Two Books have become four or five books
M. Alan
o The Integral Paradigm - defining the Integral Paradigm - 4 stages - Esoteric/Spiritual/Aurobindonian (1900s onwards), Philosophical/Scientific (1920s onwards), Alternative/New Age (1960s onwards), and Internet (1990s onwards). Summarises the views of different Integral thinkers and others who while not integralist have a similar position. Plus Integral themes, and Integral Praxis.
o The Nature of Reality - a "big picture" "theory of everything" (well, not actually a "theory", because it is descriptive rather than rational-logical), contrasts the relative consciousness (ego, maya, etc) with Reality as it is. The latter is arbitrarily divided into five perspectives or facets for the sake of easier description, these are: (1) mundane-physical, (2) esoteric-occult, (3) mystical-enlightened, (4) God-realisation cosmic gnosis, and (5) Supramentalisation cosmic redemption. (This was previously entitled Self and Reality, but since "Self" is istelf a part of "Reality" I needed another title for it)
o Esoteric Ontology - about esoteric and occult realities, planes and dimensions of consciousness etc - descriptive rather than polemical
o The History and Destiny of the Earth - weaves together the Aurobindonian progressive, Gnostic-Manicahean-Lurianic-Theonist dualistic, Theosophical cyclic, and Secular Scientific perspectives in a single multidimensional account of the origin and destiny of the Earth
o The Integral Singularity - integrates the Aurobindonian and Transhumanist perspectives (note sure whether to incorporate this in the preceeding book or have it as aseparate book)
Access: Public
aurobindonian
July 2008 
Wow, Alan, these books sound incredible! I really hope that you get all this done. Know that you're in my heart, and I fully support you on this.
I'm also really interested in the transhumanism angle, but remain conflicted about it. On the one hand, transhumanism really seems like it is borne of human narcissism. I've seen transhumanists who are least concerned about the ethical consequences of their work, and some have even openly said that they don't care if their research causes suffering to humans or nonhuman species. On the other hand, I don't want to be technophobic and I would like to investigate what effects transhumanism might have on our sense of self.
However, my initial leaning appears to be toward the notion that transhumanism is a very distorted version of Sri Aurobindo's Supramentalisation. I really think it is nothing but hubris when transhumanists talk of immortality and (literally) of saving the universe from heat death. How on earth do they plan to do this? As Sri Aurobindo says in the quote you sent me, “It is queer these intellectuals go on talking of creation while all they stand for is collapsing into the Néant without their being able to raise a finger to save it. What are they going to create, and from what material? Besides what use is it all if a Hitler with his cudgel or a Mussolini with his castor oil can come at any moment and wash it out or beat it into dust?” Also, transhumanism reminds me more and more of Nietzsche's Ubermensch than Sri Aurobindo's Superman. Their general perspective seems to be that “humanity sucks” and I've seen them making really insensitive and arrogant statements about, for instance, people living with disabilities.
There is a really interesting book called “Awakening: A Memoir of Trauma and Transcendence” by Matthew Sanford (he also has a podcast up here called “The Body's Grace”: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/bodysgrace/index.shtml), in which he talks about having to live in a wheelchair for his whole life due to an accident at the age of 13. Sanford writes that in reality, his condition is just a more extreme version of the overall human condition: that of being trapped in a finite, limited body, and faced with this finititude and ontological isolation in this infinitely vast universe. I do not see how transhumanism can ever solve this problem. It can only be solved by developing a conscious connection with the Infinite. Technologically enhancing our bodies will only make our physical condition just slightly less extreme and is therefore little more than minor symptom-relief.
Sri Aurobindo also seems to think that transhumanism is an evolutionary dead-end and distracts us from the real task of observing and transforming our own inner state: “This erring race of human beings dreams always of perfecting their environment by the machinery of government and society; but it is only by the perfection of the soul within that the outer environment can be perfected. What thou art within, that outside thee thou shalt enjoy; no machinery can rescue thee from the law of thy being.”
I've also been getting really interested in the findings of cognitive science and neuroscience, and how these tie in with the Aurobindonian praxis. If I find any material that is relevant for you, I'll definitely pass it on!
Hi Ned!
Thanks for the kind words :-)
I actually posted a reply to you here and for some reason it didn't go through and was lost.
So i'll try again more briefly.
I don't think Transhumanism is a sort of distorted conception of Supramentalisation. I think rather both are parts of an even bigger picture. Interesting that both appear so close in time (Sri Aurobindo only about 80 years before Transhumanism) on teh global scale of the Earth I mean.
Living in a wheelchair as a more extreme version of the overall human condition. Wow, amazing statement!
Transhumanists saying that “humanity sucks”. I've never heard this. I understand what they say is basically what Sri Aurobindo says - that current H. sapiens is not the end stage of evolution.
It's interesting also to notice that several Wilberains are interested in Transhumanism, although I am not sure if the reverse is the case! The Wilberian thesis is taht Transhumanism describes the right hand quadrants of the stages beyond the human level.
Of course, i may be biased here by my own technophilia ;-)
Probably more ideas will emerge if and when I write my book on thbis subject