A Vision of the Future

By -
"The crystallographer J. D. Bernal (1901-71) illustrates how Gnostic ideas infuse modern science. At one time ranked among Britain's most influential scientists… he was convinced that science could effect a shift in evolution in which human beings would cease to be biological organisms… Further in the future, he envisioned 'an erasure of individuality and mortality' in which human beings would cease to be distinct physical entities... 'consciousness itself might end or vanish in a humanity that has become completely etherealised, losing the close-knit organism, becoming masses of atoms in space communicating by radiation, and ultimately perhaps resolving itself entirely into light.'" -- John Gray, The Soul of the Marionette, pp. 14-15

Comments

  1. Neel Krishnaswami5:11 AM

    This is a very perverse misreading, which honestly sheds more light on Gray than on Bernal.

    Bernal's book The World, the Flesh, and the Devil: An Enquiry Into the Future of the Three Enemies of the Rational Soul (to which Gray is referring) is freely available online, very short, and incredibly good.

    Bernal's book is basically a thought exercise in what the long-term consequences of progress as an idea are. This most especially includes moral progress, without which Bernal did not think the levels of cooperation needed for other kinds of progress could be sustained.

    What Gray probably doesn't like about Bernal -- and I psychologize freely here -- is that Bernal (like Gray) doesn't think that human nature makes long-term progress possible, but that nature doesn't necessarily preclude altering human nature (in particular, reducing our propensity for self-delusion and selfish greed). Together this implies that if progress continues, human nature will be altered in various bio-technological ways. (Bernal does consider the idea that human biology is simply too complicated for humans to manipulate reliably, but in his view, this simply means that long-term progress is not possible, and so doesn't fit the hypothetical his book was intended to explore.)

    Bernal is both a materialist, and is analyzing the consequences of large-scale, widespread moral progress. He is making precisely the opposite presuppositions of the Gnostics, who were anti-materialist, dualist and elitist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah8:01 PM

      Well, since most of this is quotes, I assume you me the labeling of Gnostic. I'm afraid you are wrong: the original Gnostics were anti the material world, but the Gnostic tendency is about perfection through knowledge and has nothing really to do with materialism/spiritualism.

      Delete
  2. Samson Corwell7:12 AM

    What the hell was Bernal smoking? I swear, some scientists have an odd predilection for the wonky.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more