Ozodi Osuji Ph.D

Ozodi Osuji Ph.D

Ozodi Thomas Osuji is from Imo State, Nigeria. He obtained his PhD from UCLA. He taught at a couple of Universities and decided to go back to school and study psychology. Thereafter, he worked in the mental health field and was the Executive Director of two mental health agencies. He subsequently left the mental health environment with the goal of being less influenced by others perspectives, so as to be able to think for himself and synthesize Western, Asian and African perspectives on phenomena. Dr Osuji’s goal is to provide us with a unique perspective, one that is not strictly Western or African but a synthesis of both. Dr Osuji teaches, writes and consults on leadership, management, politics, psychology and religions. Dr Osuji is married and has three children; he lives at Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

He can be reached at: ozodiosuji@gmail.com (907) 310-8176

Sunday, 17 September 2017 17:38

Nnamdi Kanu ojukwued his followers!


Ozodiobi Osuji

Western military tradition requires a defeated general to stand tall, chin out, look straight and walk to his conqueror and hand to him his instrument of command (sward) and take the consequences the conqueror intends to meet out to him, which may include imprisonment or death.  In this light, during the American civil war (1860-1865) when General Grant  defeated General Robert E Lee, Lee mounted his horse, dressed in his full general's uniform and rode off to hand in his sward to Grant. Lee accepted his fate; he did not run away!

Emeka Ojukwu led Igbos at war for three years (1967-1970). When, in January, 1970, General Olusegun Obasanjo defeated him at Owerri instead of dressing in his supposed general's uniform and go surrender to his conqueror and take whatever consequences the victor deemed necessary for him he ran away!

Ojukwu abandoned his troops, troops he had told that Nigerians were coming to kill; the man abandoned his followers to be killed by Nigerians!

He ran to the Ivory Coast and, as if nothing happened, as if he had not led over a million persons to their death, he immediately shacked up with a new wench and was gallivanting with her all over the place.

In other words, the death of his soldiers and his fellow Igbos meant nothing to Ojukwu. In military language he is a coward.

In Britain or the USA they would have repatriated Ojukwu from his safe haven and court martialed him and shot him to death.

In Igbo land, instead of treating the coward as he deserved, he was seen as an all-conquering hero. Igbos always stand the truth on its head. They always define terms to suit their amazing disregard for the truth.

I redefine the term cowardice with the word ojukwu; henceforth, I will use the term ojukwu as a verb, as indicative of cowardly act, as running away from danger to one's life.

Ojukwu could have immortalized his name for Igbos and became their eternal hero if he had stayed and had his self-arrested by Obasanjo. He would have set a new tradition for Igbos to behave like courageous folks who fight and die for their people.

If you recall, for four hundred years (1500-1900) all Igbos did was capture and sell their people to white men, make them slaves in the Americas, hence they are eternal cowards.

Courageous people protect their people and not sell them into slavery.  Well, Ojukwu turned tail and ran; he lived to make the familiar Igbo noise of Igbos phantom invincibility.

Apparently, our tough talking boy, Nnamdi Kanu, the supreme military commander of IPOB has ojukwued his followers; the man turned tail and ran away! His followers were left to take whatever is coming to them by the Nigerian army. Some of them have been killed.

Now, suppose that when the Nigerian army came to Kanu's father's house and banged at the gate (as shown by a video making the rounds at YouTube) and Nnamdi Kanu dressed up in a militants attire and came out to meet them, stood tall and boldly asked them what they wanted, what do you think that they would have done to him? They would probably have arrested him.

They would not have beaten or killed him for the whole operation was caught on tape; the world would have seen them doing so and that would have damaged the image of the Nigerian army. At any rate, if they killed him they would have made him a martyr of the Biafran cause!

So, they arrest him and take him back to jail. He would have looked like a hero to his people; all of us understand that the Nigerian military assets arrayed against him were such that he had no chance of fighting back so surrendering made sense.

Running away and going into hiding? That makes Kanu a lily-livered coward. He was not a true leader, after all.

In January 1966, before the military struck in the first ever military coupe in Nigeria, Nnamdi Azikiwe suddenly became sick and went to London for medical checkup. I suspect that he probably knew that something was in the air and ran away to go protect his self from been killed as his prime minister and others were killed.


Here is a question that Igbos must answer: are Igbos eternal cowards? Is it the case that all they know how to do is talk tough and verbally abuse folks but when the going gets tough they run away?

At Nigerian Internet forums they verbally put people down and generally abuse whoever does not kowtow to their infantile understanding of politics. Some of them do so with their real names hidden. They present themselves as the Igbo Mandela in drag. Raise your voice at them and they panic, pee in their pants and run away; they run to go live to see another day to verbally abuse people.

So, are Igbos born cowards?

After Azikiwe, Ojukwu and Kanu would anyone ever see an Igbo as a courageous leader? Would rational persons not dismiss them as weaklings but not real men?

When will Igbo leaders stand up and hold their ground and not run away; when will these motor mouths take bullets for their people?

When will these traders who all they know how to do is seeking ways to make chomp change ever stand their grounds and fight to death instead of giving folks the impression that they are men when, in fact, they are not men?

Igbos truly are a trip, I tell you.


Of course, I over generalized; I deliberately stereotyped Igbos as cowards. However, if you disagree with me then show me the exception to the rule; show me Igbos who stood their grounds and died for their people; don't just remind me that in logic there are always exceptions to every general rule.

In my opinion, Igbos should be left to be the traders they are; they should go seek ways to make money and live the self-centered existence of traders and not venture into military and political affairs.

Aristotle (see his Politics) correctly differentiated the psychology of traders and military men. He said that traders are motivated by self-interests and, as such, are cowards whereas military men are motivated by public interests and are willing to die for their people hence are courageous; he said that only those who have martial spirit should be allowed to participate in politics.

Plato (see his Republic) recommended a severe training regime that all boys must go through to select society's philosopher kings; one of the requirements is military training and standing their grounds in the face of enemy fire.

Given Igbos, time and time again, demonstrated cowardice, political leadership is probably not for them?

Ozodiobi Osuji

September 17, 2017


Chinazor Onianwah:

You might find this piece interesting; in fact, I wrote it this morning with you in mind. In my assessment, you are intensely religious and a just man but you also appreciate the stupidity of religion hence struggle to limit your behavior to what science can prove to be true. Your struggle is my struggle. Ozodiobi


Ozodi Thomas Osuji

As I survey the human landscape and behold those who talk about religion and or spirituality, generally what I see are those who are not fully engaged with the world as it is in the here and now.

The objective world is impersonal and tough; the world does not give us what we need to survive with; we must work for our survival; we ask for a father figure, god, to help us survive in our precarious world; we are vulnerable and could use help in surviving in this dog eat dog world; we are motivated to escape from our tough, impersonal world and flee into a suiting but probably non-existent heaven (?).

Science, technology and business deal with the objective world.  Science tries to understand the world as it is; technology uses the understanding of science to construct contraptions that enable people to adapt to the objective world; business provides people with the means to live in the world as it is. Science, technology and business are here and now things; they are not escapist from the phenomenal world.

To the contrary, if you look at those who are into religion and spirituality what you see are people who ignore the world as it is and talk about other worldly matters that seem  not to have relevance to this world.

Those into spirituality talk about Eastern concepts like chakras in the body, kundalini energy, crystals healing power, spirit guides and channeled books (that do not actually explain the phenomenal world but talk in global, poetic terms).

Spirituality does not seem relevant to coping with the world as it is. The question is this: is spirituality mere wishful thinking, a result of our desire to overcome death and live forever and ever when there is no evidence of life after death?

Is spirituality motivated by fear of death; is spirituality mere magical effort to overcome death? Alternatively, is the existence of spirits self-evident, is it true, is it something we must do; must we seek understanding of spirits and God because they are inherent part of who we are?

I hate to believe that the search for spirits is escape from the impersonal ugly world we live in.  My empirical observation shows me that those who talk about spirits do not seem to do anything to improve our extant world.

Consider Helen Schuman and her A course in miracles crew; none of them lifted a finger to improve our present world; they lived in the critical 1960s and 1970s America where folks were fighting for civil rights but they did not lift a finger to help in that fight for social justice; instead, they stayed on the sidelines talking about what Jesus said or did not say.

Listen, to me, what Jesus said is useless if it does not contribute to social justice in the here and now world.

I am writing this little essay because of my perception of members of my Osuji kindred. Most of them live in Nigeria, some in the West. They are Igbos.

Nnamdi Kanu and his IPOB have been running around agitating for Biafra but no Osuji has joined his struggle for Biafra.

You may like or hate Mr. Kanu but there is one thing that you cannot say about him: you cannot say that he is not a true leader.

The man is a leader. A leader sees a problem and tries to solve it, and does so the best way he knows how. How he goes about solving it, in hindsight, may not be the best way to do so but he did try to solve the problem he perceived.

A leader does not sit idly doing nothing while problems fester.  A leader articulates a goal, what must be done, his vision, his idea of how to solve his perceived problem. He does not leave it at merely positing goals, he tries to actualize his goals; dreamers' merely posit goals and objectives but do not invest energy and time trying to realize them.

Leaders are dreamers who also are doers. Thus, instead of merely talking about goals and objectives, a leader actually organizes people and seeks resources with which to accomplish his goals.

Mr. Kanu saw a problem; as he sees it Igbos are marginalized in Nigeria. Nigeria appears to be the fiefdom of Fulanis and their servants, Hausas. He defined the solution as Igbos leaving Nigeria and having their own sovereign country that he called Biafra. He mobilized Igbos, mostly semi educated Igbo youth, and sought material resources (he was all over North America soliciting money for his cause) with which to accomplish his objective.

The man does what leaders do and in my definition is a leader. I know a thing or two about leadership. I have written books and articles on leadership and been a leader; albeit within the circumscribed milieu of governmental agencies (I have been the executive director of a couple government agencies and thus used men and material to accomplish organizational goals).

Mr. Nnamdi Kanu is a leader. We must give him credit for that fact.  We may disagree with his goals and means for achieving those goals but we cannot say that he is not a leader. (Since I also wear an academic hat, I have no doubt that many professors of political science, sociology and psychology will do studies on the "Kanu phenomenon"; tons of scholarly articles and books will be written on the man! As they say, leaders do things but scholars write and teach about them!)

My present preoccupation is my perception of my kinfolk. None of them is lifting a finger to either help fight Mr.Kanu's war or vigorously oppose him. I would have loved for some of them to have joined his bandwagon or if they did not like what he was doing stood up and opposed him. What I do not like is their do nothingness!

To the best of my knowledge all the adult Osuji folk went to universities.  They are generally very bright. I doubt that there is an Osuji whose IQ is not, at least, above average (IQ of 120 and above; superior IQ is 132 and above; you need above average IQ to go to graduate school and become a professional such as medical doctor or engineer). We have some Osuji's with superior intelligence at America's top universities such as Stanford, Columbia, University of California and top research institutions such as the Center for Disease Control. We have medical doctors, engineers, professors and researchers in our extended family.  But none of these people lifts a finger to fight the necessary fight for Igbos welfare.

Nor do they fight to solve Nigerian and Africans problems. In the USA where  over twenty of them live all they do is complete their education  and obtain a cushy job,  make a  decent living but do not lift a finger to fight our African American wars.

So, a white police officer beats up a black American teenager for just been black and black folks go demonstrate, I do my own type of fighting, go to the police station and complain and write about discrimination.

I look at my fellow Osujis and see that they do not seem to mind how our African Americans are treated by white racists.

I say to me:  what is the matter with these folks, how come they do not fight for social justice?  I try to explain their withdrawal from the wars we must fight to improve our world.

I think that these people escaped into the wooly world of religion and that prevents them from lifting their fingers to do actual fighting for justice in the here and now world.  They go to church and read their bible. They are intensely religious folks. They quote the bible and use it to tell you what God said or did not say.

Here is the deal:  I suspect that these people are using religion to escape from the painful realities of this world. I wish that they could put the damn bible aside and right now, today, go to Saint Louis (as we speak black folks are demonstrating there) and join our black American siblings to fight the latest white outrage, the acquittal of a white police officer who deliberately said that he was going to kill him a nigger and did exactly that.

My question is this: are we using religion to avoid dealing with the issues of our contemporary world. I myself, while I do not belong to any organized religion, study religion and spirituality; am I escaping from our ugly world?

Should I leave religion and spirituality alone and simply deal with our world as it is? But a part of me keeps telling me that there is something beyond matter in our lives. So I struggle to understand whatever that metaphysical aspect of us is.

In trying to understand spirit I find my energy sapped, not used to deal with the here and now world's issues.

The effort to understand spirit is time consuming; just think of the years I spent studying Hinduism, Buddhism, Zen, Taoism, Gnosticism and, of course, my inherited Christianity. God, one can waste all of one's energy trying to figure out if God exists or not.

So, why not just give up the idea of God and live in the here and now reality? Somehow, it is difficult for me to embrace atheism and become a materialist. I keep suspecting that there is something more than matter in my life.

I am actually not afraid of death; if upon death oblivion awaits me so much the better; who wants to live in another suffering filled world?

My question is this: is religion a mere escape from the ugly realities of this world. What do you think?

Ozodi Thomas Osuji, PhD (University of California)

September 16, 2017


Dr. Osuji plans to transform his center for mind science into a full-fledged institute for the study of the relationship of body, mind and spirit; a university that offers academic degrees. If you have discretional income and want to contribute to this endeavor we could use donation from you. Our current goal is to raise $100 million dollars. Please contribute to this endeavor. For inquiry call (907) 310-8176. Thank you.


Ozodiobi Osuji

Nnamdi Kanu clearly violated the conditions for his release from jail.  From what I know about these things what needed to be done was to send the police to go pick him up and return him to jail.  A few dozen policemen, particularly those trained in what in the USA are called SWAT methods, could have gone to his house and in less than fifteen minutes apprehended him and returned him to the jail.

In a well-organized society you cannot be allowed to flaunt the conditions of your probation or parole. If you do then you might as well not have been given those conditions.

You make laws for them to be obeyed; if you do not enforce laws then you might as well not make them.

Nnamdi Kanu signed a legal contract to live by the conditions given to him when he was released from detention. If he had believed that the conditions were too stringent he should not have agreed to them.

Regardless of their stringency provided that he agreed to them he had to abide by them or he had violated the conditions of his probation and lawfully could be returned to jail.

And why hasn't the judge/court at Abuja ruled that he be returned to jail, anyway?  Such matters are supposed to take only an hour or so to be accomplished: you give the judge evidence that he violated his probation conditions, and there is evidence galore that he did, and she would sign off on it and he would be picked up and returned to jail.

So why was there delay in a judge signing the request to revoke his release from jail? I get it. The whole thing was probably a charade to jinn up riots in the East and uses that opportunity to teach Igbos some lessons on the nature of governments, on who has power and must be obeyed in the Nigerian polity, Buhari or Kanu.

Kanu and his group were becoming law unto themselves; they were setting up their own government with its apparatuses for coercion. They created Biafra Security Services and Biafra National Guard and gave them uniform (and armed them with bottles and sticks). Poor and unemployed kids were misled into thinking that they are a match for soldiers trained in the art of killing people with AK 49s and supporting armored vehicles.

We have seen this show before; Ojukwu armed his toy soldiers with ancient mark four rifles from before the twentieth century; his agents apparently bought those archaic guns at flea markets from all over the USA and he expected to use them to fight and win a modern war against a Nigerian army with modern weapons.

Wars are won with the best weapons available at the time they are fought.  But that is not the issue at stake here (if you are interested in war, perhaps, you can begin your education on that subject by reading Von Clausewitz's On War).

The question that stimulated my mind was why Nigeria had to go try to deal with Nnamdi Kanu with a whole army.

Why was it necessary to use an army to go after a boy that a platoon of policemen could apprehend with ease .You do not try to kill a fly with a tank; you use a fly swatter.

So why send the Nigerian Army to Abiah state just because one deluded boy who fancied his self his people's savior was holed up in his father's house talking tough.  Why?

I could not get it until this morning when I read at Premium Times that the Nigerian Army has declared IPOB a terrorist organization. A spark went on in my head saying:  so, that is why they did it!

They went into Abia state and paraded their armor around knowing that they would provoke the IPOB boys worshiping Kanu to pick a fight with them. They shot rifles into the air and may even have killed some people in Aba and Umuahia.

(Many of the pictures, shown at Facebook and other social media, of what they did in those two towns could be photo shopped.  In the age of Trumpian fake news who knows what is true anymore?)

Well, IPOB took the bait and made some gragra with the soldiers; the soldiers had some scuffle with them.

As a result of the apparent attacks on the Nigerian army they declared IPOB a terrorist organization.  If any organized group within a sovereign state challenges the elected government, or its military agents, of that state it can be lawfully declared an insurgent group (freedom fighters or terrorists).

When you declare a group insurgents trying to overthrow the legitimate government you can go after them and decapitate them.

This is probably what the British handlers of Buhari told him to do: provoke the amateurish Kanu toy soldiers into throwing stones and bottles at the Nigerian army, an army supposedly going about their legal business of conducting maneuvers on how to protect the country (dubbed, Egwu Eke, Python dance), and then declare them terrorists and use that as a cover to decapitate them.

I now get why there seemed overkill of military presence in Abia, why a motorized military formation was used to swat flies.

Who said that Buhari is not smart?  (By the way he will be at New York next week to address the UN.)

Everything Igbos do the Hausa- Fulani listen to those who are masters on how to control people, John Bull, Englishmen, and checkmate them.

Igbos are known for tough talking but lacking in tactical and strategical thinking. More importantly, Igbos assume that talking tough scares people. Actually, when you talk tough, especially if you insult people the people you verbally abuse feel angry and come after you and try to kill you to show you that you are nothing.

Human beings are proud. If you put them down you have attacked them psychologically; they feel psychological pain and have their pride pricked; they experience a need to assuage the assault on their vanity.

People feel narcissistic injury when you insult them and to rehabilitate their deflated ego will take you down; this is lesson 101 in human nature and human behavior.

Men kill other men for putting them down than for other reasons; in fact, most wars are fought for this ego prestige reasons (you learn this in introduction to International Relations class).

Igbos disregard the reality of human tendency to feel slighted and fight to rehabilitate their egos and keep on insulting people, right, left and center. In doing so, Igbos consciously or unconsciously, ask to be smacked down, even killed! We must consider death wish in Igbos (what Sigmund Freud called Thanatos).

Reasonable people quickly learn that human beings are vain and try not to say or do anything that would prick their vanity so as to not get attacked by them. To the contrary, Igbos have penchant for saying degrading things about people.

Rational persons always strive to respect other people; people do not like it if you disrespect them and, in fact, people seldom forgive you if you did not respect their human dignity.

Contrary to this reality everywhere you find Igbos they make a sport of insulting people! It is like they see themselves as invincible and nobody can kill them.

Kanu called Nigeria the zoo and called Hausas, Yorubas and other Nigerians unprintable names; name calling may have made him feel neurotically powerful but now look who is on the run! The degraded have come to show him that they can kill him.

I do not know if Igbos are daft; if they have the capacity to learn they must henceforth desist from calling people degrading names; if they feel an urge to depreciate folks they must bite their lips and walk away. Just do not call a human being derogatory name.

The Igbos who abused me at Nigerian Internet forums probably thought that they were cowing me! Poor fools!  My initial response was anger and in anger I felt a need to take them down; that is, correct, kill them. But on second thought I realized that they are ill-informed riffraff and do not know what they are doing.  So, I decided to do the next best thing: learn from their primitive behavior.

If you want to go to war with folks study them. Know their strength and weaknesses. Befriend them and be close to them and learn about them so that you can plan ways to fight them; above all, you must take your enemy seriously and respect him. Sun Tzu said this in his famous book, The Art of War.

Igbos do not respect their supposed enemy, Hausas; and Hausas have won all their conflicts with Igbos!

The Chinese practice Sun Tzu; they smile at the West and are gradually taking over the West. White men  humiliated the Chinese during the nineteenth century when they divided China among themselves; the British even forced China to allow British traders to sell opium to the Chinese, addict them to drugs, and, worse, took Hong Kong away from China; the Chinese have a score to settle with the white man; they are gently and quietly doing to the West what the West did to them: taking it over; they are also taking over most of the raw materials in Africa, yet they appear gentle and weak; they do not raise their voices at you. Buddha and Confucius taught them how to manage their anger and behave gently while screwing you!

But you see Igbos who have absolutely no power shouting at you as if when push comes to shove they have the ability to defeat you.

Given Igbos self-evident smarts, if they are tactful and diplomatic there is no doubt that they would accomplish a lot in life. As it is, Igbos specialize in making enemies and breeding conflicts for themselves, mostly because they put folks down.

Apparently, they do it in neurotic effort to feel superior to those they insult and compensate for their underlying sense of inferiority.

You find Igbos, such as Nebu Adiele, who probably did not even go to secondary school (while claiming that he is an attorney...attorneys do not insult people...the law is designed to engender respect for people not to disrespect them, so he is not a lawyer) come to Nigerian Internet forums to verbally abuse Nigerians with doctorate degrees. He chooses such persons to insult. Apparently, in insulting the well-educated the illiterate Mbaise boy convinces himself that he is their equal if not better. Instead of trying to learn from first rate brains such as Bolaji Aluko, Joseph Igietseme and  others he felt as if he is superior to them and wrote nonsense and in his mind and in the mind of his fellow hillbillies is now their superior. He should have put his time to good use by learning from these masters but as an Igbo he apparently believed that making noise is being powerful.

Kanu and his strange bunch made noise about the Nigerian state and the Nigerian State has checkmated them!

Like the naïve fools, they are, they are now asking the UN to come and save them! Really?  Assuming that the UN even knows about their existence it would take, at least, six months for it to get the necessary votes and money to fund a peace keeping operation in Eastern Nigeria.

Peace keeping is funded differently from regular UN operations (budget). The Security Council asks the rich members to pony up the cost of the specific peace keeping mission and if they are willing to do so it is a go but if not the crisis/war is left to fester and people are killed.

As we speak Indonesians are massacring black Papua New Guineans and the world has not intervened to save them!

Most UN peace keeping funds come from the US and a few other wealthy countries. African countries hardly pay their regular levies to run the UN's day to day operations; most of them owe arears to the UN...how much does Nigeria owe the UN in past dues...this is a task for you to find out if you are a student of international relations, international law and international organizations?

Why didn't the Biafrans ask ECOWAS and AU to come protect them? Why ask the UN and the racist Donald Trump to come protect them?

It is probably because they do not believe that their fellow Africans can protect them and because they do not have a clue about international politics. They think that noise making regarding someone persecuting them would persuade rational countries who operate on the basis of national interests to come protect them.

How much would it cost the USA to send troops to Eastern Nigeria to protect Igbos, say, for one year?

The US has $20 trillion dollars debt and is expected to run billions of dollars in deficit this year; so where are they supposed to get the money with which to come protect Africans?

Trump is so uneducated that he probably does not know where Nigeria is on the world map and does not care for Africans. If given free reign he probably would like to enslave Africans but Igbos don't know it and see him as their savior!

I am digressing and must return to my theme. My point here is that I now understand why the Nigerian state did not just go pick up Kanu but instead sent in their army and took their time playing cat and mouse game with the IPOB leader.

They probably wanted to provoke attack on them and use it as ruse to declare IPOB a terrorist group. Now seen as a terrorist group they will go after them, smoke them out from hiding and kill them.

Confused Biafrans will probably tell us that the Nigerian state has no constitutional right to declare IPOB a terrorist organization. Really? Who should do so for Nigeria?

The terrorist government in Washington, the racist government that exists to incarcerate black folks should sit in judgement over Nigerians? Igbos naiveté on political matters actually makes me cry!

Buhari has won round one. But his victory could be pyric; winning a battle is not the same thing as winning a war.

Buhari must try to solve the problems that led to the creation of Kanu. Igbos have some legitimate grievances against the Nigerian state. Those grievances must be addressed.

I have made it known how I believe that Nigeria ought to be restructured. I made submissions to the 2005 and 2014 supposed conferences to restructure Nigeria so my views are on record; the Nigerian government acknowledged my submissions, how I think that Nigeria needs to be structured.

For a starter, all of Alaigbo must become one state, from Igwe Ocha to Agbo; this is non-negotiable. Igbos must rule themselves and develop at their pace.  Left to their devices they will make tremendous economic headway (they need a lot of learning on governance, leadership and politics).

Nigeria is holding Igbos down.  Not rectifying this problem, sweeping it under the rug will not make it go away. After Kanu is long gone will be other Igbo insurgents.

(By the way, where is Kanu? Has he Ojukwued on us? That is, like Emeka Ojukwu, has Nnamdi Kanu run away, escaped to London, after all he has British passport and can easily sneak back into England; indeed the British government may even have helped him to do so! And after such cowardly act his followers would see him as a courageous person, as they saw the coward called Ojukwu when he abandoned his troops to their fate and fled to the Ivory Coast.  Ojukwu ran away from his troops and instead of hanging him on the nearest tree many Igbos called him their hero, a hero my foot.)

I end by saying: let us give it up for Buhari and his handlers. They have won another round in their battle with Igbos.  May be during the next round they may not win? Who knows?

Let us get on with the work of restructuring Nigeria and governing it as well as we could. Enough corruption already!


I think that I understand the game Buhari is playing; however, that does not mean that I approve his killing unemployed Igbo kids.  He should not have done that; as I pointed out above there are many ways to extricate Kanu and return him to jail without killing suffering Igbo kids.

What abandoned Igbo kids ask for is employment; they probably thought that Kanu was going to give them employment via his rag tagged army.

Buhari please start providing Nigerian kids with jobs or get the hell out of office. Over 90% of Nigerian youths are unemployed and, may be, over, 50% of Nigerian adults are unemployed. What exactly is your job as the president of Nigeria, if I may ask?


Ozodiobi Osuji

September 15, 2017

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Dr. Osuji can be reached telephonically at (907) 310-8176



Ozodiobi Osuji

Anyone with eyes to see can easily see that the typical Igbo desire to feel superior to other people. Generally, he sees his actual self in body as not good enough, rejects it and uses his imagination to construct an alternative ideal self that he wants to seem superior to other selves.

Once he posits his compensatory superior self he pursues it. In pursuit of that false, neurotic (deluded) self he appears to accomplish much in life (not really for what really matters are love and that is not part of his pursuits).

The Igbo is like a projectile and someone shot him off of a canon towards a target:  seek a superior self with allied material accomplishments.

In pursuit of his wished for ideal, superior self the Igbo compares his self to other people, and if he sees those as not driven by his obsessive-compulsive force hence accept themselves as they are without much ambition, he has no respect for them.

Igbos see their Nigerian neighbors as not ambitious and as not as accomplishing as they are and feel superior to them and have no respect for them.

Igbos do the same to their fellow Igbos; that is, look down on those Igbos they consider not highly achieving. An example is what they did to me. At some point I evaluated the rat race and decided to seek only what is congruent with my real self. Some idiot Igbos appreciating that I do not talk about my neurotic accomplishments...because those mean nothing to me...began seeing me as they see Nigerians,  inferior.

I am inferior to whom, Igbos? I had the doctorate degree and was a professor before age thirty and I am inferior to a bunch of country bunkums?

The salient point is that the Igbo feels superior to those he fancies that he is more accomplishing than. He does not know it but his behavior is neurotic and deluded.

The Igbo is like the white racist who looks at black people and sees that they do not have much going for them and feels superior to them.

Listen, any moment that you feel superior to another human being, white or black, man or woman, child or adult, Yoruba, Hausa or Igbo at that moment you are insane!  This is literal not figurative.

Your diagnosis is delusion disorder. Delusion disorder, aka paranoia is a partial psychosis. In full blown psychosis there is both delusion and hallucination in one or more of the five senses (as in schizophrenia and mania).

The superior feeling, arrogant Igbo is deluded but because he is not hearing voices (auditory hallucination) or seeing what is not there (visual hallucination) he does not know that he meets the criterion for psychosis!


A bunch of poor Igbos manage to find their way to the USA and other Western countries. Generally, they attended crummy universities and have bachelors or masters' degree. Thereafter, it enters into their heads that they are superior to other Nigerians.  They embark on a regime of insulting Nigerians. They put Nigerians down. They use the most god awful language in describing Nigerians, such as call Hausas Nnama (cattle) and call Yorubas Ngbati and Owanbe (lazy folks who exist to have good times and party). Everything that comes out of their mouths is insulting for Nigerians.

During most of my stay in the USA I had little or nothing to do with Igbos. The trajectory of my life was different from theirs. I was born at Lagos and had a multiethnic upbringing so I do not look at people as Igbos do.  I came to the USA from secondary school when I was still a boy. I went to school straight and obtained the doctorate degree and began teaching at one of the California state universities. Thereafter, I quit exploring who I am.

Like a typical Igbo I was driven by desire to succeed hence identified with a neurotic ideal self and experienced anxiety from trying to be who I am not;  to reduce that anxiety I had to live from my real self.

For whatever reasons, I lived mostly with white folks. My orientation to life thus is white middle class; therefore, I find it rather unpleasant to be around Igbos who are operating from their Igbo culture...my culture is scientific culture, not this or that particularistic culture.

I am not a cultural relativist who believes that all cultures are equally good; to me only cultures that embrace the scientific method are good; I do not accept the nonsense of multiculturalism; I accept one universal scientific culture.

In 2005 I joined some Nigerian Internet forums and encountered Igbos. Everything they write is abusive of Nigerians. They assumed their superiority to Nigerians. They have no respect for Nigerians.

Igbos and their superiority complex reminded me of white racists who have no respect for black folks because they assume that they are superior to black folks.

No human being is superior to other human beings. White folks are not superior to black folks; Igbos are not superior to other Nigerians; you may have more education and or material things but that does not make you superior to any human being.

If in doubt of this truth see Donald Trump, the President of the USA. He is a billionaire and occupies the most powerful office in the world. Would you say that he is superior to a nine year old boy in the third grade at elementary school? The man is a total idiot. This proves that money and power does not make you better than other people.

Igbos seeming attainment of Western education and possession of some chomp change (Yorubas are more educated than them and have more money than them) does not make them superior to any one else. Many Hausas refused to buy into the Western Weltanschauung; they do not seek Western things like mad men, as Igbos do. They look towards the Muslim world for symbols of worth.

I saw Igbos verbally abusing Nigerians, right, left and center. I was shocked. I tried to tell Igbos that we are all the same and coequal and, as such, should respect each other.  They did not listen to me.

Many Igbo Internet warriors began seeing me as they see Nigerians, as nothing. They subjected me to vicious derogatory name-calling. They have called me all the names they call Nigerians.

For our present purposes, they talked about separating from Nigeria; they called themselves Biafrans. I tried to tell them a little bit about the nature of sovereignty and the nation-state.

A sovereign country has control over a certain territory; it is recognized by international law to have police and military powers and use those to defend its territorial integrity.

A country can define attack on its territory as coming from external enemies and fight them or from internal agitators and also fight them.

I noted that since the Nigerian army is stationed all over Nigeria, including Alaigbo they can define agitation for Biafra as an attack on the sovereignty of Nigeria  and respond with defense (killing Igbos).

If the Hausa-Fulani controlled government of Nigeria wishes it, it can shut down social media and prevent foreign journalists from going to Alaigbo and engage in ethnic cleansing. They can do it and get away with it.  The Hutus did it to the Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994.

As for the international community intervening on behalf of Igbos, well, you must be a fool if you have not learned that white folks see Africans as unintelligent and really do not take them seriously. If Africans killed Africans in Africa who cares?

Let us say that some liberal bleeding hearts brings the killing to the attention of the United Nations.  It goes to the General Assembly.  The GA may schedule the issue for a hearing; the schedule may be on a date several months in the future!

In the meantime, Hausas would have massacred many Igbos.  The GA does not have police powers and if it deems something as needing police action refers it to the UN Security Council. They may schedule it for debate. Any of the five permanent members: Britain, France, USA, Russia and China, can veto any resolution of the Security Council.

Britain invented Nigeria and Nigeria is its handiwork; Nigeria is Britain's African crown Jewel; it is not about to let Nigeria splinter into tribal fiefdoms.

All things being constant, Britain will veto most resolutions supporting Biafra.  Perhaps, it agrees to send peace keepers to Nigeria but that would still be under the umbrella of Nigeria's unity.

White folks do not like to send their children to go die for black folks, so the peace keepers will be mostly Pakistanis, Indians and Africans; the majority of those would be Muslims.

You know where the allegiance of these Muslims will be? It will be with Muslim Northern Nigeria! So, peace keeping in Eastern Nigeria would amount to what the peace keepers did to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; there, they raped both boys and girls.

Yes, UN soldiers raped ten year old African children in the Congo. That is what Igbos would get in lieu of help from the International community!


A Nigerian school dropout called Nnamdi Kanu lived at London; he mostly mooched off his several girlfriends; eventually he got a gig at a radio station; he transformed his talk to talking about Nigeria. He called Nigeria the zoo and other pejorative names.  In time, he felt powerful and was canvassing for military weapons to go "destroy Nigeria" (his words).

Two years ago he visited Nigeria and the authorities picked him up and incarcerated him.  On April 25. 2017 they gave him conditional release from jail to go seek medical treatment.

Outside jail he became a superstar for unemployed Igbos looking for a messiah, a savior to give them jobs. Those people kind of see him as god and literally worship him. They prostrate on the ground for him (he could do what some African pastors do, walk on their backs!); the man, in his fantasy, has become god (perhaps, he has quietly slid into psychosis; psychotics often see themselves as god or a very powerful person, such as Napoleon or Hitler!).

Kanu was all over Alaigbo talking to large crowds of Igbos who adore him (one of his jail release conditions is for him not to address a group comprising of over ten people).

The man apparently formed what he called Biafra Security Services (and gave them uniform) and Biafra National Guard. That is, he not only violated his jail release conditions but now has formed an army to fight the Nigerian state.

Once he did that all gloves were off. The Nigerian state sent its military to Igbo land and has effectively reoccupied it as they did during the Nigerian civil war.

If Kanu's militants act out Nigeria would probably declare martial law in Alaigbo. They would implement a stringent curfew.

Under the cloak of darkness one can see a new round of pogrom. Hausas have no love lost for Igbos and if given the opportunity would probably engage in genocide to wipe out pesky Igbos (Igbos refused to become Muslims and insult them, left and right).   I am afraid that some kind of ethnic cleansing is afoot in Alaigbo!

As the Nigerian state begins the process of trying to reassert control over what was rapidly degenerating to chaos and anarchy (there, criminals run wild stealing, and kidnaping people and holding them hostage until ransom money is paid them) they will probably kill many Igbos.

Moreover, they will disrupt economic activities in Alaigbo. Igbo traders would lose billions of dollars.


My question is this: where are those diaspora Biafrans who were encouraging unemployed Igbo youth to insult Nigerians, right, left and center?

Shit has hit the fan and folks are about to learn that the idea of nation-state includes the right to be the legitimate possessor of powers of coercion in a human polity; and that power includes the ability to round people up and incarcerate them.

In the USA, despite its noise making about fairness and rule of law, judges exist to clamp black kids into jails and prisons; police exist to apprehend black kids for minor crimes and have their racist courts put them in prisons where their homosexual white prison guards rape them. There is no justice in the USA or anywhere else in the world.

So, what are the Biafran Internet warriors going to do as their kinfolks are "settled" in Nigeria, keep quiet, as they are currently doing?

Talk is cheap, you know. It is when bullets fly that we know who are men or boys. If the Internet warriors are real soldiers they would go to Alaigbo and go fight the Nigerian army and get their loud talking mouths slapped shut. They have made enough noise about their phantom powers; it is now time for them to demonstrate their powers.


Igbos have to learn about the nature of politics. In politics 101 you learn to respect all people for anyone who so desires it can pump bullets into your arrogant head and kill you.

A protective God does not exist so no god would protect you. Did god protect the estimated six million Jews killed by deluded Hitler and his Nazis, or the fifty million people the little, inferior feeling corporal from Austria, in pursuit of compensatory sense of superiority, killed?

Igbos must learn to respect all Nigerians and stop fancying themselves as supermen; they have no real power, not even a little bit of it (Stalin said: show me your tank battalions then we can talk about your power). Igbos power is imaginary and delusional.

Real power inheres in love and respect for all human beings. Respect all people if you want them to respect you.


Biafrans are clamoring for referendum. Their goal is obvious. They believe that if given the opportunity to vote that they would vote to secede from Nigeria. If that is the case why would Nigeria allow them to do so?

Please give me one good political and economic reason why Nigeria would allow the East, where most of its oil revenue comes from, to leave Nigeria.

Nigerian leaders got to be idiots to allow referendum and the departure of Eastern Nigeria from Nigeria.

Countries do not allow areas where they derive most of their resources to leave them. Russia allowed the breakup of the USSR but retained in the Russian federation areas where oil is produced. Today, Russia is using that oil to blackmail its former vassal states such as the Ukraine. Russia uses oil to get some of the former Republics in the USSR to kowtow to the lordship of Russia.

The point is that democracy is not a sentimental idea; it is rooted in real politics; in terms of political realism, Nigerians are not going to buy into the quaint, romantic notion of democracy that says all people have a right to opt out of their countries.

Nigeria is not going to allow the goose that lays its golden eggs, Niger Delta, to leave the federation. That is simply not going to happen; Igbos must stop such infantile wishes. They are actually being hysterical in their behaviors!

Igbos must stop appealing to people's feelings while shrouding their intension to destroy Nigeria with the shibboleth of democracy allowing them to have referendum.

Despite talk of peaceful referendum in Scotland, has Scotland actually separated from Britain and has Catalonia actually separated from Spain, and how do you know that if citizens there voted yes that they would allow them to leave. Only an idiot British leader would allow Scotland to leave, a country that took his ancestors almost a thousand years to conquer and unify with in 1707; nor would Spain allow Catalonia to leave given the struggle by the reconquestors to take Spain back from the Muslim Arabs.

Where in the world is ideal democracy at work, anyway? Is there democracy in the USA? Thirty five US states are controlled by Republicans; those states are passing laws to disenfranchise African Americans by requiring them to show Government issued IDs to be able to vote. Many African Americans are illiterate and or felons and cannot have government issued IDs.

Trump's desire to build a wall at the US-Mexico border is to prevent Mexicans from coming to the USA and breeding like rats and eventually taking over this Anglo-Saxon country.

Democracy is beautiful idea that cannot exist in pure form in our ugly world. Did I say beautiful idea? Conservatives believe that the ill-informed masses should not be allowed to vote for they do not know what is good for them!

Igbos must not pretend that they do not know what political reality is; they must stop their disingenuous call for referendum to let them go.

I suspect that contrary to Kanu's optimistic belief in the referendum that many more Igbos would vote to remain in Nigeria than leave it! Emeka Ojukwu thought that he was popular in Alaigbo and ran for office and only a few Igbos voted for him!

In sum, where are the diaspora Igbos, the Biafra Internet warriors fighting the Biafra war on the information super high way. Are they going to run to Nigeria and go fight the war they have been calling for or are they going to be missing in action?

Ozodiobi Osuji

September 13, 2017


PS: The Biafran Internet warriors know who they are. They should go die with those kids that in their narcissistic arrogance they mislead to fight for Biafra. Are these folks cowardly motor mouths that upon the first rifle shot run into underground burrows to go hide and live to see another day to make their noise in?

From Ozodi Osuji's Daily Journal:


We see the past if we look with physical light. Physical light travels at the speed of 186, 000 miles per second. At that speed we can see the moon (250, 000 miles away) in a little over a second, the sun in about nine minutes (that is how long it takes light to reach us from the sun, which is 93 million miles away...the sun we see now is how it was nine minutes ago...some of the stars we see is how they were billions of years ago when their light left; in fact, many of them are already exploded and are no longer in existence!).

You see the guy in front of you the way he was a moment ago when light hit his body and sent his image to your eyes to see him but you do not see him immediately, in the present.

We see the past, religionists tell us; they presuppose that we see with physical light thus limiting ourselves to the speed of light that shows us what we see as it was when light hit it, take a picture of it and sped off with it.

Entangled particles communicate instantaneously, with no time interval between them. That is, they do not recognize space, time and matter, which physical light does.

In God people see and experience things always in the present, for there is no space, time and matter between them. There is no past and future in God for past and future can only exist where there is space, time and matter.

Why am I saying all these things? It is because it is my chosen function to say so; religion is usually written in metaphors, in poetic language that few understand; I choose to recast it in the language of everyday living, in simple prose.

I write in simple language that even elementary school children can understand. Even though, if I choose to, I can write in the language of my profession but most of the time I choose to write in common prose so as to have all be able to read and understand what I write. What is the use of communication if ones language is wooly, convoluted and hifalutin and no one understands it?


The ego gives one fear, anger, sadness and other negative affects; the ego retards learning things and hinders making friends; the egoistic person is lonely and does not have friends.

A Nigerian paranoid egotist called Nebu Adiele comes to the public square to insult people; his ego correctly tells him that those he insults could shoot and kill him and put him out of his miserable existence, a pointless life dedicated to verbally abusing people. To keep his useless life seemingly alive he writes with a false name; nobody knows who he is. That is, to be an ego he sentences his meaningless self to anonymity and loneliness. He lives a pathetic, desperate existence. The egotist always lives a pathetic life. The gift of the ego is fear and loneliness.

Can someone please tell me one positive attribute of the ego other than the false sense of importance and power it gives its owner, a false power that the person must constantly defend; the false must be defended to seem real; that which must be defended to seem real is not real; the real needs no defense to be real; if one is truly powerful one would not have to defend that power!

The egotist is not important or powerful by merely assuming to be so. The ego is useless and must be let go, all of it; do not keep even a little of it for to do so is to feel pain.  The ego only gives us pain.

People do not realize how light and simple life is when one lives without the ego and its pretensions of grandiose power and importance.

Since I stopped thinking and behaving from the ego my life feels literally like light.


If a person is not doing anything that is socially useful to other people and just exists like an animal that is not living; in such instances death does one favor and kills one.

My friend Mike  was living to gratify his ego's desire to seem important and would not go socialize with people or help people in one way or another; it was better that he died.

My uncle Adolphus and my cousin Innocent were not living for causes greater than their puny egos and died. Upon leaving secondary school and was going to the USA both of them gave me about three hundred dollars each. I did not know that they meant it as a loan, for a few months later they asked me to give them back their money. I was shocked but complied. A few years later both died. In my opinion, they deserved to die because if they could not give a studious boy some freaking chomp change and not ask him to pay it back to them they were not living socially serving lives and therefore death was a mercy for both of them (and come to think of it, my father brought both of them to Lagos and they lived with us; my mother fed them until father got them jobs and they finally moved out of our house; what an ungrateful bunch they were!).


A course in miracles says that if you change your mind, that is, now use it to love other sons of God in bodies and forgive them their wrongs towards you that your body would be physically healthy. Come to think about it I have not really taken any medication since age nineteen.  The book says that you live in a healthy body and use that body to love other people and when you are done doing what you came to do you lay your body down and die; that is, move on to the world of light forms.

I found it necessary to clarify this question because some religious folks engage in magical thinking and believe that their bodies would not die. Your body will eventually die; however, if you live from love you can occasionally see you in your light body; in that light body you transcend the limitations of space, time and matter (mere wish to be somewhere can take you to it... teleportation and other so-called miracles).

As long as you live in body made of dense matter that body will die (120 years is the limit that the human body can live).

If you live in the light form you will not die. Why? It is because God, via his Holy Spirit created the body in light forms and what God created does not die.  The light formed self will be gently translated into spirit, heaven (heaven is the place of formless light selves).

What God made does not die but what the son of God made to hide from God, ego and body, must die for the wages of sin, separation, is death.

The ego and its body were designed to enable us to hide from God and therefore is a means of separation; separation is wat Christians call sin.

The wages of sin is death. The ego and body must die for they were designed to sin with, to separate with. Even Jesus, the most advanced teacher of God... he totally let go of his ego and lived from the Holy Spirit directed part of his mind... had to die.

As long as Jesus lived in body and ego he had to die. He was crucified and died. What resurrected was his light body, not his dense body. He went to his apostles in his light form and showed it to them. His old body died.

How do I know this to be true?  It is because I am a teacher of God and know these things. At any rate, I do talk to the old boy; my explanations are as good as his.



As long as you are in this world you have already manifested in body and ego and have a human personality, healthy or disordered personality. You think in a certain manner, a manner made necessary by your specific bodily constitution and social experiences.

All you can now do is choose not to respond to things from the perspective of your old personality, the ego you formed in childhood; you can now overlook your ego and personality and look at the world from love.

In every situation you find yourself in you pause and ask the Holy Spirit, that is, love, to show you how to respond to it.

Before you do anything you pause and evaluate how your ego would see it and how love/the Holy Spirit would see it and you choose to respond to it as you believe that love would do.

The Holy Spirit sees things from the perspective of what is good for all of us; therefore, you decide to do  what is good for all of us, not just what is good for your ego.

If you so choose to live, that is, to be directed by love, metaphorically called the Holy Spirit, you will still have your ego, body and personality but you ignore them and what they ask you to do (I still have my  warrior ego that does not tolerate command from any one).

If a person does wrong to you, for example, your ego asks you to bear grievances and get even with him but the Holy Spirit asks you to forgive him and relate to him from love; you choose to relate to him from love and in so doing know peace and joy (if you choose revenge you have chosen conflict and war, hence know no peace and joy).

Whenever you decide with love you feel loved, light and happy and peaceful; you feel carried along by cool breezes and life becomes effortless for you.


If you firmly and convincingly say to you that you are not your ego and body and mostly allow the Holy Spirit to speak and act through you, occasionally you would experience Holy Instant. Here, you do not see your body and the physical world; instead, you see the world of light forms or even experience formless oneness with God.

But you do not stay in the Holy Instant, aka mystical union of God and his son, Samadhi, Nirvana, Satori,  for too long or else your body would die; you must therefore return to your body and keep on living as a person in body until you finally die (death is not what happens to us against our wishes; each of us chooses when he will die and the manner he will die; nothing happens to us accidentally; everything that happens to one is according to one's script; one dies when one's life mission is accomplished and one has nothing more to live for).

If one lives a loving and forgiving life one lives peacefully and happily doing what one has aptitude for, enjoys doing and doing it effortlessly.

For example, I get up in the morning, usually around 5 AM, write a 3-5 pages metaphysical essay, such as this one, then go to school and teach secular subjects; students would not know that I have a private life dedicated to God. I do these things rather effortlessly. I do not struggle for anything. If I need money somehow it comes to me. A loving life has its benefits.

When my function is performed, when I am done doing what I came to the world to do, give the world a new metaphysics, one that combines science and meta-science, I die and transit to the world of light forms, a world I already have many friends at (including my brother Joshua Ben Joseph...Thomas was his literal brother 2000 years ago...even then Joshua spoke in parables while Thomas, the brain of the family, talked in clear prose; Thomas is here to clarify what Joshua said in his annoying indecipherable language).

Ozodi Thomas Osuji

September 10, 2017


Sunday, 10 September 2017 01:19

The Real Self is Light

To Africans:

If you talk to Africans you quickly find out that the philosophy they are operating under was propagated by their ancestors. Those ideas were conceived by people who had no idea of modern science.  Clearly, Africans have to update their ideas of life and what life means to them.  I am a philosopher. I have synthesized the philosophies of the West and East. From that effort I have posited what our real selves are. The below 25 pages essay is part of my efforts to understand the self. It is now time that we modernized Africans self-concepts and got Africans to think in modern scientific terms. I hope that this piece would help Africans (and all people...the lecture was given to a white audience) begin to see themselves in a different light than their present prescientific light.


This is a two hours lecture on the nature of the self

Ozodi Thomas Osuji


Many of us want to know what our real self is. In trying to understand what our real self is I had to take a look at many sources that could shade light on it?  I had to look at what science says, what psychology says, what the various religions said about it. Having looked at these various sources of knowledge I did a little thinking of my own and eventually synthesized what I learned.  Before we get to my personal view on the nature of the self, I am going to provide us with a synopsis of what I gleaned from the various sources I examined.


Contemporary cosmology, building on astrophysics, tells us that 13.8 billion years ago, out of nowhere and nothing a point of light appeared. That point of light was smaller than a particle. Please visualize the size of a particle.

An atom has the particles of electrons, neutrons and protons in it. There are thousands of atoms in the period at the end of this sentence. Multiple that by three and you begin to get an idea of how small a particle is. Yet, that small particle became all that there is in our universe!

A particle of light emerged out of nowhere and shattered into smithereens, exploded into fragments; each fragment is a photon.  Two or more photons combined into an electron. Two or more photons combined into a quark.

Quarks combined to form protons and neutrons. By the end of the first three minutes of the universe's existence, Steven Weinberg tells us that protons and neutrons had combined into nuclei (of the simplest elements, such as hydrogen).

I am jumping the gun. Let us go back a bit. When photons transformed themselves to matter, that is, to electrons and quarks, protons and neutrons, they also transformed to the opposite of matter, anti-matter; that is, to anti-quarks, positrons, anti-protons and anti-neutrons.

Matter and anti-matter clashed, attacked each other and were supposed to have annihilated each other and returned to radiation (photons).

For some reason(s) for every billion particles of anti-matter produced by the early universe a billion and one particles of matter were formed. Thus, when they attacked each other particles of matter remained.

The remaining particles of matter apparently combined to form the basis of a matter based universe.

Here is a question: why did the early universe produce more particles of matter than particles of anti-matter? Physics would predict that the universe ought to have produced the same amount of matter and anti-matter so that they annihilated themselves and returned to radiation and thus aborted the existence of the incipient matter based universe or produced a universe composed of only photons.

Nobody can really answer this question. The standard speculation given is that it seemed like a matter based universe insisted on coming into being and produced accidents that made its existence possible.

A series of accidents, as we shall shortly see, made the existence of the universe possible. These seeming accidents are called anthropic cosmological principle.

Another anthropic accident is what happened to gravity. The exploded particles had to travel away from each other at a speed exceeding the speed of light (186, 000 miles per second) to avoid been pulled back, collapsing to themselves and thus ended the early universe. The particles travelled at what physicists call inflation rate.

Alan Goth has tried to explain why this took place; his explanations are in the nature of conjectures; they are not yet verified science; all we need to note here is that particles traveled at speed exceeding the speed of light, a speed that Albert Einstein had told us that nothing in the universe exceeds. Why so? No one has explained it to our satisfaction other than say that inflation made it possible for the universe to exist; if inflation had not occurred matter would have collapsed back to the point of singularity (oneness, the original point of light that contained everything before it exploded).

Talking about nothing traveling more than the speed of light how do we explain the non-local behavior of entangled particles? In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR Paradox) performed a thought experiment in which they concluded that if two or more particles are entangled, made to contact each other and later on separated and placed at the opposite ends of the universe  and one of them is touched and reacts the others would react instantaneously. They called it spooky action at a distance. In 1962 the Irish Physicist, John Bell provided mathematics for this phenomenon. In 1982 the French physicist, Alan Aspect actually performed experiment that proved that the phenomenon is real. This shows that particles can travel instantaneously, beyond the speed of light or shows that there is no space and time between them; it raises the possibility that all particles are in one spot and that space, time and matter are illusions that seem to exist but do not, in fact, exist!

By the end of the first three minutes of the universe's existence, Steven Weinberg tells us, in a book by that title, that the universe contained electrons and nuclei (protons and neutrons) and unattached, free photons.

I should pause and add that what Weinberg and other cosmologists did in explaining the origin of the universe is extrapolate from the findings  of classical and  new physics, especially quantum mechanics and use those to explain how the universe came about. There is no way that they could have explained the Big Bang origin of the universe if they had not studied  the findings of such physicists as Nicolas Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Christian Huygens, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Thomas Young, Michael Faraday, James Clark Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann, J.J. Thompson, Henri Becquerel, Rontgen, Marie and Pierre Curie, Max Plank,  Albert Einstein,  Ernest Rutherford, Neil Bohr, Louis Broglie, Arthur Eddington, Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, Emil Schrodinger, Paul Dirac, James Chadwick,  Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn, Strassman, Enrico Fermi, Thomas Oppenheimer, Alexander Friedman, George Lemaitre, Edwin Hubble, Fred Hoyle,  George Gamow,  Hugh Everett, Murray Gell-Mann, Eugene Wigner, James Wheeler and others. If you do not know what these great physicists discovered please read up on them; I do not have the time to go over their works here. (I reviewed the works of these great minds in a book on the ideas that changed the world.)

The universe stayed this way, plasma, for 400, 000 years. Thereafter, nuclei captured electrons and atoms were formed.

The first atoms formed were the simplest elements: hydrogen, helium, and, perhaps, lithium. The capturing of electrons by nuclei freed unattached photons; those photons sped off in all directions.

In 1965, Arnold Penzias and Robert Wilson working at Bell Laboratory at New Jersey heard some weird sound in their equipment and examined its source and discovered that it is microwave radiation from the 400, 000 year mark of the universe; they had picked up the photons that sped off when nuclei captured electrons (you can see this cosmic background microwave radiation when you turn your television from one station to another; it is the wavy lines with interesting sound on the TV's screen).

Thus, we now have a universe composed of a dense sea of hydrogen and some helium and free photons. The universe remained this way for a few million years.

Thereafter, another one of those anthropic events occurred. The dense sea of hydrogen separated into clumps. There were now trillions of clumps of hydrogen, each separated from others by space and time.

On each clump of hydrogen gravity acted; that is, it was pressured inwards. In the middle of the clump, its core, pressure and high temperature led hydrogen to fuse into helium. That is, stars are born.

Stars are clumps of hydrogen in whose core pressure and temperature lead to the fusion of helium and light and heat are given off as by products. The English astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle explained the fusion process inside stars; this is also called nucleosynthesis.

The fusion process is rather complex but for our present purpose what is salient is that hydrogen combines to form helium.

If you recall from your chemistry's periodic table, each element is composed of electrons, protons and neutrons. Hydrogen is the simplest element and has one electron circling a nuclei with only one proton in it (some forms of hydrogen, called isotopes, have neutrons; they are deuterium with one neutron and tritium with two neutrons).

Elements are atoms differentiated from each other by the number of electrons, protons and neutrons they contain. Helium has two electrons, two protons and two neutrons; carbon has six electrons, six protons and six neutrons; oxygen has eight electrons, eight protons and eight neutrons. Elements keep increasing their compositions of these particles until we get to the heaviest element, uranium with 92 electrons, 92 protons and 146 neutrons.

Thus, now we have a universe composed of trillions of stars. These stars grouped themselves into galaxies. There are, at least, 200 billion galaxies and each galaxy has about 200 billion stars. Our galaxy, the Milky Way has, at least, 200 billion stars; it takes light 100, 000 years to travel from one end of our galaxy to the other.

Galaxies, Alexander Friedman, George Lemaitre and Edwin Hubble tell us are speeding away from each other. The expansion is due to the presence of dark energy; dark energy constitutes 73% of the universe; dark matter balances the stars position in the galaxies; dark matter constitutes 23% of the universe; we do not know anything about this combined 96% of the universe!

The original stars were very massive in size. They quickly consumed most of their hydrogen and began fusing other elements, such as helium, carbon, oxygen. When the fusion process, aka nucleosynthesis, reaches Iron the heat inside the stars is no longer able to fuse higher elements. The stars expand in size and eventually explode in supernovae.

The extensive heat accompanying the explosion of dying stars formed the rest of the naturally occurring elements beyond iron...up to number 92 on the periodic table...scientists have synthesized another twenty elements in laboratories.

Stars and supernova, in effect, invented most of the elements that now exist in the universe (hydrogen was formed before stars were formed).

In the meantime, the exploded massive stars spilled their contents into space. Their inner cores may collapse to form black holes (something so dense that light cannot even escape from its events horizon) or form neutron stars (stars composed of only neutrons and spin at a dizzying rate).

The spilled elements, aka star dust, from shattered stars constitute nebulae. After a few million years those star dust agglomerate into medium sized stars and planets.

Our star, the Sun and its nine planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Pluto) were formed 4.5 billion years ago from shattered massive star(s).

The initial planet earth was very hot. Apparently, over time heavier elements, such as iron and nickel sunk into the core of the earth and lighter ones stayed at the top.

The earth has four layers: an inner core of solid iron, an outer core of liquid iron, a viscous mantle and a solid crust. The earth has an atmosphere with many layers: the ground we walk on is followed by the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere and exosphere. From the ground to space is about 300 miles.

At some point in the earth's history, apparently, an object about the size of Mars (a large asteroid?) hit the earth and struck off a part of it; the fragments of the shattered part regathered into what we now call our moon. Thus, the moon and the earth are the same age; both are composed of the same materials.


Water from comets was brought to the hot planet earth. Comets are rocks with frozen water on them; over millions of years comets kept striking planet earth and apparently eventually cooled it down and covered 70% of the surface of the earth with water.

So, our planet is now water based terrestrial planet (some planets, such as Jupitar are balls of gas). Apparently, three and half billion years ago, inside a pool of water, sixty four elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, potassium, magnesium, phosphor, zinc, iron, copper, chlorine, sodium etc.) mixed, formed a chemical mixture; light and heat from lightening (thunder) struck that pool of water and heated it up so that the various elements combined to form molecules/compounds from which single celled biological organisms formed.

Biological life forms formed in the goldilocks part of the Milky Way galaxy, in a part where it is neither too hot nor too cold.

If the earth and its sun were closer to the center of the Milky Way spiral galaxy life would not have formed on planet earth, for the earth would have been too hot; on the other hand, if the earth were too far removed from the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would be too cold and life would not have been able to form on earth, either.

Serendipity, accidents, as scientists say, placed planet earth where life forms. This is another one of those anthropic accidents.

This whole accidents business is kind of becoming too many that one is pardoned if one suspects that there is an intelligent agent at work in the universe! No wonder that certain religionists insist on what they call intelligent design of the universe; that is, the notion that God created the universe.

Intelligent design raises a whole lot of questions, such as why would an intelligent force create people that would die, what is the point? Thus, scientists and their meaningless universe seem to win the argument. But have they? We shall see!

In 1953, Urey and Miller, at the University of Chicago, tried to replicate the formation of flesh in their laboratory; their findings did not put an end to the question: how did our bodies come into being?

In time single celled biological organisms combined their cells into multi-cellular organisms and more complex animals and plants were formed.

Amoeba has one cell; visualize many amoebae combining into an organism with many cells. This process continued and over time more complex animals such as the vertebrates were formed.

Millions of years ago, the evolution of animals had reached the great apes, such as gorillas, chimpanzees and monkeys. Apparently, one branch of these great apes eventually began to walk upright and thus freed their fore limbs; they used their hands to manipulate things and became technological.

Many types of proto-humans were formed, including Neanderthals. About 100, 000 years ago, one branch of these great apes became what we now call human beings, Homo sapiens.

Apparently human beings first evolved in East Africa and thereafter spread to Europe, Asia and eventually to the Americas and Australia.

Here we are, animals whose brains can contemplate the nature of the universe and ask the question we are asking here: who are we, what is our real self?

Whatever has a beginning has an end. The universe, George Lemaitre told us, began in one spot; Alexander Friedman and Edwin Huddle told us that the universe is expanding. As the galaxies move away from each other the stars in them lose heat.

Astrophysics tells us that in a few trillion years' time all the stars will exhaust their hydrogen and explode.

Our Sun has enough hydrogen to keep producing helium for another five billion years. Actually, in about two billion years the sun will start running short of hydrogen and begin fusing helium to higher elements.  As the fusion of non-hydrogen to other elements continues the Sun becomes hotter and hotter (at this point it is called a red giant) and expands.

In about three billion years the sun would expand so much that it would have incorporated Mercury and Venus. In about five billion years the sun throws off its outer layers and its core collapses into a dense material called white dwarf. In time the white dwarf would lose its faint glow (from its electrons) and become a piece of rock floating in space.

Thus, our sun would die in about five billion years. Before the sun dies its increased heat would have dried all the water on planet earth. We can reasonable say that in about two billion years all water and water based life forms on earth would be dead and the earth would look more like today's Venus, a hot, barren rock.

In time, all galaxies, stars and all planets will die.  In a few trillion years the universe would be composed of only particles; the last particle to decay would be protons.

When all particles decay they return to radiation, this time to cold photons.  Thus, a universe that began in hot photons ends in cold photons (Big Chill).  A universe that began in hot light ends in cold light.

(Please ponder that hell is supposed to be hot and heaven is supposed to be cool; we entered the hell of living on hot earth and return to living in a cool heaven.)

Hopefully, before our sun dies we, human beings, would have developed the science and technology to hop from one planet to another, and eventually from one star system to another, from one galaxy to another and before the entire universe dies we would tunnel our way to other universes (if, indeed, there are multiverses...Hugh Everett, in 1957, posited the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics). This way we live forever and ever, in one universe or another.

Who said that scientists do not believe in eternal life? Where is that great atheistic belief that life ends in our physical death, in supposed oblivion and finitude?

Apparently, the human mind seems incapable of accepting death as its end! And it should not.  In another part of this lecture I will argue that the physical light that began this universe, the big bang, came from spiritual light.

Spiritual light produced physical light and physical light transformed itself to matter, space and time. In the end physical light returns to spiritual light.

The supposed end of the universe is the return of space, time and matter to where they came from: the world of spiritual light, which folks call heaven and its God.  But before we explore this reality let us look at how we form our self-concepts.


These days when folks in the West talk about the self they look to psychology and psychiatry to inform their understanding of the human self. It was not always that way. Philosophy used to be the articulator of what constituted the human self, as Europeans understood it.

In the late nineteenth century the West turned to incipient science to help them understand human nature. Charles Darwin published his book, Origin of Species, in 1859. He made the argument that human beings are just a variety of animals struggling to adapt to their environment. People are not sons of gods but animals produced by nature and struggling to adapt to nature.

If people are mentally ill it is no longer seen as the product of the gods but as having something to do with their here and now world.  Psychiatric institutions were built to house the insane. People began to study the insane from the perspective of science's materialistic philosophy.

In 1900 Sigmund Freud wrote a book on the interpretation of dreams. He wrote many other books. His philosophy is that people are pure animals. They are motivated by animal drives. Their primary drive is the desire for food, sex and aggression, what he called Id; but since they live in society, they must seek ways to make sure that they get along with each other.  Society posits rules, mores, norms and laws that folks must abide by or else all would live in chaos and anarchy; folks would kill each other and life, as Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) noted, would become nasty, brutish and short.

The human child who, according to Freud, is naturally a savage motivated by desire to gratify his instinctual urges could care less for other persons welfare; he is forced to internalize social norms of behavior. Those norms of behavior, what constitutes appropriate behavior, form a part of the child's mind; Freud called that part of the mind Superego. Thus, now are two parts in the child's mind, the Id and the Superego.

The Id says, pursue your natural instincts and the superego says, if you do so that society would punish you. A third part of the mind, the Ego came into being and kind of acts as a referee balancing the struggles of the id and the superego.

Thus, in people's minds are id, ego and superego. People live in eternal psyche conflict, Freud said.  They are conflicted and no longer know who they are. They need his psychoanalytic services to help balance them. So, they go to him, lie on his famous couch and free associate, say whatever comes to their minds, engage in transference relationship with him, project their anger at their father who had repressed their Id to him. He analyzes the outpouring from their ego unconscious minds and in the end tell them that they must still live in society and therefore must curtail their id desires.

An adapted adult must be neurotic for his natural self, id has been repressed and he is angry about it but anger does not eliminate the need to restrict ones behavior if one wants to get along with other persons.

Human beings, Freud told us, must behave irrationally for deep in their repressed unconscious minds are id forces that know no reason but only desire for immediate gratification of its desires.  The ego may be rational but it sits on top of irrational forces. People are not the rational beings we think that they are; they are driven by irrational forces although those are mostly driven into the subterranean regions of their minds. Indeed, people have desire to kill themselves and kill other persons, Thanatos, hence wars are inevitable, Freud said.

Freud's Psychoanalysis swept through Victorian Europe like wildfire on hot summer days. People flocked to Freud to have their neurosis analyzed.

Freud gathered apostles who learned his new psychology, his new mechanistic view of man. One of his earliest followers was a Viennese medical doctor called Alfred Adler.

Adler wrote that whereas Freud's views on Id may have some credence but that what really actuates people is their sense of inferiority. The exigencies of human existence make the human child feel inadequate Vis a Vis his environment. The feeling of inadequacy, powerlessness and inferiority is unacceptable to the child, for the child needs power to control and master his impersonal environment.

It is either you control the world or it controls you and if it controls you it kills you! So, the human child denies that he is weak and posits a view that he is strong. He struggles with the desire to seem superior to other people and to his world.

Neurosis is, according to Adler, characterized by sense of inferiority and compensatory desire to seem superior.

The cure for neurosis, Adler believed, is to redirect the individual's motivation, to get him to care for other people while he still pursues his desired superiority. Work for social interest and you are healthy, Adler said.

Carl Jung came along and said, wait a minute, man is not purely an animal, as Freud and Adler said, but is a spiritual being. He looked to oriental religions for guidance in his thesis that people are more than their bodies.  He posited what he called our collective unconscious mind; in it are spiritual matters as well as the experiences of past mankind; in it are architypes of behavior from time immemorial.

By the 1930s all kinds of people had entered the new field of psychology. Karen Horney built on Adler and said that the human child adapts to his world by rejecting his weak, actual self and seeking an alternative powerful, ideal self. The neurotic child, which is all of us in degrees, rejects his real self and posits an imaginary ideal self and pursues becoming it.

As long as one is trying to become a mentally invented self, the ideal self-one must feel conflicted for it is not ones real self. The neurotic child is fleeing from his real self and must feel anxious.

In the individual's mind is conflict between his real self and his desired ideal self.  This conflict and attendant anxiety is reduced but not eliminated when the individual tries to behave in accordance with his real self.

But what is the real self? Horney did not tell us what the real self is. Before she died in the 1950s she did start studying Zen Buddhism in the hope of finding out what constitute our real self?  She died before she could figure out what is our real self.

Erich Fromm continued with the study of Zen Buddhism and wrote interesting stuff on the sane human being, that is, on what constitutes our real self.

In 1955, an engineer turned psychologist, George Kelly told us that each human child constructs his self-concept. The human child is kind of like a philosopher; he uses his biological and social experience to construct a self-concept and self-image for his self.

What is the self? Kelly said that it is something the human child constructed using his biological constitution and social experience to do so.

Behavioral psychologists like John Watson, Bandura, and B.F. Skinner told us that the self is learned. The self is not some kind of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo we came into the world with but the sum of our learning. You learned your self-concept and that is all there is to you.  Biology and society may have played a role in learning yourself but all that matters is that you learned whatever you call yourself.

Therefore, to change you, psychotherapy, we must figure out how people learn their behaviors; Skinner elaborated on what he called classical and operant conditioning; as he sees it, those with behavior problems can have their behaviors modified through his behavior modification schema, his behavior technology.

So, armed with behavior engineering, young psychologists descended on schools, juvenile detention centers and prisons trying to modify people's behaviors through reinforcing positive behaviors in them, and extinguishing their negative behaviors.

Alas, in time they learned that they had not made one anti-social prison inmate a prosocial person; they had not turned one oppositional defiant child into a let's get along child. Some children simply must defy their parents and authority. Why do they do it? You go figure it out. Perhaps, we are not all meant to be docile conformists; perhaps some people must rock the social boat and bring about changes in it and or wound up wasting their energies as rebels without a cause.

By the end of the twentieth century psychiatry had turned to biology. It embraced biological reductionism with gusto. As it now sees it, the self is the product of whatever biochemical dynamics is taking place in the human brain. The brain is the source of the self, functional or dysfunctional.  If the known neurotransmitters in your brain are working well you developed a normal self but if they are unbalanced you developed a problematic self.  Neurosis (now called anxiety and personality disorders) and psychosis are seen as products of unbalanced brain chemistry.

If you are schizophrenic (the schizophrenic hallucinates in one or more of the senses, usually auditory, or visual and has bizarre delusions) your brain produces too much of the neurotransmitter, dopamine.

If you are manic (the manic is generally euphoric; he acts happy; he laughs at what most people do not find funny; he is excited and behaves grandiosely, like a person who won a billion dollar lotto and is often deluded, such as claiming to have billions of dollars whereas in fact he has no money) your brain produces too much of the neurotransmitter noradrenalin.

If you are depressed (the depressed person feels sad, loses interests in the activities of daily living, such as going to school, work, playing,  making friends, does not self-groom and wants to be left alone, feels fatigued and contemplates self-destruction, suicide) your brain produces too little of the neurotransmitter serotonin.

If you are anxious (there are many types of anxiety disorders, they are characterized by fear) your brain produces insufficient GABA, a calming neurotransmitter.

If you have these mental disorders how are you helped? Psychiatry gives its clients medications aimed at balancing the supposed unbalanced neurochemicals in their brains.

If you are schizophrenic you are given neuroleptic medications (such as Zyprexa, Risperdal and or the older brands like Haldol, Thorazine etc.) that reduce the quantity of dopamine in your brain.

If you are bipolar, manic you are given anti-manic medications (such as Lithium and Depakote) that reduce adrenalin in your brain.

If you are depressed you are given anti-depression medications (such as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Wellbutrin etc.) that boost the quantity of serotonin in your brain.

If you are anxious you are given anti-anxiety medications (such as Valium, Xanax, Librium, Ativan etc.) that increase GABA in your brain.

These medications have some temporary positive effects but do not cure any one with psychoses or neurosis. So, neuroscience has not solved the problem of what are human beings.  We still do not know who we are.

Are we merely the product of biological processes? Are we the products of only learning? Is there something in us that constructs our self-concepts and self-images? If so what is it? Is the mind the product of the dance of electrons and photons in our brains or is there something else going on in our brains?  Is there a little man in our brains that take our biological and social experiences and use them to construct our self-concepts?

Materialistic psychologists tell us that thinking is epiphenomenal and that there is no such thing as spirit. They ask us to accept atheism.

Alas, you look at the typical atheist and see a man who devotes his entire life to refuting theism but beyond that is accomplishing nothing socially useful; he is making noise; he does not know who human beings are but instead of keeping quiet he has an obsessive-compulsive desire to pretend to know. Most people tune out atheists and continue with their search to understand their real selves.

I know people who dismiss psychology and psychiatry as pseudo-science and call whatever psychologists say about people psychobabble. I think that such persons make a mistake. Yes, psychology and psychiatry has not healed any mentally ill person but they have shown some light on the workings of the human mind and brain.

My area of interest is personality. I believe that psychology has helped me to understand personality, healthy and unhealthy aspects of it.

American Psychiatry categorizes personality disorders into ten groups; this categorization is very helpful in understanding abnormal behaviors in otherwise functional people.

The personality disorders are paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, and narcissistic, histrionic, anti-social, borderline, avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive and passive aggressive.

Briefly, the paranoid personality feels inadequate and wants to seem adequate; he wants people to see him as powerful and if he suspects that they do not see him as such he feels angry at them; he is always accusing people that they are demeaning him; and quarrelling with people for belittling him.  He does not trust people and is suspicious of people's ability to care for him.

The schizoid personality wants to be left alone and does not particularly care for other people's company, acceptance or rejection. He tends to be good at dealing with non-human things hence many of them are engineers, computer scientists and mathematicians.

The schizotypal personality tends to believe in what folks see no evidence for, such as ghosts and spirits; he tends to believe that he has sixth sense; many of them even claim to have psychic powers; he tends to be odd and eccentric in his behaviors.

The narcissistic personality tends to believe that he is special and wants other persons to pay attention to him; he wants all people to admire him. He believes that he is superior to all people and as such is justified in using them to get what he wants and discarding them when they are not useful to him. He tends to see women as beautiful toys and trophies with which he decorates his mansion but otherwise does not really love them.

The histrionic personality is the narcissist with additional tendency to being a drama queen. This person wants attention from all and does not have love for those he is seeking attention from.

The borderline personality has loads of confusions, is not sure what his gender is, is unable to make up his mind what to do with his life; he seeks attention but does not give it; if he feels abandoned by those close to him he may threaten to commit suicide and may even cut on his body to make them feel guilty and beholden to him.

The antisocial personality has low social conscience and finds it easy to steal and even kill people and feel no remorse for his hurtful behavior. It is from this group that most of our prison inmates come from (and also our businessmen).

The avoidant, shy personality is preoccupied with other people's acceptance; he anticipates social rejection and feels anxious; to avoid rejection and reduce his anxiety he avoids people and keeps to his self.

The dependent personality, perhaps due to illness in childhood, expects other people to take care of him; he pleases people hoping that they would support him and feels anxious when he feels that other people reject him.

The obsessive-compulsive personality thinks and acts obsessively and compulsively; it is like an inner pressure forces him to do something and he cannot help but obey the inner pressure. He seeks perfection in whatever he does; he admires those in authority positions and gladly obeys them.

The passive aggressive person wants to be liked by all people and as such does not want to offend anyone. People push him around for in our world you got to be either aggressive or assertive for people to respect your rights.  The passive aggressive person is pushed around and occasionally explodes in anger at been treated as a door mat.

I could go on and on describing the various mental and personality disorders; that is not my goal here; my goal is to point out that psychology and psychiatry has helped us to understand our human personalities but have not helped us change them; they have not helped us change them because they have not understood the root cause of our personalities.

Human beings are spiritual beings having physical experiences; you cannot fully understand them while leaving out their core: their spiritual nature; nor can you heal their mental disorders by merely giving them medications and or doing secular psychotherapy with them; you must find a way to factor in people's spiritual dimension into helping them live healthy lives.

In the end, the West sees the self as the human personality. Personality is the individual's habitual pattern of behaving, his predictable manner of responding to stimuli from his environment. Some people have what we might call normal personalities whereas others have difficulties relating to other people hence have personality disorders.

Is personality, aka the self-concept all there is to the individual? I do not think so. Like Carl Gustave Jung I believe that beneath the personality is another self, a spiritual self. I consider the human personality and self-concept a mere mask, persona, with which we cover our inner self, a spiritual self.

If we remove the veil of personality, remove the mask, we see a different self. Our real self is a loving self, whereas our ego personalities are hardnosed and thick skinned and sometimes hateful selves we adopted in our efforts to adapt to the impersonal environment we live in. Remove the blocks to the perception of love and you behold the love that is our true self, a loving self that is always there but we mask it with our desire for ego personalities.


According to contemporary anthropology and paleontology, all human beings originated in East Africa. It, therefore, makes sense to find out how Africans see the nature of human beings.

Africans do not have secular construction of human nature, yet.  To understand Africans perspective on human nature one must study the various African ethnic groups' religions. This is a tedious task although some scholars have made valiant efforts to do so.  John Mbiti wrote excellent books on African religions and philosophy.

There are over 1000 ethnic groups in Africa! Each of these has its own religion and those religions construe the nature of human beings.  Despite their apparent diversity they have commonalities in them; therefore, if you understand one African religion you have pretty much understood the rest of them.

For example, Igbo and Yoruba religions are pretty much the same. Their gods are the same; the only difference is the names that they give to their gods.

I come from an Igbo priestly family. My kindred are called Umuamadioha, the children of the Igbo God called Amadioha. Only us can produce the high priests of Amadioha.  All children in the kindred learn about Igbo religion, for any of them could be called upon to become the high priest.

Igbo religion posits a God called Chi.  Chi has three functions; he functions as the supreme and unknowable God (here, he is called Chi-ukwu); as God the creator of the universe (here, he is called Chi-neke) and as the God in each of his creation (here, he is simply called Chi).

So, what is the individual's real-self? Igbos say that our real self is the children of God. People are called Nwachukwu or Nwachi or Umuchukwu, or Umuchi, the children of God.  This does not mean that on earth people know themselves in this manner.

On earth people feel separated from Chi, from God and construct different selves for themselves. On earth each person constructs the ego for his self.

The ego is a replacement self. In Igbo land the ego is called manu. Each of us is called a manu (animals are called Umuanumanu).

To Igbos, the earth is not the real home of people; their real home is called Elegwe, heaven, the abode of spirits.  Chi-ukwu, Chi-neke and Chi lives in elugwe.

On earth, in the world of matter, space and time people live in bodies, but in elugwe people live as disembodied spirits.

Whereas heaven is our ultimate home we have an intermediate home where we reside in when we die on earth. That home is called the ancestors land, in Igbo, Alamuo.

Dead people are supposed to live in Alamuo; from there they pay attention to what is going on in uwa (or Alauwa), our world.

You can communicate with your dead ancestors. Whereas you can individually do so but since your mind is clouded by the ego, false self you currently identified with you may have to consult dibias, those who have purified their seeing and can and communicate with spirits to help you do so.

Each of us is said to be guided by some of his dead ancestors, spirit guides, these are similar to the saints and angels of Christianity who supposedly guide Christians. You can ask your ancestors to help you adapt to any situation you find yourself in.

While people live in space, time and matter, their Chi gave them temporal gods to help guide their lives on earth. Chi gave each town, village and kindred, even individuals gods to guide them.

A typical Igbo town or village has a goddess called Ala.  A typical Igbo has a god called Ikenga. There are functional gods, gods of the various professions in traditional Igbo land.

Igbos were primarily farmers and took pride in their harvests, so they had a god of farming and harvest called Ahanjoku (his priest is called Njoku or Osuji).

Igbos have a pantheon of earthly gods but those are not to be confused with the trinity of Chi-ukwu, Chi-neke and Chi. The holy trinity remains constant but the earthly functional gods change depending on the need.

The god called Amadioha is the god of light. Light means knowledge. Therefore, the high priest of Amadioha is supposed to be knowledgeable on spiritual matters.

In Yoruba land God is called Olodumare; Olodumare also has creative and other functions.  As in Igbo land, Olodumare created functional gods for the people.  For example, he created Sango to perform the same function that Amadioha performs for Igbos.

Sango priests, as in Igbo land, run in the same families and are inherited. You do not get up one fine day and call yourself an Igbo or Yoruba high priest. You must be born in the priestly families and the preexisting priests must select you as their replacement.

In both Igbo and Yoruba lands, however, you can study to understand spiritual matters. Those who have such callings and are trained are called Dibia in Igbo land or Babalawo in Yoruba land. They are equivalent to what in the West folks call psychics and herbalists.

People go to dibias to predict their future for them and to get them to prescribe herbal medicines for their illnesses. The process that one has to undergo to become an Igbo dibia (male) or lolo (female) is so rigorous that you may not even want to think about it. It is punitive; they try to destroy your earthly self-concept, your ego and help you open your spiritual eyes so that you can communicate with the spirits.

If you are interested in retaining your ego, separated self-concept dibiahood is not for you. I have witnessed the process of training dibia, it is brutal! It is not easy to get rid of the human ego; we came to earth to be egos so we see ourselves as egos; to extinguish your identification with the ego requires almost destroying your body! One must die to the ego and its body to resurrect to one's real-self, which is spirit.

The point that needs to be made is that Igbos self-concept is rooted in their Igbo religion and that this practice is pretty much the same in all black Africa.

To the question: what is our true self? Africans say that we are the children of God. But while on earth we have ego self-concepts, which are our false selves, and, as such, we are not aware of our spiritual nature.

A few persons are trained to understand their true nature and those are said to have spiritual seeing; they relate to the world of spirits and can help you deal with spiritual matters.


Like Africans, Indians did not develop a purely secular culture; their epistemology is rooted in religion; their religion is Hinduism. To understand how Indians construe human nature you must understand Hinduism.

Hinduism is not like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the so-called Abrahamic religions that were started by specific individuals, specifically by Moses, Jesus Christ and Mohammed. Hinduism does not have a specific founder. It grew gradually.

About three thousand years ago, Iranians moved into what is now called India. They found black people (Dravidians) already living in India. Apparently, Iranian (Aryan) shepherds and Dravidian shepherds (called Rishis) sang songs to their creator. Their songs or poems were eventually collected as the Veda.

The root of Hinduism is these poems by Rishis. These poems posit that God, whom they called Brahman, is their father and that each of them is a son of God called Atman. Brahman and Atman is the same. Where Brahman ends and Atman begins is nowhere; they are oneself with one mind.

Atman, the sons of God, apparently, cast Maya, magical spell, on their minds and went to sleep and in their sleep dream that they are no longer god but are separated human beings. The separated selves are called Ahankara.  Ahankara is a false self-concept; it is a replacement self, a substitute self, a dream figure. Our true self is Atman who is one with God.

A later generation of Indians wrote long heroic poems on the nature of God and his avatars (human beings who operated as God in the temporal universe). There are two such poems, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.

A part of the Mahabharata is the Bagavad Gita, what Hindus call their bible. The Gita wrote about the exploits of a god-man called Krishna. Krishna manifested as a black boy (a Dravidian) and was giving spiritual lectures to a warrior called Arjuna (an Aryan). He explained the nature of Hinduism and the five yoga paths used in returning to the awareness of God: Jnana, Bhakta, Karma, Tantra and Raja Yoga.

Later on, Hindu philosophers wrote the Upanishads; these were philosophical explication of the nature of Brahman, Atman and Ahankara and how to return to the awareness of God.

If you read these Hindu Scriptures you gather that there is a God called Brahman. Brahman is one and yet infinite.

Each of us is a part of Brahman, called Jivatman.  We cast a magical spell on us and went to sleep and in our sleep invented the temporal universe. In the world we forgot our true self, Atman and are now egos, called Ahankara.

Hinduism gave a rather sophisticated explanation of how the physical universe came into being. Its story of how the universe came into being is akin to Western Big Bang cosmology.

The universe is said to be composed of three Gunnas (Sativa, Raja and Tamas), three strands of matter, kind of like the parts of an atom (electrons, protons and neutrons); these strands combined to form everything in the material universe. They also combined to form the human body.

Some people have a predominance of one strand; those with more sativa are rational and spiritual; those with more raja are more active, are businessmen and soldiers; those with more tamas are lazy hence the poor in society.

Hindu society is divided into four classes...the upper class are called Brahmin, they are closest to Brahman, God and produce priests (called Swamis); the middle class are called Kastriyas, they are the doers of society; the poor are called Sudras, the working class. A fourth class is called untouchables (those do work that nobody else wants to do, such as remove human feces from people's houses).

The yoga's teach people what they need to do to yoke back to God, reconnect to God, how to return to the awareness of God.  Essentially, what people need to do is meditate (raja yoga).

In meditation people forget that they are human beings; they firmly tell themselves that they are not egos and bodies and what they are they do not know. They silence the thinking of their egos and remain silent. In the silence of their minds they will come to know that their true selves are Atman who is Brahman.

When a person has had this experience, called Samadhi (break through from Moksha, ego darkness) he is said to have had God or Self-realization.  He is now enlightened to his true self; he is illuminated to his reality. From now on he is a teacher of God, a guru and students flock to him to teach them how to attain God realization.

Hinduism has been around for three thousand years; it has many sects. Regardless of the sect one belongs to, what I said above describes Hindu basic beliefs.

However, the Vedanta sect is the best way to learn about the nature of God as I explicated it above; (that is, to learn about Advaita monism).

If one is a member of one of the many Bhakti sects, such as the Vaishnava's, one ends up not trying to understand God (via Jnana yoga) but merely sings songs to gods and worships God; one must be philosophical, Jnana yogi, to think about God to come to the above conclusions.

Hinduism has produced admirable philosophers such as Gautama Buddha, Shankara, Ramanuja and Vivekananda (the latter was a student of the nineteenth century Hindu God realized man called Ramakrishna...see M's Gospel of Ramakrishna).

Hinduism teaches that the universe has a beginning and an end. It teaches that many universes have come and gone. Lord Shiva creates and destroys universes.

Each universe is called Yuga.  Our present universe is called Kali Yuga. It, too, will end and another epoch comes into being.  The process is eternal.

This view is kind of like what some astrophysicists believe: that our universes come into being, expand and after reaching a certain length collapse back to its self (Big Crunch) and another universe is exploded out and begins, and the process is repeated, eternally. This view of cosmology is called eternal rebounding universes.

Rebound has not been proven as true just as despite all the noise made by physicists no one really has shown that the universe began in a big bang.

Indeed many physicists believe that our universe is inside a black hole and that what we call stars are reflections of one star on the walls of a cave; this is kind of like Plato's cave analogy.

Hinduism construes human beings as at root atman, children of God, Brahman. On earth they forget their real selves and identify with body and separated selves called Ahankara, egos.

The goal of Hinduism is to enable individuals to remember their real selves who are the sons of God.  When we have all remembered our real selves our universe ends and another begins and we forget our true selves, again, and begin another struggle to remember our true selves.

Is this explanation of the nature of the universe and the self-true or false? Of course Hinduism is not factual; it is a myth; it is a story of creation, a mythology; it is metaphor that, hopefully, enables Indians to make sense of their world.


Buddhism is Hinduism without the various gods of Hinduism.  Twenty five hundred years ago, a Hindu was born in Northern India. He was born into a rich family. His parents shielded him from seeing the sufferings of mankind. He married and had a son. At age twenty eight he chanced to leave his palace of luxuries and visited the poor sections of Indian towns. He saw serious human suffering. He saw the sick and dying that litter Indian cities (they still do so in present India; Mother Theresa devoted her life to serving such persons). Gautama could not understand why people suffer so much whereas he and the few rich live in palaces of luxury.

So, why do people suffer so much? He decided to go find out. He left his palace of luxury and went into the world. He studied under many Hindu Siddhas, gurus and swamis. He studied the five yoga's.  The man tried everything to understand why people suffer too much. No one could give him the answer that he was looking for.

So, one day he decided to go for broke; it is either he found the answer or he died. Until a man is willing to give what he is doing all he has, to find the answer he is looking for or die trying he is not going to accomplish anything worthwhile in life.

The man sat down under a Bo tree and told himself that he is not going to get up until the universe revealed to him why we are born to suffer.

People had told him that there is a God so the man asked: what kind of God created people to suffer? Damn the gods, Gautama told his self; there must be an alternative explanation of human suffering rather than the gibberish the various religions offer us, such as the hypothesis that we suffer because of our sins, that suffering is punishment for disobeying God's will for us (this is actually true for his will is that we stay unified with him; to separate from him is to disobey his will hence to suffer in the world of separation).

The man just sat there (hopefully, he did not eat and had emptied his bowels so that he had no need to use the toilet). He closed his eyes and meditated (raja Yoga).

In his meditation he tried to silence his ego mind from thinking, chattering. Mara, Hindu equivalent of Satan, came and tested Gautama (Mara is the ego, or as I call it, the ego god).

Mara told him to get up and go enjoy the world and give up the foolishness of trying to understand why people suffer.

Hay, man, give it up and go have a little fun with women and wine after all your father is a rich man. Gautama told Mara to get lost for after all his supposed enjoyments his body and ego would die.

What is the point of nourishing your body if it is going to die? All you are really doing is fattening your body to make it good dinner for worms!

Mara tempted Gautama pretty much as Satan tempted Jesus before Jesus began his ministry. Mara promised him the kingdom of the world as long as he worshipped the ego, separated self.

Gautama, like Jesus 500 years after him, stayed steadfast to his goal.  The man just sat there. On the twenty eighth day his mind went blank; he attained inner silence, what Buddhists call no ego self. His mind is now emptied of all ego thinking categories. In this mind washed clean of all ego desires a different awareness dawned.

Gautama experienced what Hindus call Samadhi, oneness with all being, Brahman. He called his experience Nirvana; simply put a sense of oneness minus the Hindu notion of God, Brahman.

Zen Buddhists call it Satori; Christian mystics call the experience oneness of the son and his father (that is what Meister Eckhart, Saint John of the Cross and Saint Teresa of Avila  experienced, see Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism or  William James, Varieties of Religious experience or Richard Bucke, Cosmic Consciousness).

Upon experiencing oneness with the formless unified universe Gautama got up and laughed; he had eternal peace and joy on his face. (How do you know if a person has experienced his real self? He is always in peace; he is serene; he smiles and laughs a lot; he laughs because he knows that the world is a joke, a dream, a hilarious play we all enact!)

Gautama got up and the people who gathered around while he was meditating said to him: what is up, man?  Did you experience something or did you waste twenty eight days squatting under that big, old Bo tree? What a waste; you should have gone and had a big, old good time; God, just look at them good looking damsels, you could have gone for them!


Gautama calmly and peacefully taught them thus:  We are parts of one universe; we decided to separate from that universe. We now see ourselves as separated selves. The feeling of separated selves housed in bodies is a result of desire.

The physical universe began as a result of our desire to experience separated selves, our desire to live as egos housed in bodies.

As long as we have the desire to be separated egos we must suffer. So, what caused suffering? It is desire to be separated ego selves in bodies.

What would end our suffering? Very simple, Old Gautama said. Remove the cause of suffering and you would no longer suffer.

Your suffering is based on your desire to be a separated self. Give up the desire to be a separated self in body. Tell yourself that you are not a separated self, not an ego in body; deny that you are your ego and body.

If you deny identification with ego and body then what are you?  To find out then do what the man did, sit quietly and meditate and you, too, will find out.

But before you meditate make sure that you live a loving life. Our true self is love. What folks call God properly named are called love. One loving force extends his self to each of us. Our true self is love. So, love all people.

Forgive those who wronged you in the egos world. Realize that the egos world is a dream of separation, so do not take what is going on in it too seriously.

Those who harmed you on earth did so in a dream. What is done in dreams have not been done in reality. Nobody has harmed you; you still remain safe in God. All people, whether you know it or not, love you; even when they attack you they are really offering you the opportunity to forgive them hence love them and teach them that love is who we are.

Gautama tells us to love all, to have compassion for our fellow children of the whole self who identify with false selves hence suffer. He tells us not to backbite, to not harm anyone; he asks us to do only what we know serves our mutual social interests.

The above teachings of Gautama are broken down into what is called the four noble truths and the eight noble paths to that truth.

Call it what you like; just do Gautama a favor, will you? Love all people for they are parts of you and in loving all you love your whole self. When you love your whole self you know peace and joy.

Most people are not willing to give up their desired identification with the false ego self. Gautama said, okay, buddies, go right ahead and keep your ego and its desire but do you a favor, will you? Know that you will die and get eaten by worms and that all that you worked for will end in sand.

Your mansion will decay and return to sand. So while seeking the things of this world do so in a detached manner, with non-attachment; know that whereas it is nice to have wealth for it makes living on earth pleasurable but in the end you and your wealth will die and return to the nothingness from which the universe came.

Gautama established the first monasteries and trained monks to live the desire-less, egoless and proud-less life he is teaching as path to experiencing nirvana.

Human beings have pride and dress fancifully to seem important. Gautama asked his monks to dress in red robes and to have no more than two pairs of robes and shoes. They are to walk around begging for food. All these behaviors are meant to humiliate their egos and eliminate their pride in the ego.

It is when a person eliminates his prideful ego self and lives humbly that he can know his real self.

Gautama lived to be eighty years old. He died from choking from food (what a way for a holy man to go!).

I am assuming that the story of Gautama is not real, is a metaphor; in that light what is the meaning of the saint dying from choking from food?

Gautama's teaching spread to all over India and eventually to all over Asia. As these things always happen, his philosophy split into two main sects: Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. Each group claims to represent the true teaching of Gautama.

As in Christianity the name Buddhism did not come about while Gautama was alive; folks began calling his followers Buddhists after he was long gone, just as Greeks, at Antioch, Syria, called the followers of Jesus Christians.

Jesus was not a Christian, just as Gautama was not a Buddhist; Christianity and Buddhism are religions made up by followers who actually have not understood what their founders teach.

If in doubt, ask a typical Buddhist to tell you what Buddhism teaches and see if he would tell you what I just explained! The typical Buddhist does not know what Gautama is trying to teach him just as so-called Christians do not know what Jesus is teaching them.

Both Jesus and Gautama teach us that we have ego selves which are not our real selves; they teach us that our real selves are part of a formless unified self, what religious folks call God.

There is only one intelligent force in the universe; it has no name but for the sake of explanation, though it cannot be explained, I call it formless unified spirit self.

We are all parts of one self and one mind. If you know this truth you realize that all people are parts of you and you love all people to love your whole self.

No enlightened self can hate other people, for to do so is to hate a part of his self. To hate a part of yourself is to be insane.

Sanity lies in loving yourself, which are all people. In loving all people you know peace and joy and feel eternal.


Christianity is a sect of Judaism, just as Buddhism is a sect of Hinduism. To understand Buddhism you must understand Hinduism; by the same token, to understand Christianity you must understand Judaism.  Therefore, I am going to say a few words about Judaism.

Judaism is the religion of the Jews. Jews are a Semitic people that originated, as their Holy Book, the Old Testament part of the Christian bible, aka Torah, tells us in modern Iraq (Romans called it Mesopotamia, the ancients called it Sumeria).

A man called Abraham (we are now in the world of mythology but let us go along with it) left his home at Ur, near present day Bagdad, Iraq, looking for greener pastures. He settled in what we now call Israel.

He had two sons, Isaac and Ismail. Isaac is the father of Jews whereas Ismail is the father of Arabs.

Jews and Arabs are the same people; they speak the same Semitic language. Words are merely pronounced differently in the two languages; for example, where Jews say shalom Arabs say salaam.

Isaac had Jacob and Esau. Jacob the trickster maneuvered Esau out and inherited his father's blessing.

Jacob had twelve children.  The brothers sold one of their siblings, Joseph, into slavery in Egypt. In Egypt he prospered.

Famine came to Israel and the brothers came to Egypt in search of food. Joseph recognized his brothers and had them go bring their old parents hence they all began living in Egypt.

In time different pharos ruled Egypt; they did not always like Jews and eventually enslaved them. The Jews under a leader called Moses left Egypt. They were trying to return to their home in the land they had stolen from the Canaanites.

Moses supposedly had an encounter with God and eventually wrote the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers.

Moses did not lead the Jews in entering Israel; his brother, Joshua did. He, too, wrote a book.  Other Jewish leaders wrote books and those books comprise what we now call the Torah, the Old Testament of the Bible.

The Old Testament part of the Bible, Torah essentially says that there is one God and that Jews should worship him; it acknowledges other gods but sees them as false gods. Their god, Yahweh, is to be praised and worshipped or else he got angry. His anger is out of this world; when he felt not admired he destroyed cities (such as Sodom and Gomorrah) and even the whole world (as the story of Noah and the deluge stated).

The god of Judaism is the god of law and order. His laws are obviously copied from the laws laid down by the Babylonian king, Hammurabi.  Obey his laws or else you are not only punished in this world but after you died. After death you are sent to hell where you are burned for eternity. What a god!

Jesus, a Jew, came along and reinterpreted the nature of God; he said that his god is not the god of punishment but the god of love and forgiveness. Everything he taught his followers is about love. Love God and love one another. Forgive those who harmed you. If a person slapped your cheek turn the other side for him to slap, too. If a thief asked for your jacket give him all your clothes.

Jesus taught his followers only one prayer and it has to do with forgiveness. "Our father, who is in heaven, give us our daily bread; forgive us our sins because we have first forgiven those who sinned against us."

Stop right there and appreciate what the Jewish Rabbi, teacher of God, is teaching. He is asking you to forgive those who wronged you if you want God, the whole, to forgive you, the part.

He told his disciples a parable. A man was going to worship God and remembered that a neighbor wronged him. He said that the man first must go home and forgive the neighbor who wronged him before he prayed to God.  How many times should we forgive, an apostle asked him. He said infinitely.

If we want God to reward our prayers we must forgive our neighbors. God hears all our prayers and has already given us what we asked for: material abundance, peace and joy but to receive those we must forgive our neighbors.  No one comes to God, to love, who has not forgiven all his sons on earth.

And they brought a woman caught in adultery to him and asked him what to do to her. The laws of Moses, the Old Testament, required them to stone her to death. His own New Testament teaches forgiveness, so what should they do to the supposed sinner.

The answer is obvious: forgive her; so, why did they bring her to him? They wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth that he is teaching forgiveness and since that contravenes their laws of Moses arrest and punish him.

Aware of their evil intension he ignored them. He kept writing on the ground, writing his teaching of love and forgiveness. Finally, he looked up and said: let him who has not sinned be the first to stone the sinner.

All have sinned and know it; the accusers left the woman. Jesus asked the woman: where are those who accused you of sin? She said that they are gone.

He told her that nobody accused her of sin but for her to only love her neighbors.

Eventually, the Jews found an excuse to arrest Jesus; they said that he taught that he and God are one; according to them this is blasphemy. They wanted to crucify him.

They took him to the Roman authorities ruling Palestine and told the governor, Pontus Pilate that the man claims to be one with God.

Pontius Pilate laughed and asked what is wrong with such a claim? Mad men make such claims every day so the Jesus man must be mad; take him to an asylum. He needs mental health rehabilitation not punishment.

The Jews insisted on murdering him so Pilate gave them their brother and they crucified him on a cross at Golgotha. Three days later he resurrected from death.

His followers felt emboldened from seeing their crucified leader in light form. Forty days later Jesus left this world of matter and returned to the world of light forms (where he is today and can be seen if you want to do so, provided that you love and forgive all).

His followers began preaching his gospel and took it to all over the Roman Empire. Paul, hitherto called Saul, an educated Jew, took the message of love to Rome itself.  He rattled the Romans and was arrested and crucified.

Eventually, the religion of Jesus, Christianity, spread to all over Europe. In 316 AD the Roman emperor, Constantine embraced that new religion and decreed that all people in his empire become Christians.  Thus, all Europe became Christian.

In time some people separated from the universal Catholic Church. First, were the Eastern Orthodox Church, then Martin Luther and John Calvin? Today, there are thousands of sects in Christianity.

What is Christianity? It is the teaching that we love one another and forgive one another our errors. Are there practicing Christians in the world? I have not seen even one of them. Do you love all, do you forgive all people? If not you are not a Christian!

For our present purposes, Christianity teaches that our real self is a loving self and asks us to love one another.

There is a religion that calls itself Christianity; it has nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus the son of God who realized that he and all of us and God are one self.

Islam is the third rail of the three legs of the religions of the children of Abraham. Islam went back and accepted Moses' an eye for an eye teaching; it punishes sinners. Islam and Judaism are similar.

I am not going to dwell on Islam; elsewhere, I have written extensively on Islam. Suffice it to say that Islam has a punitive conception of God. I know that we live in the age of political correctness and multiculturalism where all religions and cultures are supposed to be equally good.

A religion that asks you to go kill those who did nothing to you is not as good as a religion that asks you to love and forgive those who wronged you.

Islam is not a religion but a political ideology with which Arabs and Muslims use to conquer the world and rule it.  I have no time for any violent ideology that encourages killing people; I am only interested in any message that asks us to love one another, in a religion of peace.

Christianity is the religion of peace and love; Islam is the religion of violence and war.


When early Christianity reached the Roman Empire some Romans and Greeks who hitherto had a religion called Gnosticism interpreted the teaching of Jesus in a Gnostic manner. In fact, many of the early giants of the Christian church were Gnostics before they converted to what we now call Catholicism.

Saint Augustine of Hippo, the man who wrote the City of God and his Confessions, a founding father of Christianity used to be a follower of an Iranian Gnostic called Mani. He was a Manichean. But in time he gave up that approach to Jesus and began mouthing the approach that Athanasios and Ambrose taught (the version of Christianity that the council of Nicaea in 325 AD embraced).

Gnosticism was a Greek religion that had produced such stars as Plotinus (see his Enneads). This religion essentially says that there is one God and that all of us are parts of him. It said that a son of God or an angel became proud and decided to create God instead of having God create him. We are already created by God and cannot create God.

The proud and rebellious agent separated from God to go found a universe where he seems to have created God and himself.

The person who separated from God and created our universe is called the Demiurge; some called him Lucifer, or Sophia.

Indeed, Greek Gnostics called the Jewish Yahweh a false god; what kind of god feels as angry as the Jewish god does? Only an egoistic, proud, narcissistic god would behave like the Jewish god.

Gnosticism teaches that God is light. It says that we separated from that God's light and now live in the world of darkness. Union is light; separation is darkness.

To be in the light is to be unified with God. To live in darkness is to be separated from God.  To live in matter, space and time, our world, is to live in darkness.

To Gnosticism to live in our world is to be in darkness. We must, therefore, reject our world and return to the world of light, heaven, union with God and all people.

Gnosticism (which is Greek for knowledge; agnosticism is Greek for doubt, not knowing) appeals to the human intellect. But if you think about it you realize that it is incompatible with the logic of our earth.

To live on earth you must identify with the separated ego self and struggle to survive as an ego in body. You must struggle to feed your body or else you die. No one wants to die, especially since we do not know for sure that there is life after death. For all we know all these talk of life after death could be hooey!

Gnosticism asks folks to negate their egos and bodies and live as the light of God (light is love and union with God). Well, if you tried to live as Gnosticism teaches you would negate your ego based world and die; to be a true Gnostic you must not try to adapt to our world, you must negate our world and exit from it.

We came here to live as egos in bodies, so Gnosticism does not appeal to the broad masses of humanity.  Thus, Gnosticism has never taken hold in the world. Usually, only a few people practice it, if at all.

Gnosticism did not bloom in the Roman Empire; the emerging Catholic Church attempted to destroy Christian Gnosticism. Gnosticism went underground; Gnostic writings were hidden and in 1947 a trove of them were discovered in a jar in a place called Nag Hamady in Egypt.

In 1965, a Jewish woman, a clinical psychologist, a professor at Columbia University, New York said that she heard the voice of Jesus asking her to write. She listened and wrote a book called A course in miracles. It is 1200 pages long. The book essentially restates what ancient Gnostics taught.

Helen Schucman swore that she had not heard of Gnosticism before. Well, whether she heard of it or not is not relevant, what is salient is that she rearticulated the philosophy of Gnosticism.

In her version of Gnosticism, God created all of us. We are the sons of God. God and his sons are one; they share oneself and one mind. At some point, a point that has not actually occurred, the sons of God resented the fact that God created them and wanted to create God. Of course, they cannot create God. So, what they did is go to sleep and in their sleep dream that they are now separated from God.

The dream of separation is our physical universe. Each of us is said to be here because we want to separate from God. We invented the universe of matter, space and time and used them to make separation seem real in our current awareness.

We constructed bodies for ourselves, bodies made of matter. We live in space and time. Space, time and matter are said to be nonexistent and are illusions but we used them to make separation real in our minds.

We sought separation to enable us seem self-created, to feel special and more powerful than God and each other.  We form special relationships where we admit only those who see us as special and superior to other persons.

In the world of separation we constructed special self-concepts, our egos. We live as separated egos. Each of us, A course in miracles says, with the aid of all of us constructed our individual egos.

The ego is the self that we made and with it replace the real self that God created us as. The ego is not our real self, it is a false, substitute self.

Salvation requires us to jettison the ego and return to the awareness of our real self, which is formless, unified spirit, the Holy Son of God who is one with his father.

A course in miracles teaches that we must let go of the ego separated selves we made to separate from God and each other. We must go into meditation and tell ourselves that our egos and bodies, space and time are illusions, are not real and extinguish them.

We must negate the world and if we succeed we experience another world, first, the world of light forms, a world that looks like our world but is remade by the Holy Spirit, a more beautiful version of our world.

Ultimately, we enter the world of formless light, aka heaven. Heaven is pure light; if you like, heaven is a wave of light with infinite particles in it; each particle shares one self and one mind with the wave of light.

To experience heaven we must completely let go of our desire for separated selves and transform our relationships from special relations to holy relations (in holy relations we see ourselves as one with all selves and love them all).

I have written extensively on A course in miracles and cannot possibly summarize its 1200 pages in the few minutes that I want to devote to it here.

What we need to take from Gnosticism and its modern rendition, A course in miracles, is that it teaches that we all share oneself and one mind and that it asks us to love all and forgive those who wronged us.

If we forgive we experience the world of light forms; if we extinguish the desired ego separated selves we return to the awareness of oneness.

What is the real self? Gnosticism says that our real self is the sons of God who are one with God; that real self is formless and is not in body; it is not on earth; it is in formless heaven.

And where is that heaven? Heaven is inside and outside us. Heaven is a state of mind that recognizes its oneness with God and all his creation. In that state of mind one feels perfect peace and joy; additionally, one knows that one is eternal, permanent and changeless and remains as God created one, one with him and all his creation.

We are ideas in the mind of God; ideas cannot leave their source; we cannot separate from God and from one another; we can only dream that we have done so; dreams are not real, when we wake up from dreams we know that we remain as God created us.


The world is a place that you come to develop a separated, ego self-concept and try to live through it and experience pain, fear and suffering.

If you posited a big ego self, as I did, you avoid people to go retain your big ego self in avoidance of other people. You had to posit that big ego self because the exigencies of your body led you to do so; you had to believe that the big self is going to protect you and enable you to survive. Later in life, you learn that no ego, big or small, will help you to survive and you let go of that big ego self and then live peacefully and joyously. With less big ego you relate well to people and not avoid any one.

Since you get whatever you want out of life by relating to people you then relate fully to people and get whatever you want out of life: wealth, peace and joy. You accept people as they are without trying to change them, for as they are is the product of their bodies and social experiences, what they came to experience in this life time.

We came to earth to form ego self-concepts and suffer and then learn to let go of those ego self-concepts, have no ego self-concepts and thereafter live happily.

With little or no egos we live as in a happy dream; upon death we proceed to live in the world of light forms, aka gate of heaven. Ultimately, we give up living in forms, dense or light and return to formless light and in it feel perfect peace and joy.


A course in miracles teaches that life on earth is a dream and that we have different selves in God and that while in God we sleep and dream this world. The implication of this assessment of life on earth as a dream is that it is not important and therefore should not be taken seriously.

If one accepted this view and does not take life on earth seriously, does not take one's self seriously and do not take other people seriously, do not take what any one does seriously, one would live in peace and joy and laugh at the behaviors of those who take nothingness seriously.

A course in miracles sees our world as the product of insanity, the belief that one can separate from ones real self and from ones creator, God.

Our real self is part of light; we cannot separate from it but we wished to do so and seem to have done so in dreams but not in truth. We remain as God created us, part of his unified self, and part of formless light.

To take this world seriously is to be insane, literally, for one takes what is not real as real hence react to it with fear, anger and sadness and other upsetting emotions.

Whether it is true or not that we have other lives in God and in the world of light forms, my personal observation shows me that our earthly life is nothing. If I behaved in accordance with my observation that life on earth is not worth a bucket of spit, regardless of metaphysics, I would not take life on earth and my ego self seriously; I would live playfully and have a happy dream.


In trying to minimize the import of spiritual experiences and place them in the philosophy of materialism and its atheism, atheistic psychologists, neuroscientists and others who fancy themselves as scientists tell us that dreams, visions and near death experiences and out of body experiences are the products of neurochemicals in the brain. Actually, if they had studied physics they would narrow it to saying that they are the product of electrons in the brain, and since electrons are light with some mass, the product of light.

Let us agree with these folks that light is responsible for people's dreams, visions and NDEs and OBEs. Is this is a simple phenomenon?

Actually, what this teaches us is that light is a powerful thing; it is light that produced our physical universe. So what is light? Do we know?

Light has intelligence in it; light is probably what our ancestors called God. Just as we do not understand God we do not fully understand light, especially spiritual light.


I believe that our real self is made of spiritual light, not physical light. I believe that spiritual light transformed a speck of it to physical light. This probably happened during the Big Bang explosion. Spiritual light is so powerful that just a speck of it was sufficient to form our physical universe.

I accept what physics, chemistry and biology says about our physical universe. In fact, my culture is scientific culture; I do not accept any proposition that is not based on the scientific method. You must show me how to verify your proposition and when I do so I accept it, if not I reject it. I can verify the existence of light.

Light is our true self. That light contains knowledge.  This may sound mystical but it really is not. Even physical light contains information.

The physical universe works on the information written into photons of light. Just think about what takes place inside an atom and you marvel at the information that is built into that speck of existence. Electrons circle nuclei; nuclei contain protons and neutrons; the latter contains quarks which in turn are made of photons. All of matter is made of photons, light.

Our bodies seem dense but if you subject them to scientific analysis you learn that they are composed of sixty-four elements; those elements are composed of electrons, protons and neutrons and those are made of photons, light.

Where you see our bodies is actually light but you do not know it. Where you see our bodies, animals, trees, mountains, planets, stars, galaxies are nothing but light in a disguised form.  We are light in disguised forms.

When we die our bodies decompose and eventually return to physical light. Ultimately, the entire physical universe will decompose and return to spiritual light, from where it came. This will of course take trillions of years before it happens.

Light has information in it; light contains more information than our brains at the present is able to comprehend.

Consider that light from the sun and stars pass you and those around you; as it does so it takes pictures of you and what you are doing; and that includes the sound that you are making.

In the future when our technologies are more advanced we shall be able to do past time travel and go to the past and see our hunter-gatherer ancestors sitting by a camp fire roasting the animal they killed that is their dinner for the night. Yes, what they were doing thousands of years ago were captured in light and are somewhere in space and is waiting for us to have the right instrument to see it.

Light does these marvelous things without our asking it to do so. Therefore, it seems obvious to me that light does many more wondrous things than we can currently comprehend.

What folks call God is light. God is the wave of light. That wave of light has particles, photons to it. Wave and particles, quantum physics tell us, is one; they are inseparable but can act as the one you want them to act for you.

Spiritual light is what our ancestors called God; that spiritual light contain infinite knowledge.  I do not yet have the capacity to fathom how all these work. I accept that there is mystery in our lives; we shall gradually unravel that mystery.

It may help you to understand mystery by considering visions. I have had spiritual visions.  In some visions I am in a world where everything is in light form. In it I see people who look like they are on earth but are in light forms.

And what produced one's visions? Light. A speck of light in my brain somehow shut out my present universe and suddenly I am in a different universe.

From my experience with light, I have reason to believe that our real self is made of spiritual light. We think and create with light. That light is God or whatever you may choose to call it.

In sum, our real self is made of light; each of us is a particle of light in a wave of light that folks call God. You do not have to call it God; you do not even have to give it a name, it just is.


There are three levels of the self. There is the self in our current awareness, the self in dense matter. There is the refined self, the self in light form and finally there is the formless self, the self as part of the wave of light that folks call God.

The self as we know it is in matter; this self is clouded by matter and by our desire for separated self, ego, hence does all the unloving things we do on earth.

If we learn to love one another, upon death we live as selves in light forms. The self in light form is what folks metaphorically call being at the gate of heaven.

It should be noted that even while on earth, in dense matter we already have selves in light forms. With purified eyes, that is, with loving eyes, even while one is still on earth one can see oneself and other selves in light forms.

The light self was created by God (Holy Spirit) immediately after the son of God invented the self in dense matter, a self he uses to hide from God.

Heaven is a formless place so when we return to it we lose sense of form and individuality and become part of the formless intelligence that folks call God.

Some people call these three levels of being dimensions; our world is said to be three dimensional (length, width and depth); our world plus time is four dimensional; the world of light forms is called fifth dimensional world; heaven is called the sixth dimension.

Call them what you like, the relevant point is that there are verifiable three levels of being: in our world of dense matter, in the after death world of light forms...here people and things still look like they do in our world of dense matter except that they have bodies made of light; finally, is the world of formless selves, heaven.


Our true self is part of light; that light is eternal, permanent and changeless. A part of that eternal light transformed itself to physical light and through it constructed our physical universe.

Astrophysicists, astronomers and cosmologists tell us that 13.8 billion years ago, out of nowhere a point of light emerged. That light transformed itself to matter. That light created space, time and matter (what difference does it make whether we said transformed or created?).  Light created galaxies, stars, planets, animals, trees human beings.  Only one little speck of light produced our entire physical universe.

If this is true, and it is true then common sense tells us that light is indeed very creative and powerful.  Just think of it, a speck of light produced our physical universe! How powerful was that particle of light to create the galaxies, stars and planets? It is amazing that one little point of light can produce our universe.

God is light; that light if God is our true self. In that light we lose our separated ego selves and live as one shared self with one shared mind and in so doing experience perfect peace and joy.

On earth, while living in the illusion of space, time and matter if one lets go of ones ego and lives relatively egolessly one attains relative peace and joy, not perfect peace and joy for those can only exist in formless heaven, not on earth where we are in forms, not even in the world of light forms for there we still have forms, albeit them in light. 



Adler, A. (1938). Social Interest: A Challenge to Mankind. J. Linton and R. Vaughan (Trans.). London: Faber and Faber Ltd.

Adler, A. (1956). The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler. H. L. Ansbacher and R. R. Ansbacher (Eds.). New York: Harper Torchbooks.

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Fifth Edition. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Armstrong, Karen (2004). Buddha.  New York: Penguin Press.

Bear, M. F.; B. W. Connors; M. A. Paradiso (2006). Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Bhaskarananda, Swami (1994). The Essentials of Hinduism. Seattle: Viveka Press.

Binder, Marc D.; Hirokawa, Nobutaka; Windhorst, Uwe, eds. (2009). Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. Springer.

Bucke, Richard Maurice (2009). Cosmic Consciousness: A Study in the Evolution of the Human Mind.Mineola, New York: Dover Publications. 

Freud, Sigmund (1974). The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Trans. from the German under the general editorship of James Strachey, in collaboration with Anna Freud, assisted by Alix Strachey, Alan Tyson, and Angela Richards. 24 volumes, London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis. 

Fromm, Erich (1941). Escape from Freedom (U.S.), The Fear of Freedom (UK). 

Horney, Karen (1950). Neurosis and Human Growth, New York:  Norton. 

James, William (2012). The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford World's Classics paperback. 

Jung, Carl Gustav (1990). Analytical Psychology: Its Theory and Practice (The Tavistock Lectures) (Ark Paperbacks).

Kendell, ER; Schwartz JH; Jessell TM (2012). Principles of Neural Science (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kelly, George (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Vol. I, II. New York: Norton. 

Laufer, Gabriel (1996). Introduction to Optics and Lasers in Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mbiti, John (1969). African Religions and Philosophy. African Writers Series.  London: Heinemann.

Mbiti, John (1970). Concepts of God in Africa. London: SPCK.

Narinder, Kumar (2008). Comprehensive Physics XII. Laxmi Publications. 

Plotinus. Ennead. Armstrong, A.H (1988). Plotinus; Henry, P. and Schwyzer, F. Plotinus.  Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Schucman, Helen (1976). A course in miracles. Tiburon California: Foundation for inner peace. 

Skinner, B.F. (1971). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Basic Books. 

Underhill, Evelyn (2002). Mysticism: A Study of the Nature and Development of Man's Spiritual Consciousness (1911). Twelfth edition published by E. P. Dutton in 1930. Republished by Dover Publications. 

Weinberg, Steven (1977). The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe .


Ozodi Thomas Osuji, PhD


This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(907) 310-8176

Is it just me or have other people noticed the manner in which Nnamdi Kanu dresses these days?  This morning I saw a picture of him at Facebook. I swear he looks like Mmawu, Igbo masquerade!

He had wrapper tied to his groins, Amayanabo jumper shirt, Jewish Rabbi shawls on his neck and front part and assorted jewelry on his neck and arms and other clothing materials. He had his trademark hand fan (in his republic's flag colors), his walking stick (why is a man in his forties walking around in a cane, is he sick?) and his hat of the day, today it looks like Abriba head hunters hat; at other occasions it is the current fad, Igbo red cap.

Simply put, the man looked like a tribal chief, what I imagine Igbo tribal leaders looked like several hundred years ago;  I visualize an ogaranya, an ozoed man looking as this man does.

As I look at this man who looks like he came from five hundred years ago primitive Igbo land, I ask: is this the man who is going to lead Igbos into a vibrant twenty first century industrial state, this man that looks cartoonish?

If he is going to lead his people into the industrial age shouldn't he look like an industry chieftain: in three piece suit?

Alternatively, if he is a militant or guerrilla fighter shouldn't he look the part, say, in military styled attire, kind of like Che Guevara or Fidel Castro or Mao Tse Tung  looked like during their youthful militant years?

Where exactly did this clown get the idea that the more primitive he looks the more he looks like a leader?  Whose leader exactly is he, the leader of a primitive tribe of head hunters in New Guinea, or a gang of Igbo slave catchers or the leader of modem people?

Given his clownish looks I bet you that he has not read a book in recent months (assuming that in the past he read books).

The man looks exactly like something colonial masters would draw to present a caricature of African leaders as primitive folk.

So, how did we get to this state of affairs where a man who supposedly went to university is now looking like a figure from colonial masters cartoon book on African chiefs?

Has this clown actually bothered to write down his political program, his manifesto, a blueprint of what he intends to accomplish for his people other than call Nigeria the zoo and other pejorative names?

Serious revolutionaries write down what they are planning to accomplish for their people. V.I. Lenin and Mao Tse Tung wrote many tracks explicating their aims.

What exactly is this clown trying to accomplish for his Igbo people? I would like to see it written down on paper, say, in a two hundred or more pages book that carefully delineates his visions and goals for his people.

The picture this man presents of his self is that of a dummy, a pathetic clown pretending to be a leader.

The man has transformed his self to another primitive African chieftain with nothing in his head other than the usual African narcissistic desire to look significant (he looks like another empty headed African big man, a very important person, a foolish VIP).

The man literally looks like ancient Igbo chiefs whose business was to capture and sell their people to white slave buyers. Perhaps, Kanu is getting ready to sell the unemployed riffraff that follow him wherever he goes to into slavery, this time, since white men no longer need black slaves, into their graves.

I hear that whoever disagrees with this man's clown show is harassed by his followers, even killed? If that is the case so much for the supposed haven on earth that these folks claim to be fighting for.

The way the man is going about his primitive leadership business what probably is in the making is another African tin-can dictator who does away with his supposed enemies. Think about the idiot that rules Equatorial Guinea, what is his name...Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo.

This Kanu man is increasingly looking pathetic! Somebody should tell him to, at least, look like a revolutionary leader of a modern people not something out of precolonial Alaigbo.

Finally, perhaps, what Nnamdi Kanu really wants to be is an African tribal chief and he has gratified that craving hence his outlandish attire? Perhaps, the mistake is folks who had expected an Igbo leader to look like a person who is gearing to transform his people to the industrial age to look like what such persons look like? You never know what motivates people. May be I am projecting my wishes for an Igbo leader unto this clown?

PS: Until someone satisfactorily explains to me the origin and meaning of the word, Biafra I do not ever want to hear an Igbo apply it to the Igbo nation. I suspect that the word is Portuguese in origin. Just because the other would be Igbo dictator, Emeka Ojukwu, employed it to refer to his fiefdom does not mean that it should be employed for present Igbo land.  For now folks should simply refer to Alaigbo instead of Biafra.


I have read several criticisms of my take on Nnamdi Kanu. I was actually very gentle on him! Here we have a man who calls his self an Igbo and therefore ought to know that "Igbo enwegi eze", Igbos do not accept other people as their kings and he allows unemployed Igbo youths with no hope for the future hence see him as their savior to worship him; he allowed them to prostrate on the ground and kiss his feet.

He is behaving like an oriental despot; for that sin alone he ought to be banished from Igbo land for he is not an Igbo.

Who the hell does he think that he is? Is he some kind of god? Who made him Igbos god? Just because he is reckless and mouths what many Igbos wish, separation from Nigeria, does not make him some kind of deity.

If he was smart, having articulated many Igbos wish for secession from Nigeria he would ask whether Igbos, at this time, can really govern themselves. They cannot!

Igbos are totally self-centered; each of them wants to make it on his own, become rich  and powerful and have other Igbos respect him. He does not care for the welfare of other Igbos. He won't even pay taxes with which the very road in front of his supposed mansion is paved. No, a paved road benefits other people and he does not do anything that benefits other people; he just wants to be big and become seen as another African big man.

Before the white man came to their world, Igbos had individuated village existence and did not subjugate their separated egos to obedience to larger social aggregations; there was no Igbo wide polity. This means that Igbos are essentially a wild bunch who have not learned the need to reduce their egos and use what is left of them to serve public good.

Igbos idea of a country is where each person cares only for his self and does not care for others. In which case those who could not make it and become successful, those left behind in this jungle where each person only cares for his self, would become professional criminals. They would kidnap their fellow Igbos and hold them hostage until ransom money is paid them and if not kill them. They are already doing that.

Give Igbos their own country and they would degenerate to the likes of Somalia and South Sudan; they would revert to the jungle; they would live in a kind of Hobbesian state of nature where each person is on his own and the strong take from the weak and the weak band together and kill the strong and every person lives in perpetual insecurity; life becomes nasty, brutish and short.

It is good for Igbos to stay in Nigeria and other large polities and while there learn to reduce their wild egos and socialize them.  At prevent they are wild men; they are not civilized at all; to be civilized is to care for society, to have social interest motivating ones behavior.

If you doubt it go do business with Igbos and they would steal your money and go use it to build mansions and the business dies.

Igbos are wild egos and, therefore, need to be ruled with iron fisted hands if we want to civilize them and get them to become law abiding persons.

Finally, I suspect that Nnamdi Kanu is bedecked in his chiefly regalia as a kind of superstitious effort to say that now that he is a chief that the Nigerian government would respect him, not arrest and throw him into jail. That is, he is using his absurd attire to plead for mercy from the Nigerian state. Alas, if the Nigerian state wishes it they can pick him up today and slam him into jail and, despite his boast that such action would spell the end of Nigeria, the country would not end. If his followers act out they, too, are arrested. In a little while his IPOB movement would be stamped out of existence.

What reasonable people ask for is for Nigeria to be restructured into about twelve states; each large tribe a state; and operated like the USA; that is, implement fiscal federalism, with each state totally owning its resources and developing their people and the people paying a stipulated annual individual, corporate and sales  taxes to run the central government.

Ozodiobi Osuji

September 8, 2017


This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(907) 310-8176

Thursday, 07 September 2017 08:20

Why are artists prone to homosexuality?

In Igbo society it is generally believed that artists (writers, musicians, painters, sculptors, architects) tend to gravitate to homosexuality at a higher rate than ordinary human beings. One of my grandfather's relatives, Nwaogu Njoku, was a singer; she lived with another woman (whom she called my wife!).

The belief that artists tend to gravitate to homosexuality more than the norm intrigued me and I wanted to understand why. My life is devoted to trying to understand why people do what they do.  I think that, finally, I have found the answer.

Male artists tend to be sensitive persons; they are kind of like women.  They tend to have women's compassionate understanding of people; they tend not to be macho men; they are not warrior kind of men!

Looking at the issue of transgenderism (men who believe that they are women and women who believe that they are men) clarified this issue for me. Men artists are kind of like transgendered persons; they have penis but think like women and female artists are women with vaginas but think like men.

Male artists tend to be men with more female in them and that accounts for their tendency to be homosexuals; female artists are more like men hence have sex with other women, as men have sex with women.

These people probably have biologically induced gender confusion. What this means is that we have to tolerate their sexual deviances.

Having placed their behavior in some sort of biological realism, I can now tolerate their presence; in the past, in my eyes, they seemed worse than garbage; what they do and call it sexuality seemed degraded and evil; their mere presence made me vomit.

As they say, to understand all is to forgive all and to forgive all is to accept and love all. I can now live with homosexuals even though I still consider their behavior beastly; I still wish that they did not engage in their particular kind of sex but if they have no choice but to do so I can look away and leave them to do their thing.

However, this raises the issue of freedom and choice: if we see these people as animals determined by nature to do what they do have we not reduced human beings to mere animal status, to creatures without freedom to choose their behaviors?

The implication that we can use biology to rationalize sexual behavior, sooner or later, will be extended to pedophilia and bestiality; we would be told that such people inherited their craving for sex with children and animals.

We must be careful in this whole biological reductionism business, a view propounded by infantile scientists, for if we take away choice from people we make them mere animals and if they are mere animals any one can decide and get rid of them and not feel guilty.

Do you feel guilty from killing chicken and cattle? It is the element of choice that gives people dignity and respect!

Ozodi Osuji

September 6, 2017


A course in miracles teaches that life on earth is a dream and that we have different selves in God and that while in God we sleep and dream this world. The implication of this assessment of life on earth as a dream is that it is not important and therefore should not be taken seriously.

If one accepted this view and does not take life on earth seriously, does not take one's self seriously and do not take other people's  egos in bodies seriously, do not take what any one does seriously, one would live in peace and joy and laugh at the behaviors of other people, those who take nothingness seriously.

A course in miracles sees our world as the product of insanity, the belief that one can separate from ones real self and from ones creator, God. Our real self is part of unified reality and we cannot separate from it but we wished to do so and seem to have done so in dreams but not in truth. We remain as God created us, part of his unified self, and part of formless light.

To take this world seriously is to be insane, literally, for one takes what is not real as real hence react to it with anger and sadness.

Whether it is true or not that we have other lives in God and in the world of light forms, my personal observation shows me that our earthly life is nothing. If I behaved in accordance with my observation that life on earth is not worth a bucket of spit, regardless of metaphysics, I would not take life on earth and my ego self seriously; I would live playfully and have a happy dream.

No wonder philosophers live happily. Read Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Horace, Virgil, Epictetus, Seneca, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, Plotinus, Francis Bacon, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, George Berkeley, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Voltaire, Jean Jacque Rousseau, Denis Diderot, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Bergson, William James, Wittgenstein. These men blessed us with their thoughts; they were happy men. God, human beings don't come like these thinking giants of humanity anymore!

Ozodi Osuji

September 6, 2017


Light from the sun takes about 9 minutes to reach us on earth. Thus, the sun you just saw is as it was nine minutes ago.

The same goes for seeing those around you. Light strikes their bodies and then is reflected to your eyes and you see them. It takes a moment of time interval to see the person near you because of the nature of light and reflection. Therefore, you see the person around you as he was a moment ago not as he is right now.

This is physics not metaphysics. A course in miracles talks about only seeing the past but not the present and made it seem mystical when in fact it is simple physics.

So how are things in the present if you did not have to see them as they were in the past? They are as they are in the present minus whatever time it takes light to show them to you.


A house is in itself meaningless; it has purpose hence meaning for you because you give it the quality of sheltering you from the elements.

The same goes for all things.  All things are neutral; the only meaning they have is the one you give to them.

Remove the meaning that you give to people and things and they become neutral things in the environment.

So, why sweat things if they are existentially neutral until you decide to give them the meaning they have for you?

Remove the egoistic investment you have in people and the world and let them be the neutral things that they are and you live in peace.

Ozodi Thomas Osuji

September 6, 2017


Page 1 of 130