Society X

the Great Universe

Category: Stan Gooch

How to Take Your Freedom

by totalgooched

The following passage is taken from pages 57-58 of Personality and Evolution, by Stan Gooch:

‘The Ego, ideally, bears its sufferings in silence and without complaint. Again, ideally, it does not break this silence even under torture. It does not request mercy. Nor does it request freedom – it simply takes it, or dies in the attempt. ‘Let my people go’ is the request of the Self. (And one must report, sadly, that those who merely ask for their freedom do not usually get it.)

There is, indeed, a sense in which the Self does not want to be free and in which it enjoys its suffering. This is a statement one must make with caution – for, though it is, i believe, in a certain sense true, it is the kind of statement which is apt to be only too useful as fascist propaganda. Is one saying, for example, that the Jews enjoyed the concentration camps of the last war? Or that Negroes wanted to be shipped as slaves to America and elsewhere, there often to die of starvation and mistreatment? That obviously goes much too far. Yet there is a sort of truth here. There is a joking question which asks : “What does a Jew fear more than persecution?” to which the answer is : “being overlooked.” And something of this is true, i think, also of women. Some women, at any rate, seem willing to accept a good deal of physical violence and other ill-treatment from the men they love. The wanting of punishment or suffering has in fact obtained clear recognition, not only in clinical psychology, but in common parlance, with the term ‘masochism’. A masochist is a person who, in some sense of the terms, enjoys suffering and invites pain.’

A somewhat deeper understanding of Gooch’s work is required to fully comprehend the meaning of this passage, but in short he researched and proposed (in much detail throughout his works) the idea that within the human psyche there is not one but two ‘systems’, which he named the ‘Ego’ and the ‘Self’. The Ego can be roughly equated to a daytime, conscious, linear, masculine brain, located in the cerebrum and the musculature of the body, whilst the Self can be equated to a nocturnal, unconscious, irrational, feminine brain, located in the cerebellum, and the autonomic responses of the body – the reflexes, the senses, the viscera etc. This internal dynamic binary state is the basis of our universal view, that is, the apparent dualities that plague our lives, such as hot and cold, tall and short, dark and light, yin and yang etc.

So, within each of us these two systems – acting as one antagonistic whole – are present in varying, or competing, degrees. Some populations of the world are led more by the Self, and some by the Ego. But every one of us contains both at all times. It’s what makes us all human. Across the world, where cerebellar activities such as ‘soul’ singing, dancing and the use of emotional feelings to describe one’s state are more popular, we can say these people, as a whole, are more driven by the Self. And where we find a greater propensity for cerebral activity, such as technical discussion or time-regulated tasks, as well as a sense of individuality, we will find people who are more Ego-dominant. Incidentally, on average, men are more Ego dominant and women more Self focused.

us independance

Americans asking for their independance

 

Getting back to our point, the notion of freedom, to an Ego dominant individual, is inherent in his personality. The very idea that another individual doesn’t have freedom is incredulous. How can you not have something that you were born with, he will say? How can you let someone (whom you have not contracted with) tell you what to do? For individual freedom is indeed a natural state for the Ego dominant personality. A Self dominant personality, on the other hand, is naturally submissive (lacking a dominant internal Ego), and so practically requires a master to give him the discipline required in an Ego dominant system, such as Capitalism. If we apply Gooch’s theory to our world, then we begin to understand why some people just cant be free.

Take the current situation in America for example (and to some extent across the Western world). Radical, separatist African-Americans, or at least their latest incarnation known as Black Lives Matter, are asking for the American establishment to give them the same privileges and freedoms apparently only allowed by white Americans. The question that no one seems to ask is why don’t they simply walk away from their oppressors and start their own country somewhere else? Isn’t this exactly what the white American people had to do in order to free themselves from their former master England? break off all ties and never speak again, or at least until the dust had settled and they had found their own identity as a cohesive, separate nation. Of course, it wasn’t easy, but the end result was vastly more freedom than they had been previously ‘allowed’ by the English. They never complained during the hardest years, neither did they ask England to save them during events such as the great depression, they suffered their pain in silence rather than buckle under and crawl back in a submissive position.

blm resist

Black people resisiting

Black Lives Matter (along with many other ‘oppressed’ Self groups) talk about forming resistance (which is at least a step up from ‘assistance’). But resistance is exactly what they don’t need to be doing. Why would someone want to remain a part of a system that supposedly treats them with such abject disrespect, and always has? Resistance is the language of the willing victim, for it is only someone who wants to be accepted by the system who feels they have something to resist in it. They could apply their full force in resistance but eventually they will expend all their energy and the age-old system will still be there. If you wish to make yourself an enemy of the masters, who hold all the power, you will, inevitably, lose. The only way to negate the effect of the system is to totally remove oneself from it, and refuse to interact with it ever again. Of course, this would also mean no more special rights and privileges such as welfare, free schooling, access to jobs etc, but after a few years hard work they would be truly self-reliant, self-sufficient, and free.

The same argument can be applied to Israel, and the Jewish populations of the West. Historically, almost every Jewish population has claimed to have suffered oppression under their host nations. Even as far back as ancient Egypt we find Moses tasked with freeing his people from slavery, which they had apparently been placed under for no clear reason. The question if the West is so anti-semitic towards them, why don’t they simply move to their own country which they fought so hard for (and continue to fight for), and never have contact with the so-called evil Europeans again? Could it really be true that some people relish their place in society as the eternal victim, using it to milk assistance from the countries who are simultaneously accused of abusing them?

Is it the fault of the ‘oppressive’ freedom-loving Europeans, with their Ego-derived societies, or is it the fault of the ‘oppressed’ Self-driven peoples of the world, with their ‘we’re all one’ collectivist mindset? In reality, it is no ones ‘fault’. Applying the solid theory of Stan Gooch it is a fault in our genetics that is responsible for our actions and reactions. Only our recognition of this hard-wired situation can prevent us from repeatedly making the same mistakes in life, and in our species.

The Slaving of the Giants

by 5ocietyx

giant-humans-found-in-indiana-2 There are many reports of giants throughout history, both in religious texts such as the Bible and in folklore and myth, such as the story of Fionn MacCumhaill. Steven Quayle’s excellent log of all things giants GENESIS 6 GIANTS has many reports on the discovery of giant skeletons around the ancient world, ultimately suggesting these giants to be the Nephilim – the sons of God who fell upon the daughters of the Earth – in the book of Genesis.

18-giant-skeletons-found-giants-found-in-burial-mounds-near-lake-delavan-wisconsin-in-may-1912

a Wisconsin giant

In his extremely informative book Mutants: On the form, variety and errors of the human body, Armand Marie Leroi describes Aristotle’s observation of the effect that castration can have on an organism. “Nearly twenty-five centuries ago, while working on a remote Aegean island, Aristotle made an observation that was at once banal, beautiful and chilling.  ‘All animals,’ he wrote, ‘if operated on when they are young, become bigger and better looking their unmutilated fellows; if they be mutilated when full grown, they do not take on any increase of size… As a general  rule, mutilated animals grow to a greater length than the unmutilated.’ By ‘mutilation’ Aristotle meant castration. Hence the banality of his observation that merely repeated facts as well known to any fourth-century Greek farmer as to any modern one.. He had taken a barnyard commonplace, that gelded rams, stallion and cockerels are larger than intact animals..”

castrato-illo_2013257a

an 18th century castrato

Two types, one tall, one short.

If we refer to the fossil record we can find two types of human forms, Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon. Researcher and psychologist Stan Gooch provided us with a sober theory about human origins, that we are in fact a hybrid of these two forms of primitive man. The morphology of both of these types differed enough for us to say that they were two separate species, one was a lot smaller than modern humans, and one was taller. you could say that to Neanderthal Cro-Magnon would have resembled a giant, and Gooch actually proposed that the Bible (or similar religious texts) are the written record of Neanderthal’s meeting with Cro-Magnon, preserved by us, human beings, the rightful heirs to those two previous legacies.

Cro-Magnon vs Neanderthal

Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman.

In the Welsh origin story of Brutus, founder of the Britons, his party of emigrants upon landing encounter only giants on the isles, whom they then proceed to chase down, fight and totally destroy.  These giants are clearly remnants of a previous race, who at this time existed only in the most isolated peninsulas of the European continent. They numbered so few they were easily eradicated by man. As stated before, Cro-Magnon was taller than humans, and had occupied Europe before humans, supplanting European Neanderthal before him, so it stands to reason that some members of the relic species Cro-Magnon could still have existed at the fringes of civilisation. it should be noted here that the tallest humans on Earth are in Denmark, Northern Europe, where giant myths are heavily prevalent.

 

Domestication.

Domestication of animals is believed to have begun prior to 33,000BCE, with the dog. But it would be fair to say that domestication of another kind would have taken place before this time, on a species much easier to control – humans. Slavery is said to be as old as humanity, and its not too much of a stretch of the imagination to see the control system in place today – such as our laws, codes of conduct or morals – is nothing more than the domestication of humans. Incidentally, Gooch proposed the actual hybridization event occurred around 35,000 years ago, in the approximate time frame during which domestication of animals began.

Egyptian depiction of domestication

Now, back to the meat and veg, so to speak.

 

Castration.

The practice of castration has persisted for thousands of years, with both domestic animals and humans. Arab slave traders, by far the most prolific and ambitious slavers ever, traded many castrated boys. ‘The Calipha in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th Century had 7,000 black eunuchs and 4,000 white eunuchs in his palace.”[129] The Arab slave trade typically dealt in the sale of castrated male slaves. Black boys at the age of eight to twelve had their scrotum and penis completely amputated. Around 9 out of 10 bled to death during the procedure, but the high price brought by eunuchs on the market made the practice profitable.’ Castration was also used by many nations after war, where they would castrate the remaining men and boys, rather than kill them, preferring to use them as slaves. it was used by royal families to sever the family lines of those families whom they had supplanted, or whom they wanted to extinguish.

Theon Greyjoy, the character in Game of Thrones represents a castrated royal family line, both as prisoner to the Starks (Ned being a fair lord), and House Bolton.

In theory..

Is it possible that modern humans – upon discovery and subjugation of the few remaining Cro-Magnon – enslaved the giant species, and castrated any young they found along the way? if this castration punishment was happening at the same time as domestication of animals (and modern man) then humans wouldnt have failed to notice that castration in the infant stage makes for a larger being. So were the extreme giants that are according to Steven Quayle found all over the world the first attempts to control/castrate the old giant bloodlines, and create slaves out of our tall ancestors? After all, an army of giants would be very useful for a new species intent on world domination, and the relatively few remains found today could be explained by the fact that castration would have meant certain, and almost sudden, extinction of the genetic line of giants.

 

Our next line of investigation will be to study the skull shapes of currently known giants to determine how closely related they are to Cro-Magnon skulls.

 

taken from –

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration

Mutants: On the form, variety and errors of the human body, Armand Marie Leroi

Early humans ‘kept their chin up’

by 5ocietyx

 

Cro-Magnon skull

‘A new theory suggests that our male ancestors evolved beefy facial features as a defence against fist fights.

The bones most commonly broken in human punch-ups also gained the most strength in early “hominin” evolution.

A paper, published this week in the journal Biological Reviews, argues that the reinforcements evolved amid fighting over females and resources, suggesting that violence drove key evolutionary changes.

Prof David Carrier and his co-author, physician Dr Michael Morgan, propose that violent competition demanded the development of these facial fortifications: what they call the “protective buttressing hypothesis”.’

The article concentrated on the jawbone of modern humans, and early hominids, concluding that evolution favoured those with a stronger jaw to be our ancestors.

Batman

No mention that this very same idea was put forward by Stan Gooch many times in his numerous works, supported by ample evidence and solid research, but for some reason it was ignored, along with the rest of his ground-breaking ideas (see Personality and Evolution, for example).

Phrases such as ‘square-jawed’ and ‘take it on the chin’ he proposed, are references to the distinctive nature of the male chin. During a fight, fighters tend to swing for the jaw as it is a fairly easy way to knock someone out if done right, especially if the opponent has a ‘glass jaw’. We can also see the prominent jaw is a feature in many of our superheroes, the main one of course being Batman, whose mask protects every part of his face except his chin.

Stan Gooch also suggested that the male beard is an accompaniment to the prominent chin, augmenting it as such, in order to highlight and enlarge it. this could also be why we treat people with long beards more reverentially – perhaps the beard suggests to us (unconsciously) that they are to be feared or admired in some way, an  innate threat-aggression signal releaser from our distant past.

Charles Darwin

 

taken from –

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27720617

Evolution: was man gibbon a second chance?

by 5ocietyx

what follows is a piece Stan Gooch wrote 35 years ago regarding human origins.

‘Chimpanzees and gorillas both have very heavy brow ridges. Gibbons also have these, but to a noticeably lesser extent. Orangs do not have them. The infants of all ape species have them in much less degree than the parents. In fact the young of all primates look a good deal more human than the adults. For my own money, the young of the gibbon look most human of all.

Baby gibbon

The young of apes look more human because further back in evolutionary time the adult ancestors of these primates were more human. The eighteen-week-old chimpanzee foetus looks quite amazingly human. These creatures have become more ape-like, after an initially closer start to ourselves, an example of devolution. A second, more important point is that young apes look more like us because we have managed to play one of nature’s oldest tricks – that of preserving child-like characteristics into adult life. This process is called neotony and is one of nature’s commonest methods of continuing the evolution of a species, in particular for backing it out of a dead-end. We have, for example, the flat face of the baby chimp, gorilla and gibbon, not the jutting muzzle of the adult. The process of neotony is central to any understanding of man’s evolution, and in particular to my own views.

another baby gibbon

One last word in favour of gibbons. Bernard Campbell states significantly: ‘The evidence for brachiation in man’s ancestry accumulates.’ Of course, with this statement Campbell does not mean to indicate the gibbon as such. Yet, the gibbon is the master brachiator.’

Taken from –

pages 34-35 of The Neanderthal Question (1977), by Stan Gooch

Do you walk like a man, or like a chimp?

by 5ocietyx

An interesting piece from Wired.co.uk states that 8% of humans have what is referred to as ‘chimp feet’, in that the foot is effectively split in two, allowing the foot to ‘flex’ in a way rather like that of our distant primate cousins.

‘Anthropologist Jeremy DeSilva and occupational therapist Simone Gill looked at 398 people as they walked up and down barefoot in the Boston Museum of Science. They filmed the feet up close to see what midtarsal flexibility there was, and found 32 of the participants — or nearly one in 13 — “possessed both elevated lateral midfoot pressures and even exhibit midfoot dorsiflexion characteristic of a midtarsal break”. That is, they have bendy feet, like chimps.

The owners of the monkey feet didn’t look like they were walking noticeably different to the casual observer, nor did they tell DeSilva or Gill that they felt like they could notice the bending of their feet as they walked. However, people with the midtarsal break had much flatter feet than normal.

Whether the difference confers any advantages — beyond making it easier to pick stuff up with one’s feet, or climb trees — is unclear. DeSilva told New Scientist that he believed, because flexible feet should pose a disadvantage for humans who only use their feet for walking, it might be a reemerging trait caused by new lifestyle variations (like wearing shoes) that mean the feet ligaments fail to become as rigid.’

What isn’t mentioned is whether or not this trait could have existed in our paleolithic ancestors, such as Neanderthal man, who, like  those humans who possessed the midtarsal break in the foot, we previously reported had been discovered to have flatter feet than humans, which made them less suited to running.

taken from –

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/30/bendy-chimp-feet

When One become two

by 5ocietyx

Always two there is…

This report from 2006 suggested humanity would eventually divide into two species; one race, tall, athletic and attractive, and the other squat, ‘dim-witted’ and ugly.

‘Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.

The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said – before a decline due to dependence on technology.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.’

Is this a far cry (albeit in reverse) from evolutionary theorist Stan Gooch’s ideas about our origins? In fact, the descriptions used in the BBC piece could quite easily be of Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal man: The tall, athletic, ‘intelligent’ and attractive (to whom?) Homo Sapiens, and the short, dark, cave-dwelling Neanderthals, ancient foes still alive in the breast of one species, constantly at war with itself, both mentally and socially.

Gooch maintained that the final solution to the internal tug-o-war created by our hybridization would be genetic manipulation of the species. Through technology we would discover a way to eradicate our dual nature,  to divide Dr Jeckle from Mr Hyde once and for all. In some ways it would be the end of the humanity we know, but perhaps in other ways, it would be a fresh start. Without the constant battle between Ego and Self perhaps we could end the thousands of years of senseless warfare and enforced partition that have blighted the books of history since our time begun.

taken from –

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6057734.stm

%d bloggers like this: