Tags
Evolutionary Enlightenment and American Philosophy
Before continuing with our fascinating discussion I wanted, in the interest of transparency, to tell a little more about my interest in American Philosophy.
The last decades of the 20th century saw a resurgence of interest in progressive and evolution thinking in both academic as well as popular philosophy. The author Louis Menand in his Pulitzer Prize winning book The Metaphysical Club attributes this resurgence of progressive, forward-looking thought to the ending of the cold war and links it back to the classic American philosophy of . Today this line of thinking can be found in the increasingly popular literature of Evolutionary Spirituality. Some of the most prominent contemporary proponents of this philosophy are the recently deceased Pragmatismbut enormously influential Fr. Thomas Berry, the cosmologist Brian Swimme, the futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard, the author Ken Wilber and my own spiritual mentor Andrew Cohen.
I first encountered Andrew Cohen in November of 1992 when I saw him speak in Cambridge,Massachusetts. At the time he was teaching a somewhat westernized version of an Eastern Enlightenment tradition called Advaita Vedanta. I left his talk intrigued, but honestly feeling that I had not understood anything of what he was saying. I was inspired enough, however, to pick up a copy of his book Enlightenment is Secret and my imagination was soon captivated by the message that I was reading in it. As I understood it, Cohen’s message was devastatingly simple and profound; if you truly want to be free there is nothing in this world that can stop you! What Cohen was pointing to was the deep sense that most of us have of being victimized by the experience of life. We feel burdened by our emotional and psychological experience and often see our ability to make choices as being severely limited by circumstances, social roles and responsibilities, and our personal inadequacies. This sense of limitation, according to Cohen, was an illusion. It was, in fact, a stance, a position that we were freely choosing to adopt in relationship to the complexity of human life. And because it was a position that we were choosing to take, we could just as easily stop choosing it. That was the mysterious key to liberating the human spirit. I didn’t know it at the time, but this notion revolved around one of the central themes that had developed through the history of American Philosophy; the question of freewill and creative potential.
After reading and rereading Cohen’s book I finally had the chance to see him speak again. This time I was determined to walk away with at least some understanding of what he was saying so I resolved to ask him a question about what I was thinking. “I believe what you are writing and speaking about is true.” I stated, “But, where do I find the faith to follow that path and know that everything is going to turn out OK?” I asked. His answer was as devastating simple and direct as his teaching. “Who says everything is going to turn out OK?” he questioned in response and then continued. “If you knew that everything was going to turn out OK you wouldn’t need any faith.” He went on to speak about the nature of risk and human life, but I had already gotten the answer to my question and although it wasn’t necessarily the answer that I had wanted it was the answer that I was looking for. Again, I had no way of knowing it, but my question about faith and Cohen’s implied instance that human life was a risk was also a central theme in American Philosophy. It was, in fact, the central question that propelled the entire career of America’s great psychologist philosopher William James.
In the year’s since my early encounter with Andrew Cohen his teaching has grown and developed enormously. What began as a plea for personal liberation became increasingly couched in an evolutionary philosophy that always considered the liberation of the individual in the context of their power to affect the development of our world. Again this line of thought is in many ways the central organizing notion that unifies the great tradition of American Philosophy. Over the past few years I have read and studied some of the historical development of American thought and have been continually strengthened to learn that the teaching that Andrew Cohen calls Evolutionary Enlightenment is very directly connected to the development of philosophy in America.
Two of the main roots of American Philosophy rushed into this nation during the period of colonization from two streams of thinking that had burst into being during the age of reason. One of these came directly from the scientific revolution of the European Enlightenment that was painting a picture of a world governed not by god, but by natural law. At the same time the Protestant Reformation was removing power from a church that it saw as an unnecessary obstacle to and direct access to the divine. These two lines of thought found their way into the American mind where they were shaped by the utopian ideals and challenges of colonization. The American mind began to take shape in the decades during and after the war for independence and finally came into its own during the cultural and spiritual movement led by Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Transcendentalists of Concord. The next generation of thinkers were the first American professional philosophers and they created the greatest original American contribution to world philosophy; Pragmatism.
Pragmatism was an evolutionary philosophy that flourished during the early decades of the 20th century as modernism peaked in American culture. After the great depression and two world wars the progressive spirit of modernisms was called into question by many and Pragmatism and the progressive spirit from which it came was temporarily submerged beneath the post-modernist philosophies and social movements of the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s. The resurgence of interest in Evolutionary Spirituality today is perhaps a second look at the evolutionary thinking at the heart of American philosophy and a chance to recreate Pragmatism in light of the many lessons learned through the 20th Century.
You’re right Jeff and I think that this new pragmatism put in practice by highly evolved and mature human beeings can spread in the world and create a new culture at a universal level.
Christophe.
When it come to “spiritual enlightenment” there are two (possibly more) alternatives:
1. “Enlightenment” is the individual’s opening up to the experience of an Absolute, Universal Truth, a uniting in conscious oneness with the entire universe, such experience sometimes termed Absolute Unitary Being.
2. Enlightenment is a phenomena occurring entirely within the brain. The suppression of sensory input and internal cogitation creates the internal “impression” that the body and the “self” are dissolving or being absorbed into Something Greater, Something Infinite. We interpret this loss of our usual “self”-awareness as an actual merging with ultimate space, time and consciousness. If this phenomena were more fully understood, its “spiritual” trappings would vanish and it would be seen as an entirely internal experience, similar to the sexual orgasm in many ways.
Thus, these internal intimations of “absolute” reality or consciousness are an illusion, a misinterpretation.
Chuck R, I read your posts. Right on brother. Please help me follow along. Does #2 negate #1 when you add “Thus, these internal intimations of “absolute” reality or consciousness are an illusion, a misinterpretation.” ???
Brian,
Yes, in my opinion #2 negates #1.
Many people would prefer it to be both ways.
I spent most of my life as a mystic and had numerous mystical experiences. A chain of events which would take too long to describe here led me to completely re-examine my quite-firm-until-then beliefs concerning mystical experiences and inferences which conclude that they are what they seem to be – experiences of some sort of universal consciousness. As a result, I discarded all such beliefs and inferences. At first I was bereft (“losing one’s religion”, “dark night of the soul”, blah blah) but now, several years later, I feel quite free. Good riddance to bad premises. Bad premises lead to meaningless questions which, when answered, result in misleading or downright conclusions and ever more meaningless questions. Far better to discard everything and start over.
After floundering around for a while, and again by another chain of studying and thinking, I settled on what I considered two essential premises:
1) The universe-in-itself exists, has existed and will continue to exist regardless of our imperfect and incomplete perception of it.
2) Sensory information is both necessary and sufficiently accurate to increase the likelihood of survival of the living organism relying upon it.
This led to
3)”Humans are a species of animal”
and eventually to the summarizing premise
4) “Humans are a sub-optimal species of symbol-using social animal, becoming fully human only through human relationships.”
For the past few months, I’ve been applying #4 to events in my life and in the world. I find that it has greatly changed my perceptions of nearly everything.
I hopes that elucidates, and doesn’t “build a watch” where you just wanted the time.
Dear Chuck, I have been too busy to give your posts the proper thought to respond fully – but I will. I am trying to navigate the terrain of my own mystical expereinces – publicly as it were. I guess the what strikes me as being a place to look into together is what would constitiute a “meaningless question.” It seems to me that the way you write here you mean by meaningless a question that doesn’t lead to the end of questioning. If the answer to one question leads to another that would constitue it’s being meaningless. This is something I would like to think about because my experience is that the opening of questions on top of questions is part of what gives a sense of purpose and movement to life. At least that is how it seems to me at this point. More thought required on this end.
Thanks for all your insights and thoughts, they are all interesting.
Jeff
Perhaps “nonsensical question” might be more appropriate?
“How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” This to me is a meaningless question.
It presumes that “angels” exist. I have never seen any acceptable proof for this presumption. (I do not, by the way, accept Biblical tales and other mythological stories as any sort of “proof”.)
When you start from some sort of bad premise you will find yourself asking meaningless, nonsensical, pointless questions. When and if you arrive at answers to such questions, and then utilize these answers for further cogitation or “reasoning”, you will quickly go seriously astray.
Science can be looked at as a series of questions. Answering a scientific question leads – in human experience to date – nearly always (or perhaps always) to further questions. There is no end in sight to such questioning, and there is no reason to presume that any end to such questioning is even possible.
So, no, the fact that one question leads to another does not constitute meaninglessness.
It’s if the questions bear no relationship to reality as we perceive it, when the subject is “de-linked” to the universe-in-itself as we are capable of perceiving it.
Example:
Premise: Unicorns exist.
Sample Questions: What is the average length of the horn? Of what are their hooves made? Do they mate like horses – one male with many females? Lifespan? What do they eat? What do they do during inclement weather? Are they really attracted to virgin female humans?
These are all meaningless questions, as there is no actual “referent” for the subject – unicorns – and there is an extremely low probability that there ever will be one.
From false premises we posit meaningless questions and arrive at useless or misleading answers.
The obvious corollary to this is that if one seems to be getting nutty answers to a question, perhaps the question is supported by one or more false premises. Thus examining one’s premises can be A Good Thing To Do.
Chuck , I just read your two posts and love them; looking forward to read more.
I love also that you introduce the notion of “meaningless questions” and I was inspired by the example of the Unicorn.
I am a scientist and as such my credo is that questions have to get a resolution character. In the case of the Unicorn, well we don’t have many ways to answer the questions since the animal is mythical.
In science once a question is well posed, the problem is almost completely solved. I believe this is True as well in spirituality.
I am bit on a hurry, looking forward to read more of you, but here is my question for you [ the ultimately well posed spiritual question, in my opinion]
-“What is Reality ? ”
Would you take this one, or would it be in the class of the Unicorn ?
Hi Catherine:
I’ve read a number of your messages. It’s a pleasure to reply to you. [Look for my question to you at the end of this message.]
“What is reality?”
Is reality a “what”? Might not a spiritually-inclined person ask “Who” is reality? [Joke. Please take no offense.]
I don’t know what reality is, I don’t expect that I shall ever know, if I ever thought I *did* (why can’t I italicize on this blog!; I really miss it) know I was deluding myself, and, finally, I do not see any reason why humans, as currently constituted, ever can “know” fully and completely what reality (what I like to call the universe-in-itself) is.
[In fact, I argue that the operation within organic systems (us) of the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents any organic system from ever reaching a state of systemic integration necessary for complete comprehension of “reality”. Same thing for non-organic systems, should intelligent non-organic systems ever appear.]
I do accept that there IS a universe-in-itself, but because of the construction of our body-mind we can never perceive it completely & without error. We’re just animals who have become skilled at symbol creation & manipulation (languages, etc.) and can – through organized social endeavor – create many wonderful things. We are skilled at drawing inferences and making models and maps of the world we find ourselves in. But “the map is not the territory”, “the map is not the complete territory”.
Can a dog comprehend calculus? Why would you expect a human to ever comprehend *All That Is*?
I see no reason why our model(s) of reality shall ever encompass in every detail what reality “really” is. As with all other successful species of animals, our inferences and maps of reality are sufficiently accurate to improve our chances of survival. Natural selection operates on the basis of what works for or against survival. It does not work to determine “truth”. Our brains were molded to promote survival; they are not inherently truth-seeking mechanisms. Obviously truth and survival knowledge/behavior overlap, so we are *capable* of investigating for “truth” and making maps of what we discover, but truth and what was necessary to our ancestors for survival were and are not equivalent.
Everyone on this planet lives quite adequately, if far too often in a mediocre manner, without Truth, without knowing “what is reality”, although there are lot of humans who *believe* they know what reality is, and a lot more who claim they’d like to know. However, *no one* lives for long on this planet without a solid grasp of what it takes to survive. No one.
QUESTION FOR YOU.
You wrote above: “In science once a question is well posed, the problem is almost completely solved. I believe this is True as well in spirituality.”
Why do you “believe” this is true in spirituality? Can you provide an example of a spiritual “question well posed” and its solution?
Catherine is pointing toward the question that I want to go into with all of you. I see that on the one hand you have religion that is dogmatic or spirituality that is nonsensical and on the other you have science that is obviously steeped in real answerable questions. In between you have a range of things that might not be so easy to categorize as either of these two extremes. Questions like ‘how long is a unicorn’s horn?” is obviously ludicrous. On the other hand questions like ‘how can cancer be cured?’ is worthy of inquiry. How about the questions that lie in between: ‘What is the nature of reality?” Is there directionality inherent in evolution?” Is there a god?” I think with questions like these we would need to look at them more closely to understand what exactly we were asking and then determine if pursuing them would be valid.
First shot.
1)What is the nature of reality?”
I’ve pretty well sketched out my reasoning previously for this answer so I won’t repeat it. Reality is *much* like we perceive it so far. We will never perceive it exactly or completely. Our perceptions of external reality *must* be reasonably accurate. If they weren’t, we would not have survived as a species in a dangerous world. We’re here, thus we can perceive reality well enough to survive within it.
2). Is there directionality inherent in evolution?”
I see no evidence for it. Everything I understand about evolution and natural selection argues against it. We may greatly *desire* a direction, a purpose for our collective existence, but the universe is not here to fulfill our hopes and expectations. If it is, it’s done a miserable job so far for the animals (including humans) that have existed so far.
3). Is there a god?”
a). Please define “god” (or pick one of the approx. 6 billion definitions currently in use). First Cause, should one buy that argument, is insufficient, as the “big bang” is also a “first cause.” Is the big bang a god?
b). I see no outwardly perceptible support for the existence of a god.
c). Inward support for intimations of a deity are unreliable. Mystical experiences bear a “family resemblance” to dreams. One characteristic in common is that our internal sense of “real vs not-real” is left on the “real” position. Whatever happens feels absolutely without-a-doubt real during the experience. We wake from dreams to realize they were not real. Emerging from mystical experiences is different in that the mystic remains convinced of the validity of the experience. This conviction is erroneous (writing now as an ex-mystic).
d). As a god – if existing – is also part of our “reality”, I see no reason why this question would be solvable (see #1 above) by humans as currently configured. All “Revelations” from God (and I’ve read many) or god’s prophets, to date, do *not* seem to me to be records of any sort of respectable universe-creator.
Hey Chuck R…if you’ve read my comments you’ll see that I’ve been Jeff’s straight man, a bit obtuse about spiritual ascent. Now I come up to you feeling like an octagon meeting a near-perfect circle (ref *Flatland*). So I’ll ask you as Jeff & Elizabeth asked me, “If you’re so rational, why are you knocking around on this blog?”
Hello Chuck,
I realize that you have answered these questions or decided to stop asking them for yourself. The conversation I want to have is does that mean that it is meaningless for anyone to question them. As far as God is concerned, I agree with you that we would need a long time to come upon a definition.
Hi Chuck,
I will just focus briefly on point
1. “what is Reality ?” to my surprise you hold a view which looks absolutely materialistic for me.
You say Reality is what we perceive. mmmh ! although I am a scientists , a great change in my life was a few years ago when I got convinced that it is not a satisfactory answer. There are many ways to make the rational proof of it, but the most fantastic proof I found recently in Steiner’s “Philosophy of Freedom”.
It basically comes to this : we don’t perceive “thinking” but only “thoughts”. “thinking ” is not an object, it is something else. now this “something else, that I can only know about by the act of cognition itself, this something else, is it part of Reality? can we really neglect this when we think about Reality. Well if we do this , it looks to my [as a scientist this time] like a theory where one has forgotten the Elephant that is in the Room.
Moreover there is good reason why “thinking” cannot be perceived. Perception is by nature of the domain of the Relative. One can just find with reason that if something exists that I can prove, but not perceive, then maybe it is just because it is form the Realm of the Absolute ?
So for me this question “ what, [ or who] is Reality ?” is very well posed.
To answer the question you asked me. I want to answer as a scientists. I indeed said that every question well posed has a resolutory character[ can we say “resolutory = which comes to a resolution”. I also claimed that the enquiry about Reality is well posed. Then what is the solution ?
To y view the solution is Enlightenment, radical Enlightenment I mean.
IfI am ready to die to get the answer to this question, Enlightenment will manifest itself. That’s why it is an extremely well posed spiritual question.
A knowledge which is alive is hidden in it. Hence to act of desperately looking of ran answer will produce drastic effects in my life.
OK I give you that for the above statement, I have only my intuition and a few examples of enlightened intellectuals.
Looking forward to more alive interaction !
Catherine,
You people are a tough crowd!
I’m sure I’ll omit something I’ll later think important, but anyway…
You may be surprised that I am “absolutely materialistic”, if indeed I am (“materialistic” is one of those fuzzy words for me) and I am likewise surprised you’re finding “fantastic proofs” in Rudolf Steiner. I read a number of his books in the late ’60’s when I first plunged into mysticism, and I marvel that a practicing scientist would find them useful. But then I spent over 35 years “traveling through” mysticism and have now emerged out the other side. In my opinion. So I don’t think much about such writing anymore.
Reality is obviously more than we perceive, but primarily, if not only, because our sensory equipment and mind-brain are incapable of encompassing reality’s infinite detail and extent.
It seems to me that your are postulating some sort of mind-body duality which bears a family resemblance to Descartes’ formulation. In this there is some sort of mental-spiritual-cognitive-whatever continuum, probably infinite in extent, which intersects somehow with the physical “reality”. A crude model of this would be that our brain is some sort of cosmic radio, “tuning in” on the cosmic wavelength. Our “real” nature is somehow embedded in this wavelength. Your deep cosmic “thoughts” are not arising within your brain, they are originating Someplace Else, perhaps in the Central Creative Mind Of God, broadcasting throughout the universe. (Check out P.K. Dick’s “Radio Free Albemuth.”)
This received wavelength not only “attracts” your mind to “higher”, “deeper”, “truer” cognitions, but attracts all the material universe to itself, molding and shaping it. Thus the “direction” that physical evolution is taking here on earth is in fact guided by “cosmic central”. We are evolving in a particular direction, attracted towards a universal oneness of conscious being.
Does that sound ANYTHING like what you’re hinting at?
Like a straw man argument, I do not agree with *any* of what I just wrote. I spent years mulling over all of this, which is why I can write it down now from off the top of my head, and fervently (at times) held it to be a reasonably valid model of ultimate reality. But no longer.
No continuum of mind, no cosmic radio, no direction, no soul, no reincarnation or rebirth, no heavens or hells or in-between *Bardo* states. All that was an illusion based on a misinterpretation of a little-understood phenomena of the brain.
If, however, the above spiritual schema bears no relationship whatsoever to your developing viewpoint, then I didn’t comprehend just where you’re coming from.
On your answer to my question to you: “Can you provide an example of a spiritual “question well posed” and its solution?”
I *think* you are saying that (Radical?) Enlightenment is the answer to a well-posed spiritual question. Am I correct? And (I’m attempting to re-phrase your answer here) if you are willing to die in order to receive enlightenment, that in and of itself means that the question is well-posed.
If that’s a fair re-statement of your position, then I can’t say I completely understand it. I feel like I detect circular logic within it, but am not certain of it.
Anyway…as to premises. What do you think your underlying premises are for the above? If my description and re-statements accurately reflect what you’re driving at I’d say some premises are:
1) A mental-spiritual continuum exists.
2) This continuum has a governing principle or consciousness which humans can tap into and be influenced by, either consciously or unconsciously.
3) A “higher” state of consciousness exists which we call Enlightenment.
4) Some humans have attained this state. It is available to other humans who *really* want it.
5) The enlightened human is more in tune with the mental-spiritual continuum than the non-enlightened human.
But I could be entirely wrong in my interpretation of what you wrote.
Question: What is “radical” enlightenment? Does it differ from ordinary enlightenment?
Brian,
Your question: “If you’re so rational, why are you knocking around on this blog?”
To be uncharacteristically (for me, on this blog) brief:
I’m test-driving a new paradigm, taking it for a spin through traffic.
As Bob Dylan wrote (Talking WW3 Blues):
Good car to drive…after a war.
Jeff:
You wrote: “I realize that you have answered these questions or decided to stop asking them for yourself. The conversation I want to have is does that mean that it is meaningless for anyone to question them.”
As I commented to Brian immediately above, what I’m really doing here is utilizing a new paradigm to see what answers it provides to a variety of questions. I can’t be certain, but I doubt that any of the apparent *answers* I’ve written in earlier comments were formulated before I read your postings. So it’s not really that I’ve answer all such questions or stopped asking them. I’m just looking at them from a new viewpoint. Unfortunately (possibly) for you, it’s your blog which I found to be discussing appropriate (to me) topics.
It’s like having new eyeglasses. When I was 14 I got my first pair of eyeglasses after years of seriously deteriorating vision. I was astonished to learn that it was possible to detect from a distance the individual leaves on a tree rather than perceive only a big, green, fuzzy blob, or that you could see the individual bricks in a brick wall.
So I’m just looking around, seeing how things look through my new philosophical specs. If I have become a nuisance to this group, interjecting negativity where it is unwanted and serves no purpose, just say so and I’ll sign off. I know from firsthand experience that an apparent resolutely contrarian viewpoint can distract a group from what they really want to do.
Hello Chuck, So far so good. I am game for working some things out together here – this is what I set up this blog for. I guess I am like – except I have been trying out my new paradigm for the past 18 years – before that I was a materialist atheist studying physics to unlock the mysteries of reality. When I realized that science didn’t have all the answers that I was looking for I turned elsewhere. Eventually my spiritual experiences convinced me that there was something much more to reality than I could understand.
I noticed your long post to Catherine outlining what you imagine the spiritual paradigm of at least some of us on this blog to be. Some of it is on the mark, but I will have to think about it a little to see how much and then I can write something to see where our real similarities and differences exist. I suspect we have more of the former than the latter.
And you are welcome here – I can always stop responding, in the meantime this is how we all evolve.
Cool how Jeff and Chuck R intersected at this point after weaving back and forth though science and spirituality over their lives. I differ in that I never made it very far down the spiritual path, thank God!
Brian:
You wrote: “I differ in that I never made it very far down the spiritual path, thank God!”
Amen, brother, amen. And Right On! as well.
PS: I read “Flatland” in the 5th grade. Probably the most significant thing I did that year, other than get repeatedly kicked out of class. No Circle, I.
Don’t you ever get bored of the smallness of your own mind? We never can be sure what is there, but I think that the basis of people looking into spirituality is the deep longing to wider the perspective, that there is more than what one possess (material, intellectual, relational). Being a just a bit more evolved animal that can do a bit more than following its basic drives. Don’t you think your mind just got lazy at a certain point from not knowing the answers and just became happy with narrowing it down to that which can be understood? Don’t you ever have the question what is beyond the thousands of light years away universes… and realize how little we are..
Assuming this is directed to me because it directly follows my last comment and you didn’t address it to anyone in particular, my answer would be No.
Your comments may be intended to address someone or something whose presence you consciously or unconsciously entertain in your own mind (e.g. memory of someone whom you didn’t like) but they don’t apply to me.
Briefly, my current paradigm *includes* my previous paradigm (which – based on what you wrote – was much like yours), but explains numerous anomalies which the previous paradigm could not explain, despite some 35 years of exploration within it. If you’re familiar with Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions my brief description should ring a bell for you.
Differences in paradigms and the hostility such differences can engender is always an interesting phenomenon. Defense of Territory – whether intellectual or actual land – is extremely important to many species, particular the social species. So your reaction is thoroughly human.
No, Chuck, it was not specifically directed to you. Later, when I read it back, I saw it looked like that. It was actually a very personal response, a reaction to reading the last few post. When I was reading back your blogs, I saw this narrowness is not about you. I just thought of the longing to bring spirituality back to something to have peace with, just like when reading Steiner accepting the Astral body and the connection to Soul as the meaning of life. The moment one thinks to have peace about it, something happens like my colleagues talking Steiner down, it like someone pulling your heart out. I just realized this morning that the only thing we can accept is that we do not know; accepting the immenseness of the universe and the impossibility to ever really understand. We are less than microcells trying to explain the whole.. I will study your link now, it looks really very interesting. Thank you for it.
Every time I plan to stop writing on this blog and then suddenly I see something so clear, like this morning, that just have to write it down. And then later I see how important it is to wait a while, instead of write it down so directly, because I did look like I was attacking you..while it was really a description of my own experience. The only moments in my life that I really thought ‘this connects that what it is all about..’ where moments that I was out of my own narrow mind, either in discussion groups with others or in nature. But also studying it gives a deep sense of fulfillment.
Jeff, re: ” Is there directionality inherent in evolution?”
Do you put any stock or credence in Ken Wilber’s assertion that the destiny of humanity is Enlightenment and the the omega point of human evolution is to be come so?
If we think of evolution as an adaptation of species to survive more certainly, can we way that Enlightenment and attaining a collective higher consciousness that realizes peaceful coexistence rather than wars with the attendant use of WMD will be crucial in the survival of our species and indeed the entire planet? W/o this realization, I would say we can self-destruct and go the way of the dinosaurs.
??