Page 176 of
PDF Version 40. The Born Again, Pseudo Idealistic Late Adulthood Stage of Adolescent Humanity

This is our Pseudo Idealistic Adolescentman stage, the time of ‘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 years ago to the present day

The individual: 40 plus years old

Drawing by Jeremy Griffith © 1991-2011 Fedmex Pty Ltd

In this 40 year old stage humanity entered that part of the Development of Integration chart where upset was compounding so rapidly that the graph charting its increase went into a nose-dive, with social disintegration imminent. While upset was compounding throughout humanity’s adolescence we always knew that if we didn’t find the relieving understanding of the human condition soon enough then eventually the human race would enter a final endplay stage where the levels of upset anger, egocentricity and alienation would threaten to destroy humanity. The foreseen happened, the 2 million year race our species has been involved in between self-destruction and self-discovery finally entered this crisis stage some 50,000 years ago. The variety of humans involved was H. sapiens sapiens, us, anatomically modern humans who emerged at about that time from H. sapiens. In the case of the individual growing up during humanity’s human-condition-afflicted, insecure adolescence, this was when we entered our so-called ‘mid-life crisis’ at about 40 years of age.

On one hand our upset had become so great that we were hating the condemnation from the cooperative idealistic world of our soul and beginning to become murderously behaved. On the other hand we were despising ourselves for being so upset and destructive of the world. Even though we had by now, through the measures taken through our 30s, developed a great deal of instinctive capacity to restrain and conceal—civilise—our upset, the upset was becoming so great that it all too easily broke out revealing the extremely angry person we had become. Aware how upset we were and how socially destructive that was, we oscillated between bouts of anger and bouts of remorse. This unhappy situation, of feeling so frustrated and angry with the criticism we were having to live with but at the Page 177 of
PDF Version same time so guilt-ridden, was to characterise all of the 50,000 years during humanity’s adolescence’s final late adulthood stage, and, in the case of individual humans living during humanity’s adolescence, all of life from 40 years of age onwards.

Humanity as a whole, and ourselves individually if we were 40 years old or older, had arrived at a desperate situation where the levels of upset had so escalated that both our original instinctive moral conscience and our newer civilised, self-disciplining instincts were no longer able to contain our upset. Incidentally we can see now how our moral sense played a crucial role in all that we humans have been able to achieve since we became conscious beings. In particular, while the criticism from our species’ original instinctive cooperative, altruistic, loving moral sense caused our upset state, if it wasn’t for our moral sense we almost certainly would not have had sufficient inclination to restrain and civilise our upset when we began to become upset. Our moral conscience both upset us and guided us. As with so many aspects of the human condition, it was a most paradoxical situation. The problem was our upset had finally outstripped the combined effect of our moral conscience and our civilised capacity for self-discipline.

Basically we had reached a point where we had to face the fact that all our hopes of conquering ignorance and proving our worth had failed miserably. What ‘successes’ we had managed to achieve were devoid of any capacity to genuinely validate ourselves, relieve ourselves of the insecurity of our corrupted human condition. For all our efforts to ‘conquer the world’ all we had to now show was an overly upset individual, in truth a wreck of a person. In the words of The Man of La Mancha we had finally ‘marched into hell…scorned and covered with 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.

In this desperate situation of oscillation between bouts of anger and bouts of remorse, deep analysis took hold of us. 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. This was basically the same situation that faced us in our early adolescence when we first started thinking philosophically about the corruption in the world and in ourselves. Journalist Ali Gripper acknowledged this parallel in an article titled ‘Turning 40 and Frantic, Mid life crisis’, when she wrote that ‘Mid life is undoubtedly a recycling of adolescent issues. It is as if the psyche goes back and picks up the threads of what we were dealing with as teenagers’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 29 Mar. 1996). What had happened since our early adolescence to resurrect this overwhelmingly worrying dilemma of what to do about corruption was that we had accumulated a further 30 years of upset. When we were in our early adolescence, whether we were so corrupted that we had to resign or not, we basically made the decision to put aside the problem of the corruption in the world and in ourselves and get on with life and do the best we could to make a difference to the problems that beset us and the world. What then happened was that the process of ‘getting on with life’ for 30 years resulted in us becoming so upset and corrupted that we were forced to face the problem again of what to do about all the corruption in ourselves and in the world. No longer could we simply ‘get on with life’ as we had been doing because that had now led to the accumulation of too much upset.

As with the situation in early adolescence where individuals—especially resigning individuals—were faced with extreme states of despair and depression about their circumstances, so 40 year olds were faced with variously extreme states of desperation about their situation. And as with the adolescent struggling with their extreme despair and depression, so the 40 year old’s mind searched frantically for a way to solve the problem of their untenable situation. For the 40 year old it was a psychologically desperate state Page 178 of
PDF Version and just as the psychologically desperate adolescent came up with a desperate solution so did the 40 year old. The solution adolescents who weren’t overly upset came up with was to put aside their overwhelmingly despairing and depressing view of the world and of their situation and focus on getting on with their life as the best way to deal with the problems of the world and themselves. In the case of the more upset adolescent they had to put aside the reality of their circumstances completely by resigning themself to living in denial of cooperative ideality and thus of the depressing issue of the human condition. In the case of the 40 year old, the solution they came up with to cope with their now extremely corrupted state was to also put aside the overwhelmingly depressing truth of their situation but this time it was achieved through focusing on the positive, guilt-relieving effect that came from being civilised. The angry 30 year old had learnt to restrain/ civilise their upset but what the desperate 40 year old realised in their frantic search to find a solution to their problem was that being civilised or ‘well-behaved’ or ‘good’ produced a guilt-relieving positive feeling and this was the one positive in their life that they could derive reinforcement from. Indeed, in the case of the more extremely upset 40 year old, so desperate were they for relief from the horror, loathing and guilt of their situation that their mind decided to focus so completely on the positive that they were good when they behaved in a cooperative, civilised, ideal, loving way that they deluded themselves that they actually weren’t corrupted, weren’t massively upset human-condition-afflicted people. They deluded themselves that the mask or facade of civility was not a mask or facade at all but the representation of their true state—‘I am behaving in a cooperative, loving way therefore I am an upset-free, human-condition-resolved, thoroughly good, cooperative, loving human’. This was an extraordinarily false/ dishonest interpretation but the depression from feeling guilty/ bad/ worthless from being so upset was so great that their mind was well and truly capable of such a delusion. The situation was no different from the resigning adolescent being so overwhelmed by the depression of their situation that they were well and truly capable of making their extraordinarily deluded/ false/ dishonest interpretation that integrative meaning didn’t exist and instead competition was the meaning of life and therefore that they weren’t a corrupted ‘bad’ person.

So valuable has this 40 year old ‘do good in order to delude yourself that you are actually good, actually free of corruption and thus the dilemma of the human condition’, extremely deluded strategy of coping with the problem of the now massively corrupted human-condition-afflicted state been that the remainder of this book will be preoccupied describing how the strategy developed into such a huge industry that the dishonesty involved threatened to destroy humanity.

Being civilised, that is using self-discipline to restrain and contain your upset so it didn’t show, did stop and relieve you of being destructively behaved, but what happened in the 40 year old stage for humanity and humans individually growing up during humanity’s adolescence was that the relieving, ‘feel good’, ‘warm inner glow’, ‘blissed out’ positive of having restrained your upset and behaved in a ‘good’/ ideal/ cooperative way became the whole 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 mental preoccupation 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 their corrupted state. The 30 year old used civilising self-discipline to restrain their upset but unlike the 40 year old they weren’t, as we say, ‘getting off on it’, they weren’t using it to delude themselves that they were free of the corrupted state of the human condition, they weren’t using it in a psychologically sick way.

Page 179 of
PDF Version The immense danger of this preoccupation with relief hunting through ‘doing good’ was that it could become so addictive and thus selfishly indulged that it could threaten to stop the all-important search for knowledge. The reason it could stop the search for knowledge was because if there was too much preoccupation with ‘doing good’ it could result in insufficient tolerance of the corruption that unavoidably resulted from pursuing humanity’s heroic search for knowledge, ultimately self-knowledge, understanding of the human condition. Too much emphasis on cooperative idealism and humanity would never find liberating understanding of the human condition, and if it didn’t find this liberating understanding humanity would be condemned to the eventual emergence of terminal levels of upset—in particular, unbearable levels of the psychosis of alienation from having to adopt excessive amounts of psychological denial and delusion. The dogma of doing good could oppress and even stop the all-important search for knowledge by denying the freedom to be, to a degree, corrupted. As we will see later in this book, this extremely dangerous situation did arise; humanity did face a death by dogma, a fate which only the finding of the liberating understanding of the human condition that science has made possible and which is being presented in this book has the ability to save humanity from.

We can see that a conflict of positions emerged with this ‘do good to feel good’ relief-hunting lifestyle. Too much emphasis on it and there would be too much oppression of the freedom needed to be, to a degree, corrupted by the search for knowledge. It was the emergence of this conflict that formed the basis of what we recognise as the left and the right wings of politics and of what we refer to as democracy. While we couldn’t explain the human condition this whole revelation that is being put forward in this book about what was actually happening to humans throughout humanity’s journey through its adolescence could not be presented. We haven’t been able to even admit to the existence of the issue of the human condition, let alone our strategies for coping with it. The words ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ and ‘politics’ and ‘democracy’ have been used endlessly without anyone ever truly explaining what they actually mean and why the activities they describe became necessary. Also, we have constantly referred to the need for ‘freedom’, and talked about being ‘materialistic’ and ‘capitalistic’ and ‘egocentric’, but what specifically was it that we needed to be free from and why precisely were we materialistic (as opposed presumably to being spiritualistic), and why exactly was it that we were so focused on acquiring capital and being so ego-centric? The ‘left-wing’ dogmatically emphasised obedience to the oppressive cooperative ideals while the ‘right-wing’ emphasised the need for freedom from oppressive insistence on cooperative idealism in order to carry out the corrupting search for understanding, ultimately self-understanding, the liberating understanding of the human condition. Dogmatic insistence on idealism oppressed the job at hand, and the associated denial and delusion destroyed the honesty that the effective pursuit of truth depended on. ‘Politics’ was the business of trying to manage that duality effectively and ‘democracy’ was the business of allowing everyone to cast their vote on where they believed the ideal balance between insistence on ideality and freedom for reality lay in order to find the majority view and, hopefully, the most accurate balance. The Statue of Liberty in New York symbolises freedom, but again what do we mean by freedom? Freedom from what? To search for understanding we needed ‘freedom’ from the oppression of the unjustly condemning integrative ideals that our instinctive self or soul in particular was simplistically, dogmatically and unrealistically insistent upon. The penalty for being free to search for knowledge was however that we became angry, egocentric and alienated. As some compensation for having to suffer such self-corruption we needed to surround ourselves with material comforts. ‘Materialism’ Page 180 of
PDF Version was the poor substitute for spiritualism—for the ability to explain why we were good and not bad. Money or capital was needed to supply these material rewards. Materialism and ‘capitalism’ accompanied freedom. We also sought contrived success through power, fame, fortune and glory as a way of finding some satisfaction for our embattled egos, an ‘egocentricity’ that the imperial Empire State Building and other tall, defiant, ‘one-day-we-will-prove-that-we-humans-aren’t-bad’ buildings symbolise.

We find it hard to imagine any other world than one where there exists opposing political positions on social issues, but this was the situation before the emergence of born-again pseudo idealism. Prior to the emergence of pseudo idealism people thought and argued fairly about where balance lay between excessive freedom to search for knowledge and as a result be to a degree upset, and between excessive restraint from searching for knowledge through obedience to cooperative ideality. However, once pseudo idealism developed all reasonableness disappeared and so any debate and discussion about where balance lay became a conflicting contest of wills. How can you have an effective discussion about what is the best course of action to take in a situation if participants in the discussion are not interested in whether the action is right or not, only in whether what they are going to say will make them feel good and/or whether the course of action itself will make them feel good? The answer is you can’t. It’s a derailed, ineffective, dysfunctional, highly imperfect, in fact pointless debate—hence you end up having to have a democratic vote and just hope enough people are not yet seduced by left-wing pseudo idealism. It’s like being in mid-ocean on a life-boat trying to find your way to the safety of land when someone on board decides to hijack and destroy the mission by capsizing the boat because they have become obsessed with wanting to cool off in the water. It is totally selfish, in fact mad behaviour. The human race has been trying to save itself from destruction by finding knowledge, ultimately understanding of the human condition, but pseudo idealists have only been interested in making themselves feel good. Contrary to what their banners say, they don’t care any longer about the future of the world. It is extremely selfish behaviour—not at all the idealistic behaviour they are making out and deluding themselves it is. Thank goodness we can at last explain what the whole human journey has been about and stop this madness, because it was only while it wasn’t possible to explain humanity’s great heroic battle that it was possible to get away with such mad, pseudo idealistic behaviour—‘Can’t you see we are being idealistic, we are making a better world’—what rubbish, they were being totally selfish and now that selfishness is completely exposed.

As has been clearly explained, resignation to living in denial of the issue of the human condition and taking up a competitive, egocentric, selfish power-fame-fortune-and-glory-seeking lifestyle was an extremely desperate and very mad behaviour, but this pseudo idealistic, pretend-you’re-sound-and-the-human-condition-doesn’t-exist, totally deluded and totally selfish lifestyle was far more desperate and far madder behaviour. Irresistible as it became for ever-increasing numbers of people, pseudo idealism was incredibly mad and incredibly dishonest and thus incredibly dangerous behaviour—which, as will be explained shortly, made religion such a valuable and excellent form of pseudo idealism.

Once pseudo idealism emerged then the predicament occurred where, as a result of too much left wing obedience to the ‘good’, cooperative ideals there would not be sufficient freedom from those condemning ideals to carry on the all-important corrupting search for knowledge. The danger of excessive oppression of freedom was particularly great because of the massively seductive effects of relief-hunting. If we return to the Adam Stork analogy for describing the human condition, at any time Adam could surrender to his criticising instinctive self and fly back on course, obey his instinctive orientation, and Page 181 of
PDF Version by so doing stop and thus relieve the criticism emanating from his instinctive self, but that meant abandoning the all-important search for knowledge. In the case of humans, the sense of guilt from defying our original instinctive orientation was greatly compounded by the fact that our original instinctive orientation wasn’t to a migratory flight path but to behaving cooperatively, selflessly and lovingly. Having this instinctive orientation meant that when we became upset from searching for knowledge, that is angry, egocentric and alienated, we were having to live with extra criticism. When Adam flew off course from his instinctive flight path and became angry, egocentric and alienated such upset behaviour wasn’t at odds with his instinctive flight path, however when we humans began searching for knowledge—defying our instinctive orientation and experimenting in self-adjustment and became angry, egocentric and alienated—that upset behaviour was very much at odds with our particular cooperative, selfless, loving instinctive orientation. In the case of humans, when we defied our instincts and became upset that upset made our instincts criticise us even more, made us feel exceptionally bad or guilty, in effect making us doubly upset. It follows that ‘flying back on course’ for us was an extremely guilt-relieving option. Giving up the upsetting, corrupting, anger-egocentricity-and-alienation-producing search for knowledge and taking up support of—being, as we revealingly say, ‘born-again’ to—the cooperative, loving, selfless, ‘Godly’ ideals of life was an extremely tempting option because it was so guilt-relieving—but the very great and inherent danger was that it meant giving up the all-important search for knowledge.

In the real situation of humans there was a further very significant dimension to the problem of ‘flying back on course’, being ‘born again’ to supporting the cooperative ideals our instinctive self dogmatically demanded. Since our instinctive self was orientated to behaving cooperatively, when we abandon the search for knowledge by taking up support of cooperative idealism we were not only abandoning the battle to champion our ego or conscious thinking self over our idealistic instinctive self or soul we were also taking sides against those fighting the battle. We were changing sides from supporting the battle against oppressive cooperative idealism to opposing the battle by taking up support of cooperative idealism. When we took up support of cooperative idealism because we were too corrupted to go on with the corrupting battle, we weren’t just ‘taking a rest’ to recuperate, we had actually switched camps to side with the enemy.

It can be seen from what has just been pointed out that while abandoning the battle was extremely tempting because it was so guilt-relieving, it was also loathsome from the point of view that in humanity’s battle to overthrow the ignorance of our instinctive self we were taking sides against all those fighting and trying to win that battle. Despite how tempting it was, the reality was that the revulsion of siding against humanity and those fighting the battle meant that it took a great deal of despair and fear of depression about being overly corrupt to give up the battle and change sides. While we haven’t been able to explain, confront or talk about it, the truth is all humans who have lived during humanity’s adolescence have intuitively been aware of the battle of having to overthrow the ignorant idealism of our soul—when we shook our fist in the air we were saying, ‘fuck you world, one day we are going to prove you wrong about us humans’. Therefore we knew that to give up the battle against our idealistic soul, and not just give it up but side with the enemy and against those trying to win the battle, was a crime against all those still fighting, and against humanity as a whole. We were aware that it was an act of treachery and cowardice, but what alternative was there? If we became any more upset and destructive we were going to destroy the human race anyway.

Indeed, while we were siding against the human journey to enlightenment when we took up support of our soul’s cooperative ideal world by focusing on being ‘good’ in order Page 182 of
PDF Version to relieve ourselves of the guilt of our overly corrupt condition, from the point of view of stopping ourselves from behaving overly destructively we were working in the interests of humanity’s journey to enlightenment. Being ‘born again’ to supporting the cooperative ideal world did relieve and thus stop us from behaving in an extremely upset, corrupt way. There was a positive aspect for humanity even though we were fighting against humanity from the point of view that we were opposing humanity’s efforts to vanquish ignorance.

It was in humanity’s interest that we abandon the upsetting battle when we became overly corrupted. Unfortunately, unable to admit that we were corrupted and face the issue of the human condition, we had no choice but to take up support of idealism because it was by supporting idealism that we could delude ourselves that we were free of the human condition, even though the penalty of supporting idealism was that we were then siding with the enemy, namely the oppressive cooperative ideals. It was a case of either carrying on in our overly upset way of living or joining humanity’s enemy camp of our soul’s oppressive cooperative ideal world. Both alternatives were destructive, so, as pointed out, it became a case of which was the lesser of the two evils. Clearly in the case of someone like Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler the criticism of them is that they didn’t take up a born again to supporting idealism lifestyle and instead chose to live out their upset. Why some people chose not to take up a born again to supporting idealism lifestyle when it was in their and humanity’s interest to do so will be looked at shortly.

It has to be emphasised that in taking up a born again to cooperative idealism lifestyle there had been no change of heart in the sense of there being any intention of being honest; it was in fact a further hardening of the heart. We were masquerading as a cooperatively ideal person in complete denial of our true, corrupted state and of the real issue of the human condition that our corrupted state raised. Also, by taking sides against the corrupting battle that humanity was waging we were in effect advocating—and, as time went on and the delusion increased, not just in effect advocating but actually claiming to others—that it was wrong to take part in the battle and that everyone should do what we were doing. In this born again strategy egocentricity still prevailed, ‘egocentricity’ being the self-preoccupied, selfish focus on finding a way to view ourselves as ‘good’ and not ‘bad’. In the situation where humanity had still to find the honest explanation for the corrupted state of our human condition, egocentricity was the state of being preoccupied with deriving a success or win for ourselves in a non-self-confronting and thus dishonest way. In the born again to support of idealism situation we were using idealism to feel good about ourselves, to relieve ourselves of guilt. True idealism, true ‘goodness’, true concern would admit, be honest about, confront and seek to understand the human condition, not go to the most extreme degree of dishonesty in denying and escaping the truth of our overly corrupted state and the issue of the human condition it raised as this born again attitude did. The born again lifestyle was not true idealism, it was false or pseudo idealism.

Of course, when we were born again to supporting idealism we were also pseudo idealistic from the point of view that we were pretending to be ideal and free of the corrupted state of the human condition. The truth was we were far from a truly ideal person—that is, someone free of upset. We were having to masquerade as being ideal because the truth was we were an extremely upset and corrupted person, saturated with the human condition.

The danger of the pseudo idealistic lifestyle, of behaving selfishly in the interest only of ourselves, rather than selflessly in the interest of humanity, lay in being seduced by the extreme ‘feel good’ relief and even psychological rush that taking up a pseudo idealistic cause could give massively embattled and upset humans. Living under the duress of the human condition it was all too easy to be irresponsibly carried away with the relief that Page 183 of
PDF Version pseudo idealism offered; take it up, advocate it to others and even try to impose it on the whole world in a way that was above and beyond what was needed to contain our overly upset behaviour. The fact of the matter is pseudo idealism was extremely dangerous and if practiced needed to be done so with the utmost care and restraint. As we will see later, this care and restraint was eventually dispensed with and the seductive tide of pseudo idealism threatened to end the human journey to enlightenment.

It is necessary to go over the basic situation of the born again, pseudo idealistic way of coping with the corrupted state of the human condition once more because it is so important we understand it if disaster for humanity is to be averted; changing sides in humanity’s battle against our soul’s integrative, ideal world and taking up some form of support of that ideal world brought extraordinary relief from the despair, distress and guilt from being overly upset and corrupted, but then we had to cope with having not only abandoned humanity’s all-important battle but having taken sides against it as well. There was one solution of sorts to this dilemma. If we took up support of cooperative idealism and by so doing became in appearance a ‘good’ person we could delude yourself that we were actually free of corruption and thus the problem of being at odds with cooperative ideality. While we were still corrupt underneath we could use our appearance of being cooperative to delude ourselves that we were no longer corrupt and thus not at odds with the cooperative ideals of life. We would be both acknowledging the cooperative ideal state at last and appearing to be cooperatively behaved. From being an extremely angry, destructive individual we were now, outwardly appearing to be a force for good. This all depended on delusion, on blocking out from our mind that we were actually an excessively upset human who had quit the battle and by supporting the enemy were actually now working against those still fighting the battle. However, it was such a relief to be appearing to be on the side of good and to appear to be creating a better world, as opposed to appearing to be a destructive ‘bad’ person that this option was irresistible. In appearance we had well and truly solved our problem of being overly corrupt. To those still fighting the battle we simply said, ‘well I’m appearing so good compared to you that I think you all should do what I have done’. We deluded ourselves that we held the moral high ground and that we had the solution to all the upset in the world—that if everybody did what we were doing all the corruption and problems in the world would stop. We adopted a self-righteous, finger-pointing, smug smile that ‘I’m good while you’re not’, and ‘I’m leading the way to a new ideal, cooperative, loving, peaceful world’. In reality we were completely denying the existence of the issue of the human condition, totally transcending our own reality and the reality of humanity’s heroic battle against ignorance. It was an extremely dishonest way of living but there was no other option for the overly upset. Pseudo idealists—the dishonest intellectualist as opposed to the honest instinctualist—presented a conceited image of such ‘rightness’, of being superior, of being the ones in possession of the truth, when in fact pseudo idealist intellectuals were the most removed of any people on Earth from the truth. It was a terrible bluff of themselves and therefore something that they had to constantly try to maintain by desperately trying to convince everyone else of the rightness of their attitude. The truth in fact was entirely the opposite of the pseudo idealistic intellectual’s view that the way to win the battle was to abandon it. Only engaging and winning the battle against the ignorance of our idealistic instinctive self or soul could humanity be freed from upset and a caring, peaceful world be introduced.

As emphasised, this born again, pseudo idealistic strategy was not a return to real honesty and idealism. When we took up this strategy we were simply disguising our true upset, aggressive, selfish nature with selflessness. We were manufacturing selflessness Page 184 of
PDF Version in order to delude ourselves that we were free of corruption. We were living off delusion. While our behaviour was selfless we were still maintaining our evasions of the unconfrontable issue of our corrupted human-condition-afflicted state and of humanity’s battle to solve it. It was a pseudo form of idealism that we had taken up because real idealism and honesty would involve confronting the human condition, admitting and being honest about our corrupted state and the battle of the human condition to solve it. As we will see shortly when the different stages in the development of ever more deluded forms of pseudo idealism are described, saving the trees was being good to the environment and patting a dolphin was being kind, but to use these acts, and as we will soon see many others like them, to delude ourselves that we were a truly cooperatively idealistic/ loving/ selfless/ caring/ ‘good’ person when the truth was we were in the most extreme state of upset anger, egocentricity and alienation that has ever existed, was the height of self-deception. Such acts, while they brought temporary relief to the soul and the environment, were a far greater affront to the truth than the live-out-our-upset existence, and being so dishonest were actually taking humanity further away from the truth about our human condition, the truth that our species had to find to free ourselves from the human condition. Instead of bringing real kindness, peace and togetherness to Earth, as the practitioners of pseudo idealism deluded themselves they were doing, they were actually leading humanity away from such an ideal state.

It is worth mentioning that what greatly helped make it possible to carry off such an extreme delusion, namely that our manufactured acts of cooperative idealism meant we were actually free of corruption, was that we had already been either putting aside or practicing total denial of the issue of our corrupted, human-condition-afflicted state since our early adolescent years. All that we were doing was adding yet another layer of delusion to one already well practiced.

A comparison needs to be made between the evasion, and, in the case of the resigned, the total denial adopted in adolescence, and the denials and delusions of the born again, pseudo idealistic post 40 year old state. In our adolescence we evaded and even denied the issue of the human condition by either putting the issue aside or, in the case of the resigned, denying the integrative, selfless meaning of existence, instead maintaining that the meaning of existence was to be competitive and selfish and that success in such competition meant we were a successful, superior, better, good, winning person. In the pseudo idealistic situation, the way we denied our corrupted state was to manufacture cooperative behaviour and then delude ourselves that that meant we were not corrupted. And to cope with our non-participation in humanity’s heroic battle to overthrow our soul’s ignorance what we did was deny that the battle existed and even deluded ourselves that non-participation was the path to peace for the human race. The dishonesty adopted at adolescence, especially of the resigned state, was extreme because we were denying integrative meaning and by so doing that we were corrupted—but at least we were still directly participating in the battle to overthrow ignorance. The delusion and dishonesty of the born again state was so much greater because not only were we denying we were corrupted, we were also denying there was a battle to be fought. Resigned people were certainly bullshitters, but pseudo idealists were double bullshitters. It was explained that H. sapiens or ‘Wise Man’ was actually ‘False Man’ because the main feature of his civility was the disguise of his true state of upset. We can see how appropriate therefore was the name H. sapiens sapiens or ‘Wise Wise Man’ because he was actually living a doubly false existence; he was actually ‘False False Man’. Pseudo idealism was in fact the most sophisticated form of lying to have ever developed on Earth. The Encyclopedic World Dictionary (1971) defines the word ‘sophisticated’ as ‘deceptive; misleading’ while Page 185 of
PDF Version ‘sophistic’ means ‘fallacious’ or false, so sophisticated is certainly what Pseudo Idealistic Man was. Incidentally, we can see here that both the resigned and the pseudo idealistic states make a mockery of the requirement in court to put your hand on the Bible and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The fact of the matter is the resigned and the pseudo idealist never tell the truth.

It should be mentioned how destructive of innocence this ever-increasing dishonesty being practiced by humans has been. The ultimate, most outrageous, most deceptive and thus destructive of innocence lie was the reverse-of-the-truth lie because it is the most extreme lie and thus the most intimidating. To pretend to be free of corruption and to be leading the way to a peaceful world as pseudo idealists did was just such an extremely-destructive-of-innocence reverse-of-the-truth lie. The falseness of the delusion, while it was necessary and relieving for the person practicing it, was extremely destructive of anyone more innocent looking on because they were being coerced into believing the extreme lie was the truth. At base it was dishonesty that has been destroying the world—which is why the ability to be honest that comes with finding the reconciling understanding of the human condition saves the world. The whole of the post-resigned state was one big lie. It was all a silent denial of the existence of the human condition. This whole description of life during humanity’s adolescence, from the resigned state to the born again pseudo idealistic state, is the story of ever-increasing levels of delusion/ dishonesty/ alienation/ denial/ lies. While such delusion was necessary to protect upset humans from unjust condemnation the cost, of the destruction of innocence that these lies caused, was enormous. Of course there was a positive in that the delusions saved those who were having to employ them from living out their upset, which had they lived out would have also been extremely destructive of innocence. While upset anger and aggression and divisive behaviour is extremely destructive of innocence, dishonesty has been the most difficult behaviour for innocence to cope with because, as was explained in Section 23, their innocence made them codependent to such lies. Unable to talk about the human condition humans haven’t acknowledged how much lies psychologically destroyed upcoming generations. Psychologically it was not what happened in our life—although what happened to us could be physically destructive, even fatal—so much as our inability to understand and thus be honest about and thus confront and thus cope and live with and thus not have to become blocked out and alienated from and thus psychotic about what happened to us.

In summary, the born again, pseudo idealistic lifestyle brought such immense relief to humans when they became overly corrupted it was a lifesaver. It allowed humans to transcend the whole issue of their corrupted human-condition-afflicted state and even to confidently masquerade through the world as the ones in possession of the solution to all the world’s problems. It is no wonder that it was said that ‘life begins at 40’. Compared to the agony of being a depressed teenager or a ridiculously optimistic 20 year old or an angry 30 year old, the freedom from being able to totally transcend the whole issue of the human condition was so wonderful that life did suddenly become enjoyable. Tragically, as we will see, the delusions involved, though immensely relieving, came to threaten the future of the human race.

While the most important psychological event in human life has been resignation, the adoption of the born again pseudo idealistic lifestyle was close behind it in significance. They both involved major states of psychological desperation, depression and finally extraordinary delusion.

________________

Page 186 of
PDF Version That completes the introduction to the pseudo idealistic strategy that was variously adopted from 40 years of age onwards by individual humans growing up during humanity’s adolescence, and, in the case of humanity, as an ever increasing influence in the lives of H. sapiens sapiens from 50,000 years ago onwards. We now need to chart the truly extraordinary journey of the development of this born again to idealism, pseudo idealistic strategy for coping with the human condition.

We can expect that the change from using civilised behaviour to restrain our upset to using it to relieve ourselves of the guilt of the human condition would have been a gradual process from 50,000 years ago onwards, or from 40 years of age onwards in the case of individual humans growing up during humanity’s adolescence. It was pointed out that since taking up pseudo idealism amounted to a treacherous, cowardly act of siding with the enemy there was a great reluctance to taking it up. Intuitively knowing that we were giving in and abandoning the battle, and not just abandoning it but siding with humanity’s enemy, there was a deep resistance to adopting the strategy and therefore a strong inclination to keep on fighting the battle to overthrow ignorance, even though we were becoming unbearably and dangerously upset and destructive by doing so. Because of this reluctance only the most unbearably embattled would take up the strategy, and even they could become so repulsed by the dishonesty of it that they would revert to fighting ‘the good fight’ that humanity was waging to prove that our idealistic instinctive self or soul was wrong in its insinuation that we humans were fundamentally bad and worthless. What this means is that even though the pseudo idealistic strategy had become an option and indeed a necessary one for increasing numbers of people, many continued in the upsetting battle against ignorance. The effect of this resistance to taking up pseudo idealism was that the levels of upset in society continued to grow. Upset hadn’t been eliminated by the advent of pseudo idealism by any means. The inevitable ongoing search for knowledge meant that upset was going to be increasing regardless. In truth only the arrival of the genuinely relieving understanding of the human condition could stop the march of upset in the world.