The Nature Of Man (Human Evaluation)~ The UT Instinct ~Appexdix 1: Rain Is Dry Scenario
If this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary Fundamental Principles and Analogies
Where to begin? This web site has been created to explain 2 theories. The "Theory of the Bleedin' Obvious" and the "UT Instinct". The "Theory of the Bleeding Obvious" isn't really a theory at all but a collection of simple truths. Unfortunately human beings never make things simple. We unquestioningly soak up tribal beliefs in our growing years and somehow we are of the opinion that truth and reality must comply with these beliefs, no matter how much we have to twist truth and reality, rather than what actually should be the case; that our beliefs should comply with truth and reality. One could say that these tribal beliefs are the tools we use to explain the universe - we may question the universe, or even the explanation, but we never question the tools by which we evaluate these philosophical and moral problems - for they are part of us. The search for truth is difficult. The explanation of truth is just as difficult, if not more so. What I will be trying to explain is a totally different viewpoint than that which you now hold. For awhile I will have to ramble in varying directions in a seemingly random fashion but gradually the story will begin to come together to reveal a very simple truth. The truth 'revealed' in this web site concerns human beings and what 'makes them tick'. But before we try to get at the core theory - the UT Instinct - we must get rid of the childish beliefs we hold dear - this is where the 'Theory of the Bleeding Obvious' comes in. Once the mistaken presumed notions about human beings is wiped away the real investigation and explanation of the UT Instinct can begin.
Statement But because we have self-awareness we are often misled into believing that our actions are rational - we are always able to 'give an excuse' as to why we do what we do. What we forget to keep in mind is the fact that this rationalisation process is the direct result of our ordinary, physical, animal brain processes. This brain CANNOT be logical, or rational. It is merely a physical collection of specialised (brain) cells - a collection of atoms. There is no real objective logic - there is no real objective understanding. It is all subjective. We can only be subjective. We ARE subjective creatures. Also, don't be misled into thinking that just because we can 'rationalise' our actions that it means, in any way, that the actions themselves are rational. Example: whites could rationalise why blacks were inferior, males could rationalise why females were inferior, terrorists organisations can rationalise their savage actions, Osama bin Laden can rationalise his behaviour just as George W Bush can rationalise his behaviour, etc etc etc. They can only ever rationalise in a very subjective way - from their own personal narrow-minded viewpoint. This is how most people 'think'. I usually describe these irrational, illogical, very comforting subjective explanations, thoughts and excuses as childish baby-talk. The reason why I call it baby-talk is because it is similar to 'normal' childish thinking. Children see life through simplistic blinkered viewpoints. It is a nice, cosy, comfortable, subjective, illogical, irrational viewpoint. All explanations are based upon what the child wants to believe - it is wishful thinking. It would be impossible for an adult to attempt to give a child an adult viewpoint of life. Yet this is what I am attempting to do with my theories. Be patient !! I understand that most people will totally and absolutely disagree with the previous paragraphs. Most of you reading this will not accept the above and will 'turn off'. Well, GOODBYE. This site is not for you. This site is for those who actually want to understand. TRUTH is what it is. There can be no compromise. There can be no twisting of facts to suit a nice cosy understanding of life. There is no room here for baby-talk. If you are searching for truth which fits your predefined notions you are wasting your time going any further in this site. Go away and continue thinking the way you do now. I have absolutely no intention of trying to change your mind. Truth is for those who seek it. I have no intention whatsoever of making the truth more palatable or easy to accept (some truths will be very unpalatable - but won't come for awhile yet). All I intend to do is to make it as easy to understand as I can make it. But the problem is not with ideas but with attempting to put ideas into words. I use words - you use words - but no two people will have the exact same understanding - even to the same words and phrases. In many cases I will have to make a few statements trying to say the same thing - merely so as to get you to understand what I am trying to explain. In a lot of cases TRUTH is not hidden - it is obvious. It is literally in front of us. Yet people have great difficulty in seeing it. The reason for this is that our search for truth usually begins long after the tribal beliefs and explanations of 'life' have become ingrained within our understanding. They have become our subjective truth. And thus we expect explanations to fit these predefined notions.
Why Use Scenarios?
The Rain Is Dry Scenario But, when they go outside and it is raining they get wet. Their reaction is one of bewilderment. They think thus: 'Rain is dry, we go out in the rain and we get wet - it is a mystery!', and 'We will never be able to understand it', or 'It is not possible to understand it', or 'We were never meant to be able to understand' etc etc. Their truth that rain is dry is never questioned. What happens then is that they begin to look for other reasons as to why they get wet when they go out and it is raining. If you rule out the notion that rain is wet one can come to any number of conclusions as to why one gets wet. One of the conclusions they come to is that it must be something to do with the day it rains. So the reasoning is - they get wet when it rains on a Monday because it is a Monday (and NOT because rain is wet). They get wet when it rains on a Wednesday because it is a Wednesday (and NOT because rain is wet) etc etc as per every day of the week. This can only work because they compartmentalise, or individualise, each rain event so that it appears to be a totally unique event so that the explanation for each rain event can be explained as a singular event item and thus the explanations can be inconsistent and even mutually contradictory. In other words the explanation for getting wet when it rains on a Tuesday is not, need not, and in a lot of circumstances CANNOT, be the same as the reason why they get wet when it rains on any other day. They even begin to expand the day explanation to incorporate the time of day; or the time of day, name of day and even month. Any number of irrational excuses could be made with each one being totally separate from the other. Now it may seem as if this scenario is so ridiculous as to be a total fiction and farcical. It is important to understand that this scenario does NOT demonstrate WHAT people think but HOW people think. Although you may think that this is a pathetic scenario a lot of your own thought processes are parallel to this. But for the moment I will leave this scenario as is because you can accept it as a scenario but you would not be able to accept it as a true reflection of how people think in real situations. But at some stage you will have to see the truth in this.
The Periodic Table Firstly, for those who do not know what the Periodic Table is I will attempt a very simple explanation (scientists look away now!). It is a listing of the elements (oxygen, sodium, carbon etc) is a specific order so that the logic of their behaviour can be understood and even predicted. Basically all elements are made from 3 ingredients:
The fundamental 'principle', or rule, as to the whys of chemical compounds is governed by the number of electrons in the outer shell (orbit) of the atom. It turns out that Atoms like either 2 (in the inner orbit), or 8, electrons, in the outer 'orbits' and thus Hydrogen, which has one electron wants to share an electron with another element thereby giving it the impression that it has 2 electrons. Oxygen has a total of 8 electrons (2 in the inner orbit and 6 in the outer orbit) thus it would like to have another 2 electrons in it outer orbit. Thus when it forms a compound with 2 atoms of Hydrogen and shares an electron with each atom it appears to the Hydrogen atoms that they have 2 electrons in their orbits and to the Oxygen atom that it has 8 electrons in its outer orbit. The Hydrogen atoms are happy and stable and the Oxygen atom is happy and stable. It is likewise for all the other elements. The important thing to understand is that once you know the Principle and rules governing the compounds it is possible to actually predict the different combinations of atoms. For example Helium has 2 electrons in its orbit and therefore should be happy and stable by itself - and that is the case!! It does not like to form compounds with any other atoms - it is called an inert or 'noble' gas. The next stable atom should have 2 electrons in its inner orbit and 8 electrons in its outer orbit (10 electrons in total) and - hay presto - Neon is that 'noble' gas. Even you could have guessed that after a few paragraphs of explanation. It is that simple and straightforward. One could say that the behaviour of the atoms is governed by the number of electrons. So although Hydrogen and Carbon and Sodium may seem to totally different from each other, firstly thay are made from the same ingredients and, secondly, they obey the same rules. When you understand the UT Instinct which is a general principle (regulator) of human behaviour you will understand the terrorists, the racists, the bullies, the sexists etc etc. You will understand Osama bin Laden, Mother Therese of Calcutta, animal rights activists, dictators, You will see that fundamentally they are all the same - they all react according to the same simple rules. I am not sure what theories and explanations Herr Professor and the students came to work out but if they had understood the simple fundamental principle of the UT Instinct this experiment would not have been necessary. They would have understood and even been able to predict that what happened was going to be the fairly obvious outcome. This is the strength of the UT Instinct theories. People want to assume and believe unquestioningly that Man is rational and generally 'good', But then real life intervenes and clearly and simply demonstrates that the previous positive ideas about Man were wrong. BUT, instead of realising that Man is not rational and not generally 'good' they try and explain the actions of Man as being due to external forces. They feebly make excuses. For example when there is talk of drug taking in the inner city areas the excuse is that there is great poverty within those areas. Somehow this excuse is meant to explain why rational people take drugs. Then there is talk of the rich taking drugs and then the excuse is that they have too much money and are not living in the real world (obviously the poverty excuse cannot be used), or have too much spare time etc (whatever!). But it is also the case the middle income people take drugs - I'm not sure what excuse is made for them - possibly because they aren't rich? - or because they have to work for a living? - or (whatever!). So whenever people are trying to explain the cause of drug taking they have to use many different and (sometimes) contradictary excuses. At no time does the simple and straightforward reason (NOT excuse) - that Man is an irrational bioent - ever enter the heads of the explainers. THAT is the one answer they will not and can never contemplate (just as the belief that rain is dry can never be qustioned by those who believe it). Without going into the very similar details, the explanation of stealing (or other crimes) is usually 'poverty' or lack of 'education' and yet those excuses have to ignore the FACT that at all levels of society, and culture, people steal. The greatest thieves of all are the rich. They don't use guns - they don't need to! - they use shady deals, backhanders to politicians, bribary and corruption etc. It turns out that the rich commit largescale 'hidden' crimes whereas the poor commit 'petty' crimes. As to why the rich get away with it and the poor get sent to jail - you'll have to work it out for yourself! (it's actually totally explained in the UT Instinct chapters). No matter what other 'unpleasant', or criminal, or unsocial activity takes place (eg bullying, abuse, exploitation, cheating etc) there are always excuses. Millions upon millions of excuses - many tripping over themselves and contradicting each other, and all this just to maintain an incredible belief in something that is impossible - for no bioent can ever be rational. When you realise and accept the fact that Man is NOT rational and NOT 'generally good' then all the (pathetic) excuses are totally unnecessary. Also there will be no surprise when a suicide bomber is well educated, or a rapist is from a 'good background' or a wife beater, drug baron, or thief is from the upper strata of society. Man behaves the way be does because be is irrational, and 'generally' selfish. That is all there is to it! Short and sweet! Rain is NOT dry either! I have added a new scenario which is even more straightforward. If you haven't had enough yet check it out The Red Marble Scenario
|
If you want to contact me if there is a specific point you want to make or you want to ask a question about an incident in life which you would like explained within the UT Instinct theory. If you intend to argue a point, or correct an error in the logic - if there are any ;0) PLEASE ONLY DO SO AFTER YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ EVERYTHING IN THE RELEVANT SECTION. Use the form (if visible) on all the Chapters and Articles pages or email me (especially if it is a longish piece of text).
|