home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

Soulmate, Myself:
Omega Point

J.D. Unwin

return to "contents" page 

Will & Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History: "A youth boiling with hormones will wonder why he should not give full freedom to his sexual desires; and if he is unchecked ... he may ruin his life before he matures sufficiently to understand that sex is a river of fire that must be banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both the individual and the group."

From Wikipedia:

Joseph Daniel ["J.D."] Unwin MC (6 December 1895 - August 1936) was an English ethnologist and social anthropologist at Oxford University and Cambridge University.

Biography

Unwin was born on December 6, 1895, in Haverhill, Suffolk. He was educated at Shewsbury School. His enrolment at Oriel College, Oxford was interrupted by the outbreak of World War I in 1914. He served in the Northamptonshire Regiment and the Tank Corps, where he was twice wounded and awarded the Military Cross. After the war, he spent some years in Abyssinia.

In 1933, Unwin received his PhD in anthropology at Peterhouse, Cambridge. His thesis was titled "Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behaviour". He expanded on his research in his 1934 book Sex and Culture.

Unwin died in August 1936, at the age of 40, following an unsuccessful medical operation.

Contributions to anthropology

In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and six known civilizations through 5,000 years of history. He claimed there was a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe. Aldous Huxley described Sex and Culture as "a work of the highest importance" in his literature.

According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous, it becomes increasingly liberal concerning sexual morality. It thus loses its cohesion, impetus, and purpose, which he claims is irrevocable.

Unwin also stated, "In the past, too, the greatest energy has been displayed only by those societies which have reduced their sexual opportunity to a minimum by the adoption of absolute monogamy [...]. In every case the women and children were reduced to the level of legal nonentities, sometimes also to the level of chattels, always to the level of mere appendages of the male estate. Eventually they were freed from their disadvantages, but at the same time the sexual opportunity of the society was extended. Sexual desires could then be satisfied in a direct or perverted manner [...]. So the energy of the society decreased, and then disappeared."

He further notes, "No society has yet succeeded in regulating the relations between the sexes in such a way as to enable sexual opportunity to remain at a minimum for an extended period." And thus, all societies have collapsed. His hope for the future is that, "by placing the sexes on a level of complete legal equality, and then by altering its economic and social organization in such a way as to render it both possible and tolerable for sexual opportunity to remain at a minimum for an extended period," a society may flourish.

Kairissi. As we begin this discussion, our strong recommendation to the reader is to have first reviewed Unwin’s research. A perusal of the 700-page book might be too much for some, but we encourage at least a survey of the 26-page or 6-page review.

Elenchus. What we say here is founded upon this larger background.

K. Unwin’s research is massive. He said it might have filled seven volumes, not just one.

E. Sex And Culture is such an important work that it’s worth the effort to gain at least an overview.

K. Where do you suggest we begin, Elenchus?

E. There's so much, but I think I finally know what I want to say. While I have great respect for Unwin’s scholarship, I feel he’s missed the mark in a certain area.

K. Do you disagree that sexual immorality leads to a society’s collapse?

E. I do not disagree. It’s just that, I think sexual immorality is an expression of a more fundamental issue in play. We need to go deeper. This will require some discussion.

K. Can we briefly summarize before getting into the weeds?

E. We infer that Dr. Unwin was a materialist. He tends to make no distinction between religion and spirituality. I think he saw it all as superstition. No quarter is given for the possibility of a primacy of consciousness. And this materialist prejudice caused him to dismiss certain outcomes.

K. It’s odd, isn’t it. All through the 1920s, the “quantum fathers,” arguably, the greatest scientists of history, were making bold statements concerning consciousness, not matter, as the building block of reality.

E. Unwin was a leading intellectual of his day, and while he was aware of the seismic shifts occurring in physics at the time, I don't see it reflected in his work. As physics Professor Goswami stated, the "quantum" view affects all fields of enquiry, and failure to acknowledge this hegemony will skew one's findings.

K. But it’s not unusual for researchers to work with blinders on, oblivious to a wider scope of investigation.

E. However, it’s not just the quantum fathers that go begging here, but in the early 1900s there was also much ground-breaking afterlife research going on.

K. As we've said, knowledge of the afterlife changes everything.

E. Nobel laureate in physics, Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge and a great many others were publishing their findings and offering hard scientific evidence for the unseen dimensions.

K. As a leading intellectual of the world, Unwin assumed an unspoken duty to allow these major new areas of scientific investigation to influence the interpretation of his own findings.

E. I also don't like the way he puts the religions of people in separate boxes: zoism, deism, manism, and others - but no need to define these here. Unwin gives short-shrift to the fact that there's some merit in many of these, with no necessary mutual exclusivity.

K. One might profitably synthesize these forms of religion; some of each are part of my own thinking; elements of truth, here and there. But, as you say, let's not get into that at the moment.

E. I don’t want to negatively color Unwin's efforts overmuch as his work remains an exceedingly important contribution to the world.

K. How shall we approach all this, from what perspective?

E. Several years ago now, when we were discussing “The Wedding Song,” we offered quotations from Spirit Guides and from the discarnate Professor Frederic Myers. It’s channeled testimony from the afterlife. Back then, I didn't realize how insightful it was, but, in light of Unwin's research, it now glows with even more importance.

*******************************************

Reprinted from “The Wedding Song”:

The Reverend William Stainton Moses did not like what was happening to him. His newly discovered mediumistic abilities brought him into conflict with the Church and long-held views of the Christian tradition. For some time he resisted the messages of the Guides, debated with them, accused them of diabolical intent. Eventually, however, he had to admit that his own “automatic writings” represented a high degree of wisdom and could not be easily dismissed.

The following excerpts from “Spirit Teachings” will help us in our investigation of The Wedding Song.

William Moses: "I asked whether marriage ties were perpetuated [in the next world]."

Spirit Guides: "That depends entirely on similarity of taste and equality of development. In the case of this being attained, the spirits can progress side by side... All things with us are subordinated in the education of the spirit... no tie can be perpetuated which is not a help to progress... The loving bonds which encircle such souls are the greatest incentive to mutual development, and so the relations are perpetuated."

Authentic Marriage is Meant to Develop Us Spiritually

The marriage bond is perpetuated if (1) its participants know a “similarity of taste and equality of development.” We bring to mind the mythical Adam’s enthusiasm with first sight of Eve: “You are just like me! – you are soulmate, myself!”

Notice, also, (2) a primary emphasis by the Guides on marriage as aid to the soul’s evolvement: “All things with us are subordinated in the education of the spirit… no tie can be perpetuated which is not a help to progress.”

The Worldly Marriage as “Buying and Selling” versus “Holiest Law of Life”

Spirit Guides: "Some of your more advanced reformers have seen the vast importance which attaches to the subject of marriage... [This subject is] intimately bound up with the great questions of disease, crime, poverty, insanity, which vex and disturb us in our dealings with men… the infamous buying and selling, the social slavery into which you have degraded the holiest and divinest law of life."

The Guides of William Stainton Moses here equate the worldly marriage with “buying and selling” which very closely approximates the egoic “giving and receiving” of The Wedding Song, John and Mary’s domestic-business contract. We gasp at the Guides’ weighty antithetical phrase, marriage as “the holiest and divinest law of life.” This ironical positioning of thought [marriage as materialistic as opposed to the spiritual] reminds us of Jesus’ words when he forcibly cleared the temple. Taken aback by the stark contrast of base merchandizing versus sacred purpose, he asserted: “You have made this house of prayer into a den of thieves” (see Editor’s Word Gems essay under “Believe,” Mark 11).

We are appalled by the Guides’ harsh evaluation: “[This subject of inauthentic marriage is] intimately bound up with the great questions of disease, crime, poverty, insanity, which vex and disturb us in our dealings with men.”

Granted, John and Mary tell their “little white lies” in order to “catch a fish in the sea” and land a mate, but is it as bad as the Guides would have it? Dramatic words are these, the “disease, crime, poverty, insanity,” which, the Guides insist, flow from the inauthentic marriage. Instinctively, some would rise to defend John and Mary against these seemingly exaggerated charges.

Are they exaggerated? The Guides stand on a very high mountain and enjoy a wide-latitude perspective denied to us down here in the “muck-and-mire trenches.”

Spirit Guides: "You are ignorant in respect of the world of causes, and foolish in respect of what you do in your world in providing conditions favourable to crime and sin. Your ignorance perpetuates these conditions, and renders it more hard for us to impress upon you the true principles which should govern the origination and development of life upon your globe and the cultivation of spiritual progress."

“degeneration of the race is inevitable when marriage is debased”

All of this jeremiad is well in line with the afterlife testimony of Frederic Myers (transmitted via Juliet Goodenow, Vanishing Night, 1923). Professor Myers employs the same stern and dire language regarding the state of marriage in our world [and its poisonous effect upon society]:

"Marriage is the uniting of twin souls. This is the only spiritual marriage and the only marriage that survives bodily death… The divine origin of man and his companion, woman [is metaphorically presented to us in the Genesis account]: 'bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.' This creation typifies the relationship between man and wife. The oneness of marriage is essential to harmony, and therefore to family life... The cradle of the human family was wrought in perfection, calculated to preserve the beauty of the form divine; of the sanctity of love the world is deeply cognizant; of all the mistakes and the sorrows of ill-guided unions and unhappy homes … of all that make up the sorrows of life, this is the most lamentable and far-reaching in its effect on life and society. Degeneration of the race is inevitable when marriage is debased, for out of the consecrated home comes strength and fortitude for whatsoever life offers to man."

Denying the Oneness of the Divine Essence

Frederic Myers [on the other side], with the Guides, sees what we do not see. After listing many of the sins and sorrows of humankind, we are moved by the extreme gravity of his judgment: “…of all that make up the sorrows of life, this is the most lamentable and far-reaching in its effect on life and society.”

What is the focus of this lament?

It is the inauthentic marriage which denies “the oneness” to be known in the divine essence -- a oneness inspired by a “made in the image” sense of joy experienced only in the Twin Soul union, which was designed not only as means to know and emulate God (that is, “calculated to preserve the divine form”), but to protect the human race from “degeneration.”

And what is the nature of this “degeneration”?

Myers and The Wedding Song

As Myers informs us, it is the lack of spiritual oneness. The Wedding Song, too, speaks of receipt of this blessing as the “union of spirits.” The Genesis account refers to its absence, the interpersonal disharmony, as “eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” And, as we’ve seen, the song envisions destined Twins as “traveling on” toward a state of One Person, ever increasing levels of intimacy, a sense of wholeness, completeness, and satisfaction. But, as Myers reminds us, referencing Adam’s ardent statement to Eve, the marriages of our world know nothing of this happiness as they lack “oneness.”

What does this mean in practical terms? How does this lack of “oneness” affect our day-to-day lives? Think of the negative domino-effect of what happens in the marriages and homes of our world: the pandemic sense of [psychological] separateness, the “buying and selling” of egoism, the "each against the other" in a quest [and demand for the other] to "make me happy" -- the effects of which then spilling over into all levels of society: the lack of close community, the “each man for himself” impetus, the self-centered existence and greed, the “me against all” mentality. In this tawdry circle of self-centeredness and vice we find the seedbed and origin of all crime and wars, all oppression and suffering.

But how does it begin? The Guides, Myers, and The Wedding Song offer an implied answer. The authentic marriage was meant to model, portray, and teach the joy of God’s own mind. To whom? To everyone, but especially the most vulnerable – the children, the tractable spirits, who grow up in the “buying and selling,” the neurotic “giving and receiving,” the “me-ism,” of the inauthentic marriage.

To formative little minds, these distortions of reality quickly become a settled [existential] view in a quick-drying cement:

“This is the real world,” the children begin to believe. “Materialism is where the action is. Finding one’s happiness against all others is the smart way to live. Look out for yourself because no one else will. There is no God, no joy, no goodness, no purpose to this life, no higher aim than to seek for bodily pleasure and comfort. We know this to be true because it's what we’ve learned from mom and dad. It’s how they live and treat each other.”

This is what Myers sees.

The little children, and then all of society in their wake, are damaged, almost beyond repair, never having received their rightful heritage, that of knowing, up close, the joy of God’s mind, which was to be displayed by the spirits-in-union of their Twin-Soul parents.

Star Trek: The Next Generation, "Inheritance,” 162nd episode; Juliana O'Donnell Tainer, Data’s “mother,” encourages her compassionate son: “On Altrea [her home planet] there’s a saying, that a child born from parents who love each other will have nothing but goodness in his heart. I guess that explains you.”

Such deficit, a lack of authentic love, the venerable Spirit Guides maintain, becomes the “degeneration of the race” – the ripple-effect result of John and Mary’s “buying and selling”...

*******************************************

K. Elenchus, all this is very important, and we’ll soon offer comment, but there’s so much information here – both the testimonies from the afterlife and Unwin’s research – that we can easily become mired and stuck in factoids. We need to get to the root and down-to-the-rivets of what all this means.

E. Unwin provides a great deal of minutia. He spent many years putting his thesis together with excruciating detail. One could forge an entire career elaborating on his research.

K. Unwin discovered some of the regulating principles by which societies live and die, but the core truths were encrusted with layers – I mean no disparagement but – of irrelevancy.

E. I believe that the afterlife testimonies will serve as a kind of Rosetta Stone of interpretation of Unwin’s massive work.

K. This is a good analogy. Say more on this.

E. A research project that puts forward too much unhoned information -- unhoned, in my opinion -- runs the risk of inoculating itself against thorough investigation. It takes too much time to sort it all out.

K. Because it’s not just the one volume but, for the assiduous student of Unwin, there are seven volumes of background data.

E. And, therefore, subsequent reviewers of his work can easily focus on red herrings, less vital things, or get the proportion wrong.

K. Yes, the proportion – there’s that great insight by Dorothy Sayers:

Dorothy Sayers, Gaudy Night: "The proportion and relations of things are just as much facts as the things themselves; and if you get those wrong, you falsify the picture really seriously."

E. And so, the question becomes, how can we get out of the weeds, get past the merely interesting, and find our way to the vital?

K. A Rosetta Stone could help us.

E. The speakers from the afterlife help us find the bedrock.

K. Let’s also remind everyone that afterlife testimonies can be wrong.

E. They can, indeed, be wrong, and often are – see the “500 tape-recorded messages from the afterlife” for examples. However, as usual, the only “last word” on the veracity of anything is a resonance with our own inner sacred guidance system.

K. And we’ve discussed this guidance system on hundreds of WG pages.

E. But I feel that the afterlife speakers got this one right. And so, let’s look at what they’re really saying.

they’re saying, it’s much worse than you think

K. The first thing I notice about the afterlife speakers is that their warning is not about a local or personal calamity. They’re not saying, if you engage in sexual immorality, you’ll have an unhappy life, you’ll suffer this-or-that personal unpleasantness.

E. Though this is not an untrue statement.

the afterlife speakers echo Unwin: a perversion of marriage will lead to a downfall of civilization

K. It’s not an untrue statement, but the speakers are hunting for bigger game. They’re quick to bring out the elephant-guns with a dramatic jeremiad to say, if you engage in sexual immorality, you’re contributing to the “degeneracy of the race.” And then, doubling down, they say that sex sins impinge negatively upon the “development of life upon your globe and the cultivation of spiritual progress."

E. And now they’re meeting Unwin toe-to-toe with prognostications that amount to a collapse of civilization.

we want to believe, 'what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas'

K. People are used to thinking, “what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business.” It affects only them. And of course it’s what they want to believe. They want to believe they have a right to use each other as they well please, to satisfy a pursuit of bio-pleasure.

E. This reminds me of a funny line by Paul Lynde: 

Hollywood Squares game show

Q. Envy, sloth, gluttony, lust, pride, and a few others are commonly referred to as what?

Paul Lynde: Oh, that would be the Bill of Rights!

K. That is funny. But, it’s strange, isn’t it, Elenchus – if people had the spiritual vision to really see the ripple-effect of their actions as a deadly destabilizing force in the world, they wouldn’t think it to be quite as funny.

E. To those who lack "eyes in their head," it's hard to see a connection between "behind closed doors" and a collapse of civilization.

K. Let’s explain what Unwin sees as the real problem with loose living.

E. A summary statement of Unwin’s premise might begin with an eloquent comment by historian Will Durant:

a nation is born stoic and dies epicurean

"A nation is born stoic, and dies epicurean… [early religion] gives men courage to bear pain… the gods are with them… wealth grows… [along with] pleasure and ease… [at the end they] seek refuge in every passing delight."

K. Epicureanism is sometimes characterized by “eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”

E. It’s hard for epicureans to build and hold a civilization.

K. But it’s an excellent way to lose one. Elenchus, how does this relate to Unwin’s underlying message?

E. I think he’s saying that, when a society is young, life is hard, and there tends to be a tight grip on what a group defines as “morality.”

K. And most, or maybe all, of these developing societies were patriarchal. There was some clan chieftain at the helm.

E. And the group’s uber-leader, as did other alpha males in the group, kept his children and his wife, or wives, within strict power-and-control boundaries.

K. We discussed this patriarchal dynamic in the “ten commandments” writing.

E. Let’s make this clear: These 86 societies, during their “stoic” phase, a time of so-called “morality,” were not ideal societies. They were not egalitarian and just. In most cases, there were no civil liberties. Women, and children, too, were viewed as chattel, mere property of the reigning patriarch. Most often, the “morality” of the society was built upon brutality and violence, and if the wife or wives of the patriarch were to engage in sexual adventurism, the parties involved would not live to see the sunrise.

K. The patriarch had no sense of humor about his property being taken and enjoyed by others.

E. Virtually all of these societies were not the sort we’d want to live in. But here’s what Unwin found: This hard-fisted approach accomplished one thing. The patriarchal males of the society didn’t need to worry about sexual gratification, because no one dared step out of line. This allowed the males to consolidate, in a sense, their mental energies, and to direct these energies toward empire-building.

Freud: 'We believe that civilization has been built up by sacrifices in gratification of the primitive impulses, and that it is to a great extent for ever being recreated as each individual repeats the sacrifice of his instinctive pleasures for the common good. The sexual are amongst the most important of the instinctive forces thus utilized: they are in this way sublimated, that is to say, their energy is turned aside from its sexual goal and diverted towards other ends, no longer sexual and socially more valuable.'

K. In a materialistic way, the society thrived. It expanded its borders. But, in all this military conquest, it wasn’t noticed that there was trouble in paradise back home.

E. Unwin discovered that, after a time, with more wealth gained for the group, the women began to demand more freedom.

K. She began to object to being treated as a pack-mule.

E. When society entered this phase, a new morality, both men and women engaged in sexual expression outside of, and prior to, marriage.

K. All of this sort of makes sense, but what I find most difficult to digest is that, according to Unwin, in all 86 societies, this general process of sliding toward hedonism played itself out to curtain-fall in just three generations. That seems very formulaic to me. How can it be three generations, like clockwork?

E. Well, for one thing, I don’t think Unwin defines the duration of “generation,” so there’s some leeway there. But he says he found this three-generation death spiral in all 86 societies.

K. If this is true, and it seems to be, there must be some very powerful underlying forces in play to have it work out this way, time and after time.

E. Part of what we're looking at, I think, during the "immorality" phase, is a dissipation of mental energies.

K. It's really hard to get up and milk the cows, or plant your fields, or expand the nation's empire, when you're too preoccupied by images of the next orgy to attend.

E. It can put a crimp in one's work productivity.

K. "How can you keep'em down on the farm once they've seen gay Par-ee?"

E. (small smile)

K. It is rather funny, in a macabre sort of way. We can dress it up in academic language, as Unwin does, but the essence of the problem is not so hard to figure out. What gets me though is the clockwork precision of "three generations."

E. We need to look at this carefully.

What’s really going on with the ‘three generations’ thing?

K. You said the afterlife speakers offered a Rosetta Stone to help us interpret Unwin.

E. I have a theory as to what’s really going on with the “three generations,” and it’s more than dissipating mental energy.

K. Should Unwin be worried about your rival theory?

E. I doubt if he’s losing much sleep.

K. So, what are you thinking, buddy?

E. The afterlife speakers don’t focus on dissipating mental energies so much, although I’m sure it’s part of the package.

K. But they arrive at the same fall-of-civilization conclusion.

E. But via alternate route.

K. Tell us about this alternate scenic route.

E. I would say, a careful reading of their testimonies reveals that sexual sins of fathers and mothers affect the spiritual outlook and self-image of the children, and not in a good way. And the chickens come home to roost, in full force, in just three generations.

K. Why “three”?

E. We’ll need to talk about this, but I think a case can be made. With the initial loosening of morality, not much changes. Society continues to be pretty rigid. The old power structures are still in place. And it seems that it is possible to “have one’s cake and eat it, too.” There begin to be clandestine affairs, nothing too obvious, and yet people know it’s happening, but at the surface of society life goes on in traditional ways. The attitude is, “we can get away with this, no one will know, and everything will remain the same.”

K. Let me say, too, when this starts to happen, the parents always think, “the kids will know nothing about this, they’re not smart enough to put it together.” But the kids always know everything – they get it.

E. They’re not stupid.

K. How do they know? They have the absolute best radar. They can hear it in your disingenuous voice, the toneless expression, the perfunctory and dutiful faded image of affection, the studied attention and fervent listening which they never receive. They know immediately if they're not loved and cared for.

E. When these kids grow up, they’re not interested in keeping up the old appearances. They’re cynical and jaded toward traditional right-and-wrong. They scorn it. Immorality now, more and more, comes out of the closet and this second generation increasingly goes its own way. The so-called morality of the parents has not been entirely expunged, and still exerts a control over society. But the second generation sees it as a dodo bird, on the way out, and they’re right.

K. I think we can see where this is going for the third generation.

very angry

E. There are always exceptions and outliers but, in the main, this third generation is totally divorced from both the parents’ and the grandparents’ views. Many of them are now quite perverted in their thinking, can’t think logically, are easily led by celebrities and Dear Leaders, and, most of all, are very angry.

E. Many of them have no desire to live productive lives. They not only want to destroy the old ways but are content to immerse themselves in self-destructive, wholesale venery, a pursuit of cheap pastimes, thrills, stimuli, and addictions.

K. Yes, and as we say, who will milk the cows now? But, why should this be the case? Why destroy society? Why not be productive and make good things and a good life? There must be some underlying dynamic that’s driving this insanity.

a closer look at the testimonies from the afterlife

E. There is an underlying dynamic, and I think I’m catching a glimpse. Let’s again look at the testimonies from the afterlife reporters. Several years ago, when I first came across Myers’ comments, I wondered why he suddenly started talking about Twin Souls and emphasizing the eternal marriage. It didn’t seem to fit his overall topic. But now I understand.

the 'divine form' within is to know that one is 'made in the image'; it is to intuit, 'I am of God and live under divinity's guidance'

E. The Twin Soul marriage was meant to produce godly children. In its absence, we experience the “degeneration of the race” and the eventual collapse of society. But how does this happen? Notice the detail Myers offers. He says that the true marriage was “calculated to preserve the beauty of the form divine.”

K. We’re getting into some heavy stuff now, so explain what this means.

E. As we put it all together, the true love and marriage was designed to produce children in whom would develop the “beauty of the divine form.” Now, merely to say this will mean nothing to the average person, but I think we can put this in modern terminology.

to experience the 'beauty of the divine form' within is to answer the question 'I know who I am'

K. Elenchus, this is a profound insight. It touches upon a central question of human beings.

identity politics

K. We live in a world of what is called “identity politics.” People don’t know who they are, and therefore many are led by some Dear Leader exclaiming, “Join my group, my religion, my ism, my politics – and when you do, you will know who you are and finally have value.”

E. We use the term “ I identify” with such-and-such. This psychological tendency virtually defines the essence of cultism, in all of its forms – political, religious, corporate, and others.

the final stage of 'I don't know who I am'

K. When people craft a sense of self by “I identify with this religion, or that politics, or another philosophy," they create – as Krishnamurti spent decades explaining – mental images of themselves and of others. Those who agree with one's self-proclaimed identity are viewed as the “good guys” and those who oppose are the “evil ones.” We are “right” and all others are “wrong.” In fact these others are so wrong that, if a rule of law did not intervene, the wrong and evil ones would be hunted and killed.

identifying with an external ideal

K. This is the lesson of history, written in blood -- the end of the process of “I don’t know who I am,” and therefore, “to comfort myself, I create a false image of myself by identifying with some external ideal.”

E. Can we not see that this psychological illusion has infected those who rabidly march, shout, froth, and wave signs? Actually, this process affects all of us, every unenlightened person, but the rioters in the street are near the far end of the spectrum.

the attempt to enhance oneself when we don't know who we are

K. We don’t feel “enough” within, and so we attempt to enhance ourselves by identifying with some “strong father” mental image. This is the false self on steroids.

E. Those who study Universal Consciousness, like Dr. Federico Faggin, would say that a desire to know oneself is the most fundamental human desire – as it reflects the epicentral desire of Universal Consciousness itself. And so, when the Guides talk about helping children to experience the “divine form,” we’re addressing something of primary and absolute importance.

the big question, who am I

K. If we don’t know who we are, if we define ourselves in terms of some group or some philosophy, we destabilize ourselves and enter a form of insanity.

E. We destabilize ourselves, and lead our children into the same, if we do not know and live according to the truth, “I am a child of God.”

the iron fist of the old morality

E. Many of the brutal and oppressive regimes of history lasted much longer than three generations. But this cohesion was not forged by “morality.” These dark regimes were held together by blood, power, and violence.

K. And this means that when a loosening came, when women were given some civil liberties, this was not a beginning of a new golden age.

E. Hardly. We can say, with some accuracy, that all societies began in one kind of immorality and died in the festering ruins of another kind.

K. And let’s notice too, in the “stoic” phase, the so-called “moral” stage, the children were held in strict control, and society might have seemed well-regulated. But if you had asked those regulated children “who are you?” they would have said “I am the property of my father,” or some such. In effect they're saying, "I have no self, I live at the pleasure of another." This will not end well.

Editor’s note: Humankind’s collective image of itself, like the ebb and flow of tides, has presented itself variously over the millenia. Historian Kenneth Clark comments:

E. In that “stoic” phase, everyone walked in a straight line, said the right things, curtsied, bowed, and genuflected at the right times, but no one felt free and never at ease.

K. The kids were dysfunctional from the beginning, but for a different reason, but it all seemed like a “good” society where the trains always ran on time. But the only reason there was “law and order” was because the patriarchs would kill you if you stepped out of line.

E. There was little long-term good produced by these societies, they all rose and fell after a time, and the only benefit of the early “morality” was that it permitted the patriarchs a certain concentration of mental energy allowing them to enslave new territories. But it all came crashing down for them.

so, what about the ‘three generations’

E. I’m not impressed by this number. There might be some truth to it, but it all depends on how you define “generation” and when you begin counting. Whether it all plays out in 100 years or 1000, it will happen - every society of history has decayed and collapsed; no exceptions.

if you try to social-engineer children, they will grow up either hating you or, worse, hating themselves, and will yet undo and destroy everything you built

E. My view is, forget about the “three.” If you raise children who do not know who they are, and if, especially, you try to mold them into an identity to further your own advantage, and if they come into a measure of education and political power, they will loath you for social-engineering them, and they will be very angry – at you, at life, and, most of all, themselves – and they will strive to tear down everything you built, and will spit on your memory.

the innate compulsion to 'know thyself'

K. They will autonomically despise you for trying to define them. I say autonomically as if led by an innate compulsion to "know thyself."

E. There are many causes for the fall of civilizations, but the perversion of the youth – which occurs variously – is a major cause. If they do not know and feel themselves to be children of God, they will yet rise up to destroy anyone who made them feel less. And, in this destruction, they will not care if they bring down the entire civilization to make their point.

a lost generation

K. And even if the children do not proactively tear down the civilization, their progressive decadence, their “Epicureanism” as the Durants called it, will produce a lost generation of the morally and physically deficient. When this occurs, the nation is taken over, either by enemies within or by disciplined invaders, from without, with hungrier mouths.

Caesar Augustus commissioned Virgil to write ‘The Aeneid’ to stop a moral decline and to ‘make Rome great again’

E. We recall Caesar Augustus fretting and lamenting his trouble of getting enough good farm boys for his legions. In earlier days, the Roman farm boys, morally superior and physically fit due to hard labor in the fields, began conquering the world for Rome.

K. And while this expansion would continue for a while longer, when the supply of sturdy bronzed-bodied farm boys dried up, it began to be game-over for Rome.

not knowing who you are fosters a sense of 'I will never find happiness'

K. Not knowing who you are, at the end, is another way of saying, “I have no value, no pedigree, I’m lost in space, have no home, nothing to live for and no future, I will never find love and happiness.” And with this self-evaluation of worthlessness and hopelessness, one falls into an abyss of great anger and rage. Little wonder a mind thus afflicted cares nothing for preserving a society.

Who am I? I am the one who hates you.

K. When we see the foaming, “madness maddened” minions, frothing, rioting in the streets, mindlessly chanting their slogans, waving their flags, what they’re really saying is, “I will tell you who I am. I am the one who identifies with this-or-that cause, because maybe this will give me some value"; but, most of all, they're saying: "I am the one who blames you and society for devaluing me, and I hate you for disrespecting me."