Part II

Quick review:

Part I followed the earlier genetic account/evolutionary paradigm (turquoise) through the "naturalistic" description of energy.

In Part II, I'll hone in one specific issue--the future of evolution of the individual organism (UR).
Still a question remains for me. Humans are now aware of the so-called 8 primoridal perspectives. We are aware of transcend/include, evolution on all levels, in all quadrants. We recognize that if hold to some version of stages/quadrants, however loosely, that humans, so far as we understand now (until we meet any non-human forms of intelligent life) are the only ones to help co-construct the higher stages of consciousness--both individual and collective.

We recognize as well that humans are the agent of directionality in the lower right. Human collectives, public institutions, electronic/physical networks, languages, media, artifacts and our planet-wide power affecting animal/plant ecologies-communities. The question remains then whether humans are the ones that must evolve the upper-right? All of the utopia/dysutopias like the Matrix, the Singularity, AI, GMO arguments pro/con, biotechnology...all of them revolve around this issue. Will there be a "4th" human (or trans-human?) brain stem: reptilian, paleo-mammalian, neocortex, and bio-engineered?

There need not be I assume--given very rough correlation between gross energy/body: reptilian, subtle energy/body: paleo-mammaliam, and causal eb: neocortex. Or some variation on that theme. The causal then which just barely opens as the most base of possibilities with the first awakening of the human mind pushing towards "casual"-like stages of existence in millenia upon millenia.

But other trends point in the direction that human technological evolution will re-merge with biological evolution--the two becoming increasingly indistinguishable. It does seem likely that computation will be eventually (perhaps within a decade/15 years) implanted more and more into the human mainframe.

The phenomena that arise in an integral space--hierarchical worldviews, perspectives, quadrants, whatever--all only ex-ist in that worldspace and then are read back into the earlier spheres. But even all these notions are still predicated on a human biological substratum. In other words, our species we only I submit learn what is relative to our structure and what is more deep feature to the Komsos when we encounter non-human forms of coonsciousness. Whehter those be "alien" or computers. That might include humans who fuse their substrate with digitized forms of reality---whether more bionic or just some amplification of human biology.

The notion of the fusion of biology and technology/science will be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, ethical issue for this century--and perhaps further.

An Mp3 of a CBC interview with Dr. Mark Winston, whose books Travels in the Genetically Modified Zone is the best on the subject. He criticizes governmental responses, research and ethical breaches in the business sector, and mis/disinformation campaigns from anti-GMO activists.

It is going to take place; it can do great good as well as great harm. Rather than view it as further human intrustion into natural forces--with markets, regulations, consumerist models--we might consider the issue as learning to actual do correctly/reponsibly what we are already doing anyway, in a piss poor manner. Namely involving ourselves and our human social-economic-cultural ventures with the natural world.

In other words to bring choice/consciousness to these worlds. AS Teilhard said, the human is the universe aware of itself thinking. So our efforts to in-form that world are Nature working on nature. Either for good or bad. And most of the time, degreees and kinds of both simultaneously.

Such generated food stuffs may be the only way to release the "natural" world to return to its wild status--after the population peaks at 9 billion and then starts to decrease. If our food needs could be met through (even partially) these methods, then vast amounts of land stressed through intensive agriculture could be freed up.

Creation groans in bondage as St. Paul says. I do not mean to imply that humans must "save" nature. Rather that humans can help heal/release some of the unconsciousness, pain of the natural world. And this methods will require greater technological capacity--but those of course by themselves will not automatically bring such "healing"--I mean healing in the sense of "Tikkun" as used by the Kabbalah masters....i.e. the release of the trapped inner light of the Divine inherent in all manifestation. Cosmic Repair is perhaps a better translation.

These are just some random thoughts. I"m not going to make sci-fiy predictions. Just to frame some of the larger forces at work.