Caretakers of the Cosmos

Do you have doubts about humanity or worry the world is in a mess? Do you fear that human nature dooms us to walk the road to ruin? If so, take heart and read Caretakers of the Cosmos where Gary Lachman, (see Network 104), points out that such human doubts are a type of collective, post-modern lack of self-esteem, born of a fear of appearing self serving or arrogant. Our species, therefore, suffers from the so-called "the fallacy of insignificance," a type of nihilism and ennui. This "false humility" misrepresents our historic blunders and failures as a failure of our ability to live harmoniously with nature and among ourselves. This in turn leads us to a "failure to succeed" in what we need to do, which is to make a better world and be caretakers of the cosmos. While one may balk at the notion that we are a special or exceptional species with dominion over nature, most of our cultural traditions recognize that we are unique, and if not created in the image of God, at least uniquely able to conceptualize God and "reflect" on our self-consciousness and linguistic and creative abilities. These in turn led to our "fall" into self awareness and our separation from unconscious nature. If cosmic evolution bequeathed us these gifts, including our ability to recognize the Anthropic Principle, holding that all evolved to make intelligent consciousness possible, surely we should recognize these gifts and act accordingly. This means that it was just as natural for us to evolve out of nature's warm cocoon of unconsciousness as it is for the babe to be born abruptly into a sometimes dangerous world. This means, therefore, that we should recognize the caretaker responsibility that comes with human consciousness, and recognize that doubting our ability to do so is pessimistic and lazy, a failure to rise to the challenge of making the world a better place. For Network readers, although the book follows many familiar and paths and thinkers who eschew scientism and reductionism, I found Lachman's user friendly treatment refreshing. Although the caretaker theme is common in enlightened circles such comprehensive expositions in this type of evolutionary context are rarer. Lachman's depth of reading and research are admirable, and he weaves the story well, developing what is becoming increasingly obvious – that all of human history reflects the evolution of consciousness. Specifically, as we only separated conceptually from nature recently, so we are only just now beginning to recognize our evolutionary relationship to the biosphere, and cosmos. Incidentally, cosmos is not the same as the physical universe, rather it also reflects the qualities of the good and beautiful we recognize. Given our human ability to reflect on evolution it is but a small step to realize that evolution has become a conscious process. Julian Huxley said this explicitly in 1957. More fundamentally, not that Huxley's point is not paradigm-shifting, our perceptions and consciousness define the limits of what we see, and thus the limits of what we define as the world. This in turn means that the world (our world view) changes as we evolve, and that we are a participating organ in the process and not detached objective observers. If this sounds familiar, it is. Thinkers from Owen Barfield to quantum physicists have pointed this out, and warn of the fallacy of a scientific philosophy that thinks otherwise. The fallacy of thinking ourselves objective leads to the view that the universe is merely a physical cosmos, and that consciousness is essentially a meaningless epiphenomenon arising as the by-product of matter (neural tissue), rather than the primary datum, or what a fair number of visionary scientists (usually "cosmologists" ) refer to as the "mind of God." [While it may be true that until humans became self conscious, we did not "tune in" to this particular consciousness frequency, that does not mean that other states or levels of consciousness did not exist in actuality or potentially as part of the dynamic fabric of universal, cosmic or integral consciousness – what Gebser called the wellspring or "ever present origin." After all, our ancestors evolved into the physical world, to see, hear and smell before they developed the senses to experience them fully and experience them as meaningful, in the way we might appreciate them. Ergo, the ability to appreciate new dimensions of consciousness and experience new world views, is a part of a co-evolutionary or participatory process, made conscious in this and other, like statements]. BECAUSE OF OUR SELF CONSCIOUSNESS WE ARE DWELLERS IN TWO WORLDS, AS MANY A METAPHOR WILL CONFIRM, ONE APPARENTLY MORE TANGIBLE AND VISIBLE THAN THE OTHER. PERHAPS AS A DIRECT RESULT OUR WORLD VIEWS ARE EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN FAITH IN THE TANGIBLE-VISIBLE AND THE INTANGIBLE-INVISIBLE. WHEN THE TANGIBLE WORLD BECOMES MUNDANE TO OUR SENSIBILITIES, IT IS A SIGN WE HAVE "FALLEN" AND LOST OUR CONNECTION. WE BECOME HOMESICK FOR THAT OTHER WORLD THAT SEEMS FULL OF THE PROMISE OF SPIRITUAL FULFILLMENT AND A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIVINE. AS MYSTICAL EXPERIENCES INFORM US SUCH RE-CONNECTING (RELIGIERE) IS PARTICIPATORY. IN AS MUCH AS GOD SAVES US, WE SAVE GOD BY TRANSMUTING MATTER INTO SPIRIT. HERE IT SEEMS, AT LEAST IN OUR PRESENT STAGE OF EVOLUTION, LIES ALL THAT IS MEANINGFUL AND GOOD IN EXISTENCE, AND ITS SEEMS, TO QUOTE VAN DUSEN, GOOD "HAS A GENERAL IMPULSE TOWARDS EXISTENCE." THIS THEME OR AT LEAST THAT OF POSITIVE VALUE AND PURPOSE WAS RECENTLY EXPOUNDED BY STEVE MCINTOSH IN EVOLUTION'S PURPOSE (NETWORK 109). FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THIS IMPULSE IS TANTAMOUNT TO FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE OUR HUMAN WORTH. MAX SCHELER'S HIERARCHY OF VALUES INFORMS US THAT WE INDEED VEER INEXORABLY IN VALUE ENHANCING DIRECTIONS, AND THAT OUR IMPULSES TOWARDS ALTRUISM ARE NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE HAVE SELFISH GENES. WE HAVE WHAT GEORGE STEINER CALLS A "SPECULATIVE LUST" FOR THE "DRUG OF TRUTH." [I PROFFER THE SUGGESTION THAT JUST AS THE SCHELERIAN HIERARCHY OF NEEDS DEVELOPS, IN INDIVIDUAL ONTOGENY, THROUGH SENSUAL, VITAL, INTELLECTUAL/SPIRITUAL AND SACRED, SO SUCH PROGRESSION HAS NECESSARILY PLAYED OUT IN HUMAN HISTORY OR PHYLOGENY, LEADING, AT TIMES SLOWLY!, TO ENHANCED CULTURAL VALUES]. LACHMAN MAKES THE EXCELLENT POINT THAT SERIOUS THINKERS HAVE REPEATEDLY COME TO SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS. SUCH PERENNIAL, INTERNAL CONSISTENCY IN EXPOSITIONS ON HUMAN NATURE SEEMS TO ARGUE THAT IN FAVOR OF THEIR REALITY. So, evolution has created a human consciousness capable of asking the caretaker question. This does not give us dominion over nature as an earlier consciousness suggested, but rather reminds us of our responsibility. Many current efforts to make a better world prove this impulse to be true. Excessive hunting preceded the conservation and ecological movements, and as Rudolph Steiner suggested, it is only human consciousness that recognizes, and then solves "problems." Lachman suggests that the poet Rilke may have a hit on the crux of the caretaker problem in modern times. Again, it is the perennial problem of our separation from the world, our creation of "pseudo things" with which we cannot resonate. Thus we fail to appreciate real things, or make them the beloved furnishings of our interior world through Herzwerk (heart work). This is again a means of transmuting matter into spirit, producing new vibration spheres in the universe – new spiritual intensities, new consciousness structures, perhaps even a new species. This, it seems, gives new and vital meaning to creativity, conscious evolution and participation: and thanks to Lachman and Rilke for expressing it so vividly. The skeptic may scoff at the invisible-intangible. But a black hole is also invisible and out of it a new universe is born as a white gusher. This too is transformation and that is the name of the evolutionary game, so much on everyone's lips these days. Evolution is so dynamic that I willingly side with those who believe in a creative evolution, where, the as-yet-little-understood dynamics of intentionality and negentropy, trump the destructive forces of entropy and heat death. Death, a necessary corollary of life, is for many is not the end, but what Teilhard called a "change of state," a transformative process. Lachman ends with Scheler's idea that God is not just an omniscient, mind, a disembodied good idea, but rather a vulnerable and weak entity. This is surely so if we are created in his/her image. He/she had to enter the chaotic, messy, tangled jungle of matter in order to complete him/herself, just as any artist must grapple with matter in transforming an idea into a creation. It is part of human destiny to be a spiritual being and ask about our place in the universe and, of late, our caretaker role. Moreover, spirit is never an object or "thing" but always a personified "I" and as such we instinctively know we should recognize the spirit in others, not just in humans and sentient animals but in all creation. It is this integration of spirit and matter that will make us mature citizens and caretakers of the cosmos. But first we must get beyond the "fallacy of insignificance" and know ourselves and our spiritual worth.