The Coming Evolutionary Transition of Mankind
No, it won't emerge from a technological singularity, AI, AGI, or any transhumanist fantasy.
“The Human Cycle” is one of the key works on the psychology of social development by the Indian mystic, poet, and visionary Sri Aurobindo. I first read it in the 1990s, and it left a deep impression on me with its grand vision for the future evolution of mankind, which, despite all appearances, is driven behind the veil by ‘soul factors.’ Although his text is now over a century old, it feels more relevant than ever. This is not surprising when we consider the evolution of consciousness that unfolds over centuries, if not millennia. I believe we are on the cusp of the evolutionary transition he so eloquently described as a shift toward a post-material society. In this opening paragraphs of the first chapter, he outlines the in-between period in which we currently find ourselves, and I believe it perfectly describes the issue we are facing.
“Modern Science, obsessed with the greatness of its physical discoveries and the idea of the sole existence of Matter, has long attempted to base upon physical data even its study of Soul and Mind and of those workings of Nature in man and animal in which a knowledge of psychology is as important as any of the physical sciences. Its very psychology founded itself upon physiology and the scrutiny of the brain and nervous system. It is not surprising therefore that in history and sociology attention should have been concentrated on the external data, laws, institutions, rites, customs, economic factors and developments, while the deeper psychological elements so important in the activities of a mental, emotional, ideative being like man have been very much neglected. This kind of science would explain history and social development as much as possible by economic necessity or motive,—by economy understood in its widest sense. There are even historians who deny or put aside as of a very subsidiary importance the working of the idea and the influence of the thinker in the development of human institutions. The French Revolution, it is thought, would have happened just as it did and when it did, by economic necessity, even if Rousseau and Voltaire had never written and the eighteenth-century philosophic movement in the world of thought had never worked out its bold and radical speculations.
Recently, however, the all-sufficiency of Matter to explain Mind and Soul has begun to be doubted and a movement of emancipation from the obsession of physical science has set in, although as yet it has not gone beyond a few awkward and rudimentary stumblings. Still there is the beginning of a perception that behind the economic motives and causes of social and historical development there are profound psychological, even perhaps soul factors; […] ”1
I would say that the movement doubting the “all-sufficiency of Matter to explain Mind and Soul” and the “emancipation from the obsession of physical science” was, indeed, present already at the beginning of the 20th-century2, but has acquired a more collective form only around the turn of the millennium. If you browse through my Substack posts, you'll find several examples illustrating how modern philosophy—and to some extent, modern science—has shifted away from the certainties of physicalism.
However, the real transformation is mostly occurring in the minds and hearts of individuals, while institutional changes in schools, academia, and research continue with their fierce resistance. Today’s public and institutional research still adheres to procedural guidelines that have changed little in the past century, leaving physicalist, reductionist, and strictly naturalist approaches largely unchallenged. And this materialism is not confined to academic or intellectual elites; it is a widespread phenomenon. It remains deeply ingrained in our minds.
This is evident in how popular and unquestioned the persistent belief is that we simply need to push harder with science and technology, as well as in various techno-utopian visions that place their hopes on emerging technologies—such as AI, the coming AGI Eldorado, biotechnology, blockchain, aspirations of becoming a interplanetary species, etc.—that promise to radically enhance or even perfect human society. The notion of a future where technology eradicates poverty, disease, and even death, leading to a post-scarcity world characterized by abundance, equality, and enhanced human abilities, remains a stubborn delusion. This techno-utopianism is rooted in Enlightenment ideals, which posit that technological progress will inherently lead to social progress. The pursuit of upgrading the human condition through technology—whether through neural interfaces, genetic editing, or life extension—fuels transhumanist fantasies of becoming "more than human" evolving via neural interfaces, or merging with AI. Media representations, sci-fi films, and even TED Talks by enthusiastic advocates often glamorize these visions, creating a positive feedback loop of hype.
We are still struggling with this transformation because the delusion of scientism continues to strongly influence and shape our thought patterns. While the economy, oligarchs, and wealth inequality are pressing issues that require attention, addressing only these concerns will not resolve the underlying causes of a dysfunctional society. The American Dream, a vision shared by many around the world, is coming to an end.
The only way forward is to recognize that evolution must involve both outward and inward progress. While we experience advancements in material, scientific, and technological fields, we must also cultivate an inner growth. We are entering a phase of human social and psychological development where distractions from external fantasies will no longer suffice. We must take into account the soul factors and work on our spiritual growth, at least among a critical mass of individuals, or we risk falling into a bottomless abyss.
The subscription to Letters for a Post-Material Future is free. However, if you find value in my project and wish to support it, you can make a small financial contribution by buying me one or more coffees! You can also support my work by recommending me on Substack. Thank you in advance!
Sri Aurobindo, “The Human Cycle,” Ch.I, The Cycle of Society. You can read it also online here: https://incarnateword.in/cwsa/25/the-cycle-of-society
One could identify two opposing philosophical currents that emerged in the first half of the 20th century. On one hand, the “few awkward and rudimentary stumblings” might have been seen in figures such as R. Steiner, E. Husserl, H.-L. Bergson, J. Gebser, A. N. Whitehead, P. Teilhard de Chardin, and various continental philosophers. On the other hand, there was a multitude of neo-positivists busy branding metaphysics as ‘nonsense.’ However, overall, I would say that the strictly analytical materialist approach dominated throughout the century.
"This is evident in how popular and unquestioned the persistent belief is that we simply need to push harder with science and technology, as well as in various techno-utopian visions that place their hopes on emerging technologies"
This is so true. Most people don't have the wherewithal to assess the information that comes down to them, which means they have no choice but to rely on popular media to interpret things for them. This is of course nothing new, but it places a great deal of burden on the media to know what they're talking about and to represent things appropriately. Unfortunately, they're the ones most caught up in the "techno-utopian vision". The science writer's fantasies become, in the reader's mind, factual reporting. Never mind that the articles are often so nonsensical you don't have to be an expert in anything to see the flawed logic. But the general public's faith in science is so strong only a few readers even notice when what they're reading makes zero sense. Then again, perhaps they can't be blamed. Science isn't supposed to make sense, or so we're told. It isn't meant to provide explanations that jive with lived experience or "folk psychology". But then I wonder, why do they bother making up bizarre metaphors if it's really just the math that matters? Telling incomprehensible stories only makes us numb to nonsense, and that can't be good.
"We are still struggling with this transformation because the delusion of scientism continues to strongly influence and shape our thought patterns."
That cannon example you wrote about in your book would fit in nicely here. I was amazed that I was able to sense the right answer, even though I have no scientific or mathematical background.
Change is slow to arrive in institutional philosophy too, if anecdotal evidence is any guide. Recently I enquired into the offerings of the local philosophy department at a major university near me. For 20th-century thought, they consist mainly of courses in analytic philosophy. I searched in vain for courses on phenomenology, process philosophy, or even pragmatism.
However, while visiting the offices, I came across a selection of free books. One of them was a collection of essays comparing Goethe and Wittgenstein. Since first hearing about "Goethean science" during my research into "two-eyed seeing," I've encountered numerous references to it, most recently in your book _Spirit Calls Nature_. This is my first chance to look into it properly. But I find it encouraging that the articles draw comparisons between Goethe's revolutionary way of seeing and the cryptic genius of Wittgenstein. The latter's contributions are constantly being re-evaluated, and the importance of his thought for the "evolutionary transition of mankind" is, I think, starting to be recognized. It may even help to guide analytic philosophy in a new direction.
Regarding the evolutionary transition of mankind, there appears to be a mythology of change in the air, perhaps best suggested in popular culture by the "dawning of the Age of Aquarius," but found earlier in works like Lancelot Law White's _The Next Development in Man_, and developed in books like Gilligan's _A Different Voice_, Nagel's _The View from Nowhere_, Kimmerer's _Braiding Sweetgrass_, Charles Eisenstein's _The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know is Possible_, Ken Wilber's _Trump in a Post-Truth World_, and of course the magisterial works of Iain McGilchrist, to name a few on the leading edge.
I myself am expecting a paradigm shift! I tell myself it is rationally explicable as a development from postmodernism toward "metamodernism," but I'm aware that to some extent my thinking is subject to confirmation bias. I want change, and I believe that I can sense change; and I am willing to look for, and able to find, signs of it.