Freedom Essay 40

 

‘Judgment Day’, ‘the Apocalypse’, ‘the battle of
Armageddon’, the ‘Anti-Christ’, the ‘Messiah’
and the ‘second coming’ — all explained

 

Written by Jeremy Griffith, 2017

 

The arrival of the ‘future shock’ of exposure day or so-called
‘Judgment Day’

While the holy grail of the psychosis-addressing-and-solving real explanation of the human condition has at last been found and presented in FREEDOM (see THE Interview and the summary of the explanation in Video/​Freedom Essay 3), the saga for the human race is not quite over.

The difficulty that remains is that this redeeming truth about ourselves unavoidably suddenly exposes all the dishonest denials and delusions we have been employing to cope with our immensely psychologically upset, soul-corrupted angry, egocentric and alienated condition while we couldn’t explain it. The truth reveals the lies as it must. The light of understanding suddenly floods the darkness of Plato’s cave where the human race has been hiding. (See Video/​F. Essay 11 for an explanation of Plato’s cave allegory.)

 

 

While the arrival of understanding of the human condition liberates the human race from 2 million years of living with unjust condemnation, the sudden and immense change that the understanding brings cannot help but come as a great shock. In his famous 1970 book, Future Shock, Alvin Toffler was actually anticipating this great shock of the arrival of the all-redeeming but, at the same time, all-exposing truth about ourselves when he wrote of ‘the shattering stress and disorientation that we induce in individuals by subjecting them to too much change in too short a time’ (p.4 of 505). One day, as it were, we are hiding in darkness, the next day understanding of the human condition arrives and the lights are turned on and we have nowhere to hide!

And there are many, many truths that the human race has lived in denial of, the revelation of which cannot be anything but an immense shock.

As THE Interview, The Great Guilt that causes the Deaf Effect and all the F. Essays document, we have lived in denial of the whole subject and issue of the psychologically upset angry, egocentric and alienated human condition. While adult humans have learnt to restrain and conceal a great deal of the upset that exists within them—learnt to, as we say, ‘civilise it’, not let it show—underneath our manufactured facade of restrained civility, even manufactured happiness, lies volcanic anger and immense frustrated egocentricity, which expresses itself in all the ferocious atrocities and vengeful acts of bloodshed we humans have committed, and (albeit to a much lesser degree) in the smaller disputes and acts of petty selfishness that mar our everyday existence. Our lives are a complete mess of upset, and the original innocent instinctive self or soul within us has been virtually brutalised out of existence, but we have been pretending there is nothing wrong and we are just fine! When this denial of the existence of our massively upset angry, egocentric and alienated human condition is exposed, then that is bound to be a very great shock (see also the booklet The Shock Of Change that understanding the human condition brings, which also appears as F. Essay 16 in this series.).

 

Jean-Michel Basquiat’s 1982 ‘Untitled’ painting, which sold in 2017 for $US110m,
at the time the sixth most expensive artwork ever sold at auction, no doubt due to its
revealing honesty about the true nature of our corrupted condition—with a drawing
by Jeremy beside it of our civilised mask. Another human-condition-revealing
painting by Basquiat is included in FREEDOM at par. 1059.

 

And we have learnt to live in denial of the obvious truth that all human individuals, races, genders, ages, generations, countries, civilisations and cultures vary greatly in how upset, and upset-adapted, they are, the revelation of which will also be a great shock (see F. Essay 28).

For women to discover that men are not villains but actually the heroes of the story of life on Earth is a massive shock (see F. Essay 26).

For the cooperation-and-selflessness-advocating left-wing in politics to discover that the competition-and-selfishness-sympathetic right-wing are actually the ones holding the moral high-ground, and that what they on the left have been doing is subverting the human journey, is a massive shock (see Video/​F. Essay 14 and F. Essays 34, 35 & 36. Please note, F. Essay 35 is so significant an essay it has also been produced as the standalone booklet titled Death by Dogma: The biological reason why the Left is leading us to extinction, and the solution, which can be accessed for free on our homepage www.humancondition.com, as one of the WTM’s key books).

For religious adherents to discover that God is the physical law of Negative Entropy (see F. Essay 23), and that the prophets they revere and worship, such as Christ, are not deities but humans like everyone else, only sufficiently loved in their infancy to not have resigned during their adolescence to a life of denial of truth (see F. Essay 30 about Resignation and F. Essay 39 for an explanation of prophets), is a massive shock.

For mothers to discover that the nurturing of unconditional selflessness or love was the main influence in the emergence of the human species and remains the all-important factor in the healthy development of their offspring, and that their (along with every other mother’s) now extreme alienation from their original instinctive self or soul has been psychologically devastating the lives of their children, is a massive shock (see F. Essay 21 on the role of nurturing in our species’ development; and F. Essay 55 on the impact of mothers’ alienation on children).

In the case of science, as is revealed in many of these F. Essays, while its painstaking discoveries of the mechanisms of the workings of our world enabled the-orientating-instincts-versus-the-understanding-intellect explanation of the human condition to be found, its practitioners have certainly not been rigorously objective and impartial as their ‘scientific method’ dictated. No, as it turns out, scientists (just like every other resigned human) have been committed to avoiding any truths that brought the historically unbearably depressing subject of the human condition into focus—and there have been innumerable such truths, many of them fundamentally important in allowing an understanding of our world. Such critically important truths that human-condition-avoiding, so-called ‘mechanistic’ or ‘reductionist’ science has denied include the truth of Integrative Meaning (see F. Essay 23); that the human condition is not due to ‘savage instincts’ but is the result of a psychosis (see Video/​F. Essay 14 & F. Essay 35); that our distant ancestors lived in an upset-free, cooperative, loving, innocent state (see F. Essays 21 & 53); again, that nurturing has been the main influence in human development (see F. Essay 21); that the emergence of humans’ fully conscious mind was made possible by the development of selfless moral instincts in our forebears (see F. Essay 24); and, as mentioned, that there are differences in alienation between individuals, races, genders, ages, generations, countries, civilisations and cultures (see F. Essay 28).

 

 

The fact is, a great deal of subjectivity has been corrupting and crippling the practice of science, and with the arrival of the truth about the human condition all that dishonesty is suddenly exposed. The immense danger of all this now entrenched dishonest denial in science will be looked at shortly.

Clearly, the sudden exposure of all the denial that has been going on in human life is going to be a very great shock; it does represent a momentous ‘exposure day’ or ‘honesty day’ or ‘truth day’ or ‘transparency day’ or ‘revelation day’ or ‘future shock day’—in fact, the long-feared so-called ‘judgment day’ referred to in the Bible (Matt. 10:15, 11:22, 24, 12:36; Mark 6:11; 2 Pet. 2:9, 3:7; 1 John 4:17; Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:16; Isa. 66, Joel 3:2). Of course, the truth is that since this ‘judgment day’ is actually the arrival of the redeeming, compassionate and human-race-saving understanding that humankind has tirelessly worked towards and lived in hope, faith and trust would one day come, it is, as an anonymous Turkish poet once confirmed, ‘Not the day of [condemning] judgment but the day of understanding’ (Merle Severy, ‘The World of Süleyman the Magnificent’, National Geographic, Nov. 1987).

 

 

As described in the ‘Judgment day’ chapter 9:3 of FREEDOM, this great paradox of being wonderfully liberated but at the same time shockingly exposed was captured by the prophet Isaiah when he said that the liberating understanding that ‘gives you relief from suffering and turmoil and cruel bondage…​will come with vengeance; with divine retribution…​to save you. Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped [people will be brought out of Plato’s dark cave of denial where they have been hiding and refusing to hear the truth about their corrupted condition]…​Your nakedness will be exposed and your shame uncovered…​on the day of reckoning’ (Bible, Isa.14:3; 35:4–5; 47:3; 10:3).

The prophet Joel also described the paradoxical consequences of the arrival of understanding of the human condition when he said, ‘The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of…​judgment’, ‘it will come like a destruction’, but ‘In that day the mountains will drip new wine, and the hills will flow with milk…​Their [people’s] bloodguilt…​will [be] pardon[ed]’ (Bible, Joel 1–3).

Referring to ‘the Day of Reckoning’ (The Koran, ch.56) and ‘the Last Judgement’ (ibid. ch.69), the prophet Muhammad provided a similar description of this great redeeming but all-exposing situation when he spoke of the time ‘when the Trumpet is blown with a single blast and the earth and the mountains are lifted up and crushed with a single blow, Then, on that day, the Terror shall come to pass, and heaven shall be split…​On that day you shall be exposed, not one secret of yours concealed’ (ibid).

And significantly, the origin of the word ‘apocalypse’, which is another name for ‘judgment day’, and the original name for the Book of Revelation in the Bible, is ‘Ancient Greek: meaning “un-covering”…​translated literally from Greek, [it] is a disclosure of knowledge, hidden from humanity in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception, i.e., a lifting of the veil or revelation’ (Wikipedia; see www.wtmsources.com/127); ‘a cataclysm in which the forces of good [truth] triumph over the forces of evil [denial]’ (The Free Dictionary; see www.wtmsources.com/112).

With regard to this ‘cataclysm’ where ‘the forces of good [truth] triumph over the forces of evil [denial]’, Zoroastrian religion has this powerful description of the clash: ‘god [the truth of Integrative Meaning]…​the one supreme deity…​represented both light and truth…​Ranged against him stood the powers of darkness [denial], the angels of evil and keepers of the lie. The universe was seen as a battleground in which these opposing forces contended, both in the sphere of political conquest and in the depths of each man’s soul. But in time the light would shine out, scattering the darkness, and truth would prevail. A day of reckoning would arrive in which the blessed would achieve a heavenly salvation, while all others would find themselves roasting in fiery purgatory’ (A Soaring Spirit: Time-Life History of the World 600–400 BC, 1988, p.37 of 176). (This description of the great clash between truth and lies will become highly relevant when the battle between honest and dishonest science is described shortly.)

 

 

Most importantly, in the case of the ‘day of reckoning’ revelation of the differences in alienation that exist between individuals, races, genders, ages, generations, countries, civilisations and cultures (see F. Essay 28), immediately after describing how the arrival of the all-exposing and thus shocking truth about humans will come ‘like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other’, Christ described how ‘two people will be in one bed; one will be taken [revealed as sound, relatively free of psychological upset and alienation] and the other left [revealed as being upset and alienated]. Two women will be grinding corn together; one will be taken and the other left’ (Luke 17:24, 34, 35; see also Matt. 24:27, 40). Yes, since even the existence of alienation in our lives will be a shock, the existence of big differences in alienation between humans will come as an even greater shock—but again, ‘judgment day’ is NOT a time when some will be judged as deserving of being ‘taken’ to heaven for being ‘Godly’ and ‘good’ while others will be ‘left’ behind for being ‘bad’ and ‘evil’, even condemned to a ‘fiery purgatory’; rather it is a time of compassionate understanding of everyone’s situation. The prophet Micah understood the real ‘compassion’ of judgment day when he said, ‘I will bear the Lord’s wrath, until he pleads my case and establishes my right. He will bring me out into the light; I will see his justice…​Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression…​You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea’ (Bible, Mic. 7:9, 18–19).

 

 

The extreme danger of the entrenched denial of mechanistic science

The huge question that arises then is that even though revelation day or ‘judgment day’ is actually a time of ‘compassion[ate]’ and ‘forgiv[ing]’ understanding, how are humans meant to cope with the sudden exposure of all their denials and become free of them? How are humans supposed to manage ‘judgment day’ and by so doing achieve our species’ great goal of freeing itself from the agony and horror of its now immensely upset, soul-corrupted condition?

The first requirement is obviously to establish whether or not understanding of the human condition has finally been found, and, if it has, then for everyone in the world to be told that this most desperately needed of all breakthroughs has at last been achieved. Since science is our society’s designated vehicle for the search for knowledge, ultimately self-knowledge, understanding of the human condition (the word ‘science’ literally means ‘knowledge’, derived as it is from the Latin word scientia, which means ‘knowledge), this task of establishing whether understanding of the human condition has been found, and then letting everyone know if it has, is obviously the responsibility of science. HOWEVER, while it is the responsibility of science, most alarmingly and disappointingly, over the last 40 years, the fully accountable, fully evidenced and fully argued human-race-saving explanation of the human condition, which is now presented in FREEDOM, has been submitted to every main centre, institution and journal of science in the world, but, as documented in chapter 6:12 of FREEDOM (which is appropriately titled ‘The great obscenity’), it has received NO recognition or support from them. In fact, quite the reverse has happened; the scientific establishment has repeatedly denied, and even ruthlessly attacked, this all-important understanding! (The limitations of mechanistic science, and why it ignores, even attacks, Jeremy’s ‘instinct vs intellect’ explanation of the human condition, are further explained in FAQ 1.10.) Furthermore, as described in F. Essay 19 and paragraphs 603-605 of FREEDOM, while billions of dollars have been given to mechanistic/​reductionist scientific institutions specifically to find understanding of the human condition, none of those funds have been given to non-mechanistic, non-reductionist, holistic, teleological enquiry into that critically important subject—even though it was only such an honest, Integrative-Meaning-acknowledging approach that could hope to solve the human condition! As is explained in chapter 2:4 of FREEDOM, mechanistic/​reductionist science has actually been committed to avoiding the human condition, so to be investing unlimited funds in it to solve the human condition is the height of stupidity!

 

 

Basically, science has become so entrenched in its human-condition-avoiding, mechanistic/​reductionist attitude that it has been unable to change its ways and recognise, admit and support a more truthful and thus effective way of thinking. And by refusing to do so it is refusing to live up to its fundamental responsibility to support the finding of knowledge, most especially the finding of understanding of the human condition. In so doing, it has become the arch-enemy of the search for knowledge, the defender of lies over truth—and since the great denial-free thinkers or prophets that religions have been founded around, especially Christ, are the ultimate defenders and promoters of human-condition-confronting truthful thought (see F. Essay 39), science has become the anti-Christ, the quintessential opposer of the search for truth and understanding! This is the ultimate irony and hypocrisy—humanity’s designated vehicle for finding knowledge becomes humanity’s ultimate blocker of knowledge!

What did the Zoroastrian religious text prophesise?—that ‘Ranged against…​the light and truth…​stood the powers of darkness, the angels of evil and keepers of the lie’. That is exactly what science has become, the ‘keepers of the lie’. The text also anticipates that the world would become ‘a battle ground in which these opposing forces contend’. In the Bible this final great battle between ‘good and evil’ (Gen. 2:9), which now manifests as the battle between ‘the light and truth’ and the ‘keepers of the lie’, is described as the Battle of ‘Armageddon’ (Rev. 16:16).

Since the issue of the human condition is a behavioural question, and ‘the study of behaviour’ is the province of biology, it is biologists who are most responsible for finding understanding of the human condition. But what we find has been happening in that all-important field is that biologists have become the most extreme ‘keepers of the lie’, the worst ‘powers of darkness’ ‘Ranged against…​the light and truth’. And the greatest biological exponent of those ‘powers of darkness’, the ‘keepers of the lie’, was the Harvard University biologist Edward (E.) O. Wilson (1929–2021). This is because he was the driving force behind the main dishonest biological theories that have been developed to supposedly explain human behaviour in the last half century, the most dangerously dishonest being his 2012 nullification of the human condition as being not a psychosis-derived condition, as it really is, but merely a result of a conflict between supposedly selfish and selfless instincts within us. The following is a very brief summary of what has taken place in biology.

 

A brief summary of the main dishonest savage-instincts-based biological explanations for human behaviour

 

 

I’ll begin this exposé by giving a very brief summary of the history of the main dishonest savage-instincts-based biological explanations for human behaviour. An in-depth description of this history is presented in chapters 2 and 6 of my book FREEDOM.

Firstly, this excuse that we humans have brutish and savage instincts is one virtually everyone has been subscribing to. Our conversations are saturated with the ‘savage instincts’-based reason for our competitive, selfish and aggressive human-condition-afflicted behaviour, with comments like: ‘We are programmed by our genes to try to dominate others and be a winner in the battle of life’; and ‘Our preoccupation with sexual conquest is due to our primal instinct to sow our seeds’; and ‘Men behave abominably because their bodies are flooded with must-reproduce-their-genes-promoting testosterone’; and ‘We want a big house because we are innately territorial’; and ‘Fighting and war is just our animal nature expressing itself’; and ‘Religions are merely manifestations of our survival-driven group mentality’.

The first dishonest theory for human behaviour to be based on this dishonest human-condition-avoiding, moral-soul-denying ‘savage instincts’ excuse was Social Darwinism, which misrepresented Charles Darwin’s great breakthrough insight of natural selection as a ‘survival of the fittest’ process. Natural selection is the mechanism by which some members of a population reproduce more than others in a given environment, and, most significantly, in the first edition of The Origin of Species, which is Darwin’s 1859 book that launched his concept of natural selection, Darwin correctly left it undecided as to whether those individuals that reproduced more could be viewed as winners, as being ‘fitter’. However, as I describe in paragraph 195 of FREEDOM, in later editions Darwin was persuaded by his associates Herbert Spencer and Alfred Russel Wallace to substitute the term ‘natural selection’ with the term ‘survival of the fittest’. The malignant attraction of this misinterpretation was that it reinforced this dishonest excuse that humans had already been using for our competitive, selfish and aggressive behaviour, which is that our forebears weren’t cooperative and loving, but competitive and aggressive savages preoccupied with survival and domination of each other like other animals, and that we, in the sense of ‘we’ being our conscious thinking self, are the blameless heroes having to try to control these supposed savage instincts in us. As emphasised in F. Essay 20 (see also par. 194 of FREEDOM), since it was the emergence of our conscious mind that led to the corruption of our species’ original cooperative and loving instinctive life, it was a complete reverse-of-the-truth lie to argue the opposite and claim our instincts were competitive, selfish and brutal and our intellect a blameless mediating hero.

(I should explain that the reason Darwin was honest to leave it undecided as to whether those who reproduced more are ‘fitter’ is because, as is explained in F. Essay 25 and paragraph 358 of FREEDOM, being unconditionally selfless, where you give your life to help others and don’t seek to reproduce more, can be a biologically meaningful, ‘fitter’, outcome. To very briefly explain why it can be meaningful, as is explained in F. Essay 23, the meaning of existence is to develop ever larger and more stable wholes of matter (due to the law of Negative Entropy, atoms come together to form molecules, which come together or integrate to form compounds, which integrate to form single-celled organisms, which in turn integrate to form multicellular organisms, which then integrate to form societies, and so on)—and unconditionally selfless self-sacrifice for the good of the whole is the very theme of this integrative process because it maintains wholes. Selfishness is divisive and disintegrative while selfless consideration of others maintains wholes, it is integrative. The fact that the gene-based natural selection process cannot normally develop unconditional selflessness between sexually reproducing individuals—because selfless traits don’t tend to reproduce—is simply a limitation of the gene-based learning system. Integrative selflessness is the real characteristic of existence, the theme of life, hence its meaningfulness.)

 

 

The problem that emerged for human-condition-avoiding, moral-soul-denying, so-called ‘mechanistic’ or ‘reductionist’ biologists with Social Darwinism’s dishonest excuse that ‘animals are selfish and preoccupied with domination and that’s why we are selfish and preoccupied with achieving as much dominating power, fame, fortune and glory as we can’, was that it didn’t account for humans’ unconditionally selfless, altruistic, moral instincts, the ‘voice’ of which is our ‘conscience’ (see F. Essay 21). Undeterred by this failing, it was that master of human-condition-avoiding, dishonest biology, the much acclaimed Harvard University biologist Edward O. Wilson (he was most wrongly described as the ‘living heir to Darwin’ and ‘the world’s greatest scientist’), who contrived an even more dishonest solution to this problem—all still based on the dishonest, must-reproduce-your-genes, selfish and nasty instincts excuse. In his momentous 1975 book, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (which was quickly followed by others’ books, like Richard Dawkins’s 1976 book The Selfish Gene), Wilson acknowledged selfless moral behaviour in humans but argued that it is really only a subtle form of selfishness where we are indirectly promoting the reproduction of our genes by fostering others who are related to us. As Wilson said about this human-condition-avoiding, altruistic-moral-soul-denying ‘kin selection’ theory (which became one of the foundations of what is known as Evolutionary Psychology), ‘Morality has no other demonstrable function’ other than to ensure ‘human genetic material…​will be kept intact’; even saying that ‘[the philosopher Jean-Jacques] Rousseau claimed [that humanity] was originally 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’!! (see par. 197 of FREEDOM).

 

 

In time it became accepted that while kin selection explains the cooperative behaviour of animals like ants and bees, it doesn’t actually acknowledge and explain humans’ altruistic moral nature. As the journalist Bryan Appleyard pointed out about this dishonest application of the kin selection theory, biologists ‘still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explain altruism. If, for example, I help a blind man cross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am being prompted to do this because he is a close relation and bears my genes. And the world is full of all sorts of elaborate forms of cooperation which extend far beyond the boundaries of mere relatedness.’ (see par. 199 of FREEDOM)

To contrive a solution to this problem, Wilson then, in his 2012 book, The Social Conquest of Earth, put forward the absolutely outrageously dishonest Multilevel Selection theory for eusociality (genuine sociality). Where previously Wilson had limited himself to getting rid of the truth of our altruistic moral instinctive self or soul, he now set about using lies to dispose of the great overarching, main problem facing humankind of our conscious-mind-induced, psychologically upset HUMAN CONDITION! The brazenness of this assault is evident in the first sentence of The Social Conquest of Earth, which reads, ‘There is no grail more elusive or precious in the life of the mind than the key to understanding the human condition’!! Yes, the human condition IS the holy grail of the human journey, but what Wilson does is not provide that most ‘precious’ ‘grail’ of all ‘in the life of the mind’, as his opening sentence suggested he was going to do, rather he sets about nullifying the chance of it ever being found, and, by so doing, commits humanity to extinction! Pure hypocrisy, hypocrisy of the absolute worst possible kind!

Basically, the Multilevel Selection theory argues that along with supposed competitive, survival of the fittest, must-reproduce-your-own-genes, selfish instincts, we humans also have operating at another level some cooperative, selfless ‘moral’ instincts derived from so-called ‘group selection’ (thus countering Evolutionary Psychology’s denial of the existence of humans’ unconditionally selfless moral instincts). The truth, however—which Wilson tried to bluff his way past by claiming effective warfare depended on group cooperation—is that the idea of ‘group selection’ giving rise to selfless instincts has been fully discredited on the grounds that any selflessness that develops within a group will be constantly exploited by cheaters—‘By all means, help me reproduce my genes but I’m not about to help you reproduce yours.’ The biologist Jerry Coyne pointed this logic out when he wrote that ‘group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruism through natural selection favoring cheaters [selfish, opportunistic individuals]’. However, despite this obvious flaw in the theory of group selection, those human-condition-avoiding mechanistic, reductionist biologists who have accepted the Multilevel Selection Theory have persuaded themselves to adopt it. (see par. 203 of FREEDOM).

 

 

Overall, while the Multilevel Selection theory added unconditionally selfless instincts to selfish instincts in the mix of what allegedly forms our species’ instinctive make-up, in essence, it still amounted to a continuation of the same old reverse-of-the-truth, ‘escape-rather-than-confront-the-human-condition’ agenda—that humans have villainous selfish instincts and a blameless conscious mind that has to heroically ‘step-in’ to control them. (see Video/​F. Essay 14 & pars 210-214 of FREEDOM)

As mentioned, what is outrageous, and extremely dangerous, is how Wilson used the Multilevel Selection theory to supposedly explain that ‘grail’ which is the most ‘precious in the life of the mind’ of the human condition, saying in The Social Conquest of Earth that ‘Individual selection is responsible for much of what we call sin, while group selection is responsible for the greater part of virtue. Together they have created the conflict between the poorer and the better angels of our nature.’ In summary, Wilson asserted that ‘The dilemma of good and evil was created by multilevel selection’. Clever semblance of our conflicted condition, diabolically clever, but entirely untrue! (see par. 201 of FREEDOM)

So, according to Wilson, rather than having an original completely unconditionally selfless, altruistic, moral instinctive self or soul, which we then corrupted when we became fully conscious some 2 million years ago and developed an upset angry, egocentric and alienated psychosis, which is the true description of the origin of our condition, we simply have some instincts that want us to behave selflessly and some that don’t. While a ‘virtuous’, ‘better angels’, ‘good’ part of ourselves exists in Wilson’s ‘we have some selfless instincts’ account, there is no guilt from our conscious mind’s corruption of our completely selfless moral soul. What this means is that Wilson’s account of the human condition is non-judgmental in the sense that there are no real values, no notion of the absolutes of good vs evil or right vs wrong in the true, moral sense. What a relief for guilt-stricken humans, but what an incredible fraud! What Wilson has done with his non-psychological, no-guilt-stricken-conscious-mind-involved account is not explain the human condition but nullify it, render the issue benign, virtually inconsequential—and in doing so he is effectively burying humanity ‘a long way underground’ in the darkest depths of Plato’s ‘cave’ of denial that I described in Video/​F. Essay 11. (see par. 214 of FREEDOM)

 

 

I provided clear evidence that Wilson’s Multilevel Selection theory is nothing but an outrageously dishonest contrived excuse for our condition when, in Video/​F. Essay 4, I referred to the many great thinkers in history who have recognised the instinct vs intellect elements involved in producing our psychologically distressed human condition. We even saw in Video/​F. Essay 10 how the great 19th century poet William Blake recognised that our distressed condition is a result of a clash between the ‘two contrary states’ of an ‘innocen[t]’, ‘lamb’-like, cooperative and loving moral instinctive heritage and our ‘Experience’-based conscious mind. Much more evidence of just how obvious the instinct vs intellect explanation for the human condition is when someone is prepared to think honestly and truthfully about the subject is presented in F. Essay 53.

Yes, when, in defence of my work in the successful defamation trial we ran against mechanistic science’s attack on it (see pars 573–615 of FREEDOM, and F. Essay 56) Professor Scott Churchill, the then Chair of the Psychology Department at the University of Dallas, wrote, ‘I have recommended his [Griffith’s] more recent work to my students precisely for his razor-sharp clarifications of positions of contemporary authors like Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Robert Wright. Griffith manages to summarize book-length expositions of these oftentimes obtuse and varying perspectives on human evolution with clarity and brilliance’ (see www.humancondition.com/scott-churchill), that ‘razor-sharp’ ‘clarity and brilliance’ was simply a case of having thought truthfully about biology in a human-condition-confronting rather than human-condition-avoiding way.

Again, chapters 2 and 6 of FREEDOM provide an in-depth description of this history of the dishonest savage-instincts-based biological explanations for human behaviour. In chapter 6 it is explained that in order to counter the selfishness-emphasising, right-wing-justifying implications of the biological assertion that we humans are naturally selfish because we have entirely selfish, savage, ‘survival of the fittest’, must-reproduce-our-genes instincts (which we actually don’t have because we have nurtured, entirely unconditionally selfless moral instincts), the Left developed equally dishonest selflessness-emphasising theories that utilise this ‘group selection’ concept that I just described E.O. Wilson as employing, where supposedly a group who are selfless and cooperative will defeat a group who are selfish and competitive, and that is supposedly how we developed some selfless, cooperative instincts, which, as pointed out, is actually biologically impossible because of ‘the tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruism through natural selection favoring cheaters [selfish, opportunistic individuals]’.

Further, as is explained in F. Essay 35 and its book version, Death by Dogma, left-wing theorists also came up with a dishonest explanation for why our supposed selfish instincts came to dominate our selfless instincts. They claimed that following the advent of agriculture settlements that allowed for the accumulation of possessions, the desire and competition for these led to the supposed selfish side of our nature overriding the selfless side of us such that greed and warfare and domination by the more powerful took over human life.

In the case of the left-wing political theorist Karl Marx, he maintained that we only have some basic instinctive needs such as for sex, food, shelter and clothing, and that essentially we are born a ‘blank slate’ in terms of having instincts influencing our behaviour, and as a result he maintained that our mind can be inscribed at will! While I explain a lot more in Death by Dogma about how Marx and Marxist-based Critical Theory abandons science altogether, what I say here in this essay is broadly accurate across both left and right-wing ideologies—which is that while the Left presents different but equally dishonest explanations for human behaviour to the Right, the prevailing dishonest belief in both ideologies is that savage, must-reproduce-our-genes, selfish instincts are controlling our lives, and that E.O. Wilson was the leading proponent of this position.

 

The ‘citadel’ of science ‘lies in ruins’

While Wilson’s books proclaimed him to be the ‘living heir to Darwin’, the truth is he is nothing of the sort because Darwin was an honest thinker whereas Wilson was the ultimate ‘keeper of the lie’, the worst and most dangerous liar ever because the lie he was presenting has the potential to obliterate any chance of the human condition ever being truthfully confronted and understood! What Wilson has done with his psychosis-avoiding dismissal of the human condition as nothing more than two different instincts within us that are sometimes at odds, is truly sinister. It is the time Plato prophesised where there would be ‘more and more forgetting [dishonest denial to the point where]…​there was a danger of universal ruin to the world’ (see par. 172 of FREEDOM). It is nothing less than the final great push to have the world of lies with all its darkness take over the world—and condemn humanity to extinction. If the real psychosis-addressing-and-solving explanation of the human condition that is presented in FREEDOM hadn’t emerged then this Ultimate Lie would have taken humanity to terminal alienation and extinction! A disaster where our leading thinkers deludedly and arrogantly march us over a cliff has only just been avoided. What a terrifyingly close call! (See F. Essay 55: Endgame for the human race.)

 

 

So Wilson was the ultimate ‘keeper of the lie’, the master of keeping humanity away from any truth; indeed, he was the quintessential ‘liar…​the antichrist’ (Bible, 1 John 2:22), ‘The beast…​given…​to utter proud words and blasphemies’ (Rev. 13:5), the most extreme example of those who, as Christ so accurately described it, are the ‘blind fools’, the ‘blind guides’, the ‘hypocrites’, the ‘snakes’, the ‘brood of vipers’ (Matt. 23:17–33), the ‘experts in the law’ who ‘have taken away the key to knowledge [which is honesty]’ (Luke 11:52), the ‘teachers of the law’ who ‘like to walk round in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the market-places and have the most important seats…​and the places of honour’ (Luke 20:46).

This does all mean that the whole human journey has come down to a final great ‘battleground’, the war of the worlds, the battle of Armageddon, between ‘the Christ’ and ‘the anti-Christ’; between ‘light and truth’ and ‘the powers of darkness, the angels of evil and keepers of the lie’; between the human-race-saving honest explanation of the human condition in FREEDOM and the human-race-destroying lies of the champion of academia, E.O. Wilson! (see pars 611 & 1295 of FREEDOM)

 

The Struggle of Good and Evil Spirits by Ivan Tvorozhnikov, 1875

 

I might mention that being such a truth-hater it is not surprising that Wilson, like many scientists today, loathed religion saying, ‘What’s dragging us down is religious faith…​I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faith.’ This comment is nearly as appalling as Oxford University’s Professor of Public Understanding of Science, Richard Dawkins’ belief that ‘“Faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus, but harder to eradicate. The whole subject of God is a bore”…​those who teach religion to small children are guilty of “child abuse”.’ Wilson has even said that ‘I take a very strong stance against the mingling of religion and science.’ What an outrage when the fact is that the religious texts have been the best repository of truth the human race has had, as is pointed out in F. Essay 35—and more fully explained in the previous F. Essay 39—and as the quotes from religious texts in this F. Essay also demonstrate. (see pars 938 & 326 of FREEDOM)

 

 

As is described in the next essay, F. Essay 41: Is science’s scorn of religion legitimate?, while the likes of Wilson and Dawkins took ‘a very strong stance against the mingling of religion and science’, honest-thinking scientists took the opposite ‘stance’. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles Townes, for example, said that ‘they [science and religion] both represent man’s efforts to understand his universe and must ultimately be dealing with the same substance. As we understand more in each realm, the two must grow together…​converge they must.’ My headmaster at Geelong Grammar School and great denial-free thinking prophet, Sir James Darling, similarly spoke the truth when he said that ‘The scientist can no more deny or devaluate the truths of spiritual experience than the theologian can neglect the truths of science: and the two truths must be reconcilable, and it must be of importance to each of us that they should be reconciled.’ It is that truth-based meaningful, all-explaining ‘converg[ence]’ and ‘reconcil[iation]’ that is presented in FREEDOM and in this F. Essay. (see par. 327 of FREEDOM)

Again then, in summary, human-condition-avoiding, human-psychosis-denying, mechanistic science is now not the knowledge seeker it was established to be, but the institution keeping humanity from knowledge.

 

Professor Charles Birch (1918–2009)

 

My professor of biology when I was studying at Sydney University, Charles Birch (who is a winner of the prestigious Templeton Prize awarded for ‘increasing man’s understanding of God’), recognised this great danger when he said, ‘There is a problem about mechanistic science, it…​can’t deal with subjectivity…​This [subjective, psychosis-acknowledging, human-condition-confronting, truthful world view] is something that is very difficult to get your teeth into [confront] and yet it is the most important thing in the world…​what we were all taught in universities for decades is really recognised now as pretty much a dead end.’ On another occasion Birch even recognised that all of biology since Darwin has been unproductively based on lies, when he said, ‘Biology has not made any real advance since Darwin.’ On yet another occasion, in a reference to the impossibility of confronting and solving the human condition using mechanistic science, Birch said that ‘the traditional framework of thinking in science is not adequate for solving the really hard problems…​Biology right now awaits its Einstein in the realm of consciousness studies [‘consciousness studies’ has become the code word in science for the study of the conscious-mind-derived, psychologically troubled human condition].’ (see par. 225 of FREEDOM)

(With regard to Birch’s comments that ‘Biology has not made any real advance since Darwin’ and ‘Biology right now awaits its Einstein in the realm of consciousness studies’, near the end of the final chapter of The Origin of Species Darwin wrote that ‘In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.’ Yes, Darwin has here described where biology should have been heading—and now has in FREEDOM—because for ‘Light’ to ‘be thrown on the origin of man and his history’ there had to be a ‘psychology’-acknowledging and orientated ‘new foundation’ in biological thinking, one that was ‘based on’ recognising ‘the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation’, with that emerging ‘mental power’ obviously being consciousness. Acknowledging that we are a conscious-mind-derived psychologically troubled species IS where the ‘open fields for far more important researches’ lay after the discovery of the process of natural selection.)

Another Templeton Prize-winner, physicist Paul Davies, held a similar view to Birch about the stultifying effect of mechanistic science when he wrote: ‘For 300 years science has been dominated by extremely mechanistic thinking. According to this [psychosis-avoiding, mechanisms-only-focused] view of the world all physical systems are regarded as basically machines…​I have little doubt that much of the alienation and demoralisation that people feel in our so-called scientific age stems from the bleak sterility of mechanistic thought…​Mechanistic thought has undoubtedly had a stifling effect on the human spirit.’ (see par. 222 of FREEDOM)

 

Arthur Koestler (1905–1983)

 

The polymath Arthur Koestler was another who warned of the danger of mechanistic/​reductionist science, writing that ‘symptoms of the [psychological] 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 logical that our search for explanations [of human behaviour] should also concentrate primarily on those [psychological] attributes 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., explained by – the [non-psychosis involved] behavioural responses of lower animals – Pavlov’s dogs, Skinner’s rats and pigeons, Lorenz’s greylag geese, Morris’s hairless apes…​That is why the scientific establishment has so pitifully failed to define the predicament of man.’ Koestler complained too of ‘the sterile deserts of reductionist philosophy’, making the fundamental point that ‘a correct diagnosis of the condition of man [had to be] based on a new approach to the sciences of life’, concluding that ‘the citadel they [mechanistic scientists] are defending lies in ruins’. (see par. 223 of FREEDOM)

Biologist Mary E. Clark also emphasised the deficiency of mechanistic science when she said, ‘Formal learning has become a meaningless vaccination process, and the information transmitted is next to useless for properly understanding the world’ (Ariadne’s Thread: The Search for New Modes of Thinking, 1989).

 

 

Yes, the great ‘citadel’ of science; all those ivory towers of the likes of Cambridge, Oxford and Harvard universities, and all those promenading science journals, are now ‘meaningless’, ‘dead end’ ‘ruins’. For that matter, what we are taught at school is also all a pile of crap (dishonesty) emanating from Plato’s dark cave of denial. A new, honest world is coming to humankind, and not a moment too soon. While, as is explained in F. Essay 35, the New Age Movement was a deluded movement, one of its proponents, Fritjof Capra, did give this accurate summary of humanity’s plight: ‘To describe this world appropriately we need a new paradigm, a new vision of reality—a fundamental change in our thoughts, perceptions and values. The beginnings of this change, or the shift from the mechanistic to the holistic conception of reality, are already visible…​The gravity and global extent of our crisis indicates that the current changes are likely to result in a transformation of unprecedented dimension, a turning point for the planet as a whole’ (quoted in Ariadne’s Thread, Mary E. Clark, 1989).

 

The great ‘turning point’ in the human journey from living in darkness to living in the light of understanding

Yes, there had to be ‘a new paradigm…​a fundamental change in our thoughts, perceptions and values…​from the [human-condition-avoiding] mechanistic to the [human-condition-confronting] holistic conception of reality’, because only that could find the psychosis-addressing-and-solving real explanation of the human condition—and that is precisely what has been done and is presented in FREEDOM. It really is the momentous breakthrough that Charles Birch was hoping for when he said that ‘Biology right now awaits its Einstein in the realm of consciousness studies.’

 

 

In par. 1147 of FREEDOM, I contexted this breakthrough by explaining that while mechanistic science stridently evaded the issue of the human condition, its narrow focus on the mechanisms of the workings of the world did provide the critical knowledge needed to explain the human condition of the difference between the gene-based instincts that are only capable of orientating a species and the nerve-based conscious mind that depends on understanding cause and effect—which means that while science is yet to fulfil its fundamental responsibility and recognise that this greatest of all breakthroughs of finding understanding of the human condition has been achieved, science is actually humanity’s liberator, its so-called ‘saviour’ or ‘messiah’. In par. 1278, I also recognised that historically, people have talked of the need for a ‘second coming’ (after Christ) of innocence to save the world, but I explained that in the vast spectrum of alienation that inevitably developed in humanity’s heroic battle to find knowledge, there have always been a rare few individuals who have been sufficiently nurtured with alienation-free, unconditional love to be sound and secure enough in self to think truthfully and effectively about the human condition, as I have done, but until the discipline of science found understanding of the difference in the way genes and nerves process information, such truthful-thinking individuals were in no position to put together the explanation of the human condition. So denial-free thinking had an important concluding role to play, and such thinkers have been rare (read more about Christ in the previous essay, F. Essay 39), but the critical need was for science to find understanding of the difference in the way genes and nerves work.

So the question remains, how is ‘the light and truth’ of the honest, human-race-saving explanation of the human condition going to defeat the ‘powers of darkness’ and ‘keepers of the lie’ of the entrenched dishonesty of mechanistic science, and, in particular, defeat E.O. Wilson’s extremely dangerous dishonest ‘explanation’ of the human condition? Since the scientific establishment is refusing to fulfil its responsibility of recognising and promoting the understanding of the human condition that is now desperately needed to save the world from imminent destruction, the community at large has to come to the rescue and recognise and support the understanding. But there is a problem there as well, because, as Plato said (see Video/​F. Essay 11), when understanding of the human condition arrives virtually everyone will ‘be so overwhelmed by the brightness of the light [of truth] they won’t be able to see a single one of the things they were now told were real’; they will so fear the ‘judgment day’ exposing effect of the truth about their corrupted condition that they will suffer from a ‘deaf effect’ and find it almost impossible to read about the human condition (the problem of the ‘deaf effect’ and how to overcome it is addressed in The Great Guilt that causes the Deaf Effect and Video/​F. Essay 11). So relying on the general public for support also has its difficulties.

 

 

Plato indicated the answer to the problem when he added to what he said about everyone being ‘overwhelmed by the brightness of the light’ of truth that that would be their reaction ‘at first’ because they ‘would need to grow accustomed to the light’. Yes, this IS a great ‘future shock’ paradigm shift that has to occur, and such change can occur but it will require some adjustment time.

 

 

What now needs to be pointed out is that what will speed up the change enormously is the realisation of how fabulously exciting and easy it actually is to make the change from living in a human-condition-stricken state to living free of it by taking up the Transformed Way of Living described in chapter 9 of FREEDOM and on the Transformation page on the WTM’s website—and, by so doing, achieve the ‘transformation of unprecedented dimensions’, the ‘turning point for the planet as a whole’ that Fritjof Capra wanted. As is summarised about the Transformed Way of Living in F. Essay 15: ‘the excitement and relief of being effectively free of the human condition—the joy and happiness of being liberated from the burden of our insecurities and self-preoccupations; the awesome meaning and power of finally being aligned with the truth and participating in the magic true world; the wonderful empathy and equality of goodness and fellowship that understanding of the human condition now allows us to feel for our 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 species’ march through hell has finally ended and that a human-condition-free new world is coming—CAN NOW TRANSFORM EVERY HUMAN AND THUS THE WORLD.’ (see par. 1166 of FREEDOM) (For all you need to know about the transformation process, see our Transformation page.)

So become a World Transformation Movement member and join the Sunshine Army on the Sunshine Highway to the World in Sunshine!

 

 

THE Interview and Video/​F. Essay 3 present the honest explanation of the human condition, and F. Essay 25 presents the honest biological description of the development of life on Earth, including of human life. (It is a condensation of chapters 4:4 – 4:6 of FREEDOM.) This is the ‘light and truth’ account that everyone will be taught in the denial-free schools and universities of the future, NOT ‘the powers of darkness’, ‘keepers of the lie’ account of E.O. Wilson and his other cave-dwelling cronies. It is the ‘battle’ of ‘Armageddon’-winning ‘new paradigm’, ‘holistic conception of reality’-based, ‘fundamental change in our thoughts, perceptions and values’ that humankind has been desperate for.

 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Discussion or comment on this essay is welcomed—see below.