The door relates to an idea; it is not an actual door. The idea to which it relates is surely not a new idea.
It was George Frankl who first suggested the idea to me when he told me - about 40 years ago - that in ancient times one who felt he or she had offended the deities could simply lie down and die.
It seems to me that if our ancestors could do this, perhaps we might be able to do the same: to lie down and die, not because we thought we had offended any gods or goddesses, but because we had had enough of the conditions of being human.
When an individual has suffered severe and prolonged psychological injury, has been bullied over a long period by close and beloved family members, for instance; or whose people have been enslaved for generations by a ruling class or a foreign power; or whose people are held in contempt by their own society, as was the case for the so-called ‘untouchables’ in India until Gandhi made changes, or tried to make changes to attitudes in Indian society; or who live in hunger and poverty unable to properly support their children; or any other cause, well, in such cases the individual may feel eventually that being human has become intolerable and may wish to leave.
It seems to me that any individual who has had enough, should be able to leave, comfortably, easily and painlessly at will. But we cannot. George said, ‘The energy released seeks form,’ from which we must infer that each one of us has made the decision to chose the form of being human. We will bear in mind that all babies are born good and loving, and thus understand that we would not expect that being human would, or could, be so nasty for so many. We may recognise that each one of us freely chose to be human and it would seem reasonable to expect that any one of us could as freely walk away.
There are cases of young people suddenly dying unexpectedly and inexplicably, headlines in newspapers which tell of a healthy young sportsperson just dropping dead on the playing field, apparently perfectly healthy and apparently without any cause. It would perhaps be wrong to suggest that in such a case the individual had wanted to leave. We may recognise that any desire to leave would be almost certainly be unconscious. However, we may speculate that it is possible that we humans still have the ability to leave at will.
There are what seem to be sanctioned methods of leaving: suicide or a dreadful illness. Neither of these is comfortable, easy or painless.
Why is it so difficult for us to simply walk away? Why is the possibility almost unthinkable?
One cause is that we are afraid of death, almost pathologically afraid, so afraid that this fear prevents us properly enjoying our human lives. This fear of death is an effect of the early phylogenic traumas.
Then there is the influence of the early matriarchs: to want to walk away is to defy their power and their rule. I can imagine the matriarchs saying to any disaffected worker at Olorgesaillie, ‘You will make stone axe heads and you will enjoy it.’ And I have quite recently seen a young female shop manager telling an older female worker to ‘Cheer up, look happy!’ which caused the very nice worker to wince, and ask me, ‘Why should I cheer up?’ No reason at all, except that we are all told we must be happy and must be seen to be happy, whatever miserable conditions we are labouring under: that is part of the ancient Matriarchal Law.
To question the power of the matriarchs, even to write this chapter, is to defy the matriarchal Law. It is extraordinary, after all this time, that the power of their Law is so strong. However, the power of all the matriarchal Laws of all time and all the universe is a lot less strong than George Frankl!
The Door 2
Our wild exaggerated fear of death is an effect of that major catastrophic trauma: we believe we have done something so bad that we dare not die. Each of us believes this, we believe it collectively and individually. It is a very strong belief, and we are supported in our endeavour to avoid death by our extreme cleverness is learning to ‘say the thing that is not’, by learning to tell lies, to invent an alternative reality for ourselves.
We are naturally, instinctively aware that the energy is recycled, as George Frankl put it, ‘The energy released seeks form.’ We know that by instinct, and we know it scientifically now, too. But in our traumatised terror, we have repressed that natural understanding, and have allowed ourselves to believe that we are so very bad that we cannot be accepted back in to the round of energy.
There is a mixture of feelings: we believe we caused the catastrophe, individually, though we have always known we did not cause the catastrophe, someone else must have caused it, though we know we must have caused it; believing we did cause the catastrophe means that we are extremely powerful, and very guilty, though at the same time we know that we are weak and innocent, but we also know that we have this terrible power, which we must hide, we teach our children that they are guilty, and this terrible power means that we can defeat nature; we are guilty and must be punished, though of course we are innocent and must be seen to be innocent, above all; and we are playing with all these feelings, we take it very seriously, but we are playing with it, trying out the possibilities, as it were.
Our fear of death is actual. And it seems that part of that fear is our honest wish to protect the Life Force from us: we are so bad, that life itself must be protected from us.
Writing it down like this, it seems the most ridiculous nonsense, but we do take it very seriously. We set ourselves on this path a very long time ago, when we were in the cultural infancy of our species, and we feel we must follow this path because otherwise we will be seen to be very foolish.
And we fear that we will be vulnerable again.
As a species, we have been very, very angry with nature, and very hurt. As a species we were very hurt in our deepest and most sensitive feelings.
It was a very serious trauma. And it is important to remember that it happened to our ancestors in the cultural infancy of our species. But we will relax a bit now.
The Door 3
The idea of the door first came to me about 10 years ago. I couldn’t pursue it then, but now it seems the right time; I’m 70 and as the Bible says that’s the human life span, I’ve always assumed I’d die this year - although I’ll probably go on for years and years like my poor mother. And the state of the human sphere is so horrible. Reading the news is like being assaulted, and it doesn’t seem to get any better.
And, you know, we all must die, that is the way of life, and it would be marvellous if each of us could individually and freely choose, consciously choose, could say, ‘Well, I’ve had enough of this form and I’m going now to seek another form,’ a natural way, you know, not drugs, not suicide, not ‘assisted’, but just be able to exercise one’s free will in this matter.
I can’t be the first person to have this idea; and it may be mere foolishness. But it’s interesting, which is in its favour. It’s a lot more interesting to think about than the news, which is mostly just nasty.
I’m bored and lonely, as many people are, especially in this Covid time; and strangely many people around me are thieves and crooks; apparently nice middle class professional people. You’d be surprised. I have been. So what’s the attraction? Because it’s one thing to have the idea of The Door and quite another to think of actually quitting this realm, consciously, freely choosing to go.
It is morally squalid here in our human ‘reality’; and there is so much hysteria and noise, so what is the attraction? Why do we want to stay? Why do we cling on?
Around the same time that I had the idea of the door, I also had an impression that we human beings are naughty little children; mummy is calling us in to bed, but we run away laughing.
There’s the fear; there’s the natural will to live; the deep knowledge of what life is really like; and there is our defiance of the natural order.
The Door 4
In between whiles, when I’ve had time to think about the door, I’ve considered how beautiful the world would be - will be - when the human population is maintained at the level nature chooses, though I don’t know what that level would be, except that it would be the right level.
We have tricked ourselves into believing that to be human is the highest achievement of life. Human beings are an integral part of life on earth, but I am not convinced that I am more significant than any one of the bugs in the garden.
Over the past five or so years, I’ve thought a lot about the morality of the idea of the Door: is it morally right to want to find and go through it? However, now that I am 70 that question seems to have less relevance for me, personally: I am on the last lap now, however long it takes to breast the tape.
And now that I’m writing about it, I wonder have I lost the plot? That is to say, have I gone bonkers? But no, I don’t think it is crazy to consider this; the end of being human is a very significant part of being human.
And now that I am writing about it, the idea terrifies me! For all that I do see my human life as a life sentence of frustrations, and I am well aware that my life is and has been far easier than life is for many human beings, and other creatures whom we bully so horribly, even so I do see something very attractive in being human.
And now that I’m writing about the door, the idea delights me, too. To be free. Think of it, to be free of all this nonsense. That is a delightful thought.
But what if the energy which has been me should choose to seek human form again? That is not a pleasant thought. That is a horrible thought. The energy, being fundamentally good, may forget the horrors of human life, and once released might be attracted again; and to have to go though this again. What if the energy forgets? That I have no way of knowing.
But what if the released energy remembers? That is just as likely. Or at least a possibility. It is possible that the released energy might have something like an instinctive memory of the past hundred years or so of human activity, and, without compromising it fundamental goodness, might then avoid making the same mistake again of being human.
And if the released energy remembers, then a free energy, that energy which had been me or any individual, could do a lot of good on earth. The possibilities are attractive.
The Door 5
The door must wait. China is in need of understanding. We must do what we can.
The first clue is the old practice of foot binding. Wikipedia and other sources tell us that this practice started in China in the 10th century, and became fashionable. But we will recognise that to cripple girls for life is very extreme, and we cannot accept this as fashion. We will understand that what became foot binding has its origins in serious phylogenic trauma, perhaps the great trauma; we will understand that at the time of the trauma, the women were terrified of running away in fear, or of being carried away by fear, and that the men were terrified that their womenfolk would run away or be carried away. We know that the ancient traumas have not yet been resolved, and are not forgotten. We recognise that the ancient terrors have powerful unconscious influence on human behaviour. We will understand that even after millennia from the original traumatic event people still search for methods to solve the distresses; we will understand that foot binding was seen as a means to ‘solve’ the distresses: crippled girls and women cannot run away.
Then there are the ‘dragon dogs’ which I saw at an exhibition in the 1990s. These figures looked to me like almost box shaped dragon dogs, and were strangely frightening. They are Guardian Lions, usually in carved in stone, placed to guard the home from evil, and we may recognise the fear of the people who imagined and made these figures to guard their homes.
We must now look at the one child policy in China. Every time I mention the one child family, someone is sure to say, ‘But they tried that in China and it didn’t work at all.’ The one child policy in China was imposed by the leadership on the people; we read that there was some confusion or mismanagement; it has been suggested that the policy was not imposed across the entire society, but that there was a need for farm workers and soldiers. All these factors will have undermined the effectiveness of the policy. There are other factors: the country of China was in turmoil for much of the 20th century, and in what may have been experienced as a state of almost permanent revolution during the era of Mao Zedong; this may been seen as a continuing trauma for the people; research has shown that psychological trauma increases the human population; thus we may see that to impose a one child policy on a traumatised people is unlikely to succeed in bringing down the population.
And there is the prejudice in favour of sons. It is known that girl babies were killed in favour of the possibility that the next child would be a boy. There have been reports that this practice was common during the one child policy in China; and there is evidence that there are now far more men in China than there are women: a large number of men who cannot find a mate. It is an unhappy imbalance.
I must add that it is sometimes difficult to find data, and that there are often contradictions. However, from the public behaviour of Chinese diplomats in various countries around the world, I see that this is a country which is in much need of understanding.
The Door 6
But there are so many who need so much understanding. A friend of mine calls them The Kings, you know, The King of Russia, The King of America - who might change this very day - The King of Belarus and so on and so on. And so on. They behave like the tyrant kings of old. And it’s not only countries; my friend talks often of the King of Amazon, having seen a tv documentary about the horrible working conditions in that company. At the last general election in this country, one of the major parties was headed by The King of the AntiSemites; that party lost the election, but we mustn’t be complacent.
The Kings, presumably, see themselves as good fellows. Or perhaps not. It is known that The King of the AntiSemites does definitely see himself as a very good fellow, and is blind to the harm he does. But others are cynical; although fundamentally they must see themselves as good, they cloak themselves in cynicism, trying to make themselves invulnerable. And they smirk. Smirking is not a good sign.
When I started writing Mothers and Daughters, I noticed that a lot of women smirked; but not so much now. These days there seems to have been a change, an improvement. Look at the fashion models, who used to glower and scowl, and now quite often are photographed smiling on the catwalk, they are allowed to enjoy themselves at their work.
But The Kings do tend to smirk. Is there a link between the more cheerful public face of women and the smirking Kings? There might be, you know: the old order is changing; the Kings represent that old order, and we may recognise that they are feeling vulnerable.
We will remember that Kingship, the patriarchy, was the response to the chaos and horror of the late matriarchy. We will also recognise that the Kings feel allied to the power of the matriarchs during the previous matriarchy of Olorgesaillie. We will understand that on the one hand, the Kings see themselves as the necessary subduers of the madness of the late matriarchs; and on the other hand that they see themselves as representing the will of the matriarchs of Olorgesaillie - who were repressive, tyrannical and determined to keep power and order, but were not actually insane. It is a confused picture, but we are talking about human psychology and behaviour and confusion goes with the territory. We may clearly recognise the following: that the Kings are happy to have the power that once belonged exclusively to the matriarchs: that the Kings, as sons, are afraid of the matriarchs, as mothers, and are afraid that the matriarchs will punish them for taking power; that the Kings feel vulnerable to the possibility of matriarchal anger. George Frankl was disturbed by the angry rages of feminism precisely because he recognised the vulnerability of men to women.
As my friend points out, the Kings do often have popular support in their own countries: the Kings see themselves and are seen by certain of their peoples as the defence against the unfettered power of the matriarchs. From this, we may recognise that the ancient fear of the matriarchs is widespread and runs deep. The UN report, which showed the unpopularity of women amongst women as well as amongst men, shows us the same thing. And the findings of that report bring us back to our core subject: Mothers and Daughters.
The Kings imitate the matriarchs of Olorgesaillie: they impose their will and their power on the people; at times the Kings imitate the crazed excesses of the later matriarchs: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, the Ceausescus, and others in recent world history, and many others in earlier history. The matriarchs took their lessons from nature. Why did humanity get it so wrong, when the other creatures kept their balance? I’ve tried to understand but it puzzles me. A few years ago, I had an image of a young female ancestor running, in some fear, through the jungle, and the wet leaves slapped her face as she ran through them; then later when she had her own daughter, this female demonstrated to her daughter what had happened to her as she was running away that day, slapping the daughter’s face, telling the story, telling the narrative, not angry, just replaying the story (when I was a little girl …) and over the years it became a tradition among the people, that the mothers replayed the ancient story by hitting their daughters around the face though the origins of the story were lost to conscious memory, until someone became angry and eventually the daughters resented being slapped around the face; but they carried on the tradition and slapped the faces of their own daughters.
Having written it down, I see that this series of images is an element in the repressive behaviours. But I still don’t understand why we humans have allowed ourselves to behave so badly for so long. And continue to behave so badly, all of us, when we know it is wrong; for instance, why are we still using plastic?
The Kings need our understanding. We may recognise that they see themselves as heroic figures fighting the Dragon of Matriarchy; and as the handsome Prince who liberates the beautiful Princess from the repressive mother. We may recognise that the Kings live in a fairytale and infantile world. As adults, we don’t need fairy tales any more. We will also recognise that the Kings see themselves as the rightful inheritors of the power of the matriarchs.
I would not like to live in a world run only by women, or in a world run only by men. Eventually, human beings should be free to run their own lives. But for the present, it is well that the best people, male or female, should run their countries and institutions.
Life is so wonderful and I would pray to God that the Kings see it soon.
And the beauty of life brings me back to the search for the door.
The Door 7
For several years the general view of scientists and of many philosophers has denied the existence of the mind, although attitudes seem to be softening recently. And it just occurs to me to wonder whether this sort of severe rationalism, including the very widespread atheism, has contributed to the huge increase in the human population numbers. This idea may not be as daft as it sounds: if God is dead, as the strict atheists insist he is, if there is no hope of any future life after this human state, if there is no mind but only the physical brain, nothing beyond the material, if we are told all this by the clever people and come to believe these things, then such beliefs will increase our fear of death, and may in themselves represent a psychological trauma, and as we know, such fears lead to more births.
Or it may be that these rationalist beliefs - and even atheism is a matter of faith - recognise our intense fear of death, and it may be that the rationalists hope to lessen these fears in some way. There is a connection between our huge population growth and rationalist thinking.
I love my brain; there is so much that is interesting going on in it. And I know that when I die, when I cease to have this human form, my brain must stop, too: the brain is physical and like the rest of the body it will rot. The thought is frightening. But George Frankl was a great genius, and he told me, ‘It’s alright to be afraid, but you must be very brave, you must have courage.’ And when he died and I saw him in the hospital, his features were set in a severe expression, because I know he didn’t want to die. He didn’t give up willingly.
But two or three days later, I walked down England’s Lane in Belsize Park, and whoosh! there he was. Not his physical form, of course not, but I felt the energy physically, his energy; it was him very definitely. Unmistakably. And powerful, much more powerful than when he was in human form.
The mind and the brain are distinct. The brain is material and on the death of the individual, the brain will quickly decay. The mind is unmaterial, and when the individual moves on from being human, it is the mind which seeks form when the energy is released.
While we are in this human form, it is the mind which directs the brain. Or I should say, the mind would direct the brain, but we have built our great barriers of taboos, and the mind must struggle to break through to consciousness.
You will know, dear reader, that I am often afraid when I am writing, because I don’t hesitate to say so. And the fear is guilt. A terrible, deep and phylogenic sense of having done great wrong. It’s phylogenic, so an inherited guilt. It isn’t innate, we are not born with it, it comes on us later. It is difficult to be exactly sure when our ancestors first suffered the trauma which produced this guilt and fear, but we may be confident that the breakthrough which causes our infants of three and half years old to scream in rage and terror, marks the original event. So the original event occurred, as Frankl put it, ‘in our cultural infancy’. It happened to our ancestors so long ago, but it is so deep, and still affects so much of what we do in our lives, and even makes us afraid to die.
By that posthumous demonstration of his continuing consciousness, George taught me something he probably had not known while he was still alive. But we do know now: he showed us that the mind continues. It is alright to be afraid, but we may also have confidence.
The Door 8
To find the door, we must remember who we are: fundamentally good, born good and loving. And when we remember that, then we live. It’s so simple.
The Door 9
That, as far as I can see, is the door into being human; and may be the door out from this human state.
It is to be oneself; to recognise and to be true to The Myself; and it is for each individual to remember. Where I have said, ‘… we must remember …’, there read ‘… you must remember who you are: fundamentally good, born good and loving. And when you remember that, then you live.’
To remember and to be true to The Myself is the door into reality. When we remember and are true to The Myself, then we rejoin the reality of life and we are through the door into being truly human.
And the door from this human state naturally follows for each of us in due time. There is no mystery.
This all comes from Frankl’s proof.
The Door 10
How is the little boy? A woman recently had a miscarriage, her 18 month old son was present. It is a very sad and difficult time for the parents; but they are adults and can and do speak for themselves, which is very good. But how is the little boy? He cannot speak for himself. George Frankl told me, ‘You must speak for the children.’ I will do my best.
A death in the family is noticed by even very young children. It is a traumatising experience for a child, though it is more traumatic for the child who is present at the death. The death of a sibling, by miscarriage, ‘cot death’, illness, accident, or other means, is especially significant, whether the sibling is younger or older. The child - even or especially a very young child - feels what the mother feels, experiences the emotions of the parents and other family members, in addition to what he or she is experiencing: indeed, the child learns what he or she should be feeling by experiencing the feelings of others affected.
A death in the family traumatises the child, even a very young child, though the extent of the damage of trauma will depend vrye much on the established relationship between the mother and child.
We have discussed the nature of trauma often in this work, but there is one point that I want to make again: the child believes that he or she has caused the traumatising event; among other feelings, this belief gives the child the idea that he or she is very powerful. And I want to look at this aspect of trauma in relation to our species.
Our early ancestors believed that they had caused the devastating events which so badly traumatised them; so badly that we, their distant descendants are still suffering the effects.
I do not know what gave our species the idea that we had such great power. I do not know whether the other animals have similar beliefs; do the koalas, for instance, believe that they caused the terrible recent bushfires in Australia? It is possible, but I think unlikely: the other animals do not act on any such belief, as we act on this belief that we have great and terrible powers.
There is an idea that psychological trauma in childhood produces genius. It is true that all infants suffer phylogenic trauma, and so one might say that the entire human race is suffering PDST. But the idea that ontogenic, individual, psychological trauma is childhood produces genius is dubious, and I think it is a dangerous idea. Over the years, I have seen many children crushed by cruelty and their genius crushed out. Jesus told the people not to hide their light, Polonius tells his son, ‘… to thine own self be true, …’. But a bullied, abused child must hide his or her light to survive, and it is difficult even dangerous to be true to oneself if doing so excites the fury of the abusers. I estimate that over 30% of children have exceptional talent, but see that most of this potential is lost by trauma in childhood. Ontogenic psychological trauma destroys genius. Our species is naturally brilliant.
The Door 11
The infant of three and a half years old screams in rage and terror. We have discussed the terror, but have paid less attention to the rage. I do not want to write about the rage; I don’t want to think about it, or to feel it as I must if I am to write about it. But it is there, part of our phylogenic inheritance, and it is very significant.
The archetypical male response to the rage is to make wars. As we all know, a very great deal of effort is put into making weapons of war, including bombs. Men use the bombs to attack the supposed enemy. But the real target of the rage is nature itself. There is a sexual element in making and using the bomb; in this context the deep male fantasy is that by throwing and exploding the bomb he is fucking nature, showing nature that he is a big man and won’t stand any nonsense from her, that he is capable of being as angry as she is, and his bomb-anger will satisfy her angry lust. This is well understood, but rarely mentioned: it is kept more or less hidden from public view, presumably because war is a serious business, and so on. War is a serious business, people get killed. animals get killed and the earth is polluted, but it isn’t considered nice to look underneath to see what is going on in the human psyche. Furthermore, nature itself is completely unaware of the human psychology, and knows nothing of the weird male fantasies associated with war.
The big dramatic areas of international and civil wars mask the domestic effects of the ancient rage against nature. Conflicts within families are considered ‘normal’, as is war. But the conflicts within families are as deadly as wars.
The ancient rage is passed on down the generations. Human nature is fundamentally good, all babies are born good and loving. So each generation must be taught to be infuriated. The child of 3 1/2 years old experiences the rage, and with good and loving parents the child will come to terms with that terrible experience; but the rage is now implanted within the individual infant.
Where the parents are less good and loving, where the infant has older and disturbed siblings, or where the infant becomes the family scapegoat of younger siblings, the lesson is repeated. The angry mother repeats the lesson of rage; the angry father, too; the angry siblings. I have experienced this myself from the women in my family; and I have witnessed often the effects of this anger within many families.
Even where there are only two children in the family dominated by anger, the elder - almost always the elder - bullies and torments the younger. Where there are more siblings, the family scapegoat - usually though not always the youngest - is bullied repeatedly and often, and with different siblings each having a different personality and method of bullying, the family scapegoat may find it difficult to maintain a sense of self. The bullying often, or even usually, continues into adulthood. The scapegoat is seen to ‘go off the rails’, to fail to reach his or her potential, to take drugs or become alcoholic, often the family scapegoat will commit suicide, or to get a terrible disease and die. In which event, the other siblings, who have spent a life time bullying the scapegoat and naturally feel guilty, indulge in an orgy of self-pity, tell anyone who will listen that the dead sibling was always selfish, was cruel to their mother and so on. I’ve seen it so often. The surviving siblings blame the dead for getting ill or for committing suicide, and feel that it was done deliberately to make them feel bad. Even without such dramatic events, the bullying sibling or siblings keep up the torment by bearing false witness, telling extravagant lies to friends and neighbours - which astonishingly are believed. (Recently, the present Pope suggested that people should stop gossiping, which caused some alarm among various newspapermen and women. Perhaps the Pope should have told people to stop bearing false witness, but these days who would have understood what he meant? I really never imagined that I would agree with a Pope!)
And all this rage: the wars, the bombs, the deadly family bullying comes from the ancient traumas. And this rage lives in all of us, breaks out of unconsciousness in infancy and stays within us. And we like to pretend it isn’t there.
To sum up, the ancient feeling seems to be, ‘Nature punished us so we will punish nature.’
It’s hard. It’s hard to see it, and very difficult to acknowledge. The rage is protected by a very deep taboo. But the rage is there and it is a killer, a world wide and very deadly killer. So we have tried to look at it.
And just to make it completely clear: several years ago, George Frankl told me that atomic bombs, and biological and chemical weapons are all very bad. He told me and I’m telling you, because he told me that I must.
The Door 12
When George Frankl told me that nuclear weapons, biological and chemical weapons are bad, he also said that it is very bad to use nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. George was very definite that nuclear weapons, biological weapons and chemical weapons are particularly bad and it is very bad to use these weapons. He told me, and now I’ve told you.
The end of this year, 2020, marks 10 full years since I started writing Mothers and Daughters. Looking around the world now, I am not optimistic about the future of humanity, or this planet. When I started writing this, I was filled with optimism but now things do seem to be less good. As you can see for yourself if you look around. Perhaps Yellowstone National Park is about to blow, and as we are animals, it is likely that we are deeply and unconsciously aware of this imminent possibility. That might explain our extraordinary behaviour.
The despots, the dictators, oppressing their people; Mr Kim Jong Un joining in with making nuclear bombs; President Xi Jinping apparently fixed on world domination. There has been a change in the leadership of the USA, so we can wait and see what happens there in the coming months. Mr Vladimir Putin of Russia has said that he is afraid of Britain. Really?
Then there are the ‘great’ capitalists, Mr Elon Musk who wants to go to Mars, or he wants to send other people to Mars, and also to hook himself up to a computer, or perhaps have other people hook themselves up to computers; and Mr Jeff Bezos who wants to live for 1,000 years. And they take these ambitions very seriously. There are other very wealthy men and women, who are reluctant to give to charity in case they slip off the rich list.
A couple of items about myself: when my mother miscarried so spectacularly in front of me when I was three and half years old, one thing saved me from destruction: I saw that she had done it; I hadn’t done it. I know other people who weren’t so fortunate in similar circumstances.
1) the 2 year old girl whose mother left her ‘in charge’ of the poorly auntie for the night; the auntie died that night, and for 70 years that little girl grown to adulthood and old age, believed she herself had killed the auntie: even though she couldn’t imagine how she had done it, she was sure that she had, with some kind of magical power; until I told her that she hadn’t done it and couldn’t possibly have done it, and she wasn’t pleased to hear it.
2) the two sisters, who were aged 30 months and 15 months when their baby brother was born, and just a few weeks older when he died, in what was then known as a cot death. They were my full blood sisters, and when I was born four years later, the effects on them became clear, though not understandable to me for decades. The elder, H, seemed not able to even look at me, she was vicious and angry, and very cruel, and I now realise that she was terrified that I too would die, and that she would somehow, magically, have caused my death. The second sister, T, was different and I prefer not to discuss her behaviour, except to say that it seems she felt less culpable for that baby boy’s death, that the older sibling was the more ‘powerful’, that H had the magic power and that T was the sidekick.
There is the example of the boy A, whose mother had a miscarriage when he was four years old. This is slightly different, and I do not know that he felt he had caused the event. I do know that the baby was a girl, that the mother ‘put on a brave face’, made light of the matter, and that A grew up to be a kind of Bluebeard figure, in that he had many relationships with younger women, of whom he grew tired and then discarded them, very coldly and with disastrous consequences to them.
3) is Adolf Hitler. Three infants died in his family before he was born. It is very likely that the baby knew of those infants. It is very possible that the boy believed that he had cleared the way for himself, had magically killed them. The later death of his younger brother may have seemed to him another example of his own ‘magical power’, but Adolf was 11 years old by this time, and would be highly disturbed to feel he had a magical power over which he had no control. From his infantile behaviour as an adult I am strongly inclined to think that he believed in his own ‘magical powers’. It is most disturbing that his followers also seem to have believed in these supposed magical powers. Disturbing, but not that unusual, when we look at recent examples of infantile behaviours among national leaders.
————--
The second item I want to tell you about myself is that I can paint. Hurray! Not that I’m a great painter by any means, but I can do it, and I love it. And now that I know that I do love it, I can put it to one side, and not take it seriously. It seems very footling to paint when there is so much else going on, so much of such interest.
I am not optimistic about the future of our species or our planet. It is difficult to be very optimistic when our great heroes are people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. On the other hand, it is difficult to be pessimistic with such heroes: they are such clowns, and it is hard to be pessimistic when you’re laughing so much.
But the clowns aside, it is serious. The situation is unsustainable. The only time I’ve had this feeling before was one day in the summer of 1997. The paparazzi were persistently mobbing Princess Diana and her boyfriend, and I thought, ‘This can’t go on. It’s unsustainable.’ And a few days later they both were dead.
I can’t tell the future, but you don’t need to be able to tell the future. For years we’ve been told that we can’t go on like this, using up the earth’s resources, polluting the planet, killing and destroying. And for years, we’ve been ignoring what we’re told. Mr Musk possibly actually believes that we can resettle on Mars or some other handy planet, but really that’s fantasy time. This planet is it. And we can’t go on as we are. And, I think, we won’t be able to.
In the meantime, I am going to look for that door.
The Door 13
Which door? There are two, at least.
The door out of being human is inescapable. We’ll all go through that door in time, when we each run out of time.
The door out leads to the energy released. I have an idea of that. Not an image, but an idea, of all the released energy seeking form. It’s wonderful, all that freedom. And there is nothing more I can say about it. There is nothing more that I know.
The Door 14
The other door which I know about, is the door into being fully human, which is a different challenge.
We distrust ourselves and our humanity. Women especially have distrusted themselves. We distrust nature. And distrust makes it difficult for us to live as we would live trusting nature.
All those pathologically wealthy men and women who are reluctant to give to charity in case they fall off the rich list. It may be very exciting for them to count their pennies and pounds, their dollars and cents. I wouldn’t know if it is or isn’t exciting.
It is probably very exciting for Elon Musk to be not only wildly rich but also to dream of living on Mars and be able to send rockets there. And is it exciting for Jeff Bezos to have teams of scientists working to extend the human life span to one thousand years? Yikes. And I am sure that both these men, and others who pursue such fantasies, believe they are doing good, though I do not agree that Mr Bezos and Mr Musk are doing good in pursuing these fantasies.
Most of us aren’t obsessed with making vast sums of money, or wouldn’t know how to. Very many people are obsessed with having enough money to survive. But very many have a deep feeling that money isn’t life. They are correct.
Of the great geniuses of the 20th century, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein and George Frankl, Einstein and Frankl were loved within their families, though they encountered external difficulties; Einstein’s family had financial problems; Frankl and Einstein were targeted by the Nazis; but both had as foundation to their lives the loving support of their families. Freud too was targeted by the Nazis. Earlier, as a boy in his family, Freud had a somewhat poor relationship with his father, but a strong and loving bond with his mother provided a stable foundation to his life. The genius of these three great men was founded in and nurtured by love.
I wish you could have know George Frankl. He was marvellous. He was, of course, a great genius. He was also physically very strong; he was an athlete, a boxer, a swimmer, a runner, footballer; he could do a standing body flip until he was fifty! He was humorous, good humoured, generous hearted, kindly. He was wonderful.
Late in life, he wrote an article called A Dream of the 21st Century. You perhaps could get a copy by writing to his publishers, you can find their details printed in the info page in his books, or on the net. They have ceased trading but it may be that they have copies, and might be able to let you have one.
His dream of the future is different from mine. And mine will be different from yours.
Frankl’s proof provides the key to unlock that door into our becoming fully human. Whatever the details may be, Frankl’s proof is fundamental to our good future.
When every child is in reality wanted; when the fundamental goodness, the good and loving nature of each baby born is recognised and accepted; when mothers and fathers reciprocated that love, then we’ll be on our way.
And that’s really all I have to say: when we accept and embrace Frankl’s proof we will begin to live. And it is very exciting, very beautiful, interesting and exciting.
The Door - Afterword
When I talk of my beloved sisters, I mean that: I do love them. I don’t know what they think of me, but that is not the point. From my point of view the point is that I love them.
It has nothing to do with masochism, I do not enjoy being bullied. It has nothing to do with forgiveness. We don’t lay blame here, so with no blame what is forgiveness? And, of course, if I had had a younger sibling, I would have bullied that child. The causes of such behaviours lie deep in our disturbed human phylogeny; my sisters have obeyed the lessons taught them by their mother, who obeyed her mother, who obeyed her mother …
And the reason I love them, is simply because the baby loves. They were there when I was a baby and the baby loves. Love is far deeper in our phylogeny, and is human nature.