I’m contemplating about the biological and conscious processes of evolution.—They are really one process, however, here on Earth appear and have been distinguished as two— Do the two always align, or is there a possibility that we “misdiagnose” the relationship between the two? For example, when we think about modes and habits of production and consumption… There are in some ways in which mass production is more efficient(researching good examples), and less of a drain on earth’s resources (humans included in that Whole). One can say that, even though in a culturally conditioned context, this may feel unwholesome, however, in a strictly Authentic process of evolution context, this makes perfect sense- to feed the body more efficiently—for nourishment and to continue the process to free wo/man up, giving less focus to what s/he has mastered, and giving more to what is new, unfamiliar, yet to be mastered. Yet, at the same time there is a return to being more involved in the process of production, and to reconnect with a heightened sense of awareness (an evolved awareness) of the role of consumption in the 21st Century.
I think it would be useful to simplify or to give hierarchy to the levels or distinctions of this return or raised awareness of being more involved in the production and consumption process. Many of the characteristics of postmodern culture are a reminiscing or romanticizing of old ways of living-usually accompanied by a cynical (even if only minutely) perspective on the present and the future of humanity. Postmodern person “A” decides to farm vegetables for personal consumption, yet has hardly the time to properly farm them, or does so in a way where the resources put into and consumed by the farm have a rate which the size of the farm and also its yields does not support. Put frankly,as an example if for the size of the plot you should technically be able to feed 5 families, however, you only yield enough to partly feed one—the experience is only that an experience, and nothing more or truly beneficial. This would be the lower of the two in hierarchy—a noble effort certainly, nonetheless not what’s best for the Whole. The higher of the two would be the first’s opposite—”B” is the post-postmodern or perhaps integral community farm, collectively and professionally run (even if by educated or well informed volunteers and/or non-profit status), which serves the same process and produces an effective yield. Meaningful effort wise both are of the same—yet in practicality only one makes good sense, only one actually has a developmental benefit that aims to not only feed with food, but to nourish an awareness that could set to task a real, everlasting –change that takes hold–, Enlightenment in regards to production and consumption.
In this idea is a seed of something which attracts my attention, and that seed is what is the inclination to reconnect with this process? In the Process of Evolution, what information then would this inclination be communicating? Up until recently the thinking of cultural era’s would have merely focused on the practical understanding of this trend or direction. Our contemplating and thus changes would stop at practical matters such as the physical farming implications, and health matters. Where as, what postmodernism began ushering in, is a deeper more spiritual and biological understanding of such a trend. In the intertwining of these two approaches we find unison, yet in the past one battled for supreme rule over the other–but it is only we who have separated them with our differing cultural beliefs, the two have always been one. Now what post-postmodernism/Integral is ushering in is the next level of depth of understanding… and that is that, not only are the cultural practices a communication of what human wants, but also that what human wants, what human is-is the process of evolution itself. Meaning, that we begin to erase further distinctions. As we come to understand spirit and science as one, we remove barriers of distinction-that makes us seem them as individual and separate. And as we understand ourselves as spirit and science, we can then conclude or begin to explore that what we are is the expression of/a communicant of, not just humanity, but of the entire process of evolution—we ourselves are not separate from, we simply are. With that non-dualistic perspective, we can begin to see that there is a difference between the postmodern farmer who actually wastes resources, and the more efficient and practical community projects-which serve the same enlightening and informing aspects. And I think the question would then be something like, is what we are communicating back to ourselves/the Whole-a way to nourish that which needs nourishing? That in some ways we do need to advance (to make time for what really counts), yet we also need to return to a hybridization of simple technology that oft times requires more wo/man power.
But why would Evolution which simply knows “Yes” and “More” and “Go, Go, Go”, ever seek what was? The big difference, I would say, is the hybridization-the blending of past and future—like returning to the use of small farms but with computer technology, its a negotiation of sorts. Most importantly, the nature of the evolutionary process is highly impersonal and devoid of the emotions that we can say only humans and a few other species (that we know of) possess. Therefore, the process of tension-to-create, is blind to its consequences of action, and can only ever repair what does not fare well in the process of always moving forward. Thus, I say, there must be some aspect of quality, Authentic Evolutionary Desire, for humans to reconnect with the production and consumption process. No one can argue that this process hasn’t had tremendous consequences for the well being of Earth. It is perhaps, that the Evolutionary Process, has realized something isn’t performing well and needs to be corrected. And furthermore, that it is evident that far too many humans suffer at the hands of the mass-capacity process, and the earth land itself is suffering tremendous consequences, so it would make sense in a biological perspective that something would need to be done to combat that illness or weakness. And on a spiritual level this gets communicated as the Desire to reconnect with the framework of our survival.
…
When I speak of Cultural Revolutions, this is it. Revolutionary thinking. Not by one individual, although it has to start somewhere, however, bespoken by the Whole of humanity. In so doing, we begin to see how in post-postmodernity, or Integrality where/how we need to seek new structures. In Integrality New structures coexist with former, because WE create them simultaneously living in the former, imagining and creating the Newer as we go along. I say that the biggest challenges arising in our times, are all creative ones. We have thoroughly exhausted ideas that are grounded in tribal, agrarian, traditional, or modern times. While we never loose their structural influence–if you imagine life as a structure of ideas which unfold from or inside the other. Yet while each level of advancement is the process of unfolding-in the beginning and mid stages heavily relying on the support of the prior structure, when the final stage of unfolding takes hold-its own support structures begin to form and reveal themselves in real experiential ways of comprehension and practice. Thus, the things that happen in culture at this stage of the unfolding, are the revolutions, paradigm shifts—new structures firmly arise in culture; our imaginations are once again seeing life in a whole new way, and therefore, as we experience it, we are freed from old ways of thinking and problem solving… suddenly we can see our way out of a cultural predicament spanning several eras. We begin to see the difference between postmodern Band-Aids and Integral fixes—like that metal garbage can turned composting bin sitting in my backyard which as been steadily filling up for 3 summers but not really composting, nor is the composted matter assesable/accessable.
