Older readers may remember the Dear Hugh Letters I was given to publish (If you haven't read them please go and do so now! - the July 8th letter is a masterpiece).
The author has now started to publish more of his work over on a Yahoo group - along with some background - In 2004, after 15 years together, Paul McCartney fired me as his head of publicity because – or so he told the world in a press release – I had become “increasingly unstable”.
So in the interests of continuity I have stolen the first chapter and present it here - you will have to go and join the Yahoo group for the rest and all the background and gossip...
A personal study of instability,
how Homo Sapiens 2 are coming,
why life is a dress rehearsal and
other better ideas from
a miscellany of month of madness
January 3rd 2006
In 2002, possibly 2001, I began to have a nervous breakdown.
A number of factors contributed to my breakdown; a then-angry marriage made angry by me, extreme misery in my job , as many as three grams of cocaine some days and no less than half a gram every day every day for three years, the habit of showing off my prodigious and socially-damaging capacity to drink more alcohol than others did and a nagging instinct that I was thinking differently from almost everybody I knew.
There were a number of other things and people responsible for me falling to bits, but I’ll out them later. What I want to explain at this stage is that the main cause of my breakdown was an awareness that I was mad.
By most people’s standards, I am still mad. By those same standards, I hope never to be sane again.
Like almost everybody, at first I thought it was bad to be mad and I set about trying out all those psycho charlatans who advertise their alleged ability to “right” your balance. I went to shrinks in Harley Street and to others in their cosy and quaint homes.
But it was a waste of time once I discovered that these all of these psychiatrists of varying qualification were useless to me, principally because they did not “get” my problem. In the end and with all of them, I wound up just telling them what they wanted to hear and never kept the next appointment.
For a long, long time this “it’s bad to be mad” hang-up which I had picked up from some idiot in my infancy crippled me. I could not get out of bed in the morning, or for most of the day, because life seemed to threaten me and my bed was my only safe place. I bored myself to the point of wrist-slashing by reading a lot of self-help (sic) books and paid as much heed as I could muster to a lot of stupid aphorisms that were predicated upon the “pull yourself together” philosophy.
For a long time I felt that the only person who made sense to me at all was my dog, Jimi. Sometimes he seems to me to be the spirit of a dear friend who died some years ago.
I only claim that because I am what is populistly known as psychic. This does not mean that I have constant flashes of the future – I have only had about eight of those in my life. By psychic, I mean that I am more sensitive to invisible changes in the moods of others, more perceptive and aware of the accuracy of my instincts. We shall return to this later as everybody has the capacity to become more psychic, if they want to. It’s all only a matter of letting yourself feel.
In 2004, after 15 years together, Paul McCartney fired me as his head of publicity because – or so he told the world in a press release – I had become “increasingly unstable”.
Leaving Paul greatly assisted my breakdown, not because I had been rejected but because it was plain to me and some others that even at my most “unstable” I was better at doing the job than the bulwarks of stability who replaced me; it was the illogic of getting fired that sent me spiralling into further depression, I fell right apart simply because sacking me was not the best idea.
When I was young, I studied Philosophy for three years at the Hatfield Polytechnic that some twat in Whitehall decided to rename The University Of Hertfordshire for the purposes of being pompous.
I enjoyed Philosophy because I had always loved ideas and had also always marvelled at how few people had any good ones. However, it was not until I began to near the age of 50 that I realised that the whole point of Philosophy was not to recite or remember things that Wittgenstein or that fool Descartes had said, but to use Philosophy to think for myself.
I realised that so few people think at all these days. Internets and computers and the spirit-shattering working for corporations supply your thinking and the most that is ever individually required of your mind is to deliberate which programme to watch on television and which ready-made meal to choose as a means of accelerating your obesity.
I began to wonder why it was that I thought so much and why others thought so little. I also became fascinated with wondering why it was that non-thinkers got so irritated that I was thinking all of the time – and how anybody with even the tiniest brain could defend the intelligence behind advice like “you think too much”.
To me, that is as nonsensical as telling me that I breathe too much, because thinking is what humans are meant to do. Thinking is what defines us as homo sapiens; it’s our gig.
Then, at the Christmas of 2005, the penny dropped.
I realised that not only was I mad but that if this was mad, then I had been mad since birth. Or rather, since I was old enough to understand that I did not see the world as most other people did and that I did not see the point of living in this world, mine or theirs, in the way that most people did.
My epiphany, aptly, came from a pulpit. I was sitting in the back pew of All Cannings Church, in Wiltshire, pretending to be Christian for the purposes of enjoying the village schoolchildren’s Nativity interpretation.
The service was one of those Nine Carols and Nine Lessons productions that people who do not have children believe will interest kids and stop them fidgeting and whispering to ask when this God-numbing charade would finish and would there be mince pies afterwards.
Brian Ball, churchwarden of the Cannings parish, got up to read a lesson and because I like him, I listened instead of pretending to look as if I was listening. Brian read a few paragraphs from Genesis, the bit about how Man got to be cast out of The Garden of Eden.
As he began to read aloud, I felt myself “talking” to God; just for the craic. At that point I was unemployed and with no hope of work. I had lost a job that had paid me between $180,000 and $210,000 a year, my wife appeared to loathe me, Christmas was not feeling at all Christmassy and if it had not been for the fact that I had recently discovered what it is like to be dead (more on that later too), I would have happily have ceased to be.
Correction (already); I did not “talk” to God and I do not want you to get the impression that I have become some form of irritating Bible-basher. What I meant was that I felt like I was communicating with God. And basically what I vibed Him was “give us a hand, for fuck’s sake, because I’m on the point of just giving up completely”.
By the way, I do not believe that it is wrong or bad or infringes that absurd concept of sacrilege to use the word “fuck” when dealing with God. I cannot bring myself to accept that anyone who created all of this will be offended by swearwords which, by definition, are actually His creation in the first place.
Anyway, having sent this thought to God I expected nothing to happen as usual. But then I heard Brian Ball reading this bit of Genesis, Chapter 3:
14: The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
15: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel”.
Now, looking at it like that – retyped verbatim from The Bible, it is clear that in verses 14 & 15 God appears to directing his anger and smiting at the snake and we know this because of where the speech marks (“ “) begin and end.
But, if you read it like that, it is utter balls.
Casting aside for one moment the natural inclination to wonder why it was that God felt that upon your belly you shall go was a punishment for a fucking snake – which to me is cause enough to ask if God had had a few – I puzzled over why Adam, Eve and The Snake should be especially bothered by enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.
If you’re Adam or Eve, or The Snake for that matter, you’re hardly going to consider it to be The Greatest Punishment Possible to be told that you are not going to party together anymore.
It defies reason.
“What’ve you done?”
“Oh, we’ve broken the one rule that God told us not to, the absolute capital crime”.
“Shit! You’re for it. What did God say?”
“He was fucking livid; he said that as a punishment we would never get along with snakes”.
“Bummer. Err…were you planning to spend much time with snakes?”
“Hmm. Sounds like God’s doing his mysterious ways thing again”.
Thousands of years of received wisdom (sic) has been based on believing this crap. Entire religions and the ways of life for billions of people has been based upon weirdness like this. Wars are fought and deaths happen in droves because people believe it.
And then the penny dropped – hang about, God wasn’t talking to the snake at the bit when the Bible claims he was. He was talking to Adam, who wasn’t paying attention at the back.
Hearing the words read from the pulpit, instead of reading them with the assistance of the quotation marks, made me see what God was actually saying.
Never mind the bit about the snake; who cares what happens to snakes anyway? He was saying the important bit to Adam, to the Man. The “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed” bit is directed at the man, not the bloody snake.
Now, reading it like this, it’s a hell of a punishment; a real shit-kicker of a curse. And now, instead of looking like some bumbling idiot who just makes women and snakes hate each other, he’s really fucking up your day.
He was actually saying: “You have so pissed me off, so much so that I am going to punish you by making men and women antagonise each other; I’m going to make you think in completely different ways”.
And that, you will surely admit, IS a punishment – to inhabit the world with Men and Women, give them dominion over everything on the planet, but to fix it so that Men and Women piss each other off. To coin a phrase, Christ, that‘s a brilliant punishment; very God-like.
Anyway, in bed that night I began to think “how did this happen?” How had we, mankind, spent all these eras not realising that we had misinterpreted The Bible because of a punctuation mistake?
For those of you who don’t understand punctuation, what I’m saying is that there should have been speech marks ( “ ) after dust you shall eat all the days of your life to indicate that that bit was directed at the serpent and the next bit – I will put enmity etc – was not.
Again I thought, how did this happen? God is not by all accounts a cretin, so how did he misrepresent himself so enormously?
Then I realised, God did not write The Bible. Man wrote The Bible.
And as we know from two to three thousand years (and the rest) of sheer bloody misery, man gets it wrong. Over and over and over again, man (by which I mean humans) screws up.
Quite simply, whoever wrote or sub-edited The Bible got the dictation wrong or read his notes back incorrectly. It happens.
And what The Bible was actually saying was: Men and Women will never see eye to eye; they’ll need each other in order to breed and continue the existence of the race, but they will never get along.
Not only is that a great punishment, it also shows that God has a fantastic sense of irony. That and the fact that he’s a spiteful bugger.
Anyway, I then thought – well, how come I get this and nobody else has noticed it? Am I more clever than Abraham? Cripes!
And it was then that this and a bunch of other thoughts copulated and formed the theory of Homo Sapiens 2.
The theory of Homo Sapiens 2 is, like all that has previously passed for genius, very simple.
Life is all evolution, right?
We, Homo Sapiens, have evolved from fish by way of reptiles, apes and Neanderthal Man and various other sub-thinkers, right?
So, if Life is all evolution, we must still be evolving.
And yet we have had the ridiculous conceit to assume that evolution has stopped with us.
Bullshit. Why should it stop? Why aren’t we still evolving?
Why should Homo Sapiens be anything other than just another form of the evolution?
And then I thought – maybe Homo Sapiens ARE constantly evolving and developing.
OK, if that’s the case, how are we evolving?
It must be that we are getting cleverer. We, the Homo Sapiens of 2006 are generally cleverer than the Homo Sapiens of 26 BC, we can read and write for starters.
Then I realised that maybe we are evolving very, very, very slowly in becoming Homo Sapiens 2 – a new man that is distinguished by thinking deeper and better than the ordinary, non deluxe model.
Then I realised that evolution of a species does not all take place at the same time. We did not all of us cross a line at one point and cease to be fish all at the same time.
Evolution is gradual and that means that some of the species will evolve faster than others.
So I thought: OK, if we are evolving into a cleverer Homo Sapiens, as seems reasonable, maybe prototypes of this Homo Sapiens 2 have occurred over history.
If that is the case, how would they be noticeable? By their thinking.
OK, so what is Homo Sapiens 2 Thinking and how does it differ from Homo Sapiens Thinking?
And the answer came: It is a better idea.
By now I was seeing that I was not mad in the slightest. I was and am Homo Sapiens 2 and it was that which was considered to be madness.
Let me explain madness.
Madness is thinking abnormally.
Abnormally means – not normal.
What is normal?
Normal is the state common to most people, to the majority.
So madness is just not thinking like most people do.
So madness is not a mental deficiency, it is a social deficiency that over time we have been led to believe is an absolute.
Whereas in fact it is nothing of the kind, it is not an absolute like time or space, it is an entirely relative term (sorry to lapse into Wittgenstein but that’s what you get from sending your kids to college).
Basically, what I believe is that those of us who are considered to be mad and whom society has castigated over the centuries as mad, may actually just be people who think differently, think better, than the rest of the mob.
And that throughout history there have been early examples of Homo Sapiens 2 who generally have had a rough time because their Homo Sapiens 2 thinking clashes with the more basic thinking of Homo Sapiens 1.
Early examples like Jesus Christ, for instance. We’ll come on to him, later as well.
The more I thought, the more I realised that Homo Sapiens 2 looks at the world in a better way. That is the one certain distinguishing feature of HS2, we have better ideas. HS2 are more perceptive, more sensitive, and a lot more loving than HS1.
HS2 are not violent. HS2 do not start or fight wars. HS2 sees that consumerism and capitalism are each a really bad idea.
And a lot more else that will be explained later. Basically we’re just better thinkers.
Simply put, Homo Sapiens 2 are more humane than the HS1 mob.
And this book will tell you how HS2s think and why you are so wrong to still be thinking HS1. Not that you can help it, you haven’t evolved enough to be anything else yet.
You should also know that HS2 thinking believes in the possibility that this life IS a dress rehearsal.
And you ought to worry about that. A lot.
More NOTES (to be written up properly later but I can’t be arsed just now)
HS1 attraction to the physical is ridiculous. That doesn’t advance anything.
HS2 thinking – humans are like seedlings, a Divine Being seeds out the best of us for next stage. The most HS2 are picked. Because you wouldn’t want a bunch of angry, beastial HS1s running around Paradise spewing over everybody they weren’t already hitting.
HS2 thinking that HS1s are wrecking the planet and if HS2s don’t intervene, there won’t BE a planet for when, in millions and millions of years, all people are HS2. So in order to preserve the evolution of the race, HS2s are trying to save the planet and alter HS1 thinking.
So I thought, if I’m right – and the logic seems to me to suggest that I am – then I had better write this all down in the hope that maybe it might help to explain how HS2 thinks and for you to see whether you are HS2 or not.
By the way, you’re probably not; judging by the way you behave.
But you could be. I do know other advanced HS2s. I know two in particular; three if you count my youngest daughter. A lot of my friends and loved ones have HS2 in them, but these three are especially advanced.
Anyway, it’s a bit more complicated than that and it all connects with the HS2 view of Creation.
If, as I am quite prepared to accept in lieu of a better idea, that The Big Bang created everything, then that means that this cataclysmic explosion of 12 billion years ago created not only life, it also created consciousness.
That must be the case. Where the fuck else does consciousness come from?
So consciousness is a part of the universe that was created by the Big Bang.
HS2 thinking is that the universe must therefore be one big mass of consciousness and that after our bodies die the one thing that does not die is our consciousness.
Instead, our consciousness just goes back to the universal pool of it.
It gets a little bit more complicated but don’t worry, the racy good stuff is just a few more pages on.
HS2 thinking is that there are Good and Bad forces in the Universe and that the Universe is essentially things in a state of harmony. When the harmony is harmonic, all is Good. But
(NEED TO EXPLAIN/WRITE UP THESE NOTES, OR MAYBE NOT? DO IT LATER).