Genesis talks of the sin of disobedience. It is the woman who disobeyed; the man obeyed the woman. In Genesis, and to the man, the will of the woman is stronger than the word of God.
i) A mother and her 16 year old daughter had a row; the daughter was rude to her mother and stormed off to her room. The mother told her husband - the girl's step father - to go and spank the girl. The husband protested. But the mother insisted; and the man went and spanked his 16 year old step daughter. He had protested, presumably he had some moral doubts about taking this action. But his wife insisted and he obeyed.
The baby obeys the mother. Obedience is crucial in our psyche. The mother teaches her baby and the baby learns, obeying what the mother teaches; the baby learns to think and act according to the mother's teaching; her example teaches the baby. Words are unnecessary, particularly in the early life of the infant, when he or she does not have word language. The infant obeys unspoken commands; the unspoken commands of firstly the mother and then the other family members, and friends, inform the infant. The baby learns empathetically.
Mothers thus have great power. Women have great unspoken, and unspeakable power.
ii) When I was 24 years old at work, I found my boyfriend passionately kissing another girl. I saw them, they saw me; I said nothing and walked away. But I was hurt and angry. In another room, a young male colleague and I were chatting. I didn't mention what I had just witnessed. He was a good natured young man. Then the 'other woman' came in. She was small and pretty, cute. I acknowledged her, but said nothing. My good natured young colleague began to compliment her, stressing her littleness and cuteness: her pretty little dress, her cute little shoes, the pretty little beauty spot on her cheek. The girl simpered and beamed. Then this good natured young man insulted her by cruelly saying what little eyes she had. The girl was very hurt and left. The young man turned to me with a big happy smile and sparkling eyes; I smiled and nodded my thanks, and we went our ways. Nothing was said about it. He seemed pleased to have helped me; and I was satisfied to be avenged.
I know that I manipulated this young man to insult the girl. I do not know how. I had said no words, though perhaps he saw in my expression that I was hurt and angry. I did not tell him I was upset, nor why I was hurt. But I know that I manipulated him and that he obeyed me. And I have never done this thing again; I couldn't; I wouldn't know how - it must be done unconsciously, pre-consciously, the command given and obeyed must be done without consciousness; and now that I had become conscious of this unspeakable power, I was aware that it is bullying behaviour. I know why I manipulated him, but I do not know why he obeyed. It is almost mysterious. But we may recognise that this power comes from ancient times, the pre-verbal, pre-conscious, animal times.
Research shows that two year old infants develop the capacity to tell lies. We know that this age marks the event of the first sexual maturation delay in ancient times. We may understand that our early ancestors developed the capacity to tell lies, to deceive, in an attempt to hide their true feelings from nature, from each other and crucially from the mothers. We understand that the capacity to tell lies is a break from empathy. To break from natural empathy is disobedience. We may say that our ancestors first disobeyed nature at the time of the first maturation delay.
We see from our infants that there had been earlier events: infant colic and teething difficulties are very widespread in the early months and years, but though our infants complain, they do not fight back; and we may understand that our early ancestors did not fight back against nature's activities. It seems that maturation delay caused our ancestors to want to fight back against nature, and of course against the mothers who are the representatives of nature.
iii) In my family and among my friends, I observe that women often use proxies, usually male proxies, to carry out their will. In my family, two of my four older sisters are on the other side of the globe, and don't trouble me; the two who live in England, often use proxies to communicate with me; to let me know what they want me to do; or to let me know what they disapprove of in me. I do find it unpleasant. I also observe similar behaviour among my women friends, who manipulate men to manipulate other women, by proxy. One man is a serial sex offender; his best friend and confidante is a good woman, but seems blind to his behaviour towards other women; does she know that he forces himself sexually on women; does she encourage him; condone his behaviour?
iv) During the early 1990s, when feminism was rampant, a man friend described how his female colleagues manipulated him. They told him off for being a man; were rude and unkind; and then would use 'feminine wiles' to get him to do something for them: 'Oh, I can't reach this high shelf, please help me. Get that file down for me. Please.' And he obeyed, perhaps grateful that they were being kind and nice to him.
In the examples i) and iv) above, the women spoke their demands in words. In the examples ii) and iii) the women did not use words to make their demands to the proxies.
It is very difficult to challenge the covert bullying behaviour by proxy: the proxy does not know consciously that he has obeyed the unspoken command of the bully; the bully does not know consciously that she has manipulated the proxy. Observing the bullies I note that facial expression and gesture indicate far more than words, and far more than words can convey. The bully does not tell lies in words; but she deceives by gesture and facial expression. When words are used, tone of voice conveys more to the proxy than the words spoken.
Do the wives of pedophiles know that their husbands abuse children? Or are all these women totally innocent? I must ask, though it is difficult. To question this ancient, pre-conscious power of the female seems almost a betrayal; makes me uncomfortable and afraid; though I'm not sure why. It is uncomfortable to question the foundations of the way we live our lives.
This female power is very valuable in nature. It is part of the loving power of the female, to protect the young and other members of the tribe. Once, about 7 years ago, I observed a small boy walking alone in the park. A woman and girl were some way behind him, deep in conversation. I guessed that the woman and girl were with the little boy. He left the park alone, the woman and girl did not seem to notice. I hurried after the boy who was at the bus stop, now hidden from the woman by a hedge. I sat and watched him from a yard or two away (a metre or two). The bus came and the little boy went to get on it. I did not touch him. I did not talk to him, I did not wag my finger at him, but I made it clear (how?) that he must not get on the bus. I just looked at him. He looked back at me very mutinously, but apparently could not move, could not disobey my unspoken command. The bus left, and the woman and girl came in to view. They collected the boy. I did not mention the incident; I told the woman that he was a fine boy and asked how old he was. She told me that he was 20 months old.
The incident i) above is perhaps the most extraordinary thing I have ever done. But I have witnessed something more extraordinary: grandma was holding 'her' new baby, proudly showing the infant to the neighbours; mother was standing 20 years or metres away, leaning exhausted against the car which had brought her back from hospital; grandma had her back to the mother; the mother stood patiently for some minutes, visibly wilting; then she raised her arm, pointed at the grandma's back and the baby, who had been fast asleep, instantly howled. Grandma rushed to the mother, and they went indoors. Such a small incident, a glimpse of the great power of the mother.
I do not know or understand the mechanics of this power. I don't understand how women bully by proxy, and I don't know why men obey the unspoken commands, and more particularly, why men obey the immoral spoken commands of their women. But I hope that by writing about it, I can challenge such bullying behaviour. When I became conscious of it in me, I could not and would not use such power again for a bad purpose, though I have been able to use it for good purpose. Perhaps other women becoming conscious of what they do, will be unable and unwilling to exert their great powers for bad purposes, and learn to use these powers for good purposes.
We are creatures of obedience. We must learn to obey what is good and reject what is bad. We must learn that the word of God is often more good than the unspoken will of women.
The Puzzle of Obedience 2
Walk with me, please.
Instinct and loving reason are in harmony.
Human nature is fundamentally good. All-loving God, Allah the merciful, these are ideals; ideal representations of our fundamentally good selves. They are projections of what we fundamentally are ourselves.
The fundamental goodness of humanity is God-given, is natural. The loving instinct is God-given, natural.
The power of overwhelming love between a mother and her baby is natural. But that natural love is too often blocked, an effect of massive and unresolved phylogenic trauma.
The id must obey. The baby's obedience to the mother is natural, and is necessary in nature.
Men obey; many men obey unspoken commands of their women; and some men sometimes obey spoken commands which outrage reason, and this is certainly a great puzzle.
Maternal love is often blocked, but the power remains. The power is natural; but split from love, the power is damaged and is sometimes used by some women perversely.
Those women who use that power perversely are very reluctant to be challenged in their perverse use of that power. Those women who use that power covertly to bully by proxy, for instance, seem to think - or feel - that their perverse behaviour is unnoticed, or even unnoticeable.
Such women are not unconscious of their perverse behaviours. It is very difficult to challenge such behaviour, but the apparent fact that these women resent challenge indicates that they are aware of their behaviours and aware that their behaviours are perverse.
It is interesting. I do not like to write about this subject, but it is very interesting.
Some other women who use their power more openly, who issue unreasonable demands in words are obviously aware that they are making demands. But they seem to be unaware, or do not care, that their demands are unreasonable.
And are any of these women who use their power perversely aware of the motivating force?
What is the motivating force? Human nature is fundamentally good, therefore the motivation for even perverse behaviours must be fundamentally good.
The id obeys. It is natural for mothers to be obeyed. It natural for the female to be powerful, but use of that power is good only in the context of love. The great power of the female stripped of kindness becomes perverse. Power stripped of love becomes perverse. Power used without love and kindness is perverse.
This is a very difficult subject. It seems to me that whatever I do in this context must in some way be an act of betrayal against myself. Or perhaps it is simpler than I think. I seem to see George Frankl smiling at me in a kindly but slightly wry way.
The id obeys, but there is a natural contract. Where the mother has little or no love or affection for the child, the mother breaks the contract. Where the contract is broken, the id must still obey, but the id is wounded, injured, or even maimed, crippled. Where the mother breaks the contract she rejects the child's love, and rejecting the child's love she rejects the child himself or herself; she rejects the essence of the child and the child suffers severe psychological injury, narcissistic injury.
But still the id must obey. And even in rebellion, the id obeys.
A mother's rejection of her child's love, of course, very strongly indicates that the mother herself has suffered severe narcissistic injury. Where the social order severely represses women, represses the female, even enslaves women, then the women in those societies are suffering constant trauma, constant narcissistic injury. They must suffer the effects of phylogenic trauma, and suffer renewed trauma in daily life.
In such societies where women are thought to be worthless, the women will think themselves worthless. And feeling worthless, they are unlikely to value their natural love; they will be less likely to feel love or affection, or to express love and affection for their children. And the women will be angry, though the anger must be hidden from the men.
But however miserably unhappy such women are, they still have the great natural power which the id must obey.
It is unpleasant to be caught on the hook of power which is used without affection. It must be very terrible to be unconscious of the great power used without love by which one is hooked. We may recognise that the terrorists are desperately fighting to get off that hook. We may recognise that the young women who voluntarily join the terrorists are also hooked by a phylogenic unloving or unkind maternal power.
It is nonsense to suppose that women have no power. The power that women have is natural, God-given and unbreakable. All the repression and oppression, violence, female genital mutilation - none of these violations can break the maternal power. And the more extreme the violence against women, then the more terrible the effects in the use of that damaged power becomes.
The Puzzle of Obedience 3
Our job is to understand, make sense of our behaviour; try to work out why we behave in the ways that we do.
The history of our evolution is in our behaviour. George Frankl proved that human nature is fundamentally good, all babies are born good and loving; therefore our behaviour should naturally be good and loving.
Events in our evolution break through into consciousness predictably in infant behaviours: at two years old, when our infants begin yelling; at three years old when the child simply cannot sit still, is joyously active, almost manic; at 3 1/2 years old when the child screams in rage and terror. From these and other behaviours we know that things happened in nature, naturally occurring events took place when our ancient ancestors were at the equivalent stages of development.
And our ancestors responded to these events: at two years old our infants develop the capacity to tell lies, they often suffer constipation, and they yell; at three years old our infants become overjoyed, and we may understand that our ancestors experienced a period of good weather, and responded with gleeful pleasure, perhaps believing that they had triumphed over difficulties?; and we may understand that there was a terrible and dramatic event when our ancestors were the equivalent of 3 1/2 years old, which terrified and infuriated our ancient ancestors.
The 'latency period', roughly between the ages of 7 and 12, corresponds with the half million years when our ancestors made innumerable stone axe heads at Olorgesailie and other sites; a slavery from which they broke free eventually to sexual maturity.
There are infant colic, teething difficulties, infant diseases such as measles and chicken pox, which we may recognise as marking different events and eras of early evolution. And nearer the end of an individual's life there are the difficulties of menopause, and the various physical, neurological and psychological difficulties experienced by very many older people, and we may recognise that some of these difficulties correspond with traumatic events in later evolution.
The difficulties of giving birth are not so age specific: a very young woman may experience the same difficulties as an 'elderly' mother; but we do understand that these difficulties are the result of unresolved phylogenic trauma, or series of traumas, which began very early in human evolution.
And there are the 'irrational' fears which are not age specific: agoraphobia; claustrophobia; fear of dogs or cats, or stars or poetry, all manner of fears, which seem bizarre but which cause distress. And there is panic attack, where the sufferer is gripped by a fear so terrible that suicide may seem the only way to solve the problem; but suicide ducks the issue and does not solve the puzzle of any difficulty.
It seems to me that such fears and panics must relate to a phylogenic event, but I cannot place it in time. There is no anger is panic attack, only fear, so it does not correspond with what our infants re-experience at 3 1/2 years old. The panic attack is a state of being in no place, nowhere, and alone; it is almost a state of non being, of not being.
I speculate that this state relates to an event when the world seemed to turn upside down; when the earth fell from the sky and the clouds swirled on the ground; a huge meteorite strike*, which caused massive dust clouds and a deep silence following great noise; and left our ancestors outside nature, terrified, bewildered and alone: the expulsion from Eden.
Until that event, our ancestors belonged within nature; they knew their world; they knew themselves and each other and everything within their world living and dead, all the energy of the world, they knew it intimately; and suddenly they were exiled, outside, not belonging, and very afraid. And this is profoundly important.
It is this fear which drives us. It is perfectly rational to be afraid of terrible and dramatic occurring events in nature. But our ancestors were traumatised by the events and blocked the events from memory; and we are gripped by fears the causes of which are blocked from memory and which we therefore fail to understand.
Our ancient ancestors believed that the mother is all powerful; she knows everything; she can read our minds; she does everything, everything comes from her. The mother is responsible for everything. Babies and small children legitimately believe this to be true. But the mother does not know everything, and not everything comes from her. The mother is not responsible for what natures does; often the mother is not responsible even for what she herself does: the mother is human, like you and me and everyone else, and the mother is often burdened by the effects of unresolved phylogenic trauma which relate directly to motherhood.
Certainly the mother is powerful, but she is not all powerful. Some women have what seem to be almost other worldly powers, but such powers are very much of this world, though these powers are related to the ancient world of empathy more than the world of words. And adults must learn to obey reason with love.
It is almost terrifying to fully recognise that the mother is not all powerful; and it is necessary to remember that we are not alone.
Some of us have God; some are offended by the word God; some misinterpret the word of God. But we all have the capacity for loving reason.
The man mentioned above who spanked his step daughter, should not have done so. We must not become bullies, whatever the mothers say or insist on.
We have our brains and the capacity for loving reason and we must use them.
----------
*Gish sought to interpret the dream; Spoke to his mother: "My mother, during my night I became strong and moved about among the heroes; And from the starry heaven A meteor(?) of Anu fell upon me: I bore it and it grew heavy upon me, I became weak and its weight I could not endure. from the Babylonian myth, available on line
The Puzzle of Obedience 4
Our task here is to understand, to make sense of the many puzzles of human behaviour. We know, we see that we often behave in perverse ways, and we wonder why. The answers are often hidden in plain sight. We must recognise the clues that may lead to understanding.
We are aware that Sigmund Freud had a somewhat difficult relationship with his father; and we may understand that this difficulty coloured Sigmund's interpretation of all relationships between fathers and sons. George Frankl enjoyed a good relationship with his father, which greatly helped him to challenge Freud's misinterpretations.
We are here studying the mother and daughter relationship. Please understand that I was afraid of my own mother for most of my life, that I was often dismayed by the behaviour of my older sisters, and that these relationships may well colour my interpretation of all relationships between mothers and daughters - and female siblings - though I do try not to universalise my own experience. Fortunately you are intelligent people and will be able to recognise where I am mistaken in my interpretations.
As I am aware of the difficulties between myself and my sisters, it is fortunate for this study that a friend has intentionally, though unconsciously, provided me with an example of dysfunction between herself and her younger sister.
My friend "AQ" and I were working in the neglected garden of an elderly neighbour. AQ cut back the brambles, and I cut back the ivy. We worked happily for some time, until AQ told me that I must clear up the brambles she had cut down. I was surprised that she should ask me to clear up after her, but she insisted. She was very sweet and very determined; she kindly and patiently demonstrated what she wanted me to do. I actually started to do as she demanded, then said,"You're driving me crazy making me do this!" We laughed and I went back to the ivy. AQ had clearly expected me to obey her, and I had obeyed her until I resisted.
AQ has a sister, "BZ", who is three years younger and who does not talk to AQ any more. When they were children, they played together and were happy. AQ had always thought that they loved each other, and she is hurt and puzzled, and angry, that her younger sister won't talk to her. I'm not clear exactly how the argument started or what it is about, but from the incident in that garden, I clearly see the way in which AQ behaved towards her younger sister when they were small children.
All babies are born good and loving; the baby loves the mother, and the other family members. Obedience is natural and the baby must obey; the baby obeys the mother and the other family members.
An established child often or even usually experiences trauma at the presence of a new baby; the established child is shocked and disturbed by the presence of the new baby; the established child has mixed feelings about the new baby, has a psychological conflict, more or less severe: he or she naturally loves the new baby, but also feels the shock of trauma at the living reality of the new baby.
The new baby loves the established child, is fascinated and impressed by the established child's wonderful abilities, strength and intelligence. We may accept that the established child is aware of the love and admiration of the new baby, but the established child is unsure of his or her own feelings towards the new baby.
The new baby naturally obeys the older child, and the older child recognises that he or she has a new power. It is a natural power, the power to teach the younger child; and it is lovely to be admired. The older child accepts his or her power as natural, and knows that the younger child must obey. The older child expects the younger child to obey. The older child accepts that the role of the younger child is to be obedient to the older child. It is not spoken; words are unnecessary. The respective roles are taken as a given: the older child has the power to action and decision; the younger child obeys.
But the younger child has a will and personality of his or her own. Conflict arises between the two when the younger child exerts his or her own personality. The younger child must throw off the influence of the older child in order to live his or her own life in his or her own way.
It is difficult. In relationships between sisters, the younger child has one or more additional mothers. The younger child must obey the mother and the older sister or sisters. This is a burden on the younger child. It is a shock to the older sister when the younger sibling breaks away.
The incident in the garden related above, gave me an insight into the psyche of very young siblings. This in turn gives insight into the psyche of our early ancestors before they had word language; they did not need words; everything was understood between the individuals, tacitly.
The incident also helps me to see that what we learn in infancy stays with us: AQ is shocked and angry, has suffered narcissistic injury because her younger sister has broken away from AQ's power and influence. AQ's response to the behaviour of BZ is not adult and rational. Angered by BZ's incomprehensible behaviour, AQ uses male and female proxies to try and exert her influence over BZ: AQ has asked me (and others) to spy on BZ, which naturally I have refused to do!
Neither of these sisters has done anything wrong in the relationship. BZ has become oppressed by AQ's continued assumption of infantile power over her; and BQ has rebelled. But neither understands that they are acting in a pre-verbal relationship, and this leaves AQ puzzled. She is an intelligent woman, but finds it very difficult to make sense of the behaviour of her sister.
It is interesting that AQ does not consciously question her own behaviour. Why should she? She has behaved very naturally: from early childhood she has been a second mother to BZ, has loved and taught her sister, has led and been followed; all of which is natural in the relationship between mother and daughter. But, of course, AQ is not the mother of BZ.
The younger sibling always knows that the older sister is not the mother. The baby and infant obeys the older sister because obedience is a natural law: from infancy, the younger child must obey the older child.
In this individual case, the two sisters may resolve their difficulties. To do so, BQ must break away from her older sister, must disobey; and AQ must recognise that she does not have special powers over the life and behaviour of BQ.
It seems that disobedience to the maternal power is to challenge a very deep taboo. The bible recognises this, and calls it the Sin of Disobedience. Though Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve disobeyed the male God, we may recognise that God has all the powers of the mother.
The Puzzle of Obedience 5
George Frankl proved that human nature is fundamentally good and that all babies are born good and loving.
The babies have boundless love. Our first loyalty must be to that love which the babies embody.
Every baby loves his or her mother. As the mothers recognise this love; as the mothers allow themselves to accept this love, then all mothers will be able to feel affection and love for the babies. And the mothers' power will be mitigated by that love.
All of us have inherited the consequences of unresolved phylogenic traumas; and mothers are vulnerable to a greater share of the pain and distress of the traumatised human condition. The pre-verbal and the spoken commands and demands made by mothers which are now so often perverse will be motivated by that love; and will become good. The power of the mothers will be expressed in love.
Frankl wanted to release the beneficial power of the mothers' love. Let it be so.
The Puzzle of Obedience 6
And we must disobey. We must question as children do; we must ask why?.
Evolution reaches out; and evolution depends on questioning and complaint, on disobedience. The healthy baby does not quietly accept bad conditions; it lets the mother know when it is hungry, ill or uncomfortable.
George Frankl knew that we must disobey the bullies; who ever they are, what ever they say, however great their power, we must question the bullies and refuse to become bullies ourselves.
Why does a grown man obey his wife into committing violence against her child? He almost certainly, and unconsciously, believes the myth that the mother feels overwhelming love for her baby, and that therefore the 'mother knows best'. Frankl has proved that it is the babies who have the great love; we recognise that the grown man projects his own memory of his own love onto the mother. We know now that in fact comparatively few mothers do feel overwhelming love for their babies.
And the man is afraid. There is a deep and ancient misapprehension, a misunderstanding from our early ancestors who equated the mother with nature itself; our early ancestors believed that the mothers had the power of nature itself. And unconsciously, pre-consciously we still believe this, though we know now that this is untrue. But our early ancestors were afraid to leave the shelter of mother-love; they clung to the belief that their mothers loved them utterly; that the mothers were all-wise; and that the mothers had the power to protect them against all disasters.
We are afraid, and our fear makes us cowardly. It is alright to be afraid but we must be very brave, we must have courage.
It used to be believed that war acted as a kind of natural population control. But research shows that the birth rate rises after disaster; after earthquake or war, or other catastrophe, large numbers of babies are born. We therefore recognise that God did not tell Noah to 'go forth and multiply' after the great flood; the survivors of the thaw obeyed a reflex to procreate in large numbers. War and other disasters prompt a blind reflex to procreate.
We must disobey the bullies. We must question the taboos which bind us in fearful ignorance.
We must obey reason with love. We must bring unconscious and pre-conscious fears into the light of consciousness.
And we must ensure that what we do is for the good of the children; all the children. We must listen to the children, learn from the babies all of whom are born with boundless love, and learn from them.
The Puzzle of Obedience 7
The terrorists have declared, 'Freedom can go to hell.'
A family of 12 UK Muslims have recently gone to Syria to join the terrorists. The family have reported back to relatives in the UK that they have never felt so safe as they do now with the terrorists in Syria. In the middle of war, surrounded by murder and mayhem, the family have never felt so safe. We may understand that they are more afraid of freedom, or the idea of freedom, than they are of war.
When the terrorists say to the West, 'You love life, we love death,' we may perhaps believe them. But it seems to me that the terrorists fighters are expressing not their own terror, but the terror felt by the matriarchs. The terrorist fighters are obeying the terror experienced by the matriarchs.
We are back to the terrors often associated with menopause.
The Puzzle of Obedience 8
God does not play dice, and nature does not have little jokes at our expense.
Research findings vary, but show that women reach sexual peak at around 35 years of age, while with men it is around 18 years of age. This is natural. We may see that in the deep unconscious the mother keeps pace with her son, responds sexually to his sexual maturation.
The strict incest taboo between mothers and sons is provided by nature. I have been told that before the contraceptive pill, 'aunties', women friends of the family, or actual aunts, provided adolescent boys with a safe alternative to visiting prostitutes: the sexually rampant young man might be seduced by an 'auntie' who would be affectionate, friendly and teach him good sexual manners, at the same time as satisfying her mature and equally natural need for sexual gratification. The sex between an older woman and a newly mature man is a celebration, at one remove, of the mother's love for her son.
A young woman might be sexually happier with an older man: he has gained knowledge and understanding of female sexual needs; he knows what to do with his penis. Her first interest would naturally be with her father, but the strict incest taboo, and the law, denies sexual intercourse between fathers and daughters. The young woman taking an older man for husband or lover, satisfies her need for a father figure and her sexual needs, with an older man.
That same young girl grows into a mature woman, perhaps at the very time when her older husband is losing some of his sexual potency. The older woman naturally looks to the younger generation of boys, the generation of her son, to find loving sexual satisfaction. But even in our liberal western society we frown on the older woman who seeks love with a boy as young as her son, though it is entirely natural for her to do so; and entirely natural for the young boy to seek loving sexual gratification with a woman old enough to be his mother.
In most societies, love between an older woman and a much younger man is severely condemned, if not actually taboo. In fact, I do not know of one society now or in the past which recognises that sex between the mother generation and the son generation is natural and fully acceptable. In our society now, loving sexual relationships between the father and daughter generations is under scrutiny, but it is still more easily acceptable than sexual love between the mother and son generations: our society does still permit a young woman to choose an older man; but our society still seeks to deny an older woman to choose a younger man. In the film The Graduate, the character of Mrs Robinson is shown as neurotic, amoral and a bad role model for women of her age; the character of Mrs Robinson re-enforces the sexual taboo between older women and younger men.
This denial is unnatural. Woman reach sexual peak at around 35 years of age, men at around 18 years of age, and it is therefore natural for the generations to have loving sexual relationships; but our society strongly disapproves.
It is dangerous to deny what is natural. Nature strongly prompts older women to have sex with younger men. We not only deny this natural prompting, disobey nature, we also repress nature: we refuse often even to accept that this prompting is in force; woman disapprove of themselves for feeling a natural desire to have sex with a young man; and the older woman often represses the strong feelings of sexual desire for the younger man. It is physically and psychologically, and societally, dangerous to be so repressive of natural promptings.
In cultures where all sexual activity is strictly controlled, we may recognise that the unnatural taboo against sex between older women and younger men will be very strictly enforced. A woman may be proud of her son, but - as in most societies - she must not find him sexually attractive, nor must she allow herself to find his friends sexually attractive; she must not allow herself to feel sexual attraction for any man except her husband, if at all. While the young women have hope, the older woman may become psychologically and physically very ill, angry and desperate.
It seems that the terrorists now provide some consolation and hope for such a woman. The terrorists seek to impose strict fundamentalist law, which apparently makes women feel 'safe': strictly controlled, while freedom goes to hell, the women need not fear that they will transgress, for their menfolk will keep them 'safe' within the strict law.
But nature cannot be denied. While nature prompts to love, human beings must obey or go mad. The woman who is so denied and denying of nature's loving promptings, will be angry. Unconsciously, she will be deeply furious. And her sons, whom we see strutting gleefully with guns, unconsciously obey her fury. The generation of the sons impose the fury of the repressed and self-repressive mothers on their society and beyond.
And is it true of all war? Mothers sacrifice their sons rather than acknowledge the deep love they feel.
We must obey nature. War is perverse. Nature provides the incest taboo. Nature also provides a compensation in the strong promptings to sexual love between the mother generation and the son generation to celebrate the sexual maturation of the young men. We must learn to accept what nature provides; at the very least we must accept the good sexual feelings between the generations.
The Puzzle of Obedience 9
Logic is a tool of reason. We may think of logic as a ladder; in our rational thinking we proceed step by step up the rungs of the ladder. We must put our ladder on firm ground; our premise must be true, or our ladder will begin to totter and we might fall. We must be prepared to move our ladder to firmer ground. We must be prepared to acknowledge the possibility that materialism does not provide a true premise.
Albert Einstein was agnostic. He rejected the suggestion that he was an atheist. Einstein was open minded and had a sense of humility.
It is arrogant and dangerous to reject out of hand what we are ignorant of. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. It seems that some scientists and philosophers are afraid to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of God. It is fashionable among scientists and philosophers to be atheist, and perhaps some are afraid to be seen as unfashionable.
It is interesting that Einstein didn't worry about fashion. He preferred to be comfortable in his gardening clothes, and put on a suit only when he had to attend some function. Einstein thought for himself, and did not allow other people to do his thinking for him. Of course he listened, but he made up his own mind.
In his great genius Einstein recognised the limits of his human understanding. He was aware that there was much that was beyond the capacity of his human understanding.
Atheism has become the fashionable dogma. Dogmatic atheists are, of course, materialists and reject not only the possibility of God, but they also reject the idea of the mind. The mind is un-material; science cannot measure, see or quantify the mind; and so the the dogmatic scientists refuse to consider the mind as possible.
But strict materialism puts limits on our understanding. It seems obvious to me, personally, that the un-material mind directs the material brain. From this perspective, to give one example, Libet's conclusions on free will must be different.
Einstein did not believe that the individual's consciousness survives the death of the individual. With all respect to his genius, I must disagree with him in this. And from personal experience. Four times I have encountered, or been encountered by, the unmistakable personalities of individuals who had recently died.
The first time I was nine years old; a child at my school had died over the half term holiday; when we returned to school, we were told to walk in the garden and while there I felt the personality of that dead child causing my feet to dance. It was a happy experience. In 2006 it was Lucy, a friend - not a close friend - who had recently died after a long illness, and walking to her father's house I suddenly encountered the personality of Lucy. In 2010 it was my mother who briefly encountered me. From these two encounters I learnt that Lucy had an impish quality; and that my rather harsh mother was actually shy and timid; so I discovered more about these two women than I had known while they were alive.
And in 2004, I encountered the unmistakable personality of George Frankl, magnificently blasting alive through me, and in that feeling he was telling me with absolute certainty, 'This is the truth.'
The Puzzle of Obedience 10
It has taken me ten years and seven months to understand what Frankl was telling me: life is magnificent. Life is glorious. Life in all its forms and changes is magnificent.
We humans seek to deny life. When our two year old infants yell, they are marking an event which took place at the equivalent era in human evolution: a maturation delay which our ancestors cried out against and tried to defy. They tried to defy nature, tried to hide from nature and thus began to lose empathy, which is the connection with all life. That is the 'sin of disobedience': defying nature and the consequent loss of empathy. And all our evolution since then has been a conflict with nature, and with our own true loving human nature. We have made an enemy of nature and of ourselves. We feel alienated because we have become alienated from nature and made ourselves the enemy of life.
But we are part of nature. We cannot successfully defy nature. The question of the existence or non-existence of God is one I cannot answer; I know that the mind exists, but I cannot prove it scientifically (though the ideas of God and of the mind certainly exist in human consciousness). But nature is, and cannot be denied.
We are alienated from what we call the natural world. The natural world in all it complexity and diversity is the expression of life. Life is energy; the natural world expresses the constantly re-creating energy of life; the creative libido, the Life Force of which we are part. George Frankl proved scientifically that human nature is fundamentally good, and from that proof we may, as we are an expression of life, infer that all life is fundamentally good. We are an expression of the fundamentally good creative energy of life. We cannot successfully deny the truth of the fundamental goodness of life.
Death is part of the process of life. We have become afraid of death, as we are afraid of life.
When I die, when I cease to be human, then the energy of life trapped in my phylogenically traumatised human form is released. Whether or not I retain what we call human consciousness is a question that I cannot answer scientifically. Frankl said, 'The energy released seeks form,' and from the active word seeks I infer that, having ceased to be human, I have choice of form. Choice implies consciousness.
The Puzzle of Obedience 11
Human nature is fundamentally good, all babies are born good and loving. I and you and all of us, born good.
But, as we observe, our behaviours are perverse. Our institutions, cultures, habits and acts, all more or less perverse. As adult human beings we generally behave more or less badly. I am myself, born good, but am unable to be myself.
We have made up, invented the civilisations we inhabit, and which enchain us. And our invented civilisations are determined by the unresolved phylogenic traumas. Throughout our lives, you and I have re-lived those traumas and re-experienced the effects of those traumas, living within our civilisations which are the products of those unresolved traumas.
But we are not happy with what we have made. We are unhappy within our constructed civilisations. We have not accepted the effects of the unresolved phylogenic traumas; and therefore there is hope. Our spirit, individually and collectively revolts against what we have constructed; revolts against the dire effects of those unresolved traumas. Sigmund Freud, in his analysis of the relative merits of what he called das Es (Id) and das Ich (Ego) believed that the adult Ego must teach the childlike and wild Id; and that the wild, childlike Id must obey the adult Ego. But Freud failed to recognise the extent and effects of ancient phylogenic traumas, and indeed had not understood how very ancient those traumas are. Freud did not recognise that the adult Ego is the product of those unresolved phylogenic traumas, and it is a grave oversight: the traumatised adult Ego cannot teach the childlike Id well.
The childlike Id is most near to the fundamental goodness of human nature, is most true to that fundamental goodness, most clearly expresses and represents the fundamental goodness of humanity. It is the Id which must teach the Ego. And it is the Ego which must learn to obey the Id.
The Puzzle of Obedience 12
Let us ask the question, "What is myself?"
Some call it the spirit, which is a word that Science does not like, describing an idea that Science does not allow.
And some talk of the still small voice.
Some might think of the myself as something to do with the mind, another idea which Science doesn't accept.
The myself, it seems to me, is connected with the fundamental goodness of human nature and is most clearly expressed in the loving impulse of our infants, our young children. And the tragedy of our civilisation is that we persistently deny that loving impulse.
I would say that the only way forward is for humanity to obey that loving impulse. And, being an adult human being, I protest at saying it.
We are so conflicted as a species. We are in conflict with the world, the earth, the creatures and other life forms here with us, with each other, and of course, each one is in conflict with himself or herself. We are fighting.
And the fight goes back to the time of the catastrophic event in our evolution, which re-emerges, breaks through into consciousness when our two year old infants yell in protest.
I do not know what exactly that catastrophe was, and I do not know how many millions of years ago the catastrophe happened. I do know that the event traumatised our ancestors; that one of the effects of that trauma was that our ancestors began to believe that the species could somehow exist outside nature; and that the disasters which have happened since have re-enforced that belief: from the point of that catastrophe and throughout our subsequent evolution the species has tried to protect itself by trying to exist outside nature. It is clearly a pathological belief.
We can't do it. We cannot go it alone. But we are so embedded in the idea that we can, that the thought of obeying the loving impulse expressed by our infants seems completely absurd.
But the myself insists that I say it: we must obey the loving impulse so clearly expressed by our infants.