Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00253)

According to Aki Korhonen:

> Steiner folks, antroposophists, talk about Ahrimanism, if I have
> understood correctly, it means that spiritual matters are drawn
> into matter and mechanizing things.  Computers seem to have a
> record in this; people work through machines, communicate,
> experience, relax, now even most of used to be brain-functions
> have manged to move in computers - namely thinking, computers
> make decisions, etc.  etc...
>
> It seems, that first God created Man as His Image and now man has
> created computer as his image.  This is not matter of good or
> bad, just a fact.  But sad is, by my view, that some people get
> so deep hooked on computers, without first learning to manage by
> themselves, that it might take lots of incarnations to learn the
> other side.  But I also think that we have created this situation
> by ourselves and knowingly, so this phase is obviously needed.
>
> How much deeper we can evolve into matter?

Is the advent of the cyberspace era really a further involution
into materiality? It looks quite the reverse to me, despite the
pathology.  (BTW, there's nothing unique about theos-l; the
knock-down drag-outs on Talisman, alt.religion.eckankar, talk.
religion.buddhism etc.  are part of the same cyberpathology).
That is, all the material barriers to communication, which are
geographical, vanish in cyberspace, making it a place where our
evolution can accelerate through a vastly increased set of
interlocutors with similar interests.  But that loss of
materiality is, as Jerry says, also the loss of all the cues that
tend to modify our behavior in real space.  Therefore, cspace
communication tends to bring out the best and the worst in
people.  But surely there is a forward momentum that is
evolutionary, not involutionary? Isn't Jerry's well thought out
and sensitive post an example? Don't we see a continual dialectic
in which there are syntheses emerging from the clashes of
thesis/antithesis? Or rather, where hopeless antinomies can be
transcended by looking at the issue from a higher level?

The one thing I think would be most helpful for me, and maybe for
us, is to devise some guidelines for what should be reserved for
private email vs.  general distribution.  For example, should
Jerry post his evaluation of my book to the list, I'll respond to
the list only with the most detached of clarifications,
admissions, explanations of how missing pieces are dealt with in
the sequel, etc.  If there are any comments that evoke an
emotional response, and that I think he should know about, it
will be posted only to him.  In other words, more sensitivity to
the audience of one's remarks will probably reduce a lot of
tension and irritation.  There's something about being PUBLICLY
attacked that drastically magnifies the conflict potential, and
contributes to the downward spiral of cyberpathology.
Conversely, private email can heal such interpersonal conflicts
that originate in public, as I have observed on all the lists and
newsgroups mentioned.  Somehow, if we write to just one person,
even if there is an impulse to attack something they've written,
the knowledge of one human being with feelings reading what we
write is much more conducive to productive exchange than the
quasi-anonymity of duking it out in front of God and everyone.
And if we just need to vent, there is almost always some
individual to lend a willing ear on email and to sympathize with
our feelings.  In the case of the TMR debates, that became
abundantly clear to me through the private posts of quite a few
people.

In closing, to speak theosophese for a minute, cyberspace seems
to accentuate the extent to which we live in kama-manas.  But in
all the clashes of thoughts and feelings is the key to an
evolutionary process in which manas will eventually become more
dominant.  Gradually, what we know will be more important to us
than what we want to believe.  It may take a million years, but
the Internet might cut it down to 900,000.