This book is a Get Out of Jail Free card and a passport back into the playground.

The aim of this book is to set you free. But free from what? Free from neurosis. Free from the feeling that you have to obey authority. Free from emotional intimidation. Free from addiction. Free from inhibition.

The key to happiness, mental health and being the most that we can be is absolute and unconditional self-acceptance. The paradox is that many of our problems are caused by trying to improve ourselves, censor our thinking, make up for past misdeeds and struggling with our negative feelings whether of depression or aggression.

But if we consider ourselves in our entirety in this very moment, we know these things :

1. Anything we have done is in the past and cannot be changed, thus it is pointless to do anything else but accept it. No regrets or guilt.

2. While our actions can harm others, our thoughts and emotions, in and of themselves, never can. So we should accept them and allow them to be and go where they will. While emotions sometimes drive actions, those who completely accept their emotions and allow themselves to feel them fully, have more choice over how they act in the light of them.

Self-criticism never made anyone a better person. Anyone who does a “good deed” under pressure from their conscience or to gain the approval of others takes out the frustration involved in some other way. The basis for loving behaviour towards others is the ability to love ourselves. And loving ourselves unconditionally, means loving ourselves exactly as we are at this moment.

This might seem to be complacency, but in fact the natural activity of the individual is healthy growth, and what holds us back from it is fighting with those things we can’t change and the free thought and emotional experience which is the very substance of that growth.


How to Be Free is available as a free ebook from Smashwords, iBooks in some countries, Kobo and Barnes & Noble

The audiobook is available for free from iTunes and Google Play.

It is also available in paperback from Lulu or Amazon for $10 US, plus postage.

The ebook version currently has received 1,163 ***** out of ***** ratings on U.S. iBooks.

The audiobook version currently has received 128 ***** out of ***** ratings on U.S. iBooks and a 4.5 out of 5 average from 103 ratings on GooglePlay.

Friday 3 June 2016

Can Dogma Drive Out Dogma? : The Case Against Jeremy Griffith and the World Transformation Movement

“Yes, terminal alienation is upon us; humanity has entered end play, a death by dogma.”

Jeremy Griffith, Freedom : The End of the Human Condition

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” 

Matthew 7:5


There is currently a massive publicity campaign in support of Jeremy Griffith’s new book Freedom : The End of the Human Condtion. It has been billed as “The Book That Saves The World.” When an article by Griffith outlining his theory about the human condition was rejected by Scientific American as being “not in the realm of science,” Griffith described this as “the most serious crime that could possibly be committed in the whole of humanity’s 2-million-year journey to enlightenment…”

A central message in Griffith’s book is that humanity is currently facing a “death by dogma” which will lead us to a state of terminal alienation. There is no doubt that there are some dogma’s which may threaten our existence - religious, political, economic… An effective response to the challenges - social and environmental - which face us will require thinking outside the dogmatic box.

But is Griffith’s 799 page opus the answer we are looking for?

Often when we look around at our complex world, we see a pattern in it which reflects our own situation. Griffith sees an all-pervading dogmatism in social phenomena such as the New Age movement, feminism, socialism, deconstructionism, etc. Wikipedia gives this definition : “Dogma is a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.” While there are no doubt groups of individuals within each of these social movements who adhere to some kind of set of unquestionable beliefs, is this really the norm in any of them as a whole? Is there not debate, questioning, disagreement? And what is the percentage of society which is caught up in any of these social movements? It is true that some of them, such as deconstructionism and feminism are very influential in the academic world, and so dogmatic forms of these movements can threaten the place we have set aside for free enquiry. But generally, when they become too dogmatic, there is a healthy resistance put up to them. Probably of more concern is religious dogma which drives violence and oppression, particularly in the Middle East. And that is not a new problem.

So if it is hard to see this death by dogma dragging us all to terminal alienation, what might Griffith be seeing? Could it be a reflection of his own condition? Has his theory about the human condition become a dogma that neither he nor the members of his organisation The World Transformation -Movement - dare “question or doubt”? If his explanation is false but he and his followers cling to it, then that makes it a delusion, and to be in a state of delusion, cut off from the real world, is what we mean by the word “alienation.”

One of the main ways we can tell the difference between genuine insight and dogma is fluidity during debate. If someone has a sound understanding of some topic then they can debate about it very freely using their own words and responding to different questions raised in a spontaneous way. It is clear that they have a good map if they can move around the terrain of the topic without getting lost. Dogma is characterised by a tendency to quote the originator a lot rather than express things in one’s own words. The other party’s disagreement is liable to cause agitation rather than being a challenge smoothly taken up. In a dogma everything has to be referred back to the conceptual framework. Points can’t be debated in isolation from that framework. Also, very often, with dogma, a person who disagrees is accused of being in denial - e.g. a dogmatic Christian might say that an atheist can’t see the truth because he is “a slave to sin”.

Now that Griffith’s writing is reaching a wide audience, the test will be to see how he and his advocates handle criticism. Will they debate freely with their critics? Will they encourage us to doubt and try to find fault, as is consistent with the scientific method? And if they do debate with critics, will their application of their “knowledge” be flexible and spontaneous?

If this is not the case, they have a built in excuse. Griffith lays it out in Freedom :

The danger is that if we study this information beyond what our particular level of soundness and security of self can cope with we risk becoming overly confronted by the extent of our corrupted condition and dangerously depressed… Regarding the degree to which we should each investigate these explanations, obviously it is necessary to sufficiently verify to our own satisfaction that they are the liberating understandings of the human condition that the whole human race has been tirelessly working its way towards for some 2 million years—but we shouldn’t risk investigating them to the extent that we start to become overly exposed and confronted by the truths they reveal. Having lived without any real understanding of human life it is natural to want to keep studying these explanations that finally make sense of the world, both within and around us, but, again, such analysis can lead to becoming overly confronted and depressed by the extent of our own corrupted state, and that of our world… The more intelligent and/ or the more educated in the human-condition-avoiding, denial-based, mechanistic, reductionist paradigm, who pride themselves on being able to think and study and grasp new ideas, will initially be especially tempted to study these understandings beyond what their varying levels of security of self can cope with, but it won’t be long before everyone learns that such an approach is both psychologically dangerous and irresponsible and, in any case, unnecessary.”


Could studying these ideas lead to mental health issues, such as depression. Yes. If we are insecure about our own worth, and which of us isn’t to some extent, then studying Griffith’s books might well lead to depression. Why? Because they are drenched in a very extreme form of idealism which can undermine our self-acceptance and make us feel guilty. Just as a tiny example, in his second book Beyond the Human Condition (1991) he says :

“On the table in front of me is a silver teaspoon with an ornately engraved handle. It is very much an old world teaspoon. The bright silver and the embellishment glorified us when the world unjustly condemned us. It ‘said’ we were wonderful when the world in its ignorance wouldn’t. Without such materialistic reinforcement we could not have sustained our effort to find understanding. Materialism wasn’t bad, in fact it was most necessary, but now it will gradually become unnecessary. The time and money spent digging up the silver and embellishing the spoon can now be spent helping others. We deserved to be glorified but the time and energy spent seeking glory impoverished others. The human condition made us self-preoccupied or selfish. We can now look at that teaspoon and recognise that it is a two or even three starving Ethiopians extravagance.”

So there is a compassionate defence of materialism, but there is also the image of two or three Ethiopians starving to death because we have an embellished spoon. If we were to really take this on board and look around at all the things we own and count up all those dead Ethiopians it could be pretty depressing for us. Of course the aim is not to depress us, but to defend us and thus make us able to face the grim truth. Even if we are as wonderful as Griffith claims, though, do we really want to count that wonderfulness by the measure of death by starvation of Ethiopians?

Griffith could have presented his central thesis without any reference to starving Ethiopians or any of the other “confronting” material which is an expression of his extreme idealism.

Here is the essence of Griffith’s theory :

The human condition began when a conflict arose between our instinctive orientation and the need of our developing intelligence to experiment with self-management. We have a genetic orientation towards ideal, i.e. selfless behaviour. This is our conscience. Most other animals have a genetic imperative to compete, over food or mating opportunities, etc. It was an extended nurturing period in our species which overcame this competitive tendency. This process is called “love-indoctrination”. In caring so diligently for their children the mothers were still following the imperative to foster the survival chances of their own genes, but the offspring were not to know this and would interpret the behaviour as selflessness. Thus they would learn that selflessness was meaningful, and, over time, a genetic orientation towards selfless behaviour would become “hardwired” into us.

But “love-indoctrination” also liberated our capacity for reason. Our reasoning mind had no knowledge of our instinct for selfless behaviour and it needed to experiment with self-management in order to realise its potential. When we experimented with behaviour which contravened our genetic conscience, it criticised us. Unable to explain why we had to go against its programming, we became frustrated with it and the oppressiveness of its unjust criticism. We became angry at it. It’s criticism made our ego insecure and thus embattled. We became egotistical. And we tried to block out awareness of it and the world of wholeness and honesty it represented. We became alienated. All of our selfishness and aggression - our dark side - thus arose from the necessary - indeed heroic - defiance of our soul/conscience/genes’ unwitting attempt to oppress the search for knowledge. We are thus all heroes and good and evil are reconciled.

This theory could have been presented in a brief booklet. There is no great complexity to it. What fills out the rest of Griffith’s books is a mix of self-promotion and his extreme form of idealism. From Beyond the Human Condition :

“Sunglasses aren’t always worn to shade the eyes from the sun. Often they were worn to alienate ourselves from the natural world that was alienating us. They were an attack on the innocence of daylight.”
As with the Ethiopians we can see the compassionate defence for wearing sunglasses, but that just leads us to the (rather absurd) stinger that we are “attacking the innocence of daylight.”
Griffith talks about a phenomena he calls “the deaf affect.” He says that many people won’t really hear what he is saying at first. They will need to re-read the book or watch explanatory videos, which have the reassuring effect of seeing a person calmly talking about potentially confronting concepts.

When I read Griffith’s first book Free : The End of the Human Condition (1988), I didn’t experience any “deaf effect”. I grasped it all immediately. But I had the “advantage” of being a depressed person.
I think that what this deaf effect is is the mind’s defence against extreme idealism. It isn’t profundity per se that we have a problem with, but anything which poses a serious threat to our self-acceptance.
I can’t be sure how others respond to Griffith’s writing, but I have a theory.
If the brain protects itself against the corrosive effects of extreme idealism, then that aspect of the book will be the last part to sink in. At first there will be the effusive promises of an end to all the world’s problems. Then an intriguing, on the surface credible, theory about the origin of our darker side. And only after that will the starving Ethiopians become real.
At this point the individual will be advised to adopt the Transformed Lifeforce Way of Living - simply supporting the “understandings” without confronting them any more. And anyone who does continue to study this theory and expresses criticism of it will be told that they have become overly confronted and are now trying to deny what they know deep down to be the truth. Believers, justifiably afraid of looking at all that depressing idealism, will tend to accept this assessment.
I don’t believe any of this is deliberate. It is just a kind of naturally occurring perfect storm that has grown out of Griffith’s attempt to reconcile his extreme idealism with reality. The fact that he believes that there is a direct correlation between high IQ and alienation means there is a built-in defence against the criticism of those who are more intelligent and scientifically qualified than Griffith. It is not that his science is poor, but that they are too alienated to be able to admit to its truth.
When someone comes up with a theory of human behaviour the tendency is to have a blind spot, to build the theory around an unconscious attempt to normalise their own position. So a competitive scientist may be prone to confirmation bias towards their theory that our competitive and aggressive tendencies are inborn, part of our genetic inheritance from our ape ancestors.

It seems to me that Griffith’s theory is built around the unconscious motive of normalising his extreme idealism. He puts forward the idea that we have an inborn genetic orientation to idealism. On close examination this doesn’t work. He is saying that this genetic orientation to idealism - this inborn demand for selfless behaviour from ourself and others - was intolerant of our conscious mind’s need to experiment with self-management and find understanding. But such a genetic orientation could not have been at the centre of a loving, integrative, cooperative society before this conflict arose, because idealism is not integrative. Idealism is disintegrative. The only kind of genetic orientation which could have been at the centre of a loving, integrative, cooperative society is an instinctive orientation towards loving behaviour, and essential to loving behaviour is forgiveness. Arguably the most powerful example of love in our culture was Jesus praying forgiveness for the men who nailed him to the cross. The evolution of a cooperative society would mean the favouring of individuals who were willing to forgive unloving behaviour, because if unloving behaviour is forgiven the individual is re-integrated into the group. Idealistic intolerance for unloving or selfish behaviour would lead to resentment, which, while it could be repressed for a while, would eventually bring a rift in the integration of the group.

Because to be loving is one of our ideals, it is easy to make the mistake of believing that an orientation which would facilitate loving behaviour would be one which idealistically insists on loving behaviour. But it is an important distinction because idealism has a tendency to undermine the capacity for love of the idealist and those who interact with him. Unconditional self-acceptance is the basis for the capacity to love others. We are born with an orientation towards love, acceptance, forgiveness… No-one is born with an unforgiving insistence that they or others conform to any kind of ideal. Griffith may have been such an idealist as a young man, but if he were born that way then he was born very different from other babies. The fact that they so easily bond with the adults around them indicates that they are not comparing them against some inborn expectation of ideality.


The problem with grand theories of human behaviour is that those who come to believe in them can easily fall afoul of confirmation bias. Evidence which appears to confirm the theory attracts attention while evidence which contradicts it is either not seen or explained away.

It makes sense to me that idealism has been the origin of the dark side of human behaviour. Idealism criticises us, and over time we are liable to hit back at that criticism, and as our self-acceptance is undermined we are liable to become more selfish. But idealism is not in our genes. It is a social phenomenon arising from the thinking of the rational mind. It seems to make sense to distinguish between good behaviour and bad behaviour and to try by an act of will to pursue the former and avoid the latter and to insist that others do likewise. What is not so obvious is that by holding onto idealism in this way we undermine our self-acceptance and thus make it harder to sustainably maintain good behaviour.

In his first book Free : The End of the Human Condition, Griffith says, “Above all finding the explanations presented in this book was an exercise in learning to stand by exactly what my conscience wanted to say, was learning to trust my conscience and not those around me.” This is in the context of talking about himself as a prophet. He is saying that he had to learn to trust his conscience, i.e. to not “question or doubt” it. A free thinker questions and doubts everything, subjects it the test of reason. If obedience to the conscience takes precedence over all else, will the mind not end up finding a way to rationalise the conscience’s preconceptions and thus create a dogma?
Down through history there have been some people who have been extremely insightful and they have sometimes been labelled “prophets”. But others have been labelled prophets who were powerful declaimers of the prejudices of their times. All those rules and regulations in the Old Testament about what you can and can’t do on the Sabbath and how long women are unclean after they have their period have nothing to do with insight. They may be a powerful expression of a learned set of culturally specific ideals, but that is all. Insightful individuals are often not tied down by learned ideals. They can break on through to a bolder apprehension of truth because they are not a slave to their learned conscience.
Now is the time of the big test. It is time for us to see if Griffith’s theory is truth or dogma.


SaveSave

41 comments:

  1. I very much agree. I don't find that Mr. Griffith's explanations are backed by evidence which is the only thing that truth in Science relies upon. Instead, his ideas are backed by what he claims are obvious to any human being who is 'not living in denial' which the author claims he is. However, believing people who claim to know through revelation leads to a slippery slope because it discounts the fact that all humans have biases in their psychological makeup. I especially like your insights about the WTM. If nothing else, the WTM provides an insight in the flaws of human nature and how blind we can be to our own natures. Good luck with your writings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, James. Thanks for your support.

      I've gained a lot by wrestling with Griffith's ideas. I think he's much better at highlighting the problems in other people's ideas than in providing an answer to those problems.

      Psychological ideas need to provide the intrinsic evidence of providing a clarifying framework of understanding which makes addressing the challenges of life easier ("by their fruits shall ye know them") or detailed empirical evidence if we are to be convinced of something that doesn't seem obvious. I can't speak for others, but I haven't seen either kind of evidence. Clearly there are supporters of the WTM who claim to experienced the first from of evidence. Looking on from the outside it looks more like the reassurance which comes with faith.

      Delete
    2. I haven't yet completed my study of Mr Griffiths ideas, so I can't state that they lack good evidence. However, I am concerned by Mr J. Athur's first sentence: Any good scientist would feel loath to use the word truth as an absolute, as the observer (scientist) will always (no matter how minutely) effect the outcome of their observation.I would completely agree with Aussiescribbler's last sentence in his reply: I think Mr Griffith's work would be better presented in the time honoured fashion of a peer reviewed paper, rather than what seems to me a greatly (faith like) embellishments.

      Delete
    3. I think that truth is an ideal we benefit by aiming at though we can never reach it in any absolute sense. It is always clouded to some extent by the limitations of our observation. The fact that science is a collective activity helps compensate for the limitations of the individual. There is always someone else to make the individual scientist aware of their biases. It is a major disadvantage that Griffith is not a part of this corrective process, but I'm sure he would state that there is no community of "unevasive" scientists and that his explanation is confirmed by the test of the experience of readers, i.e. that the scales fall away from their eyes allowing them to see for the first time. If this happens, I would say that it may be attributable to the difference between having no explanation at all and having a faulty explanation supported by confirmation bias.

      Submitting to a peer reviewed journal was Griffith's first approach. He submitted a paper to Nature in 1983, several years before publishing his first book Free : The End of the Human Condition. You can read that submission here : https://www.humancondition.com/submission-to-nature-and-new-scientist/?scroll_to=science%20submission&scroll_num=1

      By the way, Aussiescribbler is my other pseudonym. Comment posting here can be a bit clumsy for me, so sometimes I just leave myself logged in as I am.

      Delete
  2. Easter philosophical systems have been grappling with the suffering of the human condition for a lot longer than Plato , they also teach that liberation from the suffering of the human condition arises from the path of service to others, recognising that love and selflessness are our innate nature as is the desire positively to others well being and not be enslaved by ego and self absorption . Dr Jeremy Griffiths analysis echoes ancient teachings but I’m concerned about his lack of acknowledgement of Eastern thought in this discussion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our innate Desire to positively contribute to these wellbeing *

      Delete
    2. I, too, have a very limited knowledge of Eastern philosophy. It's an area for future research for me. I recognise that Taoism has much of value to say about balance, which I would identify with the need to avoid idealism (perfectionism), and, I think, the idea of non-attachment is very valuable. That is preached in Buddhism, isn't it?

      My understanding of Plato is also very limited. The Republic is the only one of his dialogues that I've read and that was a very long time ago.

      My sense is that Griffith often has a limited understanding of the people from whom he quotes. I've seen him seriously misinterpret Sigmund Freud and R. D. Laing. What I think he does is to look for extracts from other people's work which can be taken out of context to support his pre-existing beliefs. There would probably be more quotes from Eastern sources if there were more people around him who had read those sources and could provide him with quotes he could use from them.

      Personally I find the term "selflessness" misleading. How can we be without a self? And if we will experience more happiness serving others then that isn't selflessness, it is indulgence of our deepest desire. Love is a mutuality of self-interest, a way in which we can experience pleasure or meaning by cooperating together in a way which solves problems for us and for others.

      I think the psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich had great insight into how we depart from our original nature, how our primary instincts, grounded in the body's capacity to experience pleasure, become frustrated and redirected into selfish secondary drives.

      A belief system can be identified as dogmatic if it becomes closed off. The dogmatist feels they have nothing more of any significance to learn. None of us can know about everything. I would invite anyone who is knowledgable in Eastern philosophy to tell me about the things I can learn from that tradition. My aim in my writing is not to tell people how things are. I can only know what is made clear to me through my own limited experience. My aim is to open up more conversation about what matters to us.

      Delete
  3. I have just completed this epic project of wading through the Freedom--End of the Human Condition text. I was struggling with mild depression as I waded in. It coincided with a major wedding in the family with many visitors here for two weeks. In the midst of everything, I bailed out and took four days of solid slog trying to get to the miracle that would heal me and all humanity. I had a feeling of "cult" right from the beginning: dogma, marketing, idealism and endless warnings of our own ability to face the "true truth, quoting Christ and Plato endlessly". Through this week I have almost lost use of my legs and have just come home from the doctor's and lots of tests. I felt I had to finish the book because of all the discipline I had committed to get through the mire of debris and hubris. It was difficult facing that I was not up to receiving the total transformation promised, the book clearly stating that this could only be because of my own denial or the level of my hurt. The title looked worth a try. The claims, perhaps, should have warned me, but I am both desperate by degrees and war weary enough to be willing to plod on in the quest to heal myself. Anyone who feels they have a healthy sexuality may feel lost hearing this book's perspective on the topic. The notion that sex was only ever intended for procreation and celibacy is the spiritual expression of sexuality may find the commentary on this topic unsettling. Another thing I found a little destabilising was the warning, in the middle of the last chapter, not to push through the material faster than it could be absorbed and integrated. That's a bit like printing a warning on the inside of the bottom of a bullet box that can only be read once most shells have been spent. I was excited at the prospects of the promises and now feel spent like the aforementioned shells. Happy to find this thread where this material can be discussed with others who took the plunge and came out still able to communicate, not just proselytising they have found the answer to all the problems of the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing your experience.

      It does amaze me that Griffith and his followers view Freedom as the best presentation currently possible for these ideas. I came into things early on. Free : The End of the Human Condition was not a long book. It was peculiar presented but not unwieldy or particularly repetitive. Beyond the Human Condition was a big improvement - slimmed down and simplified. The central concept is expressed in each of these books. As the books got longer with Species in Denial and Freedom : The End of the Human Condition what was added was a pile of quotes and references to myths and literature etc. and lots and lots of rhetoric about the importance of what was being said. I don't think I ever experienced what is referred to as the "deaf effect". I could see the central argument being made, and, in time, began to critically engage with it.

      The attitude to sex was something which caused me some confusion. I was very prone to sexual guilt, even though I was a virgin when I first began reading Griffith's books. I had previously read a large biography of the psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich and so had some familiarity with his ideas. I think Reich provides a good corrective to Griffith's bias on this topic. Reich talked about two distinct forms of sexual drive. First there is our primary instinctive orientation toward loving interaction with our fellows part of which is the impulse toward gentle orgasmic sex. When these primary instincts are frustrated they turn into secondary drives which may be aggressive or egotistical. Sex which is an expression of the secondary drives may range from selfish sex in which we are only concerned with our own satisfaction to the sadistic use of sex manifested in the most brutal forms of rape. When is sex a pleasure shared to strengthen the bond between people and when is it simply a way of feeding the personal ego? That is the question. Of course we can see genital pleasure playing a bonding role in bonobos.

      What is needed with any idea is for people to engage in open debate about it. And it is a sign of faith in the validity of an idea when the person presenting it doesn't try to exercise control over how people respond to it. It seems to me that much of the bulk of Freedom is taken up with attempts to control how the reader digests the ideas, like someone anxiously hanging over the reader all the time saying : "Wait until you hear this. It's going to blow you away. But you won't understand it at first. You'll have to read it over and over again. But don't give up because Plato and Jesus and Bono and Donovan all were on the same page, etc., etc. And when everyone understands it it will be so fantastic we'll all have a big party with Jerry Lee Lewis songs and everything!" And, if you look at the forum on the World Transformation Movement page anyone who expresses any doubt is immediately told by a long term member to re-read something or watch a video. There isn't any open discussion. Try going on there and questioning Griffith's understanding of negative entropy and you'll soon find that they are not prepared to open up to critical discussion and really thrash things out. It's all about closing ranks, which, to me, suggests that the response is at least as much faith based as reason based. It isn't an either/or. A person can be using their reason while still falling prey to confirmation bias, which is essentially faith in a theory.

      Delete
    2. Having had my son committ to WTM 30 yrs ago has caused my family unbelievable heart ache. Because I dared debate Griffiths ideas my son had to make the terrible choice between family or WTM. PERIOD! No allowance for mutual respect for ones beliefs and values.I find this hypocrisy hard to reconcile given the very high ground they claim.

      Delete
    3. It also suggests insecurity when someone won't associate with anyone who doesn't share their beliefs.

      Delete
  4. I totally agree with you that there are huge red flags with the way Griffith's followers can only regurgitate his trademarked phrases over and over in such a ruthlessly controlled fashion. The sign of genuinely opening up a whole new paradigm is the explosion in the different creative descriptions of it. This incredibly repetitive reusing of all the WTM patented phrases over and over and over screams cult. Cults love to create a strict vocabulary for "efficiency and non-watering down" purposes that burns pathways into their members brain that act like rails to keep their members "on track"

    And this closed loop about any criticism being down to "denial" because "YOU CAN'T STAND THE TRUTH!" (sorry Jack Nicholson) again screams cult. Its absurd that no one is worried there can't be criticism and analysis and pointed debate just because of denial concept. How do they not see the danger of that?

    Griffith seems a relatively mild cult leader. But he has a huge messiah concept going on that has seen him take some interesting concepts around the tension of instincts vs conscious thinking and stretch it to ridiculous extremes. The danger is at this point in his life he isn't really going to be able to backtrack or admit he went too far with it. He is locked in to this being the ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND WILL BROOK NO DISCUSSION OF THAT. He is too committed to it and has to see it through to the bitter end.

    But it would be a shame if some of the young members dedicate the prime of their lives to this rather flimsy concept that Griffith has somewhat desperately turned into a "movement". But each to their own I guess and as long as it doesn't get too WACO, hopefully people are not too fucked up by it. And perhaps they do get something out of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will be interesting to see how things play out. I suppose I'm optimistic in thinking that good will come from Griffith having raised crucial questions. My own experience has been that he helped me along a path to something I find more satisfying than what I had before. Sometimes something good comes from the collapse of a philosophy. And the more support a philosophy has, the greater the expectation that obvious wide benefit will come from it. Can it achieve popularity and can it stand the test of that popularity?

      Delete
  5. Find it interesting that he quotes Jesus as this places the empirical evidence position in an area far removed from anythin scientific . Theres no evidence that the Jesus of the bible was in reality the figure mentioned in the bible and as no one knows who really wrote it then it seems ridiculous to quote him along side the likes of Plato. We have a long way to go to fully understand the human condition. We hardly understand a great deal of the mind as it is yet and our species is only 120,000 years old and still very primitive. We may start to understand more once we start to recreate ourselves in the form of androids and see where that template takes us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It’s true that Griffith brings in a lot of material which is not the stuff of empirical evidence.

    I think the most reasonable approach to Jesus is that which is taken by Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, i.e. that what we get in the gospels is most likely a mythologised account of a man who actually existed. But what can we know? Are the quotes attributed to him accurate? Was something crucial left out? Was something crucial added?

    I quote from Jesus in my writing as well, but I am not a scientist and make no claim to be addressing the scientific mode of enquiry. My view is that Jesus is a cultural phenomenon. Those words came from some human source and resonated strongly enough with other humans to make them place them at the centre of their culture, so, therefore, an examination of this phenomena is as likely to lead to insight into human psychology as studying dreams or myths.

    Where I think he makes a bigger mistake is to talk about Moses as if he were a real person and the author of the first five books of the Bible. This is the traditional story, but I believe that the consensus amongst scholars today is that Moses is a mythological figure who is an amalgam of real men whose names have been lost to time, and that the first five books of the Bible were written by more than one author.

    It seems to me that Griffith gives a simplistic interpretation of the Old Testament and the gospels. He presents Moses and Jesus as individuals who gave expression to the conscience. He leaves aside any attempt to explain the contrast between the God of Moses, who might call on his people to invade someone else’s land and slaughter them down to the last infant, and the God of Jesus who calls on us to love our enemies. I think the most reasonable explanation for the laws of the Old Testament is that they were an attempt to achieve a compromise that might resolve social conflict. If we had a genetic orientation toward selflessness which told us what was right or wrong, then surely it would cause us to express the view that slavery was wrong. But if we were trying to find a workable compromise in a society which already practiced slavery, and in which slaves had no say, then there would be no point in criticising slavery. What we find in Jesus is different. It does seem to be an expression of a man who loves those around him and wants the best for them. There is the aim of preventing conflict, but here it is through an appeal to the loving nature rather than through socially enforced laws. But I think it would be wrong to categorise Jesus, as represented in the gospels, as an idealist, in the sense of one who insists that the ideals be met. The Old Testament approach, at least in the early books of the Bible, is obey the law or be stoned. The message of Jesus is mutual forgiveness of sins. This doesn’t seem to be two expressions of the same tendency, but expressions of opposing tendencies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A lot depends on how we define the term “human condition”. If we take it to mean the totality of the human experience, then we will probably always have more to learn and the intricacies of brain functioning will be relevant to that. But Griffith uses the term “human condition” to refer to our divided nature, the fact that we are capable of incredibly loving and generous behaviour towards each other and also extreme, sometimes murderous, resentment. This is a tricky problem because it is so close. It is possible that, if our dark side is a product of a flaw in our thinking, that flaw will also contaminate our attempts to understand it and find a solution. But I think it is actually a fairly simple problem in and of itself.

    The approach I take in my writing is that of introspection. I observe my thoughts and feelings and try to arrive at some understanding of the pattern which determines when loving feelings arise and when resentful, hostile, feelings arise. I’m not a scientist. This is the approach to which I have access. I make no claims about the usefulness of the ideas I express as a result. If someone says to me “Wow! That’s just like me! That really helps!” then I’m happy, but if someone says “That Joe Blow dude is full of shit!” that’s cool too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The truth about the World Transformation Movement and Jeremy Griffith book "Freedom"

    Thanks for the blog article, it opened my eyes. I want to share my own story and thoughts and thank you for allowing me to do so here!
    Note: My native language is not English, I ask for your indulgence regarding grammar and word choice.
    For about a month I have been intensively studying the ideas of Jeremy Griffith and the "World Transformation Movement" (WTM) - and have gone through a roller coaster of emotions. Initial skepticism gave way to unbridled admiration and a sense of redemption - for myself and for humanity, as promised by Jeremy Griffith. What quickly followed: Isolation, despair, existential questions. I came to the conclusion: There may be truth in the narratives of the WTM - but their "truth" is not redemptive and all-healing, but can lead to even greater alienation, despair of the world and of humanity.
    The reasons to me, why the WTM's promises of salvation do not work and are even extremely dangerous, are:
    • The theories give answers - but no solutions. We have to live on in today's world - and not in a paradise.
    • The liberation of the individual may take place. But at what price? That one has practically the entire rest of mankind against oneself.
    • A mankind, nota bene, which is supposed to be good, but continues to do badly and this also will not change in the foreseeable future! (Because it is excluded that a majority of the world population will argue with the theses , let alone understand, let alone convert, not to talk about the real psychopaths of the world).
    • A consequence of the apparent solution of all world problems: Pity with all, which do not have the "realization". The urge to mission arises, which I have experienced myself. As Griffith correctly describes, however, hardly anyone wants to deal with the human condition - quarrels between good friends and relatives are pre-programmed. Isolation is the consequence. Exchange can only take place with like-minded people.
    • The realization that one is fundamentally good, does not heal automatically all genetic predispositions and possibly unhappy coinages of the childhood! Pure happiness beams at you from the faces and stories of the WTM followers. But does pure happiness and contentment exist? Happiness exists only if unhappiness also exists. Satisfaction does not arise from knowledge, but from experiences of self-efficacy in the world, from experiences, encounters, failure and getting up again. In short: To live and to have lived, in the here and now and not in a fantasy world.
    • A radical questioning of all one's own demands and needs sets in: If nothing more is necessary for happiness than a peaceful coexistence in harmony - what do I still have the right to? Do I still have the right to be materially well off? Or is it all just a sham? Who is still entitled to which things? (Attention: Material prosperity IS an enormously important factor for satisfaction, as the annual satisfaction measurements show. Top of the list in each case the rich countries of Europe!)
    • I was extremely top-heavy on the road for a month. And had the feeling, knowledge brings luck. But I was not really in the here and now, was not in my body.
    • Realization does not free from injustice. The basic needs according to Pavlov must be fulfilled for a dignified life. Love and knowledge are not enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree, personally I find the work and thoughts of Plato, Confucious, Buddha, the Stoics, Aurelius and Spinoza as well as Freud and the great physicist Richard Feynman give me sufficient understanding to relieve any existential angst.

      Griffith might have some useful insights but they are for the most part superfluous. Indeed some of his views I see as obsessive and unhelpful, but thats just me.

      Delete
    2. There is certainly a rich history of deep thinking which Griffith only seems to value when he can quote it to support his own concepts. Freud also had his two very useful disciples Jung and Reich. Their concepts have been very useful to me.

      Delete
  9. The truth about the World Transformation Movement and Jeremy Griffith book "Freedom" (Part 2)

    • And in my eyes the main point: All problems, about which the today's world argues, appeared as hollow appearance: Racism? Pah, it is completely solved. Gender and sex? Wouldn't be a problem if people only had "the knowledge". Competition, consumption, status? All people, who still attach importance to this, appeared in my eyes as blinded and still caught in the old paradigm.
    In contrast to this: I have to make a living in society. I have to continue to do my job. I have a family and children to take care of. It becomes extremely difficult to reconcile these opposites.
    • Exiting from WTM thought is hard - because they sell their insights as science, their promises of salvation as universal. They preach the union of science and religion, and their insights as the conclusion of the human quest and evolution. In fact, it is simply another narrative. Humans explain the world to themselves in narratives. The narrative of the WTM is one of them - the pure truth is not, does not exist and will never exist.
    My conclusion: the "World Transformation Movement" presents insights - but also a huge amount of ideology, even if they constantly deny this and classify themselves as the only ideology-free movement. The ideology lies in the seduction that everything will be alright and healing is possible. In fact, sooner or later, exposure to the ideas of WTM leads to an existential crisis and a turning away/isolation from society, friends, families, neighbors. I am glad that after one month I found my way out of the ideas. I am well again - but I will not pursue the ideas of the WTM any longer.
    I have deleted all texts, pictures, links and literature that were in my possession. What has helped me is the realization that it is one narrative among others. A narrative that perhaps sheds light on aspects that help to better understand the person. But for me, looking at the whole truth is not digestible, not helpful, not a support in real life (the only life we have, by the way) and certainly not the solution to all the world's problems. And I think for very few it is. Some ideas and explanations may even be correct - but the world and especially the individual is not ready for it yet. All the worse, with which hope and redemption ideology the "truths" are sold.
    The title of my text is "The truth about the World Transformation Movement and Jeremy Griffith book "Freedom"". I do not know if it is the truth. It is my experience. And because we humans have nothing else at hand but our own experience, we consider this to be the truth. May my text help you to reflect your experience. Thank you for reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm sure there are many who have felt overwhelmed by these ideas.

      I think something more than competing narratives is possible. I think truth is properly judged by its ability to bring coherence, to the individual and society. It is a tentative process, but we see it in science, where the explanations which work - for evolution or gravity or whatever - provide something which people can agree upon because of the evidence which each can see.

      It is important that we learn more about the nature of human psychology, because in understanding ourselves we may find a common ground, a place of relative agreement toward which we can be attracted away from divisive ideologies.

      If what Griffith provides were the grand liberating truth he claims it to be I think it would lead to unforced change in those who absorb it.

      We do want to get to a better world, but we have to get there from where we are, not through a retreat or transcendence. Better understanding would spread and invigorate those enterprises already aimed at making things better, whether it be healing the ecology or resolving conflict or providing therapy.

      When people are caught up in dogma they find it hard to engage in dialogue about important questions with those outside their group. It seems to me that the process by which we move toward solutions is one of improvisation, which requires openness.

      Also, any helpful process has to be an honest process. If someone feels they have to hide their doubts and their pain in order to present a positive image for a cause then it isn't a healing process. Now I can't say if the "pure happiness" of anyone else is false or genuine, a desperate faith or a quiet knowledge, but I can know with whom I feel comfortable "letting it all hang out".

      Delete
    2. What I have adopted to fill the hole left by disappointment in Griffith's ideas may be overly simple, but I find it helps.

      If we were fully defended, as Griffith claims, what would it mean? It would mean that we have nothing to prove, that unconditional self-acceptance is the appropriate attitude. If, as Griffith says, our anger, egotism and alienation - difficulty thinking truthfully - are a produce of insecurity in the face of criticism, then maybe if we cultivate unconditional self-acceptance we will became a little less prone to these limitations. Griffith may be wrong in many of the details of his theory, but be right about ego embattlement - these problems which arise from feeling criticised.

      It may be that his writing is, for many, counterproductive, because a lot of it feels like criticism - of materialism and sexual behaviour and imperfect parenting ability, etc. So it may put us in a double bind where we get all tangled up in the thing which claims to be a release from criticism, but feels a lot like criticism.

      Griffith criticises the mindfulness movement as being a promotion of "mindlessness", but it seems to me that anything which lets us forget ourselves for a while loosens the grip of ego embattlement and/or ideology embattlement.

      I think the concept of addiction is a good one for understanding our condition. The addict needs more to stay at the same level, because satisfaction is ever decreasing. If we lack self-acceptance, and material extravagance or status or sensual pleasures, are our way to dull the pain that comes with that state, then if we lose more self-acceptance by giving ourselves a hard time about needing those things, then we will need more of them without gaining more satisfaction. But if we cultivate self-acceptance, we can enjoy those things more and need them less. If, on the other hand, we were to try to prove we were a good person by practicing self-denial, we would actually be increasing our ego embattlement.

      The kind of wisdom which helps you more easily meet the challenges of family and work, which enables you to drink more uninhibitedly of the natural pleasures of life, and brings you closer to your neighbours is the kind of wisdom that may, in time, lead us to a better world.

      Delete
  10. I’d say the critical exploration and resultant discussion surrounding Griffith’s works are it’s the most helpful aspects. Thanks everyone for your hard work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is when we engage with ideas rather than accepting them passively that we open their potential to be catalysts for beneficial change. Some aspects will stand the test, and other aspects lead to an "if not then what" exploration. That's how I see it anyway.

      Delete
  11. I never heard or read about Griffith until last week. Here is why. My 10 year old laptop was replaced by a new one. The new laptop was not completely ready to use the moment I wanted to watch a youtube content. As soon as I hit the "play" button, I was surprised to see one commercial after another..and than finally the content that I wanted to see appeared.....But this content was interrupted a few times to show some more commercials.
    The first thing I wondered was...are there really people out there that watch all those commercials? The second question was, would people really pay to skip them? Why didn't I just wait to use this new laptop until all the "add blocker" and other tools are installed, to save the bandwidth of my own brain.

    Griffith's commercial came trough several times...as aggressive as those that promote some kind of soft drink or a company that delivers your meal at home.

    That is the reason why I performed a "ecosia search" on his name. What kind of person would promote his book the same way as some brand of cookies?
    And that is how I found your blog.

    Would love to thank you and all those who did "the reading" for sharing their experience when it comes to the writings of this Mr. Griffith and his movement.

    And now time to install add blockers and other tools on this computer. Griffith might call that action living in denial.
    I call it keep commercials out....things that are pushed our way trough commercials, are seldom about the truth...mostly only about "the sell"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your feedback. I hope you get everything set up the way that works for you. It's a war these days between the advertisers, with their algorithms, and those of us who value the freedom to shape our on-line experience.

      I have to say I have some sympathy for Griffith's situation. He has something he feels is crucial to the fate of humanity, but it is a hard sell. He used to joke that he and his supporters were in "the dead cat business". What to do but throw money at the problem? Early on he sold his half of the furniture company he had built up from scratch for a couple of million dollars and began using that money to fund his organisation. I presume he has attracted some wealthy donors as the support for his ideas has slowly grown to its current, still modest, level.

      But I think he could benefit from being able put himself in the shoes of his prospective audience. Anyone seeing his paid advertisements, and hearing him or others extolling the world saving importance of his ideas, is bound to think of the Scientologists and not really listen to what he has to say. Now I'm not saying that most people would be persuaded if they did listen, but there must be some way in which awareness of image could enable him to find a way to lessen the likelihood of instant dismissal.

      Part of the problem, though, is that a certain kind of faith seems to cut off a person's ability to see themselves as others see them. One of Griffith's books received the following review on Amazon :

      Beta
      5.0 out of 5 stars Arriving at the gates
      Reviewed in the United States on December 4, 2004
      As I write this review, tears stream down my face, so overcome have I been by this book. It is the greatest book on the planet, no wait, in the universe. In fact it is the greatest anything in the universe.

      As I read the title, my mortgage was suddenly paid off. I read the opening sentence and a new car and job promotion appeared in the driveway. By the end of the first page, I was 25 again, a body like a gender neutral Adonis, and the mind of Einstein.

      I am indescribably happy, fulfilled, knowing, wise and yet, humble to a fault. I am all, yet nothing, alpha and omega.

      If you have not yet read this book, then don't bother, just read my review and ascend, no pushing at the back please.

      To the other reviewers here, wishy-washy, non commital, with hesitant, conservative and grey praise. Have any of you actually read this book? Come on people, lift your game, this book really deserves all the praise it can get.

      ------------

      Griffith and his followers quoted this as a positive review. I pointed out that it was clearly a parody, that the reviewer was making fun of them. They couldn't understand why I would believe that. It was then that I realised something about how faith corrodes objectivity.

      My experience with the WTM was that it wasn't about "the sell" in a financial sense. Griffith threw his money down a hole. If making money had been his aim he could have gone on being a successful entrepreneur. His furniture company began with him buying a single wheelbarrow full of wood and pushing it home and was worth 4 million dollars when he sold his half of it back in the eighties. He makes his books available as ebooks for free at the same time he has them for sale. But it is about "the sell" in the sense that he is determined to persuade people that his ideas are the answers to all the world's problems. Truthful information can seep out through dialogue, but faith is all or nothing. It seems to me that what is being "sold" is the faith element that understanding a pattern of relationship between the instincts and the intellect will heal our psyches and, because of that, the world itself.

      Delete
    2. Indeed "the sell" in the sense that he is the one who has answers to all the world's problems.
      (When many already know today that the answer is 42... I know....not that funny)

      As already mentioned I never heard of him till recently. If he was very dedicated in his furniture company, payed his coworkers a good wage, sold quality furniture made of wood from sustainable origin...then it is rather sad that he sold his company to threw that money in the bottomless pit of advertisement whilst leaving a hole in the furniture market probably already filled in by now by some sorts of IKEA stuff.
      It is as if he must have felt desperate....And of course, if someone believes that he or she is the only one that has answers available to solve all world problems, that's a heavy to carry all alone....But it is easier to let go the believe "that one has all the answers" and feel some relieve than to convince others to take in all your ideas to get rid of the heavy load. Many people contribute on daily basis their individual insights, efforts and dedication to solve problems. Your blog is a part of it.
      Meanwhile add block and other tools are up and running now.
      And when it comes to "to heal our psyches". It sounds strange to me...as if we could sum up each individual psyche to some bigger thing "our psyche".
      I don't even believe that every human individual alive today needs his er her psyche to be healed per say. Many individuals simply keep on developing and growing during their lives and that is it.
      I'll keep your blog in my bookmarks.
      Keep on scribbling

      Delete
  12. Interesting you should mention the whole 42 thing. In his first book - Free : The End of the Human Condition - Griffith said (70:13) : "Any more superficial and we would take seriously the Monty Python answer that 'the meaning of life is the number 42.'" So one of the first things I did was to send him a copy of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, so that he could see that Douglas Adams deserved the credit. His partner Annie insisted that Griffith got the 42 idea from Monty Python, which is impossible. It may be a small thing, but I think that a carelessness with details in one area tends to indicate a tendency to be careless in other areas. Also a reluctance to admit minor error and correct it in an annotation to the on-line version, isn't a good sign. It seems strange to complain that someone is being superficial by making a joke about the meaning of life being 42. In Adams' book it is not just a joke, but something of a profound philosophical joke. To understand the answer you have to be very clear about what the question is. "What is the meaning of life?" What do we mean by "meaning"? If we really know what meaning is, we'll know what the meaning of life is.

    Griffith's company was called Griffith Tablecraft. He specialised in making tables from big slices through the trunk of old trees so all the grain showed. His chairs were made without glues, with the wood pieces fitting into grooves and with the use of leather straps. He started the business himself and then went into partnership with his brother Gervais. Gervais bought him out, so the company did continue, though I don't think it is around anymore. That was back in the 80s.

    I tend to think we should pay close attention to the way a person, who is striving to bring some message to the world, interacts with others. Is benefit manifested there or not. Openness, patience, fairness, forgiveness, attentiveness... all these qualities carry a message which can't mislead as easily as words can. I'm very aware of the tentative quality of my thoughts or beliefs, but for someone who felt they had the solid rock of truth beneath their feet I would recommend walking two miles with their critics who would walk with them one mile. The truth cannot be undermined by evasive excuses, but allow someone to pour out all their evasions (to see it as Griffith does) and eventually there will be nothing left to talk about but what matters. Or am I too optimistic?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why do you think it is impossible that Griffith got the "42 thing" from Douglas Adams?
    I didn't experience Douglas Adams his book as "just some joke". I can't even properly describe in English words what it was that I have experienced at that time when I read the book (English is not my native language). I can say though that sense of belonging was one of the thing I felt.
    Something I never experienced whilst reading any other book I read up till today.
    When I look at it now, it seems as it was some kind of prophesy as well. It described phenomenon that didn't occur back in those days when Adams wrote his book...but are indeed present or known or proven today.

    Thanks for sharing the information on his furniture company. Sounds like really sustainable crafting.

    And in my experience it is true that it is good to pay attention to how one interacts with other others.
    I am indeed not in that position that I would be able to observe your interactions with others nor that of Griffith, as I don't live around the corner.

    And still. There are people that know very well how to perform in a nearly genuine way when it comes to those qualities you mention, when there is a larger audience present....But as soon as they are behind close doors...it is as if a completely different person appears....with right away completely opposite qualities towards those whom are the closest to them.

    And I can't simply get that close with every single person on earth that thrives to bring a message to the world to know for sure that one is bringing something that truly brings more benefits to people "far from the messenger" than than the messenger brings harm people who live very close to them.

    I read some more of your entries on this blog along with this post and I don't know if you are too optimistic.
    Words as for instance "apocalyptic" don't really resonate with being too optimistic.
    So the sum of a very optimistic vision in this post can be brought back to more equilibrium in using very pessimistic words in another post.....?
    Both pessimism and optimism refer to what someone expects in the future. Positive or negative, both may trigger some anxiousness, because the future is uncertain, till that moment of truth. In that sense I avoid being too pessimistic or to optimistic as it increases some anxiousness....and that doesn't feels comfortable to enjoy the present moment as much as their is to enjoy.
    Both pessimism and optimism are not that much related to the truth, as the future is not "now". It is a bit like black an white have nothing to do with being able to see wide range of colors that are surrounding you at this moment.


    And I don't have any critique on the work of Griffith. I haven't even read it. I just experienced the push trough commercial "pre installing add blocker" just as disturbing as other commercials....and was surprised that someone that claims to want to bring a message to solve problems would use a rather aggressive way to reach a bigger audience just as those who spread their products that aggravates problems. It gave me the impression that he wants to achieve a goal by whatever means necessary.
    And I simply don't believe that is the way to go, even not so when one has good intentions.
    Even if Griffith himself is the nicest person on earth, he takes a big risk to go along with that kind of opportunistic approach, as that kind of approach may attract people to join in whom intentions are more to the spectrum of Machiavellianism who have their own agenda to join in.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Griffith said he got the idea of 42 being the meaning of life from Monty Python. They made a movie called The Meaning of Life. But Griffith can't have got that idea from Monty Python because they never expressed it. I suspect Griffith heard about it second hand from someone who read Douglas Adams. He didn't say that he'd read Adams. And I've never heard him say that he made a mistake in attributing it to Monty Python.

      Yes, I think there is something deeper to Douglas Adams' writing, but it is the jokes he is known for. The point is that he wasn't expressing a serious belief that the meaning of life is 42, so it makes no sense to criticise it is a superficial idea.

      When I use the term "apocalyptic" I tend to think of it as meaning a revelation of the truth which brings an end to turmoil in the world. In the New Testament there are predictions of terrible social turmoil and suffering ("the end of days"), but they come to an end when some truth is revealed which defeats evil and liberates humanity. This tends to be presented as a return of Christ. Since I don't believe in the supernatural, I don't look it that way. But it is true that great turmoil and suffering occurs in the world as a result of lies. If the lies were to collapse and the majority of people were to see the truth, perhaps there could be a far better world.

      It's hard to find rational reasons for believing that things will work out that way, but it is an idea that I try to maintain in order to not give in to pessimism.

      I don't think the way Griffith advertises his ideas necessarily says anything positive or negative about their validity. If they were very effective in making sense of the world and bringing healing to individuals then such adversing would not be necessary, as the powerful results would make them contagiously popular. But the fact that something may be hard to draw the benefit from doesn't necessarily make it worthless or false.

      I don't think there is a big danger of Machiavellianism in Grffith's organisation, as there is in say Scientology or Tele-Evangelism, because, unlike them, it isn't an easy sell and it isn't profit-making. I don't see a benefit for someone who is after wealth or power to get involved with Griffith.

      Delete
  14. Thank you for your clarification. I didn't know that Griffith claimed to have gotten "the 42 thing" from the the Monty Python movie The meaning of life. That was not so clear for me in your previous post. I know that Douglas Adams was once a member of the Monty Python collective. So that it might have been that he got in touch with them and that 42 was shared with him in that way without him knowing that it was Adams in specific who had that idea. But it is true, 42 is not mentioned in the movie The meaning of life at all. So Griffith couldn't have picked it up from the movie.
    And of course Adams wasn't expressing a serious belief that the meaning of life is 42.

    But I wonder if: : "Any more superficial and we would take seriously the Monty Python answer that 'the meaning of life is the number 42.'"
    If this phrase is written to criticise the idea that the meaning of life would be 42
    Or to criticise how many people blindly believe that AI en superficiality will help them to find all answers on their questions and even the answer on the meaning of life and solving all of their problems. Because asking a computer that kind of questions and rely on its answers would indeed make it possible that one day they would even believe that 42 is the ultimate answer.
    I see it everyday. People walking around with "smartphone". On their smartphone they gather information about what kind of weather to expect for the hours to come. The weather forecast is based on computer models. And than one claims " it is not going to rain this afternoon'...according to "buienradar.nl'. And then I look up at the sky, I feel the wind, I feel the humidity and say...the models are wrong. It is going to rain within an hour....and I was right.
    So we are not that far from the fact that people tend to believe more in "outcomes" generated in computers than the ability of their own senses to predict the weather some hours upfront.

    And thanks as well for clearing up what your definition and way for using the word apocalyptic is.


    And nice to know that the probability that some Machiavellianism would pop up in Griffith's surroundings is rather small. As you investigated his case very thoroughly you are in a position to make that statement.

    Thanks a lot for sharing your insights.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, he called it a "Monty Python" answer and his partner Annie said he got it from Monty Python. I assumed he thought it was from Meaning of Life. I suppose it is possible he might have seen one of the Monty Python guys refer to it in an interview alluding to Douglas Adams. But I think it is most likely that a Douglas Adams fan said something about it to him and he got confused about where it came from.

    I think you make a good point about relying on technology. The smarter our devices are the dumber we become. When it comes to practical things like weather and how to find food and clean drinking water in unfamiliar territory, not to mention what herbs help with particular physical ailments, our hunter-gather ancestors were no doubt far cleverer than ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  16. We now know it isn't 42, rather it is 137.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No rocket science here: The fundamental disease it the insulation of human awareness from reality, perennially supported by anthropocentrism, from our place as a single species here on Planet Earth, and without a moral compass. Test of that MC: We have destroyed 98% of meiso / macro fellow travellers, all the while focusing on ourselves as the centre of the universe. We are simply and sadly the apex pest and the apex predator, and an unfortunate blight. Give me factual rebuttal please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't give you a rebuttal. All I can ask is what survival strategy you can suggest. Both Griffith and I would say that a healing of our dark side is necessary and that this would allow us to face reality. The problem with seeing ourselves as irredeemably a pest is that it may lead to justification for another Holocaust.

      Delete
  18. From: https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/42

    Inspiration for the number 42

    Douglas Adams revealed the reason why he chose forty-two in this message .

    "It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'".

    He further explained in January 2000, in response to a panelist's "Where does the number 42 come from?" on the radio show "Book Club".

    Adams explained that he was "on his way to work one morning, whilst still writing the scene, and was thinking about what the actual answer should be". He eventually decided that it "should be something that made no sense whatsoever – a number, and a mundane one at that". He arrived at the number 42, completely at random.

    Despite Adams stating that he chose the number 42 at random, and that it has no hidden meaning, and his collaborator on 'The Meaning of Liff' and two Hitchhiker's fits, John Lloyd, saying that Adams has called 42 "the funniest of the two-digit numbers"[1], fans still speculate about the 'true' meaning of the number.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am currently digesting Jeremy's books and the appeal is real and I can certainly identify my youthful days by his explanations of early adolescents. My real problem is that I see no real solution from understanding his premise. It doesn't stop me from feeling the need to compete or get ahead. I am reminded in reading his material of the Avatar movement which came shortly after (I believe) the popular movie of the same name. I attended the seminar knowing that the founder of the movement was an ex scientologist and I knew enough scientology to know that it was definitely a cult, but only upon attending did I watch as group leaders try to assert key concepts as fact even when opposing opinions were suggested. I finished the seminar but never indulged again. Living in Waco, TX now, and being a Texas native, I am all too familiar with David Koresh and his insanities. We certainly all want a solution to the craziness of the times but a close friend of mine once summed up my doubts about the future with saying that every generation expresses the same doubts about the one that follows its own. And whether you believe in Bart Ehrmans theory or my own favorite Richard Carriers mythicist position, I believe that this is proof just as Mormons, Branch Davidians, Scientology. Jehovahs witnesses or any other pseudo religion that we can see clearly that a an ideal exists in our minds and we may be able to ever follow it closer, but Jesus was more likely a telling of a myth of a man that like plates Republic formed out of an ideal to establish control and peace amongst a torn society. I hope for the sake of society we can one day get aboard that idealistic train but I do believe it will take logic and an understanding of facts concerning religion to make us all realize its up to us. But then most people are too busy living their own lives with as much peace as they can muster. Where does a person really find the time or resources to effect change while having to make a living? I ask this rhetorically because it is well known that Muhammad was left an estate inheritance by a rich old widow he was doodling. Ha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Jesus said "By their fruits shall ye know them." The test for any idea which claims to redeem humanity is whether it redeems humanity. I think the best that can be said for Jeremy's "defence for humanity" is that the jury is out.

      Delete
  20. It's a cult. Very similar to Scientology. Humans are basically good..really? That questioning empty feeling etc., that is absence of God in your life..we are spiritual beings. Proof of that is they weigh animals at the time of death..no change is weight. When s human died there is a slight change in weight.
    Very small..but noticable. Ask a nurse or an EMT sometime about seeing a person pass in a dark room. One man doesn't have the answers..what we know is very limited and we do not have the information to make these outrageous claims..first prove that humkind is basically good. Darwin at the end of his life renounced evolution and admitted he made up some of his observations...no one will ever mention that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your opinion. I would like to see some factual evidence for the claim you make about Darwin.

      Delete