The mechanism of intent…
I would see the mechanized and linear perspective as the result of a lesser conscious perspective that we are slowly growing out of. That it exists at all seems to be the result of intentional design. In the history of conscious development we see the initiation of ‘brain in a vat’ consciousness, as Latour calls it, with Descarte’s ‘Cogito Ergo Sum’ and his subsequent development of the cartesian points system, the z axis, locating a point in 3 dimensional space. Most cultures prior to that had a much more community collective sense of personhood and responsibility, in Brehon Law , the precolonial Irish legal system, there was familial responsibility according to the maxim: “not punishment, but compensation” , if you stole a chicken, your family would have to replace the chicken.
Post Descartes, with the help of the printing press, consciousness develops along the trajectory of an individuated ego, moving along a linear path like a point through vacuous space. The result is a fractalitically self regenrative process. The individuated centre of consciousness applies its own measure to the world around it, it individuates matter and the heavens, classifying and proving by the scientific method. It moves away from the full round of learning in ‘the naturalhilosophy’ and specialises all knowledge into the particular houses. It harnesses power according to this process and creates compartmentalised productive processes, and compartmentalised education systems to populate these processes…and so on.
In this re-Renaissance what has changed? How have we evolved?
It appears that the digital interconnection is a result of our materialising western process. It is a physico-digital signifier of a trait of the inner process of connectivity at the subtle consciousness level, that is to say, Jung coined the term ‘collective unconscious’ not so long ago, at the same time Teilhard de Chardin hypothesised the ‘noosphere’, basically the same ‘concept’. We are learning what we are and with each step so we become. The next step:
As we think, so the world becomes. All life in-formation.
From this perspective, (I know that this tone is unhelpfully esoteric, I’ll switch modes now), looking at life that creates itself on the lesser bandwidth of consciousness throught the fossils of the built and organizational environment, we can see, yes, a linear and mechanical process. Growth , it seems, is often painful. Existence at all implies suffering, and so a lot of folk are uncomfortable with the idea of trading in their comfort for authentic growth. So they build processes and partake in the thinking and living of stagnancy, an ultimately destructive process. They build and sustain the limits of their ‘own’ mind, and of course this seeps out manifesting in the real world as hierarchic structures inversely proportional to their consciousness-based corollaries. (Jungs enantiodromia, a consciousness based relation of opposites, so material power implies weaknes ‘of spirit’ in this case of destructive effect)
These people attempt to divide and control others rather than grow naturally with them, all the evidence points to this. How otherwise could they justify their elevated sense of self importance or entitlement to conditions of gross inequlity. They must think in this way, otherwise their world would dissolve. Much like death itself, its a frightening prospect for those unprepared.
(something unexpected has just come up, I have to pop off, apologies if I’m confusing anyone, I’ll clear it up in time)