by Neil Freer

from SapiensRising Website


 

This era of global transition will result in the redesign of the fundamentals of human activity. People and organizations that look for new ways to deal with unprecedented events will be better prepared to survive and prosper. To be part of that group, you must be willing to unleash yourself from the past and be willing to take risks. You must objectively search for novel tools and perspectives.

John Petersen

 

Return to Neil Freer

Return to Synthetic Life

Return to Temas / Exopolitica

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 


Our planet, this agonizingly beautiful little planet, is on hold. Seeking relief and release, in a perverse ecology we recycle outmoded, primitive paradigms, shuffling our feathers-and-molasses confusion between hands. In a time when we are required to deal with the politics of non-overlapping alien realities, we are not able to resolve the separations caused by our overlapping intra-species realities. It has rendered us:

  • theologically inane

  • philosophically naive

  • scientifically cramped

  • socially isolated

  • ecologically damaged

  • politically challenged

  • intellectually bewildered

It is clearly evident, after thousands of years of trial and disastrous errors, that the relief and release from our racially adolescent immaturity we seek as individuals and as a planetary species will not come from:

  • yet another econopolitical experiment

  • yet another U.N. negotiated conflict resolution

  • religious ecumenical conference

  • new age vision

  • academic philosophy

  • imposition of theocracy

  • new constitutional political format

  • much less some new twist on the MAD scenario

  • or war to end all wars

The purpose of this paper is to point out an overarching new paradigm that redefines and, thereby, resolves and supersedes the most fundamental cause of the divisions and conflicts between us and illuminates the now and future trajectory of the new planetary human.

A very fundamental, critical question, therefore: Is it even possible to arrive at an overarching new planetary paradigm so comprehensive and robust that it corrects, subsumes, completes and outmodes all previous partial paradigms, explains all our previous explanations, with the scope and power to unify and pacify the planet? Unequivocally, yes. We are not incapable of getting off “maybe”.

 

We are blocked only by primitive, antique legacies and the way to expunge them from the fabric of our cultures is now available to us.
 

 


 How adolescent a species are we?


We are accustomed to analyze, evaluate and react to significant positive or negative events in the public and private sectors in terms of political, military, economic, scientific, psychological, sociological, or religious factors and ramifications. We do this in the context of a primitive economic, competitive mammalian politic based on territory and the defense of limited survival resources when national boundaries have been rendered meaningless and free energy sources are already available.

 

The least evolved among us, in a perversion of the word “conservative”, preserve their wealth, built on limited energy supply, by deliberately suppressing developments that would make it limitless. As most current example, if confined to this context of mammalian politics, we surely will see, the “end of the west” --- the “wild”, Paleolithic, west at least --- and the rise of the European Union in its turn in the dreary cycles of competitive mammalian economics. Then the “rise” of China, perhaps, etc., etc..

Politically, we have created governments peopled largely by the cynically devolved, many sincere, perhaps, but myopic, in a time when sincerity alone is tragically inadequate. We are still working through systems of representation by strangers when direct, instantaneous input from the entire population is quite possible. Representation, due to antiquated polling and analytical methods, therefore produces mediocre politicians from the middle of the demographic bell curve where the most votes lie.

 

Domestically we are a dead poet’s society paralyzed and waiting perennially for the futant we have probably already terminated at the stake, in the courtroom, the boardroom, the lab, the dean’s office, the classroom for violating a taboo....

Ideologically, philosophically, the four criterion bases which we generally use to determine the truth or falsity, beneficence or harmfulness, morality or immorality of information, theology, philosophy, science and “new age” values, rattle around in a criteria vacuum with little overlap and major conflicts because each tends to define a human being and the meaning of human existence in a quite different way.

 

Among some humans, there is a slinking cynicism, an often unspoken, viral attitude in human society that holds the view that it is impossible to get out of the criteria vacuum, to initialize a common ground; impossible to get past the communicatory barriers of turf and custom, belief and taboo. When talking about the human we are largely ineffectual because we are Babel-factored, literally talking at each other about a different entity.

Technologically, we are eager and close to being able to create artificial intelligence and consciousness, when we cannot agree on the nature of our own consciousness.

“A people without history is not redeemed from time”

T. S. Eliot                       

How primitively adolescent are we?

 

Most fundamentally and amazingly, we do not have a consensual, planetary, generic definition of what a human being is. We disagree about how we really came into existence, and what the nature of our developmental process is. We disagree as to the facts and interpretation and understanding of our species’ history. We have treated the sociobiological event of our beginning as a species as if we could never be sure if it ever really occurred. We have not resolved nor integrated our genesis and our history as a species and, therefore, are at a loss to understood our real nature and future trajectory. That we do not see this as a profound puzzle is further proof of our species primitive naiveté.

These problems translate to the problems that are related to our children and their education. Currently, we matriculate our young, these amazing, parallel-processing, relativistic, quantum jumping, multi-dimensional consciousnesses, semi-illiterate and naive for fear of them questioning our shambling senilities. In a time when we need to stretch our historical sense to allow for the visitation of our planet by alien species from before our origins, we teach them drum and trumpet mammalian history fleshed out with desiccated, parochial, political platitudes.

 

We teach our own children, privately, generally the same platitudes and clichés we were taught and brand them with the same religious, scientific, and intellectual taboos we were tattooed with as children and expect that they will somehow be ready to do better than we and perhaps even step into stellar society.

 

Whether we deny it our not, our children show all the signs of being ready; they are underwhelmed and overqualified. We feel it. Nevertheless, we do not teach our minors philosophy although they are capable of calculus. We do not allow a teacher in the public school system to teach our children anything important about anything important because we do not agree about what to teach them, because we do not agree about who and what we are. We do not educate our children in the management and refinement and evolution of their personal spectrums of consciousness because we do not agree on what that spectrum includes. And the children are literally our future, we in the future.

The current status quo is revealed, therefore, at its most fundamental strata, to be, simply a continuation of the primitive theo-political conflicts that we have known for the past three thousand years. The major obstacles that are most fundamentally influencing and hindering our planetary understanding and progress are cultural legacies, cultural lock-ins that are with us as the deepest dyes in the tapestries of our cultures, locked in legacies that influence our thinking, our science, our logic, and our concepts of ourselves.

 

We are too close to them, or think that they do not influence us, or that they have been dealt with in the scientific or academic world long ago, or that we can just ignore them. We deal, furthermore, with all these problems in a Paleolithic, turfish manner from the isolated towers of Cartesian-Newtonian oligarchies.
It has been said that the world’s most complex mechanism comes without an owner’s manual. We have many different and conflicting definitions of what a human is and a number of conflicting “owner’s manuals” by which a human is supposed to operate. The word “owner” is the key: there are two major “owner’s manuals” in the form of Bible and Koran, two in the form of The Book of Changes (The I Ching) and the Book of the Tao.

 

The I Ching and the Book of the Tao are instruction manuals in which the “owner” is understood as the human consulting them. In the case of the Bible and the Koran the “owners” are not the humans but the deities associated with the manuals. This relationship of “owner” to subject, deity to servant or slave, is understood by the vast majority as “religion”. We hardly question this concept.

 

Those who do question it have often been killed by those who do not. Those of one slave-code religion have often killed those of another slave-code religion over whose owner is the only real Owner or which code is the correct one.

 

Ultimately, these slave-code definitions determine our cultures and their legacies and traditions and are the most basic cause of the separations, divisions, conflicts and wars between humans.
 

 


 A Self-Indictment


Part 1, obviously, constitutes a very broad, serious and daunting self-indictment. I posit a caveat: When I name names and institutions, critically or otherwise, I intend them as part of us, as a self-indictment: it is simply we doing these things to ourselves. Let us be easy on ourselves, however, since we are the only game like us on the planet, the only example we can work with, the inadequate conceptual boxes we inhabit are of our making but also ours out of which to break.

 

If these negatives were all there were, then the fears of those in future shock would be vindicated. If I had no suggestions, solutions, answers or resolutions to offer I would not have written this paper. So the second half of this paper respectfully offers an overview and paradigm that can take us, in the perspective of a deepened knowledge of our species and ourselves, to a new level of racial maturity and a degree of freedom previously unavailable.

 

The new synthesis subsumes partial glimpses of a new politic, humanistic new world order, enlightened eco-economics, re-hashed Eastern or Western mysticism, a third culture, spiritualized psychology, all knowledge united in a grand consilience, or cerebral turning points.

 

We now have the keys to integrate our past with our present and future in the concept of generic humanity, the critical factor for achieving planetary unity.

 

Go Back