In the evolution of humans, it is common knowledge that for about 200,000 years - since the start of archaic Homo sapiens - we had lived as hunters- gatherers, without herds or cultivated plots. There certainly were innovations - the spear thrower, the bow and arrow, a more refined tool kit - but these developed over thousands of years, slowly increasing the ease of hunting, but not the lifestyle itself. It was, the story goes, the neolithic revolution of about 10,000 years ago that everything turned on a dime, in a relative sense - with agriculture, and to a lesser extent pastoralism, boundaries became more firmly set, dependable yields of excess food came into existence, and with that, armies could be fielded, and budding states could support specialists - which led to the refinement of government, mathematics, philosophy, hierarchical religion, and pretty much all we have grown used to in the modern world. Curse or blessing, we were transformed, and the spiral of specialist knowledge has, with a few glitches, increased at a nearly incalculable speed.
Now, we might define "genius" as an idea that is unique - not necessarily absolutely new, but innovative in a hugely transformational way (for instance, we've always had fire, but it was the control of fire that was revolutionary and led to evolutionary change). But where does genius come from? According to Fred Myers, it arises from a subliminal level that is accessible by all, but understandable in its initial stage by only a few (interestingly, revolutionary ideas usually strike more than one person at a time, - as if people had become primed for the new innovation). Most important to the position to be taken here is that "genius" ideas arise from the vast, open field of the subliminal - a fact that most people regularly endowed with genius take for granted (that is, they understand that the ideas come to them not from careful rational thought, but suddenly, fully or nearly fully formed, as is from nowhere). This leads us to speculate that the ideas and transformations were intended by a super-intelligent source, and then directed to appear at some point in time. Which is to say, that our current situation - and plight - is, at least in part, supposed to be.
Why, then, have these new ideas so often led to bad ends? One might say that we have taken these great innovations and used them for evil, or unintended purposes, but could the ultimate intelligence not guess that this would happen? Given that this is probably so, does this intelligence then wish that the power of these innovations will force us, on pain of extinction, to make the right choices? And is this part of the grand scheme, as Myers and de Chardin think? And will this, then, lead to a new species of Homo (TRULY) sapiens, as they also think?
This argument has surfaced in the blog before, when highlighting the differences between the spiritual evolutionists (like Teilhard de Chardin) and the conservative perennialists, like Frithjof Schuon. To the latter, the transformative genius of today is essentially anti-spiritual, and as such a dark thing, which brings an advancement of the material at the expense of the "ultimate" - and is intended to cause our fall in the great cycle of being as pictured by the Hindus. To the former, the spirit advances with the material innovations - or at least is supposed to, as our survival is dependent upon it. To them, we are given a choice by genius - a choice to either advance socially and spiritually with innovation, or destroy ourselves or at least our social fabric with them.
We are then faced with the inevitable questions - is our survival a 50/50 thing, something of real choice? What are the odds that the transformational notion of the good will rise in the masses along with material progress? Is it just as likely or more so that this subliminal vision will be smothered by materialistic success, where we succumb to age-old selfishness within a limited, superficial view of reality?
I think it is at this point that we have to look again at the Will of God - or, for those opposed to such an idea - at the will of the force behind the Subliminal, the arch-glue of the universe. Why have ideas come out now, and at such a rate after hundreds of thousands of years of near stasis? And is it the purpose of this knowledge to force us to direct our own evolution, pressed to do so for our own survival? In a world of infinite possibilities, it certainly seems so. Of the odds of our success I cannot say, but we must try to access that "arch glue," of that I am certain. FK
Now, we might define "genius" as an idea that is unique - not necessarily absolutely new, but innovative in a hugely transformational way (for instance, we've always had fire, but it was the control of fire that was revolutionary and led to evolutionary change). But where does genius come from? According to Fred Myers, it arises from a subliminal level that is accessible by all, but understandable in its initial stage by only a few (interestingly, revolutionary ideas usually strike more than one person at a time, - as if people had become primed for the new innovation). Most important to the position to be taken here is that "genius" ideas arise from the vast, open field of the subliminal - a fact that most people regularly endowed with genius take for granted (that is, they understand that the ideas come to them not from careful rational thought, but suddenly, fully or nearly fully formed, as is from nowhere). This leads us to speculate that the ideas and transformations were intended by a super-intelligent source, and then directed to appear at some point in time. Which is to say, that our current situation - and plight - is, at least in part, supposed to be.
Why, then, have these new ideas so often led to bad ends? One might say that we have taken these great innovations and used them for evil, or unintended purposes, but could the ultimate intelligence not guess that this would happen? Given that this is probably so, does this intelligence then wish that the power of these innovations will force us, on pain of extinction, to make the right choices? And is this part of the grand scheme, as Myers and de Chardin think? And will this, then, lead to a new species of Homo (TRULY) sapiens, as they also think?
This argument has surfaced in the blog before, when highlighting the differences between the spiritual evolutionists (like Teilhard de Chardin) and the conservative perennialists, like Frithjof Schuon. To the latter, the transformative genius of today is essentially anti-spiritual, and as such a dark thing, which brings an advancement of the material at the expense of the "ultimate" - and is intended to cause our fall in the great cycle of being as pictured by the Hindus. To the former, the spirit advances with the material innovations - or at least is supposed to, as our survival is dependent upon it. To them, we are given a choice by genius - a choice to either advance socially and spiritually with innovation, or destroy ourselves or at least our social fabric with them.
We are then faced with the inevitable questions - is our survival a 50/50 thing, something of real choice? What are the odds that the transformational notion of the good will rise in the masses along with material progress? Is it just as likely or more so that this subliminal vision will be smothered by materialistic success, where we succumb to age-old selfishness within a limited, superficial view of reality?
I think it is at this point that we have to look again at the Will of God - or, for those opposed to such an idea - at the will of the force behind the Subliminal, the arch-glue of the universe. Why have ideas come out now, and at such a rate after hundreds of thousands of years of near stasis? And is it the purpose of this knowledge to force us to direct our own evolution, pressed to do so for our own survival? In a world of infinite possibilities, it certainly seems so. Of the odds of our success I cannot say, but we must try to access that "arch glue," of that I am certain. FK
RSS Feed