Schoolteachers may also pretend a conformity which they don't really feel. Their job depends on following a conformist curriculum laid down by the 'enlightened' Education Authority. When truth is nebulous and not understood, the norm is the easier foundation to build on, supported as it is by a reality which overwhelmingly actually exists and is confirmed by its own powerful, yet quite false, logic.

The media are affected by the same pressures of reality. Newspapers, radio and television stations, also book publishers are commercial enterprises - businesses that have to make money-profit, or at least to break even. Their editors, journalists and other contributors are employed to support this financial viability by appealing to the reading, listening or viewing public who buy their products. And what actually appeals most to the public at present is matters of reality - of the Machine, and the love/hate relationships of people in the Machine. The media owners, their staff, and the public, just like the educators, teachers, parents and young, enter into an unknowing conspiracy to maintain this false public image of humanity, and to keep their truth-seeking personal questioning hidden in almost shameful privacy.

The Machine, and its privileged establishment including the media, determines the language of human communication, a language chained to the values, principles and practices of world reality and to its closely associated emotions. Just as truth is anathema to this reality, so truly reasoned writing, because it is foreign to the language and emotion of reality, is resisted by publishers. It might be rejected ostensibly because it fails to reach required realistic standards, or because it is not a 'good read'; not acceptable to the majority who are wedded to existing reality because they believe the norm to be inescapable. Absolute truth is rejected by the media, and by authority in general, either because they don't recognise it or, getting an inkling of its meaning, they don't want to face it.

You may find nothing much new in this thinking, having already formed similar conclusions. But would you not admit that basic criticisms of our Machine-society are kept mainly private - they are not given much publicity? Isn't the reason why such criticism is anathema to the Machine that if it were all brought together under truly intelligent eyes only one reasonable conclusion could be drawn? - that this is the wrong reality and must be changed for the better, for the benefit of all. Obviously the Machine is not going to change itself. The initiative has to come from the true minds of people. It is not enough to complain about all the wrongs of society. Each of us has to work out, and agree, how it may be put right.

I have already made the point that this book is written by a postconscious mind and is therefore addressed to, because it shall be understood by, other postconscious minds. But to get there it has to pass through, and be passed on by, the warder of the person - the wilful self and the conscious mind it inhabits. For one person to accept another's thought in place of his own - even if it is a case of a false conscious giving way to postconscious truth - is hard for that person because it goes against natural inclination. It is much easier for that person consciously to pick up familiar, subtle, already understood but interestingly reoriented messages from other like minds. Journalism is well aware of this, profiting from pandering to our overwhelmingly actual reality, whereas truth presently has only the backing of rarely-found supraconsciousness.

If this current reality had reached a static platform humans would have had more opportunity to think, and inevitably to move towards supraconsciousness. But our world is far from static. I repeat, we are hag-ridden by a compulsion which we incorrectly call 'progress'. True progress would have broken down the age-old barrier that has largely isolated us from the supreme brain-development which made us human, the postconscious. Supraconsciousness of that greater faculty would have enabled us to discover, then realise, human truth, then to consolidate, needing to make no further 'progress'. I call autoprogression this present practice of the human self pushing on down a false road regardless of its true postconscious potential. We are wilfully using our conscious minds scientifically to discover, master and technologically develop everything in this limited, self-justifying sphere which can be developed, regardless of whether it is truly desirable, physically viable or sustainable. Dazzled by our achievements, we are oblivious to the fact that we did take the wrong turning long ago, and that it has brought us to an ongoing wrong reality.

Autoprogression is fired both by the artificial profit-seeking money system and by the ambition and curiosity of academically conditioned conscious minds. It keeps the media fully occupied in knowingly commenting upon the affairs of a nonsensical world. They have the present advantage of being concerned with ongoing discovery and manipulation of irrefutable fact, which is very much preferred by humanity in general because it can be proved by evidence and argument, whereas the truths of reason can only be known supraconsciously.

This worldly autoprogression is causing us to proceed with the likely ruination of planet Earth, in many ways with which we are all familiar. But we are so locked into the Machine that it never occurs to us publicly that we should bring an end to autoprogression - too many of the present interests and pleasures of life have come to depend on it. Instead we are employing the same inventive technology which created the impending disasters in thinking up ways of circumventing them. One cannot easily argue that the world's pleasures are not pleasurable, but that they are unintelligent, and that it is not beyond the wit of man to make a world which is both reasonably pleasurable and intelligent.

The human race's attitude to its reality is reflected in its newspapers. The widest attitude might be represented, in Britain, by the liberal-minded Guardian. Its range is news of the entire world, progressively covered by issue after issue according to events and circumstances as they are brought to general attention. But it includes much more - politics, finance, business, sport, travel, art, fashion, and so on. Many of the things featured are despicable, horrifying, disquieting, crazy, fatuous or fantastic. To a realist they are variously, satisfyingly interesting - an enveloping daily scene which can be tolerated because each part on every side can be neutralised and balanced by every other, leaving the individual little changed. To a true intellect they must present as alarming - as surely unacceptable that all this indiscriminate and chaotically various stuff is the regular diet of the human race and pictures the reality that we tolerantly allow to co-exist with our intelligent morality.

But the Guardian management believe this to be the real picture to which their readers relate; which the readers pay for and therefore must have. Other papers such as The Sun, having a different readership present a different picture, but it is the same reality seen from another, more emotional and less erudite angle. Alan Russberger, the 1999 Guardian editor, believes his paper, like his readership, to be the intellectual avant guard, able equably to take tout le monde in its sophisticated stride. By putting fashion and fascism on the same sheet as farming and fell-walking, the former are somehow legitimised. To take too serious an overall critical view is de trop. Anything is possible in this world, this paper seems to say, and there's nothing we can do about it excepting to patronise it, or personalise it, making it merely the background to our life. In this spirit he took Julie Burchell on board. In the same spirit he turns down any article which seriously questions our acceptance of this insane reality. But Julie Burchell, and her laid-back, easy-to-read, off-beat, way-out, yet conventionally 'in' style, appears every week. She does raise matters of moral concern, though with caustic humour, and is honest about her feelings. But while seeming to look down on Machine-convention from a great and knowing height, she is in fact firmly entrenched in the Machine. Her racy and light-hearted approach has the effect of reinforcing the barrier to true intellect and legitimising the status-quo which that true intellect is silently screaming to have replaced.

But true intellect presently remains well in the background. In the foreground is existing amoral reality, and the wilfully directed conscious mind struggling hard to manage it to advantage while at the same time contriving to uphold elements of a moral code which the Machine can afford to tolerate and which put a superficial gloss of rectitude on wrongful Machine-practices.

This moral gloss was necessary to humans trying to reconcile their consciences with their activities as civilisation developed. We tended to accept reality with less question and so were able to wrap ourselves in a cloak of justice and dignity while presiding over a reality that was unjust, undignified and often cruel. We built monuments to morality and acquired a sort of righteous status by ourselves setting up inadequate and false standards of right and wrong which were convenient to the amoral Machine and which we somehow contrived to reconcile with our consciences.

This takes us on to Trunk 6, foretelling a supraconscious future, to be achieved not by personal virtue overcoming the tribulations of its reality but by humans lovingly building a true moral reality by which we shall be helped and enabled to find happiness by the fulfilment of our intellects.

1. OPENING
2.EXPLAINING LIFE
3. FROM UNCONSCIOUS TO CONSCIOUS INSTINCT
Last Chapter 4. MIND MUTATION ENDS IN DIVISION
Current Chapter 5. CONSCIOUS RULES DESPITE CONSCIENCE
Next Chapter 6. CONSCIOUS SUBMITS, POSTCONSCIOUS PREVAILS
7. SUPRACONSCIOUSNESS
8. COUNTERFEIT EXPLANATIONS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS
9. THE TRUTH ABOVE ALL

Back to HOME PAGE - INDEX htm