The Non-Centre of Human Perception and the Limitations of Linear Logic


Before the ‘Big Bang’, space and time did not exist. Following the ‘Big Bang’, time and space existed simultaneously – everywhere. It is after the ‘Big Bang’ event that human logic and reason came into being (once the human brain had evolved to generate logic and reason). In reality, everything is ‘relative’ to the observer (as Einstein observed), and the Earth is the centre of human perception when the universe is observed (because the Earth is where humanity happens to be), but this does not mean that Earth is the centre of the observable universe. The universe appears to be expanding by 1 light year per year – but in reality it is expanding faster than light can travel (the dark energy at the edge of universe is travelling faster than light). It is probably correct to state that human perception has no definite ‘centre’, and that notions of ‘individuality’ and ‘I-ness’ are merely transitory social-cultural constructs, that have no meaning within universal reality. Linear logic is vitally important for the development and progression of human science and understanding, but prior to the ‘Big Bang’ – during the existence of the ‘initial singularity’ – the conditions that generate and support human logic did not yet exist, and cannot be defined, understood or limited to human logic today. This is why linear logic can be used in a reverse manner, working backwards toward the point of the ‘Bing Bang’ in time and space, but which cannot ‘penetrate’ the ‘Big Bang’ with conventional reason, and directly perceive that state which existed a moment before the ‘Big Bang’. The human brain appears to have evolved to perceive the observable universe in a manner that directly represents the time-space conditions that came into being directly after the ‘Big Bang’ – with the caveat that logic and reason is being used to try to understand that state of reality which immediately preceded the ‘Big Bang’, conditions that cannot be adequately defined (or ‘limited’) by logic and reason. The human brain did not exist during or prior to the ‘Big Bang’, and so did not evolve the perceptual abilities to directly understand this experience. In reality, human logic and reason is being used ‘after the fact’, to understand conditions that are not suited to its own evolutionary (developmental) circumstance. This suggests that Einstein’s theory of general relativity is correct only in the ‘post-Bing Bang’ state (i.e. the universe we all inhabit), but breaks down both during and immediately prior to the ‘Big Bang’. Ironically, it is by the use of logic and reason that this understanding is arrived at, and it could be that a ‘new’ way of using the human brain-mind nexus is just around the next evolutionary corner, as infinity has no discernible ‘centre’.

Four Theories of Mind Rooted in Material Science

An excellent video covering 1) Singularity Theory, 2) Simulation Theory, 3) Multi verse Theory, and 4) Retro-Active Pre-Cognition. Many other scientific theories are included in these ideas, with a number of variations of interpretation. For those who are attracted to telepathy and telekinesis, etc, Retro-Active Pre-Cognition will be of particular interest. However, for material science to progress, theistic theology (and its assumptions) must be placed to one-side. This is because theistic theology presumes itself to be a ‘complete’ and ‘perfect’ theory that is beyond improvement and not subject to criticism. Retro-Active Pre-Cognition does not have a ‘religious’ component, but suggests that the human brain-mind nexus possesses an ability to ‘predict’ the content of a future memory test (in the present time) – BEFORE such content is presented for consideration. This suggests that those being tested appeared to fore-tell the content of a FUTURE test within the present moment (whilst participating in a test with different content). This is interesting, but I do not think it is ‘mystical’. I suspect that the human mind may well possess an innate ability to ‘see’ a possible future premised upon the psychological and physiological circumstances of the present. As these biological processes are not static, but continue to exist and function over-time (barring physical death), it may have been important from an evolutionary perspective, for human-beings to develop a very subtle ability to read eventual outcomes premised upon current conditions, and the likelihood of certain scenarios playing-out in the physical world. One speculation is that this ability may have been far more obvious and prominent at an earlier stage in human evolutionary development. This ability could well be ‘intuitive’ in nature, and could have been dislodged by an intellectual development that gave a definite advantage for human survival in a possibly hostile environment. The Buddha, of course, within his method of perceptual science, stated (within the Four Noble Truths teaching) that the human mind capacity to ‘think’, possesses the ability to directly sense the presence, re-call the past, and speculate about the future. Essentially recalling the past and speculating about the future requires the imaginative reconstruction of events that may or may not have happened in the past, and the construction of events which ‘might’ occur in the future – the scientific question about the latter, is the extent of the connection between ‘imagining’ the future and that ‘imagined’ future actually coming to pass. By accurately analysing patterns of material change in the environment, the ‘imagination’ might well be able to give an educated guess to how matters will eventually transpire. Of course, an extra element of intrigue is added if it can be scientifically proven that the human mind can predict the future whilst possessing no relevant data that could lead to any known outcome.

Pareidolia: Perceiving Extra Significance


This is a NASA photograph of a stellar explosion from 2014. (Read: ‘Hand of God’ Spotted by NASA Space Telescope (Photo)). Although an entirely natural phenomenon, many ordinary people pursuing a theistic agenda, choose to see this image as the ‘Hand of God’ in operation in the universe – apparently putting on a show for NASA to report back to humanity! This image (probably an optical illusion caused by viewing events at long distances and through significant time delays), certainly does seem to be very similar to what an x-ray of a hand and lower arm might look like. Of course, there is no discernible reason why this should be an x-ray of a human hand, or that matter an act of god – but it is interesting to not that ‘natural’ phenomena have probably fuelled the human imagination for much of its evolutionary process. In the old days, it may be that such random associations gave humanity a definite advantage over other species that worked only from instinct. Seeing meaning in random arrangements of light and dark, and then ascribing a certain value to such associations is generally termed ‘pareidolia’ – a Greek word comprising of the roots ‘para’ (meaning ‘instead of’, or ‘as well as’), and ‘eidōlon’ (meaning ‘image’, or ‘shape’). In the context of this concept, ‘pareidolia’ refers to seeing (or hearing) meaningful images, sounds or patterns within natural or artificial structures, beyond or outside of the actual physical (or audial) parameters that define the object in question.. An example of this might be a water-stain on a stone-wall or barn door, within which the faithful discern the face of Mary or Christ – whereas non-believers simply perceive a damp patch. Pareidolia refers not to the human mind’s ability to clearly, correctly and reliably discern the exact physical (or audial) parameters of an object, (which is the basis of material science), but rather to the human habit of ‘projecting’ an extra significance upon an object which does not exist in the physical world. This means that throughout the exercise of pareidolia – the human mind is engaged in projecting ‘imagined’ content onto a physical object – whilst assuming this extra content exists a priori in the physical object itself, and has had nothing to do with the mind that has generated it. What I find interesting, is that the ability to see objects clearly, is also the basis for ‘seeing’ or ‘projecting’ extra significance upon an object that might not be there. It could well be that this ‘projecting’ has been an important component of human evolutionary development, that in the past generated behaviours that benefited human survival as a species. Being ‘fearful’ of things such as unfamiliar terrain, dark forests or unexplored caves, etc, (assuming all kinds of nasty or deadly hidden attributes), may well have contributed to human survival, whether or not an ‘actual’ threat existed. This evolutionary response developed into religion, whereby gods and spirits were seen everywhere, and finally into modern science where physical objects were discerned exactly for what they are – free of any projected imagination. However, seeing extra significance as patterns, might well be an important factor in mathematics, whereby new understandings are developed from the old – simply because they were ‘imagined’ as existing – before they are proven to ‘actually’ exist. Therefore, the human habit of ‘pareidolia’ might well be crucial for the future development of scientific understanding, providing it is developed beyond the dogmatic, and into the progressive. Finally, religious imagination is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly if it generates the more noble qualities of the human mind. It could be that a religious individual could well see two dimensions at once when discerning an object; a concrete physical image (the basis of science), and an ethereal representation (the basis of religion, and perhaps scientific progression).  This area needs more exploration and development, but it requires a moving beyond the current limitations that define human understanding. Multidimensional ‘seeing’ is not an error – even though its application needs defining and its function more precisely developed. Seeing extra significance where none exists might be incorrect in one instance, but might be applicable in another set of circumstance (as of yet undefined). It is true that virtually all scientific advancement has come from individuals ‘imagining’ something different to what exists today, and working upon their speculative ideas until they become a material reality.

Why ‘Inner’ Science?


All science, although it manifests through the material plane, originates within the human mind. This is a concrete fact as it is the agency of human consciousness that has perceived worldly phenomena, logically ordered that data, and eventually calculated, extrapolated and elucidated reliable theories and understanding about how the universe operates, how it came into existence, and its developmental history has unfold. Of course, the human mind and body is (and remains) fully part of this evolutionary process, and the fact that the mind has been able to transition from a mode of pure instinct for survival, to a state of profound observational contemplation, is testament to this fact. Generally speaking, science is the ordering of thought when the mind is engaged in observing the physical world and its processes. Just as the physical world unfolds according to discernible laws, the thought processes can be gathered together, focused, and directed in a particular cognitive direction – this consistent ‘direction’ is termed ‘logic’ – as the thought process and patterns that unfold in the head take on the the structure and direction of the material processes. In a very real sense, the inner mind becomes a tangible reflection of the functioning of the outer world. When there is a ‘disconnect’ between the inner mind and the outer world, the human state of existence is said to be ‘mythic’, or ‘illogical’ in nature. This is because the human mind remains ‘unaware’ of how the external world is operating, is unable to ‘reflect’ that operation, and instead subjects existence to being defined through the faculty of ‘imagination’. This is the religious view of the world which is premised upon the ‘mystery’ of ‘not knowing’.

Inner science is the acknowledgement of the importance of the human brain and its ‘mind’ function. This includes not only viewing the world in a logical manner (which is required if humanity is to progress its existence), but also includes the study of the ‘illogical’ or ‘religious’ mind-set. Certainly, it must be stated that the faculty of ‘imagination’ is not an error, and has served a very important purpose within human evolutionary development. In fact, although religion is generally inverted in mind-set (i.e. prone to set the cart before the horse when assessing reality), nevertheless, religion and religious beliefs (of whatever kind), were the first human efforts to rise above the animal kingdom, and the requirement for survival through an often ‘brutal’ manifestation of instinct. This function of religion also introduced the earliest concepts of ‘law’ where none existed, and the first ideas of ‘altruism’, whereby other humans (and animals) might be treated with compassion and understanding – simply because they were other living beings. In this respect, the shift from ‘instinct’ to ‘religion’ was a very important evolutionary development that still has important ramifications for humanity today, even when fully acknowledging the secularisation of the West and other areas of the world.

The implications are that formal logic grew-out of human religious thinking, as the understanding of the world developed over long periods of time. In India, for instance the Buddha reformed Brahmanism into a new and logical philosophy that emphasised the detailed assessment of human perception existing within a physical world. This development was nothing short of the creation of the science of perception. In ancient Greece, formal logic developed out of polytheism. In the Middle East, Jesus Christ rejected various aspects of Jewish Scripture, and created if not exactly a logical system of thought, certainly a view of reality that moved away from the dogma of theology (despite the later Christian Church re-asserting the primacy of theological interpretations – even if only spuriously connected with Christ). The point is that Christianity appears to have both hindered the development of the Western mind, whilst simultaneously preparing it for the resurgence of secular Greek logic during the renaissance – fuelled as it was by the rediscovered ancient Greek texts preserved in the Islamic libraries of Byzantine and elsewhere. Islam, of course, has always valued knowledge and wisdom without compromising its theological base, which has accommodated other ways of viewing the world. However, even the old religions, as superstitious as they are, should not be entirely dismissed out of hand, although I would stress that a religion should not seek or possess political power in its own right, as this sphere of activity has nothing to do with the achievement of inner peace.

The crux of the matter is this; as the human mind is the area through which logic and understanding emerge, it is within the best interests of humanity to make a study of this inner terrain without falling into ‘subjectivism’, or ‘myth’. This requires a certain strength of being whereby an inner explorer is like a cosmonaut heading to the stars, but is involved in the intimate and detailed exploration and mapping of nothing less than the ‘psychic’ fabric of the mind. I suspect that this exploration will only add to the power of objective thinking and analysis, and thereby ‘strengthen’ the human potential for generating scientific thought. Anyone can embark on this journey simply by sitting quietly and ‘looking’ within’. What do you see? Write it down and keep detailed notes of your experience. Later, objectively look through your notes and learn to distinguish between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ observations. In this way the psychic phenomena experienced in the mind serves as the most direct form of experiential data. This type of exploration maybe viewed as ‘introspective’, and of course it is, but when deliberately performed as a part of the objective development of science, its process takes on an entirely ‘new’ meaning, and its conclusions maybe used to enhance human understanding of the mind, body and environment.

Inverted Nature of Intelligent Design


‘In recent years, many creationists have chosen to recast their argument in the form of “Intelligent Design.” Somewhat subtler, they do not reject the idea of evolution but claim that it follows a plan set out beforehand by a superior intelligence. There again, the “theory” seems to lack a scientific basis, since one of the principle arguments against Darwinism consists in declaring that the world is too complex to be understood.’

(Jean-Baptiste De Panafieu: Evolution in Action -Page 20)

The argument of Intelligent Design is illogical, and tantamount to placing the cart before the horse. The horse must already exist before the cart is designed, and then the horse must be placed in-front of the cart, for the cart to function. Intelligent Design is a mistaken attempt at interpreting the origin of life on the planet, and remains logically ‘flawed’ regardless of how sophisticated the explanation becomes (i.e. ‘irreducible complexity’), or the amount of money that backs the theory. At its base, Intelligent Design inverts human logic, and turns reality on its head. For the agency of ‘intelligence’ to exist, there must first be a properly functioning brain. A brain that does not exist obviously cannot generate intelligence, just as a brain that has not evolved to the level of producing cogent thought, cannot produce intelligence. In the case of the evolutionary development of the brain, for instance, there appears to be a logical progression from the simplistic to the complex (although it has to be said that within general evolution, things do not always get more complex as they find the physical form most advantageous to surviving in their existential environment). The point is that things never appear in a ‘complex’ fashion, with no observable evolutionary history as this is illogical and impossible. Intellect does not, and cannot, stand alone in the universe apart from the human brain that produces it.

Intelligent Design has its basis in the inverted theology of theistic religion, which states that a mythological being – as an act of will – instantaneously ‘generated’ (from nothing) the entirety of existence in its already and fully developed form. According to this theory, the universe did not ‘evolve’ over billions of years, but has rather appeared all at once in its perfected and complete form. This is taken as being ‘proof’ of a god-like ‘intelligence’ at work throughout physical existence. Charles Darwin exposed this theological theory as being entirely redundant in his 1859 ‘On the Origin of Species’, which rejected god’s will and replaced it with the agency of natural selection. Existence is not a grand scheme of divine intelligence, for rather the accumulated reality of innumerable and fortuitous accidents that have been ‘selected’ because they collectively benefit the species. Although it is true that humans use their intelligence to build machines of various sorts, it is also true that the ability to build machines only occurs after the brain has evolved to the state where the intelligence capacity possesses the ability to conceive of such machines, and work-out how to physically produce said machines – prior to this development – there can be no intellectually generated machines. Intelligence precedes machines, but the agency of intelligence itself does not stand alone in the universe, as it is not self-produced and is the product of discernible stages of previous evolutionary development. A fully functioning brain precedes intelligence, just as there are logical stages in the evolution of the brain itself, which acquires ever-more complex and sophisticated functionality as its structure developments.

Intelligence cannot be the fundamental building block of the universe simply because the capacity of intelligence is a random development thrown-up through the general theory of evolutionary development. Therefore, intelligence is a product of biological existence, and not its foundation, just as the intelligently designed cart does not produce the biological entity of the horse that pulls it. Biological life, of course, is often described as ‘mechanical’, or being ‘machine-like’ in its cellular structure and functionality, but other than a convenient allusion, this should not be taken literally, as biological structure did not come about through the agency of the human intellect, but rather through the complete accidents that comprise the developmental process of natural selection. The comparison of biological structures to machines is incorrect if taken literally, as no matter how sophisticated a machine of iron and steel is, it is never ‘alive’. Biological life itself is an accident of tremendous import and sophistication. A human cell cannot be separated into its constituent parts and then reassembled in good working order – as can a machine used in agriculture or printing, etc. If a machine of iron and steel is taken apart (to be cleaned or repaired, for instance), that machine can be reassembled and work perfectly correctly, but if a human cell is taken apart, its life-function ceases immediately, and it can never be re-animated. This is because it is not a ‘machine’ in the human sense of the word, and was not developed by any form of intelligence, human or otherwise.

Red Deer Cave People 马鹿洞人 (蒙自人): Unknown Humans Discovered in China


In 2012 (following the official publication of an academic paper upon the subject), Western media started to report about an unknown species of human that had been discovered in the Red Deer Caves of South-Western China (Yunnan province). Chinese language sources state that initial archaeological finds of this nature began as far back as 1979 (with a single thigh-bone), but that a serious Chinese-Western combined academic study of the area concerned, did not began until 2008, when more bone-evidence was unearthed. This type of unusual human appears to possess the physical characteristics of a Homo Erectus (which went extinct about 70,000 years ago), AND Homo Sapien – or ‘modern humans’ – which replaced Homo Erectus. Professor Ji Xueping also stated that one thigh-bone had characteristics of Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis – which leads to the question as to why was it that so many different human species appeared to have shared (either together or separately) this particular cave space?


These previously unknown people (named after the cave and area of Yunnan province they were discovered within), were accomplished hunters that killed and cooked deer, made weapons, and probably could speak, but despite living at the end of the last Ice Age (between 14,500 – 11,500 years ago), their bodies possessed an hitherto undocumented  mixture of ancient and modern physical characteristics, usually not found together. This find suggests that a form of ancient humans lived much nearer the time of modern humans, than had previously been thought.


Current thinking suggests that all ancient humans died-out around 40,000 years ago – when modern humans spread and became dominant, but this find suggests that at least one branch of ancient humans lived side by side with modern humans – with the caveat that Red Cave Deer people do not appear to have inter-mixed with modern humans (unlike Neanderthals), and as a consequence, their distinctive DNA is not found in modern human populations. However, the Chinese language Wikipedia page suggests that this find might well have as of yet unknown implications for the development of the ‘Asian Race’, but does not elaborate.


Although Western scientists are speculating that this could be a ‘new’ species of human, Professor Ji Xueping advises caution. He states that there is not yet enough evidence to suggest such a conclusion, and states that these people could be demonstrative of late Homo Erectus as the species transitioned into Homo Sapiens, or of early Homo Sapiens that had just evolved away from Homo Erectus. Whatever the case, and despite the initial evidence that different human species possibly met and mixed in this cave, there is evidence of modern behaviours such as burial, the use of pigments (for painting), and the presence of artificial drill holes, amongst other examples. What can be said at this time is that these remains represent the oldest ‘ancient’ human presence in relatively recent historical times. Did these people migrate from Africa? Western scientists say ‘yes’, but Chinese scholars state that this question cannot yet be answered due to lack of supporting evidence. Certainly the ancient characteristics found in these people are similar in many ways to known populations that originated in Africa, but evidence suggests that a simple model of linear evolution may not be sufficient to explain the over-all complexity of human evolution. For instance, the Denisovan human species found in Siberia, has been proven to have shared living space 30,000 years ago with Neanderthals and modern humans. This evidence is augmented by some research that suggests that the Hobbit has evolved directly from the Java Man.  All of this suggests that human development is not as straightforward as simplistic models of linear evolution might suggest, but involves a much more complex basis, as yet not fully understood or defined. 

English Language Reference:

Chinese Language References:马鹿洞人


The Agency of Disagreement


Social media is primarily designed to share the world of visual imagery – but what does this mean?  For many it is merely the conveyance of photographs, paintings, pictures or written descriptions of objects or circumstance, whilst for others this process includes not only the outer texture of an object or an event, but also the ‘inner’ terrain of the mind when experiencing the outer object (i.e. the psychological and emotional response).  This tends to mean three ways of conveying (or communicating)  the world:

1) External description.

2) Internal description.

3) Integrated description.

As people are conditioned to think and react differently to exactly the same outer world, this means that an external object (or event) will be interpreted in a diverse and bewildering number of ways by different people.  Therefore a ‘tree’ for example, even if there is a general consensus that it is a ‘tree’, will be inwardly ‘experienced’ in a diverse manner.  Assuming the outer world is a sensory constant (in as much as for the time being it is always likely to be ‘there’) then it is obvious that it is the psychological and emotional responses of the inner person that is responsible for human creativity.  Ironically this dynamic process also ensures that where there is ‘creativity’ there will also be disagreement – as the agency of ‘disagreement’ appears to be the price humanity pays for being able to think for itself.  This being the case, conflict can be avoided by planning for it.  How an individual responds to the outer world is a matter of upbringing and conditioning, but the interesting point about this is that the concept of ‘conditioning’ is an ongoing process that take surprising twist and turns, even if at times many appear stuck in their ways.  The way to maintain peace is to be able to present ‘difference’ in a robust and convincing manner, so that those who do not like what you say (or do) are encouraged to seek-out why their inner world differs from your own.  This is an individual process of continuous inner and outer dialogue with the external world and inner psychological imprint of that world, as well as the learning process of sharing different viewpoints with others an having those viewpoints either validated or challenged in a constructive and progressive manner.  Education regarding the outer world, and an appreciation of the workings of the inner world are required if the average individual is to maximise the benefit of the human tendency toward the development and advancement of evolutionary knowledge.  If too much time is spent fighting over whose inner experiences are more valid than anyone else’s, then humanity will cease to progress.  There must be clarity of thought and the ability to acknowledge when the quality of thought has been improved through the agency of a difference of opinion.


Free Genetic Development (and not Mistaken Notions of ‘Race’) has Driven Human Evolution


Racism certainly makes fools of us all. Colour-coding is a racist absurdity that treats everyone as if their identity should be limited to their apparent bone-structure, and skin-colour tone. Race is a biological absurdity (as genetically all human groupings evolved in Africa), but historical hatred and tension surrounds comparative culture. Broadly speaking, in the last five hundred years, European culture militarily dominated (through religion and economics), the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Polynesia, etc. This has led to a dichotomy of identity between Europeans and non-Europeans that is still being played out through mainstream and peripheral (i.e. ‘extremist’) politics. The notion of ‘race’ and ‘nationalism’ have been described as a bourgeois sham designed to separate distinct human cultural groupings simply on the outer layer of skin-tone and colour. The error in this limited thinking is that even within distinct cultural groupings (such as African), contain extensive physiological differences, and the current thinking is that the biological differences between people within the same ethnicity are greater than those between people of different ethnic groups, and yet the fixation of race-hate has evolved in modern European thinking premised only on skin-colour. This is not to say that racism does not exist within other ethnic groups – it certainly does – but European racial thinking has dominated the world (and most of the non-European cultural groupings) due to its political, religious, and military power expressed through the colonial and imperial era. This explains why many non-European ethnic groups come together to resist this Eurocentric cultural and political domination at the point of contact as an important political issue.

In reality, everyone has in principle, the right to self-determination and live their life as they see fit. Strong cultural identities cannot necessarily (in the modern world) be linked exclusively to ‘skin-colour’ and ‘bone-structure’. Individuals might not look obviously like a member of a specific ethnic grouping, and yet due to cultural association and saturation (which may or may not include a direct genetic heritage), an individual might well live and think within an ethnic cultural identity that does not necessarily correlate with the apparent outer formulation of their physical body. Some people of African-Caribbean descent, for example, when born and brought up in the West, may well express a ‘European’ mode of cultural expression in their everyday lives, whilst simultaneously not necessarily supporting ‘Eurocentricism’, and being politically aware of Black issues. Conversely, some Europeans can be brought up with the influences of African-Caribbean cultural expression, which positively affect their view of the world for the rest of their lives. Cultural identity cannot be limited to the colour and structure of the outer body, even if it is logically acknowledged that distinct ethnic human groupings, more or less evolved historically in isolation from one another, many thousands of years after the original genetic modern human grouping left Africa around 150,000 years ago. In fact, so-called ‘racial’ differences appear to have only developed between human groupings as little as only 10,000 years ago. Taken at face-value, these evolutionary changes in physique have been mistaken for a difference in ‘genetic’ origin, when modern human beings, regardless of distinct culture and physical look, are in fact from exactly the same genetic heritage. There used to be different human and near-human groupings, but even these now ‘extinct’ entities still share a common genetic origin with modern humans, despite the fact that they did not evolve into modern humans. Research suggests that some modern humans carry the distinctive DNA of Neanderthals – a cousin of modern humans – which means that modern human groupings and Neanderthal groupings existed ‘together’ at some point in time, and that these two distinctive ethnic groupings bred together and intermixed, producing diverse off-spring. This happened because this pattern of ‘ethnic-mixing’ in the past, was not subject to the preventive measures of modern race-politics, or racialised thinking. In the past it is scientifically evident that evolution has been driven not by ethnic exclusivity, but on the contrary, by a continued and sustained ‘mixing’ of diversity that would be considered breath-taking in the modern world, the politics of which artificially separates humanity into ruthlessly competing classes, races, nations, and economic camps. Although the modern trend of competing human political culture has been away from diversity and into isolated and easily controllable special interest groups, the history of human genetic development dating back millions of years, has been subject to three-dimensional and completely ‘free’ movement in any direction.

This knowledge does not ‘negate’ the contemporary subject of racial politics, which is after-all of relatively modern import, but it can assist in the process of ‘de-racializing’ the debate so that ethnic groups can evolve away from the mentality of armed camps resisting the enemy. Modern racism can be ‘dissolved’ with a correct scientific knowledge of the past, even if it is acknowledged that it will take time to completely end the illusion of ‘race’. The reality is that the limited human mind has generated ‘race’ and ‘racism’ as a means for one dominant group to oppress and control another. Whilst one group perpetuates racism through a privileged cultural-economic position, and other groups react to this perpetuation, the reality lies beyond and through this dichotomy. Modern racism, with all its hatred, murder, abuse, and pain, is a historical habit that must be broken, so that a new human freedom is realised. This ‘new’ freedom should represent the three-dimensional psychological and physical open space that human ancestry quite naturally experienced in antiquity, but it should be present through the modern and post-modern cultural milieu. This development should be a positive step forward into a bright new future for human conscious awareness, and not perceived as a negative step back into a primitive human past. Modern racism is a product not of ancient humans, but ironically of the deluded thought of modern humans. As the modern human mind has been designed by and through diversity, its mechanisations are set a priori for adaptation and radical change. This being the case, humanity can evolve beyond modern racism by giving-up a limited mentality and embracing a far-greater understanding of the universe and humanity’s place within it.

%d bloggers like this: