Very interesting comments recently by Roosen and Roeker. Roosen sees in innovation the end to privacy, and thus the end to deceit - and thus a utopia born, with tongue-in-cheek, for it would take away a lot of fun as well as lot of misery. But the reality is, this vision of the future is not that fanciful - exterior privacy is becoming a thing of the past, as technology allows for more in-depth surveillance on a massive scale, something beyond anything Mao or Stalin could employ. And in truth, it will not lead to utopia - the fly in the ointment, as is often with things concerning modern times, is that the hierarchy of surveillance will continue - that is, that MOST will be spied upon, but others will be protected - including those at the top of the surveillance enterprise. This would produce more unequal power relations - a master/slave template, repeated now in totalitarian nations, something that the world knows all too well.
What Roosen may or may not know, however, is that the evolution envisioned by spiritual futurists (as opposed to the conservative perennialists) does include the overall loss of privacy - but through the development of telepathic abilities in general. I first read of this in Arthur Clarke's "Childhood's End, " a beautiful book, at least for someone in his mid-teens when I read it. Arthur Clarke also wrote the screen play for the movie, "2001," where the floating fetus at the end of the picture was meant to represent our rebirth as a new species, as different from what we are now as the ape was from the proto-men who learned to use tools. Recall that there was always this black slab standing in the background when a new species-changing revelation was made; this was symbolic of the subliminal field that Fred Myers had discussed. Clark, in Childhood's End, posits an intelligent alien presence as the benign caretakers of our evolution, but we should not confuse them with the primal source, or mover, of evolution. That Clark leaves to us; I call it God - and yesterday I posited the more neutral term "arch glue" of the universe.
Regardless, this development of general telepathy (also seen by Myers as a dip into the subliminal ocean - Clark himself saw reality as the ocean floor, where we individuals were islands, apparently alone in the ocean, but connected down deep) would, of course, end privacy - but on a level entirely different from mechanical surveillance. For one, it would not be hierarchical - leaders and the lead alike would be exposed. Sneaky politicians and hedge-fund cheats would not be able to operate. Crooks and molesters would stand out like beacons. It would be a safer world. But it is much more than that - we would at last understand, as Jesus advised, that our brother is ourselves. We would see the inner workings of ourselves and find that most of us were operating on the same level - which is exactly what makes us part of the mass called humanity. We could not oppress or despise groups - and even would have to find sympathy for the psychopathic, for their deficiency would be broadcast to all as what it was - a deficiency. Indeed, the futurists generally agree that telepathy must be a major component of the new humanity. The negative side would not exist as we could think it - privacy would be seen as a loss, a blindness; personal inspiration should still exist, as a joke told around a camp fire is usually offered impromptu - and the intent of humor would be well understood. But it goes well beyond that - it would be a mass participation in the subliminal, and, just as with what happened to humanity in Clarke's book, we would be whisked away to another level of reality, this present one having served its purpose.
I don't know - I like the idea and use this website to constantly push individuals to attempt to reach the subliminal. In fact, as is often enough stated, I believe such individual achievements are crucial for our survival. But the whole human race? True, as Clarke clearly put in 2001, we once DID make such a leap of consciousness, from reactive animal to thinking being. But that this will happen again in our lifetime? Can we be that lucky (or cursed, as some might think)? Clarke thought so, because our technology has led us to the possibility of self-extinction, making the change necessary. We have to wonder what Clarke thought was leading us, though - is the super intelligence behind the subliminal that concerned with us that it would come to our aid at the right time? Or is it rather that we are unconsciously connected to the subliminal already, and are personally reacting to our superficial level from our inner nature - and therefore, this saving evolutionary change would be quite possible, even logical?
In thinking of it, I agree with Clarke - en mass, we probably ARE lead by the subliminal aspect of our nature. But can I believe it? That it will happen, this fantastic change, in our time? The signs are there, yes, but really? Still, we press on despite our doubts - what other way is there? (Roeker will have to wait for another day) FK
What Roosen may or may not know, however, is that the evolution envisioned by spiritual futurists (as opposed to the conservative perennialists) does include the overall loss of privacy - but through the development of telepathic abilities in general. I first read of this in Arthur Clarke's "Childhood's End, " a beautiful book, at least for someone in his mid-teens when I read it. Arthur Clarke also wrote the screen play for the movie, "2001," where the floating fetus at the end of the picture was meant to represent our rebirth as a new species, as different from what we are now as the ape was from the proto-men who learned to use tools. Recall that there was always this black slab standing in the background when a new species-changing revelation was made; this was symbolic of the subliminal field that Fred Myers had discussed. Clark, in Childhood's End, posits an intelligent alien presence as the benign caretakers of our evolution, but we should not confuse them with the primal source, or mover, of evolution. That Clark leaves to us; I call it God - and yesterday I posited the more neutral term "arch glue" of the universe.
Regardless, this development of general telepathy (also seen by Myers as a dip into the subliminal ocean - Clark himself saw reality as the ocean floor, where we individuals were islands, apparently alone in the ocean, but connected down deep) would, of course, end privacy - but on a level entirely different from mechanical surveillance. For one, it would not be hierarchical - leaders and the lead alike would be exposed. Sneaky politicians and hedge-fund cheats would not be able to operate. Crooks and molesters would stand out like beacons. It would be a safer world. But it is much more than that - we would at last understand, as Jesus advised, that our brother is ourselves. We would see the inner workings of ourselves and find that most of us were operating on the same level - which is exactly what makes us part of the mass called humanity. We could not oppress or despise groups - and even would have to find sympathy for the psychopathic, for their deficiency would be broadcast to all as what it was - a deficiency. Indeed, the futurists generally agree that telepathy must be a major component of the new humanity. The negative side would not exist as we could think it - privacy would be seen as a loss, a blindness; personal inspiration should still exist, as a joke told around a camp fire is usually offered impromptu - and the intent of humor would be well understood. But it goes well beyond that - it would be a mass participation in the subliminal, and, just as with what happened to humanity in Clarke's book, we would be whisked away to another level of reality, this present one having served its purpose.
I don't know - I like the idea and use this website to constantly push individuals to attempt to reach the subliminal. In fact, as is often enough stated, I believe such individual achievements are crucial for our survival. But the whole human race? True, as Clarke clearly put in 2001, we once DID make such a leap of consciousness, from reactive animal to thinking being. But that this will happen again in our lifetime? Can we be that lucky (or cursed, as some might think)? Clarke thought so, because our technology has led us to the possibility of self-extinction, making the change necessary. We have to wonder what Clarke thought was leading us, though - is the super intelligence behind the subliminal that concerned with us that it would come to our aid at the right time? Or is it rather that we are unconsciously connected to the subliminal already, and are personally reacting to our superficial level from our inner nature - and therefore, this saving evolutionary change would be quite possible, even logical?
In thinking of it, I agree with Clarke - en mass, we probably ARE lead by the subliminal aspect of our nature. But can I believe it? That it will happen, this fantastic change, in our time? The signs are there, yes, but really? Still, we press on despite our doubts - what other way is there? (Roeker will have to wait for another day) FK
RSS Feed