Denial-free thinkers are not ‘brilliant’ or ‘clever’ or ‘geniuses’

I might comment on the simple power of denial-free thinking to explain so many mysteries of human life. Firstly, many of the concepts I have put forward are concepts that resigned humans have known but blocked out. The significance of nurturing for example is a truth that all resigned minds are aware of but have had to deny. Such concepts are not discoveries but revelations, truths that resigned humans have known and repressed and all I have done is reveal them.

Coming from a denial-free, honest base my mind is able to synthesise insights, in particular the explanation of the human condition, that resigned minds cannot reach from their dishonest base. Page 469 of
Print Edition The concepts I am bringing forward are actually very simple and obvious, as long as you are thinking honestly—hence the 16-year-old Lisa Tassone’s ability to read and understand my book in one night, as was documented in the Resignation essay. It is impossible to build the truth from lies, and the resigned position is fundamentally a false, lying paradigm. To again quote D.W. Winnicott’s summary of the situation, ‘True intuition can reach to a whole truth in a flash (just as faulty intuition can reach to error), whereas in a [mechanistic] science the whole truth is never reached’ (Thinking About Children, 1996, p.5 of 343).

My point is that the veritable avalanche of breakthrough insights that I have managed to bring forward is not a brilliant achievement. It is simply what is possible if you are able to think truthfully. In fact I don’t have a ‘clever’, fast-information-processing, ‘brilliant’ mind. I’m far from a super clever, high IQ ‘genius’. When my IQ was measured on a number of occasions at school it was never recorded as being anything higher than average and when I left school their advice was for me to take up a manual occupation. My house master’s report of me in my final year at Geelong Grammar School in 1963 said, ‘my judgment still is that Jeremy would find a tertiary course at university level very difficult’. There is a note added to the bottom of this report by the then headmaster, Mr Garnett, saying, ‘I am sure Mr. Mappin is right about the Science course’. To gain entry to university I had to do a correspondence course from home on our family’s sheep property in central NSW, and although I had special tutoring I only just managed to pass those exams. I did however achieve first class honours in biology after writing an imaginative essay in which I asked the question ‘why don’t some ants become lazy and live off the colony?’

It is not clever thinking that I do, it is simple, denial-free, unresigned, soul-directed thinking. To make this point about not needing to be clever, I only need to repeat what Christ said, ‘you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children’ (Matt. 11:25).

As has been emphasised, the significant difference between people is their different degrees of alienation, not their different IQ levels. As was pointed out in the Introduction, the average IQ of humans is quite adequate for understanding. What a high IQ or ‘cleverness’ was needed for was to deny and evade the truth. That was the real art. Universities have high IQ entrance requirements because they have been the custodians of denial, keepers of ‘the great lie’. A student Page 470 of
Print Edition had to be able to investigate the truth and talk about the truth without confronting it or admitting it, which is a very difficult and IQ-demanding undertaking. If humanity had entrusted inquiry to exceptional innocence it would have been continually and dangerously exposed to condemning idealistic partial truths, such as that humans should be cooperative. (They are ‘partial truths’ because when the full, human-condition-explaining truth is found, these ‘partial truths’ are made non-condemning. For example once it is explained why humans have been divisive then cooperativeness is no longer condemning.) Prophets have been dangerous in the past because they exposed resigned humans to so many condemning truths and were thus necessarily oppressed. Tragically humanity had to be mechanistic rather than holistic in its approach to inquiry into the truth about ourselves.

The only thing extraordinary about my life is the nurturing I received from my mother. Any accolades go to her, but in turn her soundness is a product of her background. The point is, with sufficient understanding, both accolades and condemnations become meaningless. With understanding of the human condition, humans are taken beyond the concepts of ‘good and evil’, or of ‘better or less than’ or of ‘superior or inferior’.