Is the Appearance of a Future Human happening?
March 2009
Introduction
It may be clear to the reader that I am balancing esoteric/religious truths and concepts and modern/scientific truths. To start with I have to believe that a human is a spiritual being. The life of special spiritual masters, of which there are countless stories of eyewitnesses, and my own religious experiences have brought me to this tenet. Also, I am a product of my time and I have confidence in scientific research and modern knowledge-production. Both have a value and are not necessarily in conflict. Science cannot (for the time being) explain consciousness[1] and give satisfactory answers on contingency questions and spirituality is not necessarily the method to explain gravity or macro-economics. Where I see that the two are on a collision course is when religion holds on to revelations concerning the observable world that contradicts modern research and when science tries to explain the purpose of life, when the scientific method [2] implies that it can’t.
We are living in an exciting period in human history, where for the first time all the content of the religions of the world becomes available to everyone and we are allowed to understand, accept or deny values or views that are held by others. The discoveries about the world and the human and natural cultures of the last decades are surpassing all the knowledge of the previous times. On a cultural level the developments are exciting as well. Mass communication and migration forces individuals and their cultures to, on the one hand appreciate and on the other hand to re-evaluate the values of their own. I am actually quite optimistic about the future, just because it seems so uncertain. The human world has become fluid (4) and in this versatility and uncertainty, we might see the formation happening of a possible new world society in balance with a new level of consciousness in the human.
I am very confident that a God that drives creation, is more intelligent than a single human that complains that is all wrong. I am supported in this by the Executive Alignment Manual [3] With all the ups and downs in human existence I can detect a progression, and a progression that is even becoming more visible in recent years.
The idea that the human situation is not static, but that it develops to another stage is typical for the West. Since the apostle Paul[5] the western mind is focused on a new Kingdom of Heaven, where the Holy Spirit rules and the lamb sits next to the lion. In the current apparently stormy world developments, it is quite easy to see in all this a coming apocalypse, as quite a few sects have done or are doing. In this essay, I would like to focus on a theory brought forward by Leo who describes the nature and the progression towards a new model human. If this is true, this progression must be traceable in history. It is traceable, as this essay tries to show, and modern sociologists see the rise of a new social paradigm as well, and in terms which confirm the predictions that can be found by applying the natural laws on human development as Leo has done.
Human development is first looked at as a social phenomenum, because this is observable by studying human history and indeed, modern thinkers have observed the dawn of a new social order. Next to that, we would be interested in the spiritual development of the human. The concept of a development from a Model I, via II to a Model III human offers a tool to understand spirituality for a Model III human. On this point, I have to say that my conclusions will diverge with views or revelations that expect a situation that is totally different from a present life on earth. This incorporates for instance super-conductive atmospheres in which humans, for instance, don’t have to eat anymore and where a thought manifests itself immediately, and in which not much will be left of present nature (6). If that is the case, we will see it through. I for myself am more interested in an imagery about the future that I can understand to happen as a logical process from the current situation and that of the past, in which we still have to eat, breathe and procreate. If we abandon, however, the idea of a “Kingdom of Heaven” as an ethereal life in clouds of energy without pain and suffering, we can still with common sense and useful models envision a world in which the awkwardness of current times are solved and in which life makes sense and the human is permanently embedded in a spiritual destiny. Isn’t that a sort of “Kingdom of Heaven”?
A Three-step Human-Model Model
The Human being is considered to evolve[7]. Leo Armin has taught [8] that there are three stages to the development of the human being. They are called Model I, Model II and Model III. A three-staged development is a most obvious model to describe most transient processes. There is a beginning, a transient stage and a final stage. According to Leo, the human being is, in its development, somewhere between Model II and III. Interestingly modern non-esoteric researchers/philosophers as Anton Cornelis[9] and Zigmund Bauman[10] have observed a similar process of development.
In the next paragraph the features of the three Models are described, after which we will more go into periods, significant timings and what it means for spiritual connection..
Model I - Fixed
Every individual is born in a group and, as a start, the individual is totally dependent on the group. The need for food, shelter and safety will make the individual conform to the way of going on of that group of people, not by force, but rather by lack of option. In a Model I situation, the individual and the collective can be considered as one entity. (Think for instance about the Borg of the Star-Trek series). Developments in such a grouping, or tribe, are slow, because it will be difficult for one individual to excel the culture of the group. To be expelled out of the tribe is usually equal to a death sentence. In more complex larger societies, in which tribal divisions are solved into more complex structures, tribal behaviour can be witnessed in social classes, professions and families. The son becomes a tailor because the father is one. If you are born in a certain class of people, you will never be able to become a member of another class. Anton Cornelis calls this stage a “natural system”. Natural factors like safety, food, nature and its supplies and dangers in general determines generally the behaviour and culture of the tribe. He also points out the parallel development of the human being in the womb and the process of evolution in general. When this is extended to the development when born, Model I can be paralleled to the stage of a child. The Mother is like a God, from which the importance of feminine deities and fertility in Model I cultures can be explained.
Model II - Choice
In this stage of development there is a consciousness about the difference between the individual and the collective or the interests of one person and that of another. Anton Cornelis makes a connection with the stage of puberty in the development of the human. The individual is no longer just a child of the family, but starts to consider himself as an individual and will rebel the established ways of going on. The natural identification of a child with the mother, gets competition from a wish to discover the father. Anton Cornelis and others explain through this concept of development, the rise of monotheistic Father religions as Judaism (after Moses), Christianity and Islam. The importance of nature and nature spirits fades away in favour of society and religion. The ‘two’ in the term Model II suggests already oppositions and latent conflict. The different interests of individuals needs to be negotiated until a satisfactory agreement, called ‘laws’. Anton calls this stage “social system”.
Development in this model of humans (or human society) can be fast, because the individual can break loose from collective agreed views and concepts. The individual can develop new perceptions on his own account and, when proven or with good negotiations, can get acceptance in larger social circles. It is understandable that politics, gain and loss, conflicts of interests determine the acceptance or rejection of developments in a Model II society. Competition, war, exploitation, battle for power, polarisation of views can be understood as natural effects of this stage of human development. Model II is transient and lasts a relatively short time, just like puberty is in the development of the human.
Model III – Fixed by having chosen
As the number three suggests, it will have by natural law more to do with Model I. The conflict between individual and others is solved in a kind of Model I society, with individual consideration for mutual interest. A society that combines the paradise-like natural stage of the human being, paired with individual freedom and consciousness. Can Model I be captured by ‘fixed’ and Model II by ‘choice’, - the words ‘fixed by having chosen’ could fit Model III human. Model II society, or human, is very recognisable in the human affairs of the past couple of thousand years or so, Model III can be recognised as emerging. Both Anton Cornelis and Bauman detect a change in society towards large scale societies run by institutions, not persons, in which the individual has large freedoms to develop themselves in whatever he or she wishes, but is limited in their influence to shape society. Models and ideologies no longer exist, but views on individual and institutional level are formed by intensive communication. Internet, television, multinational companies, complex intertwined interdependent economies, make decision power for every individual limited. Communication is massive and fast. Institutions react upon each other across the globe, often fully automatic. No single culture resides on an island (it never was, but it could imagine it was sovereign) , but will be influenced by everyone else. The discussion around head veils worn by Islamic-women in the West is an interesting one in the light of Model III. The discussion is obviously a Model II conflict. One culture is opposing another and feels fear or threat by the other and tries to negotiate rules of behaviour. Within the conflict we also see reminiscences of Model I. The poor Muslim-girl is threatened by her family of expulsion if she doesn’t wear a veil and the same girl is threatened by expulsion from society if she does. Being participant in both cultures, she will have to choose, hopefully from a strength found in her individual being, establishing unwillingly a Model III culture that lets her choose to become what she has chosen to be, whilst being a useful participant in a world without classes and ideologies. Open uncensored across-the-world communication is a necessity. Anton Cornelis calls this stage: ‘self directive through communication’ (Dutch: communicatieve zelfsturing). In the sequence Model1 = feminine natured, Model 2 = masculine natured, so it can be expected that Model 3 is another feminine stage. Anton and Leo indeed suggested this. As communication is the key feature of this model, it is to be expected that women have the opportunity to play a stronger role, as they have in their neurology a bigger advantage.
Timings
Although the three models are distinct in their description, the appearance is not that sharp. The change from one Model to another does not happen in a fortnight. As in the example of the head veils is seen, features of different Models may play a role at the same time. Model I features are not something of only the past, but things like class distinction, a Model I feature in a Model II setting, seem to play a lesser role in the considerations of individuals and cultures than say a hundred years ago. Leo brought to the attention the idea of universal permissions and also that a signal is not coming at once, but in waves that grow either stronger or weaker [11}. A signal from ‘above’ gives permission and the possibility to develop a new stage. If this is so, it might be than occurring universally, thus something available everywhere on the planet, not necessarily in Western societies. A signal needs, however, also a foundation to receive it and to give it a proper response. It is to be expected that a new update will not rise everywhere at the same time in the same manner. Also a signal will be received by a bedding of an existing culture through which it will have to come to expression.
It will be quite clear that a Model I operates best in smaller tribes. The hunting and collecting tribes of Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods were about 30 people large. And because of extensive population, the mixing between these tribes was most likely scarce (but existent). Modern equivalent of these tribes could be the Aboriginals of Australia or the bush-men of the Kalahari Desert in Africa. We have to be careful with this, because maybe their life circumstance seem to be similar, but they might still be affected unnoticeably by a signal of a new Model human. Since Neolithic times we see the rise of more populated places and the start of agricultural activities and the domestication of cattle. Larger settlements need more complex organisation, so we can expect contradicting interests of individual members, which can only be solved by negotiated agreements. (Of course, we should not think immediately about nicely modern regulated parliaments and meetings, but an undulating movement of conflict and solidarity into a direction of balance will do). We can expect therefore that the permission of a Model II hit the shores of Model I cultures in Neolithic times, a 10000-7000 years ago.
If the appearance of monotheistic Father religions are a token of the appearance of Model II, the maverick pharaoh Akhnaton (1353-1335 b.Chr) must be the most responsible for bringing the concept of one Father in Heaven to the human mind. He is also one of the first persons we know by name, who is connected to a religion. It is generally accepted that it was Akhnaton which inspired Moses to lead the Jews away from Egypt under the guidance of one God [12]. Ever since, there is increasingly more emphasis on individual accomplishment. New developments and new religions are established by persons we know by name. Since the late Middle Ages, artists start to sign their work, and individuals start to rebel against established ideas (Descartes, Galilei). After apostle Paul had established the Christian church, we see another phenomena. People start to increasingly define their religion by a creed and confession and make it exclusive against other beliefs. This was unthinkable before Christianity. People generally could worship different gods and were tolerant over other gods of other groups. A faith was not seen as an exclusive and only truth. Christianity forced other religions to define their faith as well [13].
About the appearance of a Model III, there is one specific record in the New Testament. In Acts 2, the Holy Ghost appears with everyone present in Jerusalem as flames up and around the heads of the people and every individual, irrespective his native tongue, could hear what the apostles said - a telling appearance of Model III. The event did not last long, if it ever happened at all. As far as I can see, it took another 1500 years before others signs of the appearance of a Model III were visible. Since the Renaissance, individuality has settled more and more in the minds and hearts of people. The British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) conceptualised, probably for the first time, the idea of an individual self, with the a natural right for self-development [14]. His ideas inspired the foundations of America and are reflected in the first article of the Declaration of Independence (1776): “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It seems that for most people happiness just meant more material wealth, but that is not the point that is made here; the signal of personal development appeared in the world.
In the beginning of the 20th century a religious leader was pushed forward by the Theosophical society as the future Maitreya, called Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986). In 1929 he made a remarkable statement. In the last international seminar in Ommen in Holland, he abandoned the organisation and explained that any organisation is harmful for personal quest for truth and enlightenment. Boldly he said: “Be your own saviour!”
Another feature of the social consequences of Model III is that if a person is free to develop themselves, it must be ‘free’ from social bonds necessary for his physical existence. As long as an individual is dependent on local church or local government or even ethnic group for his living and security, his belief system and development will be influenced by the beliefs of that group, like that was as in Model I or II. Since the second world war, we see increasingly the appearance of impersonal mega-structures that regulate domestic life. No longer is it a king or a president or even a local parliament that governs, but ‘the European Commission’, the ECB, the CBS [15] or business commissions of multinational companies. We have seen the appearance of the United Nations and the establishment of the European Union and other equivalent organisations in other parts of the world (though not that successful). International conferences on climate and energy and the internet operate as forums through which individuals and organisations interact and exchange ideas and beliefs. No longer can the world be seen as a collection of single sovereign nations, but rather like networks of similar interest and forums where these interests are exchanged and balanced. These mega-structures are a life of their own - they are beyond the control of a single person. Even the former American President Bush had to admit at the end of his administration that the problems the world are facing today cannot be solved by America alone, and he pleaded for more co-operation and exchange, a 180° turn from his former attitude.
The international exchange of ideas through forums and internet has consequences for the authority of ideas and believes. Dogmas are no longer ‘universal’ like the universal (catholic) church had declared, but have become relative, debatable and questionable. Truths have to compete and everyone has to come to a truth themselves. No longer are truths and ideas the property of a group, but are freely available. Even the esoteric has become public.
Spiritual connection in three models
As a definition of spirituality I will use the concept of striving to connect to or being connected to the source of life, in which an imminent spirit is in communion with an transcendent source (God). If this connection is not there, the human being will feel as if being lost, awkward, unsettled - a feeling that in most religions of East and West is recognised.
Picture 1
Here you are dancing. You know your place in the row. You are dancing the rhythms of the year and the rhythms of the tribe.
You are at home with those of kind. This is your world - there is nothing more to long for and nothing to escape from.
Every step, every drumbeat and every child being born is the heartbeat of life for now and ever after.
In Model I connection is tribal (pict. 1). Every member is connected by being part of a whole,which is connected. Leaving the group or being expelled makes you disconnected. And in ancient days it meant a certain death. In ancient tribal situations, the connection is symbolised through a certain deity of whatever imagery. The anthropologist Durkheim coined this totemism. An object, animal or plant or non-animated object functions as a vehicle for connection and is sacred and an identification for the tribe at the same time. The tribe is immortal, because the totem is. There is a contract or a bond between deity and tribe. A few will realise that the Jewish people and Judaism is actually a totemistic situation. Jews are an ethnic group and are a religion. There is a contract established between Noah and God, later reconfirmed by Moses. And as long the Law is kept God will not forsake his people.
Picture 2
Paul preaching to the Tessalonians by Gustav Doré.
You are sitting between your peers between the audience,
and listening to an inspired person.
He speaks about an eternal life in heaven and about redemption.
You are unsure. Is this the man to follow? Does he offer more for your restless soul than the known religion of your ancestors?
What will my neighbour think, will he follow this man? Then I might do as well.
He offers me eternal life, but what about this life. Will his religion give me the peace of mind I crave for?
In model II, the connection is upon an individual person through which others can connect to a spiritual source of life (pict. 2). Since a 1000 years before Christ, there are an increasing number of special persons who are known by name, and who have either brought new concepts of thought like the Greek philosophers, or are founders of religions, like Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Baha’u’llah and many more. Philosopher or spiritual person, by argument and lessons, new concepts and connection are transferred to followers. Each world religion starts by being inspired to rebel, refine or deepen the spiritual content and then to create followers. After the great founders, others appeared like, Thomas Aquino, Luther, Calvin or the many equivalents in Islam and eastern religions. But what the people of Model II will have in common is a feeling of being lost, a homesickness to a Model I situation and a longing for connection, which only seems to be available through the religions on offer; for most it will be just the one they are born into.
In Model III, the connection is upon every individual (pict. 3) The question rises - is this guaranteed ? What happens if you are not connected? Is it still possible to find cover with another connected person? I think that that is the case. And for this there are two arguments. In the previous paragraphs it already could be seen that Model I and Model II situations exist side by side. There isn’t a reason to conjecture that it would be different in a situation where human Model III is active, unless we have to expect apocalyptic changes and why should that happen ? What supports this, is what Leo mentioned in ‘box 7.7’ of the “Executive Alignment Manual”. Development takes place in three stages, where “it begins with 2 out of 3 (first and second self), one not yet common practice (=third self); and it will end by the conjunction of the second and third self… (After which the first self becomes inactive)”[16][17]. In this line it states, applied to the three human Models, that Model I and II exists simultaneously, but when Model III appears, Model I will disappear.
People
There you are now, a moment of taking a picture of all your colleagues of the office.
After work some might go to church, other to family and other to a meeting of the Hells Angels.
Some might be on line with friends from the other side of the globe.
Every individual has to formulate his purpose in life and rephrase the beliefs of his parents.
You are on your own with your personal religion amongst 7 billon other people.
That this is most likely can be seen by the rapid decline of Model I tribes. Tribes that maintained a way of living for thousands of years seems to be currently very unstable, which is surprising when you think of it. In the last 50 years or so, with sometimes very minimal contact with modern culture, this model of living collapses[18].
Another argument is the observation that the biological evolution seems to repeat itself in a condensed way in the foetal growth of the human being. It is not difficult to understand that development continues and the development of the Human Model will repeat itself in the development of the individual. Childhood must follow a Model I situation, as a child is totally dependent on the parents. We can recognise Model II features in puberty and adolescence. There is uncertainty about oneself and where one belongs or wants to belong to. If you are then fortunate, a person will get in adulthood all the opportunity to follow the spiritual path of one’s heart and build a spiritual formation that will be accepted in universal domains.
Concluding comments
This essay is a survey of trends pointed out by Leo, who explained them through the Law of Three. These trends can be noticed and sociologists have noticed them. That the permission for a Model III human has seemingly arrived does not mean that there is a sudden guaranteed spiritual connection or a sudden transformation to a future Utopia. Most likely this guaranteed connection will never be there. It would even contradict the very idea of personal religion/development and growing consciousness. It seems that increasingly every single human is able to develop themselves and establish the connections that fit. No one can blame the local culture for being oppressed, or not permitted access to ideas, skills. Now I think of it, when one wants to blame culture for all that is wrong, one is aware and thus can make a choice to be different. The opportunity that is now on our doorstep is to be what you like to be, whilst you reasonably operate in the world to sustain a domestic living and that will not bother you or claim you, as long as you will pay your taxes and do not prevent others in their development. In extreme, it is even possible to create you own perfect world in cyberspace through an internet social network that you can be comfortable with.