Roger Peters Copyright © 2012
The Quaternary Investigation into the Evolution Toward the Uniqueness in Shakespeare
Roger Peters Copyright © 2017
Preamble – Shakespeare's nature-based philosophy Contents
The idea Shakespeare’s deeply philosophic appreciation of the natural
preconditions for life and art is both more consistent and comprehensive
than that of any other recognised philosopher will strike some as contrary
to the traditional view of Shakespeare as an incomparable ‘Bard’ with no
intentional philosophy. After all, T. S. Eliot allows Shakespeare only a ‘rag
bag’ philosophy at best, and William Wordsworth thinks the crucial
twenty-eight Mistress sonnets a ‘puzzle-peg’.
While many suspect there is a profound philosophy embedded in
Shakespeare’s works, they do not bring to the plays – and particularly the
Sonnets – the appropriate degree of philosophical acuity or even common
sense to appreciate readily Shakespeare’s peerless achievement. However, it
is not difficult to show Shakespeare structures his works – all his plays,
sonnets and poems – with a completely consistent natural logic common
to humankind within nature.
Once we apprehend and apply the required relationship of natural
givens or preconditions, Shakespeare’s Folio of thirty-six plays, his 154
sonnets and four longer poems suddenly become a brilliantly interrelated
corpus of unmatched perspicacity and structural simplicity revealing the
basis of the depth and breadth of his understanding and expression.
When Shakespeare arranges his Sonnets of 1609, he lays out systematically the natural dynamic of body and mind that informs all his poems
and plays. The level of premeditated structuring is sufficient to derive the
Sonnet template (below) as a schematic representation of his nature-based
Shakespeare’s Sonnets reveal a deliberate logical and numerological
organisation into an overarching set of 154 sonnets that incorporates two
sequences of 126 sonnets to the male and 28 sonnets to the female plus
the increase argument of the first fourteen sonnets. Then follows the
deliberate separation of beauty and truth in the Mistress sequence and
conflation of truth and beauty in the Master Mistress sequence.
The representation of the thematic and numerical relationships in the
Sonnet template show how the various parts of the 154-sonnet arrangement
cohere isomorphically to provide a powerful tool for interpretation and
exploration. The Nature template - Sonnets maintains the terminology of the
154-sonnet set to demonstrate how the 1609 Sonnets configure the
Nature Template - Sonnets
It is possible to reduce Shakespeare’s semi-generic characterisation of
the principal components of his philosophy in the 1609 Sonnets to their
everyday equivalents to form a corresponding Nature template. The modifications identify Mistress as female, Master Mistress as male and beauty as
The everyday constituents of the Nature template show Shakespeare, more
than any other thinker, includes only unquestionable givens or logical
preconditions in the basic structuring of his Sonnets – as the basis for all
his works. Each element is an irreducible feature of the constitution and
operation of the human body and mind. They are not optional but
essential components for the physical and cognitive functions of body and
Shakespeare’s philosophic tour de force both originates in and
reconverges on the concept nature. Everything Shakespeare writes suggests
he has an unerring appreciation that the word nature is the only
overarching singularity in the English language (and in other Latinate
languages), which is referred to entirely without qualification. In his
Sonnets – and in his other works – the status of nature is never questioned
but is accepted invariably as the ground from which all else entails.
The unique use of the word nature in everyday language reveals its
logical status in the lexicon and grammar of thought, speech and writing.
We use no other generic word – not universe, not world, not god – only
in the singular. Similarly, no other word in English operates without
articles such as ‘the’, ‘an’, or ‘a’, and nature does not have to resort to the
faux singularity of a proper noun, as does the name God.
As Ludwig Wittgenstein realises, all words as vocalised sounds are
effectively arbitrary before they are defined through their use in the
language-game or grammar of language. Hence, the preference for the
word nature to represent the singularity of everything not only preconfigures its uniqueness but also points to its logical ramifications within
human life and thought.
The English word nature derives from the Latin natura (‘birth’, ‘origin’,
etc.) or (g)natus (‘born’) or (g)nasci (‘to be born’, ‘originate’). So the word
chosen by apologetic philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and Baruch
Spinoza with which to characterise the relation between their monotheistic
male God and ‘His’ creation carries with it the implication that nature and
being born are etymologically inseparable.
Shakespeare recognises the fundamental link between nature at large and
human procreation (again more consistently than any other thinker) when
he structures his Sonnet set thematically and numerologically into two
sexual sequences, one to the female and the other to the male – within the
context of the whole set of 154 sonnets representing nature. Shakespeare
dedicates twenty-eight sonnets to the female and 126 to the male,
effectively dividing the set to replicate the sexual differentiation of male
from female in nature.
Shakespeare’s next move is entirely consistent with both nature’s
philosophic singularity and its archaic etymology. The precondition for any
birth (human or other sexual species) in nature is the differentiation at
some point in evolutionary/biological history of the male from the
originary female with consequent requirement for the male to return to
the female to perpetuate their kind.
It seems, then, Shakespeare’s unprecedented inclusion of a female and
male sequence in his set of 154 sonnets based in nature has a deeply
biological/logical premise and consequence. That he understands this to be
the case is confirmed when he has the first fourteen sonnets argue specifically for increase. They warn unequivocally of the irreversible outcome if
all humans failed to increase (sonnet 11 specifically).
Already embedded in the word nature are the natural implications
Shakespeare articulates in the overall structure of the set and the first
set-piece argument for increase within the set. The sexual division of male
from female in nature is not only the pivotal moment that leads to the
multiplicity of human sexual and gender types and potentialities, its logical
implications are pre-recorded in the word nature that grammatically
represents our abiding sense of singularity.
With these three biological/logical moves, Shakespeare naturally – and
so readily – constructs the first half of what we refer to as the Nature
template - Sonnets. By logically aligning the preconditions for physical life,
he effectively forms a completely consistent Body template. In turn, the
Body template represents the natural precursors to the second half of the
In the structural dynamic of Shakespeare’s intensely philosophic 154
sonnets, his next move is to show how the logical operations of the human
mind are configured entirely isomorphic with bodily dispositions. In
keeping with the rigorous natural logic of his initial insights (configured
within the Body template), the constituents of the Mind template consider
only unarguable givens representing the human being’s apprehensions,
expressions and intuitions within singular nature.
Shakespeare begins his examination of human sensory perception by
acknowledging every human being apprehends the natural world
primarily through the senses. In the Sonnets, and particularly in the first
eleven sonnets to the female (or Mistress), he uses the word ‘beauty’ to
characterise the unprejudiced singularity of incoming sensations. He
recognises (as do other philosophers) that the everyday sensations of
colour, sound, smell, touch and taste are unbidden and unmediated
singular effects (sonnets 127 to 137).
Then, as Shakespeare recognises in sonnets 138 to 152, the determination
of true and false (a dynamic he calls ‘truth’) occurs only in the context of
articulate language. In the grammar of language or saying, we continually
swear and forswear concepts based in words to comprise the lexicon of
possible or impossible conceptual correspondences to things in nature.
Lastly are the interior sensations of the mind (that Shakespeare also calls
beauty) such as intuitions and visions that occur initially as singular
unbidden and unmediated effects arising from the unconscious mind.
Such sensations are then either articulated in language or given singular
expression in music, poetry or art. Shakespeare dedicates the lengthy
sequence to the male or Master Mistress to discussing the natural logic and
ramifications of mind-derived sensations (sonnets 20 to 126).
Shakespeare’s Sonnets recognise that these three organically dynamic
activities – incoming sensations, enlanguaged ideas of right and wrong, and
interior sensations of the mind – are the logical basis for all sensory,
cognitive and imaginative possibilities. They constitute the irreducible
components of the second half of the Sonnet template or the Mind template.
The layout of the complete Nature template makes visible the derivation
of mind-based activities in the Mind template from their isomorphic
precursors in the Body template. In evolutionary or Darwinian terms, it is
not surprising that the Mind template should morph out of the Body
template as the mind derives from the body over evolutionary time.
Shakespeare acknowledges the body to mind development by recognising
that logically anything he says about the Body template presumes on the
reflectivity and reflexivity of the Mind template. In other words, he accepts
that what he says and writes about nature and the sexual dynamic has only
as much soundness as his mind’s ability to remain completely at one with
his body’s natural dispositions and logical alignment.
Shakespeare dedicates five sonnets (15 to 19) immediately after the
fourteen increase sonnets to facilitate the transition from the sexual
dynamic in nature to its natural correlate in the sensory and cognitive
functions of the human mind. He accepts the Mind template derives from
the Body template and conversely everything he thinks, says or writes
depends on the body dynamic for its perspicacity and potentiality.
One of the consequences of aligning the natural givens from the Sonnets
in the Nature template to form the Body template and the Mind template is a
graphic insight into Shakespeare’s appreciation of the logical distinction
between the sexual and the erotic. In his Sonnets, there is a clear separation
of the literal arguments about the significance of the sexual dynamic from
the more evocative or even provocative verse as he moves to make the
erotic dynamic palpable for the protagonists.
Shakespeare very deliberately identifies the sexual with the female/male
differentiation in nature and the consequent requirement for increase.
Similarly, he is equally determined in identifying the erotic with all
mind-based constructs and their attendant desires while recognising the
erotic is logically consequent on the sexual dynamic in nature.
Shakespeare appreciates that the most overdetermined mind-based
construct, the biblical monotheistic God, demonstrates through His purely
erotic genesis (as with the plethora of Goddesses and Gods in creation
myths) that all mind-based activities are inherently erotic because they are
imaginative constructs founded logically on the sexual dynamic in nature.
This very brief summary of the derivation of the Nature template from
Shakespeares Sonnets of 1609 and the intimation he publishes the
154-sonnet set to present the philosophy behind all his plays and poems is
based on the evidence and argument available at length and in detail in
published volumes (2005 and forthcoming) and on the Quaternary
Crucial to the purposes of the current essay is the simple demonstration
the Sonnet template both conforms to evident structural features of the
1609 Sonnets and is logically sound. It supersedes all attempts over 4000
years by more psychologically afflicted philosophers to develop a sound
philosophy free from the need to validify speculative claims for any
mind-based constructs - particularly the biblical God, who usually gets a
get out of jail free card by apologists.
As we consider a number of philosophic issues in the following sections
of this essay, it will become apparent traditional apologetic reformulations
of the sound logic of the Nature template that attempt to represent the
claims of biblical religions for their mind-based male-based God and his
pantheon of mind-based constructs reveal the illogicality and hubris
associated with such supererogatory constructions.
The God template (below) is merely the worst-case scenario that characterises (inevitably crudely) the intractability of mind-based male-based
beliefs. It shows clearly why such beliefs are at odds with nature and the
natural implications for human physical and mental well-being.
The intent in the following sections of the essay is to take a number of
seemingly disparate issues and show how to apply the Nature template to
first analyse the problematic situations and then either facilitate their
resolution or demonstrate the reason for their intractability. We will see
that conformity to the Nature template allows philosophic perspicacity
whereas distortions to the Nature template to form equivalents of the God
template prevent such consistency and comprehensiveness.
1. Philosophy versus Psychology Contents
Why, we ask, has no one in 400 years since William Shakespeare’s death in
1616 previously sounded out his consistent and comprehensive nature-based
Sonnet philosophy? Moreover, as a corollary, what has traditional or
academic philosophy been doing over the last 400 years or more if it has
not been doing philosophy?
The simple answer is that all other philosophers over the last few
millennia have been in varying degrees practicing psychology in the guise
of philosophy. Consequently, not one ‘great’ – or lesser – philosopher from
the 1600s onwards appreciates the profound and systematic philosophy in
In contrast, because Shakespeare bases his understanding in a sound and
encompassing nature-based philosophy, he has deeply penetrating insights
into the near universally practiced psychology-as-philosophy syndrome.
His nature-based philosophy also enables him to give unprecedented
expression to the vicissitudes of human psychology (including the idea of
an imaginary soul) throughout his play and poems.
Even modern nature-orientated thinkers prove blind to the sound and
comprehensive nature-based philosophy in Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Their
shortcomings relate directly to the role many have as academics in Tertiary
philosophy departments – or an undue faith in such academics.
Effectively, most so-called philosophers are still constrained by the fact
Universities were founded around 1100AD with the express expectation
scholars would justify the biblical belief in an omnipotent Creator God.
Consequently, apologetics has been the principal form of philosophic
practice over the last 400 years – and the vestiges of its justificatory
techniques continue to afflict even the most skeptical thinkers.
Furthermore, all apologetic thinkers before 1100AD were similarly
determined to demonstrate the cogency of male-based biblical beliefs
through the process of valid rather than sound argument. However,
because all such beliefs are mind-based constructs or mind-induced
desires, then the corresponding so-called philosophy amounts to no more
than psychological justification for reified or personified imaginary ideals
Once a mind-based construct like the biblical monotheistic God is
given priority over nature and is enforced as dogma, it inverts the natural
order of body before mind. When believers make the mind prior to the
body, and in effect subsume the body into its mind-based creativity,
inconsistencies abound not the least of which is the perennial – and
ironically named – mind/body problem.
That many so-called philosophers address themselves to the mind/body
problem over the centuries without questioning the psychological
perversion the inversion of the body/mind dynamic represents indicts their
faith in the redemptive value of valid argumentative ploys – which early
logicians including Aristotle invent wittingly or unwittingly for them.
Comparing the Nature template’s sound natural logic with the contrived
logical validity of the God template makes graphic the artificiality of the
mind/body problem. The only justification for persisting with the rampant
inconsistencies of the God template is the psychological vulnerability – or
sometimes bravado – of those at dispositional odds with their natural
What sets Shakespeare apart from every apologetic philosopher is the
comprehensiveness of his nature-based understanding that incorporates
the female/male priority (anathema to male-based beliefs) consistently all
the way to the deepest sensations and soulful intuitions of the imaginative
mind. By doing so, he demonstrates the complete illogicality of the God
template with its pretentious occlusion of the originary female and the
preemptive substitution of a purely mind-based sensation of psychological
singularity and simplicity (hubristically named God) for the incontestability of the philosophic unity and diversity of nature.
While no other thinker has Shakespeare’s depth and range, in the early
Twentieth Century the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein does set out to
reject imposed metaphysical imperatives and recover a sound philosophy
from the mess of historical psychological speculation. After attempting –
but failing definitively – in his first period of work to show language is
reducible to an atomic/molecular logic derived from nuclear physics,
Wittgenstein subsequently makes tentative moves towards a more broadly
Returning to philosophy in the 1930s, Wittgenstein begins by
demonstrating that language generates meaning only through the natural
dynamic of everyday use over time. He comes to appreciate that ‘language
games’ are founded on ‘forms of life’ and the facts of ‘nature’ and having
‘parents’ and these natural givens provide the unquestionable basis of
‘certainty’ for the purposeful function of any language game.
In the later years of his career, Wittgenstein also writes at length on the
philosophy of psychology. His treatment of the philosophical/psychological confusion, though, only goes as far as psychological phenomena
such as visual illusions. His investigation focuses on the phenomenon he
calls ‘seeing as’. Typically, ‘seeing as’ involves the ability of the mind to see
two different images in the same shape but not at the same time – as in
the often reproduced duck/rabbit diagram.
Underlying Wittgenstein’s investigations into the philosophy of
psychology is the deeper issue of mistaking psychology for philosophy.
Unfortunately, while Wittgenstein does appreciate that nature and parents
are unquestionable givens in regard to mind-based activity, he does not
devise a systematic account of the relationship between natural philosophic
certainties and visual psychological conundrums.
While Wittgenstein does identify nature and parents as unquestionable
givens, in the context of his simplistic take on the philosophy of psychology,
other thinkers ignore his natural grounds for language and focus on the
apparent relativistic implications of his examination of sensory conundrums.
What certainty, they ask, can philosophy have if simple visual phenomena
lead to conflicting interpretations? Hence, the ease with which such
thinkers align Wittgenstein with psychological philosophies such as
The confusions arise and multiply because those practicing psychology
as if they are doing philosophy cannot see past the mind-based constructs
psychology generates. From their mind-based disadvantage, they consider
both philosophy and psychology to be irredeemably rooted in the mind
and hence both subject to the same doubts and historicity.
Both male-based/mind-based beliefs and modern skepticism – typified
by the post-modern malaise – consider the mind prior to the body.
Effectively, they lock themselves into a self-validating trance that denigrates
the body – and hence nature.
Over three-hundred years before Wittgenstein provides a mere sketch of
the relation between philosophy and psychology, Shakespeare adroitly and
profoundly redresses the philosophic issues Wittgenstein tentatively
investigates in his determination to find certainty beyond traditional
mind/based metaphysics. Shakespeare does so by first recovering the
natural logic of human evolution of body before mind and structures his
philosophy with only unquestionable givens. By accepting uncontestable
preconditions, he then shows how and where psychology relates to
The confusion in conflating psychology and philosophy evaporates by
recognising philosophy as the relationship between the unarguable givens
or natural preconditions for both the human body and mind. Shakespeare
is the only philosopher who sets out all the natural givens basic to human
existence and consequently for the operations of the human mind. He is
also a peerless poet and playwright who is able to give vivid expression to
his insights into everyday human life and the depths of mature love.
Each of the components of the Nature template is unequivocal and
irreplaceable for human beings to be the sort of thinking and emotional
animals they are. From singular nature, to the sexual dynamic of female and
male and the logic of increase devolves the constitutional sensory, language
and super sensory faculties of the mind. The fact of human sexuality in
nature and the consequent isomorphic capacity of the mind to use
language to interrelate true and false amidst sensory inputs and outputs
underpin all other possibilities.
Whereas philosophy sets out the natural relation between body and
mind in terms of unarguable givens, psychology pertains only to the
operations of the mind as it responds to opportunities and vicissitudes in
the world. The syndrome of confounding philosophy with psychology
arises in part because the body dynamic of sexual increase in nature is the
precondition for the operations of the mind. This ironically leads to the
reflexive ability of the mind to reconstitute the natural dynamic within its
own parameters creating the illusion of an organisation independent of
nature – typically the God template of biblical religions.
The single most revealing marker of such inversions of natural
philosophy is the eroticism underlying all myths of origins. The confusion
of sexuality with eroticism and vice versa in modern psychology and
psychiatry has its roots in the unwillingness to address fully the inversions
introduced by male-based faiths a few thousand years ago.
Shakespeare’s perennial influence both on philosophy and psychology,
with philosophers writing books attempting to explain the philosophic
depth in Shakespeare’s works and psychiatrists misattributing his characters’
traits onto Shakespeare himself, belies his unparalleled clarity about the
logical relation of philosophy and psychology. By comparison, Wittgenstein
flounders in the simplistic sensory implications of the conundrum.
The Nature template (readily derivable from the Sonnets) shows incontrovertibly just how philosophy, psychology, the sexual and the erotic, body
and mind stand in relation to one another.
2. Nature versus God Contents
Apologetic philosophers from Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), Baruch Spinoza
(1632-77) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) – and even contemporary
thinkers – perennially attempt to reconcile the issues of ascendancy
surrounding the words God and nature. With the recovery of Greek
thought in the early Renaissance, the conflict between Plato and Aristotle
– between absolute idealism and natural empiricism – resurfaces in the
standoff over God and nature.
It is no accident of etymology or epistemology that such philosophers
swing the debate around the two words God and nature. The monotheistic
God of the Bible, as the most singular of the religiously unborn, represents
all mind-derived entities not generated through the natural process of
procreation (or as Shakespeare calls it – increase). The word nature on the
other hand derives from the Latin natura (natus) or nasci meaning to be
born. Hence, nature represents everything that depends on or subtends
upon the dynamic of increase.
The mono-God, then, represents effectively all mind-based male-based
constructs and anything not subject to the natural dynamic of increase.
Specifically, because there are no correlates to mind-derived sensations
external to the human mind, the idea of God is a purely mind-based
fabrication or fantasy.
In contrast, nature represents everything that devolves around the natural
propensity to propagate and the necessity to procreate for the persistence
of sexual species. If humankind, for instance, decides not to procreate – or
neglects to do so en masse – there will be no more believers to sustain the
mind-based sensation called God, but the full panoply of nature (sans
humans) would continue regardless.
The response of philosophers to the God/nature question is as diverse
as Aquinas’ attempting to show God commands nature, to Spinoza arguing
God and nature represent the same thing – or to Nietzsche announcing
the death of God. Then there are modern philosophers who argue the
mind is dependent on the body and so any mind-based constructs like
God are logically dependent on nature – and not vice versa.
Yet it is William Shakespeare who systematically and effectively corrects
all the traditional anomalies – and the subsequent apologetic posturing.
Implicit in his organisation of the 1609 Sonnets (as the basis for all his plays)
is a nature-based philosophy that logically differentiates and delineates the
meanings of the words nature and God. Shakespeare’s clarity about the
exact relationship is both unparalleled and comprehensive of the breadths
and depths of the relationship.
The structural arrangement of the 154 sonnets – which the Nature
template represents – shows the logical priority of the basic components
with singular nature as the groundedness for the eventual manifestation of
the interior sensation of the mind believers call God.
By ascribing 154 sonnets to nature, Shakespeare recognises the unique
grammar of the word nature, which occurs only in the singular when
referring to nature at large. By giving nature the numbering 154,
Shakespeare knows that traditional numerological addition configures its
unity: 154 = 1+5+4 = 10 = 1+0 = 1. Similarly, in English, the word nature
uniquely accepts no articles such as the, an or a – as do the words God,
universe, world, etc.
The distinctive grammar of the two words nature and God should be
sufficient to show that ever-present nature is the logically singular default
or given and the sensation called God (or whatever name) is a mind-based
language-dependent construct subtending on the naturally evolved body/
mind dynamic. Furthermore, the word God cribs its apparent singularity
as a name by capitalising on the conventional uniqueness of proper nouns.
While Shakespeare appreciates the simplicity of the demonstration, he
knows there are contributing factors militating against an easy acceptance
of the obvious. Over the last 4000 or so years, each of the principal
components of the Nature template has been subject to dislocation or even
complete inversion as a consequence of the beguiling influence of
believing the mind-generated sensation called God has priority over all
else – and bizarrely creates everything out of nothing.
Typically, biblical mythology idealises nature as an Edenic Paradise and
elevates the male as precursor for the female. In biblical myth, the female
becomes the locus of death rather than physical increase, whereas in nature
the female and not the male is the locus of the birth process. With their
immaculate conceptions, virgin births, disembodied resurrections and
re-embodied judgments, death is the perpetual recourse of such religions.
In turn, the biblical about-face brands immediate sensations as the
source of evil rather than unmediated or neutral inputs to the mind. The
upshot is to invert the natural true/false dynamic, with mind-based
constructs (like the male God) given priority over natural contingencies.
Ironically, biblical devotees worship interior sensations of the mind as fully
cognizant and literary, rational Gods and Goddesses.
Basic to the perverted religious syndrome is the inclination to prioritise
the mind over the body. Consequent on the seductive attractivity of
mind-based sensations is the confusion of the eroticism of mind-based
desires for body-determined sexuality. All Gods and Goddesses, including
the monotheistic God of the Bible, are born of erotic and not sexual
The Nature template captures with incredible economy the verifiable
dynamic and identifies precisely those elements so readily distorted by
mind-based beliefs. In the Sonnets, Shakespeare discusses the various
elements and their susceptibility to corruption by mind-based zealotry.
It is possible to represent the distortions in the God template (illustrated
in the preamble) that inverts the Nature template to show the corruptions
and their consequences. The Nature template, in the light of the corrupt
God template, critiques the faulty logic behind the inclination to invert,
confuse or conflate the relationship between the word God and nature.
Nature is the uniquely singular word that encapsulates all else including
the singular mind-based sensation named God.
The word nature represents all possibilities by default – not by
convention or legislation. In contrast, the word God while also referring
to singular sensations of the mind – even the most intense sensations of
connectivity and purposefulness – requires special etymological conditions
to represent that singularity. It acquires a capital G and the first three
Mosaic Commandments to regulate it into its privileged position by
capitalising on the singular reference of proper nouns. Whereas no other
word readily substitutes for nature, God has synonyms in Allah, Jehovah, et
al., – all with capitals and all imposed by fiat.
Shakespeare recognises that the God template inverts wholesale the
Nature template. He not only clearly details the type and extent of the
corruption, he also examines in the thirty-six Folio plays the malconsequences and gratuitous violence that follow when believers in whatever
version of the God template ignore their common base in nature and
impose and enforce their mind-based/male based beliefs.
While Shakespeare acknowledges in detail the inversion of natural logic
into cul-de-sacs of psychological intractability, he is also uses methods
throughout his works to reverse psychologise the impasses and cruelty
issuing from the imposition of the God template as a universal norm. He
uses a variety of tactics to counter the worst consequences of its unbridled
(See Section 9 for a discussion of Shakespeare’s reverse psychological
3. Sexual versus Erotic Contents
The most perversely erotic entity the human imagination ever creates is
the male-based mind-based monotheistic God of biblical myth. More
sensationally erotic than pornographic imagery or even nudity in
religious art, the singular sensation called God both genuinely evokes and
simultaneously misrepresents the deepest erotic impulses in the human
The apparently self-creating mono-God of revealed religion not only
capitalises on the deepest mind-based sensations, in biblical myth scribes
intensify the mind-generated pure erotic frisson by declaring ‘His’ priority
over the originary female and the biology of increase – so effectively the
whole of nature.
When ancient scribal cultures were established, male-orientated myths
of origins provide the overarching contexts under which Kings and
Queens rule – and still rule – with impunity. Even in Twenty-first Century
democracies, the biblical myth remains entrenched in the Anglicanism and
Monarchy of Great Britain and hence the British Commonwealth.
Similarly, in republics like the United States of America, despite the
separation of State and Church in the American Constitution, Christianity
resurfaces by default in State functions and institutions. Of the growing
number of democracies in the world, many still pay obeisance in their
political observances to the God of the undemocratic and misogynistic
Significantly, in the global demography, the multiplicity of myths in a
plethora of world religions reveals the inherent factionalism behind
traditional male-based beliefs. As a consequence, in the absence of a viable
global myth, there is a burgeoning awareness of the natural logic that
enables mythic expression.
Significantly, the French artist Marcel Duchamp (1887-1966) provides
an exacting critique of the conditions for mythic expression in his Bride
Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (1912-23) and Étant donnés (1946-68).
Moreover, 300 years earlier Shakespeare gives an even more trenchant
critique of the logic of myth in his 1609 Sonnets and 1623 Folio of plays.
The crucial distinction both Duchamp and Shakespeare make for
understanding the logic of mythic expression is between the sexual and
the erotic. Significantly, no Goddess or God in mythical stories is born
through sexual or biological means – i.e. through the womb and birth
canal of the fertilised female. The non-sexual genesis of all inaugurating
Goddesses and/or Gods from the multitude of world religions signals that
all mind-based sensations are inherently or logically erotic – as are the
language constructs they inspire.
The Nature template highlights the natural logic of the sexual-to-erotic
dynamic basic to all living beings, which Shakespeare articulates in full in
his Sonnets and explores in his plays. Conversely, the God template clearly
shows the inversion of the dynamic when it institutes the erotic as the
precursor for the sexual. The inconsistencies and injustices consequent on
the willful corruption of the Nature template speak to the philosophic
illogicalities and gratuitous injustices endemic to all male-based mind-based
The myths of origin at the heart of the world’s cultures memorialise the
mind-based birth suite of all goddesses and gods in societies’ religions. For
devotees, the inscribed eroticism underscoring the representations of their
goddesses and gods in myths manufactures the attractivity of religious texts.
In other words, by swallowing the body dynamic whole into the mind
dynamic, biblical myth converts nature into a vast paradisiacal erotic
landscape (the most recent manifestation of which is the metaphysical
theory of the Big Bang). Ungoverned by natural prerogatives, the God of
biblical myth – in a glowing personification that leaves His more salacious
counterparts from the realm of mind-satiating artistry in the shade –
evinces the most idealistically pure mind-enhanced epiphanies. However,
exactly the same deeply felt sensations when called God can incite equally
intense mind-based delusions leading to the most gratuitous of murderous
Crucially, Shakespeare recognises that the unacknowledged deep
eroticism at the heart of biblical religions, while satiating the mythic
potentialities of the human mind, inverts and distorts the natural
relationship between the sexual body and the erotic mind. The combination
of satiated mind-based sensations and the elevation of their deeply affective
singularities to venerated divinities speaks to the intensity of the sensations
but also to an ignorance of their natural mind-alone provenance and
Gian Lorenzo Bernini captures brilliantly – if somewhat unintentionally
– the relationship between the divine and the erotic in his rapturous
sculpture The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa (~1650). In his exquisite marble
evocation of the ecstatic moment Carmelite Teresa of Avila consummates
her heady union with God, Bernini interprets her notes as suggesting she
simultaneously masturbates to an erotic climax.
Ironically, the Catholic Church’s general proscription on masturbation
foists unfairly on the laity a measure required to discourage the onanism
rife amongst an unnaturally eroticised celibate clergy. The paedophilia
prevalent amongst religious orders is a criminal consequence of the
consecrated puerility of hermetic eroticism.
The Nature template illustrates clearly the source of the delusion as well
as the reason for its mind-altering intensity and apparent intractability.
Because everything, including the mind-based sensation called God, is part
of nature, then at the deepest levels in the human mind the sensations
experienced are effectively the mind’s simulacrum of its connectedness to
the whole of nature.
No wonder the experience of the deeply erotic sensation called God has
the capacity to lull the mind into preferring a delimited version of nature
pseudo-certified free of the perceived vicissitudes of the sexual dynamic.
The Churches and their avatars like Jesus Christ – whose erotic death on
the Cross forges a promissory guarantee or I.O.U. for asexual bliss in
eternity – proffer an anodyne Heaven.
Shakespeare’s plays and longer poems explore and critique the full
gamut of the dubious legacy of the mind-marooned biblical God – and
Christ – but always from within the context of the natural logic of the
nature-based philosophy articulated in the Sonnets of 1609. Shakespeare
covers the range from the rarified closet eroticism in monasteries and
nunneries to their unbridled counterpart, the murderous machinations of
King Richard III. Richard III evokes ‘God’ one hundred times – significantly more mentions of the word God than in of any Shakespeare’s other
Comedies, Histories and Tragedies in the 1623 Folio.
When biblical and other idealising mythologies corrupt the Nature
template to form the inverted equivalent effectively as the God template,
they render the sexual secondary to the erotic. Because the female is the
precursor for the male in nature, the inversion creates a syndrome in which
the female needs to be continuously denigrated and marginalized.
Hence, the Churches through their predominantly male-exclusive
hierarchies proscribe both increase and sexuality. The consequence is the
obscenity of a male clergy imposing unnatural strictures on childbirth and
delimiting the natural multiplicity of gender dispositions to a unequal
duality of dominant male and subservient female.
The impositions of beliefs in mind-based Gods who logically cannot
procreate is completely at odds with a woman’s natural right to manage
her body and hence her pregnancy – through abortion if necessary.
Moreover, the similar disregard for the natural formation of a variety of
feminine and masculine gender types such as homosexuals, transsexuals,
lesbians, etc., in the period after conception reveals the illogicality of
enforcing the belief in male supremacy constitutional to male-based
The iniquities are particularly acute in Churches like the Catholic
where the Pope is staunchly celibate and monks and nuns become role
models for all believers – in imitation of a Christ crucified without
progeny. Hence, the Catholic Church is most extreme in enforcing
unnatural practices and expectations on its adherents under threat of
The terrible irony – maybe even the elusive reverse psychology of
Shakespearean irony – is that a Church that outlaws abortions and
homosexuals is itself the most diabolically erotic entity ever instituted –
worse than explicit pornography or even whorehouses. At least those
practices, in which increase remains a possibility, do not sanctify the
celibate eroticism personified in the anti-nature, anti-female and anti-sexual
figurehead of Papal righteousness.
4. Technocratic mindsets Contents
In the minds of those with deeply ingrained linear or technocratic
dispositions or tendencies, a belief in overly imaginative constructs such as
creation myths, cosmological constants, imminent robotics, the ascendancy
of artificial intelligence, or even Big Bangs, can override or completely
confound the natural relationships evident in the Nature template.
An insight into the source of the syndrome emerges by following the
Nature template through from one end to the other. It is then possible to
throw light on the reasons why those with technocratic or linear mind-sets
have difficulty moderating their fascination with mind-based inventions
Thinkers and/or practitioners with technocratic dispositions frequently
minimize or dismiss the first or Body half of the Nature template. They focus
instead on localised areas of the second or Mind half of the Nature template
– the investigative fact-to-facture (or true/false) dynamic of language and
the imaginative facility driven by interior sensations in the mind.
Such thinkers ignore or denigrate the first half of the Nature template –
with its uncontestable givens – in their headlong desire to ordain and
exploit mind-based inventiveness and creativity. They overlook or dismiss
the universality and singularity of nature, the undeniability of female
priority and the logic of increase in their beguilement with and advocacy
for purely mind-based constructs.
Ironically, the mind’s ability to generate and accommodate an extraordinary number of facts and fictions is isomorphic with the body’s capacity
to generate billions of similar but non-identical human beings – along
with its untapped reservoir of multi-cellular potential. The mind both
accommodates a multitude of facts and conceptualises a vast array of
imaginative possibilities of which only a fraction are practical enough to
be manufactured into items useful for human productivity and survival.
While there may be a number of biological or conceptual mechanisms
driving the tendency to prioritise mind-based constructs, once embedded
in susceptible minds – and the syndrome can be apparent in either males
or females – the inclination to believe in technocratic solutions without
reflection seems almost irreversible.
The worst consequences of the near religious belief in such over-reaching
constructs can be constrained only by constitutional or legislative
procedures that enforce the birthright sensibility of the complete Nature
template. Foremost is the American Constitution where Thomas Jefferson
(in particular) appreciates the logic of instituting the total separation of a
nature-based State from a male-God based Church. The Constitution
prevents any of the many religious constructs from becoming the religion
of the United States or of individual States.
The need to enact precautionary legislative measures to counter linear
technocratically inspired beliefs and impositions anticipates the religious
fervor with which over-masculinised minds invert the natural body/mind
relationship. Such minds override the isomorphic connectivity between
the originary female and offshoot male and the consequent capacity of the
mind to mirror the biological relationship in the language dynamic that
arbitrates the logic of true and false.
When viewed in the light of the Nature template derived from
Shakespeare’s works, the connection between body-based givens that
generate the offshoot male (who depends on the female for reproductivity) and mind-based constructs (that appear to stand apart from nature)
is plain to see.
The isomorphic relationships across the Body/Mind connectivity of the
Nature template make it possible to appreciate the logical consequences the
singularity of the originary female and the provisional status of the
offshoot male have for the language dynamic of true and false. The female
corresponds to ‘true’ because within sexual species she is the undifferentiated groundedness for all human possibilities while the male corresponds
to ‘false’ because in the larger evolutionary process the female can survive
without his sexual contribution.
As Shakespeare argues in the Sonnets, the archetypal recalcitrant male is
fated to die ‘alone’ if he (and hence the whole of humankind) ignores the
logic of increase. Likewise ideas developed in language out of the
imagination (the ‘false’ in the Mind half of the Nature template) lose their
connectivity to nature if they are treated as self-actuating and/or self-perpetuating entities.
The manic tendency to act against the natural prerogative to increase,
further exacerbates the irrecoverability from immersion in the seductiveness
of mind-based constructs. Biologically the male cannot exist independent
of the female and also expect to persist across generations.
Unconditional religious celibacy, for instance, is a self-defeating
syndrome that requires generation after generation of sexual propagated
males to commit to the erotic celibate fantasy. Every God-infallible Pope
is born of a biological mother – and father.
The delusional syndrome of male-alone perpetuation has its source in
the biology of sexual reproduction where some originary female embryos
become more masculinised and correspondingly are proportionately less
feminised. After conception, in the process of cell division and with the
feminisation and masculinisation of the zygote, there are varying degrees
to which genes and hormones engender the balance of masculinisation in
relation to the underpinning feminization.
For those males who are born more masculinised than feminised (and
similarly for overly masculinised females) there appears to be a collateral
tendency to accept – or believe religiously in – the ‘false’ part of the true/
false dynamic in human understanding through language and sensations.
Even more so, is the susceptibility to male-based mind-based constructs
that are no more than reified manifestations of inner sensation of the
The most difficult constructs to ameliorate are those that verbalise,
configure or give form to pure male-based/mind-based sensations –
typically, the deepest singular sensation is called God, or other equally
evocative epithets. Such pure mind-based constructs – originally generated
speculatively for enhancing the deeper cultural intimations and expressivity of the species – when divorced from their sexual and sensory basis
in nature become blindly exclusive, frequently exploitative and often
To some, the interrelationship of the isomorphic components of the
Nature template, with the base physicality of the body dynamic and the
consequent conceptuality of the mind dynamic, appear enigmatically
random yet at the same time seem inexplicably determined. Not
surprisingly, the apparent conflict is incomprehensible when viewed from
the engineered logic of biblical prerogatives with their male-based
prejudices and expectations.
The irony intensifies because the types of structure instituted by
technocrats are extremely linear mind-based inventions that lack the
flexibility and resiliency of the natural structure of the Nature template.
While there is a full spectrum of sensibilities evident in human potentiality
from non-linear to linear, the narrowed focus of the technocratic mindset
leads to a prioritizing of minutiae and infinities over more grounded
natural implications and possibilities.
For those disposed toward conceptual linear processes, mind-devised
regularities such as scientific laws, digital systems (versus analog),
mathematical constants (such as equality, zero and infinity) and their
applications have a seductive certainty and universality. Yet the invention of
all the computing constructs is datable to identifiable moments in recent
history before which only the certainty and regularity of nature prevails.
One of the worst consequences of the technocratic mindset is the
imposition of linear social, political and religious constructs on the
thoughts and writings of thinkers like Charles Darwin, Marcel Duchamp,
and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein appreciates the irony when he
comments that if mathematicians listened to his critique of their methods
and expectations it might be the worse day for mathematics. In his
wisdom, he accepts that an unfettered technocratic mind-set is necessary
to ensure continual inventiveness.
The thinker linearly addicted tertiary scholars most grievously afflict and
disrespect, though, is William Shakespeare. They alter his texts to conform
with their linear religious beliefs or reattribute significant parts of his
works to other writers of decidedly linear dispositions – dispositions that
are ironically closer to their own limited tertiary sensibilities and
Unable to accept or accommodate Shakespeare’s unmatched ability to
give expression to both non-linear and linear syndromes, such scholars do
not reflect on their own limited technocratic sensibilities. Instead, they use
their hubristic status in the publishing world to cover-up and perpetrate
deceptions that rate as the most heinous literary crimes foisted on a literary
Shakespeare examines the syndrome in great detail in his Folio of
thirty-six plays. In the Comedies, he shows how to ameliorate the worst
effects of male-based/mind-based impositions and, in the Histories and
Tragedies, he presents twenty-two case studies of the unalloyed application
of such constructs in fomenting societal mayhem and murderous intrigue.
Twenty years after beginning to write plays around 1590, Shakespeare
publishes the 154 sonnets in 1609 to provide a consistent and comprehensive natural logic for the analysis and resolution of such mind-based
disasters and cruelty. That it has taken 400 years for the Sonnet logic to be
recognised points to the degree to which God-like technocratic
expectations are inured in the culture.
5. Christ the Carpenter Contents
A common refrain from churchgoers and particularly their clergy when
fires, earthquakes or floods damage or destroy their consecrated buildings
is that, after all, God’s love and the Church is really in the people
themselves. The implication is that ecclesiastic structures are secondary or
incidental to a belief in God – that God exists independently of visible
structures built by humans, because the constructions merely celebrate his
Yet it is not uncommon, as happened following the Christchurch
earthquake of 2009, after the airing to the media of such sentiments about
not needing buildings, for the church to construct with indecent haste a
new cathedral at the cost of millions of dollars. Moreover, the high-end
design and construction teams are at work well before the parishioners –
and the rest of the thousands of displaced citizens – have moved out of
emergency accommodation, which can be as basic as tents and portaloos
in a park.
What, then, is the relationship between a God who is purported to exist
independent of buildings and the immodest rush to construct new
buildings? What is more, why are church buildings deconsecrated when
they pass their use-by date as if the building itself has an intimate
relationship to whatever the idea of God represents?
Typically, schismatic faiths (famously the Protestants at the beginning of
the Reformation) announce they will reject built structures in favour of
simple congregational gatherings or even a one-on-one relationship with
their God. Yet, no congregation of believers manages for long without the
assistance of at least a consecrated niche or a ring of stones if not
magnificent cathedrals and cloisters and ancillary buildings covering many
hectares – as happened after the death of iconoclast Francis of Assisi.
All this makes sense if their God is seen as being merely an intensely felt
mind-based sensation that has no existence outside the human skull. No
wonder, then, that those who want to believe their God is transcendental
– somewhere beyond the human body in space and time – resort to
buildings to sustain the illusion he is anything but a byproduct of their
most cloistered cranial interstices.
Goddesses, Gods or the biblical mono-God, were once imagined to
reside on Mount Olympus or in the vicinity of Mount Sinai, and then
believed to inhabit the heavens beyond the clouds. However, as astronomy
peered further into space, the deities shifted house to live ever more
remotely beyond the outer reaches of inter-planetary orbits until the only
site remaining was completely beyond inter-galactic space. However, the
brilliant irony is that all the time ‘He’ – or ‘She’ – has been cowering in
the confines of the human skull.
The pathetic irony resides in the realisation the monotheistic God of the
Bible does not create the world, but that human beings create ‘God’ every
time they invoke His name or refer to the book they write or gather in
buildings they construct to give Him existence outside the human
cranium. Without the frequent invocations such as ‘God bless’, ‘God be
with you’ or (heaven help us) ‘In God we Trust’, God ceases to exist –
except as an unworded, unbuilt, forever internalised intense sensation of
the human mind.
In complete contrast, nature requires no special creation, no salutation,
no contrite pleading, no commandments – and to the point of this section
– no structures or images to cause it to exist or to ensure its continued
existence. Hence, it is patently evident why believers in an invisible God
build ‘Him’ purpose-made buildings in which they congregate every time
they wish to worship ‘Him’. Worse, they readily become violent or even
genocidal if nonbelievers challenge or mock their manically elaborate
I confess my awareness of the God/builder syndrome was piqued when
separate visits from two Christian friends during a building program on
our property led not to their usual proselytising conversations but to hours
of discussion about the intricacies of the buildings under construction. In
further conversations with either of them, I found the mere mention of
building activity would again divert them immediately from their usual
It seems the only way to encourage God out of his hiding place in the
human mind has been to construct more and more magnificent edifices
in the belief he would be happy to show himself at some future undisclosed
eschatological time so long as the buildings have no other function than
worshipping his Immanence. All this is conditional of course on nature’s
willingness to let the monuments survive the next earthquake or hurricane
The idea of God depends on linear minded technocrats who require a
male-based manifestation to assuage their psychological angst about being
an offshoot of a female-based species. Yet, there exists a revealing acknowledgement God remains marooned in the human mind without the
willingness of builders to fabricate a public façade. Moreover, the evidence
does not come from anecdotal or incidental suspicions about the reason
why believers build churches.
Rather the self-reflexive job descriptions of both the biblical Creator
God and his blessed Son Jesus Christ reveal their true location is in
psychological sensations and fantasies of the human mind. The biblical
descriptions of the two male deities are explicit about their dependence
on wood, hammer and nails to get an extra-cranial manifestation.
Is it a measure of the significance of built structures for the manifestations of God the Creator/Architect’s presence that the New Testament
assigns God’s son Christ the trade of Carpenter? Is Christ, then, not only
the Son of God, but also symbol of the need for construction to fabricate
the otherwise invisible manifestations of God on Earth? Why is Christ
labeled a Carpenter rather than a Rabbi or other religious profession, or
any other trade?
God’s Son Christ, when apparently visiting Earth, further compounds
the building symbolism when he declares ‘Thou art Peter and upon this
rock will I build my church’. While many – particularly Catholics – rejoice
in the pun on Peter derived from the Latin Petrus meaning rock, they
seem oblivious to the comical implication that Christ the Carpenter
self-identifies himself as needing to be made visible in built form on the
back of his leading disciple.
Then, as if to drive home the point, Christ is crucified with the tools of
his trade – wood, hammer and nails. The Christ who is killed by carpentry
metaphors then disappears for three days back into the cranium he
originated from only to reappear resurrected on Sunday. It is as if he says,
here boys is the way to get me out of your heads and make me appear real
– use the tools of my trade and martyrdom.
Without God the Creator or Architect, Christ the Carpenter and Peter
the Rock, the edifice of the Christian Church as a manifestation of the
divine presence would not get off the ground – or out of our heads. God,
Christ and Peter as deeply symbolic mind-based constructs would be
forever circling around the brain unable to make themselves known – not
even to themselves.
The act of building to materialise the biblical God does not recognise a
pre-existing heavenly Maker, but the idea of God the maker idealises the
universal urge to construct edifices – particularly to encapsulate the ideal
building in ecclesiastical structures. Idolatry in this context is the conflict
or tension between the ever-absent God and the need to manifest His
presence in the only way he can exist – courtesy of built structures or
Another pertinent experience I recall was entering Saint Peter’s Basilica
in Rome and having the overwhelming sensation I was in God’s Tomb.
One of the problems for a God whose only existence is as a deeply felt
sensation in the human mind is that as soon as the believers in his cosmic
presence build churches to commemorate His divine omnipresence he
begins to die. Or, better, the attempt to bring Him to life in bricks and
mortar like any reified expectation is dead even before it begins.
Hence, the rapid rate at which new generations of hopefuls replace
previous religious manifestations as they atrophy – even if some religions
survive comatose for a few thousand years. Iconoclastic moments in the
destruction of previous emblems of eternal life support systems give way
to new periods of iconographic intensity.
The logical difference between the singularity and universality of nature
and a simplistic and effervescing God ensures that when monuments to
belief disappear then God disappears – except from the inner recesses of
the mind. If humankind becomes extinct then God goes extinct. However,
in stark contrast nature remains ever-present and indestructible.
6. Non-linear and Linear Contents
Any story, myth, or even scientific theory that posits a beginning and an
end unavoidably or logically self-identifies as a linear mind-based
construct. It matters little whether it be an ancient belief in an idealised
Elysium beyond earthly vicissitudes, or a biblical trajectory from Creation
Day to Heavenly Judgment, or a modern scientific belief in a cataclysmic
Big Bang that ends in a contracting Universe.
Whatever form they take, the repurposing of such linear constructs
indicates the presence of an underlying syndrome. It seems, despite the
persistence and gravitas of the imagined beginnings and ends, the linear
scenarios are little more than psychological ploys to allay the apprehension
some experience in accommodating their perception of nature as
What then, does it mean to say nature (as the logical and etymologically
singular given for all other possibilities) is neither non-linear nor linear –
or is both linear and non-linear? How is it possible for nature to elicit both
an apprehension of non-linearity and be the repository for the possibility
of construing and then utilising the numerous forms of mind-based
Typical of such purpose-made linear constructs are scientific laws,
mathematical equations, algorithms, fractals, digital systems, computers and
even the idea of a one-way journey – or effective suicidal trip – to Mars.
The common limitation of each of the linear constructs is an inability to
map accurately – without adjustment or correction – onto the natural
More significant for societal and cultural purposes are the linear
mind-based constructs that form the basis for, typically, the male-God
mythology of the Bible. Moreover, there are consequences for all the
spin-off biblical religions from Judaic, to Christian and Muslim – and their
multitude of sectarian branchings. As such linear beliefs are endemic to
human psychology-cum-philosophy, little wonder it proves difficult for
many to see clearly the relationship of their mind-based and frequently
male-based constructs to nature.
Shakespeare is the only thinker ever to have appreciated fully the logic
of the syndrome and to have given it precise expression in the 1609
Sonnets and explore its ramifications in his 1623 Folio of plays. Moreover,
the Nature template we derive readily from the Sonnets is a biological/
logical explanatory tool for analysing the many linear mind-based/male
The rationale behind the desire for physically or metaphysically defined
starting points and finishing lines can be found by consulting the Nature
template. When mind-based constructs – and male-based religions typically
– are fabricated around the trajectory from life to death for individual
humans on planet Earth, aspects of the neglected first or Body part of the
Nature template are incorporated involuntarily and illogically into mind-orientated beliefs and expectations.
The evolutionary non-linear birth/death cycle of human life in nature
is absorbed and transformed – despite the linear mind-set overtly
disparaging or rejecting it – into the linear beginning/end or life/death
scenarios of metaphysical anticipation. The non-linear natural dynamic of
procreation reduces to a linear simulacrum devoid of natural prerogatives
as believers transform them artificially into imaginary surrogates.
What may have originally arisen as a mind-based response to natural
contingencies, in the hands of those alienated from the dynamic of the
Body portion of the Nature template by excessive male-based and/or
mind-based inclinations, becomes an overblown substitute that cuckoo-like
ejects its natural counterpart from human intellectual intercourse.
Ironically, the truncated natural birth/death dynamic in mind-based myths
and theories reasserts itself in the life/death myths developed to assuage
the fears and hopes of mind-marooned thinkers and dreamers.
Shakespeare’s nature-based philosophy as evident in his Sonnets, plays
and poems – and crystallised in the Nature template – shows clearly the
syndrome while providing a unique tool with which to rectify its worst
manifestations and consequences.
Not only is the conceptual apparatus of linear constructs an artificial
replica of the natural dynamic of procreation (or increase as Shakespeare
calls it), the language of all mind-based replicas of the linear-neutral birth/
death trajectory mimics their natural counterpart. In the linear imagination,
Goddesses and Gods as well as universes are born and inevitably die, and
are then reborn as they experience multiple deaths as the mind engineers
linear scenarios for the benefit of its eschatologically hopeful adherents.
Also visible within the Body portion of the template is the impetus that
drives not only linear mind-based expectations but also linear male-based
religions. The sexual differentiation of male from female in nature creates
a divide between the non-linear female and the linear male.
The generic female is non-linear because she is the repository of the
creative potential realised in the birth/death scenario. The capacity of the
female of many species to undergo parthenogenesis – and its residual
potential in the human female – points to the originary female’s non-linear
By comparison, the female’s linear male offshoot needs to return to the
female to reproduce in a non-linear manner. Left alone or standing alone,
the male reveals his linear susceptibility to the life/death beliefs instead of
accepting the non-linear evolutionary birth/death trajectory. Hence, the
inversion of natural propensities in linear constructs explains why
male-based religions are always linear in their eschatological promises to
Similarly, in ignorance of the natural logic of life Shakespeare uniquely
structures into his 1609 Sonnets, science and mathematics are also subject
to linear trajectories and delusions. Fundamental to – and symptomatic of
– the mind-based conceits underpinning evidential science and scientific
speculation is the elaborately constructed edifice of mathematics. Moreover,
the two mathematical constructs that best characterise the artificiality of
all such conceits are the concepts zero and infinity.
Significantly, humans invented zero and infinity only a few centuries ago
to aid in the process of mathematical computation. As pure mind-based
constructs, they have absolutely no counterparts in nature. Yet populist
scientific theories such as the Big Bang are predicated largely on
speculation about the physics of a barely known universe made artificially
constant by the concepts zero and infinity. The creation of the universe
from nothing in a cataclysmic Big Bang and its infinite expansion to fill
ever-increasing space is entirely a construct of a manically linear
Even the claim 1 + 1 = 2 might be true in all possible worlds, as some
rationalist thinkers believe, resolves itself into the equation 1 + 1 – 2 = 0
showing the faith in providential mathematics is a matter of belief not fact.
The similarity between the conceits of discrete beginnings and ends in
science, mathematics and religion is simply a consequence of misunderstanding the relation between true/false in the Nature template and the
consequent implications for inner sensations of the mind.
Besides the need for constants like zero and infinity to make mathematics
finite and hence calculable, the inadequacy of pure mathematics to
describe accurately the simultaneous singularity and complexity of nature
is evident in the invention of non-linear mathematics. In contrast to
simplistic mind-derived linear systems, all processes in nature are inherently
nonlinear with the consequence that non-linear systems readily seem
chaotic, unpredictable or counterintuitive.
The confusion affects entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia,
where linear systems are said to hide some phenomena such as chaos and
singularities. Hence, to some, aspects of the behavior of nonlinear systems
appear to be counterintuitive, unpredictable or even chaotic. However,
Wikipedia avers that although such chaotic behavior may resemble
random behavior, it is absolutely not random.
Indeed, Wikipedia acknowledges, non-linear problems are of considerable interest to engineers, physicists and mathematicians and many other
scientists. In mathematics, since nonlinear equations are difficult to solve,
linear equations commonly approximate nonlinear systems. Yet this works
well only up to a point.
Those who prioritise linear thinking over non-linear/linear possibilities
tend to characterise the non-linear as somehow defective or troublesome
as if the lack of fit that blights linear systems is the fault of non-linear
eccentricities. Typical is the invention of Chaos Theory where instead of
accepting that linear systems generate the sense of chaos, theorists attribute
chaos to those seemingly random events and eventualities that do not fit
Yet, by consulting the Nature template, it is immediately evident that
nature incorporates both linear and non-linear possibilities. Moreover, the
set-to between the linear and non-linear is purely a consequence of
inventing mind-based constructs – whether religious, scientific or
mathematical – and then feeling piqued because they do not accommodate
or characterise the whole of nature.
This also explains why the Wikipedia entry contradictorily considers the
non-linear as chaotic and yet not random. It is chaotic viewed from the
mind-based perspective of linear constructs yet is not random because
there is nothing in nature outside the human mind that is ever or logically
The equivocation in the Wikipedia entry is symptomatic of male-based/
mind based pedagogues wanting their neatly formulated constructs to be
universally true. Yet as creatures who are unavoidably part of nature, they
cannot but sense there is something wrong with their overwrought
7. Fact versus Fiction Contents
What is it about religious belief that provides its adherents with the most
ecstatic mind-based epiphanies but also foments the worst excesses and
horrors humankind can visit on itself – and on the planet? Biblical beliefs,
particularly – whether Hebrew, Christian or Muslim and all their sects and
subsects – are incredibly seductive to a susceptible mind-set yet are only
too frequently associated with unimaginable cruelty and genocidal
To get a measure of the peculiar attractivity that compounds saint-like
purity with satanic evil it might be instructive to consider the findings
from research on the obesity epidemic afflicting those cultures subject to
the processed foods available in modern diets.
Trials with rats at the Scripps Institute suggest modern processed food
differs from traditional fare in the inability of the body or mind to resist
particular proportions of obesity-engendering ingredients.
Researchers began by feeding rats a diet of fatty foods in one trial and
then sugary foods in the next. They found that neither fat nor sugar alone
create sufficient levels of habituation to cause chronic obesity. It seems rats
have biological mechanisms to prevent overdosing on either fat or sugar.
So, how to account for the readiness with which those hooked on
high-energy foods become excessively obese and find it near impossible to
break the habit? Further research at the Institute reveals rats have no way
of moderating their intake of processed foods like cheesecake with a 50/50
The research suggests the human body, while able to signal a sufficiency
of fat or sugar consumed independent of each other, has no mechanism to
sound the alarm when humans indulge in the artificial combination of
50/50 fat/sugar over time. Street trials seem to confirm that foods with the
50/50 combo, which do not occur naturally but have proliferated over the
last few decades, are the ones food bingers find the most difficult to resist.
Whatever the soundness of the scientific research into the effects of fat
and sugar, and its applicability to the obesity epidemic, when researchers
talk of wholly artificial foods that have no natural correlates, a comparison
with wholly artificial mind-based beliefs is tempting.
What if, instead of fat/sugar (or body-based seductions), the relationship
of fact and fiction in the constitution of mind-based beliefs and theories
Even when the examination is cursory, a particular type of thinking and
writing – all the way from religious texts to ‘fantastic naturalism’ novels
and even conspiracy theories – seems to depend on a 50/50 mix of fact
and fiction to beguile adherents and devotees. Is there an explanation in
the fat/sugar 50/50 dependency of rats and humans as to why there is an
equal mix of fact and fiction in both the Old and New Testaments – and
other religious texts across the world’s cultures?
It may seem odd that the Bible, as a witness of God’s words for his
chosen people, the Hebrews, intermixes mythic writings patently not
based in verifiable facts and factual accounts of significant events
chronicled in Hebraic history.
For instance, the Creation myth in Genesis about the formation of the
world and ‘mankind’s’ place in the world and the eschatological myth of
Christ redeeming ‘mankind’ – are all buttressed by fantastic happenings
such as virgin births, extreme longevity and miracles, etc. Yet, in and
around the myths, etc., are interwoven far more credible historical accounts
of kingdoms, successions, the flight from Egypt, the story of David and
Goliath and others.
Yet it is the whole Bible – myth and history – that believers venerate
and swear on as the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and not just
the more Godly portions. Together, the patently imaginary events and the
historic accounts combine to provide the basis for the Books that form the
Even on cursory examination, it is apparent the Bible combines fact and
fiction in something like a 50/50 ratio. It is as if by interlarding fact with
a similar amount of fiction the scribes knew intuitively or possibly
knowingly that a susceptible and suggestible portion of the population has
no resistance to the beguiling fact/fiction combination.
In its day-to-day operations, the human mind is quite capable of
recognising or distinguishing facts from non-facts. Moreover, it will
accommodate an intensive imbibing of facts up to the point when it is
inclined to resort to fiction. It is not uncommon for a laboratory researcher,
for instance, to turn to novels or movies for relaxation.
Similarly, an excess of fiction or virtual reality incites a resort to facts or
just everyday activities. The continual gyration between fact and fiction in
day-to-day thinking and action is both informative and productive. It
provides a sound platform for organised life and an imaginative and
inventive basis for discovering ways to adjust and modify circumstances to
suit real and perceived needs.
Significantly, the 50/50 combination of fact and fiction in religious
belief (or any virtual reality scenario) appeals to an aspect of the mind
where artificial constructs have no counterpart in nature. The mind
effectively has no mechanism to counter readily the seductiveness of the
evenly blended fact/fiction ratios.
The consequence can be ecstatic belief unmoderated by natural prerogatives – as in monastic seclusion from procreative imperatives. Alternatively,
the mind, when confronted with an artfully contrived combination of
50/50 fact and fiction, having no mechanism to ameliorate rationally the
unmoderated beliefs, is readily seduced into unconscionable hate and
While books like the Bible exhibit the deepest and potentially most
pernicious examples of the 50/50 fact/fiction scenario, there are many
lesser instances of the deceptive combination in literature and thought.
The above-mentioned ‘fantastic naturalism’ uses the syndrome to entertain
minds with stories that combine equal parts fantasy and reality.
Authors such as A. R. Tolkien, J. K. Rowling, Elizabeth Knox, Juan Luis
Borges and many film directors like Stanley Kubrick, George Lucas and
Peter Jackson seem to know intuitively or intentionally they can gross
billions of dollars by providing such material to a susceptible and gullible
Apparently sane thinkers also fall prey to the 50/50 combo in the
plethora of conspiracy theories that spring up around events or writings in
which there is an element of uncertainty or mystery. The conspiracy
theorists fill in the missing facts with fantastic postulates creating a
gerrymandered answer for those who are unwilling or unable to get a
sufficient perspective on the issues or are at odds with the intellectual and
artistic depth of the writings.
Major disasters, high-level assassinations, space phenomena, etc., draw
those with the requisite mind-set into both endless speculation and
doggedly held beliefs despite the available evidence overruling their
speculations. Doubts incited by interlarding quantities of fiction to throw
doubt on known facts readily dissemble natural cautions. The tenacity with
which conspiracy theorists hold to their patently inadequate scenarios is
explicable if their susceptibility to the 50/50 fact/fiction syndrome is
The connection between the biblical 50/50 fact/fiction gullibility and
the willingness of those holding to such beliefs to be beguiled by
politicians and others preaching half-truths or alternative facts becomes
patently obvious. When politicians, for instance, continually interlard their
claims with dubious facts, there is a constituency of believers already
predisposed to be swayed by such devious propaganda.
The writer most subject to conspiracy theories is William Shakespeare.
In all instances, the inability of the perpetrators to understand his works
drives the syndrome. To compensate for feeling bewildered by their
ignorance of his nature-based philosophy, so-called scholars take his extant
works and interlard them with fictions about emendations, authorship
theories, or reattribute parts of his works to other authors on technologic
The immense irony is that the very philosophy they are unable to
appreciate provides the most effect tool for revealing the inadequacy and
rationale behind their behaviour. Those who claim to love his works treat
no other thinker anywhere as cavalierly as they do Shakespeare. They have
the temerity to alter the sonnets and plays to conform with their own
inadequate paradigms or belief systems – in Shakespeare’s case most often
the Christian faith.
If the effect of the 50/50 ratios remains unknown for either body or
mind, then the human being lacks a powerful tool for assessing the nature
of the problem and formulating responses to prevent or overcome the
deleterious effects of both bodily and mental obesity.
Both the fat/sugar and fact/fiction scenarios can be illustrated and
analysed using the Nature template. The relationship between highly
processed foods and similarly manufactured religions and theories suggests
the problem lies in an ignorance of the natural components of the Nature
template and their logical or evolutionary relationships.
8. Sex Versus Gender Contents
Shakespeare structures his set of 154 sonnets so that the whole set
represents nature. Furthermore, he seems to appreciate that the etymological
derivation of the word nature from the Latin ‘natura’ meaning ‘birth’ or
‘origins’ gives a linguistic and philosophical purpose to his division of the
set into two sexual sequences – to the originary female and offshoot male
– with the first fourteen sonnets providing the increase argument.
With the first or Body half of the Nature template set logically in place,
Shakespeare then develops it isomorphically into the second or Mind half.
Hence, the logical structuring of the mind accommodates incoming
‘sensations’, ideas (‘true’ and ‘false’) and interior ‘sensations’. The natural
logic of the body gives rise to the logic of the mind’s faculties and
reciprocally the mind dynamic is biologically dependent on the body
This Section addresses the double consequence that the sexual dynamic
of the body not only infuses the mind dynamic with a pervasive eroticism
(as explored in Section 3) but that the female/male dynamic also gives rise
to the feminine and masculine dispositions of the mind.
A direct result of the sexual dynamic of originary female and offshoot
male characterising the Body half of the Nature template is the concomitant
feminine/masculine gender dynamic that characterises the Mind half.
Shakespeare is very clear about the distinction and structures the double
relationship of eroticism and personae into the 1609 Sonnets.
Considering the 154-sonnet set as a whole, 154 sonnets represent nature,
126 sonnets represent the male youth and 28 sonnets represent the mature
female. With the first 14 sonnets presenting the logic of increase, it is
apparent that the primary structuring orientates around the sexual
dynamic – within nature.
Shakespeare’s presentation of sexual differentiation of the two sequences
and the increase argument is quite perfunctory and literal regarding the
biological/logical status of sex. Only after sonnet 14 does he begin to
employ erotic metaphor, pun and innuendo – with the final two sonnets
153 and 154 being intensely erotic.
Similarly, it is not until further within the set – sonnets 20 to 126 and
sonnets 127 to 152 – that the feminine and masculine gender dispositions
of the mind begin to play a part in creating a believable representation of
their many ramifications. Sonnets 20/21 introduce the feminine-to-masculine gender characteristics of the male youth as the Master Mistress and,
from sonnet 22, the Poet makes frequent reference to the youth as both an
independent person and as a representative of his youthful persona.
How and to what extent, then, within the configuration of the Nature
template derived from the Sonnets, does Shakespeare accommodate the
range of feminine and masculine gender dispositions of the mind? Can we
begin to appreciate what it is about his works that, despite their resolute
nature-based logic, they attract the interest and even lifelong admiration
from all sexual and gender orientations?
For instance, over the last 400 years, Shakespeare’s Sonnets have appealed
to homosexuals as much as to heterosexuals. Because of his exceptional
sexual and gender inclusivity, some commentators are led to wonder
whether Shakespeare himself was hetero, homo or bi – or a bit of each.
Yet it is not Shakespeare’s own sexuality or gender preferences that drive
his inclusivity but his consistent and comprehensive determination to base
his understanding in nature – the biological source of all sexual and gender
types. The ever-renewing natural biology of sexual differentiation and the
consequent sex determination in the early stages of embryo development
is the source of the multiplicity of sexual and gender variations.
What is the relationship, then, between the more overt residual
feminine-to-masculine bodily characteristics (including rarer evolutionary
types such as hermaphrodites who have both female and male organs) and
the myriad of mind-based gender dispositions or preferences from heterosexual to homosexual and lesbian along with androgynous, bisexual,
transgender and asexual?
Critical is the process of defeminisation toward varying degrees of
masculinisation that occurs in the womb in the month or two after
conception. In every developing embryo, whether with XX (female) or
XY (male) chromosomes, rudimentary Mullerian (female orientated) and
Wolffian (male orientated) ducts form and it is their expression that
determines whether the embryo becomes male or remains female.
The XX or XY embryos require specialised genes (SYR, etc.) and
hormones (testosterone, etc.) that act to suppress the Mullerian ducts and
promote the Wolffian ducts otherwise the embryo exhibits originary
female anatomy and behaviour – even if it is XY. While the activity of
other genes (Foxl2, etc.) appear to stabilise the female embryo and its
post-natal developments through to menopause to curtail the tendency to
exhibit male characteristics, the male never replaces the female as the
primary basis for fecundity and reproductivity.
In other words, although both defeminisation along with masculinisation and the stabilization of the female embryo must occur for a human
embryo to become a viable reproductive and functioning female or male
in all sexual species, the male remains completely dependent on the female
Shakespeare structures logically and numerologically the natural female/
male dependence into his Sonnets 400 years ago where, without equivocation, he acknowledges the male is but an offshoot of the female.
Centuries before modern science, Shakespeare could see from observing
roles of female and male in childbearing, and the illogicalities of
male-based/mind-based cultural and religious beliefs that the female is the
precursor for the male.
Consistent with Shakespeare’s natural logic, modern biology suggests the
twin processes of defeminisation and masculinisation revert to female
morphology and behavioural predispositions if the necessary processes to
create the offshoot male morphology and behavioural dispositions do not
occur. Hence, we can expect Shakespeare’s works to account for both
sexual morphological differentiation into female and male persons and
gender behavioural differentiation into feminine and masculine personae.
The evidence suggests the degree to which the embryo is masculinised
– or remains female if it fails to be defeminised – produces the full gamut
of sexual types from outright female to fully functioning male. In between
there are a range of intermediate types from partly masculinised female to
partly feminised female and likewise for the male. Included is androgyny,
where both female and male bodily characteristics are apparent, and more
atypically, hermaphrodites, where both female and male sexual organs
As Shakespeare’s increase sonnets recognise, the fully differentiated
female and male individuals with their female and male gametes or
reproductive cells intact are necessary for the sexual evolution of the
species. All the other female/male types are a natural consequence of the
degrees of transformation enacted on the originating embryo – XX or
XY or other rarer possibilities such as XO and XXY – by the processes
promoting the offshoot male option while maintaining female viability.
While the intermediate types may not be fertile or reproductive, they add
to the resourcefulness of the species in day-to-day survival and productivity – as with drone bees.
Similarly, there is a full range of feminine and masculine gender types
consequent on the underlying feminisation or the secondary defeminisation and masculinisation of the human mind. Unlike female and male
sexual differentiation, where at least some females and males need to
procreate for the continuation of the species, the various combinations of
feminine and masculine gender characteristics in any individual are not
crucial for the perpetuation of the species.
Hence, there is a significant differentiation between the physicality of
the sexual body and the conceptuality of the erotic mind. Consequently,
in male-based/mind-based religions and in cultures where they prevail, the
inversion of the body and mind components of the Nature template incites
and exacerbates non-biological expectations. The glorification of the
non-sexual or erotic feminine/masculine dynamic over the natural
processes of sexual evolution reinforces the sense humans have alternative
recourses to achieve immortality after death.
Hence, the imaginary biblical God, as a non-sexual or a-sexual entity,
can only be symbolically female or male as ‘He’ is but an intimation or
expression of masculine and feminine dispositions – or varying degrees of
gender dispositions. Modern believers who quibble over whether God is
sexually a female or male miss the point that He or She can only be
differing degrees of an erotic feminine or masculine persona.
Evident from the illogicality of the God template, the relationships are
terminally confused with the misattribution of a sexual characteristic to
nominate a singular mind-based sensation as ‘God’. The God of the Bible
is nothing if not a misconstrued gender personification of deeply eroticised
interior sensations of the human mind. The natural basis of the relationship
resurfaces only if believers recover and understand the biological/logical
implications of the female/male and feminine/masculine sexual/gender
relationships of the Nature template for the body and mind.
Shakespeare’s sonnets, plays and longer poems all examine and rectify
the consequences of inverting the natural relationship of sexual and gender
types. Either they celebrate the recovery of natural logic for the contentedness of body and mind or they detail the malconsequences of persisting
with the unnatural prioritisation of gender characteristics for exhortation
When reading the Sonnets, it helps to appreciate that Shakespeare’s Poet
addresses a mature female or Mistress and an immature male or Master
Mistress whose physical sexual characteristics are conterminously erotic
feminine and masculine personae of the human mind. The mature female
appears as a natural feminine/masculine persona, the male youth (or any
immature female) as an overly masculinised persona with the Poet as the
one who has learnt to balance both feminine and masculine personae (see
sonnets 42/43, 133/134 and 143/144).
Similarly, in all Shakespeare’s plays in the 1623 Folio, all the characters
– in their immense variability of human types – on the one hand can be
read as sexual persons active in their societies and cultures. However, it is
equally possible to consider all the characters as constituting the
multifarious gender personae or characteristics of any human mind – or
all human minds.
When females cross-dress as males in plays like The Merchant of Venice
(Portia), Twelfth Night (Viola), As You Like It (Rosalind) and The Two
Gentlemen of Verona (Julia), they do not change their sexuality but merely
their gender assignments. Their role is to implement the appropriate
societal, political and cultural changes the God of the Bible proves
incapable of doing. They only have to adopt the gender guise of the
masculinised God and then freely doff the guise when they accomplish the
Shakespeare has his canny and cunning gender-swapping females and
God-mocking males intervene because, as the sexual/gender dynamic of
the Nature template shows, ‘God’ cannot act at all as he is resolutely
marooned in the gender matrices of the human mind. Moreover, the
unnatural contradictions and impositions of the God template reveal why
‘He’ is personally so impotent – but why his believers frequently cause
completely gratuitous mayhem and murder.
9. Reverse Psychology Contents
Throughout Shakespeare’s 154 sonnets, thirty-six plays and four longer
poems, he reveals and critiques the way the consistent and comprehensive
components of the Nature template are converted religiously into the
inversions and perversions of the God template. He details the implications
when the trajectory from singular nature to interior sensations of the mind
(the biblical deities) manifests in prejudices, injustices and violence in the
patriarchal and misogynistic cultures of the previous few millennia.
In his Folio of fourteen Comedies, ten Histories and twelve Tragedies,
particularly, Shakespeare explores the continual manic reimposition and
enforcement of mind-based/male-based constructs – as typified by the
God template – for religious and/or monarchic advantage. He shows how
the mandating of such institutional measures occurs against the constant
backdrop of natural prerogatives that frequently re-emerge centre stage
when the overwrought constructs prove untenable or disastrous.
Consequently, Shakespeare’s method is never just to recount historical
incidents and precedents. After all, the accounts in the chronicles and
literature most likely reflect authorial prejudices and allegiances.
Instead, all Shakespeare’s sonnets, plays and longer poems make telling
adaptions to the source material from the chronicles, literature or dramas.
The changes he makes to the originals both correct their male-based/mind-based prejudices and reassert our birthright nature-based
Shakespeare’s Sonnets, for instance, are not simply a response to or an
advance on the sonnet vogue in the 1580s and 1590s. He both critiques
the Romantic or Idealistic expectations of his compeers in sonnetry and
develops a brilliant philosophic method based in natural logic for achieving
mature understanding, emotion and expression.
At heart, Shakespeare remains true not to the chronicles or dramatised
history but true to nature and our inherent natural logic, which he
articulates in the 154 sonnets – as the Nature template makes evident.
However, Shakespeare goes further than laying down the conditions for
natural contentedness and mature love. Because he understands the
psychological reasons for the susceptible mind’s attractivity to male-based/
mind-based constructs, his lead characters act out the positive and negative
In the fourteen Comedies, Shakespeare has the eleven leading females
and three gender-balanced males implement strategies to forestall or turn
about the deeply embedded traditional mind-based constructs. They apply
natural logic to remedy or ameliorate the worst consequences for
In contrast, in the ten Histories and twelve Tragedies, Shakespeare has
the title characters – eighteen out of nineteen of whom are male
(remembering seven English Kings feature in the ten Histories) –
demonstrate the worst consequences of the abrogation of natural logic. He
examines the fatal imposition of male-based mind-based constructs from
Ancient Egypt to Tudor England to show that such cultures perennially
foment rather than prevent gratuitous mayhem and murder.
To critique in the Histories and Tragedies or resolve in the Comedies an
array of male-based mind-derived prejudices, Shakespeare uses incisive
reverse psychological techniques. Whatever the outcome, either in
epiphany or in catharsis, he directs the reverse psychological techniques
towards the possibility of achieving resolution with nature-based clarity
Throughout the 154 sonnets, thirty-six plays and four longer poems
Shakespeare uses humour, puns, comedic characters, mock arguments,
mock characters, cross-dressing, fools, songs, mangled language, sarcasm,
blasphemy, sexual innuendo, irony, subliminal messages and other devices.
In the Comedies, the uptake by the offending characters is successful but
in the Histories and Tragedies the dogged pigheadedness of fated characters
proves disastrous for kith and kin.
Indicative of where the problem lies is that we talk regularly of using
reverse psychology but far less readily of using reverse philosophy. For
instance, a search online for reverse psychology produces many entries,
whereas searches for reverse philosophy usually defaults to reverse
psychology with only a refined search for ‘reverse philosophy’ revealing
Most of the usages treat philosophy as if it were psychology. The
nature-based philosophy in Shakespeare’s 1609 Sonnets is the only
published ‘philosophic’ text that never confuses philosophy with
As the Nature template shows, philosophy primarily maps out the logical
relationship between nature and humankind – and more particularly for
the trajectory from the body to the mind – without prejudice. Philosophy,
then, does not need to be challenged to reverse itself. Rather, the problem
develops in the second half of the Nature template where those with overly
idealistic expectations of mind-based constructs completely misinterpret
or invert their intrinsic or natural psychology to pervert all or most aspects
of the natural body-to-mind dynamic.
As argued in Section 1, the apologetic philosophy of the last few
millennia is in effect psychology masquerading as philosophy. Once
thinkers recognise and recover the natural logic of the body/mind
dynamic then philosophy becomes philosophy without equivocation,
obviating the need to make challenges to illogical thinking by using
reverse psychological techniques.
Hence, the application of reverse psychology identifies psychological or
mind-based consequences when the immature mind appropriates functions
germane to the body as if they derive from the mind. Alternatively, the
nonlinear/linear precedent of the female/male dynamic, in its impact on
the operations of the mind, creates linear methodologies and expectations.
These mind-based linear constructs most frequently precipitate a resort to
reverse psychological techniques.
Shakespeare was acutely aware of the implications of the syndrome 400
years ago. The first half of the Nature template encapsulates the relationship
of originary female to offshoot male. To ensure persistence into following
generations the linear male has no other recourse biologically but to
return to the generative female. Left to his own devices the male as the
offshoot of a female-based species is an evolutionary dead end.
Because the natural logic of the originary female-to-male body dynamic
transposes isomorphically onto the logic of the mind, an equivalent
scenario of precursor-to-offshoot plays out. Just as with incoming sensations
to the mind, what is true in language is readily verifiable in nature.
Conversely, what is false in language – or generated willfully by the
machinations of the imaginative mind – requires repeated assertions of
validity over time. The continual attempts to demonstrate validity of
mind-based constructs – hence apologetics – contrasts with the soundness
of facts evident in the world about.
Reverse psychology is particularly applicable to the syndrome where
believers assert the male is the precursor for the female (as in male-based
religions). It can also remedy claims by idealists that ideas generated in the
mind have an independent existence apart from nature (as in Platonism).
A reverse philosophical procedure would imply the body (hence nature
at large) is somehow at fault – which is patently not the case. Because the
mind over body syndrome is a mind problem and not a body problem, the
treatment is through reverse psychology to engineer the recovery of
natural logic. The confusion is a direct result of misrepresenting our
birthright body-to-mind natural philosophy.
Each of the previous eight sections examines a significant consequence
in the psychological inversion of philosophical common sense. To identify
the reason for the absence of philosophic clarity, we apply the nature-based
logic Shakespeare articulates in the Sonnets for all his poems and plays.
In the plays particularly, besides the overall nature-based argument for
the return to natural sanity, Shakespeare deploys characters who inject into
the action moments of reverse psychological insight to point up or remedy
the malconsequences of male-based/mind-based recalcitrance. His intent
is to counter with an appropriate measure for measure the non-philosophic or illogical psychological excesses of traditional beliefs and
Shakespeare’s purpose in the Comedies is to bring the plays to a
successful conclusion through the deployment of canny and cunning
characters. In total contrast, in the Histories and Tragedies he makes the
audience aware of the failure of title characters to find a way out of their
contractual quicksands or tragic quagmires.
The natural logic behind Shakespeare’s micro-dramatic methods is
brilliantly simple. Every reverse psychological gambit aims to unsettle the
male-based/mind/based constructs and consequent prejudices and
injustices ingested by his readers or audience when imbibing their
traditional beliefs and misunderstandings. By jetting elements of their
birthright natural logic past their ingrained misconceptions, he incites a
deeply sourced nature-based response.
To correct an error or fault arising from misapplying the true/false
dynamic of language that creates simplistic ‘truths’ (such as the fantasy
belief in the existence of an extra-cranial biblical God), Shakespeare elicits
a natural response in keeping with the Nature template and its originary
Every move Shakespeare makes is in line with the nature-based
philosophy of the Sonnets. The humour, wittiness and/or dramatic irony
evident in each play are consequences of applying the appropriate
technique to remedy a particular ill or misconception.
In the Master Mistress sequence, Shakespeare discusses the idea of using
small doses of a contrary belief or theory to incite a reaction that results
in accepting an understanding more in tune with natural logic. In sonnets
118 and 119, particularly, Shakespeare states the principle and anticipates
its beneficial consequences.
In the plays, there are a number of instances where characters achieve their
aims not by direct pleading but by stating the opposite to what the target
character expects. In Much Ado About Nothing, for instance, Beatrice and
Benedick separately overhear conversations expressing disbelief the two
‘friends’ cannot see that each loves the other despite their constant claims
of complete disinterest. The reverse psychology Don John and others
deploy is successful as at their next meeting Beatrice and Benedick accept
their challenging but engaging compatibility.
In Julius Caesar, Mark Antony sings Cassius and Brutus’ praises with
reverse psychological guile. Despite their roles in overthrowing Caesar – the
headstrong military conqueror who turns self-deifying despot – the crowd
readily interprets his eulogy as a call to hunt Cassius and Brutus down.
Shakespeare’s appreciation of the potency of humour as a tool to dislodge
traditional adolescent beliefs and attitudes is evident in his deployment of
Clowns to present his nature-based philosophy. He uses humour
throughout his plays, even interjecting passages of hilarity into the mordant
lives of the seven kings in the ten Histories and the twelve unreflexive
leads in as many Tragedies.
In As You Like It, the character Touchstone – whose parts in the Folio are
labeled ‘Clown’ – acts as a lightning rod to ground the pretensions and
fantasies of the homicidal younger Duke and idiotic melancholic Jaques.
Early on Shakespeare has Touchstone identify the qualities that distinguish a
‘natural philosopher’ from the traditional apologists for biblical illogicalities.
Then, later Touchstone runs rings around the hapless Jaques by stating
the logical conditions for avoiding gratuitous violence. He advocates using
an ‘if’ as a last resort to defuse the absolutist manic dictates of autocrats and
While Shakespeare gives Touchstone the responsibility for articulating
aspects of his nature-based philosophy, other comic characters merely
mock through their unknowing stupidity the pretensions of their
superiors. In Love’s Labour’s Lost, the Curate Nathaniel, the Pedant
Holofernes, the Braggart Armado and Constable Dull – flaunting false
piety, verbosity, braggadocio and ignorance – point up the deeper delusions
and false hopes in the sexist monasticism of their Lordly betters.
If in some plays Shakespeare deploys mock characters, in others he has
witty characters present mock arguments. As with all his reverse psychological techniques, the mock characters and mock arguments challenge
and unsettle the prejudices and illogical beliefs held by Christians and
other believers in the audience – then and now.
In The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Speed twice engages his fellow characters
in set pieces of mock argument. First with Protheus and then with Launce,
Shakespeare has Speed take a swipe at the ‘Shepherd/Sheep’ and the ‘Jew/
Christian’ imagery from the Bible. Speed uses traditional syllogistics to
prove nothing but that the premises of valid or apologetic argument come
to nothing because they are not naturally sound.
The audience watches as two gentlemen, Valentine and Protheus, and
their girlfriends, Julia and Silvia, struggle to orientate themselves to their
roles in life (with only Silvia manifesting a vestige of soundness). The
audience hears Speed’s mockery of traditional valid argument in the
context of Shakespeare’s sound argument from the overarching nature-based
philosophy that structures the whole play. Each of the characters is an
argument place in Shakespeare’s larger purpose that leads, at least in the
Comedies, to a natural resolution.
In Twelfth Night, or, What You Will, where Shakespeare criticises the
epiphanous belief in a transcendental Christ-child, he has Feste the Clown
mention the word ‘Syllogism’ as he mocks traditional argumentative
processes. Feste runs syllogistic rings around moribund Olivia as she
struggles to justify her religiously morbid and morose mourning of her
brother and father.
Later, Feste tells the romantically marooned Duke Orsino he would
rather be told he is an ‘Ass’ by his enemies than be praised by his friends.
As Orsino absorbs the apparent contradiction, the resulting enlightenment
frees him from his lovesick doting on Olivia and prepares him for a mature
relationship with Viola.
Shakespeare also deploys fools who knowingly reflect back the megalomania
and malconsequences of headstrong dictators. In King Lear, the Fool, who
acts as a foil to the egotistical and murderous Lear, is able to mirror his
grossness and unfairness, but is unable to avert the utter tragedy consequent
on Lear’s male-based mind-based tirades and impositions. The Fool, as a
persona of Lear who dies in synchronization with Lear at the end of the
Tragedy of King Lear, lacks the natural logic enjoyed and employed by
Touchstone and Feste in their Comedies.
Shakespeare also employs characters such as Pastor Evans in The Merry
Wives of Windsor and Captain Mackmorrice in Henry V, with their Welch
and Irish accents, to mangle words central to the beliefs of his audience.
Both characters highlight the critique Shakespeare makes of biblical beliefs
that drive the lunacy of Falstaff in his pursuit of the two wives and the
warmongering of Henry V.
In the first Scene in his play, Evans interjects the word ‘Got’ a number
of times – and one ‘Christians’ – to unsettle the language expectations of
Shakespeare’s largely English audience. While the whole play addresses the
Christian patriarchy and sexism that allows Falstaff to impose his grossly
unwanted sexual advances on Mrs. Ford and Page, Shakespeare continually
reminds his audience of his intentions through the verbiage and antics of
Similarly, in Henry V, Mackmorrice interjects the word ‘Chrish’ – and
one ‘Christ’ – a number of times in conversation with the English Captain
Gower, the Scottish Captain Jamy and the Welsh Captain Fluellen. In a
play in which Michael Williams will soon challenge Henry V’s right to
wage gratuitous Christian war for personal monarchic advantage,
Shakespeare has minor characters mangle the jingoistic Christianised
language of Henry’s England.
Whereas the reverse psychology of mangled language by minor characters
adds to the background effects of the many tactics Shakespeare uses, when
some of his leading female characters in the Comedies cross-dress to effect
a complete turn-about of biblical prejudices and injustices their reverse
psychologising is forefront and central to the meaning of their plays.
In Twelfth Night, or, What You Will Viola cross-dresses as Cesario a male
eunuch to effect a sea-change in the melancholic Illyrian culture from the
transcendental expectations of Christ’s Epiphany (Twelfth Night) to the
democracy of mature choices (What You Will).
In The Merchant of Venice, Portia cross-dresses as Balthasar, a lawyer, to
show that God’s mercy is an impotent chimera and that a dose of natural
logic around the meaning of the words ‘pound’ and ‘flesh’ immediately
forestalls the pigheaded a feud between Christian and Jew.
Immature and Mature Love
Another form of reverse psychology Shakespeare directs at his audience is
the contrast between mature love and immature love. In The Merchant of
Venice, Jessica and Lorenzo provide the perennial immature form of
romantic love in contrast to the mature nature-based love Portia brings to
her relationship with Bassanio – although he goes through a steep learning
curve as he struggles to match her emotional depth.
In Much Ado About Nothing, the more idealistic and then jealous
relationship between Claudio and Hero is the foil for the maturity of love
awaiting the more feisty and circumspect regard evident in the love-match
between Beatrice and Benedick.
In Twelfth Night, Olivia and Sebastian are the lachrymose Christian
pairing married off before the play’s end. Their psychological love lacks the
depth and range of the mature love through natural logic Viola is able to
instill in the previously romantically blinded Orsino.
Shakespeare involves Portia in another reverse psychological strategy in
The Merchant of Venice when she laces a song with subliminal messages to
ensure Bassanio chooses the correct casket. As a victim of her recently dead
patriarchal father’s misogynistic will, Shakespeare has Portia demonstrate a
way out of her predicament. Throughout all his plays he typically inserts
subliminal messages to cue the audience to his intended meaning.
In other plays, Shakespeare uses songs to amplify messages inherent in the
meaning of the play. The song that ends Twelfth Night appears to mock the
baby Christ of the Epiphany in its first couple of stanzas and then leads to
audience through to a meaning in sympathy with the play’s natural logic.
To a different end, in The Merry Wives of Windsor, Shakespeare has Pastor
Hugh Evans interlace his meandering locutions with excerpts from
Christopher Marlowe’s The Passionate Shepherd to His Love. Shakespeare
intensifies his mordant nod to Marlowe’s stargazing sensibility by having
the words of the song recited by a verbose Christianiser.
Furthermore, Shakespeare’s reverse psychological mock of Marlowe as
an inferior poet, from the mouth of the garrulous egotist God-fearing
Evans, predates by 400 years the stylometric idiocy of the latest edition of
the Oxford Shakespeare Complete Works where the editors assign parts of the
three Henry VI plays to Marlowe.
Throughout his plays and poems, Shakespeare uses sexual innuendo to jet
ideas past the censorship of his prurient auditors in the Globe or elsewhere.
In Hamlet, Hamlet begins his alienation from his bedmate Ophelia by
heightening the erotic dissociation. He uses phrases like ‘country matters’
and words like ‘nothing’ to refer wittily to her genitalia.
In All’s Well That Ends Well, Shakespeare intensifies the interplay between
Parolles and Helen in an early exchange when Parolles uses sexual
innuendo to counter her sainted expectations. Parolles gives her a racy
reminder of the logical rootedness of ‘rational increase’ in the lives of every
human born and every human who will be born in the future – including
her offspring with Bertram. The innuendoish lesson in the basics of life is
in keeping with Helen’s use of a bed trick to dupe Bertram later in the
play and overcome his heady resistance to her ungentrified origins.
As a reverse psychological gambit, Shakespearean irony pervades all his
works. He twists the conventional beliefs of his audience so the staid
outcomes expected in traditional dramas are turned around completely.
In The Winter’s Tale, Shakespeare intensifies the dramatic irony when
Polixenes who, even under intense provocation from Leontes, acts
rationally in the first half of the play, but proves equally capable of
patriarchal murderous rage in the second half. The deep irony is that their
psychological unpredictability derives from an overly-idealistic innocent
Once they inherit the Kingdoms of Sicily and Bohemia, respectively,
their immaturity of judgment resurfaces when Leontes first threatens the
life of his wife Hermione and baby daughter. Then sixteen years later
Polixenes threatens to murder the same daughter who is now in love with
his son Florizel. Adding to the intensifying irony, Shakespeare mocks
religious expectations throughout the play by secluding Hermione in a
nunnery to reappear sixteen years later as a mock religious statue that
appears to comes to life.
Shakespeare employs another reverse psychological tactic writ large when
he gives a few of the lead characters in the Comedies roles as virtual
directors of his play scripts. Shakespeare creates parts for them where they
take responsibility for staging a successful outcome. The reverse psychology
doubly kicks in when commentators, editors or directors – who reject
Shakespeare’s inversion of traditional biblical beliefs – take exception to
characters given the responsibility to ensure a natural resolution in a
In Measure for Measure, Vincentio announces early on that he will
stage-manage the Christian dysfunction in Vienna, with its double
dissoluteness of rampant monasteries and whorehouses. He does so,
though – unbeknown to the citizens – from behind the hood of a mock
monk. The irony is intense when commentators like Harold Bloom
cannot temper their outrage as they pour vitriol on Vincentio – despite
him having Shakespeare’s complete confidence to run his play.
In Prospero’s play, The Tempest, Shakespeare allows the reformed and
repentant patriarch to establish and control a ‘magical’ island – an island
existing only in the minds of his audience. Prospero employs the
unChristian props of a zesty sprite and the misanthropic son of a witch
and ends with a wedding conducted by Greek goddesses.
Throughout, Prospero implements the natural logic he learns from
his ‘books’ and reflections after he realises his rejection of his daughter,
Miranda, at birth is an indictment of his imbibed patriarchal prejudices.
Even more reverse psychological is the final scene where Prospero
tosses aside his ‘magical’ gear and sends the motley crew of Kings and
Dukes back to mainland Italy to resume life as before – albeit more
Ted Hughes, for one, could not believe Shakespeare intended to dissolve
the wondrous island as Hughes imagines the blissful finale would continue
hereafter. He fails to appreciate Prospero’s awakening to natural logic and
the role of the family group conference on the conceptual island is to
establish precedents for managing future male-based/mind-based crimes
in realpolitik Italy.
Similarly irreverent to the traditional Christian or biblical ear are the
blasphemous, and other irreligious comments Shakespeare has his cast of
multifarious characters make periodically. Words and phrases like
incardinate, maculate, Incony Jew, and the use of the God/dog inversion
– as by Cardinal Wolsey in Henry VIII – cut past the imbibed sacrosanctity
of Shakespeare’s audience to alert their natural sensibilities.
Even poetry does not escape Shakespeare’s manipulation as characters like
Orlando in As You Like It write and recite inferior verse. The reverse
psychological effect is to alert the audience, if only involuntarily, to the
overarching presence in the play of Shakespeare’s peerless poetic and
dramatic achievement – and trenchant philosophy.
The most hilarious and revealing example of Shakespeare using versification to point up the inadequacies of biblically inspired rhyme is in Love’s
Labour’s Lost. When Ferdinand, Dumaine, Longaville and Berowne fall
unexpectedly in love, they all write inferior sonnets and poems to their
Only Berowne’s sonnet has thematic similarities to Shakespeare’s own
sonnets but it still lacks the deep understanding and reflexivity of the full
Nature template. Hence, the savvy Ladies consign all the Lords to a year of
privation to think over their unearthly expectations and rhyming.
Shakespeare even resorts to intentional sarcasm to highlight the knowing
evil in characters like Richard III when he woos the Queen whose husband
he kills shortly before. Then there is Iago in Othello, whose soliloquys on
Othello and Desdemona reveal a level of intentionality not even the
greatest of Shakespeare tragic heroes can muster. By emphasising the
supreme command by such Machiavellian misanthropes of an aspect of the
Nature template, Shakespeare shows just how bereft the other characters are
of any of its elements – and why their fate is to die needlessly.
When Shakespeare articulates his nature-based philosophy, with its ensuing
female/male priority and logic of increase, he uses language fully aware of its
inherent eroticism devolving from its basis in the sexual dynamic in nature.
Many words and phrases throughout his plays, poems and sonnets pun
intentionally on the interconnection between bodily dispositions and language.
In The Winter’s Tale, as Leontes indulges his adolescent rage against
Hermione and Polixenes, Shakespeare has him pun unintentionally in
phrases such as ‘my wife is slippery’ and ‘Holy Horse’ and in his frequent
use of the word ‘nothing’. Leontes uses language simultaneously as a
weapon against an innocent wife and his friend that reveals his immature
appreciation of the natural logic of language by accidentally punning on
the very sexual matters troubling his adolescent mind.
Shakespeare has parts for bastards in some of his plays – with the word
bastard occurring in many of them. While bastards are central to the action
in only a few plays, Shakespeare uses the compromised social status of
those born out of wedlock to jar his audience through reverse psychology
to reconsider their convention-bound prejudices.
In King John, Phillip Falconbridge, the bastard stepbrother of Robert, is
introduced as the illegitimate son of Richard the Lion Heart. He is a
mostly fictional character Shakespeare brings on in the first scene to
highlight the inequality and injustices bastard children face – and partic-
ularly sons – in a patriarchal culture. Phillip demands his half of the
properties left by their dead father to Robert. However, to avoid the unjust
impositions of primogeniture he forgoes his rights in exchange for the
‘honour’ of being a professional soldier like his father.
Shakespeare’s most exacting bastard, though, is Edmund, son of
Gloucester. In the opening scene of King Lear, Shakespeare has Gloucester
add insult by reminiscing fondly about the dalliance that leads to Edmund’s
While Lear and Gloucester wander around the heath achieving partial
reconciliation with nature – whose priorities they and their culture abuse
relentlessly – Edmund achieves filial justice in the blinding of his reprobate
father. Significantly, Shakespeare endows Edmund with sibling sympathy at
the end from his alienated brother, Edgar.
Plays within Plays
Famously, Shakespeare has Hamlet take advantage of a visiting troupe of
actors to stage a play within his play. The strategy works, both letting
Hamlet prove Claudius is responsible for King Hamlet’s death, and
allowing Shakespeare to alert his audience to the idea Hamlet is but a play
whose content is paramount. Shakespeare’s reverse psychological intent is
to expose the abrogation of natural logic that leads to murderous cultures
fomented by male-based mind-based beliefs.
At first, the tactic of using a play within a play seems lop-sided in The
Taming of the Shrew, as the Induction characters of the introductory Scene
do not return at the end of the play to round out the drama. However,
Shakespeare demonstrates his ulterior purpose in using plays within plays
when the characters in the Induction Scene make it clear their contribution merely sets the scene for the denouement of biblical illogicalities.
When Petruchio enters to tame Kate, he proceeds to rectify her
male-induced truculence and restore her psychological balance by
teaching her the natural logic of language. With consummate irony, Kate
demonstrates at the end that she and he are free of such demeaning
The most enduring example of Shakespeare’s use of direct mockery to
alert his audience to the gross prejudices and outright sexism in his culture
occurs in his treatment of grossly simplistic Sir John Falstaff in The Merry
Wives of Windsor. The fact many commentators miss the nature-based aim
of the mockery and continue to see Falstaff favourably as a garrulous
knight-errant suggests Shakespeare’s deployment of reverse psychology
will always elude overly simplistic minds.
Mrs. Ford and Page (and others) shame Falstaff mercilessly three times
throughout the play. First, he hides in a dirty laundry basket, then he dresses
as the Witch of Brainford, and then ‘fairies’ mock him under an oak tree at
midnight. The intensity of the mockery leads Falstaff to admit partial defeat
while it provides a trenchant comment on the rabidly pejorative culture of
male licentiousness and presumptuousness – then and now.
Shakespeare’s plays demonstrate the consequences of not understanding
the nature-based philosophy he articulates in his Sonnets – and made
graphic in the Nature template. He argues that the dramatic oversight is
responsible for the largely unavoidable misunderstandings, disagreements
and gratuitous violence in the politics and religions of sixteenth century
society – and still occurring in the twenty-first century.
To counter the deeply embedded prejudices and injustices, Shakespeare
employs many reverse psychological techniques that puncture the
pretensions of believers and provide systematic methods to climb out of
the adolescent mind-set of traditional faiths. Alongside the overarching
argument of each play – with their nature and female-based philosophy as
the basis for human understanding and expression – he provides continual
provocations intended to alert or awake biblical or male-based mind-sets
to their inherent natural logic and more realistic aspirations.
10. Conclusion Contents
Concluding – How to use the Nature template
Central to an appreciation of the thinking behind Shakespeare’s works –
the thirty-six plays in the Folio, the four longer poems and crucially the
154 sonnets – is the realisation he publishes Shake-speares Sonnets in 1609
around twenty years after writing his first play to present the philosophy
behind all his works.
Once we recognise the reality and viability of the nature-based
philosophy evident in the Sonnets, it takes little structural or logical sense
to figure out the basic components of the philosophy. The components
have to be both naturally consistent and able to demonstrate the
inadequacy of attempts over the last 4000 years to construct male-based
mind-based systems of belief.
The Nature template and the illogical God template are both consequent
on working out Shakespeare’s brilliant philosophic achievement with its
unmatched expression in verse and drama. The Nature template, as applied
to many issues and situations in the world and in the human mind, proves
to be unequalled as a tool for interpreting Shakespeare’s works and for
demonstrating the inadequacy of traditional philosophical/psychological
insights and problems.
The nine topics we consider in this essay demonstrate the incisiveness of
the insights inherent in the natural structuring of the Sonnet philosophy.
They solve intractable problems besetting failed attempts to construct a
consistent understanding using the inverted God template.
When we ask what philosophy is and how it differs from psychology, a
resort to the Nature template immediately reveals the difference and the
reasons for traditional confusions. Then we can resolve the traditional
apologetic debate about the ascendency of God over nature by showing
how male-based beliefs turn the Nature template on its head – even
corrupting the etymology and meanings of the two words nature and God.
Basic to understanding the relationship of traditional culture-orientated
myths to modern world demographics is the realisation all such myths are
erotic as they subtend on the sexual dynamic in nature. Another
consequence of male-based mind-based beliefs is their appeal to technocratic mind-sets, where the prioritising of mind-based constructs creates
cul-de-sacs of technologic fantasies.
Then, by examining the name and occupation of Christ, as
God-made-man, it is apparent he is a technocratic construction and tells
us so by his carpentry tools and reliance on built form. Arising from the
same set of expectations, when thinkers prioritise mind-based constructs,
they inevitably ‘create’ a linear world that lacks the variety and sustainability of non-linear/linear nature.
The susceptibility of the human mind to believe fantastic scenarios as
true is not a product of the illimitable human imagination but a weighted
combination of 50/50 fact and fiction to which some minds have little
resistance. On a different tack, only by consulting the Nature template is it
obvious that the sexual dynamic of the body gives rise to the democracy
of gender types in nature – hence why male-based religions acknowledge
only male and female and confuse sex and gender.
We then itemise the reverse psychological strategies, tactics and methods
Shakespeare uses to unsettle the tendency of susceptible minds to believe
unreservedly in mind-based constructs and elevate them over nature. As
the human genotype continues generation after generation to give birth
to the same complexity of sexual and gender types, the tools Shakespeare
provides from the Nature template to reverse psychological techniques are
always viable and rewarding.
Shakespeare’s 154 sonnets, thirty-six plays and four longer poems remain
fascinating and beneficial to twenty-first century audiences because he
appreciates that life is perennial and its excitements and developments are
never ending. His nature-based philosophy remains unchanged because
more than any other philosophy it accommodates all possibilities within
its natural logic.
Back to Top