Ethics

Artificial Intelligence and Creation

The people of the world of the creation are creatures. They are creations, created by looking to the world in wonder (or anguish, confusion, need, joy or contentment, puzzlement or any other wave of energy)  and having the world answer with the form that creates a balance in the shape of that space.

That time is now, or it is 200 years ago or 2,000,000 years ago, or just now. The distance a person places it at does not change ability to respond to creation, but at a certain distance it means people will say that “they” will use “their bodies”, or the bodies of others, as tools. That is the original artificial intelligence, the one that calls yarrow and mustard (above) weeds, because they are not forage foods for cattle, without calling to them and accepting their response.  All other forms of artificial intelligence follow.

5 replies »

  1. I like that sense of the essential connection between the one who sees and experiences and that which is seen and experienced. Deep calls to Deep. The danger of the tool is that we give ourselves away to it as we become more and more dependent upon it. Elon Musk’s recent assertion that we are going to have to become cyborgs if we are to remain “economically viable” expresses this well. I confess that I have not noticed the idea of economic viability occuring too often in your reflections on fruitfulness in your valley. Your enjoyment of fruitfulness feels more like a child opening a gift on Christmas Day, you know, the kind of child who has not become cynical about the whole thing? Day by day you tell the rest of us that you have seen a wonder as you encounter a rock in the snow, for example, and I find myself looking about me with a little more attention.
    In my own reflections on the wisdom of The Lord of the Rings it struck me that what happened to Sauron was that he became so entirely identified with the thing that he had made that he had nothing remaining once it had gone. He had become his tool.
    In the meantime I will continue to value your thoughts that draw me deeper into an enlivement.

    Like

    • I like the challenge of a post on economic viability and another on danger, or maybe both at once. Still, aligning your praise of Mr. Musk with the observation that few poets or artists of any kind are economically viable, just as most creatures in the world are not economically viable, is difficult. If I read your remarks correctly, you are stating that it is dangerous to integrate human processes with the earth, because when the earth is destroyed, we die. It has been the experience of indigenous peoples. No argument there. But what’s the alternative? To become cyborgs. That is also the death of humanity and of the planet, not to mention profoundly class-based behaviour. We are already seeing negative effects of something as simple as Facebook, under the illusion that humans are more independent actors than environmental reflectors or lenses, no more or less than other creatures. As I see it, we can learn to be active lenses of living environments or of machine ones, but we should be under no illusion that we will remain the same both ways. I have been speaking of things in a valley in which 99% of the people already have, Cyborg-wise, a cyborgian view of the environment, and it is dying under the onslaught. The solution is to create more of the same. It seems that the Sauronian or Frankensteinian argument plays both ways, and that this essential problem is one of the signatures of this time. Perhaps that’s a good region to explore together? I can make an attempt, you can correct me when I get too enthusiastic, that kind of thing? I could make some arguments regarding economic viability, to balance my arguments for environmental viability. That does raise significant questions: viability for whom? To what end? The post has its roots in a reading of Andre Jollès book “Simple Forms”, especially the chapter on the difference between myth and mythology, with myth being the root form, with this call and answer form, and mythology being an application of myth to other ends. Given the essential nature of both approaches, I am continually astounded that mythology is chosen over myth nearly 100% of the time, especially when it is myth that is meant. Perhaps I was too succinct. >

      Like

  2. Dear Harold, I continue to learn from you and try in my own way to pass on a more eyes-wide-open way of living. Here’s a newsletter that refers to your work.

    Shalom, Curt

    On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Okanagan Okanogan wrote:

    > Harold Rhenisch posted: “The people of the world of the creation are > creatures. They are creations, created by looking to the world in wonder > (or anguish, confusion, need, joy or contentment, puzzlement or any other > wave of energy) and having the world answer with the form that ” >

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s