GOD, GREED & EVE: A Tentative Academic Perspective

Evolution in our Local Area of the Universe has created a species known as homo sapiens, whose evolution has seen them endure the uncomfortable position of having to deal with their 'loneliness' in a seemingly anonymous and impersonal Universe, the splitting ('the Fall') of the first single-cells (perfection) into two, three or even changeable sexes (oysters etc.), and the supposed 'human condition' as it is with materialism (greed). Humankind has thus had to establish several myths (culture) to deal with nature's 'accident's' (if they are accidents at all).

Humankind has for various reasons sought God, and hence religion arose since the time 'grave goods' were buried along with the deceased in the prehistoric era. While St. Thomas's 'five proofs of God' and Aristotle's 'Prime Mover' have been disproved by philosophers and scientists (quantum- and astro- physics) alike, it seems that from an ontological perspective, there must be some implicate order within the chaos - some (hopefully) superior 'mind' - and such is Chaos theory's disposition today. However, humankind's current approach to spirituality has led to anthropomorphocentrism (seeing God in human terms, and suggesting we are the only intelligent species in the Universe), with little regard for nature (the Universe) and natural law. A more natural spirituality is not only required (as we shall see) but is indeed logical.

The New Age protagonists have not helped much here, for they have in several instances followed paths too similar to the Old Age religions. What is required, is a fundamental change if we are to resolve some of our problems, and hence the age old battle of dualism between culture and nature. As this century's greatest scholar of mythology, Joseph Campbell, concluded: "We need a new myth" to deal with the serious positions in which we humans find ourselves.

As if the conflict between culture and nature are not serious enough at the spiritual level, in addition humankind finds itself facing what it views as serious problems at the sexual level. Human males and females evolved with vast differences between them, both biologically and psychologically; and indeed more so than any other species we know (these differences are more marked the higher we climb the evolutionary ladder). What compounds the problem, at least for the religio-politician (power-monger) and other idealists (like today's technocrat); is that general sexology found that there is no guiding instinct to guide males to females (not even in animals, nor even in the mating season itself). Ethologists have also long known that the handful of animals (mainly found in several species of birds) who appeared to 'pair for life', do not do so in our heterosexual terms.

Males fight not over females, but rather that the best genes win out in their offspring. So-called harem keeping animals protect food sources and their gene pools. We find that 'pairing animals' bond where the female is so similar to the male, that she is an easier target for predators, and hence needs protection during the mating season (which by the way is brief). Furthermore, the male partner is not the same one over time (researchers last year found that the DNA of the eggs in the nest do not match the DNA of the 'father' in the bird species they studied). In general, animals display bisexuality, where in the more socialized species (primates) we find an increase in such sexual behaviors. Our closest living ancestors, the bonobo chimps display such a variety of sexual goings on, "that it would make Sodom & Gomorrah a Vicar's tea-party" (Timothy Taylor). There are no genes to suggest sexual orientation in animals (nor in humans, as we shall see).

Since there is thus no sexual instinct to guide male to female per se, it is the 'male excess' that becomes responsible or procreation : Here Darwin observed that the wind carries thousands of grains of pollen (male aspect) in the hope that "a few chance grains" will land on the ovule (female aspect) "by mere fluke". This 'male excess' is found in humans/animals in the form of semen, and indeed accounts for homosexual relations. Sex only occurs at all because it is pleasurable, regardless of what our 'altruistic' (sic) morals may be. At the human level it is thus clear that like the animals we emerged from, and always will be (like it or not), we are naturally bisexual - though largely homosocial creatures. And why wouldn't we be the next evolutionary 'day' we emerged from our bisexual ancestors ?

It is generally accepted by archeo-anthropology that "males and females did not form long-term monogamous bonds in prehistoric times". An alarming fact that researchers must today face, is that heterosexuality is not as natural as some would like it to be. Indeed heterosexual penetrative sex for recreational purposes is unnatural for it must use such unnatural devices as contraception (herbal mixtures, condoms, 'the pill' etc.). Homosexual recreational sex is by contrast completely natural, however it cannot achieve procreation. Having created such 'social constructs' (labels which nature does not accord), has created two polarized sexual acts, neither of which constitutes the 'whole' sexual act --- for heterosexuality cannot enjoy natural recreational sex, whilst homosexuality cannot enjoy natural procreation. And it is abundantly clear (as we shall see) that nature created the sexes the way it did for reasons that quickly become apparent.

I draw the reader's attention to the above facts, alarming as they may be, due to the obvious fact that heterosexuality (and homosexuality) were invented for reasons other than survival, or indeed one species survival over the next. Archeo-anthropology (as validated by primal myths, modern day tribes, and residual artifacts like 'ochre'/make-up, Bushmen cave art etc.) generally agrees that the first long-term male-female human relationships were economic in nature ('division of labor), and began with the invention of tools, where males (hunters) swopped their meat for grubs and vegetables 'gathered' by womenfolk (hunter-gatherers societies). While homo sapiens later found that they could restructure their sexual models at the rise of farming (with more food, more people could be bred), heterosexuality was soon to become institutionalized, especially at the hands of the religio-politician if he was to see his androcentric (male centred) desire for ego, self-aggrandizement and power, fulfilled. One of the methods used to enforce humans away from their bisexual nature, was religion.

We find the earliest myths have no trace of heterosexual creation myths, and the ancient bisexual-homosocial Epic of Gilgamesh (Sumeria) was altered to become a purely heterosexual myth centuries later (Genesis), with only the 'edenic' garden and some other features being retained. While these ploys worked for yesterday's theocrat, as spirituality ('the spirit of the thing') has declined, today's technocrat must largely depend on a more secular heterosexual indoctrination to see his noxious aims fulfilled. Here Freud 'warned' that children should not become 'fixated' at any psychosexual stage, lest our innate desires spring forth naturally (hence the yearnings for anal retention and prostatic massage of the anal phase; or the phallus's adoration by males and females alike in the oral and phallic stages; or the dreams mainly about males by both males and women, and so on). Moreover, as Dr Tripp has explained (he examines the world's sexologists' findings spanning some 60 years), to ensure that heterosexuality is ingrained, males are indoctrinated to deny their masculine traits, and girls their feminine traits - in the hope that the one sex will find its other half in the opposite sex. The result is that heterosexuals (and homosexual to some extent) become half ("Meet my other half"). Males and females thus become ever more different than even nature created them, and sadly they never come to know the 'whole' of Plato's the Good, the Beauty and the Truth, let alone the greatest of these, Love. It is not surprising that the real genius of any spiritual or philosophical master was found in the few Plato's, Jesus's (whom we know little about) and da Vinci's of this world. For they understood the 'whole' (Jesus and the 'youth' of the Secret Gospel is quite topical at present). Einstein can never be said to be a genius past the point that he understood but a few facets of life, mainly materialism. He finally admitted "The more I see of science, the more I know I am dealing with philosophy, which I don't understand". Imagine how many human problems would have been resolved by now, had more of us been allowed to be 'whole'. Indeed, can the indoctrinated ever know the whole of the good, beauty, truth or love ?

Returning to the division of sexuality, to top it all, homosexuality had to logically become the 'opposite construct' to the invention of heterosexuality, where homosexuality as a now separate force became a severe threat to the power-monger and other idealists. Hence the harsh 'sacred' laws of Leviticus and other 'holy' books, and the secular label of 'unnatural'.

However, in nature there are no such constructs as heterosexual and homosexual, nor are there any 'sexually oriented genes'. Indeed there is no need for sexual orientation in nature at all if the 'male excess' guarantees procreation. More importantly, nature's eternal bisexual arrangements show perfect balance, were to overstep it is to find over-population, species breaking the ecological cycle, the depletion of food sources, and ultimately the very extinction the heterosexual propagandist warns us of as regards homosexuality ... supposedly. As if either heterosexuality or homosexuality should ever have been invented. The fact of the matter though, is that homosexual acts in the natural setting (whether in animals or prehistoric man or some of today's tribes) have never threatened fertility, nor has it prevented one species surviving at the expense of the next, neither in the ecological cycle nor as regards the protection of territory (the invention of land rights). Species have for millennia survived with their bisexual models (and indeed their natural spirituality's), having protected both their cultural boundaries and fertility's.

Fortunately we have living human examples to validate our archeo-anthropological, sexological, ethological and historical (mythological) findings. Tribes today like the Siwans et. al (who are almost exclusively homosexual in their bonding) show higher fertility rates than other cultures (Ford & Beech). There are no laws making homosexuality taboo in Siwan culture. It is thus quite clear that culture does indeed determine sexual orientation, male-female differences aside. This is of course anathema to the socio-biologist who insists there must be 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' genes. For what reason would natural selection create a whole tribe of homosexual genes (or heterosexual one's, considering over-population threats). What is indeed alarming to most, is the innate attraction towards homosexuality, male-female differences aside (yet even they are visible, as opposed to hidden in the genes). What the power-monger and idealist fear is the way humans evolved sexually, where as Tripp points out "in cultures where homosexual acts are lauded, or even merely approved, it tends to become prevalent." This would not affect fertility (as we have found), but it certainly would affect the power-monger and idealist who wants to see the masses produced, even at the illogical expense of the planet's limited natural resources. It would certainly seem 'odd' to most who are used to the opposite condition in Western society - even though it too is 'odd'. Indeed, 'academics' have become so ingrained as regards their cherished illusions and most dear indoctrinations, that it hardly seems necessary to state that they too would avoid the Siwans and 49 other such tribes in existence today --- and hence there is little study of them --- and no change in theoretical biases. Indeed, most of the disciplines taught today, rest on shaky grounds, where the lecturer is loathe to examine the facts of nature and history, albeit that they are our only true teachers.

Some researchers have suggested that since the prostatic (between males only) orgasm is the highest sexual pleasure known to humankind, plus the innate differences between males and females, might be natural selections' way to keep population levels constant. What is interesting in dream research today, is the fact that both males and females dream mainly about males; which parallels Freud's phallic stage where both sexes admire the penis). Some researchers have suggest this might too be a population control mechanism. It is certainly true though, that nature's bisexual mechanisms have already worked for population control in both animals, prehistoric humans and today's non-sexually oriented tribes.

In sum: The overall result has been that humans have suffered a plethora of devastation's due in the main to power-mongers and other idealists having re-invented religious myths and sexual models to largely suit their noxious aims. In sexology we find 'the eternal charges against women' and 'the eternal male bond' (even within heterosexuality) affecting heterosexuals. Instead of trying to resolve these innate difficulties; humankind has been thrust into heterosexual cohabitation's that fail to work due to a complete lack of understanding between the spouses where humans as a species are somewhat mis-mated. At the psychological level women are innately verbal while males are innately numerico-spacial, causing communication problems. At the biological level the differences hardly need explaining at the risk of becoming vulgar or elitist on either side of the argument. (There are countless other differences which cannot be explained in this brief essay.) As for homosexuals, the invention of homosexuality sees humans take on behaviors to concur with the myths of 'social genders' - the latter being yet another problem that not even unisexuality or the feminist movement can resolve. Nor will they unless they can equalise the XX with the XY chromosomes via genetic engineering.

Apart from the countless sexual problems we have avoided (where 'Eve' had to be passed off as 'sinful' if you please, in order to excuse sexual differences), we still face the endless spiritual problem. Sadly, religion has become more a regulatory law to suit the power-mongers and idealists, than 'for the good of all'. Certainly it has not taken us to God (or nature's spirit, depending on your belief), but rather away from God and God's (natural) law. Religious followers and the sexually 'orientated' have thus both suffered nothing but unhappiness due mainly to the noxious inventions of the power-monger and idealists. The saddest feature of all is that all the material rewards that humans have sought in order to replace the resulting lack of contentment (van der Post) of the religio-sexual culture they have followed, has also not brought much contentment. It has however brought a more to the power-monger and some of the idealists - but even that is not without its problems. So much for their 'pie in the sky' philosophies.

While the author is not planning a Utopia for humankind, nor riding some private hobby horse; he is suggesting that a new myth and a new sexual model be examined so that humankind can be released from the current and more noxious Utopia. Maybe we need to re-examine the older models. Something closer to nature and natural law. More than a few 'academics' (sic) will also have to look to those theoretical roots which have for far too long been based on human interpretation, and largely ... 'wishful thinking'. As Wittgenstein stated when he tried to end unnecessary philosophical speculation : "Look, Don't Think !"

There are many reasons, ranging from sexual dimorphism to economic contracts that make today's sexual models and socialization not plausible, however the motif of this essay cannot be ignored, for it is a directly observable and most verifiable thread in a history that has seen nothing but one tyranny replace the next. It is thus clear that while humankind has made certain errors regarding its 'socialisation', it is more the power-mongers (who are more responsible for the 'human condition', as the bonobo chimps are showing us with their "make love, not war" behavior) and idealists (who abhor nature) who have altered culture to be at such odds with nature. Indeed, what has often been passed off as the 'noble aims of civilization for 'the good of all' has in large part only ever been for ' the good of a select few'. However, such 'survival' is the motivation of those who have embraced Darwin's 'survival of the fittest'. For they have neither shown Christian brotherly love, nor have they taken time to notice that nature's balanced sexual acts keep population levels in check. Moreover, their materialism replacements that seek to replace the inevitable dis-contentment that arises from such destructive 'socialisation', has not increased human happiness much. Indeed materialism has created more regression than progress, leaving a wake of destruction for all. Moreover, few understand the balancing mechanism within that platitude known as "the survival of the fittest".

Thus, today we can neither relate to God (or Spirit of Nature), nor each other, nor the environment. Our anthropomorphocentric Religion, androcentric Heterosexuality and mechanical Materialism has served more as hand-maidens, one to the other --- not so much for the well-being of the human race, God or the environment --- but for the noxious aims of a diabolical few. Such are the inventions of a politicized God, an insatiable Greed & a prejudiced Eve. Simply put "The Creed ensures that the Breed will fulfil the Greed !"