It is clear that we individuals, if we are to be effective as the keys to change, vitally need to change our orientation. We need to turn away from the hotly competitive, fiercely aggressive, anciently but falsely burning reality all about us, and then inward to contemplate the cool, still, pure waters of intellect. By intellating we shall receive affirmation of our humantrue alternative reality, shall believe it to be practicable, and determine to realise it with a supraconscious will. With this new attitude, we may turn outward again to struggle with that other reality and steadily quench its fires with the waters of reason. This we are capable of doing, but the odds are more heavily against some than others. It is up to those most able to lead the way for others to follow to humantrue understanding and, to those of them who are in a position to be heard, openly to express their thoughts and encourage us all.
It is the duty and will of all supraconsciously aware individuals to reveal the humantruth and try to have it realised in the world; to expose the Machine and reject our existing concepts of reality; to take issue with automated individuals and leave them in no doubt as to the true causes and effects of their actions. The effect of not only a politician but also an economist, industrialist, scientist or royal figure doing so would be electric. It would be of enormous encouragement to the human struggle against the inhuman Machine, taking it beyond the protest of victims of oppression, and showing that the establishment is capable of turning on itself.
Yet it is no more than ought to be expected of any individual, and especially one with power over others, that he or she be honest to intellect and to its true function and potential. It need not mean a breakdown of public order. A leader might keep his or her position, and continue functioning as far as is presently humanly necessary and officially required, whilst frankly and openly questioning and criticising its whole setting and foundation. To oppose the law is not to break it, and to bring the entire existing social order into question is not to prefer or propose disorder.
Imagine the effect of such affirmation - were an army general to refuse to fight, a bishop to admit disbelief in god, or a government minister to confess to habitual devious political dishonesty; if a diplomat were to argue the case for his opponents against his own side, a right wing president to voice the faults of capitalism and virtues of communism, a trade union to refuse a rise in wages, or a meat distribution tycoon to declare himself a vegetarian. Or if any leading economist, manufacturer, banker, lawyer, scientist, editor or advertiser were to recognise and then openly confess that his activities were mainly for his own benefit and did not benefit humanity in general. Yet all have good reason for taking humantrue responsibility in this way.
The reason why we, who belong in these categories and see the light, do notcome clean in these ways is the fear that we would then be dislocated from the great body of the Machine; that we would lay ourselves open to ridicule; that we might lose our friends and allies; that we would suffer financially or damage our prospects of promotion; that we would lose automatic status, dignity, credibility, and prestige. But if we didcome clean it would be because we had become supraconsciously aware, with reason so much stronger than all these as to be undeniable. And we would have lost nothing of real value, but gained in that awareness which is the true, rich quality of an intellectual race.
Yet, though supraconscious awareness is our proper fulfilment and though it cries out to be expressed against our existing unworthy reality, throughout our long history it has never been so fully and strongly voiced as to be clearly heard. Why not, if the reasons forthis fulfilment are so much stronger than those against it? To seriously ask that question is to start intellating, and to answer it fully would be to realise humantruth and so nullify the question. We the majority do not seriously ask ourselvesthat question, normally, because we live by the Machine and entrust our affairs to politics. As 'the public', we are persuaded by political thinking that the automatic way is the only road to follow, and politics leads us along this road with automatic logic because it is driven that way by our resultant expectations. This both narrows down our true awareness and requiresthat we be so limited if we are to prosper, or at least to survive, in the Machine.
Politicians know that they are playing a game. Because of it they betray humantruth, knowingly or not. It is not that they lie, but that they give their loyalty to a false premise; that they deliberately recognise a body of factual truth whose foundation is untrue, and attach themselves to opinions and policies which are the half-truths of compromise. By doing so they confuse their minds and render them either incapable of intellation or unable to bring true postconscious reason to consciousness. That they do so is not only because they exist in a reality which demands such behaviour of them but also because they have adopted the attitude that this reality is inescapable and impossible of change.
But it is possible for politicians to change their attitude, and if it is possible for them it is so for all humans. And it ispossible for this existing reality to change, for if all rejected it then it couldnot and wouldnot be maintained. Let it be repeated - supraconsciousness is the optimum function of all whole minds and humantruth its common realisation. This holds good for every individual, and so for any politician. It does not become less true the higher up the hierarchy we go.
Suppose a member of parliament, or of the house of representatives, or any such political assembly did make the effort to break through to a humantrue attitude so that he, or she, refused to play the normal game and had the courage to approach all matters independently, and so humantruly. What would result? Of course, such a member would be in a minority of one and might well be shouted down by the majority, dismissed as eccentric and ignored. But if several separate members did so they could not so easily be dismissed. And a supreme leader who did so could hardly be ignored. If a president or prime minister were to become supraconscious and break through to humantruth the effect would be signal, and could only be good since it is a matter of the mind being freed from false fetters and truly expressing itself. And surely many minds would honestly respond.
Humantrue awareness needs to grow, and it doesneed independent means of honest communication if it is to be spread effectively. Nevertheless, that awareness is growing in the minds of many Machine-employed printers, camera-men, producers, editors, directors and perhaps even governors of the media, and we see the results in parts of their work. Remember that the individual is the key to change. The internet has mushroomed comparatively recently, enabling individuals to communicate their ideas to others independently of authorititive restriction. May these enlightened contributions increase, encouraging wider awareness despite opposite automatic pressures. And may individual members of the public make the intellectual effort to respond, regardless of automatic temptations to take easier options, and make their appreciation known. By this cross-stimulation, realisation of the humantrue alternative will be brought nearer.
Writing is our basic means of communication. Outside of personal conversation, even the spoken word is usually written down. The process of writing allows the word to be exposed to the maximum of prior reasoning. Writers rely for their money income on the mediums of publication or broadcast, which rely for theirincome on the willingness of the public to pay. We, the public, are normally emotionally adjusted to automatic reality, so likewise are most writers and and much of the communications media, and what they communicate generally confirms the fact and emotion of that reality. They supply what the Machine persuades us to demand of them, and the same is true of politics and politicians, as we have seen, and of all institutions of the Machine and their loyal executives.
Since most humans are reconciled to the Machine, writing which flows easily through the eyes and smoothly past the critical judgement of the average individual is not serving a good revolutionary purpose. It is perpetuating automatic reality. When that smooth flow is constantly interrupted, so that the reader falters, it may not be the fault of awkward grammar or unfamiliar terminology in the writing. It may be the fault of the reader, who does not understand a new idea or concept which ought to be intelligible to human intellect. It should then be the writer's aim to support these words with reasoning whose strength and purity is difficult for the honest thinker to ignore.
We should not write only or partly for money reward or acclaim. Books should not be written, nor seriously read, which do not either cover or take full account of everything.We should require our minds to look deeply into everything before committing ourselves to anything, with or without the help of other minds which have already trodden this path, and insist on explanations which really do hold water. A book that searches for true human character must critically examine all the facts and concepts of reality, and whether, as is normal, these facts and concepts have built large parts of that character, because a character cannot be judged to truly represent the individual when most of its parts are false. A book which examines the money economy in the isolation of its own field of financial interest and justifies it in its own terms but cannot show and will not admit that the money economy does not serve the best interests of human and whole-Earth well-being, can not be taken seriously by unbiased human intellect.
When a writer sits down alone, pen poised over paper, this is the perfect moment of possible truth. More than most individuals the writer has cause to seek truth in order truly to know what words to write and why she or he is writing them. Without that sure and true knowing it is questionable whether pen should be put to paper. Supraconscious writers, in an automated world crying out for a new humantrue reality, should only write humantruly with that aim in sight, until that reality is realised. Were all writers humantrue, publishers and broadcasters would have nothing but humantruth to produce. Then the fact that all communication was freely responsible to humantruth would guide us all towards supraconscious awareness, and our response would be to re-adjust emotionally to that which we are already unconsciously prepared for both knowing and feeling.
Writing as an art form is the skilled use of words, the construction of sentences, and the convincing contrivance of tensions between actions and reactions such as will appeal emotionally to the instinctive/intellectual mix of the reader, and induce him or her to read on. In the world as it is life is like such writing; like a novel, an automatic experience which we go on responding to because new pages are successively presented to us and we are attuned to its continuing story.
That which makes the novel unacceptable is the way that it draws on existing reality. It may be critical of parts, but it can not be destructive of the whole otherwise nothing will remain to write about constructively which is recognisably real. The characters depicted, if they are to be familiarly understood, have to reflect the concepts and facts of reality to which we belong and by which we are conditioned. Even in science fiction, though the reader is transported to another, supposedly superior planetary civilisation, the characters to be found there are not fundamentally new but made up of those same familiar features. Neither the writer nor reader can comfortably imagine persons whose circumstances, motives and actions are very far from those which are common on Earth. Literature is forced into this kind of compromise - taking all sorts of extremes into account but viewing them from a middleground position - not allowing the call of truth to draw it too far forward because it is held back by the demand for acceptability. The 'classics' are those books which have most nearly approached that achievement of perfect balance between our humanity and automatic reality which most humans are trying to find but which is both an impossible and unworthy objective.
It must surely be obvious that the human race is essentially far short of its intellectual potential. Most of our complex thinking is confined to specialist subjects and narrow disciplines of reasoning within the confines of the Machine. Popular writing is required to use short words and sentences, simple paragraphs which do not touch more that two concepts at a time. Many questions and problems plague us that are interrelated, but they are tackled unsatisfactorily - piecemeal, in isolation. There is little or no all-embracing correlated reasoning going on. All this represents continuing automation of human intellect, and retreat of intellect from the possibility of true fulfilment.
The Machine also applies rules to non-academic writing which seeks widely to disseminate new ideas, or extentions of thought - rules which ensure that although these ideas are new they will yet be acceptable to the Machine by virtue of their being acceptable to the automatic ethos. These unwritten rules are especially applied by publishers in general (including most alternative, radical, underground publishers), and require that such writing will not need abnormal intellectual effort to understand. The reader, against a background acceptance of the Machine which is shared by the writer, may have to think hard but is not required to question deeply - to intellate - but to confine the effort of intelligence to taking in the new ideas which are no more than amplifications of automatic reality. The book which you are now reading is different. It does not merely introduce readers to a new view from a different patch in the same old field, or to a new line along the normal direction of thought. It challenges the very basis of reality on which the structures of understanding are normally built and encourages an end to automated thinking, a beginning of intellation.
Consider how incomplete are so many human minds of so many kinds, locked into versions of automatic reality peculiar to their conscious selves. The first aim of this book is to seek an association of those minds which are complete, or most nearly so, so that they can help all others to reach completion. The elements of humantruth are understandable to any mind, but the most fully aware and determined effort of supraconscious reasoning is required to clear away the choking entanglements of existing false reality which can stifle that understanding. So, writing which sets out to present that humantrue reasoning must not be, indeed cannot be, so tailored as simply to fit the understanding of minds which, however erudite and learned they may be, are nevertheless incomplete in humantrue terms. For such minds, whatever level of the hierarchy they occupy, true fulfilment first requires them to recognise that they areincomplete (but have the necessary potential), and then voluntarily to make the effort of reason which will bring them, too, to embrace humantruth.
Intellating, as opposed to thinking, is like discarding all novels and other automated books, and changing to works that are for true intellect alone - like listening to complex and unfamiliar music that we do not at first understand, nor can respond to. But if we persist, because we believe these works to be right and good, eventually our emotions will respond to them - will respond to intellect alone, leaving old familiar emotions behind - and we shall recognise that what the novel did was feelingly to explore and attach meaning to the truly meaningless entanglements of our wrong reality, which we now see as irrelevant and are ready to pull up by its false roots. If we persist with our intellations, we shall develop, then feel for, the humantrue outlook. Perhaps, in time, when the world has been made humantrue, we might go back to writing novels, but surely of a different kind. They will necessarily appeal to the new emotions, not the old, and through them to supraconscious intellect and the new reality it has made, and maintains.
It may go against our inclinations to initiate such great changes. To first address ourselves to the humantrue outlook is a matter of intellation, and of determination of will. The new outlook presents human reality in a very different light. Not only the words that describe it but the image, the feelings and sounds of a humantrue reality will be different. Hopefully we shall envisage it, ponder its new ideas, savour phrases of its new music and whistle its tunes. We may then speak its words so that we ourselves and others hear them, get to know them, appreciate them, and understand them.
I have pointed out already that there exists a certain moral movement towards changing society for the better, but it is largely ineffective. The reason why it has little effect is that its advances are more than matched by amoral or immoral autoprogressions of the Machine. We indulge in random thinking, recklessly jumping from narrow consideration of one subject to another, advancing automatically in thought as in practice and very often resorting to violent conflict in consequence. The only way we will advance truly will be to advance on the intellectual plane, independent of automatic instinct.
Ideals can not be used to solve our present problems except by a great effort involving wholesale change of attitude and reason, so that Machine-oriented events cease to excite familiar automatic reactions and thus also cease to perpetuate existing reality. There is need of an underlying process, free from the automatic concepts and the officialdom of the Machine's hierarchy, continually building up towards that point of change. We need an independent means of getting individual minds to intellate, maybe to discuss but certainly to work out and agree an alternative concept of reality - of creating a free space which supraconscious awareness may fill in this way. This process will require us to approach ourselves, each other, and our world in a different way from the usual. The ensuing struggle will begin with negative reaction to the norm, holding off from positive action until whole agreement is reached.
Look at it this way. If you were married to someone who made preposterous demands on you, making your life insupportable, what would you do? You would probably get a divorce. Well, consider - you are likewise harnessed to the Machine, which makes unacceptable demands on humanity at large so that all suffer to some degree (and this is probably the basic reason for most unhappy marriages). What should you, and we, do about it? Surely we should rid ourselves of the inhuman Machine. But in marriage it is clearly better to discuss with our partner and agree on a better relationship than to resort to divorce. It is a matter of both partners ridding themselves of faults which have been the cause of their ill-considered relationship, rather than getting rid of each other. In the same way we should all intellate, and agree on a better world. To continue click here