Even when Richard Dawkins is getting it right, he’s getting it wrong

Another day, another ‘shocking’ twitter statement from Richard Dawkins – and ideal blogging fodder for me.  There’s a nice tabloid report here:


I love where it says:

Richard Dawkins risked provoking fury today by claiming foetuses with Down’s syndrome should be aborted – and parents should ‘try again’.

You see, the problem here is not that he’s pro eugenics or whatever, the problem is his justification for that position .  That being morality (which is false) and suffering – which is just bizzare.

He claimed that the important question in the abortion debate is not “is it ‘human’?” but “can it suffer?” and insisted that people have no right to object to abortion if they eat meat.


He insisted he was not questioning the right of people with Down’s syndrome who have already been born to live – just those who have not yet been born.

Well suffering has nothing to do with it, and not questioning the right of people with Down’s syndrome to live is another religious worship that he has.  He should be questioning all rights as all ‘rights talk’ is fundamentally flawed.

People have got to take a step back to basic self interest and work out the question of why you would put more resources into a fundamentally flawed human being than one who has much more potential? That’s what you’re doing with a Downs syndrome child.

People have all these religious and liberal ideas that prevent them seeing the reality of the situation.  All of this got a boost from the outcome of WWII whereby anything associated with fascist regimes was automatically discounted, but while this liberalism was supposedly in the interest of the Jewish people it was really just as damaging to them as well.

Let me ask you, if you seriously think there is nothing practically wrong with giving resources to keep Downs syndrome beings alive and that they should be loved and cherished like any other person: What if there was a disease whose sole symptom was that it caused you to give birth to Downs syndrome babies and it was highly contagious like the common cold.

Should there be any effort to control such a disease?  Or would there be no apparent problem with that since Downs syndrome is not a negative in its self?

What if every child was going to be Downs syndrome?  Would that be a problem for society?  Maybe we could convert the entire human race to Downs Syndrome and see how that works out.

The fantasy aspect

There’s an interesting thing on Wikipedia that point to a liberal moral fantasy among women about the issue:

Abortion rates

When nonpregnant people are asked if they would have a termination if their fetus tested positive, 23–33% said yes, when high-risk pregnant women were asked, 46–86% said yes, and when women who screened positive are asked, 89–97% say yes.[70]

Of course it’s no problem or cost for a woman to claim moral and religious purity and say she wouldn’t abort in the case of Down’s Syndrome if she’s not even pregnant but if she’s actually carrying a child with the condition then that purity carries a huge cost.  Only a rich bitch – some Angelena Jolie moral angel could carry that one off.  Gee in her case I’m sure, even if she was going to give birth to a clump of hair, some skin cells and a few teeth sticking out of it she would make Brad Pitt suck up to that.  It’s amazing what you can do when you’re a hard core Alpha female.

Whatever you do, don’t click here

Finally an apology.  We live in a culture.  That culture is liberal, religious, whatever.
I have a blog and I can say what I can’t normally say in the moral society.



I don’t want anything

When it comes to funeral arrangements I don’t want anything, however I don’t want to tell people around me this as it’s only going to upset them.

I don’t want anything because it’s another example of the lack of beliefs that I hold.

Richard Dawkins for instance, when he dies, is likely to have a huge funeral.  He is after all a cultural Christian.  Part of this is the implicit belief that there is something mystical and special about a dead body.  Atheists believe this because they’re not really atheists.  Atheists don’t see a dead body as an inconveniently rotting piece of meat to be disposed of as such, but rather as a special and sacred thing.

If an atheist sees a religious person kissing a statue they will think “That poor deluded idolator” and yet they will go along to a funeral and effectively do the same thing.  The reason for this of course is that an atheist is infact religious – they just can’t get to grips with their own religiosity.

In terms of what I want, I don’t want anything, but in a society following the religion of liberal humanism, fake Christianity and fake Atheism this becomes a problem.  Not wanting anything becomes something  quite major in itself.

Normally if you* want to dispose of something for instance, you just put it in the bin but you can’t just put a body in a bin because someone will likely find it and then it will be all on.  So it would have to be disposed of in such a way as not to cause undue alarm among the citizenry.

One option is to donate your body to science but even if you do that, it seems that nothing is going to stop people from erecting a religious monument to that.


I suppose it would be possible for a person to donate their remains to science with the proviso that when it is ‘used’ it is disposed of like any other medical waste in the hospital system.

Even this has problems however as it suggests that a dead person still has agency after their death, when in reality there is no reason that should be.  So the more correct response would be to say “Do whatever you want” and hope that they understand what you wanted when you were alive.

One thing I should mention however is that I’m not against people celebrating my death – ‘party it up’!  Any excuse for a party is a good one, so I wouldn’t want to deprive people of that.


* I often say 'you' when I mean 'one' because I think that 'one' sounds too formal and English upper class.  Sorry if there is any inaccuracy in interpretation because of this.

Not believing in things

I have this problem.  I don’t believe in a whole bunch of things that other people believe in.

Other people also think they have this problem but they usually seem to believe in something else to compensate.

Basically, whatever it is that you believe in I probably don’t believe in it.

Religion is an obvious example.  I don’t believe in it.

But I don’t believe in Atheism either.  I cannot support atheists because of this.

All the top ‘hot button’ issues I don’t believe in.  I don’t believe in abortion for instance but that’s not to say that I’m for or against it – I just don’t have beliefs about it.  I don’t believe in choice and I don’t believe in a right to life either.

In terms of gay marriage – I don’t believe in it, but I’m not against it because I don’t believe in gays and I’m not against people claiming to be gay because I don’t believe in the existence of heterosexuals either.

• I don’t believe in Morality

• I don’t believe in God

• I don’t believe in Liberalism

• I don’t believe in Conservatism

I just have this huge hole where my beliefs about these things should be.  I don’t even believe that I should believe in those things!

Fundamentally I don’t even believe I’m in social reality and on the face of it having a lack of belief that you’re in reality is a completely crazy thing to have.

Pretty much all I believe in is the physical world and general empirical beliefs.  That’s is.

I’ll try and think of some other things that I’m lacking belief in and update this extremely bloglike post.

Oh yeah, anything other than a biological definition of gender – I don’t believe in that.

I feel like I have to balance out any lack of belief that is seen as conservative with one that is seen as liberal.  So I’ll have to come back with a more liberal seeming lack of belief.

Oh, money!  I don’t believe in money!



Here I’ll put a recent formulation of Informationism for you to review:

 An Explanation of Informationism

If you’re anything like me you’ve noticed that there are far too many people who have an idea about what you should do, what’s ‘right’ and ‘good’ – If you’ll only listen to them.
You’ll be glad to know that Informationism is nothing like that.

Informationism starts from the idea that you’re going to do something The question is; “what can we know about that ‘something?’ ” Depending on your view of human nature it might be either quite alot or not much.

If you believe as I do that evolutionary forces have a great deal to do with how we will act then you will probably believe that that ‘something’ will be some sort of attempt to preserve and benefit our genetic and cultural information, as if we were living in the ancestral environment that we primarily evolved in.
The idea of Informationism is simply that we continue to try and benefit our information, but do it consciously, and tailor it for our current environment.

The core idea behind Informationism itself, is that the world (and us as part of it) consists of distinct replicatable units, these being the elements that informationism works with. However, regardless of the actual metaphysical state of the world, it would presumably be enough for an idea of Informationism to be implemented, for it to be successful in it’s own terms.

 The Fundamental Internal Requirement of Informationism

The most basic thing that implementing a belief in Informationism should do, is actually benefit your information. If it does not do this then there is no point being a ‘Informationist’ –  you would be better of believing something else. If for instance being a Christian was going to benefit your Information more, then you should go and do that instead. You would no longer be believing that you should benefit your information, but you would actually be benefiting it more, so it would be the most Informationist position.

 Definition of the Informational ‘Entity’

It’s not just individual human persons that an be Informationists, it’s any entity that is capable if making intellectually informed decisions and carrying them out cohesively. It may be a government a group, a company, or an individual. However, it is not just the information within the bounds of the decision making entity that is of concern (where that entity is Informationist) but all information that is the same as information within that entity. A standard example is that of a person who has a child. They will seek to preserve the child as it will share information with them as the parent. This information will be both genetic and cultural.

 Content Similarity

The idea of preserving and creating content similarity for the Informationist entity (typically a human individual) is a key concept of Informationism. Whilst it may not seem right on the face of it, it is infact what we do all the time, and formalising it into that position makes sense. You would not, for instance; want to have a discussion with someone, and have your positions move apart, because this would violate content similarity. Content similarity can be summed up as preserving, and creating more instances of that which is the same as ‘you’, whatever ‘you’ happens to be.

 A Position that’s being Advocated

It is important to realise that this isn’t a moral theory. I don’t think that this is what you should morally do. The reason for this is that morality itself is a fraught concept. Basically it’s extremely contested, even what it means for something to be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Therefore, it is better to avoid all of that kind of mess, and simply concentrate explaining Informationism and what it means. Since it is not a moral theory it also avoids attack on the basis of ‘Naturalistic Fallacy’.
It is rather a logical position that’s being advanced on the basis that you’re got to do something and everything else makes less sense in logical terms so you may as well do this.  It’s like a default position.

Informationism Parallels Morality in Many Cases

Although it’s not claimed that Informationism is what’s ‘right’ as such, it is often the case that what is considered to be right will benefit your information. This is because our natural moral sentiments evolved in the ancestral environment, and so that part of what we will tend to do often remains what we (informationally) should do. This as we still live in social groups, and the management of behaviour towards of the members these still remains a priority concern.

Informationism also creates a similar scale of ‘duties’, which would be moral duties if this were a morality, and this is based on the level of content similarity, or how much information the person (or decision making entity) has compared with that which it is making a decision about.

For instance, for a human; a member of the same family is owed more than a random individual. A random individual is owed more than a member of another species such as a dog. A dog is owed more than a plant and so on. This allows us to make sense of what would be moral obligations, but here they are neatly paralleled by an Informationist understanding.

 An Altruistic Approach

Further to it its near moral nature, Informationism is not to be confused with the philosophy of Egotism, which says that what we should do is what is in our own best interests. What Informationism advocates we do is what is in the interest of our information not ourselves (although this may constitute a good part of our information).
One of the ways in which Informationism can clearly be shown to be different from Egotism is that if an exact clone* of a person was created, an Informationist would owe that person just about the same level of consideration as what they owed themselves, because they would share all the same information. Under Egotism however they would be owed nothing.

Further to this; I would say that our conception of our selves relies on a recently generated myth.
See: The Refutation of Liberalism (A much earlier writing of mine – proceed with caution)

*Note: I am talking about a clone in terms of everything, not just genetic cloning.

 Informationism is Compatible with most Belief Systems

You can add Informationism to most other belief systems as it does not require that those beliefs are changed, but rather that they are promoted. This will hopefully create content similarity in others so that they share your beliefs.

 Thinking About It

If you think it in a charitable way, I think you will find that Informationism as a philosophy solves many of the decision making problems which we face. However I am open to some hard working out of any difficulties with the theory and hope to hear some.


Revolutions as changes of world view

Examining the record of past research from the vantage point of contemporary historiography, the historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. Led my a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Even more important, during revolutions scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before. It is rather as if the professional community had been suddenly transported to another planet where familiar objects are viewed in a different light and joined by unfamiliar ones as well… …we may want to say that after a revolution scientists are responding to a different world.

Thomas S Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions p111.

A Warning

Over the past few years I developed a different understanding of human behaviour. In the beginning this was very exciting for me, and I looked to informing others about my ideas. However I soon found out that it wasn’t as simple as that. That if what I now understood was true it would mean a major effect on society and possibly a negative one. This was coupled with an intense personal crisis about the contents of my new understanding. After a large amount of thought and personal writing I have decided to take a similar approach to the unveiling of this theory that Darwin took to his theory of Natural selection. i.e. not to unveil at this time. However, there will be the added factor that I’m going to try to make it public that I am taking such an approach, so that if anyone else comes up with the same idea, I can at least be credited with it. This is in some sense then an ego prop, but I hope to at least give enough information that if and when someone else comes up with the same idea you will be able to recognise it as the same from the information contained within.

About Darwin

I’m sure you know that Darwin developed the theory of evolution by natural selection long before he published origin of the species, but then it wasn’t until he received a paper by Alfred Wallace that he decided to publish. Infact we know this about Darwin’s life:

1837 May 3
Darwin was influenced by the recent discovery of “fossilised monkeys” in Africa. He conjectured that such fossils were evidence that mankind was descended from some kind of ape ancestor. However, he dared not mention this to anyone, as such talk was tantamount to heresy.

During this time Darwin was struggling between the desire to go public with his transmutation theories, and being ostracized by his fellow naturalists (Henslow, Sedgwick, Lyell and others). He solved this dilemma by keeping quiet for the time being.

1838 Spring
Due to concern for his reputation, Darwin decided to not publish any of his transmutation theories for many years to come.

1842 late June
While at Shrewsbury Darwin wrote up a thirty-five page sketch of his ideas about transmutation. This was the very first rough draft of his theory. In it he had natural selection figured out, and had a basic description of descent, both of which he said obeyed strict laws of nature. It is interesting to note that at this time Darwin thought these “laws of nature” were set forth by god during creation, after which time god stepped back and no longer intervened with the universe.

Darwin made an outline of reasons not to published his transmutation ideas –
[1] Fellow naturalists would never accept his ideas.
[2] animal breeders would find a huge treatise too boring to read.
[3] the trouble making atheists would use it for their evil agendas.
[4] the church would scorn him.
[5] he did not want to be labeled an atheist.
[6] he would betray his friends and family to whom he owed so much.

1858 June 18
Darwin received a paper from Alfred Russel Wallace, who was still at the Malay Archipelago. The paper was titled: “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type.” Darwin was shocked! Wallace had come up with a theory of natural selection that was very similar to his own. The paper contained concepts like “the struggle for existence,” and “the transmutation of species.”

1858 June 28
Darwin’s son, Charles Waring Darwin, died.

1858 July 1
On this date Charles Darwin first went public about his views on the evolution of species. The papers of Darwin and Wallace were read at a meeting of the Linnean Society in London.

1859 November 22
“Origin of Species” went on sale to the public at a price of 15 shillings. 1,250 copies were printed, most of which sold the first day. It was an immediate success and Darwin started the same day editing the work for a second edition.


You will note that Darwin had natural selection worked out by 1842, but it was not till 1858 that he actually went public with it. So he sat on the information for 16 years!
The difference between Darwin and I however is that he was already a respected biologist, whereas I’m effectively nobody.
At one point Darwin doesn’t want to say anything, because he believes it would be regarded as heresy. It might be said that today that isn’t an issue. However, I think that heresy today could be summed up as scepticism about humane values, as well as opinions that disagree with the majority cultural consensus about contentious issues.

Managing the mind bomb

There is a theory that I can say little about, because of what I believe the consequences would be. The situation is analogous to the person who first works out how to build a new weapon of mass destruction. What should they do? They may not want that information to be released, but they won’t want someone else to later discover the same thing, and get the credit for the technical accomplishment either.
So, what I’m going to do is state as much as I can, so that in the event full revelation by someone else, I will still be recognised as the person who first understood and theorised on this phenomena. This way I will at least be credited with the intellectual ability, come that eventuality.

Recognition – What such a revelation would look like

The theory, if and when it comes, will consist of one, or both, of the following parts:

1: An intellectual theory of human behaviour

The least dangerous part is a theory of human behaviour, related to evolutionary psychology, but with massively more explanatory power, and taking into account a much larger range of actual behaviours.
It will be especially explanatory of human social behaviour.
There will be some of this theory in what follows.
In effect though, this intellectual theory is not too likely to be presented, unless someone has worked out how to access the information psychologically. That is the really dangerous part.

2: A psychological technique.

This part is a kind of psychological technique for accessing information beyond the cultural and intellectual. Once a person becomes so ‘enabled’, it is not a matter of choice whether they believe the intellectual theory. So long as it has been explained to them beforehand, it is all intuitive to them. However, if it hasn’t been explained they may adopt other interpretations.
Infact, some people are often in this state, but they don’t have the theory, and so interpret using their own personal, cultural and intellectual means. The thing is, anyone who is in this state will probably not intellectualise it, but if they do, they will probably use their existing cultural symbols, rather than explanations from evolutionary psychology and the like. In fact they may even think they are experiencing something beyond psychological explanations, and that it thus disproves such explanations.

The reality is far more terrible.

A person in this state is able to ‘see through’ existing cultural conceptions to a more primitive and basic level of human operation.
Furthermore, a person in this state will provoke much of what they will then be able to see in persons around them, when it might otherwise be absent.
A good example of a ‘psychological technique’ is simply the ability to read, and thereby pick up huge amounts of extra information from the world that you wouldn’t have otherwise. If we didn’t know about such a thing as written language, we might regard all the text around us as a kind pervasive, stylistic, cultural decoration.
Another example would be ‘magic eye’ pictures. If you didn’t know what they were and someone put one on your wall, you might go your whole life just thinking it was a decorative pattern until you were given an incredibly simple psychological technique to see what was there.

What people are doing

When people act normally, it is as one or the other, or (more probably) a mix of various classes of behavioural possibilities, which are well known and described within culture, although less so specifically within academia.
Some of these classes of behaviour, are among the things I can’t spell out, because of the cultural values respectively attached to them, which would tend to suggest that people would try and change them if they became more consciously aware of them. However, the reasons for people acting that way are usually well founded within the environment, and so it may well be unwise to change. (one of the things I would like to advise, is for the values attached to certain behaviours to be modified)
Behaviours ranging from; the exalted, to the maligned, to the criminalised, turn out to be part of our built in biological possibilities, and we are performing them from one class or another all the time, regardless of our accepted status (or behaviour class) within society.
What effect revelation of this is likely to have is anyone’s guess. Personally, I would expect widespread depression, suicide, and possibly even revolution, as the justifications upholding the basis of existing power structures collapses and and a new psychological elite takes control.
In general, I feel that the effects of general knowledge of this information would probably create social changes equivalent or greater than the sixties in the west. In some ways, we might be more human as a result, but an essential issue is that our existing values, when applied to the new understanding are likely to cause major problems, so it would be wise to modify them, in order that any revelation has less disastrous consequences.

Advised value changes include: (but are not limited to)

  • Reduction of belief in supernatural entities, especially gods.
  • A freer and less concept and value bound approach to sex and sexuality.
  • More tolerance of psychopathic behaviour.
  • A more communitarian approach, and the dissolution of the individual as an indivisible single entity.

Within existing concepts it is hard to provide pointers however.

Levels of behavioural causation

What I am going to describe here, is three levels of behavioural causation which make up part of a grid of behavioural possibilities (behaviour including thought). We can imagine it to be like a spectrum, with the biological at the bottom, then the cultural band then the intellectual.

1. The biological level This is the basic instinct for living. When I’m hungry in the morning and want something to eat, that’s the biological level.

2. The cultural level This is heuristics for living. When I have toast for breakfast that’s cultural. The hunger is biological but I could have rice or a chocolate cake. Why do I have toast? Because that’s become an automatic cultural response for me.

3. The intellectual level This encompasses the specifics; the problem solving for living. If there is a problem with the cultural or biological level or some kind of challenge to that, you can use your intellect to work it out. If I have to read and interpret the nutritional information on the side of the peanut butter packet I’m going to need the intellectual level for that. There’s also some stuff that could be said about the discord between the three levels, and how the biological level is built for a hunter gatherer, while the cultural reforms itself every generation, taking some elements of the past along with some innovations. The intellectual structures do this too, but they should be more flexible if based on true reason and logic.

Everyone already knows this in some sense. However, stating it clearly can provide a powerful tool for analysing and understanding human behaviour.
But that’s only part of the story. There’s another, equally important spectrum of behaviour, and that’s the one I’m not going to talk about. Together these two spectrums make a complete three dimensional map of human behaviour. Knowing one, you’re kind of like a ‘flatlander’, only seeing part of the picture.
So what is this other spectrum? It’s actually a major aspect of biological reality that has been culturally and thereby intellectually interpreted, but very badly so. Furthermore, there is also the direct seeing this biological reality when unfiltered by cultural perception.
– “Well of course it’s filtered by cultural perception” you’re going to say; “Your perception”. Well no it’s not, it’s being seen ‘technically’ and then interpreted culturally, rather than the other way round. This does create problems like the emotion of ‘the horror’, but I’ll get onto that later.

Reality for us

Reality as we experience it is cultural reality. We are not seeing biological reality, so most of the things that are happening in biological terms we are either blind to, or we explain in cultural terms.
Reality as we experience it, is infact a subset of the wider reality, that is actually more basic, but exacting in its operation. Because it is so explicit, most people would be likely to regard it with horror in cultural terms.
There are fictional examples that would throw some light on this, but to specifically mention them would be misleading.
One of the problems with revelation is; that once seen and interpreted with our current cultural understanding, events occurring in the wider reality (that people don’t currently have conscious access to) then create a too extreme response. You might call it a ‘meta response’ to subtle behaviour, when a subconscious adjustment would be the only natural expedient response.
Another reason is the actual things we are doing… (which is another area I can’t go into)
This is a reason that our values need to be readjusted along the lines of greater tolerance and understanding, a greater relaxation of the ego, and a blurring of social identity. Some kinds of meditation and Buddhist practices might also be a wise precaution.
What we a talking about here, is a full paradigm shift of all cultural understanding, and all intellectual understanding that is linked to that. It would be like something along the lines of what happens when an isolated tribe comes into contact with western civilisation. But even more than that in some ways, as it can cause a short circuiting of different parts of people’s mental lives, resulting in a crippling paralysis.

Everything is Something Else

What I am suggesting here, is not that people are wrong about their interpretation of the events which take place round them. We might call this the cultural level interpretation, augmented by some intellectual interpretation, and this is very often self referentially correct – correct on it’s own terms. There are many compelling cultural interpretations in the world, though most rely on a different conception of what human beings actually are than can be scientifically supported. For example the declarations in the American independence document.
What I am suggesting infact is; that while cultural interpretations have somewhat respectable justifications, their entire explanatory system runs in parallel to a much more accurate, complete and systematic possible explanation referring to the wider reality. This is the ‘something else’.
A good analogy might be; if you were in a ‘show’ and being televised to an audience, except that you as one of the ‘performers’ did not know you were in a show, or the wider dynamics of how your relationships worked.
In this case you might say that everything you did was something else. That there were some people who you thought were genuinely interested in you, where as infact they were operating from different motives.

Everything is infact something else…

The Horror

Seeing everything as being also something else, may create an emotion that I call ‘the horror’. Kind of an intense experience of cognitive disidence, this emotion is generated when the cultural and intellectual interpretations of the social environment are in conflict. For instance, if you see something happening in one sphere, that your values oppose in another.
People may look back on their experiences in another paradigm, and know of the things they thought and did, but generally not why they thought and did them. Imagine being in both paradigms at the same time.
It is one thing for example; if you could return the Pope to the German army at the end of World War II, and he had to somehow deal with that, but it would be yet another if he had to carry out his elderly duties as Pope, and his teenage duties as soldier at the same time.
You can divide up the horror into two kinds – the horror at behaviour, and the horror at language. In each case it is because two parallel interpretations might be given for the same behavioural acts, speech or written text.
Any person who is able to decode consciously both streams of information, is faced with the problem of how to deal with the separate, and often conflicting messages. This may either be through the disparate subject matter of the respective messages, or because of their conflicting, and often socially unacceptable nature.
An aware observer is likely to be confused about how to respond – even, what to respond to.
The effect may be similar to the experience of someone who hears voices as they go about their business, except that the ‘voices’ here are powerful interpretations, and identified with individuals or groups of people.
Another issue is; that it is not just the interpreted outputs of others, but the actions of the individual themselves causing a possible personal crisis of self identity. Something like alien hand syndrome or the like, where the individual feels themselves no longer in control of their own body and even mind, as if their own self becomes alien to them.
A person who is interpreting the world thus will take an action in the social environment, and then will half a second later realise that the action they have just taken, has an entirely different causal mechanism or reason for being done than the normal cultural explanation. For a further example of a similar experience of horror, imagine that a woman had to have dinner with a charismatic and powerful man, that she knew was planning to kill her. In this case his charm and interest in her life would be wasted, as it would all be interpreted as a tactic for him collecting information about her habits, in order that he could better carry out his deadly task. But still she would have to remain calm and happy looking despite her inner turmoil. Everything would be something else, so it’s nearly an exact analogy.
So, some very serious and damaging psychological effects can occur as a result of seeing the wider reality of human existence.

Why people don’t see the truth

In terms of the psycho-sexual environment, why don’t people see that, instead of the cultural mythspace that they actually operate in? The reason (so far as I can discern) is that they’re generally not using the part of their brain that is able to automatically decode such stimuli, and so it is simply edited out of the viewing process as irrelevancies.
When they are using that part of their brain, they continue to use the same intellectualisations, and so while they detect that something is going on, since there’s no words for it in the mythspace, it remains simply ‘feelings’.

Infact a more interesting question for me is; why some people do seem to know the truth and they really don’t want you talking about it. But I’ll have to go into that at a later date.

Why it doesn’t help to know the truth

In general, people ought to evolve towards a greater realisation of reality, as that should be advantageous to them in the environment. If they do not then there ought to be a pretty good explanation for that.
For something like gods it’s not too hard. All it is, is the extension of our natural bias towards seeing things in personal and social terms into the physical environment. If you don’t see things in social terms then you’re autistic and will have limited hope of reproducing, whereas if you see more than there is in social terms, then you will have just as much, or more chance passing on your genes.
For the psycho-sexual environment, because our brains have this natural level of flexibility in operation, in terms of which behaviour set is used, we can operate in vastly different kinds of social ways at different times, however only one behaviour set is truly capable of creating the mythspace, and so that is the one we operate in.
Because the mythspace allows the development of civilisation, and the others aren’t really needed once civilisation is achieved, they are simply sidelined and our effort goes into the mythspace.
It’s like how blindness increases perception in the remaining senses. But in this case it’s more of a narrowing of focus, and operating within a narrow band of human possibilities.
We could imagine a child who is locked in a room without any kind of stimulation for years on end, and its brain would atrophy. But if you gave it a Computer and hooked it up to the internet with the online game ‘Second Life’ it would become an ‘internet child’. It would be the best at Second Life because that’s all that it would have to do. It would probably become the worlds fastest typist, even if it could speak in grunts. It might end up earning a fortune in real money playing Second Life, and so at that point you might say that within that mythical cyberspace it was doing pretty well. There would be no point taking it out of its room because it would only be a maladjusted retard like creature who could only communicate by typing.
That’s like us within our cultural mythspace v’s the ‘real’ human world.
One other point is that seeing the wider picture of what’s going on can be highly distracting. If you watch a film that’s one kind of experience, where you can be transported into another kind of cultural mythspace, for a hopefully pleasant and/or exciting transcending experience. But imagine that you went along with a video camera and filmed the filming of an entire movie, including the cameras filming the actors and the studio in the background. Then you cut it to the same length as the original, with the same scenes. Watching that footage would be quite a different experience to the actual movie, and one in which transcendence would be unlikely to be achieved.

The Possessed Ape

“Man is more of an ape than any of the apes” – Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

We’ve had the Naked Ape, The Moral Animal and The Third Chimpanzee, among others. My vote would be for The Possessed Ape. Here’s why; Once upon a time a chimpanzee was tried as a French spy1 by suspicious English villagers. Later on in history only dark skinned humans were considered to be a type of ape. Now we’ve got to to the point where if you ask the average person in the world if any human is a type of ape they’ll probably say “no”.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey_hanger&oldid=90705106

Not so long ago primatologists in Africa came into contact with a band of chimpanzees in the forest that had never come into contact with humans before. Instead of running away like chimpanzees accustomed to humans hunting them usually do, they simply saw the humans as another band of chimpanzees and acted as such. It’s got to the point where chimps in the forest have more of an idea about what we are than the average person on the street. Why?
At first glance of course chimpanzees would see humans simply as strange looking chimps. However, after more observation they would report something strange (if they could intellectualise it). They would see us responding to a mysterious force as we we in communion with some other invisible being, and as if something else was controlling our bodies. We would seem possessed, with jerky movements and strange actions.
This force is our power of language and abstract reasoning.

So I can even be a theist in the literal sense of John 1.1

John 1:1 (New International Version)

The Word Became Flesh 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Of course, I can’t just say all these things, as they don’t make sense within the current context. It might be hypothesised that I am undergoing an unfortunate kind of imaginative delusion or mental illness. I think this is the most convenient explanation, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to rule it out without some serious thought. It would be important to note however that this message is sane and rational and brought forward with the greatest care and sensitivity.

And to anyone else with their finger on the psych bomb – remember, I won’t press the trigger if you don’t.

What I want to happen about this post

I have no expectations. I understand what most people’s response would be. The most that I can hope for is that it is date stamped and held in some kind of filing system. Alerting me to anyone who has similar ideas would also be appreciated. Of course, if anyone wants further clarification or information about the things I can talk about, I would be happy to supply it.

Thank you for your time,
Ford Andrews


Notes to others

I may as well include this advice to anyone who discovers what I am talking about here, in case I am not available in the event of them coming into contact with it. “Once upon a time you dressed so fine, threw the bums a dime, in your prime then you…”*

Welcome to the Zoo!

First of all tread very carefully. You may become depressed or elevated. Only use anti depressants in case depression becomes severe. It is important to try to use NEW concepts to explain what you are seeing. New concepts will be needed. My worst fear is not that this is discovered, but that existing concepts will be used to explain it, and the chaos that would cause.
In particular remember that these things apply to everyone – it is just that you can see it.
Don’t bother trying to discuss this with anyone – they won’t understand. Worse, they will try to interpret what you’re saying using their existing cultural symbols. At first the things you’re seeing may delight or horrify you, but just remember it’s a one way interpretation, and for you to respond to it directly will only cause confusion.
If you really find it difficult to cope, I can suggest going to a place where people are less responsive. I know from personal experience that Korea is one such place. There people are often in a different mode from westerners.
Most importantly, you will have to get used to the fact that you’re not in control of yourself as you once thought and move to a more management role of yourself, with certain ‘policies’ towards certain things, rather than specific actions that you take. This is probably one of the more horrifying things, remember though that other people are in the same position, except they don’t know it.
I may as well tell you before you do anything too drastic; what you’re seeing can be unseen. Infact that’s probably the first thing you will want to learn to do. That’s right, you’ve learned to see, and now you have to learn to unsee.
It is important that you can change your mode back again, you may not see why, but don’t worry you soon will, and that’s when you can start to have serious problems.
On the other hand if you try to adjust modes just to please people it may precipitate a wholesale disintegration of self, and peoples reaction might be more negative than ever.
It is better to choose one mode and operate using that with ‘policies’. Also don’t try and use it to ‘get one over’ on people. It might seem easy, but people can act very cunningly in the environment and get you back without even knowing it themselves.
You can’t believe that people you know are now doing those things? Well just remember, you’re probably actually provoking them in the environment. From their perspective they’re not doing anything different from what they’ve always done and you’re the one who’s acting strange.

  • Bob Dylan – Highway 61 revisited is the best album to listen to when this has happened to you.

A Theory of Information

Long before I discovered the things that provoked this letter, I developed a theory of how we might act which I called Informationism. Basically what the theory is, is a claim about the kinds of forces responsible for our functioning and then an optional prescription based on that fact. My intention here is to give a quick overview of this theory, rather than an in-depth justification. Also understand that this is not a moral theory. I don’t think this is what we ‘should’ do, but rather it’s something I advocate based on what seems logically correct.

The claim is; Evolutionary forces mean, that what we will tend to do is do what is beneficial for spreading our cultural and genetic information in an ancestral environment.

The prescription is; what we could decide to do, is what actually will benefit our information in this environment.

The justification for this is purely negative. You are going to do something. Now whatever you do do is going to be your brain’s cultural interpretation of some biological urgings that you have. You surely know what those biological urgings are trying to get you to do, so why not actually do that, rather than the million other variations on the theme?
Whatever the justification or explaination can be given for existing actions, it will boil down to some attempt to benefit information, so why not just benefit it? There is no ‘reason’ to, any more than there is an ultimate reason to do anything.
There’s little more that I can say about that in terms of justification, as we’re really talking about a blind biological and cultural process, out of which we get arising a toolmaking ‘rational space’ in our brains. We can actually make decisions based on logic within that, we just don’t have any motivation to make the decisions based on the original ‘orders’ to the biological forces.
All we can do is invent myths to wrap around things so people have social motivation to do them. People are eager to follow the will of their creator. As it turns out the ‘creator’ is a blind replicating process, but people say that to follow that would be a ‘naturalistic fallacy’ or idolatry in religious terms. Do we owe these ape bodies anything because rationality has arisen in them? Well at the moment the options are to go along with a mass of myths, fantasies and wishful thinking about what humans should do, or actually align with what’s happening in nature. The alternative isn’t to be more noble, it’s just to fail as an organism and believe a lie. Imagine a fly on a buzzing against a window. If you could give that fly intelligence but it still didn’t have the motivation to use it then it would still keep on buzzing against the window. If you asked it why it would say “Because I feel like it”.
So it needs more than the urge or the intelligence – it requires the urge to use the intelligence. If you decide to chop down a tree using your arm, you will quickly get the urge to use intelligence to find a better way to chop it down.

This is a major excerpt from the later half of:

A journey to the end of philosophy

If you would like more you can get it here:


Subordinate Sex

Subordinate Sex

His and Hers

A guide to personal conquest

by Derek Ellis

Professor of Biology University of Victoria, British Columbia Canada

I am writing a review and criticism of this book because it is simply so amazing on multiple different levels. It is a stunning book. A book like I thought I’d never see.

Let me explain. I wrote a book which I can’t do anything with, because the content is so controversial and damaging to me. For a number of years I’ve had to deal with living in this, without any much stimulation from the world of reality.

I often look in book shops for books that give some indication of the author knowing something of reality. Usually I am disappointed in this, but that’s not all that surprising given that the place in which we operate is a mythspace necessarily disconnected from the real world.

The book

Let me get this straight; Subordinate Sex was, and is an absolute failure as a commercial prospect. You will scarcely find a more rare and unloved volume. From what I can discern on the web there was only ever the first edition in hardback published in 1983. Even that seems uncited and unreviewed, basically making no impact on the world whatsoever, save it being an obscure volume on the shelves of a few scattered bookshops. There are so few of these books in the world, that if even a fraction of the people who read this review went out to get hold of a copy, that would totally exhaust the world’s total (second hand) supply.

So why should you care about that? Some book that effectively has been shunned by the world?

You should care because it is one of the very few texts that lie outside the end of science. People don’t want to know about, not because they believe it’s false, but because they can see it might be true. If it was true it would be a big problem for the world because they would have to see reality in a whole new way, and that’s massively threatening for them.

Make no mistake, Subordinate Sex is right up there with Darwin’s The Origin of the Species, The decent of Man, The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris and Wilson’s Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. In other words it’s important as an anthropological sense as an investigation of humankind as those prior volumes.

Unlike those volumes however it is virtually unknown.

Look at the following headline from the BBC archive:

1967: The Naked Ape steps out Zoologist Dr Desmond Morris has stunned the world by writing about humans in the same way scientists describe animals.


If that ‘stunned the world’ why was this book ‘shunned by the world’. There are reasons as we will see.

Most interesting for me, this book is a crack in the armor of the mythspace, that all embracing explanation that everyone seems to want to believe. It’s not so much a crack because of what it says, no that can be dealt with – I’ll be doing a bit of that myself. No it is an anomaly because it was placed in front of people and they chose to ignore it, which is a miniature social horror. Just as it would be if I went round with a gun shooting people and they chose to ignore that.

People ignored it and there are reasons why. They have nothing to do with truth. People don’t want truth. They want to cover up the truth. We have this thing ‘Anthropological truth’ which is a byproduct of science. Science itself we love because it is a tool which gives us power. Anthropological truth can give us power too, but in this case it undermines the very root of the power structure itself so then it must be ignored, not argued against and rejected, but outright ignored.

As for me, I am alone. The reason for this is that there is scarcely a single person in the world who seems to understand a single thing outside the mythspace. This gives me a dilemma. I am alone, and yet if I show people things I give them an advantage over me. Furthermore discussion of the matter often depends on personal experience which when revealed causes me to run the risk of greater isolation and alienation from people.

With this book – I love it. I don’t have to exploit my own personal experiences, I can just point to this book and that can take my shame, my guilt, my indecision about how to live in this thing whatever you call it.

That is a very great relief to me.




I’ve been thinking for weeks how I’m going to approach this piece of writing that I know I must do. …The simple madness of it.

What I’m saying is that there was this manuscript that a publisher accepted from a reputable, previously published university biologist. They decided to print that manuscript as a hard cover book, presumably promoting it through all the usual channels. They said that it was “the first new theory of human sexuality since Freud” Then it “fell stillborn from the press” as Nietzsche once said of one one of his books.

Years later I come along, a nobody, and I tell you that this is a really interesting book that you should get really excited about. What the fuck?

OK enough blabber. The publishers dust cover jacket is entitled “SUBORDINATE SEX” with the subtitle “A GUIDE TO PERSONAL CONQUEST” and then in fancy script “Dr Derek Ellis” The main picture is of a naked man and woman identifiable by gender, but not individually behind an opaque glass shower screen, with two towels on a railing infront of them. On these towels is embroidered “His” and “Hers” respectively. “His and Hers” is actually the subtitle to the book whereas “ A guide to personal conquest” is only present on the dust cover, reflecting presumably the publishers justifiable nervousness about the commercial prospects of a book entitled, as it is “Subordinate Sex”.

The only impression you get when first viewing the cover, is that it is some sort of seventies sex manual with only the ‘personal conquest’ thing possibly slightly detracting from that.

Upon opening the book we find the publishers description:

Subordinate Sex outlines the new way to personal development and dynamic achievement for the future and explains how you can gain sexual rewards by amicably deferring and subordinating yourself to those whom you desire and who wish to dominate you.

Actually that’s not exactly what the book’s about, (It’s all rewards and not just sexual) but it’s near enough, and if it was just saying that then it would simply be a unisex version of controversial book The Surrendered Wife by Laura Doyle (although predating it by about twenty years) i.e. ‘the surrendered person’.

There’s more to it than that though, as I presume that The Surrendered Wife is a purely social, rather than biological account.

The next part of the inside dust cover continues:

Dr Derek Ellis, Professor of biology at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, divides people into three groups: Subordinates, Dominants and Super-Subordinates. He asserts that most men and women are mid ranking Subordinates put down by condescending Dominants. But this need not be the case… [he] claims that success in your personal and working life comes not from emulating the Dominants, but from developing a strategy all of your own. He shows how by using your individual talents, opportunities and achievements to your own advantage you can infact become Super-Subordinates and thereby enjoy the pleasures of the Dominants.

Actually he divides people into even more groups than that, but the important point is the way in which people are divided up as having these traits in their inherent natures as opposed to simply acting to the situation. For instance I could divide people up between people whose favorite colour is red and those whose favorite colour is blue, but that wouldn’t necessarily say anything significant or essential about them as people. One of Ellis’s most important theories is that it’s not just that we act in a certain way but we are a certain way. This leaves the question of what happens if you try to act more dominant or are thrust into a dominant role. This is answered by referring to such a person as a “CON-DOM” in the case of someone trying to be dominant but not pulling it off and a Ritual DOM in the case of a person who is put into a position of authority. You will notice that one of the most annoying and grating things about the book is the use of “DOM” or “SUB” in capitals, like something really bizarre is being shouted out at you.

So there is an uncomfortable, porn like feeling about reading the book. It’s hardly the kind of thing you want to read on the bus – a book with “Subordinate Sex” emblazoned on it. Which is ironic, since there practically no description of what we might immediately imagine “Subordinate Sex” to be, contained anywhere within the book.

An Evolutionary Prescription

There are many evolutionary psychology books and many that make ethical prescriptions. Only Subordinate Sex makes prescriptions based on our animal natures rather than social myth. Here a crucial departure takes place – advice on how to be a good animal. In many ways this is obvious, but it is also extremely unusual.

I’m going to leave it here for today. I’ll be back soon with some more scans from the book and more analysis.

Please leave any comments. I want to find out what you think.


Oh and do you know what the best thing is?

The book has been redone and published for the internet age!

May I present Sex, Food and Rank by Derek Ellis: