History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

 Can current science really understand life?

October 14th, 2016 · No Comments

n the 21st century,” Yuval Noah Harari writes, “the next big project of humankind will be to acquire for us the divine powers of creation and destruction, and upgrade Homo sapiens into Homo deus.”

This article needs two posts: there is no inherent reason why the project indicated couldn’t happen, but the reality is that current science is very far from a real understanding of human psychology. Darwinism has further confused the issue. And it is debatable whether the issues of soul/self can be understood anytime soon.

We have made this point many times in reference to the works of Bennett (and the little known sufi psychologies). Most of the human frame is invisible to man himself and never enters consciousness. This is a totally different version of the ‘unconscious’, the terms ‘conscious/unconscious’ being relative. To show the point, consider the statement, conscious man is unconscious. Sometimes consciousness is differentiated from ‘self-consciousness’. Meditators immediately discover the point: consciousness so-called can become mechanical, unconscious.
More generally the human deep psyche is a complex of layers or ‘selves’ and man normally cannot contact even his ‘true self’, let alone his ‘will’. He is fixated in his ‘divided self’ which is a complex of mechanical consciousness and reactive physiologies. Strangele, as any mindfulness workshopper senses, if you stop thought for a moment and ‘LOOK”, you immediately proximate the fringes of the True Self, the ‘Will’ being something still more elusive and not the same as egoic will.
It is not clear to me that man can create a bionic version of man. Certainly not, I suspect, with current technology. Current science assumes that ‘life’ reduces to its biochemistry. But I doubt it. Bennett makes the point with his distinction of hyponomic, autonomic, and hypernomic. Life is a much more complicated level than we suspect and has some kind of cosmic component we don’t know about.
Most obscure is the question of soul, and this doesn’t register in any scientific account, a disastrous state of affairs. A good Kantian thrashing is needed: the ‘thing in itself’ versus the phenomenal. This is not a mystical argument. Soul must be as material as anything else, but in a different way.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment