Hello from Dial

[Dial]

Hello to all,

I'm a sometime lurker. I've joined in the past and been welcomed nicely by Balder, but made no posts. I'm now posting a little in a thread about machines becoming conscious - an interest of mine. I'm something of a Kevin Kelly,ophile, who advocates for technology as life continued by other means. I do notice no one else here seems that interested in Kelly which is a little surprising. I thought he was an integral favorite. Is it the Californian Doctrine, I wonder?

My real interest, however, is a question that bothers/baffles/intrigues me about spirit and the everyday. Something to do with where did spirit go post the enlightenment. What is the difference between spirit as instantiated in the true, the good and the beautiful, and spirit as a clearly conceived practice aimed at growing consciousness. Are they the same? Does one have a power the other lacks? How do they, or might they interact. And how also do the true, good, and beautiful interact in the world out there? Are the answers simple?

Damon

[Balder]

Hi, Dial, welcome again to the forum -- and thank you for taking the time also to write an introductory post. 

 

Regarding Kelly, he has crossed my radar occasionally -- I've visited his Technium blog a few times in the past and have read some things by or about him on Integral Life -- but I haven't yet been hooked by his message.  I think the general approach of looking at developing technology in systemic terms makes sense, but it seems to me that its 'entanglement' with living human systems, as our artifactual output, may lend it qualities it would lack in the absence of humans.  For instance, imagine if some biota-targeting death ray swept the planet, wiping out all humans in a flash without touching any of our machines.  Would the "technium" keep evolving?  Not at this point in its 'development,' in my view.  Machines would sit inertly and move rapidly towards entropic decay.  In the future, we may develop technological systems with enough life-like qualities, enough autonomy, that they could conceivably continue developing.  But it doesn't seem to me that we're there yet.

 

Regarding post-Enlightenment spirit, I'm not entirely clear what your question is.  I'd like to hear more, to get a better idea where you're coming from.  For instance, are you familiar with McIntosh's writings on the good, true, and beautiful in the context of 'Integral spirituality'?  If so, are you thinking along those lines, or differently?

[Dial]

Hi Balder,

And thanks for the welcome. Im off on retreat for a couple of days and am literally just out the door, but let me make a quick response before I go. First, I understand your point about machines as artifactual to humans, and I think you answer it with the phrase 'at this point in their development'. 'Artifactual to humans', just indicates in relationship and everything is in relationship. the relationship between humans and machines is particular but not different in kind from any other relationship within a linked network. Kelly sees tendencies that indicate technology will emerge as both networked with life/ human beings and autonomous. The movement from merged/ undifferentiated existence to autonomous existence is a basic developmental process, no?

As to post-enlightenment spirit that will have to wait until I return. My question may well prove simple to answer.


Cheers...

[Dial]

 

Balder, sorry for not answering your questions here directly. I got rather consumed by the Machines question (still am, somewhat), and will return to them. Now, I have a couple of other questions asked that puzzle me about the term 'Integral Post Metaphysics'. I will return to your questions. I have read some McIntosh by the way and enjoyed it, though, possibly, a little too organic and wholesome for my sense of how the world really proceeds. Anyhow, I will return.