Tolerance of Intolerance?

The only thing one should ever be intolerant of is intolerance itself. And I hold that sort of intolerance to be a good and necessary thing, and will not apologise for it. Tolerance for viewpoints which espouse intolerance and hatred of others is not a good tolerance! Listening to people who will lead one down 'the wrong path' is not conducive to 'intellectual growth', especially when those viewpoints tend only toward hatred, repression, and intolerance.

.

It is good, naturally, to know what the 'opposition' is thinking (in order to best be able to combat it), and to that extent, it is good to hear 'opposing viewpoints'. One must also consider, as John Stuart Mill rightly pointed out, that it should not be taken for granted that one is always correct in one's opinions, and that--therefore--hearing opposing viewpoints may provide one the "opportunity to exchange truth for error" and so improve one's lot in life. But only an outright moral relativism demands that all opposing viewpoints--however inane or even virulently intolerant--be granted equal weight with more sane viewpoints. This is the really big problem with the American mass media these days. Clearly, some sort of standard, or discretion, is needed, unless we want to forever wander in a morass of "moral relativism." This will only, in the end, allow the evils of hatred and intolerance to triumph and spread their virus-like plague.

.

I am not 'proclaiming' myself as a 'wise teacher' here ... I am very much still a student in this, as in all areas of learning and growth. Any honest human being should always freely admit that. We should always still be learning and growing. But we should never allow ourselves to 'grow' in the direction of any viewpoint or way of thinking which promotes hatred or intolerance of others (save as discussed above). And any self-proclaimed 'teacher' who tries to 'teach' in the direction of hatred and intolerance of others only leads astray, toward the Gates of Hell. And you may be assured that I myself will not follow!

.

Intolerant attitudes, and opinions which promote hatred, should, in my opinion, be rooted out as if they were the Plague! This is how Nazism became possible in Germany in the 1930s--because no-one dared to speak up and combat it. All were apparently afraid of seeming to be "intolerant." As shown above, however, there are indeed some opinions about which one should be "intolerant"--those which promote hatred and persecution of others.

.

I will never be convinced that it is to my advantage--in terms of intellectual growth and learning--to listen to and accept any viewpoint which has as its basis an intolerance and hatred for anyone. Of such viewpoints, I will always hold it right and proper that they should be combated as if they were a deadly alien virus--that one should never give them a moment's room to breathe!

.

As is so often said (but so rarely learned from), if we fail to learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them. Think Nazism here. And it is abundantly clear (or should be) that Nazism succeeded because too many otherwise good and decent people remained silent, and did nothing to combat it, thus allowing it to flourish in their midst, like an insidiously hidden cancer, eating away at the social organism. Instead, they should have exercised a proper intolerance of the virulent hatred by rooting it up, root and branch, and consigning it to the funeral-pyre of history's fatal missteps.

.

As far as concerns each individual human being now alive, there are two basic choices here: one can choose to be on the side of tolerance for those who differ from you, or, one can choose to be intolerant of them. But those who are intolerant of others, and here's the really important part: who also translate that intolerance into official socio-political action and persecution against those who are perceived or thought to be different--they need to be earnestly resisted and fought against!

.

It all 'boils down' to one very basic legal principle, enshrined in both our Constitution and our entire system of jurisprudence:

.

Majorities do not have the moral or legal right to dictate to minorities!

.

John Stuart Mill, already mentioned above, wrote passionately and eloquently against what he termed the "tyranny of the majority," arguing that majorities absolutely do not have the moral or legal right to impose their will on minorities, simply by virtue of superior numbers, or by any self-congratulatory (and often false) sense of moral superiority. Mill's ideas have been enormously influential, and he is often quoted by those among us who love human liberty.

.

Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom understood the idea of human liberty so well, would very much understand what I am saying here, and would certainly agree with it in principle.

.

In a pure democracy (otherwise known as 'mob rule'), yes--majorities do rule, and do dictate their will to unpopular minorities. But this nation is not, and never has been, a pure democracy. This is why we are (ostensibly) a nation of laws--not a nation of majority rule. We are a Republic, a representative democracy, not a pure Democracy. In this nation, we have--in theory at least--the rule of law, not the rule of majorities. Both our laws, as well as our elected representatives, execute the will of the people. But this system has crucially-important safeguards built in, to ensure that minorities and their rights do not get trampled upon.

.

Majorities, can, after all, sometimes be dead wrong, and even very harmful of the minorities they choose to persecute, torture, and even put to death. Think Nazism again here. It is our hallowed Constitution and system of laws which are (again, ostensibly) designed to protect minorities, not only from the tyranny of the government, but from the social tyranny of majorities within society. The founders of this nation, wise and far-seeing as they were, specifically wrote protections into our Constitution and system of laws to protect every single individual human being among us in the free exercise of conscience (provided no other person is harmed in the process)--even though, and especially if, that conscience should prove to be unfashionable with those majorities then in actual power.

.

It is absolutely a venomous and pernicious lie that majorities have any legal or moral right in this nation, under color of law, to impose their will upon dissenting minorities. If that is the case, then we are no longer the freedom-loving United States of America, and must instead call ourselves by some different name--such as "the United Fascist States of America." I am serious here. I am not joking.

Famous Quotes from Aldous Huxley

Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects... totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations. Aldous Huxley

A child-like man is not a man whose development has been arrested; on the contrary, he is a man who has given himself a chance of continuing to develop long after most adults have muffled themselves in the cocoon of middle-aged habit and convention. Aldous Huxley

Chastity - the most unnatural of all the sexual perversions. Aldous Huxley

Children are remarkable for their intelligence and ardor, for their curiosity, their intolerance of shams, the clarity and ruthlessness of their vision. Aldous Huxley

De Sade is the one completely consistent and thoroughgoing revolutionary of history. Aldous Huxley

From their experience or from the recorded experience of others (history), men learn only what their passions and their metaphysical prejudices allow them to learn. Aldous Huxley

I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself. Aldous Huxley

I'm afraid of losing my obscurity. Genuineness only thrives in the dark. Like celery. Aldous Huxley

Idealism is the noble toga that political gentlemen drape over their will to power. Aldous Huxley

If human beings were shown what they're really like, they'd either kill one another as vermin, or hang themselves. Aldous Huxley

It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one's life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than 'try to be a little kinder.' Aldous Huxley

Maybe this world is another planet's hell. Aldous Huxley

My father considered a walk among the mountains as the equivalent of churchgoing. Aldous Huxley

Perhaps it's good for one to suffer. Can an artist do anything if he's happy? Would he ever want to do anything? What is art, after all, but a protest against the horrible inclemency of life? Aldous Huxley

Science has explained nothing; the more we know the more fantastic the world becomes and the profounder the surrounding darkness. Aldous Huxley

Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. Aldous Huxley

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach. Aldous Huxley

The finest works of art are precious, among other reasons, because they make it possible for us to know, if only imperfectly and for a little while, what it actually feels like to think subtly and feel nobly. Aldous Huxley

The impulse to cruelty is, in many people, almost as violent as the impulse to sexual love - almost as violent and much more mischievous. Aldous Huxley

The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline towards the religion of solitude. Aldous Huxley

The most shocking fact about war is that its victims and its instruments are individual human beings, and that these individual beings are condemned by the monstrous conventions of politics to murder or be murdered in quarrels not their own. Aldous Huxley

The most valuable of all education is the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do, when it has to be done, whether you like it or not. Aldous Huxley

The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human. Aldous Huxley

The secret of genius is to carry the spirit of the child into old age, which mean never losing your enthusiasm. Aldous Huxley

The vast majority of human beings dislike and even actually dread all notions with which they are not familiar... Hence it comes about that at their first appearance innovators have generally been persecuted, and always derided as fools and madmen. Aldous Huxley

There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception. Aldous Huxley

There's only one effectively redemptive sacrifice, the sacrifice of self-will to make room for the knowledge of God. Aldous Huxley

We are all geniuses up to the age of ten. Aldous Huxley

You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

From this website:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/aldous_huxley.html

“How Living in Africa Changed My Life”

Between March 1984 and July 1985, I was privileged to live and work in the Republic of South Africa. My purpose for being there was missionary work, and although I did indeed engage in a great deal of that type of labour, I feel that I gained more from my experience of living there in other ways than would be apparent, were I to mention only that one activity. My brief time in South Africa was one of the two most profoundly life-changing experiences for me in all my life. I hope I can show how and why this was the case.

Although in most respects South Africa is just as modern a country as the United States or Europe, with all the industries, factories, gold and diamond mines, suburbs, cities, towns, shopping malls, interstate highways, railways, airports, and other amenities (and headaches) which modern civilized society offers, and although I there met many wonderful and selfless people, who (unasked) helped me in many ways, it was not so much these aspects that proved to be significantly life-changing for me. Rather, it was my several excursions into the wild “bushveld” (or wilderness) that proved to impact me the most.

Africa is arguably one of the most ancient, primitive and starkly beautiful landscapes on earth, and South Africa in particular does indeed have many wilderness parks and game preserves in which to observe much of that natural beauty—some of them quite large.

.

(above) A spectacular view of the Drakensberg Mountains.

Together with two friends, I visited several of the bigger game preserves--including South Africa's famous Kruger National Park, and the privately-owned Timbavati Game Preserve next to it. I will describe these two momentarily. First, I want to mention Mountain Sanctuary Park, which was one of the grandest and most beautiful of the wilderness parks I saw. This place even has a website, at http://www.mountain-sanctuary.co.za/ . I would recommend looking into their site, as it contains many beautiful and representative photographs of the place.
.

We were lucky enough to visit Mountain Sanctuary Park on two separate occasions. This park has a lengthy mountain ridge which runs through most of it--part of the vast Magaliesberg mountain range, which stretches on literally for miles and miles. On the side of this mountain there were no trees of any significance, scattered troops of baboons which dined on small citrus-type fruits, and herds of tiny deer-like gazelles, and the mountain ridge was cut by numerous ravines, gorges, and gullies--some of which were quite large and hundreds of meters deep.

.

.

Unusual rock formation on the side of the Magaliesberg mountain ridge at Mountain Sanctuary Park.

On both occasions, starting early in the morning, before the sun had become too hot, my friends and I slowly hiked up to the top of the mountain ridge, where the ruins of a fort from the Anglo-Boer War still sat on the edge of a cliff. There had been an important battle during that war not far from here, we were told. Here, the mountain-ridge dropped away to the vast valley below, providing a spectacular view for a distance of many miles. While we were sitting on the top of that mountain-ridge, perched on the ruins of that fort, the wind coming up from the valley below was furious, and, despite the otherwise hot day, it kept us considerably cooled off for a good while. It was a refreshing change from the hot, thirsty trek up the mountainside, and one we were loath to leave behind us.

Eventually, we slowly clambered back down the mountainside, and at one point came upon one of those many gorges that cut through the ridge. From the top, it looked far too deep to climb down into, but my friend Abe (a native of the place) insisted there was indeed a way down into it.

One of my American companions sitting on the edge of the gorge, before we began our precipitous descent. This gorge was actually much deeper than is apparent here: the bottom is not even visible in this photo.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

This is the bottom of that same gorge--a photo I took while leaning over that same boulder my friend had been sitting on just a moment before, and pointing the camera straight down. About all that can be seen here are the tops of the trees below. Very soon, we would be underneath those trees, in a very different world.

So we followed him, and eventually, we were in fact at the bottom of the ravine.

Here, a completely different world existed. The top of the ravine (the side of the mountain) was barren, dry, and wind-swept; here, all was tree-shaded, dripping with small waterfalls and mosses hanging down the sides of the cliffs,

At the bottom of the ravine, looking back up at a small dripping waterfall, cascading slowly over moss-shrouded rock walls.

every now and then a raging torrent of a small river, or small series of waterfalls,

.

.

giant tree ferns everywhere growing in the green gloom of the semi-tropical forest canopy, and huge boulders everywhere littering the floor of the canyons.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I tried to imagine what it must have been like when those boulders had dislodged themselves from the cliff tops, and come crashing down to the canyon floor, and was glad I was never there to witness the event! This landscape was so wild, primitive, and ancient, and on so unimaginably vast a scale, that I honestly kept expecting to look up and see dinosaurs lumbering past. It was a magical land of gods and giants, and there I was, a solitary pygmy, picking my way like a small ant over the giant boulders and down the cascading waterfalls. I was small enough to be stamped out forever if even one of those boulders had decided to come crashing down again!

.

At one point, while traversing the canyon floor, we came upon a huge boulder, completely blocking our path. It was easily the biggest one we had seen yet, and was almost the size of a small house. There was nothing but smooth cliff-walls on either side of it. It was indeed possible to climb up the near side of the boulder, but once we had done so, we discovered that the only way to proceed past it (or so we thought) was to jump straight down about twenty meters (about 30-40 feet) into a deep, black pool of crystal-clear water! Our friend Abe laughingly told us that this particular pool (and jumping point) was called "Help Help," and we could easily see why!

After letting us worry about our predicament for a few minutes, Abe then told us (laughingly, again) that there was, in fact, a way around the dreaded pool and jump. This other way involved tip-toeing on a tiny ledge along the cliff-wall, literally hugging the cliff-wall itself, as one slowly stepped past the boulder and deep pool, one tiny, fearful step at a time (and about 30 feet above the pool). If one of us had sneezed, we probably would have fallen down into the pool below. I assure you, that ledge we were walking along was only about four inches wide, and there was very little in the way of rock edges to grasp, so as to keep from falling backward. It was harrowing.

We were never so relieved as when we finally had made it down past the boulder and pool, and were finally able to relax, take our shoes and socks off, and wade into the shallow end of the deep pool. And boy, was that water ever frigid, even in the hot African Summer! I was very glad then that we hadn't attempted the jump into the pool after all.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I did indeed see a lot of wildlife. But Africa is not quite the place that most Americans expect from watching National Geographic. Wildlife does indeed exist there in great numbers, but it does so only in the larger game preserves, and one often has to travel great distances to see them. Elsewhere in the country are only endless fields, farmland, suburbs, gold and diamond mines, many small towns and occasionally larger cities.

Timbavati Game Preserve, which I mentioned earlier, is where, a few years ago, a minor strain of naturally "white" lions (previously only legendary) made their appearance (see the website http://www.responsibletravel.com/Copy/Copy101740.htm), and the Kruger National Park is the largest game preserve in South Africa (and one of the largest in the world). There are several websites mentioning the Kruger National Park.

The Kruger National Park is so big that you can literally drive around in it all day long and never see a single sign of human life (other than the dirt track in front of you and behind you). It is about the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island together. It was like being trapped in an episode of Discovery Channel, or National Geographic. I saw plenty of gazelle, giraffe, wildebeest, hippos, lions, elephants, zebras, antelope and springbuck, plus baboons, tree monkeys, wild dogs, hyenas, etc.

That huge diversity of God's creatures there, plus the deafening silence constantly surrounding us, and the incredible sense of desolate isolation, left me overwhelmed with emotion, and thinking that I had at last found the fabled "Garden of Eden" itself. Such a sense of peace and tranquility exists out there! I honestly did not want to return to the States--to my own home, and family! What sort of experience is it that can produce an effect like that?

That sensation of utter and profound isolation is what so significantly changed my life. I was only there in that game park for one day, but that one day, and the raw experiences it contained, was sufficient to forever alter the course of my life and my thinking.

You who have always lived in a house, in a city or suburb, and have never spent more than an hour or two literally a hundred miles from the nearest other human beings (or even sign of human life), have no idea how overwhelming it can be, to experience isolation like that. Persons shipwrecked on a desert island, like Robinson Crusoe, lonely explorers in the vast Sahara, or perhaps scientists in Antarctica, or oil-drillers in Siberia, will have had such an experience; but not many people normally have experiences like that. This is why, when they do occur, they are life-changing experiences.

I grasp at words, trying to describe what is was like for me, standing there that day on the hot, dusty African plain, with nothing for literally a hundred miles around, except my two friends, one automobile, one dry, dusty dirt road, and endless miles of grass, bushes, scattered thorn-trees, occasional wild animals, and endless blue sky and puffy white clouds. I struggle, and cannot seem to find the right words to convey just how awesome an experience it was, and how reverently and profoundly moved by it I was. Such overwhelming peace, and tranquility! One could literally sit there all day long, and never hear another sound besides the breeze occasionally rustling through the tall grasses! It is absolutely impossible to imagine what this actually feels like, if one has never experienced it. I felt like we were literally the only people alive and walking on the entire planet—so far away did all other life seem. This gives one a completely new perspective on life, believe me!

Herd of gazelles, Kruger National Park. This photo was taken by my friend Abe Snyman, as I stood there and watched this very scene.

I suppose a person who is easily bored would probably be driven to the edge of insanity by isolation like that. I could easily envision a possibility like that. But not for me: it was a “balm of Gilead” to my soul. And I have always wanted to go back there and experience it just one more time.

.
Needless to say, after having had such a profound experience as that, and coming back to everyday ‘civilization,’ even seeing New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and just about every other sight and experience that America has to offer, I still have felt somewhat cheated—because I was always conscious that something greater still lay elsewhere, and I knew that I had been there, and experienced it firsthand. I suppose the astronauts who walked on the moon must have felt similarly, after they had returned to their usual, routine lives in “suburbia,” commuting to their ‘jobs’ every morning, and I do not wonder when I recall that several of them are said to have experienced severe psychological problems of ‘readjustment’ upon their return. Only those who have had similarly profound, life-altering experiences can know what I mean here. Had I the time, and my listeners the patience, I think I could probably write a whole book about what I saw and experienced there. Hopefully, this brief essay will suffice for the moment.

The World as “Illusion”

The great mythologist and teacher Joseph Campbell (of course) constantly reminded his hearers and readers of the Hindu/Buddhist idea that everything in this world is maya, or illusion.

Many of the ancient ‘Gnostics’ also upheld this same idea, asserting that the only true 'reality' lay in the unseen realm of spirit (and not in this existence), and they were constantly preaching that we should never become too attached to this transitory, illusory (and even deceitful) existence we call "life".

Some of them even went so far as to literally mortify the flesh, or retreat from worldly concerns such as matrimony, sexuality, social, or political duties or engagements, often seeking instead a literal flight from sensual "temptations" to the ascetic world of monasticism. (I feel that this is a profound error on their part, however.)

To illustrate the widely-divergent field of sects making up what we now call "Gnosticism", however, there were a few "Gnostic" sects which (although they attached equal unimportance to matters of the "flesh"), nonetheless insisted that this "illusory" physical existence was so supremely unimportant (compared with the heavenly realm to follow) that it did not matter in the least what one did with the body, or with its natural urges. These libertine "Gnostics", then (in stark contrast to the ascetics), allowed themselves (and taught their disciples) to engage in all sorts of socio-sexual extremes--even bordering sometimes on what some would call 'gross perversions'. ... But again, it is important to remember that these libertine "Gnostics" (nominally "Christian", for the most part, though they were almost universally excoriated and shunned by other, more traditional, or 'mainstream' "Christians"), and among whom were the so-called "Carpocratians", always insisted that the flesh was so supremely unimportant--as long as one remembered where one's true priorities lay (with the heavenly realm of spirit)--that it did not at all matter what one did with the physical body . This is how the evidently homosexual rituals of the "Carpocratians" were possible (within the general rubric of "Christianity", too!).

To move into a modern times, however, quantum physics says essentially the same thing about what we call physical "reality"--that it's all really nothing more than electromagnetic frequency wave-patterns interpreted by our brains. Thus we see that 'science' and 'religion' (as many are noticing nowadays) are indeed gradually converging.

These ideas are really quite simple. The only mistake is reading too much into them. One does not need to search and search for deeper and deeper meanings there. The only message is right there in 'plain English', right on the surface of the words.


What I really mean is more or less exactly what I say (though I admit I am perhaps not the best one to be trying to explain these things): the physical world we see around us constantly (and which we assume is "real") is actually only an illusion created by our brains, when our brains convert the electromagnetic wave-patterns (or frequency-patterns of wave radiation) into meaningful signals. These meaningful signals then appear to our eyes as "sight", to our ears as "sound", and to our fingers and other body parts as "touch". The same is true of the other senses.

But we must remember (as both quantum physics and the 'mystical' traditions of spirituality teach) that that "reality" perceived by our senses is actually no more "real" than a moonbeam. In other words, these "keys" I am typing on in order to produce words (on this computer), although they "feel" solid to my finger-tips, are actually not what I (normally) think they are--they are actually nothing more than another form of electromagnetic wave radiation, or frequency-patterns, which exert enough of a force field of resistance to my finger-tips, that my brain perceives them as a "solid". But my physical "body" is also nothing more than various patterns of electromagnetic wave energy! So essentially, what is going on is that one organised set of frequency-patterns (my brain) thinks it is coming into contact with other frequency-patterns (the keyboard keys). But what is actually happening is nothing of the sort--only one force-field of electromagnetic energy "bumping" into another!

What may help you to understand this is to visualise two magnets in your hands. Now, turn them around so that the same poles are facing each other. Then try to push them toward each other, and make them touch. You can't do it, can you? This is because the force-fields are strong enough to prevent it. Those force-fields generated by those magnets feel almost solid, don't they? And yet we know that they aren't; the only thing you are bumping up against there is simply a very strong electromagnetic force-field. Well, this is exactly and precisely why so-called "solid" objects seem solid to us. But they are actually no more "solid" than the AIR near the pole of a magnet. Remember that the vast majority of every atom is actually only empty space! But it is a space filled with a very strong force-field of energy. Thus, if you multiply those space-filled atoms exponentially, enough to produce a human being, you still have an entity that is "actually" overwhelmingly empty space! So why then do we "seem" to possess "solid" bodies? Quite simply, because of the very strong electromagnetic force fields--just as in the case of the magnets!

I am here only referring to how our brains (and not our conscious minds) interpret electromagnetic wave radiation (frequency-patterns), and convert them into the meaningful images, sounds, tastes, textures, and smells we call our ordinary "physical" existence or world.

Do you begin to see now how this so-called "physical" world is really only an"illusion" cooked up by our senses (and brains)? The only true "reality" is nothing but organised patterns of electromagnetic wave radiation (frequency-patterns). ...

This is why the Hindus, Buddhists, Gnostics, and other Mystics are absolutely right when they say that this physical world is only maya, or "illusion".

To put the main thrust of quantum physics into other (and simpler) words, what we know as ordinary everyday existence in this world (aka "life") is really nothing more than organised patterns of electromagnetic energy-- all of it! If one dwells on this stupendous thought for more than just a brief moment, the implications are literally staggering! Indeed, one could even say that the implications are so staggering as to present a serious problem relative to our existential security (or peace of mind).

Certainly, these facts call into question just about any form of traditional 'religion'! The question then presents itself to our minds: what is one to do in the face of such troubling facts? How is one supposed to be able to carry on a more or less 'normal' day-to-day existence, when all the time, one is faced with this stunning realisation that nothing that one's senses reveals to us is actually 'real' (in the sense we always thought it was 'real')?

Well, I cannot speak for other people on this matter--how to comfortably live with these unsettling facts; I can only offer my own personal strategy for handling them. I also cannot claim that my strategy will work for everyone; only that thus far, it seems to be working rather well for myself. ...

Very simply, although I am profoundly aware of this new 'reality' regarding this world of appearances (what Schopenhauer called "Vorstellung"), I try to take occasional 'breaks' from dwelling thereupon; in other words, I try to make room in my life for other activities and engagements which will allow me to periodically "re-engage" with this apparently 'real' world around me. This is almost akin to Campbell's quotation of the Buddhists' advice to "participate with joy in the sorrows of the world". In other words, I continue to work (when able), go shopping, complain about taxes, bad government, arthritis, back pain, and to study the whole plethora of subjects I always have, just as before, as if nothing had changed.

And (truth be known), it is actually quite easy to do this! (By this, I mean fall back into the old habits of thinking.) In fact, for the untrained, such 'slipping back' into the old, comfortable routines and habits of 'normal' thinking is far too easy--uncomfortably easy even. Indeed, post-modern 'Gnostics' such as Timothy Freke say that such 'back-slippage' (especially in the untrained) is a negative end to be avoided at all costs. They apparently would have the new 'reality' (which is actually a non-reality) constantly and uncomfortably burned into everyone’s consciousness--even if it disturbs emotional peace and stability, and leaves persons distraught and unsettled to the point of insanity (or so it would seem). ...

I feel that the lessons of the new 'reality' (and their spiritual implications) need not be pursued quite that rigorously, in order to be effective, and still produce a profound new awareness, and profound life-changes. Of course (as I said), mine is only one opinion; others may (and have the right to) differ. ...

(6 December, 2007)

Why I Disagree With ‘Mormonism’

Those Mormons love their 'meetings' (and by that, I'm not referring to 'worship services'). When I say 'meetings', I mean the word in the sense of business 'meetings'. I have said before that they should be called the "Church of the Latter-Day Businessmen" Truly! They preach what can only be called the "Gospel of Wealth" (to borrow the phrase from Andrew Carnegie): they think that being "successful" in life (a word they use an awful lot!) is the same thing as being "blessed," and that the more "successful" a person is (in terms of making money), the more "blessed" he or she must be! Now, how twisted is that? That's the way the primitive-minded Hebrews of Old Testament times thought! ("The more goats and cattle I have, the more wives, concubines, and children I have, the more 'God' has showed favour upon me ...") Good God! To think that these 'Mormons' still think like that! To think that the human race has not budged (or evolved) one inch in all those thousands of years! What a sad, sad commentary on the human race!

Erstwhile 'Mormon' presidential candidate Mitt Romney (the former Governor of Massachussetts) wanted people to think he was good presidential material because he is a "successful leader" and businessman (his exact words). He is certainly every inch a 'Mormon', just like all the rest of them!

The truth of the matter is, that we are constantly being "blessed" by God! Just being alive here on this earth is the greatest blessing of all. And we are being blessed by God, even when we think we are not! As Thoreau, Blake, and Whitman would have all been quick to agree, it is a blessing even to be poverty-stricken! Think about that ... Yet it teaches humility, and compassion for all living beings, doesn't it? Hard to learn those lessons if one is filthy rich ... And as Thoreau pointed out, being poverty-stricken is also a blessing, in the sense that we then don't ever have the chance to become unduly attached to material possessions; instead, we learn to love other people (instead of desiring and growing jealous over our "possessions"). Didn't "Jesus" say that "where your treasure is, there your heart is also"? Yes, of course "he" did. ...

And--though we may not recognise it as such--we are even being 'blessed' when disaster or tragedy visits its awful, heavy hand upon us. ... Think about that! Yet, if you will really think about it, and work it out in your mind, you will realise I am speaking the truth here. "Disasters" and "tragedies" teach us to appreciate the good times. We could never learn to value the "good", if we did not also experience the "bad" (right?) So even the "bad" times are also blessings for us--"blessings in disguise". Much, much more could be said on this subject.

And the 'Mormons' also place far too much emphasis on 'leaders'! Everyone in that church aspires to be a 'leader'! Just how many 'leaders' can there be, before everyone is aspiring to be a 'leader', and no-one is left to follow? "Jesus" had choice words to say about people who desire preeminence among their fellow-men, didn't he? Rather than desiring that human beings should live in a hierarchical, stratified, or layered society (and helping to bring such a thing about), shouldn't we rather strive to serve one another, humbly, with "broken hearts and contrite spirits"? Didn't "Jesus" make this point (beautifully, simply, and elegantly) when he stripped naked in front of his disciples, and washed their feet (which was considered filthy, demeaning work back then)? Of course he did.

The 'Mormons' claim to believe in a doctrine which they call "eternal progression," by which they mean that human beings should be continually evolving and expanding their comprehension of knowledge; but what is actually the case is that the 'Mormons' literally follow the contrary doctrine, which could aptly be referred to as 'eternally staying put right where they are,' thank you very much! Try attending one of their Sunday-School classes. And then do the same for about six or seven Sundays in succession. They merely repeat their standard, basic doctrines--the same doctrines that are taught to "beginners in the faith"--as if even the seasoned church members of forty years and more have learned absolutely nothing in all that time! This is sad, to say the least.

I myself, when I was a child growing up in the 'Mormon' faith, took that "eternal progression" doctrine literally, and went out into the world and began learning things. Unlike the vast percentage of 'Mormons' (and Christians), I did not shy away from an uncomfortable fact when it happened to contradict what I already believed (or thought was the case). To my way of thinking, if a proposition was demonstrably true and correct, why then, I had better get myself accustomed to accepting it.

This process eventually led me to turning my 'Mormon' beliefs completely inside-out, and demonstrating them (and most 'Christian' beliefs) to be based solely on unwarranted and unexamined assumptions--assumptions which when once thoroughly examined and exposed to the light and air, turned out to be sadly false. I say sadly, because it was at first extremely disconcerting to have my world-view turned upside-down, and inside-out. This is because (contrary to what some poeple may think) I am in fact a thinking, feeling human being just like the rest in most respects, and that entails a certain emotional/psychological dislocation when one's existential security happens to be seriously challenged.

Fortunately, I survived the experience relatively unscathed (save for the total loss of certain beliefs that were wholly untenable in the light of sound evidence to the contrary).

I therefore think that the 'Mormons' have got the idea of "religion" completely backwards and twisted around. And (again) that is very sad.

It took me many years to figure this out (since I was raised by them). As you may well imagine, it is so very hard to turn against the beliefs one was taught as a child ...

I have here spoken of (and quoted) "Jesus" as if he were a real human being, but please remember that I only do this so as to better be able to teach certain important points. ... I do not in fact believe "he" ever had any physical existence on this earth (at least not in the guise with which he is familiar to us from our shared cultural heritage).

Now, in saying all of the above, I do not for a moment mean to be understood as saying that all ‘Mormons’ are necessarily ‘bad’ people. There are in this faith (as indeed in all faiths) an enormous number of otherwise decent, wonderful human beings—some of whom I count as friends, and some of whom are my own distant kinspeople. I would never say they are ‘bad’ people—only greatly deluded or mistaken people. I truly believe that if they could only see the serious, profound contradictions inherent in ‘Mormonism’, they would soon have to view the religion in much the same way I now do. …

T.J. White
23 December, 2007

Letter to Mike (excerpt), March 5th, 2008

Yeah, the traffic in the metro Atlanta area is just about as bad as anywhere else in the country. It even compares to the traffic in Los Angeles or NYC--and I would know, because I've been in both of those places more than once. Down here, we pretty much don't drive anywhere unless there's a darn good reason to do so--and even then, we always try to take the short-cuts and backroads, to avoid as much of the traffic as possible. In some parts of metro Atlanta, there's pretty much bumper-to-bumper 'rush hour' traffic mostly all day long, with little or no let-up. I'm telling you--I'm serious when I say I really want to permanently move away from a place like this. This is really sad and heartbreaking for me to have to watch, because when I was growing up here, most of the surrounding area was still rural and farmland. Now it's all subdivisions and strip-malls. It's pathetic. Having to watch the land I love getting raped by the soulless developers.

Best not to get me started on that topic--it breaks my heart, and will only infuriate me, and infuriate me even more, knowing there's nothing I can do about it except try to leave. I guess it's like knowing you have to get a divorce from someone you truly love deeply, but just can't keep living with. Like you, I'm a 'country boy' at heart, and belong in a place where the nearest neighbour is "two miles away as the crow flies". I would have preferred that my home be here, but I have known for some years that I could no longer be happy here.

I may have already told you about this once before, but the most incredible experience I ever had in my entire life was whilst ... in South Africa; we had travelled ... to a game preserve (Kruger National Park)--which is huge--and drove around in it all day that we were there. We were literally a hundred kilometers (or more) from the nearest other human being, or sign of civilisation. Nothing but the dirt road in front of us and behind us, grass, a few acacia trees, some occasional wild animals, and endless sky ... We would have really been in trouble had our car quit running. It's one of those places the size of a small country, and they make you register upon entering the park (so they know you're there, and can come rescue you if you don't come back out within 24 hours).

But I gotta tell you--being in that place--with only ... [two] other friend[s] beside me, literally a hundred or more kilometres from even a vestige of human activity, was the most overwhelming experience of utter solitude and desolation I've ever experienced in my entire life. It felt like I had found the wild and primitive Garden of Eden, out there on the sun-burnt plains of Africa. It felt like I had gone back in time to the very dawn of creation, to a time when no other human beings existed on the earth yet--to a time when the air itself was still pure, from not having yet been fouled by humankind's filth. What an awesome experience that was ... Truly, I had serious doubts about whether or not I wanted to go back to the States. Except for missing my family and friends, I think I would have been perfectly content to have stayed right there, in that paradise.

It occurred to me then (and I still think) that, in accepting our civilisation with all its benefits and advantages, we have nonetheless given up and surrendered something beautiful, noble, vital, and necessary from our existence. And the sad part is, that most people don't even realise it's missing! And what that missing thing is, is the knowledge of what it actually feels like to be truly free, and independent. We don't realise it most of the time, but we truly are slaves: slaves to one thing or another. We could be slaves to a career, or slaves to a spouse and family; we could be slaves to a government, or to taxation. In every instance, we have voluntarily surrendered a degree of our freedom, in order to purchase one particular advantage or another. But is the cost worth what we get? I still think that's a very compelling question ... You see, I once had the experience of utter, complete freedom--I thus know fully well what it is ... Most people think they have some idea of what it is, but probably are far off the mark.

Letter to Dianne

The will of the Father is always unfolding around us--it is a continuous process--even at those times when it may seem to go contrary to OUR wills. ... Homo proponit, sed Deus disponit--Man proposes, but God in his own time (and way) disposes (and not always to our liking). But regardless, God's will is still ALWAYS being accomplished. Even 'Evil' is a part of that plan, for if not, then it means that God is neither omnipotent, nor omniscient.

Our only prayers, then, should be for our own acceptance and peace with God's will (especially when it seems so painful and distressing for us personally), not to ask that that will be changed to suit our own desires.

I know this may not be much comfort in time of stress and trial, but I also nonetheless believe it to be true. ... And I personally cannot do anything but speak the truth. I am incapable of hiding behind a convenient, comforting half-truth (or even outright untruth).

Having said that, though, I do wish only the very best for your friend, and for all such children of the Living Father who are simliarly distressed. God knows I have been there often enough myself. And can I then have no compassion for others who also suffer as I have? One cannot LOVE unless one has first SUFFERED.

I ask that the peace of the Father may find a place in your souls.

Love,

T.

Letter to a Friend, April 25th, 2007 (excerpt)

I am reading a book right now (mostly finished actually) about Lincoln's "Melancholy" or depression, and one of the significant points the author makes (in my opinion) is that a significant part of the origin of Lincoln's depression is the fact that he had a keenly intelligent, penetrating mind and awareness of things, which served to make him feel separated from his contemporaries, and to also frequently feel powerless in the face of what he called "Fate" (or Destiny).

I can definitely relate to that. Part of why very intelligent people are often such pessimists (or often depressed) is that very fact that they are aware of so much more than most people will ever be capable of even imagining (much less comprehending)!

Not only does this serve to keep us forever apart from most other 'ordinary' people, but the painfully realistic (and grim) view of life and this world which we perceive tends greatly to make us fatalistic and to fuel our depression. Several great writers have written about this--including Thomas Mann (1875-1955) who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1929 (which infuriated Hitler after he came to power four years later).

But the real question is: where is the place for people like that in today's competitive 'business' world? That world really does not seem to care, or at least, when it does, it seems to care only to the extent that it usually perceives people like myself as grave threats, needing to be swiftly and ruthlessly exterminated (or rendered powerless) for the good of society.

You think perhaps that I exaggerate. I assure you that I do not. British existentialist writer and thinker Colin Wilson (whom I already quoted in the excerpt included in the newsletter), said exactly that, in his 1957 work from which I quoted, Religion and the Rebel. And from my own personal experience in my life, I unfortunately have to largely agree with him.

Great intelligence is not always a good thing to be desired. ... If you only knew where it would end up leading you if you had it. .... "Aye, there's the rub!" (quoting Shakespeare again.)

If I had my choice (I sometimes think, half seriously) I would eagerly trade this profound (and painful) awareness and learning for the "bliss of the commonplace", as one of Mann's English translators once rendered his phrase.

There is thus much truth to the old oft-quoted phrase "ignorance is bliss". ...

Is it any wonder, then, that occasionally such people "fall off their rockers" (so to speak), as Lincoln repeatedly did throughout his life, and as Nietzsche finally, tragically did near the end of his?

Things that make you go "Hmmm". ...

Food for some serious thought here. ...

Letter to a Cousin (Jan. 2007)

Hi [ ]--

I just received your reply. Your concern for my safety is most touching, and I don't quite know what to say, except that I'm profoundly moved and grateful. Not to demean you at all, but I wish I could arouse similar sentiments in my immediate family. Other than my parents and one aunt (who react as you do), no one else seems to be bothered to notice my existence any more. I speak here of siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. They seem to think I'm the 'black sheep' of the family (actions do speak louder than words) and therefore deserving of ostracism, since they seem to think (as far as I can tell) that I have scandalized THEIR REPUTATIONS.

Well, forgive me if I am wrong, but what is worse in your view--to have made some bad mistakes in years past, or to fail to show love and compassion to one's suffering fellow-man in the present? In my own humble opinion, I believe that a person whose heart is filled with God-like love and compassion (whatever his other failings) cannot--by definition--be a bad person.

It grieves me that so many people in my immediate family have not yet learned this most important life-lesson, and I marvel that the same DNA that produced me has also produced them. Very hard not to judge, eh? We are only human, after all ...

I awoke this morning in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, to find about five inches of snow on the ground, with an accumulation of about eight to ten inches expected. But at least it's not ICE. Snow can be handled--if done with care and caution. ...

The snow is briskly falling right now, even as I write this, and occasionally the wind slackens, and the mystical flakes really come alive then, magically and dreamily floating on the still air. Ah, what a wonderful sight! It is so profoundly, hauntingly beautiful--it seems to renew the world overnight (as Thoreau said), to transform this tired, dreary, mundane world of sorrows and regrets into such an innocent, childlike wonderland that (in me at least) it helps renew a sense of hope that things can eventually get better. This beautiful, pure, white, driven snow--a gift from God, in the sense that it helps relieve our burden of sorrow, by transforming our perceived world into something almost indescribably lovely and beautiful, into something truly divine--a glimpse of Heaven itself, as it were, and thereby giving us greater hope for the future.

My poet's soul is profoundly moved by a spectacle such as this (even as the practical, truck-driver side of me worries ...).

This pure and beautiful snow, with its transforming power, puts me in mind of what Nietzsche wrote in 1889, even as the madness had started to destroy his mind:

"All the world is transfigured, and the Heavens are filled with Joy..."

And this leads me to ask: had the madness, before it completely destroyed his Reason, perhaps at first briefly afforded some rare glimpse into regions Celestial--into the hidden beauty of this world, ordinarily denied to us mere Mortals? The Japanese have a word for this 'hidden' or subtle beauty: shibui. From Nietzsche's comment, such a thing would seem at least possible--even if it was only in his tragically-deluded mind at that point.

I would like to think so, at any rate: that the capricious gods, before depriving him of his wonderfully brilliant mind forever, gave him one last, final (and very cruel) gift of insight--the epiphany of all epiphanies--into the incredible, marvelous beauty of spirit this world possesses, but which beauty we frequently fail, due to our mental conditioning to the contrary, to properly see and behold.

Oh, how truly the gods do mock us, and use us for their Sport!

T.J. White
15 January, 2007

Letter to a new acquaintance (excerpt)

My driving time is also my thinking time. It lets me get away from other people and pressures which would otherwise constantly occupy my thoughts, & largely prevent me from being able to think & reflect about things (which is how I prefer to spend much of my time anyway). I am a philosopher, you see. The word "philosopher" (in case you don't already know) comes from two Greek words, "philo-" meaning "love of", and "sophia", meaning "wisdom" or "knowledge". So, since I am a person in love with knowledge and learning things, I believe I truly am a "philosopher". Driving big rigs over the wide open stretches of America merely takes me away from normal, everyday life (like Thoreau in the woods), and allows me the time and opportunity to really think. I never was happy with the 'normal' nine-to-five routine and competitiveness of the life I once tried to pursue. And finding that I was not likely to be handed a job as a college professor merely based on my good looks (ha!), I went out on the open road as a perpetual traveller, since I was better-known there anyway.

Many of the people in my family are professional educators, and a number of us also write, so I guess I "fit right in". My first cousin, Dr. [ ] White, is Associate Professor of Mathematics at [ ] College in [ ]--quite a brilliant human being. His late Dad (my uncle) was even smarter, and could never be "stumped" by even the most difficult, "unsolveable" mathematical problems which his son (the Mathematician, who couldn't even solve them himself!) would present to him!

My field, however, is not mathematics, but rather life itself. I am mostly a serious, even somber person. I do often find situations funny and laughable, but there is nothing trivial or frivolous about me at all. I do not like to waste my time with personal interactions with most people I see from day to day. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they are very few. I was almost certainly mildly autistic as a boy and young man, and much of this tendency still carries over to the present day. It seems (from what I've read on the subject) that the frequent drawback to having a brilliant mind is also being autistic (and thus antisocial). In other words, the same gene (or genetic combination) which produces the brilliant left-brained mind also seems to produce autism (much of the time, anyway).

I guess you could also say that--due to my autism--I'm still trying to find where and how I "fit" into this crazy, mixed-up world, and feel I need to distance myself from other people to give myself the time to think things through properly.

I hope I have not put you off by saying any of this. But I do want you to realize who and what you are dealing with here.

Oh, you are very right about Illinois being very gray and depressing in the Winter! I have seen so much of it over these last few weeks that I will be very happy indeed when Spring (and some greenness) finally arrives!

Yes, there is a stark, bare, almost primitive beauty to that barren landscape--if one has the eyes with which to see it. I saw similar stark, raw, wild and primitive beauty in several places when I was in South Africa twenty some years ago--many places there look much like our Great Plains.

(Oh, and since you might have wondered about the French I used--) I am also a self-taught student of several languages--including French--but mostly the older forms, like Medieval English, Medieval French, Italian, Latin, Greek, Gothic, Medieval Old High German, etc. I am not so much interested in what now IS, as much as I am interested in HOW IT GOT THAT WAY. I have always liked to delve into the causes of things--the "whys" and "wherefores" of existence.

Terrence.

A Fugitive and a Vagabond in the Earth am I ...

Ecce eicis me hodie a facie terrae, et a facie tua abscondar,
et ero vagus et profugus in terra; omnis igitur qui invenerit me,
occidet me. ...

Heu, ego dolentus, ego miser: poenarum plagarum inundant:
amari, amari torrentes. ...

Vae, misero mihi!

Quid sum miser tunc dicturus?

Dicam Deo: Noli me condemnare: indica mihi cur me ita judices;
numquid bonum tibi videtur, si calumnieris et opprimas me,
opus manuum tuarum, et consilium impiorum adiures;
numquid oculi carnei tibi sunt, aut sicut videt homo,
et tu videbis? ...

Et scias, quia nihil impium fecerim cum sit nemo, qui de manu tua,
possit eruere. ...

Non Est Species

Non est species ei neque decor, et vidimus eum et non erat aspectus et desideravimus eum. Despectum et novissimum virorum, virum dolorum et scientem infirmitatem. ...

Isaiah 53: 2-3

Commentary on an Arabian Nights' Tale

A Commentary on a tale from The Arabian Nights, "The Tale of Hasan and the Persian Magician". In this commentary, I have used the Powys Mathers translation, as found in the book, Gay Tales and Verses from The Arabian Nights, compiled, edited, and with an introduction by Henry M. Christman (Banned Books, Austin, Texas: 1989)

_____________________________

Page thirty-six describes the main character, Hasan, as "a youth ... who was the most handsome, gracious, and dainty of his time." His "beauty drew the eyes of all passengers to-wards his shop [he was a very young and boyish shop-owner], and none crossed the market without stopping at the door to contemplate and marvel at this work of the Creator" [i.e., at the young man's remarkable beauty.] In other words, his outward physical appearance conformed especially closely to the common archetypal image of the beautiful young man--so much so that the majority of people, both male and female, were drawn to his beauty.

Also from page thirty-six we learn that "His father and mother loved him greatly, for he was the child of their old age ..."

This generation gap, together with the fact that his father had died while the boy was yet young, would seem to suggest--despite the weak inference--that the boy was deprived of some of his necessary emotional familial bonding as a child, and was therefore sending out sub-conscious signals to others advertising his need for such emotional bonding (i.e., "love" and "approval" from older authority-figures). The boy would thus be ripe, we would say, for the attentions of an older homosexual male. This is quite separate and apart from the notice the boy would attract simply because of his strong archetypal 'beauty'.

Also from page thirty-six:

"[H]e soon wasted his father's savings in feasting and dissipation with young men of his own age ..."

The implication here, of course, is that only relationships with those older (and wiser) than himself will help him--that congress with only more inexperienced youths such as himself will inevitably lead only to his ruin (cf. the Biblical story of the "Prodigal Son"). Perhaps (in passing) this lesson is appropriate for today's young men--enamoured of each other (in the form of gangs) as they are. ... But of course--at least as far as today's youth are concerned--the reverse can also be argued: that it is a failure of intergenerational bonding--due to fear of relating and expressing intergenerational emotions or sexuality--which precisely forces young men to bond with each other, instead of with their elders.

At page thirty-seven, the Persian Magus wishes to adopt the boy as his own son and teach him his art. For references to this ancient pedagogic tradition, see John Boswell's The Kindness of Strangers.

Based also on page thirty-seven:

Whether from hope of riches, or from the sub-conscious realisation that his deepest needs for emotional bonding are (potentially) about to be met, the young man is already defending his growing relationship with the Persian Magus to his mother. One wonders to what degree the (admittedly fictional) youth was being knowingly and intentionally devious and complicitory in the matter. ... Note also, from page thirty-eight, that the youth is either ignorant of his own beauty (and its potential for attracting others to him), or intentionally glosses over and hides its power in front of his mother: "Mother, [he says] we are poor and have nothing to tempt the cupidity of any ..." In other words, "How could this old man ever possibly be interested in little old ME? ..."

Also at page thirty-eight, the magus demands a non-married status from the youth in exchange for the magus' knowledge. How convenient! This is actually because--following ancient practise--the youth becomes in effect the sexual partner of the older teacher in exchange for the love, guidance, and knowledge imparted. The youth essentially becomes a magus-in-training, and--as such--becomes the life-partner of the older teacher in every way (including the sexual). That is to say, the two must bond in all areas. Historically, such master-student relationships have sometimes been tolerated, occasionally even encouraged; today, however, this is obviously not the case. (This is what is known to some of us as the 'pedagogic' tradition.)

From page thirty-nine:

Irrespective of the actual form of the instruction, what the magus has actually been doing, in effect, is teaching the boy an alternative way of perceiving his reality, and since most different ways of 'perceiving reality' usually violate local taboo or custom (as in this example), strong resistance is usually encountered. Most people (as in the boy's mother) are usually timid sheep who dare not think of going against societal custom or thought, and as a result, they are almost always intolerant of attempts by those within their influence (relatives, neighbours, friends, etc.) to stray beyond those invisible mind-boundaries. Some of us more adventurous souls today encounter this same type of resistance and/or punishment for daring to think (and especially act) counter to the prevailing "wisdom".

But it should be especially noted that the price or prerequisite for higher knowledge (mystical awareness, esoteric knowledge, etc.) has ever been--first and foremost--the ability to see beyond one's own immediate cultural frontiers, or ways of thinking. In order to advance in knowledge and experience, therefore, cultural "norms" must first be challenged and shown to be relative--i.e., not by any means fixed and immutable. This is exactly what the magus has been doing: teaching the youth to see beyond his society's arbitrary restrictions. This is the first step on the path of knowledge, or "enlightenment". And since those with vested interests in societies usually do not like their privileged status to be challenged or threatened [would you, in a similar position? Would I?], they usually fiercely persecute these true teachers or "light-bringers" (Lucifers) of humanity--label them as "devils" or "witches" (etc.) so as to create fear in the minds of their potential field of candidates, thus crippling the passing of real saving knowledge and mystical illumination (which has ever been the goal of true alchemy or kabbalah) from potential master/teachers to their potential students.

October or November, 1995.

T.J. White

'Vova' Gorelikov (age 20), one of my new Russian friends

With Andrey Sychev (19) and 'Vova' Gorelikov (20), August, 2005

With Andrey Baryshev (19) and 'Vova' Gorelikov (20), August, 2005

"Vova" Gorelikov, one of my new Russian friends (age 20)

Reply To "Anonymous"

Have rec'd your comments. Very much appreciate your interest & time. Have not yet heard of 'Neoteny', but looked up the web site you indicated & will read & study with great interest. Will comment further when I process the info. Thanks! T.J. White.

Hi--Back again. I wonder if David Brin, ph.D. has heard of Elaine Morgan's "Aquatic Ape" theory..... For convenience, I am pasting
one of the web pages mentioning the same below. It is at the site http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm . This theory,
while mildly controversial (and when is any compelling theory not?) seems to me to offer the most sane reason and common sense.

All for now. More later.
T.J. White

______________________________________________

Elaine Morgan has done most of the writing in support of this interesting and mildly controversial hypothesis of Alistair Hardy. For those who feel a strong affinity for water--and considering the cost of lakefront and especially oceanfront property, that is a lot of us--I think the theory resonates in some respect, and it perhaps opens our perspective on what a life closer to nature might be like.--JF)

Aquatic Ape Theory

Elaine Morgan

"An aquatic Ape is a likely ancestor of humans in terms of primate behaviour, marine ecosystems and geophysical timing."
- Prof. Derek Ellis, Dept. of Biology, Uni. of Victoria, Canada

"All other theories about the origin of our species have reached an impasse."
- Dr. Michel Odent, author of 'Water and sexuality'

"An aquatic hypothesis offers far simpler explanations."
- Dr. Chris Knight, author of 'Blood Relations'

"It is difficult to see how all the points assembled to back the Aquatic Theory can be explained away."
- Dr. Desmond Morris, author of 'The Naked Ape'

"The aquatic hypothesis... cannot be eliminated yet."
- Prof. Glyn Isaac

"We believe that this proposal [AAT] should be taken seriously."
- Prof Michael Crawford, author of 'The Driving Force'

"[AAT] conforms to current theories of speciation better than the savannah origins model, and accounts for a number of diverse phenomena hitherto not seen as connected."
- Prof. Graham Richards, author of 'Human Evolution'

Why humans differ from apes

Scientists find it easy to explain why we resemble the African apes so closely by pointing out that gorillas, chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.
It is much harder to explain why we differ from the gorilla and the chimpanzee much more markedly than they differ from one another. Something must have happened to cause one section of the ancestral ape population to proceed along an entirely different evolutionary path.
The most widely held theory, still taught in schools and universities, is that we are descended from apes which moved out of the forests onto the grasslands of the open savannah. The distinctly human features are thus supposed to be adaptations to a savannah environment.
In that case, we would expect to find at least some of these adaptations to be paralleled in other savannah mammals. But there is not a single instance of this, not even among species like baboons and vervets, which are descended from forest- dwelling ancestors.
This awkward fact has not caused savannah theorists to abandon their hypothesis, but it leaves a lot of problems unanswered. For example, on the question of why humans lost their body hair, it has been argued at various times that no explanation is called for, or that we may never know the reason, or even that there may not be a reason. These attitudes seem to be not merely defeatist, but fundamentally unscientific.

The Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) offers an alternative scenario. It suggests that when our ancestors moved onto the savannah they were already different from the apes; that nakedness, bipedalism, and other modifications had begun to evolve much earlier, when the ape and human lines first diverged.

AAT points out that most of the "enigmatic" features of human physiology, though rare or even unique among land mammals, are common in aquatic ones. If we postulate that our earliest ancestors had found themselves living for a prolonged period in a flooded, semi-aquatic habitat, most of the unsolved problems become much easier to unravel.
There is powerful geological evidence to support this hypothesis, and nothing in the fossil record that is inconsistent with it. Some of the issues it raises are briefly outlined in the following pages.

The naked ape

Humans are classed anatomically among the primates, the order of which includes apes, monkeys and lemurs. Among the hundreds of living primate species, only humans are naked.

Two kinds of habitat are known to give rise to naked mammals - a subterranean one or a wet one. There is a naked Somalian mole rat which never ventures above ground. All other non-human mammals which have lost all or most of their fur are either swimmers like whales and dolphins and walruses and manatees, or wallowers like hippopotamuses and pigs and tapirs. The rhinoceros and the elephant, though found on land since Africa became drier, bear traces of a more watery past and seize every opportunity of wallowing in mud or water.

It has been suggested that humans became hairless "to prevent overheating in the savannah". But no other mammal has ever resorted to this strategy. A covering of hair acts as a defense against the heat of the sun: that is why even the desert- dwelling camel retains its fur. Another version is "to facilitate sweat-cooling". But again many species resort to sweat-cooling quite effectively without needing to lose their hair.

There is no known reason why an ape should suffer more from overheating than the savannah baboon. And, especially for a savannah primate, there would be a high price to pay for hairlessness. Primate infants are carried around clinging to their mothers' fur; the females would be severely hampered in their foraging when that no longer became possible.

One general conclusion seems undeniable from an overall survey of mammalian species: that while a coat of fur provides the best insulation for land mammals the best insulation in water is not fur, but a layer of fat.

Fat

Humans are by far the fattest primates; we have ten times as many fat cells in our bodies as would be expected in an animal of our size.

There are two kinds of animals which tend to acquire large deposits of fat - hibernating ones and aquatic ones. In hibernating mammals the fat is seasonal; in most aquatic ones, as in humans it is present all the year round. Also, in land mammals fat tends to be stored internally, especially around the kidneys and intestines; in aquatic mammals and in humans a higher proportion is deposited under the skin.

It is unlikely that early man would have evolved this feature after moving to the plains and becoming a hunter, because it would have slowed him down. No land-based predator can afford to get fat. Our tendency to put on fat is likelier to be an inheritance from an earlier aquatic phase of our evolution. It is true that some apes, especially in captivity, may put on weight, but we still differ from them in two important ways. One is that they are never born fat. All infant primates except our own are slender; their lives may depend on their ability to cling to their mothers and support their whole weight with their fingers. Our own babies accumulate fat even before birth and continue to grow fatter for several months afterwards. Some of this fat is white fat, and that is extremely rare in new-born mammals. White fat is not much good for supplying instant heat and energy. It is good for insulation in water, and for giving buoyancy.

The other difference is that in our case the subcutaneous fat is bonded to the skin. When an anatomist skins a cat or rabbit or chimpanzee, any superficial fat deposits remain attached to the underlying tissues. In the case of humans, the fat comes away with the skin, just as it does in aquatic species like dolphins, seals, hippos and manatees.

Walking on two legs

Human beings are the only mammals in the world that habitually walk on two legs. (The only other creature with a perpendicular gait is an aquatic bird, the penguin.)

It is not surprising bipedalism is so rare. Compared with running or walking on four legs it has many disadvantages. It is slower; it is relatively unstable; it is a skill that takes many years to learn, and it exposes vulnerable organs to attack.

We have been doing it for five million years and in that time our bodies have been drastically remoulded to make it easier, but it is still the direct cause of many discomforts and ailments such as back pains, varicose veins, haemorrhoids, hernias and problems in childbirth. It would have been far more difficult and laborious for our ape-like ancestors; only some powerful pressure could have induced them to adopt a way of walking for which they were initially so ill suited.

One hypothesis used to be that they first developed big brains and began to make tools, and finally walked on their hind legs to free their hands for carrying weapons. But we now know that it was bipedalism that came first, before the big brain and tool-making.

However, if their habitat had become flooded, they would have been forced to walk on their hind legs whenever they came down to the ground in order to keep their heads above water. The only animal which has ever evolved a pelvis like ours, suitable for bipedalism, was the long-extinct _Oreopithecus_, known as the swamp ape.

Today, two primates when on the ground stand and walk erect somewhat more readily than most other species. One, the proboscis monkey, lives in the mangrove swamps of Borneo. The other is the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee; its habitat includes a large tract of seasonally flooded forest, which would have covered an even more extensive area before the African climate became drier.

Both of these species enjoy the water. It is interesting that the bonobos often mate face-to-face as humans do; in our case it is explained as a consequence of bipedalism. This mode of mating is another characteristic very rare among land animals, which we share with a wide range of aquatic mammals such as dolphins, beavers and sea otters. What we have in common with them is a mode of locomotion in which the spine and the hind limbs are in a straight line, and that affects the position of the sex organs.

Breathing

The human respiratory system is unlike any other land mammal's in two respects.

The first is that we have conscious control of our breathing. In most mammals these actions are involuntary, like the heart beat or the processes of digestion.

Voluntary breath control appears to be an aquatic adaptation because, apart from ourselves, it is found only in aquatic mammals like seals and dolphins. When they decide how deep they are going to dive, they can estimate how much air they need to inhale. Without voluntary breath control it is very unlikely that we could have learned to speak.

The other human peculiarity is called "the descended larynx". A land mammal is normally obliged to breathe through its nose most of the time, because its windpipe passes up through the back of the throat and the top end of it (the larynx) is situated in the back of its nasal passages. A dog, for example, has to make a special effort to bring its larynx down into its throat in order to bark or to pant; when it relaxes, the larynx goes back up again. Even our own babies are born like that.

A few months after birth the human larynx descends into the throat, right down below the back of the tongue. Darwin found that very puzzling because it means that the opening to the lungs lies side by side with the opening to the stomach. That is why in our species food and drink may sometimes go "down the wrong way". If we had not evolved an elaborate swallowing mechanism it would happen every time.

This arrangement means that we can breathe through our mouths as easily as through our noses. It is probable that this is an aquatic adaptation, because a swimmer needing to gulp air quickly can inhale more of it through the mouth than through the nostrils. And we do know that the only birds which are obligatory mouth breathers are diving birds like penguins, pelicans and gannets. As for mammals, the only ones with a descended larynx, apart from ourselves, are aquatic ones - the sea lion and the dugong.

Other differences

It is impossible in a brief outline to discuss all the physical features distinguishing us from the apes, but a few are worth mentioning.
For example, we have a different way of sweating from other mammals, using different skin glands. It is very wasteful of the body's essential resources of water and salt. It is therefore unlikely that we acquired it on the savannah, where water and salt are both in short supply.
We weep tears of emotion, controlled by different nerves from the ones that cause our eyes to water in response to smoke or dust. No other land animal does this. There are marine birds, marine reptiles and marine mammals which shed water through their eyes, or through special nasal glands, when they have swallowed too much seawater. This process may also be triggered in them by an emotional excitement caused by feeding or fighting or frustration. Weeping animals, apart from ourselves, include the walrus, the seal and the sea otter.

We have millions of sebaceous glands which exude oil over head, face and torso, and in young adults often causes acne. The chimpanzee's sebaceous glands are described as "vestigial" whereas ours are described as "enormous". Their purpose is obscure. In other animals the only known function of sebum is that of waterproofing the skin or the fur.
The most widely discussed contrast between ourselves and the apes is that we have bigger brains. A bigger brain may well have been an advantage to early man, but it would have been equally of advantage to a chimpanzee: the question is why one of them acquired it.

One factor may have been nutritional. The building of brain tissue, unlike other body tissues, is dependent on an adequate supply of Omega-3 fatty acids, which are abundant in the marine food chain but relatively scarce in the land food chain.

AAT is the only theory which logically connects all these and other enigmatic features and relates them to a single well attested historical event.

The time and the place

It is now generally agreed that the man/ape split occurred in Africa between 7 and 5 million years ago, during a period known as the fossil gap.

Before it there was an animal which was the common ancestor of human and African apes. After it, there emerged a creature smaller than ourselves, but bearing the unmistakable hallmark of the first shift towards human status: it walked on two legs.

This poses two questions: "Where were the earliest fossils found?" and "Do we know of anything happening in that place at that time that might have caused apes and humans to evolve along separate lines?"

The oldest pre-human fossils (including the best known one, "Lucy") are called australopithecus afarensis because their bones were discovered in the afar triangle, and area of low lying land near the Red Sea. About 7 million years ago that area was flooded by the sea and became the Sea of
Afar.

Part of the ape population living there at the time would have found themselves living in a radically changed habitat. Some may have been marooned on off-shore islands - the present day Danakil Alps were once surrounded by water. Others may have lived in flooded forests, salt marshes, mangrove swamps, lagoons or on the shores of the new sea, and they would all have had to adapt or die.

AAT suggests that some of them survived, and began to adapt to their watery environment. Much later, when the Sea of Afar became landlocked and finally evaporated, their descendants returned to the mainland of Africa and began to migrate southwards, following the waterways of the Rift Valley upstream.

There is nothing in the fossil record to invalidate this scenario, and much to sustain it. Lucy's bones were found at Afar lying among crocodile and turtle eggs and crab claws at the edge of a flood plain near what would then have been the coast of Africa.

Other fossils of Australopithecus, dated later, were found further south, almost invariably in the immediate vicinity of ancient lakes and rivers.
We now know that the change from the ape into Australopithecus took place in a short space of time, by evolutionary standards. Such rapid speciation is almost invariably a sign that one population of a species has become isolated by a geographical barrier such as a stretch of water. ...

The Aquatic phase took place more than 5 million years ago. Since then, Homo has had five million years to re-adapt to terrestrial life. It is not surprising that the traces of aquatic adaptation have become partially obliterated and have gone unrecognized for so long. But the traces are still there as the table indicates. ...