You cannot please everyone all the time. This is a truth so simple we may take it for granted, and perhaps think it is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be said. However, sometimes we overlook the most obvious things simply for this reasons.
I obviously encourage radical kindness. That is, I aspire towards high ideals of unconditional love towards all, though I recognise the challenges inherent in realising and applying this ideal in a human life. However, I also think in many ways we should aspire towards a balance mindset. Love, kindness and compassion need to be balanced with strength, responsibility, leadership, accountability, honesty and healthy self-control etc.
We might like to think that if only we are really nice to everyone that everyone will like us, and that we will have harmonious relationships and interactions with everyone. However, life isn’t that simple.
The thing is that we human beings are complex and often fickle creatures. We generally don’t realise how much of our behaviour is unconscious and conditioned, and how biased and narrow-minded we are. We don’t realise how little we know, and we often underestimate how much others know.
In our earthly life we encounter a vast mixture of people, who are at different places in their life. Some people are living in accordance with the highest expression of who they can be right now, and these people are generally easy to get along with and enjoyable to be around. Many others are struggling with the great challenges of being human and navigating our world. Some of these people are desperate for help from others, whilst others lash out at others and project their own inner turmoil onto those around them. And then there are some which are a danger to others and themselves. In the latter cases, there is often nothing we can do to avoid conflict with these people, and we need to accept the necessity of being strong and doing what is right and necessary in the moment, often for the safety and security of others and ourselves.
There are some cases whereby the only way to get along with someone is to agree with them. Sometimes this can be largely inconsequential. At other times remaining silent or agreeing with someone who is wrong can have significant consequences. Hence, sometimes we have to just accept the conflict that follows from doing what is right.
The human race is a great mixture, largely in the slow process of evolution through the animal and intellectual levels, eventually growing into beings that operate from a spiritual understanding. You may be the smartest person on the planet, but it must be accepted that there will be many people who will call you stupid if you openly share your knowledge when it is conflicts with their biases and prior assumptions. You may be the kindest person on the planet, but you will be called weak, bad, dangerous and evil by people that only like those who share their own ideology. A fully Divine being could appear on Earth and offer transcendental knowledge and love to all, and it would face denial, ridicule and condemnation by many.
Recognising all this however is not a reason not to try. Rather, we must simply try our best and accept the consequences. We must try to be kind and strong, compassionate and responsible, forgiving and honest, to listen to others and also show leadership. We must try our best to share what we believe to be true and also to listen to others to see what we are still yet to learn. And we must be willing at times to face ridicule and condemnation, as long as we have made the sincere effort to think, speak, write and act with the best of intentions.
Again, to restate, there are many serious issues that we face here on Earth that demand that good people speak up and act. And yet, to do so means that we will (and do) face opposition. This is unavoidable at this time, and we must make peace with it.
However, we must at least attempt to do so without viewing our adversaries as enemies. That is, there are people and groups that we must speak up and act against. However, we can do this without demonising them and holding contempt against them in our hearts.
It is common for human beings to see themselves as fighting for goodness, and to see any opponents as enemies of all that is good. People on all sides of disputes (religious, philosophical, scientific, political etc.) do this, and it brings a great ugliness to such conversations. We need to be able to have serious conversations about things that truly matter without resorting to demonising and dehumanising our opponents.
Even the most sick, deranged and mad human beings are still precious Souls that need compassion. Even those that harm others themselves still need help. We can at least attempt to insist upon consequences to actions and justice even whilst holding only compassion for all. This must be our ideal, and we can grow in our capacity to realise this, one test after another.
So, you cannot please everyone all the time. But, you can attempt to offer real transcendent love to all, even if it isn’t always recognised, welcomed and received by all. But first one must discover such love within themselves. It is all good and well to idealise such things, but to actually bring things into reality they must be experiential.
This is perhaps where I think much social justice fails in its ideals. Many people speak of compassion and understanding, and yet have not found peace within themselves. Firstly to find real peace within oneself is a rare find on this planet, and takes real commitment to honour and nurture. Even more challenging is the capacity to remain centred in clarity and peace in difficult circumstances. To remain in an inner state of love and strength whilst facing an adversary is a power very few have yet realised (and I do not claim to be amongst them).
Hence, to be able to help others and contribute towards improvement in our world at large, one must commit to a sincere attempt to cleanse oneself of arrogance, bias, bigotry and unforgiveness. To truly help others we must have in ourselves a great spring of peace that is everflowing, and an intuitive connection to the great intelligence which feeds all life.
To these great ideals we must strive, and meet the demands of our world.
Human folklore is filled with remarkable tales of gods who wield supernatural powers and pass on higher learning to mankind. For those who are inclined to see the world in a purely materialist manner these tales are generally considered mere myth, or one of a variety of natural explanations are given. Certainly there are valid reasons for taking this view, as it is the easiest (and thus most likely) explanation (see Ockham’s Razor1).
One plausible explanation for these tales is that human history hasn’t been a simple straight line or exponential curve always moving in the one direction, but rather that great civilisations have come and gone. Under such a view, survivors of past advanced civilisations could easily have been considered gods to people who either had no past experience with civilisation and culture, or who had been cut off from it.
The UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) phenomena or UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena – as many are now terming it) is in many ways a (more) modern equivalent of the ancient tales of gods from other lands wielding supernatural powers and either seeking to educate or enslave humanity. It is hard to trace the precise origin of this phenomena, as relevant accounts can be found back into all regions of history. However, when we talk of UFO phenomena we generally tend to think of modern accounts from the past 100 years or so.
Certainly from the the 20th century and onwards we have an abundance of personal accounts of encounters with strange lights and/or flying craft (not always disk shaped) in the sky appearing to be intelligently guided, and often accompanied by other strange features (missing time and/or various supernatural elements). In some accounts we also hear about encounters with beings that are thought to be not of this planet (and/or dimension). Some of these encounters are inspiring and uplifting, whilst others are highly disturbing in their nature and implications.
When writing on highly contentious subjects it can be really important to show your sources and discuss the raw evidence. However, I’m not going to really do that here today for a couple of reasons. Firstly, whilst I have been interested in the UFO phenomena for a long time, I have not been collecting sources on it as I go. Secondly, the nature of the source material is that a large percentage of it is highly contentious. That is, whilst I am of the opinion that the subject as a whole is legitimate, individual case files on their own are all potentially suspect, and if there was ever a subject where not everyone can be telling the truth, this is it. Thirdly, it would be a huge work to do so.
I will discuss some phenomena in a general sense and give a few examples, but I’m not going to be able to provide links to all my sources today, along with a discussions of the ins and outs of them. This would require a very lengthy and detailed article (or book), which isn’t what I’m setting out to do today.
So, for the benefit of trying to offer something of value that can be (relatively) easily digested on this topic in a blog format, I will not be diving deeply into individual cases today. Rather, I want to give my own opinions about what all this means, and what its implications are.
Some key points:
Unquestionably, everything about the UFO phenomena is a challenge to common assumptions about what is real. Firstly, we have the simple challenges of having to travel incomprehensibly vast distances across space, and the time required to do so. If we think of interstellar travel simply in terms of having to travel very, very fast for a significant period of time, the challenges are immense (I would therefore suggest that if interstellar and/or intergalactic travel is possible, it would involve the bending of space and/or travel through higher dimension of reality). To be able to accelerate to close to the speed of light would involve significant sustained acceleration (which is problematic on multiple levels) and huge risks of damage, and would still take decades to travel to the nearest star (when considering acceleration and deceleration). Not to mention the problems presented by special relativity.
Secondly, if you read some accounts of UFO encounters you will quickly see they almost always contain supernatural features. That is, they don’t simply seem to be encounters with physical craft and beings who have travelled across vast distances to visit us. Rather, there is almost always strange features present such as disturbances of perception of time, loss of memory, the bending or breaking of the laws of physics (as they are currently understood2), or the presence of something explicitly spiritual or supernatural (such as telepathic communication).
As such, UFO encounters have legitimately been categorised by some as a supernatural or occult phenomenon. If we use the term occult here it is not so much to explicitly define these experiences as being dark in nature (although some definitely appear that way, and in some cases may indeed be so3). Rather, the term occult can simply and literarily mean hidden, so the UFO phenomenon involves many things that are hidden to common human understanding.
Perhaps this is a big part of why there has been such intense skepticism and dismissiveness of the phenomena. That is, if we are to accept that these encounters are indeed with an intelligence that is not of this planet and/or dimension, then this naturally has huge implications for religion, science, politics and essentially everything. If this phenomenon is indeed real, and if humans beings at large accept it as such, then this is huge.
Current Government disclosure and a quick summary of military encounters with UFO’s over the past century:
Up until very recently there seems to have been some sort of informal consensus in the general public that only crazy people believe in UFO’s, due to too many hours reading dubious conspiracy theories and/or taking mind-altering substances. Of course this is an over-generalisation, but certainly this is largely true. Government, media, scientific authorities and society as a whole have largely scoffed at belief in UFO’s. In particular, the belief that the UFO’s originate beyond our planet and/or dimension has been (and is still) largely treated with public disdain.
In the last 12 months there has been a lot of conversation about the US Government looking at recent UFO encounters by its military (who have renamed them UAP’s – perhaps seeking to distance themselves from assumptions of an extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional nature), and it has seemed that perhaps maybe things might change. Certainly I have heard (and seen) a number of sources say that now we actually have real evidence that something is happening that needs to be explained. As someone who has had at least a casual interest in these matters for some time I have to express that recent revelations are nothing new. Rather, military staff – pilots in particular – have been encountering UFO’s since WW2 (and probably before).
It is well attested that back in WW2, Allied, German and Japanese pilots reported seeing strange craft observing them from a distance and at times flying close by, without ever actually directly interfering with them. The Allied pilots at the time assumed that these craft were some secret German technology, though it was later discovered that the Allied pilots weren’t the only ones experiencing the phenomenon4.
From the Cold War there are countless testimonies from pilots and other military staff regarding extremely strange encounters with UFO’s. Of particular note is the intriguing case that a significant amount of UFO encounters have taken place near or at nuclear facilities (testing grounds, weapons storage facilities etc.). There are even credible and well-documented claims that on multiple occasions UFO’s appeared at facilities holding nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, and somehow enabled or disabled the weapons, and even shut down all power to the site. Whilst all manner of stories can be found in the dark corners of the Internet, many of these stories in question have been recorded publicly as told by military staff, interviewed by real journalists. It appears that whatever or whoever is responsible for these craft, they appear to be very interested (or perhaps concerned) in human development of nuclear weapons.
Over the past 12 months the US Government has publicly admitted to incidents where jet pilots have had daily encounters with unidentified craft flying at great speed and displaying extraordinary manoeuvrability (that appears to defy current understandings of physics), as well as radar staff recording these craft doing the seemingly impossible. Likewise they have released footage taken aboard military jets that show them tracking these craft, along with the audio commentary of the astonished pilots. As far as I am aware this footage has been public for some time (it was previously leaked online); it is only that now the Government has openly admitted it is real.
This is not a new phenomena:
If one looks back in history, we find many sources telling of mysterious lights in the sky, often with similar sounding supernatural features. Regarding more ancient sources for UFO encounters, it is very easy to join in the mockery of those who take these things seriously. We have all seen the endless memes at the expense of George Tsoukalos:
In all seriousness though, once we acknowledge that something is happening now, it is only natural that we consider ancient sources as relevant to the subject. Of course, we must exercise some caution about forcing the UFO and alien encounter narrative onto ancient mythology. It is obviously possible to become obsessed with this conclusion and project it into places where it doesn’t belong. Having noted that however, there are certainly cases whereby the “ancient aliens” theory is a nice fit. One obvious example is the Vimana (flying chariot, vehicle or palace of the gods) in ancient Indian religious literature. These accounts most certainly are relevant if we recognise that something real is happening now. When there is strong, credible evidence of something of a controversial nature, there is then valid reasons to consider weaker, less well- attested or less well-defined evidence as well.
Accounts of civilian Alien encounters:
I am personally of the opinion that the evidence for UFO encounters being real is strong and worthy of serious consideration. A significant part of this stems from the fact that much of the data (or evidence) comes from trained professionals, and the various accounts appear to have an overall consistency to them.
We must recognise there that UFO encounters and claimed Alien encounters (and/or abductions) are not necessarily always the same thing. That is, they are two closely related and often overlapping subjects, but either can exist independent of the other.
One notable case is claimed to have occurred in 1994, when school kids in Zimbabwe saw Aliens get out of a flying saucer and telepathically warned them of the dangers of human technological advances5. This case appears to be both a UFO and Alien encounter. Another example was in 1954 at a Soccer match in Tuscany when players and 10,000 spectators were all awestruck at mysterious lights in the sky (and play apparently stopped)6. In this case it may have been a UFO incident witnessed simultaneously by a large number of civilians.
Aside from a number of notable incidents which involve a large number of civilian witnesses, there are many cases where individuals report personal encounters with beings from other planets and/ or dimensions. Whilst military encounters with UFO’s are often quite strange, these individual encounters are probably far more bizarre.
We could perhaps oversimplify these encounters by separating them into two categories; encounters with benevolent and malevolent beings. In some of these encounters the beings are described as coming across with great warmth, expressing deep concern for the direction of human progress. The message is usually some variation of the following:
Human beings are very rapidly developing in a purely materialist way without the necessary corresponding spiritual development. As such, technological advances are putting our future at great risk, as we have the potential to destroy ourselves and the environment we live in.
Obviously, this appears to correspond very closely with the prevalence of UFO encounters at nuclear sites, and the frequent and repeated UFO encounters amongst military staff. Sometimes
the message also appears to correspond with warnings of climate change and other geological disasters (as claimed by Michel Desmarquet7).
In other examples we hear highly disturbing tales of people being abducted against their will, paralysed, induced into a semi-drugged state (by some unknown means) and violated in a variety of ways (probed, forcibly impregnated, implanted with technological devices etc.). The beings encountered in these tales are described as either cold and indifferent to human emotions, or outright malevolent, treating human beings as merely a lower life form (like humans may treat an insect).
It is hard to know what to make of these reports. It is obviously very easy to simply dismiss them all as being fictitious, and viewed individually in isolation I can certainly understand the logic to such a dismissal. However, viewed collectively as a whole, and particularly in light of the reality that a large body of evidence exists for UFO phenomenon from the hands of trained military professionals (amongst others), I think we need to consider that at least some of these tales have some truth to them.
Possible explanations:
There are obviously many different explanations that can be given for the range of phenomenon being covered here. Science as it is currently defined only considers natural (material) explanations. The method of science (methodological naturalism) presupposes only natural explanations. This has been quite fine for dealing with material phenomenon, but it naturally precludes science from being able to investigate subjects that if taken literally would imply something of a spiritual and/or supernatural nature. There is no questioning the fact that modern science has indeed been incredibly successful at achieving rapid development of human understanding and the subsequence technology that has emerged from it. However, if we have defined science not merely as a process of coming up with a hypothesis and then putting it to the test and holding it up to scrutiny, but also as bringing in metaphysical naturalism (materialism/ atheism8) through the back door, then we preclude science from being able to study subjects like UFO and claims of Alien encounters, and also NDE’s (Near Death Experiences) and ESP (Extra- Sensory Perception) etc.
If science as it is currently defined precludes the possibility that UFO/Alien phenomenon are literarily real, then science is unfit for the study of them. I would think it is obvious that to study UFO and/or Alien phenomenon properly, you must go into the study with an open mind and balanced scales, equally open to multiple possibilities and willing to let the evidence lead you towards likely conclusions.
With this established, we should note that obviously there are many organisations and people that are highly resistant to acceptance of any part of UFO/Alien phenomenon as real. Certainly we must consider all possibilities, and indeed natural possibilities are likely in at least some cases. There is no question that there are many ways that even trained professionals can be fooled by some unknown or misunderstood natural phenomena, let alone civilians. There is likewise no doubt that human beings have a virtually endless capacity for fraud and/or madness. There are countless examples for all of these explanations.
Having recognised this however, I would state that some of the natural explanations that are presented for well known UFO encounters are nothing less than ridiculous. That is, it is quite clear that in many cases the natural explanations that are given are presented not because they are the most likely, but rather because the person (or people) presenting them cannot allow for the possibility that there is an extraterrestrial and/or supernatural phenomenon at work.
I have read many accounts from trained professionals of their chaise (in a plane or car) of a UFO in which the report is dismissed as caused by a weather balloon, or a fixed object in the sky (a planet or star) etc. For example the “Gorman dogfight”9, in which USAF pilot George Gorman pursued a UFO for close to an hour. The official USAF dismissed the UFO as a weather balloon. Are we seriously to believe that a USAF pilot wouldn’t know the difference between a weather balloon (which could only be blown about at relatively slow speeds by the wind), and an intelligently guided craft travelling at great speed (far beyond his own capacity), and able to repeatedly out-manoeuvre him?
I must say that in this case the official explanation of the USAF is absurd, and almost assumes that we are simply stupid. This is not a serious explanation, but rather a mere public dismissal of a serious incident without consideration. Of course the USAF might have thought that the public couldn’t handle the truth, or they could have thought it wasn’t in their interests to disclose the nature of the incident to the public. Or the people involved may have blinded by their own personal biases, and thus precluded a serious consideration of the incident.
This is no isolated case (read some other cases10). Rather, this is common when examining matters of a spiritual/supernatural manner. Often it is argued that the possibility of the phenomenon being real is too absurd to actually take seriously. Of course natural explanations must be considered first, as “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. But, as above we find in some cases that naturalistic explanations cannot be taken seriously, because they weren’t the result of serious consideration but rather personal bias (or a deliberate cover-up).
A very legitimate point can be made that advanced technology far beyond the general understanding can be mistaken for magic. Certainly it is fair to assume that some claims of people witnessing a UFO are actually cases of people observing military craft (including top- secret “black projects”, such as the B2 stealth Bomber). It is certainly conceivable that all UFO’s could have a terrestrial origin. In many ways this should be the default conclusion, unless strong evidence otherwise is presented (which I personally think a serious consideration in this case will support).
Certainly the default position of the worlds Governments has been to presume that UFO encounters by its military were encounters with advanced craft from other nations. Perhaps in some cases this may be so, but if you actually read the accounts of pilots and radar staff it is clear that these crafts (the UFO’s) possess technology far beyond any known civilisation on earth at the moment. It doesn’t make sense to imagine that Russia, China, Germany or Britain could possess such technology (and have done so for a considerable amount of time) and yet not also be using such advanced scientific knowledge in other areas of its nation in a way that would make it stand out entirely from the worlds nations.
A plausible alternative is that there exists survivors of earlier advanced civilisations who (for whatever reason) have chosen to remain mostly hidden from the world. Such people could be hiding out in bases within the earth, in inaccessible mountains, or in the depths of the ocean. This possibility cannot be discounted, and seems to me to the most plausible alternative to the extra- terrestrial and/or extra-dimensional origin.
The UFO and Alien phenomenon have been seen as quite challenging by many established religions. For example, orthodox Christianity sees the spiritual world in a dualistic way, in that there are simply only divine and demonic beings. Being raised in a conservative Christian family I was told that aliens were actually demons. Certainly, given the nature of some of the personal accounts one can understand this conclusion is not completely unreasonable.
Many years ago I read a book by Graham Hancock titled “Supernatural”11, which was largely about the use of psychoactive drugs in primitive cultures, and their possible role in bringing about evolution in the human psyche. He cited a work (I can’t recall the author) which argued that UFO and Alien phenomenon were a modern-day manifestation of the fairy lore. Whilst many of us have grown up hearing tales about fairies as merely benign and benevolent elemental spirits, there is much folklore that tells of them abducting and generally messing with people in a very similar way to current tales of Alien abductions.
Again, it is plausible that there is a common cause behind the two phenomenon. Having noted this, of course it should be noted that claims of alien (or fairy) abductions if considered in isolation could all be the result of fraud, mental illness or just considered as nothing more than myth.
However, given that there is tangible evidence for that UFO phenomenon are real, I am inclined to think they are at least worthy of consideration.
What do I think it all means?:
I have written before that I am seeking to differentiate between subjects of which I quite confident (like religion and general spirituality), and others in which I recognise that I simply cannot possibly know enough to reach definitive conclusions. Even in those topics like religion and spirituality where I have put in significant time and effort to compare competing views, there are still huge limitations to what I can possibly know as a single human being. It is more about being confident in which overall views and perspectives to support and which to reject (and why to reject them), then claiming to know everything relevant to these topics. Likewise, it is more about being confident about some very specific sub-topics (like the influence of the Egyptian cult of Osiris and the Greek Mystery religions on Christianity), rather than claiming to know everything about religion and spirituality as a whole.
So, having conceded the need to be cautious about reaching too strong a conclusion without being able to have enough knowledge to justify this confidence, what do I actually think? To start with, I think if ever there was a subject to be cautious about, this is it. Particularly, if ever there was a question to be cautious of, it is:
If Earth is being visited by Aliens, are they good or bad?
So, let’s break it down. Intelligently piloted craft with technology far beyond our own are deliberately making themselves known to the military of major nations. In particular, they seem to be particularly interested in all of our nuclear programs. If these beings piloting these craft were hostile towards any particular nation or towards humanity as a whole, it appears that they would have no trouble defeating or even completely destroying us.
So, it seems unlikely to me that these craft are a military risk to us. If anything, they appear to be peacekeepers, and do indeed appear to be trying to warn us of the great risk we pose to ourselves and to our environment as a whole (though some in the military have – I think falsely – interpreted it the other way round12). Nuclear weapons possess the possibility of not just killing large numbers of people in a single blast (I recall looking into this, and a typical nuclear armed ballistic missile could kill 10 million people in a heartbeat), but given enough of them, there is the capacity to induce nuclear winter, which would essentially destroy the Earth’s environment for all life (and we have come very close on multiple occasions, particularly during the Cold War13).
Never before has humanity had the potential to destroy itself. All our cleverness, all our scientific and technological advances, and we are now clever enough to do literarily the stupidest, most insane and most evil thing within our reach. We can kill not only one person, but essentially everyone and everything.
Everything about the UFO phenomena screams to us that common assumptions about the world are wrong. That is not to say that we abandon everything we think we know about the world and start from scratch. Rather, it simply means that our current understanding is only a fraction of what is truly out there. Our current theories are approximations that are good enough in some instances, but not in others. What we think to be true is only relatively so, not absolutely.
Everything about the UFO phenomena challenges the assumptions of a classical and materialistic worldview. These craft clearly have the capacity to mess with gravity, and it is only reasonable to conclude that they are messing with space and time. Likewise, if we accept that at least some of the Alien encounters are legitimate, then we also must conclude that these beings possess not just highly advanced scientific knowledge, but also capacities that we consider spiritual and/or paranormal.
I must say that it is not that there was never any evidence for these things before the modern UFO phenomena, or that there is not evidence for these things outside of the phenomenon as a whole.
If you are open to the consideration of these things, there is abundant evidence of the great weirdness of our world that can be found in many different fields.
Much of this evidence can be found within Physics, which is supposed to be the hardest of the hard sciences, and probably the most fundamental of all. Starting with special relativity, the idea that space and time are interrelated is already very weird. This in itself overturns the common assumption that time and space are simply the absolute markers of our three dimensional physical experience. The idea that the universe presents a speed limit (that of light), and as you try and approach it mass increases up to infinity is itself incredibly weird. That travelling at such speeds plays with the relative experience of time is even weirder. That anything travelling faster than light would technically be travelling back in time is even stranger still.
When it comes to quantum physics, all the classical materialistic assumptions all get thrown out the window. Matter is no longer solid, but made up almost entirely of empty space. What remains as something (other than space) itself is immaterial, it can disappear and reappear in a different location, and doesn’t need to pass through or around a barrier to go from one side to another (quantum tunnelling). Quantum particles display both particle and wave like natures, depending on how they are being studies (particle wave duality).
The full weirdness of this last phenomena (particle wave duality) isn’t often discussed, as its implications were extremely controversial for leading physicists in the early-mid 20th century, and it has become unpopular to discuss its implications in modern academia. Whilst many leading physicists in the early-mid 20th century took seriously the philosophical implications of particle- wave duality, materialistic assumptions proved to be a barrier to the subject. That is, the science naturally led towards a spiritual or idealist (idealism being the philosophic view that consciousness – rather than matter – is the substance of reality) worldview. In recent times more advanced experiments (see the quantum eraser and especially the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment14) have validated the radical implications of this phenomenon.
Quantum entanglement by itself is mighty weird, but even weirder still is the delayed choice entanglement swapping experiment15, which again shows the immaterial nature of matter and the relative nature of matter, space and time.
Back to the subject at hand, the UFO and Alien phenomenon clearly involves knowledge of such things that repeatedly shows us how little human beings currently understand about our place in the universe. Having recognised this, the possibility that Earth is actually being visited by beings from other planets and/or dimensions is not just reasonable, but highly likely. Whilst journalists, scientists, politicians and your friends and family like to scoff at these things as merely crazy talk, we truly need to take this seriously16.
Consider the implications of humanity coming into communication with beings from other planets and higher dimensions. Consider what this could mean for our future. If we think modern scientific advances have alleviated suffering for humanity, imagine what we could do with the level of scientific knowledge that these beings possess?
Human beings often think of ourselves as being at the pinnacle of a long line of human evolution and/or history. Whether it is our religious or political affiliation, our culture, race or gender or scientific worldview, people everywhere like to think of themselves as the superior ones, unlike the others. Tribalism of all sorts has been the norm throughout recorded history, and still exists today (even amongst those that claim to be against it17.
For humanity to see itself as a whole as simply a small part of a galactic or universal family would truly put our petty tribalism into its correct context. That is, our differences shouldn’t seek to divide us, but rather we should see ourselves/each other as all working together in cooperation, with complementary skills18.
I think this last point on cooperation rather than competition is a key one here. Whilst there is certainly room in life for healthy competition (sports, scientific development, business etc.) this whole hostile competition between nations is probably the most toxic and dangerous in human history. As human history is filled with wars between families, tribes and nations, human beings are often suspicious of others, and think they have to attack preemptively before their opponent attacks them. We also have the undeniable reality of human greed, that believes that it can have more by taking from or dominating others. Likewise, for ideological reasons sometimes leaders believe it is their duty to rule over others. We thus have a situation whereby nations devote massive budgets to their military, stockpiling doomsday weapons, both in fear of others, and at other times with the desire to spread their Empire.
For me, it seems that the UFO phenomenon clearly announces that this must end. That is, we cannot continue to stockpile weapons and devote our resources to military developments at the expense of peaceful scientific advances. Likewise, we cannot continue to lust after the resources of other nations and believe in the false idea that we will have more by conquering others. The opposite is true. How many times in history have the people of a nation suffered due to the lust of its leaders? Even when a nation succeeds in conquering another people, there is a cost to the Soul that is never worth it. How many people we see in the world today thriving materially, but being deprived of true, inner wealth and happiness19.
In my opinion, worldwide disclosure is needed to show people from all nations equally the insanity of our current trajectory. If Western nations were to dissolve their military’s overnight, it is highly likely that Communist China would invade in a heartbeat. Hence we have quite a lot of work to do before we can be ready to join a larger, cosmic family beyond this planet.
In this sense, human beings are still only just at the kindergarten level of cosmic evolution. Sure, we have come a long way from an animal existence; however we have a long, long way to go. These beings that are visiting us clearly have the capacity to help us in ways we cannot possibly even imagine. Perhaps we should listen to these warnings and find a way to work together.
So, the above being so, I can’t finish this without recognising the darker side of UFO and Alien phenomenon. It is certainly true that many of the stories told in this field present humans being harmed in various ways in (and after) the encounter. This brings up very difficult questions about the question of suffering and evil; the great enigma which human beings (and religion/spirituality in particular) struggles to answer.
We know in our human experience that there exists great extremes of the potential for suffering and joy, for bondage and freedom, for injustice and equity, for toiling and thriving and for hatred and love. Certainly human beings have shown this duality in the different ways we live, in the way we treat each other and in the civilisations we create. Clearly if higher (spiritual) beings exist (as I believe they do), then there is a degree of non-interference at the heart of a cosmic code. If a Supreme Being exists (as I believe), then It is not an interfering personal Deity, but something else.
An analogy I have been leaning towards is that when someone buys a computer game they would be disappointed if they mastered it in one night. Likewise, they would be highly disappointed if at the first sign of frustration at the difficulty they were handed all the cheat codes. It seems to me that help is given to us from above in more subtle ways that meet our immediate needs.
It is a valid question as to how far a civilisation can develop in a purely materialistic sense without a corresponding spiritual (or psychological and ethical if you prefer) development? That is, is there a limit to how far we can evolve outwardly without also evolving inwardly? I don’t pretend to know the answer to these questions.
It then should be asked whether perhaps there are many different races of beings from different planets and dimensions that are visiting Earth now? That is, perhaps they aren’t all on the same page morally and ethically? Perhaps there are some that want to work together and help us, whilst others are rogue civilisations that only care about their own interests and will happily interfere with us for their own gain? I do personally suspect the latter; that there is more than one group of beings coming here now, with more than one motivation.
We are however now entering into highly speculative territory. I will leave this conversation with the following opinion:
When entering any exploration beyond the normal confines of material experience, always do so with a pure heart and mind.
Of course, I also suggest living all areas of human life with a pure heart and mind. In the same way that you don’t want to go alone down a dark alley in a seedy part of a big city late at night, you don’t want to go messing with things of a supernatural nature without having the best intentions at heart. There are countless stories of people that have made this mistake and suffered greatly as a consequence.
I will leave this here for today. May our hearts and minds be open to truth, wherever it leads us. Peace.
2 I have long been saying that human beings are far too quick to express certainty on things they barely understand (https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/10/how-do-we-really- know-what-is-true/ ). We are also far too quick to proclaim some things to be absolutely true when they are only relatively true. Likewise, often our understanding of some facet of reality (or reality as a whole) is ultimately only an approximation, and thus gives us accurate enough results in some situations, but not in others.
4 There are tales that the Germans had been experimenting with flying disk designs during WW2, though this isn’t something I can find verify in any way. It seems however that the US did indeed build prototypes of a flying disk during the Cold War.
8 We should note that some may believe in supernatural and/or spiritual subjects but do not believe in a single Creative intelligence we call God (or insist upon defining it otherwise, despite having much in common with the general concept of God as seperate from specific sectarian definitions). Hence the term atheism can be misleading. Thus naturalism/materialism are more specific and accurate.
19 Just to be clear, I am not saying that material success is incompatible with inner wealth. Rather, I am just making a point about achieving material success at the expense of ones Soul.
I believe in the equality of the ultimate value of all human beings, and in fact, all things. That is, in the essence of our being, all things are one and are thus of equal value. However, it is self-evident that there are tremendous differences in the outward expression of different people, and different things in general.
There are many things that are quite obvious and common sense when considered, but are easily overlooked. Sometimes, the more obvious something is, the more easily it is overlooked. That is, human beings often reach irrational conclusions on many topics, though the reality can be clearly seen when examined without bias. In light of this, I state the following:
Recognising the equality of inherent worth of different people does not demand that they be seen as identical.
I doubt anyone reading this would disagree with this statement, and I could excuse some for questioning whether it even needs to be said. However, there are so many examples whereby the above seems to be missed.
Equality of ultimate value and differences in individual expression:
There are clearly distinctly different levels of equality between different people. If we were to look at four people in a community, one baker, one school teacher, one police officer and a doctor, you can easily understand how each of these people are equally contributing towards their society, but in different ways. You could certainly frame a question about the level of specialist knowledge and skills required for the different jobs, but essentially they are all necessary and important[i].
However, if we compare a brain surgeon to an unemployed drug addict, they are clearly not equal in their individual expressions. A brain surgeon is contributing enormously to the wellbeing of others in their community, vastly improving the quality of life of many, and actually saving the life of others. An unemployed drug addict is generally a danger and burden to themselves, their family and friends, and to the wider community.
This should not however mean that we dehumanise those that suffer from substance abuse. I have been there personally, and whilst I didn’t fall as far as some, I certainly was a shadow of the man I wanted to be. We can recognise the inherent worth of each human being, whilst simultaneously recognising that some are expressing that inherent worth, whilst others are not.
Someone who struggles with substance abuse and cannot hold down a job (and thus lives on welfare and charity) is not living outwardly in according with their potential, and is not expressing their ultimate value. Someone who serves the community and saves peoples lives on the other hand is living outwardly according to their potential, and is expressing their inner value in the world at large.
Demonstrating this principle to understand comparative religion:
I first started writing because I wanted to encourage tolerance and understanding between different religions. However, I soon discovered that many – or even most – of the people arguing for pluralism were also arguing that the worlds religions were all equal and identical, and that it was only human misunderstanding that was making it seem otherwise.
The reality is that this view is untenable, as the facts simply do not support it[ii]. The truth is that whilst there are indeed largely universal overlapping features of spirituality and religion, the world’s faiths are almost always heavily colored by the culture of their time and place.
This doesn’t just mean that they express the same truths in the vocabulary of their culture. Rather, it also means that they have many unique features, and different strengths and weaknesses. Also, it means that they are different mixtures of divine truths and human, egoic projections.
So, we can encourage harmony between people of different faiths without having to ignore all the differences between them. We can reject the exclusive and hyper-conservative perspectives that see different religions as being on opposite sides of a cosmic battle of good against evil (with eternal consequences), without having to ignore the reality that some faiths are better than others in different ways. They are not all equal and identical in their expression, and yet each human being is equal in the eyes of God, regardless of what faith (if any) they express.
We can (and should) be able to express criticisms of the beliefs and practices of different faiths without diminishing or dehumanising followers of such faiths. We have to be able to have constructive debates and give critical examinations of religious groups without resorting to (or being wrongly accused of) religious bigotry or racism (as particular religions are commonly associated with specific racial and cultural groups, criticisms of some religions often get dismissed as racist).
We can do this whilst still seeing the differences between us as ultimately superficial, and seeing the common ground between faiths and people as a whole as being of true importance.
Gender and polarity:
There has been a massive push in Western culture recently to try to realise the ideal of equality between the sexes. I for one have never been tied to strict traditional gender roles, so in principle I generally applaud this. However, agreeing with the general value of something isn’t always the same as agreeing with the way something is implemented.
Whilst cultural conditioning can explain some of the differences between men and women, it is quite clear that some of our differences have a biological basis. That is, whilst men and women are equal in ultimate value as human beings, we are not identical in our expression. These biological differences are generally more pronounced in a traditional or primitive (this is a heavily loaded word, to be used carefully) way of life. However, in our modern world they are becoming somewhat less important, and men and women are now able to share many of the same tasks and roles largely equally.
However, the reality is that many, if not most people prefer polarity in their romantic relationships. That is, heterosexual men generally prefer feminine women, and heterosexual women generally prefer masculine men. There are certainly many exceptions to this rule, but as a general rule it is almost universally true. We also see this polarity in many (but not all) homosexual relationships, as it is common for one partner in a same-sex relationship to have more pronounced masculine traits, whilst the other has more pronounced feminine traits.
There is however also a push coming from the far-left (and into the mainstream left) to remove or even reverse natural human gender polarity. I wish to walk carefully through this ground, as I am not interested in pushing back against any group or persons. There needs to be freedom for everyone to express themselves naturally without being pressured into cultural norms that aren’t personally always a fit for their individual tendencies. However, we can allow this without abandoning the natural polarity that many (if not most) people naturally express and enjoy. We can evolve our understandings of gender without throwing out all features of traditional values that are rooted in biology and natural law.
Men and women are equal in value (as are intersex and transgender people), but we are not identical in our expressions. Men and women do have distinct differences that should be understood and appreciated as complementary. This leads me to the following statement, which I feel is worth emphasising:
Seeing unity within diversity should be our aim, rather than artificially enforcing uniformity.
A small percentage (approx. 0.02%[iii]) of people are born intersex, in which genetic abnormalities can blur the traditional distinctions between males and females. Again, intersex people have equal value, but they have distinct challenges to experience as human beings. Likewise, transgender people (those that suffer from gender dysphoria and choose to undergo surgery and hormone treatments to change their appearance to that of the opposite of their biological sex) have equal value to other people. However, their experience is distinctly different to that of the rest of us.
I have been collecting sources on this subject for the past 9 months or so, in preparation for a series of articles where I will cover specifics relating to transgender issues. I will state here that we can (and should) treat transgender and intersex people with the respect and dignity that they deserve, but that this doesn’t mean we should bend to all the requests made by far-left activists. We can see the equality of trans and intersex people[iv]without rejecting the traditional gender binary. We can respect the diversity of human personality without throwing out all distinctions of human biology (which is what many radical gender activists are actually trying to do).
Race, skin color, culture and civilisation:
As a final example, I want to also say that we can accept the equality of people of different races, skin colours and cultures as equal in their humanity, whilst recognising the differences in their expression. I wish to be clear that I reject all ideas of the inherent superiority of anyone based on the colour of their skin or their genetics. However, this does not mean that we cannot recognise some cultures as being more advanced than others, in different ways.
We need to be able to differentiate between the degree of civilisation in a culture, without resorting to racist ideas about some races and cultures being ultimately smarter or better than others. I would prefer to say that certain cultures have developed forward momentum at particular times which has brought about rapid evolution, whilst others have stayed largely the same over very long periods of time.
At different points in recorded history this momentum has taken place in different cultures, with people of different skin colours. Egypt, Sumer, India, Persia, China, Greece, Rome, Britain, the US, etc. have all had momentum in their favour at different times. Only extreme bias can lead to the conclusion that some races or skin colours are objectively superior to others. I personally believe in the ideal of a cosmopolitan, multicultural society. However, such an ideal can only work when we come together under common values and leave traditional tribalism behind.
We need to be able to discuss the reality that some cultures are closer to the animal level and some further along the evolutionary chain, without resorting to a gross and oversimplistic dichotomy about inferior and superior races, or the equally problematic and oversimplistic dichotomy of oppressor and victim. As I’ve said repeatedly, we need to be able to have important conversations without sacrificing either our intelligence or our decency.
Speak the truth with love, fearlessly.
Peace
[i] Though I recognise that some people might have a particular gripe with one or more of these professions.
[iii] A much higher figure is often quoted of 1.7%, but this figure includes people who are very clearly biologically female in every respect, but have genetic abnormalities that make it difficult for them to conceive and/or carry a child to term. The much lower figure of 0.02% is apparently accurate in referring to intersex people as diverging from otherwise clear human gender distinctions.
[iv] You may have noticed I didn’t mention “non-binary” people here. That is because the identification of someone as non-binary does not refer at all to anything biological (or an inverse of their biology, as in the case of transgender people), but rather refers only to personality. Hence, non-binary is of a different category to issues of gender, as “gender identity” is not synonymous with biological sex as common uses of the term gender are.
It should go without saying that we should treat people that consider themselves non-binary with respect and dignity. However, this doesn’t mean that we have to concede to all demands made by gender activists, or accept all accusations of bigotry that are often levelled against those that disagree.
For a long time I have been going on about the importance of balance in all areas of life. Not only are there very few human beings that have achieved real balance in their lives, there are perhaps not enough of us that are even truly aspiring towards it (I don’t personally claim to have achieved balance in my life).
Of course, holding an ideal is all good and well, but realising it amidst the challenges of earthly life is a completely different thing. If we are to say to ourselves “I wish to be a stronger person”, we don’t suddenly automatically find that our life becomes easier. Rather, we find that we are constantly challenged by life, and we have to find the bravery to face it in a new way.
It has occurred to me that it is very easy to idealise kindness, at the expense of strength. I think there are many examples of individuals and groups of people doing just this, and becoming quite unbalanced in the process. Hence, I would suggest that rather than aspiring towards kindness alone, we should aspire towards goodness (for a lack of a better word[i]), which can perhaps be defined as a balance of strength and kindness.
Kindness without strength is weakness, and weakness can allow injustice and evil to proliferate. Alternatively however, strength without kindness is harshness or brutality, which is itself evil.
It should be obvious to most people that human beings are different in many ways to the animals of this planet, and yet we share much in common with them. I often say that human beings are somewhere between the animals and the angels. Certainly much of our behaviour comes from biological instincts and egoic[ii] defense mechanisms, and yet there is another side to us as well.
Life as a whole demonstrates to us a vast plethora of ways in which it can express, and I suspect we are currently only aware of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of this. We human beings as well have a very wide range at which we can operate, depending upon individual biological factors, the way we are conditioned by our families and society at large, and our personal choices along the way.
Every single one of us is capable of stooping to great lows, and soaring to great highs, and we see this collectively as well. Groups of people behaving in similar ways sometimes stoop to great depths of cruelty, depravity and degeneracy[iii]. Likewise however, large groups of people sometimes aspire and encourage each other to great heights of physical, intellectual and spiritual evolution.
Therefore life on earth consists of a duality between the harsh realities and various challenges of a material experience, and the great joys and treasures that can be found here. Human beings are complex creatures, and often the same person can simultaneously carry great darkness and light within themselves. Depending on our personal sensitivities and biases we may be more aware of one side of someone than another.
My point in the above is that we cannot simply treat human beings as animals or angels alone. If we see humanity only in terms of their lower aspect we idealise strength alone, and think only in terms of animal instincts and selfish personal gains. If we do this we make a great mistake in being closed off to the great beauty in life, and the true treasures of the Soul.
Alternatively, if we only see humanity in terms of their higher aspect, we idealise kindness alone, and think only in terms of unconditional love, peace and creative expressions. Whilst this can be a wonderful way to live if you are able to live in a bubble, it can lead to a dangerous naivety that isn’t fully suitable to the needs of earthly life.
There is certainly a degree to which it is helpful to direct attention towards higher things, in order to feed that side of ourselves and others. This however should be different to actually ignoring our earthly responsibilities to be realistic about the challenges we face, and to meet them in appropriate ways.
Earthly life naturally demands of us that we be both strong and kind. Certainly some situations demand more of one than the other, and different people have different personality traits that make them more suitable for different roles than others. However, as a whole, this is a universal truth that we all must recognise. We all must seek to balance the realities of what is and what has been, with what can be. We all must seek to balance the need to stand for justice and a stable and strong society, with the ideals of peace and respect for all.
It seems to me that many of us go way too far in one direction, at the expense of the other. Sometimes this is an individual leaning, whilst at other times we see it as part of the biases of different cultural, political and religious groups.
There are some that idealises kindness and tolerance alone, and in a strangely ironic way this leads many people to the opposite of these ideals, or it simply allows darkness to proliferate unchecked. I think we can say that if your only value is tolerance you end up with no values, as it becomes impossible to have reasonable disagreements or constructive debate on anything.
Until recently I wasn’t aware of how bad things had become in this regard. Those that read news from a variety of sources (i.e. not just mainstream sources on the one side of politics) might have some inkling as to what I refer to here. I will give direct examples in some upcoming articles on political and social issues.
On the other side, there are some that idealise strength alone, and completely ignore empathy, tolerance and kindness. Some of these people may achieve a significant degree of outward success, but they live with a gaping hole on the inside as they live in denial of the everlasting part of themselves. There is something really quite ugly about the absence of empathy for others, and something truly beautiful about real compassion.
Political realism – Politics of the Strong and Weak:
I recently was made aware of a field of political thought known as Political realism. This isn’t really a field I am personally drawn to investigate, but there was something I came across that I think is relevant. From a quick glance it appears that Political realism argues that the interaction of world affairs can be explained solely by the self-interest of competing nation-states.
The Greek historian Thucydides tells a tale of the siege of Melos, from the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. There is a section known as “The Melian Dialogue” just prior to the siege of Melos, in which the Athenians offer the locals of Melos terms for their surrender, which the Melians debate with them back and forth. The Athenians make it clear that they are not interested in conversations on the morality of their actions. They simply state:
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”[iv]
Another relevant passage is here quoted from the synopsis on Wikipedia:
“The Melians argue that they will have the assistance of the gods because their position is morally just (they are simply defending themselves against invasion). The Athenians counter that the gods will not intervene because it is the natural order of things for the strong to dominate the weak.”
There is certainly a great deal of truth in the bleak realism of Thucydides (who has voiced the perspective of the Athenians). This is indeed how the lower, animal side of life works. However, there is much more to us than this, and to live solely with such an outlook is to deny one’s own Soul.
The above example demonstrates the “politics of the strong” and the “politics of the weak”. A person or group in a position of strength will often do what they want because they can. Likewise, a person or group in a weak position will often cry for mercy on moral grounds.
I have raised this example here because I have seen many examples whereby a person or group of people ask for tolerance whilst on the back foot (in a weak position), and then go on the attack once they are on the front foot (in a strong position).
This is something I will refer back to in many upcoming articles, so I wanted to establish it here as a common human trait that we should be aware of. It is often oversimplistic to define some people as victims and others as oppressors, as circumstances can change quickly and the roles can reverse (and I intend on citing some clear examples of this in upcoming articles).
Here is one of my main points:
True kindness will express equally regardless of whether one is in a strong or weak position relative to others.
If one is only kind when in a weak position, then it isn’t real kindness, but simply a defense mechanism of the ego. A person or group of people that are truly good will do what is right according to the needs of the circumstances, and will always uphold their ethical principles rather than merely their egoic self-interests.
A truly great ruler cares about the needs of all. Real strength is used to defend those that are vulnerable and maintain a prosperous and stable society, where citizens enjoy personal freedoms and are free from the great horrors of war.
In closing:
One simply cannot live properly on this planet without true strength. Under philosophical ideals some people have attempted to live a life of absolute pacifism. Such things are simply not possible for everyone on this planet at this point in time. For all that aspire to the ideals of peace and freedom for all, we are often compelled to stand up and fight, for such is the nature of this reality. However, to use this fact as a justification to deny the higher qualities of oneself and others is to miss the true purpose of life itself.
So, I believe we should aspire to be good, to be both realistic about human nature, but also aspire to the loftiest ideals of spirituality and/or philosophy. May we show kindness and empathy to others, but also not hesitate to stand up, speak up and act when necessary to defend the good of all. May we accept the reality that some conflict is unavoidable in our world, and may we face up to this reality with strength and confidence.
Speak the truth with love, fearlessly.
Peace
[i] Perhaps the word righteousness could be used. I think many of us now have an aversion to that word (as it is now seen as a loaded word), for better or for worse.
I publically disavow the political beliefs and actions of my brother.
I don’t wish to write too much here, for several reasons. However, I will say what I feel needs to be said.
For anyone unaware, my brother David has been actively involved in far-right politics for many years. If you know David personally he can be kind and very intelligent, and can attempt defences of his views (whether or not they are true). There are many things of which I agree with him about, whether in full or part (more commonly the latter). I understand however that those who only know him from his political activity may not be aware of this side of him.
I certainly believe in the general principles of free speech and reasonable disagreement, and I feel that these are being abandoned currently in world culture. However, I most certainly also believe in the principles of respect and basic decency in public discourse. In this respect I think I diverge from my brother.
It is no secret that David has been publishing deeply offensive views for many years online, and often uses the title of his works to attempt to shock his readers. I have found that most people I speak to share my sense of horror at the way he goes about this.
I have wrestled for many years with the question of what my moral responsibility is in regards to distancing myself from his political activity. I have made a few comments here and there in a number of articles to say that I have close family that are involved in the alt-right, and that I am generally horrified by their views. However, it has come to my attention that my brother has now taken things much further, and has now gone as far to the right as it is possible to go. I’d like to avoid having to publically announce the explicit details of this, but I think my readers can infer what is implied here.
I hope that those who read my writings can see that I genuinely love everyone. In finding the Divine within myself, I naturally feel love for all, seeing the great diversity of creation as all the expression of the One.
I certainly will concede that I am deeply flawed as a human being, as are most (if not all) of us. I have made countless mistakes throughout my life, but am sincerely attempting to live in the best way that I have the capacity to.
My brother does not speak for me, and I feel empathy for any and all that experience any form of suffering from his words and actions. I have attempted to engage with him over the years in whatever way I can. However, I am not my brother’s keeper, and I don’t have the capacity to make choices for him. I will continue to love him, despite there now being distance between us.
May all beings live in peace. May we treat all beings with the kindness, dignity and freedom that we all deserve.
Final note: If anyone wishes to comment I would ask they approach me via a private message.
I’ve been reading, listening to and watching a lot recently regarding issues of gender, and I plan on writing in some detail about a number of different relevant topics related to this. For today I thought I would just write a very brief introduction to my thoughts on the matter. When I first started this blog I wrote a series of ‘101’ articles to introduce my thoughts on religion/spirituality, science/philosophy and politics. This is perhaps my ‘101’ article on modern gender issues.
I want to start and end this piece in the same way, by saying that we all need to come together and appreciate each other and ourselves. I feel that much of what I say in these articles is simply common sense. Unfortunately we are not always as sensible and rational as we like to think. When it comes to relations between men and women, we could really afford to get back to basics and address the foundations before going into specifics.
To start with, men and women need to respect the strengths of each other, and be kind and considerate to one another. In Western culture today there is an immense amount of hostility between the sexes, and it is absolutely coming from both sides (though again, not always to equal degrees, or in the same ways). We all learned when we were young that two wrongs don’t make a right. This seems to be largely forgotten by many today, as reactivity is becoming increasingly normalised.
I have been saying for some time that the far left and right poles of politics feed each other with their reactivity. There is no shortage of crazy stuff going on at both ends, and both sides use the other as justification for themselves. You could certainly generalise by saying that women’s rights/feminism is a part of the political left, whilst men’s rights and traditional gender roles are favoured by those on the right. Radical gender division seems to be more and more mainstream today, and we need to make a break from it.
Whilst I have certainly for a long time favoured the political left more so than the right, I am leaning more towards a political agnosticism at the moment. I have often said that agnosticism regarding religion and spirituality is a healthy and honest approach for people that haven’t yet been convinced of the reality of spirituality (or haven’t been convinced of materialism). Likewise, perhaps opting out of the political divide may be a healthy approach for a while, especially considering the amount of time and effort required to really have the depth of understanding to be confident as to who to align with (if anyone)[i]. Most of us are familiar with the expression “spiritual, not religious”. I have been considering the phrase “spiritual, not political” as a new variant.
So, masculine and feminine qualities are designed to be mutually beneficial, to complement and support each other. The reality of being human is that no one person can fulfil every role, or specialise and excel in the same fields. We all have different strengths and weaknesses. Hence, it is only healthy that we appreciate the strengths of other people, understanding that we benefit enormously from them.
Likewise, men and women are equal in ultimate value as human beings, but in general we can have different characteristics and strengths. These days we correctly recognise that men have both masculine and feminine qualities, and women have both feminine and masculine qualities. However, in general masculinity is naturally dominant in most (but not all) men, and femininity is dominant in most (but not all) women.
Outside of this generalisation, there is obviously a wide spectrum in the balance of these two polar opposites in men and women. Some men have very strong masculinity and almost no feminine qualities, whilst the majority of men have a small to moderate balance of feminine qualities along with their masculinity. There are still some men in which feminine qualities dominate. Many of these men are gay, though this is not always the case. Likewise, the same is also true of women in reverse.
We human beings are somewhere between the animal kingdom and our divine potential. On a physical level we share much with the animals of this planet. We see much in common in the behaviour of the males and females of many species and human beings. And yet we are also different to them. We have had more than a glimpse of our potential to transcend mere instinct and survival, and dream of a different kind of life where we decide how we want to live.
We seem to be going through the growing pains of a species in the process of dramatic evolution. We have taken many major steps out of our past, but we have not stepped fully into a better future. We seem to be somewhere in the middle for a while. So, perhaps we can start by recognising that we have not yet arrived at our destination, but that we are very much working on how we think we ought to relate to one another and coexist.
Traditional gender roles were shaped heavily by basic biological differences between men and women. Upon this foundation we were conditioned in different ways by our cultures, and as a combination of biology and related natural psychology, and cultural conditioning, we came to know ourselves to be somewhat different from each other. In a perfect world this would simply mean peaceful cooperation, harmonious interdependence.
Unfortunately though, in many circles it has now become extremely unpopular to discuss the biological differences between the sexes. It is now common for mobs of angry voices to rise up against anyone that dare discuss such things. I have often said that human beings do not naturally excel at balance. When we discover an imbalance in one area we do not naturally swing towards the centre. Rather we often swing to the exact opposite imbalance.
In the past it was certainly the case that too much was made of the biological differences between men and women. For much of recorded history across the globe the differences between us have been seen as rigid limitations on what men and women could achieve. They were perhaps seen as clear barriers that defined what kind of life one could live.
In today’s world it seems that we are swinging a very long way to the opposite extreme. The emphasis on societal conditioning in shaping masculine and feminine qualities has reached the extreme that many people outright deny basic biological differences between men and women. It is reaching the point where you can’t state the obvious without being lynched. I won’t go into details today, but I’ll discuss a number of relevant examples in future articles.
We have attempted to provide equal rights for both men and women (a very contentious issue), and have made major leaps forward. I for one have no desire to go back to the way things were (in the 1950’s, or the 1500’s for that matter), in the massive inequality and abuse of power that was common. However, we have by no means arrived at some enlightened future destination.
We also should make mention of intersex and transgender people, and the issues surrounding them today. I would think that intersex and transgender people are being treated by larger numbers of people today with a greater respect and dignity than perhaps at other times in recent history. However, this is not to say that intersex and trans people do not still face major difficulties (including targeted violence). It is hard to know for certain how they have been treated in the more distant past and in other cultures, as records are patchy at best. Certainly much progress has been made to ease the stigma surrounding both intersex and/or transgender people (some people may be both), and give them legal protections as afforded to everyone else.
Certainly we must recognise that sex/gender is not always clearly binary. However, I think we can do so intelligently and respectfully without fully embracing radical gender theory, and throwing out all distinctions between men and women. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater as we re-evaluate many of our assumptions about life.
There are some real issues to be looked at here that are more complex then recognised by many within their own communities and outside. As with many other subjects, human beings don’t always understand the fine subtleties that differentiate basic rights from special privileges. As such these matters are touchy subjects that divide many into groups that are extremely hostile to each other.
At some point I will attempt to go into examples relating to feminism, the “red-pill” men’s movement, trans issues etc. Again though, I want to stress that we need to go into these subjects with deep sensitivity and compassion, rather than with a desire to fight against the crazy extremes of the human ego. There is lots of madness going on. We all need to chill out a little and cool things down.
There seems to be little appreciation for each other amongst great numbers of men and women. So many of us are deeply scarred by personal or collective traumas, and have made an enemy out of the other. This is no good, and it is hurting men and women alike. I want to encourage my readers to just say no to the new norms of hostility between men and women. We want to see people inspired and empowered. Hatred is never empowerment. Love is the natural and healthy state of all living beings.
Anger and hostility can have legitimacy as natural responses to immediate circumstances of danger and injustice. However, as habitual states of being that are perpetuated by internal psychological processes, they are deeply dysfunctional and toxic. To be empowered we must heal, both individually and collectively. Truly we want all beings to thrive, whether male, female, intersex and/or trans. We want all beings to live with freedom and opportunity, and to be respected and loved.
In the past week I have discovered that the late Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias has been accused of sexual misconduct. Apparently this had been in the news for some time (dating back to 2017, well before he passed), and the recent allegations have been in the news for some months. It seems that recent allegations came to light several months ago but were initially denied by his ministry (RZIM). However, after an initial investigation they have now been confirmed to be true. I myself however have only heard about this in the past week.
Ravi Zacharias was one of the most well know and successful Evangelical Christian apologists, working as a minister and apologist throughout his whole adult life. Back in mid 2017 I wrote an article directly in response to some of his claims, as he had regularly claimed that all religions were equally exclusive, in attempt to defend criticisms of Christian exclusivity[i].
The work of Zacharias was typical of Evangelical apologists, in that I would describe it as being all style, no substance. Along with others in his field (William Lane Craig being the perfect example), Zacharias spoke with great confidence (often perceived as authority) about his faith, and constructed many arguments both in defense of Christianity, and in criticism of other worldviews (both secular and religious). And yet, all one needed to do was actually examine his claims and arguments in some detail to discover that his work was largely baseless.
Christian apologetics in relation to other religions and spiritual worldviews have up to this point gone largely unchallenged. That is, many atheists (or one could say materialists/naturalists) have taken the time to respond to Zacharias and co. on their work that specifically relates to their field. However, almost nobody in other spiritual and/or religious fields have responded to Christian apologetics that is aimed towards them (or those that have done so are not well known as of yet).
I started responding to Christian apologetics many years ago because I felt this was something that needed to be done. Christian apologists present a myriad of arguments and evidence in favour of Christian doctrines, and likewise attack other faiths and spiritual practices. Zacharias and co. give the impression to Christians that their faith is well founded, established by sound facts and reason. Likewise, they create the impression that Christianity can respond to all criticisms of it, and show itself to be superior to all other worldviews, where religious or non-religious.
Apologists are taken as authority figures by vast numbers of Evangelical Christians, both lay followers and people involved in ministry. They are trusted to tell Christians the truth, and to sort through the maze of conflicting arguments and evidence for them. As such, most Christians never go on their own personal search for understanding, but rather trust these people to tell them what is true and why (I mentioned this point in an article just the other week[ii]).
As such, I have long stated that Christians should be appalled to know the poor quality of work that is done by prominent apologists. Christians should be appalled to discover that the people they trust have been lying to them, whether consciously or unconsciously (more on this shortly)[iii]. This is true in relation to the historicity (or lack thereof) of Jesus Christ, the historicity (or lack thereof) of the Hebrew Bible (which Christians refer to as the Old Testament), the moral issues within the Hebrew Bible, the defense of Christian doctrines on salvation and damnation and comparison to competing spiritual perspectives on the afterlife and divine justice, etc.
Obviously also, atheists have also pointed to the misrepresentation of their arguments and beliefs in apologetic works. What is particularly relevant here is that Zacharias in particular was well known for painting atheists as simply immoral people that rejected God because they didn’t want to face up to their own sinful nature and it’s consequences. This is a particularly significant point in light of what has now come to light about Zacharias’s behaviour over a significant period of time, which reveals a very different man to his public persona.
Several years ago it came to light that a woman Zacharias had been counselling had sent him nudes via encrypted phone messages. Zacharias had claimed that they were unsolicited, but the woman in question stated that he had hassled her for photos and participated in phone sex (including both text messages and phone calls) over a period of time. Zacharias then sued the poor woman, and accused her and her husband of attempting to extort money from him. I was unaware of these accusations at the time, but in light of the more recent revelations I would hope we all reject Zacharias’s defense.
It has now come to light that Zacharias had actually invested money in two spas, where he attended regularly for massage. During massages he would expose and touch himself, grope the (female) masseurs and request nude photos and sex from them. One of the news sources I read also mentioned that there were more findings from the investigation that were of an even more serious nature that have yet to be revealed[iv]. This is all rather disturbing, and paints the picture of a serial sex-pest and master manipulator, who used his power, position and wealth to take advantage of others.
The fact that Zacharias actually invested money and thus was part owner of the two spas where the abuse took place shows that it was premeditated. Zacharias wasn’t simply hiding his secret shame; he was actively and deliberately planning his actions. By buying a share in the spas he made himself practically immune to consequences, and in one case a female masseur who spoke out was fired as a result. This adds to the sexual abuse itself, as an appalling abuse of power and privilege.
Also, the details surrounding his 2017 settlement are quite disturbing. Zacharias had started out counselling the (much younger) woman from his position as a religious leader. He then took advantage of the woman and threatened to commit suicide if she went public. And then he accused her and her husband of extortion and sued them to keep them silent and attempt to protect his reputation. This is also psychological abuse, and gas-lighting of everyone that looked up to and trusted him.
It is thus worth questioning whether Zacharias was sincere in his faith and his profession, or whether he simply saw it as a lucrative career choice? It is of course entirely possible that he believed himself to be sincere in his faith, and yet had this completely different side to him that went against everything he claimed to profess. Human beings are extremely skilled at the art of cognitive dissonance. Most ordinary people have many areas of their beliefs and behaviour that contradict, and are largely invisible to themselves (yet fully visible to others).
When someone is invested in a rigid ideology (whether religious, political or anything else) they often have to ignore the implications of evidence to hold true to their preconceptions. In the case of a religious apologist, their entire career predicates on their ability to ignore their own cognitive dissonance and stay true to the team’s agenda. In some ways it is not so surprising therefore that this same cognitive dissonance is displayed in their behaviour in private.
There are numerous examples of people that have seemed to be quite spiritually advanced and/or brilliant in intellectual or creative realms, and yet were quite sick and depraved in other ways[v]. In the case of Zacharias obviously I never saw him as being particularly brilliant at anything, other than perhaps the showmanship of apologetics, in using sleight-of-hand to hide the fact the he (and his entire profession) was nothing more than a clown in a lawyers suit.
Again though, it is of course possible that Zacharias was nothing but a complete fraud. We know that he deliberately planned his actions, openly lied and plotted to try to cover his back. Perhaps his “conversion” as a 17year old was simply an epiphany that he could become powerful and wealthy through the church? It is of course no surprise to me to find out about his dishonesty (as I had examined his apologetics during his lifetime, and well before I knew about any of this). He had also during his lifetime been called out for lying about his academic qualifications. Maybe his whole life was fake?
I want to state clearly that I am not writing this to gloat. There are no winners here. Rather, there is a trail of destruction left in his wake. Firstly we need to acknowledge the victims of his abuse, and it looks like we haven’t heard everything on this matter yet. Secondly, his extended family and everybody that had work relations with him will be adversely affected, as will the wider Christian community that looked up to him as a leader of (perceived) integrity.
Scandals like this are of course quite common amongst those in positions of privilege and power, and this is true in both religious and secular contexts. It has been common throughout recorded history for men of power to take whoever (women/girls and boys) and whatever (animals as well) they want for sex. These scandals are in many ways the modern equivalents to tales of the Emperor Nero who raped the wives of other senators at dinner parties[vi].
As we currently stand, human beings are somewhere between the extremes of animal and divine, beast and angel. We have vast potential to express creativity in the arts and genius in the sciences and to rise above the base struggles of mere survival. We have the potential to express love, forgiveness and compassion, and to grow in acceptance and patience. And yet, we have basic human desires and needs, which can turn into obsessions and perversions.
In the animal kingdom rape and murder are also common aspects of reproduction. It is common for male Lions to fight for breeding rights and to kill offspring of previous males so that only their own blood survives. Likewise, we have all heard of the female Widow Spiders and Praying Mantis’s who devour their mates during sex.
The sexual desire in humans obviously has a primal purpose in ensuring the survival and multiplication of the species as a whole, and ones own bloodline. Over time we have developed rules and taboos relating to sexual behaviour, both to protect the fabric of the family and society as a whole, and (perhaps more recently) to protect individual rights as well[vii]. However, as we all know, sexual desire brings intense pleasure with it, and often this pleasure can override the faculties of reason and higher ideals.
The fact remains that human beings have a long, long way to go to realise our higher potential and rise above the lower aspects of our human nature. Scandals of this nature are an indication that we still have lots of work to do to protect women (and also in some cases men) from sexual predators. Rather than simply seeing humanity as being at the end of a long chain of evolution, it is important for us to have an idea of what we are capable of. Ultimately human civilisation is still in kindergarten on the grand cosmic scale. There is no perfect human religious, political or social worldview. We are a species with a long path ahead.
Religion as a whole is a mixed bag, and religious approaches to sexuality are no exception. It isn’t all good, or all bad. Certainly I have seen many examples of people in spiritual and/or religious contexts whereby their faith and spiritual practice helps them to have healthy and respectful relationships, and a balanced and positive approach to their body and sexuality. Likewise, there are many examples of sexual repression and abuse that are outside the scope of religion (such as in the Roman political elite).
However, religion has certainly been well known for repression of sexuality and the human body as a whole. Many different religions and spiritual paths have presented the human body as sinful (not just the Abrahamic faiths). Many religions have taught denial of the natural sexual urges as a higher path. It is easy to see how this could have begun, as people could see the problems that occur when the animalistic side of humanity overrides reason.
In recognising that we are Spirit (or as some would say, we have a Spirit or Soul), we recognise that the human body is not the highest expression of who and what we are. However, this has often led to the denial and repression of our human nature, with quite negative repercussions. Particularly in Western culture human beings have developed strong taboos about nudity and sexuality. As a result this repression has fed obsession and perversion. Take the sexual abuse by otherwise celibate Catholic priests or the sexual abuse of devotees by supposedly celibate Yoga gurus as perfect examples. Contrary to the claims of religious conservatives, we have learned that better sex-education equals less teenage pregnancies[viii] and that highly religious people are amongst the highest users of pornography[ix].
Much good came out of the counter-culture of the 60’s and the sexual revolution, however we certainly did not find a healthy balance in response to the previous rigidity and repression. Rather, in many ways we swung out of balance to the other side, and new problems have opened up since. Free love and drugs failed to deliver the promised utopia, but have often created the opposite.
In particular, pornography has become the drug of choice for entire generations, due to its highly addictive nature, easy availability and near universal appeal (as practically everyone from puberty and above naturally enjoys sexual pleasure). Like many other drugs, porn can seem innocent enough at first, and one can argue who really gets hurt by it? And yet of course, the industry is highly abusive and porn creates massive problems for individuals, and their relationships in particular. Like all drugs, the high comes at a cost. There is no such thing as a drug without side effects (though just to be clear, many drugs have legitimate purposes in specific contexts) and porn is wrecking havoc for the physical and mental health of vast numbers of people.
I hope that we can find healthy ways to heal the repression-obsession-perversion thing that human beings have going with sexuality and our bodies. We obviously need to honour our needs, overcome our hang-ups, talk openly about sex in mature and appropriate ways and apply our higher reasoning faculties. We have an animal side and a divine side, and we must balance and harmonise the two.
This is no easy task, as we all know how strong the sexual urge can be. Both men and women have the capacity to have their reason and best intentions overcome by intense arousal and desire. Men however have also (more commonly than women) used physical force, power, wealth and privilege to take advantage of others for fulfilment of animalistic urges and mental perversions.
However, I believe in our potential. I believe that no matter how much evidence there is of injustice, cruelty and so forth, that human beings have the capacity for love, justice and freedom. It starts with healing on an individual level, and from that foundation can move into the wider world as a whole. No matter what state we are in, there exists the potential for us to tap into Divine Love. This Love is so great it can heal any wound and satisfy any need. The great challenge of being human here on earth is the duality of this experience. There is abundant evidence of injustice and the harshness of human life. And yet, there is also abundant evidence of the goodness of life and our higher potential.
It is sad that those affected by this affair were not protected at first instances. Zacharias should have been held fully accountable during his life on earth. Personally however, I hold a belief that nobody every really gets away with anything. Many different religions and cultures held a belief in some form of divine justice, and/or cosmic judgement after death. If you read some of the many modern accounts of people that have had what we call a Near Death Experience (NDE for short), you will see that the vast majority experienced what we call a “life review”. During the life review we effectively re-live our entire life in a short period of time (these experiences depend on the relativity of time and space, as the experiences exist outside our 3D world – or 4D including time). However, during the life review one also sees one’s life from beyond your own individual perspective. One can see through the rationalisations of the ego to see your own true intentions, and also the impact that your choices and behaviour had upon others. In this way, you simply cannot escape from the consequences of your actions.
Whilst I believe most of us are met with unconditional love in the astral heavens after death[x], we still have to live with what we have or haven’t done. Unconditional love and grace does not necessarily preclude consequences and justice. Obviously I cannot claim to know all the ins and outs of divine justice. However, I believe that Ravi Zacharias still exists outside the physical dimension, and must face up to the pain he created. Hence, I encourage us all to face up to our issues whilst still on earth. Talk to people about your struggles. There are no doubt many other people that share similar problems.
How does one properly go about investigating a topic? Who do we trust to give us reliable information on a topic? How do we evaluate our existing presumptions about life? The reality is that we all carry innumerable presumptions, things we believe in with a great deal of confidence (or even absolute confidence), even though we cannot be absolutely certain of their truth. For so much of humanity, this isn’t even necessarily something that we are conscious of. That is, there is so much we take for granted that may not necessarily be so. Many of the things we take to be absolutely true are only relatively so, and many more aren’t even true in any sense.
We are conditioned by our families, by our culture and civilisation, by our teachers, friends and peers, by various media (books, television, Internet etc.), by religion, politics, economics, by various life experiences, by our experiences of gender and race, and even by simply being human (rather than say birds, fish or plants). To even be aware of the depth of this conditioning is a rare trait in humanity at this time. Even rarer is the soul who succeeds in both becoming aware of what is beyond their conditioning, and also fully embodying their humanity. Just because one may become aware of their conditioning to some degree doesn’t by any means imply that it is easy to then transcend this conditioning. As always, intellectual understanding and experiential realisation can be two completely different matters.
As someone who has invested quite significant amounts of time to comparing competing arguments on a number of topics, I have some appreciation for what is really required to be confident (let alone certain) on a topic of contention. It is all too easy to be temporarily persuaded by a passionate argument and a carefully selected series of facts (or lies…). To actually take the time and effort to pit competing arguments against each other to see who comes out on top is extremely time consuming. You have to really care about something to be willing to do this yourself.
Hence, most of us either rely on trusted experts to direct our opinions, or we simply go with the whims of our personal biases, without awareness of how little we know about a topic. As I am human like anyone else, I sometimes find myself saying something and then quickly realising that I cannot be confident that it is correct. I therefore attempt to differentiate between subjects which I have more familiarity (and therefore more confidence in my opinions), and others in which I am still more open, in recognition of how little I truly know.
We human beings are not always as rational as we like to think we are:
I would really love to participate in creating positive change in the world, hence why I write. When I first started researching and writing on spirituality and religion I quite naively thought that if I could lay out a series of well-thought out and well supported arguments, that most people would happily change their beliefs in accordance with the new evidence and arguments. Of course, I now know that this simply isn’t the case.
Theoretically of course, all human beings are capable of changing their thoughts, beliefs (which are deeply entrenched thoughts), states of being (mental, emotional and spiritual states) and behaviour. Realistically though, change is often much more difficult than we expect. In my last article (on Trauma and the Ego[i]) I mentioned that even when we are at least partially aware of our own issues, it can feel like we are trying everything without succeeding.
Largely though, most humans are unaware how little they know. We tend to prefer the confidence of false certainty to the uncertainty of the vast unknown. Take religion for example. How many religious believers have really, truly evaluated their sacred beliefs? How many have truly sought to investigate the facts and compare different opinions to see who has the best explanations? Even still, I often say: “it isn’t necessarily how much you read, but what you read”. That is, even with a sincere attempt to come to understand a topic, one still has to encounter the right people, books or schools of thought at the right time.
Also, human beings tend to naturally gravitate to reading sources that validate their unconscious (or even conscious) biases. Hence, I frequently discover when debating religion that others have never really read outside of their own tradition. Taking Christianity as an example, most Christians only ever investigate other religions by reading the works of other Christians. Likewise, they tend to only encounter criticisms of their own faith by reading works of other Christians (called apologists) seeking to refute such claims.
I have recently been re-reading my friend D.N. Boswell’s series of posts on Christmas and parallels in Egyptian religion (“In Winter Shall it Be”[ii]), along with various articles and videos on the subject by those who do not share our perspective. It is extraordinary to see how much confidence is expressed by those who really seem to know almost nothing about the topic. Even more extraordinary is the disparaging way they relate to those they disagree with, seemingly unaware of their own ignorance on the matter.
How much is this also so when it comes to other highly volatile and divisive subjects such as politics? How many people have truly examined politics in enough detail to be confident of their opinions? Furthermore, how many of us are truly aware of the depth of our own bias? There are highly educated people on all sides and they can’t all be equally correct. Hence, even when we are well versed in relevant facts and arguments, our own ability to translate evidence and reason into conclusions is still limited by our humanity, which naturally includes our own fallibility.
Consensus and alternative views:
There are many subjects in which there exists a common census or mainstream narrative, and other narratives that are considered to be alternative, fringe, conspiracy or crank views. It is all too easy to make fun of people with alternative perspectives, such as believers in a flat-earth. The sheer scale of conspiracy that would be required for this to be so is truly staggering. It is likewise all too easy to get angry with neo-Nazis who deny the holocaust. In this example we can clearly see that such people are simply motivated by irrational hatred.
However, there are countless examples of subjects in which there is a perspective that does not necessarily deserve to be considered a consensus, and also compelling alternative views that do not necessarily deserve to be dismissed as mere crank. In giving some examples here I will no doubt find some areas of disagreement with my readers, as it is highly unlikely that anyone reading this will agree with all of my views.
The philosophy of metaphysical naturalism is considered to be a consensus worldview in Western science and medicine (which is really a field of science). As such, all belief in spirituality and the supernatural is considered by many to be crank. And yet, many people (such as myself) have had experiences that have convinced us of the reality of spirituality. Likewise, we also find much evidence outside ourselves that appears to us to support our personal experiences. As such we have no choice but to hold a perspective that goes against what some consider to be established facts.
On a related sub-topic, many scientists and philosophers have argued that Quantum Mechanics (QM for short) has unavoidable philosophical consequences, which refute the basic presumptions of materialism/metaphysical naturalism, and naturally imply support for a spiritual worldview. However, whilst this view has been put forth by many prominent names in physics, there is a mainstream consensus that completely disagrees, and considers such things to be crank science or bad philosophy.
Regarding the history of planet earth, there has long been a consensus view that human civilisation has only really appeared in the last 6,000 or so years (therefore beginning around 4,000BCE). This view points to Sumer, Egypt and India as examples of the earliest human civilisations. However, there also exists a field of alternative archaeology, in which many have argued that human civilisation goes well back into the last Ice Age, and beyond.
One well-known example in this field is Graham Hancock[iii]. I first became aware of Graham Hancock when I encountered his book “Underworld”[iv] in a bookstore, back around 2005 (and this was actually the very discovery that started my thirst for reading). In this book he argued that there was overwhelming evidence of a worldwide Ice-Age civilisation that largely disappeared in a global cataclysm at the end of the last Ice Age. Hancock has argued that the end of the last Ice Age was spurred on by meteorites melting large ice sheets, bringing on a sudden rise in sea levels and destroying the cities that were built close to the shoreline.
On the front cover of Underworld was a photo of what is known as the “Yonaguni Monument”, an underwater rock formation that bears almost irrefutable signs of human design. And yet, the consensus view appears to be that it is a natural formation. As such, Hancock (along with others) is considered by many to be nothing more than a crank, a pseudo-archaeologist. I obviously do not have the knowledge to be able to properly evaluate all of Hancock’s claims. From my own casual observations however, I suspect he is correct about many things that go against the mainstream view, though probably not everything. As such, I again find myself forced to go against what is considered to be a mainstream perspective and consider views that are commonly ridiculed as being unworthy of serious discussion.
Often all it takes is for someone to imply that a belief or perspective is hilariously stupid or motivated by hate, and such views are rejected without discussion. Whilst this can be understandable in some cases, it is ultimately a dangerous precedent, as it prevents us from considering information that might shatter illusions that we consider to be truths. Hence, this is a bad habit we suffer from that prevents growth in many significant areas of human understanding.
I couldn’t count the amount of times I have seen people simply laugh off the topic of UFO’s, seemingly unaware of the body of evidence that exists, and the often absurd explanations that are used to reject them. Likewise, those of us that do not believe in a historical Jesus have become accustomed to being denounced as ignorant and even hateful (Bart Ehrman has compared Mythicism to Holocaust denial[v]).
My point in all of this is that we cannot always rely upon mainstream consensus to provide us with sensible, well-educated and well-thought-out perspectives on life. Human bias extends into all fields of study, from laymen to academics. Whilst formal study has its undeniable benefits, there is also value to being at least partially self-educated, or at the very least, aware of views outside the mainstream. There are countless laymen (and women) who have made valuable contributions to a field, despite lacking in formal qualifications.
We live in a curious age, whereby anybody can pull out a smartphone and do a quick search on any topic and have instant access to a wide variety of information and views. Of course the Internet is full of garbage, sources that are simply not worth your time to read. And yet, the Internet is also a treasure-chest, containing works by many brilliant but otherwise unknown authors (the perfect example being my friend D.N. Boswell).
So, my point here is not to suggest that all views are inherently equal. Clearly there is a vast difference in the quality of different minds, in their ability to apply reason and provide evidence to support their contentions. Anybody that has attempted to engage in any form of debating would know that not everybody argues on the same level. Furthermore, many people seem to be completely unaware of the fact that they are not at the same level as others (see the Dunning-Kruger effect[vi]).
True wisdom begins with an acknowledgement of our own ignorance:
My point is simply that we need to be more cautious about assuming complete knowledge. Let us not see human civilisation as standing at the pinnacle of thousands of years of growth, but rather as standing at the foundation of great possibilities. That is, perhaps we are still at Kindergarten in the grand scheme of things, just starting out as a self-aware species, starting to learn about the grand mysteries of the Cosmos. We can therefore benefit from humility in the face of the unfathomable richness and complexity of life.
Many great minds have noted that the beginning of wisdom is the recognition of how little we truly know, or even could know. A human life of a mere 100 years is simply not long enough to gain complete knowledge (by regular means at least[vii]) of all the workings of the universe.
Perhaps therefore, we could all benefit by having more sympathy for those we disagree with. Perhaps we can attempt to be more cautious about what we claim to be true. Perhaps we can find awe in uncertainty, wonder in the continuous unfolding of the mystery of life. Perhaps we can re-discover joy in becoming childlike, constantly learning more about this marvellous experience we call life.
May all beings find happiness, health and prosperity/contentment.
[v] “”There are people out there who don’t think the Holocaust happened, there wasn’t a lone JFK assassin and Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.,” Ehrman says. “Among them are people who don’t think Jesus existed.””
[vii] There are of course many reported experiences of individuals gaining “intuitive knowledge”, either spontaneously or through various practices and methods. There are even examples of individuals who have been claimed to have had access to almost infinite knowledge through spiritual means (for example Neem Karoli Baba, the master of Ram Dass and Krishna Dass, to name of a few of his well known students).
“Truth isn’t always found halfway between two competing perspectives; but it often is”.
I have written a number of times before on relative truth vs. absolute truth, and what I wish to say today is built upon that. For the benefit of anyone that doesn’t know my perspective on this already, here is a quick summary of my conclusions relating to the use of relative and absolute truth:
– There are
many undeniable examples of situations that naturally demand the use of
relative conceptions of truth.
– Likewise,
there are many undeniable examples of situations that naturally demand the use
of absolute conceptions of truth.
– Furthermore, there are many undeniable examples of situations that naturally demand we accept an absolute truth as a big picture or ideal, with innumerable relative truths enveloped within it.
For me, the above is simply common sense. There are however, many people that will dispute my conclusions here. Without going too deeply into the topic here today, I will give just a few brief examples to make my case.
Firstly, regarding relativity, personal tastes in food, music, art, theatre & movies, interest in particular sports, perceptions of temperature, beauty etc. are obviously relative. That is, one cannot clearly state in objective terms that one musical artist is outright better than another in terms of their overall musicality. You may state that one is objectively better in technical terms (i.e. their technical abilities, their use of musical theory/harmony/rhythm etc.); however superior technical ability doesn’t always lead to superior musicality (and often it leads to the opposite). Hence, this should simply be common sense.
Likewise, it is not hard to find examples of absolutes. A rock is a solid (at least in it’s macroscopic sense), not a gas or liquid. An on/off light switch is either on or off. Basic mathematical equations only have one correct answer. One can of course find an endless list of examples. Again, this should simply be common sense.
Finally, if one seeks to form a big picture view of science (i.e. a “theory of everything”), one would have to seek to harmonise many different fields of study, that naturally at some point present contradictions. For example, it is well known in physics that there are problems in harmonising general relativity with quantum theory. Due to some incompatibilities between them, it is generally accepted that they are both only relatively truth (i.e. neither of them is a complete, absolutely true description of reality).
Hence, scientists (and philosophers) are seeking a greater description of reality that harmonises all the smaller perspectives. So, scientists hold the conception of an absolute truth (which they are seeking), but they recognise that their current theories are only relatively true.
The only real attempts I’ve seen at refuting this perspective is that a number people I have discussed this with have attempted to deny the existence of relative truths by dismissing them as “useful lies”; i.e. things that aren’t true, but are useful nevertheless. Personally I find this to be simply playing semantics. Simply renaming relative truth doesn’t refute it.
I have also heard individuals trying to deride this perspective by labelling it post-modernism or cultural-Marxism. I would simply respond that this perspective pre-dates and exists independent of both post-modernism and Marxism[i], and can just as easily lend itself to their critique. I am not condoning the abandonment of all absolute values (i.e. pure relativism). However, it should be obvious that there is room for some relativity in our worldview.
Hence, I consider all I have written above to easily verifiable. When you think it is through, it is common sense. We all make use of both relative and absolute concepts of truth in our practical lives. However, in theoretical matters it is often overlooked, which brings me to the topic of today’s post.
I believe that to be able to see the world as it really is, you must be able to consider multiple perspectives, and integrate truths from multiple views into a larger understanding. Again, whilst there are indeed examples where truth lies largely (or even entirely) on one side of a debate, it is far, far more common to find that both sides of a dispute have at least some partial truth on their side. This is not to say that it is always 50/50; rather it can be 60/40, 70/30, 80/20 etc.
Please note that I do not take this approach in order to try to please everybody. In fact, it often has the exact opposite affect. It is no secret that my personal spiritual/religious and political views generally lean left-of-centre. However, I find things on both sides of religion and politics that I believe can be improved. I have found in the past that my opinions are sometimes no more popular amongst those also on the left than those on the right. So, my view is not motivated by an attempt at popularity.
Likewise, it is not simply sitting on the fence, or being unable to make up ones mind. Obviously in the case of a political election you have to make decisions as to whom you choose to vote for. However, in general life we are under no obligation to “pick a side” and run with it. Life is not football; we do not simply have to choose who to support and then stick with them through thick and thin.
Taking note of my original summary of relative and absolute
truths, I would hope my readers understand I am not supporting full-blown
relativism. That is, we need not reject
all notions of objectivity and declare all things equal, all views equally true
or anything like that. Likewise, not all
views deserve equal treatment. Quite
simply, there are certain views (like the “Flat-Earth” theory), which by their
very nature do not deserve equal treatment.
However, there are often theories and perspectives that are considered
well out of the mainstream, which are
indeed worthy of consideration.
I have noted before that human beings are often way to quick to consider themselves to have reached a final conclusion. Our egos often find comfort in false certainty, believing we already understand something when in fact we do not. We look into the world and witness a situation unfolding, and prematurely conclude that it is always so.
Furthermore, confirmation bias leads us to color our perception of the world in such a way as to look for evidence of things we already believe to be true. Even in terms of normal psychology, this leads us to misperceive reality and take relative and limited truths to be far-reaching, and even absolute.
In some spiritual circles there is even talk that reality is structured in such a way as to (objectively) bring us evidence of the things we think about, so that our beliefs becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, with the universe constantly giving us evidence to support them. Even in a materialistic worldview it can be seen that our preconceived beliefs project out into the world and affect our relationships, our health, our happiness, and our overall success in life.
So, I would argue that in many – if not most – topics of discussion and dispute one can raise, there are at least some valid points to be found on more than one side. I will give some quite basic examples below to demonstrate how this can operate to allow people to hold grossly biased views.
Starting with politics, it is rare that those on the left and right sides of the political spectrum agree with each other on anything other than very basic general concepts. It is rarer still that they are civil and polite in their discourse with one another, as both sides view each other as the cause of the problems of the world. How many of us can enter a political debate without being swept up in the emotion of it? I have been trying for some time, at times succeeding, but often failing.
However, if we step back a bit from our personal bias we
find that most commonly each side has some areas where they are correct, and
others where they are incorrect.
Certainly, the further to the extreme ends of the spectrum you travel, the
more pronounced this becomes.
Karl Marx took examples of wealthy and powerful people taking advantage of common people as his springboard for his complete reaction against individual wealth and power, in favour of communal possession and state power. Ayn Rand did the exact opposite, using her experience of the horrors of full-blown socialism in Russia as a springboard for complete abandonment of social justice and compassion for the disadvantaged.
Obviously it is not that government is good and private businesses are bad, nor is it simply that private businesses are good and government is bad. Such oversimplistic conclusions are absurd. And yet, this is pretty much what the far-left and far-right are thinking and saying.
Any reasonable political theory can therefore recognise that the potential for corruption and abuse will exist in any human institution, and is more of an indication of the lower potential of the human ego rather than indicative of the nature of the institution itself.
And yet, there will naturally be differences in the way that the lower side of the human ego expresses through a government as to how it expresses through a private enterprise. That is, the horrors of a full-blown socialist (or communist) government are not by nature exactly the same as the horrors of a far-right political regime. Therefore, as I see it, any reasonable political theory must seek to balance out competing narratives, competing perspectives. Political theory must balance out communal power with individual power, social conscience with personal freedom etc.
Continuing down the same theme, there are often tensions felt between those who possess less material wealth and power than they need or desire, and those who are in an abundance of both. This is often termed “class warfare”; clashes between the rich and the poor. There are many examples to be found of wealthy people taking advantage of the poor, mistreating and even outright abusing the disadvantaged. Furthermore, there are countless examples whereby wealthy people abandon any consideration of morals and ethics in their quest for wealth and power. In modern times we can see how, blinded by greed, many have waged war against human, animal and plant life, and even the planet itself.
Hence, many have (I think, incorrectly) concluded that abandonment of morality is essential for the pursuit of material abundance. This is a common theme in religious and philosophical works, with many obvious examples. The New Testament is ripe with statements that condemn wealth and promote asceticism, and the Tao Te Ching speaks repeatedly against the abuses of the rich and powerful, just for two obvious examples. Many spiritual seekers renounce all material possessions (some even going as far as renouncing their clothing!) in pursuit of spiritual perfection. And of course, outside of religious contexts, there is often a great deal of jealousy and hatred projected against the wealthy by the poor.
And yet many of the wealthiest and most powerful people across history are in fact among the most inspirational, brilliant and generous of our species. Through the persistence and grand vision of many who have gained great success, humanity as a whole is uplifted. Many people gain exceptional wealth, power and success because they are exceptional human beings who rose above what was, dreamed big, worked hard and held faith in themselves. Some of the greatest assistance to the poor is given by those who possess financial freedom, and work to inspire others to the same end.
At the other end of the scale, many people experience
poverty as the results of war, famine, gross abuses of power and injustices
(like slavery, tyrannical governments etc.), rigid hereditary class systems, or
simple misfortune (injury, sickness, disease etc.). Clearly we see many people living in poverty
as being victims of the actions of others, the forces of nature or simple
misfortune.
There are many people in positions of moderate or extreme wealth that despise the poor, seeing them as lazy, ignorant and immoral. Whilst I of course do not support such conclusions, there are indeed many examples whereby people suffer as a result of their own poor choices. Many people do indeed explicitly bring about their own poverty, their own disease and unhappiness. Also, just as there is class snobbery from the upper classes towards the lower, the opposite is also true. Often the poor snub the rich, the uneducated snub the educated, and the immoral snub the moral.
Of course it would be absurd to make oversimplistic conclusions such as wealthy people are immoral, or poor people all deserve to live in poverty. Such conclusions are quite distasteful. And yet, we need not look far to find examples which show that this is indeed how many people think. These may be extremely crude examples, but they are real life examples. This is how the human ego is capable of expressing itself.
Onto a different example, I have met (and know) many people that have been deeply wounded by people of the opposite sex, and have gone on to hold deep resentment – or even anger and hatred – towards the opposite sex. The sad irony about this situation is that such people are often blind to the hypocrisy in their perspective, as they are themselves what they are accusing the other of. This is again true in so many other fields of dispute, where people hold highly negative views of others, and yet cannot see the negativity in themselves that they project outwardly.
Obviously, it is not simply that women are good and men are bad, nor is the opposite true. However, there are many men who hate women, and likewise, there are also many women who hate men. This is a vicious cycle, as women who hate men are taken as the justification for men hating women, and vice versa.
What I am about to say requires a great deal of sensitivity,
but it does nevertheless need to be said, and I will emphasise it here:
Often, self-identification
as a victim leads an individual or group to make victims of others, projecting
the role of oppressor onto others.
Now, if this triggers and/or offends you, please allow me to explain a little here. It is important that we tread carefully here and take this slow. Obviously, many, many people do have the experience of being victims of abuse and injustice. I am not questioning this. However, when someone – or a group of people – takes the experience and creates a self-image as a victim (i.e. “This is who I am, I am a victim” – “This is who we are – we are victims”), they often then start to color their perception and experience of the world with this belief.
Obviously, it should go without saying that not everyone who suffers at the hands of others then goes on to inflict suffering upon others in explicit ways. I am not encouraging victim blaming or anything like that. However, I am cautioning against taking on the self-image of a victim. For people that suffer through extreme traumatic events this is often easier said than done. This could obviously be quite infuriating when outsiders simply tell them not to take it on board. It is always easier to solve personal problems as an outsider, than it is to solve them when you are intimately involved with them.
Having noted this, it should be said that many people (and
groups of people) that commit great atrocities do so under the belief that they
are the persecuted minority, and that they are simply seeking justice for past
and present injustices. As an extreme
example, a large number of terrorists think this way. The white nationalist terrorists who murdered
51 people (and injured another 49) in New Zealand on the 15th of
March 2019 saw themselves as defenders of European civilization, at war with
Islam. Likewise, the Islamic terrorists
that murdered 130 people in Paris on the 13th of November 2015 saw
themselves as victims, fighting against the oppression of the Christian West.
Obviously though again, I am not suggesting that everyone who has suffered at the hands of another and has found themselves plagued by ongoing trauma is therefore a terrorist. However, identification as a victim often leads to us making victims of others, and projecting the role of oppressor onto others, and then acting towards them as if we are at war and are simply defending ourselves. Often this occurs in much more subtle ways than those listed above, in families or workplaces.
Sometimes we project a grossly oversimplistic lens onto a subject, which is by its very nature multi-faceted. For example, let us ask the question whether Christians are generally persecuted for their religion, or are they generally the persecutors? Obviously, the evidence shows that the correct answer is both. That is, there is extensive evidence for both ends of the scale. And yet, there are many people that will argue for only one end of the stick, compiling evidence for their case, and ignoring all the evidence that supports the opposite conclusion. Hence, in this case the question itself is inadequate, and naturally skews the data.
I did not simply conclude that Christians are both persecuted and persecutors simply because I was unwilling to make my mind up. Nor did I conclude it to try and please everybody. I reached that conclusion because that is what the evidence shows, and I am not personally invested in either defending or attacking Christianity[ii]. And yet, I have repeatedly seen countless people approaching the subject of religious persecution with distinct bias and irreverence for the facts (and I plan on publishing an article on this subject alone at some point).
Likewise, we can say something similar about Islam (but again, not necessarily in exactly the same way, and to the same degree etc.). That is, there are innumerable examples of Muslims both being persecuted and being the persecutor. And yet, anyone with any degree of familiarity with public discussions about Islam should be able to attest that a large number of voices on the subject speak only for one side alone, as if it were a game of football and you simply had to pick a side. I see comparatively few balanced discussions about Islam and religious persecution, and an abundance of one-sided opinions, on both sides.
Furthermore, discussions about Islam are some of the ugliest around, again from both sides. It is very common for people (and groups of people) to shout down any discussion of the topic that doesn’t immediately confirm to their preconceptions. Of course, when talking about subjects like religious violence and terrorism, persecution, bigotry and racism, these are naturally loaded topics. And yet, we cannot expect to make progress unless we can hold more constructive discussions on important topics.
As a final example, let us ask the question whether conquered nations benefit from the culture of their conquerors? Again, I think a little from column a), and a little from column b) is the correct answer here. Certainly great injustices have occurred throughout the world as war has been waged, and powerful and developed nations have seized new territory. And yet, powerful nations bring with them many advantages, through science, medicine and culture at large.
Again, we find that there are many polarised voices that
only speak to one side of the equation. I
happen to know several white-nationalists, who by their very definition refuse
to acknowledge the injustices committed by our European ancestors against the
indigenous people in America, Australia, New Zealand (etc.). And yet, there are also many voices on the
far-left, which only speak of Western culture in negative terms, and rarely (if
ever) mention the many advantages of Western civilisation.
Of course, one can (and should) both be grateful for our modern life and those that worked to develop all the things we take for granted, and yet also acknowledge the great injustices that our forefathers committed. The two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. It should be common sense that we can (and should) acknowledge both perspectives here and harmonise them into a bigger picture. And yet, some people do not view it this way.
Again, this does not necessarily mean that both sides are equally correct or equally false, or that the truth lies necessarily exactly halfway between the two extreme views. I am here suggesting that too often we make up our mind way to quick, and become stubborn and unmoving in holding to our preconceptions. So often, more in-depth study is required to understand a subject properly. Hence, it has often been said:
“The wise recognise
how little they know, whilst the foolish consider themselves wise.”
Ego compels us to define ourselves through fixed beliefs and association with large groups (i.e. political perspectives and parties, religious perspectives and institutions, sports teams, music genres, national and racial identity etc.) Psychological and spiritual evolution therefore involves expanding and even abandoning rigid self-concepts, seeing the freedom in being flexible and open. This doesn’t necessarily mean abandonment of all knowledge and institutions, but rather a releasing of the solidity and rigidity with which we define ourselves through them.
I would like to restate that I have given fairly blunt examples above, but the same conclusions also apply for subtler, everyday examples. The same dynamics are at play in the interactions between partners, siblings, parents and children, friends and work colleagues etc. We can all grow through giving the benefit of the doubt to others, stopping to consider their perspective and question our own.
As stated earlier, we often see or experience something a certain way at one time, give it some thought and then see more evidence to support it. Often our family, culture, media, government or religion teaches us a certain perspective, and then this conditioning taints our perception of the world. We then start believing in it, and hold it to be true.
This is how many negative perspectives on life begin. People then say: “Men are like this – women are like that, white people are all like this – black people are all like that, Christians are all like this – Atheists are all like that, “lefties” are all like this – conservatives are all like that” etc. This is how all forms of bigotry begin. To heal these aberrations we need to take a step back and put our conditioning aside, and consider multiple perspectives.
Whilst human beings do often over-complicate things, we also often over-simplify things, giving ourselves the illusion of certainty when in truth the reality is over our heads. We live in a vast, vast world, and we experience only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction (etc.) of reality. I don’t say this to diminish the human race. Rather, the vastness of reality should inspire deep awe within us, motivating us to evolve and move forward, rather than stubbornly justify how we are and have been.
Of course, as I have stated before, I am certainly no exception to the rule in what I have written here today. Certainly, through my spiritual practice I have been blessed with the experience of an expansion of my sense of self. However, I am as human as anyone else.
Whilst we should acknowledge our feelings and find healthy expressions for them (rather than suppress them), we are capable of transcending the patterns of belief and behaviour that we accept as normal. We have as yet no real idea of what we are truly capable of. Whilst there are some that feel that what I am speaking here is unrealistic and creates unnecessary stress in aiming for unattainable ideals, I feel that to speak anything less would be doing a disservice.
Certainly we need to start where we are, and I am not suggesting or condoning a harsh attitude towards oneself or others for simply thinking and behaving in ways that are common for our race. In fact, I am suggesting we all need to be far gentler on both others and ourselves. However, we can approach all beings with love (including ourselves), whilst also seeking to call out the irrational beliefs that sustain bigotry and hold us back from realising our potential, both as individuals and as a species. To aim for anything less would be setting the bar too low, which is generally self-fulfilling, as when you don’t know there is anything better you are less likely to strive for more.
May we speak the truth with love, be kind to all beings and
seek out a greater perspective of life that accounts for all the experiences
and perspectives in this vast, beautiful world.
Peace.
[i] For example, there are many passages in Yogic literature that discuss the need for multiple perspectives, both relative and absolute truths:
“Although Creation is discerned as not real for the one who has achieved the goal (liberation), it is yet real in that Creation remains the common experience to others.” Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, 2:22, circa 4th century CE or earlier.
[ii]
Rather, I would argue that I seek to take a reasonable and balanced approach
towards seeing both the positive and negative sides of Christianity. I have a significant number of Christian
friends and family, and I see a great number of them as inspirations, as
examples of people living truly healthy, balanced lives. I actually even listen to a lot of Christian
music, and not just Christian rock and pop (some praise and worship as well, along
with spiritual music from other cultures and New Age music). I’ll talk more about this in a future
article.
Dear friends, there is so much that could be said on so many topics, but this topic is of the most vital importance to everything and everyone. Human beings have achieved vast attainments in the fields of science, learning about the workings of cells, molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles. We have developed medicines and vaccines to combat diseases that used to wipe out large portions of the population. We have learned how to generate electricity through various methods, and developed a myriad of technologies using this electricity, which supplement our earthly life, making survival relatively easy (for many of us) and providing luxury and entertainment.
We have developed exquisite works of art, composed fine music in a myriad of genres and styles to suit practically everyone’s taste, built beautiful works of architecture, developed numerous styles of cooking through which the simple act of taking in sustenance for survival has become more about pleasure than nutrition (even when the food is still nutritious) and so forth. And yet, so many of us live without really knowing love, and without taking care for ourselves and our fellow travellers. Now, this last bit applies not just to other humans, but also to the vast network of life on this planet, the animals and plants, and the environment which allows all of this to be; the air, the oceans and rivers and the ground beneath our feet.
Despite all the admirable achievements of mankind, we have not achieved a technological utopia, nor found real lasting happiness through our external prosperity. Certainly the ease in which we sustain ourselves has enabled us to be free of much of the physical pain and degeneration that plagued mankind up to recent times, and yet modern man is plagued by diseases of the mind, leading us into confusion, lethargy, hatred, fear, bigotry, perversion and war. The outward effects of our inward state is self-evident and can be seen everywhere, from the way we treat ourselves, to how we treat others, to our abuses of animals and our careless destruction of the plant and mineral kingdoms, to the pollution we release into the air, into the water and into the earth itself, the very things that are essential for the sustaining of all life on this planet. This need not be so.
We need to live with care and show love for all life. The very first place to start is of course with ourselves. Whilst there may be areas in our lives in which we may appear to be powerless to change, for nearly all of us there are countless things we can do that will produce immediate results to change our way of being. We need to know that we are not merely slaves to our external environment; that is, our happiness is not merely dependent upon the things that are beyond our control. Rather, true happiness emerges from knowing the pure awareness that is our true Self, the ever-shining light from which there is no fluctuation into darkness. From this space we can face the challenges of our external lives with clarity, peace, love and wisdom.
From a place of inner peace it is only natural that one would seek to uplift others, and contribute towards the highest good of all beings, all things, all life. Hence, here lies the very core problem that drives the mistreatment of our bodies and minds, other human beings, animals, plant life and the earth and the elements. That is, most human beings do not know their true Self, but rather only know themselves as their ego. As the ego we are fragile, fickle creatures that try to drag others down to uplift ourselves, competing for limited resources and wealth, holding onto grudges and painful memories, storing guilt, fear and hatred inside our bodies and minds. We make ourselves sick by what we think and feel (feeling being largely a result of what we think), what we eat and what we release into the air, water and earth. We project this sickness outwards into the world, spreading the very unhappiness that begins within the soul. However, this need not be so.
Hence, let us begin by treating ourselves with care, finding true healing within and thus becoming the beings we are destined to be. Life has an incredible capacity to develop in infinite ways, evolving or degenerating in different directions. We need to wake up and reclaim our true power and contribute positively towards life as a whole. First, we can find that wholeness within ourselves, and live every moment with vitality, clarity and true joy. From this inner place we will live lives filled with wisdom, inspiration and genius, love, compassion, grace and forgiveness, strength, humility and resilience.
This world is crying out for healing, for forgiveness and unity. We need to reach out to our families, our co-workers, and our communities and offer guidance and love to those that need it (and we can be assured that there are plenty in need). Beyond our immediate circles we need to reach out to other people in other lands, people who may have different philosophical, religious or political affiliation to us. We do not need to lay aside our own beliefs in order to aspire towards unity amongst diversity. We need to reverse the norms of the past, whereby differences of opinion have created the belief that others are our adversaries. In truth, all men are our brothers, all women our sisters. Let us show this in our actions, not merely in moments of ethical idealism.
Let us show care for the animal kingdom as well. Human beings seem to be confused as to the sentience of other forms of life. Many seem to believe that animals are not conscious, or at least they act as if they are not. It is almost as if we treat animals like AI robots, moving about with no real intelligence or capacity for feeling. The truth is obviously that animals are very much alive and conscious, though no doubt their perception of themselves and the world is different from our own. Whilst human beings certainly stand apart from the animal kingdom in so many ways, the animal world is rich with beauty, love, creativity, intelligence and so many things that show animals lead a meaningful existence of their own, not merely as the background for our own existence. Are not animals also our brothers and sisters? Are we not all part of a greater family, all sharing this beautiful environment as part of the great continuum of life?
Let us therefore treat them with kindness and dignity. Let us only take their life when driven by genuine need, for nutrition (just for the record, I am vegetarian), self-defence, environmental protection and so forth. Let us cease the murder of living things for mere sport and trophies. Where farming of animals is necessary, let us treat them with respect, giving them room to move about and live with decency, not merely as slaves existing to satisfy human greed. May we move towards open-range zoos and end the practice of keeping majestic creatures trapped in miniscule cages, which are always barely a shadow of their natural environment. To our credit, there are many wonderful men and women (and children) who care deeply about animals, and have devoted themselves to their care and preservation.
Furthermore, human beings are even more confused about the plant kingdom. We largely seem to think that plants are completely unconscious, as if they weren’t really alive. Clearly this is not so. The plant kingdom is alive and contributes much to the life of this planet. Obviously we human beings are dependent on so much of the plant kingdom for our resources, and this need not change. Fortunately, there are many great souls who campaign unceasingly to protect plant life and preserve the great beauty and richness that they bring to all life on earth.
Regarding the elements of our earth environment itself, human beings have treated them like some sort of infinite junkyard for the best part of the last several hundred years, and it is really starting to take its toll. We release numerous toxins into the air; in some parts of China simply breathing the air makes all the inhabitants the equivalent of heavy smokers. We have released countless toxic substances into the oceans, both deliberately and through numerous environmental disasters, such as oil spills or the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima. Plastic is clogging up our oceans, poisoning and even killing various species of fish and sea-birds, leaving humanity with the question of how on earth we are going to clean it up?
We have filled the earth with garbage, cut down trees, and released numerous toxins into the soil, with long-lived consequences. It is clear that we cannot simply continue doing these things. Not only must we stop with the crimes against nature, but also we must find a way to reverse our impact upon our environment, clean the air, clean the waters and clean the earth.
Whilst we should all be grateful for the resourcefulness of the human mind and the hard work performed by so many in our business and commerce world, many in these fields (and also in the wider community) seem to think that they are islands, living solely by their own self-effort. That is, many seem to be blind to the grace that is bestowed on them by their environment, without which they could not sustain themselves. We are all dependent upon the air that we breathe, the water that we drink and the earth from which our food is dependent (whether we are omnivores or herbivores).
To their credit, there are many wonderful beings that devote themselves to attempting to protect the earth, the oceans and the atmosphere. Unfortunately, as with other issues, there are also those who devote themselves to fighting against the efforts of intelligent and decent people who are seeking to right the various wrongs committed by humanity. Whilst there are some legitimate problems with mainstream progressive politics[i], and whilst I have spoken out against far-left political theory[ii], it is largely political conservatism that stands opposed to real progress in taking care for ourselves, other humans, animals, plants and the earth environment[iii].
Conservatives seek to block many attempts to lessen injustices and the suffering of other human beings, considering many such attempts to simply be indistinguishable from Communism. Conservatism largely defends the human institutions that inflict harm upon animals, and resists attempts to reform such institutions to consider the livelihood of the animal kingdom. Likewise, conservatism largely defends the institutions that inflict harm upon nature, upon plants, the land itself, the air and the rivers, lakes and oceans, and resists attempts to create new norms whereby we treasure the plant kingdom and the elements of our earth environment.
Whereas we desperately need to not only stop desecrating nature and seek to actively repair much of the damage that we have done, conservatives rally against any such attempts under the claim that environmentalists are seeking to curb human prosperity. Obviously human beings do indeed need to alter nature in many ways in order to evolve human civilization. We do need to take food from both the animal and plant kingdom (or perhaps only the plant kingdom…?), and we need various resources like water, timber, metals and other minerals. We need to generate electricity, and we need to build infrastructure and so forth.
So, what we need to do is find a balance between human civilization and the preservation of nature. We need a sustainable middle ground between expansion and conservation. I personally do not see how anybody can possibly disagree that we have gone way too far in the direction of expansion, at the expense of human injustice and great crimes against nature and her numerous expressions of life (though I do know people that do indeed contest this conclusion). From where I am standing this is self-evidence; irrefutable.
Unfortunately some conservatives think that the exact opposite is the case; that environmentalists and other left-wing activists have gone way too far in restricting human activity. I must say that I find such claims to be ultimately defending some of the greatest evils of mankind. Human rights activists have won many battles in giving the same rights and freedoms to all people, though there are indeed many legitimate battles left to wage. Environmentalists and various other activists have achieved many great things worldwide, but they have not stemmed the growth of human impact upon the myriad of life forms on this planet. Rather, it is undeniable that negative human impact upon the continuum of life has increased consistently, despite the best efforts of many righteous men and women.
I don’t take any great pleasure in critiquing conservative political ideology, and I am not afraid to concede the many flaws on the left. However, it is simply undeniable that political conservatism stands as one of the main barriers to achieving justice, equity, freedom and sustainability for all forms of life on this exquisitely beautiful planet that we call home. We need all people to lay aside their ideological attachments and really consider the significance of what we are facing. We must care for life in all its wondrous expressions, and we must be willing to act in accordance with the highest good for all.
Now, I would like to point out that we do not have to take all this personally. Some might feel I am coming across a bit preachy and holier than thou in writing all this. I would like to make it clear however that I am not seeking to put myself up personally on a pedestal in these matters. These are issues where I personally also need to learn and evolve, just like everyone else. This is as much for me as it is for everyone else. If someone points out that the way we behave causes suffering or has some negative affect on the whole of life, we do not need to take this as a personal attack. Rather, we should humbly remain open to constructive criticism of the ways things have been, open to changing our beliefs and behaviour when necessary to contribute towards a better world for all beings, and all life.
A number of notable public figures have made very strongly worded statements regarding human impact on animal life and the environment. In response I have seen some people take these statements personally, as if these warnings about the adverse affects of human activity derided every single noteworthy achievement of mankind, or our very worth, our very existence. This need not be so. One can (and should) recognize both the strengths and weaknesses of humanity; one need not necessarily contradict the other.
Human beings have many things to be rightly proud of. Likewise however, there are many things that we should not be proud of, and many things that require urgent action on a worldwide scale to correct. Humanity has its strengths and its weaknesses, and whilst we should celebrate our strengths, our weaknesses are creating suffering and injustice on many levels. To not care about this and/or not be willing to take action against these serious issues goes against our very soul, it goes against life itself.
I have at times encountered religious propaganda which considers environmentalism to be simply worship of nature, and thus blasphemy. Care and love for all creation is not blasphemy, it does not deny the Creator, but rather honours It. To the contrary, it is simply self-deceit to believe one can love God but not love and respect for God’s creation. Hence, religious (and political) conservatives that care not for the great crimes we commit against our beautiful home and its many creatures must be called out (with grace) for the hypocrisy of their views. That is, let us not get involved in personal disputes with individuals and make personal attacks against those who uphold injustice on religious (or political) ideological grounds. Rather, let us still treat them as brothers and sisters, albeit heavily misguided, whereby the stakes are so high that we must point out the error in their ways with forceful grace.
Ultimately, we human beings are falling prey to arrogance and short-sightedness if we believe we are so superior, and yet we fail to care for our fellow humans, for the animal and plant kingdoms, and the very elements necessary for all life on (and around) this planet. We are ultimately victims to a great myth, in thinking that we are the only truly sentient beings on this planet. Hence, great violence has been done with the belief that we alone are truly alive. If anyone seeks to dispute this I would recommend you watch some modern nature documentaries (such as those produced by David Attenborough). Life expresses itself in a virtually infinite variety of ways, all of which have a form of intelligence that is appropriate for its expression. Life is everywhere, in everything. This is the wondrous reality of life.
Finally, from an explicitly spiritual perspective, I would point out that all life is animated by One divine power, vast, infinite consciousness that gives life to all, and brings unspeakable peace and love when it is experienced directly. Such a thing may sound like a fantasy to those that have never experienced it directly, and one could be excused for thinking it is merely a theoretical metaphysical doctrine, the result of speculation and philosophical musing. The fact is however, that countless beings from all works of life, cultures and lands across time have experienced this directly, and allowed this vast intelligence and love to express through them, becoming illuminated through the process. I myself have been blessed with a degree of direct experience of this reality, and hence naturally wish to share the experience with others, and speak from the perspective that this gives.
Let us truly show respect for life by doing everything with care, with attention, wisdom and love.
Peace.
[i] The influence of unions, as they are well known for thuggish behaviour (though they also have contributed positive things as well), lack of precision regarding comparative religion (thinking all religions are equal and that all problems in religion are simply the result of misinterpretation), unwillingness to face problems of violence amongst particular ethnic groups for fear of being considered racist etc.
[ii] I.e. pure Socialism and Communism, violent public protests and interference with public demonstrations of others (see ANTIFA), radical feminism (emphasis on the radical part; intelligent, reasonable feminism has achieved great things in Western civilization thus far, and is still needed – even more so in many non-Western nations), radical gender theory (again, emphasis on the radical part; I have previously written in support of the rights of the LGBTI community, it’s just that I also recognise that some of the theories that are popular amongst the far-left university elite can get pretty wacky) etc.
[iii] Though we should also concede that there are more moderate forms of conservatism that may take more reasonable stands on such things.
jameshiscoxblogs 