1997 Events Program
Paradox Touchstones
About the Paradox Project
About Paolo Soleri & Arcosanti
About Verbum & the Cosanti Foundation
Conversation with Paolo
Arcosanti Home Page
 |
A Conversation with Paolo Soleri
Cosanti - Sept. 7, 1997
Present: Nick and May Pavlovic, Ron and Kim Anastasia
(Rough Edit - Tape 1 of 2 - 45:00)
The following edited transcript is from a videotaped conversation with Paolo Soleri at his home in Cosanti on Sunday, September 7, 1997. The weather was clear, sunny, and hot. For approximately three hours, Paolo, Nick Pavlovic, and Ron Anastasia discussed the Paradox Project, the current status of the VAM Project, and Paolo's vision for cybrarians in Arcosanti's Future. Kim Anway-Anastasia did the videotaping, using a consumer quality VHS camera.
NOTES:
1. Tape counter was zeroed at beginning of video tape. - Occassional numbers in text refer to tape counter readings.
2. Brackets [ ] are used to indicate words the transcriber is not certain about.
3. Curly braces { } are used to surround words inserted by the editors to clarify the meaning of the preceding words.
Paolo:
I don't think we are going to find the answers unless we systematically engage in what I call laboratories - urban laboratories.
Nick:
Yes ... Exactly. Exactly.
Paolo:
But evidently those are very expensive, very frustrating and nobody wants to invest in anything, you know ...
... ... simulation is very, very important, too, like everything. When we take the simulation for reality, then we get into problems. Unfortunately, that is what is happening everywhere.
Ron:
Oh, yeah.
Paolo:
... And part of the surprise is that reality is so subtle and so complex that you never get really the right image of it; you end up imaging, how do you say, [your] interpretations. That's why the physical, experiential process is essential, but it has to be combined with what we would call the theoretical, the academic.
... Ron:
So, I wondered if you could perhaps give us, I know it's gone through a few iterations, your current feeling about the Paradox Project or the Neo-Monastic Institute, or both, or how you see them related.
Paolo:
Well, the premise - which is pretty distressing - is that I don't know anything about your work - the computer work - so that would put me - I should shut up and do something else, but I don't. I feel, I think I have some notions about what this new world might develop into and I'm very excited and very scared about it.
... ... And in my own simple minded way, I'm projecting the notion of the silicon intelligence ... what I call the silicon persona ... vis-a-vis the carbon persona, which is us, and trying to get some notion of what might happen there. And I know science fiction - they have been doing that forever, so there is nothing original about that. But I think that, even our position at Arcosanti, some of the important things that are going on, I think that maybe we can offer some connection that might ... might open some of the minds to this silicon persona notion, and open our minds as a carbon persona notion.
More than that, we would like to project the fact that virtual reality is such a fantastic tool that we should be very careful about the way we are using it, and maybe put some boundaries, I don't know maybe we shouldn't, but ...
And to contrast what I call the existential, and experiential process we have at Arcosanti, with a dimension which I think is very important, which is the dimension of frugality vis-a-vis the dimension of hyper consumption. So the people who are enriching themselves also in terms of wealth to the - let's call it the artificial persona - maybe should become aware of what they are doing, because they are accumulating more and more wealth, and then they are transforming that into the hyper consumption that we are victimized now by ...
So, I think that - I think there are some very logical ... elements of coherence in what I'm trying to do, and if we succeeded we might be able to do something fairly exciting. So we would like to have youngish people from the computer age, coming in and become physically involved in construction, within the frugal context.
And I am speaking about a tiny minority, a tiny, tiny minority. But we have to be able to reach them. Because I believe there is some information coming around and confirming that, that some of those people like anybody else are a little edgy and they have some feelings of discomfort or anxiety almost: "What's this going to take me into and what is my relation with other people and other things, with reality in general."
So, I think if we could develop this thing well, we should be able to succeed, but that's a big "if".
Nick:
It's another interesting experiment for the laboratory. Yes. I like that.
Ron: You know, I was just thinking, an example of a group like that that is nanotech, nanotechnology. Who's the guy that wrote? Eric Drexler - at MIT, got his Ph.D. from MIT and is the leading person - he wrote the book, Nanotechnology.
Paolo:
Yeah, which I didn't read.
Ron:
And then he did some more thinking about it, got a lot of feedback from other people, and began to realize the other side of the coin. And started going around lecturing about the dangers - the tremendous dangers - of Nanotechnology. And so, his people are an unusual combination. They're both working on - (and it of course involves lots of artificial intelligence - right? Distributive processing because you've got little computers down at the size of molecules that are running these little - we're rebuilding nature, right? And then it's all parallel processing, and so forth) and they're pretty sensitive - at least some subset of that culture - to the incredibly frightening implications of going in that direction.
Paolo:
Well, yeah, you could make the almost the usual, you know, parallel. Think of Hitler having access to that kind of technology ... He makes the world according to Hitler's. I mean, without effort, just sitting at the consul. So, it's quite. . . [wry laugh]
... Ron:
Right - Drexler's scenario, for kind of the ultimate evil to which nanotech could be used, is an advanced civilization that is warlike and aggressive, and as it expands into space it decides as a military strategy to create nanotech self-replicating devices that expand in a sphere around from the home planet out through space, land on other planets and asteroids, and eat them and transform them into more of themselves. So you have an ever-expanding sphere that destroys everything in its path and kind of "cleans" the way for the expansion of this culture.
Paolo:
The ultimate virus.
Ron:
Not only on one planet, but throughout all of space. So, they're looking at - how do we develop ... and yet at the same time ... I mean it's a big dilemma, because once the Genie's out of the bottle, how do you possibly keep it from being used for these kinds of purposes?
Paolo:
Oh. Well, I mean the attraction for it; you know, to become very powerful and very wealthy; it's there as soon as the free enterprise machine starts working with it. ...
Ron:
... Can you say a little bit about the Neo-Monastic Institute?
Paolo:
Okay. Well, for many years when I was talking about Arcosanti, the question came out what about church or religion and so on and I would say, "Well, I'm very skeptical about theologies. But, I would welcome a sort of mirror image, or a -something that we could reflect upon, a community nearby incorporating Arcosanti that could be a monastic community."
Why monastic? Well, because intellectually alert, aware of some the of problems of life and death; frugal, with the sense of history and with the sense that there is something more than what we behold and what we experience. But the main call ... and then humility. So the main call was humility and sense of history and being willing to labor with your hands.
So, in a way that's what I'm proposing with what I call the Paradox Project. And I try to ... I like to identify that with structure so it's not just an idea, it's ... concrete. [smile] And the concrete would be what we call the Loggia which is a residence for about 40 people, [some] greenhouses which are connected with the project, and then what I call the Teilhard de Chardin Cloister. Which used to be - the original idea was a conference center of sorts. And the name was because I was influenced by Teilhard de Chardin. Now since the Noosphere that he came out with is very much what the Web is now, [more or less, more material maybe] - I find it very ... very coherent to use his name, to put his name in this project which is mainly three structures. So I would like to get to a point where the people who are coming - cyber?
Ron:
Cybrarians.
Paolo:
... cybrarians, could identify with something physical and that they are ... and then would be building it. And since we have an experience in this process dealing with non-experienced people, I think that's ... that's the connection. ...
Because I have a - I developed an hypothesis which I think it's - I really like it. But, you know, it's an hypothesis. And the main gist of the hypothesis is that reality is space transforming itself. Period. Everything is space --
Ron:
I missed the phrase.
Paolo:
Space transforming itself.
Ron:
Space transforming itself?
Paolo:
That's Reality. Time doesn't exist. The future never existed by definition. So there are many, many things coming together and I - those are notes - it's not coherently put together - but I would like to get a little response from you, if you can stand it.
Ron: I would be honored.
Paolo:
But one thing that I am rejecting, rejecting totally, is the notion of "free spirit" --
[gestures with hands sweeping through air ... big smile]
-- and my starting point is that we find out that the brain comes up with mindful things by transforming itself, physically. So the brain reconfigures itself millions of times per second, and this reconfiguration is really what the mind is, so I'm trying from there, and I'm trying to develop it.
Ron:
So are you saying that, in a sense, rather than having a purely mental praxis, which often the spiritual traditions talk about - meditation, introspection, and so forth, that a mind/body praxis that has to do with actually working with one's body to transform matter into spirit, let's say, is part of the praxis that's needed?
Paolo:
Yes, but not in the sense that you do not use your mind unless it's connected to a body, because that's automatically happening, but in the sense that even when you're going to the greatest abstractions, remember that the abstractions are coming because the brain is changing its own configuration. [smiles]
Ron:
Right. It's based on the physical reconfiguration of the brain.
Paolo:
Yes, there's no spirituality unless there's the physical container, which turns out to be the spirit itself, spirituality itself. [smile] - So that there is no longer the dualism: mind/body, even good and evil, or matter and energy, and so on. You know, it's just ...
Ron:
They're just two words for the same thing ...?
Paolo:
Yeah, well space/time is really space transforming itself. If space is not transforming itself, time does not exist, it doesn't exist. It's a pure device that I compare to the money device. They are some kind of agreement or convention that allows us to do things, but per se they do not exist.
Ron:
Right ...
Paolo:
Yeah, space which can have one configuration, or it can have an infinite number of configurations; that's what makes what we call time what time is.
Ron:
Right. ...
Paolo: Empty space is a contradiction in terms; it's not really ...
Ron:
So you give space a potency ...
Paolo:
Space is not just a container. Space is what's going on in Reality.
Ron:
Yes.
Paolo:
And if everything stopped, evidently not only Reality would collapse, but the notion of time would evidently not be there, but fortunately or whatever, things do not stop, so it's a constant becoming, Reality is a becoming, which by the way feeds everything into Being, which is the Past.
Ron:
Right. Now, reading your previous versions of the Paradox Paper, you postulated that eventually, through matter becoming spirit in the evolution of space, a purely spiritual state where all matter might be transformed into pure spirit, and pure Being actually, ...
Paolo:
Yeah, I call it Mind, yeah....
Ron:
Which would then transcend time as well ... ?
Paolo:
It would be outside of time, yeah....
Ron:
... it would have infinite duration, infinite memory, and would include in itself the memory of the entire past, and the Resurrection potential thereof. Would you say something ..., is that still in your new version?
Paolo:
Yeah still; oh yeah, very much so! But the difference is that I'm pulling time out of it, because I find that time is irrelevant. I mean it doesn't have any, any reality.
Ron:
Yes.
Paolo:
And I'm working around that, and then I find out that suddenly, not so suddenly, Miniaturization becomes central.
Ron:
So, are you dropping the "D" out of "M" and "C"?
Paolo:
No, no, no. No, "D" is the ...
Ron:
The memory ... ?
Paolo:
... the child of ... Complexity and Miniaturization. Yes, it's the memory.
Ron:
Right. ...
Paolo:
Well, when you are in the presence of enough Miniaturization and Complexity, something happens that I can call Memory, or Recollection, or storing of information, and so on, and that's a crude form of Duration. If that understanding and recollection and learning is universal and total, then this fragment becomes --, whatever you want to call it, you can call it the Omega Seed, you can call it God. And now I call it more the "Self-revelation of Reality." Because Reality at that point becomes utterly knowledgeable of itself, in the sense that itself was and is becoming in evolution, and at that point all of evolution would be present in this durational form, and space is gone because you go back to the non-dimension of the origin point.
Ron:
Do you still consider the evolution of the universe to that end point, that Omega point, a contingent process, that it depends - that it's not necessarily going to happen?
Paolo:
It has to be contingent, because if it was ... what do you call it - inevitable, automatically you have a deterministic situation, so freedom is gone.
Ron:
Right, ... right.
Paolo:
. . .so you have to have the contingency that things might never work that way.
Ron:
So ... But it might not happen, and therefore that returns, as I understand it, responsibility and choice to every being, because each of us has a choice of whether to do our part in extending and advancing that process. If enough people choose not to do that, then it might not happen?
Paolo:
Yeah, naturally it might happen because in other places ... intelligence might ... ...
Paolo:
So, on this piece it might come up, but one possibility there ... one could say that we have these cycles, the Big Bang and the Big Crunch, and maybe that might be a factor; yet because we have a quasi-infinite number, and that might be because this field, this notion of matter becoming mind didn't succeed ever, so at the end of this cycle, you might then have another explosion and that might be the beginning of this process. Which per se it's mindless, it doesn't have the guidance, only the guidance of its own natural laws, which were part of its original nature at the beginning. [shrugs] But, if that doesn't happen, then fundamentally the notion of equity becomes, irrelevant ... unfortunately.
Ron:
Fascinating! Now Paolo, you know Stephen Hawkins' hypothesis that a very large number of separate universes may exist?
Paolo:
Yeah...
Ron:
... and the assumption in material physics, as I understand it, that there's no possibility of communication between them.
Paolo:
Yes, that's right...
Ron:
Well, what if in one of, under that scenario, what if in one of those universes, this Final Being, the Omega Point, had been achieved? [Paolo begins to smile...] Do you think there would be any possibility ...
[Paolo waves his hand dismissively and laughs]
... since if we have this higher dimensional space? You know, I've proposed this to you before ...
Paolo:
Yeah. The whole idea of self-sufficiency would collapse, because this Cosmos would not be self-sufficient really [gesturing with his hands]. I mean it's fundamental, so what do you do? There I just say, well if there are other universes, we cannot communicate with them, so to all practical purposes they are non-existent, so ...
Ron:
Well, you know my proposal for that is that, let's say that exact instructions can't pass between the Omega Point Being in some universe, and say ours; but that sort of a radiant effulgence of Pure Being can transmit through hyper-dimensional space, and that is the source of this sense of, you know, Truth, Beauty, and ... Good ...
Paolo:
[Super...]
Ron:
... that we all ... I mean, my question is what motivates the Telos, the directional evolution of physical matter towards Spirit?
Paolo:
Oh, I have a very specific reason there,
Ron:
OK ...
Paolo:
and very anthropocentric ...
Ron:
OK ...
Paolo:
Suffering !
If we really want to believe that suffering is not an horrendous, tragic mishap, we have to find ways that this suffering transforms ...
Ron:
Contributes ... ?
Paolo:
No, not only contributes, it's there at the end, so that the entity, or the mind that has been suffering, the body that has been suffering, finally finds a total connection with everything else, so the suffering becomes one of the elements of this glorious experience which is the total knowledge of everything ...
Ron:
... the Resurrection in the Final Being ... Right ... ?
Paolo:
Yeah, in that sense, number one, I am very unscientific, because science keeps saying, "Keep ethics, keep suffering, keep joy out of it, because we don't know what to do with them." My position is that unless you have a resolution that makes this suffering become so fundamentally important, in many ways so beautiful, because of what will get there besides suffering ...
And suffering, and what I call the Esthetic, become, you know, one of those things, that happened in the split second when the Cosmos comes and goes. And who cares [anymore]? The Cosmos is [then] totally different.
Ron:
Right, so the suffering in some sense this is reconciled, if we are successful in achieving that final transformation ...
Paolo:
Yes, because it's also instrumental in what is, this -- conclusive splendor, because ...
Ron:
Right, without suffering motivating ...
Paolo:
Yes, without suffering evidently you don't have Joy; without joy and suffering evidently you don't have life, you have that mathematical or mineral reality.
Ron:
Yes ...
Paolo:
Which is the problem, with artificial intelligence. But with AI, you have a computer that cannot smile, or cannot cry ...
... ... This thing is so young, that we cannot pretend to have, not only a highly sophisticated technology, but also a highly sophisticated moral and ethical and esthetic astonishment. So, we have to have patience with ourselves.
Ron:
... So, can you now tie this in with the Neo-Monastic Institute, and the Paradox Project? Do you see these cybrarians who come, addressing these questions?
Paolo:
Well, that's a step that I'm really not so sure about it, because I keep saying that I come up with that hypothesis from a very human brain. So I cannot pretend that I can tell anybody, "Listen, listen to me ... " If somebody asks me, I try to explain what the hypothesis is about... So, to set up classes or seminars where I say, "Well, here's the Truth, and you'd better chew on it," I don't have the ... [shakes his head]
Ron:
Well, how about if we addressed this, rather than the truth, as a question?
Paolo:
Well, that has to be, yeah. Well then, at that point you have to be, the people that are saying yes, have to be really willing to submit to something.
Ron:
To engage in ...
Paolo:
As a matter of fact, that something really has to be an hypothesis ...
Ron:
So you don't want to have any qualifications for the members - the cybrarians - who come to participate in the Neo-Monastic institute, that they are interested in the Paradox Project questions?
Paolo:
I would have to leave it open; number one because the whole thing is open anyway, I mean it's [laughs] ... it's horrendously open; number two, because I was saying, I don't have this, I'm not the carrier of the truth, I carry my own hypothesis ...
Ron:
Yes.
Paolo:
But quite definitely, I am more and more set against any kind of theology, any kind of animism; I [grimaces] just find it so cruel ...
Ron:
Could you say a little bit more about that, Paolo?
Paolo:
Well, anything that says, in a very complex way, or a very simple way, "Well, I know that I am not doing the right thing, but [points to heavens] there is something there that will straighten things out, or there is something there which is far beyond my capacity of understanding, or there is something there that will do it right anyhow [very firm expression]; I think that's a renunciation, that's a withdrawal from any sense of self-responsibility and real commitment, ...
... when you come down to the nitty gritty, you find out that ... really, throughout history, what animism has been doing. Mainly through theological systems. What it has been doing is an horrendous history of violence, torture, killing, destruction, and so on ... I've been reading the history of Italy, you know ... a very quick history of Italy. The inequity there, it's unbelievable ... The persecution ...
... ... look what we are doing now. Now we have this canonization, this sanctification of Diana now. And I am the last one to say that Diana was not worth [something], I really like her. But we are pulling in, all those spirits, all those animistic concoctions that are going to perpetuate the traditional: "...We are friends, we know quite alot, but my God, my God, is a little better than your god."
Ron:
Right ...
Paolo:
And that's at the base of everything. Yugoslavia - Jesus Christ! The killing! And the killing was for generations! ...
Paolo:
In the name of God, you can do anything.
Nick:
But they do it! ...
Ron:
So, you're saying Paolo, that if we allow animism in the door at all, it's a force that ends up being this sort of thing.
Paolo:
Yeah, I'm making a little list of what animism has been doing, [laughs] it covers just about everything, everything ! Including Elvis Presley. Everything! ...
Ron:
...
So then, you don't see, because of its theological implications, you don't see any filtering of the applicants for the Neo-Monastic Institute program, in terms of their interest in the Paradox questions? ...
Paolo:
Well, I would, I mean the best ... would be if what I presented were ... enough to some of them to say, "Well maybe I should reconsider my model." - Because the model I have seems to be pretty strange. [laughs] ...
...quite evidently that would be an elation for me to find out there is a response to my ideas. I'm very leery about, you know, any kind of canonization, any kind of "Here we have the new true theology, the new true religion." That's what I want to be careful about. - But yeah, to be able to develop a few people who have enough interest to work at it, that would be [ideal. I would like to do that.]
Ron:
Do you see that as part of the purpose of the Paradox Seminars, they will attract people to create a community of discourse?
Paolo:
Yes, but there is a reason, I think it's not just a series of abstract ideas. I think I'm coming out with a fundamental notion, we are in the presence of what we call joy and suffering, and what we call the esthetic, and somehow we have to stick to it, to try to take those elements and see if we can alter our behavior in some ways.
I don't have the makeup of a preacher, I don't have the makeup of .... I think I'm not dogmatic, though I am very serious about what I believe, you know. But since I say I'm working with a hypothesis, that takes away from the dogmatism, I think .
Ron:
Now, Paolo, is it fair to say that in some sense, one of the purposes of Arcologies, beyond the ecological and, what we refer to as plumbing (that it's a more efficient and effective life support system), is to create the cultural miniaturization and complexification that will aid the acceleration of the dynamic toward the Omega Point?
Paolo:
Well yeah, now and then somebody asks me, "What would you like to be remembered for?" So my last answer was, "Somebody that tried to nudge Reality toward self-revelation." - I think it's good. ...
Paolo:
Oh yeah, but being very clear, what I'm doing with everything else, is an infinitesimal - tiny, tiny, tiny infinitesimal push - truly infinitesimal.
Ron:
Oh sure ... ...
Paolo:
Yeah, and then naturally, we always have the question that the planet will end up into a dead blob of matter. So a role for the ecological process which is such a fantastic process, should include at some point the notion that maybe we pick it up, do something with it, that is not going to be totally [destroyed] ... so the salvation of the ecology is in the Mind that is able to get to the point in which all things are documented, and also exported temporarily ...., but documented in what I call the Omega Seed - Memory.
One thing I'm certain of, no I'm dogmatic about it, is that the Past is a collection of everything. Nothing escapes from the Past because the past is what has been going on, what has been stored in what I call a condition of Beingness. So the Becoming is the Past, the Past is the container, is the bureau containing everything, and if we vivify that Past eventually, [then you have reconciliation.]
So I feel ecologically, quite ... quite well. (smiles)
Ron:
Right. ... Now part of the Paradox Project inquiry has to do with the role of Artificial Intelligence as part of the evolutionary process. And, one thing that concerned me I must say, in the early versions of your paper that I read, is that you felt that the organic forms of life may not be the most effective in going out into space, because we're vulnerable and soft - cosmic rays, gravity, weightlessness, etc., high gravitational accelerations in spaceships. So that AIs, silicon-based intelligences may actually be the form that is more effective for space-going civilizations. And that it may actually be the ultimate form which leads to, or the next stage, beyond organic life, in this evolutionary process toward the Omega Point. - Am I understanding you correctly?
Paolo:
Yeah, and I have very personal feelings about it, because the idea of a reality which is darkness, which is the reality of the artificial intelligence, it gives me, ... really, I can't take it. It's an example of what artificial intelligence will produce for us. The eyes will be irrelevant ... [Beholding ... There is no beholding ... ] the light and forms, etc., etc. So that's something that scares me.
The other one is that, as long as this artificial intelligence, [intention] ... cannot be elated or cannot be suffering; cannot suffer and enjoy, something is missing. It's very anthropomorphic, but my thesis is that we need to develop an AI which is equitable and [passionate]. So, since I'm talking about the artificial intelligence, I cannot say that you will never be able to get to that point. It might be a question of complexity and miniaturization. If we can make the computer persona as complex as a carbon persona is, then quite probably that persona will include joy, suffering, good and evil, passion, etc. - A non-passionate artificial intelligence to me is still really a [inaudible].
Ron:
This is very imortant.Do you think that the evolution of those characteristics is purely a function of the level of complexity? - Because we will certainly be able to create AIs that may well surpass the complexity of the neural organization of the human brain...
Paolo:
You think?
Ron:
I think... Yes.
Paolo:
I don't know, so I'll accept what you think. Ahh, I'm still wondering, because when I make this gesture, [gestures with his forearm and hand] what's happening in my brain is immensely complex, for me to make this gesture, a very meaningful gesture. So, what is called [forth] in any kind of very elementary performance or event, involves so much coming together of things, the interaction of things, that I'm still wondering how silicon can do that. That's because silicon is much less versatile than carbon, in the richness of ...
Ron:
Right, in the number of different atomic combinations ... ...
Paolo:
There are two things; one is the scientist, he has a book about ... he said that we have not only simulation (that is not the same as [reality]), but we have also emulation. In emulation you cannot distinguish between the original and the copy ... So at that point, you can have an infinite number of emulations that are not distinguishable from [points to his face].
Ron:
The distinction being that simulations are fundamentally mathematical, whereas emulations are embodied in matter? It's really an extension of prosthetic devices, is that what you mean by emulation?
Paolo:
Yes, probably with nanotechnology coming in, and the fact that it really is an ability to reproduce, which is practically an ability that now is only in the genetic realm, the biological realm. ... I don't buy that because I find it very depressing {that it should be limited to just the genetic/biological realm}.
Ron:
You mean? Now we're talking about Cyborgs, right? Artificially designed bodies that have some kind of mix of organic and artificial and silicon intelligence, and so forth?
Paolo:
Yeah. No, in cases that, ... through technological processes, every part of your body is identical, identically invented, invented and organized so that that simulation is perfect. There is no difference between the emulated and the original. ... I should pull that book out. But the other thing is that since I believe that space is everything, then I cannot say, "Well space can go so far with carbon, and space cannot go so far with silicon." Evidently, if space is everything, then everything is possible. [wry grin]
Ron:
Well, I can't imagine anything more exciting than to have a place like Arcosanti for that subset of computer people who are interested in the Arcosanti Project, to participate on both the physical level, and, especially then, the subset of those [people] ... the ones who are interested in continuing the inquiry with you, and creating this community of discourse around these Paradox Project questions. ...
[tape cuts off]
Paolo:
... we would need a Dean, or somebody --
Ron:
A Dean of Students! [smiles]
... that sets up something, because personally I'm not, age aside, I'm not able to set up a systematic learning process.
Ron:
Right. Well, maybe something will evolve out of the [Neo-Monastic Institute]. I think it's premature to try to set up a formalized educational structure, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm really suggesting simply that you - if you want this to continue, and outlive you as an important inquiry - then you need, I think, to create a community of discourse that operates more than at the sophomoric level.
Paolo:
I absolutely agree with that. I just have to confess my inability to generate it. That's why I like to publish something, no matter how crude it is, just publish it, because at least there is something that can be [influential].
Ron:
Right. And would you be interested in us extending this discourse on the Web site, the Arcocanti Web site?
Paolo:
Yes, it would be a sort of a [benediction]. [mischievous smile]
Ron:
OK, so it needs to really be embodied by people who are engaged in the physical process at Arcosanti?
Paolo:
Yeah, as I mentioned, which is critical.
Paolo:
I would be an idiot if I wasn't enthusiastic about that. I keep saying don't count too much on me coming out with, you know a nice structure, etc., etc.
BREAK - RECONVENE IN PAOLO'S OFFICE
Ron:
...Is there anything else that you would like to say about what we were talking about, about the Paradox Project and the NMI?
Paolo:
The best way to go about it is for you to ask me if you have any specific questions or uneasiness ...
Ron:
Well, the uneasiness that I have is, as I mentioned, the possible extrapolation of a future where, as we move into space, something like silicon-based life forms, personas, are the most effective way of the next stage in evolution, and I have the same concerns about that, that we've been talking about all along. ...
Paolo:
[Nods head yes] Umm,. Well, I don't ... I'm not worried in the sense of saying that if we go that way, we might as well stop going. I'm in a sense worried more about our ability to connect knowledge with wisdom, which includes compassion, etc. So that this ... At a certain point there's a step that says "Hey, this is compassionate; how about translating that into the individual, the silicon persona?" And the persona says, "Well, she's smiling, or she's crying, or ..." Then I would feel much more comfortable, because then that would be an indication that we can transfer the experience, Homo Sapiens' experience, into this new sapience.
Ron:
Right. - In the best of all possible worlds with the Neo-Monastic Institute project, would you hope that the group of people that are there, the cybrarians, ... in their own work with Arcosanti and cementmixer-hood and so forth, become sensitized enough to these issues, to take that sensitization back out into the field of AI development ... so that it actually influences the forward direction of development, so that the AI intelligences or personas, or whatever they are, do have a higher probability of including these compassionate, ... capabilities?
Paolo:
Well, I don't know. My immediate experience has been that out of say 3000 people that came in the last 20 years, maybe 2% were ready to take on the Neo-Monastic Institute project, maybe a little more. It's very difficult really, to go beyond their daily experience ... {They say} "That might be very nice, but it might be very frustrating; and I in a way transcend that." and {who instead} look and say, "Oh yes, but there are other dimensions I should be involved in ..."
But I don't think this happens very often. I might be mistaken, number one, and number two it might be that the times are more right for something like this.
| BACK TO AUDIO PAGE |
| SCHEDULE OF EVENTS | PARADOX SEMINAR TOUCHSTONES |
| ABOUT THE PARADOX PROJECT | ABOUT PAOLO SOLERI AND ARCOSANTI |
| ABOUT VERBUM AND THE COSANTI FOUNDATION | |