124. Transhumanism 2/28: Advantages and disadvantages

Tha podcast is available at https://youtu.be/OuwBRwAz4LM.

It is vital that we gain some degree of insight into the advantages and disadvantages that transhumanism holds for us: where are we now, and where are we headed? Furthermore, why might we be unable to accept the transhumanist future as it presents itself today? Among other reasons, we cannot accept it because: a) we are at an informational disadvantage (technical blindness); b) regulatory protection is lacking; c) the ignorant individual applies innovation primarily for the purpose of power; d) the innovating owner seeks to regain their invested capital with profit; e) innovation (development) can be sold to various representatives of power, meaning we may become vulnerable from multiple perspectives; f) these are complex technologies that the average person does not understand, making their ignorance easily weaponized against them; g) our moral stance toward these technologies is missing.

Transhumanist behaviour should be a bilateral, a mutual partnership between the technology owner and the user, but we see that it is not. For example, data gathered about us is sold to advertising companies and national security agencies without our knowledge. No permission is sought regarding when and how to proceed with information obtained through facial recognition tools, surveillance systems, mobile phones, or computer cameras. This can be considered data phishing—or more accurately, data theft—which places the user, now viewed as a "product," in a state of unprecedented moral vulnerability. This can only happen when the practitioner or owner of the technology regards themselves as a "chosen one" who may dispose of the product at their whim. Man-as-product is now their property, because they can alter the biological body through genetic and nanotechnology, and the mind and rational thought through the manipulation of the five sensory experiences—for instance, via Artificial Intelligence.

Who is the user if even their mind-body is not their own? To what can the user, as a digital slave, say "I am," when neither the "I" nor the "am" belongs to them? The "I am" represents the universality, metaphysics, and wisdom of man, along with all his sacred virtues, where and when he exists as a unique entity in space and time. Existence is the metaphysical, original state of man—the baseline that everyone should realize. If, in our ignorance, we renounce ourselves—lowering ourselves to the level of digital slaves—how do we intend to realize ourselves, reveal our universal self, or exercise our free will? How do we intend to live if we renounce our own existence?

Knowing the "inner god"—our universality—is only possible through metaphysical self-knowledge, such as through understanding the teachings of an Initiatory Master. There is no material, rational path to self-knowledge. We are both the knower and that which is to be known, because we are the world. We can participate in the reality of the world only to the extent that we are conscious. This also means that the knower is the one who connects transcendent, internal, and infinite knowledge with empirical, rational, external, and finite knowledge. Ontology, as general metaphysics or verticality, precedes experience and finiteness; it transcends the limitations of the senses, or horizontality. The finite, rational perspective is not a creative perspective, because the creative perspective springs from the infinite and not the finite. Both perspectives—the vertical and the horizontal—reside within us. Rationality, the mind, sees only what it creates. Therefore, technologies, tools, and transhumanism see only what they create. But this is not reality, not wholeness, not universality. Spirituality is above all of these—specifically above the perception and experience provided by the five senses.

Metaphysical self-knowledge does not need to be "created" like technology; it is inherently within us. Our task is to reveal this capability within ourselves—this would be our awakening—and if possible, to help others do the same. While we are able to perceive and experience our life directly, we can only know our being (our self) indirectly, through the expressions and qualities of our existence. It could even be said that if our life is analysis, then our being is synthesis. Analysis always precedes synthesis; that is, life and testing always precede existence and the result. Just as transcendence is infinite and boundless, it exceeds the finite and limited experience of our five senses.

According to Hajdu, the trap of transhumanism is that it "outsources" cognition, basing it on machine dependency and finite knowledge. Being a machine, it cannot do otherwise. In contrast, self-knowledge, internal intuitive cognition, meditation, and creative infinite contemplation are available to all of us. Rationality—the thinking of the body mind—is a finite, non-creative perspective. Infinite creation always implies uniqueness, the individual, and "non-thinking." Thus, there are those who create the finite and the redundant out of the infinite—that is, they impose limits, like the representatives of transhumanism—and there are those who create the infinite out of the finite (e.g., creating being out of life).

The foundations of ethical or moral behaviour—though some distinguish between the two—can be traced back to the greats of European Western philosophical thought, such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, who lived in the 5th–4th centuries BC, before our Initiating Master. Furthermore, they trace back to Eastern teachers living in similar centuries, such as Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster, etc. These teachers, who can be called the last transmitters of ancient traditions, knew that every historical era is capable of producing its own ethical behaviour. There was hope that descendants would inherit similar ethical patterns and face similar moral opportunities and challenges. Without this hope, it seems there is little chance for humanity's ethical behaviour to survive against the prevailing power of any given era before man transforms him into a machine. Today, in the 21st century, the ethical behaviour that could be passed down to future generations seems to be faltering. This is partly because the emerging transhumanism makes the coming decades more opaque; due to rapid technological shifts, it is harder to imagine the living conditions that either we or our children will have to face in the future. We have reason to worry, and we can expect that existing rules of moral conduct will soon need to be revised.

Let us ask the question: do we want a future where, for example, we are under constant surveillance by cameras, share our lives with robots, have our genes altered through genetic procedures, and have our freedom of choice influenced? The problem is that the "data-handling titans"—as previously mentioned—do not disclose what happens to the data originating from us or what it is used for (e.g., for healthcare, medical, insurance, or state interests), how they access it, how they share it, how much they are paid for it, and what we receive in return. If we share our daily lives with robots, we must know what they know and what potential risks they hide. If we wish to subject our mind-body to genetic intervention or perhaps chip implantation, we must know the short- and long-term risks involved, such as the loss of certain functions. Furthermore, we must consider the moral and psychological consequences of these interventions—for instance, if it is revealed that we are subjects of genetic manipulation, our family or workplace relationships may change.

Let us not lose sight of the rule that a problem can only be solved if we provide a solution from a higher level. Therefore, the problems caused by transhumanism—such as alienation and technological risks—can only be managed at a higher level, such as the moral and ethical level of social and human relations, or at an even higher level: the level of universal consciousness. If we try to find a solution on the same level—for example, by involving external help such as a machine, an algorithm, or a search engine (Artificial Intelligence)—we will not move forward. Without human consciousness, one technology cannot solve the problem of another. Indeed, if the designers, distributors, and salespeople involved in the life cycle of machines—or perhaps the owners of the factories—were morally prepared, there would be no need for the "moral knowledge" provided by technologies and tools, and machines would not pose a risk to users. But it is evident that these profit-hungry "data dictators"—such as Mark Zuckerberg (META), Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Elon Musk (X), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Larry Page (Google), and their associates—are under-educated practitioners of power. What do we "owe" these multimillionaires? Perhaps 24-hour surveillance, the loss of privacy, and the death of democracy.