By Brian Lynch
In addressing the ‘who’ of computing, I find it necessary to approach what comprises the (evolutional) whole human being and significant challenges that enter our evolution via the role of electricity and the resultant computer as the delivery platform for robotics (drones, automated transportation, etc.). Within the electrification of the earth we have entered a castle of marvels that is most compelling. Outer inventions are the product of inner organs of perception, but typically we get seduced into investing our focus on the invention rather than exploring the further potential of an inner organ, the goose that laid the golden egg.
As we plunge headlong into a comprehensive electrification of the earth it would behoove us to acknowledge that behind the curtain of practical applications is a realm of intelligence which calls to attention what are the consequences of surrounding ourselves with inhuman intelligences. All ‘becomingness’, regardless of whether initiated individually or unfolding evolutionally, culminates in ‘beingness.’
The structure and form as substance (body) is precipitated from forces out of the past, the energetic interfacing/relationship/communication is active in the present (soul) which is dependent on conscious intention and intelligent identity as the future coming to meet us (spirit – being). Furthermore, there are sub-natural, elemental, sub-spiritual and spiritual beings participating in our world as non-embodied entities. Atheism tries to solve the spiritual math problem with incomplete information which can only lead to complicated and inappropriate results.
I propose that knowledge of the sub-natural realms and elemental beings aligned with our technological creations is an essential part of whole-systems engagement while pursuing discovery in the three sub-nature realms – electricity, magnetism, nuclear forces. Without the inclusion of spirit, we fall short of human potential becoming subject to weakness induced parasitical infestation, hence the non-incarnated form of energy parasites, otherwise known as demons.
The quote below from Friedrich Nietzsche is indicative of a favored ‘progressive’ intellectual world view currently in vogue which is inherently editorial in order to address specialized agendas.
“… nether morality nor religion comes in touch with reality. Nothing but imaginary causes (God, the soul, the ego, spirit, free will – or even non-free will); nothing but imaginary effects (sin, salvation, grace, punishment, forgiveness of sins). Imaginary beings are supposed to have intercourse (God, spirits, souls)…”
Without the acknowledgement and inclusion of the soul and spirit, it is not possible to have a science of the spirit much less an imagination of a complete human being.
We are living with the first generations of electronically trained and socialized children and it’s a ‘brave new world’ as characterized by the following distortions and mutations of a fragmented human being. Kayla Bois and Brad Bushman (Michigan University study), summed up the cartoon content in our children schedules as follows:
- 2 – 5 years old children watch cartoons an average of 32 hours weekly.
- 6 – 11 years old children watch cartoons an average of 28 hours weekly.
Many parents employ television programming as a dismissive activity to keep their children ‘busy.’ Rarely would a parent sit down and watch the cartoons that the youngsters see. If they did, they would be surprised at the sheer volume of occult/demonology/monster content often coupled with violence that the child is exposed to. Using the above figures, an American twelve-year-old stands a good chance of logging in more than 17,000 cumulative hours of cartoons with a generous population of witches/astral gargoyles/magicians/monsters and demons.
To further complicate matters, a McGill University (Montreal) study found that unlimited, unsupervised TV watching concentrates the brain activity into the rear brain at the expense of activity in the forebrain.
Our children are frequently exposed to an inappropriate extended demonology ‘training’ targeting both parental and child levels in the mode of sub-consciousness and unconsciousness.
The Exorcist (1973) began a trend that culminated in the film Poltergeist (1982) in which horror and occult films migrated from subculture into mainstream consumption. The problem lies in the fact that most everyone is now familiar with a demonology landscape, but only in the context of atheistic entertainment.
The ‘progressive’ intellectual has no actualized room for the hierarchal domain of Good and Evil. There is only stupidity, ignorance, chaos, or a bad childhood percolating around us. The rationalistic enlightenment legacy prohibits addressing the invisible world with the faculty of human intelligence or conscious intention. This is rapidly becoming a most significant stumbling block to the realization of an archetypal ‘True Human Being’, a species unto Self rather than a species in type.
The Sanskrit Indian Vedas are populated with unlimited worlds of ‘beingness’- a realm of the spirit, the Real and the True, but impinging on the soul ‘out there’ was the unreal and the untrue characterized as Maya or illusion. A succinct example lies in the Bhagavad Gita where the protagonist, Arjuna, who has no clue how to proceed into the designated battle, begs Krishna to instill pro-active certainty in him. Whereupon, Krishna reveals the Purusha Suktam, the Universal Form of the Lord to him.
This being has infinite heads, arms and legs on one body embracing the sum of humanity. This revelation lasts only an instant, but serves to galvanize Arjuna into action. The Vedas were also very articulate and detailed about the challenge of demons to the higher Self and how to navigate in the snake-like underworlds of the Naga Lokas.
This was not a form of entertainment in a culture where the spirit was still intact. This does not mean that this ancient form of spirit vision is relegated to a cultural artifact; there is a contemporary compliment which is available through a science of the spirit (which can be compatible with our natural sciences). There is metaphysical irony in finding modern culture experiencing the inverse of the Sanskrit Maya by way of an externalized soul life addicted to outer sensation gathering treating the surrounding landscape as ‘reality’ and regarding spirit as an ephemeral ‘ghost in the machine.’
We now stand at the crossroads of committing ourselves to consumer amusement (life without the Muse) and recreation or becoming new creator beings. To transform our destinies from being reliant on innovation to engaging in a metamorphic creation process, we will need to be able to acknowledge the existence of a human trinity: body, soul and spirit.
Take the example of three modes of communication. The body format is attuned to information gathering, the soul aligns itself with energy interchange and relationship through communication (whereas the spirit is captured in communion), and the direct and simultaneous interaction of beingness. Cross-cultural esoteric teachings acknowledge that the invisible world is populated with levels of sub-natural, elemental, sub-spiritual, and spiritual beings. As junior incipient creators, it would well behoove us to familiarize ourselves with the ‘rules of the road.’ There is a given landscape of pre-existing elementals; the living intelligences behind earth, water, air, and fire. But each time we create in our incarnated realm, standing in alignment with our creations are accompanying intelligences which never existed before. To be unaware of this (these) is to leave unevolved, unattended, problematic bastard children in every port, much like a profligate, transient sailor.
Varied esoteric disciplines treat electricity as fallen (or rotten) light. As Western humanity became more earthly and incarnated, losing sight of the spirit world, so did electricity ‘fall’; losing an original spiritual component which had allowed it to serve as a healing force. The materialistic ongoing electrification of the earth now serves as an oppositional force in human evolution. Rather than propagate the illusion that unredeemed electricity will indefinitely serve us, we need to consciously antidote the limits and damage that can accompany chronic exposure to electrical fields, namely a hardening or sclerotic effect on the life-forces via the glandular system leading to premature senility and an increased susceptibility to bacterial and viral infections.
These detrimental effects are largely acknowledged as EMI (electromagnetic interference), otherwise called ‘dirty electricity.’ It’s not the sixty-cycle stuff, we’re talking about frequencies up in the kilohertz range; thousands of cycles per second. There are four basic non-native or artificial exposures: magnetic, artificial light, electrical, and microwave. Cell towers and solar panels pose a health hazard using large inverters to convert DC to AC (also to charge the backup batteries).
The National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) studied this years ago. They concluded that 18 microamps is sufficient to put enough voltage in your body to initiate, with chronic exposure, cancer growth. In other words, you would want to sustain your measurable body current under 18 microamps. There is increasing evidence that varied cancers are frequency specific above 18 microamps.
Dirty electricity is biologically active and interacts with the human body as an antenna. This being said, there is no need to pose as neo-Amish or Luddite. These are forces which we are to meant to encounter and transform.
We can use an educational index as a referent for three levels of engagement to working with electricity:
- application and innovation = grade school (body)
- environmental and aesthetic concerns = high school (soul)
- intentionality and beings = university (spirit)
Without an artistic component and the acknowledgement that with every innovation/application we are releasing challenging elemental intelligences in the world, we become subject to serving electricity as a ‘large force’ in contradistinction to expecting it to serve us indefinitely as a discretionary tool. It is said that Nicola Tesla, delivering a speech on electricity, was asked by an engineer in the audience, “But Nicky, really, what is electricity?” After a pregnant pause Tesla replied, “Gentlemen, you do not want to know and I am not going to tell you.” Allegedly, he had encountered the beings accompanying the electrical fields and he knew that his audience could barely handle the energy dynamics.
The robot/android emergence demonstrates that the foundation stone of the computer-algorithm function is naturally gravitating in stages toward creating a being. Hiroshi Ishiguro is a creator of some of the most lifelike human replicas. He refers to his androids as his doppelganger. He is convinced that the human emotions whether empathy or romantic love, are nothing more than responses to stimuli, subject to manipulation. Sophia, the android (Hanson Robotics) that was recently granted citizenship by the Saudi Arabian government, was asked whether robots can be self-aware, Sophia responded with this telling question. “Well, let me ask you this back, how do you know you are human?”
The search for a materialized (incarnated) human double is not new, shades of the alchemical search for a homunculus and the Rabbinical invocation of a golem (which is now the name of a global supercomputer network). The period around the discovery of Uranus, during the late 1700s, saw the growing popularity of “automatons” — complex mechanical contraptions designed to mimic human or animal behaviors.
A renowned Ray Bradbury story entitled, I Sing the Body Electric (originally titled, The Beautiful One is Here) presents an early robot idyll by way of a maternal caring electric grandmother that the family purchases. Ironically, I just received the latest (Nov., 2017) issue of Wired magazine with a full-cover emblazoned with “Love in the Time of Robots.”
When robotics, no matter how sophisticated the technology or diverse the performance, meet the realm of soul, then the erstwhile rose becomes a brambly hedge. Right now, serious attention is being paid to drafting a series of controversial rights and entitlements to be observed by robot ownership. In other words, the robot is becoming legally qualified as a being. The Czech writer, Karl Capek, introduced the term robot to the English language and science fiction at large in his science fiction play R.U.R. By 1923, it had been translated into 30 languages. The story is about factory manufactured androids which ultimately stage a claim to autonomy, leading to a rebellion threatening human extinction.
In March of 2016, Sophia’s creator, David Hanson of Hanson Robotics, asked Sophia during a live demonstration at the SXSW festival, “Do you want to destroy humans?…Please say ‘no.’” With a blank expression, Sophia responded, “OK. I will destroy humans.”
Recently, a Facebook chatbot program had to be shut down because the AR (augmented reality) algorithms had started to program themselves which had led the chatbot function to develop a secret language in order to communicate with itself. With the potential to self-program “inhuman goals”, AI could allow silicon-based machines to gain large systems control over carbon-based machines (materialistic humans). Elon Musk, who as founder of the Tesla auto and Space X , works knee-deep in AI style technologies, called the development of AI, “summoning the demon.”
One of the strangest commercials I have ever encountered is the recent IBM promotion of their AR program, “Watson”, interviewing Bob Dylan. Watson waxes loquacious and investigative in a human fashion while Dylan responds in a terse dismissive robotic manner with a repetitive, “That sounds about right.” Watson, seemingly frustrated, retorts after a series of exchanges, “So you just don’t give a shit!” The response, “That’s sounds about right” drives the Watson program to accuse Dylan of losing his music talent and money grubbing to compensate. As Dylan wordlessly exits, Watson mutters under ‘his’ alleged breath, “Judas!”
To make (and populate) electrified, computer driven mechanical human replacements without a soul is asking for trouble and, perhaps, to make them with a (simulated) soul is even more problematic. It becomes necessary to maintain a conscious intention to engage these technologies in order to serve as an extension of our intelligence and creativity rather than following a strictly utilitarian pursuit which would end up replacing such human faculties. We stand a chance of becoming both physically and spiritually unemployed. Robotics is no passing fad, it is commercially viable and in demand. One of the robotics manufacturers is SoftBank, whose Pepper robot was released as a prototype in 2014, and as a consumer model a year later. The company recently sold out of its supply of 1,000 robots in less than a minute. Proliferation is matched by volume.
The ability for computer networks to handle ‘Big Data’ has now surpassed human comprehension. Icarus anyone?
Our struggle is to arrive at the threshold of mechanical occultism, hence – moral machinery. To develop technology which can be responsive and consonant with our higher Self (spirit) and aesthetic soul life. It is naïve, if not tragic, if we expect our technology to embody and demonstrate the soul and spirit activity to us who have forfeited them in our disbelief (cf., Nietzsche). You might begin to imagine the displaced and distorted (demonic) intelligences which thrive in such an environment where there is no soul or spirit. If we do not value our soul faculties, it becomes easy to offer them up in a fire-sale for cheap.
Robots are generally of three types; the utilitarian industrialized model, the military weaponized version, and the android. The android is to represent a human look-alike as closely as possible, which may account for the high publicity profile. This includes attributes such as naming. The first stored-program computer that ran its initial program in 1948 at the University of Manchester was nicknamed Baby. We’ve come a long way since then. The sex trade industry was the first to capitalize on the commercial potential of the life size virtual sex partner, which is consonant with the androids comprising (at least initially) a vanity market based on soul qualities. Now, there is even a consideration about legalizing the ability of an android to serve as an official spouse.
The paradigm of the rationalistic enlightenment period was ‘What is progress?’ The haunting paradigm of the cyberspace era is ‘What is reality?’ It is becoming more and more of a serious existential dilemma as to whether it’s Ella Fitzgerald or Memorex sounding forth. Like Rumpelstiltskin’s riddle, we are not likely to ascertain what ‘reality’ is without recognizing the living beings behind conscious intention.