Reply
Fri 28 Sep, 2007 07:16 am
Conscious Evolution.
About 35,000 years ago (in Europe) something occurred to man, and this something was essentially an idea. But not any ordinary idea like: 'I eat, I have sex, I hit with stick' - this was one of those ideas that allows things to be seen in a new light. It was, in short, the conscious recognition of the artifact-artificer relationship.
The artifact is something that's been made, and the artificer is the someone who made it. It was demonstrated in the environment of primitive man over and over, until at last he caught on. The sounds or footprints of animals for example, would demonstrate the relationship - and primitive man would have acted on this knowledge instinctually without it being a conscious idea.
(I think this fits with psychological theories on the subconscious content of behavioral motivation. Must check! See if conceptual evolution significant to theories on the development of the brain.)
It may have been nothing more than a footprint in the mud that triggered the realization, but the moment of revelation came when primitive man became aware. He began to see the meanings behind the appearance of things as he began to ask himself:
'Who made me? Who made the world? and What can I make?'
He began to make art - that's how we know:
But man made more than horses - he made societies. From hunter-gatherer tribal groups - multi-tribal and social groups were formed, universally employing the great artificer in the sky as an authority for law, as common conception, and as lingua franca. As surely as man made ivory horses it seemed suddenly obvious someone made him and the world he found himself in - just as in making things he found the way forward to better living and better understanding.
In 1233 the Church of Rome established the Papal Court of the Inquisition and punished knowledge as heresy - originally to prevent the return of the works of Aristotle from the Muslim half of the fallen Roman Empire - and this had a number of unforeseen effects upon the subsequent development of knowledge and society.
No-one much likes government and it may be that an elicit and conspiratorial flavor served to promote a distinct rationality in some quarters, but surely great damage was done by not meeting (what turned out to be) valid knowledge squarely and honestly.
That wasn't possible while maintaining the absolute truth of religious ideas - and by 1632 when Galileo published 'Inquiry Concerning the Two Chief World Systems' showing the earth orbits the sun, the Church had been claiming otherwise, as absolute truth, as justification for the great and the terrible for about 400 years.
The immense wealth of the Church enabled it to weather the storm - a storm limited to the educated few who threw off the authority of the Church and took sovereignty unto the Kings of nation states - on the basis of the Divine Right of Kings set down in Holy Scripture. (The only exception to this is England whose King Henry VIII's marital problems famously had the same political effect in 1533.)
Thus, while the authority of the Church was thrown off just as rational knowledge emerged disproving the absolute/literal truth of the Bible, it was on the basis of Biblical law that the nation state was founded and by religious authority that it was ruled.
Thus, the state inherited a somewhat backward approach to knowledge from the Church - and though prompted by rationality, took up the reigns of religious authority, making it imperative to control information.
As a result, the significance of rational knowledge remains largely unrecognized - but it's not dissimilar to the unconscious instinctual behaviors of primitive man in the course of the artifact-artificer relationship. Society employs valid knowledge without recognition of its significance - in pursuit of the ends of religiously founded political groups in economic competition. The significance lies with the objective validity of scientific knowledge - now sufficiently coherent to provide a valid worldview. It's one of those ideas that re-conceptualizes everything, but more significantly, an idea that, socially accepted constitutes evolutionary development.
When we consider what it would mean for man to meet upon the level ground of objective understanding, in knowledge of the validity of science, peace, global government, environmental management and the rational distribution of resources - including knowledge and technology, do not seem impossible. It may be, in face of growing threats from the energy crisis, climate change, over-population and environmental degradation (externalities of the current - less valid rationale of social action) the readiness of this idea is all that stands between us and extinction.
Science is not knowledge to be taken lightly, to be used and cast aside as whimsical notions dictate the direction of human affairs. Direct Insight.
Scientifically valid knowledge is a significant achievement for life on earth and significant to life on earth, but our current social, political and economic systems are not structured to honour valid knowledge. Premised upon ideas that are not demonstrably valid but founded in faith and unconscious universal acceptance - an increasing externalization of validity and reality is achieved by action in their course.
Action is rational to these ideas and therefore seems rational in these terms but is increasingly irrational with respect to reality and valid knowledge. The social, political and economic structure rationalizes action contrary to valid knowledge and reality, and the disparity progresses.
Previous diagnosis of this condition employed a close metaphor in mental illness by describing the progressive loss of touch with reality experienced by the psychotic as reality intrudes upon the fixed, false belief, but it's unnecessarily clinical. These ideas embody important values - but rushing to the conclusion that we are therefore nutty for good reason is unwarranted.
The temporal direction of knowledge is from less to more through time - however, our social, political and economic structures derive the reality of the moment from pre-existing ideas. It's unavoidable - but thus absolutely necessary that our bases of analysis are serially revised.
There's no shame in this, but something sane and human in taking the benefits of an idea and applying them anew, for the temporal direction of knowledge also proceeds from worse to better. Clinging to ideas for the sake of stubbornness or ego, in face of growing disparity with valid knowledge and reality is shameful, inhuman and insane - and has us backing into extinction, unaware of which footfall will not meet solid ground.
Because serial revision is inherent to science a global polity constitutionally bound to valid knowledge would hunger for disproof, as do scientists in intellectual competition, and because there's a definite prize in science - objective truth, the politics of science will achieve increasingly valid consensus.
Only in the immediate term will it be obvious what's necessary however - the implementation of hydrogen technology worldwide, population control, the protection of marine and land eco-systems - the big stuff that will enable our species to survive. Beyond that the competition of knowledge at the heart of government will shine the light of intellect into every corner - that everyone can enjoy a valid relation to a social, political and economic reality increasingly valid by design.
Because impartial and valid positions are possible it will not be necessary to choose between two evils, and situations where people are trapped and defeated by the multifaceted irrationalities of their situation will no longer occur. We will not paint ourselves into a corner, but out of one. We'll not progress backward along the wrong path to extinction, but progress away from extinction in pursuit of truth.
We must take our existence seriously if we are to continue to exist. We know that if we don't adapt we'll die - and if we evolve it will be by stepping into the light of truth, naked and unashamed.
Given such a solid foundation to build upon, such an objective guide, such a toolkit and instruction manual as that provided by an honest and unqualified acceptance of scientific method, knowledge, technology and overall picture, human beings capable of awareness, thought and feeling could live, and live well.
The benefits of adopting a rationale for social action that is clear of vision, just in implementation and sane of purpose would be immense and universal - not merely an organism responding to the physical, chemical and biological nature of it's environment but an awareness coming to terms with itself.
@iconoclast,
EGO, the enemy of conscious evolution. Only when one realizes the effect of EGO on ones judgement of thought, will they be able to evolve their consciousness. EGO motivated by Emotion leads to a barrier against free and open thinking.
We should be much further ahead in our level of thinking today, but are constantly beaten down by loud Ego's ruled by Emotion.
@PoPpAScience,
I see what you mean - but it's not necessarily so, not if one accepts that serving one's ego through capitalist aquisition is self defeating because it dooms humankind. Then ego demands reality - and is served by belonging to a species sane of method and valid of purpose. I think it's possible - if the word can be spread, and the issue raised at the international government level, because humans are pretty f**king amazing, and would be rightly egoistic if that were in the context of sound ideation.
what do you think? iconoclast.
@iconoclast,
Egocentric
beliefs, hinder man from clear introspection; which leaves us in denial (or unaware) of our true nature. Our artificial supremacy blinds us of our connectedness to all thngs. We are no greater (or less) than any other form of life. It should be noted that "dehumanizing" your victim is the prerequisite for justifying horible atrocities.
Not to say that ego is harmfull, it is indeed part of what we are. Some say every motive /action is selfserving. Even altruistic actions could be seen as self serving because we get an emotional reward.
@boagie,
Boagie,
Ive been reading your posts in other threads and graple with some of the concepts you articulate so well, but am not afraid to try, so here goes.
You got me, there is no introspection that is not muddied by our subjectivity. Total objectivity however fleeting and unatainalbe does not keep us from striving for relative objectivity. Scientific process indeed seeks to reduce subjectivity though emperical evidence. Falsification is our friend and I support that premis even in self examination, so then
clearer introspection would NOT overlook emperical evidance of what we are and where we came from. Ineligent design is an example of this obstructive unclear view of ourselves
Iconoclast, you used the artifact-artificer relashionship (earlier in this thread) as usefull inference; man sees tracks and inferes existance of wolf. Then this abstraction is used to infer the existance of creator. This is hard to argue and I acquiesce, (I am; therefore something made me), that says something about human phsycology and is usefull examination. But, if we were to endow said creator with human charicteristics and then develope an egocentric relationship with "him" making ouselvs the centralized paragon of creation, then I think we've clouded our introspection/self image.
How often in history has man clung to unfalsifyable beliefs overlooking emprical evidence? Copernicus, that brave soul, questioned unsupported beliefs and in so doing strengthend our objective understanding of our position in the universe, so to we should question our beliefs continually.
Wheeew, sorry to ramble so long:D
@ogden,
"You got me, there is no introspection that is not muddied by our subjectivity. Total objectivity however fleeting and unatainalbe does not keep us from striving for relative objectivity. Scientific process indeed seeks to reduce subjectivity though emperical evidence. Falsification is our friend and I support that premis even in self examination, so then
clearer introspection would NOT overlook emperical evidance of what we are and where we came from. Ineligent design is an example of this obstructive unclear view of ourselves." Quote
Ogden,
I guess relative is the confuseing aspect here, objectivity means that which is unstructured by our emotional and personal prejudices, to know that which is NOT, relative to us, meaning NOT relative for its defination to our own biology, it is thus an isolated fact/object in an enstranged world. So to speak of relative objectivity is incorrect, as it speaks of things NOT of our direct experience. So how after aquireing this objective knowledge by indirect means is it then made relative to a subject, accept through the means an abstract concept? Sorry, not trying to be difficult, just thinking outloud.:eek:
@boagie,
Thanks boagie, this is fun, and I need this kind of banter in order to strengthen my understanding:)
Are there degrees of objectivity/subjectivity? (That is what i meant by relative objectivity; a dergree in relation to total). sorry if i've been irationall, just trying to understand.
Trying to stay on topic(conscious evolution), I noticed you used the word biology in your posts and was wondering about evolution relative to our biology. I agree that eolution is a process that is unconcious and in response to conditions. Is conciousness then a function of our biology, and what change in consiousness might constitute evolution? Language is the example that springs to mind. Are we the same spicies as prelingual homo sapiens?
Am I into that niave-reality agin, or is this annother abstract concept? help:D
@boagie,
Boagie,
"knowledge by way of abstract concepts? I like the sound of that! I love knowledge,
and abstract concepts. ha ha:p
Seriously though, you say that there has been no human evolution for 20,000 years, certainly knowledge has increased. i'm confused.
If evolution is the shifting of our attributes (consciously or unconsiously)through genetic reproduction, then I think we've been evolving this whole time. Smarter, stronger, (more violent), may all be prescent now because what was'nt smarter stronger and more violent is not here to represent itself. Its all about the selection pressure/conditions. If a pandemic strikes humankind and some unseen attribute enabled only a portion of us to servive, then from that moment on, we would all have that atribute.
Perhaps man has reached an impass in our development were we are so keen at manipulating our environment for servival that we have deminished selection pressure, our servival rate is so stageringly high now. Perhapse our inability to cooperate with eachother will tip the scale and we will destroy our current way of living, through war, rescource depletion, or overpopulation, causing the
next great pressure that forces our next evolution. (sorry to be so Darwinian;) )
The question might be; what does human evolution look like?
Or- how can we consciously break from the destructive patterns of behavior that grip us?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace