“Transhumanism* threatens societal foundations in a way unanticipated in legitimate expectations of reasonable people. Not only does it attack society but the species,”
So says James Tunney in summing up a Galileo Commission Summit called, Sacred Responses to the Human Crisis of Meaning: Transcendence not Transhumanism. He is a book writer and art exhibitioner and his subjects include mysticism.
This Summit mistakenly approached the subject from a supposed mystical but in reality an anthropological angle as if the mystical Reality that causes insights into Itself through the real mystic experience is interested in human “societal foundations”. It is not, not in my experiences.
My response therefore to Mr. Tunney’s conclusion is, “So what?”
My mystic experiences of Reality were that Reality has no human “societal interests”, as anyone can tell from the repetitive madness of “societal” human history …
Reality is only interested in unique specifics of the creation, ie. individuals.
From his summing up of this Galileo Commission Summit of scientists and scholars, it is clear the Summit had it in mind that humans are in charge. It tried to grab the steering wheel out of Reality’s grasp.
This caused the Commission when it came to this cross road in evolution to career into an out of control crash right through it …
Fortunately, as ever, Reality remains unperturbed and still in charge …
All Is Well.
* Some examples of transhumanism include anti-ageing and artificial intelligence. Transhumanism is often represented in films as a negative aspect of humanity – shown as “mad scientists” where there is a negative plot twist causing damage e.g. Incredible Hulk. Wikipedia.
mysticexperiences.net
Mystical Experiences of Reality 
Indeed. And I am now better understanding your Anthropological concerns. It is not too dissimilar to my frustration that too many scientists, academics and many others get caught up on their labels, theories and conceptualisations … All of which are human inventions. All of which take us away from the experience of mystical reality.
I am also particularly taken by your line “Reality is only interested in unique specifics of the creation, ie. individuals.”
Again, the focus is on each here and now specific; not on the labels, not on the generalities or terminology, not on ‘isms and ‘ologies. None of which, as you say, mean anything to Reality.
I’d like to end by playing devil’s advocate: if mankind were to accept all the things we’re saying and to accept their place within Reality, as (a very small) part of Reality, would Reality care? Would it, perhaps, even be better off (even infinitesimally) having been part of humanities learning experience?
LikeLike
Thank you, Keith. I think your devil’s advocacy is right to an extent but might overlook the mystical
experience that humanity in any state is part of Reality, as are all things in the cosmos, known or unknown …
In Reality’s good time and reason humanity’s purpose will be fufilled and will cease to exist. What then remains will be well processed and back in Reality. Reality rules!!
Regards, as ever. Keith.
LikeLike