Re: Symbolic thinking, Anthroposophy and Transhumanism
Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2024 10:55 pm
Hi Ashvin,
Thanks for clarifying your point in the above two posts. I definitely understand and agree with the expansive support and reflective potential enclosed in scientific conceptions, which, as you say, is exemplified, for instance, in the numerous mathematical and scientific analogies Cleric has used through the years, to facilitate understanding of spiritual realities - from aliasing, to Fourier transforms, to protein life, to the Schrödinger equation and more.
However, this is not exactly what I think about when reference is made to technology. I would say that technology refers to the physical (in the sense recently discussed on the GA 13 thread) expressions, the concrete manifestations of the mathematical-scientific theories and conceptions. It is the translation of those conceptions in specific and multifaceted 'riverbed features'. And the reason why I intended to revive a discussion on "technology and transhumanism" is that I see the problematic, adversarial character of these 'riverbed features', and the connected distorsions of spiritual activity, as a predominant aspect of tech developments of our present times.
In this sense, it was probably not a great choice for my part to refresh this topic by quoting your idea that technology expands our palette of activity, since we weren’t referring to the same concept of technology. Nonetheless, I think there is a danger in holding such a noble and idealized (in common sense) conception of “modern technology” as the one you have explained here. I believe that, if we contextualize modern technology through examples such as GR, QM, the foundations of physics and the findings of mechanical/materials/electronic engineering, we are at risk of giving a partially concealed, if not heavily botoxed, representation of what modern technology actually is. I think it would be more accurate to shift attention from historical scientific impulses - and tech that creates smart tools from that accumulation of knowledge and expertise - to technology that impacts (and disrupts) the physical-etheric bodily complex of man, animals and plants in the most intimate, often irreversible ways, like chemical engineering and bioengineering are doing, for example. I would say that these, in association with behavioral science and related tech, are the new, preponderant technological orientations of our present day. Good tools may elicit recognition and awe, but there’s not much novelty in that. Man has been engineering smart tools for millennia, and there are even various animal species that are able to engineer tools. In this sense, we lose something of the burning meaning of technology today if we only focus attention on the organizing beauty of mathematical models and their brilliant employments, such as the concentration and coordination of practical thought encapsulated in a car.
So I think we should rather illustrate present-day technology through the wealth of readily available examples in which man is confronted by technology directly, rather than through the intermediation of objects-tools. Tech advancements are used nowadays in convergent ways, and the point of convergence of them all is, as it appears, man himself, or should we say, life itself. In other words, to a large extent, these new convergent ways appear to directly support the advent of the transhuman man. (By the way, as an incidental comment on your example of the car, even an objectified technological tool like a “modern car” is not anymore what it used to be, but now converges unto the user and their user-experience, by impinging on their TFW as a more extensively constraining ‘riverbed').
More generally and concretely, technology as we experience it today in our cultures, manifests through - to borrow Max Leyf words - “the military-industrial complex, the agricultural-industrial complex, the medical-industrial complex, and the censorship-industrial complex, as Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”, and that’s where we should gather our main examples. In this sense, I don’t think it’s possible to speak of a “particular technology” that, as an exception, could harm our spiritual activity or human organization. The adversarial forces are way more methodical and determined than that, and we absolutely need to develop solid consciousness of this reality.
Now pondering your question (in your first reply) “What can't we do now that we could do previously? Does modern technology make it impossible for us to explore more spiritual states of being?”
With the idea of technology given above, the extent to which I would agree with the spirit of your question (technology is a spiritual benefit that adds to our palette of activities) is the ‘mechanical’ way in which our future is always expansive compared to our past. Perceptions recede into memory and our intuitive context automatically expands and ‘smartens up’. Technology is here now and will be there in the future, hence it’s inevitably in the mix of our 'automatically wiser' future.
Now for the letter of your question, I would say: it’s not so useful to think in terms of whether anything has become impossible in principle. In thinking for example, everything is possible, in principle. With enough thinking force, we are able to express our freedom in the activity, in principle. So the answer to your question would inevitably be "no", by construction. Therefore, a more relevant question would be the question of resistance: how much extra obstacles and resistance are brought forward by technological convergence? Sure, it must be in principle redeemable, but how difficult does it get for human activity to span in certain directions and with certain intents in the face of new technology? That those directions are not made formally impossible to expand into by technology is not the point. Granted that a high Initiate and their most determined students could disproof the impossibility, how much harder has it become for humanity as a whole to carry out spiritual activity with continuity and intent?
Besides, it’s easy to name things that we can’t do now, but could do previously, especially in the sensorial and feeling spectrums. Again, in the thinking spectrum, it would be formally impossible to name something that one absolutely can’t do now, but could do previously, firstly because the potential of what we can “do” in thinking is expansive with time, by universal construction, and secondly because, with enough thinking power, everything is literally possible in thinking activity. Nonetheless, we can surely speak of thinking activities - even of the most basic type - becoming harder and harder to operate, in connection with expanding technological compounds at the convergence of which we have put our own physical, soul, and spiritual being. Things such as reliably using our physical brain functions to carry out basic intellectual thinking, from thought A to thought B, free from the hazards of mental fog, mental exhaustion, mental flutter, attention span limits, or emotional breakdown are sure examples. On the side of the sensory spectrum, examples of shrinking human activity due to technological expansion are the limitations created by environmental pollution of all kinds. And in terms of the feeling spectrum, we could look at all sorts of obstacles to a conscious life of feelings constituted by behavioral-nudging technologies, be the nudging dispensed by our smart screens, smart social engineering or our smart... car.
Thanks for clarifying your point in the above two posts. I definitely understand and agree with the expansive support and reflective potential enclosed in scientific conceptions, which, as you say, is exemplified, for instance, in the numerous mathematical and scientific analogies Cleric has used through the years, to facilitate understanding of spiritual realities - from aliasing, to Fourier transforms, to protein life, to the Schrödinger equation and more.
However, this is not exactly what I think about when reference is made to technology. I would say that technology refers to the physical (in the sense recently discussed on the GA 13 thread) expressions, the concrete manifestations of the mathematical-scientific theories and conceptions. It is the translation of those conceptions in specific and multifaceted 'riverbed features'. And the reason why I intended to revive a discussion on "technology and transhumanism" is that I see the problematic, adversarial character of these 'riverbed features', and the connected distorsions of spiritual activity, as a predominant aspect of tech developments of our present times.
In this sense, it was probably not a great choice for my part to refresh this topic by quoting your idea that technology expands our palette of activity, since we weren’t referring to the same concept of technology. Nonetheless, I think there is a danger in holding such a noble and idealized (in common sense) conception of “modern technology” as the one you have explained here. I believe that, if we contextualize modern technology through examples such as GR, QM, the foundations of physics and the findings of mechanical/materials/electronic engineering, we are at risk of giving a partially concealed, if not heavily botoxed, representation of what modern technology actually is. I think it would be more accurate to shift attention from historical scientific impulses - and tech that creates smart tools from that accumulation of knowledge and expertise - to technology that impacts (and disrupts) the physical-etheric bodily complex of man, animals and plants in the most intimate, often irreversible ways, like chemical engineering and bioengineering are doing, for example. I would say that these, in association with behavioral science and related tech, are the new, preponderant technological orientations of our present day. Good tools may elicit recognition and awe, but there’s not much novelty in that. Man has been engineering smart tools for millennia, and there are even various animal species that are able to engineer tools. In this sense, we lose something of the burning meaning of technology today if we only focus attention on the organizing beauty of mathematical models and their brilliant employments, such as the concentration and coordination of practical thought encapsulated in a car.
So I think we should rather illustrate present-day technology through the wealth of readily available examples in which man is confronted by technology directly, rather than through the intermediation of objects-tools. Tech advancements are used nowadays in convergent ways, and the point of convergence of them all is, as it appears, man himself, or should we say, life itself. In other words, to a large extent, these new convergent ways appear to directly support the advent of the transhuman man. (By the way, as an incidental comment on your example of the car, even an objectified technological tool like a “modern car” is not anymore what it used to be, but now converges unto the user and their user-experience, by impinging on their TFW as a more extensively constraining ‘riverbed').
More generally and concretely, technology as we experience it today in our cultures, manifests through - to borrow Max Leyf words - “the military-industrial complex, the agricultural-industrial complex, the medical-industrial complex, and the censorship-industrial complex, as Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”, and that’s where we should gather our main examples. In this sense, I don’t think it’s possible to speak of a “particular technology” that, as an exception, could harm our spiritual activity or human organization. The adversarial forces are way more methodical and determined than that, and we absolutely need to develop solid consciousness of this reality.
Now pondering your question (in your first reply) “What can't we do now that we could do previously? Does modern technology make it impossible for us to explore more spiritual states of being?”
With the idea of technology given above, the extent to which I would agree with the spirit of your question (technology is a spiritual benefit that adds to our palette of activities) is the ‘mechanical’ way in which our future is always expansive compared to our past. Perceptions recede into memory and our intuitive context automatically expands and ‘smartens up’. Technology is here now and will be there in the future, hence it’s inevitably in the mix of our 'automatically wiser' future.
Now for the letter of your question, I would say: it’s not so useful to think in terms of whether anything has become impossible in principle. In thinking for example, everything is possible, in principle. With enough thinking force, we are able to express our freedom in the activity, in principle. So the answer to your question would inevitably be "no", by construction. Therefore, a more relevant question would be the question of resistance: how much extra obstacles and resistance are brought forward by technological convergence? Sure, it must be in principle redeemable, but how difficult does it get for human activity to span in certain directions and with certain intents in the face of new technology? That those directions are not made formally impossible to expand into by technology is not the point. Granted that a high Initiate and their most determined students could disproof the impossibility, how much harder has it become for humanity as a whole to carry out spiritual activity with continuity and intent?
Besides, it’s easy to name things that we can’t do now, but could do previously, especially in the sensorial and feeling spectrums. Again, in the thinking spectrum, it would be formally impossible to name something that one absolutely can’t do now, but could do previously, firstly because the potential of what we can “do” in thinking is expansive with time, by universal construction, and secondly because, with enough thinking power, everything is literally possible in thinking activity. Nonetheless, we can surely speak of thinking activities - even of the most basic type - becoming harder and harder to operate, in connection with expanding technological compounds at the convergence of which we have put our own physical, soul, and spiritual being. Things such as reliably using our physical brain functions to carry out basic intellectual thinking, from thought A to thought B, free from the hazards of mental fog, mental exhaustion, mental flutter, attention span limits, or emotional breakdown are sure examples. On the side of the sensory spectrum, examples of shrinking human activity due to technological expansion are the limitations created by environmental pollution of all kinds. And in terms of the feeling spectrum, we could look at all sorts of obstacles to a conscious life of feelings constituted by behavioral-nudging technologies, be the nudging dispensed by our smart screens, smart social engineering or our smart... car.