Progress, as used in common parlance and described by sociological assumptions, is a largely ill-defined directional orientation, predicated on some vague notion of what would be “better”. As if the criterion for what constitutes better was a commonly understood, given. This is likely because any expectation of progress is inescapably a teleological assumption – where “what is” is always being measured by “what ought to be”. While, more often than not, “what ought to be” ends up being defined by our discontent with “what is.”
So this circular logic raises at least two questions: What is the actual source of our discontent? And how ought we to address it?
In 1637 Rene Descartes declared, as the first principle of his philosophy – “I think therefore I am”. Which is to say, the essence of our existence is found in what we think about our existence (again, a circular logic). This, of course, is very nominalist, if not a full-blown form of Gnosticism – a hard divide between the physical and metaphysical framing of reality.
In this regard, Descartes is suggesting that the sensations of our bodies are malleably incidental to our existence because the true significance of our existence is found in what we think about those sensations. It is this idea that feeds into the very strange notion that one day our brains could simply be dumped into a computer . . . and somehow allow our real existence to continue on, fully intact.
Philosopher, Charles Taylor, believes that this type of gnostic nominalism inevitably occurs within an “immanent frame” ontology – a frame of reference absent a transcendently sourced understanding of existence. Within this immanent frame, our discontent with “what is” is best addressed by “what we think ought to be” done – where each of us becomes our own epicenter of reason.
Because for the Cartesian, it’s a simple case of mind over matter – who I think I am, is who I am . . . regardless of the material limitations of my existence. Invariably this leads to what author Mary Harrington derisively calls a “Meat Lego Gnosticism” – the perverse notion that our body parts are merely interchangeable bits of matter.
The reasoning here works like this: If our thoughts give meaning to things – then the meaning of those things will change when our thoughts change . . . a profoundly self-referencing imagining of meaning. Therefore, a perfectly healthy human body can become a demolition and reconstruction site of self-appraisal. Because after all, if we are not our bodies, and just our minds – who cares? And we have already experienced body part upgrades in this age of technology.
Sure, there are life-saving techno upgrades of which we have more than enough reason to be grateful – but there are also cosmetic and performance upgrades that do nothing more than serve our vanity. And the future portends a world where body part upgrades will reach a tipping point where the definition of what makes us human will likely become an open debate.
This will be the rise of the Cartesian trans-human – a cyborg reimagining of humanity. This is precisely what a disembodied sense of self leads to, and why the Christian tradition decided to reject the heresy of Gnosticism, from the beginning. Because such a heresy can quickly become an incubator for every form of evil rationale – i.e. choosing to kill someone in order to set them free from the chains of their flesh.
In contrast, the Christian faith embraces a fully embodied understanding of being. Understanding ourselves as the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). We also confess that Jesus comes to us incarnate so that we might truly grasp the meaning of Imago Dei. And at the table of the bread and cup – we take the body and blood of Christ into our own bodies. A timeless place where “what is” can experience the “what ought to be” of communion – a place where God binds us to each other, as he binds us to himself.
. . . and it’s a place where the prodigal is always welcome.
Comments are closed.