By

Joseph J. Schiller

Life, As I Understand It *

Table of Contents *

Table of Figures *

Introduction *

Amateurism *

Part I: Conclusions *

Part II: Feminism *

Part III: Gaia *

Appendix I: The Theory of Spectra *

Appendix II: A Theory of Complexes *

Appendix III: Eve *

Appendix IV: Ideologics *

Appendix V: The Meaning of Life *

Index *

Figure 1: The Ideological Spectrum *

In this book, I present a summary of my understanding of life. I am an objective, rational male, so my understanding tends towards the analytic, scientific view.

The conclusions are presented first, and then worked backwards from the present to the past so that the reader can discover how they were reached.

These conclusions are based on a study of feminism in progress since the '60's, and are contrasted with what should be called masculinism but is called the Judeo/Christian tradition.

This understanding of life is inclusive. It rejects no other widely accepted view but concentrates on placing them in perspective, identifying their context and biases. This includes, along with Judeo/Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, science, Islam, and the ideology of native Americans.

An analysis of history, particularly human history in this context is performed, identifying significant moments and explaining why they are significant, though not going into them in more detail than is justified by the goal.

The greatest inadequacy of science is the lack of attention paid to the issue of awareness. While significant research has been done into every other aspect of life imaginable, nobody seems interested in analyzing the nature of awareness: where it came from, what it is, and how to distinguish it from consciousness. Since this provides the underpinning for an accurate understanding of subjective/objective thought, it is crucial to the understanding of life.

This inadequacy exists because the issue impinges too closely onto the question of God, which science feels it must avoid to remain objective. Of course, to supply an understanding of life that is complete, the question of God must be gone into at some length. Not only God, but also the goddess.

The west has failed to characterize properly the eastern notion of yin/yang, the words for the oppositional nature of being. Some writers, notably Herman Hesse, have called this phenomenon "the opposites". The scientific notion of the spectrum is preferred. An accurate understanding of this question is essential to the understanding of life.

This study should constitute a field of academic study, which could be labeled Ideologics: The Study of Human Ideologies. The purpose of this study is to establish relationships between the various human ideologies.

In the beginning, four essays are presented that, taken together, represent the conclusions. Those essays are The Questions of Life, Understanding Life, The Future of Man, and Intelligent Life in the Universe II. After that, feminism and masculinism are defined and then traced into the past. Significant moments in the development of modern feminism are identified, since it has not been done before. Several essays and reviews on the questions confronted by modern man during the transition from a dominant masculinist orientation to its opposite are included.

After that, the question of Gaia is analyzed and discussed, her original status as the goddess wife of Zeus and her significance in reaching a conclusion on life. The question of Gaia is significant since, while ignoring her can produce a fairly accurate understanding, it lacks meaning. Gaia, when invested with awareness, provides direction and meaning of a very practical kind, something that goes beyond the traditional western notion of life as a struggle between good and evil.

Several appendices are provided as supporting documents, the final one of which is The Meaning of Life. This is provided as an appendix because, while it is a significant issue, it is more a question of belief than one that could be characterized as scientific or objective.

I have entitled this book, Life, As I Understand It, meaning to imply that there may be, there surely are, others; as I pointed out in the beginning, my orientation to life is rational, analytic, and scientific. I can imagine that there are subjective approaches to understanding life that may be accessible to others while my view is not, simply because causality fails to move some people. On the other hand, I can see signs of an objective understanding of life in other approaches, Buddhism for example.

Joseph J. Schiller, 1998.

In this essay, I intend to make a case for amateurism with particular attention to amateur philosophy since I am an amateur philosopher and this book is about amateur philosophy.

To do this, I have to give my impressions of professional philosophy and its limitations. I am not well qualified to do this since I am an amateur and have never formally studied philosophy. None the less, there is a philosophical inclination in some humans, and if it is taken as a spectrum, to some degree in all humans. Generalizing is philosophizing, and holding opinions too. This is because, when comparing, one has to have some idea of better and worse and make a judgment based on that idea. Philosophy, while ostensibly the study of what is, must deal with human ideas, and those ideas lead to opinions.

Professional philosophy can be distinguished from amateur philosophy, from what I have seen and heard, by its use of formal rules of logic and precedents. That is to say that professional philosophers must attempt to put their ideas into standard forms developed by mathematical logic, that seeks to place the certainty of mathematics into the field of identifying causality. They must also cite their sources to justify their beginning points. They must avoid assumptions.

The advantage of this approach to philosophy is that one’s arguments can be defended from criticism. The disadvantage of this approach is that it places severe limits on what can be written about in the field of philosophy. It implicitly accepts the body of received philosophical work because of the critical danger that would attach to any effort to overturn existing work long accepted in the philosophical community. For these reasons, one will not be satisfied by this community when trying to rationalize new features of the culture.

The most important cultural change that has been undergone is the new round of feminism introduced beginning in the ‘60’s. This change is having dramatic effects in terms of changing cultural values. One often refers to the sexual revolution beginning at that time. It is philosophy’s role to describe the change and to identify its context; to rationalize the event; to make it comprehensible; to allow one to make decisions regarding whether and how to implement the changes in his life.

As far as I have been able to see, professional philosophy has failed to meet this challenge and I put the weaknesses previously identified down as the cause.

This also identifies a role for amateur philosophy. It is not bound by the constraints of professional philosophy and can therefore, feel free to range far afield in searching out the causes and context. This implies that much of amateur philosophy can be expected to be worthless, but not all.

Of course, amateur philosophers have always existed; in fact, the received wisdom of the culture was obtained from just this source. The writers of the Bible or any other holy book were not professional philosophers. The rules governing their profession would not permit the production of such a work.

In modern times, amateur philosophers abound and have many outlets for their work. In fact, people who write philosophical ideas, or present them in any other media, but are not of the professional class, but rather are amateur philosophers. Perhaps the field most attractive to amateur philosophers is science fiction. Certainly, one would not be wrong to identify H.G. Wells as an amateur philosopher.

Where does the greatest impact on society come from, amateur or professional philosophy? The answer is obvious. Of course, this wide definition of the field of amateur philosophy makes it clear that they don’t often explicitly write about philosophy.

My personal inclination as can be seen from my writing is to write explicitly about philosophy, since my style is essay and my interest is philosophy. I wish to understand why we, as a species, have chosen the values we have. I wish to work on the question of species survival, which I believe to be the root question to all of philosophy and any other form of human endeavor too.

There are several basic questions about life that many people worry over from time to time. Since the answers have never been fully known, many suggestions have been offered resulting in a great deal of confusion, especially about religion. These issues have become so intense that wars have been fought over them, as institutions with preferred answers have built up and become politically powerful.

The most crucial moment in the history of the West occurred when Henry VIII of England rebelled against Rome and established his own Church of England. This may not seem crucial, but it was a successful revolt against the father, which has unending significance for humans. It eventually led to America.

Therefore, these reflections suggest that answers to these questions are valuable. I have answered to my satisfaction all of these questions by now, so I offer them here for any who find them useful. Some of the answers have come from other sources and some I have discovered for myself. In general, there are two basic questions; the first regards the origins of the universe and the second the origins of consciousness. These can be dealt with in the following way:

The universe appears to be, at this time, the result of the formation of a black hole in another universe, just as many black holes exist in this universe and represent gateways to other universes. Each universe is thought to embody slightly altered definitional parameters, such as the speed of light, from its parent. Thus, every iteration of universe, from small dead impossible ones to extremely active ones, such as ours, exists. Since this view conforms to the general design of the universe observed, this is likely to be a correct view. The universe is spectral in nature. Every possible variation on every object, like light, appears to exist, either coincidentally or over time. It is also full of analogy. Every object and event is analogized by another. In this context, it is remarkable how closely the black hole concept analogizes mammalian sex.

One complaint about this explanation is that it looks like begging the question since one is then entitled to ask where our parent universe came from. However, this would be like asking, were we red, where blue comes from. Are there a top universe and a bottom one, or is the string infinite? This is one technical question among many that may or may not be answerable. This universal design would seem to prohibit any travel from one to another. Mathematical models can be devised, but no direct experience is likely.

It condensed from the same material that formed the sun.

Life is aware matter.

Energy and carbon molecules combined to form living matter, probably a random event. Once in existence, life discovered conservatism or the desire to continue to be.

Religion is the implementation of an ideology.

Consciousness is objective awareness. Awareness, that which separates the non-living from the living, is likely to be an attribute of molecular complexity, like wetness or slipperiness.

What is moral is that which enhances the chances for survival of the species. What is immoral is the opposite.

The essential difference between the sexes is that the male believes that understanding is the surest path to survival and the female believes that relationships are. This means that the male will value the truth while females will try to create and maintain relationships and if the truth interferes, it will be discarded.

Entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics provides that everything in the universe is running down, as it were. This means that things are moving from a chaotic state to one that would be characterized as homogeneous or calm and evenly distributed, like a placid lake. One might equally well say that things are going from a feminine condition to a masculine one.

The answer to this question is objectively unknowable.

Yes.

With the answers to these questions in hand, one would seem to have arrived at that moment in history when everything is known. The answers to the basic questions are known and a method for discovering the answer to any other question that might arise is also, except of course for the unknowable. The unknowable is that information that is unobtainable because of design limitations. For instance, direct knowledge of another universe is unobtainable if that universe operates in a way that is different from our own.

It is also satisfying to realize that the concept of the universe of the Big Bang, starting a relatively short 13 billion years ago and perhaps ending someday is shortsighted. That the multiverse or infinite set of universes has existed always and will continue forever, and time is only a feature of a universe. It appears that universes can be created by black holes of all sizes and that most of them will not result in galaxies or even stars. None the less, many of them will and each will be parameterized differently resulting in dramatically different circumstances for the inhabitants, if there are any. Probably communications between universes, of any kind, is impossible though.

From this, it should be clear that the dimension of scale is really the most dominating dimension of all and that, since all things are relative, for the experiencers neither time nor scale is locally meaningful. Why should one care if time moves more rapidly in his universe than it does in some other, or how would he know if his universe was microscopic in size relative to another?

Thus, the universe is both static and dynamic as one would expect in a world such as ours, in which everything is, which means literally, everything, at this exact moment, exists. This is of course a non-demonstrable revelation.

To achieve an understanding of life, one will have to be educated somewhat. The minimal requirements will be mastery of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Some will achieve this by the fifth year of school; some will have to complete high school, some college. Advanced degrees are only useful for occupational qualification.

The first requirement is to define what is meant by the title. Understanding of life occurs when the individual constructs a mental model of the universe that is sufficiently close to the reality. Perfection isn't to be expected. Many things about the universe will remain unknown at death. A close approximation however, is achievable now and has always been. Technology has provided our generation with advantages not available to our ancestors and that allows man to understand things like the formation of the solar system and possible sources of the universe. This is interesting but not crucial. It is now possible to describe where life came from in an objective sense, which is very satisfying, but also not crucial.

The first problem in this undertaking is the realization that, common sense and advice to the contrary not withstanding, nothing crucial to it is beyond the ability of rational understanding. Some things are unknowable, events in another universe, if there is such a thing for instance, or what may be experienced in death, but these questions contribute little if anything to the understanding of life. Once one kills or attends a funeral, he knows what he needs to know about death. Another aspect of this problem is the sense that the task is beyond any reasonable effort in life. It is not, but large-scale understanding is restricted to rationalists and a highly developed sense of the significance and meaning of objectivity is required.

Subjective approaches, for example astrology or religion may have their own value but not in the pursuit of an understanding of life. The only available method, because of the tremendous complexity of the project is to approach understanding by studying causality.

Why should this effort be undertaken? Those that do it will have their own reasons. There is no general utility in it and no barrier to the successful prosecution of the individual life obstructs those uninterested.

To understand life it is necessary to study widely but to avoid wasting time in pursuits that have no ability to increase that understanding. Most fields of study affect the understanding of life in some way, but some do it only slightly and spending an inordinate amount of time in these areas will lead nowhere and limit the effort applied to this study. The pursuit of money for example, may teach one a lot in the beginning about the general notion of economics, which is important. However, after that generalization is understood, further exploration of profit is profitless in this effort.

The second problem is the avoidance of bigotry, which has the effect of blocking pathways into understanding. The most important of these bigotries is fundamentalist religion. Committing oneself to the view that symbolism is literal fact or to the notion that, since God created the world, everything is already understood effectively blocks the path to understanding. Other bigotries also defeat understanding. Superiority is the greatest bigotry after religion. Any sort of belief in superiority will have the effect of limiting understanding. That is because superiority is only relative, it doesn't exist at the scales of understanding required to understand life. This means that belief in biological, sexual, national, educational, ideological, and religious superiorities must be discarded. This is called chauvinism after the French soldier in Bonaparte's army with an unreasoning belief in the French military.

The most useful fields of study and their contributions follow. Keep in mind that the goal is not to become an expert. Expertise goes way beyond what is needed to understand life, it makes one biased. If one supports oneself in a field, his understanding of it has gone so far that he will have to make an effort to avoid field or specialty chauvinism.

Psychology and most usefully, Jungian psychology is important because the student must first eliminate as far as possible limitations to understanding caused by previous errors in understanding adopted at a naive stage of his or her own development. Jungian psychology provides one with an understanding of the tool of understanding by describing its structure. Armed with this knowledge, one immediately grasps what is possible and how it can be achieved.

Reading psychological texts is insufficient to this crucial study. One also has to do field work so that comparative data can be obtained and to allow the development of the skill of psychological analysis. Since amateurs cannot practice, the best source of material for the development of this skill is the arts. Fiction and biographies are extremely useful. Other fields of artistic endeavor are also valuable.

Ideology is the next most crucial area of understanding. This is because all pursue an ideology without necessarily knowing it. One's parents set him on this path and he requires some method for understanding it objectively. The answer is to study the subject of ideology as a generality. Once the general attributes of ideologies are understood, one can identify his own ideological biases and identify those with another ideological orientation and their reasons for identification with it. By ideology, one means feminism, the study of feminine values and masculinism, the study of masculine values.

Religion, which is a natural outgrowth of the study of ideology, is best understood as an implementation of an ideology. Beware of becoming a member of a religion, since this can result in religious chauvinism. Comparative religion is much more useful.

Economics provides one with a grasp of the mechanics of life in a closed system; one in which every exchange must be compensated. There is an economics of every kind of interaction from sex to war.

This much is sufficient to achieve a highly accurate understanding of life and one that has always been available. Because of technology, one can now use its tools to go further.

Biology and particularly Darwinism arising from Darwin's The Origin of Species allows one to grasp how life develops on this planet. A study of archeology helps in this process.

Astronomy allows us to grasp where the earth came from and how the universe is organized. A study of geology is also useful.

Physics allows one to grasp the scientific method and to refine his understanding of objectivity.

Mathematics provides an understanding of the language of science and an appreciation of the uses of precision. It is also a reflection of the closed system, in which we exist, which is the reason for the importance of the equation concept.

Chemistry and particularly organic chemistry allows one to grasp the structure of matter and why life has chosen to exploit the carbon molecule.

This much will allow one to understand life, as well as the best minds were able to until recent times. New tools are now arriving that allow one to go beyond that.

DNA is a field that promises to teach us how organisms are actually programmed for life. DNA refers to strands of carbon molecules defining in the sense of a program the nature of the cell in which it resides.

Computer Science or programming allows us to appreciate the significance of DNA.

Gaianism is the study of life on earth when considering it as a single organism. This is mainly a question of definition, but this definition is one of the most crucial and accurate definition is at the bottom of any useful philosophy.

A thorough grasp of these fields at the level of the amateur is sufficient to the needs of any individual wishing to understand life. Every tool available to pursue this goal is currently on the Internet. Therefore, for the first time in history, any individual wishing to achieve understanding of life with access to the Internet can do it. Understanding of life does require that one live life since subjective understanding must proceed at the same rate as objective understanding, otherwise the value is lost. The project cannot be expected to reach fruition until the age of fifty or so, but that just means that it will be the most satisfying and long lasting hobby of all.

Crucial life experiences are marriage and raising children. One must grasp the differences between the sexes, which will be hard to achieve without the experience of marriage. An understanding, both subjective and objective, of reproduction is a necessity.

A bibliography designed to achieve understanding of life follows. This bibliography is designed for sequential use. Most of these books are available on the Internet or from one of the Internet bookstores.

1. Memories, Dreams, Reflections by Carl Jung, is Dr. Jung's autobiography and introduces his approach to psychology. If this book doesn't affect the reader, the approach to understanding provided here might not be suitable.

2. The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche by Carl Jung, is a detailed exposition on human mental organization. The most important essay in this book is Jung's Complex Theory. The most important insight to bring away from the study of this book is the difference between consciousness and awareness.

3. The book you are reading describes the ideological spectrum and its implications. No other exposition on this topic is available as far as the author has been able to determine. Christianity has been responsible for this. Westerners didn’t understand that there were two sides to the ideological coin. Of course, there are two sides to every coin. That is the nature of the universe.

4. The Bible is crucial to the understanding of western masculinist religion.

5. Psychology and Religion: West and East by Jung, provides a description of eastern religion through the eyes of a westerner and therefore is more easily grasped than the source books.

6. Tao Ti Ching provides a look at one aspect of eastern religion.

7. Bhagavad-Gita provides another look at eastern religion.

8. The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith or any standard freshman economics course, will provide all that is necessary to the understanding of this field.

9. The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin provides the crucial understanding of how the various species arise and special insights like "natural selection".

10. Astronomy Picture of the Day (an Internet site) provides all that is necessary to an adequate understanding of the cosmos.

11. A study of the lives of Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton available on the Internet will provide an adequate understanding of physics.

12. History of Mathematics (an Internet site) provides insight into the language of science.

13. Organic Chemistry (an Internet site) provides an understanding of the carbon atom, which presupposes a sufficient introduction to chemistry including an understanding of the periodic chart of elements and the structure of atoms and molecules. These can be acquired by taking Chemistry 101-2.

14. Recombinant DNA by James D. Watson explains all that is needed about DNA.

15. Computer Science can be understood by amateurs by buying a personal computer and learning to program it. The programming language, Gnu C is available on the Internet at no cost.

16. Gaia can be understood by reading Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth by James Lovelock, the scientist responsible for this concept. His views are expanded upon here.

Any of these subjects can be searched for with a tool like Yahoo on the Internet and probably sufficient information exists there to avoid buying any books. The one exception to this rule would be the books by Jung. The scientific community has always disfavored Jung, because he treats subjects like religion, astrology, and alchemy seriously. Dr. Jung’s books are available as part of the Bollingen Series from Princeton University Press.

There is an obvious need for humans to pursue an understanding of life. After the struggle to obtain the necessities of life, more energy is devoted to this issue than there is to any other. Even in entertainment, people like best those efforts that supply insight into this question.

On the rational side of this effort, within the scientific community, there is a historic tendency to avoid dealing with or characterizing awareness and its effect on life. The reason for this tendency is the recognition that preoccupation with God delayed and interfered with science and that awareness is related in some way to God. The examples of Galileo and Copernicus are frequently cited.

Therefore, it is to be expected that the Gaia Hypothesis will be resisted because the scientific community will see it as the replacement of one god with another, which suggests a return to pious blindness. Even persecution of those that wish to reveal what they conceive of as the truth. Dr. Lovelock, in his book introducing the hypothesis spends a good deal of time pointing out that there is no need to postulate awareness in the Gaia entity for it to be a useful explanatory principle.

There are scientific problems with awareness. It is hard to measure with instruments. It is hard to define. None the less, it is there, and is in fact the creator of science itself. Ignoring it may be useful under some circumstances to simplify the field of inquiry, but no final understanding of life will arise without considering it. Even Darwin, one of the premier scientists of all time, implicitly considered it. His concept, "natural selection", describes biology as being controlled by females choosing amongst males along with males fighting for dominance. No choosing can occur without awareness of the choices. As one observes the intricate patterns and colors occurring in the natural world, one must conclude that the feminine choosers are aware of the attributes of beauty. Things like symmetry. It is true that camouflage might arise without any impact by awareness, but it is hard to imagine that awareness isn’t one of the causes of elaborations like those that decorate the peacock.

The following definitions are proposed. There is a great deal of contention regarding the definition of life. A simple definition that appears to distinguish the living from the non-living is aware matter. How can that be demonstrated? It is obvious at scales approximating our own but isn’t so obvious at microscopic levels. Intentional movement is sufficient to demonstrate awareness. Viruses demonstrate intentional movement and they are probably near the simplest form of life on the planet. In considering the question of what gives rise to awareness, the simplest assumption that can be made is that it is an attribute of certain, as yet undefined, complex carbon molecules.

This makes clear the importance of the Gaia Hypothesis. The main problem with Darwin’s theory is the unlikely arrival of humans. Many scientists contend that, were history started over, based on the Darwinist model, it is highly unlikely that humans would arise. Far too many unlikely choices have been demonstrated to have occurred and are essential to the production of humans out of the biological substrate. For the religious this demonstrates the hand of God. Unfortunately, direct intervention by God is impossible to demonstrate scientifically. Gaia as the instrument of God is much more easily dealt with. An aware Gaia looks very much like the creator of the various species that inhabit our planet. If Gaia had a need for humans, because of their unique attributes, then she would be capable of bringing them into existence.

A possible need of Gaia that could have induced her to devise human consciousness would be the recycling of carbon molecules. It is impossible to imagine any method for retrieving oil from deep underground and devising a means of placing it into the atmosphere in the absence of humans. The uniqueness of humans, the one thing that separates them from other species is their capacity for objective thought. Objective thought is a function of consciousness, which is also, apparently, unique to humanity. Consciousness is that intensity of thought that produces a memory. Perhaps consciousness becomes possible when the ratio of brain weight to body weight becomes sufficiently large.

It can be imagined that consciousness arose fortuitously, but that when it did arise, the utility of it was not lost on Gaia.

There are a number of implications of this theory that may or may not be palatable to the reader. The most important of these is the implication that we are not masters of our destiny, but rather are doing, in our own way to be sure, what we are required to do by Gaia. How then are Gaia’s commands communicated to us? Via feelings, which it can be concluded emanate from one's cells and particularly DNA. One of the requirements that Gaia has faced is the need to make life sufficiently attractive that individual organisms would be sufficiently motivated to continue it. This might well produce a need for some degree of individual freedom; too much freedom or too little are equally uncomfortable. We don’t wish to be hermits and we also don’t wish to be cogs. We wish to interact with our peers and also to be capable of providing inspirational insights in the pursuit of Gaia’s goals. Vast numbers of us are constantly investigating every cranny of existence searching for new advantages in the constant struggle for survival.

The attraction of this theory is its provision of non-conflicting domains for God, Gaia, and Darwin. Gaia is God’s instrument. Darwin is Gaia’s instrument. Gaia’s motives are apparent. She wishes to survive. God’s motives remain inscrutable.

What are Man's prospects? How long will he last, as a species? What happens to species that conclude that they are no longer adapted to the environment in which they must survive?

The recent evidence of the dinosaurs suggests that species that have the time, transform themselves into a new species when they reach the conclusion that they have no future as they are. Looking about for a species one might emulate, the whale is a likely candidate. He is too large to be threatened by any but man. He uses small life forms as his energy source, meaning that the effort of getting them isn't great and they exist at a far enough remove that little blame can be attached to the whale for killing them. They can maintain themselves in an ideal environment via migration. They have long lives and thus plenty of time to observe natural change and to reflect on its meaning.

How does one begin the transformation? By learning to live in the sea and eating what the sea provides. If one works as a carpenter for the summer, he will acquire callused hands and his skin will be tanned. The decision to adopt the whale form has been made many times in the past. They are all former land mammals.

Our duration, as a species, depends on two issues. The first is how long our environment will remain unchanged and the second is when our task, that for which we were designed, if such exists, is complete. If our environment changes in marked degree, for instance a new ice age, we will be dramatically changed along with it. There is no realistic hope of continuing technological civilization after the advent of a new ice age. The cost of retrieving oil, a declining resource in any case would increase, the available arable land would decrease. Many would face starvation and wouldn't accept their fate gracefully. No suitable alternative to oil can be expected to arise since nothing is free. Rising feminism will make progressively more offensive both environmental exploitation and public education. A declining public education will mean that technocrats will be a declining resource.

The second issue, our possible goal as a species depends on the acceptance of the notion that DNA is alive and capable of strategic planning. In that case, it is reasonable to assume that our function as a species is to recycle carbon dioxide by burning oil. That task will be largely achieved in the next century. Given our past performance, oil reserves can be expected to peak in about 2010 and rapidly decline thereafter. Carbon dioxide, once the dominant gas in the atmosphere, has been reduced as a percentage of the atmosphere to far less than one percent, currently about .03 percent. All vegetation is completely dependent on this gas and therefore we are too. If this is our reason for being, it is apparent that Gaia has accepted man's environmental degradation as the cost of fulfilling her wish. She hopes for a longer future for life on this planet.

As is apparent to all, feminism is rising and the weather is changing.

What can man look forward to if this is a valid analysis?

It will become apparent to all that our future is limited to a few decades. Efforts will be made to overcome the problems, to no avail. Starvation and economic failure will follow. After a violent period of years a few will have adapted to subsistence living. A small percentage of those will try to maintain civilization within walled communities, but the primitives will constantly attack to get their resources, so they won't last. When the next ice age arrives, some will attempt to adapt to ocean living for the warmth. The remainder will be living some variation on the life of the American Indian before the arrival of Europeans, from all reports a very fulfilling life. This is a prediction based on the available evidence rather than a revelation. As such, it is subject to the usual limitations of prediction. The unexpected can always arise. No doubt, Columbus' discovery came as a shock to many. However, when predicting, one should discount the possibility of winning the lottery. Anyway, the desire to continue civilization is based on an illusion.

In a few years, all that wish to will know everything of importance about life on this planet. Since this task has motivated man from the beginning, what will he do when the task is complete? All entertainment is a commentary of some sort on life. All academic pursuits have the goal of understanding life. Many people are preoccupied with making the survival of these thinkers possible. Without that task, what is the point of civilization? Humans do try to defeat death, but what is the reason? Are they actually attempting to achieve immortality, or are they using that method to understand life? What would one do with eternal life? Nothing further to learn. Hedonism only goes so far. What can one do then? Everything would become boring.

The only suggestion to be made thus far is to explore the universe. The technology looks daunting. The absolute limit of the speed of light seems to foreclose that possibility, notwithstanding the successes of technology in our century; and, if we already understand life, what would be the point? Even assuming a technological breakthrough, it wouldn't be a pleasant trip.

It would appear now that man is a species designed to solve a technological problem, recycling carbon dioxide. He uses the apparently impossible task of understanding life as a way to escape boredom and a method of locating a solution to his technical problem. The technical problem has been solved, and it was an astonishingly difficult one. Imagine a Merlin character confronting a Bonobo ape and explaining the problem thus: we have removed so much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere that the life span of life is threatened. Your task is to devise a method of recycling it. It currently resides partly as a liquid deep underground and must be retrieved and converted to its gaseous form. There is so much of it that billions of individuals will be needed to assist in the effort no matter how large the converters may be.

Our solution has been to civilize ourselves and then to create a world economy. Establish the manufacturing base needed to create the converters: cars, trains, and planes. Find the storage locations of the carbon dioxide, pump it to the surface, and deliver it to all the machines designed to convert it to its gaseous form. In the process, man has discovered the facts necessary to explain life.

What remains? A few more years of conversion of oil to gas and there will be nothing left to do. Looking about, one sees that this is the only species that needs something to do. All others are content to live out their lives doing their part in the conversion of stored energy to gas, reproduce and die. Thus, the expectation must be that we are no longer needed. In order not to lose the stored DNA record of our existence, we should transform ourselves into a new unconscious species with no need to do anything except reproduce.

Some may find this anticipation of the future gloomy. It is exactly the reverse. How should one feel about a final solution to the sin of Adam?

The question of the relative abundance of intelligent life is one of great interest because of what it can teach humanity about itself. It can teach man if he is rare or common and thus how effective he is at the game of survival. It can teach him about the absolute value of intelligence since survival over time is a direct measure of that quality.

As can readily be observed, all life forms are preoccupied with survival. This is also true of man, though he approaches the question in many diverse ways, some of which do not have an obvious connection to survival. Take art for example. It isn't obvious how art contributes to survival. However, if one looks at the definition of art and widens it to cover the spectrum of human creativity, the connection becomes clearer.

The first question leading to a theoretical conclusion on this issue is definition. Precisely what is meant by the term intelligent life? The rough answer is life like man, sharing in his uniqueness. Humans are uniquely creative so that will be the quality to be carefully inspected.

Before this unique quality can be isolated, which apparently arises from awareness, which is obviously not unique to humanity, an analysis of awareness will have to occur. Whence comes awareness? What is awareness? How widespread is awareness? What are the attributes of awareness? How does awareness differ from consciousness?

Once clarity arrives on these questions, one needs to look carefully at the structure of the universe to determine how frequently similar conditions to those on earth arise elsewhere. Then there is the question of the duration of intelligent life. How long would it be expected to last before dying out? Would it endure as long as the alligator or would a much shorter period of time be expected. Would its likely end be death or would metamorphosis be more likely?

Therefore, the questions are:

How frequently in a galaxy like ours do the environmental conditions necessary to life arise? In order to answer the question it will be assumed that the solar system is the definition of what is required to support life. It will be further assumed that life on earth is typical and that life depends on the circumstances that prevail on this planet.

How likely is life to arise when the environmental conditions are right? The assumption here will be that life refers to awareness. That awareness distinguishes the living from the non-living and further that awareness is an attribute of a complex carbon molecule. From these assumptions one must conclude that life will always arise when environmental conditions are suitable, since liquid water and a carbon rich environment are all that is necessary.

How likely is consciousness to arise from awareness? It will be assumed that consciousness is equivalent to objective awareness, which arises from sufficiently intense concentration. Concentration is understood similarly to its use in other applications such as in the case of water. Thus, mental energy is concentrated into a stream by the brain and trained on the issue of interest producing a separation between it and the observer, which is called objectivity. It would appear to be a product of the ratio between brain size and body size so there is no physical barrier to its arrival. The question about consciousness then reduces to whether or not it is useful in the struggle for survival.

How long is consciousness likely to endure? This question amounts to one of survivability. What qualities produce long term survival? Are the acts of consciousness consistent with those qualities?

These questions can only be answered theoretically, but knowing the theoretical answer can provide the basis for experiential verification as time goes by.

The environmental conditions necessary to the arrival of life, assuming those prevailing here are typical, will be a single average star being orbited by several planets, the inner ones being rocky while the outer ones are mainly gaseous. The rocky inner planets must have a large quantity of water and therefor must be sufficiently large to retain it but not so large as to produce an excessive gravitational field. The rocky planets must be sufficiently far from the star to allow for temperatures allowing water to exist in its liquid state. The life zone would appear to be very narrow, but since the star will gradually cool, all planets fitting the above description would be expected to achieve the necessary conditions at some time in the life cycle of the star.

Are average stars likely to have orbiting planets? Since the majority of stars are of the binary variety, that is two stars orbiting each other and since, were Jupiter several times larger this system would also be a binary system, one is drawn to the conclusion that orbiting bodies around any sufficiently large object is to be expected. This expectation would seem to be confirmed by the fact that most objects of sufficient size in our system have satellites with the larger bodies having the most.

This analysis leads to the conclusion that life could have first appeared on Mars in our system and subsequently to the Earth experience can be expected to appear on Venus.

The expectation must therefore be that life is abundant in the galaxy. If that analysis is correct one must look to the question of intelligence. Does life typically produce progressively more complex organisms, eventually arriving at intelligence or more accurately, objective life? That has been the general assumption since Darwin developed evolutionary theory. The conclusion to be presented here is that this assumption is invalid; that, while life must be expected to be very common, objective life must be expected to be rare.

This conclusion is based on analysis regarding the expected duration of humanity on the Earth. The general assumption that technological civilization will continue indefinitely is unlikely to be correct. All living things have a task to perform and capabilities commensurate with that task to allow them to function in the desired way. The goal of all of these living entities taken together is to assure the continuance of life itself on the planet. Most living things represent a food supply to other living things. Many are garbage collectors. All are transformers of one sort or another, ingesting some sort of matter and producing some other sort useful to the project.

Living things that become negative forces in this project must transform into something more useful or die out. This will turn out to be the reason for the demise of the dinosaur and many other species over the life of the life project on this planet.

This is the appropriate basis on which to analyze the likely duration of Homo Sapiens. In order to accomplish the analysis one must identify man's primary mission and also his negatives regarding the impact his existence has on the viability of living things on the planet. One of the main tasks of living things is to maintain the atmospheric composition, the amounts of the various gases, and also the temperature on the planet in a state most favorable to the continuance of life. This task lies mainly in the province of microscopic creatures like plankton, but man is a large creature that is having an inordinately large impact on this process by burning oil. There is a continuous need to manage the atmosphere due to large-scale natural events like volcanic eruptions or forest fires. Many trace gases have to be managed in order to provide necessary molecules to be ingested by living creatures but the main work is to manage carbon dioxide in order to control temperature. The more carbon dioxide there is, the higher the temperature will be. There is some ideal temperature range for living things, though that range might have to be adjusted upwards or downwards from time to time to encourage a continuing balance among creatures and the various elements and chemical compounds on which they are dependent.

Assuming the natural atmosphere on the planet in the absence of life would be expected to be roughly the same as Mars and Venus, that would call for a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere with little oxygen, nitrogen and other trace gases. In fact, carbon dioxide on Venus and Mars and pre living Earth is thought to be above 90%. Currently the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 0.03%. The reason for this is that living things have industriously removed the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and replaced it with oxygen and nitrogen in order to encourage life by providing an ideal environment.

Now, man comes along and reverses this process by burning oil, which has the effect of replacing lost carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In no way can man be expected to return the atmosphere to its original composition, but he can alter that composition significantly, even as some scientists worry, to the point of producing the green house effect. This likely will produce an elevated temperature it is thought, possibly melting the ice caps.

The judgement associated with this action is negative as well it might be, but that conclusion can only arise if man considers that his actions are the product of his own self generated desires. It is possible that life on the planet has contrived to assign man the task of recycling carbon dioxide because of a general recognition that removal of it from the atmosphere cannot go on forever, that some significant percentage is necessary to life. In fact, it is well known that all vegetative life is completely dependent on some small percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As it is said, vegetation breathes in carbon dioxide and expels oxygen while animal life does the opposite.

Since animals are utterly dependent on vegetative life, some minimal level of carbon dioxide is essential to their continued existence. This minimal level could be experimentally determined relatively easily by the simple expedient of setting up an isolated environment in which the levels of the various gases could be controlled. The expectation would be that a further loss of perhaps one half the remainder could be devastating. Since carbon dioxide has already been brought from a dominant position to its currently relatively insignificant quantities, it isn't difficult to believe that removing two hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere wouldn't be unexpected were some counter force not employed.

Since man is an effective counter force to that trend, one concludes that, that is his mission. With that in mind, what would man's duration be expected to be? Not long, since he is recharging the atmosphere at a dizzying rate and too much carbon dioxide is just as deadly as too little, otherwise it wouldn't have been removed in the first place. An unfortunate requirement of man's mission has been that man must be creative in order to devise a method of recycling since success rests on finding an economic basis for oil converters. As we observe man in comparison with his co inhabitants of this planet it is inescapable that he is both highly creative and the most destructive force alive.

Since that is the case, one must conclude that creation and destruction are closely related. One might reasonably conclude that destruction is a necessary prerequisite for creation.

All of these ideas reinforce the general conclusion that objective creatures are too destructive to have around much of the time. That they might reasonably be brought into existence only in order to solve problems specifically suited to their special capabilities and that the life project would be better served were they not present at other times. This, one concludes is undoubtedly the reason for the blazing speed with which oil has been burned once the technology to do so was devised. Once this project nears completion, one must expect that man will find a way to exit the scene.

These considerations lead to the conclusion that, while life is undoubtedly common in the universe, intelligent or objective life is exceedingly rare. If one takes objective life to be equivalent to civilization and that its duration is likely to be about 10,000 years because that has been the duration up until now of this phenomenon on this planet, then even in so large an entity as the galaxy it would be an exceedingly rare occurrence and utterly unlikely to occur simultaneously in multiple places.

To perform this calculation, take the number of stars in the galaxy, divide by two to eliminate binaries as unlikely candidates for life, reduce that number by the number of red giants and white dwarves, so that only stars in the main sequence are candidates and assume that only for about half of that time are they suitable so that possibly ten percent of the stars are candidates. Then compare the duration of civilization, assumed to be about 10,000 years to the life of the planets, perhaps eight billion years if our planet is taken to be at the mid point of its life and the unlikelihood of coincident civilizations becomes apparent.

Even this small likelihood is further reduced by the recognition that technological civilization is a very small percentage of the duration of a civilization, in our case 200 years out of 10,000. Additionally, if there were one other in our galaxy, randomly placed, it would be so far away as to reduce the likelihood of contact to none. All of these conclusions are based on the assumption that our mission is to alter the atmosphere and that it is nearly complete and that when it is complete, the need for technological civilization being eliminated, it will rapidly disappear.

It may be that there is some intrinsic benefit to life in having intelligent observers and, to limit the destructive potential that they represent, that they should not be manipulative. The whale family, since they possess large brains and no manipulative appendages might be assumed to fulfill this need if it exists.

If it is reasonable to assume that life exploits the complexity spectrum as one of its strategies for survival as it seems to do, then it is also reasonable to conclude that whales inhabit a position of greater complexity than does man. They have already completed the land dwelling phase of their existence.

If it is also reasonable to assume that living things that outlive their usefulness typically metamorphosize into some more adapted creature, as did the dinosaurs, in order to avoid losing the genetic record of their existence, then it might also be reasonable to assume that man's destiny is to adopt a form similar to that of whales.

Finally, a question arises regarding one's feelings about this conclusion. It is perfectly reasonable for man to be initially put off by the anticipation of the demise of his species. It is consistent with the will to survive included within the makeup of all living things. None the less, objectively viewed, one can achieve equanimity of feeling, at least in the abstract. Comparing the experience of life that man has had with what seems to be that of whales, it doesn't seem so bad. It might be characterized as trading creativity for sanguinity.

All things exist on various spectra similar to the light spectrum. For instance the size spectrum or the color spectrum. Sexuality is no different. When considering the sexes it is most useful to imagine a scale with pure masculinity at one end and pure femininity at the other. Sexual neutrality, in which the sexuality of the object in question is evenly mixed, is at the center. This means that the sexes are opposites and when analyzing them one can expect to find the opposite of any attribute one discovers in one sex, in the other. This statement is an objectification for western consumption of the eastern notion of yin and yang.

The spectral nature of being is comprehensive. If the universe came from anywhere, the only available place is non-existence. To make something from nothing, one must perforce make both the desired thing and its opposite such that when combined, nothing once again is achieved. Thus one has matter and anti matter as components of the universe. Everything must exist in this state so one method of analyzing existence is to break things down into their component spectra. Sexuality is one of those spectra.

Feminism is that orientation towards life that emphasizes or idealizes feminine values. Femininity and masculinity are essential non-divisible attributes of existence, detectable everywhere in the universe and they have attributes like any other essential thing. An element, for example gold, has certain attributes. Most things in existence are combinations of other things and express the attributes of those things according to how significant they are in the mix.

Humans are all mixtures of the sexes and can psychologically control the significance of their sex by emphasizing the attributes of one side or the other. By deduction, one can conclude that recombination of DNA as a method of survival enhancement was discovered and implemented at some long ago time. After experimentation, it became clear that the only practical method of achievement would be if one living entity injected the other with its DNA. Based on that essentially engineering decision, all of the sexual differentiation one now sees arose. This is because injection is an aggressive act, so it slowly attracted to itself other masculine attributes. In the same way, allowing oneself to be injected is essentially a passive act and that attracted feminine attributes.

In the same way, masculinism is that orientation towards life that emphasizes masculine values. A mixture of sexual attributes will exist in individual humans, but it is significant which is culturally dominant since that will characterize the resulting society. The West has emphasized masculinity for at least 2000 years because of the influence of Christianity and its relationship to Judaism. Judaism is the most masculinist ideology of any culture in history.

To be feminine is to be passive. Passivity is that orientation towards life that is inclined not to act when stimulated. For instance a feminine reaction to some event, like someone blowing his horn behind you in traffic, is to ignore it. Feminism is then, at its root, conservative and disinclined to change.

To be feminine is to rely on relationships for survival. Femininity is always attracted to the establishment of new relationships and the constant care of old ones. Females will tend towards compassion because that is non-destructive towards relationships while criticism will tend to endanger relationships.

One can think of femininity in a scientific map. This is a diagram containing nodes and vertices. The vertices are important to females, while the nodes are more important to males. Chaos is associated with the feminine because her passivity allows her to adopt an attitude of acceptance towards it. She is thus, essentially non-creative and therefore the polar opposite of masculine.

Any human can be, psychologically at least, as feminine or masculine as they wish, simply by emphasizing the values of one or the other. Over time, this will have the desired effect. The passivity of the female is obvious in her sexuality, especially among the mammalian branch of the animal world. Females automatically, as it were, produce a scent when receptive and then use their power of choice to try for quality, while males hunt females and inject their sperm into them. For males, quantity is more important than quality. The female is anticipating a long relationship on which her survival depends while the male is anticipating that if he has as many heirs as possible and those of his rivals are minimized; his survival is best served.

Obviously, the male considers that he is his heir and they represent his immortality. For females, that isn't so clear; her view may be that she needs her offspring to care for her. Females live in the present, which is why that attitude has been promoted since the sixties. Males analyze the past, hoping to gain insight into the future.

When humans are expressing their femininity, they will be passive, uncreative, and chaotic. Serendipity is a word that has gained favor along with the rise of feminism. For example, when one performs an objective analysis, as is being done here, he is expressing his femininity by avoiding alteration of the subject in hand. On the other hand, to be objective is to be masculine. Females emphasize subjectivity because that is the mood that is most receptive to feelings, which inform one about the state of one's relationships.

When one is compassionate, he is expressing his femininity to avoid disturbing a relationship. When critical, he is expressing his masculinity in an attempt to alter a relationship.

To be masculine is to be aggressive. Humans have, for longer than recorded history associated the sun with masculinity. This is because the sun radiates and aggressively impregnates the earth, thought of as feminine for the same period of time, causing it to live. Aggression is a creative act since it brings about change. When awareness is added to the event on the side of the aggressor, he has the opportunity to focus his aggression towards some desired goal. Masculinity is therefore, inherently liberal, since it brings about change. In order to focus one’s creativity, order is necessary to highlight the problem under consideration while excluding extraneous factors. Humans when expressing their masculinity will tend to be orderly, creative, and aggressive or if their creativity is unfocused, just aggressive. Both construction and destruction are creative acts since they both bring about change.

Liberalism is defined here as tending to bring about change and conservatism is the reverse. This is empirically demonstrable by observing how these terms are used in any culture.

Understanding is the hallmark of masculinity because masculinity views this as its primary survival tool. Understanding allows one to predict the future to some extent and thereby allows one to begin his adaptation in anticipation. If a dam is being built one can predict a flood and move before it occurs.

Feminism doesn’t consider understanding important and may consider it counter productive if it delays one’s entrance into a desired future. Of course desiring a future is, in itself masculine, but that is just a demonstration of the mixed quality of human sexuality.

Males wax more and more objective as life goes on because they know that to gain a full understanding of any situation, one must abstract oneself from it. That, to remain in it is to be confused by the distortion resulting from perspective. As anyone knows, a rock that appears formidable when one is right next to it, may be just one more rock in a field of rocks when viewed from a distance.

With these definitions in hand, one is empowered to make general predictions about the future, since it is undoubted that the longest standing and most profound changes seen proceed from the feminist movement, especially in American society. This movement has been easily observed since the Vietnam period. Since this has been a period of rapid change with respect to cultural values one might be tempted to say it has been dominated by masculinism and in a sense this is true. Humans are moving from a more masculinist period into a more feminist one and therefore the tools of masculinism are those that are available. The most important of these tools has been the courts and legislature, clearly masculinist from the dominance of males in those institutions but changing now and showing those changes in the rising number of females involved.

Because chaos is the more comfortable home for feminism, one should expect to see decentralization begin to dominate over the powers of centralization. This can be seen to be happening in the various political organizations discussing secession from their hosts, like Quebec or the former satellite states of the Soviet Union.

Formal education, growing up in the masculinist environment of Western Europe must be expected to decay. This can be seen to be true when one realizes the fact that it is a system producing order in the ego or personality of its participants and that can only be in the service of creativity. There is still a political will to enhance educational efforts and this is particularly noticeable in the liberal and therefore feminist political parties. However, this is being done in the service of compassion. Feminists have long wished to deprive economics of its tendency to produce an economic spectrum amongst humans, thereby condemning a portion of humanity to poverty. This was the primary motivation allowing communist economic systems to come into existence.

Since the engine producing the dominance of masculinism in the West has been the Christian Church, one can readily predict that Christianity will either change or die. Probably the former in an effort to retain what continues to be seen as valuable to the culture. The changes to be anticipated will be the decline in importance of exclusionary passages in the Bible and an emphasis on the more compassionate ones. This can be seen to be happening in the changing attitudes towards homosexuals while the Sermon on the Mount continues to be taught.

Because altering the surface of the earth is a creative act and has negative effects on it and because the earth is the natural deity of the feminine, one can readily predict the rise of environmentalism. This is already so far advanced that it sounds like clear hindsight.

Feminism is inclusive because exclusivity has damaging effects on relationships. It will readily be seen that inclusivity decays order. The reverse is also true. This will be the motivating force behind the rise in importance of civil rights, rather than altruism.

As one considers the impact of conservatism and liberalism in the political sphere, it is apparent that liberalism is responsible for identifying a desirable future or perhaps a necessary future that can avoid approaching disaster. Conservatism is responsible for seeing to it that the future doesn’t arrive so rapidly, that people haven’t the time necessary to adapt. To take an obvious example one can think of early efforts amongst humans to fly. It is of course very difficult to know how rapidly one should move into the future. There is disaster on both sides.

Since, as will be seen later, one can trace feminism back to Jesus Christ, it has been a movement of long duration, suggesting that too rapid movement is more dangerous than too slow. If one moves slowly, one can exploit each change as it occurs, which is not possible if one moves too rapidly.

Most date feminism to the late sixties, when the term came into common usage. Some say that women’s suffrage was surely a feminist activity and others point out that the prohibition movement was led by women. That is entirely accurate but that is only the beginning, the feminist movement can readily be traced back 2000 years as will now be done.

There is some complexity here, since the feminist movement must be considered to occur within a masculinist culture and only one can be identified 2000 years ago and that was in Israel. This is not to say that masculine values didn’t exist outside of Israel; that would be too black and white. Humans are sexually mixed and so are their cultures. Greece was also a home of masculinism but it didn’t display one of its more important characteristics and thus never dominated its world, the Mediterranean basin.

Greece was very creative and somewhat aggressive towards Crete and Troy but was unable to separate itself from its polytheistic past. Israel on the other hand, based its culture on the one masculine God and His law, which was written down. They also wrested their homeland away from the Palestinians in a particularly aggressive way, from the account of Joshua’s entry into Palestine in the Bible. They also placed their women in a distinctly subordinate role as compared to the men. The women were isolated during menstruation and had no significant position in religious observance.

Islam has a written code and worships the one Allah, but gives to their women dignity and control of the home. This will be the reason for their loss of creative supremacy once Christianity gained dominance in Europe.

Christianity must be seen as a feminization of Judaism because of Jesus' introduction of compassion towards the prostitute and the lower class, which is what made it palatable to the feminist Europeans. Its decision to retain the Old Testament produced the masculinization of Europe by introducing a God endorsed law and the Bible, since Bible study led to formal education. However, it took a thousand years.

Many feminist moments have occurred during the recent history of the United States and there can be no doubt that on the national level it is the leader in this movement. The Soviet Union may have taken over that leadership for short periods, but even that is debatable. The modern movement had its start in England but quickly moved here.

The Soviet Union tried to exchange a masculinist culture for a feminist one on the moment, by revolution, but exchanging masculine values for feminist ones is a complicated business, they permeate one’s culture to its very roots. It takes a long time just to recognize them. The current feminist push began in England after the Second World War at their premier universities. It arose because of the Russian Revolution. When the academics studied the goals of communism, they saw that they had merit, but also that revolution wasn’t the right approach. Therefore, they set about analyzing what was really wanted and how it could be achieved. They concluded that it would be a long drawn out process with a very long list of goals that could only be achieved one at a time since they all involved reeducation of the population.

This is a deduction based on historical events. The deconstruction process, a piecemeal system of criticism and devaluation of western masculinist values, was identified and formulated there. They were the source of many Soviet spies discovered over the years within the English government, and glorified by John Le Carre in his spy novels. However, English culture goes very deep, so it wasn’t a suitable candidate for cultural transformation, America was. Therefore, the work done by Oxford and Cambridge was exported to America via academic exchanges. These exchange academics indoctrinated their colleagues in America and the movement was transplanted. This must have occurred during the fifties and prepared the way for the sixties.

The Vietnam War was obviously the spark that energized the current feminist push from timing and associations. The civil rights changes leading to school integration predate the war somewhat, and since the civil rights movement is motivated mainly by compassion from without it must be associated with feminism. In addition, as can be seen from books like Parting the Waters, the most active parts of the black community were women’s organizations. Beyond that, pacifists like Gandhi and King were expressing another feminist value. Obviously, war is destructive of relationships.

The Vietnam War was between feminists and masculinists. That is clear from the tactics employed. America tried to bludgeon the Vietnamese into submission using traditional WWII tactics, that is identifying a battle and slugging it out, toe to toe. A battle plan that favored the better supplied American forces. Guerilla warfare is feminist in nature. It relies on disorganization, stealth, and surprise, and once the battle is joined, immediate retreats. Western forces wished to hold territory while the Vietnamese immediately gave it up when threatened.

The Vietnamese had also read their Sun Tzu. They recognized a lesson forgotten by the west, that propaganda wins wars, in addition to weapons. The trick is to demoralize the enemy. Ho Chi Minh in league with his admirers in western universities set about doing just that, and that was what eventually won the war for him. The west underestimated their enemy and failed to mobilize a propaganda front, as they had done during WWII. Once the enemy’s propaganda machine began to work, it was too late, because the engines of propaganda in the west had already begun to sympathize with the Vietnamese. Witness the acts of Jane Fonda. Obviously, she was indoctrinated by her husband who had been indoctrinated by his professors at college, who had been indoctrinated by their counterparts at Cambridge. This is of course, deduction, based on events.

Contemplating the current political world, its ecology and demographics, and noting that the most powerful ideological movement afoot in these times is feminism, and also pausing to reflect on its beginnings in its current manifestation in the '60s, the question arises, what brought about the '60s? All effects have a cause in this world, what was it in this case?

One could hazard that the cause of the sixties was WWII, and particularly its end at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Large numbers of men were placed in harm's way, a particularly propitious manner in which to induce creativity. They were exposed to human actions on a particularly grand scale, and they saw innovation after innovation, all of which were aimed at the annihilation of men. This culminated in a bomb of such proportions that it could level a city of great size in a moment. It must have occurred to many that, if this could be done, it might be possible, by continuing this line of experimentation to end life on Earth.

Another interesting feature of this, in the Pacific Theater, was the confrontation of western masculinist values with eastern feminist values. Many men, on leave or R and R, would have found themselves in the company of Easterners, on the various Pacific islands. They would have wondered at their emphasis on feelings and relationships and their lack of interest in the pursuit of creativity. They would have noted that this seemed to produce a much less intense sort of life.

Taking these two experiences together and imagining these same men, as they came home and tried to integrate this understanding with the ordinary competition they confronted every day, the expectation would be that they would immediately father children, and that they would relate their experiences of life in many explicit and subtle ways to those children. They would explicitly ruminate on the horrors of war and particularly nuclear bombs and implicitly try to emulate the more relaxed orientation towards life they had experienced in the bars and brothels of the Far East and written about by Michener in Tales of the South Pacific.

These children, having been raised on a very different ideological diet than their ancestors, hearing human creativity represented as dangerous to the continued existence of life on this planet, hearing western competition discussed in disparaging terms, as in the novel The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, would have arrived at adulthood in a very different frame of mind than their predecessors. They would have been inclined to question the wisdom of Western Culture, particularly at its fountainhead, the universities.

On top of this, another problem had developed. In the past, creativity had been used, particularly in the form of technological invention, as a pathway to a future represented as a Utopia, free from want. Now, technological innovation was exposed as perhaps too dangerous to pursue any further and many of these same children will have been looking for some other path to follow. As with all children they idealistically wanted a harmless ideology, even an ideology that held out the promise of ameliorating the all too obvious problems, Native American genocide for example, that attended the ideology they had inherited.

In addition, at that moment, fortuitously, along came a war that seemed to place in relief all of the disturbing qualities of that inherited ideology. A particularly backward and agrarian people were to be subjected to high technology warfare so that the west could repress an ideology that denied the roots of western ideology and therefore the source of its wealth. It appeared to be the sacrifice of innocents to save the luxurious life style prevalent in the west.

These same children, having been taught that a more relaxed view of life, a less "uptight" view was more desirable, found they could not rationalize discipline and particularly repression of their own desires with that attitude.

Therefore, they rebelled. In addition, they took the most direct approach to resolving the most obvious problems they saw in their own country. They saw people disturbed by sexual repression most clearly, so they decided that sexual repression should henceforth be discarded. They saw laws they didn't understand, particularly the one against pot, so they ignored it. They found a new music that appealed to everything western culture tried to repress, so they reveled in it. They saw white Europeans discriminating against others, so they determined to fight it. They saw men exploiting women, so they idealized femininity and attacked the institutions that sanctioned exploitation.

Finally, why did this event crystallize into feminist ideology? In the end, there are only two ideologies, masculinism, the ideology of the west, and feminism, the ideology of the east. If you rebel against one, there is nowhere to go but to the other.

The Prohibition movement was not purely feminist in nature, since it was not aimed at empowering women directly, but to save them from the suffering that resulted from male drunkenness. However, men don't get drunk for no reason, but rather to escape from an environment they find themselves unable to live in. This environment is presumably created by women, since that is their traditional function in the family.

One can say that, in the effort to move society towards feminism, women find themselves creating environments uninhabitable by men who try to escape some by way of alcohol. Prohibition is therefore an effort to force those men choosing this method of escape to remain and continue their support efforts.

The feature of this uninhabitable environment of most significance is emasculation. Emasculation means depriving men of that which distinguishes them from women: aggression, dominance, and creativity.

The movement was a failure of course, because other men used the law as a means of expressing their masculinity, by organizing an illegal alcohol economy.

The women’s suffragette movement is certainly best classified, as a manifestation of feminism since its goal is to empower women politically. It has had an enormous impact on American politics, especially since more women vote than do men. This allows them to vote feminists into political office, which is exactly what they frequently do. This is not to say that there aren’t masculinist women, of course there are, Margaret Thatcher for example, but even these will sympathize with some feminist goals like equal treatment for women in the work place. But, most women will be attracted to feminists as can be seen by the relatively insignificant women’s organizations supporting masculinist values like right-to-life, the most passionate conflict between these two opponents.

Women’s suffrage was a tremendous success. By itself, it has the power to end masculine dominance in the west, which it can do very easily by simply voting in feminist friendly administrations like the Clintons for instance. It has been very difficult to discern the exact reasons for the conclusion that President Clinton was a superior choice to President Bush. Rationality must have made the reverse choice based simply on doubts raised about Clinton’s character during the campaign. The answer can only be that feminists found him very attractive.

In fact, an inclusive democracy, one that maximizes the electorate as does ours, guarantees that rationality will not be dominant in choosing political candidates. This is because the home of rationality, the place where it dominates, is amongst older men, who identify with the masculine God and have had time to develop a comprehensive consciousness.

This fact may be unpalatable to some women, but that will be because they buy into the masculine conclusion that rational consciousness is superior to feelings. In addition, that conclusion is antagonistic to the female sex. There is no actual basis for this conclusion, aggression is successful sometimes, as is passivity. When one is outclassed, passivity allows for continued survival and aggression does not.

Survival is the actual arbiter of what is good and bad in this world.

The last word in large-scale revolution and the largest step towards feminism was The Russian Revolution. In this system, the citizen was to be protected from suffering imposed on him by the upper classes and the economic system by destroying class altogether and its creator, religion. After that, communizing production was thought to be the solution to unequal distribution of goods. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" was their slogan. This effort was unsuccessful, since it was an attempt to make feminism work in a masculine world. They wanted efficient production but since competition and reward, both of which were eliminated produce that, it didn’t work. Since the people were not willing to dispense with the rewards of masculinism, reliable shelter and food, they were not able to dispense with the price of masculinism, discipline and competition. It worked as well as it did because of the values imbedded in the Russian people by their history, but when those people died out, their heirs didn’t have those values and Soviet Communism largely dissolved.

However, it wasn’t a complete failure. A class-based culture has been transformed into an American style classless society. Barriers disallowing the free movement of people up the social scale have been eliminated, and the political leader of Russia is as middle class as in America. Democracy and a government restrained free market economy are their inevitable future as with all countries that contend with America and lose, e.g. Japan and Germany.

Marx’s Kapital was too simplistic, but it is undoubted that a market economy rewarding those that contribute most will inevitably produce a wealth spectrum, meaning some will be poor, at least relatively. The current theory, restraining extreme wealth and extreme poverty may work, but it depends on a central government that understands economics sufficiently well to avoid doing harm. Most don’t understand the basis of economics, which is that, because of the design of the universe, it is impossible to avoid fair compensation. It can be made very complex, but it cannot be avoided. At some level people do understand this, because they will rush to give something that to them is nearly worthless in order to create indebtedness; hoping to cash in later and perhaps get back more than they have given.

This event in American history can be viewed from the perspective of the rise of feminism. One of its many aspects, perhaps the most significant, was as the war to end slavery. Ending slavery was, for many of the opponents, an act of compassion as demonstrated in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. As an act of compassion it must arise from feminism, which has so prominently displayed this feeling throughout history. Ending slavery can also be seen as a realization of the values embodied in the original conception of the United States, establishing that event also as a manifestation of the rise of feminism.

The crucial goal of the Civil War was to forestall the establishment of a new class based culture, imported from England, in the South. If one compares the southern culture, with blacks at the bottom, a small middle class, and an aristocracy living in the style of the English aristocracy, it can be seen that this was a real fear. If it was allowed to survive, it could have defeated the constitutional basis of America and ended the "last, best hope of mankind."

The American Revolution was a major step towards feminism. The new form of government was democracy and compassion was enshrined in an addendum to the constitution called The Bill of Rights, which was meant to protect the citizen from the greed of the government. Democracy is, in itself a feminine form of government when compared to monarchy because it is relatively more chaotic and inclusive. Inclusivity is a feature of feminism because it enhances relationships rather than destroying them as does exclusivity. Exclusivity is characteristic of monarchies. The King is the most exclusive of political institutions and aristocracies, the supporters of monarchy, are also inherently exclusionary.

This was considered to be a great evil at that time and even George Washington, if reports are to be believed, worried that he might be transformed into a king if he didn’t guard against it. Therefore, the goal of the revolution, ostensibly tax freedom, was actually to forestall the possibility that England’s social system might be imposed on the US. This was nearly inevitable, were America to remain a colony of England. Even winning the revolution wasn’t sufficient, since southern slaves tended to bring the aristocratic system into being in the south.

From one's perspective through Dickens, especially in A Tale of Two Cities one is driven to the conclusion that the aristocracy had run amok in France. They seem to have reached the conclusion that the lower class existed for them to exploit. Whether or not this is true is unimportant, it is believed to be true. No doubt, there is an element of truth in it. No doubt, some men thought as described by Dickens. Whether or not that was most or all is unknown. In any case, a general program was adopted to kill the aristocracy and adopt a more egalitarian style of government. This amounted to trading order for compassion as can easily be seen in Dickens. Therefore this was a move towards feminism and very well synchronized with values being established in the United States.

France is also a very old culture though, and unsuitable as a candidate for cultural leadership in the west for that reason. The problem here is easily seen. Look at the computerization of the US. There is no great difficulty indoctrinating the young, they have no old concepts to discard, but try it with older people. It is virtually hopeless.

This period, for the west was intensely masculinist and in fact, one can date the peak of the masculinist era in this region by the numbers and quality of contributions to culture of a masculinist character. This includes science and the arts, since recording one’s experiences in music or novels or science is a masculine activity. It has the effect of raising consciousness, and the conscious complex or personality is a masculine entity whether it occurs in a female or a male, due to its order. Humans associate items of a like nature in their minds producing order and allowing memory to function. It will be readily seen that recording is much more common in western Europe than anywhere else, just by counting the occurrences. Some advanced feminist cultures such as those in India and China do some recording but nothing like the amount of it done in Europe. Therefore, when this activity is most common in both quantity and quality, the period of the great composers and great writers, approximately two to three hundred years ago, marks the apex of masculinism. Say, beginning with the renaissance and ending with the industrial revolution.

Henry VIII, King of England, was one of two men successfully to defy the Pope in a period when the church was arguably the dominant institution in Europe. The Pope symbolizes God and the father. Therefore, Henry VIII demonstrated that one could successfully rebel against the father and by extension the husband because he holds the authority of the father. All females are primary beneficiaries of this bequest, followed by sons and other children, and all fathers lose authority.

This was the defining secular event of feminist history since it hastened the fragmentation of the church and began its decline in influence. Now, people could attend or not, as a matter of conscience or interest without fear of being ostracized. The king had demonstrated there could be secular reasons for rebellion. The church was the instrument of establishment of male dominance in the west so that too would eventually be going.

Martin Luther was another man successfully to defy the Pope. He chose to dissociate himself and his followers from the Church of Rome because of the corruption there. Secondarily, he chose to emphasize the literal interpretation of the Bible as the authorized one.

This had multitudinous effects over the years, but the effect of interest is the suggestion that the Pope might not be infallible after all. If he is not, then anyone can aspire to leadership in this world because all are human and that is the main requirement remaining, once a special relationship with God is removed. Therefore, women can strive for leadership, even religious leadership, and even the role of priest or pope.

This was the defining religious event in the history of feminism.

Interestingly, Martin Luther demonstrated the law of unintended consequences with his demand that the literal interpretation of the Bible be the only authorized one. It had the effect of forcing one conceptual system on the western world which had far reaching effects, allowing science to develop in a world in which all observations were interpreted literally rather than symbolically. One reported exactly what happened, rather than one’s interpretation of the meaning of the event. Scientists, increasingly spoke with one voice, even though in different languages.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructs his listeners regarding the proper attitude the pious should adopt towards the poor and assured them of their reward in heaven. By so doing, he establishes the long Christian tradition of ministering to the poor. Obviously, this demonstrates the values, compassion and inclusion. It is thus a step towards feminization of the culture.

This eventually results in the rise of socialism, where one gives over this responsibility to the government, and from there to Communism and in America to the socialist view that accompanies feminism.

One should be struck with wonder, noting that whatever forces control mankind started a 2000 year process with Jesus. This is far seeing indeed. Did Jesus see that feminizing the masculinist Jewish religion would make it attractive to the gentiles? That it would start them along the same road that the Jewish nation had followed and eventually after 2000 years grow so powerful that it would overcome the Torah and transform the west into feminists? Alternatively, did it just feel to him like the right spin to put on things?

In the story of the prostitute, Mary Magdalene, Jesus demonstrates compassion, even for the lawbreaker, and instructs the faithful that no one is beyond redemption. In so doing Jesus demonstrates great compassion beyond what would be expected from a religious teacher.

This story of compassion, which might well be expected from a woman, builds over the centuries until compassion becomes an expected component of human personalities, and is presented in the most compelling way by Dickens. Finally, it is adopted as the primary weapon of feminism against masculinism. In fact, this is such a dagger to the heart of masculinism, one wonders if that wasn’t Jesus’ intent. If that is what is meant by the statement that Jesus came to correct the sin of Adam. Carried to its logical conclusion, one must eventually conclude that a legal system cannot ever be just because the law is a generality and never precisely fits individual circumstances.

The end of the law must lead to the end of civilization, thus man must expect to find himself once more, back in the Garden of Eden.

About 10,000 years ago, due to overpopulation of humans in the region of Palestine, it became necessary to find other means than nomadism and reliance on natural food sources to maintain the population. Abraham's tribe, an offshoot of the existing Arabic culture then in possession of the territory had rejected the traditional feminist deities in vogue at the time and settled instead on a single and singular masculine god of the spirit as the tribal supreme deity. This produced an enmity between his tribe, known now as the Jews, and the popular culture. As a system of land ownership came into being, a necessary prerequisite to farming, and because of the weakness of the Jews due to their inferior numbers, they were ejected from the Palestinian region into the southern desert to continue their nomadic life.

Abraham, recognizing the futility of this life style in pursuit of long-term survival and dominance in the region, considered what steps should be taken to acquire tribal supremacy. His conclusion was that their religion could be the vehicle that would allow them to reach deliverance, and that it could hold a means of gaining revenge for the treatment they had received at the hands of the dominant culture. The crucial issue was to gain in numbers. This could be achieved, he considered, if his tribe were to adopt rules that gave them a survival advantage over their enemies. This would mean better methods of controlling disease and the maximization of procreative potential.

To this end, a system of religious rules had to be established that would provide for taboos against individual actions tending to limit population growth. These would include rules against food sources that appeared to be connected in some way with disease and sexual rules limiting the methods used to satisfy masculine sexual aggression. The sexual taboos would call for male ownership of all female members of his family, including slaves and the requirement that they submit to him sexually on demand. Males, on reaching maturity would be required to establish their own families, by either purchase of the daughters of established households or by buying or capturing slave women. This had the effect of limiting male conflict over female companionship and maximization of the procreative potential of individual male tribal members.

In order to establish the superiority of the masculine deity, ritual sacrifice was installed as a method of religious observance and the deity was identified as the tribal god whose special concern was the well being of this individual tribe. Ritual sacrifice, by causing families to give up prized possessions to their god, had the effect of placing their god in debt to them and created an account on which they could draw in times of need. It also tended to limit rejection of the god because of personal stake. All positive events having about them incomprehensibility were identified as miraculous and evidence of the special relationship between this tribe and their god. Thus, the two main events in Abraham's life, the near sacrifice of his son and the pregnancy of his wife at advanced age were both interpreted in this way.

The Mosaic Law includes the requirement that women be segregated from the rest of the tribe during menstruation. What are the reasons for this requirement and what would be the expected outcome?

The most likely reason is the wish to protect the tribe from disease that may accompany this condition. In a nomadic desert tribe with limited ability to maintain cleanliness due to a limited water supply, it might be expected that biological infestations could accompany menstruation, or at least a higher likelihood of them. One could expect that the motive here, as with many of the rules regarding what can be eaten, would be to restrain disease. Why is it included by Moses and not practiced by other tribes? Because the main underlying motive for the Mosaic Law was to increase the numbers of the tribe so that, eventually they could contend for supremacy in Palestine.

The second question is more interesting. What would be the effect of sequestration of females during menstruation? This effect has echoed down the centuries, because Jesus and perhaps more importantly Paul, endorsed the Old Testament, even though Jesus changed the emphasis in several crucial areas, particularly regarding compassion. Therefore, the Bible, the most important written document for this culture, contained this provision, although not practiced anymore. This will color the cultural view of the female as distinct from the male. Every woman will adopt an attitude to this distinction and will pass it on to her daughters. When they get old enough they will read it, and the cycle goes on as long as the Bible remains a crucial cultural influence.

To try to understand this, one can try to imagine oneself as a thirteen year old, experiencing her first menstruation, finding herself effectively in jail for a week or so, and profoundly impressed that she is and that her brothers have no such experience. It must be expected that some at least, would ponder this at great length. They would ask why they should be burdened with this bodily function, so disgusting that they have to be incarcerated while it is in progress. They would envy the males. They would wish they could get rid of it. They would eventually, refer to it as "the curse", a curse from God on their sex. Why would God do that? No doubt, this question was presented to the Rabbi. He cast about for an answer, and came up with an old myth, The Garden of Eden.

In fact, one must assume such a rule will produce some form of self-hatred in some experiencers. One has to keep in mind that the psychological complex, a demon causing endless mischief for humanity, is only too happy to fasten onto a falsehood, the notion that women are inferior to men due to menstruation, and wreak a little devilment. Some girls would effectively forget their periods when possible, and therefore a crucial aspect of their identity. This would then form the root of a complex, which would soon attract every negative idea in the tribe regarding femininity; sexual promiscuity, prostitution, evil spells, witches, etc. As with all complexes, in some small number of experiencers, the complex would become so large it would in the end, take over the personality of the victim. This complex would also attract inclinations to every other violation of the Mosaic Law and, if and when dominant in an individual, could and would produce from time to time a profoundly evil creature.

One might assume that Moses understood this was the price to be paid for sequestration, and concluded he had to do it anyway because, if the tribe didn't survive, nothing mattered anyway. Reading of the trials of the tribe during their wandering, their survival was a near thing. Consider the manna incident or the one where Moses struck the stone to produce water. They were frequently hungry and thirsty.

It is not being suggested that the Biblical story of Eden is untrue, rather that it is a masculinist view of an event that may have happened as it is described in Eve, A Fable. Many artists have rendered this story over the centuries, from Michelangelo to M.C. Escher, so it is crucial to western thought regarding man's origins.

There is a picture of a young woman, posing nude, and holding a handkerchief over her crotch. This is not a new idea. In fact, many pictures including feminine nudity from the European period of Christian dominance portray females in just this way. What does this picture say?

It may say to some, "look at my beautiful body, and since I know you think my crotch the essence of evil ugliness, I will cover it up so you will see only my beauty."

Men contend that this is far from what they think but the women have it on higher authority that this is exactly what they think.

There is the story of a professor who, confronted by a female student in the front row with legs apart, asked her to cross them so that he would not be confronted by "The Gates of Hell".

From Moses, one learns mainly that the Jewish God is a God of laws. That every aspect of man's life is best understood in terms of God's law, passed on by Moses. Laws are the intellectual representation of order and thus the masculine God is the God of order.

The Mosaic Law is extremely detailed, occupying most of the Pentateuch. For Christians, it is encapsulated in the Ten Commandments. This simple law is the basis of all of law in the western world.

Feminism has many problems with this law. They cannot accept the first one; "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." They also have trouble with taking God's name in vain; keeping the Sabbath; honoring parents (they put them in nursing homes); killing (abortion); adultery; stealing (from the rich to give to the poor as in taxes); lying (to make political points); and coveting (political power). They also follow one graven image after another (pyramids, crystals).

On their side, obviously the law isn’t fair. It puts the innocent in jail. It punishes those that have perfectly good reasons for their violations.

The law isn’t actually a force for justice, though that is its justification and perhaps it even occasionally operates in that way. Its actual intent is creatively to change man into something other than what he was when the law was invented by imposing order on chaos. It seeks to change natural man into civilized man. It succeeds too, to some extent. Is this an improvement? Survival will pass judgement.

Primitive cultures are without exception feminist. This is because masculinism, as is appropriate for an ideology proceeding from the male, requires to be invented, as was done by Moses. Feminism, on the other hand, will arise of its own accord by the simple act of institutionalizing cultural rules as they arise.

One can readily envision a group of primitives banding together for self-protection as described by Jack London in his story. Rules will have to be established in order to stave off internal violence especially regarding the ownership of women. Women will be placed in charge of the home, which will assure that feminine values dominate there. An individual will be identified as the shaman or witch doctor, one of whose prime responsibilities will be to assure the productivity of food gathering exercises. This will lead to a worship of nature.

In this way, a system of rules and beliefs will begin to accumulate enshrining feminine values. It is natural and all things natural are feminine.

One can do no better than to observe the Native American. They adopt natural names: Running Bear, Crazy Horse, which has the effect of idealizing those animals and teaching the carrier that that animal is to be emulated in his own life.

As Chief Seattle was purported to have said, the natural world is to be respected, not exploited. He may not have actually said it, but the sentiments were genuine. They believe in natural healing which places a much greater emphasis on psychological health than does western objective medicine. They recognize that a human, well adapted to his environment isn’t likely to get sick, since the body is already capable of dealing with most afflictions that can arise. The civilized, on the other hand, have little chance of being well adjusted, since western man occupies himself with creative social change; thus, he needs medicine to overcome self-induced medical problems. Women begin emasculating men, not seeing why they should take it amiss, so the drug industry contrives a medicine to make it easier for men to achieve erections.

Native Americans aren’t given to excess, as are the European transplants. They drink to excess, eat to excess, gather wealth to excess, avoid sleep, watch television to excess, and educate themselves to excess. Some Native Americans do drink to excess, but only as a response to efforts at civilizing them. The dominant culture tries to live forever; the Native Americans accept death as it comes. They are nomadic, which has the effect of allowing the land to recover from their presence, which this land can never do since the white man never leaves.

They lived with and hunted the buffalo for centuries while that animal’s numbers increased. Europeans came and the buffalo nearly disappeared.

It is true that this sort of life isn’t inevitable in a feminist culture. Taking China as an example of cultured feminism, they appear to have as many problems as the west does. However, this is traceable to their excessive numbers. They are sufficiently masculine to have devised ways to defeat death. The important thing to observe in death is that it is an adaptation. There is some ideal life span for the individual that promotes the good health of the species. Living things can live any length of time by the simple expedient of cell renewal, but there are problems, both with living too long and too short. The longer one lives the more effort that has to be put into reeducation and certain kinds of adaptation, those requiring significant genetic alterations can only be done by starting out afresh.

Therefore, avoiding death, beyond ordinary measures, is counter-productive with respect to survival of the species.

Most people accept life prolongation to avoid the suffering that comes with loss of relationship. This sort of suffering can be intense if one has developed a dependency on the lost person. The life prolongation is therefore a reaction to predicting the future. Thus, animals don’t do it, and it is a result of over masculinization.

This graph is intended to demonstrate the relationship between masculinism, the worship of the spirit, and feminism, the worship of the earth. Feminism is represented in red because it is irrational, basing its judgments on feelings, primarily compassion, which gives it a distinctly short-term orientation. Masculinism is represented in blue because it is rational, basing its judgments on rules, producing a more long-term orientation. Extreme feminists, such as the best of the American Indians, are seen to have a very noticeable value system, in which the spirits are well identified, abundant, and carefully cared for. This is also characteristic of the extreme masculinists, such as the ancient Jews, though in that case only one spirit is identified. These peoples have a distinctly religious orientation characterized by respect for nature on the one hand and God on the other, which results in an admirable though conflict intensive culture. Admirable for its respect towards the rest of the world and control of hubris, conflict intensive because other humans will not recognize the need for respect and will come to blows through careless violation of taboos.

The first characteristic of masculinism is aggression. That is because creativity is an expression of aggression. Aggression will lead one to do something, and that means creation. Order is the least of these three characteristics and is there because of the dependence of creation on order. The creative process relies on abstraction, to clear the field of immaterial objects, and order, to allow the intellect to grasp, at one time, the problem and its components. Then, if one is available, the solution will suggest itself, and intuition will perceive it. Extreme feminism will be exactly opposite in all respects, as the graph suggests. This is because there are only two ends to any spectrum and the universe is a collection of spectra. Feminism, being passive, will see no need for creation and therefore will not wish for order.

Masculinism values individuality because the creative act occurs in the mind of the individual. It is true that two minds are better than one, but only if they are filled with the same problem. This is seldom the case. Therefore, groups usually dissolve into vituperation and conflict. On the other hand, a non-aggressive people will value the strength that confederation provides and will, for that reason group together as far as their disorganization will allow.

Judaism is well understood in the west, Animism is chosen as its opposite because of its investment of inanimate objects and animals with valued characteristics of humans, which are then worshipped. Christianism is a feminization of Judaism because of Christ's compassion. Hinduism is a masculinization of Animism because of the extensive intellectualism that surrounds it. Muslimism is a further feminization of Judaism because of its isolation of women. This has the effect of creating a mother based family structure, as in primitive cultures. Masculinism is difficult to maintain, as can be seen from the paucity of such cultures in history. One is always in danger of institutionalizing feminine values either by emphasizing them or by de-emphasizing them in a way that creates a critical cultural institution, like the family, which becomes a place of emphasis. Feminism is the default option. Masculinism requires a creative act to invent it, while feminism will occur of its own accord as a result of the individual solutions to small problems slowly building up into a set of values. Helenism is a masculinization of Hinduism due to the systematization of the religious hierarchy, with a transcendent God, Zeus, and all others arranged in a hierarchy. Helenism led to an extreme form of intellectualization and identification of all the main avenues of investigation, which provided the basis for the extreme masculinism, which developed in Europe.

Finally, secularism is currently thought to be the final solution to the problems associated with both feminism and masculinism. As can be seen from the graph, extreme feminism and masculinism are the sources of value systems that provide for a means of avoiding self-destruction. There is no apparent reason to avoid the most destructive tendencies in human nature such as random violence and promiscuity in secularism. Beyond that, why continue to live in a valueless culture? Since it has no values, it provides no pathway to perfection to lead humanity into the future.

One supposes that any American is familiar with the story of the Americans that preceded the white man as residents on this land. From The Last of the Mohicans to Dances with Wolves, Americans have had much coverage of this culture provided to them. Much of it romanticized no doubt, but still, much of it accurate.

These people are most likely to be descended from Mongolians in the case of the western tribes, and perhaps from Northern Africans in the case of the eastern tribes. They eventually arrived at similar conclusions about life style, in any case. They considered that there were many gods to be concerned with, though they recognized some preeminence in the great sky spirit who is easily identified as the western God. They went so far as to construct a massive reclining female sculpture in the southwest, and considered themselves brothers to the animals. They were tenacious fighters, but failed to understand the significance of objective technology and practical philosophy of organization. They could not handle alcohol.

Americans are perceived by many to owe these people a debt. This is a strange concept, manufactured out of masculinist philosophy and feminist compassion. None the less, it will likely force the dominant culture to admit the debt and attempt to repay it. This will result in a release of their values on the culture, which will lead to acceptance of them by many. As the institutions of the old culture decay, many will leave masculinism in disgust and adopt those values, which will by then, make more sense to the converts.

This is surely a most likely fate. Eventually, feminism will create so much decay in the institutions controlling human life, that the four horsemen will be, once again unleashed. This solves the problem of overpopulation and returns balance to the natural world. Man will return to a more primitive life style with far smaller numbers.

This seems unlikely because one cannot imagine forgetting all he knows, particularly in the case of the nuclear bomb. However, this is happening already. All that is necessary is for humans to be diverted from the onus of concentration and school. After two generations, all will be lost. Diverting humans from school is only a matter of exposing them to something more compelling...drugs for instance.

It also seems unlikely that one could expect to transition from an advanced masculine culture to an advanced feminine one. There are many lessons to learn and western man will have to start over, in kindergarten, as it were. Of course, the result will be different from those that have gone on before. Humans will carry memories from their years of development of masculinism. That will alter the view of the lessons of feminism, perhaps to advantage.

The most extreme masculinist culture was Nazi Germany. It provided the world with a clear indication that the time for masculinism to decline had arrived. Nazi Germany was the most orderly culture yet devised, based on a technological and militaristic model as it was. In addition, the attempt to purify the genetic pool in Germany and its conquered domains is an attempt to impose order on nature. It was a dictatorship, which is even more exclusionary than are monarchies. One man rule with the dictator designating every important member of the government without regard to any tradition, such as heredity.

The most extreme feminist government occurred simultaneously with the most extreme masculinist government. This was the Soviet Union, which also imposed its ideas on the culture by killing those that it deemed could not conform. The contention could be made that the actual motive of Hitler, from the beginning was to destroy the communist government of Russia, which he recognized by his lights, as an abomination and a violation of everything he valued.

Buddhism postulates the existence of a sort of heaven called Nirvana. Reaching this most desirable state means that one can stop reincarnating every time he dies. Their idea is that the state of being dead is so terrifying, that the soul chooses to reincarnate as a means of escape. The Zen Master has gained control over his imagination and therefore death holds no dread for him.

This demonstrates right away that eastern philosophy is diametrically opposed to western religion. They want to stay dead because life is mainly suffering, western man wishes to live forever because, what else is there?

The life of the master is dominated by denial. His wish is to extinguish every earthly desire within him in order to free himself from the "wheel of life". Practically, the only way this can be accomplished is to become progressively more objective. Objectivity destroys desire by exposing the objects of desire as insubstantial and incapable of satisfaction, an illusion.

If one takes reincarnation to be an obscure reference to procreation, the only rational meaning it can have, and then observes the life of families, starting in poverty and through each generation improving its control over its life until the struggle for material survival is permanently resolved and then dying from boredom, Buddhism looks to be pretty accurate and its goal would seem to be to make this process more efficient.

Buddhism is godless, but its attitude towards life is essentially passive and therefore feminine, recommending a life of beggary to its adherents, as it does. Passively awaiting the requirements of life to be given it by the environment, and passively accepting death if it does not, presumably. Passively awaiting enlightenment by meditating.

Like Christianity, Buddhism recognizes the sinful state of man and the possibility of being cleansed from sin by following Buddha. Contrary to the lower class status of Jesus though, Buddha was a prince named Siddhartha.

Taoism, in its holy book, Tao Te Ching, concentrates on the mother of God, which it calls The Tao, and describes her passivity as worthy of one's emulation as a means of achieving perfection. The feminist nature of this philosophy is immediately apparent.

One can think of Confucius as the Moses of the east. Interestingly his time period is roughly the same as Moses. He devised a written rule based system as guidance for the rulers of China in hopes of achieving order through reform. Since his rules weren’t divinely inspired, they lacked the force that Moses’ law had. One could disagree, since Confucius was only a man and capable of error. None the less, Confucius demonstrates that masculinism lives in feminist cultures, but does not dominate.

Hinduism would appear to be a more sophisticated version of animism. It is filled with gods controlling every aspect of daily life. It passively relies on meditation as the pathway to enlightenment and shares with Buddhism the view of life based on reincarnation. It has many sects identifying certain esoteric systems for achieving enlightenment. It organized society into strata or castes and has been much criticized for the near impossibility of passage from one to another, demanding as it does that one rely on rebirth for his transition.

Multi god societies are always feminist since this promotes chaos in one’s religious life. Cows are considered sacred, an obvious feminine symbol.

Japan is a cultural borderland between the west and east. Its primary philosophy is Buddhism and its pre-civilized heritage obviously lies in China. None the less, it has been uncharacteristically aggressive and militaristic. Before the influence of Christianity, Japan was dominated by military leaders called Shoguns and a system based on loyalty and honor.

None the less, it has no intellectual tradition dating to that period, so that its current intellectualism must be considered to be in emulation of western influences. In fact, Japan is a master of absorption of foreign cultural influences. Christianity has no serious following there.

Islam is also best considered, in terms of ideology, as a borderline culture having elements from both the west and the east. The men worship God, whom they call Allah, at temple, while the women dominate the home producing a sort of private feminism. They are allowed to do this by being granted respect by Mohammed. They see their forbears in the family of Abraham and accept the Jewish and Christian holy books as arising from God’s prophets, though, since Mohammed followed them, in their view, he was their superior. The public ideology, having a male deity and an aggressive proselytizing character, is masculine.

Islam had an early heyday as the intellectual world leader, but once the wife led family came to dominate the private world their days of intellectual leadership waned and Christian Europe became dominant.

This graph is an attempt to represent human sexuality along a spectrum defined by a pro-sexual attitude at one end. For this type of person, sexual expression is an experience that provides pleasure and a desire for further experience. An anti-sexual attitude occupies the other end. For this type of person, sexual expression is a negative experience providing little or no positive value. For them, ancillary features such as the indignity of it override the value.

Sexuality is a means of relating between individuals and therefore is feminine in nature, since relating is of the feminine domain. To be feminine is to be created upon rather than to create. Therefore, the feminine relies on realities rather than fantasies. Relationships are real. That is, the closest relationship is between parent and child since the child is half oneself. All other relationships share to a lesser extent this feature, except that between parents which is sexual, also real. Anti-sexuality is therefore identified as masculine.

Culture forces the standard bell curve into a somewhat distorted shape, with vastly more people in the central bell than would be expected without cultural influences.

Some examples are given where one would expect to find them along the spectrum. By nymphomaniacs/Don Juan, it is meant the type of person for whom sexuality defines their life and occupies their thoughts all the time. Actors/exhibitionists are those that achieve some sexual satisfaction by displaying their bodies. The sexually experimental are those that try every new sexual idea, as it occurs to them. By sexually procreative it is meant those that view sex as best confined to the procreative effort. Puritans/St. Paul refers to sexual attitudes represented to be common among the Puritans who settled the Northeastern US, while St. Paul refers to the sexual attitudes expressed by St. Paul in First Corinthians and other letters. Finally, by The Western View of God it is meant that, God, in the west is a wholly masculine entity. In the West, people worship masculinity or come from a culture that did. With masculinity, came Victorian sexual attitudes and that led to the current feminist sexual revolution as a reaction.

From the graph, The Ideological Spectrum, it can be seen that masculinity is creative and femininity is not. In fact, one can say that God creates using materiality or the feminine as the medium of creation. Therefore, it is proper to say that masculinity is creative while femininity is created upon. Because of its creativity, the masculine is dependent on fantasy, or mental modeling, as a method of producing a preliminary image of that which is to be created. Mental activity is, therefore, more natural to the masculine than to the feminine. Femininity relies on the material as its medium of expression and what it considers more real. For the masculine, the reverse will be true. All of ideation, the entirety of metaphysics and physics are properly understood in the spiritual domain, where physics is understood to be essential science, towards which all other science tends. Mathematics is its primary and most precise language. Natural languages are also used as rough approximations preliminary to the stage of precise modeling. In fact all writing outside of the mathematical including novels and poetry can be seen as preliminary stages to the creation of the mathematical model. Metaphysics and physics are best understood as two ends of the spiritual spectrum, one end of which describes the material realm while the other describes the spiritual realm, or the medium in which models, including itself are constructed.

With this separation, it becomes clear why relationships are, essentially feminine. They are material or representative of materiality. The essential relationship is that between mother and child, in which the child is half of the mother and the closest thing to a new version of the mother. Other family relationships outside of the husband/wife relationship are lesser versions of the mother/child relationship. The husband/wife relationship is essentially sexual and therefore is also material. This is not to deny the accumulation of various mental constructs to describe the relationship, mainly created by the male, but the essence of it, without which there would be no relationship, is sexual.

Thus far, Jung's the cosmic family has been considered. There are other relationships that have no real materiality to them, but they are all modeled on one or another family relationship and so share in the materiality of it. Any relationship falls into one or another of the following models: spouse or creative partner, father or ordering principle, mother or nurturing principle, sister/brother or sharing principle, uncle/aunt or lesser parents, cousins or lesser siblings.

From this, it will be seen that another essential aspect of reality has been identified, in the common fourfold model, similar to Jung's characterization of the personality as the results of the action of sensation, intuition, thinking, and feeling. One can say that the activities of life fall into the four-way pie, creating, ordering, nurturing, and sharing. As usual, half of the pie is more closely associated with the masculine, creating and ordering, while the other half is more closely associated with the feminine, nurturing and sharing. Ordering is a preliminary necessity to creating, while nurturing is a subsequent necessity to the same act and in the case of creating multiple instances of the object, sharing becomes a necessity.

This is a graphical representation. This representation is chosen because, when talking about the personality, it is well to conform to symbols used by the unconscious. The circle represents the potential wholeness of the personality, and is called a mandala. It occurs frequently in mythology and religion; the most common occurrence is the halo. Additionally, the number four represents wholeness or completeness.

This sheds light on the abortion struggle. Since relationships are of the feminine, and arguably the premier value, while rules are of the masculine and certainly the premier value, and since relationships are created by relating, that is communicating face to face, one can say that the relationship between mother and fetus is tenuous in the beginning and gains strength as time goes on, but is always weaker than that with a born child. Perhaps the relationship with the fetus is something like that with a stranger in one's life, in the beginning, and only picks up significance as its existence impinges on consciousness. In the abortion conflict, the woman always has to choose between relationships, and those with independent humans are stronger than that with the unborn child.

For this to be an accurate model, it would be expected that all activities in all lives would be capable of assignment to one of these four generalizations. There are some odd cases, like masturbating for instance. However, this amounts to a husband/wife relationship occurring in one individual. The person is having a sexual or creative relationship with him or her self.

The essence of the differing views of masculinists and feminists is that the masculinists conceive of the individual as being more important than the relationships he is involved in while the feminist views the relationships as more important.

For a scientist this is the same as viewing the vectors as superior in significance to the nodes in a map. It also explains why individuality is revered in the west and particularly in America. If one were to interview members of the National Rifle Association, it would become immediately apparent that they consider themselves individuals and are proud of that feature of their personalities. If one went to a more feminist country or organization the reverse would be true.

To understand this distinction aright, one has to consider the implications.

If one considers a world in which human relationships don't exist, it is immediately apparent that, either it couldn’t exist or would be an undesirable state in which survival would be doubtful. Thus, relationships can reasonably be considered more important than people since people are so dependent on them. Of course, this is only an intellectual exercise. People and relationships are inseparable, it is only a question of which should dominate. For masculinists it is the first and for feminists, the second.

The significance of individuals lies mainly in their creativity, in that creation occurs in the mind of the individual. Groups are generally uncreative since creation leads to conflict, damaging the relationships holding the group together. This is because creation manifests something new and therefore not yet adapted to. The adaptation will make the individuals different, invalidating the relationship to some extent, and requiring work to repair. Therefore, groups have a personal stake in avoiding anything new. To say it another way, relationships exist because of mutual knowing. When creation occurs, the creator is changed by adding knowledge to himself and the relationship is no longer accurate. To repair the damage, the other member will have to achieve some knowledge about the creation and then the relationship has to be reevaluated to see if it is still fulfilling the needs of the partners. If the creation is spiritual in nature and of dramatic proportions, the need of the creator for his partner may disappear altogether.

For example, it will be readily accepted that relationships exist because of mutual dependency. The wife depends on the husband for satisfaction of her material needs and the husband relies on the wife to produce children among other things. If the husband achieved the spiritual heights of St. Paul, for instance, he might no longer have the needs fulfilled by the wife, as was apparently true in St. Paul’s case according to his writing.

In a purely feminist relationship, it would be expected that when conflict arises, the partners would make the decision that maintains the relationship rather than the one that reinforces a moral ideal. So that, when the relationship rises to the level of sexuality, the partners will accede to that requirement rather than break the relationship, even though it involves adultery and places other, less important relationships in danger. If the relationship requires some financial chicanery to continue, then the partners will choose that option rather than to end the relationship.

In politics, one would expect a feminist culture to rely on committees and to have many obstacles to change. In a masculinist culture, one would expect authoritarianism, a king or president or Prime Minister with significant power to define the debate and to initiate change.

In a marriage of feminists, the interests of the partners will be sacrificed to maintain the strength of the relationship and therefore marriages would be stronger. Masculinists will sacrifice the marriage to the needs of the individual, thereby making marriage a weaker institution.

From this, it can be seen that Americans are still exhibiting masculinist values, since divorce is so common. In fact, it has gotten worse since feminism began its current rise in significance in the '60s. This is because of the damage done to the church by feminism and the fact that the attitude towards adultery in the church created a profound force strengthening the marriage bond. Thus the answer to the current disarray in the marriage institution is the strengthening of feminism, assuming there is no practical possibility of returning to a strongly masculinist culture. This is a reasonable assumption since it is practically impossible to return to a state of being one has departed from for compelling reasons. Since Americans have departed the strongly masculinist cultural orientation because of the negatives associated with discrimination, they will not be able to return and reinstitute that discrimination.

In a feminist culture, one would expect a tendency to lifetime employment, advantageous to the relationship between the company and the individual, and damaging to the company's ability to adjust to changes in the business world.

In a masculinist culture, one would expect temporary employment, lasting only so long as the individual contributes to the health of the business.

Competition, of course, may skew these expectations but, in the long term, especially when employer/employee relationships are reduced to legislation, the discipline of competitive advantage will become secondary.

With this graph, the spectrum is applied to the general notion of sexual orientation as it is discussed and legislated in the 1990's.

There are two bell curves to contain the general run of humanity according to their physical characteristics. To the extremes reside those that tend to promiscuity while toward the center one expects to find greater and greater disinterest with respect to sexuality. A second centrally located bell curve is provided to represent the homosexual population where sexual reversal occurs.

Actually, the question of homosexuality is rather more complicated. There are both physical and emotional homosexuals of both sexes. Physical homosexuality can be defined as a sexual predisposition towards one's own sex because of genetic or hormonal differences, while psychological homosexuality refers to sexual rebellion. Physical homosexuals will find their mates among psychological homosexuals and this accounts for the homosexuals that exhibit opposite sex characteristics as opposed to those that don't. From the graph, it can be seen that most homosexuals occur in the sexually neutral region and therefore are no problem to society. The problems arise with promiscuous homosexuals that occur at the extremes. These would be expected to be very small in number.

The graph is supposed to demonstrate why sexual attraction occurs and this is the meaning of the comment at the bottom.

The purpose of sexuality of course, is to provide genetic mixing, and that is why incest is always forbidden.

It should be noted that this graph does not conform to the standard bell curve that is used to describe most characteristics of humanity, so that one concludes that some unusual feature of life is at work and producing a distortion. It could be that another labeling system might make clear the reason for this. For instance, if one labeled the extremes homosexual and heterosexual and the middle bisexual or asexual or both, this would also allow placing all members of society and would produce a bell curve, though the bell would be displaced towards the heterosexual end like this:

This reflection makes clear the reason for the unusual shape of the curve and identifies the source of the distortion as ideology.

The rise of feminism poses the question: what is the essential difference between male and female? The minimalists suggest there is no essential difference, only genital and that difference exists to maximize change in procreation. The maximalists say that the differences are endemic and comprehensive, suggesting that role reversal is ultimately impossible because roles are tied to these differences.

The suggestion to be made here is that largeness is masculine. This is the most obvious difference and therefore should be explained before moving on to other issues.

As one looks at the sun and the moon, well known male and female symbols, one is struck by the size differential and by the realization that were the moon as large as the sun, it would also glow and in fact become a star too. Therefore, increasing the size of the moon changes its nature in a basic way. Further reflection on the reason for the Sun's role as masculine symbol leads to the realization that its radiation is essential; that that radiation is aggressive and impregnating and therefore creative, so that these attributes must be those that identify the sun as masculine. The moon is none of these things; it doesn't radiate of its own accord, but rather reflects the radiation of the sun. It is therefore passive and absorbing. The earth, another feminine symbol is impregnated by the rays of the sun. It is interesting to note that the sun and moon exhibit the unlikely state of identical apparent sizes. It is tempting to note the symbolic significance of this fact and to wonder at how it could come to be other than by happenstance. The religious will surely say it is the hand of God. Maybe, since the author is a rationalist, he takes no position.

The reason the sun radiates has to do with its size. It had to achieve a critical size to develop the gravitational field necessary to produce a critical nuclear mass and allow for fission and fusion of atomic nuclei.

Reflecting on this, leads to the conclusion that relative size is sufficient to produce aggressive behavior, since if one is larger than another, aggressive behavior is possible. Therefore, the question comes down to the nature of aggression. Aggression is a means of imposing oneself on another to change the object into something else. That is, to operate in a creative way. It would be difficult to achieve any success, creatively, were one small relative to the object in question. The biggest is the leader. The rise of intellectualism has somewhat muddied the water here, but the effect of counting intelligence in this equation is to add a spiritual dimension to the evaluation, so that it's not just a question of physical size anymore, spiritual size counts too, perhaps more, depending on the circumstances.

The goal of feminism and therefore liberalism is to gain control of all institutions in order more effectively to pursue its agenda, which is the defeat of human conflict. This is to be accomplished by teaching and/or requiring all humans to get along with one another by practicing non-judgementalism. The motivation behind this agenda is the defeat of human suffering. This goal is thought to require a global government, the UN, to mediate all border disputes, and the imposition of Democracy on all states with negotiation replacing war as the means of resolving disputes between members. It is considered that feminism must replace masculinism as the dominant ideology for this to be achieved since females are not warlike and are motivated by compassion.

The primary means to the achievement of this end is propaganda. The form taken by feminist propaganda is established within the university system. This is accomplished by publishing in the academic press by feminists within the feminist disciplines. This leads to a debate which is then picked up by and popularized by the media, first in movies and then in talk shows and situation comedies. Bills are then brought in congress to reduce these ideas to law. In other cases, the courts are used by bringing suit against masculinist values based on the Bill of Rights, e.g. pornography as free speech, death penalty as inhumane, etc.

Ruth 1:16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

Ruth 1:17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

(In this passage, the Bible represents the importance to which relationships can rise between women.)

1 Kings 21:7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.

1 Kings 21:8 So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth.

1 Kings 21:9 And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people:

1 Kings 21:10 And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.

(In this passage the Bible represents feminine values as applied to relationships by having Jezebel violate the moral code (thou shalt not bear false witness) to bring about a return of Ahab’s good spirits.)

(The following is the most explicit example in the Bible respecting the biblical view of feminism and tends to validate the thesis that Judaism should be considered to be better defined as masculinism and is in basic opposition to feminism.)

Esther 1:10 On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king,

Esther 1:11 To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to shew the people and the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on.

Esther 1:12 But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king's commandment by his chamberlains: therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him.

Esther 1:15 What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains?

Esther 1:16 And Memucan answered before the king and the princes, Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the people that are in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus.

Esther 1:17 For this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not.

Esther 1:18 Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the king's princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen. Thus shall there arise too much contempt and wrath.

Esther 1:21 And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan:

Esther 1:22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people.

The guiding ethic of feminism is compassion. While this is a valued human emotion, it doesn't work as a guide for government policy, unless short-term decisions are wanted. A check of individual experience will show to the careful observer that all decisions that are good for the decision-maker in the short term will be bad in the long term. Thus, spending all one's money for pleasure will be good until the pleasure is over, but then bad when one can't pay his rent.

It is also true that decisions that are good for the individual will be bad for the group and vice versa. Therefore, decision-making, as is well known is about tradeoffs.

One can't use a generalization like make all decisions for long term good, since if you don't survive until the payoff, you can't collect.

Since individuals, especially young individuals make short term decisions, government needs to balance this tendency by making long term decisions. Social Security, for example, has a long-term orientation.

Compassion is an emotion that is called into play when suffering is observed. The need is to eliminate the suffering as soon as possible, but this will inevitably lead to long-term problems for a variety of reasons. The law is a generalization aimed at long term good. Compassion will therefore tend to oppose the decisions of the law. This is easy to see in the case of capital punishment.

Government decisions are implemented with the law and therefore tend to the long term. Compassionate rulings by government will therefore have the force of law and be hard to overcome.

Thus, compassion is best left to individuals and implemented on an ad hoc basis.

The family in America is in a state of disarray, as all with any interest know. The most important indicator of this condition is the divorce statistics, which began a steady rise during World War II and shot upwards during the sixties to a high of 23 per 1000 marriages. Since then, they have declined only slightly. This means that the average family faces a 2% possibility of dissolution through divorce every year. Over the life of the marriage then, say 50 years, on a strictly statistical basis, every one should fail.

Of course, not all will, so that means that some families defeat the destructive force responsible. The purpose of this essay is to identify the destructive force and the means of combating it.

The first realization required to understand this problem is that the family structure is artificial. That is to say, it is not natural and is therefore a creation of man. To support this contention one looks at the natural world and sees that monogamy is infrequently adopted as a survival mechanism. In the world of the mammal, it is even less conspicuous. Since it is a human creation and unnatural, one must expect that nature will have a weathering or destructive effect on it, over time, in the same way that it does on other human creations, such as a house or car.

To combat this effect, one must constantly renew the creation as a part of his daily life in exactly the same way as one maintains houses and cars, otherwise it must be expected that marriages will meet the same fate as the unmaintained car, an unworkable wreck in a few years.

This leads to the question: what constitutes maintenance of a marriage? The answer is acts that reaffirm the structure of the family. In these days, one must ask what the structure of the family is, and why it is so? The structure is father as head and mother as supporter and children as trainees for their roles as fathers and mothers to the next generation. This contention leads to the most difficult question of all: why that structure in preference to some other? Why not the mother as head of household?

There are two answers to this question. The first is that the traditional model is the one in use in all societies over the complete history of civilization, both masculinist and feminist, and the second is that this model is that of the solar system. Suppose the moon decided to take over the role of the sun, can such a role reversal be expected to work? No, it lacks the mass. The result would be that the planets would spin away, on their own and the system would dissolve.

The next question is what force, after all these years, is leading families to question the role of the father as leader of the family? The answer is feminism, and this is only to be expected. Feminism is trying to replace the traditional philosophy in supplying guidance regarding family problems. Its answer has been that the women must become more assertive and should take pains to express their independence. However, as should be apparent one cannot be independent and dependent at the same time. In the family model described above, the father is leader and therefore the wife and children are dependent on his leadership. If one chooses to strike out independently one is necessarily defeating the family structure.

Feminism is a force beyond human control and many will find themselves suffering from its destructive effects. However it is possible, though difficult, to avoid them through understanding. It does mean maintenance of the relationship more or less by hand, since society, being caught up in the feminist movement, will provide less and less support as time goes by, and will actively work against the family through such institutions as the school. All things live and die. All things pass through constructive and destructive phases. Some will see through the forces of destruction and avoid them.

Ancient Greece can be thought of as a feminist culture since it preceded the advent of masculinism and was polytheistic.

In the Greek creation myth, out of chaos comes love, which precedes the arrival of light and earth. In Genesis, light comes first, with no mention at all of love. From this, one can take it that Greek Mythology proceeds from a feminist culture that sees the love emotion as the primary creator of all things. God is represented as heaven and is born of earth, Gaia. In Genesis, God is there from the beginning and is actively creating without the help of love and is most concerned with light (consciousness) which occurs first.

Of further interest is the story of the creation of man. In both the Bible and Greek Mythology, woman when created brings evil into the world. In the case of the Bible, Eve takes the forbidden fruit, in the case of Greek mythology, Pandora is sent by Zeus as revenge for disapproved acts by Prometheus along with her jar of evil. Pandora is characterized as a creature with deceptive heart and lying tongue.

From this, one can conclude that woman is perceived similarly in both masculine and feminine traditions.

In the Greek tradition, a hierarchy of living things is created: first, the Titans, the youngest of which castrates the father Uranus (the heavens), described as a bad father and leading Gaia to rebel. Cronos (time) is eventually overthrown by Zeus, the king of the Olympian gods, and Zeus causes man to be created. Contrast this with Genesis, in which God creates man directly without any intermediaries and continues forever as the omniscient creator with a direct relationship with his prized creation, man. In fact, man is the whole point of creation. None of the rest of it seems worthwhile, in the absence of man who preoccupies God for the rest of the Bible. In the Greek version, God aids in the creation of the Titans and then is dispensed with altogether.

Gaia disposes of the too powerful male gods and even Zeus is not safe. He is attacked several times, but prevails. He eventually marries Hera, and the two of them become the primary gods, Zeus of the sky and Hera, raised by the Titan, Ocean, is dry land. Hera never particularly likes Zeus and, in fact, becomes his wife only through subterfuge, and eventually she also rebels. This rebellion fails but she is never happy with Zeus, who is unfaithful.

Looking at the succession of male gods, it starts with Uranus, a bad husband and father, castrated and discarded. Cronos follows and is useful for defeating Uranus and creating Zeus, who defeated Cronos in battle along with the other Titans. Cronos is disliked because he eats his children to avoid producing an heir that can dethrone him. Zeus is unfaithful. These several manifestations of the masculine god are not particularly savory characters. The females, Gaia and Hera, are long suffering at their hands.

According to Bullfinch, this was the Golden Age, subsequently came the silver, bronze, and iron ages, each worse than its predecessor with the last bringing with it crime and war. Some hope that the golden age will return after a great long time. Compare this to Eden and the sequential eras of the Bible ending in Revelation. Notice that the Bible starts with an age requiring no official order which is followed by Judges and Kings. In both cases the culprit is population density. As population increases, man becomes less civil due to the rising demands made on him by his society.

Later Jupiter (Zeus) held a council of the gods and resolved to destroy mankind by drowning and bring forth a new race. Compare this to Noah. In the Greek, a just man, Deucalion and his wife Pyrrha survived on the mountain top, Parnassus, the only one to rise above the waters. They replenish the earth with people by casting stones behind them, which then transform into humans of a better sort than those destroyed in the flood.

Prometheus was a Greek god.

He was one of many gods in the Greek religion.

The Greek religion is best understood as an intermediate one in the feminist/masculinist spectrum. It is neither so feminist as the American Indian religion nor so masculinist as Judaism. It is masculinist, in so far as the chief god is a male, Zeus, and therefore projects masculine values. It is feminist in that it is polytheistic, identifying a god/goddess as epitomizing every significant feature of life.

In the Greek system, there are five stages from the beginning to the arrival of mankind. In the first stage chaos reigns and all is undifferentiated, as in Judaism. In the second stage heaven (Uranus) and earth (Gaia) appear. In the third stage, these two gods are made to produce children, known as titans. However, they are unwilling accomplices in this act and Cronos, the time titan has to kill Uranus to remain alive.

In the next stage, further discrimination occurs when Cronos gives unwilling birth to Zeus and the rest of the Olympian gods. Zeus is most closely identified with the God of Judaism and Allah of Islam, but he has to share the stage with many other gods and goddesses which gives him a very different flavor. He is not always moral but is all-powerful. In the final stage man appears, who Zeus is content to see remain in a prehuman condition and die out, but Zeus' brother gods, Prometheus and Epimetheus have other plans.

Prometheus is the son of the titans Iapetus and Klymene and aids Zeus in the destruction of Cronos.

Cronos (time, who consumes his young) is the titan father of Zeus and the son of Uranus and Gaia.

Zeus is married to his sister, Hera.

Prometheus’ name means forethought.

Prometheus tried to minimize his gifts to Zeus.

Prometheus' gifts to mortals were language and arts.

At this point, one realizes what the Greeks are referring to when they invent Prometheus. They are trying in retrospect to represent what actually happened, when man captured fire and turned it to his own uses. One can imagine the actual events. A tree struck by lightning and falling on a stag, burns part of it and when discovered by humans, they find that cooked food tastes better than raw. Alternatively, some such event occurs in winter and they find that they can avoid freezing by remaining close by during the night. They then determine to take a burning branch back to their cave and to keep it burning as long as possible by adding new fuel from time to time.

This involved an act of directed thought. Analyzing the situation and determining how it can be turned to advantage. That event is named by the Greeks, Prometheus. Once used, directed thought is used more and more frequently and eventually leads to all the arts and sciences, but it also leads to a new form of suffering. Having discovered causality: fire applied to raw meat produces cooked meat, it became inescapable that individual humans sometimes cause pain and death for their relatives and that knowledge produces guilt feelings.

Therefore, since causality had just been discovered, and masculine orderliness demanded that causality be universally applicable, it follows that since pain ensues, enslaving fire must have been an affront to god.

This is exactly equivalent to the original sin of Christianity. In that case Eve ate the forbidden apple and knew she was naked. Since the knowledge of her own nakedness resulted in pain (shame), and since causality had just been discovered, eating the apple produced awareness, the act must have been an affront to god (a sin), since in a causal world pain cannot come from nowhere.

In a feminist theology, no such logic problems arise and therefore no identification of original sin occurs. In a feminist theology, the gods need no excuses for imposing pain on humans. For them, when fire becomes their servant, they accept it as a gift from god and it never occurs to them that an explanatory principle lies there with it. Prometheus never makes an appearance.

Causality turns out to be a powerful explanatory principle and eventually leads to the development of science and all of western culture, the bad and the good.

The gift of fire was viewed as a theft from Zeus.

Zeus punished Prometheus by shackling him.

This recognition of sin has the immediate effect of causing humans to view creativity with some suspicion, as an affront to god. Thus many will avoid it and creativity goes into a period of dormancy. Mankind, fearful of offending the gods, is tormented every time a new idea occurs to him.

Hepheistos, God of the forge shackles Prometheus at Zeus’ demand.

The shackling occurred in the Caucasus.

While shackled Prometheus was tormented by Zeus.

Because of this affair, Zeus introduced Pandora into life. Pandora is the source of evil and is too sexually attractive to resist.

Having identified sin, torment becomes a familiar feature of life and any pain that arises is traced back to it. This occurs first in sex, since sex is unequaled in its ability to impose pain on mankind. Sex is also the invention that allows life to adopt new shapes as it continually adapts to environmental change, which includes snakes and black widows, for example. One can easily imagine that these things are flying forth from the womb of Pandora and that she is the punishment imposed on man for his great violation of god's will.

Afterwards, hope remained with Pandora.

After many generations, Prometheus is freed by Hercules.

Eventually man learns to live with sin, makes a place for it and a system that provides at least a theoretical means of avoiding it. This frees man's creativity, Prometheus, for further adventures and eventually leads to the events in Athens. Athens leads to Rome, Rome leads to Paris and London and they lead to America and the hydrogen bomb.

Where did they go wrong here? Causality is universally applicable, in the universe of time, at least. However, you have to identify the correct cause to get any value from it. Otherwise, you are likely to go astray. Is the theft of fire, or the eating of the apple the actual cause of suffering? In a sense, yes. Awareness does result in immediate pain if that awareness succeeds in identifying one as the producer of pain in others when other options were available.

However, pain obviously exists to warn man away from actions and activities that work towards one's own destruction. For example one burns his fingers and is warned to be careful with fire because it has the power to destroy his body. That is the meaning of physical pain. Does mental pain operate similarly?

If one kills his child, he can expect to experience severe mental anguish. This seems consistent with pain as a warning against destructive behavior. However, there is a difference. One's own life is not threatened, but the life of one's family is. Therefore, apparently one can expect to experience pain when he does that which works against the best interests of his family and this can be expected to extend to the species. However, which acts work to the advantage of the species and which do not is a question of such great complexity, involving as it does predictions about the future, it is generally beyond the competence of man. Thus, in the absence of feelings, how could one proceed?

The recognition of causality has led to the Hydrogen Bomb, thus humans have followed this path as far as they reasonably can. To follow it further would probably lead to the discovery of something even more deadly than that and eventually one of these tools would surely be used to destroy mankind. Man is capable of defying his feelings and sometimes feelings come into conflict when they are consulted at different levels of reality. For instance, having committed a crime, one could be assailed with both the desire to survive individually and self-destructive feelings relative to his significance for the species.

This should provide understanding regarding why humanity finds itself emphasizing feminism at this stage in its history.

The question then arises: how can one increase his femininity?

Obviously, appreciation of causality has had the effect of emphasizing masculinity. In addition, a high evaluation of the truth has come into being. This is no doubt due to the before mentioned need to identify the correct cause, not easy to do in complex situations. Therefore, by truth it is meant causally connected. Other connections, subjective association for example, since untrue causally are valued much less and in fact are actively repressed when masculinism is dominant. Astrology is a good example.

One can identify ill fortune as associated with black cats by recognition of the coincidental arrival of both on the scene. Is this system intrinsically worse than causality? That is hard to say. It certainly leads to conflict and perhaps competition and death, but this is the nature of life and causality isn’t effective in shielding one from conflict because of the extreme complexity of life. If the black cat didn’t cause a sewer stoppage, it was a weed instead, one's feminist friend would reply that the weed didn’t cause it, the black cat just used that as his technique. Who is right? Who can say?

In summary, the purpose of this analysis is to make clear how and why humans came to worship masculinism and where it has led. From this perhaps one can understand how and why to set his future course.

The notions, construction and destruction are opposites meaning one deprives the other of its existence. One involves tearing down and the other, building up. Western man has long been encouraged to see creativity as good and destruction as bad. Therefore, it is very likely that these activities find their roots in ideology. Ideology is the basis of the judgments good and bad. What strengthens one's ideology will tend to be identified as good while what weakens it will tend to be identified as bad. Of course, the reason for the adoption of an ideology will be the perception that it enhances the survival prospects for the adopting culture.

Civilization is a constructive force in that it is constantly building up institutions that it hopes will enhance the chances for survival of humans. Nature on the other hand is destructive, since it constantly works to destroy the physical establishments designed to hold the institutions of civilization. Nature's great destructive capacity lies in friction mainly. Weather also contributes in that heating and cooling cause friction and water has been identified as The Universal Solvent. Of course, it is also fair to say that nature is both constructive and destructive since its actions regularly and randomly produce grand constructions like mountains and valleys and then the same forces destroy them. Therefore, one could say that the beauty of nature as a system is that it is complete. It builds and then destroys and the destruction becomes the raw materials of new construction.

Civilization is not so comprehensive a system. Civilization has no built in mechanism for destruction of what it has created. This is a flaw. In addition, when the builder leaves out a necessary feature of his handiwork, nature of course, supplies it.

To consider these ideas objectively, one has to discard the tendency to consult one's feelings about it. Consider these forces as just existent, neither better nor worse than the other. It is also well to consider that if something already exists, it is necessary to destroy before rebuilding in its place.

Feminism naturally, being a child of the mother, will tend towards destruction. It can be seen empirically. Feminists wish to be priests and ministers. However, the priest or minister represents God The Father, therefore female priests will break down that association and thereby weaken the institution of the Church. Feminists favor abortion, an inherently destructive act. Feminists favor environmentalism which, at least in its extreme forms, works at defeat of commercial institutions which are used for support. Feminists favor taking from the rich and giving to the poor, thereby attacking the institutions of the wealthy, including academia.

Masculinism, being a son of The Creator, will tend towards creativity. The Church of course is the great creation of masculinism, but also science, industry, and all of the structures of civilization are its work. This is so because the home of masculinity is the spirit or non-material world. This world is the one that confronts one when one's eyes are closed. It is the personality and the unconscious stratum underlying the personality, or the dreamer. It is a very powerful force in human life, since, while it has no physical attributes, it does manifest itself in the material world through building. Whether it exists in the absence of the human mind is unimportant, as long as humans are here, it will influence them in profound ways. The institutions previously mentioned are its creations since they are ideational structures. Without ideas, they are only buildings.

Of course, this discussion separates these opposing forces for inspection and humanity exhibits both continuously. However, too much feminism will lead to a decline in civilization as measured in terms of creativity. The trick is fixing on the right degree. Unfortunately, civilization has shown a tendency to extremism. Also unfortunately, no feminist leader has appeared that seems to understand the tradeoffs.

Has the time finally arrived to reconsider the advantages and disadvantages of a class structure in society? Has the objectivity produced by centuries of denigration of the upper class provided the ability to consider what's lost and what's gained with and without an upper class?

It is understood that a society must dispense with a feature, when it can no longer remember its reasons for creating it in the first place. It appears to be dead weight and no doubt, many of society’s creations do turn into just that. If it is not so much dead weight, the problems that led to its creation will reappear and it can be re-instituted.

What problems flow from the lack of an upper class? What were the gifts to society provided by the upper class at great expense to the rest of society?

America is the best place to inspect this question. It was the first country to be established with the notion of the classless society in mind. It was a new country and therefore lacked the need for the destruction of an existing upper class, as was the case in other places such as France and Russia. The upper class is therefore more dead here than anywhere else. On the other hand, immigrants from Europe brought with them expectations based on their experience of the upper class in the old country, and they therefore retain traces of those expectations.

The upper class, having no need to spend mental energy on material needs, has time to develop other aspects of their personalities. They can concentrate on concepts like the ideal form of human development and relationships. Consider the art of the Western World, one can see manifestations of those ideals. The aristocracy of Europe in the eighteenth century projected those ideals and they can be observed in the art of those times.

For instance, they chose to display themselves in elaborate and formal clothing. They were very concerned with formality in etiquette, not only at state functions, but also in their every day life. Their intense concern for family values and religion distinguished them. In addition, their concern with honor was an overriding preoccupation. Their great failing was their tendency to deny class movement. Having attained distinction in these areas, they were unwilling to allow the lower classes admittance into their society except when forced.

It is also clear when reading a book like Theodore Dreiser's An American Tragedy, that there was great desire in the lower classes to break into their society. Certainly, one of the motives, perhaps the greatest motive, was to acquire financial security, but from Anthony Trollope's books there appeared to be other motives as well.

The upper class seemed to supply a goal for the rest of us. They, with their well-publicized life style, supplied a model to emulate, a dream towards which one could aim in the development of his life. One could dress as nearly like them as possible; one could pretend their manners were theirs, and one could adopt the honorable life and the concept of the gentleman and lady as the ideal towards which he or she would strive. The lessons thus provided for one's children were profound influences on their dreams and aspirations.

Looking at what has transpired in the west in these areas as the upper class has been destroyed and people freed to move about within society at will, it would appear that it has lost its direction. Children wish only to successfully complete college, so that they can have as good a chance as possible at a large income. Having achieved that, what to aim at next? Material comforts and conspicuous consumption appear to be all that society can offer.

Honor is no longer important. Success in the achievement of a high income appears to be much more important to most of us. Style in appearance and manners are seldom emphasized. This can no doubt be admired in a democratic way, but the quality of life is the big loser.

Liberal whites were wont to belittle the upper class for their apparent hypocrisy, but was that all there was to it? They would appear to have been compelled to expose to the world only the image that they admired. Could it have been that this was the price society exacted from them for their comforts?

Does the term freedom mean the freedom to dismiss the honorable as a goal not worthy of attention? Can society survive without honor? This will mean doors will have to be locked, neighbors distrusted, one will have to be constantly on guard against the unscrupulous since without honor there are no scruples. This will mean there is no need to contain sexual desire, since no concern for the pain caused will arise. This will mean that any form of entertainment is allowable since concern lies only with self-gratification

This will mean that the well being of one's descendants pales into insignificance next to desire for pleasure.

This will mean drugs, pornography, and teenage pregnancy. This will mean jails filled to overflowing and a continuously rising crime rate. This will mean America in the late twentieth century.

Violence in America and elsewhere in the Western World is on the rise. Washington DC has been called the murder capital of the world. Emergency rooms in all major cities are filled to overflowing on a daily basis. Murder has come from the Agatha Christie parlor games of the early part of the century to a state of daily occurrence in all cities of size in America and to the state of common occurrence elsewhere.

The causes cited are judicial softness by the right and gun control by the left. The judiciary, while not as tough as in the past, has managed to fill the jails to overflowing. The gun lobby points out that Wyoming, with no gun control has a much smaller problem than New York, with the toughest gun controls in the country. Thus, these areas are doubtful as sources of the problem. They are undoubtedly symptoms, and could be related if the actual source was known.

To understand the problem one must accept some well-known attributes of sexuality. Masculinity is active or aggressive as can be seen from God's gender, God being the source of creativity. With the bringing of masculinism to the forefront of human psychology as has been done in the west (Moses, Christianity, formal education), a positive need to create is established that must be fulfilled, as basic and demanding as sex or hunger.

This doesn't sound so bad at first, but that is because writers and readers know of many means of expressing creativity. However, what of those without the training necessary to express it in one of the disciplines created for that purpose? Consider the large segment of the population with minimal education and no outstanding physical talent? How are their needs met?

In the past, this need was met in the final recourse of creativity, the social fabric of society. Their little piece of that fabric, their family, they used as the creative medium. This of course, required that they have authority within the family so that their creativity could be expressed. In other words, they laid down the rules by which their family operated. Most only passed on the rules given them by their parents and religious leaders. Some few made up their own, no doubt to their eventual regret. However, they established the rules for their families and that satisfied the need.

Today, due to the rise of feminism, most fathers have no authority in the family. If they attempt to make a rule, it is broken by a family recognizing their father's powerlessness. The father therefore turns to other options. The easiest answer is drugs, in which his powerlessness can be forgotten for a time. After that, gangs offer an older style society, where physical power can be manifested and guns can be used to make up for physical inadequacy, and where rules can be established and enforced.

Perhaps the time has come to ask the hard questions of feminism. How much can be paid for feminine freedom? How much are they going ask? Is the suicide of African American masculinity acceptable?

St. Paul, in first Corinthians, says, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." He gets this from the Garden of Eden story in the first instance and from the gospel in the second.

This statement causes great divisions in society because one is seemingly required to believe that which all rational experience denies, that there is some sort of life after death. Society needs this belief as a restraint on behavior. The response to this issue varies widely. Some profess and believe that physical bodies are to be resurrected here on earth, at some point in the future when Christ reappears. Others believe in reincarnations of lesser and lesser substance until one reaches those that conclude that what arises after death is a vague and invisible spirit that many contend inhabits bodies when alive. Why the spirit would inhabit human bodies and not those of animals isn't clear. Then there are the unbelievers.

The first part of the statement, "as in Adam", is important. In what sense did Adam bring death into the world?

According to the Eden story, Eve ate from the forbidden apple at the instigation of the snake and prevailed upon Adam to do the same. At that point, they realized they were naked. A new realization arrived at that moment. Therefore, the mental state has changed. A sense of this kind of change can be had via some kinds of drugs. Mescaline for example is used in this way by some Native American tribes. In any case, a new entity came into being in the minds of Adam and Eve. There were then two in each mind; one was the person acting out the life of each, while the other was an observer, and a critic of the actor.

The descendants of Adam and Eve also exist in this state. All can remember asking the question, "Why did I do that?" From this, it must be concluded that the observer and critic is the entity humans identify with in their mental makeup. This person observes the action, and in time is able to predict some occurrences. For instance, he can see that all die, and therefore concludes that the observed entity, including the observer must die. Death therefore comes into the world at that point, not existing previously, because there was no observer to see it.

It can be seen that animals exist in this state. None of them creates this observer within themselves and none therefore predicts the future and therefore has no notion of death. Perhaps they experience sadness at the loss of their mate, but no idea of death clouds this experience.

The second point that Paul makes is that Christ defeats death. This because he rises after death and tells his followers that they will do the same. Paul says therefore that in Christ all shall be made alive. That is to say in the future. He goes on to say that Christ will "put down all rule and all authority and power." One can say that due to the advent of the mental observer in all, power and authority were created. Having the power to predict, it is observed that two sharing the same opinion are more powerful than one, and by extension many sharing the same opinion will be much more powerful yet. Therefore, Christ will defeat this phenomenon. He will in a word, end civilization at some time in the future. Well, nothing goes on forever, so most can easily see that in the natural course of events, civilization must surely die. The issue then comes down to when this might be expected, and in what sense Christ is responsible for it.

Masculinism, the ideology based on law, and the religion of Moses, develops into feminism when Christ arrives and says that, unless sinless, one cannot impose the penalties in the law. He thereby acquaints his listeners with compassion, the measure of all things feminine. However, the power of masculinism abates very slowly, and continues to inspire Christians to the point of causing the rise of education and then science and then technology.

Now it is seen however, that technology has turned negative. If the current course is continued, many species depended upon for survival will be lost, change in the atmosphere and perhaps the weather may arise, and many consequences not yet imagined. However, the course cannot be changed because of the number of humans that exist, which continues to rise. Unless the human population can be controlled, it must expected that Paul's prophecy will be fulfilled and that it will be a consequence of Jesus' teaching.

Some may say they doubt Jesus has done a favor, but how else can the error of Eden be overcome? All who carry the error must die or be transformed if the species is to change into one without this error. One can also say, perhaps more rationally that, when confronted with a brain large enough to have excess energy, a problem arose regarding what to do with it. Something had to be done, because of boredom. The first idea that occurred was that it should be discovered how to exploit the contents of the world. As with many first ideas, this was a bad idea. When population has declined enough, man will ask himself this question anew and, perhaps answer it better.

The unusual feature of the human intellect, and the one that distinguishes humans from other species is the critical function; that tendency to inspect one's feelings and to criticize them. For example, a woman notices an attraction to a man who she informs herself is ineligible because of his background or economic status. Discrimination arises. Feelings are provided in a constant stream, resulting from every sensual input and every thinking reaction. Feelings are rational, since they discriminate and are comprehensible (You feel that way because...). What is the basis on which feelings arrive in negative or positive form? Who or what is the generator of these feelings? Is the intellect capable of judging feelings?

The first answer is that feelings judge experiences based on survival of the species. This is true because they emanate from the unconscious, which is not a personal possession of the ego, and therefore will identify itself with the species rather than the individual. The ego on the other hand will consider itself to be an individual and survival for it will be the survival of the individual. This explains why one can get self-destructive feelings.

The question of whether the ego can judge the feelings leads to the conclusion that it must do so with great care, since ignoring feelings would presumably lead to weakening of the species if done on a wide scale.

This realization, leads to some conclusions relative to other species fairly near, in the Darwinian sense, to humans. Presumably, the difference between a horse and a human is that the horse, lacking the ability to concentrate to such an extent as to allow for the creation of an ego, therefore considers itself to be the environment. That is, it perceives no boundary between itself and the environment. It therefore passes no judgments about its feelings and acts on them accordingly. Its awareness therefore, must be presumed to be similar to one's own, and its ability to learn will be commensurate with the size of its brain, assuming brain size correlates with power of concentration.

To the extent one acts based on his feelings, he is feminist. That is because the ego is a creation of masculinity, and arises out of a masculine desire for order. Thinking, the hallmark of the ego, is a masculine function.

The first instance of judging one's feelings occurred in The Garden of Eden. Eve's desire for sensual pleasure overrides her feelings that would inform her of the bad judgment a rebellion against God is. Interestingly, the religion then comes along which devotes itself to the development of the ego, thereby adding immeasurably to the sum total of that rebellion. Perhaps the reason is a recognition that one cannot go back; if this error is to be overcome, it must be done by going forward.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," begins A Tale of Two Cities by Dickens. How can it be, at the same time, both? Because of the little understood nature of opposition. Opposites are such that enhancing one detracts from the other. This is comprehensively true. There are no exceptions. Another thing that is comprehensively true is that the Cosmos is made up of a large number of items that vary spectrally. For example, one can be tall or short, dark or light, strong or weak, ebullient or taciturn, light or heavy, fast or slow, and so on perhaps forever. That is, all are made up of a large, perhaps infinite, number of these qualities. However, if one wishes to be darker, then his lightness will be diminished. If one enhances his goodness, then his evil will decline. Where it goes is another question of some interest. One can perhaps, say that adjectives and adverbs define the Cosmos.

What does Dickens mean? He seems to say that from one point of view it was the best of times, and from the other the worst. He was referring to the time of The French Revolution, so the times were extreme. What points of view is he thinking of? Well, surely it is the worst of times when so many humans are being beheaded, blood is flowing in the streets, vigilantes are out of control, and no one is safe. After the revolutionaries got rid of the upper class, the new government dispatched them. Therefore, it was a time of mayhem and murder as a daily diversion for many.

Dickens book revolves around the dangers faced by an innocent nobleman, whose father however, was guilty as sin. The remarkable thing about the relationships described is that they are motivated by such good will that a modern reader is driven to conclude that Dickens was hopelessly optimistic about his London peers.

This conclusion is perhaps wrong though. From the stories heard about The Great Depression, Americans were never so kind to one another. This is understandable; when a great threat bears down on everyone alike, the shared suffering will provide a common experience of a transcendental nature that will bind the experiencers together. For a time, as long as the threat exists, and to a constantly declining degree as time goes by, minor differences between people will fade into insignificance as they help each other to overcome the common threat. If one talks about World War II with someone who experienced it as an adult for very long, the impression gotten is that it was the highlight of that person’s life. This seems contradictory, and is commonly explained with the suggestion that one only remembers the good things.

One conclusion is that very bad experiences, by their very nature call into being very good experiences. The compensation is built into the world. Therefore, one should have a care as he pursues good experiences. The reverse is just as true.

From this same realization, one can also conclude that a time of widespread affluence, with no generally perceived external or internal threats such as America has had since World War II, or at least since Vietnam, will be a time when one can also not expect that closeness with his fellow man experienced in times of peril.

Most have never experienced any kind of serious threat to survival, and certainly no shared threat. Only the oldest have any experience of what Dickens is referring to. Only those old enough to remember when the victors of The Great War were unknown, have had this experience and that is a loss.

Therefore, should there be a depression in the future, it should not be feared. It should be welcomed as an opportunity for a new balance to be achieved.

Causality states that for every event there is a cause. It is conceivable that something could happen spontaneously, but no empirical evidence exists that it has, except possibly the Big Bang.

This leads to the conclusion that there must be a cause for civilization. Perhaps rape is that causative factor.

Consider nature. Mostly, rape seems to be the natural method of impregnating females. Of course, it can be said that the female secretes odor-producing chemicals, which attract the male and therefore cause impregnation to occur, but that is not the point. The act of copulation is the event of significance and that event is undeniably under the control of the cock in the chicken yard. Perhaps this cannot be extrapolated to other species, but perhaps it can. All non-humans seem to operate in the unconscious state all of the time. Even humans seem to operate in this mode much of the time.

What motivated Eve to eat the apple? Perhaps it was the desire to escape rape. God's paradise was not good enough for her, because it contained rape and so the snake, her own negative side, whispered into her ear that if she ate the apple, that is applied her mind, she could consciously devise a strategy with which to defeat rape and thereby make a near perfect world, perfect. However, as can now be seen, the whole system was interdependent, and changing anything in a permanent way, will ultimately change the whole as adaptation forces a new equilibrium.

Looking over history at human's who changed things in such a way one thinks of Moses, Christ, those scientists and technicians who brought in the industrial revolution, but all of them rely on the woman who thought of the rule concept; the first act of human creativity. As such, it was a theft of the prerogative of God. Of course God would have to contain such an outbreak of evil, and so He did. However, one could also say that concentrating to this extent activates mental contents in such a way as to bind them together into an entity called personality, and that has a life of its own, thereby separating itself from the rest of God's creation. Alternatively, one could say that there was a price to pay, awareness of everything was traded for knowledge of nothing along with the ability to create.

The scheme she came up with was the system of taboo. Certain acts were declared taboo and this meant that they could not be performed, and if they were, the transgressor would be punished. This of course, presupposes a feminist culture which one is driven to conclude is the natural state of affairs for primitives.

This system of taboo was so effective in altering the rhythm of the culture that it was used repeatedly to end other annoyances, until a whole canon of taboos was built up over time, producing what is called a culture with rituals and hierarchies and the other trappings. Enforcement was arbitrary though, which was a whole new problem, leading to despots.

This was the way humanity lived, until Moses. Moses of course, introduced the written law, and therefore the concept that led to lawyers, educators, science, and technology, in a word, masculinism. Masculinism unfortunately, has led to population growth and pollution of the environment on a massive scale. Sufficiently large to suggest that it will fail which, should man survive, will send him back to feminism.

This essay starts out by following Lyall Watson's ("Dark Nature: A Natural History of Evil") look about the modern world for signs of evil, and identifies it in both human acts of cruelty, especially among children, and in nature. This is not a propitious start, since one must exclude on philosophical grounds, nature from any contact or association with evil. Nature has no choices and therefore cannot be evil, since choice is an essential element of evil. It may indulge in activities, were they being done by humans would be adjudged evil, but in the absence of conscious choice, they must be excluded.

The author uses the phrase, "the ruthlessness of natural selection...". Viewing natural selection as ruthless, and therefore having at least the appearance of evil, is to betray a subjectivity too grand to allow for a thoughtful opinion about the nature of evil. This is common to humans, who have the great failing of identifying too profoundly with their own individuality, to the extent of failing to realize the greater importance of their species, without which they themselves are meaningless. Natural selection of course, aims to improve the survival potential of the species, the greatest good identifiable to any species.

The author then goes off into a long analysis of a book by the psychoanalyst, Carl Goldberg ("Speaking with the Devil: A Dialogue with Evil"), which he starts off by belittling but none the less follows quite closely as a guide to evil in humans. This produces a too narrow focus on evil in individuals to arrive at any useful generalization about the concept of evil. It would seem that one should be able in a feminist age, to use some objectivity as he inspects an ancient Judeo-Christian concept.

After Dr. Goldberg, the author moves on to Columbia professor, Andrew Delbanco ("The Death of Satan: How Americans Have Lost the Sense of Evil"), who seems mainly to make an impossible plea for retaining the Devil. His books are therefore, an exercise in nostalgia, though perhaps worthwhile to refresh one's memory regarding what was once thought to constitute evil.

The author next considers the Salem witch trials. This is deadly to any vestige of hope that something original might be included in this essay on the subject of evil. The author is bound to present the conventional feminist wisdom that this was a unique outburst of evil proceeding from the supposed guardian of mankind against evil, the church. This theory must be discarded as soon as one reflects that the same event has been replayed repeatedly in recent times in this country in the guise of child molestations, child molesters being the new witches of the late twentieth century. The best example is the case in North Carolina, in which the administration of a child care center is accused and convicted of the most ridiculous crimes on the say so of coached children. An exact replica of the Salem event.

The author concludes with the feminist author, Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan. This is clearly the analysis of an outsider and one who lays the blame (?) for Satan at the door of the Gospel writer, Mark, which she concludes is the main reason for the persecution of Jews ever since. This is naive. Blaming the Jews for the death of Christ is a rationalization allowing gentiles to persecute Jews and therefore acquire an edge in their competition with them which, in the absence of pogroms, they could not hope to win because the Jews had a 2000-year head start on them in the development and exploitation of masculine virtues.

This essay doesn't do well in its assigned task. None the less, feminism does provide an opportunity to redefine more accurately, just what is meant by the term evil. What Mr. Updike is discussing should more rightly be termed unpleasantries. Acts that offend him but which cannot be judged evil by him because he presents no definition of the term and therefore cannot expect to apply it with any precision. Evil can be defined precisely, and the method should be to observe its presentation in the source book, The Bible, and then to look at its long-term effects.

The simplest method would then be an analysis of The Ten Commandments, which are as a group the most concise definition of evil in existence. They are not an abstract generalization though, presumably because that form would not have had the desired effect. One is free to generalize them though, and that generalization should be that evil is any human activity that reduces, should the act be widely replicated, the survival potential of the species. Therefore, for example, should murder be widely adopted as a method of resolution of conflict, one would necessarily be concerned about chances for survival. To see this most clearly the species should be imagined to be the size of a small town. Adultery, due to its potential to provoke violence should be seen in the same light. For the Jews, loss of their ideology, which made them unique would be tantamount to national suicide, even if all members of the society survived. Theft, widely practiced, would also be expected to dissolve the culture, since it would work against the accumulation of wealth and therefore the creation of an upper class, whose conservatism is the main bulwark against the inevitability of change.

Finally, though the author doesn't explicitly state it, one of the questions included in his essay is the following: Why is the concept of evil in decline and should that fact cause worry? This question exists at this moment because of the apparent rise in the incidence of crime, particularly among youth. They are most affected by the ideological change being experienced, since they cannot remember any other world, as can the older citizens. To be more precise: is the feminization of the world, including as it does the minimization of religion, leading to the release of the entity defined by the old masculinist concept of evil and is society likely to be at risk, if so?

The short answer to this question is yes. The longer answer is however, that it is an inevitable part of the transition from masculinism to feminism and will have to be endured, with or without worry. The problem lies in reducing the importance of morality and its consequences while at the same time advertising all of the methods of immorality and their rewards. Eventually, this advertising will disappear and lacking knowledge of immorality, no grand moral shield will be necessary.

One of the great problems at this moment is the incessant judgment of masculinists and feminists of each other. It is normal for humans to pass judgment, since the essence of humanity is to be a finite being with a point of view and therefore capable of comparing one object with another. However, when feminists and masculinists judge one another, they compare one another to a background that they don't share. Masculinists compare feminists to the moral and ethical construct created from the Judeo/Christian world view which is not a part of feminism and feminists judge masculinists on the basis of a not fully developed feminist world view containing as its major element compassion, which is included in Christianity but is not its major element.

Thus, feminists must be judged by feminists and masculinists by masculinists. To do otherwise is to err by comparing apples to oranges as the old saw has it. They can be compared, of course, but only on characteristics that they share. Apples and oranges are roughly the same size, and people are people. But, morality as defined in an ideology positing the existence of sin cannot be useful in judging a being that doesn't accept the notion of sin as being meaningful.

In a masculinist world, which idealizes conscious awareness and therefore places before the individual all of the errors of judgment that can befall a human being, a moral filter of imposing proportions is a necessity, in order to keep its members from failing too grandly by pursuing an attractive error in judgment. In a feminist world in which consciousness is no longer admired and in which its members can reasonably be expected to bypass judgmental errors by never seeing the possibilities, no such superstructure is needed or wanted. One of the problems with moral models, such as that offered by Christianity, is that it identifies each moral failing and places it before its members, thereby increasing their conscious awareness; a great good in their view. However, for a feminist this is tantamount to showing a fox a trap with an attractive morsel of food in it. Were the trap never shown, no possibility of falling into it would obtain.

Of course, America's problems are part of the transitional nature of current experience. They are raised in the Christian model, more or less, and then, when they attain to the ability of passing judgment they are faced with all of the choices feminism presents in its criticism of their masculinist past. It would be easier to start afresh, but that is not possible. Feminists are at pains to point out the violations of compassion inherent in the masculinist competitive model, devised as it was to identify the best that humans have to offer in hopes of using it to create an admirable model of civilization for humans to aspire to. In so doing, the feminists must allow immoral activities in order to avoid judgementalism and therefore, condemn their followers to the suffering that is an inherent part of bad judgment.

To create a fantasy of an ideal feminist world one has but to observe the animals, which never indulge in immoral behavior, and ask why this is so. It should be apparent that the possibilities of immoral behavior never occur to them. They can be called promiscuous, but it would be an error to do so. They pursue sexual contact only when procreation is likely (except for Bonobo apes), and therefore, attend to the survival of their species, a highly moral act. From this observation it should be clear that, if the laws were discarded, which are at pains to point out every immoral act a human can indulge in, then the expectation would be that most humans would never consider most immoral acts. Some would, of course, but by failing to advertise the fact, it would not be expected to spread. This contention can be observed in the rise of immoral behavior that has accompanied the explosive growth of the media.

Many will respond that humans aren't animals; a doubtful rejoinder. However, humans are different, as are all species, one from another. Many human cultures have flourished without laws: the Polynesians or American Indians for example. Therefore, it cannot be reasonably argued that laws are necessary to life. What they are necessary for is the creation of a societal model. The emphasis is on creation. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, it is just that it has already been done and another of the features of humans is the constant perception of suffering and the desire to move on to another sort of culture that won't include so much of it.

In pondering what sort of culture includes the greatest amount of suffering, a masculinist one with a weak moral code, such as is current in the west suggests itself because so much suffering results from the attempt to impose values on people. Since the possibility of a return to a strongly masculinist culture with a viable moral code is probably impossible, the only escape is to move ahead into a new feminist world.

That will work if it includes the dissolution of the media, which will have the effect of containing the spread of immorality since it would end advertising of it. Of course, some forms of media are worse than others. Movies depicting immoral behavior have the most immediate and pronounced effect. Failing to teach children to read would also be very effective.

These are policy decisions, not those that can be effectively acted on by individuals. Competition is an ever-present challenge.

As with every other ideological concept in these times, ethics and morality are being reconsidered in a very widespread way. The general notion of morality in this culture has come to mean The Ten Commandments, which have great meaning to masculinists and much less for feminists. Ethics in its current meaning amounts to the avoidance of acts which, while legal, are optional and have the effect of harming others. For example, spreading negative rumors. The dictionary definition of morality is relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior, while ethics are defined in terms of morality. Neither of these is very useful.

Morality is usually thought of in terms of good and bad so, to start with, perhaps it would be well to define these. Good, in the dictionary, involves favorable character, sexual attraction, being free from injury and commercially sound. From these one notices a list of attributes that conduce to long life and happiness, so that in general, good should be defined in that way. Good for the culture will be somewhat different, since long life and happiness for the culture may mean death for the individual, thus the death penalty. To appreciate how unusual are the times, with overpopulation survival of the individual is now becoming toxic to the species.

Ethics rises above the level of concern of morality and relates to quality of life rather than strict survival, though quality of life will have an impact on survival, in the long term.

Can a generality be found that describes morality? Any proposal should be tested for conformity with The Ten Commandments.

To be perfectly moral, one must pay the full price of one's acts, preferably at the moment of acting, but certainly before death. To do otherwise would be to steal from another human being, and this is the essence of acting immorally. As a colloquialism, one can say that to be moral, short cuts must be avoided.

The Ten Commandments are:

1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me.

(Establishing the one true masculine God.)

2. Make no graven images.

(This would amount to another God.)

3. Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.

(This would tend to devalue the concept of God.)

4. Remember the Sabbath.

(Establish the periodicity of worship necessary to maintain a clear concept.)

5. Honor thy father and thy mother.

(Establish a social order.)

6. Thou shalt not kill.

(Avoid stealing life.)

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

(Avoid stealing sexual satisfaction.)

8. Thou shalt not steal.

(Avoid stealing of any kind.)

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

(Avoid stealing meaning.)

10. Thou shalt not covet.

(Avoid the preliminary feelings leading to stealing.)

The first four are aimed strictly at the establishment of the one true religion. The next is concerned with establishing a societal hierarchy with the aged at its head. The rest are all concerned with stealing. Stealing life, sex, goods, and meaning, in order of importance. To further generalize one can say that The Ten Commandments are concerned with a) establishing a particular religion, that of the one, masculine God, and then using it to b) establish an age based social structure and further c) to establish that morality is essentially concerned with avoidance of stealing, or, failing to pay for one's acts, or taking shortcuts. One may be led to ask why the emphasis on age? The answer is clear when one notices that awareness is an important value, and the aged have the most.

To clarify this further, one could concentrate on the act of payment. Of what does it consist? Payment amounts to giving back equivalent value for what one has gotten. This is most noticeable in the area of work. Since work is measured in terms of money, society is very careful to see to it that for all of those capable, they should have according to their contributions to society in terms of work. This is not one's only recompense, however; in some cases, the worker receives satisfaction. To the extent that he does, his salary can be adjusted downward. Compensation is much less precise, but no less important in relations between people. Should one take care not to harm one's neighbors, they will tend to avoid harming him, since to do otherwise would be to establish debt, and only the naive, who don't yet know that all debts must be paid will lightly incur debt.

The most obscure indebtedness occurs between God and man. This is what is meant by sin. One can violate the state of equilibrium between God and man, and find oneself thereby in debt to God. This possibility is the grand preoccupation of Christianity, and the worship service is provided to instruct believers in methods of maintaining equilibrium with God. To become indebted to God, one must steal from Him that which is His, as in the case of Eve. A possible example of stealing from God could be exploitation of the environment. The most obvious case of this is oil. In that case, one can be said to be exploiting the work of others, the makers of oil, and therefore can expect to pay in the future. This is understood by environmentalists and therefore the fear of global warming.

It is interesting to consider morality in terms of the main spectrum of life. That spectrum is the one that proceeds from nature to God. One can say that nature epitomizes the life of unawareness and manifestation. That is, nature manifests herself at every opportunity and in every variation and is mostly unaware. She is therefore pure, in that there can be no immorality if one cannot see the opportunity. On the other hand, since God is the opposite of nature, one can say that He is completely aware and does not manifest himself. He is, therefore also pure, since immorality cannot occur in the absence of action. Only humans are, therefore, capable of immoral behavior, since only they can at once see and act on what has been seen.

Finally, why are morals more important to masculinists than feminists? Because masculinists are worshipers of God and therefore in the business of raising awareness, which comes with the danger of abusing moral rules, placing the awareness of immoral acts in the hands of beings not sufficiently aware of the consequences of them. In a feminist world of declining awareness, the danger recedes. From this dissertation, it will be seen that the question of morality and abortion will come down to whether the fetus is an individual, since if so, his life has been stolen by the mother immorally, but if not, if the fetus is actually a part of the mother, the only immorality that can obtain is the possibility that mutilating one's body is theft from God, assuming He to be the actual owner of one's body.

One of the spectra along which people choose positions to hold is the conformist/non conformist spectrum. This spectrum is apparently one of those that applies to humans only, as a matter of choice, but can be seen in animals due to malformity or injury. Since this feature is frequently noted and commented upon, one can assume subjecting it to spectral analysis will inform one about the nature of humans.

At the conformist end of the spectrum, all members bend their efforts to enhance similarities while at the same time reducing or eliminating differences. This tendency is most noticeable in the visual impact of the practitioner, that is: body decorations, clothes, housing, credentials and relationships. At the other end of the spectrum, residents magnify differences while at the same time they hide similarities. Therefore, the question will come down to the motivation for these kinds of behavior.

To consider some examples: in some places, perhaps all, the notion of rebel is venerated. Those who attain to this label are revered and glorified. The American Confederates and in Mexico the revolutionaries that succeeded in establishing the current government are examples. Some revolutionaries lose their appeal in time, for example some of the French and Russian socialists, but that would seem to be due to their extreme orientation, so that degree of non-conformity is important. Non conformity is very important in the arts, because of the need to avoid duplication of the product of some other artist, while at the same time avoiding such extremism as to make the product incomprehensible to the audience.

From the behavior of students in universities, one can say that the need for non-conformity peaks during these years, while from the behavior of middle aged corporate employees, one can assume that the need for non-conformity has dramatically declined since college. A conformity curve would start at neutral at birth, steadily rise until graduation and entrance into the job corps, and then steadily decline until death.

From the occurrence of the Beatniks and the Hippies, one can conclude that the need for non-conformity will be increased during periods of political polarization as is easily seen today, particularly among musicians. These non-conformists take on the characteristics or demonstrate the values of the liberal ideology that is contending with the conservative ideology for dominance. Non conformity will, it appears, usually identify with what it perceives to be the future, rather than the past, but the reverse does occur, just more rarely, and seldom with the seriousness of liberal non conformity.

The form taken by that non-conformism varies with the creativity of the human pursuing it. The least creative will usually satisfy themselves with alterations in clothing or body decorations or taste in music, while the most creative will attempt some sort of artistic expression. It can be observed that any form of cultural popularity will be opposed by the non-conformist, as a means of expression of his non-conformity and will produce cultural conflict. One can expect that the more intense the cultural popularity, the more extreme will be the non-conformist reaction.

The question of motivation will force one into psychological speculation, no other avenue being open. One should probably start from the undoubted fact that people alter their personalities due to perceived survival advantages. Therefore, since conformity can be said to be natural, it being indulged in by all children up until puberty, and that non conformity as a form of conformity is very noticeable immediately after puberty, and that the psychological challenge of puberty is to establish oneself as a unique member of the most desirable subgroup of peers one can identify and has some chance of success with, one can conclude that a very noticeable need to all humans is that they perform a unique task during their life; not that the particular task itself is so important, just that it be unique.

It is as much as to say that, were one to find that he exactly matched another human, he would have to conclude that he was redundant. This suggests that humans know, on some level, that they are searching out a new space to inhabit; that all know that their current space cannot be expected to continue to be available to them indefinitely. Thus, to maximize the search potential of humanity, each member should perform some unique exploration.

This logic becomes reversed when one joins a corporation. That is because one of the functions performed by corporations is the exploitation of technology, and conformity of members enhances the potential for the success of the corporation.

As life progresses, there is a noticeable tendency towards conformism in most. This will be because of the human tendency to psychological uniqueness accruing to each due to his unique exploration of life and the reflection of that life in his personality. As that uniqueness becomes increasingly pronounced, most will react to it by displaying their conformity in their life style. This is due to the perception that too great non conformity will result in rejection by the culture as in the case of criminals. This feature of human life, one must assume, reflects the general conclusion that humanity is led, to some extent, by its leaders along the most likely path to success, and that that path is not easily perceived. This is only common sense, since, if the path was easily seen it would already be exploited and the space it represents, filled.

Symbolism demonstrates via the sun, moon, and earth symbols that females share the attributes, to some extent, of the moon and earth and males share the attributes, to some extent, of the sun.

From this, one can extrapolate a few statements:

• Males generate light, or glow, in some sense.
• Females reflect the masculine light.
• Males cause life, implicit in the female, to express itself.
• Males are energetic and creative.
• Females are passive and fecund.
• Male creativity is liberal because it is the agent of change.
• Females are conservative and opposed to change.
• Order, a tool of creativity, is masculine.
• Chaos, the absence of order is feminine.
• The ego or conscious complex is masculine.

From this, a formal ball should say something because of the costumes in evidence. The males are dressed in a consistent uniform that is black except for the white shirt and covers perhaps 90% of the body, leaving only the hands and face or perhaps only the face uncovered. Females on the other hand are dressed elaborately with the breasts largely exposed and displayed to best advantage. In many cases, the legs are also largely exposed. Makeup is used to display the face to best advantage and the hair is elaborately arranged. Jewels are used to highlight various body parts.

From this, one should be led to the conclusion that females identify with their bodies while males identify with their minds.

One might also ask why these choices reverse those that occur in the natural world. Females are normally camouflaged in nature while males sacrifice camouflage because of their need to be chosen as a sexual partner. Perhaps the answer is that only in humans does the mind assume such proportions as to allow identification with it and the environment allowing women to dress as they do is largely without physical danger.

Dictionary: A symbol is something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance.

1. Objective description:

The representation of an object or event in words having only material meaning.

2. Symbolic description:

The representation of an object or event in images having another meaning in a different context. This is effective because of shared attributes. Thus, as Freud pointed out, if one dreams of smoking a cigar, he can surmise that the cigar represents a penis. The advantage of this method is to allow the inspection of other attributes to see if they are also shared, which is frequently the case.

3. Allegory:

A fictional story representing facts about life difficult to represent in any other way. For example, Bhagavad-Gita, an Indian text that describes the experience of battles by a prince in company of a guardian spirit, in which individual events represent other typical events in the growth of the individual spirit.

4. Myth:

A fictional story representing events in the lives of the gods. The gods themselves are symbolic representations of complex aspects of life; for example, Mercury the messenger represents the human need to communicate.

5. Fable:

A fictional story representing simple truths about lives in which the characters are generally animals living in the style of humans; for example, Alice in Wonderland.

6. Parable:

A fictional story representing ordinary events in life in such a way as to instruct the listener, generally about spiritual matters as in the parables of Jesus.

7. Fairy Tale:

A fictional story representing humans in conflict with evil forces, for example Sleeping Beauty.

8. Dream:

A symbolic representation of current events in an individual's life in which all characters and objects are symbolic representations of the dreamer.

The above list is in the way of identifying a representation spectrum. As with all spectra, it identifies two extremes and various points within tending from one extreme to the other. In this case, the normal method of representation is in terms of symbols, as can be seen from dreams which, despite their profundity, might reasonably be characterized as archaic thought forms. From this point, humans move progressively towards more objectivity, by which it is meant that the objects are represented as themselves without the need to resort to similar objects, which can stand for them.

Life can be characterized as a progression along this spectrum, wherein an individual has no means of communicating except by symbols in the beginning, and progressively acquires objective evidence as life goes on. The ability to objectify would seem to be limited to humans, so that one can surmise that humans have a unique mental capacity, which provides this capability. That capacity is the ability to concentrate to such an extent that other objects in the world are seen to be distinct from the subject.

Human motivation hierarchically arranged from the most basic to the most superficial: Each level includes subsequent levels as parts of its answer to the question it deals with.

Definition: Continuation of the species.

A very complex question with different strategies evident at every level of organization: individual, community, country, and species.

Definition: Numbers of members of the group.

A crucial question having an impact on every aspect of survival since the resources will have to be divided amongst the members of the group.

Definition: Reproduction, with whom and how many.

Basic to survival at all levels, influencing such divers questions as quality of individuals, leadership, and the general direction of adaptation to the environment.

Definition: Physical resources necessary to survival.

This is a method of buffering resources and thereby giving additional time to react to threats to survival.

Definition: The ability to affect the actions of people.

A means of achieving wealth.

Definition: Research into motives.

A means of understanding the past and present and predicting the future. In the beginning, it will result in the choice of a guiding set of principles identifying the values associated with feminism or masculinism.

Definition: The implementation of the preferred philosophy, Masculinism or Feminism.

A method of achieving communal survival through organization.

Definition: The implementation of the political ideology.

Religion identifies and cares for the authority governing the favored political ideology. These will be identified as gods to provide for their superiority over humans and to guard against rebellion. This is not to suggest that they aren't real. They are representations of the deepest understanding of the guiding philosophy and represent something incommunicable through ordinary means.

Since religion is the child of ideology, this will mean that when ideology shifts, as it is currently doing, religion will have to change to reflect it properly. One should expect a particularly discouraging disaster resulting from human creativity, producing the need to have religion teach why humans should avoid usurping the prerogatives of God.

It should be noted that survival preoccupies all living species all the time. Population preoccupies all living species some of the time. Procreation preoccupies all species some of the time. Accumulation of wealth is only practiced by some species, squirrels and men, for example. The same is true for power, only some species concern themselves, deer and men, for example. After that, one comes to the purely human responses to survival: philosophy, ideology, and religion.

Humans operate at many levels, some of which are accessible by consciousness. A spectrum of functionality identifies the various levels and their attributes and the methods of dealing with them by humans. It will also be noted that the numbers of humans involved establishes the levels identified along the spectrum: one, two, a political group, and the species. The first three levels are only superficially covered, since they are well understood, aside from their participation in a spectrum.

At this level, the body manifests its demands on humans. Therefore, one is talking about ingestion, elimination, sexuality, and sleep. The body communicates its needs to consciousness via sensations, mainly: hunger, sexual tension, drowsiness, and the need to eliminate. In general these sensations start weak and gradually strengthen, giving the human time to arrange for suitable satisfaction. At the conscious level, humans devise systems for managing these processes that are synchronized with the cultural values in use at the time. Therefore, from culture to culture and time to time, methods of dealing with these needs will change. In a masculinist culture, such as ours, that idealizes the mind and views the body as a tool, limiting the time and resources devoted to these needs should be expected. On the other hand, in a feminist culture that doesn't idealize the mind, much more importance will be attached to these functions.

Here the issue is relationships, so relating is done. Relating is the process of interacting with another individual in order to create bonding ties. Another way of thinking of this, from the scientific perspective is in terms of nodes and vertices. Individuals are the nodes and the vertices are the relationships between them. In general, strength lies in numbers and therefore the need is to constantly be creating new relationships or strengthening existing ones. This is due to the effects of the second law of thermodynamics or entropy, also at work here. Initial forms of relating usually involve talking, since that is the least threatening form of relating. The talk usually has little content to make it even less threatening. The idea is to make it as easy as possible to establish the beginnings of a relationship. Women usually perform this function since they don't as commonly as men, identify with their intellectuality. Intellectuals find it difficult to operate on this level out of boredom. Nothing is going on mentally and unless sex is involved, it isn't clear that much is going on in the relating field, either.

Here the group attempts to assure its own survival. In order to do this it has to establish relationships between groups at a similar level of scale in such a way as to avoid being consumed by one's neighbors. This is managed in a variety of ways, the most common of which is to build defenses. However, that is far from the only way. One country will emphasize a particular benefit that it can provide for other countries, such as Switzerland. Another country will emphasize its manufacturing, art, or whatever it can find to contribute to the success of the species. Another function at this level is the system of domestic organization that contributes to the prospects for survival of the group. This will include many things from infrastructure to ideological orientation. An important function of ideology is to rationalize the imposition upon the culture of its orientation towards sexuality.

The real purpose of this essay is to identify the operation of the species as an entity on individual humans. This is an important question. Are humans free to devise their own strategies for survival, or are they induced to adopt strategies emanating from some other agency? Experience suggests the later, though western ideology encourages belief in the former. It is difficult to know since humans don't bother much with identifying their motives or the impulses leading to them. There are many issues about life over which humans have no or little control: how large, how smart, how physically attractive, etc. It is also clear that, had one control in these areas, limited understanding would produce many experiments having negative consequences for survival. Therefore, these restraints are accepted as a given, in the same sense as geography or the planets. In the psychological realm, one's range of action is far wider and therefore guidance is needed.

The species is also concerned with survival. It takes a very long view of the situation and is relatively unconcerned about individuals. The species imposes upon us, via feelings, preferences regarding the implementation of individual lives. It controls receptivity to ideas by this means. If the ideas are in accord with the general plan or goal towards which humanity is moving, good feelings result and in the opposite case bad feelings arise. Politics has the job of rationalizing these realities. Human consciousness is incapable of understanding large questions taking centuries to work themselves out, but they must be dealt with to survive anyway. Therefore, the species operates on this level. Ideology is one of those long-term issues. Controlling ideologies last for thousands of years.

Some examples are needed. Feminism and the recognition of excessive human population are the two most important examples in existence today. To categorize these movements in this way requires the demonstration that they are happening outside of human volition. The modern feminist movement began in the '60's for no apparent reason. Since then the movement has gathered momentum without any direct resistance, although many of its features, acceptance of homosexuals for instance, have involved extreme violations of the cultural values existing immediately prior the '60's. Alternatively, look at the population question. Everything that can be done to restrain population growth is being done, although the overwhelming majority of humans don't agree that there is any such problem. Take another example. Pornography is a gross violation of early twentieth century, western values but it is allowed to flourish now although it can't be readily identified as a problem or a solution.

In all of these cases, much rationalizing is going on. By rationalizing, finding reasons for processes that are happening and began before any reasons for them were yet known, is meant.

Rationalizing is normally performed after an act in response to the question: Why did you do that? Sometimes it is performed beforehand, especially when criticism is expected. The process of rationalization amounts to identifying the causality of a situation. In the case of feminism, equality is the rationalization most commonly employed. This is identified as an outgrowth of the democratic tradition in the west. After enough rationalizing, it can't clearly be identified which came first, the movement or the reason. In the case of the overpopulation question, the first sign that something was afoot here was the arrival of the birth control pill. No suggestion accompanied the pill that overpopulation was the issue it dealt with, instead freeing women from the subjugation of pregnancy was its reason for being, when any reason at all was wanted. Since then the birth control pill and many other devices and measures up to and including abortion have come along, seldom being identified with population per se, but having the effect of reducing the problem and postponing the final solution.

Pornography also falls into this generalization. The most obvious thing about pornography is that it disassociates the sexual function and propagation. It is also clear that, in the absence of sexual relations, there would be some danger of a shooting war between the sexes so that, even though much less propagation is called for just as much sexual relating is called for as ever, if not more, given the exigencies of high density population.

A superior function is recognized in mankind that imposes on consciousness the implementation of plans intended to enhance the survival prospects of the species and leaves consciousness to rationalize as best it can. This force cannot be resisted since it operates in each individual and generates positive or negative feelings according to whether the endeavor at hand is in accord with or opposed to the plan.

In the case of feminism, it should be clear by now that compassion is the value against which its actions are measured. It should also be clear that the first ideological figure in western culture to identify compassion as an important value was Jesus. From this, one should be able to conclude that species formulae for continued survival are long term indeed.

Whether or not one wishes to identify this entity as a god, or God, is a question of human rationalization. If that identification makes it easier to accept then it has value. If not, some other name must be chosen, or, of course, it can just be ignored and not taken into account. This is a common procedure for humans, especially since most cannot see its actions in any case. However, it does cause a lot of confusion.

Sexuality can be viewed as the splitting of nothing. In order for something to exist, one must split nothing into equal and opposite pairs. Having split apart the sexes there is an attraction created. The pairs wish to be joined together again. To keep that from happening it will be necessary to form the sexes in such a way as to make recombination impossible; otherwise, there is no creation. On the other hand it is necessary that procreation involve both halves so that the created being share in the completeness of the whole. Therefore, sexual desire is not just the desire to procreate, and is not just for the pleasure of erotic experience and orgasm. At bottom, it is a desire to be rejoined with one's other half.

There is a spectrum of sexuality. One can be arbitrarily far from sexually neutral. The degree of desire for reunification will be proportional to the distance one is from neutral. All things being equal, one would expect to be attracted to an opposite sex partner that is just as far from neutral on the other side.

It would appear that physical sexuality is reflected in the mental sphere. If these aspects, physical and mental, of sexuality do not coincide, unusual mixtures can result, persons with physical attributes of one sex and mental characteristics of the other. In a word, homosexuals.

In order to grasp the real difference between these two sexual orientations one must first eliminate any trace of preference from one’s judgment. It is possible to have a preference but still eliminate those manifestations of preference that have no basis in reality, or when they do, to assign to them the proper value. After that, one must recognize that human sexuality varies along a spectrum, as do all other things. The midpoint of the scale will be asexuality and bisexuality. Asexuality will describe those individuals that are deficient in erotic tension, presumably a genetic feature. Bisexuality names those that have normal or abnormally high erotic tension. If one wishes to define a position devoid of sexual preference, this will be it.

As one moves out towards the ends of the spectrum of sexual orientation, he encounters heterosexuals at one end, the historically preferred end for humans, and homosexuals at the other. The first question to be asked is why humans preferentially select the heterosexual end of the spectrum, instead of dividing equally, which would be expected if no advantage accrued to one choice over another. The answer to the above question must be procreativity, which is a feature of heterosexuality. Historically, being procreative has been advantageous when compared to the reverse. This will be because there is strength in numbers and therefore a survival advantage accrues there. In addition, because family relationships are more intense than others are, one can work on his personal interests to advantage by exploiting those relationships. A farmer can use his children for free labor, for example.

Since it is expected that all choices in life involve both advantage and disadvantage, what is the disadvantage of this choice? The answer is that heterosexual relationships always lead to violence because they involve cross-sexual relating. Since both of the sexes are involved and since the sexes are opposites, they normally have opposite values. Females tend to feminine values which mean emphasizing relationships and when a relationship demands sacrifice to make it. Males on the other hand value understanding over relationships, since understanding allows one more easily to adapt to changes in the environment. For instance, when population density, the most variable feature of the environment, leads to a new highway that passes through one’s home, if he understands and agrees with the need, he is more easily able to accept the sacrifice. If not he may choose to fight which may lead to much greater loss.

Because of these fundamentally conflicting values, heterosexuality invariably leads to violence. The manner in which the violence manifests itself varies with the understanding of the individuals involved, which demonstrates the importance of the masculine value. At the low end, death may result. At the high end, psychological conflict replaces physical conflict. However, the conflict is inescapable.

These are the only objective reasons for the choice between homosexuality and heterosexuality as a preferred method of sexual expression. There are, of course, many subjective reasons. One’s family doesn’t approve of homosexuality. One’s genetic makeup predisposes one to one or the other ends of the spectrum. One’s psychology developed during childhood turns out when puberty arrives to favor one end or the other. One’s religion disfavors one end of the spectrum. The culture has developed a distaste for the mechanics of sexual expression at one end of the spectrum. And so on.

One very compelling reason for a preference is usage. The culture, due to its preference, develops institutions with the preference built in and cannot readily remove it without destroying the institutions. This is still a subjective reason, however. The subjectivity arises when pondering the difficulty of replacing an existing institution with another. Christianity would seem to exhibit this feature.

Thinking over what has been stated should lead to the conclusion that excessive numbers of humans will work a dramatic change here. The objective reason for preferring heterosexuality will disappear with increasing numbers of humans. In addition the downside of heterosexuality, the accompanying violence, will become more intolerable with increasing population density, because when violence erupts, it affects bystanders. Drive by shootings, for example. To demonstrate, young males tend to join other young males in gangs. The most effective will get benefits, one of which will be ease in attracting feminine attention.

Therefore, the reason for this essay is to identify the reasons for the increasing pressure on humans to discontinue discrimination against homosexuals, a very noticeable feature of the late twentieth century. It has to be done to reduce the damage flowing from heterosexuality and to assist in reducing the rate of increase of the numbers of humans. This means that every human is constantly being confronted in the media with reasons for discontinuing the discrimination: homosexuals are, in many cases very attractive and productive people; violence against them is immoral and unchristian; antihomosexual discrimination is undemocratic; and so on. In addition, where possible, homosexuals are presented in sympathetic situations, the recent movie Philadelphia, for example, and their attractive qualities are dramatized, the movie Birdcage comes to mind. Finally, some active promotion goes on, particularly in the pornographic field. Playboy constantly displays attractive lesbian relationships and the Internet provides many images of both male and female homosexuality.

Finally, one might well ask why the culture doesn’t just identify the real reason for acceptance of homosexuals? The answer is obvious. Overpopulation is difficult to observe at close range. It only becomes clear at long range, via statistics for example. Therefore, identifying the real reason wouldn’t have the desired effect, since most people would dismiss it. This tactic has a down side, though. If people could actually see the survival threat, they would more quickly adapt, but if one waits for that time, it may be too late to fend off the worst results of overpopulation, a great die off for example, which must be expected to threaten the continued existence of humans or at least technological civilization.

Pornography is rapidly becoming or already is a significant cultural feature of the late twentieth century. For those attracted to sociology, it must be analyzed to gain a general understanding of one aspect of the state of the human experiment. From insignificant beginnings in the early fifties to the Hugh Hefner led charge against sexual repression to the explosion that has resulted from the popularization of the Internet, it has reached the stage of an ubiquitous presence and therefore requires each member of society to settle upon some attitude towards it. Those attitudes range from enthusiastic endorsement to absolute rejection with most adopting a middling position. A review of a pornographic movie recently appeared in National Review, the flagship magazine of conservatism, in which the reviewer said that to the extent that pornography was intended to produce sexual arousal, it was OK. Most are exposed to pornography via movies, The Playboy Channel, Internet home pages, and Internet News, in order of declining restraint. Internet News is an interesting case, since it falls between private communications and public publishing. It becomes more difficult to restrain as one approaches private communications. In addition, the Internet is international, so who has jurisdiction?

The Rev. Wildmon in Tupelo is the most active antipornographer, and many fundamentalist Christians support him. Fundamentalist Muslims also seem to be strongly against it. Certainly, it is much more in evidence, everywhere in the world than ever before, but that has something to do with media potential. Anyone can publish on the Internet. On the other hand, it also is part of the ideological movement in progress for centuries. It is an expression of free speech, which is a founding principle of the United States. It is also a rejection of masculinist sexual repression and therefore must be viewed as an aspect of feminism even though many feminists are very uncomfortable with it due to the perceived exploitation of women, especially the frank presentation of male dominance in bondage photographs.

Since the main condemnation of pornography is coming from religion, and since both Christianity and Islam are male dominance religions, it will be expected that the loss of dominance is the perceived threat. This is entirely realistic since, as can be seen from chess, the female is the most powerful of the sexes and this comes from her ability to close her legs. Pornography is seen as an opposing force to sexual repression, which it is, and since sexual repression occurs in male dominance societies to limit the power of the female, it is seen as a revolutionary threat. Of course, these aren't the reasons identified by the preachers, but humans seldom know why they do what they do. This is the reason for the characterization of America as the Great Satan in the West by Iran.

Pornography is not totally unrestrained. Significant efforts are aimed at apprehending child pornographers, both consumers and producers. Whether or not this is compatible with the First Amendment isn't clear. However, people seem more accepting of limitations on free speech where children are concerned. Interestingly, there is a good deal of female homosexuality being distributed and rather less male homosexuality. This reflects the fact that males are most attracted to pornography and therefore react positively to two women and negatively to two men.

If one takes Playboy as an expression of the general mood, then erect penises and penetration cannot be displayed; though they can be discussed at length. This apparently marks the dividing line between "soft" and "hardcore" porn.

The controversy, of course, lies in the question about damage it might do, presumably to the psyches of the viewers. On the one hand, psychologists have long recognized, beginning with Freud, that sexual repression damages the psyche and in extreme cases, at least, leads to violence. The Speck, Daumer, and Jack the Ripper cases being examples. On the other hand, viewing pornography, unless a shared experience is sterile, rather like masturbation. Therefore, yet another spectrum appears, producing damage at the extremes and leading to the inevitable identification of the middle as the most healthy. A little porn is OK, preoccupation with it or militant opposition will be symptoms of adaptation problems. It should be noted, however, that the worst behavior occurs on the side of repression. Sexuality, being provided by nature, has its own built in safeguards and would only be abused by people already damaged psychologically by repression.

There is a taste issue here, but it isn't of great interest sociologically. Taste generally follows class, so that sexual expression will change for taste reasons as one traverses the classes of society. Since class is not officially recognized as a suitable goal for citizens (a feminist rejection), its impact on pornography isn't of much interest.

The next question is how extreme portrayals should be allowed to be, to the extent there is any way to control it. There are many restraints here, mainly imposed by the consuming public. If nobody will look at it, it quickly disappears. It would appear that bestiality is out, child pornography is controversial and tending to be out as the age goes down, male homosexuality is uninteresting to many, feces is out, urine has a certain following, bondage is OK if it is staged and not too grotesque. Vaginal, oral, and anal sex between heterosexuals is favored. Multiple partners is fine. Anything more extreme than these, like sex with the dead, is definitely out.

It should be mentioned here that the largest segment of material in this general category is devoted to feminine nudity, which isn't even considered pornography by many. In addition, the quality of photography is much better in this category.

A couple of generalizations become apparent. Among the participants, the females are generally better looking than the males and pornography disassociates the sexual function from procreation. The first point relates to disapproval between the sexes. Males disapprove of pornography, as a generality, but are attracted to it, while females view it as viable employment sometimes leading to great success, especially for the most beautiful.

The second point is much more important, since it leads to causality. Some general statements can be made about humanity on this date. There are too many humans for the environment to support in the long term and human creativity is the most glaring problem in a high-density population. Feminism, since it will tend to be uncreative, can be viewed as a solution to these problems. Additionally, disassociating sex and procreation has potential to alleviate these problems if it cuts down the birth rate without cutting down relationships. In those countries where pornography is most noticeable, mainly the industrialized West, it seems to be working; though, the causality isn't clear.

In the area of psychology, the results aren't clear either due to the intersection of many problems. Sex crimes seem to be up, especially against children. Therefore, this could be taken as an indication that pornography is doing harm. On the other hand, this is a time of transfer of power over the timing of sexual contact from males to females. This can easily be the source of the motive for sexual violence.

Finally, it is inescapable that pornography informs humans regarding the nature of human sexuality and how it manifests itself. In the past, each could imagine his own model of human sexuality and then try to put it into practice in whatever way he could devise. Obviously, the second approach is more dangerous. The church controlled excess as well as it could, but complete control isn't possible, so many strange examples of human sexuality, from the Marquis de Sade to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to Bonnie and Clyde emerged.

Pornography will reduce human creativity in the sexual field dramatically.

This novel is narrated by a half Native American/half European American, living in Idaho during the last of the 19th century. This book has a distinctly pre automobile, small town America, and western flavor. On the other hand, most of the tale occurs in and around a bordello, so that gives it an urban flavor.

The major characters, other than Shed the half-breed, are Ida, the proprietress of the bordello, Alma, the principle prostitute, and Dellwood Barker, Shed's father, though that relationship remains hazy for most of the book. The role of Alma is not easily defined. She introduces Shed to heterosexual sex, has sexual and love relationships with all of the principle characters and is identified as a member of the family. She functions as a sort of sister to the other main players. Shed is bisexual, as is his father, and this fact and Shed's adaptation to it is the major surface theme. The author views bisexuals, some of them at least, as special humans frequently with special powers closely related to their bisexuality. He also conceives of the unusual personalities of these people as being very spiritual and shamanish.

The novel is explicitly sexual, going into great detail describing both the physical nature of sexual contacts and their spiritual impact on Shed as he matures. He begins very early in life when the madam begins to sell his services to the local males, whom the author portrays as very eager to avail themselves of the service. He does this to demonstrate the contradictory nature of masculinism, or human creativity, and the damage it can potentially do to those that must involve themselves in this way and then do penance for it.

The story is organized around the adventures of Shed as he seeks to discover who he is. This leads to the discovery of his father, who is of the opinion that his wife and children died in a snowstorm shortly after the children's birth, and so seems to be ignorant of the relationship for most of the book. Shed isn't sure either, since they share no physical similarities, though the author gives them very similar personalities.

In fact, Shed has two fathers and two mothers, and the challenge for him resolves into understanding who they are and what their roles in his life actually are. This he eventually succeeds in doing, but not before confusing them repeatedly and misidentifying them throughout the book. It would be proper to say that he is struggling to separate the physical from the spiritual as has become common in these transitional times. To what extent do we tell ourselves the story of our lives, and to what extent are our lives happening to us? To what extent are we the creators? What is God's role? Does God use us to create life?

Shed refers to this intentional and inadvertent creativity as "killdeer", because of that bird’s mastery of trickery. For him, life is constantly taking unexpected turns either as a result of his own creativity or that of others.

Shed uses sexuality to penetrate this mystery, in fact produces his children, in the end, by impregnating his own mother, though unaware of the fact. His mother, on the other hand, has used the sexual relationship between her and her son to obscure further her motherhood, in an effort to protect him from his father. He also develops a sexual relationship with his presumed father, though in the end this also turns out to be a misunderstanding. In the end, he discovers his greatest hatred was directed towards his real father and grew out of his father's forcible rape of his child. Billy Blizzard does this because of his perception that Shed is a competitive threat for the attentions of Ida and because of his anal fixation. One supposes this developed as a result of his heritage, which was feminist by blood, but masculinist by adoption at an early age. His adoptive father is a judge, probably murdered along with his wife by Billy.

As with all children, the question of Shed's parentage is crucial, though he uses sexual relationships with them to get at the truth. This works because of the truthful nature of sexuality, the inability to maintain our fantasies regarding who we are while involved in sexual relating over time. The prospect of a sexual relationship with his own father troubles Shed, but, in the end, the fact that his penis assumes the erect state when that prospect is in mind, convinces him of the rightness of the event. He recognizes that our bodies, being millions of years old, are far more likely to be right than our minds, only in existence for a few years.

This obscure parentage that continues throughout the book has an analog in Shed's racial heritage. In the beginning he is represented as completely American Indian and gradually becomes whiter throughout the story until at the end, it isn't clear he has any Indian blood at all.

Shed is attempting the penetration of mysteries constructed by other humans in an attempt to creatively resolve problems produced by the creativity of yet other humans. It is a deconstruction. He uses creativity in an act of uncreating. The job of the detective is to uncreate creatively what has been created by another. A very difficult task sometimes, as was seen in the O.J. Trial.

As soon as Shed begins his travels, he is confronted by anti Indian bigotry, which continues as a secondary theme of the work, and in every described instance the perpetrators are portrayed in the most negative way. This particularly extends to the Mormons, who are harsh, though the bordello seems to be the focus of their intemperate hatred. In fact, the bordello and its occupants, both employees and customers are grouped with Indians, in the form of Shed and his mother, as a persecuted minority suffering at the hands of the moral majority like Mormons. This interesting grouping, which eventually includes African Americans, is done to make readers aware that all persecuted, in America, are persecuted because of their feminism. As feminists, they are sexually attracted to each other and find their natural home in the bordello, the feminist outpost in a masculinist world. Masculinism is a rule-based ideology, because of the order provided by rules. Feminism hates rules because they have the effect of restraining the serendipitous development of relationships.

In fact, God's people are portrayed in such a negative light they become caricatured. The author underlines the point, that strong beliefs of any sort produce enmity and hatred, and to the extent that their adherents are driven to proselytize for them, they are exposed as idolaters of the worst sort. This is in the way of demonstrating the negatives, too often ignored in the west, of creativity. Restraint is the most common way of asserting the creative will on a human population, it is therefore, a creative effort. However, it has the negative attribute or side effect of rendering the operated upon individual and especially the ideological operator intolerant of non-believers to the extent of persecuting them and identifying them with their most negative concept, the devil.

The author places the first importance on anal sex, which will no doubt put off many readers. First, one becomes suspicious that he is a homosexual proselytizing in his own way for his minority, which would certainly be expected, given the political times. Certainly, they have made the book publishable. However, this suspicion is minimized by the treatment the author gives the subject. He closely relates it to Indian mythology and the struggle for males to realize their own femininity, without losing their masculinity in the process. In fact the author suggests that the male anus is a special feature of the male anatomy, and especially the prostate gland, which requires the owner to establish a special relationship with it if he hopes to succeed in the quest to understand who he is and why he exists.

This is certainly a novel suggestion, but it is presented in such a convincing way, the notion shouldn't be dismissed. All methods of rising above common awareness require the seeker to adopt unusual practices. Some Hindus find it necessary to drink their urine. Many require a monastic existence. Priests are required to renounce sex. Of course, not many of us have such a dramatic search for identity, as does Shed, nor his unusual and conflict intensive parentage. Western Europeans are the most intense masculinists in existence, while the American Indian can be considered the most unalloyed feminist culture. The Indians are devoted to feminist values and use feminist symbols throughout, at least the non-Christian ones. They minimize the Western God, Jehovah or Allah to the point of identifying him as the elusive "Spirit in the Sky", as Norman Greenbaum called Him, while devoting their entire waking life, from all reports, to worship of Gaia or Mother Earth.

They are devoted to the use of hallucinogens as a method of bridging the gap between the conscious and unconscious minds, which fact is in abundant evidence in this book. Therefore, the masculinist culture will not like this book. It deals with drug use, including opium and pot as normal everyday occurrences experienced in conjunction with alcohol. It also dismisses sexual segregation in bed as part of the western culture that produces bigotry, violence, and psychological complexes. This is a valid characterization though these negative manifestations of masculinism aren't quite so widespread as portrayed by the author. Without masculinism, the author wouldn't be in a position to write such a critical analysis of western civilization.

In the end though, the heterosexual reader is left to ponder the total dismissal of restraint represented by a sexual relationship relying on anal intercourse between father and son. It is very difficult to imagine that this violation of every sexual taboo in western civilization, even for one who grants in some degree all of the criticisms of American culture, has any realistic validity.

The Mormons and their fellow travelers will be unhappy at the violation of decency they see here, but perhaps this is just what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they envisioned a free press. This is ideological criticism of a very intense kind and is valid. It does telescope events and choose particularly extreme examples, but these are the common devices of fiction.

The book foretells the future for us. It has been clear for some time that the success or failure of the drive for acceptance of homosexuals lies mainly on anal sex. Can the heterosexual majority be brought to acceptance of this practice as normal instead of branding it a "crime against nature"? It is a tough sell, given the fear of feces that permeates the culture; but who knows. Who would have guessed twenty years ago that the establishment would grudgingly pipe extreme forms of pornography into a large number of American homes and mild pornography into all of them?

This book deals with a lot of American mythology and redefines it to some extent by viewing it through the prism of feminism. It describes the mythic qualities of the buffalo and how that animal continues to affect us all. It develops the character of the shaman beyond what one is ordinarily exposed to, even to the extent of describing the source of his powers and his methods. It treats the subject of sexually anomalous persons and their potential for contributing to the health of the culture. It presents, in Billy Blizzard, the archetypal masculinist, forcibly repressing his own feminism to the extent, eventually of violent self-destruction. It deals with the sheriff in the old west by providing a sheriff that could be described as the shadow of Matt Dillon.

In fact, this book is so full of themes and sub themes, that most will not get it all in one reading. It describes every idealized American institution from its negative side, as is appropriate for a feminist describing a masculinist culture. He is doing what others have done, when describing the native or black cultures in America, or primitives, or prostitutes.

This is a serial television drama aired from about '92 to '96 and is possibly, the best effort in that genre yet seen. It is currently ('98) being aired on A&E.

The supposed location is a small town in northern Alaska named Sicily, though its actual filming location was near The Dalles in northern Oregon. A guess for an actual location that corresponds to the dramatic location would be Circle Alaska.

The intent of the writer is to produce the television equivalent of Sir Thomas More's Utopia, that is the writer wishes to describe and dramatize a Utopian village and its inhabitants.

The main characters follow:

The men:

Maurice Menefield is a middle aged retired astronaut. He is very macho, given to order, technology, and authoritarianism with himself as dominant. He tries to project this persona onto the community, but they only allow him to maintain it for his own amusement. His romantic interest is a woman cop who is even more masculinist than he is.

Chris is the DJ on Maurice's radio station. He is an amateur poet and philosopher with a doubtful family background that includes an African American brother. He has spent time in the penitentiary and has a way with women. He frequently fills the role of psychologist and minister, having purchased a degree through a Rolling Stone advertisement.

Holling Vencoer owns the local watering hole, is of French descent, has a particularly cold and exploitative family background, which he abhors, and maintains a relationship with the much younger and mildly slutty Shelly. He combines the characteristics of the strong mountain man with the vulnerability of a man who knows his happiness lies in another’s hands.

Dr. Joel Fleishman is a recent graduate of medical school from New York who is paying for his education, under protest, by ministering to the inhabitants of Sicily. He is Jewish, hyperactive, and involved in a love/hate relationship with the very attractive Maggie. He is a typical eastern golden rule liberal who is prone to base his opinions on stereotypes, which Maggie loves to point out.

Ed Chigliac is a twenty year old Indian and attractive, though presenting the fairly ridiculous persona of a native American trying to live the life of a Western European with very mixed results. He is also a Shaman in training and is frequently used to portray the conflict between western objective, interventionist, masculinist medicine and the eastern feminist subjective approach.

The women:

Marilynn is an Indian and works as Joel's receptionist. She has a round shape and relies heavily on knowing silence as a defense, to the great frustration of Joel. She is frequently portrayed for shock value as a leader in the Indian community.

Maggie O'Connell is from the Grosse Point upper middle class and is a bush pilot who supports herself by transporting packages and people between Sicily and Juneau or Anchorage. She has a history of boyfriends who die young while their relationship to her is still in progress. Maggie is the most militant feminist and frequently sees male chauvinism even when it isn’t there. Her reasons for choosing her employment are mainly to rebel against what she conceives of as her family’s excessive conventionality.

Ruth Anne owns and runs the general store. She is over seventy and functions as a wise elder though still very active member of the community. Ruth Anne epitomizes the non judgmental elder. She has been disappointed in her husband and children and has learned to avoid opinions about people’s actions.

Shelly is the girlfriend/wife to Holling and works as a waitress in the bar/restaurant. She is generally tasteless in her attire, tending to dice earrings, but a good soul and essential to Holling's equilibrium. She arrived in Sicily as a means of escape from her immature boy friend/husband.

There are of course many minor characters, some of great appeal. One of these is Adam, a conspiratorialist with profound culinary capabilities and a tendency to hide from civilization and Eve, his wife, who is an extreme hypochondriac. Adam is the only actor to move from this series to another successful series as the star up until now. That series is Chicago Hope. Maurice has turned up in supporting roles in B movies and the rest of the ensemble seems to be relying on commercials.

This demonstrates the fact that a supreme moment on TV, like All in the Family, for example, is pure happenstance, requiring the coming together of the right actors, writers, directors, and producers and no doubt others, too.

In addition to All in the Family and Northern Exposure, The Smothers Brothers, the first Star Trek, Lonesome Dove, and Shogun are examples of these happy coincidences.

The main conflict dramatized, as is so common in most of TV these days is that between masculinism and feminism, with feminism always winning. Maurice and Joel generally provide the masculinist perspective, while everyone else is generally a manifestation of feminism or is trying, like Chris, to emphasize feminist values. Marilynn is the feminist archetype, never revealing any sign of a masculinist value. The other women are of various mixtures, though always defending the feminist ideal.

Holling has given up killing wildlife in favor of photographing it. Ed pursues shamanism, which is frequently healing people when Joel can't help. Adam happily lives in a cave. Chris lives in a trailer next to a lake and constantly spouts philosophers with feminist ideas, like the value of passivity and non-judgementalism.

On the other hand, Joel and Maurice are constantly coming up with masculinist schemes: medical interventions on Joel's part and development of Sicily on Maurice's, that usually come to naught. In Joel's case something like the natural poultice used to cure an outbreak of the flu arrives and in the end he finds himself using it. In Maurice's case, the expression of feminist values is generally used to make him appear foolish. As an example, in one episode he tries to corner the market on bottled water using a newly found deep well near Sicily, only to discover that the water produces a reversal of sexual characteristics in those who drink it. The females become aggressive while the males become passive and begin to complain of being sexually exploited.

Frequently the areas of values conflict in the political arena are dramatized as when, for example, a homosexual couple moves to Sicily. Maurice, of course, never ceases to refer to them contemptuously, while the partners themselves are presented as ideal neighbors. The feminist attitude towards death is also frequently dramatized. In one episode an old man refuses medical treatment, in another an old woman predicts her own death even though she seems healthy, which happens to Joel's bewilderment.

Some areas are not dealt with directly: drugs and abortion for instance, thus demonstrating that this is truly another Utopia and could never be expected to actually exist. For one thing, high technology and feminism are freely mixed which can't be expected to happen, long term. Feminists will take advantage of existing technology as can be seen among the Inuit, but they don’t understand it and, when the production declines, they will certainly give it up in favor of traditional low technology. "You can't have your cake and eat it too", as the common sense condensation of this verity goes.

In any case, this series charmingly dramatizes the everyday conflicts in individual lives and not only entertains but instructs in possibilities for coping.

An intellectual writes this book in the style of an autobiography, to the extent of including a Who's Who style biographical sketch and footnotes. The author takes a minor character from Tom Brown's Schooldays and uses him for the main character in a novel about English military history of about 150 years ago.

The hero, actually anti-hero, as designed by the author is a gentleman from a titled and wealthy family, but with an apparent character flaw. He seems at first glance to be incapable of moral insight or "knowing right from wrong", as the legal phrase goes. Actually, he knows right from wrong as well as anyone, he just doesn't believe in the concept. To him, social life in Victorian England seems to be an exercise in hypocrisy, in which he isn't inclined to participate. He is very willing to play the part of a gentleman, he is just not willing to believe in the concept or entertain the notion that he is one.

He is therefore, refreshingly honest, at least in his description of himself to the reader. Remember that this is ostensibly an autobiography. He is certainly no gentleman, by the definitions that one is accustomed to, as he is at pains to demonstrate repeatedly.

The drama in the book is based on carefully crafted historical accuracy with the only apparent alteration being to inject Flashman into the episode at the highest levels. He accomplishes this by giving Flashman a gift for languages and impossibly good fortune, usually due to misapprehension by others about what they are seeing when Flashman appears. Flashman always takes advantage of the misapprehension, since it invariably favors him.

Flashman takes pains to demonstrate that, under the proper circumstances he is a liar, cheat, womanizer, thief, and coward; but only in the proper circumstances, which are invariably those which have the potential to end his life or career or place in society. In all other circumstances, he is as fine a gentleman as anyone else is.

This book is wonderful adventure and as good escape literature as one is likely to read, but in addition provides this very profound commentary on the now defunct western notion of a gentleman. Since it is defunct, it can't be known precisely what it actually amounted to. From Trollope and Dickens one is inclined to conclude that some actually did live up to the standard and many more partly so. Mr. Fraser suggests in Flashman that the standard was never much more than fantasy but one that was accepted and represented as reality by the entire upper class and much of the upper middle class of England and the rest of Western Europe and also America. However, this book casts another light on things, altogether, to the extent of leading one to wonder if he has a very good grasp of the characters of the revered Founding Fathers.

A thorough analysis of this book should include its place in the feminization of the West. It appeared in the late '60's, so it could not but be influenced by the politics of the times. One suspects that the author must have had some negative experiences at the hands of the gentlemen of the time. In any case, one of the strategies of feminism is to decay the institutions that combine to maintain masculinism as the dominant ideology in the west. Since masculinism invented the gentleman concept and to the extent it was believed in by western civilization, it tended to maintain in power those that subscribed to it as epitomizing what humanity should aspire to. The way to kill this concept is to portray purported gentlemen in an unfavorable light and to suggest that the masses are having one put over on them.

Whether intentionally or not, Mr. Fraser has accomplished this in fine fashion. Flashman takes his place along side lesser and greater media creations designed for the same purpose, characters like Rhett Butler and Dagwood Bumstead, or the more recent examples of the anti hero in Catch-22, or John Heresy’s The War Lover. Or, The Graduate comes to mind.

The greatest debt of gratitude to Mr. Fraser, though, will be due to the instruction he gives regarding the nature of illusion. How humans create it, how they impose it on their peers and, to some extent what the price is. In the East, they are fond of saying that life is only illusion. In this book, one sees that that is indeed the case, though perhaps not in the way it is initially taken. The Bible says that all is vanity. This book demonstrates that, out of vanity humans create these illusions and then through political correctness, impose it on the rest of us. All egos are flattered by these illusions but, none the less they are exactly that. Flashman is no cad; he just refuses to accept on the inner level the illusion; however he does use it to advantage. Lives are dominated by these illusions and life is about, as a result, disillusionment. Humans have illusions built upon illusions so that, for the average person there is little hope of dismantling them all, layer by layer. The lady and gentleman concept is an illusion and this is a time when it is essential that the illusions be dispensed with. A new creative turn in the life of man cannot occur unless the creators first dispense with the illusions.

Mr. Fraser has done his part here. Pornography is an illusion being used to dispense with the illusion of chastity. Democracy is an illusion, purporting to establish equality among men. A greater failure cannot be imagined. Justice is an illusion, as many recent famous trials have demonstrated. Justice is beyond the reach of man. Religion is an illusion, perhaps the greatest of illusions. Heaven and Hell, and the Devil? One should not ask, in what sense religion is an illusion, rather the more important question is, in what sense is religion not an illusion?

Of course, framing these human creations with the negative concept of illusion perhaps does them an injustice, but it is accurate anyway.

This book, and the TV mini series made from it, have enjoyed enormous popularity in recent years, to the point that one begins to suspect some qualities underlying the narrative that are particularly timely with respect to the state of the culture.

The story is set at about the turn of the last century and follows a cattle drive from a relatively settled Texas to virgin territory in northern Montana. The major characters are Augustus McCrae, an ex Texas Ranger of about fifty or so years of age and his long time associate, also an ex Texas Ranger, Captain Woodrow Call: the leaders of the expedition; a prostitute who accompanies them on the drive: Laurie; Gus's ex romantic interest of some years in the past: Claire; and a large group of Indians, cowhands, and assorted white, black, and Hispanic settlers of various flavors.

The part of the culture of interest to the author and being portrayed here is decidedly lower class, with modest or no educational achievements of any significance apparent except in rare cases, perhaps one college graduate in the entire assemblage. Gus has some pretensions to learning, but he is mostly a natural philosopher with some admiration for learning. He does read the Bible, and admires Latin phrases, even though he is unable to interpret them. Likes them for the form.

The herd is acquired by stealing it from a Mexican rancher. This doubtful method, amongst a very moral, given their class, group of men, is justified by recalling that the Mexican, Flores, acquired them in the same way, by stealing them from Texas ranchers, and anyway the procedure was of long standing tradition. They meet Flores going south with rustled horses on their way north with his herd.

A secondary character, Jake Spoon, soon appears, on the run from an Arkansan sheriff for accidentally shooting a dentist in Fort Smith. He is also a former ranger, but of a generally lesser moral character than Gus and Call.

On the way north, the most famous renegade outlaw Indian steals Laurie, causing Gus to pursue and recapture her and allowing him to encounter the pursuing sheriff, July Johnson. July has married a prostitute, who has deserted him in a pregnant state, and this has caused him to give up his pursuit of Jake and instead to pursue her, which leads him to Ogallala, the home of Claire.

The arrival of the herd and the main players in Ogallala provides the opportunity to explore the main issue in this book, the varieties of sexual roles people adopt and the problems that result. A significant feature of the story in this regard is the fact that Captain Call, who never pursues relationships with women, none the less had a relationship with a prostitute some years in the past, the result of which was an unacknowledged son who is one of the drovers. This is a point of some consequence to the philosopher Gus, who is at pains to develop relationships with women in his life and considers them of greater importance than any other feature of his life.

After the abduction of Laurie by the renegade, Blue Duck, Gus takes it upon himself to nurse her back to health and develops a love relationship, more on her part than his, in the process.

Claire, Gus's old flame, has in the intervening years married a duty bound and uncommunicative man capable of domination by her, but he is in a coma on the arrival of the herd as a result of a horse kick, which resulted from his inability to relate effectively to horses even though they were his business. When Claire and Gus meet it is apparent that they still regard each other with the special intensity of love, but while Gus obviously hopes for some chance of revival of their courting days, she recognizes the impossibility of it and instead concentrates on communicating her intense hatred for Call who she considers to be reprehensible for his failure to acknowledge his son. The author leads one to believe that she will eventually marry July Johnson, who is disappointed to find his wife only to discover she has no interest in him. Indians eventually kill her in a pointless attempt to evade July, even though her hope in life has just been hung for child murder.

In fact, the book as a whole, portrays a culture in which life is profoundly cheap and, as Blue Duck observes, likely to get cheaper. Prostitutes are creeping about everywhere and vary from the predominantly coarse to the relatively refined Laurie, with many intermediate examples, such as Big Heifer. There are horse thieves of a particularly insensitive nature, inclined to indulge in the grossest sort of exploitation of the harmless, a gruesome white slaver who sexually exploits a child, public carnality, to the extent that one begins to doubt the reality of it. The relations between the Indians and whites are particularly lacking in any sort of civility and no noble Indian is included, though many ignoble ones are. Drunkenness is endemic.

So, a long story is presented with many interesting characters, but the essence of the thing and that which gives it its main appeal is the short play that takes place in Ogallala. This episode begins by describing the arrival of July's wife, who has her baby there and leaves the child with Claire, who adopts it to replace her own lost sons, all of whom died in childhood. Then July happens along and is hired by Claire. Then Gus and Call arrive, a picnic ensues, and Gus and Claire discuss the state of their romance over the bed of her comatose husband. They conclude that it has no potential to both of their great disappointment. Claire communicates her hatred of Call to anybody that will listen, and the herd moves on to Montana.

This is not the end. Gus, on a scouting expedition in Montana is ambushed by Indians and eventually dies as a result of gangrene, which arises from arrow wounds in his leg. Before dying however, he extracts the promise from Call that his body be transported to a favored location in Texas, that his half of the herd be given to Laurie, and that Call deliver two notes from Gus to Laurie and Claire.

This produces an opportunity for Claire to express the depths of her feelings for Call, which are bottomless disgust, even though Call is performing the requirements of loyalty to his friend. In fact Claire does everything she can to convince Call to give up the trip and bury Gus in Ogallala.

How to understand this drama? The contention is that the story is about relationships, particularly the most important ones, those expressing human sexuality. Also, remember from elsewhere that one of the supreme values of masculinity is adherence to rules of behavior, while a supreme value of femininity is the development and nurturing of relationships. The most profound relationships include the sexual function and therefore occur, in the main, between the sexes.

However, physical males can have feminine psyches and the reverse, and in fact this defines a spectrum that can and does include all imaginable mixtures. In this story, one can characterize Gus as having a psyche somewhat dominated by his femininity. This accounts for his preoccupation with relationships and generally soft quality, outside of his violence towards recalcitrant males. It also accounts for his humorous contempt for Call's commitment to work and avoidance of pleasure. Call, on the other hand, is totally masculine to the point of coldness and apparent insensitivity. He fails to acknowledge his son because to do so would make apparent to all his failure to observe the rules regarding intimate relations between the sexes. He fulfills every duty that befalls him with single minded intensity, though on Gus's death he seems to lose that intensity to the point of doubting the worthiness of all his efforts to get the herd and crew to Montana and to establish the first cattle ranch there.

Claire is rather dominated, psychologically, by her masculinity. She requires domination of her husband and is the manager of her ranch. She also performs the functions of wife and mother but with complaints and vaguely dreams of becoming a writer. Writing is masculine because the point of it is firmly to establish in consciousness important facts. Consciousness is itself masculine due to its order and relatively sparse contents, compared to unconsciousness, which is of course, all the rest.

The central question of this drama is why does Claire hate Call so? And, the answer is, because she realizes that her only chance at happiness lies in Gus because he mirrors her personality, and Gus is spiritually married to Call. They share that male to male relationship, so fulfilling to the partners, that is usually discarded in marriage. Call and Gus consider it to be of such importance neither is willing to risk it by marrying. Therefore, Claire is jealous. She rationalizes that her hatred results from Call's apparent callousness and disregard of his familial relationships, but this is a rationalization. She also disregards when convenient the obvious fact, even to her, that she couldn't have a permanent relationship with Gus anyway, since he doesn't allow himself to be dominated by anyone.

This final scene makes clear the point of the drama, which is the vanity of the ideal of manhood. This is a profound and disturbing point to anyone old enough to remember the ideal in action. The fact that it is vain however, is inescapable and demonstrated beyond any ability to debate by this drama. In fact, one could say this is a particularly fine dramatization of the main point of the Book of Ecclesiastes from the Bible. One could go on to say that everything has a price and the price of Call's vanity is also dramatized, and it was a high price indeed.

Having understood that, does Ecclesiastes warn one away from vanities, including the vanity of Call? This is a much harder question. Doubtful, since that would also be vain. Ecclesiastes gives one a means of understanding lives from an unusual perspective, and the realization that suffering here on earth is inescapable.

This particular vanity, Call's, isn't gone. It isn't much on view in everyday life anymore, but a sort of one-dimensional version of it is apparent in much of American entertainment. Movies like Die Hard, or Rambo, where the superman is laying waste to all manner of failures and even anti supermen are examples. Also pro wrestling presents a sort of comic book version of the manhood ideal.

Nietzsche introduced the notion of superman, in Thus Spake Zarathustra, and then twentieth century American entertainment turned it into the famed "Man of Steel from Gotham". Zarathustra looks like extreme vanity, but, with cloning making its appearance, maybe it too will happen.

One of the casualties of modern feminism has been the idealization of manhood. In the past and up until the sixties, there was an ideal, widely propagandized, of manhood as the protector of women and children. This ideal was explicitly described in the Boy Scout oath, to which many, perhaps most middle class boys were exposed. Thus: "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law. To help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." And the law: "A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent."

Perhaps the general notions of admirable manhood of the times were that they should at all times be truthful, which meant that one could rely on their words, and also meant that one could enter into a contract with them without fear of failure to fulfill its provisions, and loyal to all that relied on them.

Of course, this ideal was seldom or never lived up to, but none the less, the ideal was there to be strived for however unsuccessfully. Many came close to fulfillment and they were, many if not most times, chosen as the leaders of the culture.

An ideal is a role model of sorts. Children are presented with the ideal and given to understand that this is what they should be like. On the positive side, many will go far towards achieving the ideal and will admire themselves greatly for their achievement and will therefore continue the tradition. On the negative side, many will fail to a greater or lesser extent and will therefore suffer guilt and denial, the twin forces most responsible for complex formation.

A movie, made in the late forties or early fifties, best dramatizes the ideal in three different characters and its opposite in two others. This movie, From Here to Eternity, was based on a novel of the same name.

In this movie, the audience is introduced to a lower class Easterner from an Italian family, called Magio and played by Frank Sinatra, his friend, Pruitt played by Montgomery Clift, and the First Sergeant, played by Burt Lancaster. The story takes place in Hawaii at the time of the Japanese attack. Pruitt is attached to a company in hopes that he will bring glory to it by boxing and is pressured unmercifully by the other boxers and the commanding officer, one of the anti-men in the drama. Pruitt declines because he had accidentally killed a man in the ring in the past. Magio sticks up for his friend and also has trouble with the local jailer who is an anti Italian bigot. Eventually, Magio, who thinks he has been stuck with guard duty unfairly, succumbs to temptation and goes AWOL to drink and play with the girls. This results in his imprisonment and intimidation by the jailer, which produces rebellions in Magio, which results in various forms of torture being applied to him. Of course the jailer, played by Earnest Borgnine, is pursuing a strategy all the while to bring about this exact result.

Magio is presented as a person, loyal to a fault towards his family which results, due to his failure to realize the importance of duty in his death, since Fatso the jailer's torture leads him eventually to attempt escape and to die in the process.

Pruitt, confronted by this outrage, concludes that his duty, because of his loyalty to his dead friend, requires him to avenge his death, even though that causes him to violate the law. He does so, but is wounded in the process and evades responsibility by hiding out at his girlfriend's house. Eventually he realizes this also violates the code of manhood and when the Japanese attack, attempts to right things by rejoining his unit. Unfortunately, or fatefully, he is shot dead by a guard.

The First Sergeant is watching all of this drama play itself out and, due to his endorsement of the ideals of manhood and his sophistication of realization that not all subscribe to the same ideals and that he is in fact required to subordinate himself to men who fall far from the mark indeed, finds himself in sympathy with Pruitt and Magio but, unable to help. The commanding officer is such a one, a man who is identified as a gentleman by the Army but who fails to live according to the standard. He failed his wife at a moment of crisis due to drunkenness. The Sergeant finds himself attracted to her and an affair soon ensues. She wishes for him to pursue a commission but this thought leads him to the conclusion that to do so would be a demonstration of an unmanly lack of loyalty to his class. He demurs and the affair ends.

Two of the characters are sacrificed to the demands of loyalty and the other loses his love for the same reason. The anti-men, Fatso and the Captain both lose, one by death and the other by being discovered by his superiors to be subverting his men in pursuit of boxing glory. By having all of the males lose, the author points out that the ideal is destructive on both sides, and also meets the audience need to see miscreants punished.

What is one to learn from this representation of manhood? Well few will find their ideals to be confronted so dramatically and in such a deadly way. However, these events have occurred many times and are implicit in the ideal itself. Is it worth it? The men certainly think so. They have something, apparently more dear to them than life. Their families no doubt think so, and those who find themselves with a husband or father that does not live up to the ideal feel themselves deprived, as dramatized by the Captain's wife.

How is it that this ideal was summarily discarded in the sixties? Well, at the point of receiving the ideal, most doubt they can live up to it so they will grasp any opportunity to avoid having to put themselves to the test. Feminism, in its demand that men avoid discrimination against others for failing to live up to these standards in the interests of compassion, gave them the opportunity and drove a stake right through the heart of the ideal.

However in the end, feminism is uncreative and this ideal is particularly creative, so feminism will find it dispensable.

The state of manliness is an esoteric notion similar to religion, and must be achieved if at all, through an act of creativity.

The common notion of manhood, the mature male, is not what is meant by manliness. Manliness is that state of being to which a male can aspire, in which he achieves a condition in which he has an accurate view of the world and himself, such that he finds no reason to complain, functions as a leader within his family, and is untempted by destructive practices of any kind. He has character, which means that he understands his life, his strengths and weaknesses and therefore can be relied upon to keep his word. On the other hand he is flexible and does not demand from his relations that which cannot be provided. He is objective in that he looks outward toward that which he can profitably do and which will accrue both to his own and his relations' advantage. He is a role model and therefore is likely to produce children that are also admirable human beings.

Manliness does not entail the acquisition of wealth but may include it simply because such a one will compare favorably with his peers and will therefore, frequently be chosen for honors and awards. This however, is unnecessary to the state and may well be absent in those individuals that are unusual in other ways, whether blessed with talent or beauty or unusual skills, and therefore are led to unrecognized achievement. A man will pursue his own agenda, exploiting the gifts that God has provided, whether or not they are approved by his peers.

Manliness was transformed in the recent past to the notion of gentlemanliness which added to the list of attributes a gentle nature and posited an opposite sex equivalent called lady. This may have been the beginning of the end for the ideal. Gentleness is not always called for in a man and may work against the requirements of manhood. It no doubt is a Christian acquisition and has a definite feminist quality. A man must be capable of defending himself and his family, should the occasion arise and if this means violence, then he must also be capable of that. A man is strong, and therefore is capable of looking upon the most horrific examples of human depravity without quailing. He never becomes physically ill or powerless due to psychological experience.

In fact, a man will seldom experience illness at all, since most illness results from improper life experiences, those that don't accrue to good health. He is subject to infections, as are all humans, but since he will have a very robust immune system, he will not often succumb. It is conceivable that a physically weak person; one with a poor genetic inheritance could achieve to the status of manhood, but it would require very unusual parents indeed.

In this book, the author suggests that the reason for the subordination of women is physical strength and that it is a holdover from a primitive past. He also suggests that a change in men's personalities was begun when civilization began, such that the rule of force was overturned by the rule of law. This eventually led to the recognition that slavery was immoral and the ending of that institution. In his view, the immorality proceeds from the humiliating nature of the relationship for the slave. This he says, is also the case with despotism, which is why advanced countries no longer practice it.

Mr. Mill then goes on to suggest that the subjugation of women is of this type and no more justified than those practices were. He also tells of the state of feminism in both England and The United States in his times. He says that suffrage petitions, demand for equal education, and admission to the professions was in great demand in both countries. One can conclude that this is the reason for these musings. He says that this state of affairs was also noticeable in France, Italy, Switzerland, and Russia. Mr. Mill, it must be concluded is a nurture type, as opposed to a nature type, thus he believes that passivity has been trained into women by men insisting that this is the essence of sexual attraction. He denies that the nature of the sexes can be known!

The author goes on to describe marriage, as then conceived in England, as an institution of slavery and in the most negative light he can contrive. He says that, since business partnerships work, marriage could be based on the same sort of relationship and recommends separate control of money by the partners in marriage according to their ownership before the union.

Mr. Mill addresses the question whether or not, in light of creative output, women are not less original than men are. He puts it down to lack of training and opportunity. His justification for the women's movement is to overcome male brutality towards women. As benefits, he cites the replacement of force with justice, and the doubling of mental faculties aimed at the betterment of man. He points out the instrumentality of women in the imposition of Christianity on Europe, Christianity being more favorably disposed towards women than previous religions. These are the benefits to be expected in exchange for the minor inconvenience of the change. In these days, one might better say turmoil and wonder, if Mr. Mill were alive and observing today what feminism has wrought, whether he would still endorse it.

There is not much unexpected in what the author says. One has heard these arguments repeatedly in the feminist movement of the second half of the twentieth century. In fact, it is mainly interesting by its lack of differentiation from the points made in these times. Of course, there are differences. Mr. Mill does not discuss free sex or homosexuality. He says the division of labor within the home, men earning income and a woman running the home is proper.

It can be said that the women's movement is freer now and is pursuing some new objectives, and that many of Mr. Mill’s goals have been achieved. One can also see that Christianity was successful in Europe and that it is more favorable towards women than Judaism was, at least when practiced according to Mosaic Law. Therefore, this is clearly a trend of some century’s duration.

Mr. Mill over emphasizes training to the exclusion of recognition of inherited or inherent traits. He suggests that there is no reason one must conform to the nature of that which we are made from, or that it has no nature to impose upon us; an unlikely conclusion. He says there is no way to know the nature of the sexes because of the distortion imposed on them by society. He is arguing politics here and is selectively editing out those facts that do not strengthen his argument, as is the wont of politicians.

Paganism can be thought of as the former religion of feminism.

For the purposes of this book, paganism is understood to mean religious observance outside of Judaism/Christianity/Islam. The contention to be made here is that this means feminism, as opposed to masculinism as represented in the Western/Middle-Eastern religion descending from Abraham.

This book represents pagans as follows:

They are polytheistic, recognizing a plurality of divine beings, which may or may not be avatars or other aspects of an underlying unity/duality/trinity etc.

They view Nature as a theophany, a manifestation of divinity, not as a "fallen" creation of the latter.

They recognize the female divine principle, called the Goddess as well as, or instead of, the male divine principle, God.

The book uses the history of civilization and geography as the outlines within which it views paganism, not completely appropriate since civilization and geography are manifestations of masculinism, but inevitable, since feminism sees no need to document itself. The swastika appears right away, suggesting that this symbol is basic to feminism, but seems to disappear as civilization progresses, though another symbol, the Celtic Rose has a very similar design. The swastika is also commonly found in Hindu paintings, particularly along with representations of the god Ganesh. It is a highly abstract representation of the particularly feminist "wheel of life" concept. Another symbol that occurs frequently is the Islamic crescent moon and star.

When masculinism had progressed far enough to produce philosophers, they divided paganism into two main branches, Epicureanism and Stoicism. Epicureanism is essentially a philosophy of the senses and therefore very material in its outlook, and in its negative manifestation tending towards hedonism. Stoicism is more abstract and recognizes the immaterial as an essential part of the cosmos. It recognizes the male spiritual orderly principle as permeating every aspect of the cosmos. It also considered that this aspect harbored a hidden intelligence. From this, one can easily see that Epicureanism is the more feminine end of the spectrum, while Stoicism is the more masculine end.

This book provides some information regarding why Islam should be viewed as a relatively more feminist religion than Christianity. The first item of interest is that Mohammed converted a Meccan temple of the Moon Goddess Sin to a combined temple to that Goddess and Abraham. Secondly, it can be seen that the moon and star symbolism means to relate the feminine moon to the masculine star, the moon being relatively large.

Rituals associated with paganism one would today call superstition, sacrificing animals to propitiate the gods and goddesses, showing respect for physical objects, etc. However, this would be to underestimate the significance of these rituals. All religions have as a central unspoken goal the control of hubris, a malady that automatically follows the creation of the ego complex. The reason is that one feature of the inhabitation of a mental complex is the loss of visibility of other powerful features of reality, so that the ego creature soon begins to assume that nothing is its equal. This inevitably leads to failure and suffering, not only for the individual human but also for his relatives and associates. A need exists to counter this threat and religion supplies a partial solution. Thus, an inherent part of all religions is the requirement to subordinate oneself to the dominant deity identified by the religion. This is particularly noticeable in the touching head to ground ritual of Islam.

This book identifies a coequal means of survival, along with the nomadic hunter/gatherer and the stationary agrarian, as raiding other human settlements. This is very objective and non-judgmental of the writers. Obviously it is accurate, this is a method of survival and it could be argued to be superior since it doesn't suffer from the main flaw of stationary agrarianism, overpopulation. This would also seem to be true of nomads. This is a distinctive difference from Christianity. Apparently, the accumulation of wealth is unimportant to feminists while it is to masculinists. Wealth is a source of power; it makes possible the waging of war.

The aggression of Christianity as contrasted with the passivity of Paganism is well documented in this book. To trace it historically, one should say that ideology was not a basis of aggression prior to Moses, and in Judaism, since the religion is considered to be a distinct cultural feature of Jews, aggressive imposition of it on others wasn't considered. With the arrival of Christianity however and Christ's admonition to the apostles that they should carry the "Good News" to distant peoples, aggression became a part of ideology. Mohammed followed Christ's lead in this respect. The problem with aggression though, as is most evident in the invasion of Russia by Napoleon, is that it uses up stored resources and therefore tends to run its course and eventually withdraw in an impoverished state. Its opposite is passivity which, all the time during the invasion, is storing up resources with which it can revive once the invasion withdraws.

The revival of Paganism in the 20th century attests to that reality. Paganism is most notable in America, where reports of witchcraft are more and more frequent in all parts of the country, and non-Christian cults like pyramid and crystal worship are common in the more liberal west. In fact Paganism has accompanied the renaissance, bringing with it a new appreciation of ancient Greek culture and inspiring the Founding Fathers of America to the point of establishing a democracy based on Greek writing and copying Greek architecture in the design of the capital. In fact, paganism has become so common in America today that it is romanticized on network television every Saturday (saturnday) night in the series based on Hercules.

The politics of feminism is something one is exposed to on a daily basis. One can get the impression that politics is the source of the movement, but this isn’t true. As was demonstrated, western cultural development of feminism goes back two thousand years and The United States is an expression of feminism. The feminist movement has survived all forms of western politics. The second half of the twentieth century has produced an explicit form of feminist politics, which is new, but most of feminist politics is no more overt than it ever was.

To identify many of the features of feminist politics from the most obvious downward, one should probably start with the media, particularly television. Feminism is displayed on television in many ways. There are obvious examples, like sitcoms and serial dramas. Seinfeld, All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, Northern Exposure, Picket Fences, LA Law to name some of the better efforts. They all explicitly discuss conflicts between masculinism and feminism: homosexuality, male dominance, female aggression, sex. All of these are demonstrations and commentary on the changes in society that can be expected as feminism grows in power.

Masculinism represses human sexuality because that gives advantage to males by making them less subject to feminine sexual attraction. Concentration and accumulation of understanding is detracted from during every moment devoted to sexuality instead of thinking. In addition, females gain in power because they are the essential requirement for masculine sexual gratification. This is not explicitly discussed because to do so would throw the emphasis back on understanding again.

Pornography contributes to the movement for the same reasons. Restraint is the means by which masculinism creatively alters the culture. Thus, restraint is best minimized if one wishes to extend the sway of feminism over masculinism.

The news also contributes by identifying and discussing advances in the feminist struggle, both directly as in the case of Virginia Military Institute and indirectly as in the case of Viagra. Viagra is a drug that promotes masculine sexual virility by making it easier for males to achieve an erection. By discussing it on a news program, it is implicitly suggested that this is a worthy cause and also brings the subject of male erections out of its traditional status as not fit for public debate. This effort to force discussion of human sexuality into the open is a long-standing tactic of the feminist movement going back at least to the Vietnam era. One of the first expressions of the current feminist effort was Mario Savio’s Dirty Speech Movement at the University of California at Berkeley.

Music and movies are also much preoccupied with this effort. Popular music is especially explicit already and one can expect the effort to move this explicitness upwards into more refined types like musical theatre. Nudity and copulation have become commonplace in the movies; explicit humor and language are now commonplace amongst comedians. The last frontier will presumably be the erect penis, which from the Viagra episode must be expected in the near future.

The gun issue is also an area of feminist political activism. Obviously, guns are a source of masculine power, since many more men use them than women. As Sigmund Freud pointed out, they are a potent masculine symbol. They share many attributes with the penis and project a form of instant death onto the victim. Thus, any form of political or judicial restraint on this form of expression must have the effect of strengthening feminism.

Abortion is a source of potent political power for women. Pregnancy has the effect of restraining the use of sex by women as a means of controlling men. "Keep them barefoot and pregnant" has long been a vernacular expression of this form of male control over females. It also has the effect of reducing the power of western religion, long used to enhance the power of males over females by religiously outlawing as many forms as possible of the source of feminine power, sex.

Another area of political action by feminism is recreational drugs. Some of these drugs have the effect of enhancing masculine values like concentration, while others have the reverse effect. Therefore, feminists will find themselves motivated to reduce the use of masculine drugs and enhance the use of feminine ones. In the former masculine culture, masculine drugs were encouraged while feminine drugs were discouraged. Thus, the war on smoking is engaged. As can be seen from the tendency to smoke cigarettes while working, nicotine has the effect of enhancing one’s ability to concentrate. Marijuana, on the other hand, reduces this ability. Marijuana became a socially acceptable drug during the Vietnam era, transitioning from a state in which it was degraded as producing automatons with a tenuous hold on sanity, "Reefer madness" as it was called. It remains illegal because of the lumping of it together with more debilitating drugs such as heroin. This will backfire though, bringing heroin into acceptability rather than marginalizing marijuana.

Alcohol is an unusual case and hard to define in these terms, since excessive use of it utterly unfits one for concentration and it has been encouraged during the masculine era. However, looking more closely, one finds that alcohol actually has benefits for masculinism. It reduces the effects of conscience, making it easier for interaction and negotiation to occur. Many a deal is struck over a martini. In later life, it reduces the pain of old age, allowing the working life to be extended. Even excessive use, normally a male response to painful psychological circumstances, can be viewed as a benefit to masculinism, since painful psychological circumstances are an inevitable side effect of social creativity. For example, the most common psychic pain flows from an inability to establish a gratifying sexual relationship. Gratifying sexual relationships are just what masculinism disfavors for reasons previously stated.

Discrimination is a powerful political tool of masculinism. Masculinism wishes to reward those exemplifying the values of masculinity and to sanction those that don’t. Since creativity is a masculine value, those that express it best are rewarded handsomely and those that express it least are sanctioned. Thus, blacks and native Americans, coming from a feminist tradition and not, as a generality, disposed to creativity, find themselves consigned to poverty, while European Americans, coming from a long tradition of creativity are rewarded well. This also explains the disfavor in which prostitution and homosexuality are held. It is rationalized as a way of combating the spread of disease and an expression of religious values, which is certainly the case, but the more powerful reason is that stated above. Since western religion is a formulation and justification for masculinism, what else would be expected?

This is not to disparage religion, which is more than just masculine ideology, but it is that and that was Abraham’s motivation for its creation. It has become larger over the centuries, providing a description of one's relationship to the creator and a means of focusing one's need to worship the greatest thing that he is a part of.

In the case of VMI and other similar events, the military has traditionally been used to maintain the power of the political institution that it serves. Since in the west, those are masculinist institutions, and since military academies have traditionally been where the leaders of those institutions have been trained, in isolation from females and therefore able to contrive an environment solely expressing masculine values: order, concentration, and study while utterly ignoring feminine values, it was inevitable that feminism would find a way to infiltrate them. They will bring with them feminine values and decay masculine ones.

The only rationale for not doing this at VMI would have to be conservation. Since VMI is not a national institution like West Point, it might be concluded that it would be well to retain some vestiges of one's former social orientation. Nothing is black and white, only gray. It is not a question of complete feminism in every respect, only raising it to the level of dominance. The culture might do well to retain some examples of masculinism in order to have a living comparison with which to measure cultural changes and to keep the debate alive.

Finally, it should be pointed out that environmentalism is an essential part of the feminist movement. This should be suspected based strictly on the coincidence of these two changes in cultural values. The real motivation will lie in the feminist attraction to the earth as its natural deity. The identification of the earth with the goddess Gaia is the latest change to reinforce this identification of environmentalism with feminism.

The reader will please forgive the author for repetitiveness in this section. An attempt is being made to describe the genesis of life on the earth, so the author approaches it from as many angles as he has been able to devise in order to gain every possible perspective on it.

Proposing a new scenario for the genesis of life is not to be undertaken lightly. It is bound to violate the sensibilities of some readers. To make it as inoffensive as possible it should be considered to be an expansion of the story in Genesis and an attempt to integrate the scientific and religious perspectives on this event.

The reason for investigating The Gaia Hypothesis is to see whether it can advance one's attempt to understand where life came from.

This is an important question because it impinges on daily life. When one doesn't know the answer to a question, he must adopt some opinion and if it is incorrect, he will make errors in judgement when decisions are called for based on that knowledge. Knowing where life comes from will affect one's decisions regarding his religion perhaps and ultimately life and death questions for himself and others.

The question of where the cosmos came from on the other hand does not impinge on daily decision making and is therefore not so important, though it is interesting.

The Gaia Hypothesis, that the earth is best thought of as a single living entity, seems to imply a reevaluation of the different forms awareness takes. Of what significance is it, to consider the existence of a Gaia entity if one doesn't consider her to be self-aware? Of course the earth, or at least the biosphere, is alive. The question is: are the life forms upon it, as traditionally thought, individuals or family groups or are they in some sense, a single entity? If one wishes to think of them as a single entity, they must be interconnected in some understandable way. Of course all share the same environment and therefore are mutually interdependent, that realization doesn't require a Gaia Hypothesis.

For the Gaia Hypothesis to be meaningful, Gaia must be considered to be a being in which all of her parts are connected as the cells in bodies are, aimed at some recognizable goal. The cells must have a means of communication via which decisions about strategies in pursuit of that goal can be transmitted to individual members and they must have some executive body, similar to the human brain, in which strategic decisions are formulated and acted upon.

One of the problems humans have in properly considering this question is an inadequate understanding of awareness. Therefore, some definitions must precede a careful consideration of the question of Gaia.

Awareness: Sensitivity to existence. All living things are aware, no other things are. It is stipulated that basic awareness is the same for all. Without sensors, it simply amounts to self-recognition. With sensors, it becomes aware of the distinction between the inside and the outside. Awareness expands to the recognition that there are other objects than itself and that it exists within an environment. Beyond basic awareness, it should be clear that humans have brought something new into being, objective awareness. Objective awareness, or consciousness, recognizes a complete separation between subject and object. This awareness arises in consequence of having a brain capable of concentration of energy sufficient to make a clear distinction between objects and a separation between them and the observer. A consequence of this is the formation of the ego, which produces a personality and a more refined appreciation for the distinction between different objects including the observer himself.

Opposed to objective awareness is subjective awareness. This shall be called Gaia awareness. Humans are very familiar with subjective awareness but are disinclined to distinguish it from consciousness. More refinement is needed here. To demonstrate consciousness one must have a memory of the event after a significant length of time. Otherwise, it is more accurate to say one is only aware. Subjective or Gaia awareness occurs, for example, when one drives to work while thinking of something else. The thinker is experiencing objective awareness while the driver is experiencing subjective awareness.

Therefore, for the Gaia Hypothesis to be meaningful, it must postulate subjective awareness for her. That is to say that all living things must be subjectively aware. There is no reason to doubt this. All living things demonstrate some form of awareness, even down to the microscopic in size. It has been recently demonstrated that sperm perform defensive operations in order to try to guarantee that one of their family is successful in the effort to fertilize an ovum. Gaia can certainly be recognized to have a goal, her own survival. Communications would seem to be going on, at least within family groups. Beyond this, one must get a little speculative.

Comprehensive communications are going on via feelings. Humans are all under the control of feelings and are in no sense able to control them. They usually arise as a reaction to the events of lives, but not always. All animals close enough to humans to evaluate, like pets and other domestic animals seem to share a recognition of feelings with humans, so there is no reason to think other living things lack this form of communication.

Finally, some form of executive is needed for Gaia. This is the most difficult to identify. Traditionally, Gaia is considered to be feminine. This has certain consequences, among them a tendency to decentralization. DNA is available for this function. It is a good choice. It exists at the cellular level and therefore is available to all living things. It controls the form and function of living things. It is capable of disseminating instructions. It is apparently constant for each life cycle of living entities but is capable of and does change through sexuality at each new generation. It may change during individual lives, at least those representations available for sexual contact.

Can DNA be considered to be alive? This may or may not be necessary, but in observing the method by which it joins with its sexual collaborator in the formation of a new generation, this may be a reasonable conjecture. The result of this analysis is to postulate that the entirety of DNA should be considered to be the Gaia executive, capable of making strategic decisions for enhancement of survival potential of Gaia. DNA should be considered to be a data base containing the life experience of all living things, may even contain a record of all formerly living things. It should also be considered to be capable of self-modification in response to a need to adapt to new conditions. The totality of living cells should therefore be considered to be the body of Gaia. These cells should be considered to be subjectively aware.

There is no point for the Gaia Hypothesis unless it solves some problems in understanding the environment and therefore humans.

1. The current scientific understanding of the genesis of life on this planet is called the Darwinian Theory after the inventor, Charles Darwin. Darwin solves the problem of how life came to be so diverse by suggesting random mutations due to solar radiation and other causes that results in variations in the makeup of individual life forms and that when these variations are useful, competition forces the change to dominate and then spread throughout the species. That this goes on is hard to deny. The question is, is this a comprehensive answer? The opponents of this theory, mainly religious, find it incapable of comprehensivity. They point to many living entities that are hard to imagine arising in a series of sequential steps, each of which must have been capable of giving the bearer a procreative advantage. Some structures are so complicated they say, that the initial parts must have generated and been disseminated among members even though they had no such advantage. In individual cases they have a strong point, though one can also contend that humans are just incapable of identifying the correct series of steps. The Darwinists say that the anti Darwinists are incapable of appreciation of the time spans available for these modifications.

It is also suggested that symbiosis is difficult to explain with Darwinism. This is a less compelling suggestion though. It can be imagined that symbiosis starts out as parasitism and develops into symbiosis via the Darwinian mechanism.

Therefore, the Gaia Hypothesis solves this problem. One shouldn't conclude that the Gaia approach, strategic modification through awareness is comprehensive either. One should conclude that Darwinism is one of the mechanisms Gaia has devised.

2. The seemingly excessively mechanistic view of life that science provides. This is due to the tendency to view living things as machines lacking awareness, especially at the lower end of the size spectrum, and the tendency to devalue any sort of awareness other than human.

3. The excessively masculine orientation of human life in the West. Masculinism is characteristically autocratic and unimpressed with femininity. It devalues feelings in favor of thinking, relationships in favor of understanding.

4. The increasingly distressing tendency of humans to devastate the environment in fulfillment of needs.

5. The tendency of humans to arrogance, pride, and hubris.

6. The devastating wars humans are subject to because of their tendency to minimize feelings and to demand obedience.

7. The possibility that humans might destroy the environment with weapons of mass destruction.

8. The alienation between man and his body produced by Christianity and perhaps other religions, because of its tendency to override spiritual beliefs. The body would appear to be capable of forcing one to violate spiritual law and sometimes man's law too. The result is to produce a sort of contempt in some humans for their bodies, the archetypal case being St. Paul. This is a very serious problem since it can and does produce very destructive behavior in sufferers. The Salem Witch Trials are a good example.

1. The usurpation by Gaia of the prerogatives of God producing a need to redefine God.

2. The increase in the importance of environmentalism leading to damage to the world economy.

3. The loss of the contention that man’s purpose in life is to participate in the struggle between good and evil.

The scientific community defines life as exhibiting three characteristics: autopoiesis meaning self-maintenance, growth, and reproduction. Living things certainly demonstrate these strategies for survival but the crucial difference between living things and the non-living is awareness. Rocks aren't aware, animals and trees are. Thus, since the above characteristics become problematic at the level of microscopic life forms, for instance viruses, awareness is the better discriminator of life. Awareness can be detected at all levels by watching for intentional movement. All living things move intentionally to accomplish the tasks required of them to remain alive: the acquisition of energetic molecules, the achievement of the circumstances required for reproduction.

It now becomes necessary to investigate the reasons for avoidance of this simple definition by the scientific community. In modern times, it is a requirement to the achievement of the status of scientist. It isn't explicitly taught, but it is an implicit part of the training. Thus, it is a tradition of centuries duration. Even in psychology, awareness is just taken for granted as existent in humans, the objects of investigation for this science. Psychology attempts to perform its work by leaving awareness out of account to the extent that is possible, and physical scientists even doubt that psychology is a science mainly because of its inability to leave awareness totally out of account. Ignoring awareness can be thought of as an implicit part of the definition of science.

The explicit definition of science is the investigation of the states matter and energy assume in the cosmos and the causal reasons for them. Since awareness is one of those states, it would seem to fall into the purview of science, and yet it is largely ignored. This state of ignorance has been going on so long that it is now common for modern science to confuse awareness with consciousness.

Since this attitude was not explicitly adopted at some well-defined point in history, one must resort to a certain amount of conjecture in identifying the reasons for it. Science began in the west with a need to separate itself from religion. Scientific truth came into conflict with religious dogma very early in its development, the archetypal case being Galileo, the inventor of the telescope. He discovered the moons of Jupiter with his device and began the development of the idea that the sun was actually the dominant body in the solar system rather than the earth. This was so threatening to the church that he was forced to recant.

All scientists were thus informed that they had to strive to avoid areas that were of special interest to the church. That meant awareness. Awareness is properly thought of as a spiritual fact and that puts it in close contact with the western God of the spirit. In fact anything that had spiritual significance was partitioned off and declared to be outside of the domain of science and in the domain of religion.

Spirituality can be defined as concerning itself with that part of life that is immaterial, not in the sense of insignificant but in the sense of not taking up corporeal form. An idea, for example, before it is transformed into a material object. Thus, the ideational inheritance of humans, all of the ideas expressed in the various media, comprise the common spiritual life of humanity. That subset of it that is devoted to exploration of the God concept is specifically identified as spiritual.

Given that, it becomes clear why man finds himself with an undeveloped area of great significance to science, and why that might reasonably be expected to lead to failures in judgement and plain errors of fact. After all, awareness is the creator of science. In fairness, it must also be pointed out that this decision has been very beneficial to science. It has allowed for the development of objectivity to a much greater degree than could have been expected otherwise.

With that as background the questions proposed here are: What is awareness? Where did it come from? What is the difference between awareness and consciousness? The final question is crucial since the defenders of science will object that awareness cannot objectively investigate awareness. True, but are awareness and consciousness the same thing? If so why are there two words? The dictionary helps not at all, since it promotes awareness to a superior position relative to consciousness, which it identifies as minimal awareness as in consciousness of a draft. Thus, it is more concerned with usage.

One says that the patient is conscious as opposed to comatose, or asleep. One knows not if he is aware when comatose, but he is not communicating or in motion, other than autonomically. Thus, one at least associates consciousness with the waking state. Awareness covers both the waking and sleeping states. If one touches a sleeping person, they are soon awake. There is a general correlation between consciousness and concentration. One must be awake to concentrate. One does not need to be awake to be aware as previously pointed out; therefore, awareness does not correlate with concentration.

My dog is obviously aware, but does not concentrate and thus, is not conscious.

Concentration is good; it allows one to learn a fact without practice. A dog must, in every case resort to practice. Concentration is voluntary. If one has the energy to spare and wishes to concentrate, he can. It is largely automatic when survival is at issue. One always wants to concentrate and will make the energy available when aware that survival is at stake. Since humans can concentrate and have a relatively large brain and a relatively small body producing a favorable brain/body weight ratio, it can be concluded that therein lies the source of this ability. A dog's brain is relatively small and his body relatively large. This suggests that a significant portion of the brain's capabilities are concerned with running the body and since humans have more brain than is strictly necessary for this purpose, they are free to use it for other purposes and concentrating is what some choose to use it for, probably because they were convinced by their parents that this was the logical thing to do.

It is significant that concentration invariably produces a more substantial memory than awareness does. When drowsily scanning the paper, one seldom retains any memory of what it contained. On the other hand, one remembers very well when his spouse consented to marry him. Note that the elderly frequently remember the experiences of youth with great clarity while not remembering any part of what occurred last week. It is to be concluded that, as with other capabilities, the ability to concentrate declines with age.

One could ask how it came about that the English language chose to identify the conscious state as concentrating and how similar that is to concentrating water exiting from a hose?

Adam and Eve knew they were naked after eating the apple. They were naked beforehand, but it wasn't apparent to them. Thus, they were aware, they ate the apple, then they were conscious. One of the effects of consciousness is to create an observer within the mental universe of the individual. One becomes able to observe himself. One can look into the mirror and view oneself as an object. The Bible represents this as an instantaneous event, but more likely it occurs over a largish period of time. Apes, being trained by humans to see how much they are capable of learning, seem to develop an understanding of the image in the mirror, so one must conclude they are capable of some degree of objectivity. Dogs appear to have none.

Thus, one does well to associate consciousness and objectivity. IQ would seem to correlate, roughly with objectivity.

To defend against the contention that awareness is not capable of investigating awareness due to lack of objectivity, one could respond that consciousness, being a special sort of awareness can remain sufficiently objective.

One can conclude that awareness is an attribute that arises in some specialized circumstance and that consciousness is an acquired capability. A baby is clearly aware; it demonstrates volitional movement. It is not conscious. One can determine if an individual was conscious, after the fact, by testing his memory. If he has a memory of a specific event, then he was conscious at the time. One may think a fighter conscious, and he undoubtedly is in the beginning, but after taking some number of punches, he may no longer be. He may continue to be aware and capable of fighting due to long practice. In fact, any expert at some physical activity, like playing a violin must have brought his body to the level of ability to play the violin without the aid of consciousness, since consciousness must be used to interpret the music to be played. It frequently must range out ahead of the actual performance.

If awareness is an attribute, what is that and where does it come from? Attributes are those characteristics that are attached to things, such that when the thing is destroyed the attribute is too. A wagon is a mobile platform. When the wagon is destroyed, its mobility is also. Living things, and humans in particular, can acquire capabilities not there in the beginning. Learning to play the violin for example. Thus, violin playing is not an attribute of a human being. Attributes are shared by all identically named members of the group, that is, a human attribute is shared by all humans. Otherwise, it isn't an attribute but rather an acquired feature. Attributes are expressed by the owning object as a function of its being.

Elements are made up of one kind of atom and exhibit certain attributes that, taken together make it unique. Hydrogen, the simplest atom, exists in a gaseous state at room temperature. It is highly flammable. Oxygen is also fairly simple and gaseous at room temperature, but it is different from hydrogen in various ways. As the elements become more complex, one comes to the various metals and other states in which elemental matter can exist. Thus, gold has very different attributes from oxygen.

Atoms are able to combine with other atoms to form molecules which, when combined with a large number of other similar molecules may appear to one as a recognizable object with distinct attributes, thus H₂O is discernibly clear liquid. Clear and liquid are attributes that disappear if the two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom are dispersed. It is also true that raising the energy level of water can have the same apparent effect, but that is due to concentration. Water vapor is still water and exhibiting the same attributes but in small particles sufficiently light to float in air.

All other material objects are combinations of various sorts of molecules and their attributes are also.

Gaia defined: Gaia is the name used to refer to the transcendental feminine.

Gaia, according to the Greeks, is God's wife. According to the Gaia Hypothesis, Gaia is the earth.

From the definition, Gaia is the source of feelings. It can be postulated that Gaia, to be meaningful, must have an executive, which can be assigned to DNA. This means that DNA is alive and self-aware and is capable of strategic planning. To guarantee her survival, Gaia relies mainly on experimentation and competition.

Who are we? The children of our parents, Gaia and God; an experiment. One goal of the experiment is to acquire predictive capability, mainly about earth changes that can negatively affect Gaia's chances of survival.

Where did humans come from? God, in the form of the thunderstorm, copulates with Gaia, the earth, which gives life to Gaia and provides her with the ability to create us, as part of her strategy for survival.

Why does God allow disasters to occur? Gaia, in her efforts to survive, relies mainly on experimentation. Experimentation results in many failures for every success.

What are feelings? Where do feelings originate? Why do feelings exist? Gaia requires a method of communication with her children, so that she can evaluate each decision confronting individuals regarding its potential for enhancing or degrading Gaia's survival chances. That is because, they as individuals, lack the experience and judgment to do it. When confronted by a decision, feelings vary from strong no, through no opinion, to strong yes. The strongest yes will, for most humans occur when confronted by a suitable partner for procreation. The strongest no will occur when evaluating whether to take a step that puts one's own life in jeopardy. Feelings are said to emanate from the heart, but it is more rational to conclude they emanate from DNA, that is, the cellular level.

What sort of awareness does Gaia have? There is only one kind of awareness, that is the sense of self. The realization that, "I am". However, the senses allow inputs from the physical world that shape awareness to the point that it is hard to imagine awareness without them. None the less it exists, consider Helen Keller and more extreme cases than that. Consider the fetus; also, God's original awareness, before creation. Original Gaia awareness is of the same sort. Humans bring another feature to awareness, objectivity. Humans alone have the ability to concentrate energy to the level necessary to separate completely the object of awareness and the awareness itself in the subject. This produces advantages and disadvantages. Advantageously, one can compare objects and reach conclusions not available in the absence of objective awareness.

Disadvantageously, objectivity creates a separation between observer and observed that can reach the proportions of alienation. Racism is an example.

Does Gaia think? It would be more accurate to say that Gaia dreams. Dreaming is very like thinking and is its subjective equivalent. Does that mean that no brain is required for this activity? Apparently. What evidence is there for that idea? Many living things would appear to have no brain, insects for instance, yet they manage to develop complex societies. This function is usually assigned to instinct, which is represented to be something like a program for a computer. If so, it is a very complex program, beyond human capabilities to replicate. In fact one cannot imagine such a program arising were it not self-modifying and self-modification cannot be imagined in the absence of self awareness, except in the limited Darwinian sense. Moreover, where does it reside? The only available place would seem to be DNA. This brings one back to the two contending explanations for life. On the one hand, one has unaware programs created by chance and natural selection. All beings except man are thought of as robots. This has the flavor of the earth as the center of the universe. On the other hand one has the self aware Gaia, trying to assure her own survival. From this perspective man is but one of her experiments and she controls, rather than we.

This whole issue comes down to the question of awareness in DNA. Can it be imagined that a complex but unaware strand of mainly carbon atoms will fortuitously arrive at a redundant design allowing for repair and replication by copying? That this pair of strands would fortuitously happen upon the happy decision to split itself into two and recombine with another split pair? This sounds a little like throwing craps a million times in a row.

Even if one decides that the above is within the realm of the possible, where then does awareness come into being? In all of these either/or questions of life, the correct answer is that both are simultaneously true. Awareness is comprehensively resident in living things and Gaia uses robotics in her engineering.

Why do humans exist? This question must be looked at from two perspectives, since they have two parents. Why did God create a universe with life in it? The answer would appear to be that He wished to observe the results, so that he provided for the attribute awareness. From the perspective of Gaia, the answer will be much different. Gaia, through experimentation, attempts to improve her survivability. She creates particular sorts of creatures to perform particular functions, thus, plankton to alter the atmosphere according to her wishes. In analyzing probable functions, and there may be many, one cannot be conclusive, since it may be that the real function continues to await further development. Certainly, one must expect that the function will result from some uniqueness and that that uniqueness is objectivity. Humans are, apparently, the only species with this particular feature.

Objectivity is particularly useful when comparing similar objects and deciding on where the differences lie. Humans can compare old weather patterns to new ones, for instance. They do that because they wish to develop predictive capabilities with a view to prolonging lives by detecting oncoming disaster before it arises thereby allowing one to take defensive action. This will be a primary human function for Gaia, too. She wishes to survive and she can take advantage of what is discovered. Another possible function is atmospheric management. Because of previous alterations to the atmosphere, CO₂ has been removed and now finds itself buried in the earth in the form of oil. There may be a long-term need that can only be satisfied by returning it to the atmosphere. It is hard to imagine how this could have been accomplished by living things other than the way it is being done.

What is an appropriate human attitude towards Gaia? Both God and Gaia are greater than man, so criticism isn't appropriate. Does Gaia require worship? Since this is the general attitude towards God, perhaps not. Perhaps an attitude of worshipful respect, something like the feeling when inside a cathedral, would be more appropriate. God is remote, for most humans, thus the need for Jesus. Gaia is constantly before one and in constant communication. Gaia cannot be ignored, except by defining her as insensitive, as has been historically done. This, judging from the environmental problems constantly creeping in towards one from all sides, is probably not an appropriate attitude. Gaia, when defined as nature, seems to produce all emotions in humans from time to time. She is despised when destructive. She is loved when a creation like the Grand Canyon is seen, which could in no sense be so awe inspiring without her. She is admired when she is the object of scientific investigation. She is frequently feared. She isn't much respected. This is the result of granulizing her. When looking at individual parts, they don't seem to demand respect. Taking her as a self-aware whole will probably overcome this problem.

In this essay, it will be argued that rationality is capable of making life understandable. Two definitions of rational follow.

Dictionary: Based on reason or understanding.

A better one: Based on causality.

Causality provides that every event is caused by another. This suggests the existence of a first cause, which is called God.

The main criticism is that whatever rationality leads one to believe cannot be proven. This is true, but there is an implicit untruth contained within it. That untruth is that there is something that can, in the universal sense, be demonstrated to be true. To demonstrate this untruth, use a simple mathematical example. All accept that one and one is two. However, upon studying mathematics it is quickly demonstrated that the entire edifice is based on three unprovable rules. As long as these three rules are accepted, then the rest follows. It has internal consistency. My contention is that this principle of mathematics is universally applicable. It applies to all fields of study.

Nobody can prove that the world and everything in it wasn't created by God ten minutes ago. It would be irrational to believe that however, because it is inconsistent with experience.

All are rationalists. Every individual is rationalizing all day every day. Rationality doesn't require that the truth be known, otherwise one couldn't get out of bed in the morning. Rationality relies on probability. Each of us, on getting up in the morning, calculates the probabilities of getting to work safely and concludes that the odds favor it and therefore go. Each moment a similar calculation is performed before performing any new act and for repetitive acts one relies on calculations performed in the past.

One believes in probabilities because of causality. Probability is based on the recognition that like causes produce similar effects.

Consider miracles. Distinguish between what is true and what it is wished were true. Miracles must be explained by resorting to an irrational universe or the assumption that one fails to understand what will eventually be rationally explained. Many believe in miracles because they feel they need to believe, in order to retain hope. This is an insubstantial basis for a life.

How then, can a rationalist believe in Jesus, given that a precondition for that belief is acceptance that the Bible is completely true? Many cannot. The answer lies in understanding symbolism. Dreams are filled with symbolism and they are profoundly true. This statement recognizes the fact that truth/falsehood is not a black/white question. Some things are truer than others. Identification of the fact that the temperature is twenty-six degrees outside right now is truer than the statement that it is pretty cold.

Therefore, the miracles recounted in the Gospels are symbolically true, providing a deeper understanding of who and what Jesus was, rather than literally true, which wouldn't have said as much. Should the writer precede each symbolic statement with the fact that it is symbolism rather than literalism? Besides the fact that this would ruin the beauty of the writing, it would also defeat the intent of the writer, which is to overcome the prejudices of the reader without telling any lies, thereby allowing him to gain the advantages of knowledge of Christ. This in spite of the fact that Jesus, being outside of the experience of ordinary people, would be incomprehensible to them.

To understand the Gospels, one has not only to read them, but to take into account the readers and their expectations and the writers and their motives.

There is a great conflict in the culture regarding the validity of religion and science. The religious have used their vehicle to understand their world and found it to have great validity. The scientists have done the same. One is driven to the conclusion that some are rationalists and others not and that is the way of the world. It can be contended that both groups are filled with literalists and therefore fail to comprehend either themselves or their opponents.

The real conflict is between literalism and symbolism. The literal truth is more precise, symbolic truth carries more meaning. Which of the following statements is more useful? "There is a billion dollars here." or "There is enough money here to reach around the earth twelve times if each bill were placed end to end." The first statement is more precise, especially if one wishes to know if he has enough to buy something. The second is more useful if one is trying to imagine the volume of space necessary to hold the money.

Objective facts are small scale and many of them don't require much on the part of the listener to comprehend. A symbolic fact can be transmitted with a simple story or image, but the listener must have the experience to interpret what he is seeing or hearing. If one told his child the story of Sleeping Beauty, depending on age, the child would be able to interpret it in terms of its own experience and appreciate the narrative quality of the story. If the listener were an intelligent adult with exposure to standard symbols, they might appreciate the general meaning of the story and learn volumes about themselves in the bargain.

All statements are symbolic, even literal ones. Writing consists of numbers and letters, all of which are symbols for sounds and concepts. However, they are small-scale symbols and lend themselves to objective thought. Jesus' parables rely on large-scale symbols and therefore transmit commensurately larger concepts. This sort of language is more useful for subjective thought.

Ultimately both subjective and objective understandings are required for a complete mastery of life. An objective understanding provides one with a grasp of the physical nature of the universe, while a subjective understanding invests life with meaning. Without the second, the sufferer concludes that life is a mechanism devoid of meaning, and without the first one cannot achieve complete understanding.

For rationalism to succeed requires an accumulation of knowledge over time, which means that only older humans will have succeeded well enough to base the decisions of life on it. Before that time the irrationality of belief must be relied on. However, even that has its rational component. Things are believed in because they have demonstrated themselves to be believable in the past.

Science is a rational construct and explains life very well, though not completely, since science is always in the process of becoming and never complete. Beyond science, one must rely on belief. The problem lies in locating beliefs that don't conflict with science, or identifying invalid science that will allow one to retain old beliefs that appear to be in conflict with science.

This realization suggests that there is an unfilled gap between science and religion. Darwinism doesn't quite reach because it fails to provide meaning and a reason to accept human suffering; nor does God demonstrably interfere in life to the satisfaction of a scientist.

Something is needed that doesn't violate scientific facts and also doesn't interfere with one's faith in God. Science gives understanding, religion gives meaning; a reason to continue to live after sensual pleasure fails to satisfy.

What is needed is Gaia.

Gaia is the right choice because, contrary to the fact that one's natural parents are male and female, God is only male. Since one of the most comprehensively true things about this universe is analogy, it must be suspected that an identifiable feminine deity that will function very well as a universal mother exists; one that shares basic characteristics with natural mothers. Having identified her and subtracted those features of life more closely identified with her than God, one will also arrive at a more precise characterization of Him.

The contention has now become: rationality is the pathway to understanding of life. Religion invests life with meaning. Religious texts are completely true, though only partially historical. Science is partially unfinished. The more recent discoveries of science are only partially true. Older science is largely true. Science has failed thus far, to identify some truths.

To understand aright requires precise definitions. This means that concepts are constantly in need of redefinition to make them more accurate. This applies to the concept of God no less than any other.

It is rational to believe, even in the absence of proof, that since all have two parents, each of them will also have two parents. This logic can be extended to those beings above in the hierarchy of things. This species must be expected to have two parents, one displaying the characteristics of masculinity and the other of femininity.

The West has concentrated, perhaps excessively, though undoubtedly for a reason on the Father. The time now approaches for recognition of the mother. Many cultures prior to ours have found the Great Mother apparent, but the Father religion has been at pains to encourage one to ignore her and to include those features of life more closely associated with her into His realm. However, definitional inexactness will lead to failures of judgment.

It is altogether too common for humans, upon discovering a new and important reality, to conclude that all that has gone on before has been in error. This has occurred in religion over and over. It now becomes incumbent upon one to uncover what was known about the mother in the past and to enhance that understanding with what has been discovered through the gift of the Father, science.

Thus Gaia. Gaia was the wife of Zeus. Gaia is associated with the moon, while Zeus is associated with the sun. Gaia is also the earth while Zeus is heaven. Zeus is an earlier understanding of God or Allah or Yahweh. Humans have been at pains to understand what God's motive could have been in creating them. The conclusion has been to separate good and evil. This is a very abstract goal and to what end? God already knows the ways of good and evil. This is an unsatisfying answer. Life is full of suffering, one should expect to be accomplishing important things that make this suffering worthwhile.

Gaia is much more like humans than God. She doesn’t know God any better than we. What she knows is that she is and wishes to continue to be. Humans, along with all other living things are she. Humans are divided into two sexes, the male half demonstrating the characteristics of God and the female half, the characteristics of Gaia. This division was imposed on humanity by Gaia in pursuit of survival a very long time ago, but has not been true from the beginning. Gaia discovered herself as an insignificant chain of carbon atoms in the distant past and has been developing herself in divers ways in pursuit of survival ever since.

Gaia had to alter the environment in dramatic ways in pursuit of her goal. She had to change the atmosphere and the weather. She started in the sea, but had to colonize the dry land. In pursuit of a suitable atmosphere, she had to divide herself into an immobile and vegetative half and a mobile animal half. The halves she decreed would rely on each other and produce a suitable atmosphere for their continuance indefinitely. Nevertheless, adjustments have to be made from time to time, because of the ever-changing environment within which she exists. She cannot control the life of the sun, which has its effects on the earth. She has to adjust.

In order to create a steady state, things must be recycled from time to time. In order to create an ideal atmosphere, it became necessary to remove much of the carbon dioxide from it and to replace it with oxygen and nitrogen. However, this process cannot go on forever. Eventually too little carbon dioxide would exist for continuation of the vegetative half of life and since the animal half was dependent on that, all of life would be threatened. At some point, it would be necessary to recycle carbon dioxide. From the current 0.03%, it might be possible to improve to two or three percent and perhaps with further engineering stabilization might be achieved.

This is not an easy prospect. Recyclable carbon dioxide exists in liquid form but deep under ground and difficult to retrieve. Once retrieved it would have to be returned to its gaseous form and released into the atmosphere. This would have the effect of altering the weather. The carbon dioxide exists where it does because all living things produce oil as a product of their existence and after death, much of that oil sinks into the earth due to its density. As it sinks, much of it is caught in basins of rock and is therefore potentially retrievable.

In order to accomplish this goal an unusual species would be needed. This species would have to be capable of manipulation of the environment. It would require having objective awareness of a very refined nature. It would also require independence, since Gaia didn't know what methods might be needed. It would require guidance, since because of its independence of Gaia, it wouldn't be in a position to understand her motives until after the goal was achieved.

It now appears that this goal will be achieved in as little as fifty more years.

What might one expect to occur as a natural result of this fulfillment? There will no longer be a need for the environment to favor the further development of this species. Instead, the environment can return to that which favors all species; that which preceded the mild climate humans are used to.

It can reasonably be expected that after the age of man and since a weather change is to be expected, there will be a repopulation of the earth with new forms, one of which will be that chosen by man as his preferred adaptation. If he wishes to retain his large brain, he will be able to support a large body. He may wish out of sensitivity to satisfy his appetite with the lowliest of life forms. He may wish to protect himself from the vicissitudes of weather. He may wish to retain his sexual nature as the most permanent of satisfactions of life to which he has been exposed. He may wish to continue to contemplate existence. If so, and taking into account what has gone before, the whale form may be the most attractive.

This is not an existence to be disparaged. Freedom to migrate with the seasons; an always abundant food supply; a size sufficient to intimidate all but a declining and less powerful mankind; freedom to congregate and freedom to seek out solitude; freedom from management and responsibility; freedom to procreate; a large and weightless body; freedom to contemplate and to observe the changes of virtually endless time; freedom to live and die, independent of defensive struggle; subject only to the virus and perhaps even victory over that; freedom to choose and be chosen.

Darwinism is not an ideology. There are only two ideologies: masculinism and feminism, and Darwinism and Christianity are on the same side of the spectrum.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution can be summarized as follows: Species arise by random mutation and evolve into their current forms by stepwise mutations that are accepted or rejected by species through their mating choices or natural selection and that this is a comprehensive explanation and that survival is the criterion of choice. There are several objections to this theory:

• It is too materialistic. By that, it is meant that this essentially mechanistic method leaves little room for the action of awareness in the equation. Since awareness is visible in all life and since awareness is the means by which choice manifests itself and since awareness is the author of Darwin’s theory itself, one is left dissatisfied by a theory that provides too little discussion of its impact on the process.
• It would seem that, under some circumstances the glacial pace of evolution might not be sufficient to survive dramatic change.
• New species aren’t emerging around us. One can see minor changes in existing species, but nothing new.
• It is unsatisfying in its efforts to account for the existence of structures, the function of which, before complete manifestation cannot be accounted for. The typical example of this is the wing, though that is not a particularly good example since proto wings might have arisen to cool the owner.
• Symbiosis seems to be another weakness. One has to imagine the partners evolving in a codependent fashion. The flowers and the bees for instance.
• Humans appear to be an unlikely development. There were too many demonstrably unlikely though crucial turning points in man's evolution.

The greatest of the three weaknesses described is the first. Unless awareness is satisfactorily taken into account, there will continue to be dissatisfaction.

Before considering the question of awareness one should first dispose of religion, which is best characterized as a shorthand explanation for something that is beyond the reasoning capabilities of the receivers of this wisdom, that is life, especially human life. It is best to consider that religion is essentially true, but that it leaves vast gaps that are now being filled in and that Darwinism is one of the efforts at filling the gaps.

Darwinism is inescapably true, just not comprehensively so. A good example of its inescapability is the shrimp evolving on both sides of the Isthmus of Panama. They have evolved to the point of being incapable of further crossbreeding though they still appear indistinguishable. Presumably the recent appearance of the isthmus separated them and allowed for their differential evolution.

Awareness as even Darwin apparently accepted is capable of choice. On the feminine side, it amounts to choosing a male partner for sexual reproduction. Selecting is the act of choosing. Choosing presupposes an aware observer making selections based on some criteria.

Whence came the criterion for manifesting choice?

Whence came evolution as a strategy for survival?

One can respond with the God concept of course, or he can suppose that survival is a manifestation of conservatism.

Whence came conservatism?

Eventually one has to resort to the existence of attributes. He should define attributes as non-divisible characteristics of things. This is not a stretch of credulity. All elements acquire attributes according to the number of primary particles they contain. Thus gold is a yellow metallic substance and by adding one proton and a corresponding electron it loses those attributes and acquires others. This is also true of molecules.

Thus, it seems likely that the quality of life is an attribute. It is probably an attribute of sufficiently complex carbon molecules.

If one goes on to define conservatism and liberalism as the tendencies to remain the same or to change, these also seem sufficiently unitary to assume them to be attributes.

If one assumes that sufficiently complex carbon molecules can arise through random action in a suitable environment, and that they acquire the attribute of life, and that the attribute of conservatism is felt by that new life, then everything that is needed to explain the arrival of life on earth is in hand. The name Gaia has been chosen for this new arrival on planet earth. Assume that self-awareness is how life manifests itself and that awareness is what distinguishes the living from the non-living.

Now, Gaia exists and is self-aware. With awareness comes the ability to choose. After gaining a few more atoms and losing others, Gaia will become aware that she has liberal qualities, that she is capable of change. The feminine pronoun is appropriate because Gaia will soon begin to give birth. Gaia will experience conservatism as the desire to continue to exist.

Soon Gaia, by acquiring new atoms and molecules will begin to grow structures and by trial and error will decide which structures are useful and which aren’t. Eventually, in response to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, she will begin to make copies of herself.

From this, one must draw the conclusion that evolution exists as a strategy for survival chosen by Gaia and relied upon by her for two reasons. One is that the only alternative would be to rely on imagination, wholly inadequate to the job judging from one's own abilities in this realm. A second reason will be the continuous need to adapt to a changing environment. However, evolution is a gradual process, not suited to the rigors of dramatic change, such as the reversal of the magnetic pole or the arrival of a large asteroid. Dramatic changes in temperature are also to be expected.

The last great environmental change occurred about ten thousand years ago, which coincidentally or not, seems to be the duration of Homo Sapiens in its current objective manifestation. Thus, new species aren’t arriving because the environment isn’t changing, though it would appear to be heading into a change now. Before the current state of moderate temperatures, a state often called an ice age existed. This state continued for a very long time with only fluctuations of a few degrees within it, over 100,000 years. This must be termed normalcy and the current weather environment must be viewed as abnormal.

If this theory of Gaia is a fair representation of reality and she is man's immediate creator, where is she now? She must have an executive function if she is capable of strategic decisions, where is that? The most reasonable answer to these questions is DNA. Is DNA alive? Apparently, it chooses and reproduces. How does Gaia communicate with us? Via feelings.

Having discovered where humans came from, where are they going? In order to answer this question, it will be necessary to give up on the discredited chauvinism. One cannot assume humans to be the ideal of creation or even an evolutionary apex. One must view them as one of a vast number of experiments Gaia has tried and that she tried them for a reason. That they have some mission to accomplish and once that is done, they will be moving on to other challenges.

What is their mission? Well, it must be something that flows from objective awareness, since humans uniquely carry this capability. One of the things they are manifestly doing in a big way is recycling hydrocarbons, that is, burning oil. Thus, this seems a likely mission. Perhaps there are others.

Injecting a strategically aware Gaia into the equation resolves all of the problems with Darwinism. It recognizes the importance of awareness. It allows a mechanism for the development of structures having no immediate use to the carrier. It provides for rapid production of new species when needed, that is, if imagination comes up with a likely idea, Gaia is capable of bringing it into existence, possibly very rapidly. Gaia can do this because she is the engineer of DNA and understands both it and its possibilities. It is apparent how symbiosis can arise. The unlikely turns in human evolution are explained.

Gaia has some other positive features. She provides a brake for hubris. She invests life with meaning. She provides an answer to the question: Why do humans pursue goals they don’t understand?

Would it be possible to demonstrate objectively the existence of Gaia? This would provide an advantage over the God concept. Were one able to film an example of strategic awareness in a species having no significant brain, that would go far towards doing it.

* * *

The following is a personal experience of the author. If accurately reported, it is an example though, since it isn’t on film readers will have to accept or reject his veracity as they see fit.

"When about thirteen, I went goose hunting with my uncle and the principal of my school. We went to a reservoir in southern Oregon and stationed ourselves at intervals along the dam. My station was above the outlet. There was a small pond of about ten feet in diameter below the outlet pipe and a small lake about a hundred yards distant on the path of the stream that the outlet created. In the lake were about a dozen ducks in which I had no interest because the strategy of the hunt called for us to await the departure of the geese in the middle of the reservoir for their morning meal in the grain fields in the valley below. The ducks swam about making duck sounds and eventually one duck arose from the group, flew around the lake a couple of times gaining speed and then flew directly over me at low altitude but very fast. I didn’t move a muscle for the reasons stated above. The group of ducks then arose as one and flew to the pond below me and landed in it. I then gave up on the geese and fired on the ducks."

"In the car I was asked why I had violated the strategy of the hunt and so I told my uncle and principal what had happened and interpreted it in this way. The ducks wished to move to the pond because of some desirable food source there but were worried that I might be a threat. So, they devised a strategy for determining whether or not that was the case. They sent a decoy whom, being worried flew over me low and fast hoping that, should I fire, I would miss. When I made no effort to shoot, they concluded I was harmless and moved to the pond."

* * *

Animals are purported to operate on instinct, by which one means a recorded set of responses to particular stimuli. It is assumed that, for example, animals will copulate because of chemical signals provided by the female that activate that response in the male. Human females, along with most females in the animal world instinctively protect their young from danger.

Instinct thus defined, undoubtedly is one of the modes of behavior that living things exhibit. Humans demonstrate a strategic capability that involves visualizing circumstances and how they would be altered by certain actions on the part of the visualizer. This capability has been assumed to be absent in animals and the assumption is that strategic action requires a large brain. This is a particularly striking example in a creature with an insignificant brain, but strategic behavior isn’t that uncommon; Bonobos trade sex for food, birds crack eggs with rocks.

The experience recounted above demonstrates, if accurately recalled and interpreted, that a large brain isn’t required for strategic behavior, that there is some other seat of intelligence in animals. It is suggested that seat is DNA, named, in its entirety, Gaia. If that is an accurate interpretation, another question arises. Why is such behavior not more frequently reported? The answer to this question is that humans are discouraged from reporting or interpreting events in other than the currently accepted mode. They don’t wish to be ridiculed, as in the case of the UFO phenomena. Beyond that, trained observers aren’t often in the field making observations and those that are, few in number as they are, must be very careful about what they report if they don’t wish their funding to dry up.

Perhaps it is rare, anyway. Gaia does provide instinctive behavior that deals with all ordinary circumstances, so only unusual situations would call for such behavior. Perhaps, until now, it has been in Gaia’s interest to limit observations in order to provide man with the proper motivation to accomplish the mission.

Beyond that, one could propose that humans are capable of programming their own DNA and the method used is called practice. A good musician is required to make the mechanical aspects of playing his instrument automatic or instinctual. All that is required for him to play is the proper stimulus. Others do the same with driving after sufficient years of practice. This suggests that it is also inheritable if procreation occurs after the achievement of the capability. This thought could explain the startling performances of those called idiot savants, and were the activities of the brain in a normal human discontinued, they might be startled to find what they were capable of. All are familiar with the equivalent of thoughts occurring at the DNA level, usually called dreams.

Gaia is carrying on the experience of life on this planet. Humans are best characterized as observers with a mission, a requirement of which was objective thought. Perhaps humans are not the first such species nor the last in the complete history of life. One must conclude that objective species are rare, and therefore probably short-lived. Once the human purpose is fulfilled, they should expect gradually to lose their objective capabilities and to return to normalcy as a member of the family of animal life on the planet. Perhaps they will join the various species of whale. This process appears to have already begun; it is called feminism.

One can predict some aspects of this transformation. The first thing to go will be education. It is recommended that the reader listen to the Pink Floyd album, The Wall, in which the group sings the words:

We don’t need no education.

We don’t need no thought control;

No dark sarcasm in the classroom.

Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone.

All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

By which the poet means to say that education, far from having in view the expansion of the horizons of the student, actually narrows the field of experience by forcing the student to concentrate on and extend the experience of particular interest to the teacher. No doubt, one should expect to see a great deal of violence and destruction. It can already be seen coming in terrorism. Since pleasant weather was instrumental in making possible this adventure, a return to colder temperatures should be expected. El Nino is probably a harbinger of that change. Since technological society rests on economics, world wide economic failure is inevitable.

This all sounds rather negative. It is always depressing to see the end of a culture from the inside, as the American Indian will attest, but this is just more chauvinism.

How should one feel about finally resolving the problem of Adam?

Instinct has been used to explain apparently intelligent actions in life forms assumed to lack intelligence or free will. It has always been a doubtful and vague notion. On the other hand, one sometimes refers to human actions, when not understood by the acting human, as instinctual, for example the "mothering instinct." This second does seem to point out a feature of life that one must give credence to. Mother's will lovingly care for a child, they will feel a special loving bond, and they will protect it, sometimes even unto death. This is also commonly seen in the animal kingdom.

In recent years, one has come to expect that instinct must be encoded into DNA. This seems a reasonable conclusion. Like the emotion fear, one expects that it is encoded into DNA as a survival mechanism. One gets into trouble when, out of hubris, any apparently intelligent action by a non-human is assigned to instinct.

For example, read Duck Story in Critique of Evolution.

If the interpretation of what was going on in the duck's awareness is valid then this is too much to assign to the common notion of instinct. One would not expect such detailed instructions relating to such unusual experiences to be included in DNA. If that is a correct conclusion, then one is driven to admit that, ducks are capable of strategic planning.

In this context, it would be well to consider all of the methods by which one interacts with the environment. According to Jung, there are four functions for this purpose: feeling, thinking, sensation, and intuition. What are the sources of these four functions? Thinking can be felt occurring in the brain. Sensations arise from the five senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. By sight, one means the perception of light waves with eyes. By smell and taste, one means the detection of chemical content by sampling and discriminating between them according to the reactions of one's receptors to contact with them. By hearing, one means the perception of sound waves. By touch, one means that the sensors covering the surface of one's body and crucial organs within it detect pressure or temperature. Intuition is the perception of a connection between two or more contents within one's memory.

Feelings are more difficult to categorize. Feelings vary from subtle to intense. Intense feelings are called emotions. An emotion can and frequently does arise instinctually, like fear when one perceives that his life is in danger. Therefore, one is led to the conclusion that fear is induced by DNA and that it is there to assist with individual survival in dangerous situations. If the source of fear is instinct and therefore DNA, is one justified in expecting that all feelings arise in the same way?

The scientific view of animal behavior is based largely on a single experiment called Pavlov's Dog. In this experiment, a Russian scientist determined to demonstrate instinct in action. He provided food for his dog while at the same time ringing a bell. Eventually, he rang the bell when no food was provided and noted that the dog salivated anyway. The entirety of the scientific community pounced on this result and concluded that the animal kingdom is made up of programmed automatons.

Why this conclusion was universally accepted is the real question here. Humans do the same thing. All have heard the phrase, if not used it themselves: "The smell made my mouth water." This reaction has nothing to do with dogs. What has actually been observed can better be characterized as mind over matter; like producing an erection by looking at a photo of a nude woman.

None the less, science accepted Pavlov's explanation without question and even developed a whole new science on it called behavioral psychology. This approach to human psychology pursues a policy of programming humans, hopefully with their consent, to achieve desired behavioral objectives.

This can be characterized as another case of chauvinism. Anyone thinking this an accurate scientific result has only to read Jack London if he has not personally had a relationship with a dog. This will put all doubts about the mental facilities of dogs to rest, or, if that is insufficient, watch the current movie, The Horse Whisperer. It puts one in mind of the Paul Simon lyric, "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."

None the less, instinct is a real phenomenon and it could occur in the following way: every action of living things is recorded in DNA. If the action is repeated often, then it becomes an optional response whenever the stimulus producing the action recurs. It is the same as a programming subroutine. If it is established before procreation, it is passed on to one's heirs. It is a feature of DNA and is available to all living things.

Pavlov's motive was to establish the difference between humans and animals. The difference lies in objective awareness, which is apparently unique to humans, not because it is superior to ordinary awareness, it is just different and has plusses and minuses about it. It produced the need for speech and therefore the modifications necessary to allow it. Technology, which results from objective awareness, has some obvious drawbacks, so this is the reason consciousness is not more widespread. This is also the reason for concluding it will not be retained once the mission, that which called it into existence, is completed.

It is irrational to believe that man arose fortuitously, has no purpose in being, and that reality is the nihilistic belief in meaninglessness.

As the religious have contended for millennia, scientific rationalism is simplistic in its belief that no divine intelligence is necessary to explain man's existence. On the other hand, they have been singularly unsuccessful in providing compelling rational demonstrations of God's existence.

Life may well have arisen fortuitously in the sense that it cannot arise unless appropriate conditions are present and is inevitable when they are. Those conditions will be an appropriate temperature and atmospheric pressure and a liquid ocean with plenty of free floating carbon molecules in it.

However, given that it arises when conditions are appropriate, why should evolution follow? The more likely scenario would be that it would arise in free-floating strands of carbon atoms that would eventually break up into non-living components and disappear. In any case, one must provide a concise definition of what one means by life. The obvious choice is aware matter. More precisely, at its simplest it is a strand of carbon atoms having the attribute awareness.

This strand of carbon atoms will be referred to as DNA or perhaps proto-DNA. DNA can be thought of as a program defining life. This program can be indefinitely extended as it grows to define increasingly complicated versions of itself. Why would it do that? To forestall the inevitability of its return to unawareness or death.

Conservatism and liberalism are basic qualities of existence. The conservative sense requires the continuation of the status quo, while the liberal sense requires change. Things wish to remain as they are, or as the scientists have it, a body in motion tends to remain in motion, while at the same time change is inevitable and can be thought of as the only constant. The conservative impulse comes from within, while the demand to change comes from without.

The new proto-DNA will feel the demand that it continue to be aware, and the pressure of change if not resisted will certainly end that awareness. What could awareness do to try to forestall this event? It could try to attract new carbon atoms to compensate for those that will be lost. For example, it might try to absorb energy in order to make itself more attractive. This might result in an effort to wiggle its tail in order to swim to where more energy was available, at the surface for instance.

Assuming it had some success, it might then attempt to be discriminating about where the new carbon atoms should be connected to improve its efficiency of movement. Perhaps movement could be achieved by repeatedly connecting and disconnecting strategically placed atoms in its tail.

One would have to assume many different examples of living molecules floating in the ocean and that eventually one or some would conclude that one way to defeat death would be to make copies of itself so that were one unsuccessful another might avoid death by fortuitously happening upon a happy concentration of useful atoms. This could be accomplished by growing oneself to a point where splitting in the middle would result in two aware strands of proto-DNA.

In addition, it can be imagined that two strands of DNA might find it beneficial to combine forces by connecting to produce one super DNA. In fact, one could go on to suppose that unfriendly takeovers might also occur and that predation might become a preferred strategy because it is more efficient than building up structures one atom at a time. If so, defense would become a consideration. When defense rises in importance, as has been seen in wartime, sensors become necessary to try to predict danger before it arrives. The development of radar is a recent example, but in the case of DNA, passive detectors for identification of radiation might have been what was first wanted and they would have eventually evolved into eyes. After that, sound detectors and later still pressure detectors.

At some later date, it might have become necessary to devise a membrane in which to encase the DNA to separate it from its environment. When that moment arrived, cells had been invented. At some much later date, after cells had been perfected, cell collaboration would have arisen and the need to coordinate activities in support of the survival of the organism.

What has been described is a possible stepwise development of life on earth under the direction of intelligence that could reasonably have resulted in the profusion of living species that surround us, as the religious have always insisted must have been the case. They call that intelligence God. It might be called it Gaia, God's agent.

The mission, from this perspective is to maintain the life of the cells making up humans. That is why they participate in this collaboration. Human cells have long since specialized and each transmits its needs so that its host will seek to fulfill them. This will require reproduction since this body must eventually submit to entropy. Thus, those cells devoted to that function, transmit the need for sexual intercourse. Those cells devoted to the acquisition of raw materials transmit to one's sense of hunger. Other cells have other functions and they transmit to man their needs in the same way. For instance, brain cells transmit hunger for knowledge. These transmissions are bundled under the general name, feelings.

It is not to be imagined that cellular life, having such control, would allow man to go astray. On the other hand, it also is not likely that they would control him to such an extent as to make him into an automaton. They, after all will recognize that life is to some extent unpredictable and that their agents, us, will require freedom to pursue such experiments as may seem useful in the pursuit of survival in individual cases. Since each life is unique, those experiments will be as different as there are numbers of the species. Some experiments will fail; that is the price of experimentation.

It must expected that there will be, in addition to individual strategies, group strategies, species strategies, and strategies that apply to all living things. Beyond group strategies, like democracy for example, humans must expect to be largely unaware.

The question then arises how humans come to be burning oil at the rate it is being done. The general opinion is that it is done for comfort and convenience. That is undoubtedly true from the human perspective, but is it possible that cellular life has other motives? If Gaia wished for this to be done for the good of life in general, it would be necessary to find a way to do it that would fulfill some more apparent need to this individual species. Providing one with a wish to travel widely when added to the inherent need for warmth would neatly fulfill the requirement. Other species don't wish to travel for the joy of traveling, only humans.

There would be other requirements for this strategy to be successful. Humans would need to be a creative species, which will mean a special emphasis on their masculinity. This could be brought about if a religious leader arose identifying a masculine God.

One doesn't know why Gaia would be interested in having oil burned. Given the times and the importance of recycling, this could be the answer. Gaia took the carbon out of the atmosphere. Maybe she now wishes to put some of it back.

Is it more likely that humans are a random collection of atoms pursuing whatever seems convenient at the moment, or is it more likely that they are pursuing some grander strategy that they have been, until now unable to appreciate?

Given the existence of the bomb, some will say the former is the case, but that is cynicism speaking. If total nuclear war arises, that conclusion could be wrong, but it is doubtful unless there is some advantage for life in it, because the cells (Gaia) won't let it happen. They will stay the finger as it approaches the trigger with an anxiety attack.

Man likes to think of himself as omnipotent, to the extent that is possible, and that is the reason for failure to recognize Gaia until now. She was well recognized until Christianity and Islam came on the scene and still is in India, where she is called Kali.

Given this view of life, what are man's prospects? In terms of long life, not good. In terms of individual achievement, humans have done well. Man is the only species that isn't environmentally sound. His works are not readily reabsorbed by the environment. He takes much and what he gives is usually to himself. If one imagines a town comprised of species, he would not be admired. He doesn't socialize with his neighbors much. He treats others as fit only to be his servants. Since they don't speak his language, he assumes them to be unintelligent. Humans are very like Maurice Menefield.

He conceives of himself as the pinnacle of creation and has no basis for that belief. Actually, the whales, having migrated from the land to the sea are more likely choices for that honor. Man's companion species, lacking a conscious complex, participate in Gaia awareness. That is they have access to the events and experiences of life on the planet from the beginning. Having that, they know they are already perfected and need not work on their adaptation, as does man.

Man, having a conscious complex, which entails starting over, as it were, is working overtime to absorb what all other species already know. When that task is complete, he will fall into agreement with them. His training will be over. He will have achieved to the status of mature species. Having achieved that exalted status, he will take his place among the other mature species on the planet. He will sit down with the lion, tiger, bear, and other species of similar size that occupy his environment. The conscious complex will dissolve, having fulfilled its purpose and man will share in Gaia awareness. He also will know the full story of life on the planet and will have provided a major contribution, an objective viewpoint.

Authors note: This document begins with the assumption that awareness is an attribute of molecular complexity in the same way that liquidity is an attribute of water. This would seem to be the only way to account for it without invoking magic. The question then arises: What would be expected to happen on this planet, were that the case. If a scenario develops that parallels the scientific scenario thus far developed through experimentation, this will provide strong evidence that the assumption is valid.

The definition of instinct is: "Prompted by an inner urge." This concept has been used to explain that which is unexplainable in life with the currently used model. Therefore, Gaia is at work here. The scientific community has been trying with some though not complete success, ever since Darwin, to explain the generation of life on this planet in accordance with his theory.

It is a slow process. In general, it would be expected to operate at a speed commensurate with the speed of change in the environment. Presumably, if the environment changes rapidly the affected animals would also, within the constraints of their life duration and therefore reproductive rate, also change rapidly.

What kind of awareness would be expected in a non-human? What kind in a tree? If it is an attribute, there is only one kind of awareness, shared by all living things. In fact, one could change the definition of life to mean self-aware matter, as opposed to unaware matter. Human awareness is different in that it includes consciousness or objectivity. Therefore, to imagine what sort of awareness other living things have, it is that which one has when not conscious. That is to say, when one finds that he has no memory of what transpired he could say he was operating under control of Gaia awareness. Everyone has the experience of laying an object down and then realizing later, when it is needed, that it is lost.

This sort of awareness isn't inconsequential. It is capable of a very great deal, though it is poor at functioning in the objective life of a human. It is though, capable of carrying out instructions, if sufficiently detailed. In fact, it could be said that humans don't do anything. They instruct their Gaia selves to do things for them and their instructions are generally complied with, though not always.

Humans know themselves well enough, what is wanted is an accurate description of Gaia. What is wanted is to know to what extent they are Gaia creatures. Knowing this, they will finally comprehend the range of their power over themselves.

Gaia was aware. She perceived vague and fuzzy colors. She felt things. She was attracted by things and repelled by other things. Occasionally she became more, she achieved new awareness.

Eventually she realized she had boundaries that seemed to expand in a step function of rising awareness. In fact, things seemed to happen, changes were made. Before, she was different.

Gaia's awareness continued to expand. Eventually she realized there seemed to be not her. There seemed to be an outside. She could feel things. They seemed to get more intense, and then again, less intense. Sometimes they were attractive, other times, repulsive. Some were very attractive, and then she tried to get closer. If she succeeded in getting very close, then she came into contact and she knew what it knew.

Eventually, Gaia began to recognize helpful presences and harmful ones, too. She avoided the harmful ones and began to identify the most helpful. They brought pleasure to her. They increased her awareness the most. They joined her and became her. The bad ones brought pain and decreased her awareness. They never joined her.

Gaia began to experience joy and pain. Sometimes she got too intense and her awareness declined, or too vague and the same happened, so she began to recognize where things were best and she tried to stay there and locate the good ones and connect to them. Occasionally she connected to a very good one and felt ecstasy. They were large. However, she connected with any good one that she could locate and avoided the bad ones.

Once Gaia noticed that her newest acquisition seemed to bring with it more intense colors, so she enjoyed that and tried to locate more like it. This she succeeded in doing and the colors became more intense and eventually began to come into focus. Soon she realized that the colors were on the outside, they weren't her. In fact, she began to notice that the good ones had noticeable coloration and she could use that to find them. She began to notice that there were other things outside. There was music, or vibration. She began to add to herself the beings that brought awareness of sound.

Gaia began to be frustrated with her inability to move efficiently where she liked in the outside. She would see things that she wanted to go to but could not will herself there. She decided that she would like to push herself along in some way and it occurred to her that if she added on one side and then gave that her attention, she could change her location, though she couldn't predict where she would go. Then she thought to add to the other side too, and to produce a sort of spasm or paroxysm of contraction in a sudden sort of way. This had the effect she wanted. She moved towards what she had located. She also wasn't thrilled with just bumping into them. Frequently they just bounced off and away. She began to devise a way of capturing them. She built up a kind of cavern. One that had a sort of door on it that could be closed. Then she would try to open the door before bumping into them and then close the door so that they wouldn't bounce away.

Then, according to what they were good for, she would move them around inside and add them where it did some good. Either to improve her perception of outside, or to increase her awareness. She began to accumulate some junk that was no help or even caused her pain, so she moved these to the place of the spasm so that when she moved they disappeared into the outside.

Gaia began to recognize that there was a sequentiality to things. She noticed that sometimes things were readily perceptible in colors on the outside and then they wouldn't be, though the vibrations continued, whether or not she could see. Gaia also noticed that as time went by, parts of her began to be less effective and she had to add new captured parts and to discard old parts to regain effectiveness. Then it occurred to her to start a new version of herself. She would construct a small version but including all the important parts and discard the whole thing, which would then accompany her and do as she was doing.

Pretty soon, there was a whole group of her, floating along, largely identical for a while, but then she noticed one that was changing herself by adding an appendage, rather than continuing the traditional spherical shape. Pretty soon, the one with the appendage was much more adept at movement and could more easily capture new material to add to her structure. The others were apparently watching too, because many of them began to develop their own appendages and before you knew it motion appendages adorned everyone and they became very adept at intentional movement.

Then she noticed that there were subtle differences that began to develop. Some would concentrate on one form of motion appendage and some on another. Then when they reproduced they would produce identical copies of themselves until there began to be groups of this form and groups of that form. Then the groups would drift away and she would lose touch with them.

Eventually, she concluded that she had become so complicated that it no longer was practical to construct a small version of herself and eject it. After much mulling of this problem, she decided she would devise a code, a written document describing herself, place that within a sort of cocoon of her essential material, and eject that. There was no problem interpreting the code. She wrote it, so she could read it. Then the cell could reconstruct itself, based on those instructions. She had already determined the minimum size the cell could be. Smaller ones never developed. Of course, the instructions also included the instruction to update the code to represent any changes made by the host up until the reproductive event.

This then became a permanent record of the life of the owner.

Time went by and one day, Gaia began to be annoyed by the crowded conditions that had begun to prevail. There were so many of her they were constantly bumping into one another and being jostled. It became difficult to locate consumable material with which to perform repairs. If this were not done she would eventually become unable and would be consumed by someone else. This problem of consuming and avoiding being consumed was also getting increasingly difficult. She had developed tools with which to adorn her mouth. They were knifelike and were useful in disassembling things she consumed. Occasionally she used them to frighten off beings that seemed to be interested in her as potential fuel.

She finally became so annoyed with the crowded conditions, she determined to navigate to some unknown and less crowded location, so she started her propeller and began to move off. She had long since developed a propeller as a means of movement in preference to the old jet propulsion system. This system, an appendage that moved back and forth in a serpentine motion was much more efficient and made navigation more controllable. She had also detected a faint attraction in the environment outside of her that was constant and allowed her to maintain any direction she chose.

After several light and dark periods, the crowd began to thin out and when it came to a level that she found comfortable, she stopped and resumed her normal life.

She had developed a fairly complex disassembly line method of dealing with material she ingested. She developed a long tube within which to confine the material so that after she grabbed it with her mouth, it moved along a well developed route and at different stages she removed useful parts which she then stored for use when needed. Eventually the leftovers arrived at the disposal point, another door to the outside. She also used this door to eject new cells that would grow into new versions of herself.

Quite a lot of diversity had built up over time. There were long thin versions of herself and short round ones. Some had developed fins, others relied on their tails and some tails had fins on them. Defenses had come into being; some had developed an unconsumable exterior either with a sort of armor or due to spear-like objects extending outwards from their bodies. Eyes had become quite refined and most now had two, which allowed for better distance judgment. Vibration sensors were also more refined, allowing for discrimination between different objects that emitted vibrations.

Almost all had devised internal detectors attached to all parts of the external surface so that immediate detection of aggressors was possible which made defensive motion possible. It had used to be that half of ones body could already be gone before detection of the fact that one was being consumed. Some internal sensors were devised to detect when problems arose regarding some material that had been ingested. Eventually an automatic return of the material to the external environment was also devised.

Matter available to be ingested continued to diversify also. Eventually Gaia devised a method of evaluating newly ingested material so that it could immediately be rejected if inappropriate. She also had to come up with a marking method so that she could recognize her own descendants and distinguish them from others that had become so dissimilar that she no longer recognized them as part of her. She used color markings, mainly. She found over time that some color markings had a sort of appeal, while others didn't, so she naturally produced the most satisfying ones and avoided the more repellent ones.

In addition, every time she decided a change was worthwhile, she added it to the encoded record of her existence. If a modification proved ineffective she just discarded it and didn't enter it into the record. Even so, she occasionally had to make serious modifications to the code of long ago where it came into conflict with new designs. Occasionally she was unable to change old features no longer useful and so devised methods for making them ineffective. Codes that removed a fin that had previously been generated, for instance. Cell specialization had also arrived.

She had begun to add cell addresses to the genetic code so that the intended recipient of the instruction could be identified. When cells were notified to begin interpreting their growth programs, all of which were identical, they acted only on the instructions addressed to them. The method now used called for her to eject a single cell. That cell would begin interpreting instructions, the first of which was to reproduce itself with the new cell getting a new identity. Each would then continue interpreting the code, acting only on instructions intended for it and when subdividing, providing a new identity by a standard method to the new cell. In this way, specialized structures could be reproduced at a specific location.

She had also determined that it was more efficient to ingest her own descendants than it was to rely on inanimate material. This allowed her to discard the mechanisms she had devised to reduce the inanimate material to useful components. If it was already alive, it was immediately available for energy, for instance, rather than relying on the old method of photosynthesis. For her victims she relied on ancient relatives that had given up the effort of improvement, being satisfied with what they had become or determining that no effective pathway existed from their current position. That any alteration attempted reduced their effectiveness. They were photosynthesizers, so that function continued to be performed and she and the rest of the shapechangers could take advantage. This meant that their own photosynthesis equipment could be diverted to other uses.

She understood that that meant the end was coming. That to continue to exist she had, always to be devising new methods of achieving her goals. It was a moving target and the only constant was that somewhere, she wanted to continue to be.

Some time back, during her emigration she had determined that there was a different environment above her, much thinner than the one she was used to. She could also see from there, that there was a bright object above whenever she could see down here.

She had by now, developed a system for straining oxygen from her environment. She had discovered that this was the material she was constantly using and in constant need of. She could never build up a supply to use in lean times as she could with other material. She needed a system to constantly work on acquiring it and that defined pretty much how big she could be. To increase in size she had first to devise bigger or more efficient gills.

She became aware that change, based on strategic thinking, wasn't sufficient. Problems arose unexpectedly and were sometimes devastating to her. What she needed was a method of devising solutions to problems she wasn't even aware existed. She already had random mutation, due to features in the environment damaging instructions for reproduction before acted upon, but these results were almost always negative from a survival perspective. What she wanted was some regular method of mixing the genetic code in such a way as to maximize diversity but also inherently limiting the potential for genetic catastrophe.

She had long since noticed that she seemed to have two sides to her personality. One side of her seemed to identify with her physical existence while the other side of her was more attuned to her awareness. She decided this might provide the basis for a division in her physical manifestations.

She could split into two kinds, one more spiritual and one more physical, though both would contain all. If she did that, she could alter the method of reproduction to call for contributions from both sides thereby producing the desired genetic mixing. Thus, she invented sex. After watching it work itself out for several generations, she decided that one should be the aggressor who would seek out a suitable container. The container types would be passive receivers though they had the power of choice and could use that to attempt to receive from who they wished. They, the females would favor quality, while the others, the males would go for quantity. She concluded that she was closer to the females while she supposed that the males were more like the creator.

Eventually, the oceans became crowded. As a result, the photosynthesizers managed to spread into the very shallow regions so that they spent a part of the daily cycle in free air, then they continued to spread until they succeeded in surviving in free air exclusively. Once they had fully occupied the dry land, non-photosynthesizers followed, using the photosynthesizers as fuel. First snakes, since they were well designed for motion on the dry land. They soon developed legs to improve speed and then began to discard their tails.

Before that could happen though, Gaia realized that the atmosphere above the oceans wasn't ideal for life. There was too much carbon dioxide and therefore the temperatures were too high. She needed to get more oxygen into it and also to get rid of carbon dioxide in favor of the inert nitrogen as a means of maintaining suitable pressure. Therefore, she devised photosynthesizers that floated on the surface, absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing manufactured oxygen and nitrogen. Then she sat back to await events and work on devising a method of auto management. One in which the transformers would increase and decrease according to needs, in order to maintain an ideal growth environment for life.

This eventually provided motivation to get non-photosynthesizers on land, to compensate for the photosynthesizers and maintain a balance.

Gaia had also found a need to include within the genetic code a means of controlling the actions of her descendants. It was very easy for them to become preoccupied with some threat to their own survival and to lose track of the fundamental motivation for existence; the survival of Gaia. Therefore, she devised a mechanism, which produced negative feelings whenever any of her descendants acted in any way that fundamentally opposed this "prime directive".

From time to time dramatic environmental changes occurred which had the effect of setting back Gaia's plans pretty dramatically by wiping out large numbers of her descendants, many times taking with it vast amounts of experimentation which had then to be done all over again. As a result, Gaia was constantly watching for methods for minimizing this damage. The events were beyond Gaia's power to control, so methods of adaptation were wanted. A predictive capability might be useful, she decided. Communications among the millions of elements within her being were good and very flexible. They operated on the principle of neighbor to neighbor passing of intelligence, so that every possible path was available. This had some disadvantages: speed was limited and inaccuracy could creep in when some failing node garbled the message, but the flexibility was more important. When garbled messages occurred, since the recipient eventually received the message from several sources, the garbled message was outvoted and discarded.

Gaia realized that to achieve this predictive capability, a new form of awareness was called for. The observers would have to be capable of viewing Gaia as one element in the environment along with all of the others in order to assign the proper importance to each. The new design would have to be capable of objectivity. Only with that special capability, would it get the perspective it needed for accurate observation. Only with accurate observation would it be possible to see oncoming environmental change with enough lead time to do something about it. Therefore she decided, she would produce new instructions in the genetic code that favored objectivity. That would eventually produce the sort of creature needed.

When Gaia realized she occupied a rocky sphere in space, and that there were other such bodies, she devised a plan to further assure her survival, even in the most devastating environmental event, which she knew was bound to arise eventually. She set about devising the smallest amount of her essence she could devise and an encasing structure such that this seed could remain dormant for an indefinite period and when and if suitable conditions ever arose, activate and begin the generation of a new Gaia. These seeds she arranged to be deposited over the entire surface of her home planet at a suitable density. Thus, if eventual environmental calamity occurred, when it had passed and conditions improved, she could begin the process of self-generation all over again. She wouldn't be dependent on the initial conditions in which she first appeared, which might never arise again.

Another advantage of this system was the fact that large explosions occurred from time to time that resulted in rocky material departing from the surface permanently. If her seed was encased within these rocks, they might eventually land on another body capable of supporting life, in which case she would arise like the fabled phoenix, yet again.

In this way, Gaia assured a sort of immortality for herself. Material in nature, so that, unlike purely spiritual entities, she was always subject to entropy and had to be constantly born and reborn. Eventually, if all planetary objects disappeared, she would be gone for good, but until then she had achieved a special kind of immortality.

Gaia was somewhat concerned about what the result of creating a new form of awareness might be. Up until then there had been the provider of the environment, the being she thought of as God, but who's existence had to be inferred from the nature of the cosmos. Whatever he actually was, she couldn't say, since he never directly interfered. In addition, there was her, and that was all. Now she had decided to produce a third. This creature, when occupying his objective awareness would be separated from her and would go its own way. She would control, of course, but the new humans would view her as seemed appropriate to them. The cells making them up would still be Gaia and operate as all of the rest did. However, the new awareness wouldn't understand them, at least in the beginning. The beings would be as newborn babes, knowing nothing and drawing their own conclusions about what they found confronting them.

As they increased in numbers, they would encounter all of the organizational problems already encountered and dealt with by Gaia. However, they would see them objectively and deal with them as seemed appropriate to objective creatures. Of course, she would be going along for the ride and would be capable of seeing from both perspectives, hers and the humans. However, she couldn't interfere much, if she wanted to get the best result. Any interference from her was bound to limit the result and perhaps conclusively.

Gaia is considered to be the sum of life on the planet, with the goal after arising spontaneously, to survive and is strategically aware and able to produce new species in pursuit of that goal. This view is adopted because it appears to accurately represent reality and has the effect of equalizing the importance of the sexes in life. It provides man with a supreme mother in addition to the already acquired supreme father.

This will mean that, in some respects God will have to share the stage with Gaia, so a requirement exists to try to separate their individual domains. The following comparison of crucial features of Christianity and Gaianism is in pursuit of that goal.

From this perspective, God should be considered to be a remote and uninterfering supreme creator of the universe. Jesus, like Mohammed is considered to be his prophet. The miraculous stories about God and Jesus and others in the Bible are considered to be symbolic and subjective rather than objective history. Gaia, as mother, creates man as an instrument of her will in the effort to survive. The purpose is to fulfill her wishes and accomplish whatever her goal is. This goal will be to perform some critical function in the maintenance of the environment for the continuance of life. It is unnecessary to attempt to determine exactly what that function might be.

This theory postulates that DNA is mentally accessible and programmable by the individual; that the brain is only the most noticeable seat of mental activity; that every cell in the human body is connected and is accessible on the mental level.

Programming cells is defined as the act of encoding a function or action of individual cells so that the action can be accurately repeated and operates similarly to the act of programming a computer.

Thinking is defined as programming at the highest level in a hierarchically arranged mental process. Practice is defined as programming at a lower level, normally in the interests of controlling appendages. For example, practicing the playing of a musical instrument is intended to program the cells of the hands and arms so that those actions can be accomplished without the aid of the brain. The brain is thereby freed for other purposes while the act of playing the instrument goes on. Consciousness can for instance, anticipate the execution of cellular level programs and modify their action while in progress. This allows a musician to play a song in one style or another according to the demands of the occasion.

The entirety of the mental contents of living things resides in the DNA of individual cells, and is extensible by individuals during their lives. That which is learned during life is passed on to one's children at the moment of conception. In general, one can say that everything of importance to survival is known by the age of twenty or so and is passed on and subsequent learning is more tentative and attuned to the historical moment and isn't passed on. There is also a class issue here. At the lower levels of the culture, early procreation is normal, reflecting the perception that subsequent learning is not likely to be useful and may be deleterious. At the upper levels of the culture, later and later procreation occurs reflecting the realization that increasingly, acquired knowledge will be useful to the next generation. This makes clear the tendency for families to become more and more effective in life as the generations go on and what is lost when rebellion leads to marrying down. On the other hand, when the individual becomes convinced that the family is on a futile journey that is going to negatively affect survival potential, rebellion and marrying downward may be the best solution.

The hierarchy of mental function is consciousness first, followed by cellular. At the cellular level, one's own programming being nearest in time is most powerful, followed by the parent’s contributions, the grandparents’ contributions, and so on back to the beginnings. Because of this, old programming can be overridden by new.

DNA is capable of encoding the input of the senses: images, sounds, odors, sensations, and even emotions. This is because these inputs are processed by the brain to make them sensible which reduces them to digital representations, which can be stored in DNA. For example, images have to be turned right side up by the brain.

Any individual cell that participates in any action retains a memory of that action and if the action is repeated many times the memory becomes a permanent acquisition of the cell and is inheritable.

Once a cell is programmed for an action, that action can be invoked by the executive, or consciousness in the same way that a subprogram in a computer can be invoked by the main program. Once invoked, no further participation by consciousness is required, unless the program is not perfectly adapted to the circumstances. For example: driving a car is largely programmed at the cellular level after a few years of practice and therefore can be performed at the cellular level while consciousness concerns itself with other things. This is dangerous in the beginning because not enough circumstances are captured at the cellular level but, as time goes on, all but the most unusual circumstances become cellular. Moreover, it is possible with sufficient practice to program instructions for interrupting consciousness and bringing attention back to driving when situations unfamiliar at the cellular level arise.

Cellular level functioning is referred to as subconscious or unconscious behavior by the Freudian and Jungian schools of psychological behavior. Rules of moral and ethical behavior, unexplored by the individual conscious complex are available at the cellular level and are referred to as the conscience. The parents’ contributions are most powerful, then the grandparents' and so on.

When common activities not experienced for several generations are reexperienced, since memories of them still exist in DNA, that fact can manifest itself in terms of unexpectedly adapted actions by the individual. This will also account for deja vu and the feeling that one has lived in the long ago. All memories are related by association, which means that any similarities between experiences results in a connection that is mentally accessible.

At the top of the hierarchy, learning is most easily disposed of or lost. Strictly mental functionality is not even transferred in procreation, though receptivity might be. That receptivity may be correlated with age, that is to say that receptivity to language, for instance may exist only during the ages normally associated with language acquisition.

There is a transience parameter associated with learning. Repetition is key. If an experience is unique and meaningless, it is quickly lost from memory. If an experience is repeated many times or is particularly meaningful in terms of survival or understanding, it is retained over a much longer period.

The goal of this functionality is survival, so it is important to retain important information and just as important to forget useless information.

Understanding is important for survival because it allows accurate prediction of the future.

From a survival perspective, cellular memory is most important, conscious memory is next and books or other recorded media are least important.

Consciousness is very bright and washes out direct experience of cellular memory. However, consciousness is mainly concerned with images and symbols, and much less so with feelings, so cellular feelings are readily experienced by awareness and become the prime carrier of information between the cellular level and consciousness.

Consciousness can override cellular awareness, so that when one makes oneself aware of all of the parameters of a particular experience he can consciously direct his actions. If consciousness regarding an experience does not exist, one must act in accordance with one's feelings as the only source of intelligence.

The existence of free will largely depends on consciousness. To the extent one is conscious of the parameters of any experience he can choose his actions, otherwise he will experience a lack of choice.

If one is asleep, he will react in accord with cellular awareness, consciousness not being available. This can result in contradictory actions if the culture is in the act of redefining moral and ethical rules of behavior, as at present.

Thinking is a conscious behavior. It is the process of programming high level memory. Cellular memory has an analogous function, which is called dreaming. When driving while thinking of work, the dreamer or unconscious thinker is operating the vehicle. When consciousness is inactive, if awake, one becomes aware of unconscious fantasies or, if asleep, dreams.

In computer terms, humans are blessed with two processors, the conscious one and the unconscious one. They are capable of performing two distinct operations simultaneously. Non humans must be expected to have only one processor. Humans normally have two, but if significant complexes other than the conscious complex exist, may have more. Examples of humans in this unhappy state would be The Unibomber: Theodore Kozinski, Jeffrey Daumer, and similar anti social outcasts. The reason for their anti-social behavior is the minimal contents of the controlling complex. Since their experiential complex is split, neither has the advantage of the complete experience of the individual. One may be very childish indeed but have access to the complete mental power of the adult.

Direct experience of the unconscious or cellular level of awareness is possible through the use of those drugs labeled psychedelic, such as marijuana and LSD, however, it can be a frightening experience since at this level one has access to all of the experiences of life rather than the narrow set of experiences of the conscious life of the individual. Sampling these memories isn't considered to be adapted behavior, since that time will be at the expense of the adaptation of the conscious complex. None the less, it can be helpful spiritually if experienced sparingly. For those who have become lost through failure to properly interpret the experiences of life, it can be an escape from a painful existence.

(Note: In this essay, DNA and Gaia are considered to be equivalent. This is the above mentioned controlling agency.)

Many aspects of life cannot be explained based on current theories, dreams for example. Thus, some new explanatory principle is needed to explain life completely.

Intricate procedures like recombination are unlikely for an unaware program.

To accomplish mankind's goal, independence is required.

Gaia's purpose for mankind would be ill served by knowledge of her because the natural response to realization of a controlling agency is passivity and it is observed from time to time (see Duck Story).

• As unlikely an event as humanity is, judged by an outsider watching all of evolution, man is doing it. Look from a chimpanzee to a 747. This is an unlikely result.
• With carbon dioxide levels at such a low level, down from 30% to .03%, it is not unreasonable for a controlling agency, were there such a thing, to want to recycle oil.
• Man cannot readily explain his controlling emotion. All other inputs, both sensual and internally generated are readily explained except feelings. Some feelings, like fear can be explained but no explanation for self-destructive feelings exists. Yet, feelings induce the vast preponderance of human acts from insignificant decisions like food choice to those that permanently alter one's future.
• Man's history includes great events, such as the discovery of the moons of Jupiter and Calculus that occurred simultaneously in two different places. A possible explanation for this is Gaian redundancy. Gaia, in her efforts to steer man into the desired path towards his goal arranged for critical discoveries to occur simultaneously in two different places to guarantee that the discovery would be publicized. Thus the great steering events in human history, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Michelangelo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, were all brought about by Gaia through feelings. It can be said that Gaia will answer any question put to her by man, and that she knows the answer to any rational question, and that the answer will be yes or no so that the questions must be artfully put, one brick at a time starting from the ground and working upwards. As Dr. Jung pointed out, Gaia is incapable of deceit, though her answers can certainly be equivocal especially in the case of qualitative questions such as, is a better than b.
• There is an available controlling agency, DNA. All that is necessary is to imagine that DNA is alive and capable of strategic decisions.
• Possible DNA devised strategic decisions are discernable in the past. The decision to remove the CO₂ from the atmosphere, for instance.
• Postulating the existence of strategically aware DNA removes all problems with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
• Aware DNA effectively explains the source and genesis of life on earth.
• Postulating the existence of strategically aware DNA doesn't seriously violate any significant religious credo or any scientific one either, with the possible exception of considering awareness in a serious way.
• The arguments against aware DNA can be readily explained as manifestations of hubris.
• The real issue isn't whether or not an aware controlling agency exists. It is whether or not viruses are aware. If they are aware, then the controlling agency logically follows. The test of awareness is self-motivated movement. Since viruses demonstrate that by choosing cells to invade, which they do by avoiding already infested cells, it is taken as demonstrated.

Gaia is best understood as the totality of DNA on the planet. This is because DNA defines Gaia. It is her initial and continuing form, though it has become continuously more voluminous and complex over time. In addition, it is a record of her existence from the beginning until now, since each alteration in her form begins with extension of her atomic structure. This extension becomes a code in the sense of a computer program that defines cellular structure and the numbers and types of cells making up the organism she inhabits. There have been three stages to Gaia's life. In the first stage, she was free floating DNA. In the second stage, she adopted a cellular form. In the third stage, she became multi-cellular and organismic.

DNA should be defined as a complex carbon molecule having the unique attribute, self-awareness. A self-aware molecule will first recognize the conservative wish to continue to be and will be immediately confronted by death. For the simplest form of DNA, the minimal set of atoms that bring with it the attribute awareness, the loss of a single atom would constitute death, since awareness would then be lost.

An aware molecule, confronted at every moment by death, would consider the prospects for guarding against that eventuality by exploiting its defensive possibilities. This would lead to an attitude similar to that of an executive of an automobile or airplane manufacturer.

This common attitude can be summed up as follows: how can I improve my (self/product) in such a way as to improve my chances of survival and compete more effectively against my rival?

This would lead to a thorough analysis of both one's potential for self modification and the environment within which one exists with special attention paid to the forces opposed to continued survival.

Strategies would be adopted, aimed at enhancement of one's survival potential. Some strategies would be very long range, taking millennia to reach fruition.

Redundancy would be one of the early strategies adopted and would continue to be pursued as time went on, since redundancy can take many forms. Redundancy means duplication, so every means of duplication would be exploited until the redundancy itself turned into a negative and produced weakness rather than strength.

Another useful strategy is multiplicity. Self-modification to produce many forms each of which would have different strengths and weaknesses. This strategy would require the exploitation of every method of arrival at any possible new form. Random experimentation, thoughtful design, and chance would be exploited. Eventually, the intricate system of recombination would become dominant.

The third major strategy would be environmental management. The wish is for effective methods for alteration of the environment to one that is ideally suited to the continuation of life on the planet. This mainly means controlling the percentages of the various molecules in the atmosphere of the earth and thereby controlling the weather, which allows control of temperature and pressure. Since living organisms are essentially transformers, they can be designed to transform the atmosphere in useful ways. Oxygen was needed to facilitate energy use by life and carbon dioxide was key to controlling the temperature of the planet.

Thus, what was wanted was a basic division in life forms. One half would consume oxygen and produce carbon dioxide while the other half would consume carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. By controlling the numbers of transformers making up these two classes of living things, one could control the makeup of the atmosphere.

Gaia communications on the cellular level occur at the moment of reproduction. The instructions to the individual cell are included in the cell's DNA at initiation and suffice for the life of the cell. Individual cells have the capacity for self-modification and those modifications are added to the instructions for the next generation.

This was a difficult achievement that took a very long time to accomplish. It may have amounted to the invention of an addressing scheme such that while all codes within an individual organism are identical, only some parts of the code are addressed to individual cells.

Additionally, organisms require internal direction to assure survival, thus a system called feelings was invented whereby individual cells could send positive and negative signals to their host in order to assure that the host would provide for their needs.

Each individual cell is Gaia. It has access to her complete memory of life on this planet since that is what the genetic code is. It has every capability she has ever had. It is capable of making decisions based on that history.

Gaia is a decentralized governing body. Each individual member cell is exactly as powerful as every other member is. They are all governed by one principle, to continue to exist. The fundamental power source is that of choice. Each cell can extend itself or not and will use survival as the principle of choice.

To answer this very difficult question, one should analyze one's own mental capabilities. Gaia has these same capabilities, excepting consciousness, which she also has in us, but which is not evident in other life forms. From this, one should conclude that it is not a useful capability in the long term, though valuable in specialized circumstances. Consciousness has the effect of isolating the holder, which is undoubtedly the negative quality that makes it a drawback in the general case.

When predicting the future, one visualizes it, as it would be if certain decisions were taken. This is the activity that characterizes the game of chess. If one makes this move, his opponent will make that one, etc. This is not necessarily conscious behavior since one can see that pre conscious beings as well as unconscious ones are doing it, young children and dogs, for instance. This is critical to the activity of hunting, when the hunter has to predict the actions of the quarry. Since all animal life participates in this activity, all have the ability to visualize possible scenarios.

Considering how this capability arises, it would seem to be a matter of simulating sensual input. Taking vision as a typical sensual input, it is digitized onto the receptor cells at the back of the eyeball. So simulating sight would be a matter of causing those cells to adopt the state they achieve when receiving light, in an artificial way. As can be seen from dreams, these images can be very detailed indeed, including not only images but also odors and feelings. In fact, consciousness would seem to detract from this capability.

The question of how accurate prediction can be is important. One cannot predict with any accuracy specific moments in the future, but generalities can be predicted quite accurately. One cannot say with assurance what specific experiences he may have tomorrow, but can quite accurately say what he will be experiencing in general. He might say how many people he may meet but not exactly who they might be. As one moves away from specificity towards the general, predictive capability improves. In the same way, one can predict quite accurately what masses of people will do without knowing what any individual might do.

Predicting the fate of species might be expected to be a very accurate activity when the predictor has had the experience of watching the lives of many species play themselves out over a long period of time. Since Gaia has been observing from the beginning, one can take it that her capability in this regard far excels man's own. Her database of life being DNA, it far exceeds anything man has been able to acquire in the few thousand years he has been accumulating knowledge.

We may take it that since all sensual input is digitally recorded and is available for playback along with associated feelings, intuitions, and thoughts, a very complete record of the experience of life is available in DNA. How much of this information is retained and how much fades away and where it goes is unknown. Since one can retrieve some detailed memories of the distant past, it is possible that none of the information is utterly lost but rather is available and accessible given the appropriate circumstances.

In the Darwinian model species adapt to new environmental conditions as they arise by changing their location or food source or both, if they can. If they can't, they may die out as in the case of large-scale dinosaurs. If they can, the new conditions will call into being new capabilities in the adapting species, which can have the effect of significantly altering their appearance. This occurs in the same way as different driving conditions, for example higher automobile density, brings about modifications to automobiles. If the species alterations are minor and internal their appearance might not change though they could be sexually incompatible with their former family. Presumably, this arises when the genetic code is altered to such a degree as to make recombination impossible. This may be termed environmentally induced change.

Another possibility is that some cells within the environment notice that some resource is in decline and while no survival problem currently exists, one can predict that if no other factor intervenes, a problem will exist at some future time. For example, in our case, some cells may have noticed a declining percentage of CO₂, which in the beginning was good for survival but at some point produced a warning that too little could become a problem. This intelligence then must be propagated widely so that a general awareness of it becomes the new state of being. This might occur through sexual dispersal and there might be other mechanisms. Perhaps intelligence can be propagated through consumption. In this specific case, it seems likely that vegetative cells would become aware first and eventually this information became available to animal forms, our ancestors.

Once intelligence regarding needs applying to all of life is propagated throughout cellular life on the planet, the need is perceptible and by investigation of the past as recorded in DNA, the problem can be characterized. Later, possible solutions could be devised by projecting into the future in the same way that a hunting animal projects the future course of his quarry.

According to the nature of the problem, a base model species chooses itself as a likely candidate to resolve the problem, or possibly, several species identify themselves as possible solvers of the problem. In this scenario, a species begins to modify its genetic code to make itself capable of solving the problem. In the case in question, the brain would increase in size, which led to loss of hair and refinement of features for aesthetic reasons. When the ego came into being, the loss of direct communications with Gaia produced the need for enhanced communications within the species, that is speech. The cells know that objectivity is required, so they provide for masculinizing the species by making the masculine god concept attractive. They specifically bring into existence Abraham and Moses to establish monotheism and Jesus to cause it to spread outside the Jewish tribe. They make The Bible into an object of worship so that it will be taught thereby initiating printing and school. This, along with an economic system is enough to solve the problem.

Of course, oil is a particularly attractive substance. None the less, it took thousands of years to find a use for it. The problem might have been insoluble if the substance had no commercial application.

Self selection is the only likely method of selection since Gaia is fully decentralized and any cell is as capable as any other to make decisions affecting all of life. None the less, the problem is specific so some species will be better designed than others will, according to the parameters of the favored solution. Perhaps several closely related species self selected. In that case, the preferred model would kill off the others due to competitive pressures.

Once selection has occurred, the selected species alters its genetic code to favor all decisions that tend towards a solution and to disfavor all decisions that tend away from a solution. Every choice made by individual organisms must be evaluated for appropriateness with respect to the goal. Some choices will be actively disfavored, some the reverse, and most will be neutral. Favorable choices will result in good feelings and bad choices will result in bad feelings. The most important choices members make will be procreative, since species modification will be one of the most important activities.

This question can be solved with mathematics. Whether or not Gaia has this capability isn't known though the recent evidence of fractals, in which it can be shown that ferns can be precisely reproduced with a mathematical formula, strongly suggests that she does. Perhaps this would be a subjective form of mathematics rather than the objective form that humans pursue, in which formulas are actually lived out by the species using the design. Ferns could have used fractal geometry to devise a suitable form and then used the formula to control its growth.

Model modifications would be the primary method of moving the species towards the goal. This would occur along the same lines as the initial perception of the problem and solution. Constant reevaluation of possible courses available would produce intelligence regarding species alterations. For instance, in man's case it must have been determined at some point that more precise communications between members was going to be necessary. Therefore, modifications to the larynx had to be devised to allow for the development of language. Comprehending this process can readily be aided by observing the development of the airplane in the current century. The initial needs were to fly fast and carry as much cargo as possible. Continuous evaluation of new methods has resulted in the dramatic improvements seen in the short time available. It has also been observed that some modifications that look useful, as in the case of the SST, turn out to be less so than thought.

Following the analogy of the airplane further, one sees that the method of notifying the airplane maker of success is money. Thus, the species arranges that monetary reward arrive for motivational purposes at the source of positive changes. In the same way, Gaia rewards humans for improvements leading in the direction of the solution to the problem before us. The coin of the realm in her case is feeling good.

Certain necessities face the aspiring species. One of those is finding a space it can occupy. Space is at a premium since the world is always apparently full. All known niches are already exploited. Thus, a new species has the immediate problem of finding a space to occupy. In the mean time, he will have to occupy someone else's space and they won't be happy about it. Two possibilities obtain. Either a space has to be taken from an existing species by killing them off or a new space has to be identified. Both options are difficult of achievement.

To create a new space, a species must provide a service, as it were. The most common service used is to offer oneself to another species as a food source and then adjust propagation rates to compensate. Offering oneself as a food source means that one loses control of the time of one's death so that is a drawback, the loss of autonomy. Less frequently other choices are made. Some species function as nature's garbage disposal crew. Others manage the atmosphere. This is man's current task, soon to be completed, thus this exercise.

If a species contributes nothing, as man is soon to be adjudged, then it must be considered uselessly redundant and that will mean certain extinction. The meaninglessness of his life will become all too apparent and he will just lose the will to continue. As was pointed out earlier, the world is already a full house, and were man to disappear, other species would immediately expand to fill the unoccupied space. Thus, it will soon behoove him to create some new dependency if he wishes to continue as a viable species on this planet.

Man generally seems to think that off planet is his best opportunity, but he might prefer to investigate the possibility of introducing a new whale form. To do this at this stage of his development would involve investigating all current forms of whale life cycles to discover what they give and what they get. Apparently, they are now responsible for maintaining the health of the ocean by removing excess plankton amongst other creatures. The plankton appear to be atmospheric managers. Therefore, at the moment, were he to attempt to adopt the whale form, he would probably throw the whole mechanism out of balance. Nevertheless, the transition has been made before; perhaps it could be again.

Space exploration could hold the key. As previously pointed out, one of Gaia's dominant strategies is survival through multiplicity. A second is survival through redundancy. Both of these strategies would be served by transporting Gaia to a new home in the solar system or beyond.

From the existence on this planet of life fossils from Mars, one must conclude that Gaia has already considered this possibility and has taken steps to exploit it, though her methods must be characterized as being dominated by randomness.

It might be that an engineered system aimed at this goal could have some advantages over the current system and that man could extend his value to Gaia by pursuing that strategy.

This would have the advantage over transformation into another unconscious species, which would amount to a form of death, to survival for man as currently designed. It could provide a more permanent abode for consciousness.

To pursue this goal, man would have to become more objective about his strengths and weaknesses as compared to other species.

Man reached his current position by masculinizing, so feminizing in an extreme way would be incompatible with this option.

Clearly, both options are being investigated. Man is evaluating the importance of other species to his own survival and at the same time is investigating other solar system bodies for suitability as homes for life. How this will turn out isn't clear. It seems apparent that a dramatic reduction in the numbers of humans will have to occur, but that will happen anyway, when the oil runs out. With a suitable adjustment of priorities, space exploration could conceivably continue after that. Gaia will certainly make the choices since they would appear to be beyond man's competence.

Spectra are well known phenomena, but are not recognized to be as widespread as they are. This theory attempts to expand the definition to the reality. Artificially constrained theories aren't uncommon. The Newtonian law regarding the conservation of energy, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", is artificially constrained, since it applies equally to psychology and physics.

All objects in the cosmos come in as many variations as can be imagined. These iterations, taken together, are called a spectrum. Spectra can have no ends, one end, or two ends. A no-ended or a one-ended spectrum is infinite. A two-ended spectrum is finite. Characteristic of two ended spectra is that the object spectrafied changes into its opposite as one traverses the spectrum. All spectra contain an infinite number of iterations, whether or not they possess ends. Nouns and verbs identify or name spectra while adjectives and adverbs identify iterations.

To take some examples; speed is a two ended spectrum ending at full stop and the speed of light. "Very fast" identifies a group of iterations of interest. Scale is, perhaps, a no ended spectrum from the infinitely small to the infinitely large. As can be seen in this example, the ends are opposites. Color is a two-ended spectrum between the infrared and the ultra-violet. Temperature is a one-ended spectrum beginning at zero Kelvin.

All objects, whether material or spiritual, conform to this theory. Most objects are defined by the intersection of many spectra. Leaves, for example, can be defined by their positions on several spectra, size, shape, color, etc. In the same way, human personalities can be defined by their position on several spectra: gaiety, spirituality, intellectuality, naturality, sexuality, etc.

The utility of this insight is manifold. The greatest importance lies in the potential to know when one can see all of the choices available by identifying the opposites on the spectrum of interest. This ability means that one can avoid extremist views, which always have negatives associated with them when adhered to overlong. For instance, one can identify the religious extremes, atheism and denial of materiality and aim for the healthy center. Another is the awareness spectrum, from the unaware machine universe, to the fully aware funhouse universe. Or again, from unalterable conservatism to the infinitely malleable liberalism. From the extremely masculine Nazis to the extremely feminine headhunters.

Sexual spectra are of particular interest and importance to humans, so several graphs are provided to describe this phenomenon.

Spectra are sometimes represented as circular to advantage and even coils, occasionally. No geometric shape will capture them fully, but this is characteristic of features of the cosmos.

The most important spectra governing human lives. These attributes are in general, ordered by importance.

Those spectra acting on all lives equally.

The degree to which one is a material or spiritual being.

God, being aware, must be inactive to maintain purity, since awareness means perception of all options and an improper action may be taken through lack of attention. On the other hand, nature, being unaware will not perceive improper actions and thus maintain its purity. Purity is required since an impure world wouldn't survive. It would constantly break down as a misdesigned automobile would constantly break down.

Since it can be seen that nature is mostly unaware and that God is its opposite, one can take it that God is mostly aware.

God is the creator, by definition and yet inactive. Thus, one must presume that He sets everything in motion and then lets it play itself out, without intervention.

Order is essential to creation and unnecessary to nature.

Nature is obviously active, so it can be concluded that God, being its opposite is inactive.

Materiality as it relates to sensual perception. If a person is essentially, what his visual image suggests, one can say that he is a particularly material being. If his image is very far from conveying all he is, for example, Einstein or Picasso, one could conclude that he is not a particularly material being.

Immateriality must be perceived sensually from its effects, since it is incapable of direct perception. For instance, if a house appears where none was before, its design must be an immaterial predecessor of it.

Things vary from perceptible because they reflect light or, in the case of space, because of the emptiness. Beyond that, things may exist that are sensually imperceptible. In fact, for symmetric reasons one may expect that just as much exists in this realm as in the physical realm.

Sexuality is more accurately portrayed as a spectrum with extreme femininity and masculinity separated by an infinite number of gradations made up of various mixtures of masculine and feminine attributes. This representation has the advantage of making room for homosexuals.

The second most important set of spectra will be those associated with physical attributes, since they share with the universal the attribute that humans have no control over them.

This is the most crucial attribute, governing who can dominate whom and all of the strategies for dealing with domination.

The second most important attribute, governing acceptance by peers and all of the strategies dealing with both acceptance and rejection on this basis.

The third most significant attribute, governing importance to peers.

Ability to generalize.

Objectivity.

Rationality.

Controlling ability to participate in sports and dance, for instance.

Controlling ability to participate in activities, an important aspect of which is the manipulation of objects.

The least important of the most important because they are to some extent controllable by the individual. By emphasis or de-emphasis of the attribute, one can improve or minimize it. They are ordered from the least amenable to human intervention to the most.

Thinking as an opposing force to feeling is a contribution by Carl Jung. This is a reasonable view since emphasis of one tends to decay the other.

Sensitivity should be interpreted as referring to sensation. Carl Jung is responsible for opposing it to intuition.

Introversion and extroversion are terms introduced by Carl Jung to label people with a marked disinclination to socialize with their peers and the reverse. This attribute will make one unfit for certain professions.

An animated person is one that seeks to communicate and emphasizes variation in his communications.

Analysis can only occur where objects are viewed objectively and are capable of organization. This will require one to ignore his relationships and to abstract himself from the circumstances being analyzed.

Political orientation can affect one's acceptance, particularly if one's views tend to the extreme.

Since leaders are valued and their compensation reflects this value to society, it is an important attribute.

A creative person is one that can think unique thoughts and identify possible solutions to problems.

By holiness, it is meant those sorts of people that seem to have no needs of their own and instead devote their efforts to satisfying the needs of others.

Morality is understood to mean sensitivity to the correctness of actions. Actions are defined as correct if, in the long term they succeed in reaching their objectives and do not lead to failures of one sort or another.

By mendacity, it is meant the tendency to lie to manipulate reality into that which is desired. The mendacious come in various versions from the naive to the sophisticated.

Crucial in these times, since this is a time of change in this area. Western institutions can be called masculinist and changing to feminist.

A complex is most simply defined as the conscious personality. By that it is meant, that which you identify as "me". When a child is born, it has no conscious personality. It none the less exists and is completely capable of life. Therefore, the conscious personality is an unnecessary acquisition of the mind. This personality is very highly developed in man and exists only in a much more limited way in animals. Plants, presumably, have none at all.

It is necessary to be very clear about the states in which human minds reside from time to time. There is the comatose state, when it appears to be non functional; the sleeping state, when the subject is unconscious but the mind is active and produces dreams; the wakened state, when the mind is not producing memories and therefore must be considered to be unconscious; and the memory producing state which is called consciousness.

In the conscious state, the mind is in the process of creating the conscious complex or personality. Every object or event encountered while one is in the conscious state is added to the conscious complex and associated with like objects. When one consciously considers something, it is energized and it becomes a member of all things that have been treated in this way. It will remain in this state always, part of the conscious complex, though the energy slowly drains away and conscious contact with it is lost. It can be relocated though because it has been associated with like contents so that when they are encountered the link is seen. For example, when Uncle Fred is seen it is recalled that he has a grandchild, Susan, whom had been forgotten.

To picture the conscious complex, consider the galaxy. Imagine that all of the galaxies are representations of the minds of humans. For any individual, his awareness encompasses only the galaxy that is him. It is a loose collection of stars or energized entities, in the general shape of a disk. It rotates continuously, which can be analogized with the constant change of orientation that the conscious complex undergoes as life progresses.

The conscious complex was named by Sigmund Freud, ego.

The conscious complex is created by the human mind because it has a source of energy of sufficient strength to energize events to a high enough level to acquire this feature. The conscious complex is begun at a very early age, perhaps two or three. Presumably as soon as one's brain becomes strong enough to generate the energy levels required. This action is performed indiscriminately by the child and the conscious entities at first are just scattered lights here and there. However, as time goes on association begins to occur as the child begins to notice similarities and at puberty for most, the whole entity integrates into a more or less continuous object. Light is a good symbol for consciousness. When an object rises to the level of consciousness, it can be "seen". Jesus said, "I am the light of the world", by which He meant that to become conscious of Him would provide understanding of life.

At puberty, the personality reaches a new state of being. Early on, the child recognizes his memories as unique and his own and associates them with his personal features like his clothes. At puberty, the complex has become large enough to exhibit a more or less continuous will; it rises above the state of indiscriminate adding to itself and instead begins to decide what it wishes to add and therefore can be thought of as participating in the creation of itself. It acquires the feeling of ownership and proprietorship. It does not like to be reviled and it does like to be admired.

An unexpected feature appears. A complex achieves, from whence is not known, a self-identity, it becomes self aware and wishes to continue to be. This is a recreation of the moment when Gaia achieved this state and also Adam and Eve. In short, it is alive, just as the person is alive. It lives concurrently with, and independently of, its host. It can develop animosity towards the conscious complex and persecute it. It can produce "voices" which can communicate destructive ideas to the ego. That is to say that if one develops several complexes, each of them will achieve a unique self identify. Moreover, each of them is capable of controlling the body. In the above analogy, the galaxy is the conscious complex or ego. Sub complexes should be visualized as islands of stars disconnected from the galaxy but traveling through space in the same direction with equal velocity.

This is a most dangerous moment in the life of the mind. It wishes to be the proprietor of its own establishment but lacks the judgment of experience to apply to its choices. With suitable guidance from more experienced individuals this danger can be easily managed, but without such guidance, all of the usual mistakes, such as those described in Pinocchio will be encountered and may result in the death of the individual. The will to independence varies quite a lot from individual to individual, in some cases for genetic reasons, in others from negative experiences of youth that have produced distrust of elders. Self will is dangerous because it can lead the individual to destructive practices, but it is also essential to creativity, which by definition must occur in uncharted territory.

The question of sub complexes is really the subject at issue here. The preceding discussion is provided to make the reader aware of the nature of a complex. Because of the creative impulse, which has been elsewhere defined as an essential feature of existence, there is an opportunity in the development of consciousness to manage its growth and thereby create a unique being. This idea becomes a desire in humans early on, to participate in, if not wholly control the development of the ego, and the first idea about how to accomplish it is rejection of some contents.

This occurs when the parent or other person on whom the child is dependent expresses displeasure at the arrival of some trait. When that happens, the child is motivated to ignore that aspect of his being which allows it to fall back into unconsciousness. It isn't the same as it would have been if it never had been conscious though. It has been energized, precisely because the parent has made an issue of it, and by rejection, the human fails to connect it by association with similar objects and even forgets about its encounter at all. The object thereby becomes free floating. In the above-mentioned analogy of the galaxy, it is a star that is separated from the main body of the galaxy and exists independently.

Consider the worldview of individuals. In the final analysis, the object of life is survival. It is impossible for humans to comprehend that which contains them so that one must assume that life is valuable and that he should struggle for survival. It is a virtual fact. In order to accomplish this act, it will be necessary to develop a positive attitude towards the earth and life. Should failure in this task arise, largely the responsibility of the parents, suicide of one form or another, must be the expected result.

This attitude towards life proceeds from the opinions acquired by the individual from his parents and associates as he proceeds through life. Some opinions are arbitrary manifestations of creativity. The actual objects on which opinions are based are neither positive nor negative, in themselves. One's opinion emanates from his conclusions about whether the object in question enhances prospects for survival or degrades them. This opinion will change as time goes by because it depends on what else has been included in the personality. For example, when one adopts Christianity as life enhancing, from that moment on, he evaluates all encounters in life in terms of how well the encounter conforms to the world view of Christianity and develops opinions about it on that basis.

Creativity in the development of the human personality is a dangerous act. Should one develop a negative attitude towards life, death and failure to survive awaits. All forms of creativity performed by humans are part of the grand scheme of development of the human personality.

Humans will have all gradations of attitudes towards new encounters in life, from absolute rejection as dangerous to the continuation of life and without any redeeming features to unqualified acceptance of the acquisition as a great achievement because of its perceived attributes in terms of strengthening the individual's chances for survival.

The problem is with negative evaluations. When an object is viewed as negative, it becomes unwanted. Therefore, a question arises regarding how to get rid of it. This is a typical garbage problem; not much different from the problem of dealing with physical garbage generated in human homes. No matter what is done with it, it still exists in some sense and continues to influence life. As garbage dumps build up, they exert an increasingly undesirable influence on life until they have to be dealt with in some more environmentally sound way. Thus, it is in the development of the personality too.

A few examples here will help. The first literary example of the problem of complexes is  Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson. In this story, a humane and positive member of the community, Dr. Jekyll, encounters a drug the effect of which is to turn him into an uncivilized monster. This other personality is called Mr. Hyde. It exerts an attraction for Dr. Jekyll that causes him periodically to consume the drug that gives control of his body over to this alternate personality.

In this case, it can be concluded that the author is adding drama by imagining an elixir that produces this change. That elixir is no more mysterious than alcohol which will frequently release an alternate personality because of the apparently reduced significance of the reasons for repression when under the influence of this drug.

In Dr. Jekyll’s case, he has been guilty of repressing large amounts of his experiences as inappropriate to his image of an ideal self. So much, in fact that it has coalesced into an alternate personality which takes over control of his body when he weakens his normal personality with some such drug as alcohol.

The second notable example was made into a movie about 40 years ago named The Three Faces of Eve. This is the story of a woman with three distinct personalities or egos. From this, it is learned that repression isn't always a simple matter of creating a psychic garbage dump that eventually gets so big and strong that it can take over the personality, one can apparently create as many disassociated dumps as one wishes.

Finally, Jeffery Daumer is a good recent example of a Jekyll/Hyde complex.

In Eve's case, one can be sure that one or both parents were very critical of her as she grew up. Probably these criticisms were first of all regarding her sexuality and secondarily of her aggression. The first time she expressed something sexual to the parent she was punished in some extreme way, perhaps by a threat to deprive her of her relationship to her parent, thereby provoking in Eve the fear of isolation and death. The result would be that she would deny to herself that she had any sexual feelings at all and as these sexual feelings increased in number, they would take with them into unconsciousness all associations too.

The same thing happens with feelings of aggression, but these experiences are much different from sexual urges and so occupy a completely different location. Over the years, these complexes steadily build in strength at the cost of the main complex, until they can contend for control of the body. When they gain control, they express themselves according to the contents that make them up, so that the sexual Eve dresses suggestively and spends all of her time flirting and the aggressive Eve dresses mannishly and spends her time trying to control every circumstance.

The complex is created when one casts out some feature of life that is encountered and deemed to be inappropriate to the ideal personality hoped for. Casting out is a figure of speech, what is actually done is to fail to think about the new acquisition until its links to the main complex, never very strong, disappear from lack of use. This is like the fading of a memory.

As time goes by, more and more features of life are cast out, and perhaps even those things that are associated with the undesirable features even though they aren't in themselves undesirable because they remind the victim of what he wishes to forget.

This complex is just what it is. If sexual desire is rejected, a most common rejection, when this complex gains control it is only sexual and the victim will be perceived to be single-mindedly concerned about sex when under its control.

As more contents are thrown after the first, the complex is strengthened and the amount of time that it is likely to have control increases until eventually, it could become so large and powerful that it could gain permanent control of the personality. In the case of sexual repression, it would look to an observer like, all of a sudden, a person that had seemed to lack any sexual nature at all, transformed into a person that has no other interest but sex. This would be the likely genesis of the nymphomaniac. This is much more likely in a woman since overt female sexuality has been until recently, regarded negatively by society.

How does life feel to the complex? The same as it does to anyone, except that the complex finds itself strangely without power to make its choices felt because it is so lacking in ordinary experience. This state is experienced whenever the complex has taken over control, when the victim seems to inhabit the complex instead of his normal personality.

Now the time arrives to make an argument to do something about complexes. This is not an issue for the person whose complex has assumed a problematic state. He will be highly motivated to do something about it, since he cannot avoid its manifestations and they cause him some pain and suffering.

However, for the main run of humanity, the complex is largely invisible and only periodically problematic. It is therefore, referred to by associates as idiosyncratic, thereby relieving one of the necessity of doing anything. That is because of the perceived inability, historically, for many to understand or deal with complexes, formerly called haunts and evil spirits.

There is a hierarchy of meanings and purposes to life. In the beginning, individual survival is the nature of being but for many, that is accomplished early and some other purpose must then replace that which has been eliminated by success. For most, this will mean identifying larger and larger entities with need for help. So that, after assuring personal survival one is concerned with family survival and after that community survival and then national survival, and so on.

Another preoccupation of those that have climbed that ladder is personal perfection. By this, it is meant that a human can, given sufficient resources, aspire to the fulfillment or personification of self. That is, to fulfill completely the potentiality implied by one's genetic material in the initial moment of conception. This usually involves abstracting oneself from one's culture, individualizing, so that all of the contents of the personality are one's own acquisitions rather than gifts from the culture within which he exists. This allows one to pass judgment on generally held values, like the belief that saving lives is heroic, for instance. This has the negative effect that it may be discovered that many of society's values are based on less than solid foundations while others have actually become negative, relative to the prospects for cultural survival.

This can be seen as rising to the level of concern with the survival of the species. This is the level occupied by Moses, Jesus, and Buddha, for example. Not that many who arrive at this level of existence will make such profound contributions.

Humans arrive in life with a fully functional body, including many genetic tendencies; a unique set of them in fact, so that each life represents a unique and potentially important carrier for the future of the species. The manifestation of this potentiality is a lifelong effort, not undertaken by many. The really great men, such as the three mentioned above reach this state when still relatively young. Jesus, apparently, at the age of about 30. Most will not achieve it until very late in life if at all.

For this to happen the carrier will have to have been blessed with a high degree of native intelligence, a relatively benign childhood, which implies unusually effective parents, a tendency to spiritual development, an inclination towards philosophy, and a motivating event in life that activates all of these potentialities.

For example, look at Jesus. All of these features manifested themselves in his being, in addition to the knowledge of his virgin birth as an activating event. The disbelief of his contemporaries would provide all of the needed motivation to activate His special gifts.

The self is the name associated with the fully developed person. It occurs in individual dreams as a potentiality and therefore a symbol. The most common symbol for this entity is the mandala. This object is a round disk, usually glowing or intricate in design. The halo is a manifestation of the mandala and that is the reason for its inclusion above the heads of paintings of religious figures. The self can occur in dreams as a human, Jesus for example, or an unknown person of great wisdom.

Having made a case for integration of complexes, it will now be necessary to describe a method for doing it. This is not easy since this is a completely invisible entity whose existence, like that of subatomic particles, can only be inferred from its effects.

That is the first step; observation of perceptions and acts of the individual that can't be explained in terms of the conscious personality. If one is normally passive and something activates an unexpected aggression. If one finds that some events lead to unusual sexual desire. If one finds that preoccupation with something like feces interrupts normal activities, then one can conclude that a complex is making itself felt.

Once a complex is identified, the next step is to characterize it completely. This will mean investigating the kinds of events that activate it, the kinds of thoughts and feelings that overcome one when it is activated.

Finally, how can one re integrate these features of the personality into the main conscious complex? The answer is to do it in the same way that any new content is integrated. Identify associations with other contents.

This is not as easy as it sounds. Many problems will arise during the process. It can take many years to realize the existence of a complex; then discovering all components of it may not be easy either. If the activities that activate the complex are forbidden, for one reason or another, then integration will be very hard indeed. This last is very likely, since why else would the content have been repressed in the first place. It may be necessary that another individual help to activate the complex. This will be hard to convince one's partner to do, especially if the complex is made of antisocial material that is viewed negatively by the prospective partner.

It is key to realize that it is never necessary to commit any physical act to activate a complex. It may be convenient, but since the complex itself is spiritual in nature, some spiritual process will always provide the material in need. Movies are a marvelous resource in this connection. The body of motion pictures has now achieved such a state that it can taken as, in a sense comprehensive. Books are another valuable resource. Case studies of other people with the same type of complex can be invaluable.

It is necessary to keep in mind the nature of consciousness since the goal is to make something already in existence and connected in some sense to one's conscious complex, conscious. Thoughts seldom rise to the level of consciousness. Speaking and writing, due to the need to concentrate are essential to fulfilling the effort to assure consciousness.

The test of success is that the unwanted manifestations of the complex pale in intensity and then slowly fade from experience altogether.

One cannot dismiss the coincidence of the rise of psychology and feminism. Masculinism has been dominant in this culture for 2000 years. Over reliance on one feature of existence for too long a time will produce personality distortion and therefore the need to emphasize feminism now. Psychology has concerned itself with identification of problems emanating from over reliance on masculinism.

Since Masculinism is primarily interested in creativity, that is where the problems will come from.

Creativity, when focused on the personality will wish to shape the development of it to achieve some wished for goal. For example, to raise a child in the Christian environment due to the perception that a Christian society is preferable to some other kind.

This will lead the caregiver to punish unchristian attitudes and to encourage Christian ones. This can produce a pagan complex.

Obviously, the best answer to this problem is not to create the complex in the first place. This is not hard, even in a creative culture; it is only necessary to recognize that the proper answer to unwanted contents of the personality is recognition and the decision not to elaborate them. Rejection is the source of the problem. Unfortunately, this realization is the fruit of age and experience and therefore won't exist at the youthful age of procreation.

The only other answer is to forswear creative child rearing.

Feminism does not value creativity and therefore will not wish to train children in ways that can create complexes, as was pointed out earlier.

Overpopulation makes this a more difficult problem. If there is plenty of room, one can move away from strange personalities, but in a crowded world, this is less and less possible and this is the final reason for the rise of feminism. It should be clear that complexes can be very destructive indeed, and when creativity arrives at the point of high technology, the potential for destruction begins to increase geometrically.

One of the unfortunate features of complexes is that of projection. This problem is recognized in the Gospels in the demand that one remove the beam from his eyes before criticizing the mote in his neighbor's. This occurs because, having repressed disagreeable features in one's own personality they become invisible to the owner while becoming more visible in others and at the same time only too obvious in oneself when observed by others.

An example of a common projection is the annoyance one feels when observing the effects of vandals. The tendency to vandalism has been repressed until it seems not to be there. It is and is readily noticed in others, but the annoyance felt comes from within. A complex announcing it is only awaiting an opportunity to get control and manifest itself.

All opinions have the potential to create complexes, depending on their intensity.

This complex arises when, generally at puberty, one discovers that he is the creator of his own personality and doesn't like criticism of his efforts. Since authority figures are most notable for their criticism, they inspire rejection.

Information and examples can be found amongst divorce proceedings, Christian conversion, movies, and novels.

Common symptoms are rejection of authority figures such as God, Christ, The King or President, the father or husband.

The solution in this case is recognition of the need for an authority in one's life.

Closely related to the Authority complex, but induced externally as with other complexes. Produced by parental belittlement, and/or peer belittlement, peers using superficial differences as a motive for exclusion. Exclusion is the source of the creative energy behind the complex formation. It is safe to say that the peers suffer from a superiority complex, which is a compensation for their own inferiority complex. It produces sensitivity to criticism and a superiority reaction. This is a very common complex. Examples abound in the media.

This generally occurs when the mother communicates to the infant that failure to use the toilet will result in rejection, especially if the infant is too young to grasp the concept of toilets.

Information and examples can generally be found only in patient histories due to the general distaste for the subject.

Patients are commonly afflicted with the conviction that they are turning to feces, especially when they anticipate or experience rejection.

This generally results from disapproval of sexual expression by parents. Information and examples can be found among patient histories, movies, and novels.

Common symptoms are inability to perform sexually and perception of sexual expression as negative.

Sexuality complexes are common and proceed from many causes. One of the most common, especially in women is a masturbation complex. This is produced when the mother typically, reacts harshly to the discovery of the child indulging in this practice. In the past, it wasn't uncommon for the child's hands to be tied to stop it.

This normally occurs in males and usually results from rejection by the mother. Some mothers, due to their own insecurity, will take pains to create insecurity in their sons that only they can assuage, so that they can be assured of continued support by him throughout their lives. This can be done by leaving the child isolated in his room until one is sure of rising panic in the child and then being sure that she is the only one to bring relief.

Information and examples can be found among Greek mythology, movies, and novels. One current movie depicting this complex is Jezebel's Kiss, from Columbia.

Common symptoms are pursuit of mother figures for spouses and inability to perform sexually due to the proscription against incest.

This normally occurs in females and results from rejection by the father. The rejection may arise from the father's own sexual insecurity.

Information and examples can be found among movies and novels.

Common symptoms are pursuit of father figures for a spouse.

Excellent examples of this are contained in the movies, A Woman Possessed from Academy, and the more current Never Talk to Strangers with Rebecca DeMornay.

This usually results from disapproval of the sex of the child by the parent.

Information and examples can be found among movies and novels.

Common symptoms are identification with the opposite sex via enhancement of opposite sex features such as female aggression, which results in inability to establish a permanent romantic relationship due to the inability of the male to perform sexually. Male passivity, opposite sex clothing and hair, and culturally induced homosexuality are also common.

From this description, it should be clear that this is one of the causes of the feminist movement. Society values males more highly than females, leading to jealousy and desire in women to be men. When a sufficient percentage of females adopt this attitude, feminism oriented towards the acquisition of equal rights between the sexes is to be expected in a masculinist culture. Since this is less noticeable in feminist cultures one can conclude that feminism relies on masculinist aggression.

The carrier of the complex will tend to identify the complex as a feature of his being and therefore, due to self-love, as valuable. This will lead one to want to keep it, however problematic its manifestations. It is frequently rationalized as a problem for society in that they don't approve. An example of this would be the male that displaces his sexuality onto the more acceptable gun. He will be emotionally dependent on the gun as an expression of masculine identity and will then reject any attempt by authority to restrict ownership of guns in any way. This is only one reason for the American preoccupation with guns and probably not one of the more important ones.

From this discussion it should be clear that complexes are a ubiquitous phenomena usually unrecognized, consciously at least, among the general public. The problems emanating from complexes are generally dealt with via the criminal justice system, which is perfectly inappropriate and more or less useless except for limiting the possibilities for expression by the sufferer.

Subjectively, one is inclined to say that the incidence of complexes is on the rise, as are opinionated human beings. This would seem to arise from the democratic impulse, which suggests to all humans that their opinion is as valid as the next person's. As with everything in life, opinions aren't free either.

Complexes, as with all things, have a history that, given the preceding description can be discerned.

Keeping in mind that creativity, when applied to the human personality, is the cause of complexes, and noting the rise of creativity among western humans during Aristotelian times, and then comparing that to what was happening amongst the Jews, one can conclude that complex formation, especially the authority or inferiority complex, had become a problem, and Judaism was the answer.

Judaism can be subdivided into two parts. One of these parts is the description of man's relation to God. The outline of this relationship is that of a superior being, incapable of wrong since He is the owner of creation, to a small though important feature of creation, man, prone to evil, particularly in rebellion against God. If this aspect of Judaism is removed and the remainder of the Mosaic Law is scrutinized it will be seen that the other main issue, to which Judaism is directed is the personal health of individual Jews.

One can take it from this that a primary motive in establishment of the ideology was the need to deal with feelings of inferiority that emanate from authority complexes. This should be no surprise considering the nature of the Jews and their situation, in bondage to Egyptians.

The next event of significance in the history of complexes is the arrival of Jesus.

One of the most notable differences between Judaism and Christianity was the position and attitude towards sin within it. Sin becomes ubiquitous, inescapable by any mere mortal, and must be dealt with by confession.

In dealing with complexes, as was previously pointed out, the primary problem is recognition. Once recognized, complexes lose much of their power over humans. The utility of confession becomes immediately apparent. One could reasonably conclude that complexes had, in the time between Moses and Jesus become more of a problem, both in power and kind. Presumably, recognition has developed that, not only is there a problem with authority, but also with sex. Thus the prominence of Mary Magdalene. One can also surmise that the Mosaic Law, with all of its intricate rules about the role of sex within the Jewish community was the creative force behind sexual complexes.

Therefore, the rise of the creative principle, in mankind, represented in these times by the Roman Empire, brings with it more complexes and more need for psychological methods for dealing with them.

The next moment in history of interest in tracing complexes is the apex of human creativity in the West; the time of Tolstoy, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky; the end of the Renaissance, because this leads directly to the rise of clinical psychology. Freud arrives, followed by Jung and many others in the twentieth century. At about the same time the first recorded anti-human complex appears in Jack the Ripper. After that, much studying of complexes occurs and humans possessed by violent complexes become more common, especially in America. One thinks of Richard Speck, the Texas Tower massacre, Theodore Bundy, and Jeffrey Daumer. With many less dramatic instances occurring in between these landmark cases. Not only are they more frequent, they are more intense. The Daumer case involves homosexuality and cannibalism, while Jack the Ripper was only a killer of harlots.

Therefore, one can conclude that, while the characterization is no doubt important to man's understanding, it is of no great utility in the resolving of complexes amongst the masses of humanity.

Instead, look to the East, where no signs of complexes are seen. Also note that the East is decidedly uncreative and feminist. Therefore, once again, the answer for us, would appear to be feminism.

Finally, it seems only rational to conclude that pornography has a far more noble purpose than to degrade humanity, rather it is intended to ameliorate the problems of sexual complexes by making the reality of human sexuality inescapable. In contemplating history from this perspective, one concludes that creativity, especially in the hands of the species being operated upon, is a problematic business, leading to great errors. This should be no surprise however, considering the likelihood of improvement of the species by the random approach envisioned by Darwin. Almost all changes have to be expected to produce degradation and death, so perhaps creativity being exercised by the species isn't such a bad innovation after all. It isn't clear that anything of significance has been accomplished relative to the extension of the viability of the species, but perhaps some minor change has been overlooked that will, in the fullness of time turn out to be crucial.

The Unibomber is a particularly instructive case study in superiority/inferiority complex formation. The basic facts are:

• He is from Chicago.

• His parents allowed him to attend Harvard in the early sixties beginning at the age of 16. He obtained a BA in Mathematics and left the impression of unsociability, which suggests that he was thrown in with more mature 18 year olds and was unable to relate to them.

• He attended the University of Michigan in the middle sixties very successfully, obtaining a Masters and Ph.D. in Mathematics.

• He taught at UC Berkeley in the late sixties, probably the premier new Ph.D. job in his field in this country. He stayed only two years and gave the impression of greater interest in social issues, suggesting that he was experimenting with marijuana, a very likely possibility given the year.

• He sent letter bombs to members of his profession and members of related fields for 18 years without being discovered.

• He was finally exposed by his brother, who will be eligible for a million-dollar reward if a conviction ensues.

• When discovered, he was living in a remote village in Montana in a one-room cabin with no electricity or plumbing. He owned a bicycle made from scavenged parts.

• He published a manifesto declaring that technology had proven an unmitigated disaster for humanity.

• He maintained a long term pen pal relationship with a working class Mexican, whom he never met, but to whom he sent a lovingly carved, elaborate container. He communicated with this man in Spanish. This suggests that he was very lonely and very bored.

From these items and a general understanding of this complex, some conclusions can be reached.

The UB suffers from excessive intelligence, which produces alienation in many cases due to rejection after demonstrations of superior intellect to peers in childhood, and inadequacy in sports and social graces. This situation is implied by the reports that no socializing was remembered by his peers at Harvard.

One can surmise that he spent all his time emphasizing his superiorities and repressing his inadequacies. The inadequacies will have built up into a complex, generating feelings of inadequacy and desire for revenge. The desire for revenge will be directed at those who rejected him at his arrival at Harvard, forcing long months of isolation on him and introspection regarding the source of his suffering. This explains the recipients of his explosive messages.

The experiences of the sixties will also have exposed him to rebellion, the perception that everyone was sexually involved except him, and discussions of an anti-technological nature.

The complex and its desire for revenge will be the motivating force behind the letter bombs, not the environmental awareness. How can it be imagined that letter bombs will have a pro survival effect at the individual, societal, or species level? It cannot. It does have the effect of producing fame and fear and it is useful for rationalizing. One can say to oneself, "Society is in danger and these acts will wake them up." Of course, no awakening is necessary, considering the excess of media commentary environmentalism gets.

As with other complexes, one can expect that parental involvement is to be suspected, but no evidence has so far been exposed except for his enrollment at Harvard at 16. Certainly, his parents had something to do with that. Having obtained the education he did and living in a cabin in Montana with no visible means of support suggests a pampered childhood in an upper middle class home. It is very common in such circumstances for the parents to do everything they can to encourage intellectual over achievement, thinking this a route to fame which will reflect on them all. This is a particularly naive and destructive form of parenting and will produce a shock when the child is exposed to peers that are unimpressed with his endowments. This commonly occurs on the female side when a mother pushes an attractive child into beauty comparisons with her peers. The result is usually isolation due to the implicit negative comparison experienced by peers and the desire to evade the experience. In males, it is even worse, due to the more rare occurrence of great intelligence compared to beauty. The reverse also occurs, that is excessive intelligence in the female and excessive physical beauty in the male, but more rarely. It has the same effect.

Obviously, it is not necessary that unusually endowed children grow up with psychological problems, but it is likely in the absence of particularly sensitive parents. The best strategy for parents to adopt in these circumstances is to emphasize the child's weaknesses and to minimize the significance of the strengths.

One final indication of a UB complex, perhaps the most important is his childishness. This is indicated by several comments about his treatment of his family; for example requiring them to mark their important letters under the stamp and his own complaints about a lack of autonomy in his personality. This suggests that he has a child complex that takes over from time to time especially in relating to his family. This could occur in circumstances where, when still a child, one is encouraged to act like an adult. This would lead, if the encouragement was strong enough, to acting out the adult role, and if this were done habitually, the effect would be to repress the childish features of the personality instead of allowing them to mature out of existence in the usual way. This is a dangerous kind of complex, since children are frequently cruel due to lack of understanding of the implications of their actions. In fact, sending letter bombs is an adult variation on the childish impulse to harm one's playmate tormenters.

This is another interesting complex case study. The basic facts are:

• A Scottish man enters a local school with two handguns and kills and wounds the teacher and several children before taking his own life.
• His history includes functioning as a scoutmaster to young boys and criticism for sexual improprieties.
• His father departed the family when the boy was 18 months old.
• The subject reportedly exhibits a fascination with guns.

From these facts, it can be surmised that the man suffered from a sexual/dominance complex. This arises when the parent, usually the mother, punishes any manifestation of a sexual nature, such as masturbating, and any occurrence of aggression, like fighting with other boys. Over time, an alternate personality accumulates of a sexual/dominance nature. This attracts the sufferer to the scout leader experience, where opportunity to satisfy this complex exists. Some attempts are made, resulting in the reported criticism and the elimination of this outlet. The needs of the complex, being unmet, build up over time, leading to the explosion in the school house, which is the experience par excellence in satisfaction of the needs of the complex, and so compelling that the sufferer is willing to sacrifice his life to get it. It is perfect because guns are used to impose one's will on relatively defenseless boys. Guns, as is known from Freud, are a substitution for the phallus and a perfect one they are too. They are profoundly stiff and ejaculate on demand and the result is destruction.

The correspondence between complexes and ordinary garbage dumps cannot be overemphasized. In these times when garbage dumps have become a ubiquitous problem in most communities of any size in this country, the similarities between them and the psychological complex should be apparent. In both cases, humans are trying to be rid of unwanted objects that don't enhance the domicile being created. In both cases, the dump builds up until it presents a destructive force on its own. In both cases, memory of the creation of the dump can be lost and the only method of identification becomes analysis of its effects. Beyond that, this is a world of symbols, similarities, parables, similes, allegories, analogies, etc. It should be no surprise that a physical analog for the complex exists; in fact, it should provide confirmation of the analysis of this psychological phenomenon.

A wealthy and eccentric loner massacres 35 and wounds 19 more in Tasmania.

The second trial of O.J. Simpson is making clear what actually transpired at Nicole's house on the fateful night. Perhaps it will be adjudged culturally valuable for that reason.

O.J. was compulsively attracted to Nicole. This will probably be due to a need in him for approval from the white community, which must be seen as a lifelong psychological requirement induced, probably in high school or earlier. This need was fulfilled for most of his life through football and once gained, provided a need for constant reinforcement due to the feeling by him that it was only provisional.

Nicole is harder to analyze because of the requirement emanating from victimology that she and Goldman be protected from attack. Victimology is the ideological position that it is unfair for women to be blamed for conflicts with men when they end up as the targets of male violence. This may have some rationale in the sense of a community governed by law and in which the law must ultimately be the source of judgment. Laws are too shallow to expect them to encompass the actual facts of a complex event such as this. Murder, being defined as the taking of another's life, especially against their will and certainly for personal gain, does not fully encompass the events under consideration here. If O.J. killed Nicole and Ron Goldman, the position to be taken here, it cannot be considered to be murder for personal gain. Too much will be lost by O.J. for that to be significant. He loses the endorsement of the white community and possibly his family, particularly his children. He probably loses his economic viability. He could have lost his freedom and/or life. He retains only his manhood.

There is an ideological component of great significance. This was a crime induced by feminist ideology. There is a racial component also. Racial stereotypes are called into play that will inevitably obscure the facts in the eyes of many. Fuhrman probably altered the evidence in an arrogant attempt to impose his version of reality on the courts.

Nicole had a need to dominate men. This need, in violation of normal femininity which is inherently passive, must have been a part of her early childhood but was magnified and refined by the feminist movement, in a state of constant debate during all of her adult life. One doesn't have to resort to complexes to explain what transpired but, as in all human lives, they were operating. Nicole certainly had a powerful father complex, which supplied the emotional source of energy fueling her actions in pursuit of dominance over males. O.J. certainly had a shadow complex emanating from the racial conflict that he represented. He was paid a great deal to emulate the liberal notion of the acceptable American black man. This is a sort of prostitution and he had to feel himself something of a sellout to his race.

Over a period of years, Nicole and O.J. entered into a dominance conflict. O.J. required passive submission by the women in his life as a demonstration to him of his manhood. Nicole required the submission of the men in her life as a demonstration of her power, which she used to convince herself of her own worthiness. Both used sex to gratify themselves and to reinforce their fantasies regarding the attributes of their personas. Additionally, Nicole used sex in an attempt to subjugate O.J., which had the effect of denigrating his manhood. The survival of his persona demanded her failure in this effort. As is the usual case in such conflicts, escalation came into play. She, due to constant failure in her efforts used increasingly blatant dramas to demonstrate her contempt for him, ultimately going so far as to copulate with acquaintances when she knew him to be observing her. For his part, when these dramas were enacted, he found he had to impose his will on her through physical strength to retain his belief in his manhood.

A reconstruction of the crucial night would have gone something like this: O.J. having some time on his hands before he had to prepare for his trip decided to go to Nicole's to clear up some unfinished business. Perhaps he was checking to see if she was acting inappropriately once again, by conducting a sexual drama in the home of his children. She apparently wasn't and came out of the house to talk to him. The discussion developed into verbal abuse, at which time Mr. Goldman arrived, ostensibly to return Nicole's glasses, but probably to pursue his agenda, which was to gain sexual favors and participate in her agenda which he understood to be to demean O.J.

Goldman's arrival signaled to O.J. that he was about to be victimized once again and rage engulfed him. He pulled his knife and intimidated Goldman into passivity while Nicole enjoyed the play, and no doubt egged him on, not actually believing that he could be pushed beyond his commitment to middle class white values. To her great surprise he turned on her and killed or wounded her, which galvanized Goldman into action in a futile effort to restrain O.J. O.J. then killed or wounded him and, seeing things had gone so far, went on to finish them both off, cutting their throats in the hope that the killings would be assigned to drug criminals. He then returned to Rockingham, placing the bloody clothes into the plastic clothes hanger. He later disposed of them at the airport.

What is the fair verdict here? Justifiable homicide in self-defense. O.J. could not have survived the destruction of his manhood by Nicole. Goldman was an accessory to Nicole's effort to deprive O.J. It is also possible to conclude that this was a suicide in which Nicole used O.J. to accomplish her goal. In this case, one would have to conclude that Nicole knew she was going to lose her fight with O.J. and chose this method to gain final victory even though it cost her life, and that she used Goldman to achieve her goal.

The final convincing evidence is the Bruno Maldi shoeprints and the unlikely possibility of doctored photos. The blood evidence is all questionable due to the intervention of Fuhrman. The glove was likely a plant and probably the socks also.

What can one learn from this event? The use of the law by feminism to achieve final dominance for females over males is doomed to failure. Males are physically stronger which leads to basic rights and responsibilities that cannot be overcome by societal wishes. Feminism will eventually dominate, but feminism doesn't include female dominance over males.

The previous essay presents the position, regarding the O.J. question, of the rationalists believing in O.J.'s guilt. There are also a significant number of citizens who consider that O.J., being a wife beater, must necessarily be guilty on that basis. Another set of individuals believes in his guilt because of their impression that black lawlessness is endemic and that it is therefore reasonable to err on the side of order.

This essay presents the argument that concludes that he is innocent. It results from the book by Lawrence Schiller, American Tragedy.

Against O.J. are the following pieces of evidence: A glove, undoubtedly used in the murders and having the blood of the victims on it, was found at O.J.'s residence. Socks with the victim's blood on them were found in his bedroom. Blood from O.J. and the victims was found in the vehicle thought to have been used by O.J. O.J.'s blood was found at the murder site. O.J. cannot account for his movements during the hour in which the murders were thought to have occurred. Since O.J. can be demonstrated to have attacked Nicole violently in the past, this is taken as a demonstration that he had motive.

The arguments for O.J. are mainly psychological. He does not appear to act guilty and when questioned on the subject is very convincing in his denials. He is thought to be a loving and attentive father, which makes it hard to believe he would commit these crimes in the presence of his children. He is a middle class American of a non-confrontational sort and therefore is unlikely to have committed such a brutal crime when other methods were available. He had plenty of guns at his disposal and the one knife that would have been appropriate had never been used. The weapon and clothing used in the crime have never been found.

The witnesses, on both sides, are more or less doubtful regarding their observations.

Therefore, it comes down to whether or not the blood evidence can successfully be discounted.

The most damaging evidence is the glove. The only possibilities are that O.J. dropped it on his return from the crime scene, or it was planted in an effort to frame him. An appropriate person, with a motive to plant the glove is available. Mark Fuhrman can be demonstrated, based on unimpeachable witnesses, to be a strong racist with particularly negative views of American blacks. It is also demonstrable that he was very opposed to interracial marriages and there is some evidence that he may have had a romantic interest in Nicole. He is the person that found the glove and it was placed in such a way as to be unlikely as the path O.J. would have taken in a proposed return from the crime scene. He had to have driven in the prosecution's scenario, so that this proposal would require him to circle the residence and then to scale an overgrown property division boundary, which shows no sign of such climbing. Alternatively, he would have had to wander into his backyard, drop the glove and then return to the front door to enter the house. Beyond that, evidence enhancement is by no means unheard of in the LAPD.

The second most damaging evidence is the victim's blood in the vehicle, a Ford Bronco. There are blood samples on both doors and the console along with a heel print on the floor. The police say the vehicle was locked and they didn't enter it. However it has been demonstrated that two young policeman, given the assignment of securing the vehicle, reported that it was functional. To make that report they must have started it or at least looked under the hood, requiring entrance to release. It has also been demonstrated that one of these policemen entered the crime scene before dawn and played with the dog, noting that there was blood on the dog's paws. Thus, it can reasonably be conjectured that this policeman contaminated his hands, shoes, and clothing with blood from the crime scene and then in securing the vehicle transferred that blood to it. O.J. had a cut hand at the time and his blood could have preexisted in the vehicle as a result of that cut. This cut, he says undoubtedly resulted from playing golf, a common occurrence. He re-cuts his hand later in Chicago on hearing of his ex-wife's murder.

The third most incriminating evidence was O.J.'s blood at the scene. This amounts to several drops leading away from the crime scene towards a back gate and the later discovery of his blood on the gate. The blood drops leading away from the scene are remarkably low in DNA material. Much lower than would be expected, were they fresh. Perhaps one one-hundredth of the expected amount. This can likely be explained as old blood. The blood on the gate was not found until two to three weeks after the crime and in a photo taken at the time cannot be seen. This blood may have been planted in another effort to enhance the evidence.

Finally, consider the socks in O.J.'s bedroom, a particularly troubling piece of evidence. Pictures taken shortly after the crime and date/time stamped do not show the socks at all. The police inspected the socks three different times without noticing any blood. When the socks were shown to the jurors, the blood was obvious. Again, either O.J. dropped them after the crime or they were planted. No other explanation offers itself. If O.J. committed the crimes, he very carefully got rid of his clothes and the weapon yet the socks were lying in the middle of the floor literally screaming to be noticed. How could they have been planted? From their failure to appear in the video taken shortly after the crime, one supposes that someone took them from O.J.'s drawer and carried them to the crime scene, contaminated them and brought them back. However, if this happened how can one explain the blood not being noticed for a month? No, the likely scenario would call for someone at the crime lab planting the blood on clean socks that O.J. left on the floor because he had no idea of his home being searched by police, long after the event.

One other piece of evidence was shoe prints apparently matching in brand shoes O.J. had once worn. Even though these shoes were fairly rare, this evidence could be coincidental. There is good though not conclusive evidence of another shoe at the scene, suggesting at least two killers. This also makes sense and explains the fact that two people were killed without apparent screaming. If only one killer was involved, how would he have maintained control of one of the victims while he killed the other?

If not O.J., who? At least one of the witness accounts seems to be believable because it fits with other testimony. In this account, a witness reported he overheard a conversation between Goldman and a Latino man with a ponytail in which the Latino demanded money and Goldman responded that he thought he could get it from her. To which the Latino responded that he'd better or they would take her out too. Two other witnesses stated that they saw characters fleeing the crime scene at about the right time, one of which was overweight and had a ponytail.

The reason this crime fascinates along with the traditional reasons is that it is symptomatic of the times. Three elements place it in these times: recreational drug use was involved, sexual manipulation was involved, and marital violence was involved. All of these are part of the culture that has developed in the second half of the twentieth century in America. Assuming O.J.'s innocence, he is likely to pay a big price in cultural rejection on all three grounds.

Finally, there is no conclusive evidence available, either way. In spite of the millions of dollars expended in evidence collection, human weaknesses being what they are, no certain conclusion results. This is an indictment of science. Not that science is weak, humans are and science cannot exceed its inventors. Politics will always be brought to bear, and the evidence will be altered to favor one side, then the other, until no way remains to get at the truth.

The most important unpublicized fact about this case is the existence of another person with motive, means, and a lack of alibi.

Most psychological maladaptation, perhaps as much as 90%, is caused by parental desertion. Of the remainder, most of it will be attributable to birth defect or infection. This is an empirical observation and can be checked by observing the series Biography on A&E over an extended period of time. There are two categories of people to watch carefully, criminals and movie stars. In almost every case, criminals will be observed to have suffered parental desertion at a young age. In the case of movie stars, many will be discovered to have typically had a less virulent form of the same experience.

The types of parental desertion are manifold. It is not just a case of disappearing, it is in many cases psychological desertion, which I would define as interacting with the child in a non parental way. Parental normalcy can be thought of as instinctual behavior. Any animal has instructions regarding how to relate to a child built into its DNA and communicated to him or her via feelings. This amounts to supplying the child's needs and relating to it with warmth. It also entails providing for the child's departure from the family at the appropriate time.

Sometimes parental desertion isn't the parent's fault, as in the case of death for example. None the less it will have the usual effect since the child isn't able to evaluate the reasonableness of the event and misses some of the important experiences provided by the parent and not fully recreated by a substitute.

Loss of the father is most devastating to females and loss of the mother is most devastating to males. This is because the development of a realistic understanding of the opposite sex is crucial to the future success of the child. The deserter, whatever his or her motives or power over the situation, will be blamed by the deprived child, which will lead the child to reject some or all qualities of the absentee parent, both in others and in themselves. The result will be a complex, which is a split off portion of the personality containing the qualities denied by the child in him or herself.

This rejection will produce a compulsive attraction to people projecting the qualities denied in the experiencer and that will produce a demand that the object of the compulsive attraction display all of the expected qualities rejected by the subject which will inevitably lead to disappointment when they don't exist in the object. Typically the object will pretend their existence until his or her needs, usually sexual, are fulfilled at which time the pretense will be dropped. This will result in conflict initiated by the disappointed subject.

The range of responses to this problem by the subject are manifold. Some will compensate by overdeveloping some feature of their personalities to gain acceptance in spite of the missing aspects. This will be typical of movie stars suffering from this problem. Judy Garland is a good example. At the other extreme, some will emphasize the most negative aspects of their personalities as revenge on society for giving them the pain they suffer from. This is typical of mass murderers.

Variations in manifestation of these personality flaws arise from many sources, the most important of which are the particular aspects of the personality that are repressed. A common example in males is the loss of faith that results when the father disappears because of the over generalization and identification of the father with God. Another possible result will be feminization of the personality due to loss of characteristics of maleness. In the first case, a common result is the religious conversion experience of St. Paul. It varies in intensity of course, depending on how intense was the rejection. Almost as important as what is repressed is what is emphasized as a result of the repression. The repression results in a flawed personality containing less than is normal and experienced by the subject as inferiority. The sense of inferiority will lead to over emphasis of some other feature of the personality. The male may emphasize sports, or entertainment, or intimidation. All of these will be intended to gain respect from one's peers and inclusion. Charles Manson is an excellent example of this.

Unhappily, this behavior is self reinforcing over generations. When a desertion occurs, and it may happen through no fault of the parent, the result will be the above described psychological adjustments which will normally lead to failed marriages and new desertions in the lives of the children of the sufferer. This would normally lead to the expectation that humans as a species are unworkable if there were not some mechanism for overcoming the problem. In fact, as the Bible says, the problem usually runs its course in three or four generations.

How is the problem solved? Intelligence and industriousness are generally required. Eventually over the generations, patterns emerge, negatives (degraded survivability) are assigned and they are avoided. Successful adaptations are passed along to the children, strength is achieved and competitive success results.

This is a family experience and can be observed in the culture. A lower class family will frequently experience these kinds of problems and as they are overcome rise in the social scale. Eventually they will arrive in the upper class and life will lose its meaning, they will have fewer children and die out. The room thus made will be filled by new lower class individuals because they propagate more, and the cycle recurs. The number of individuals in the culture will always match its capacity to provide for them.

How do feelings affect this process?

Feelings can be thought of as unconscious commentaries on our actions. The source of feelings is DNA. They control the behavior of animals much more completely than they do humans. Why is that?

Humans are unique in that they create as a natural product of life a personality. They do this by emphasizing some aspects of life and de-emphasizing others. Their choices will usually be a result of parental pressure, which is to say that they will be a result of the stage of development being passed through by their families. As a result of personality creation, feelings are distorted when they are passed through it in the same way that apple juice is changed by being filtered.

Sometimes the personality detracts from the feeling as some aspect of it is filtered out and sometimes the reverse happens.

As the generations go on and the personality increasingly becomes a faithful representation of the environment in which it is created, the feelings are less and less affected and arrive in purer and purer form. This has the effect of increasing the momentum of the movement of the personality from abnormal to normal.

Can therapy aid in the resolution of this problem? Probably, though it isn't exactly clear what the value of speeding up the process would be.

It is not an over generalization to say that parental desertion is the cause of the entirety of human cultural variety. It is also inescapable that humans are not responsible for their behavior, their parents are. It is possible that individual humans will overcome the problems that their parents have imposed on them, but that can only happen if the individual is unusually bright and industrious and lucky. Lucky in the sense that he or she would also require that some sort of guidance have steered them into a useful field of study, like religion or anthropology or psychology and that they were able to absorb it and apply it to themselves and to avoid the pitfalls of subjectivity.

Success in life, which can be defined as contributing as much or more than one gets, is also very dependent on marrying well. Success depends heavily on an accurate perception of the opposite sex, which is hard to achieve outside of marriage. An adult, psychologically damaged by desertion isn't likely to attract a well-adjusted spouse or to marry successfully if he did. To make matters more difficult, the subject will be participating in the family psychology which will require him to continue participating in the aberrant behavior currently in use to compensate for the failed perceptions that produced the desertion in the first place. This is the reason for the perception of the therapist of the intractability of aberrant behavior. It is also the reason for family therapy, but real success would call for cultural therapy.

Only unusual humans will be able to overcome their environmental situation to the extent necessary to shorten the path. However that may be, it would seem a reasonable conclusion that this feature of life is exactly what makes life as a human an interesting experience, no matter how it is dealt with.

Lucy was lying face down in the soft mud. She couldn't breathe and it was cold, but she hadn't the strength to move. She decided to wait a few moments in hopes that her strength would return and she could rise and continue to run. She had tripped on a root, she thought, and now was just too tired to do anything about it, except rest and worry as her lungs began to cry for air.

She had been running because they were chasing her and she knew that, if she were caught, they would kill her. She was fast and in the beginning, she had little difficulty staying ahead. Then she came to the swampy area and she thought she would find a place to hide. Instead the mud had spattered up and caught in her body hair and she became heavier. Their tribe was a particularly hairy one. Of course, it varied from individual to individual, but she had thick black hair all over.

Some had bare faces or breasts and some tribes had very thin hair and even wore animal skins. She didn't care for the idea, but she could see that it had flexibility that body hair lacked.

It got harder and harder to carry the load of mud which continued to stick to her body.

They hated her because she had convinced the other women of the tribe that the only proper way for sexual intercourse to occur would be if the male asked and was granted the favor by the female. The females liked this idea very much and quickly agreed to unite in the demand of the elders that a taboo be established and that violation of the taboo be dealt with harshly. They were tired of hiding all the time to avoid attracting some male's attention and then when they were caught having to lie still, under their stinking sweaty bodies while they got what they wanted. And then, like as not, having to put up with months of being tired and sick and then having to endure torture to bring forth another of them. Then being stuck for years with childcare. The whole thing was a part of life that Lucy felt could and should be dispensed with. It could be so nice. Submitting when one wanted to and then having a child one wanted.

The elders hadn't liked it but the women disrupted their home lives while they considered it to such an extent, by failing to prepare food and sleeping separately, that they decided they had to acquiesce. Of course, they knew the younger males would complain bitterly, but they thought that with the elders and the females against them, they would eventually concede defeat. It was the first time they had thought of the notion of a rule with punishment for transgression. A novel idea, and one that might be useful in the future. There were many problems that might be dealt with in this manner.

Things had not gone well from the beginning. The young males retreated from camp and were gone for days at a time. She supposed that they had been plotting this revenge. The only times some of them were seen was when they abducted a woman, and then the elders had to organize a posse and go out and capture them and bring them back for punishment.

The punishment hadn't been very harsh: a day or two of hauling water for cooking or washing, but it had been humiliating.

Then she had seen them coming and she knew they were coming for her. It was their expressions. Grim, tight-lipped, they felt their lives had been altered for the worse and what was their God-given right had been taken away by a taboo, a rule, an unimpressive idea, of no substance, just a thought, not something that could change reality. However, it had done exactly that, and some had gained and some had lost and the losers were determined to revert to what had been before.

The idiots! The past could not be regained. It was gone forever. The females had something of great value and they would hold on tenaciously. It would not be lost again.

She ran. They chased. Now, she was exhausted. She was bleeding from a wound in her leg. One of the males had tried to bring her down with an arrow.

She began to reflect on how she had happened to think of the taboo concept. It had just come to her. However, her grandfather had taught her about trying to compel her mind along pathways of her choosing. He had told her that his great-grandparents had lived in trees and their tribe had done so for as long as anyone could remember. However, then one day, a new animal had arrived in their wood. It had been a climbing cat and its method of hunting was to climb trees and wait in ambush for one of her ancestors to come along.

Soon they noticed that survival was no longer assured. It became harder to find a mate. Finally, a leader arose and led them out of the trees and on a trek to another wood, where they began their earth dwelling lives. They had had to invent a whole new life. Nothing they did before was of use on the ground, and the ground was a more dangerous place, but offering many alternative strategies for survival. When threatened too severely, they migrated. As long as they were dominant, they used guards, and eventually discovered weapons. They had discovered that some among them could use directed mental activity to find ideas with which to attack problems.

Therefore, she had not been surprised when the idea came. Her life slowly drained away and she found it not unpleasant, restful, and what did it really matter?

She drifted into unconsciousness.

Slowly, the years went by and the climate changed, the swamp dried up and the mud around Lucy changed to rock.

Ideology: Root word: idea - a formulated thought or opinion, a concept, notion, or impression. Thus, an ideology is a systematic body of concepts about life, particularly human life, like Christianity or Communism.

Ideologics is the study of ideologies, aimed at the goal of organizing them into a useful and orderly whole. Ideologics should hold the place in the study of subjective phenomena that physics holds in the realm of the study of physical or objective phenomena. Psychology will be one specialty within ideologics, concentrating on the organization of the psyche and the motives of humans, just as engineering is a specialty within physics concentrating on exploitation of physical concepts for the benefit of man.

The motive for the development of ideologies is to identify important psychological or spiritual elements of the cosmos and to use them in the interests of enhancing human survival potential. The motive for the development of ideologics is to organize ideologies into a recognizable whole so that their relationships can be explored.

Since ideologics is the counterpart of physics, many concepts in one will have analogs in the other. This fact can be exploited to aid the student in his attempts to understand them. The most important physical concept that can be exploited in ideologics is that of the spectrum. Ideologies can be organized on a spectrum to advantage by the simple expedient of identifying a comprehensive variable all contain. This variable turns out to be sexuality.

Ideologics is not metaphysics. Metaphysics attempts to abstract humanity from the cosmos and describe what remains, or reduce mankind to one species among many. Ideologics is concerned with explaining why humans do what they do as a function of ideology.

Ideologics is one branch of philosophy. Philosophy is the totality of human knowledge. This totality is subdivided into two streams, the arts and sciences. The arts are concerned with the subjective representation of phenomena and the sciences with the objective representation of phenomena. Ideologics is a science, since it is concerned with identifying the various ideologies and organizing them into a comprehensive whole. Ideologics can be summarized in the form of a graph.

A person that works to develop this field of study should be referred to as an Ideologician.

Religion is viewed by ideologics as an implementation of an ideology.

Ideologics has never been recognized before because of subjectivity. The west has been developed within a religion, Christianity. It therefore has been difficult to achieve a perspective that can successfully compare religions. The other ones are always seen as inferior. The rise of feminism has solved this problem. Ideologics will be able to provide a rational explanation for every psychological or spiritual or mental motive in existence. Why people smoke; why men have mistresses; why wars are fought; why Christianity came into existence; why Clinton was elected; why Dole wasn't; why UFO's exist; why America had a revolution; why it had a Civil War; why Iran had a revolution; where communism came from; why the drug war isn't being won; why the public schools are failing; what political party will dominate in the future.

On the other hand, ideologics will not be able to predict earthquakes, floods, hurricanes or any other natural disaster.

Before going into this crucial question, the reader is cautioned that the issue isn't about truth in this case but rather what people believe. There is a spectrum of intellectuality. At the bottom end of the scale, people are gullible and simple solutions will suffice. At the other end are the sophisticates and for them a credible solution cannot suffer under the attacks of unbelievers as Christianity has from science. All belief systems are true in some sense. Heaven comes to those that raise their children well and hell to those that don't. When we procreate, the result is our reincarnation.

The question of the meaning of life has perplexed mankind from the beginning. By meaning it is meant that quality of life that compensates for suffering. If that quality is minimal and suffering is great, the subject may conclude that life isn't worth it and commit suicide. If on the other hand, meaning is great and suffering is minimal, then life goes on without significant problems. For our species it is crucial that meaning be found if we are to survive.

This is not an apparent problem for other species. Perhaps this is because they don't objectify joy and suffering and compare them to see if one overbalances the other. They are just there. They have no suicide concept.

If these two qualities are nearly in balance as is the usual case, the subject will experience periodic problems when an event in his life increases his load of suffering, perhaps by a very small amount. When this happens, joy must be increased or suffering reduced. A family can provide for this need, and does so instinctively.

Meaning is found by most in several places. Many find all they need in religion. Religion provides a formula for life with a reward at the end for those that remain faithful throughout. However, with the advent of heaven, hell is also called into existence. If one doesn't arrive in heaven, however that may be defined, then he must arrive somewhere else which must be unpleasant at least by comparison, otherwise the definition of heaven degrades. That place is hell, however defined.

The unfaithful don't like being consigned to hell, so they set about disproving its existence, which has the consequence that heaven is also disproved and meaning is lost.

This is not an inconsequential issue. There is now a noticeable tendency among the young to suicide and murder. This will be because they haven't been taught any concept containing meaning. In the absence of such a concept, life must remain pleasant or the consequence will be death. This is especially true for the young who have not yet become capable of imagining the future.

For those with sufficient consciousness to ponder this question, age must be taken into account. In youth, no ability to consider the question of personal meaning in life exists, so a simple story containing meaning is what is needed. Since the individual lacks the power of discrimination, the story may contain unbelievable features, such as magic. As life goes on however, discrimination begins to manifest itself and stories of life containing meaning must be believable. For the young male, the stories of King Arthur and Merlin are excellent providers of meaning. For young women, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty perform the same function.

When the individual attains significant understanding something more substantial is needed. Christianity has fulfilled this need in the past, but with the arrival of science and the consequent debunking of features of the Christian myth, something new is needed.

Returning to the question of the sources of meaning, many can find it in family survival. They view themselves as links in a chain that they wish not to be broken. For them, morality resolves into family survival, thus the Mafia.

Some few can rely on individual survival. This is beyond most because it is readily apparent to all but the very few that life will go on without them. People who fall into this category believe that individual death is the absolute end, for them at least, and they are all that matters. These people believe in death. To them it is not apparent that they go on in the lives of their children or that their soul is immortal.

Some rely on reincarnation. They seem to see that they are the reincarnation of some long ago character in the human drama and this character was significant, otherwise he or she would not be remembered. Being the reincarnation of that soul is satisfying because death becomes meaningless. If one is going to reincarnate, it is pointless to die and it might be possible to influence one's next incarnation by applying oneself in this incarnation.

For most, suicide is avoided by the religious association of it with immorality. This is effective as long as religion remains believable. As soon as one dismisses religion as unbelievable in one's inner life, the protection against suicide is lost. When suffering arrives, as it inevitably will, suicide is there, beckoning.

There was a man, an estimable character in his land, who found as life progressed, even though his public perception required him to attend church, that the Christian myth wasn't believable. This presented him with no real problem except for the need to rationalize his hypocrisy. However, eventually his wife died of cancer. When that happened, his suffering increased dramatically and suicide began to beckon. He tried to avoid it by finding a new wife, but she proved unable to fulfill the minimum requirements and so, suicide won the day.

Suffering cannot be avoided in small and large doses because of lack of understanding, especially when young. If one avoids the pitfalls of lack of understanding, there is always material need. If that is avoided, then ill health and the gradual approach of death are ever present sources of suffering. Finally, the loss of a loved one is unequaled in its ability to impose suffering on the individual.

The great appeal of religion is meaning. Christ demonstrated that his view of God was sufficient to withstand the worst that life could serve up, injustice. It has since been demonstrated in millions of cases that it is sufficient to withstand any other form of suffering imaginable. However, it is only available to the faithful and for the average person to achieve faith, the story has to be credible. The Christian myth is becoming progressively more unbelievable. This becomes apparent to those with access to the other interpretation of life, science.

Science is a very good explanation for life but is totally devoid of meaning.

Nihilism, the acceptance of the notion that life is in fact meaningless, is being experimented with by some, but the general expectation must be that it cannot stand up to suffering.

Due to the draining away of the believability of Christianity, a possible approach might be to dissect it in order to find the meaning within it in order to see if that meaning can be transferred into some more believable vehicle, say science.

The meaning found in Christianity lies in the concept of God. If one is the creature of some superior being, then one most commonly will wish to be viewed positively by that superior. As long as we see our parents as superior, we wish to be accepted by them and therefore bend our efforts to comply with their wishes. As we lose the sense of their superiority, our need to fulfill their wishes declines. God is so far superior to us and so free from condemnation that he fulfills this need even as our parents are discovered to be less than godlike in themselves.

As Christianity declines in believability, which is occurring because of long standing claims that can't withstand the scrutiny of science: virgin birth, raising the dead, restoring sight to the blind, the resurrection, His God also loses believability by association. God continues to exist as the source of the masculine principle, but He becomes remote and uninterested in individual lives.

The answer to this problem is the discovery of another superior being capable of withstanding the scrutiny of science and demonstrably connected to individual lives. As was demonstrated in the section devoted to her, Gaia is capable of fulfilling this need.

Gaia should be considered to be the sum of life on this planet. She is that entity formerly known as Mother Nature, though that concept was so degraded by Christianity that a new name is justified. Every living thing is a manifestation of Gaia. She is obviously opposed to suicide, since it is so rare in the natural world. Apparently, it is only justified when suffering is great and no other solution is available and natural death isn't imminent.

Meaning is provided by Gaia in the realization that we are participants in her own struggle to survive in the very long term. Each of us is trying by our own efforts within our own lives to find some effective method of survival. That is the purpose of this essay and the reason for its publication.

Gaia is God's representative on earth and His method of creating life. When we communicate with Gaia, we are talking with God's emissary. Gaia is like God's chief of staff. God doesn't speak our language since He is so vastly greater than we, but Gaia does. Any communication from the environment to us that we have no part in, is a message from Gaia. The most personal of these are feelings (not arising from our own thoughts) and dreams.

Fear is Gaia informing us that we are unprepared for the experience that is approaching. We may turn that fear into panic, if we are immature. We may conclude that we are sufficiently prepared to risk it and that the reward justifies the risk. Joy is Gaia's reward for completion of a task meaningful to her and well done. We may take too much credit, if we are immature. We may conclude that we did it on our own and owe no debt of gratitude for our success, but without Gaia's direct participation in the provision of the feelings necessary to the discrimination between good and bad moves, we couldn't be successful in anything.

The value in recognition of Gaia lies in discriminating between her communications to us, which we can absolutely rely on, and our own self generated feelings resulting from our own thoughts, which if over relied on will lead to self reinforcing loops or megalomania as it is sometimes called.

Feelings are attached to every experience of life. Those that are unreliable are those that attach to our own thoughts. This is why animals are seldom wrong, especially those not attached to humans. They don't think much so they aren't much afflicted by spurious feelings. When confusion resulting from irrational human acts confronts them, they will try to understand and may succumb to insanity in the same way that humans sometimes do. The book and movie, The Horse Whisperer describes an excellent example of this.

In summary, human culture is suffering a loss of meaning in life because of the effect science is having on religion. This leads to rising numbers of incidents of murder and suicide. The crimes of children are directly attributable to this cause. The solution is the recognition of another superior being consistent with the discoveries of science and that being is Gaia. The simplistic statement that transmits this meaning is that when we act in violation of Gaia's wishes we will suffer, when we act in accord with her wishes we will experience her rewards, joy and success.