.
Although science has been evasively mechanistic—dangerously so lately—its practiceof painstakingly investigating and accumulating knowledge about the mechanisms of theworkings of our world has finally liberated humanity from the ignorance of our instincts. Ofcourse, the greater truth is that science is only the peak expression of all humans’ courageousstruggle to defy and ultimately defeat ignorance. In reality, it is ‘on the shoulders’ of eons ofhuman effort that our species’ freedom has finally been won.
Science has made it possible for all humans to win the freedom they have fought sovaliantly for two million years to achieve. We can at last understand that there was a sound
(that is, integrative) biological reason for why humans became divisively behaved and soulcorrupted. Sir Laurens van der Post made the essential point about our predicament whenhe said, ‘how can there ever be any real beginning without forgiveness?’ (Venture to the Interior, 1952, p.16of 241). Forgiveness was the key but it had to be forgiveness at the most profound, deepest
level of our psychosis; forgiveness found through understanding of the dilemma of ourhuman condition—understanding that would allow all humans to know that while we are allvariously upset we are all fundamentally good and not bad or evil.

Part 8:9 Summary of our journey to enlightenment
As emphasised, science has finally made clarification of the human condition possible.
By doing so, all our anger and egocentric need for validation has been satisfied, our upset cannow subside. Our need to live estranged and alienated from our beautiful soul, with all thehorror that such a destructive, dishonest and shallow existence entailed can also end. We canreturn to the non-upset ideal state we’ve longed for, be it Heaven, Paradise, Eden, Nirvana,
Utopia, Shangri-La or whatever term we ever-hopeful humans ascribed to it. The differenceis where we were once, as it says in Genesis, ‘in the image of God’, instinctively orientated to
Integrative Meaning, this time we’ll return in a knowing, conscious state and thus be ‘like God,knowing [understanding] good and evil’. We will be upset-free managers of the world. As T.S.

Eliot wrote, ‘We shall not cease from exploration / And the end of all our exploring / Will be to arrivewhere we started / And know the place for the first time’ (Little Gidding, 1942).

With understanding of the human condition found a peace and happiness that we havehardly dared to dream of can now come to Earth. Indeed, as we emerge from our dark cavewhere we have been incarcerated and stand at last in the warm, healing sunlight of reconcilingknowledge, we are going to be staggered by the beauty of this world. As William Blakefamously prophesised in his appropriately titled poem, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell,
‘When the doors of perception are cleansed, man will see things as they truly are. For man has closedhimself up, till he sees all things through narrow chinks of his cavern’ (1790). Buddhist scripture
accurately describes what form humans will take once the ameliorating understanding of thehuman condition arrives and is absorbed—the time, in the words of the scripture, when humans
‘will with a perfect voice preach the true Dharma, which is auspicious and removes all ill’. Of that time

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

724

The Biology
the scripture says, ‘Human beings are then without any blemishes, moral offences are unknown amongthem, and they are full of zest and joy. Their bodies are very large and their skin has a fine hue. Theirstrength is quite extraordinary’ (Maitreyavyakarana, tr. Edward Conze, Buddhist Scriptures, 1959, pp.238-242).

At the conclusion of Cry, the Beloved Country, the author Alan Paton alluded tohumanity’s dream of one day finding understanding of the human condition and, by doingso, freeing itself from our terrible ‘bondage of fear’ of that condition. He wrote: ‘But when thatdawn will come, of our emancipation, from the fear of bondage and the bondage of fear, why, that is asecret’ (1948). Our hope and faith has always been that one day we would be able to explain
the paradox of the human condition, and thus liberate ourselves from our sense of guilt. Andthankfully that day is now within reach when all the horror and suffering that resulted fromthe human condition will end; yes, that great day when we will be free of the human conditionis now within reach. The human journey to enlightenment can have the happy ending wealways trusted it would: ‘The happy ending is our national belief ’ (Mary McCarthy, On the Contrary, 1961).
Humanity’s journey thus far has been astonishing. In fact, the greatest, most heroic storyever told is our own, however, the journey and its need for courage and heroism is not quiteover. While we at last have the means to ameliorate the human condition there remains onelast great problem to overcome, and that is the difficulty of having to face the truth aboutourselves. Thankfully, this last great hurdle can be overcome through adoption of the allexciting and all-relieving TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING. This wonderful, posthuman-condition new way of living for the human race was introduced in Part 3:10, and willbe fully explained next in Part 9. (Further explanation and description of the TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE STATE can also be found in Freedom Expanded: Book 2 The Transformation.)

Before commencing Part 9, however, it needs to be explained that with the ending ofthe battle of the human condition that made nurturing of our children as much as their loveindoctrinated instincts expect such an impossible task, nurturing can and will now become ourpriority once more.

Part 8:10 Nurturing now becomes a priority
Some of the material discussed in this Part has already been included in Part 8:5, butis worth re-including here. With understanding of the human condition we can now at lastexplain and appreciate why the nurturing of our children became so compromised andneglected during the last two million years of humanity’s insecure adolescence, the time inwhich the human race was fighting desperately to establish its goodness and worth against allthe indications that it was an evil blight on the planet. Since fighting and loving are opposingforces, nurturing was always going to suffer under the duress of the human condition, BUT,as emphasised in Part 7:1, if humanity didn’t fight for self-understanding it would haveself-destroyed from perpetual ignorance and resulting terminal upset, in particular everincreasing and ultimately intolerable levels of alienation. As explained, the best possiblestrategy while the upsetting battle raged was to leave one of the sexes relatively free fromhaving to undertake that fight so that they could retain some innocence to nurture the nextgeneration, but that inevitably left women, the designated sex, struggling to appreciate theupsetting consequences of carrying out the fight. Women have tended to be soul-sympathetic

Part 8:10

Nurturing now becomes a priority

725
rather than ego-sympathetic, which left men unjustly condemned by women with all theawful consequences that that condemnation entailed, as described in the previous Part. All thehorrors that occurred during humanity’s struggle through its insecure adolescent stage over thelast two million years have, in truth, been so dreadful they are unthinkable and unspeakable—but thankfully that terrible existence can now be brought to an end and the nurturing of ourchildren can again be given the priority it once enjoyed.
As has been emphasised, the importance of nurturing in the maturation of humanityand in our own lives (for our own maturation follows or recapitulates the path our species isundergoing) has been one of the six unconfrontable truths that humans have had no choicebut to live in denial of. With the immense importance of nurturing now explained we can seethat failing to nurture our children was tantamount to killing them, and although we haven’tbeen able to explain or acknowledge the importance of nurturing, the truth is, all humanshave intuitively known how important it is. Clearly, while we had no means of explaining toourselves or others why we were unable to adequately nurture our children—why we were, ineffect, killing them—we had no choice but to deny the truth of the importance of nurturing.
No wonder, as was quoted earlier, ‘people would rather admit to being an axe murderer than being abad father or mother’. But now that we can finally explain the reason why we haven’t been able
to adequately nurture our children we can finally admit how important nurturing is; moreover,as part of the rehabilitation of humanity, that admittance can and must take place.
Despite our historic need to deny the importance of nurturing, a number of books andarticles have been released over the years that have attempted to broach the truth of theextent of the damage we caused our children by not nurturing them as much as their instinctsexpected. Understandably, these attempts have very often been met by a ‘deaf ’ public, byparents unable to cope with the condemnation and guilt triggered by that truth. However, nowthat we can and have to acknowledge the truth of the importance of nurturing, quotes fromthese books and articles can serve to resurrect that truth.
One book that has met with some public acceptance is Jean Liedloff ’s 1975 book The
Continuum Concept. This partial acceptance is no doubt due to the fact that Liedloff largelyavoids the morality issue associated with the ideal state of altruistic, integrative, cooperativelove involved in nurturing, stating simply that we need to give infants the caring treatment
‘which is appropriate to the ancient continuum of our species inasmuch as it is suited to the tendencies andexpectations with which we have evolved’ (p.35 of 168) in order for them to have ‘a natural state of selfassuredness, well-being and joy’ (<https://continuumconcept.org/summary>).

It should be mentioned, however, that in The Continuum Concept Liedloff does recognisehow the ever-increasing levels of alienation/psychosis/neurosis in humans (an escalation thatwas described in Part 3:11) have overwhelmed our natural instincts for nurturing, writing that
‘We have had exquisitely precise instincts, expert in every detail of child care, since long before we becameanything resembling Homo sapiens. But we have conspired to baffle this longstanding knowledge soutterly that we now employ researchers full time to puzzle out how we should behave toward children, oneanother and ourselves’ (p.34).

As described in Parts 6:4 and 8:5C, anthropologist Ashley Montagu was exceptionallybrave in his admission of the importance of nurturing in human development. For example,in his profoundly honest paper titled ‘A Scientist Looks at Love’, he wrote ‘love is, without

726

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
question, the most important experience in the life of a human being…One of the most frequently usedwords in our vocabulary…[yet] love is something about which most of us are still extremely vague…
There is a widespread belief that a newborn baby is a selfish, disorganized wild creature who wouldgrow into a violently intractable savage if it were not properly disciplined. [However] The newbornbaby is organized in an extraordinarily sensitive manner…He does not want discipline…he wants love.
He behaves as if he expected to be loved, and when his expectation is thwarted, he reacts in a grievouslydisappointed manner. There is now good evidence which leads us to believe that not only does a babywant to be loved, but also that it wants to love; all its drives are orientated in the direction of receivingand giving love. If it doesn’t receive love it is unable to give it—as a child or as an adult. From themoment of birth the baby needs the reciprocal exchange of love with its mother…It has, I believe, beenuniversally acknowledged that the mother-infant relationship perhaps more than any other definesthe very essence of love…survival alone is not enough—human beings need and should receive muchmore…We now know that babies which are physically well nurtured may nevertheless waste away anddie unless they are also loved. We also know that the only remedy for those babies on the verge of dyingis love…The infant can suffer no greater loss than deprivation of the mother’s love. There is an old
Eastern proverb which explains that since God could not be everywhere he created mothers…Criminal,delinquent, neurotic, psychopathic, asocial, and similar forms of unfortunate behavior can, in themajority of cases, be traced to a childhood history of inadequate love…Show me a murderer, a hardenedcriminal, a juvenile delinquent, a psychopath, or a “cold fish” and in almost every case I will show youthe tragedy that has resulted from not being properly loved during childhood…maternal rejection maybe seen as the “causative factor in…every individual case of neurosis or behavior problem in children.”…
Endowed at birth with the need to develop as a loving, harmonic human being, the child learns to love bybeing loved…To love one’s neighbor as oneself requires first that one must be able to love oneself, and theonly way to learn that art is by having been adequately loved during the first six years of one’s life. As
Freud pointed out, this is the period during which the foundations of the personality are either well andtruly laid—or not. If one doesn’t love oneself one cannot love others. To make loving order in the worldwe must first have had loving order made in ourselves…Nothing in the world can be more importantor as significant…love is demonstrable, it is sacrificial, it is self-abnegative [self-denying]. It puts theother always first. It is not a cold or calculated altruism, but a deep complete involvement with another.
Love is unconditional…The nature of love has perhaps never been more beautifully described than bythe Elizabethan dramatist George Chapman…“I tell thee, Love is Nature’s second sun, Causing a springof virtues where he shines”…From the evidence which is thus far available, it seems clear that love isindispensably necessary for the healthy development of the individual. Love is the principal developer ofone’s capacity for being human, the chief stimulus for the development of social competence, and the onlything on earth that can produce that sense of belongingness and relatedness to the world of humanitywhich is the best achievement of the healthy human being…Genuine love can never harm or inhibit; itcan only benefit and create freedom and order…Scientists are discovering at this very moment that tolive as if to live and love were one is the only way of life for human beings, because, indeed, this is theway of life which the innate nature of man demands. We are discovering that the highest ideals of manspring from man’s own nature…and that the highest of these innately based ideals is the one that mustenliven and inform all his other ideals, namely, love…Contemporary scientists working in this field aregiving a scientific foundation or validation to the Sermon on the Mount and to the Golden Rule: to dounto others as you would have them do unto you, to love your neighbor as yourself…In an age in which

Part 8:10

Nurturing now becomes a priority

727
a great deal of unloving love masquerades as the genuine article, in which there is a massive lack of lovebehind the show of love, in which millions have literally been unloved to death, it is very necessary tounderstand what love really means. We have left the study of love to the last, but now that we can beginto understand its importance for humanity, we can see that this is the area in which the men of religion,the educators, the physicians, and the scientists can join hands in the common endeavor of putting manback upon the road of his evolutionary destiny from which he has gone so far astray—the road whichleads to health and happiness for all humanity, peace and goodwill unto all the earth’ (The Phi Delta
Kappan, 1970, Vol.51, No.9, pp.463-467). As
has been emphasised, the reason ‘We have left the study of
love to the last’ is because we humans ‘have literally been unloved to death’, rendered horrifically
upset, angry, egocentric and alienated, and until we could explain why that happened, whywe have been so alienated as parents we have been unable to give our offspring anythinglike the alienation-free, sound, secure, unconditional love needed to create a sound humanbeing, we couldn’t afford to admit the importance of love in human development. Clearly,only when we could explain the human condition could we face the truth of how upset wehumans have become and thus unable we have been to nurture our infants that we couldadmit to the importance of nurturing in human development and put ‘man back upon the road ofhis evolutionary destiny from which he has gone so far astray’ and restore ‘health and happiness for allhumanity, peace and goodwill unto all the earth’.

As referred to earlier, one of the most truthful and courageous acknowledgments of theimportance of nurturing can be found in an article titled ‘The Social Necessity of Nurturance’,written by the journalist Betty McCollister and published in the January 2001 edition ofthe Humanist journal. The following is an extract from this right-thinking, yet extremelyconfronting article: ‘the United States—a nation with 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percentof its prison population. We can somehow find money for jails but not for measures that could giveour babies and children a good start in life and thus drastically reduce the need for such institutions…
Will the nation follow California’s lead, as it so often does, and ultimately spend more on jails than oneducation?…Is there no other option?
Of course, there is. To find it we must first learn two fundamental things about our species: howwe evolved into the large-brained Homo sapiens we are; and the nature of a mother’s role as primarycaregiver. Once we understand these two factors we will be better able to determine how best to supporther during pregnancy and lactation and how to enable her to give more of herself to her infant at leastduring the crucial first year, when the child’s brain doubles in size, and preferably for the first fiveyears, while the brain trebles in size to attain three-fourths of its final growth. How did we becomehuman? What brought our ancestors to the threshold between our animal ancestors and our hominidselves, which we crossed about four million years ago? We can’t even begin to solve in any meaningfulway our multiple, interlocking social pathologies except from the perspective of our evolution…evolutionis the unifying principle that…explains how we descended from our ape ancestors. It offers us clues as towhat is going amiss and why…
Our ancestors lived in closely-knit tribes in which cooperation and loyalty were essential. It waswithin that matrix—with devoted infant care and strong interpersonal links—that the brain enlargedfrom the size of a chimpanzee’s to double that in Homo erectus and quadruple that in…ourselves…
Clearly, then, leaving mothers to cope entirely on their own flouts everything inherent to our nature andrisks disastrous results.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

728

The Biology

A look at our hominid past helps us to understand our pathological present. About four millionyears ago, one line of apes assumed bipedal posture. This freed the hands, with their opposable thumbs,for grasping, which brought eye-hand coordination which led to larger brain development, for whichnature selected. However, because the birth canal could dilate only so far and the pelvic girdle not at allin bipeds, the skull had to mature after birth. The hominid solution was to bear increasingly unfinishedinfants who required increasingly intensive and extensive care. Lacking instincts to make them selfsufficient, the young required assiduous nurture. This pattern continued with the resultant cycle ofincreased helplessness; need for more care, more social interaction, more communication; formation ofmore complex and larger brains; demand for even more nurture.’ McCollister has made a grand
effort to get to the bottom of the fundamental question of how we became human; however,the prolonged infancy and exceptional need for nurturing wasn’t a result of the increased brainsize and birth canal limitations forcing infants to be born early, rather it was a result of thelove-indoctrination process. The large brain didn’t develop until after the extended infancyand intense nurturing took place as evidenced by bonobos, which don’t have a very largebrain but are intensely nurturing and already neotenous. Also, as explained in Part 8:7A, ‘Whatis consciousness?’, what promoted a conscious, intelligent, larger brain wasn’t the availabilityof hands to manipulate the world, but love-indoctrination training of the brain in selflessness.
McCollister continues: ‘Thus we became a species whose helpless newborns must have others onhand for them twenty-four hours a day, preeminently the mother due to her ability to breastfeed…thebonding between mother and child…lays the foundation for future growth…Our evolution has resultedin a species whose infants can’t thrive without continual, loving attention. Here, then, is the clue to raisingfewer unhappy, alienated, violent youth for jail fodder…Every human infant must have unconditionallove; without it, an infant’s health and growth will be stunted…Anthropologists, neurologists, childpsychiatrists, and all other researchers into child development unequivocally agree and have sought fordecades to alert society.
For example: …Ashley Montagu (anthropologist): “The prolonged period of infant dependencyproduces interactive behavior of a kind which in the first two years or so of the child’s life determines theprimary pattern of his subsequent social development.” Alfred Adler (psychiatrist): “It may be readilyaccepted that contact with the mother is of the highest importance for the development of human socialfeeling…” Selma Fraiberg (child psychologist): A baby without solid nurturing “is in deadly peril, robbedof his humanity.”…George Wald (biologist): “We are no longer taking good care of our young…” Ian
Suttie (psychoanalyst): “…The infant mind…is dominated from the beginning by the need to retainthe mother—a need which, if thwarted, must produce the utmost extreme of terror and rage.”…James
Prescott (neuropsychologist): Monkey juveniles “deprived of their mothers were at times apathetic, attimes hyperactive and given to outbursts of violence [is this not the equivalent of Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder?]…showed behavioral disturbances accompanied by brain damage…” Richard
M. Restak (neurologist): “Scientists at several pediatric research centers across the country are nowconvinced that failure of some children to grow normally is related to disturbed patterns of parenting.”
Sheila Kippley (La Leche League): “It is obvious that nature intended mother and baby to be one…”
In the face of such overwhelming, unanimous testimony, can we doubt that we are failing ourchildren? The dismal truth is that, on the whole, babies received more and better care 25,000 years ago,
250,000 years ago, even 2.5 million years ago, than many do today…To correct this, we must first recognize
that, while both parents play vital roles in an infant’s development, the mother—like it or not—is the

Part 8:10

Nurturing now becomes a priority

729
primary caregiver. Biologically, that’s how the system works. And such an immeasurably important taskcannot be sustainably carried out in her “spare time.”…Humanity was geared for females to cherishoffspring in the womb, bond with them at birth, and lavish love on them at the breast. It isn’t sexist toesteem motherhood. It is sexist to trivialize it [as the feminist movement has frequently done]…Graspingthe connection between negligent infant care and adolescent violence…we are obliged to act…Alienated,with low self-esteem, pessimistic about the future, in schools that don’t educate, the children who shouldbe our hope for the future instead drink, smoke, take drugs, get pregnant, commit suicide, and commitcrimes which land them in our awful jails.’

For all her exceptional sensibility and right-thinking, McCollister hasn’t delved to thebottom of the problem and asked the question screaming to be addressed: ‘But why havehumans stopped loving their infants?’ There may be a legitimate reason for why and withoutthat reason understood all efforts to properly nurture children may be futile. And in fact, ashas been emphasised, there is a legitimate reason why nurturing has been so compromised,and appreciating that reason, namely the unavoidable and necessary battle between intellectand instinct that emerged during humanity’s adolescence, is the only way the disrupting battlecan subside and nurturing can be given the proper consideration it requires and deserves.
Over the years numerous movements have emerged identifying the lack of nurturing asthe cause of society’s problems and calling for greater emphasis on nurturing, such as the
Touch the Future organisation, the Leidloff Continuum Network and the Natural Child
Project; however, while the deeper issue of why humans have been unable to nurture was leftunaddressed and unanswered it was impossible to bring about any real change to the problemof the inadequate nurturing of children.
Of course, the imposition of the battle between our instinct and intellect had repercussionsbeyond that of impairing a mother’s ability to focus on the nurturing of her infants. Since thisbattle only emerged some two million years ago, and only became extreme towards the endof those two million years, the great majority of human history—from the australopithecinesthrough to the advent of Homo sapiens sapiens—was spent living cooperatively. This meansinfants now enter the world firstly expecting it to be one of gentleness and love, and secondlywith almost no instinctive expectation of encountering a massively upset, embattled world.
It is the extreme contrast between our species’ instinctive memory of a harmonious, happy,secure, sane, all-loving and all-sensitive matriarchal world, and our species’ more recentmassively embattled angry, egocentric and alienated patriarchal world, that makes the shockinfants must experience entering the world now so psychologically damaging. We havebeen living in denial of both the truth that our ancestors lived in a state of total love and thatwe are currently living in a state of near complete corruption of that ideal instinctive worldof our soul. As a result of these two denials we haven’t been aware of how devastating itmust be for infants to encounter our world. The whole issue of the extreme innocence ofchildren and extreme lack of it in adults needs to be taken into account when thinking aboutchildhood. Playwright Samuel Beckett was only slightly exaggerating the brevity today of atruly soulful, happy, innocent, secure, sane, human-condition-free life when he wrote, ‘Theygive birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it’s night once more’ (Waiting for Godot, 1955).

To describe the shock effect of innocence’s encounter with our human-condition-afflicted,upset, corrupt, alienated, neurotic, selfish, angry, false world, R.D. Laing borrowed words

730

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
from the nineteenth century French poet Stéphane Mallarmé: ‘L’enfant abdique son extase’, ‘Toadapt to this world the child abdicates its ecstasy’ (The Politics of Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967,p.118 of 156). In Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood, William

Wordsworth spoke of ‘something that is gone / …Whither is fled the visionary gleam? / Where is it now,the glory and the dream? // Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting’. The contrast between what a
child’s innocent, love-saturated instincts expect and what the child encounters in our humancondition-afflicted, massively upset, soul-butchered world is so great it is akin to a sunflowerfinding itself having to grow in a dark cesspit. No wonder as adults we turned out as gnarledthornbushes, ready to stunt the next generation. Thank God the human condition can now end!
It should also be pointed out that except for one reference to ‘unconditional love’,
McCollister’s account of the importance of nurturing makes no mention of the training inaltruism and resulting morality that is the true purpose and significance of nurturing. Thelove-indoctrination process is not recognised; it is, in fact, being blatantly denied for it isan insight readily deduced from the information presented. Such is the extent of the denial/alienation in the human make-up now. As novelist Aldous Huxley said about the insecurity ofour human condition, ‘We don’t know because we don’t want to know’ (Ends and Means, 1937, p.270).
Again, without the understanding necessary to ameliorate that insecurity, it has beenpsychologically unsafe to acknowledge the importance of nurturing as both an instinctiveexpectation, and as the creator of our sense of morality. Admitting to our inability toadequately relate to and be affectionate with our children, as McCollister bravely does, is initself confronting enough, let alone having to face the truth of the integrative, cooperativeideal state that children’s instinctive selves expect. There is guilt enough in just attemptingto be a loving parent without also having to face the truths of Integrative Meaning, ourintegratively-orientated, ideal-world-aware soul, and our own corrupted condition. Thepurity and innocence of children has the potential to expose us terribly. Referring to childrenas ‘kids’ was really a dismissive, derogatory, retaliatory ‘put down’, a way of holding theirconfronting innocence at bay. The quotes included in this Part about the importance ofnurturing are amongst the bravest that exist on this subject and even they comply with thisposition of avoiding the real significance of nurturing, which is the training of altruism. Butas mentioned, with the arrival of understanding of the human condition those brave books thatdid at least acknowledge the importance of nurturing will prove especially useful in learningas much as we can about nurturing.
(Note, before presenting the following material that evidences the importance ofnurturing, it should be mentioned that the subjects of the codependency of children to thesilent, resigned adult world and of the causes and nature of autism and Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) that are about to be described here were also included in Parts
6:4 and 6:5 when evidencing how the human race has been approaching terminal levels of
alienation. The purpose of including the description and analysis of childhood codependency,and of autism and ADHD, again here is to evidence how the nurturing of our infants will beone of the most important activities of the post-human-condition world. While these twodescriptions of these phenomena do contain similar material to Parts 6:4 and 6:5, there aresignificant differences, so the fullest analysis of the codependency of children and of autismand ADHD will be gained from reading all these presentations.)

Part 8:10

Nurturing now becomes a priority

731

One particular example of a work that discusses the importance of nurturing and thepsychological impact of the failure to do so is the 1996 book Thinking About Children, aposthumous publication of some of the papers of the renowned British paediatrician, childpsychiatrist and psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott, who is described on the book’s dust jacketas someone ‘increasingly recognized as one of the giants of psychoanalysis’. In this book Winnicottstates: ‘There are certain difficulties that arise when primitive things are being experienced by thebaby that depend not only on inherited personal tendencies but also on what happens to be providedby the mother. Here failure spells disaster of a particular kind for the baby. At the beginning the babyneeds the mother’s full attention…in this period the basis for mental health is laid down [p.212 of 343] …the essential feature [in a baby’s development] is the mother’s capacity to adapt to the infant’s needsthrough her healthy ability to identify with the baby. With such a capacity she can, for instance, holdher baby, and without it she cannot hold her baby except in a way that disturbs the baby’s personalliving process [p.222].’

In 1967 the psychologist Bruno Bettelheim wrote an honest book about autism, titled
The Empty Fortress, in which he argued that autism resulted from the interaction betweenoverwhelmingly negative parents and susceptible infants during critical early stages in thelatter’s psychological development. He coined the term ‘refrigerator mothers’ for the coldheartedness of what we can now understand is essentially all humans’ unavoidable-aftertwo-million-years-of-struggle, human-condition-afflicted, immensely alienated, neuroticstate. Of course, while humanity hasn’t been able to explain upset, denial has been the onlyway of coping, and the denial of choice for masking our inability to nurture our offspringwas to blame genes, and sometimes chemicals, for the effect that inadequacy has hadon our children. As mentioned earlier, genes are blamed for every kind of ailment—fordepression, drug addiction, violence, obesity, delinquency, learning and sleep disorders,suicide, divorce, sex addiction, paedophilia, homosexuality, and almost every other humanmalaise and abnormality, including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), andthose more extreme forms of ADHD, namely autism and schizophrenia. Although we haven’tbeen able to admit it, we all intuitively know that our malaise are, in the main, the resultof the psychological struggles we humans have as a result of our variously upset, insecure,human-condition-afflicted upbringings and lives. The truth is, our psychoses and their manyphysical manifestations are not about our genes, but the death of our soul. As stated, the word
‘psychiatry’ literally means ‘soul healing’, coming as it does from the Greek words psyche,meaning soul, and iatreia, meaning healing. In the case of autism, a 2006 TIME magazinefeature article about this particular childhood disorder acknowledged the rapidly increasinglevels of autism in the western world in particular, quoting that ‘According to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 1 in 166 American children born today will fall somewhereon the autistic spectrum. That’s double the rate of 10 years ago and 10 times the estimated incidence ageneration ago’ (Claudia Wallis, 15 May 2006). The article then reported that ‘most researchers believeautism arises from a combination of genetic vulnerabilities and environmental triggers’. Nowhere in
the feature article was lack of love cited as a possible cause, but again how could parentspossibly cope with having to accept such an explanation—they ‘would rather admit to beingan axe murderer than being a bad father or mother’. Blaming genes has been infinitely more
bearable than blaming our alienation from our true, natural selves and our resulting inability

732

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
to adequately nurture our children. As emphasised on a number of occasions already, theproblem with this extreme dishonesty is that it has meant there has been no effective analysisof what is truly going on in our human world. We were no longer learning anything aboutourselves. Lying is a form of madness, insanity, stupidity, ultimately of self-destruction. As
Berdyaev was quoted as saying in Part 4:7, ‘knowledge requires great daring’. If we want tostop the ‘doubl[ing] rate’ every ‘10 years’ of the ‘incidence’ of childhood disorders and resultingadult dysfunction in the world we all have to get real/honest—and what makes such honestypossible for everyone now is that in being able to explain the human condition we canunderstand and accept that being alienated/neurotic was not a criminal state, something tobe ashamed of, but an unavoidable end result of humanity’s necessary, heroic search forknowledge. Yes, we all have to get real/honest and now, because the evidence is stacking upagainst us: since the CDC report of 2006, cited in the TIME piece above, further research beenreleased by the same body indicating that as of 2012 autism prevalence amongst U.S. childrenhas risen 78 percent in the last ten years, with 1 in 88 now indicating an autism spectrumdisorder (press release CDC Releases New Report on Autism Prevalence in U.S., John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health. Accessed 13 Apr. 2012 at: <https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2012/lee-autism-prevalence.html>).

The truth about this spiralling increase in the incidence of ADHD, autism andschizophrenia in society is that it is a direct reflection of the levels of alienation in societyhaving risen to extreme levels. The exponential increase of upset and alienation in the last
200 years was explained and documented in some detail in Part 3:11H, but the truth is, levels
of alienation in society today are such that pretty well all humans are but cardboard cut-outsof what they would be like free of the human condition. While adults aren’t aware of theirimmensely embattled, upset, alienated—virtually dead—condition, because they are living indenial of it, new generations of children arriving into the adult world who have yet to adoptadults’ strategy of denial are painfully aware of the difference between the original, ideal,innocent instinctive state and the immensely upset alienated state and somehow have to copewith the distress it causes them. Both Part 3:8 on Resignation and the ‘Resignation’ chapterin A Species In Denial describe how adolescents go through an agonising process of adoptinghumans’ historic strategy for coping with the human condition of resigning themselves to alife of living in denial of it and any truths that bring it into focus, but until a young person hasadopted this defence they remain exposed and vulnerable to the full horror of the dilemmaof the human condition. Having not yet adopted this denial children have always struggledmightily with the imperfection of the upset world that surrounds them but with the gulfbetween humans’ original innocent state and our current immensely upset, alienated state nowso great, new generations are finding the gulf almost unbearable—and for increasing numbersof children it is unbearable. The truth is, ADHD and its more extreme states of autism andschizophrenia are varieties of childhood madness, but as R.D. Laing famously said, ‘Insanityis a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world’ (Larry Chang, Wisdom for the Soul: Five Millennia of
Prescriptions for Spiritual Healing, 2006, p.412). D.W. Winnicott provided this unevasive analysis of
autism in his book Thinking About Children: ‘Autism is a highly sophisticated defence organization.
What we see is invulnerability…The child carries round the (lost) memory of unthinkable anxiety, and theillness is a complex mental structure insuring against recurrence of the conditions of the unthinkableanxiety [pp.220, 221 of 343]…It might be asked, what did I call these cases before the word autism turned

Part 8:10

Nurturing now becomes a priority

733
up? The answer is…“infant or childhood schizophrenia” [p.200]’. Revealingly, the word schizophrenia
literally means ‘broken soul’; to quote R.D. Laing again, ‘Perhaps we can still retain the now oldname, and read into it its etymological meaning: Schiz—“broken”; Phrenos—“soul or heart”’ (The Politicsof Experience and The Bird of Paradise, 1967, p107 of 156).

What has made it especially difficult for new generations trying to cope with ourcorrupted adult world is that adults have been unable to admit to being corrupted in soul, infact, as pointed out, adults haven’t even been aware that they are corrupted—if they wereaware they were corrupted and alienated they wouldn’t be alienated, they wouldn’t haveblocked out and thus protected themselves from the truth of their upset condition. Withnew generations able to clearly see the extent of the corruption and alienation in the worldaround them, this lack of any honesty by adults, their complete silence on the subject of ourimmensely corrupted human condition—in effect, their denial that there is anything wrongwith them or their adult world—left children dangerously prone to blaming themselves forthe dysfunctionality of their environment. In encounters between the relatively innocent andthe alienated, where the alienated act as if there is nothing wrong with them or their world, inthe innocents’ instinctive state of total trust and generosity they are left believing there mustbe something wrong with them, that in some way or another they must be at fault. In theirimmense naivety about the upset, alienated world, together with their great love, trust andgenerosity, innocents question their own view, not the view being presented by the alienated.
The innocent do not know people lie because lying simply did not exist in our species’original innocent instinctive world. In short, their trusting nature made them codependentto the alienated, susceptible to believing the alienated were right rather than accepting andfighting to uphold their own view of the situation. The destructive effect upon others oflying was once called ‘addiction via association’ but, as just mentioned, it is now known asthe problem of codependency, ‘the dependency on another to the extent that independent actionor thought is no longer possible’. Children come from such an innocent, wholesome, trusting,
loving, generous, integrative instinctive world that they all too readily blame themselvesin situations where they are faced with a denial. Then, when they decide they must be atfault, their sense of self-worth and meaning is completely undermined and to cope withthat ‘unthinkable anxiety’, as Winnicott accurately described it, they have no choice but topsychologically split themselves off from the perceived reality, adopt a state of ‘invulnerability’.
Dialogue from the 1993 film House of Cards features this honest take on the situation: ‘Peoplesay about the following categories that these kids have a problem or are disabled, or psychologicallydumb, etc, but really they are children, through hurt or some kind of trauma, that have held onto soul,and not wanted to partake in reality—retarded, autistic, insane, schizophrenic, epileptic, brain-damaged,possessed by devils, crocked babies.’ We can see here another reason why the truth of an utterly
integrated, loving, all-sensitive past and present instinctive soulful state in us was now such aconfronting and exposing truth and why adults were so much more comfortable believing thatour species’ instinctive past was a brutish and aggressive one. Again, the ‘Resignation’ chapterin A Species In Denial describes in some detail how much adults’ dishonesty and silenceabout the truth of their corrupted condition has devastated children. As also mentioned, thedevastating effects of children’s codependency to adults was also described in Part 6:4 whenthe extreme egocentricity of men was discussed. Thankfully, the adult world can now tell

734

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
children the truth about their immensely upset condition and that honesty alone will make anenormous difference to the psychological wellbeing of future generations.
Just one of the unhealthy repercussions of not being able to be truthful about thereal cause of childhood madness is that treatment of it can be, and has been, dangerouslymisdirected. A 2006 report about the disturbing increase in childhood disorders, in Australiathis time, found that ‘Truly alarming evidence from pharmaceutical prescriptions for Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) drugs shows that in 2005 one in 25 children in many poorer areasof Australia suffer from ADHD’ (The Daily Telegraph, 13 June 2006). Another article emphasised that
‘Because it is so convenient and guilt-relieving to be able to attribute a child’s difficult behaviour to aneurochemical problem rather than a parenting or broader social one, there is a risk that this problem willbecome dangerously over-medicalised’ (The Australian, 8 Dec. 1997).

In his extremely brave 1970 book The Primal Scream, Arthur Janov, a world-leadingpsychologist, dealt head-on with the consequences of parents’ inability to love their childrenwith anything like the amount of love children received before the intruding battle of thehuman condition emerged. Note the acknowledgment of the extent of denial that sets in tocope with becoming extremely corrupted: ‘Anger is often sown by parents who see their childrenas a denial of their own lives. Marrying early and having to sacrifice themselves for years to demandinginfants and young children are not readily accepted by those parents who never really had a chance to befree and happy [p.327 of 446] …neurotic parents are antifeeling, and how much of themselves they havehad to cancel out in order to survive is a good index of how much they will attempt to cancel out in theirchildren [p.77] …there is unspeakable tragedy in the world…each of us being in a mad scramble awayfrom our personal horror. That is why neurotic parents cannot see the horror of what they are doingto their children, why they cannot comprehend that they are slowly killing a human being [p.389] …Ayoung child cannot understand that it is his parents who are troubled…He does not know that it is nothis job to make them stop fighting, to be happy, free or whatever…If he is ridiculed almost from birth, hemust come to believe that something is wrong with him [p.60] …Neurosis begins as a means of appeasingneurotic parents by denying or covering certain feelings in hopes that “they” will finally love him [p.65]
…a child shuts himself off in his earliest months and years because he usually has no other choice [p.59] …
When patients [in primal therapy] finally get down to the early catastrophic feeling [the ‘primal scream’]of knowing they were unloved, hated, or never to be understood—that epiphanic feeling of ultimatealoneness—they understand perfectly why they shut off [p.97] …Some of us prefer the neurotic nevernever land where nothing can be absolutely true [the postmodernist philosophy described in Part 3:11H]because it can lead us away from other personal truths which hurt so much. The neurotic has a personalstake in the denial of truth [p.395]’.

It is worth re-including the following quote to illustrate how this extreme ‘personal stakein the denial of truth’ has manifested in mechanistic science. In his 1989 book Peacemaking

Among Primates, Frans de Waal records: ‘For some scientists it was hard to accept that monkeysmay have feelings. In [the 1979 book] The Human Model…[authors Harry F.] Harlow and [Clara E.]

Part 8:10

Nurturing now becomes a priority

735

Mears describe the following strained meeting: “Harlow used the term ‘love’, at which the psychiatristpresent countered with the word ‘proximity’. Harlow then shifted to the word ‘affection’, with thepsychiatrist again countering with ‘proximity’. Harlow started to simmer, but relented when he realizedthat the closest the psychiatrist had probably ever come to love was proximity.”’

In the child psychologist Oliver James’ 2002 book, They F*** You Up: How to Survive
Family Life—one of the books that have been, as James wrote in his Preface, ‘devoted tomaking accessible the scientific evidence that early parental care is crucial in forming who we are’—he
acknowledges that ‘Our first six years play a critical role in shaping who we are as adults’, and says,
‘One of our greatest problems is our reluctance to accept a relatively truthful account of ourselves and ourchildhoods, as the polemicist and psychoanalyst Alice Miller pointed out’. James also says that ‘believingin genes [as the cause of psychoses] removes any possibility of “blame” falling on parents’ (p.3, 7, 9, 13 of 370).

The following dialogue from the 1989 film Parenthood uses humour to illustrate howour near total inability to be honest has impaired any advance in science: Counsellor: ‘He’sa very bright, very aware, extremely tense little boy who is only likely to get tenser in adolescence. Heneeds some special attention.’ Karen: ‘It’s because he was first.’ Counsellor: ‘Hm?’ Karen: ‘It’s becausehe was our first. I think we were very tense when Kevin was little. I mean, if he got a scratch, we werehysterical. By the third kid, you know, you let him juggle knives.’ Counsellor: ‘On the other hand, Kevinmay have been like this in the womb. Recent studies indicate that these things are all chemical.’ Gil:
‘[points at Karen] She smoked grass.’ Karen: ‘Gil! I never smoked when I was pregnant…Will you giveme a break?’ Gil: ‘But maybe it affected your chromosomes.’ Counsellor intervening: ‘You should notlook on the fact that Kevin will be going to a special school as any kind of failure on your part.’ Gil:
‘Right, I’ll blame the dog.’

The aforementioned quote from Frans de Waal mentioned the work of Harry F. Harlow,an American psychologist who, in the 1950s, studied the effect of isolation and touchdeprivation on rhesus monkey infants using surrogate mothers fashioned from wire andcloth. While these experiments did show the importance of affection and nurturance onpsychological development, they were unethical and if it wasn’t for our inability to confrontand acknowledge truths that we all actually know, in this instance the critical importance ofnurturing, there would never have been the need to go to such extreme measures to providesuch stark evidence for the importance of nurturing. Through these trials, Harlow foundthat a new-born monkey raised on a bare, wire-mesh cage floor survived with difficulty,if at all, during its first five days of life. In an even more extreme experiment, he foundthat monkeys raised in total isolation in a small metal chamber, which he called the ‘pit ofdespair’, developed the most extreme symptoms of what we know as human depression andschizophrenia and, as adults, were unable to raise offspring. Around the same time at Yerkes
Primate Centre in Atlanta, Georgia, a psychologist named Richard Davenport was rearingbaby chimpanzees alone in small boxes for two years at a time. The isolated chimps soondeveloped stereotypies such as rocking and head banging.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

736

The Biology

The following photo is of a monkey Harlow raised in partial isolation from birth to sixmonths, which developed severe behavioural abnormalities; for instance, the photo shows thefully-grown animal biting itself at the photographer’s approach.

As mentioned in Part 8:1, in an address titled The Nature of Love, delivered by Harlow in
1958 on the occasion of his election as President of the American Psychological Association,

Harlow made this opening observation which reinforces what was said earlier about science’sinability to consider the issue of love: ‘Psychologists, at least psychologists who write textbooks, notonly show no interest in the origin and development of love or affection, but they seem to be unawareof its very existence. The apparent repression of love by modern psychologists stands in sharp contrastwith the attitude taken by many famous and normal people. The word “love” has the highest referencefrequency of any word cited in Bartlett’s book of Familiar Quotations’ (first pub. in American Psychologist, 1958,
13, pp.573-685).

Robin Allott’s statement that ‘Love has been described as a taboo subject, not serious,
not appropriate for scientific study’ (‘Evolutionary Aspects of Love and Empathy’, Journal of Social and Evolutionary
Systems, 1992, Vol.15, No.4 353-370) summarised science’s inability to deal with the whole issue of
love, as did the report that ‘more than 100,000 scientific studies have been published on depression andschizophrenia (the negative aspects of human nature), but no more than a dozen good studies have beenpublished on unselfish love’ (Science & Theology News, Feb. 2004).

Part 8:10

Nurturing now becomes a priority

737

The last word on the importance of nurturing is best left to Olive Schreiner who, in The
Story of an African Farm, wrote: ‘They say women have one great and noble work left them, andthey do it ill…We bear the world, and we make it. The souls of little children are marvellously delicate andtender things, and keep for ever the shadow that first falls on them, and that is the mother’s or at best awoman’s. There was never a great man who had not a great mother—it is hardly an exaggeration. Thefirst six years of our life make us; all that is added later is veneer…The mightiest and noblest of humanwork is given to us, and we do it ill’ (p.193 of 301). This quote calls to mind a line from the 1996 TV-
movie An Unexpected Family, when the judge involved in the drama says, ‘every problem wehave in this world is because a child wasn’t loved’. Like Schreiner’s quote, this comment lays all the
blame for the ills of the world on the lack of nurturing children receive, but the truth is thatthe origin of ‘every problem we have in this world’ is the upsetting battle that broke out betweenour conscious self and instinctive self and that the ‘mightiest and noblest’, the most important,of ‘human work’ has actually been to defeat the ignorance of our instinctive self as to the factof our species’ fundamental goodness. It was this battle, which men were largely responsiblefor, that unavoidably relegated nurturing to a secondary position of importance in humanendeavours. Not only were men preoccupied with their fight, women had to help men andalso take on a role of inspiring them with their image of innocence, their object beauty. Asemphasised in Part 7:1, women have had to inspire love when they were no longer innocent,
‘keep the ship afloat’ when men crumpled—all the while attempting to nurture a newgeneration while oppressed by men who could not explain why they were dominating, or whythey were so upset and angry. This was an altogether impossible task, yet women have done itas best they could for two million years.
To reiterate, the never before acknowledged, explained but all-important, guilt-liftingreason why women have only been able to ‘do’ the task of nurturing ‘ill’ is the unavoidableand necessary intrusion of the battle of the human condition. But with the human conditionthankfully now solved our species’ priority can return to the nurturing of our infants; in fact, itnow becomes a matter of great urgency that it does so.
We can see from this presentation of the importance of nurturing that while the humancondition has now been explained and we can therefore acknowledge the importance ofnurturing, it remains a very confronting truth to have to face—it is a shock. It is, in fact,an example of how the arrival of understanding of the human condition also brings withit the long feared exposure day or confrontation day or ‘judgment day’. BUT, as has beenemphasised throughout this presentation, the answer to this problem of fearful exposure isthe all-exciting and all-relieving TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING. This wonderful,post-human-condition new way of living for the human race was introduced in Part 3:10 andwill now be fully explained in Part 9.

BLANK PAGE

Part 9
The Transformation ofthe Human Race
Part 9:1 The TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE
In this presentation we have progressed through a litany of terrifying truths to haveto face, specifically the terrifyingly exposing and confronting truth of the extent of, anddifferences in, upset in humans now; of Integrative Meaning; of the fact that the human raceonce lived in an upset-free, innocent state; of the truth that nurturing has been all-important inthe maturation of both the human race and in our lives individually; and of the truth that leftwing ideology was based on human-race-threatening dishonesty.
However, while our upset, corrupted state is now explained and defended and all thesetruths are no longer condemning, having the extent of our corrupted state suddenly exposedremains a frightening prospect. Alvin Toffler described the problem of the sudden change thatcomes with the arrival of the all-exposing truth day or honesty day or ‘judgment day’ when hewrote that ‘Future shock…[is] the shattering stress and disorientation that we induce in individuals bysubjecting them to too much change in too short a time’ (Future Shock, 1970, p.4 of 505).

To use the original analogy—if, on the first day of the emergence of the battle of thehuman condition, Adam Stork could have sat down on a limb with his instinctive self andexplained why he had to fly off course, then all the upset could have been avoided. Now, twomillion years later, we have finally found the explanation that Adam Stork needed but thereis, as a result of spending those two million years denying any confronting truths in order tocope, an absolute mountain of truth to suddenly have to confront.
How then is the upset human race going to cope with the arrival of this all-exposing,long-feared ‘day of judgment’ (Bible, Matt. 10:15, 11:22, 24, 12:36; Mark 6:11; 2 Pet. 2:9, 3:7; 1 John 4:17), ‘the Dayof Reckoning’ (The Koran, ch.56) when ‘Your nakedness will be exposed’ (Bible, Isaiah, 47:3) and ‘not onesecret of yours [will be] concealed’ (The Koran, ch.69)? The Abyss of Depression in the Abyss drawing

(reproduced again below) is too terrifying to enter, and yet our freedom from the humancondition depends on acknowledging all the truths in that abyss. So how are we to cope withhaving the blinds drawn on our false world? As Enrico, a reader of my books, put it, ‘Divinginto a sea of truth where everything is completely transparent one can’t but ask, “how will anybody copewith this; how in the world can anybody cross such darkness to reach light?!”’ (WTM records, 24 Feb. 2011).

Also, how are we to suddenly let go our old false ways of living that we are so used to andfamiliar with? With the finding of the explanation for why we became upset the need to validateourselves, prove that we are good and not bad, is over. Our goodness has been established atthe most fundamental level. This means that all our old superficial ways of finding relief fromthe insecurity of our condition of gaining power, fame, fortune and glory are now obsolete, butwe are so habituated to our old superficial ways of finding relief from the human condition thatwe find it difficult to stop persisting in those old insecure, selfish, egocentric, ‘I-have-to-prove-

740

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

I’m-good-and-not-bad’, ‘I’m-a-legend’, ego-castle-building habits. We are told to ‘stop scoringgoals, leave the field, have a shower and cool off ’, but all we know is the battle that we have

Drawing by Jeremy Gri昀케th © 2008 Fedmex Pty Ltd
been waging ‘on that football field’ of life under the duress of the human condition.

Humanity’s Situation: the Sunshine Highway to Freedom, the Abyss of Depression,our Cave-like Dead Existence and the Spiralling Pit of Terminal Alienation

Part 9:1

The Transformed Lifeforce State

741

For these two reasons, of having to confront unbearably exposing truths about ourselvesand having to let go an habituated egocentric way of living, people typically find themselvesin what I referred to in Part 6:1 as a ‘Mexican Standoff ’ with this information—they recognisethe information is true and don’t want to deny it, yet they don’t want to accept its confrontingand ego-castle-obsoleting implications. They can’t go forward and yet they can’t go back.
So what is the human race to do? We can’t just stay stranded in the ‘cave-like deadexistence’ on the narrow strip of land between The Abyss of Depression and The Spiraldown into Terminal Alienation. If we remain where we are the human race will, very soon,go down the gurgler, into The Spiral of Terminal Alienation. The human race is already atthat end play, end game point where it is about to plunge into that pit of perpetual darknessof terminal alienation.
Thankfully there is a solution, and it is both an easy solution to take up and anincredibly relieving and utterly exciting solution to live with. We take up the TRANSFORMED
FREE WAY OF LIVING, LIFEFORCE STATE. There are a number of people here at this
presentation who know how this TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE works and you canwatch them give their own personal description of that way of living and state at <www.humancondition.com/affirmations>. (Note, these Affirmations can also be read in Section 3 of

Freedom Expanded: Book 2.)
The answer to the problem of how are we to cope with the mountain of defended yetextremely exposing and confronting truth about ourselves is that we don’t try to confrontit. Once you have investigated these understandings sufficiently to know that they haveexplained the human condition you don’t actually need to know any more than that. Youdon’t need to know all the truth it reveals about human existence, or about how it reveals andexplains everything about your own particular upset life. In fact, if you study this informationmore than your particular level of security of self can cope with you risk becoming overlyself-confronted and exposed and depressed. The human race has been coping by maintainingextreme levels of denial of many, many truths so obviously the human race can’t hope todismantle all these denials overnight. In fact, it will take generations to confront, dismantleand repair all our species’ psychoses and neuroses—with ‘psychoses’ being our ‘soulrepressions’ (‘psych’ means soul, our instinctive self) and ‘neuroses’ being our ‘consciousdenials’ (‘neuro’ means nerves). As emphasised, it takes time to digest understandings and byso doing ameliorate or heal old habituated false and distorted ways of thinking and coping.
But this doesn’t mean we can’t support the truth while this digestion and healing is takingplace—as long as we don’t overly confront the truth while this absorption process is takingplace. According to each person’s level of upset there will be a limit to how much truth eachperson can cope with, but that doesn’t mean all people can’t immediately live in support ofthe truth. The main thing to remember is once you know that this information has explainedthe human condition then you know that all the upset in the world and all the upset in you isnow also explained and defended.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

742

The Biology

In the case of making sense of your own life, it is true that you could use the explanationto retrace and analyse all the hurtful events in your life and replace all the defensive denialsthat you have had to employ with truthful, compassionate understanding of them—why yourmother and father were preoccupied and unable to give you the reinforcement your instinctsexpected during your infancy and childhood, etc, etc. But to undertake such psychologicaltherapy and dismantle all your psychosis and neurosis would require a great deal of timeand supportive counselling, and, apart from extreme cases of psychosis and neurosis, itis not necessary. Instead, you can leave the issue of all your upsets/corruptions behind asbeing understood, explained and defended now, and, rather than use time and energy beingpreoccupied with the past, simply take up support of the understandings of the humancondition as the focus for your life. You can, as it were, put the issue of all your upsets/corruptions in a suitcase and attach a label to it saying ‘everything in here is now explainedand defended’ and simply leave it behind at the entrance to what we call the Sunshine
Highway and set out free and unencumbered into the new, human-condition-free world on the
Sunshine Highway that takes you safely over the top of the Abyss of Depression. You join the
Sunshine Army on the Sunshine Highway to the World In Sunshine.
Once you know this information is true, that the human condition—including your owncorrupted condition—has been explained and defended at the fundamental level, you canleave the issue of your own and the world’s corruption behind as effectively dealt with andpreoccupy yourself with disseminating this information throughout the rest of the world andto a fresh generation, and preoccupy yourself with supporting all the projects that must beundertaken now to free and rehabilitate the world from the effects of two million years ofliving under the duress of the human condition.
Now that we have the truth up all that matters is that it is kept alive and that it isdisseminated to all people, because it alone can heal the human race and save the world. Alleveryone must do now is support the truth about the human condition and it will achieveeverything everyone has ever dreamed of. If we look after this information it in turn willlook after the world. That is the mantra of the new world that understanding of the humancondition brings about.
Having grown up in ‘the dark’, without understanding of the human condition, the priorityof existing generations is to get these insights to new, fresh generations so that they won’thave to adopt all the artificial ways of coping with the human condition—all the dishonestdenials, all the egocentric means of seeking compensation for the injustice of being unfairlycondemned, and all the angry retaliations needed against the unjust condemnations—thatexisting generations have had to employ. We, the existing generations, are now the conduitgenerations: the generations who will connect the old dead world to the new living world.
If children and pre-resigned adolescents can access these understandings they won’thave to resign themselves to a life of living in denial of the human condition as their onlymeans of coping with it. Not having to grow up with all the dishonesties, denials, delusions,artificialities and superficialities that present generations have had to endure, they will be likea new species of beings. They will have a freedom that is almost unimaginable to those whogrew up without understanding of the human condition.

Part 9:1

The Transformed Lifeforce State

743

You can know now that all the upset in ourselves and in the world from two millionyears of humanity’s heroic journey through ignorance is explained and defended. With thatknowledge we are now free to leave the issue of all that upset behind as being dealt withand focus all our attention on developing a human-condition-free new world. The relief ofbeing able to leave the issue of our upset state behind as dealt with and the excitement ofknowing a human-condition-free new world is coming and that we can all fully participatein bringing that about is so absolutely incredibly relieving and exciting it will TRANSFORMall humans. From being a human-condition oppressed and depressed alienated person allhumans can and will now be TRANSFORMED into Redeemed, Liberated from the Human
Condition, Exhilarated, Ecstatic, Enthralled-with-Existence, Transfigured, Empowered,
World-Transforming Lifeforces. This description can be distilled down to Liberated from the
Human Condition, Transformed and Empowered Lifeforces, which can be further distilleddown to Transformed Lifeforces. This Exhilarated, Ecstatic, Enthralled-with-Existence aspectis the ‘Life’ in ‘Lifeforce’; and the Empowered, World-Transforming aspect is the ‘force’ in
‘Lifeforce’, so Lifeforce covers the personal benefit and the benefit to the world in one word.
Very importantly, while we each should investigate these understandings of the humancondition sufficiently to verify to our own satisfaction that they are the understandings ofthe human condition, we shouldn’t investigate them to the extent that we start to becomeoverly exposed and confronted by the truths they are revealing. Having lived without any realunderstanding of the world it is natural to want to keep studying these explanations that finallymake sense of the world around us, but, as emphasised, this can lead to becoming overlyexposed, confronted and depressed by the extent of your own corrupted state. The moreintelligent and/or more educated in the old denial-based paradigm, who pride themselveson their ability to think, will initially be especially tempted to study these understandingsbeyond what their varying levels of security of self can cope with, but it won’t be long beforeeveryone learns that such an approach is both psychologically dangerous and irresponsible.
When Christ anticipated a time when ‘the meek…inherit the earth’ (Matt. 5:5), and when
‘many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first’ (Matt. 19:30, 20:16; Mark 10:31; Luke
13:30),
he was anticipating this time when understanding of the human condition would arrive
and instead of the more intelligent and intellectual leading the way, as has been the casein almost every situation, the more innocent and sound, the more soulful and instinctual,will do so. Throughout the two million year battle to find understanding our instinctive selfor soul was being repressed because of its unjust condemnation of our intellect but whenunderstanding of the human condition is finally found this process is reversed, soul becomessought after. Our soul, soundness, has to lead us back home to soundness. It makes sense.
As Christ described it, ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone’ (Ps. 118:22; Matt. 21:42;
Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7).

Sir Laurens van der Post referred to this biblical analogy
when he too anticipated this new situation, writing, ‘It is part of the great secret which Christtried to pass on to us when He spoke of the “stone which the builders rejected” becoming the cornerstoneof the building to come. The cornerstone of this new building of a war-less, non-racial world, too, Ibelieve, must be…those [more innocent] aspects of life which we have despised and rejected for so long’
(The Dark Eye in Africa, 1955, p.155 of 159).

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

744

The Biology

This situation where you only investigate the truth to the degree you are sound enoughto do so presents another difficult truth for the old resigned, denial-based world to accept, butagain with honesty it is a proposition that can be reasonably understood and accepted.
It is the more secure in self, or the least alienated, who have to develop theseunderstandings of the human condition. If you are not sound enough to study these ideasto any great depth and you try to do so, you will end up in a state of fearful depression, orworse still, mad.
Also, if you do become overly confronted by the information your natural reaction will beto try to attack and deny it in order to protect yourself, in effect try to take humanity back into
Plato’s dark cave of denial. You will become defensive and angry and retaliatory toward theinformation, and the effect of such a response will be to sabotage the efforts of all the humanswho have ever lived to bring the human race to this dreamed of moment of its liberation. Wein the WTM have endured years and years of this furiously angry defensive reaction towardsthis information, attacks that were ultimately fruitless because this information is true andwon’t be intimidated or oppressed. It is too precious to allow that.
The effects of overly studying this information, studying it more than your degree ofsecurity of self can cope with, can be both dangerous to you and dangerous to the human race,and no one should want nor risk either of those outcomes.
In the old denial-based world, academia limited those who could be involved in the pursuitof knowledge to the more intelligent, those with a high IQ (intelligence quotient). To enteruniversity you had to pass entrance exams that tested your IQ level. Obviously to have the mostappropriate people studying complex subjects like higher mathematics and physics you neededpeople with the highest IQ. If you didn’t have an adequate IQ you would make little progress instudying such subjects. In the human-condition-resolved new world we similarly need the mostappropriate people to study its information, which are those with a high SQ, soul or soundnessquotient. If you don’t have an adequate SQ you simply won’t be able to make any progresswith the information involved. With understanding of the human condition we can understandthat everyone is necessarily variously upset/unsound but that upset/unsoundness is notsomething bad, just as in the old denial-based world those who lacked IQ weren’t consideredbad people, just not as able to think effectively about complex subjects. As just mentioned,
Christ anticipated this change of emphasis in leadership that occurs when understanding of thehuman arrives when he said, ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.’
So everyone has to measure and limit how much they can study these human-conditionconfronting understandings against how much self-confrontation they can cope with. Again,the human race cannot have lived in the darkness of both ignorance and denial for some twomillion years and then suddenly be able to face all the truth about themselves individually.
That is simply not a reasonable expectation. Everyone has to expect a limit to how deeplythey can afford to look into this information.
Thankfully and most importantly, no one has to overly confront their old upset self—everyone can leave that behind as dealt with and simply live for the new world and all its

Part 9:1

The Transformed Lifeforce State

745
potential. Although existing generations who grew up without these understandings will stillsuffer the effects of the human condition, they are effectively completely FREE of the humancondition because they no longer have to live preoccupied with it. Future generations are theones who will be in the best position to further these understandings of the human conditionbecause among current generations there are very, very few individuals who remain secureenough in self to confront and develop them.
You only have to study these understandings sufficiently to verify to your ownsatisfaction that they have explained the human condition, after which all that is required is tosupport the understandings.
The second problem of the Mexican Standoff, of finding it difficult to let go of yourold resigned, egocentric power-and-glory-seeking ways of living only presents a probleminitially. The first people to encounter these liberating understandings of the human conditionwill find it difficult letting go their old false ways of reinforcing and sustaining themselves,but once the strategy of letting go that way of living catches on and a critical mass of supportdevelops for the new TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING, it will carry all before itand everyone will take it up.
Another transitional problem is what we in the WTM term ‘pocketing the win’. The firstpeople to discover the truth of all this information about the human condition will tend notto appreciate the importance and need of taking up the new TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY
OF LIVING. They will naturally tend to ‘pocket the win’, which means using the information’s
ability to make sense of the world around them to empower them, allow them to be moreeffective winners of power, fame, fortune and glory. For people to finally understand whathas been going on in the world and in their own lives is incredibly relieving and empowering,and the initial inclination is to just enjoy and use that insight as an advantage, a tool, a way tobe an even more effective operator in the old resigned, competitive, power-and-glory-seekingway of living. You ‘pocket the win’ by exploiting the information rather than respondingresponsibly to its magnificence by letting go your now obsoleted, unnecessary and highlydestructive resigned competitive way of living and taking up the new TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING.

Again, these problems of studying the information to the point of becoming overlyself-confronted and of ‘pocketing the win’, will pass as people become more aware of howthis human-condition-resolved new world for humans works. And once everyone is livingselflessly at last in the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE all the inequality, suffering anddestruction resulting from our old insecure, egocentric, extremely selfish way of living will bequickly repaired—as will be described shortly in Part 9:3.
The new TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE is not only all-powerful in its ability to healthe world, it is also all-exciting. When yesterday the prospects for the world looked hopeless,suddenly—and I have said this in every major document I have ever written—from one end ofthe horizon to the other an army in its millions will appear to do battle with human suffering,its weapon understanding, and its outcome world reparation.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

746

The Biology

Part 9:2 The TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE metamorphoses the human race
It should now be emphasised that the new TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE isfundamentally different to religion in that it is all about knowledge, not dogma—knowledgethat brings about a complete change, in fact a metamorphosis of the human race from aninsecure human-condition-afflicted state to an entirely TRANSFORMED human-conditionfree state. As explained in Part 3:11G, religions were a means of containing the upset humancondition while the search for understanding of that condition was being carried out. The
WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT is concerned with what happens after that liberating
understanding is found, which is the metamorphosis—the complete progression and change ofthe human race—from a human-condition-afflicted state of psychosis and neurosis to a statefree of that terrible condition.
When it comes to the core issue of our immensely upset human condition we nolonger have to live in hope and faith that it will one day be able to be resolved, for it nowis resolved, and this resolution of the human condition gives the human race the ability toat last understand and ameliorate or heal its upset condition. Dogma can’t heal upset, onlyunderstanding can do that. So this is the end of hope and faith that understanding of thehuman condition would one day be found and the beginning of knowing about the humancondition—it is the end of faith and the beginning of knowing. And there is no deity involved,or deference to anyone, no focus on a personality, or worship of any kind.
Best of all, there is no involvement or emphasis on guilt, for guilt has been eliminatedforever with the reconciling understanding of the human condition. And it is eliminated ina way that makes humans healthy, not sick. We saw in Part 3:11H how the development ofpseudo idealistic causes eliminated guilt using ever increasing degrees of dishonesty/lies/denial/delusion—ultimately, in postmodernism, by simply saying there is no such thing astruth!! Such extreme dishonesty/denial is extreme alienation/separation from the truth, whichin turn represents extreme neurosis/mind sickness and psychosis/soul death. Lying/denialas a way of escaping guilt/self-confrontation only leads to even greater sickness, ultimatelyto total dysfunctionality, complete neurosis and psychosis—Thomas Nagel made this pointwhen, in the quote included in Part 3:11H, he said, ‘The capacity for transcendence brings with ita liability to alienation, and the wish to escape this condition…can lead to even greater absurdity.’ With
the arrival of understanding of the human condition we get rid of guilt without having to usedishonesty/delusion/denial/alienation/neurosis/psychosis/sickness/dysfunctionality. In fact,it eliminates neurosis/psychosis/sickness/dysfunctionality. With understanding of the humancondition, guilt—the accusation, insinuation, implication that a human is not worthy/good—completely disappears. We can now understand that after a horrifically upsetting two millionyear heroic battle to overthrow ignorance all humans are naturally variously upset from thatgreat and necessary battle but all humans are equally good. In fact, with understanding ofthe human condition the concepts of good and bad, superior and inferior, disappear from ourconceptualisation of ourselves.
The fundamental differentiation between religion and this new TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING lies in the fact that where religions were based on deferring to, and
living through support of the embodiment of the ideals in the form of the soundness and truth

Part 9:2

The Transformed State metamorphoses the human race

747
of the prophet around which the religion was founded, this new TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE
WAY OF LIVING is based on deferring to and living through support of first-principle-based
understandings of the ideals and of our species’ historically unavoidable lack of compliancewith those ideals. So while religion and the human-condition-resolved TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING both involve letting go living through your corrupted self and
deferring to something else, that is where the similarity ends.
To explain more fully the significance of this difference I should begin by describing andexplaining St Paul’s human-condition-relieving-but-not-human-condition-resolving discoveryof the beauty of Christianity. Acts 8 and 9 of the Bible relate Saul’s (as St Paul was knownbefore his conversion experience) journey to Damascus where he planned to persuade theauthorities to destroy the fledgling group of Christians, such was his fury towards the truthabout the human condition that Christ, through his sound words and life, had dared to revealand which this small group were living in courageous support of. However, while ridingalong on his donkey in a seething, ‘murderous’ (Acts 9:1) rage towards Christ and his followers,
Saul had an epiphany, the effect of which was so incredible that it was to change the worldand save the human race.
With an appreciation now of what the human condition is, we can explain and understandwhat happened to Saul. The human condition is a terrifyingly confronting subject and to copewith that terror all the upset human race has been able to do was live in denial of it, try andblock out the whole issue of the imperfection in our lives. We attacked, denied and attemptedto prove wrong any exposing criticism of our corrupted state. This did relieve our conditionbut there was of course a significant downside—a life of extreme anger, alienation andegocentricity, very unpleasant behaviours and states. In one sense our retaliation against thethreat of exposure of our corrupted condition made us feel even more condemned. Defensiveretaliation as a strategy for coping with the human condition, while relieving, also fuelledfeelings of self-loathing. That was Saul’s predicament—his anger was very great and so wasthe level of self-loathing he would have felt deep within himself for being such a brutallyangry person. The whole issue of Christ’s soundness that was making him so angry was also,at another level, making him extremely distressed and unhappy about himself. At a momentof full engagement in his mind with the horror of both sides of his situation, a thoughtoccurred to him: ‘If this man Christ is so truthful and sound that he is producing in me suchanger, what would happen if I was to flip the situation around and instead of attacking him
I supported him? Wouldn’t I suddenly be a force for enormous good—because I would besupporting someone who is the absolute opposite of my immensely corrupted and angry-withsoundness, truth-hating-and-denying self. I would be a force for good in the world, insteadof a self-loathing monster. Wow, that’s turning my life around, isn’t it!’ And, at that moment,as the metaphorical account goes, Saul fell off his donkey and was struck blind for threedays—basically he was overwhelmed by the sudden freedom he was feeling from all the painof his human-condition-afflicted life. Through his support of Christ, the agony of the humancondition had been lifted from his shoulders and he was able to live again. By siding with
Christ, he was able to resurrect the truthful, soulful side of himself; he had been ‘born again’
(John 3:3); ‘he has crossed over from death to life’ (John 5:24). As Christ authoritatively said, ‘I am the
resurrection and the life [through me, your soulful true self, can live again]’ (John 11:25).

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

748

The Biology

One way of measuring how much upset humans are preoccupied with, and how oppressedthey are by the insecurity caused by the human condition, and thus how incredibly relieving itis to not have to be preoccupied with the human condition, is to consider what happens whensomeone has a Near-Death Experience. For instance, mountain climbers who survive falls thatthey were convinced would be fatal (they were saved, perhaps, by landing in a snow drift)often report that during those near-death moments they experienced a state of extraordinaryeuphoria in which the world suddenly appeared utterly beautiful and radiant and that theywere flooded with a feeling of ecstatic enthrallment. With understanding of the horror of thehuman condition we can appreciate how in such cases the mind gives up worrying, and allfacades—in particular the denial that they adopted at Resignation—become meaningless. Ifdeath is seemingly imminent, there is no longer any reason to worry or to pretend, at whichpoint the struggle and agony of having to live under the duress of the human condition ceasesand the true world of our all-sensitive soul suddenly surfaces. You suddenly discover whatit is like to be free of the human condition. You suddenly have access to all the real beautythat exists in the world. You discover another seemingly magic world that is all-radiant andmagnificent. This is the freedom that Saul experienced when he abandoned his struggle withthe human condition and deferred to Christ. He was ‘born again’ from a state of near death.
All his embattled posturing to get a win out of life, all his focus on egocentrically building acastle, an edifice, a representation of glory around himself, all his strategising every minute ofevery day to try to find a way to compensate for feeling bad about himself, suddenly ceased.
To gain some measure of just how relieving the new TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE thathas let go the old human-condition-embroiled, have-to-prove-yourself existence is, watch the
Affirmations of the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE at <www.humancondition.com/affirmations>,or read Section 3 of Freedom Expanded: Book 2. You can especially sense the relief of the
TRANSFORMED STATE in Doug Lobban’s affirmation.

Realising the magnificence of this new way of living, this ‘way to be saved’ (Acts 16:17)from an effectively dead, alienated state (Christianity was actually originally called ‘the Way’
(Acts 9:2, 19:9, 23, 22:4, 24:14, 22)),

Saul took his breakthrough, life-saving idea to the four corners
of the known world, and was thereafter known as Paul the Apostle, and following hiscanonisation, St Paul.
Leaving your baggage, your ‘suitcase’ of human-condition-embattled strategies andposturing behind by giving yourself to Christ was a marvellous solution to the problem ofthe horror of the human condition, but it meant giving up your battle to prove yourself,giving up your particular participation in humanity’s heroic struggle to overthrow theignorance of our original instinctive state. While supporting the soundness of Christ ensuredthe battle to find knowledge continued indirectly through him, you personally had given upthe battle. To use the Adam Stork analogy, you had stopped searching for knowledge andwere flying ‘back on course’.
In The Simpsons cartoon series the character Ned Flanders is a Christian, someonewho has deferred to, and lives through, Christ. His neighbour Homer Simpson, on the otherhand, is still living out the corrupting battle to overthrow the implication that we humansaren’t fundamentally good. In one episode, Ned lends Homer his lawnmower, which Homerwrecks without remorse. Rather than getting angry or defensive, Ned simply accepts Homer’s

Part 9:2

The Transformed State metamorphoses the human race

749
behaviour—he is the ‘goody-goody’ while Homer is one upset Adam Stork, living out the battleto the full, massively angry, egocentric and alienated. If Homer could explain the situation hewould say to Ned: ‘Listen Ned, you love Christ and he loves you, and you’re a goody-goody,and I’m one upset, corrupted dysfunctional dude, but Ned, I’m still out there doing it, I’m stillparticipating in humanity’s heroic battle, so I’m a legend and you are a wimp.’
The new TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE, where you leave all your upset baggagebehind in favour of supporting these understandings of the human condition, offers a similarall-relieving and all-exciting, ‘near-death-experience’-like, ‘fall-off-your-donkey’, ‘go-blindfor-three-days’-type freedom from the human condition that Christians experienced when theydeferred to Christ. But—and this is a very, very important difference—unlike Christianity orany other religion, this does not involve abandoning the battle because the battle is now won.
It is not an act of irresponsibility or weakness to let go the battle now, it is an act of strength,because with the battle won the illogical and thus irresponsible and thus weak thing to dowould be to continue the battle.
So, if we return to the Homer and Ned example and imagine that Ned had taken up thenew TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE, Homer would have no grounds to criticise Ned. Withthe battle to find knowledge, ultimately the understanding of the human condition, now won,there is no longer any good reason to keep living out the battle. In this scenario, the tables areturned: Ned would be in the position to criticise Homer.
Religions were a way of avoiding living out your upset when you became overly upset,but it meant giving up directly participating in the battle to find the knowledge needed to savethe human race. Religions were a weak abandonment of the battle that still had to be fought.
With the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING there is no weakness involved becausethe battle is now won. In fact, taking up the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING is theonly strong course of action for a human to take now. What is weak is not taking it up. This isa very important difference—and it is a most profound difference—between Religion and the
TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING.

It is this fact that there is no longer any reason to keep living out the battle to championthe ego that causes the world to change so rapidly from a world of conflict and suffering to aworld of peace and happiness. As emphasised in the Introduction to this whole presentation,the explanations being presented are all rational, there is no dogma or mysticism or abstractconcept involved. As such we can know if what is being presented is accountable and trueor not, and since this information does explain the human condition there is no longer anyjustification for continuing the upsetting battle to champion the ego, so it follows then that noone can argue against taking up the TRANSFORMED WAY OF LIVING, and when everyone thendoes take up that way of living our world will be completely TRANSFORMED. We are rationalcreatures, and so when all the rationale, all the logic says there is only one response we canmake, namely the TRANSFORMED STATE, then that is the response the human race will take.
This is not a revolution dogmatically imposed by others upon us, as has pretty muchalways been the case with revolutions in the past, this is a revolution imposed by logic, byunderstanding, by information. Once someone is given this information there is only oneoutcome in the end and that is that they take up the TRANSFORMED STATE. Initially peoplewill find it difficult absorbing and taking in these explanations because of the ‘deaf effect’,

750

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
the historical denials in the human mind to so many of the ideas being put forward, but onceenough people have overcome that ‘deafness’, and after that the Mexican Standoff, and theirenthusiasm for this fabulous free way of living demonstrates to others that it is worthwhilepersevering with the information until they can ‘hear’ it, the tidal wave of support for theinformation, and with it the TRANSFORMED STATE, will sweep the world.
As I said, Homer has no argument against Ned, ‘no leg to stand on’, when Ned takes upsupport of this information and its TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE WAY OF LIVING. In the Third
Proposition in the Main Introduction I said that ‘the change that is coming will be so quickand complete it will seem instant, as if one day the human race is living in a state of immenseturmoil, confusion and despair and the next day it’s all over, an entirely new peaceful worldhas emerged’. The world for humans is suddenly TRANSFORMED from darkness into light.
It really is as if the light switch in the room in which we have been staggering around in thedark has suddenly been switched on—everything becomes illuminated. As mentioned in the
Introduction, we humans had this awesome computer put in our heads, our fully conscious,thinking brain, but we weren’t given the program for it and instead were left to wander this
Earth searching for the program in a terrifying darkness of confusion and bewilderment. Well,from that terrifyingly cold darkness we now emerge into the warm sunshine of dignifying,redeeming, relieving and TRANSFORMING understanding.
There is another very important difference between religions and the TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE STATE, and that is there is no delusion involved in the TRANSFORMED STATE. To
use the Homer and Ned analogy again: Ned has a ‘goody-goody’, self-satisfied, ‘I-occupythe-moral-high-ground’ attitude. This drives the still-human-condition-embroiled Homercrazy with frustration because he intuitively knows Ned is deluding himself in thinkinghe has the moral high ground, is the more together, sound person and is on the right track,but he can’t explain why Ned is so extremely deluded and totally dishonest in his view ofself. Homer can’t explain and thus reveal the truth that real idealism and the truly on-track,moral high ground lay with continuing the upsetting battle to find knowledge, and that Nedhad become so upset, so unsound, he had to abandon that all-important battle and leave it toothers to have to fight, including Homer. Worse, by effectively condemning those still upsetand fighting the battle, Ned was basically siding against those still trying to win the battle,adding substantially to the opposition they had to overcome. In fact, it was the delusion anddishonesty that made giving up the battle particularly dangerous because its maintenancerequired constantly persuading yourself, and others, that you weren’t being dishonestand deluded in what you were doing. The shrill fanaticism of the idealistic left-wing wassuffocating of honesty and freedom.
While religion was by far the least dishonest of all the forms of pseudo idealism thatupset humans could take up—because of the honesty involved in acknowledging the truthful,sound life and words of the founding prophet—it still involved substantial dishonesty anddelusion. In near total contrast to this situation, the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE involvesno delusion and virtually no dishonesty. By not fully confronting the extent of the upset withinyourself and avoiding looking too deeply into all the truth about the human condition, youare practicing some dishonesty, but the compassionate full truth about the upset state of thehuman condition means you aren’t deluded about the fact of being an upset human. In fact,

Part 9:2

The Transformed State metamorphoses the human race

751
you have to recognise and embrace that truth (which you can now safely do because the upsetstate is defended) to effectively be able to adopt the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE.
As was mentioned in Part 3:11G, possibly the best sales pitch ever given for Christianitywas one delivered by St Paul, as documented in the Bible in 2 Corinthians: ‘Now if the ministrythat brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone [Moses’ Ten Commandments that were
enforced by the threat of punishment], came with glory [because they brought society back from thebrink of destruction from excessively upset behaviour]…fading though it was [there was no sustainingpositive in having discipline imposed on you], will not the ministry of the Spirit [the positive mentalstate from being at last aligned with truth and soundness through your support of someone free ofupset and alienation] be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men [through punishment]is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! [that allows you to be part
of the ideal state] For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. Andif what was fading away came with glory [‘fading’ because it’s hard to maintain attachment to a system
merely out of fear of punishment], how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! [compared with therelative ease of maintaining an attachment to a system that makes you feel that you are at last on theside of what is good, ideal and right]’ (2 Cor. 3:7–11).

If Christianity was considered the ‘surpassing glory’ to living in fear of punishment, thenthe TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE is the surpassing of all surpassing glories. It is the bestsolution the upset human race has ever had by an immense, stupendous, incredible, absolutelywonderful degree—because while we are still living in a deferential state, we are only a fewgenerations away from completely eradicating the human condition from the human race—and there is very little dishonesty and no irresponsibility, no weakness, no delusion, no deity,no worship, no focus on a personality, no faith, no dogma, no guilt of any sort involved inthe process. What we have now is so relieving and so exciting that when this way of livingcatches on it is obviously going to sweep the world.
As initially pointed out, the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT is not a religion,we are a metamorphoser, a movement that brings about a complete progression, in facta metamorphosis of the human race from a horrible human-condition-afflicted state to acompletely liberated, human-condition-free state. Humanity is TRANSFORMED from a stateof insecure adolescence where we searched for understanding of ourselves, to a state ofsecure adulthood where we finally achieve understanding of ourselves. Religions were onlya way of coping with the horror of the human condition while the search for the liberatingunderstanding of it was being carried out. The WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENTis concerned with what happens after that liberating understanding is found, which is themetamorphosis, the complete progression and change of humanity from a state of psychosisand neurosis to a state completely free of psychosis and neurosis.
Finally, it should be emphasised that religions aren’t being threatened by the arrivalof dignifying understanding of the human condition—rather, they are being fulfilled. Thewhole objective of religion was to be the custodians of the ideal state while the searchfor the liberating understanding of humans’ ‘fallen’ condition was underway. Buddha, forinstance, looked forward to the arrival of the amelioration of the human condition whenhe said that ‘In the future they will every one be Buddhas [meaning in the future everyone will befree of psychosis] / And will reach Perfect Enlightenment / In domains in all directions / Each will

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

752

The Biology
have the same title [there will be no more distorting alienation] / Simultaneously on wisdom-thrones /
They will prove the Supreme Wisdom’ (Buddha [Siddartha Gautama] 560–480 BC, The Lotus Sutra, ch.9; tr. W.E.
Soothill, 1987, p.148 of 275).

In the Bible Moses similarly anticipated a time when we ‘will be like

God, knowing’ (Gen. 3:5). Christ also looked forward to the time when ‘…another Counsellor tobe with you forever—the Spirit of truth [first-principle-based, scientific understanding]…will teachyou all things and will remind you of everything [all the denial-free truths] I have said to you’ (John
14:16, 17, 26).

Christ also said he looked forward to the time when, instead of being restricted
to ‘speaking figuratively’, we ‘will no longer use this kind of language but will [be able to] tell youplainly about my Father [be able to explain the world of Integrative Meaning in denial-free, human-
condition-reconciled, compassionate, understandable, first principle, scientific terms]’ (John 16:25).

The same anticipation of our species’ liberation from the human condition is expressed in
Revelations in the Bible where it states that ‘Another book [will be]…opened which is the bookof life [the human-condition-explaining and humanity-liberating book]…[and] a new heaven and anew earth [will appear] for the first heaven and the first earth [will have]…passed away…[and the
dignifying full truth about our condition] will wipe every tear from…[our] eyes. There will be no moredeath or mourning or crying or pain [insecurity, suffering or sickness], for the old order of thingshas passed away’ (Rev. 20:12, 21:1, 4). The human race has always hoped and believed that, as

Tim Macartney-Snape said and Olive Schreiner was quoted as writing at the beginning ofthis talk, ‘some day, some where, some time’ humanity’s heroic search for and accumulation ofknowledge would lead to the finding of understanding of the human condition, at which timeevery aspect of human life that was seemingly so inexplicable would suddenly make sense,and we can now see how true that hope and belief was. From an overwhelmingly complexand problematic existence a simple and totally effective, extremely-rapidly-repairing-ofhuman-life-and-the-Earth, way of living for humans emerges.

Part 9:3 How the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE will quickly repair the world
To complete this Introduction to the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT I want toinclude this very brief summary of how the TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE actually repairsthe world.
The fact is we can easily repair both humanity and our world now by everyone livingselflessly for the human race through their support of the dignifying truth about our species,rather than having to live in the ‘cave’ of denial of the truth about ourselves where theonly relief available to temporarily appease our corrupted, apparently bad condition was tocontinually try to prove we are good and not bad, which was an extremely self-preoccupied,selfish existence. Earlier in Part 5:1 I talked about the influence Sir James Darling’sextraordinary soul-rather-than-intellect-emphasising, Platonic education system had on myselfand others in the WTM, including my brother Simon and Tim Macartney-Snape. In one ofmany of his extraordinary speeches Sir James said, ‘selfishness is, as it has ever been, the ultimatelydestructive force in a society, and there are only two cures for selfishness—the regimented state which weall profess to dislike, and the change of heart, which we refuse to make. That is the choice, believe me, for

Part 9:3

How the Transformed State will quickly repair the world

753
each one of us, and we have not much time in which to make it. The need for decision [to have a ‘changeof heart’ and live selflessly] is serious and urgent, and the sands [of time] are running out’ (GGS Speech
Day address in 1950, Light Blue Down Under, by Weston Bate, 1990, p.219 of 386).

Sir James has, in this passage, identified selfishness as ‘the ultimately destructive force’ andstated that historically there have only ever been ‘two cures for selfishness—the regimented statewhich we all profess to dislike, and the change of heart, which we refuse to make’. The ‘regimentedstate’ is obviously a reference to the dogmatically imposed and strictly enforced selfless,
cooperative, communal, social state of socialism/communism. As has been emphasised, beingfully conscious, self-managing beings, having to subordinate our thinking mind to dogma wasnever going to work. De-braining ourselves was no real solution to our problems. Ultimatelywe needed brain food, not brain anaesthetic. Our thinking mind needed understanding—specifically, understanding of why we humans are fundamentally good and not bad, evil,worthless beings. In short, we needed the dignifying, redeeming and TRANSFORMINGunderstanding of the human condition. But what Sir James also recognised in this passage wasthat, despite the urgency, we would ‘refuse to make’ the ‘change of heart’ from living selfishlyto living selflessly until humanity achieved that breakthrough. And he was right—until theliberating understanding of why humans are fundamentally good and not bad was found wehad no choice but to keep on trying to achieve some relief from the insecurity of our conditionby finding superficial ways to prove we are good and not bad, such as through winning power,fame, fortune and glory. We had no choice but to be ‘ego-centric’—we had no choice butfor our conscious thinking self (which is how the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines ‘ego’)to be focused or ‘centred’ on trying to prove it/we are not bad, worthless and meaningless.
It is only now with the fundamental, trustable, knowable, first-principle-based, dogma-freebiological understanding of why we humans are not bad that we can afford to stop trying toprove we are not bad all the time—that we can stop being egocentric; let go of being so selfworth-preoccupied; live for the human-condition-understood world FREE of that old insecureexistence; TRANSFORM from being selfish to selfless; have the ‘change of heart’ that Sir Jamesrecognised was so ‘serious and urgent’.
In the episode ‘The Fallacies of Hope’, from his acclaimed 1969 BBC televisiondocumentary series, Civilisations: A Personal View by Kenneth Clark, the British historian
Kenneth Clark (1903-1983) mentioned that ‘People who hold forth about the modern world oftensay that what we need is a new religion. It may be true but it isn’t easy to establish.’ Saying we need a
new religion is really another recognition of the fundamental need for the human race to havea change of heart, a change from living selfishly to selflessly, if we are to solve the world’sproblems. And saying ‘but it won’t be easy to establish a new religion’ is really, deep down, arecognition that what is needed for this change of heart to occur is for the daunting issue of thehuman condition to be confronted and solved. As explained in Part 9:2, the human-conditionameliorating WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT is not a religion but, like a religion, itdoes bring about a change from living selfishly for yourself to living selflessly for somethingbeyond self—so Clark’s acknowledgment that we need a new religion was about as close asthe old denial-based world could come to saying we needed to solve the human condition.

754

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Plato understood this great TRANSFORMATION from living in the cave of denial, selfpreoccupied trying to prove we are good and not bad all the time through winning power,fame, fortune and glory, to living FREE from all of that now obsoleted insecure, oldworld ‘baggage’ in selfless support of the liberating understanding of why we humans arefundamentally good and not bad, when he postulated: ‘Will our released [cave] prisoner hankerafter these prizes or envy this power or honour? Won’t he be more likely to feel, as Homer says, that hewould far rather be “a serf in the house of some landless man”, or indeed anything else in the world, thanlive and think as they [the power and glory hungry] do?’ (Plato The Republic, tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.281).

Since materialistic luxuries, like glittering dresses, sparkling diamonds, bubbling
Champagne, huge chandeliers, silver tea sets, big houses, swimming pools and shining,pretentious cars gave us the fanfare and glory we knew was due us, but which the world inits ignorance of our true goodness would not give us, materialism was one of the importantmeans by which we could sustain our sense of self-worth while the upsetting search for theliberating understanding of why we are good and not bad was being carried out. In fact,when we only had our ability to win power, fame, glory and fortune (and, with that fortune/money/wealth/capital, acquire materialistic luxuries) to sustain our sense of self-worthwhile the upsetting search for understanding of our worth was being carried out, thoserelieving artificial forms of reinforcement were the only engines driving the old insecureworld—the only rewards sustaining the all-important search for self-understanding (whichis why socialism, which sought to replace the engine of greed with the idealism of selflesscooperativeness before we had found self-understanding, couldn’t and didn’t work). So, thisegocentric, self-centred, individualistic, selfish, greedy, competitive, power-fame-fortune-andglory-seeking existence was also a ‘constructive force’ as well as the inequality-producing,human-suffering-causing, Earth-destroying ‘destructive force’ that Sir James so aptly describedit as. Yes, there was truth indeed in the saying ‘Greed is good.’ The demonstrations againstgreed and capitalism that we have been witness to in 2011 and 2012 are in truth naive, pseudoidealistic, make-yourself-feel-good-but-don’t-solve-anything protests against the reality ofthe insecurity of life under the duress of the human condition. Of course, this constructiveand destructive, ‘good and bad’ aspect of our behaviour is the core paradox of the humancondition that we are now at last able to explain and understand.
Nevertheless, while the ‘selfishness’ of the old egocentric, self-centred, individualistic,selfish, greedy, capitalistic, competitive, materialistic way of living was the driving force thatkept the all-important search for the relieving understanding of why we humans are goodand not bad going, and was thus a ‘constructive force’, it was, as Sir James said, the ‘ultimate’
‘destructive force in a society’ because in the end only a selfless way of living works. Ultimately
selfishness is destructive. No matter how much you try to control and regulate it, a societyoperating from a basis of selfishness will ultimately become dysfunctional. There was a limitto how long we could keep going under the drive of selfish greed. For human civilisation tosurvive, selflessness had to become the driving force in the world; ultimately, there had to be,as Sir James said, ‘a change of heart’. As many people have recognised and said over the years,
‘it’s not that humans lack the ability to fix the world, it’s that they lack the will’, which is the ‘change ofheart’, the preparedness to live selflessly that Sir James recognised was needed.

Part 9:3

How the Transformed State will quickly repair the world

755

So despite its precious contribution to the human race’s progress towards findingunderstanding of ourselves, the ultimate truth is that selfishness, especially insatiablematerialistic, capitalistic greed, was poised to destroy the world. It was ‘insatiable’ because,as an artificial form of reinforcement, materialism was never going to genuinely make usfeel we were good and not bad—only understanding of our fundamental goodness could andnow does achieve that. Mahatma Gandhi was really making this point about the insatiabilityof trying to make yourself feel good by surrounding yourself with material luxury when hefamously said, ‘Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.’ Yes,and when F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote in The Great Gatsby that ‘Living well is the best revenge’
(1925) he too was recognising that while we lacked the real ‘revenge’ for the injustice of the
human condition, namely reconciling understanding, materialism was ‘the best revenge’ wehad. So, it is going to be an enormous relief now for the planet and for humankind—in fact,it is going to make all the difference—that, through the finding of understanding of why wehumans are good and not bad, we can finally let go of our selfish, egocentric, have-to-proveour-worth, materialistic, power-fame-fortune-and-glory-seeking way of living and take upthe TRANSFORMED, human-condition-liberated, selfless existence; again, have that ‘change ofheart’ Sir James recognised we had to have.

Just to illustrate the change that is going to come to our old materialistic way of living, infront of me is a teaspoon—well, the monetary value of all the human-glorifying, egocentriccontent and effort that has gone into its ornate, embellished design, extravagant silver platingand competitive salesmanship and marketing to sell it to me, etc, etc, could feed a starvingperson for a week! Almost everything I see in front of me—my extravagant watch, my fancyshirt, my sophisticated pen—is in truth obscenely extravagant in a human-condition-freeworld. I should re-design all these items so they are not so extravagant, and it won’t be longbefore I and everyone else in the world will be doing just that. In fact, I idealistically oncedesigned and manufactured a full range of wooden furniture that was free of embellishmentand artificial content before realising that for such integrity to be tolerated the humancondition needed to be explained (see <www.humancondition.com/griffith-tablecraft>). Imagineif all the car makers in the world were to sit down together to design one extremely simple,embellishment-free, functional car that was made from the most environmentally-sustainablematerials, how cheap to buy and humanity-and-Earth-considerate that vehicle would be. Andimagine all the money that would be saved by not having different car makers duplicatingtheir efforts, competing and trying to out-sell each other, and overall how much time thatwould liberate for all those people involved in the car industry to help those less fortunateand suffering in the world. Likewise, imagine when each house is no longer designed to makean individualised, ego-reinforcing, status-symbol statement for its owners and all houses areconstructed in a functionally satisfactory, simple way, how much energy, labour, time andexpense will be freed up to care for the wellbeing of the less fortunate and the planet.
Again, while we needed the individualistic, materialistic world to sustain our sense ofself-worth while we couldn’t establish it through understanding, now that we have establishedit that old way of living is obsoleted. In his Affirmation of the TRANSFORMED STATE in Section
3:4 of Freedom Expanded: Book 2, you will see how Doug Lobban’s only desire is to fix the

756

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
world, starting with his shower curtain! He had let go of his egocentric mindset when hebecame TRANSFORMED. The finding of understanding of the human condition naturally bringsabout a whole new way of living. There’s no dogma involved, like there was in socialism—this is about the end of dogma and also of faith, and the beginning of understanding.
It will certainly take time, in fact, a few generations, for us humans to sufficiently absorbthe understanding of the human condition for our underlying insecurity to be fully amelioratedor healed and thus the need for some artificial reinforcement from materialism, etc, etc, tocompletely disappear, but once you adopt the TRANSFORMED STATE, while you haven’teliminated the insecure state of the human condition within yourself, you have completelychanged your mind’s focus from living an ego-embattled, selfish life to living selflessly—youhave had that ‘change of heart’, the fundamental change of direction, that Sir James recognisedwas so urgently needed to fix the world.
Importantly, the more this ‘change of heart’ TRANSFORMATION catches on, the easier itwill be for people to move from the old insecure, ego-centric way of living to the new, secure,ego-less way of living. The old egocentric way of living has had such a powerful hold onhumans because while there was no understanding of the human condition all we had was thesuperficial reinforcement we gained from seeking power, fame, fortune and glory, but oncethat relieving understanding is found, as it has been, that old egocentric way of living quicklyloses its power—so quickly, in fact, that everyone will be amazed by how quickly their needfor the old artificial forms of reinforcement falls away.
So, what I have been talking about is the TRANSFORMATION from living a selfish,egocentric, have-to-prove-that-I-am-good-and-not-bad existence to the new, selfless,egocentricity-obsoleted, don’t-have-to-prove-that-I-am-good, Liberated, Exhilarated and
Empowered, TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE or way of living—or simply the TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE STATE—that the current, transitional generations will take up. Of course, when
future, fully secure and integrated, human-condition-extinct generations of ‘UNIVERSAL
BEINGS’ appear there will be even greater relief for the human race and for our planet. But the
point is the great ‘change of heart’ is on! Imagine when we no longer have to dress to impress,deceive and disguise—especially when women no longer have to be preoccupied with beingsex objects—how much freedom that is going to unleash, and how much time, energy andresources it will save? Imagine when communication technology is used only to spreadreconciling truth rather than truthless, alienated, escapist, superficial drivel, as it is currentlydoing—how much relief that is going to bring to humans and thus our world? End the humancondition and you end all the big problems of the world—and thus all the little problems too.
So there are degrees of selflessness that we will now be capable of as we move fromthe old egocentric world, to the egocentricity-obsoleted, TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE,to eventually arriving at the future human-condition-extinct existence—however, it is thefundamental change of direction, and the rapid change that will accompany it, that is allimportant. The point overall is the immense power of cooperative selflessness to solve all ourproblems. If we were all selfless we could solve the AIDS epidemic literally overnight becauseall it would take would be for everyone to agree to be tested for the AIDS virus and those whotested positive to agree to not have sexual relationships with anyone who doesn’t have thevirus. When everyone is selfless we will be able to solve the greenhouse gases, global warming

Part 9:3

How the Transformed State will quickly repair the world

757
problem almost overnight by everyone agreeing to hold every third breath or something—that’s obviously not going to work, but the point is we will be able to do whatever it takes!
Actually, the most effective control mechanism we have available to us is our ability to curbour numbers by not reproducing as much, at least until we have stabilised all the threats to ourworld. In fact, we in the WTM have already employed this device to defend the new world. Asmentioned in Part 2:4, we decided not to have children so that we would have all the resourcesthat we could possibly muster to ensure these precious understandings of the human conditionwould survive the expected initial onslaught of vilification, persecution and attemptedrepression for daring to address the issue of the human condition. Certainly our tiny band of 50people would not have been able to undertake the legal actions we had to take against two ofthe biggest media organisations in Australia to redress their ferociously vilifying publicationsabout us if we had children to look after and support. It is the capacity to be selfless that hasbeen missing from the human situation. Basically, as soon as humans no longer have to bepreoccupied with themselves by having to artificially try to relieve themselves of the insecuritycaused by their human condition through winning as much power, fame, fortune and glory asthey possibly can, and are thus at last able to be concerned about the wellbeing of others, allthe suffering in the world will be able to be brought to an end. That is the key rehabilitatingeffect for humanity and our planet that the transition from living selfishly to living selflesslybrings through the finding of understanding of the human condition.
Understandably, this power of selflessness has not been something we humans wantedto acknowledge or think about because it has been too confronting of our present massivelyembattled, ego-hungry, desperately-needing-self-gratification-and-glorification, selfish,greedy, materialistic existence. We have had to live an alienated, escapist, materialistic lifebecause we haven’t been able to live a secure, honest, spiritualistic life, but now, with thehuman condition explained, we can. As has already been mentioned in Part 4:12, we can gainan insight into the power of selfless cooperation by looking at ant and bee colonies—truly, as
King Solomon advised, ‘Go to the ant…consider its ways and be wise’ (Proverbs 6:6). The 2004 awardwinning documentary Ants—Nature’s Secret Power admitted the power of selfless cooperationwhen it concluded that ‘The secret of ant societies is their cooperation…[it’s what has enabled themto] act as a superorganism…[and become] nature’s true world power’ (produced by Adi Mayer Films, ORF
Austrian Broadcasting Company with Docstar and WDR). In his book The Soul of the White Ant, Eugène

Marais wrote that ‘the termite…never rests or sleeps’ (1937, p.61 of 154). Bees’ extreme selflessnesswas also made apparent in a documentary on bee colonies, which reported that ‘when beesbecome sick they sacrifice themselves and leave the hive to die to prevent infecting the rest of the colony’,
and how ‘in the summer, the workers only live around 30 days because they literally work themselvesto death’ (Silence of the Bees, produced by Partisan Pictures, Inc. and Thirteen/WNET for National Geographic Channel,
2007).

I’m not suggesting that we will ever go beyond self-sacrifice to self-elimination as
a strategy for solving problems, however, these examples do make it clear how powerfulselflessness is as a force for solving problems. The main point is that our ability now to leavebehind the insecure, self-preoccupied, ego-centric, selfish state of the human condition makespossible the true reparation of our whole world; it is us self-adjusting, conscious humanswho—now that we no longer have to live an insecure, selfish existence and can live a selfless,cooperative existence—will now become ‘nature’s true world power’.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

758

The Biology

As I have previously said, the main reward for members of the WORLD TRANSFORMATION
MOVEMENT is the anticipation and the excitement of being effectively free of the human
condition—the joy and happiness of being liberated from the burden of your insecurities andself-preoccupations; the awesome meaning and power of finally being aligned with the truthand participating in the magic true world; the wonderful empathy and equality of goodness andfellowship that understanding of the human condition now allows you to feel for your fellowhumans; the freedom now to effectively focus on repairing the world; and, above all, the radiantaliveness from the optimism that comes with knowing our march through hell has finally ended.
This WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT has a slow beginning because humansinitially find it difficult even taking in or ‘hearing’ discussion about the human condition, butit won’t be long before our website is discovered and then word of it and what it offers everyhuman and the world will spread like wildfire—as Teilhard de Chardin said, ‘The Truth hasto only appear once…for it to be impossible for anything ever to prevent it from spreading universallyand setting everything ablaze’ (Let Me Explain, 1966; trs René Hague & others, 1970, p.159 of 189). Before long
we will be marketing our own human-condition-free, world-saving products, providing ourown all-exciting and meaningful, denial-free, honest, human-condition-understood films,documentaries and books, launching our own TV station—and our website will be thebiggest in the world, bigger than Google or any other existing site. And all this is not deludedhubris, or wild guessing, it is simply the logical truth of what happens when the dignifying,redeeming and healing understanding of the human condition is finally found—as all thequotes from prophets, songwriters and poets included earlier testify.
The bottom line truth is that only the finding of the reconciling understanding of thehuman condition and the ‘change of heart’, TRANSFORMED STATE for humans that it finallymakes possible can save the human race. The WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENTprovides the only path forward for humankind. All else is ever-increasing, excruciating,unthinkable suffering and ultimately doom for our species. So, become a MEMBER of the
WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT!

This completes the Introduction to the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT. The keyelement to appreciate is that there is no path out of humanity’s doomed situation other thanvia this human-condition-ameliorated TRANSFORMATION pathway.
In conclusion, the following are the original propositions for your consideration: willthe understanding of the human condition TRANSFORM yours and everyone else’s life andthe world for its complete betterment; will it bring complete hope to what seemed hopeless;will it give rise to a movement that will sweep the world; will it introduce a new paradigmof understanding around which all knowledge can be integrated; and will it explain and thusreconcile all the opposites in the human situation, such as of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, instinct andintellect, the innocent and the upset, young and old, women and men, religion and science,left-wing and right-wing, socialism and capitalism?
I strongly urge you all to watch the Affirmations on our website at <www.humancondition.com/affirmations>, which feature numerous people talking about the all-wonderful
TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE. You can also read more about the TRANSFORMED
LIFEFORCE STATE and what is going to happen in the new TRANSFORMED world in Freedom

Expanded: Book 2.

Part 10
The Nature and Roleof Denial-Free Thinking
Part 10:1 Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ
I would like to talk about Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ because a betterunderstanding of them will help the reader appreciate just how impossible it has been toaddress and then explain the human condition from a position of denial. An understanding ofthe minds of denial-free thinkers or prophets will greatly help appreciate how differently theyview the world, in particular how they are able to see where the real threats to humankind areand how well focused they are on solving those problems, and how their denial-free thinkingminds are able to solve them.
I have at times described Christ as ‘that cleanest of thinkers’, which is true in the sensethat he obviously had an absolutely exceptional denial-free thinking mind, however in termsof being the cleanest of all thinkers that description is not true because Moses and Plato bothhad absolutely exceptional denial-free thinking minds.
We have seen how extraordinarily sound Plato was in his thinking, throwing as muchlight as was possible in his pre-scientific times upon every aspect of the human condition.
As this book has progressed through issue after issue about the human condition, at virtuallyevery stage it has been possible and appropriate to include an extremely insightful quote from
Plato to illustrate the point being made, such as his deeply penetrating charioteer and pair ofwinged horses analysis of the human condition mentioned in Part 4:6.
A look at the work of Moses will show that he was equally sound and thus insightful inhis thinking. Moses is without doubt the author of the first five books of the Bible, which involume represents approximately one-sixth of the Bible. I have said ‘without doubt’ becausesome scholars have argued that Moses couldn’t have written the fifth book, Deuteronomy,because it reports his own death, however when it is understood what Moses was doing inwriting the five books it becomes obvious that he would have organised for the report of hisdeath to be added to what he had already written to ensure those books provided a completehistory-of-the-world-and-of-humanity and tradition-establishing account of events up to theend of his life. Christ would have understood that in writing the first five books of the Old
Testament Moses was setting out an ordering and contexting denial-free history of humanityfor lost, alienated humans; he certainly made comments to that effect, such as ‘have you notread in the book of Moses’ (Mark 12:24—see similar references: Matt. 19:7-8, 22:24; Mark 7:10; Luke 24:44).

To explain Moses’ absolutely extraordinary undertaking and achievement it is necessary,at first, to briefly look at the whole history of humanity since we humans became fullyconscious, self-managing beings.
Humanity’s journey from its original state of innocence some two million years agoto its current state of extreme upset was explained in Part 3:11. However, to provide a

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

760

The Biology
brief summary, what happened was that as humanity’s corrupting search for knowledgeprogressed different strategies needed to be developed to contain humans’ ever-increasinglevels of upset. To use the Adam Stork analogy, the more Adam defied his instincts in orderto search for knowledge the more upset he became and the more he needed to find ways tocontain his ever-increasing levels of upset behaviour if he was to maintain a semblance oforder and functionality.
We humans developed four main ways or strategies to help contain our ever increasinglevels of upset. The first strategy we developed was SELF DISCIPLINE, in response to therealisation that we had to try to contain our upset anger, egocentricity and alienation—curbits expression. This first management mechanism for upset started so long ago in our species’past that we now take our capacity for self-constraint for granted as being a natural part of ouradult behaviour, nevertheless there was a time in our distant past when we had to learn therudiments of being, as we say, ‘civilised’. Humans now don’t normally attack someone themoment they become angry. There is a great deal of self-control in adult humans now. Theupset angers and frustrations are in us but for the most part we don’t let them show.
But as upset increased and self discipline could no longer contain the levels of upset inour society, we were forced to develop the strategy of IMPOSED DISCIPLINE, which involvedeveryone agreeing to abide by certain laws or rules about what was acceptable behaviourunder threat of punishment.
As upset continued to develop the next strategy devised to contain it was RELIGION.
With religion, instead of living through yourself with all the associated overly upset angers,egocentricities and denials, you decide to defer to someone exceptionally free of upset,namely one of the denial-free thinking, integrative-ideals-or-God-recognising, innocentprophets that the great religions have been founded around. You decided to live throughsupporting the soundness and truth of their life and words rather than adhering to what youroverly upset self wanted to do and say.
As upset reached a crescendo during the last 200 years a problem with religion arose,which was that the truthful lives and thoughts of their founding prophets became unbearablyconfronting and condemning of those who are extremely upset, at which point GUILT-FREE
EXPRESSIONS OF IDEALISM needed to be found to support and defer to. These expressions
took two forms. Firstly, you could defer to less guilt emphasising forms of religion where,say within Christianity, rather than following a denomination that focused on the study andacknowledgment of the integrity of the words and life of the founding prophet, you selectedone that emphasised worship, adoration and ceremony, such as Catholicism, or even euphoric
Evangelical varieties of Christianity. Or you could associate yourself with religious groupsthat focused on simple dogmatic obedience to the teachings of one of the religions, becominga more fundamentalist and literalist interpreter and practitioner of a faith. Or you could finda religion that avoided focusing on acknowledging your corrupted condition and insteadfocused on practices such as meditative extinction of the trauma of the human condition.
Buddhism in particular was, as one Buddhist convert said, ‘non-judgemental, there’s no notion ofsin, there’s no notion of good and evil, you don’t embrace negativity’ (from Light at Edge of the World: Scienceof the Mind of Buddhism, National Geographic Channel, 2006).

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

761

The second form of more guilt-free expressions of idealism to support and live throughwere religion-avoiding and in some cases atheistic, God-denying pseudo idealistic causes likecommunism or socialism, politically correct postmodernism, environmentalism, feminism,multiculturalism, aboriginalism, etc, etc—basically any idealistic cause you could findthat allowed you to avoid having to think about and deal with the real issue behind all thedestruction and imperfection in the world, namely your own and everyone else’s corruptedcondition. Real idealism involved confronting not escaping the issue of the human condition,an escapism that this aforementioned quote about environmentalism recognised, ‘Theenvironment became the last best cause, the ultimate guilt-free issue.’

Since these management devices could never fully contain the ever-increasing levelsof upset in the world, there was clearly going to come a time when upset would destroy thehuman race, the terminal level of alienation that has been described previously in this book.
Only the arrival of the dignifying and thus liberating understanding of the human conditioncould end the plunge towards destruction—as Richard Neville summarised earlier: ‘We arelocked in a race between self destruction and self discovery.’

With this overview we can return to looking at the contribution of Moses, and that ofboth Christ and Plato. What we will see is that Moses gave humanity the most effective formof Imposed Discipline with his Ten Commandments, that Christ gave humanity the strongestpossible corruption-and-denial-countering Religion, and that Plato provided humans with thebest possible orientation and assistance on the main task of actually explaining the humancondition—as Whitehead was quoted earlier as saying, the history of philosophy is merely ‘aseries of footnotes to Plato’, with ‘philosophy’ being ‘the study of the truths underlying all reality’.

Between these three men the human race was given the best possible chance of eventuallyfreeing itself from the human condition. Without these three key influences of a well thoughtout and effective form of Imposed Discipline, a strong corruption-and-denial-countering
Religion, and a profound, denial-free, penetrating orientation for the main task of findingunderstanding of the human condition, civilisations eventually foundered; they lost theirway—in particular, their people became excessively corruption-adapted, cynical and alienated.
Civilisations invariably followed this path to decadence but these three influences sloweddown the progression, at least long enough for other fresh, still-relatively-innocent peoplesand their civilisations to take what knowledge they had been able to find and, employing thesame three containing and orientating influences, add to the knowledge until understandingof the human condition was finally found. In this way, wave after wave of groups of humansand their civilisations threw themselves heroically at that wall of ignorance that is the humancondition until finally the human race crashed through to the liberating enlightenment of ourcondition, which has now finally occurred. In fact it is on the shoulders of all the efforts of allthe humans who have ever lived that our species’ liberation has been achieved.
With the human condition now safely understood and the upset state of humans no longercondemned as bad or evil, we can afford to recognise Moses, Christ and Plato as the threemen who led humanity out of the wilderness of death-like alienation to its freedom from thehuman condition, and that the essential characteristic of each was that they had absolutelyexceptional denial-free thinking minds.

762

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Denial-free thinkers have played an all-important role in human history and yet virtuallynothing has been known of the kind of people they were: how they thought, which wasso very different to the way everyone else was thinking, the significance of having a fullynurtured infancy and childhood and, as a result, not having become resigned to a life of denialin their adolescence, etc, etc. Appropriately, one of the best-selling books of the twentiethcentury, Bruce Barton’s 1925 book about Christ, was titled The Man Nobody Knows. Virtuallyall we have known of the great denial-free thinkers is that some of them became recognised as
‘prophets’, said to be inspired by God and able to perform miracles—some were even calleddeities, all of which makes them seem like they weren’t human when of course they were.
Now at last we can learn about these key people in history, and we obviously need to if weare to properly understand humanity’s history. As initially mentioned, the life and work ofprophets needs to be demystified. There have been mountains and mountains of books written,and zillions and zillions of words said in pulpits, in seminaries, in schools and universities, onthe street and in homes about prophets and their words, but now, finally, for the first time, herein these pages, they and their work will be fully explained.
To commence, now that we can acknowledge the extent of the corruption of humansunder the duress of the human condition it becomes possible to understand what the few,extremely rare, denial-free thinkers or prophets who have existed in recorded history wouldhave encountered as they grew up. Firstly, each had to survive the agonising mystery of theextremely upset behaviour of all the humans around them—an agony made so much worseby the denial, the total silence, of the upset about being upset, indeed their deluded andarrogant pretence of being totally secure, confident masters of life. The denial-free thinkersor prophets also had to survive the persecution that their confronting truthful words andlife would have attracted—as demonstrated by this rhetorical question from the Bible: ‘wasthere ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?’ (Acts 7:52). And even if they did manage to
survive these difficulties, and many wouldn’t have, they would have been left in a positionof extreme distress by the plight of their society. To someone not upset and not living indenial of the human condition everyone else appears to be running around very much likechickens with their heads cut off, behaving in an extremely corrupt, destructive, chaotic, madway. Able to clearly see all the madness and fully feel all the suffering the human conditionwas causing, denial-free thinkers would have become deeply concerned and focused uponthinking about how to, if not stop, at least contain the horrifically destructive behaviourand the terrible suffering it was bringing about. The rest of the human race, who are deeplymentally preoccupied with all manner of upset as a result of their encounters with humanity’sheroic but upsetting battle against ignorance (in particular encountering insufficient nurturingand love in their infancy and childhood) and having to employ a great deal of denial to cope,can no longer see how corrupt their and others’ behaviour is, or feel how much sufferingit is causing. However, for someone not so preoccupied and not living in denial they canclearly see the full extent of all the corruption and feel the full extent of all the suffering. Theinnocent of upset are not immune like everyone else is to the truth of the extent of the horrorof the human condition, and being so aware they become extremely concerned for the deeplytraumatised society they find themselves in.

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

763

When extreme upset develops in a society an endless series of outbursts of upset angerand selfish egocentricity and resulting retaliatory anger and selfish egocentricity occurs. Whatthe extremely concerned, clear seeing, fully feeling and clear thinking denial-free thinkers orprophets eventually realise is that for a semblance of peace to occur they have to find a way tobring an end to these endless rounds of payback warfare, or so-called ‘blood feuds’. They thenrealise that the only way to do that (short of explaining the human condition which, prior tothe development of science, they couldn’t do) is to introduce strongly enforced laws or rulesto contain the behaviour. They realise Discipline needs to be Imposed and throughout historythat is exactly what prophets have done, and none better than Moses.
For example, by the time Europeans arrived in North America a grand union of American
Indian tribes, known as the Iroquois Confederacy, had been established by two Indian denialfree thinkers or prophets who had emerged from within the tribes. Recognised and describedby their people as ‘prophets’, these two American Indians, named Hiawatha and ‘The Great
Peacemaker’, with all their sensitive feeling and clarity of thought, were able to realise thatthe endless rounds of payback warfare between and within the tribes could only be preventedby everyone agreeing to a set of restraining rules that were enforced by punishment. Theresulting Imposed Discipline proved so effective that the Confederacy quickly emerged as oneof the strongest forces in north-eastern North America during the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies. This quote is included to confirm what has just been said: ‘The Iroquois Confederacywas established before European contact, complete with a constitution known as the…“Great Lawof Peace”…The two prophets, Ayonwentah [Hiawatha]…and Dekanawidah, The Great Peacemaker,brought a message of peace to squabbling tribes…Once they ceased infighting, they rapidly became oneof the strongest forces in seventeenth and eighteenth century north eastern North America’ (The Iroquois
Confederacy and the Founding Fathers, Accessed Sept. 2009: see <www.wtmsources.com/113>). Exactly the same
scenario had played out some 3,000 years earlier when Moses brought order to the Israelite
Nation through the Ten Commandments that he had etched on stones.
As mentioned, Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. The first ten chapters ofthe first book, Genesis, are very important but before looking at those opening chapters anappreciation of Moses’ life and ancestors from Abraham onwards will help reveal the greaterhistory-of-the-world-and-of-humanity and tradition-establishing significance of those chapters.
Abraham, who lived some 4,000 years ago, was a very great denial-free thinker orprophet. He was a ‘Hebrew’ (Gen. 14:13), one of the tribes of the Semitic race of people whowere originally herders and who colonised parts of the Middle East from their homelandsomewhere on the Arabian Peninsula or possibly North Africa. He is regarded as the founderof monotheism, the belief in one God. The pharaoh and great denial-free thinking prophet
Akhenaton, who ruled Egypt from approximately 3,350 to 3,335 years ago, also recognised thatthere was only one God but it was through Abraham and the prophets who followed him thatmonotheism became firmly established in the world.
Abraham is also regarded as the common denominator in the establishment of Islam,
Christianity and Judaism. His eldest son Ishmael is considered the father of the Arabs whoproduced the exceptional denial-free thinker or prophet Muhammad who founded the religionof Islam around 1,400 years ago. Abraham’s second son Isaac is considered the father of the

764

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Israelites, amongst whom came the denial-free thinkers or prophets Jacob, Joseph, Moses, theother prophets of the Old Testament of the Bible, and Jesus Christ. Moses, who lived some
3,500 years ago, is the central prophet in the Jewish religion of Judaism, while Jesus Christ
created the religion of Christianity just over 2,000 years ago.
The significance of Abraham’s recognition of monotheism or belief in one God and hisability to ‘walk before me [God] and be blameless’ (Gen. 17:1) and to be ‘blessed’ ‘in every way’ by
God (Gen. 24:1) and to accept God as his ‘shield’ (Gen. 15:1) needs to be explained. Put simply,
Abraham was secure enough to not have to resign himself to a life of living in denial of theissue of the human condition and any truths that bring that issue into focus—in particular thetruth of integrative meaning which, as will now be explained, is what the concept of ‘God’means. It was explained in Part 8:1 that biological processes are not random and directionlessas we have been evasively taught, but are in fact concerned with the Negative Entropy drivendevelopment of the order or integration of matter. Of all the truths about our world this truthof integrative meaning is the most confronting for corrupted humans because the developmentand maintenance of the order of matter requires that the parts of developing wholes cooperatenot compete. An integrative direction or meaning confronts upset, corrupted humans squarelywith their angry, competitive and selfish divisive human condition. For the upset and corruptedto accept the truth of integrative meaning without the explanation for their and our species’lack of integrative behaviour meant facing suicidal depression. It could not be done. Only thefully loved and nurtured and thus secure could face integrative meaning with impunity. Beforewe had the understandings that science has given us of the physical laws of the universe,in particular the law of Negative Entropy, it wasn’t possible to explain what or who ‘God’is, but now, with the advances of science we can explain that the all-pervading, omnipotent
(all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present) and omniscient (all-knowing), and-seemingly-allcondemning-of-us-humans force in the world is Negative Entropy. We can also explain whatthe real meaning of the word ‘love’ is. Unconditional selflessness, the capacity to consider thewelfare of the whole above our own welfare, is the glue that holds wholes together, and it isthe real meaning behind the word ‘love’. Indeed the old Christian word for love is ‘caritas’,meaning charity or giving or selflessness (see Col. 3:14, 1 Cor. 13:1-13, 10:24 & John 15:13),therefore it is true that ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:8, 16), or selflessness—in fact not just selflessnessbut unconditional selflessness, the capacity to, if required, make a full, self-sacrificingcommitment to the maintenance of the larger whole. Christ articulated the unconditionallyselfless significance of the word ‘love’ when he said, ‘Greater love has no-one than this, thatone lay down his life for his friends’ (John 15:13). Of the biblical references to love given above,

Colossians 3:14 perfectly summarises the integrative significance of love: ‘And over all thesevirtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.’ ‘God’ then is the personification
of the negative-entropy-driven integrative, cooperative, loving, unconditionally selfless, orderbringing ideals, purpose, meaning and theme of life.
Again the problem is that to admit to integrative meaning and the importance ofunconditional selflessness is to leave all but the exceptionally sound unbearably condemned.
We can now understand that Abraham needed to be ‘blameless’, ‘blessed’ ‘in every way’ to be ableto confront or ‘walk before’ God. He had to be free of upset to confront the truth of integrativemeaning. Further, we can understand that living in a world so apparently blameful and

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

765
unblessed and practicing so much denial, Abraham would have had to struggle to overcomehis codependent attachment to all the dishonesty and pretence he found himself surroundedby. Still living in the upset-free, all-loving, all-giving and all-trustable authentic world of ourspecies’ original integratively-orientated instinctive self or soul means that relatively innocentpeople are so very trusting, so when everyone else is so silent about their corruption, sodeterminedly refusing to admit it, it is incredibly hard for an innocent to believe that what theyare thinking is right and what the rest of the world is saying and doing is not. It is self-evidentto the alienated that they are being dishonest but it is a complete mystery to an innocentperson. It is hard for the corrupted and alienated to appreciate how difficult it is for someonefree of upset, someone innocent, to stand up against all their dishonesty and still trust in whatthey are thinking, namely that what everyone else is doing is corrupted and what everyoneelse is saying is in effect a lie. How do you believe yourself when everyone around youwhom you trust so much is saying the opposite? What Abraham did that was so difficult wasthat he defied all this intimidation and learnt to trust his truthful self that was recognising theintegrative, cooperative, loving, unconditionally selfless ideals, purpose and meaning of life;he learnt to accept God, the integrative ideals, as his ‘shield’ against all the lies and falsehoodsthat were trying to seduce him—but his journey to do so, to defy the whole world around him,would not have been easy. As it says in Genesis, the integrative ideals or ‘God tested Abraham’
(Gen. 22:1); he had to be able to put his love for the truth of another integrative ideal world
before all his innocent, codependent trust in the world that he was falsely being presentedwith as true and authentic. Metaphorically he had to be prepared to ‘sacrifice’ his own ‘son’ (Gen.
22:2),

‘son’ being the ultimate expression imaginable of his attachment or codependency to
the world around him, and in Genesis 22 it describes how he passed this test; how he put thetruth/God first; ‘not withheld’ (Gen. 22:12) anything from the truth/God; not allowed himself to beseduced at all. Thankfully the test didn’t end up requiring he actually kill his son.
In essence, Abraham’s access to and love of the true, integrative world of our soul had tobe stronger than his codependent love of the resigned, false, integrative-meaning-and-souldenying world around him. Because of their familiarity with them, a prophet’s family were theleast able to recognise the extraordinary, denial-free-thinking person they were. The greaterthe distance in time and space we have from any exceptionally gifted person the easier it isto acknowledge their gifts. Our egos don’t feel as oppressed and threatened by their abilityand success, and we have the benefit of perspective to appreciate their extraordinariness. Themore extraordinary and exceptional the gift the truer this is and the most extraordinary andexceptional of all gifts is that of the unresigned prophetic mind. When Christ for example saidhe would ‘rise again’ after he died (see Matt. 20:19, 27:63; Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34; Luke 18:33, 24:7, 46; John 11:24,
20:9) he was recognising that the wider public acknowledgment of his extraordinary soundness
would occur after his death. While everyone found it very difficult acknowledging Christ’sextraordinariness during his lifetime, none found it harder than members of his own family andtown, for reasons just mentioned. As the Bible records: ‘Jesus left there and went to his home town,accompanied by his disciples. When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and manywho heard him were amazed. “Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdomthat has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and thebrother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

766

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Jesus said to them, “Only in his home town, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet withouthonour.” He could not do any miracles there…And he was amazed at their lack of faith’ (Mark 6:1-6).

It should briefly be explained that the difference between the appreciation displayed by
Christ’s family compared with his disciples, who were also very familiar with him, was thathis disciples were open to his teaching whereas his family and townsfolk who had knownhim since childhood were not. The disciples were with Christ specifically because they hadbeen attracted by the truth of what he said. Their access to his extraordinariness was notprejudiced by any history of familiarity. They were open and receptive to learning from himfrom the beginnings of their encounters with him, and from there the more time they spentwith Christ the greater their appreciation of his denial-free thinking grew. Nevertheless,even Christ’s disciples would have had their ability to appreciate him limited to some extentby their familiarity with him. It is no coincidence that of all Christ’s immediate followers,
St Paul, who never met Christ, was the most able to recognise and acknowledge Christ’sextraordinariness, for it was he, more than anyone else, who sold Christianity to the world.
‘Amazed at their [his family’s] lack of faith’, as Christ was, he had to be strong enough to
defy their cynicism; moreover, because he would have naturally loved his own family morethan anyone else in the world it would have been the most difficult test of all to stand by theintegrative true world of his soul against their dismissive treatment of his extraordinary powersof thought that came from his alignment to the integrative true world. He had to be strongenough to carry on his work without his family’s support. David, another very great prophet inthe Bible, also had to pass this test of being stronger than the scornful cynicism he experiencedduring his lifetime, especially from his own family. David complained and then rallied himselfthus: ‘Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies withoutcause, those who seek to destroy me…O God of Israel [the integrative ideal truth]. For I endure scorn foryour sake, and shame covers my face. I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother’s sons;for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me’ (Psa. 69:4-9).

We can see that the story of Abraham having to metaphorically sacrifice his son—bestronger than his love for those closest to him—was a very great test of his soulful strengthand because he was able to pass the test he was clearly an exceptional denial-free thinker orprophet. And when it is appreciated that there was no legacy or history for him to draw on ortake inspiration from the recognition of a single all-important and all-pervading truth or God,as all those around him were instead worshipping a multitude of gods, Abraham must havebeen absolutely extraordinarily sound to be able to recognise on his own and champion theexistence of the one great truth or God.
Abraham was born in Ur in Babylonia around 4,000 years ago and migrated to Canaan, aregion encompassing modern-day Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, plus adjoiningcoastal lands and parts of Jordan, Syria and north-eastern Egypt. He was sound and clearsighted enough to not only recognise the existence of monotheism but to stand by, defendand uphold the truth and importance of that one great integrative truth or God that everyoneelse was not living in accordance with and was trying to deny. And he not only defendedthe existence of God or integrative meaning he also advocated people defer to and live insupport of that one true God. He began a Religion based around the acknowledgment of
God. His other extraordinary achievement was to recognise the importance of establishing

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

767
a tradition that his descendants could identify with, hold on to and draw inspiration from.
As part of establishing that all-important identifying and bonding tradition based securelyaround recognition of, and obedience to, one true God, Abraham introduced the practice ofcircumcision (see Gen. 17:10) of his male offspring and the notion that Canaan was a chosen landfor his descendants (see Gen. 12); and that his followers would be a people with a great destinyif they abided by his instructions (see Gen. 12). In short, Abraham gave his progeny a Religion,an identity, a home and a vision. These initiatives by Abraham were so brilliant in fact thatthey, as we will see, created the foundations for a successful future for humanity. As Mosespredicted, ‘all peoples on earth will be blessed through you [Abraham]’ (Gen 12:3).
Thus, while Moses strongly reinforced these traditions that Abraham established of a
Religion, an identity, a home and a vision, he also added the laws, the rules, the Imposed
Discipline, that would ensure the structure that Abraham had so ably established wouldendure. Very importantly, Moses also gave the Israelites (and humanity) a denial-free, honest,soul-relieving account of the history of the world and of humanity that they/we could seethemselves/ourselves as being part of. He gave them/us if not a meaning (which he couldn’tgive because, apart from the meaning of having to serve God, he couldn’t explain that theactual meaning of existence is to develop the cooperative, loving order of matter), then at leasta contexting truthful history for their/our lives.
As mentioned, one of the descendants of Abraham’s eldest son Ishmael was the prophet
Muhammad who founded the religion of Islam around 1,400 years ago. Abraham’s second son
Isaac was the father of Jacob who in turn was the father of Joseph. It was Joseph who broughthis father Jacob and his eleven brothers and their families to Egypt, ‘seventy [people] in all’ (Exod.
1:5). Then, ‘430 years’ (Exod. 12:40)
later (approximately 3,500 years ago), Moses, the descendent
of one of Joseph’s brothers, led the (by then much multiplied) descendants of Jacob out of
Egypt back to the promised land of Canaan, a journey through the desert country of the Sinaiand Arabian Peninsulas that lasted ‘forty years’ (Exod. 16:35).
In contrast to the situation today where society does not recognise its denial-free thinkingprophets and instead evasive, denial-complying intellectualism holds sway everywhere,the ancient Hebrews collected only the words of their prophets. Humanity does not haveany records of the great authors or poets or playwrights or composers or artists or singersor astronomers or academics or legal minds or politicians from the 4,000-year-history ofthe Israelites. Instead what we have is the collection of the words of the few prophets whoappeared amongst them during those millennia. That collection is the Bible.
The more corrupted and alienated people became as humanity’s corrupting search forknowledge progressed, the more insecure they became and thus the more evasive they becameof any condemning idealism. While prophets have been persecuted throughout history forbeing so exposing of the evasive world of denial—as has been mentioned, the Bible askedrhetorically, ‘was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute?’ (Acts 7:52)—in earlier, moreinnocent times, people were secure enough to at least acknowledge their prophets, even if theydid often subject them to persecution during their lifetime. These early, more innocent, secureand thus less evasive civilisations even sought out their prophets to lead their societies. The
Old Testament of the Bible is the documentation of the search for prophets to lead the Israelitenation. Moses upheld this tradition when he said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a

768

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him’ (Deut. 18:15). Even the ancient

Athenian society in Greece elected only natural-living, untainted-by-encounters-with-humansociety, uncorrupted, upset-free, unembattled, ego-less, relatively innocent shepherds to runtheir society. To quote Sir Laurens van der Post, ‘He [Pericles] urged the Athenians therefore to goback to their ancient rule of choosing men who lived on and off the land and were reluctant to spend theirlives in towns, and prepared to serve them purely out of sense of public duty and not like their presentrulers who did so uniquely for personal power and advancement.’ Sir Laurens continued, ‘Significantlyin The Bacchae, the harbinger of the great catastrophe to come is “a city slicker with a smooth tongue”’
(in his foreword to Theodor Abt’s book Progress Without Loss of Soul, 1983, p.xii of 389). When deputising his
authority Moses took the advice of his father-in-law to ‘select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials overthousands’ (Exod. 18:21). (Note the ‘fear’ of God mentioned here refers to respecting God, not the
fear of integrative meaning that another biblical prophet, Isaiah, for example was referring towhen he said prophets, unlike everyone else, ‘delight in the fear of the Lord’ [Isa. 11:3].)
To take up the story of Abraham’s son Isaac and Isaac’s son Jacob, as it was theirdescendants who gave rise to Moses whose contribution to humanity is, in particular, beingconsidered here. In Genesis Moses states that ‘the Lord appeared to Isaac’ and said to him, ‘Iwill be with you and will bless you. For you and your descendants I will give all these lands [in Canaan]and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as numerous asthe stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth willbe blessed, because Abraham obeyed me’ (Gen. 26:2-5). For God or integrative meaning to be able to
‘appear’ before Isaac, Isaac must have been an exceptionally sound person, like his father was,
because, as has been explained, integrative meaning or God is unconfrontable for all but theexceptionally sound. Also we see how the traditions of obeying God, self-belief and destinythat Abraham began were being reinforced and added to by Isaac.
In Genesis Moses then went on to describe how Isaac’s son Jacob, who ‘God’ had also
‘blessed’ (Gen. 35:9), ‘struggled with God and with men’, a struggle which he was able to ‘overcome’
(Gen. 32:28), and how Jacob then said, ‘I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared’ (Gen. 32:30).

Clearly Jacob, like his father and grandfather, was sound enough to be able to confront thenormally unconfrontable truth of integrative meaning—as it says further on in Genesis, Jacob
‘talked with’ ‘God’ (35:14). Further, in the wrestling match for innocence between codependency to
the false world of ‘men’ and trust in the ‘God[ly]’, integrative truths that his uncorrupted soulfulself was telling him to believe in, Jacob was able to ‘overcome’ his codependency. In short Jacobwas an exceptional denial-free thinker or prophet. As a result of Jacob’s wrestling match with
God his name was changed to ‘Israel’, which the Bible subtext says means ‘he struggles with
God’, which we can now interpret as ‘he struggles with God when no one else can’.
Jacob’s eleventh of twelve sons was Joseph, another exceptional denial-free thinker orprophet. Even as a child Joseph would have known that he was sound enough to be able toavoid having to resign to a life of denial when he reached adolescence and therefore that as anadult he would be able to think truthfully while others couldn’t. In the future when we humansbecome free of the insecurity of the human condition and are able to look back in denial-freeclarity upon life as it existed under the duress of the human condition we are going to realisehow extremely sensitive our instinctive self or soul was to the imperfections of the world we

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

769
were born into. We will learn that even in our mother’s womb we were aware of how perfector imperfect the world we were entering. We were, for example, able to sense if our motherwas at all neurotic. The truth of the extraordinary sensitivity of our instinctive self or soulis something that the insecure upset world has understandably been unable to cope with andthus admit, but, as will be explained later, that extraordinary sensitivity does exist in us all. Itfollows that if a baby does happen to have an exceptionally secure mother whose world is alsoexceptionally secure then that baby would know that.
At this point I should interrupt to give a more detailed explanation of why it requires anexceptionally secure mother to produce a prophet. The description of Christ’s mother as a
‘virgin’ (Matt. 1:23, Luke 1:27,34) is actually a recognition of this truth. A few pages further on it will
be explained that when men became upset they perverted the act of procreation; they turned sexinto a way of attacking the innocence of women, which means ‘virgin’ is the perfect metaphorfor an innocent mother, a mother who has not had her innocence destroyed and thus not had toadopt denial of the ideal, soulful true world. Of course, Christ’s mother wasn’t a virgin but shewas an exceptionally innocent, psychologically sound, upset-and-denial-free mother becausethat is what is required to produce a fully-loved, psychologically sound, upset-and-denial-freeprophet. Laing’s comment included earlier that ‘Each child is a new beginning, a potential prophet’contains the inference that if a child was to receive sufficient nurturing and love they would bea prophet; that it took love to produce a prophet. We will see in a few pages time how Moses’mother so loved him as a baby that she hid him for three months from the Pharaoh’s henchmenwho were killing all Israelite boys, and how she then devised an extraordinarily clever plan tokeep him and raise him in a secure and peaceful realm in the Pharaoh’s household. The stablerealm was significant because for a mother to be able to give her son pure love she not onlyneeds to be exceptionally secure, she requires a loving and secure realm around her. She needsto be an exceptionally sound person and she needs ideal nursery conditions.
It should be noted that for there to have been four successive generations of prophetsfrom Abraham to Isaac to Jacob to Joseph is almost beyond belief because it would requirefour successive exceptionally sound mothers and under the duress of the human conditionsuch women are extraordinarily rare. Either there has been some exaggeration to bolster theprophetic tradition that was so important to the Israelite nation, or the overall innocence of the
Israelite people at that time, which was some 3,800 years ago, was so very great that a series ofexceptionally innocent mothers could occur. Certainly genetic adaption to corruption happensvery rapidly—as genetic adaption does in response to any strong selection pressure—and allpeople in the world would have been significantly more innocent 4,000 years ago than they aretoday—and possibly the Israelite people were still exceptionally innocent having not long agodeparted from their Semitic race’s original lifestyle as nomadic herdsmen where they livednaturally isolated from encounters with more upset people—but it still seems improbable evenback then for the degree of innocent soul strength needed in a mother to produce a prophet tooccur in four successive generations. Given how extraordinarily sound a mother has to be toproduce a prophet, I favour the exaggeration possibility. Possibly there were more generationsbetween Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (it seems Jacob was definitely the father of Joseph becausethere is so much recorded of their relationship), and/or perhaps some of the four, possibly
Isaac, wasn’t a fully nurtured, denial-free thinking prophet.

770

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

The question does arise that if Joseph’s mother was secure and loving enough to nurtureand preserve Joseph’s soundness, why wasn’t she able to do that for her other sons, Joseph’sbrothers? The answer lies in the delicacy of our original instinctive self or soul. The truthis our soul is so delicate and sensitive, so expecting of encountering an idyllic world ofperfect love, happiness and sound, integrative behaviour that it doesn’t take much corruptbehaviour to distress it. In the case of the mothers of prophets they are necessarily so imbuedwith awareness of the soul’s true world and so naive about, and thus unbending towards andunsympathetic towards the upset, corrupt, alienated, dishonest, devious, false world that theylive above that false world; they live as if the false world has no relevance or meaning, whichcan leave people who are not so strongly orientated and secure feeling as if they don’t exist—even their own sons if they are at all fragile. Soul-strong mothers are not intentionally cruel atall, there is no anger or embitterness in them, they are simply strong in what they know is trueand authentic, and strong in what they know is dishonest and false. They are simply perfectlycentred on what is consistent with the integratively-orientated true world and because achild’s soul is so delicate any sense of deficiency on the part of the child implied by thiscentredness of the mother on what is authentic to the world of our species’ original instinctiveself or soul can be psychologically crippling for the child. It is a soul-strong mother’s totalawareness of and belief in another true world, and total dismissal of the false world as havingno meaning or relevance, that enables them to give a sound and secure son unerring alignmentwith the true world of our soul. While soundness is reinforced by such soul-strong mothers,lack of soundness is not. Soul-centred mothers have perfect love for what is authentic in theintegrative, soulful true world but, in effect, no love for what is not; they lack compassionfor corruption, about which they are naive. To them corruption in any form is irrelevant, ameaningless weakness and failing. An innocent mother is innocent—she doesn’t know aboutthe human condition. As will be explained in a few paragraphs further on, women aren’t asaware of the whole subject and issue of the human condition as men, so an innocent womancan be extremely innocent, extremely unaware of, and thus extremely unsympathetic towards,the corrupted state of the human condition. We will see shortly when the story of Noah’s Arkis explained that God, the personification of the integrative ideals, had to learn compassionfor the corrupted state of the human condition, that ‘He’ initially made a mistake and drownedeveryone because ‘He’ thought they were all cursed, but then ‘He’ relented and saw that ‘eventhough every inclination of his [upset humans’] heart is evil from childhood’, ‘never again will I curse theground because of man…never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done’ (Gen. 8:21). When
viewed without any compassion, without any sense that there might be a good reason whyhumans became corrupted, the corrupted state of humans is a corrupted state—is a bad, evil,
God-inconsistent, God-defying, God-defiling, worthless, irrelevant, meaningless, out-of-stepwith-all-that-is-good state. The fact is wholly innocent women are wholly innocent.
Thus, soul-strong mothers can produce denial-free thinking prophets, but such offspringare rare. Exceptionally secure mothers, mothers who have virtually no core experience of,and thus empathy towards the upset hurt world—mothers who are metaphorically ‘virgin[s]’in their purity of soul—are rare enough, but it is even rarer for them to have a son whorepresents all that they know of as ideal and who can therefore grow up fully immersed intheir mother’s strong alignment to that ideal state and, as a result, be able to take on the world

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

771
of denial without bending. In an account about Moses’ mother that will be given shortlyit says that when she ‘gave birth to a son [Moses, she]…saw that he was a fine child, [and] she hidhim for three months’ from Pharaoh’s henchmen, later saving him by placing him in a basket
amongst the reeds of the Nile. There is a suggestion here of there being some significance in
Moses’ mother viewing him as a ‘fine child’, an inference that he didn’t disappoint her. To notbend to alienation is the alignment given to prophets by their soul-unbent-and-soul-unbendingmother. A mother capable of nurturing a prophet knows of another true world and that iswhere she lives, aligned to that world and believing in it. Such mothers are not sentimental,fussing or doting, they are simply strong and secure, but few offspring can fully meet theexpectations of such centred integrity.
To return to the explanation of Joseph’s extraordinary soundness. The knowledgethat Joseph had of being an exceptionally nurtured and thus secure person made himextraordinarily inspired and authoritative in his thinking. Joseph’s father Jacob, beingexceptionally sound himself, recognised and loved Joseph’s extraordinarily inspiredenthusiasm for life, his ‘zeal for your house [soulful true world]’ (Psa. 69:8) as the great prophet
David said about prophets. However, while ‘Israel [Jacob] loved Joseph more than any of his othersons’ (Gen. 37:3) Joseph’s inspired authoritativeness and self-belief was not appreciated by the
rest of his family—again as Christ said about the reception prophets received by those whowere too close to them to recognise their extraordinariness, ‘Only in his home town, amonghis relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honour’ (Mark 6:1-6). Somewhat naive at the
young age of ‘seventeen’ (Gen. 37:2) about the effects on others of being so inspired, Josephtold his brothers of dreams he had about how he would be able to achieve marvellous thingswhile they wouldn’t (see Gen. 37:6-9). As a result his authoritative self-belief and of his father’spreferential love, Joseph was treated dismissively and even ‘hated’ (Gen. 37:8) by his brothersto the point where they sold him as a slave to passing ‘merchants’ (Gen. 37:28) who took himto Egypt where he was sold on to ‘one of Pharaoh’s officials’ (Gen. 37:36). Incidentally this samescenario of a prophet being ‘without honour’ ‘in his own house’ had occurred in Joseph’s father’sinspired life where his brother had similarly held ‘a grudge against Jacob’ (Gen. 27:41).
It should be explained that should a mother be secure enough to nurture a prophet itdoesn’t mean that she will be able to recognise him as a prophet. She can recognise and lovehis immense enthusiasm for life, and recognise that he has integrity, but being the closest ofall to him she is in the worst position in terms of familiarity to be able to have the perspectiveneeded to recognise him as an exceptional denial-free thinker or prophet. Being a woman sheis also limited in her ability to recognise the significance of a prophet’s work of grapplingwith the issue of the human condition. Shortly it will be explained that because males werethe group protectors during our species’ ape ancestry—it was the males for example whohad to protect the group from marauding leopards—when the search for knowledge beganand humanity had to defeat the threat to the group/humanity of ignorance coming fromour original instinctive self it was men who had to take up that task. Women have been thenurturers and men the group protectors and when the threat of ignorance by our instinctiveself of our species’ fundamental goodness emerged it was men who had to take up that taskof trying to defeat that threat. As a result women are less aware than men of this battle todefy the world of our soul, defeat its ignorance and ultimately explain the human condition.

772

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Women have not been as aware as men of the battle that men are engaged in with the issueof the human condition, and, since that is the issue that prophets become focused upon,women aren’t as easily able to identify with a prophet’s work as men. This is why it is mennot women who became prophets—defiers of denial of the issue of the human condition—and partly why prophets’ mothers find it hard to recognise the immense significance of thework that their prophet son is engaged in. As a result of this situation, not only did Christ’sbrothers not empathise with Christ’s work, his own mother didn’t either. When Christ beganhis ministry and his brothers and mother heard about it, they accused him of having gonemad and, acting on that belief, tried to take charge of him—but again Christ had to be strongenough to carry on his work without his brothers’ or his mother’s appreciation of the work hewas undertaking. As is recorded in the Bible, ‘When his family heard about this [Christ’s ministry],they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind”’ (Mark 3:21); ‘his own did not receivehim’ (John 1:11); and ‘Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone into call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outsidelooking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. Then he looked at those seated in acircle around him and said “Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will is my brotherand sister and mother”’ (Mark 3:31-35).

To now return to the story of Joseph’s enslavement in Egypt. Not surprisingly given hisextraordinary soundness, Joseph was so capable that eventually his Egyptian owner ‘put himin charge of his household’ (Gen. 39:4). When his owner’s wife tried unsuccessfully to seduce him
she fabricated accusations against him which resulted in Joseph being thrown into prison, butagain he was so able that eventually he was put ‘in charge’ (Gen. 39:22) of the prison. Some timelater two of the Pharaoh’s officials happened to be put in the same prison where they bothhad dreams that Joseph was able to ‘interpret’ (Gen. 40:8). Dreams are basically awarenesses thatour species’ all-sensitive original instinctive self or soul has about the world it finds itself in.
As Carl Jung so insightfully said, ‘The dream is a little hidden door in the innermost and most secretrecesses of the psyche [soul], opening into that cosmic night which was psyche long before there was anyego consciousness’ (Civilization in Transition, from The Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Vol.10, 1945). Our psyche or
soul (‘psyche’ in the dictionary means ‘soul’) has immense sensitivity, coming as it does fromour species’ fully cooperative, loving and alienation-free past. It has access to all the beautyand magic enthrallment of an alienation-free life and when it encounters the immenselyupset world of the human condition it is deeply shocked. While an upset human’s consciousoverlying self normally represses their hurtfully exposing and condemning instinctive self orsoul, when they are asleep and the conscious self is resting the instinctive self or soul comesto the surface and expresses its immense anxieties about the horror of the world it has founditself in. This is why so many dreams are in fact nightmares—it is that innocent child withinus, our instinctive self or soul being shocked by the horrific imperfections of the world inwhich it lives. For someone who is not living in conscious denial of the human condition theirall-sensitive instinctive self or soul is closer to the surface in their mind and they can accessall the truth about the imperfections of the world that our instinctive self is acutely aware of.
This access enables denial-free thinkers or prophets to interpret people’s dreams—in factinterpret everything about the upset state of the human condition that everyone else is livingin denial of; as a woman said about a meeting she had with Christ, ‘come, see a man who told

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

773
me everything I ever did’ (John 4:29). Prophets are not in denial of all the truth about our world
that our instinctive self can recognise. They know what the soul is trying to ‘say’. Whensomeone is not in denial of all the horrors of this world and can access the extremely sensitiveknowingness of our instinctive self or soul there is so much about our world that they knowabout. So, Joseph being an alienation-free, denial-free thinker could interpret dreams, could
‘hear’ what people’s distressed souls were trying to ‘say’, and that’s what he did for the
Pharaoh’s officials. As will be explained later in this book when Christ is explained in somedetail (presently available in A Species In Denial in the chapter titled ‘Christ’s miracles andresurrection demystified’), Christ’s ability to heal people was not ‘miraculous’ but simply dueto his ability to connect with, empathise with, understand and thus bring great relief to theirtroubled souls—most sicknesses being psychosomatic or soul-distressed in origin. Prophetshave the room in themselves to immerse themselves in people’s lives, share and know theirpain when the rest of the world can’t. As Christ said, ‘I am gentle and humble in heart, and you willfind rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light’ (Matt. 11:29).

Later when the Pharaoh was being troubled by certain dreams, one of the jailed officialswho had been reinstated recalled Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams. Joseph duly did so,telling the Pharaoh that his dreams meant that there was going to be periods of good rainfalland then periods of terrible drought and that the Pharaoh should store the harvest from thegood times to ensure there would be food in the bad. The Pharaoh was so impressed that heplaced Joseph ‘in charge of my palace, and all my people are to submit to your orders’ (Gen. 41:40).
When, in due course, a terrible drought occurred and there was no food apart from what
Joseph had stored in Egypt, Joseph’s father Jacob sent his other sons down to Egypt wherethey met Joseph who recognised them. When he learned of this, the Pharaoh invited Joseph’sfamily to come and live in Egypt, which they did. In fact the Israelites were so successful andmultiplied in such numbers that when ‘a new king who did not know about Joseph, came to powerin Egypt’ (Exod. 1:8) he became threatened by them and ‘put slave masters over them’ (Exod. 1:11). In
fact, the Israelites were so capable and had so ‘multiplied’ (Exod. 1:12) that the new Pharaoh feltsufficiently threatened to order that ‘Every [Israelite] boy that is born you must throw into the river’
(Exod. 1:22). When one Israelite mother ‘gave birth to a son…[and] saw that he was a fine child, she
hid him for three months. But when she could hide him no longer…[she put him in] a papyrus basket…coated with tar…and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile. His sister stood at a distance tosee what would happen to him…[When the] Pharaoh’s daughter went down to the Nile to bathe’ (Exod.
2:3-5)
she found the baby and decided to keep him. Seeing this, the baby’s sister asked the

Pharaoh’s daughter if she would like a ‘Hebrew woman to nurse the baby for you?’ (Exod. 2:7) andwhen she answered yes, the sister ‘got the baby’s mother’ (Exod. 2:8) who then raised her son in the
Pharaoh’s household. The Pharaoh’s daughter named the baby ‘Moses, saying I drew him out ofthe water’ (Exod. 2:10).
‘One day after Moses had grown up…he killed…[an] Egyptian’ who was ‘beating a Hebrew, oneof his own people’ (Exod. 2:11-13). Realising he would be found out, Moses fled into the Arabian
desert where he lived for many years with shepherds, ‘tending…flock[s]’ (Exod. 3:1) and marryingthe daughter of one their priests.
Growing up in the Pharaoh’s palace, Moses, like Plato who was educated by Socratesduring the golden age of Athens, would have received the best education then available in the

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

774

The Biology
world, given Egypt was the most advanced civilisation at that time. Having the good fortuneof being so well looked after and so well educated it is understandable that Moses wouldhave felt a sense of responsibility to his persecuted people back in Egypt. He was also not aninsecure, embattled, no-room-left-in-himself, just-have-to-survive, cowardly, selfish upsetperson but, as it turns out, an exceptionally sound, denial-free thinker or prophet. Moses wasable to confront the truth of integrative meaning. Speaking from the perspective of the thirdperson (that is, from the position of someone not directly involved)—because either Moseshimself wanted the record to appear entirely objective, or because those after him changed
Moses’ record because they wanted it to appear entirely objective—Moses described howhe was able to survive confrontation with the integrative truths and meaning of life, whichin his day, as has been explained, was described as ‘God’. Again the fire analogy, which, asexplained in Part 6:2, is often used to represent the searing truth about integrative meaningand the human condition that almost all humans couldn’t face, is used. Moses said ‘the angel ofthe Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush…[from within which] God called to him’
(Exod. 3:2-4), saying ‘I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt…and I’m concerned about
their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them…and to bring them up out of that land into a goodand spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the land of the Canaanites [and others]’ (Exod.
3:7-8). At
first Moses said he ‘hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God’ (Exod. 3:6) and tried to
escape his responsibility saying, ‘Who am I, that I should go to the Pharaoh and bring the Israelitesout of Egypt’ (Exod. 3:11), but his all-loving, truthful, secure, strong, integrative-meaning-inspired,
soulful self assured him that ‘I will be with you’ (Exod. 3:12).
As has been explained earlier, exceptional mental cleverness or IQ is very often alimitation in being able to stay sound and Moses was not apparently exceptionally clever and,knowing how intellectually devious clever people can be, was anxious as to whether he wouldbe able to stand up to the intimidating world of the ruling intellectuals back in Egypt. Hecomplained to himself, ‘O Lord [the unerring inspiration coming from Moses’ all-sensitive, truthfulsoul], I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant, I amslow of speech and tongue’ (Exod. 4:10). But Moses rallied himself and knew that if he stood by his
truthful, true self and let it say what it wanted to say he would be effective—as Moses said ofthis time of anxiety, ‘I [my immensely inspired happy, loving true self] will help you speak and willteach you what to say’ (Exod. 4:11).

So Moses accepted that he had to return to Egypt and liberate his people from bondageand take them back to the promised land of Canaan and continue the world saving traditionsthat Abraham had begun. He went to Egypt and said to the Pharaoh ‘Let my people go’ (Exod.
5:1).

Obviously the Pharaoh was getting such good service from the Israelites he didn’t
want to let them go, however drawing on all his extremely clean access to his all-sensitivesoul Moses was able to know where destructive forces were fermenting in the world of the
Egyptians as a result of their greed and uncaring treatment of their environment and he usedthis insight to predict coming devastations, a series of ten ‘plagues’ (see Exod. 7-11). When thesepredictions came true the Pharaoh became so afraid that he agreed to let the Israelites go,and after ‘430 years’ (Exod. 12:40) in Egypt the Israelites began their exodus through the desertwilderness of the Sinai and Arabian Peninsulas which was to last ‘for forty years…until theyreached the border of Canaan’ (Exod. 16:35).

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

775

However ‘the Pharaoh’s heart’ became ‘hardened’ (Exod. 14:4) and he changed his mind,sending an army to ‘pursue the Israelites’ (Exod. 14:8). The account then says Moses parted the Red
Sea so that the Israelites could escape and when the Egyptians followed they were drowned
(see Exod. 14:26-30). As a result the Israelites then ‘feared the Lord and put their trust in him and in

Moses his servant’ (Exod. 14:31).

At this point it is relevant to explain the concept of miracles in the life of prophets.
Essentially the supposed miracles attributed to prophets protected people from havingto admit the prophet’s soundness and by inference their lack of it. Describing the oftenextraordinary events in the life of prophets as miracles was a way of recognising thatsomething remarkable had happened while avoiding the unbearably confronting issue of thehuman condition. As has repeatedly been illustrated, the denial-free state of prophets meantthey could access all the truth and sensitivity of our species’ original instinctive self or souland as a result know things and be able to make sense of situations and therefore know aneffective path to follow. So much of what denial-free thinking prophets said and did couldseem miraculous to the resigned, denial-practicing mind, but in truth prophets were onlythinking truthfully and thus effectively.
The concept of miracles is the resigned, denial-practicing person’s way of acknowledgingthat an event in the life of a prophet was extraordinary without having to acknowledgeits real significance, which is that they were living in an effectively dead, alienated statewhile prophets weren’t. It is so much easier to talk of Moses having miraculously partedthe waters of the Red Sea than to talk about Moses being so sound and therefore ingeniousand innovative in his thinking that he could find a way to defeat virtually every problemthat arose, even the problem of the powerful Egyptian army chasing them. What actuallyhappened we don’t know but the idea of a person literally parting an ocean is ridiculous. Themore astonishing the fabricated miracle obviously the more amazing and impressive wasthe means by which the prophet managed to solve the problem that the miracle describes, so
Moses must have come up with a very ingenious means to escape the pursuing Egyptians,but it wasn’t by an outlandish miracle. Possibly he had everyone strip off and tie their clothesinto a bundle and wrap it in an animal skin so that it would float and then had everyone holdon to their floats and swim across the sea when the tide was lowest and at the narrowest placehe was able to find—perhaps the islands at the mouth of the Gulf of Suez were higher thenand they were able to swim from island to island. Mt Sinai, where the Israelites went aftercrossing the Red Sea, isn’t far from this point. The account in Exodus says that ‘God led thepeople around by the desert road towards the Red Sea’ (Exod. 13:18), then ‘the Lord said to Moses, “Tellthe Israelites to turn back and encamp near Hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. They are to encampby the sea, directly opposite Baal Zephon”’ (Exod. 14:2). This does suggest Moses might have been
searching for the narrowest crossing. After doing a quick search on the internet for where it isthought the Israelites crossed there is a view that the escaping throng came down the easternside of the Gulf of Suez and then crossed to an island at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba atits narrowest point, so this idea of swimming across the narrowest point of the long barrierof water that is the Red Sea and through which the Egyptian chariots couldn’t follow may bethe ingenious way that Moses thought to escape those forces. (Since writing the above I haveseen a documentary that presents a plausible non-religious interpretation of Moses’s exodus

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

776

The Biology
from Egypt and journey to Canaan. It appears in the 2009 Battles BC documentary series inepisode S1, Ep5 ‘Moses: Death Chase’. Of course what’s missing from that presentation isthe explanation of how ruthless Moses had to be to implement his vision of establishing hisworld-saving religion.)
Other ‘miracles’, such as causing ‘water’ to ‘come out’ of a ‘rock’ (Exod. 17:6), followed,which to the city dwelling Israelites would have seemed amazing but Moses, a formershepherd who was familiar with desert life, would have known how to find springs bywatching the flight of birds and the paths of animals.
As always amongst upset, human-condition-afflicted people there would have beenmany social upheavals that Moses in all his soundness would have had to mediate—as isrecorded: ‘Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morningtill evening’ (Exod. 18:13). There was also much ‘grumbling’ (see Exod. 15:24, 16:2,7,8,9,12, 17:3; Deut. 1:27)
to Moses by the people, saying for example ‘you have brought us out into the desert to starve’
(Exod. 16:3), which Moses had to continually counter with the inspiration of his vision. It was
a stressful life and when ‘Moses’ father-in-law’, the desert nomad priest with whom Moses hadlived before his return to Egypt, visited him, he said, ‘What you are doing is not good. You andthese people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you’ (Exod. 18:17-18)
and advised Moses to ‘select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy menwho hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials…[to help] serve as judges [so] you will be able tostand the strain’ (Exod. 18:21-23). It is a very great problem for denial-free thinkers or prophets who
can see so clearly where there are threats from people’s extreme upset and blindness to the allimportant project they are undertaking and they do wear themselves right out trying to containthe threats, and it is true that they do have to try to find individuals who are relatively securein self and/or properly orientated to the project to whom they can delegate, risky as that is.
There are limits however to the extent to which supervision can contain upset behaviourand ‘In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt’ (Exod. 19:1), when camped at the foot of
Mt Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula, Moses became deeply distressed about the almost selfdestructive behaviour of his people. Needing all the access he could muster to his truthful selfor soul for guidance as to what to do, he climbed up to the cool, fresh air of the ‘cloud covered’
(Exod. 24:15) peak of Mt Sinai where he spent ‘forty days and forty nights’ (Exod. 24:18) alone fasting,
eating ‘no bread [or]…water’ (Deut. 9:9). Fasting, where the brain is starved of nourishment, is ameans of shutting down the conscious mind and allowing the truthful, all-sensitive world ofthe soul to come to the surface. There on the mountain top ‘Moses…[was able] to approach the
Lord [the truth of integrative meaning]’ (Exod. 24:2) and with that denial-free clarity Moses realised
that what he would have to do is establish strict rules or laws enforced by punishment tocontain the upset, destructive behaviour of his people. He composed ten key laws, the nowfamous ‘Ten Commandments’ (see Exod. 20 & 34:28) that begin with emphasis on obedience anddeferment to the one true God, which, as has been explained, is the integrative, cooperative,loving meaning of existence. He also realised he would have to establish ceremoniesaround these laws to reinforce their importance to the people. When he came down from themountain, ‘his face was radiant because he had spoken with the Lord [he had been living close to theauthentic world of our soul]’ (Exod. 34:29) and he had with him the Ten crucial Commandments
which he had scratched on two stone tablets. These, he instructed, were to be housed in a

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

777
beautiful ‘chest’ (Exod. 24:10) or ‘ark’ (Exod. 24:16) that because of its sacredness was to be hiddenwithin ‘the tabernacle [tent] with ten curtains’ (Exod. 26:1). He then gave instructions about an altarfor burnt offerings or sacrifices, and about priestly garments and other items of ritual. He alsofollowed up the Ten key Commandments with a series of instructions about not having idols,about personal injuries, protection of property, social responsibility, laws of justice and mercy,the Sabbath day of rest and three annual festivals, and many, many other directives on howto live (see Exod. 20-23). Leviticus, the third book of the Bible, is entirely dedicated to outliningthese further instructions to the Israelites.
The fourth book of the Bible, called Numbers, documents the living arrangements for thetwelve Israelite tribes during their wanderings through the wilderness to the promised landof ‘milk and honey’ (Exod. 3:8) in Canaan, which, incidentally, is symbolic of humanity’s overalljourney through the terrible wilderness of alienation to the promised state of fabulous freedomfrom the human condition. Numbers also records how Moses had to contend with morecomplaints from the Israelites—‘wailing’ about ‘why did we ever leave Egypt?’ (Num. 11:20), they
‘grumbled against Moses’ (Num. 14:2) saying ‘we should choose a leader and go back to Egypt’ (Num. 14:4)
and that ‘there was no water for the community, and the people gathered in opposition to Moses’ (Num.
20:2).

Certainly, if there wasn’t any exaggeration to the depiction, there were a lot of people to
be provided for as the Bible says that by this stage ‘the total number of men of Israel was 601,730’
(Num. 26:51), and that was only the number of ‘men’! Clearly some exaggeration exists where
numbers of years is concerned, as Moses regularly describes individuals living to impossiblyold ages, such as Abraham having ‘lived a hundred and seventy-five years’ (Gen. 25:7), so perhapsthe number of people is also inflated. The remainder of Numbers documents the stages the
Israelites’ journey takes through the wilderness and the battles they had to fight against othertribes along the way.
The deeper significance of the continual complaints made by the Israelites to Mosesneeds to be explained. As is mentioned in the paragraph below, Moses instructed the Israelites
‘to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul’. The essence
of Religion is that instead of living through your upset, divisive, competitive, selfish, andaggressive self you lived through, or deferred to, or subordinated yourself to, or obeyed theintegrative, cooperative, selfless and loving ideals embodied in the prophet and in his onetrue God of integrative meaning. Basically you had to do the opposite of what your upsetself wanted to do. This was hard teaching and in fact, as will be explained much more fullylater on, being too obedient to the cooperative ideals was not the right response because, asthe Adam Stork story makes clear, the conscious search for knowledge unavoidably resultedin upset, divisive, competitive, selfish and aggressive non-ideal behaviour, so to not beallowed to become upset and non-ideally behaved at all was to not be allowed to search forknowledge. Obviously a balance had to be struck between participating in the upsetting,corrupting search for knowledge and obedience to the cooperative, loving ideals. Abraham’sand Moses’ instructions to obey God was both hard to do and not entirely the right thing todo, so it wasn’t just the physical hardship of desert life that the Israelites were railing against,it was also the wrestling match they were having with their Religion. The introduction of
Religions in the world was a fabulous, corruption-and-denial-correcting and thus humanitysaving influence, but Religions were also a difficult discipline to firstly be able to abide by,

778

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
and secondly to know to what extent to abide by. Worshipping a ‘gold…calf ’ (Exod. 32:2-4), which,in defiance of Moses, the Israelites tried to do at one stage of their journey through the desert,was much easier than worshipping God. Significantly one of the big differences between
Religion and the new TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE that understanding of the humancondition now makes possible for humans is that since understanding of the human conditionwas the key understanding we were in search of, now that it is found there is no longer anyjustification for continuing the upsetting search for knowledge—at least until all the excessiveupset in the world is repaired. In the situation that has existed with a Religion there wasjustification for not completely deferring to the cooperative ideals of the Religion and to adegree continuing your participation in the corrupting search for knowledge, however nowthat the ultimate knowledge that we were in search of, namely understanding of the humancondition, is found that situation no longer exists. Religion-defying ‘Homer Simpson’ ofcartoon fame had a justification for not doing what his religion-loving, ideals-obeying cartoonneighbour ‘Ned Flanders’ was doing but that situation changes now. With understanding ofthe human condition found everyone, including ‘Homer’, fully takes up the new upset-selfdeferring, abandon-living-out-your-upset-and-instead-take-up-support-of-the-understandingof-the-human-condition TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE. There is no excuse not to stopliving out your upset now as there was with Religion. This extremely important point wasemphasised earlier when the new TRANSFORMED LIFEFORCE STATE was looked at in Part 9.
In his fifth and last book, Deuteronomy, Moses reiterates all that he has taught his people,summarising, ‘what other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God isnear us…and…to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you’ (Deut.
4:7-8); ‘Has any other people heard the voice of God speak out of fire, as you have, and lived?’ (Deut. 4:33); ‘I
stood between the Lord and you to declare to you the word of the Lord because you were afraid of the fire’
(Deut. 5:5); ‘obey the commands…to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and with
all your soul’ (Deut. 11:13). Continuing the tradition of taking leadership from prophets, Moses said,
‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listento him’ (Deut. 18:15). Deuteronomy also states that ‘Moses wrote down this law’ (Deut. 31:9), and that
‘Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end’ (Deut. 31:24). (Incidentally,
writing appeared almost simultaneously some 5,000-6,000 years ago in Egypt, Mesopotamia,and the Indus Valley.) Deuteronomy concludes with Moses dying at the foothills of thepromised land of Canaan. It says he was very old, ‘yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone’
(Deut. 34:7), and that ‘Since then no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face’
(Deut. 34:10). Moses was sound enough to confront the truth of integrative meaning and the issue
of the human condition with impunity: he was an absolutely exceptional denial-free thinker.
We can see that Moses was focused on establishing a structure that would allow upset,embattled humans to live with some degree of functionality and peace. He used all hissoundness to give the world of upset humans a template for living. He brought order to chaos.
A world that is living in an alienated, dark, cave-like state of denial of the truth ofintegrative meaning and many other important truths is a directionless, lost, desperatelylonely, meaningless existence. Unresigned, denial-free thinking prophets have the greatgood fortune of not living in such a horribly lost, alienated state. Living as they are withthe truth of integrative meaning and with a denial-free awareness of another wonderful

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

779
cooperative, loving world, their lives are meaningful, full of enthrallment and excitement;they have reassuring and comforting order and direction. Realising how bereft of suchorientation the world of all the people around them is, the one great driving force that adenial-free thinker or prophet has is to somehow share, communicate and recreate that order,direction and orientation for those who are so lost, bewildered and unhappy. While denialor alienation protected humans from unbearable self-confrontation it also left them horriblydisorientated and alone, which prophets can see and want to help overcome. Being verygreat prophets, Abraham and Moses drew on all their soundness to realign their people, givethem an infallible true vision and a structure that they could live in and which would bringto themselves and their society some peace. By so doing they also gave all of humanity theopportunity to adopt such a stabilising, peace-bringing structure—and through doing that theybought the time needed for humanity to complete its heroic search for knowledge, ultimatelyfor self-knowledge, understanding of the human condition.
To help create that order, direction and orientation for all those suffering from thedisorientation of alienation, prophets very much wanted to provide a contexting history ofhumanity, a denial-free account of where we humans came from and are heading, with allthe major events that took place along the way truthfully acknowledged. Obviously withunderstanding of the human condition now found this can at last be done in clear, firstprinciple, scientific and denial-free terms, as can be seen in this book. In Part 8:2, a denialfree step-by-step description of the development of order of matter on Earth was given. Thisdescription traces the history of the development of matter from the underpinning physicallaws of existence, to the effects those laws have on the building-block elements of matter, tothe emergence of life, to the appearance of our cooperatively orientated ape ancestors, to theemergence of fully conscious humans and with it the horror of the upset state of the humancondition, to the development of the various strategies to manage that upset, to finally findingthe liberating and TRANSFORMING understanding of the human condition. Despite livingin pre-scientific times, Abraham and Moses did their very best to present that all-importantorientating and contexting, denial-free history of humanity that people could see themselvesas being part of and belonging to, and, given the knowledge available at the time, what theywere able to assemble was truly extraordinarily insightful and accurate—as we will now see.
Although their initial society was small in numbers, the rhetoric of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
Joseph and Moses shows that they knew that if, within that small society, they could create theideal structure it could and would keep expanding and ultimately be able to influence the wholeworld—as Moses said of their initiatives, ‘all nations on earth will be blessed’ (Gen. 26:5). In the caseof the influence of the Ten Commandments, for example, they have become ‘the moral basis fortwo thirds of the world’s population’ (from Moses, BBC/TLC co-production in assoc. with Jerusalem Productions, 2002).

While Abraham’s contribution of both monotheism and tradition were critically importantin creating a successful path for the human race to follow, Moses was the one who firmlyestablished what Abraham had initiated. As well as emphasising the need to defer, or subordinateyourself to one all-pervading truth or God and maintaining traditions, Moses added the laws, the
Imposed Discipline, the society required, and the all-important contexting history that peoplecould feel themselves a part of. Finally, he wrote all this down and put the resulting book, alongwith the Ten key Commandments etched on two stone tablets, in a box to be treasured.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

780

The Biology

This brings us back to the important first ten chapters of Genesis that were so crucialin establishing the contexting history of life and of humans, up to where we began the storyof Abraham.
Genesis begins with the words, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Withthese completely unevasive, denial-free words monotheism—the awareness that there is onlyone great cooperative, integrative truth or meaning or theme to existence—was established.
Moses went on to say how God then created the ‘light’, the ‘sky’, the ‘seas’ and the ‘land’ (Gen.
1:3-9)
and then ‘plants’ (Gen. 1:11) and ‘living creatures’ (Gen. 1:20). He then said ‘God created man in
his own image, in the image of God…male and female he created them’ (Gen. 1:27). Since we can now
understand that God is the negative-entropy-driven, integrative process, for our ancestors tobe created in ‘the image of God’ we had to be living in an integrative, cooperative, loving idealstate that, as Moses said, ‘was very good’ (Gen. 1:31). He then said God ‘planted a garden…in Eden;and there he put the man…[with] all kinds of trees…that were pleasing to the eye and good for food’ (Gen.
2:8-9). We
now know that our original arboreal-living ape ancestors did live in a Garden-of-

Eden-like verdant world full of plants, especially fruits, that they lived on, much as bonobosdo today. Moses continued, ‘God commanded the man…not [to] eat from the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die’ (Gen. 2:16-17). If we go to Moses’ fifth book,

Deuteronomy, Chapter 1:39, where it refers to ‘your children who do not yet know good and bad’,we can understand the phrase ‘knowledge of good and evil’ means ‘to know or to suffer fromor experience good and evil’, although the use of the term ‘knowledge’ instead of ‘know’does hint at the conscious search for knowledge as being the cause of the human-conditionafflicted state of good and evil. Moses confirms the involvement of a conscious search forunderstanding/knowledge as the cause of our good-and-evil-afflicted state when he says, ‘thefruit of the tree was…desirable for gaining wisdom’ (Gen. 3:6). We can also now understand that when

Moses said that if ‘you eat of it [the forbidden fruit] you will surely die’ he was recognising andacknowledging that searching for knowledge was so corrupting you would eventually becomeso alienated that you would effectively be dead.
Through his integratively-orientated, denial-free, truthful self or, if we like to personifyit, ‘God’, Moses then said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable forhim…Then the Lord God made a woman…and he brought her to the man…[to] be united to his wife…
The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame’ (Gen. 2:18-25). Moses then said that the
woman ‘gave some [of the forbidden fruit] to her husband…Then the eyes of both of them were opened,and they realised that they were naked; so they…made coverings for themselves’ (Gen. 3:6-7). Moses
then said as penance for what she had done ‘the woman’ would have her ‘pains in childbearing’
‘greatly increased’ and ‘Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you’ (Gen. 3:16). To
the man, Moses said that because he ate the forbidden fruit, ‘Cursed is the ground because of you;through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life’ (Gen. 3:17). Moses went on to say that the
integrative ideals or ‘God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Hemust not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever.” Sothe Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.
After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flamingsword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life’ (Gen. 3:22-24).

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

781

The different roles that men and women had to take up during humanity’s heroic, humancondition-afflicted, search for knowledge was explained in Part 7:1. A very brief summary hereof those different roles will help explain the significance and meaning of what Moses said.
Part 8:4 explained how humans developed a cooperatively orientated instinctive self orsoul through nurturing, through the ‘love-indoctrination’ process in our primate past. Thistime of nurturing of our integratively-orientated soul was a matriarchal (or female-roledominated) phase in our species’ development that the bonobos currently demonstrate. Themales’ role during this nurturing stage was to act as group protectors against any threats, suchas marauding leopards for example. When our species became fully conscious and we had toset out in search of knowledge and defy the threat from our integratively-orientated instinctiveself that was ignorant of our need to search for knowledge and was in effect trying to stopthat search, men, in keeping with their traditional role as group protectors, had to take up theall-important and thus dominating role of defying the threat of ignorance from our instinctiveself. As a result of this development, our society changed from being a matriarchal, femalerole-dominated society to a patriarchal, male-role-dominated one. The effect of men carryingout this role was that they especially became unavoidably angry, egocentric and alienated.
In response, women, not being as involved in this battle against ignorance, tended to beunsympathetic towards men’s especially upset angry, egocentric and alienated state. Unableto explain why they were so unavoidably upset and embattled, men then had no choice otherthan to contain and even oppress women for their lack of sympathy for the critical work thatthey were doing. One form of oppression was the perversion of the act of sex. While sex wasoriginally for procreation (and, in the case of some species, such as the bonobos, a meansof pacification), men began to use it as a form of retaliation against women for their unjustcondemnation of them for being so angry, egocentric and alienated. Sex became used as ameans of attacking—‘fucking’—the naive innocence of women. It became rape. The feminist
Andrea Dworkin recognised this underlying truth in her 1987 book Intercourse, when she said,
‘All sex is abuse’. Overall a battle emerged between men and women, however they still had to
live together to raise children.
We can now interpret what Moses said above. In our pre-conscious state our humanancestors lived in a Garden-of-Eden-like world, free of upset, innocent and without ‘shame’.
Then, with the emergence of consciousness the terrible upset state appeared. Men inparticular had to take on the horribly upsetting job of defying the ignorance of our beautifulinstinctive self or soul while they patiently and painfully toiled away at the job of searchingfor knowledge—as Moses unerringly said, ‘Cursed is the ground because of you [men]; throughpainful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.’ As a result, women, not understanding why
men had become so upset, became unsympathetic towards men and the original ‘united’ stateof men and women ended, sex became perverted and ‘the eyes of both of them were opened, andthey realised that they were naked’, the consequence being that the naked body that attracted sex
had to be ‘cover[ed]’ up to quell lust. Overall society changed from matriarchal to patriarchal,where a woman’s ‘desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you’. The blame put uponwomen for tempting men to seek knowledge is an acknowledgment of just how attractivewomen became for sex. The appeal of women’s beauty became an inspiration for the search

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

782

The Biology
for knowledge. Thus, as well as an attack on the naivety of women, sex became, at a morenoble level, an act of love. The reason the ‘pains in childbearing’ ‘greatly increased’ is becauseby the time our ancestors became fully conscious and the upset state of the human conditionappeared, the size of the human brain had become so big it was difficult for the head to fitthrough the pelvis at birth. The characteristic swivel of women’s hips when walking is a resultof their pelvis widening as much as is functionally possible to accommodate the large headof infants at birth. Again it has to be emphasised that the situation that emerged between menand women under the duress of the human condition will all be explained more fully later.
Moses stating that ‘God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil”’refers to the fact that where other animals are ignorant or unaware of the difference betweengood and evil we fully conscious humans are, like the all-pervading, all-powerful, all-presentand all-knowing truth of integrative meaning or ‘God’, aware or knowing of what is consistentwith that truth and what isn’t. We became creatures capable of insight. Again we see themetaphor of ‘flam[es]’ for the unconfrontable truth of the human condition which our inabilityto explain ‘guard[s] the way [back] to the tree of life’. The ‘tree of life’ that we weren’t allowed to
‘eat’ and therefore were unable to ‘live for ever’ is a reference to the fact that once we became
insecure and alienated we lost our sense of universality and immortality; we lost the sense ofour eternal alignment to integrativeness that we had before we became corrupted and alienated.
In all, what Moses has put forward here is an astonishingly accurate overview of thehuman condition, an incredibly penetrating unevasive, denial-free analysis.
The main point, which has already been emphasised, is that the all-importantdignifying understanding of the human condition was not possible in Moses’ pre-scientifictimes so he was only able to say that we were ‘banish[ment]’-deserving evil beings whenwe became fully conscious. He recognised that we humans once lived in an upset-free,
Garden-of-Eden-like innocent state and then conscious searchers for knowledge and, as aresult, corrupted, but it wasn’t possible for him to explain HOW and WHY that search forknowledge was so corrupting.
We don’t know if Moses was the originator of this ‘Adam and Eve’ overview analysis ofthe human condition (Adam and Eve being the names Moses gave to the first two people inthe story of the Garden of Eden), but if not he was able to recognise its immense significanceto the extent that he began the Bible with it. If Moses wasn’t the originator of the story and itwas part of a tradition that was passed down to him, whoever did originally conceive it hadto have been an exceptionally sound, denial-free, honest thinker to have been so immenselyinsightful. Certainly, as was mentioned earlier, people were more innocent, much sounder,less alienated, in earlier times so there would have been more prophets then to create suchinsightful stories.
Continuing the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, Moses wrote that Adamand Eve had two sons, Cain, and then Abel, and that ‘Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil…
[and] The Lord looked with favour on Abel…[but] on Cain…he did not look with favour. So Cain wasvery angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry…[and] yourface downcast?…if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door…but you must master it”…

[but] Cain attacked his brother and killed him…[and for doing this God said to Cain] “You will be arestless wanderer on the earth”…[to which] Cain said…“my punishment is more than I can bear. Today

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

783
you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wandereron the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” But the Lord said to him, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain,he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who foundhim would kill him. So Cain went from the Lord’s presence…[and] was then building a city…[and had
offspring some of whom] lived in tents and raised livestock…[while another was] the father of all whoplay the harp and flute…[while another] forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron’ (Gen. 4:1-22).

As has been mentioned, later in this book the science-based, denial-free account of thehistory of the Earth and of humanity will be presented. There we will see how extraordinarilypenetrating, accurate and denial-free Moses’ story of Cain and Abel is when it comes toexplaining what happened to humans after they became fully conscious and set out in searchof knowledge. Essentially, as has already been mentioned, humans became increasinglyupset: angry, egocentric and alienated, to the extent that we began murdering each other.
It will be explained that the domestication of animals, and following that the advent ofagriculture, allowed humans to live more sedentary lives in towns and then cities wheregreater proximity and interaction between people caused upset to rapidly spread and increase.
It will be explained how those races who remained closer to nature, removed from thecongested, human-condition-spreading town and city situations, stayed innocent longer. Thedifferences in upset between individuals, generations and races caused conflict, even murderand genocide, because without reconciling understanding that upset was a heroic state, not anevil state, the more innocent could only view the more upset as bad or evil, while the moreupset and corrupt couldn’t help but feel unappreciated and unjustly condemned by the moreinnocent. Since the more upset were the most angry they were typically the ones to repressand even kill the more innocent because of their unjust condemnation of them; even if themore innocent didn’t actually condemn the more upset their presence alone was enough tomake the more upset feel unjustly condemned. Innocence has often been oblivious to itsimpact upon those more corrupted, as the following quote demonstrates: ‘In the small fenced-inwaiting area outside the departure hall an African woman sits with her wares spread out upon the grass.
On the way to the plane I notice a framed piece of needle point she has hung on the fence that reads: “Ilove those who hate me for nothing”’ (River of Second Chances by Eric Ransdell, Outside mag. Dec. 1990). This
reaction was also evident in the words of the innocent, denial-free thinking prophet Davidwhen he referred to ‘those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are myenemies without cause’ (Psa. 69:4; see also Psa. 35:19), a view which Christ also held when he repeated

David’s words, ‘They hated me without reason’ (John 15:25). As has been and will be repeatedlyemphasised in this book, while it hasn’t been safe to admit to different levels of innocence andupset amongst people, generations, races and cultures because any such acknowledgment onlyled to unjust condemnation of the more upset, now that the dignifying understanding of allhumans has been found it is not only safe but necessary to acknowledge and talk about thesedifferences because it is only with such honesty, acknowledgment and discourse that the upsetin the world can be understood and ameliorated.
What has just been presented is a very brief description of the explanation that will begiven later of why humans began to attack each other, however, it is enough to demonstratejust how extraordinarily insightful and accurate Moses’ account of the story of Cain and
Abel is. ‘Abel kept flocks, [he lived the nomadic life of a shepherd, staying close to nature and

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

784

The Biology
innocence] and Cain worked the soil [he cultivated crops and domesticated animals and as a resultwas able to become settled and develop towns and cities and through greater interaction with otherhumans became increasingly upset]…Cain was [became] very angry, and his face was downcast [hebecame depressed about his corrupted/upset state and]…Cain attacked his [relatively innocent and thusunwittingly confronting and condemning] brother Abel and killed him’ (Genesis 4:2,5,8).

When Moses said ‘but you must master’ ‘sin’ he was describing the emergence of theneed to control and contain excessive upset. Cain described the punishment he was havingto endure as ‘more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden fromyour presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth’—an accurate depiction of the terrible,
blind, deathly dark cave-like state of alienation that humans had to endure when they becameresigned to living a life of denial of their corrupted condition. Once upset developed humanshad no choice other than to live ‘hidden from’ the ‘presence’ of the condemning truth ofintegrative meaning as guilt-afflicted, distressed, ‘restless wanderer[s] on the earth’. The accountof Cain being worried that he had been so destructive that ‘whoever finds me will kill me’ andof ‘the Lord’ countering with ‘Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance’ and ‘put[ting]a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him’ is a deeply insightful account of the
emergence of compassion for the upset state of the human condition. Cain saying ‘whoeverfinds me will kill me’ is an accurate summary of the fact that if there was no compassion towards
upset then upset humans would be totally condemnable, deserving of death. The fact thatupset humans are not condemned to death, that in fact such condemnation was, as Moses sopointedly said, forbidden, is a recognition of the eventual emergence of compassion for upsetin the lives and world of humans. The ‘mark on Cain’, that would identify him as an upsetperson who should be treated with compassion, is the depression that the upset, corrupted,guilt-ridden state has caused humans. While upset, human-condition-afflicted humans learntto live in denial of their corrupted state and find as many ways as possible to think positivelyabout themselves, all the denial and efforts to do so was designed to keep at bay an underlyingdepression that the truth of their upset state caused them. Although upset, human-conditionafflicted humans went to great lengths to present a positive representation of themselves tothemselves and to the world, the fact is depression has been the dominant characteristic—the
‘mark on Cain’—of the lives of humans living under the duress of the human condition.

Moses’ account of the descendants of Adam and Eve building cities and turning to allkinds of occupations and trades is an accurate account of the emergence of division of labourand occupation in society.
The final section of the first chapters of Genesis before the emergence of Abrahamdescribes the story of Noah and his ark. While the story of Cain and Abel provides anoverview summation of what happened to humans in their two million-year-long journey frominnocence to extreme upset, the story of Noah’s Ark focuses on the most significant yet leastacknowledged event in that journey, namely humans’ resignation to living in denial of theissue of the human condition as the only means of coping with it. Resignation was explainedin Part 3:8.
The great flood in the story of Noah’s Ark is a metaphorical description of the mostcataclysmic event that occurred in humanity’s corrupting search for knowledge, the time when
Resignation became an almost universal phenomenon amongst humans. There was a time

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

785
when all humans were sufficiently free of corruption and innocent, to be able to go throughlife without ever having to resign themselves to blocking out the issue of the human conditionand any truths that brought that issue into focus, which, as we have seen, was nearly everytruth—a time in fact when all humans were innocent, denial-free, truthful thinking prophets.
However, as the search for knowledge developed and corruption increased, more and morepeople needed to resign themselves to a life of denial to cope with their suicidally depressingcorrupted condition. Eventually there came a time when almost every adolescent was growingup sufficiently corrupted in soul to have to adopt the strategy of Resignation to a life of denialto avoid the depression that their upset, corrupted, divisive condition would have otherwisecaused them—a time when Resignation and the extremely competitive, aggressive, mustprove-that-I-am-not-bad, egocentric way of living became a normal part of adult human life.
The Noah’s Ark metaphor describes this time in our species’ past when Resignation andits denial of any truths that bring the issue of the human condition into focus—includingoppression and repression of our cooperation-and-loving-behaviour-demanding instinctiveself or soul—became almost universal amongst humans. It describes the time when
Resignation ‘flooded’ (Gen. 7:24) the world and our soul and all its truths went under, weredrowned, ‘wiped out’ (Gen. 7:23). It describes the time when the innocent, truthful world of oursoul was pushed into our subconscious, out of conscious awareness, and in its place the highlycompetitive, egocentric, ‘give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death’, ‘I-am-never-going-to-acceptthat-I-am-bad’ way of living emerged.
The only ones to escape the horror of humanity’s Resignation—the great ‘drowning’of humans—were the very few exceptionally innocent people or prophets, symbolised by
Noah, and the few innocent animals that Noah’s upset-free, loving state protected from allthe extremely upset, brutal, innocence-hating, nature-attacking, I-hate-criticism, anger inthe rest of humanity. As Moses said, ‘Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of histime, and he walked with God [he did not have to deny integrative meaning]…God saw how corruptthe earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, “…make yourself an ark…I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth…Everything on earth will perish [the
innocent, soulful, natural world and all the denial-free truths will perish when people resign to a lifeof angry, egocentric denial]. But I will establish my covenant with you [but from here on I will dependon prophets to preserve the truth of integrative meaning and all the other great truths that relate to it],and you will enter the ark…Go into the ark [stay free of the cave-like dead, drowned state of denial],you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you…

[representations] of every kind of…animal…to keep the various kinds alive throughout the earth”’ (Gen.
6:9,12,14,17,18; 7:1-3).

The Bushmen people of southern Africa have a word for prophets that employs a similaranalogy to the story of Noah’s Ark: ‘Samutchoso’, which means ‘he who is left after theharvest’, a reference to the few stalks of wheat that are left standing upright after a harvest.
Only an exceptionally innocent few don’t have to resign to living a dishonest life of denial ofthe issue of the human condition and of any truths that bring that issue into focus, which isnearly all truths. I learnt of this description the Bushmen have for prophets from Sir Laurensvan der Post’s 1958 book The Lost World of the Kalahari. In that book Sir Laurens describesmeeting a Bushman ‘prophet and healer’ named ‘Samutchoso’, which the Bushmen told him

786

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
meant ‘He who was left after the reaping’ (pp.159,129 of 253). Christ too was referred to as ‘the firstbornfrom among the dead’ (Col. 1:18), the only one left psychologically alive when alienation spread
across the Earth. In Ecclesiastics in the Bible it says, ‘God made mankind upright [uncorrupted],but men have gone in search of many schemes [understandings]’ (7:29)—we went in search of
understanding and then had to resign to a life of deadening, drowned, ‘upright[less]’ denial.
Moses then said that God relented, saying, ‘Never again will I curse the ground because of man,even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all livingcreatures, as I have done’ (Gen. 8:21). ‘Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitfuland increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon…every creature thatmoves…they are given into your hands…I now give you everything…But…I will demand an accountingfrom every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man…Inow establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creaturethat was with you”’ (Gen. 9:1-10). We can understand what Moses means: after Resignation, the
great ‘drowning’, humans rapidly became more and more upset such that ‘fear and dread of you
[the now extremely upset human race] will fall upon…every creature that moves’. In this situation
where upset was becoming extreme, ever stronger forms of restraint had to be developed tomaintain order and functionality and prevent upset from getting out of hand—if ‘an accountingfrom every animal. And from each man, too… for the life of his fellow man’ was to be maintained.

Upset had to be contained, a ‘covenant’ or agreement had to be reached and maintainedbetween behaving in an extremely upset way and behaving ideally. Basically upset was nolonger seen as being entirely evil. God, as it were, had relented on that view. Compassion andtolerance had emerged for upset humans ‘even though every inclination of…[their] heart is evil fromchildhood.’ ‘But’ there was also a limit to the compassion and tolerance; upset humans had to
stay ‘account[able]’ or responsible for their actions. With this structure in place, upset was ableto be contained and a semblance of functionality and order achieved allowing upset humans tobuild great cities with heroic, egocentric, we-are-absolute-legends-not-villains skyscrapers—
‘a city, with a tower that reached to the heavens’, the tower of ‘Babel’. Different ‘language[s]’
developed and humans ‘scattered…over the face of the whole earth’ (Gen. 11:4-9).
The story of Cain and Abel recognised the overall principle that once humans becamevariously upset and at odds with each other, they had to learn to contain or ‘master’ their upset.
The story of Noah’s Ark focused on Resignation and the need to contain the extreme upsetthat developed after Resignation, namely the need for Imposed Discipline and for Religion.
Of the three most functional ways of ‘master[ing]’ or containing or ‘civilising’ upset of Self
Discipline, Imposed Discipline and Religion, the Self Discipline stage happened well beforethe Resignation stage that the flood in the story of Noah’s Ark describes. As was explained in
Part 3:11A, in the life of an individual corrupted human today they become frustrated with theimperfection of their lives when they are around nine years of age—the so-called ‘naughtynines’—and as a result have to quickly learn to restrain their upset, learn Self Discipline.
As mentioned in Part 3:11D, this Self Disciplined state became a normal part of adult humanbehaviour long ago in our species’ past, long before the resigned state of denial becameuniversal amongst adult humans. What the end of the story of Noah focuses on therefore isthose forms of functional restraint that had to be developed after Resignation when upsetbecame so great that self-restraint could no longer manage it, namely Imposed Discipline

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

787
and Religion. It was only through these two strong containment devices that the ‘covenant’of ‘account[ability]’ could be maintained. The difficulty was that the development of Imposed
Discipline and Religion required the involvement of exceptionally sound, denial-free thinkersor prophets, which the story of Noah’s Ark recognised with its focus on the importance of
Noah as the only human left uncorrupted and not resigned to a life of blind, dishonest denialand who could therefore lead humanity.
After establishing in the story of Noah’s Ark the need to maintain restraint of the extremeupset that developed after Resignation, Moses went on to describe the development of thefunctional methods of restraint that the Noah’s Ark story recognised as necessary. He wenton to describe how he developed the Religion that Abraham had initiated of deferring to onetrue God, and how he introduced the Imposed Discipline of the Ten Commandments. We cansee then that in his stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel and Noah’s Ark, together with hisaccount of Abraham’s and his own journey, Moses perfectly described all the major eventsin the development and management of the upset state of the human condition. It was anabsolutely extraordinary achievement.
Again, even if the story of Noah’s Ark was an Israelite tradition passed down to Moses,as it and the stories of Adam and Eve and of Cain and Abel most likely were, since suchmemorable tales with their strong central characters seem steeped in oral tradition, Moses hadto be able to recognise its significance to incorporate it so prominently and sequentially inhis extraordinarily accurate, contexting, denial-free history of the main events in humanity’sjourney to find liberating understanding of our species’ upset human condition.
It should be mentioned that the description of Noah as being ‘a righteous man, blamelessamong the people’ is an accurate description and acknowledgment of the innocent state of
prophets. There is a similar description for Moses in Numbers 12:3: ‘Now Moses was a veryhumble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.’ And, as was mentioned earlier,
in Matthew 11:29, Christ similarly said ‘I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest foryour souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.’ As has been mentioned before, Sir Laurens
van der Post was an exceptional denial-free thinker or prophet—indeed, in his 20 December
1996 full-page obituary in the London Times he was described as ‘a prophet’ (view van der
Post’s obituary that was reproduced in The Australian at <www.humancondition.com/vanderpost-obituary>).

The former Prime Minister of England, Baroness Thatcher, described him as being ‘the mostperfect man I have ever met’ (interview with J.D.F. Jones, ABC Radio, Late Night Live, 25 Feb. 2002). Charles

Darwin is not normally recognised as a prophet but the penetrating truthfulness of his workreveals that he was and while some of his many enemies tried to suggest he was egocentricthe very opposite was true, he was soul-centric, as this quote points out: ‘In vain was Darwin’slife scrutinized for the moral weakness that his enemies were sure must underlie his free thinking. Allthey could discover was a gentle old fellow who passed his days amid flowers and with children—his twogreatest delights. Never by any word of his was God denied, nor the soul of man’ (Great Lives, Great Deeds,
Reader’s Digest, 1966, p.335-336).

The gentleness of real prophets should not be confused with the artificial gentlenessthat new-age-guru-and-eastern-mystic type false prophets present to the world from havingmanufactured happiness by transcending the whole issue of their upset self, or fromartificially attaining inner peace by meditative extinction of thought. As was mentioned

788

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
earlier, pseudo-idealistic, false prophets were merchants of delusion: they promoted ways toescape confrontation with the underlying issue of the human condition whereas true prophetsaddressed that issue ‘face to face’ (Deut. 34:10). True prophets were immensely courageous in theirresistance to denial and as a result were exceptionally capable of defying and penetrating allthe lies on Earth. Basically they were extraordinarily strong in the amount of soul they hadguiding and supporting them. The denial-free-thinking Lebanese prophet Kahlil Gibran (18831931) spoke the truth about the real strength of prophets—that their immense gentleness and
sensitivity could seem, to proponents of pseudo gentleness and sensitivity, to be inconsistentwith—when he said about Christ: ‘Humanity looks upon Jesus the Nazarene as a poor-born whosuffered misery and humiliation with all of the weak. And He is pitied, for Humanity believes He wascrucified painfully…And all that Humanity offers to Him is crying and wailing and lamentation. Forcenturies Humanity has been worshipping weakness in the person of the saviour. The Nazarene was notweak! He was strong and is strong! But the people refuse to heed the true meaning of strength. Jesus neverlived a life of fear, nor did He die suffering or complaining…He lived as a leader; He was crucified as acrusader; He died with a heroism that frightened His killers and tormentors. Jesus was not a bird withbroken wings; He was a raging tempest who broke all crooked wings. He feared not His persecutors nor
His enemies. He suffered not before His killers. Free and brave and daring He was. He defied all despotsand oppressors. He saw the contagious pustules and amputated them…He muted evil and He crushed
Falsehood and He choked Treachery’ (The Treasured Writings of Kahlil Gibran, 1951, pp.231–232 of 902).

It has to be emphasised again what an absolutely exceptional prophet Moses was andwhat an incredibly important role he has played for humanity. Moses presented the completedenial-free history of humanity—all the major stages that humankind has progressed through.
The story of Adam and Eve described how the human race once lived in an uncorrupted,innocent state and then, when we became fully conscious, our upset angry, egocentricand alienated state appeared. Included in this story of the appearance of upset is theacknowledgment that humanity became patriarchal, or male-role led, and the acknowledgmentthat sex became perverted, with all the consequences of that. Then, in the story of Cain and
Abel, Moses acknowledged the emergence of the different degrees of upset, of innocenceand alienation, amongst humans, and how the development of upset became so great that themore upset turned on the more innocent and began to oppress, attack and even kill them fortheir unjust condemnation of the more upset state. The story of Cain and Abel also describedhow compassion appeared, and how the rapidly developing upset had to be contained or
‘master[ed]’. Then, in the story of Noah, Moses recognised the advent of that most significant
of all events in human life under the duress of the human condition of Resignation to a lifeof denial of the issue of the human condition. The story of Noah also recognised that after
Resignation upset intensified to the point where we had to learn stronger forms of restraintand how only prophets with their ability to think truthfully were left to lead humanity in thedevelopment of such restraints. Moses then described the first two of the three stages of theprophet-led journey to the liberation of humanity, which was his contribution of the Imposed
Discipline of the Ten Commandments and the development of the Religion of deferringto a one true God that Abraham had begun. (Plato contributed the third stage, namely of

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

789
initiating and orientating the actual search for understanding of the human condition.) Withthese developments sufficient order and functionality in society could be maintained so as toallow humanity to spread across the world, progress depicted by Moses’ story of the Tower of
Babel. In describing the work of the great prophets who preceded him, Moses also providedhumanity with a truthful account of their lives. With the ability now to understand Moses’stories and descriptions of the extraordinary nature and work of prophets we can understandwhat an absolutely incredible achievement Moses’ contribution to humanity was.
With regard to Resignation it should be pointed out that while Resignation was obviouslya critically significant event in the history of humanity, until the human condition and withit Resignation was able to be explained, as has now finally been done, this metaphoricaldescription of Resignation by Moses some 3,500 years ago is, to my knowledge, the only fullydeveloped account ever given of it. Such has been the extent of the great black-out of denialand its alienation on Earth.
It should also be pointed out that while the meanings of Moses’ stories and metaphoricaldescriptions may not have been clear to denial-practicing, alienated humans, the fact is thetruthful, subconscious, soulful self within all humans could recognise their truth and, as aresult, find great comfort from their insightful honesty, a psychological comfort that wasanother of Moses’ awesome contributions to humanity. Evidence that upset humans did havea way of recognising the immense truth contained in his stories and accounts is the reverenceaccorded to him in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For example, ‘Moses is mentioned by namemore than any other person…[in] the Koran [the holy book of Islam]’ (The Koran, by S. Murata & W. Chittick,
Accessed Sept 2009: see <www.wtmsources.com/195>).

With the human condition now compassionately explained, all the great truths in all of the
Bible, such as the important events in the human journey that Moses described in his stories,can be explained in clear, non-metaphorical, non-abstract, first principle, scientific, denialfree terms, which means the psychological comforting effect of knowing about our lives andhumanity’s history will be infinitely better than the psychological comforting effect Moses’extremely abstract and metaphorical descriptions were able to supply. We can fully emergefrom Plato’s dark, death-like cave state now.
As has been pointed out, not only did Moses establish a system of laws or Imposed
Discipline, and a denial-free contexting and orientating history of humanity that humanscould see themselves as part of, he also furthered the initiative of Abraham of establishinga Religion that would counter the extremely corrupt behaviour of people. Abraham and
Moses established the Religion of deferring to, or obeying, or subordinating your upset selfto the one true God of integrative meaning. To live out your angry, egocentric and alienatedself was to behave in defiance of the integrative ideals. God, the integrative ideals was veryconfronting and oppressive, but to live in total defiance of the integrative ideals led to socialdisintegration.
Earlier it was mentioned that Christ gave humanity the strongest possible corruptionand-denial-countering Religion. This now needs to be explained. Unlike Christ, Abraham and
Moses didn’t go as far as to say that they were themselves uncorrupted representations of God.

790

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Christ said he was the Son of God, the uncorrupted denial and alienation-free expression of ourintegratively-orientated, cooperative, loving, all-sensitive original instinctive self or soul: ‘Itell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, becausewhatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does [Christ
is saying there is nothing—no alienation—standing between his conscious self and his integrativelyorientated instinctive self]…I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent mehas eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life [If you defer to Christ
rather than live through your upset self you will be a force for good instead of bad in the world and thatwill bring you such relief you will feel like you have been reborn]. I tell you the truth, a time is comingand has now come when the dead [the alienated] will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hearwill live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he hasgiven him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man [because he is not alienated from our truthful,
integratively-orientated, all-sensitive soul]…By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and myjudgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me [I am not an upset angry, egocentric
and alienated resigned person]’ (John 5:19-30). Christ also said, ‘I and the Father are one’ (John 10:30),
‘The Father is in me, and I in him’ (John 14:10, 10:38), and ‘I am the way and the truth and the life [through
me you can come back to life from your resigned, alienated, effectively dead state]’ (John 14:6). Christ
has clearly said here that he was the embodiment of the ideal state that God or integrativenessrepresents; that he was an uncorrupted expression of the innocent, cooperative, loving, soulful,ideal state, and that corrupted humans could live through him, could trust in and safely defer toand subordinate themselves to him when they become overly corrupted.
In his 1989 book What Am I Doing Here, the aforementioned English explorer andphilosopher Bruce Chatwin acknowledged this truth that Christ was the innocent, uncorruptedexpression of our species’ integratively-orientated, original instinctive self: ‘There is nocontradiction between the Theory of Evolution and belief in God and His Son on earth. If Christ werethe perfect instinctual specimen—and we have every reason to believe He was—He must be the Son of
God. By the same token, the First Man was also Christ’ (p.65 of 367). As was mentioned earlier, and as

Chatwin has acknowledged here, before upset (and with it Resignation) became universal, allhumans were innocent denial-free thinking prophets.
By putting himself forward as the embodiment of the ideal state Christ was ‘humanising’the ideal state. It was far more tangible to relate to a human representation of the ideal statethan to a remote, abstract representation of the ideal state in the form of the concept of God, as
Abraham and Moses advocated. A human representation of the ideal state reminded humansthat humans could be ideal. This was far more confronting than having to relate to a remote,abstract concept of the ideal state but it was also far more honest and thus denial-defying anddenial-correcting. Christ was in effect saying that an uncorrupted human state exists becausehe was the personification of that human example—God, the integrative, ideal state has, doesand can exist on Earth. Through Christ, corrupted humans could have the most direct accesspossible to the ideal state because like them he was another human, but an ideal version. Christ,as it were, brought the ideal human state right into the reality of the living rooms of people’slives, brought them into contact with another human just like themselves but one who was freeof denial and alienation. Ideality was made human, real and tangible through Christ. As such,
Christ gave humanity the strongest possible corruption-and-denial-countering Religion.

Part 10:1

Abraham, Moses, Plato and Christ

791

Abraham and Moses said they were servants of God, and Muhammad acknowledged hewas a prophet of God, his messenger, but none of them said that they were the Son of God, ahuman representation of God, as Christ did. Christ knew how extraordinarily sound he was,and he knew how corrupted and lost people were, and he could see that being so sound hisresponsibility was to put himself forward as a living, human representation of the ideal statethat humans could most directly recognise, relate to, trust in and live through. Of courseoffering people such a denial-countering, honest, ideal-human-revealing religion made the
Christian religion an exceptionally corruption-exposing and confronting religion, which forsome could prove too exposing and confronting.
Overall, Christ stood as witness to the existence of another soulful, uncorrupted, allloving human state. His was the ultimate denial-defying and corruption-correcting act—and the denial and corruption on Earth had become so great that such an extreme denialcountering and corruption-correcting representation of the ideal human state was necessary ifthe human race was to maintain any semblance of alignment to the ideal human state while itwas completing its heroic but immensely corrupting search for the liberating understandingof its human condition. As Christ described his denial-and-corruption-countering strategy: ‘If
I had not come and spoken to them [spoken the truth about the integrative, cooperative, loving ideal
state to the extremely upset human race], they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have noexcuse for their sin. He who hates me hates my Father [hates the integrative truth] as well. If I had notdone among them what no-one else did [if I had not been a witness for the existence of the uncorrupted
human state], they would not be guilty of sin [they would not have been sufficiently re-aligned to theintegrative state]’ (John 15:21-24). What Christ did was so clear-sighted and so courageous it is
almost beyond belief. It is no wonder he is ‘the most famous man in the world’ (Jesus Revealed,produced by Creative Differences for National Geographic Channel, 2009) and that most of the world dates
its existence around his life, as either BC or AD—‘Before Christ’ or ‘Anno Domini’, whichtranslates as ‘in the year of our Lord’, referring to the year of Christ’s birth. Sir James Darling,the aforementioned great Australian educator and denial-free thinker or prophet (in his fullpage obituary in The Australian newspaper on 3 November 1995 he was described as ‘a prophetin the true biblical sense’ [view Darling’s obituary at <www.humancondition.com/darling-obituary>]), rightly
considered that Christ’s life ‘was incalculably the most important event in human history, as weunderstand it, up to the present’ (The Education of a Civilized Man, 1962, p.206 of 223).

It can be seen then that Moses gave humanity the most effective form of Imposed
Discipline, Christ gave humanity the strongest possible corruption-and-denial-countering
Religion, and Plato gave philosophy—the actual business of studying the truths underlyingall reality, in particular studying and finding the all-important understanding of the humancondition—the best possible orientation and assistance. We can now understand why, forexample, ‘It has been said that after the Bible [which features the teachings of Moses and Christ],
Plato’s dialogues are the most influential books in Western culture’ (From the inside flap of Plato’s Symposiumand Phaedrus, published by Everyman’s Library in 2001).

The great eastern Religions, in particular Hinduism and Buddhism, were also foundedaround exceptional denial-free thinking prophets and these great Religions and their prophetsplayed a similar role in civilising the great civilisations in their parts of the world, as must thegreat prophets of the Americas and other regions of the world. These other great civilisations

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

792

The Biology
contributed greatly to the advancement of knowledge in the Western world, just as advancesin the West assisted them. Just where the leading edge in the advancement of knowledge wasoccurring at any one time depended on what stage in the human journey from innocence toexhaustion or decadence the various civilisations were at, so it is in truth meaningless passingout accolades to any particular individual, race or civilisation.
With understanding of the human condition we can now appreciate that every humanwho has ever lived and therefore every civilisation that has ever existed contributed fullyto the journey to our species’ final liberation from the horror of the human condition. Someindividuals, generations, races and civilisations were more innocent than others and couldmake exceptional contributions from that position, but being more innocent only meant thatthey had not yet participated in the great battle to defeat ignorance which humanity as a wholewas waging. With understanding of the human condition we can know that no one is inferioror superior, only differently exhausted from their different position in the great battle thathumanity as a whole has been waging. In fact the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ disappear fromthe conceptualisation of ourselves and therefore from our languages.
With understanding of the human condition we can know that all humans are equallywonderful beings—and since we all, humanity as a whole, won the great battle againstignorance and finally championed nature’s greatest invention, the fully conscious mind, itfollows that humanity as a whole is the absolute hero of the story of life on Earth. Humanityachieved the greatest success imaginable. This is the end of all doubt and uncertainty aboutour species’ worthiness, in fact this is the time for the most wonderful celebration the worldhas ever seen!
(Note: religious concepts are further demystified later in the chapter titled ‘The
Demystification of Religion’ in my book A Species In Denial.)

Part 10:2 The Three Varieties of Thinkers
From all that has been presented about the difficulties of thinking about the humancondition it should be clear that human thought has fallen into three categories. There hasbeen thinking undertaken in an unresigned, denial-free, truthful and thus effective, propheticway; thinking that tried to do so as truthfully and honestly as possible from a position ofhaving resigned to living in denial of the human condition; and thinking in a way that wasfully committed to the resigned strategy of denying the issue of the human condition. Putsimply, you could confront the human condition, you could avoid it but try to be as honest aspossible, or you could determinedly deny it.
For example, earlier in Part 4, when looking at the history of biological analysis of ourhuman situation, we saw how Darwin took honest, truthful thinking about humans’ biologicalorigins as far as it was able to go without confronting the human condition. Then we saw how
E.O. Wilson, Robert Wright and others developed a biological account of human behaviourthat was committed to denying the issue of the human condition.
It needs to be emphasised here again that the key, yet totally denied, issue inunderstanding human behaviour as it has existed for some two million years under the duress

Part 10:2

The Three Varieties of Thinkers

793
of the human condition is alienation. As R.D. Laing said, ‘Our alienation goes to the roots. Therealization of this is the essential springboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of present interhuman life.’ Acknowledgment or ‘realization’ that ‘our alienation goes to the roots’ is ‘the essentialspringboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life’. To not recognise
the element of alienation when attempting to understand and talk about human behaviour isreally as absurd as trying to understand and talk about how bread is made while not admittingthe process involves flour. The problem has been that precisely because ‘our alienation goes tothe roots’ we haven’t been able to acknowledge that truth, make that ‘realization’. We haven’t
been able to be alienated and not be alienated—which is precisely why what was needed tolook into alienation and thus human behaviour was freedom from alienation. Alienation can’tinvestigate itself. We can’t be living in a state of denial/insecurity about the human condition/psychosis (which literally means soul-illness, derived as the word is from ‘psyche’ meaning
‘soul’ and ‘iasis’ meaning ‘abnormal state or condition’)/truth-evasion/alienation/corruption/dysfunction/upset/hurt and at the same time not be living in a state of denial/insecurity/psychosis/soul-illness/truth-evasion/alienation/corruption/dysfunction/upset/hurt. We can’t becommitted to being false and at the same time be committed to being honest. We can’t lie andsimultaneously tell the truth. We haven’t been able to acknowledge our condition while wecouldn’t confront it. Alienation has been the denied ‘elephant in the living room’ of the livesof humans, the main feature of human behaviour in the world today, but the one that hasn’tbeen able to be universally acknowledged—until now. It is only now with the dignifyingunderstanding of the human condition found that it becomes both safe and necessary toacknowledge alienation, and the degrees of it, in order to undertake ‘serious reflection on…[all]aspect[s] of present inter-human life’.

There is much to learn about in the new denial-free world, most of all about alienation,its characteristics and the extent to which it exists within us all. The main distinction that canand must be made is that between unresigned, denial-and-alienation-free minds, and resigned,denial-practicing, alienated minds. A denial-free thinker is someone who was sufficiently freefrom hurt in their infancy and childhood to not have to resign themselves to living in denialof the issue of the human condition in their adolescence. Not living in such denial meant thatthe denial-free, truthful, effective thinkers or prophets were thinking in a completely differentway to resigned, denial-practicing, evasive, ineffective minds.
While this freedom from denial, or alternatively, commitment to it, has been the maindifference that has existed in human minds there has also existed degrees of soundness withinthe two categories. While denial-free thinkers or prophets could think truthfully becausethey had avoided Resignation, they did vary in how sound they were and thus how easilyand effectively they were able to confront and think about the issue of the human condition,and any subject related to it, which is virtually all subjects. We have already seen in theanalysis of the life of Moses and other Old Testament prophets how some of them weremore able to confront God/the integrative ideals ‘face to face’ than others. Similarly, amongstthose individuals who had to resign themselves to living in denial of the issue of the humancondition there has existed a spectrum of soundness whereby some were more sound and as aresult could afford to think more truthfully than others.

794

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

To illustrate the overall situation, a mind could be just sound enough to have avoided
Resignation and yet that mind would be almost totally different in the way it thought to themind of someone who was nearly as sound as that person but not quite sound enough to haveavoided Resignation. In this instance, the resigned mind had become committed to denial ofthe human condition and any issues that brought the subject into focus, while the other mindhadn’t. One mind had become committed to and practiced in lying while the other hadn’t.
In terms of the issue being looked at here of being able to find understanding of the humancondition, once a mind became resigned to denial its ability to find that understanding, despiteits attempts or intentions to do so, was severely limited.
The first two categories of thinkers mentioned above were denial-free thinkers andthose who were resigned to living in denial but were sound enough to try to think honestlyabout issues related to the human condition. Because both these categories were involvedin thinking honestly they can be termed as Unresigned Prophets and Resigned Prophets.
The Resigned Prophets, those who tried to think from a basis of honesty even though theywere not sound enough to avoid having to resign to living in denial of the human conditionobviously ran the risk of becoming psychologically destabilised, dangerously depressed.
Trying to think truthfully and honestly when you weren’t sound enough to do so requiredgreat courage but such thinkers could and have managed to contribute valuable insights abouthuman life—they have managed to be prophetic, hence their description, ‘Resigned Prophets’.
(Before going on it should be emphasised once again that with understanding of thehuman condition we can know that while humans differ in their degree of alienation asa result of their differing encounters with and participation in humanity’s heroic battle tofind sufficient knowledge to liberate our species from the human condition, all humansare equally good and worthwhile. No one is inferior or superior. In fact, as mentionedearlier, the concepts of good and evil disappear from the conceptualisation of ourselves andtherefore from our languages.)
With this overview of there having been three fundamental categories of thinkers—
Unresigned Prophets, Resigned Prophets and Dishonest Thinkers, with the latter being thosewho are resigned and committed to denying the issue of the human condition—we are now ina position to look more closely at Unresigned Prophets, those few people in recorded historywho have been able to confront and think honestly about the human condition.

Part 10:3 Unresigned Prophets
Individuals who fall within the first category of Unresigned Prophets, as has alreadybeen explained, are extremely rare. In a 1983 interview between myself and the distinguished
Australian zoologist, author and broadcaster Anthony Barnett, who was then Professor of
Zoology at the Australian National University in Canberra, emphasised the rarity of denial-freethinkers when he said that ‘In the whole of written history there are only two or three people who havebeen able to think on this [all-confronting, macro] scale about the human condition’ (From recorded interviewconducted with Prof. Barnett by this author, 15 Jan. 1983). I didn’t ask Professor Barnett who he thought the

‘two or three people’ were but I imagined he was referring to Christ and one or two of the other

Part 10:3

Unresigned Prophets

795
prophets around which great religions were formed. Plato might have been one of the peoplehe was thinking of but I cannot be sure. Later I will list those individuals from contemporarytimes, the last 300 years or so, whom I think can be regarded as either Unresigned or
Resigned Prophets. Of those, the ones who have lived since Darwin put forward his idea ofnatural selection in 1859, and who therefore had the benefit of his insight into the orientatingmechanism of instincts, are Charles Darwin himself (1809–1882), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–
1900), Olive Schreiner (1855–1920), A. B. ‘Banjo’ Paterson (1864–1941), Eugène Marais (1872–
1936), Nikolai Berdyaev (1874–1948), Carl Jung (1875-1961), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–
1955), Kahlil Gibran (1883–1931), D.W. Winnicott (1896–1971), Sir James Darling (1899–1995),

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1900–1944), Louis Leakey (1903–1972), Joseph Campbell (1904–1987),
Arthur Koestler (1905–1983), Sir Laurens van der Post (1906–1996), Simone Weil (1909–1943),
Albert Camus (1913–1960), Ilya Prigogine (1917–2003), Charles Birch (1918–2009), Robert A.
Johnson (1921–), John Morton (1924–2011), R.D. Laing (1927–1989), Dian Fossey (1938–1985),
Stuart Kauffman (1939–), Paul Davies (1946–), and, since I have been able to look into andexplain the human condition, myself (1945–). In terms of which of these may have been able toexplain the human condition before 1983 when I took the explanation to England, we can beginby considering who amongst them, apart from myself, were Unresigned Prophets—because,as stated, it was going to require an exceptional denial-free thinker to explain the humancondition and such a thinker would have to come from the Unresigned Prophet category.
Certainly in my view Sir Laurens van der Post was an Unresigned Prophet. Possibly so toowere Sir James Darling, Charles Darwin and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. I am confident all theothers belong in the category of Resigned Prophets. Thus the candidates for an exceptionaldenial-free thinking, human-condition-solving prophet are van der Post, Darling, Darwin andde Chardin. Since no one had, to my knowledge, explained the human condition prior to 1983,none of these four men could have been exceptional denial-free thinkers because if they hadbeen they would have explained it, so crucial an issue is the human condition to a mind that isexceptionally free of denial and so accessible an explanation is it for such a mind that has thebenefit of Darwin’s idea of natural selection. There are possibly other post-1859 Unresigned
Prophets who I have not become aware of, although it is remarkable how each one of thembecame aware of the others so that if there are more I suspect I would have read or heardabout them through references to them made by those I have become aware of. While thereare billions of people and many cultures in the world, there are only a few regions left wherea degree of innocence survives, and in a realm where there is a good education system inplace to protect and foster soundness while giving access to the history of knowledge. Even ifthere are others who I have not become aware of the same argument applies: since the humancondition wasn’t, to my knowledge, explained before 1983 an educated and exceptionallyunresigned thinker seemingly didn’t exist among them.
So, the situation is that if van der Post, Darling, Darwin and de Chardin were
Unresigned Prophets but were unable to explain the human condition then they can’t havebeen exceptional denial-free thinking, human-condition-solving, Unresigned Prophets. Inthe earlier mentioned spectrum of soundness that existed amongst Unresigned Prophets,it appears that these men must fall into those not sufficiently sound to explain the humancondition, as will now be explained.

796

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

At this point what needs to be explained again is how when we were young childrenand still thinking completely honestly and thus effectively we knew the truth about ourdestiny. We didn’t know exactly what would happen in our adult lives but we did knowthe general form it would take as a result of how hurt our original instinctive self or soulwas in our infancy and early childhood. This was briefly explained in Part 10:1 when theprophet Joseph’s authoritativeness as a young man was described. From a young age Josephknew he would be able to achieve extraordinary things because he was sufficiently soundand secure to not ever have to adopt a strategy of denial. When we are children we have aclear awareness of the imperfections or otherwise of our circumstances and think truthfullyabout the consequences. If those circumstances were not ideal, as was the case in nearlyeveryone’s lives, then we rapidly began to stop thinking about those unhappy consequences,but the point is there was a time in everyone’s life when we knew the basic path our lifewas going to follow. In that brief time in our early childhood of total honesty and thusinsightfulness we all knew of the immense problem facing humanity of the dilemma of thehuman condition, the issue of the extreme imperfection of human life and, knowing that cruxproblem, we made an assessment of our chances of being able to contribute to its solution.
For the very rare exceptionally fortunate, those exceptionally loved and nurtured in theirinfancy and early childhood, they knew they could make a difference and the precise natureof it. When we talked of people being driven by a ‘vision’ this is essentially what we weretalking about. We were talking about an awareness in someone of having the opportunityto make a special contribution to the underlying battle that humanity has been engaged in.
People with such guiding visions were very difficult to deter from their path because theywere carrying such a strong awareness of what they could and must do from such a youngage that it was as if they were owned or possessed by their vision. As they progressedthrough life all the battles they would face would erode the clarity of the vision they had asa child but such visions were so powerful they would still be owned, directed and guidedby it. All those who couldn’t see a way for themselves to make an exceptional contributionto humanity’s battle to overcome the problem of the human condition and instead who sawhow they were going to have to be preoccupied with all manner of hurt, and in particularneed for self-distraction and egocentric reinforcement, they learnt very quickly to forgettheir unhappy destiny. Everyone was born a truthful, denial-free thinking and thus insightfulprophet, but few could afford to stay thinking so truthfully and insightfully. Most had toforget what they could see, just get on with their life as best they could. As will be describedin more detail when Resignation is fully explained later, while the main Resignation to theimperfections of life typically occurred when people were about fifteen years of age, therewere many mini resignations prior to that major one.
This quote from Sir Laurens van der Post recognises the essence of what has just beenexplained: ‘Human beings know far more than they allow themselves to know: there is a kind of

Part 10:3

Unresigned Prophets

797
knowledge of life which they reject, although it is born into them: it is built into them’ (A Walk with a White
Bushman, 1986, p.142 of 326). While knowledge of our particular destiny is not something we are

‘born’ with, we are born with a depth of soundness and thus sensitivity that does give us a
special ‘knowledge of life’.
In the case of Sir Laurens van der Post, Sir James Darling, Charles Darwin and Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, they were all possessed by a vision that they could make a specialcontribution to overcoming the great and terrible impasse before the human race of the humancondition. As we will see, it wasn’t a vision of being able to solve the human condition butin each case it was a vision of being able to make a valuable contribution towards the findingof that solution. By inference, they knew they weren’t sound enough to fully confront andsolve the human condition but they did know they were sufficiently sound to make a valuablecontribution towards that solution. They saw an opening in that great and terrible impassebefore the human race of the problem of the human condition that they realised they hadsufficient soundness to push through and advance humanity that much further towards its goalof solving that condition.
The online version of my second book, Beyond The Human Condition (1991), contains thefollowing dedication that summarises the vision of three men who had such visions. (While Idon’t regard Louis Leakey as an Unresigned Prophet, I do think he was a Resigned Prophet,so people who were not sound enough to avoid Resignation could also have a vision in theirchildhood of making a special contribution to humanity’s battle, but obviously the less soundyou were the less exceptional the contribution.)

This book is dedicated to the vision of Sir Laurens van der Post:
‘…for I had a private hope of the utmost importance to me. The Bushman’s physical shapecombined those of a child and a man: I surmised that examination of his inner life might reveala pattern which reconciled the spiritual opposites in the human being and made him whole…it might start the first movement towards a reconciliation…’ Laurens van der Post, The Heart of the
Hunter, 1961, p.135 of 233.

And that of Sir James Darling who acknowledged that:
‘…the future lies not with the predatory and the immune but with the sensitive who livedangerously…the truly sensitive mind is both susceptible and penetrating: it is open to new ideas,and it seeks truth at the bottom of the well. It is the development of this sort of mind which itshould be the object of the educational process to cultivate’ James Darling, The Education of a Civilized
Man, 1962, pp.63-64 of 223.

And that of Dr Louis Leakey who foresaw:
‘…that knowledge of the past would help us to understand and possibly control the future’
Mentioned by Dr Mary Leakey in her book Disclosing the Past, 1984, p.211 of 224.

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

798

The Biology

Part 10:4 Sir Laurens van der Post’s Vision
The visions of Sir James Darling, Charles Darwin and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin—and
Louis Leakey, will be looked at shortly.
With regard to Sir Laurens van der Post’s vision, which I summarised in my dedicationto him in my 1991 book Beyond The Human Condition with this quote from his writing: ‘…for I had a private hope of the utmost importance to me. The Bushman’s physical shape combined thoseof a child and a man: I surmised that examination of his inner life might reveal a pattern which reconciledthe spiritual opposites in the human being and made him whole…it might start the first movementtowards a reconciliation…’ (Laurens van der Post, The Heart of the Hunter, 1961, p.135 of 233), his vision was
to use the Bushmen or San people of southern Africa, that DNA studies have shown to bethe most ancient race of humans alive in the world today, to resurrect the truth that humansonce, before the advent of the human condition some two million years ago, lived happy,loving, harmonious, innocent-of-upset lives. Since, as will become clear later, the upset stateof the human condition began some two million years ago and has been increasing ever since,the Bushmen, being relatively modern people must be far from being completely free ofupset, however compared with the rest of the existing races of humans in the world they arecomparatively free of it. As Sir Laurens recognised, in the difference between them and otherexisting races we can see something of what innocence is like.
The following condensation of the beginning of Sir Laurens’ famous first book aboutthe Bushmen, The Lost World of the Kalahari (1958), further illustrates Sir Laurens’ visionthat the quote of his used in my Dedication above evidences: ‘This is the story of a journey in agreat wasteland [Kalahari desert] and a search for some pure remnant of the unique and almost vanished
First People of my native land, the Bushmen of Africa…I know…that no sooner did I become aware ofmyself as a child than my imagination slipped…into a profound pre-occupation with the little Bushmanand his terrible fate…Beside the open hearth on cold winters’ nights on my mother’s farm…the vanished
Bushman would be vividly at the centre of some hardy pioneering reminiscence; a Bushman gay, gallant,mischievous, unpredictable, and to the end unrepentant and defiant…He was present in the eyes of oneof the first women to nurse me, her shining gaze drawn from the first light of some unbelievably antique
African day [because she had]…a strain of Bushman blood…The older I grew the more I resented that Ihad come too late on the scene to know him [the Bushman] in the flesh…They said…there had never beenanyone who could run like him over the veld…When he laughed, which he did easily, his face broke intoinnumerable little folds…Whenever my mother read us a fairy-tale with a little man performing wondersin it, he was immediately transformed in my imagination into a Bushman. Perhaps this life of ours, whichbegins as a quest of the child for the man, and ends as a journey by the man to rediscover the child, needsa clear image of some child-man, like the Bushman, wherein the two are firmly and lovingly joined inorder that our confused hearts may stay at the centre of their brief round of departure and return’ (pp.1113 of 253).

Sir Laurens has here recognised and acknowledged how we humans once did live
in an innocent, happy, loving state which we then lost, and he has described his vision ofreconnecting us with that truth in order that we might better find our way back home to that
‘lost world of the Kalahari’—the Kalahari also being a metaphor for our ‘pure’ soul, that ‘greatwasteland’ of neglected substance and soundness within us.

Part 10:4

Sir Laurens van der Post’s Vision

799

As further evidence of his vision it is worthwhile including more of Sir Laurens’inspirational, truth-full writing about the Bushmen: ‘He [the Bushman] and his needs werecommitted to the nature of Africa and the swing of its wide seasons as a fish to the sea. He and theyall participated so deeply of one another’s being that the experience could almost be called mystical.
For instance, he seemed to know what it actually felt like to be an elephant, a lion, an antelope, asteenbuck, a lizard, a striped mouse, mantis, baobab tree, yellow-crested cobra, or starry-eyed amaryllis,to mention only a few of the brilliant multitudes through which he so nimbly moved. Even as a childit seemed to me that his world was one without secrets between one form of being and another’ (The
Lost World of the Kalahari, 1958, p.21 of 253). ‘Wherever he [the

Bushman] went he contained, and was
contained, deeply within a symmetry of the land. His spirit was naturally symmetrical…And thereis proof too of the balance and rough justice of his arrangements in the fact that when my ancestorslanded on the southern tip of the continent three hundred years ago, Africa was largely bursting itsancient seams with riches of life not found in any other land on earth. Even I who came on the sceneso long after the antique lock was picked and the treasure largely plundered, can still catch my breathat the glimpses I get, from time to time, of the riches that remain’ (ibid. p.22). ‘He [the Bushman] builtno home of any durable kind, did not cultivate the land, and did not even keep cattle or other domesticchattel’ (ibid. p.25). The Bushmen possessed an ‘astonishing gift of painting…I know one paintingwhere a frightened herd of running eland is shown with such a gift of movement’ (ibid. pp.29,31). ‘[E]ven his bitterest enemies were forced to reluctantly admit his immense courage’ (ibid. p.42). ‘Woundedand bleeding he fought to the last. Shot through one arm…the Bushman would instantly use his knee orfoot to enable him to draw his bow with the uninjured one. If his last arrow was spent he still struggledas best he could until, finding the moment of his end had come, he would hasten to cover his head sothat his enemies should not see the agony of dying expressed upon his face’ (ibid. p.45). [When you are
still in touch with your soul you are in touch with such truth and awareness of another true worldthat, unlike the alienated, soul-destroyed and lost, you have something precious to hold on to andthus ‘immense courage’.] ‘It seemed a strange paradox that everywhere men and women were busydigging up old ruins and buried cities in order to discover more about ancient man, when all the timethe ignored Bushman was living with this early spirit still intact. I found men willing enough to comewith me to measure his head, or his behind, or his sexual organs, or his teeth. But when I pleaded withthe head of a university in my own country to send a qualified young man to live with the Bushman fortwo or three years, to learn about him and his ancient way he exclaimed, surprised: “But what wouldbe the use of that?”’ (ibid. p.67). [Bereft of soundness, mechanistic science could not look at the whole
truth.] ‘One of the most moving aspects of life is how long the deepest memories stay with us. It is as ifindividual memory is enclosed in a greater which even in the night of our forgetfulness stands like anangel with folded wings ready, at the moment of acknowledged need, to guide us back to the lost spoorof our meanings’ (ibid. p.62). ‘I thought finally that of all the nostalgias that haunt the human heart thegreatest of them all, for me, is an everlasting longing to bring what is youngest home to what is oldest,in us all’ (ibid. p.151). ‘You know I once saw a little Bushman imprisoned in one of our goals because hekilled a giant bustard which according to the police, was a crime…he was dying because he couldn’tbear being shut up and having his freedom of movement stopped…Physically the doctor couldn’t findanything wrong with him but he died none the less!’ (ibid. p.236).

800

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

In his other great book about the Bushmen, The Heart of the Hunter (1961), Sir Laurenswrote that, ‘mere contact with twentieth-century life seemed lethal to the Bushman. He was essentially soinnocent and natural a person that he had only to come near us for a sort of radioactive fall-out from ourunnatural world to produce a fatal leukaemia in his spirit’ (p.111 of 233). In The Heart of the Hunter Sir

Laurens also wrote that, ‘There was indeed a cruelly denied and neglected first child of life, a Bushmanin each of us’ (p.126). And on the last page of The Heart of the Hunter: ‘All this became for me, on mylong journey home by sea, an image of what is wanted in the spirit of man today. We live in a sunset hourof time. We need to recognize and develop that aspect of ourselves of which the moon bears the image. It isour own shy intuitions of renewal, which walk in our spiritual night as Porcupine walked by the light of themoon, that need helping on the way. It is as if I hear the wind bringing up behind me the voice of Mantis,the infinite in the small, calling from the stone age to an age of men with hearts of stone, commanding uswith the authentic voice of eternal renewal: “You must henceforth be the moon. You must shine at night. Byyour shining shall you lighten the darkness until the sun rises again to light up all things for men”’ (p.233).

As was explained in Part 5:2, Bruce Chatwin’s comment that ‘the First man was also Christ’
(from his quote included earlier that ‘There is no contradiction between the Theory of Evolution andbelief in God and His Son on earth. If Christ were the perfect instinctual specimen—and we have everyreason to believe He was—He must be the Son of God. By the same token, the First Man was also Christ’
(What Am I Doing Here, 1989, p.65 of 367)), was reminiscent of Sir Laurens’ observation that ‘The pastor,

Dominee Ferdie Weich, though much loved by the Bushmen, could report no permanent conversion to
Christ in 21 years’ (Testament to the Bushmen, 1984, text accompanying photograph 91). The Bushmen, being

Christ-like themselves in their innocence, weren’t in need of Christianity. They didn’t needa sound person to defer to, live through, be ‘born-again’ through as a result of being so upsetthey could no longer afford to trust in and live through themselves. They weren’t that upset.
In his 1985 book Black Robe, the Northern Irish novelist Brian Moore recorded this revealingcomment made by an American Indian to Jesuit missionaries in Canada about the comparativeinnocence of native people: ‘It is because you Normans are deaf and blind that you think this world isa world of darkness and the world of the dead is a world of light’ (p.184 of 256).

Elsewhere in his writings about the Bushmen, Sir Laurens wrote of ‘This shrill, brittle, selfimportant life of today is by comparison a graveyard where the living are dead and the dead are aliveand talking [through our soul] in the still, small, clear voice of a love and trust in life that we have for themoment lost…[there was a time when] All on earth and in the universe were still members and family ofthe early race seeking comfort and warmth through the long, cold night before the dawning of individualconsciousness in a togetherness which still gnaws like an unappeasable homesickness at the base of thehuman heart’ (Testament to the Bushmen, 1984, pp.127-128 of 176). Sir Laurens further recognised the battle
between our original innocent instinctive self and our newer ‘individual consciousness’ when hewrote, ‘I spoke to you earlier on of this dark child of nature, this other primitive man within each one ofus with whom we are at war in our spirit’ (The Dark Eye in Africa, 1955, p.154 of 159).

Significantly, while Sir Laurens was able to clearly recognise the ‘war’ between ouroriginal, innocent, instinctive soulful ‘dark child of nature’ and our newer ‘individual conscious’intellect or ‘spirit’ he wasn’t able to explain the reason for the ‘war’. His vision, as stated in my
Dedication to him, was the ‘hope’ that by ‘reveal[ing]’ the ‘inner life’ of the ‘child’ in ‘man’ he ‘mightstart the first movement towards a reconciliation’—and that ‘hope’ of ‘reconciliation’ that, as I will now
explain, his work contributed so greatly to is exactly what has been achieved in this book.

Part 10:4

Sir Laurens van der Post’s Vision

801

Once we became hurt and alienated, hearing about the magic world of our soul wasunbearable, which is why all the truth about our soul has been so denied and buried. J.D.F.
Jones, a British journalist who wrote a book that tried to crucify Sir Laurens as a charlatan
(which is a ridiculous accusation when it could not be more clear from Sir Laurens’ writingshow sound and secure he was), said in an interview, ‘the academic experts on the Kalahari
[Bushmen] are absolutely berserk with rage about the things he [Sir Laurens] said, because, if youread The Lost World of the Kalahari, you must not believe that this is the truth about the Bushmen; it’snot’ (ABC Radio, Late Night Live, 25 Feb. 2002). Throughout history denial-free thinkers like John the

Baptist and his protégé Christ were often brutally persecuted, or, like John the Baptist and
Christ, even killed for telling the truth. The great danger of such persecution was that whileit protected upset humans from unbearable condemnation it also thwarted the expression oftruths needed to explain the human condition. In fact, as has been mentioned before, the realthreat facing the human race was terminal levels of denial/alienation—a world where humanswere walking around in such terrible truthless and meaningless darkness that they could neverhope to find their way back to a world of liberating and relieving light/knowledge. To write sohonestly about humanity’s collective loss of innocence was Sir Laurens’ great inspiration andvision. It was an incalculably important contribution to the world because it brought light toan area of denial that was crippling the human race.
I know how precious the truth Sir Laurens resurrected was because it was able to savemy soul from extinction. Some time in my late teenage years, my mother, Jill Griffith, gaveme a copy of a book by Sir Laurens (I think it was his 1952 book Venture to the Interiorbecause I remember the zebras pictured on the cover) and it was this book, and then Sir
Laurens’ two main books about the Bushmen, The Lost World of the Kalahari (1958) and
Heart of the Hunter (1961), which I sought out soon after reading the first book, that gaveme the confirmation I needed that my very different unresigned, denial-free, unevasive wayof thinking wasn’t some form of madness. As some evidence of how precious Sir Laurens’writings have been to me, my original copies of The Lost World of the Kalahari and Heartof the Hunter are now so tattered from use they are held together by lots of tape and somestring. Many times as a young man, especially when I was at a party, I couldn’t contain mycomplete bewilderment about everyone’s denial and pretence that there was nothing wrongwith the world, in particular with human behaviour, and ended up protesting out aloud orrunning away through the night in tears of confusion. To the resigned, alienated personthe reason for upset behaviour is self-evident but to the relatively innocent it is a completemystery, made so much worse by the upset not acknowledging there was anything wrongwith their behaviour, in fact pretending that they were completely happy with the way theyand the rest of upset humanity were behaving. For example in 1973 when I was 28 yearsold and had just returned from the wilds of Tasmania where I had been searching for thepossibly extinct Tasmanian Tiger or Thylacine (which did turn out to be extinct—you canread more about my search at <www.humancondition.com/tasmanian-tiger-search>) I rememberbeing taken by my girlfriend at the time to a lavish dinner party attended by many of
Sydney’s young socialites. I think it was Sydney’s Black and White Ball, or something likethat. I remember I became so overwhelmed by the extravagance of the function and theartificiality and pretence of everyone that I ended up standing on my chair defiantly accusing

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

802

The Biology
everyone in the room of being fake and phony and totally indifferent to the epidemic ofsuffering in the world. I remember that following my outburst that there was a great silencein the room, then the men in particular turned their backs. My girlfriend then stood up andkindly put her arm around my shoulder and said out aloud so everyone could hear somethinglike, ‘Jeremy, the world isn’t an ideal place but it’s all we have’ and persuaded me to sitdown, after which everyone returned to their jovialities. On another occasion I remembergoing to a woolshed party (a woolshed is a big shed used for shearing sheep that offeredlots of space for a band, dancing and a party) at Bowral, south of Sydney, and becomingso distressed by everyone’s silence about the artificiality of the world and pretence that theworld was exactly as it should be, that I ended up running away through the bush for milesand miles until my arms were torn from running through the rough scrub. Eventually Icollapsed in a heap on the ground in a state of exhausted distress before eventually walkingall the way back to where my friends and I were staying at a residence near the party. I havealways had many friends because I have always been outgoing and excited about the world,but when it came to trying to understand why the world wasn’t an authentic place, I wasdeeply perplexed and alone in that regard. In my late teens and twenties there were manyoccasions like the two just described. I know exactly why Christ in his extreme innocence asa youth frustratedly ‘overturned the tables of the money-changers’ in the temple (Matt. 21:12 and Mark
11:15)
and later on angrily called the denial-practicing academics of his day ‘you, blind guides…
you blind fools…you hypocrites…you snakes! You brood of vipers!’ (see Matt. 23:16-33).

As mentioned above and as I have said before in this book, to the resigned and alienatedit is self-evident why the world is so false but to the relatively innocent it is a complete andutter mystery, and if the alienated won’t admit that they are living in denial, and in fact arepretending to be happy and content, then the mystery of what is going on is truly incredible.
My mother once told me that when she was young she thought of joining a monasteryand I understand now that that was because she was so innocent and naive that the falseand superficial upset world was an almost overwhelming unbearable mystery for her also.
The significance of an alienation-free, unresigned mother in producing an alienationfree, unresigned son was explained in Part 10:1 about Moses, Christ and Plato. Givenhow bewildering a mystery upset behaviour is for innocence it can be appreciated howimmensely relieving it was for me to read Sir Laurens’ books. As I mentioned, his honestyvirtually saved my life; better than that, it encouraged me to hold on to my unusual way ofthinking. I was variously being described by people as ‘hopelessly idealistic’, ‘quixotic’,
‘a dreamer’, ‘utopian’ and, more unkindly, as being ‘mad’, ‘idiotic’, ‘childish’, ‘pathetic’;and my ideas as being ‘offensive’ and ‘just plain wrong’. Later in my life I was regularlyaccused of practicing ‘bad science’, which I now know only too well is mechanisticscience’s code words for science that doesn’t comply with its evasive, denial-complyingetiquette. With the confirmation from Sir Laurens’ writing that I wasn’t mad I was able togo on thinking unevasively and eventually find my way to the humanity-liberating truthabout the human condition. Sir Laurens played a crucial role in producing these liberatingunderstandings of the human condition.

Part 10:4

Sir Laurens van der Post’s Vision

803

As a boy, Sir Laurens must have also suffered from total bewilderment about the silent,fraudulent, dishonest, deluded, pretentious, arrogant, artificial, escapist world of upset humansand he must have found much needed reassurance and confirmation that the ideal world thathe knew of was real from the Bushmen. Realising their importance to him he realised theirimportance to humanity in terms of bringing some real truth back into the world, and that washis vision, the contribution he could see that he should make. My innocence, my naivety, mysoundness was so great that my vision was to be able to actually explain and liberate humanityfrom the human condition.
On 30 January 1972, when I was 27 and still in the wilds of Tasmania trying to rediscoverthe Tasmanian Tiger I wrote a love letter, which I still have a copy of, to my then girlfriendin Sydney (the one that took me to the lavish party I mentioned earlier) that included thesewords: ‘Playing saying seeing dreaming you left me with a funny feeling! I won’t study so I will tryand write to you. I feel like writing because it’s cloudy. There were a thousand wild horses out on thatgreat plain and before them strode a boy and he was alone and hopelessly happy.’ Accompanying the
letter was a drawing of thousands of galloping horses coming over the horizon towards theviewer with a small boy out in front leading them. I can understand now that this image ofthe horses and boy was a representation of my vision of my innocence being able to leadhumanity home from its alienated state. In fact in every major document I have written Ihave included a phrase that has always summarised my vision, which is that ‘soon from oneend of the horizon to the other will appear an army in its millions to do battle with human suffering andits weapon will be understanding’.

All my life whenever I have heard or read Australia’s most celebrated poem, Banjo
Paterson’s 1895 The Man From Snowy River, emotion has overtaken me and tears come to myeyes. For a long time I didn’t understand why. While Australia has an ancient mythology thatis grounded in the Dreamtime stories of the Aborigines, it also has a powerful contemporarymythology with The Man From Snowy River at the centre of them—Banjo Paterson’s imageand all the words to The Many From Snowy River, written in tiny text as they are, even featureson our most used currency, Australia’s $10 note. Mythologies only develop if they containa resonating deep truth. Ostensibly the poem is about a great ride by mountain horsemen torecapture an escaped thoroughbred that joined the wild horses or brumbies in the mountainranges but I now understand the poem is a recognition that it is in this relatively innocentcountry of Australia that the answers to the human condition would finally be found—it isa description of my vision, hence my emotional identification with it. The poem describeshow eventually a ‘stripling’ boy (the embodiment of innocence) goes beyond where the restof the horsemen (the alienated adults) dare go, and follows the brumbies down the ‘terribledescent’ of a steep mountain where (if you weren’t sound) ‘any slip was death’ (to confront
the unconfrontable issue of the human condition) and recapture the thoroughbred from theimpenetrable mountains (retrieve the escaped truth from the depths of denial). The poemdescribes how the boy ‘ran them [the brumbies] single-handed till their sides were white with foam / Hefollowed like a bloodhound on their track / Till they halted, cowed and beaten—then he turned their headsfor home / And alone and unassisted brought them back’ (he fought all the alienation and its denial

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

804

The Biology
that has been enslaving this world to a standstill until it finally gave up the truth). The story of
David and Goliath is the same recognition of innocence eventually slaying the giant, the giantbeing our species’ alienated state of denial. In the great European legend of King Arthur, thewounded (alienated) Fisher King whose realm was devastated (humans unavoidably madetheir world an expression of their own madnesses) could only have his wound healed, and hisrealm restored, by the arrival in his kingdom of a simple, naive boy. In the legend the boy’sname is Parsifal, which, according to the legend, means ‘guileless fool’. To the alienated onlya naive, ‘guileless’ fool would dare approach and grapple with the confronting truths aboutour divisive, corrupted condition. Hans Christian Andersen’s 1837 fable the Emperor’s New
Clothes contains the same resonating truth that it would take a small boy to break the spellof the denial that has captured humanity. While these other mythologies have recognisedthe truth about innocence leading humanity home from its lost state of alienation, they werenot the central mythology of their civilisations like The Man From Snowy River has been in
Australia’s mythology. Australia was where the great breakthrough would occur.
As I mentioned in Part 3:12, in my mid-twenties I also wrote this poem which clearlydescribes the excitement of the time of humanity’s liberation that my vision anticipated: ‘Thisis a story you see, just a story—but for you / Um—I remember a long time ago in the distant futurea timeless day / a sunlit cloudless day when all things were fine / when we all slow-danced our way tobreakfast in the sun // You see the day awoke with music / Can you imagine one thousand horses slowgalloping towards you across a vast plain / and we loved that day so much / We all danced like Isadora
Duncan through the morning light // We skipped and twirled and spun about / Fairies were there likedragonflies over a pool / Little girls with wings they hovered and flew about / their small voices youcould hear / You see it was that kind of morning // When the afternoon arrived it was big and bold andbeautiful / In worn out jeans and bouncing breasts we began / to fight—our way—into another day /into something new—to jive our way into the night / from sunshine into a thunderstorm // We all tookour place, rank upon rank we came / as an army with Hendrix out in front / and the music busted thehorizon into shreds / By God we broke the world apart / The pieces were of different colours and therewere so many people / We danced in coloured dust, we left in sweat no room at all / We had a ball ingowns of grey and red / There were things that happened that nobody knew / Bigger and better, I hadwritten on my sweater / Where there was sky there was music, huge clouds of it / and there were stormsof gold with coloured lights / It was so good we cried tears into our eyes / In a tug of war of love we hadno strength left at all / Dear God we cried but he only sighed and / whispered strength through leavesof laughter // On and on we came in bold ranks of silvered gold / to lead a world that didn’t know tosomewhere it didn’t care / It couldn’t last, it had to end and yet it had an endless end / We were so happyin balloons of coloured bubbles that wouldn’t bust / and we couldn’t, couldn’t quench our lust / Therewe were all together for ever and ever / and tomorrow had better beware because / when we’ve wept andslept we will be there to shake its bloody neck.’

The imagery of an army of galloping horses that appeared in my 1972 letter to mygirlfriend and in the drawing attached to it, and in my poem above, and in Banjo Paterson’sepic story, appears in many anticipations of the incredible excitement and rapidly gatheringsupport the liberating and transforming understanding of the human condition will receivewhen it arrives.

Part 10:4

Sir Laurens van der Post’s Vision

805

In the Bible the prophets Joel and Isaiah described the same event using similarimagery. Joel said: ‘Blow the trumpet in Zion; sound the alarm on my holy hill. Let all who live inthe land tremble, for the day of the Lord [the liberating but at the same time all-exposing denial-free
understanding of the human condition] is coming…Like dawn spreading across the mountains a largeand mighty army comes, such as never was of old nor ever will be in ages to come. Before them firedevours, behind them a flame blazes. Before them the land is like the garden of Eden, behind them, adesert waste—nothing escapes them. They have the appearance of horses; they gallop along like cavalry.
With a noise like that of chariots…like a mighty army drawn up for battle. At the sight of them, nationsare in anguish; every face turns pale. They charge like warriors; they scale walls like soldiers. They allmarch in line, not swerving from their course. They do not jostle each other…For the day of the Lordis near in the valley of decision. The sun and moon will be darkened, and the stars no longer shine. The
Lord will roar from Zion and thunder from Jerusalem; the earth and the sky will tremble…“In that daythe mountains will drip new wine, and the hills will flow with milk; all the ravines of Judah will run withwater…Their bloodguilt, which I have not pardoned, I will pardon [the dignifying understanding of
humans’ corrupted state is finally found]”’ (Joel 2,3).

Isaiah said: ‘He lifts up a banner for the distant nations, he whistles for those at the ends of theearth. Here they come, swiftly and speedily! Not one of them grows tired or stumbles, not one slumbers orsleeps; not a belt is loosened at the waist, not a sandal thong is broken. Their arrows are sharp, all theirbows are strung; their horses’ hoofs seem like flint, their chariot wheels like a whirlwind. Their roar is likethat of the lion, they roar like young lions; they growl as they seize their prey and carry it off with no-oneto rescue. In that day they will roar over it like the roaring of the sea. And if one looks at the land, he willsee darkness and distress; even the light will be darkened by the clouds’ (Isa. 5:26–30).

While it doesn’t contain the imagery of horses, the immensely popular 1993 song
Holy Grail, written and sung by Mark Seymour of the Australian rock band Hunters and
Collectors, represents another anticipation in Australia’s mythology of the arrival of the allexciting and all-cleansing dignifying understanding of the human condition occurring in
Australia: ‘Woke up this morning from the strangest dream / I was in the biggest army the world hadever seen / We were marching as one on the road to the Holy Grail // Started out seeking fortune and glory
/ It’s a short song but it’s a hell of a story / When you spend your lifetime trying to get your hands / on the
Holy Grail // Well have you heard about the Great Crusade? / We ran into millions but nobody got paid
/ Yeah we razed four corners of the globe for the Holy Grail // All the locals scattered, they were hidingin the snow / We were so far from home, so how were we to know? / There’d be nothing left to plunder /
When we stumbled on the Holy Grail // We were so full of beans but we were dying like flies / And thosebig black birds, they were circling in the sky / And you know what they say, yeah nobody deserves to die //
Oh but I’ve been searching for an easy way / To escape the cold light of day [I’ve lived a life of resigned
evasion] / I’ve been high and I’ve been low [suffered the consequences of recurring depression] / But
I’ve got nowhere else to go / There’s nowhere else to go! // I followed orders, God knows where I’ve been /but I woke up alone, all my wounds were clean [our psychosis was cleared up] / I’m still here, I’m still afool for the Holy Grail / I’m a fool for the Holy Grail.’

There are other powerful anticipations in Australian mythology of the emergence ofunderstanding of the human condition in Australia, that are documented in my book A Species
In Denial in the section titled ‘Australia’s role in the world’.

806

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

So while Sir Laurens’ was an exceptionally Unresigned Prophet, the vision he had wasto resurrect the truth of our species’ past innocent state and to do this he used the vehicle ofthe Bushman people as evidence for that lost innocent state. Again, while Sir Laurens wasable to clearly recognise the ‘war’ between our original, innocent, instinctive soulful ‘darkchild of nature’ and our newer ‘individual conscious’ intellect or ‘spirit’ he wasn’t able to explain
the reason for the ‘war’. His vision, as stated in my Dedication to him, was the ‘hope’ thatby ‘reveal[ing]’ the ‘inner life’ of the ‘child’ in ‘man’ he ‘might start the first movement towards areconciliation’, and that ‘hope’ of ‘reconciliation’ that his work contributed is exactly what was
achieved. The Bushmen looked after the soul and its truth in Sir Laurens, and Sir Laurens inturn looked after the soul and its truth in me, and in turn I am now using that soul and its truthto look after humanity, rescue it from the horror of alienated oblivion. Again, as Sir Laurensanticipated: ‘We live in a sunset hour of time. We need to recognize and develop that aspect of ourselvesof which the moon bears the image. It is our own shy intuitions of renewal, which walk in our spiritualnight as Porcupine walked by the light of the moon, that need helping on the way. It is as if I hear thewind bringing up behind me the voice of Mantis, the infinite in the small, calling from the stone age to anage of men with hearts of stone, commanding us with the authentic voice of eternal renewal: “You musthenceforth be the moon. You must shine at night. By your shining shall you lighten the darkness until the

Jeremy Griffith and Tim Macartney-Snape with Sir Laurens van der Postin London in 1993, a few years before Sir Laurens’ death in 1996

One of my most precious memories was when I met Sir Laurens in London in 1993 andwas able to thank him personally for the assistance he had been to my work and life, which iswhen the above photograph was taken. I wrote to Sir Laurens on a number of occasions andtreasure a 20 May 1988 response to my first book Free: The End Of The Human Conditionwhich I had sent him where he said, ‘Could you please send me an extra copy of your book? Yoursto me is already out on loan because it was so appreciated, and I shall give it to my publishers to read and

Part 10:5

Sir James Darling’s Vision

807
see whether they are as interested as we are.’ His publishers didn’t show the interest Sir Laurens
hoped for, and in fact all my books, which are about the human condition, have had to bepublished by our own organisation, the Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood, now calledthe WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT. Sir Laurens never stopped trying to help promotemy books, writing to Tim Macartney-Snape on the 15 August 1989 saying: ‘If I do not do moreto help Jeremy Griffith it is simply that the weight and amount of my responsibilities prevent me, shortof self-destruction.’ On 6 May 1993, three and half years before his death, Sir Laurens wrote to
me saying, ‘I would hope you will always know how we value the examples you set and the work you aredoing in Australia.’ Denial-free thinkers can recognise denial-free thinking but for everyone else
they are an anathema.
As the quote from Sir Laurens used in my dedication to him states, he hoped his workof acknowledging the relative innocence of the Bushmen would ‘start the first movementtowards a reconciliation’. I only wish that Sir Laurens was still alive to tell him how successful
his vision of starting such a movement was, but then again I know that he doesn’t reallyneed to know that it was successful because his vision was so clear that he always knew itwould be successful.
Appropriately, Sir Laurens’ full-page obituary, which was reproduced in The Australiannewspaper from the London Times, was titled ‘A Prophet Out of Africa’ (20 Dec. 1996)—(view van der
Post’s obituary that was reproduced in The Australian at <www.humancondition.com/vanderpost-obituary>).

Part 10:5 Sir James Darling’s Vision of Fostering the Ability to Undertakethe ‘Paramount’ Task of Solving the Human Condition in Order to
‘Save the World’
As has been mentioned, the online version of my second book, Beyond The Human
Condition (1991), contains this Dedication:
To the vision of Sir James Darling for acknowledging that:
‘…the future lies not with the predatory and the immune but with the sensitive who livedangerously…the truly sensitive mind is both susceptible and penetrating: it is open to new ideas,and it seeks truth at the bottom of the well. It is the development of this sort of mind which itshould be the object of the educational process to cultivate’ James Darling, The Education of a Civilized
Man, 1962, pp.63-64 of 223.

Sir James Darling’s work has been referred to throughout Freedom Expanded: Book 1,in particular a brief analysis was included in Part 5:1 of his absolutely astonishing vision ofdeliberately setting out to foster the innocence needed to solve the human condition and byso doing save the world. What follows is an elaboration of that presentation. There is also alonger, even more in-depth essay I have written about Sir James’ vision which is available onthe WTM’s website at <www.humancondition.com/darling-longer-essay>.
_______________________

808

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology

Amazing as it may seem, it is apparent in the following material that the life of Sir James
Darling—who was headmaster of Geelong Grammar School (GGS) for 32 years until 1961—was specifically dedicated to, as he described it, cultivating the innocent, sound, alienationfree ‘sensitivity’ needed to undertake the ‘paramount’ task of finding the ‘answer’ to the ‘allimportant question’ of the human condition and by so doing ‘saving the world’.

What is perhaps even more amazing is that Sir James succeeded in his giganticundertaking because, having greatly benefited from his extraordinarily courageous soulrather-than-intellect-emphasising education, I have been able to confront the issue of thehuman condition and, by so doing, solve it—and not only solve it, but, with the help of somevery special Australians, establish an organisation, the World Transformation Movement
(WTM), to take that world-saving insight to the world.

And moreover, amongst those very special Australians supporting this breakthroughinsight against the intense resistance—indeed, tirade of persecution—that opening upthe subject of the human condition attracted, have been other Darling-inspired GeelongGrammarians. Those key GGS-trained supporters include WTM Founding Directors Tim
Macartney-Snape AM OAM, Simon Griffith (my brother) and Christopher Stephen. It is also notinsignificant that in this great undertaking to create a place in the world where the soundnessneeded to solve the human condition might be cultivated that Tim Macartney-Snape’s greatgreat grandfather, Dean Macartney, was one of the founding fathers of GGS, and that my and
Simon’s father, and Tim’s father, also attended GGS.
The point is that saving the human race through finding the reconciling, redeeming andrehabilitating understanding of the human condition has been very much a Sir James Darling/
Geelong Grammar School/Australian-led undertaking.
Given the human-condition-confronting-not-avoiding, denial-free, truthful nature of thiswhole world-saving enterprise it should also be recorded that Sir James’ full-page obituary in
The Australian newspaper on 3 November 1995 acknowledged his extraordinary capacity fordenial-free, truthful and thus penetrating, prophetic thinking, describing him as ‘a prophet in thetrue biblical sense’ (see Sir James Darling’s obituary at <www.humancondition.com/darling-obituary>).

As well as headmaster of GGS, Sir James Darling was also Chairman of the Australian
Broadcasting Commission (today’s Australian Broadcasting Corporation, or ABC) from 1961to 1967 (and before that, from 1955, a member of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board).
In 1953 Sir James was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) and in
1968 he was knighted ‘for services to education and broadcasting’. In Australia’s bicentennial
year, 1988, he was officially designated one of 200 ‘Great Australians’. Of the 200—22 thenliving—Sir James was the only headmaster, a public recognition of his exceptional, indeedunique, influence in Australia as an educator. In fact, by the end of Darling’s tenure GGS hadbecome one of the most highly regarded schools in the world, with the current heir to the
English throne, HRH The Prince of Wales, attending the school for part of his education.
Given Sir James Darling’s tenure as Chairman of the ABC, it should be noted thatthe ABC is the organisation that did all it could to misrepresent, vilify and destroy the allimportant work being carried out by the WTM of bringing understanding to the humancondition. From the following material, it can be imagined how deeply impressed, interestedin and encouraging of the work of the WTM a Darling-led ABC would have been. That the

Part 10:5

Sir James Darling’s Vision

809
very opposite response occurred shows how dangerously the ABC has lost its way; in fact,how bankrupt it has become as a meaningful influence in Australian society. If he were alivetoday, Sir James Darling would be appalled by the ABC’s treatment of the work of the WTM.
_______________________

Born in England in 1899, Sir James Darling was the beneficiary of the very best educationthe world could then provide (just as Moses was growing up in the Pharaoh’s court in Egypt;and Plato was in Socrates’ school; and Christ was by the Old Testament; and I was throughhaving attended the school Sir James established). England’s universities at Oxford (where
Sir James read history) and Cambridge were the centres of learning in the world at the time.
One of Sir James’ teachers and later mentor, William Temple, went on to become what manyregard the Church of England’s greatest ever Archbishop of Canterbury.
When Sir James was selected at the young age of 30 to become headmaster of GGS at
Corio in Victoria, Australia, there were only 330 pupils. By the time he retired as headmasterof the school 32 years later in 1961 GGS had become, as mentioned, one of the most highlyregarded schools in the world, with the current heir to the British throne, HRH The Prince of
Wales, being sent all the way there from England for part of his education. Penny Junor’s 1987book about HRH The Prince of Wales, titled Charles, states that ‘Dr Darling had been a discipleof Kurt Hahn’ (p.54) who was the ‘founder’ of ‘Gordonstoun’, a school on the north-east coast of

Scotland that the Prince also attended. Junor wrote that ‘Geelong [Grammar School]…was notunlike Gordonstoun’ (p.54) and, about the conception of Gordonstoun, that ‘Dr Kurt Hahn…was a
German whose unconventional ideas about education had been prompted by his country’s defeat in the
First World War…As a young man he had suffered a long period of illness, and while convalescing hadread Plato’s Republic. Inspired by the ideals he discovered there, he had conceived the idea of starting anentirely new sort of school, broadly based on the Platonic view’ (p.35).

Plato’s view about education was that it should be concerned with cultivating ‘philosopherguardians’ or ‘philosopher rulers’, those who Plato said were ‘the true philosophers…those whosepassion is to see the truth’ (Plato The Republic, c.360BC; tr. H.D.P. Lee, 1955, p.238 of 405). Plato explained,
‘But suppose…that such natures were cut loose [sheltered], when they were still children, from the deadweight of worldliness, fastened on them by sensual indulgences like gluttony, which distorts their minds’vision to lower things, and suppose that when so freed [during their nurtured upbringing] they wereturned towards the truth [during their education], then the same faculty in them would have as keen avision of truth as it has of the objects on which it is at present turned’ (ibid. p.284). Basically Plato’s—
and Hahn’s and Sir James’—idea was to cultivate and develop conscience, rather thanemphasise consciousness, as most educators do today with IQ tests, competitive emphasis onachieving high academic grades, passing university entrance exams, etc, etc. It is all aboutintellectual excellence at most schools, with virtually no focus on preserving and developingthe naturally inspired, enthralled, questioning, happy, imaginative, sound, conscience-infusedinstinctive souls of students. Focusing on and talking about our species inspired and lovingnatural, innocent, human-condition-free, original instinctive soulful state has been unbearablyconfronting for our species present human-condition-afflicted state and, as a result, it has beenfar easier to focus on and talk about our intellect: eulogise it, and make no mention of ourinstinctive soul. The end result is what we have today, a world that vastly overemphasises the

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

810

The Biology
intellect and vastly underemphasises our original natural instinctive moral self or soul and itstruthful conscience. The problem is this near total emphasis on intellectual excellence wasonly ever going to perpetuate alienation. It was all about indulging life in Plato’s dark cave
(where humans have been hiding in fear of the unbearably confronting issue of the humancondition) when Plato, Hahn and Sir James saw that the objective in education should be totry to break free from that cave of alienating denial; fight to keep the ‘windows’ in students’minds open and ‘let the sun/truth in’; preserve and develop the ‘passion’ ‘to see the truth’.
Defiant of all convention, visionary, immensely courageous and astonishing as it surelyis given the alienated reality of our world today, if we look at a collection of quotes from
Sir James’ speeches it becomes clear that his objective in education really was to not onlypreserve and cultivate the souls of students as a general, right-minded principle for education,but to actually cultivate the specific truth-confronting, soul-full, conscience-strong degreeof innocent, sensitive soundness needed to undertake the specific task of solving the humancondition for the human race.
Before presenting this evidence from his own words of Sir James’ deliberate intentto cultivate the soundness needed to save the world, the following is some enlighteningcommentary on the unfolding of Sir James’ amazing vision that he seemingly had from thetime he was a small boy. On pages 104 and 105 of his 1978 autobiography Richly Rewarding,
Sir James said that he found the question he had ‘often been asked’ of ‘why he had decided tocome to Australia’ ‘not easy to answer succinctly’, that ‘sometimes I felt…that it was pre-ordained, thatindeed God…had decided it all for me’. He went on to write that when he made the decision to
apply for the job of headmaster of GGS ‘one very odd thing happened…when I was still a small boyat home, my father recounted a point from a speech…[that there] was a country, Australia, which wasdeveloping without any religion…[and this] came back into my mind with all the force of a propheticutterance…[and that my decision was thus] concerned with religion in that…I felt that I had somethingto give in a comparatively new country’. As I have previously explained, when we are young we
can know the form of our destiny in life that we then have to live out, never again seeingit quite so clearly as the battle and resulting alienations develop to cope with the struggleof life. The surfacing of Sir James’ childhood vision of how he could make a difference isapparent in what he has said here: Australia was a ‘new country’, a place where there would beenough innocence left that students could be ‘turned towards the truth’ during their education,as Plato described it, thus cultivating the ability to take on the world of denial and bring outthe reconciling truth about the human condition, a vision that the following extracts from hisspeeches confirm. (The underlinings in the following quotes have been added for emphasis.)
In this first quote Sir James identifies the human condition as the ‘all-important question’to which ‘there must be a complete answer’, otherwise ‘our existence’ is faced with becoming
‘fragmented into a rubbish-heap’. In an oration Sir James gave in Melbourne in 1954 to the

College of Radiologists of Australasia, appropriately titled On Looking Beneath the Surfaceof Things, he said, ‘in seeking for such purpose [in all of existence and in our own lives] it willbe necessary to seek below the surface…[for the] thoughts which do lie too deep for tears. (Cf. William
Wordsworth, Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood, last line.) [The
thoughts that lie too deep for
tears are those that for most people are so depressing they can’t go near them, namely thoughts aboutour imperfect human condition]…Only so can we come to a better understanding of life, to answer even

Part 10:5

Sir James Darling’s Vision

811
the all-important question: ‘What is man that thou art mindful of him [why is human behaviour so
often less than ideal], and the son of man that thou visitest him?’ [when Christ’s behaviour by contrastwas sound and ideal]. (Psalm 8, v.4; Hebrews 2.6.) [Sir James has clearly stated here that the ‘all-importantquestion’ that we have ‘to answer’ is the issue of our species’ less-than-ideal human condition.] For toexclude that question from the study of evolution [for science to avoid that question] is indeed to play
Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark (Sir Walter Scott, The Talisman, introduction)—an exclusion surely as futileas to talk theology and to forget evolution? [Sir James is saying that it is around this ‘question’ of the
human condition and its biological ‘answer’ that the reconciliation of science and religion, reasonand faith, occurs]. There must be a complete answer; there must be coherence and sense in the universe;and, until we find it, our thinking is degenerated into disintegration, and our existence fragmented into arubbish-heap of shreds and patches, with coherence, significance, and growth impossible, our compassbearings lost, and civilization foundering. [Healing amelioration of the human condition has to be found
if the world is to be saved from terminal levels of alienation]’ (The Röntgen oration, 17 Nov. 1954, published in
The Education of a Civilized Man, ed. Michael Persse, 1962, pp.74-75 of 223).

In these next quotes Sir James talks about the qualities that needed to be cultivated in hiseducation program for the ‘paramount’, ‘all-important’ search to ‘find’ the ‘complete answer’ to theissue of the human condition that is needed to ‘save humanity’ and ‘the world’. In his On
Looking Beneath the Surface of Things oration, part of which was quoted above, Sir Jamessaid, ‘It should be the prime object of education…to develop this sensitivity…the truly sensitive mind isboth susceptible and penetrating: it is open to new ideas, and it seeks truth at the bottom of the well’ (ibid.pp.63-64). In his 1961 Anzac Day address at GGS he said, ‘What, then, is the issue? It is this. Do we
wish to preserve…this country as a place in which…free men and women can live and seek Truth…Itmeans that each of us should regard our lives as pledged to the one paramount purpose of saving theworld…the sands of time are running out’ (The Education of a Civilized Man, 1962, pp.139-140). And in another
presentation, while referring to ‘the kind of man needed to save Australia and humanity’, Sir Jamesspoke about cultivating ‘men of conscience…men not afraid of facing unpleasant facts’ (Light Blue Down
Under: The History of Geelong Grammar School, by Weston Bate, 1990, p.219 of 386). On another occasion he
similarly said, ‘it is not for men to run away from the truth for fear of the consequences’ (Address to the
Victorian Branch of The Royal Empire Society on 14 Mar. 1946, The Education of a Civilized Man, 1962, p.131), and
likewise, ‘Lean towards danger like a good boxer’ (Sermon at GGS Chapel on 11 June 1950, The Education of a
Civilized Man, p.155). In a Speech Day address given at GGS in 1960, he said, ‘It requires more
toughness to resist the world [of denial] than to join in…It is the awakening and vivifying of theconscience of those who belong to it which ought to be the chief purpose of a Church school…because…conscience is the executive part of consciousness’ (The Education of a Civilized Man, pp.96-97). In an address
to The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in 1960 Sir James said: ‘It is wise sometimes toremember the all too frequent rejections of the prophets by the barbarians…The quality which, above allother, needs to be cultivated [in education] is sensitivity…[Education’s] objective is a development of thewhole man, sensitive all round the circumference…the future, [Canon Raven] has said, lies not with thepredatory [selfish] and the immune [alienated] but with the sensitive [innocent] who live dangerously

[defy the world of denial]. There is a threefold choice for the free man…He may grasp for himself whathe can get and trample the needs and feelings of others beneath his feet: or he may try to withdraw fromthe world to a monastery…: or he may “take up arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing endthem”…[and so] There remains the sensitive, on one proviso: he must be sensitive and tough [to solve the

812

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
human condition and ‘save humanity’ requires sufficient sensitivity/innocence to access the truth butalso sufficient toughness to not ‘withdraw…to a monastery’, as my mother considered doing when shewas a young woman, but instead to stand up to, defy, and ultimately overthrow the all-pervading falseworld of denial]. He must combine tenderness and awareness with fortitude, perseverance, and courage.
The sensitivity is necessary because without it there is no life of the mind, no growing consciousness, noliving conscience; nor is there any real communication one with another. It is necessary also if we accept
Father Teilhard’s [Teilhard de Chardin] extension of the idea of evolution as illuminating the end of life.
Only by a growth of sensitivity can man progress from the alpha of original chaos to the omega of God’spurpose for him [only through denial-free innocence can the reconciling biological understanding of
the human condition be found]…Sensitivity is not enough. Without toughness it may be only a thinskin…[only from] an inner core of strength are [you] enabled to fight back…Can such men be? Of coursethey can: and they are the leaders whom others will follow. In the world of books there are, for me,
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, or Laurens van der Post’ (ibid. pp.28-36). [Sir Laurens van der Post is also my
favourite author, and is the most quoted author in my books. Sir Laurens was also so important aperson to HRH The Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, that he was chosen to be godfather to Prince
Charles’ eldest son and the future king, Prince William, and there is ‘A bronze bust of van der Post…in
Prince Charles’ garden at Highgrove’ (‘Post, Sir Laurens Jan van der (1906-1996)’, Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, Christopher Booker, 2004). A former British Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, no less, once
described Sir Laurens as ‘the most perfect man I have ever met’ (ABC Radio, Late Night Live, 25 Feb. 2002).
Sir Laurens was also immensely impressed with Jeremy’s writing, responding to his first book byasking, ‘Could you please send me an extra copy of your book. Yours to me is already out on loan becauseit was so appreciated.’ For daring to be honest about the human condition Sir Laurens was, like me,
also viciously persecuted, and, like Sir James, he was also recognised as an exceptional denial-free,penetrating, honest, prophetic thinker, being described in his full-page obituary in the London Times as
‘a prophet out of Africa’ (20 Dec. 1996)—(view van der Post’s obituary that was reproduced in The Australian at
<http://www.humancondition.com/vanderpost-obituary>). To illustrate Sir James’ point about the need for both
innocence and toughness, the Bushmen of the Kalahari were all somewhat Christ-like in their relativeinnocence—for example being Christ-like they had no need of Christianity; as Sir Laurens van der
Post recorded, ‘The pastor, Dominee Ferdie Weich, though much loved by the Bushmen, could report nopermanent conversion to Christ in 21 years’ (Testament to the Bushmen, 1984, text accompanying photograph 91)—
but they were not a race sufficiently toughened from thousands of years of encounter with the horror ofthe extremely psychologically upset and distressed state of the human condition to take on the worldof denial—as was also illustrated by Sir Laurens when he pointed out the Bushman’s inability to copewith the extremely upset, human-condition-afflicted modern world, writing that ‘mere contact withtwentieth-century life seemed lethal to the Bushman. He was essentially so innocent and natural a personthat he had only to come near us for a sort of radioactive fall-out from our unnatural world to produce afatal leukaemia in his spirit’ (The Heart of the Hunter, 1961, p.111 of 233). The English explorer and
philosopher Bruce Chatwin acknowledged the innocent, alienation-free soundness of Christ and alsoof the innocent races when he wrote these extraordinarily honest words: ‘There is no contradictionbetween the Theory of Evolution and belief in God [Integrative Meaning] and His Son [the uncorrupted
expression of our original instinctive orientation to Integrative Meaning] on earth. If Christ were theperfect instinctual specimen—and we have every reason to believe He was—He must be the Son of God.
By the same token, the First Man was also Christ’ (What Am I Doing Here, 1989, p.65 of 367).] In a column Sir

Part 10:5

Sir James Darling’s Vision

813

James regularly wrote for Melbourne’s leading newspaper, The Age, he observed that ‘The timeis past for help which is only a Band-Aid. It is time for radical thinking and for a solution on the grandscale’ (Reflections for The Age, ed. J. Minchin & B. Porter, 1991, p.145 of 176); and in a renowned 1950 GGS

Speech Day address he said, ‘We are not now that strength which in old days moved Heaven and
Earth…but something ere the end, some work of noble note may yet be done’ (Light Blue Down Under: The
History of Geelong Grammar School, Weston Bate, 1990, p.219). Yes, despite humanity approaching a state of
near terminal levels of alienation, the human-race-saving, reconciling, redeeming andrehabilitating understanding of the human condition might still be found.
_______________________

The references to ‘seeking’ ‘purpose’ and for biology not ‘to exclude that question [of thehuman condition] from the study of evolution’ in order that ‘Father Teilhard’s…idea of evolution asilluminating the end of life’ could be fulfilled, indicate that Sir James was not only concerned
with cultivating and orientating the innocence needed to solve the human condition and savethe human race, amazingly and courageously he was also sound enough in his own thinkingto know precisely where that denial-free thinking would have to begin if it was to solvethe human condition. As the following further extracts from his speeches reveal, Sir Jamesrecognised that acknowledgment of the ‘teleological’, holistic, integrative, negative-entropydriven, Godly ‘purpose’ or meaning or theme of existence was the starting point to thinkingtruthfully and thus effectively about the human condition. Not only that, in these furtherextracts Sir James identified precisely where the stalling point was with the current verylimited, narrow, reductionist, mechanistic approach of science and the lack of tolerance forreasoning in religious thought.
These further extracts come from Sir James’ 1954 speech On Looking Beneath the
Surface of Things (all of his speech can be read in the in-depth essay about Sir James’vision that was mentioned earlier): ‘It was the ancient Greek philosophers who…first…sought…for some single binding principle from which it might be said that all else sprang…Plato, coming nearto monotheism…[in his] idea of the Good and the Beautiful’. But ‘A multiplicity of new facts…hastended to obscure all sight of principle…concentration upon the development of even the twigs upon thebranches has resulted in our losing sight of the tree…[It is] most unsatisfactory…how difficult it is formodern man to see life clearly and to see it whole.’ ‘The difficulty is accentuated by the modern…divorcebetween theological and scientific thinking…The scientist can no more deny or devaluate the truths ofspiritual experience than the theologian can neglect the truths of science: and the two truths must bereconcilable, and it must be of importance to each of us that they should be reconciled…truth is thereto be revealed…and the seeing of the truth is a discovery, not an invention…a poet…Robert Bridges…first, as far as I know, and as long ago as 1927…tried to produce order out of chaos…in [his poem] The
Testament of Beauty…that…Archbishop Temple…hailed…as one of the greatest works in the Englishlanguage…[Bridges wrote of] “the creator’s Will that we call Law of Nature…the determin’d habit ofelectrons, the same with the determining instinct of unreasoning life, necessity [finally] become conscientin man…of ministry unto God, the Universal Mind”…This is the idea of [integrative, teleological,
holistic] Purpose in…all things that we must return, if we are to discover unity in the midst of variety…it is high time that there should be some whys and some answers; only so will there be any chance of therequired revision and synthesis…this binding idea of purpose…[The problem is] religion…[has become]

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

814

The Biology
an escape…[and] scientific thought…became dominated by the mathematicians and the physicists…withits consequent enhancement of economic and industrial values at the expense of aesthetic and moral…until, with Charles Darwin, man himself was deposed from the position of controller and graded aspart of the machine…[but] by that time mechanism was…securely established…It is only recently thatthe physicist has abandoned his dogmatism [the denial of Integrative Meaning or teleology], and thebiologist begun…to study the living creature…[At this point we pick up where Sir James described
the need to solve the human condition that was included at the beginning of these extracts. Hisrecognition of the need to solve the human condition is so significant that what he said is presentedagain here as the rightful conclusion to these extracts.] I should like…to come back to the possibilitythat the solution lies quite simply in what is known as the teleological conception of evolution…Only socan we come to a better understanding of life, to answer even the all-important question: ‘What is manthat thou art mindful of him [why is human behaviour so often less than ideal], and the son of manthat thou visitest him?’ [when Christ’s behaviour by contrast was sound and ideal]. (Psalm 8, v.4; Hebrews
2.6.) [Sir

James has clearly stated here that the ‘all-important question’ that we have ‘to answer’ is the
issue of our species’ less-than-ideal human condition.] For to exclude that question from the study ofevolution is indeed to play Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark (Sir Walter Scott, The Talisman, introduction)—anexclusion surely as futile as to talk theology and to forget evolution? There must be a complete answer;there must be coherence and sense in the universe; and, until we find it, our thinking is degenerated intodisintegration, and our existence fragmented into a rubbish-heap of shreds and patches, with coherence,significance, and growth impossible, our compass-bearings lost, and civilization foundering…It is God’spurpose that men should be like Christ…whole and healthy’.

I have been told that the despair Sir James felt after losing so many giftedcontemporaries in the First World War, in which he served as an artillery officer, led him todecide that the only way that he could live with the fact that he survived when they hadn’twas to try to live the life of 10 men. This great commitment could not have produced hisdeeply clear-sighted vision of cultivating and orientating the innocence needed to save thehuman race—such clarity could only come from the purity of vision of a young child—but itcertainly would have reinforced his vision, helped him to be even more determined to fulfil it.
There is some oblique acknowledgment of this view in this quote about Sir James’ war years:
‘His war service toughened and filled him out and gave him a sense of having the right to put the worldin order; indeed, like many of his contemporaries and especially those who went into teaching, he thoughthe should work twice as hard to make up for the loss of the finest spirits of the age’ (Light Blue Down Under,
Weston Bate, 1990, p.179 of 386).

I had a similar vision-focusing experience during my life, in my
case caused by the loss of my father. My father died in an accident on a tractor on our sheepstation in 1971 when I was 25 years old. In his obituary in the Geelong Grammar Schoolmagazine (The Corian, Sept. 1971, pp.251-252) he was described as ‘the salt of the earth’, and he was.
He was renowned for his goodness, never saying a bad word about anyone, always being fairand never being manipulative of others. My brother Simon has a very similar personality.
It is almost saintly how much our father and Simon are not retaliatory towards the world.
Simon internalises his pain from life but he never expresses it outwardly. He absorbs it ratherthan takes it out on the world. This saintliness of my father was important because underthe duress of the human condition there are very few men that do not externalise their ego’sfrustration and as a result oppress their sons to some degree. This oppression of the spirit

Part 10:5

Sir James Darling’s Vision

815
of boys by their fathers is so common that I’ll never forget my biology professor at Sydney
University, Charles Birch, once saying to me, ‘haven’t you heard Jeremy, the best thing that canhappen in a man’s life is that his father dies when he is born’! If that oppression had happened to me
it would have seriously compromised my innocence that my mother was able to nurture andprotect in me to an exceptional degree. I attribute my soundness above all to my mother’ssoul strength and defiance of the false world of alienation and denial—a situation I describedin Part 10:1 when I explained how Joseph acquired his soul strength—but my father’ssaintliness was also very important. In all it was a very lucky combination of circumstances.
So deeply loving of my father’s goodness was I that when he died the pain of his deathturned my resolve to solve the human condition into steel. To cope with his loss I determinedto never ever be broken, to never ever have my vision compromised and I never have despiteabsolutely incredible provocation to compromise my vision. It is with my mother’s strengththat I have fought but for my father’s goodness that I fight. The dedication in my first book,
Free: The End Of The Human Condition (1988) is ‘To my father and from my mother’. Thisacknowledges that the ability to write about the human condition comes ‘from’, is directlydue to, the nurturing I received from my mother, but that since it is men’s role to take on thetask of defying the ignorance of our soul and solve the human condition, my work is carriedout for, or is dedicated ‘to’ my father, in particular to his extraordinary goodness as a man.
So like Sir James had his war experiences to strengthen his resolve, so I also had the death ofmy father to strengthen mine.
As was explained earlier, when we were young and still thinking truthfully about our andthe world’s plight we all knew the problem that had to be solved was the issue of the humancondition. Why, when we knew humans had such a loving soul, were humans behaving soatrociously? From there we could reason and know that what was needed was a clarifyingfirst principle based, scientific explanation of the human condition. Until we could explainand thus understand ourselves we would not be able to lift the siege of insecurity and guiltthat was causing all our upset and resulting suffering of humans and all the devastation of ourplanet. Some very serious and profound thinking was needed and for that thinking we wouldneed certain insights. In particular we would need to know what the meaning of life on Earthwas: what was the overall purpose of our and our world’s existence. We knew instinctivelythat the theme of existence and the purpose of life was to love but what was the actual nature,significance and meaning of that love? Also we knew that any evidence about our humanorigins would be extremely valuable in working out what happened to cause us to stop beingloving. It follows that the various visions that exceptionally sound people have had of beingable to help solve the human condition have involved contributing to these keys insights intothe meaning of life and into our human origins. Most people can’t look at early man truthfullyany more than they can look at or acknowledge their past innocent state and current lack ofit. Similarly most people can’t begin to acknowledge the truth of integrative meaning becauseit is so condemning of their existing competitive and selfish divisive state. It is only theexceptionally sound who can have a vision of seeking insight into these phenomena.
Sir Laurens van der Post’s vision was focused on studying the innocent nature of earlyman, which the Bushmen provided a living example of. Sir James Darling’s vision alsorecognised the significance, in terms of being able to think truthfully about the human

816

Freedom Expanded: Book 1

The Biology
condition, of different states of alienation in the human race and knowing that sought toidentify and cultivate the soundness needed to solve the human condition. He also recognisedthe importance of the truth of the teleological, integrative purpose in all of existence thatexplained the significance of love, a truth that was fundamental to any honest thinking aboutwhat happened to us as a species. We will shortly see how Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s visionwas focused on the need for humanity to resolve the human condition, reach an ‘omega point’of reconciliation as he described it. As part of his vision he desperately sought clues abouthuman origins by seeking out and studying fossils of early humans. We will see how Louis
Leakey had an amazing vision guiding him to find fossil evidence of our ancestors and tolearn about our human origins through studying the lives of other existing primates. We willsee how Eugene Marais’ vision was also to find clues about what happened to our speciesthrough studying our primate relatives. We will see how Arthur Koestler’s vision involvedrecognising the teleological, integrative purpose of existence and from there trying to explainwhat caused the conflict between our species’ instinct and intellect. Basically the sounder theindividual the stronger and better focused was their vision of throwing light on the nature andorigins of our upset human condition. All these men recognised the elements of instinct andintellect as being involved in producing the human condition, some more clearly than others,but none were able to explain the human condition. Their visions came down to contributinginsights towards the finding of that solution, rather than to actually finding it. Sir Laurenstalked at length about the battle of our conscious self with our instinctive self. In the case of
Sir James Darling, earlier in Part 4:6 a quote from Sir James was included where he talked of
Plato’s two-horsed chariot. While Sir James’ interpretation of the roles of the two elements in
Plato’s analogy of instinct and reason wasn’t quite right, he clearly recognised those elementsas being the underlying elements in our distressed human predicament. It will be describedlater where the others have recognised the conflict between instinct and intellect.
To return to Sir James’ vision, as described earlier, his last year as headmaster of GGSwas my first year there; which I suppose means I had the benefit of all of his years at GGSof developing his culture of orientating soundness. I described earlier the importance of theinfluence of GGS in my work of looking into the human condition in my Dedication to mysecond book, Beyond the Human Condition (1991). To describe it again here using an extractfrom a thank you letter I wrote Sir James on 14 February 1989, ‘Sir James I cannot begin to tellyou how much I value what you did at GGS … Michael Collins Persse [the long-standing master at GGS
who thankfully greatly helped in chronicling Sir James’ records and time at GGS] invited me to inscribean edition [of Free: The End of The Human Condition] for the school archives and in the cover I wrote
“ For Geelong Grammar School for looking after my soul”. In a world that treads all over our soul youlooked after it. Along with Sir Laurens van der Post, and one or two other soul-preservers, you have beenof the greatest importance to me. Thank you.’ In his gracious—and surely excessively humble
where he says he is not a deep thinker—reply to me on 21 February 1989 Sir James wrote, ‘Themain, perhaps the only thing, that a school can do is to create an atmosphere in which boys can grow upin such a way as to develop their own selves without having too much imposed upon them or destroyed inthem. If they are lucky enough to find even one teacher who inspires them that is a bonus. A school alsohas, I think, to have a sort of conscience or soul of its own, which sets some standards of social behaviour,a liberal attitude to life, and a social conscience, but it must be very humble about this and make sure that

Part 10:5

Sir James Darling’s Vision

817
it is not too dogmatic or intrusive. From reading what you have written it seems to have been successfulwith you. I particularly like the combination of furniture building and metaphysical thought. I fear thatyour book will be a bit above my head. I am not a very deep thinker, being empirical by nature, andhaving worked always on the basis of seeing something to be wrong and needs correcting, or somethingwhich leaves a gap and needs filling. This was very much the case with Timbertop [the wilderness-located
part of GGS that all students spend a year in during their time at GGS], which seems to have been themost significant part of your time at school [I absolutely loved the outdoors/nature/innocence that

Timbertop gave me access to and it showed because even though I didn’t do very well academically inmy year there I was runner-up for Best Boy of The Year, won the Natural History Prize and two of thethree cross-country races.]’.

It was mentioned earlier that Tim Macartney-Snape’s great-great grandfather, the
Reverend H. B. Macartney, Dean of Melbourne, was one of the founding fathers of GGS. Ithink it is wonderful that the story comes full circle with Tim’s involvement as a foundingdirector of the WORLD TRANSFORMATION MOVEMENT because what is even more astonishingabout Darling’s vision of fostering the capacity to solve the human condition is that hesucceeded. Some Old Geelong Grammarians in the WTM, assisted by a group of otherexceptionally able and courageous young Australians in the WTM, are bringing enlightenmentof the human condition to the world.
To conclude this description of Sir James’ vision, as with Sir Laurens van der Post,in Sir James’ full-page obituary in The Australian newspaper on 3 November 1995 he wasappropriately described as ‘a prophet in the true biblical sense’ (view Darling’s obituary at <www.humancondition.com/darling-obituary>).

Truly, the vision of Sir James Darling to save the human race by coming to Australia andcultivating the innocence there needed to explain and resolve the human condition was one ofthe greatest visions a human has had in recorded history!
What now needs to occur is for that human-race-saving, reconciling explanation of thehuman condition that Sir James dedicated his life to bringing about, and which has finallyarrived, to be presented and promoted throughout the world—despite the human-conditionavoiding, mechanistic establishment’s resistance to it.

Again, I have written a longer, more in-depth essay about Sir James Darling’s incrediblevision to foster the innocent soundness needed to solve the human condition, which can beread at <www.humancondition.com/darling-longer-essay>.

AN ANALYSIS OF OTHER DENIAL-FREE THINKERS WILL BE INCLUDED IN
DUE COURSE.

Source

https://www.humancondition.com/freedom-expanded-book1-cover/