"The Ascent of Humanity"

Recently a friend of mine, who has a very different background from me, asked if I had read the book, "The Ascent of Humanity"? Being I find reading lots of content (600 pages in this case) challenging because of how much time I spend reflecting on every thought, I said I had not but would be interested in reading it based on the appeal of the book to him. His comments to me were focused on how man has used technology and culture to advance civilization, but the world is in as big or bigger crisis than it has ever been. The point that grabbed his attention was the author's conclusion that technology and culture has progressively separated mankind from nature and in that mankind has lost the beauty and rhythm nature affords.

I began reading the book, which is thoughtful and well written, looking for the author's core assumptions. My assumption going in was that he has not discovered anything new, but has found a new application for or approach to ageless philosophies of life. The book starts with the futility of the notion of progress

“Yet as the environment continues to deteriorate, as job security evaporates, as the international situation worsens, as new incurable diseases appear, as the pace of change accelerates, it seems impossible to rest at ease. The world grows more competitive, more dangerous, less hospitable to easy living, and security comes with greater and greater effort. And even when temporary security is won, a latent anxiety lurks within the fortress walls, a mute unease in the background of modern life. “

But there is "good news"  (I was taken with his choice of words here)

“Underlying the vast swath of ruin our civilization has carved is not human nature, but the opposite: human        nature denied. This denial of human nature rests in turn upon an illusion, a misconception of self and world.  We have defined ourselves as other than what we are, as discrete subjects separate from each other and separate from the world around us. In a way this is good news:”

Here are a few paraphrased exerts from the book that present the solution:

Human nature has misunderstood itself and simply needs to return to its truest form. Humanity needs to be more human!!

Reconceptualizing our self as a part of a whole (other humanity and nature) rather than as separate beings is our answer.

Technology is our assault on nature, seeking to defy its boundaries for self interest. This is the age old assumption that basically mankind and nature are good (not fallen) and that we must just rediscover that goodness.  

We believe we are bad because the world has told us we are bad in order to control us.

Our solution is to trust in our goodness to guide us and we will find freedom from having to control our world to make us feel good. 

I agree with author in the futility of technology and culture to resolve man’s quest for freedom, significance, joy and hope. I do not agree that we have denied our human nature and therefore must return to being one with each other and with the natural world to restore the well being of our soul.  I believe we are inextricably bound by our human nature and that's our problem. The author recognizes the basic yearning in our soul for what can and should be and the futility of our control over our world to deliver. I agree fully there, but he finds the answer in our relationship with the Universe, not God. The author's quite extensive treatise in Chapter Two seems to point to the notion that at its core, our nature desires intimacy (my words not his). The Apostle John said something similar when he said "this is eternal life, that we know the only true God and His son whom he sent." The word for "know" means "to have deep intimate experience with." So while the author has done well to point human kind to its greatest source of well being, his solution is union with the cosmic universe and not the creator of it.

This book is just more humanistic theology - man is basically good and the answers to a significant and wonderful existence are found in a collectivist society and our unity with nature. Man must  cease to separate himself from others and nature, and the world will be a better place. The power is in each of us to do this.

An opposing viewpoint and case for our human defect that makes it impossible for mankind to create his own Utopia is found in my book  

"what is the right thing to do?"

Most of us throughout our life have found this to be a fundamental question we ask in many situations we find our selves. Philosophy (ethics) or Religion tend to be the source of choice to inform us of "what is the right thing to do?" Since my thought life and writings have focused on the distinction between the carnal mind and the Kingdom mind, I'll use this dichotomy of sense-making to provide my perspective on this question.

If we are dealing facts right means "correct", but this question deals with behavior. The carnal mind will anchor "right" as somewhat a synonym of "fair." Thus, what is "right" tends to be defined by what is "fair." Webster's original dictionary defines "right" as "just, equitable, according to the standard of truth and justice." This is an 1828 version of human thi nking about "right." The current view of "right" has not varied much but would include in addition to fair and just the notion of moral and ethical. "Fair" (equitable) is based on maintaining the idea of equilibrium of the ratio of what is the deserved outcome one receives to what is provided by the one receiving the outcome with some standard or expectation. What is ethical refers to actions we take (behavior) that "fits" society's standards so we can exchange our behavior for favor of those in the society we belong. These ideas of "right" are consistent with the equilibrium imperative I describe as the "carnal mind" in my book Stuck in Stinkin' Thinkin'. In this frame of sense-making, "doing the right thing" is an imperative humans have in order to act in a way that we receive from society the "good housekeeping seal of approval."

In Religious terms there is basically no variance of sense-making in what we get from Philosophy. We simply replace society's favor with God's favor. It is still an equilibrium imperative in which we behave in order to receive something from outside our self that provides us some aspect of well being. When society or God does not "do the right thing" back, we become disgruntled at them and withhold our affection and further actions we might take on their behalf.

The Kingdom mind (which is not religion BTW) is based on Grace and not equilibrium. In this case the "doing the right thing" is not based on equity or morality, but thanksgiving. "The right thing" has nothing to do with reciprocity or obligation, but rather a desire to share with others and God from the blessing we have received from God. Its more of a "pass it own" idea where "it" was freely given to us in the first place by God, whether "it" is time, money, abilities, possessions, or even our life itself. "Doing the right thing" is playing out what God has put in us, in faith and free of expectation of consequences.

Let's take a simple example. Suppose you are in a Christian group that meets periodically and the hosting of the meetings are not defined or follows no formula. Any member just notifies the others that he/she will host the next meeting. When a member of the group says, "I'll host next time" they can be motivated either by the carnal mind or the Kingdom mind. The carnal mind says, "its my turn" or "its only fair that I do my share of hosting." The Kingdom mind would say " I love to share my home in hospitality with my friends." While the behavior is the same, both satisfy A definition of "its the right thing to do", which motivation would bless the group the most?

Just something to ponder .......