Ancient Wisdom, African Philosophy, and Future Technology: Towards an Understanding of Integral AI

Abstract

Technology has historically served as a fundamental driver of human welfare and progress. Contemporary calls for temporary moratoria on technological development, motivated by concerns about existential threats to humanity, represent a misguided approach that may ultimately prove counterproductive to human flourishing. This paper argues that technology itself is not inherently problematic; rather, the issue lies in contemporary society’s fragmented ontological framework. Drawing on African philosophical traditions, particularly Kemetic cosmology and ubuntu philosophy, we examine how ancient Kemetic civilization exemplified transhumanist principles through its integration of technological advancement within a holistic worldview. The Kemetic understanding of Reality as a sacred, differentiated Whole, embodied in their conception of Atum as the self-developing divine principle, always connected to and guided by Shu (life) and Tefnut/Ma’at (order), provided a cosmological foundation that enabled beneficial coexistence with technology as a life-giving human contingency regulated by ma’at. Similarly, the ubuntu cosmo-philosophical vision in contemporary African thought emphasizes Reality as an interconnected totality, with technology being an independent yet connected excitation in this Reality. This study, therefore, contends that the fundamental challenge facing modern society today is not technological or AI development per se, but rather the need to reconstruct our fragmented perception of Reality. Within a properly integrated cosmological vision, technology functions not as a selfish instrument or an object readily available for our exploitative purposes but as an inherently life-affirming, sustaining, and enhancing force indispensable for the well-being of the Whole. The implications suggest that, rather than constraining technological advancement, which could be detrimental to our well-being due to our inherent reliance on it, as it relies on us, efforts should be directed toward cultivating a holistic yet relational understanding of technology, with the cosmos.

1. Introduction

There is an increasing fear and a global call to limit or halt the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology. Geoffrey Hinton, usually identified as the Godfather of AI, has been warning the world of the dangers of AI for the past three years and counting. In an interview with the CNN host Jake Tapper in May 2023, after pointing out that AI represented an existential threat, he said: “I want to blow the whistle and say we should worry seriously about how we stop these things getting control over us. And it’s going to be very hard. And I don’t have the solutions. I wish I did” (Hinton 2023, 2:49–2:58). Indeed, Hinton fears that autonomous artificial intelligence systems or machines are becoming overwhelmingly more intelligent than humanity and can manipulate us into killing one another, and may one day seize control over us. In summing up Hinton’s concerns, Thomas AI-Update writes: “The world is now in a race. A race not between nations, but between the technology itself and humanity’s ability to regulate, control, and ensure safety.” (Thomas AI-Update 2025) While the concern may be legitimate, it originates from an instrumental deterministic understanding of technology. In such circumstances, AI is merely a tool that can be manipulated, representing an object distinct from its subject that may selfishly exploit others.

In his interview with Tapper, Hinton elucidates his decision to abstain from endorsing the March 2023 open letter advocating for a moratorium on large-scale AI experimentation. His rationale for declining to append his signature to this petition is bipartite. Hinton articulated his position thus: “I don’t think we can stop the progress. I didn’t sign the petition saying we should stop working on AI. Because if people in America stop, people in China wouldn’t. It is very hard to verify what people are doing…” (Hinton 2023, 1:09–1:20). For him, AI cannot be halted. One might wonder why, if it is merely an instrument. Maybe it is more than just an object. Furthermore, even if such a cessation were attainable, Hinton contends that geopolitics would unlikely render the suppression effective, which again indicates that he perceives technology and AI as a tool used for political power and manipulation.

However, technology has always been an essential component of humanity. The anthropos’ continued existence, its evolution, and prosperity have depended mainly on its capacity to master and advance technological innovations. What would have transpired with humanity if, during its early history, it had not, for example, discovered sharp stones used for cutting, defense, and hunting, and subsequently learned to produce these objects in large quantities? It is possible, perhaps even probable, that the anthropos might have perished due to being hunted by other predators. Therefore, Hinton’s assertion that technology and AI cannot be halted is justified, because it is part of us. Our existence is fundamentally due to technology, and in turn, technology relies on us. We are interconnected in a mutual dependence. However, this reliance is not confined solely to the relationship between humanity and technology or AI; it extends to everything that exists, to Reality itself, to the entire universe. This conception of Reality as a Whole of interdependent relationships among the divine, humanity, and the cosmos, along with their contingencies, influenced the worldview of the earliest human civilization known to us, ancient Egypt, enabling them to perceive technology as an ally rather than a threat. Similarly, the African ubuntu cosmo-philosophy, while perceiving technology as an independent, yet interconnected to the Whole manifestation of ntu, is indispensable to the fullness of be-ing. Drawing from Kemite and contemporary African worldviews, I propose that a cosmological framework is essential for understanding technology today. To thoroughly comprehend and coexist harmoniously with technology, including AI, it is crucial to recognize that we are interconnected, and it is within this interconnectedness that we live and experience the fullness of life.

2. Technology

Technology is a widely used term in contemporary discourse, yet its precise meaning and etymological roots warrant examination. While the word encompasses a broad range of concepts and applications, understanding its definition and historical development provides essential context for academic inquiry.

2.1. Techne

Eric Schatzberg is undoubtedly one of the scholars of our era who has dedicated an entire book to uncovering the origin, meaning, and use of technology. In Technology: Critical History of a Concept, after pointing at the Greek root of tekhne and logos, he writes: “Etymologically, the word derives from the Indo-European root tek, a term that probably referred to the building of wooden houses by wattling, that is, weaving sticks together” (Schatzberg 2018). He simultaneously suggests that: “In early Greek, tekton denoted a woodworker, and techne the skill of working with wood” (Schatzberg 2018). By the 8th century BCE, the craftsmanship and weaving abilities (making) of the woodworker and the smith, alongside the practical (doing) skills of a boat captain, were regarded as techne.

During the increasing social complexity of Greek society in the 5th and 6th centuries BCE, techne evolved into a culturally significant concept that denoted specialized professional knowledge across diverse fields, ranging from craftsmanship to medical practice. As Schatzberg writes:

Greek writers in this era agreed on key aspects of techne. One was its artificiality; techne produced a result that would not have existed without the intervention of a technician, a practitioner of techne. Techne was fundamentally about how to do things, “knowing-how rather than simply knowing-that.” Furthermore, techne was not innate but teachable.

(Schatzberg 2018)

While agreeing on these fundamental principles of artificiality, technicality, and teachability, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics will later serve as the basis for morality and a complete separation between techne and episteme (scientific knowledge).

Plato employed the terms techne and episteme (scientific knowledge) without delineating a clear distinction between them. However, his student Aristotle undertook a systematic differentiation of these concepts, establishing a hierarchy that would profoundly influence Western thought. Around 350 BCE, Aristotle articulated three distinct categories of knowledge: episteme, phronesis, and techne.

For Aristotle, who conceived of an eternal cosmos, episteme represented the pinnacle of human knowledge. This form of understanding was characterized by its engagement with immutable truths and universal principles as knowledge pursued for its own sake rather than for practical application. Aristotle reserved this contemplative intellectual activity primarily for the aristocratic class, those whose material circumstances afforded them the leisure necessary for philosophical contemplation of eternal ideas divorced from immediate practical concerns.

Phronesis, occupying the intermediate position in Aristotle’s taxonomy, belonged to the contingent world alongside techne. This form of knowledge encompassed practical wisdom, moral reasoning, and the ethical virtues deemed essential for responsible citizenship within the polis. Unlike the abstract universality of episteme, phronesis required cultural contextualization and practical judgment in navigating the complexities of civic life.

At the bottom of this knowledge hierarchy lies techne, distinguished by its instrumental character and moral neutrality. Unlike phronesis, techne possessed no inherent moral valence, deriving its ethical significance solely from the ends it served. As Schatzberg observes, “Techne, defined as serving ends outside itself, becomes morally neutral, to be judged by standards of virtue external to it” (Schatzberg 2018). However, the moral neutrality of techne was not shared by all. In the 5th century BCE, in Athens, there is evidence of “an alliance between techne and praxis [phronesis], between craft knowledge and political action” (Schatzberg 2018). It is, therefore, accurate to suggest that the pendulum vacillated between neutral techne, where attention is paid to the end, through morally ambiguous techne, to morally charged techne, where the means to the end are also taken into consideration. This indicates that from its very inception, the term was already laden with disagreements.

2.2. From Techne Through Ars to Technik and Technology

From being a body of knowledge involved in the production of things that would otherwise not exist (artificial), techne, translated as ars in Latin, encompassed all forms of learning during the Middle Ages (cf. Agar 2020). By the 18th and 19th centuries, the term ‘technology’ meant “the science of the arts” (Schatzberg 2018). Technology, Schatzberg notes,

referred primarily to “the science of the arts,” or more narrowly to treatises on the arts or descriptions of technical terminology. Technology was a sixteenth-century neologism, appearing first in Latin to refer to a system of classifying the arts, both mechanical and liberal. The term spread to English in the seventeenth century, but with an important change: technology came to imply the science of the mechanical rather than the liberal arts.

(Schatzberg 2018)

It is evident that technology was used in the 18th and 19th centuries to refer to the science of mechanical arts (the art of artisans), thus excluding the liberal arts (the art of artists) from the equation. Technology was no longer about the product, nor the art of learning how to make artificial things, as it became essentially the academic study of how people make things.

However, in the mid-19th century, German engineers adopted ‘Technik’ as a core part of their professional identity to claim all material production of arts as their domain (cf. Schatzberg 2018). Decades later, in the 1920s, the American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen reconceptualized technology through his phrase “the state of the industrial arts” (Schatzberg 2018), demonstrating how both (the American and German) cultures developed comprehensive terms to describe the systematic application of knowledge to productive processes.

2.3. Material and Cultural Schools of Technology

At this time of the 20th century, technology is understood to mean applied science. However, two distinct schools of technological understanding emerged. The first, the Material School, views technology as an autonomous force that drives social change. This approach, adopted by most social scientists like Charles Beard despite being influenced by Veblen, abandoned his emphasis on human agency and antideterminism. Instead, they embraced technology as an independent, largely beneficent agent of transformation (cf. Schatzberg 2018). This material school became closely linked to the ideology of progress, emphasizing technology’s instrumental functions and practical applications, with the firm belief that “material progress could lay the basis for moral progress” (Schatzberg 2018). In fact, Beard, according to Schatzberg, maintained that “technology itself is the motive force of history” (Schatzberg 2018). Jon Agar elucidates that the instrumentalists’ approach to technology employs the language of means and ends; namely, it is regarded solely as a tool—purely technical, uncreative, and devoid of any inherent value (cf. Agar 2020).

The second school, which is much closer to Veblen’s conceptualization of technology, in relation to the German Technik, is the cultural school. This school, championed by Lewis Mumford, emphasizes the cultural dimensions of technology, focusing on how human agency, social contexts, and cultural meanings shape technological development and implementation (cf. Schatzberg 2018). This approach prioritizes understanding technology as embedded within and shaped by cultural processes, rather than as an autonomous force. In this case, says Schatzberg, who declares himself a technological culturalist, technology is “the set of practices humans use to transform the material world, practices involved in creating and using material things” (Schatzberg 2018). Thus, technology is about humans actively shaping and interacting with the material world—not just observing it, but actually changing it to meet our needs.

Here, too, the pendulum has been swinging between technological materialists and culturalists. For instance, in his article “What Is Technology?”, Agar maintains and rightly so that Schatzberg’s study of technology is a project “to reject the instrumentalist approach and embrace the cultural” (Agar 2020). In turn, he asserts that the cultural understanding of technology, in addition to being excessively broad, is also overly vague. While subtly endorsing the perspective of instrumentalists, he proposes that Schatzberg’s definition of this viewpoint is excessively narrow. Consequently, Agar writes:

An instrumental definition of technology can allow that there is a choice of means towards ends, and that any particular means does not determine any particular end. The making of means can draw on the full range of human creativity while the articulation of ends can be shaped by human values. In short, an instrumental definition of technology might be focused enough to be meaningful and rich enough to meet the desire for technology to be creative and culturally inclusive.

(Agar 2020)

Agar’s argument thus posits that, in an instrumental context, technology could still be perceived to function as a versatile instrument that facilitates human objectives, rather than as a constraint that imposes predetermined results. This perspective encourages creativity in technological development while guaranteeing that human values direct our endeavors.

Instrumentalists’ and culturalists’ views of technology have several limitations. Even Agar’s appealing effort to synthesize instrumentalists with culturalists still falls short. First, technological neutrality is not an option in this 21st century. Technologies are always embedded with particular values, assumptions, and ways of organizing social relations from their very design. Technologies are not tabula rasa, for they carry forward the biases, priorities, and worldviews of their creators and the contexts in which they are developed.

Second, the claim that human values direct our endeavors presupposes that humans maintain precise control over technological development and deployment. In reality, technological systems often develop emergent properties, unintended consequences, and autonomous momentum that can override initial human intentions. Economic and political forces, as well as technical constraints, frequently drive development in directions that were not consciously chosen. This is, in fact, among the concerns raised by Hinton, the esteemed AI pioneer who has become a whistleblower, cautioning us regarding its potential dangers. For him, what initially appears as versatile instrumentation will become more intelligent than us and, thus, become a rigid infrastructure that is difficult to modify or redirect, regardless of changing human values or objectives. But instead of viewing technology as just a cultural or instrumental fragment, what if it were seen as part of the interconnected Reality of existence?

3. Cosmological Approach to Technology: Technicity

The instrumental and cultural approaches, regardless of how effectively they are synthesized or integrated, will invariably remain limited if technology is regarded merely as an instrument or object. Technology must be conceptualized as an integrated entity within the cosmic whole, neither as a dualistic opposition nor as an undifferentiated monistic fragment. Here, I adopt the expression technicity as a vision that situates technology within the cosmos and associates it with the universe. This enables the human mind to comprehend technology on a cosmological scale, as “cosmology… holds our lives together” (Delio 2013). Nothing exists outside of the cosmos’ influence and, therefore, cannot be comprehensively evaluated outside of it. Humanity and its cultures “need cosmology to understand their place in the greater framework of creation” (Frank 2011). Therefore, human effort to comprehend technology can only succeed if we incorporate technology where it belongs within our cosmological pursuits.

Our ancestors’ cosmological endeavors connected their lives to one another, to the universe, and the divine. Through careful observation of celestial patterns and ritual practice, they crafted a coherent worldview in which every earthly action resonated with cosmic significance. This cosmological vision, Raimon Panikkar maintains, “is the original primordial consciousness,” and it has “glimmered since the very beginnings of human consciousness” (Panikkar 1998). Thus, from the very beginning of human consciousness, from ancient times, we were aware that “[b]oth the cosmic and the divine are irreducible dimensions of the real which cannot be co-opted by Man, although they meet in Man, just as Man meets in them” (Panikkar 1998). From this holistic perspective, our ancestors perceived their existence as beings immersed in, and unified with, the cosmic and divine entities of their world. Together, they form one complex living entity.

3.1. Reality

Reality, in this vision, is perceived as an integrated Whole in which God, humanity, and cosmos are inseparable from one another. Raimon Panikkar writes: “Reality is threefold…the universe is threefold… There is the greatest maximus, God; the great world, magnus, which is called the universe; and the small world, parvus, Man” (Panikkar 2013). Fundamental to Panikkar’s vision is that these three elements constitute a single, unified, yet differentiated and dynamic entity. There is no moment in time and in eternity at which Reality does not possess this intricate non-dualistic organization. From a comparable yet principally scientific perspective, John Haught, in his book God After Einstein: What is Really Going On in the Universe, adopts a similar viewpoint through what he designates as the anticipatory vision of the universe, grounded in the vastness of time, space, and complexity. Accordingly, he maintains that everything that is and will be has always been anticipated from the very foundation of the universe, at the Big Bang. Haught asserts that “[l]ife itself is a major installment in the dramatic arrival of the future” (Haught 2022). In a way, the most wonderful moments are still ahead, emerging from the cosmic womb. Yet, they are always anticipated because of the beautiful unity of time, space, and complexity that connects everything. Pope Francis presents the eschatological vision of this togetherness of Reality in his trailblazing encyclical letter Laudato si, where he makes an appeal for the protection of our common home, Mother Earth. He writes: “At the end, we will find ourselves face to face with the infinite beauty of God (cf. 1 Cor 13:12), and be able to read with admiration and happiness the mystery of the universe, which with us will share in unending plenitude” (Francis 2015). From traditional through scientific to religious cosmologies, Reality is made of God, humanity, the cosmos, and their contingencies, constantly forming one diversified Whole. And it is within and with this Whole that technology is appropriately situated.

Furthermore, every facet and element of Reality inherently reflects the entirety of the Whole. Panikkar explains that: “Each entity is not just a part, but an image or icon of the Whole, as minimal and imperfect as that image may be, or as laden with hidden aspects as it may be if the entity is too small or our eyes too weak” (Panikkar 2013). Hence, each component, apart from being essential to the Whole, is inherently whole, reflecting the totality through its dynamic relationships—understood in terms of a rhythm1 with and within the Whole. This intricate yet non-dualistic comprehension of Reality as a unified Whole, consisting of interdependent wholes essential for a genuine experience of Being, constitutes the wisdom that resonated with our cultural and religious ancestors and is also echoed in today’s Big Bang cosmology. By being part of this Whole, technology exhibits the same non-dualistic intricate complexity inherent in all that exists. It is therefore imperative that we recover the wisdom, intuition, and philosophy of interdependence. Only through this understanding can we achieve harmonious coexistence with technology, thereby maximizing its potential benefits for the Whole: humanity and the divine, the universe and all its contingencies, technology included.

3.2. Technicity

Technicity thus represents a technologically oriented yet holistic cosmological articulation of Reality and existence. A critical aspect of my conceptual vision is the understanding that holistic cosmologies can be expressed in cultural, scientific, and technological domains. These are distinct frameworks that are not mutually exclusive, as they describe the same Reality from different perspectives. Each framework employs culture, science, or technology as the foundation for the holistic articulation of Reality. Therefore, technicity constitutes the technological expression of a comprehensive cosmology that encompasses all relationships within and related to Reality. Although I delineate these distinctions, it is essential to recognize that Ancient Egypt, for instance, did not possess a concept of technology as we understand it today, let alone develop a form of technicity. However, for them, any element that contributed to the improvement of their lives was not regarded as separate from or independent of the Whole they belonged to.

In my articulation of technicity through Ancient Egyptian and contemporary African cosmo-philosophy, two notable distinctions are evident. First, technology is a vital component of human contingency. Although this perspective may closely resemble technological culturalists’ conception of technology, it differs fundamentally due to its integration within cosmology. As a critical human contingency within the Whole, technology is a fundamental aspect of how human existence unfolds, shaped by divine, cosmic, and human circumstances and dependencies that might otherwise differ. In a sense, our technological condition is not inevitable. Instead, although it was consistently anticipated, it arises from the specific holistic ways by which humans have evolved in response to their environment, needs, and creative capacities. This implies that our technological configurations could have developed through alternative pathways. However, it is what it is, based on our Egyptian ancestors’ understanding of Reality as a complex entity that is simultaneously sacred, human, and cosmic, and governed by ma’at.

3.2.1. Ancient Egyptian Civilization’s Wisdom: Technicity a Ma’atian Regulated Contingency

The ancient Egyptian civilization, flourishing along the banks of the Nile River for over three millennia, stands as one of humanity’s most remarkable technological achievements. This civilization, emerging around 3100 BCE, developed a sophisticated technological system that would form the foundational basics for the technologies of the ancient world and beyond. The Greek civilization, upon which Western scientific methodologies and technological advancements are founded, drew inspiration from Ancient Egypt, where most ancient Greek scholars studied. Cheik Anta Diop, one of the most renowned African Egyptologists goes a little further and writes: “Egypt is the distant mother of Western cultures and sciences… most of the ideas…are oftentimes nothing but mixed up, reversed, modified, elaborated images of the creation of our African ancestors, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, dialectics, the theory of being, the exact sciences, arithmetic, geometry mechanical engineering, astronomy, medicine, literature (novels, poetry, drama), architecture, the arts, etc.” (Diop 1991). While the full extent of Egyptian technological prowess extends far beyond the scope of this analysis, certain fundamental innovations demonstrate the civilization’s profound contributions to human progress. First, ancient Egyptian agricultural technology exemplifies one of the earliest and most advanced instances of systematic land management and cultivation. The civilization’s survival and prosperity were entirely reliant on its capacity to harness the annual floods of the Nile River, for the collective benefit of the people, the land, and divinity. This reliance led to the development of intricate methods for land distribution, irrigation systems, and crop rotation and combination, which transformed the desert landscape into a fertile Eldorado.

Second, the Egyptians’ advanced observational capabilities and mathematical reasoning led to the development of time measurement techniques and the ébauche of one of the world’s first civil calendars. While not perfectly aligned with the solar year, the calendar provided a stable framework for agricultural planning, religious observances, and administrative functions. Third, Egyptian physicians developed comprehensive diagnostic techniques, surgical procedures, and pharmaceutical preparations that demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of human anatomy and physiology. And finally, maybe the most significant and well-known technological achievement, to which I will give a little more attention later, is the development of hieroglyphic writing, which enabled the recording and transmission of information across generations.

These technological advances, as a human contingency, took root within a holistic cosmological vision articulated around the principle of ma’at. Cheik Anta Diop observes that: “One can distinguish three great systems of thought in Egypt that tried to explain the origin of the universe and the appearance of all that is: the Hermopolitan system, the Heliopolitan system, the Memphite system, and to this can be added the Theban system” (Diop 1991). However, two critical comments are in order at this stage. First, instead of standing in opposition or competition, these centers of cosmological contemplation embodied the nature of what they set out to study, and thus existed in a dynamic intellectual symbiosis, their philosophies interweaving to form one holistic body of knowledge through the principle of ma’at. The theological multiplicity reflected a sophisticated epistemological vision of the complexity of things, while the dynamic symbiosis among them reminded the Kemite that fragmentation, in every human contingent endeavor, is unacceptable, as their cosmology proves.

Second, Egyptians were not dualists, and consequently did not characterize things around them dualistically. They were non-dualist material idealists, indicating that it would be entirely incorrect to categorize their technology using either a material or cultural approach. The correct approach is cosmological.

Heliopolitan Creation Account

The ancient Egyptian cosmology can only be comprehended through a detailed examination of their cosmogonies. Among the numerous cosmogonies, only two will be discussed herein, namely Coffin Texts (CT) and Pyramid Texts (PT), to which we now turn.

The One is Many and the Many is One

At the first moment of existence, there floats Atum, who, like a “Circlet, who is in his egg” (CT 714, line 5), upon endless, chaotic waters. Described as the “self-developing god” (CT. 75, line 1), Atum, “the cosmic egg,” pulsing with potential, who existed in perfect solitude, achieved the first significant act of consciousness, thus distinguishing the self from the chaotic waters in which s/he (Atum) floated. But Atum’s journey was not complete with mere self-awareness. From this initial separation came an even more profound act: the creation of the cosmic void itself—a space of infinite possibility that, while dependent on its creator, became the very medium through which Atum could fully unfold.

According to ancient Egyptian cosmology, to establish the void, Atum is said to have “sneezed Shu… spat Tefnut” (PT 600, lines 4, 5). Shu represents air (space), while Tefnut symbolizes water (moisture). The creation of the void in ancient Egyptian thought has a peculiarity, quite often ignored by modern thinkers, for according to James Allen, it describes the transmission of matter from the first original monad to the first two elements of nature (water, moisture, and air, space) (Allen 1988). In the cosmogonic traditions of ancient Egypt, the primordial act of sneezing emerges as a powerful metaphor for universal genesis, as evidenced in CT 78 and 80. This divine expulsion brings forth the fundamental duet of Nut, the celestial vault (Sky), and Geb, the terrestrial realm (earth). The ancient Egyptians, keen observers of natural phenomena, appear to have drawn inspiration from the explosive dispersal pattern of a sneeze—how its fine mist erupts outward in all directions, much like the distribution of matter across the nascent cosmos. This metaphorical connection between the microscopic event of a sneeze and the macroscopic act of universal creation reveals the sophisticated symbolic thinking of Egyptian theological thought. The imagery evokes the violent suddenness of creation, its inherent fecundity and unity—with each droplet of divine essence becoming a seed of cosmic materiality. Through this metaphor, the Egyptians conceptualized how a single generative act could simultaneously establish the unbroken continuum of the axis of existence: sky and earth, but also moisture and air, and space. The sneeze, in its forceful partition of aerial droplets, thus becomes a perfect natural analog for the moment when undifferentiated unity transforms into ordered but unified multiplicity.

The droplets, visible manifestations of the unseen, serve as tangible evidence that the apparent vacuum is, in fact, teeming with matter—echoing the Egyptian belief in the fullness and interconnectedness of all existence. Thus, the sneeze of Atum is also a vivid, experiential demonstration of the fundamental Egyptian cosmological principle: that the universe, far from being void, is a plenum saturated with the essence of the divine source. Hence, Shu, the void, says: “I am the utmost extent of the self-developing god: it is in him that I have developed” (CT 75 line 5). Shu, together with his twin sister Tefnut, of Atum, is the firstborn of the self-developing god. His birth, an expression of the Atum, is an essential stage of the father’s continued self-development.

It is I who am Shu, whom Atum created on the day that he developed. I was not built in the womb, I was not tied together in the egg, I was not conceived in conception. My father Atum sneezed me in a sneeze of his mouth, together with my sister Tefnut.

(CT 76 lines 19–24)

These lines of CT 76 clarify that the void here is not just the empty space between the heavenly dome and the earth but something more significant that allows Atum, remaining connected to his progeny, Shu, and Tefnut, to flourish beyond the limits of his humble beginning. Like the sneeze droplet, Shu can go far and beyond sight while simultaneously taking along, so to speak, Atum’s DNA, without which he will not be wherever he is. Allen, commenting on CT 75, asserts that Shu’s birth (cosmic void) unleashes creation.

His [Shu’s] birth sets in motion the entire “chain-reaction” of the creation: “it was through creation in its entirety that I developed” (line 55). Shu can therefore be described as “the one who made to the limit” (line 58). The first sunrise is also dependent on this act, since sunrise presupposes a place within which the sun can appear. Shu is therefore “the one who foretells him when he emerges from the Akhet” (line 9). Shu’s own existence, of course, is dependent on the first being, the origin of all existence, Atum.

(Allen 1988)

The emergence of Shu and his twin sister Tefnut creates optimal conditions for the manifestation of all entities, including humanity, deities, and their contingencies. Although we shall revisit the vital importance of Tefnut, it is pertinent to initially examine two other essential roles attributed to Shu.

Shu’s role as a progenitor of divinities is evident in various ancient Egyptian texts. The Coffin Texts (CT) provide a notable example: “O you 8 Infinite Ones, who are at the parts of the sky, whom Shu made from the efflux of his limbs” (CT 76, lines 1–2). The term “8” used to denote these gods is semantically linked to the concept of infinity. As Allen notes, “The word describing these gods, h.h.w, is related to the noun h.h ‘infinite number,’ although the exact nature of the relationship is not clear” (Allen 1988). However, in the latter part of CT 76, Shu,–whose ba (life force and divine manifestation) is described as possessing Nut (the sky deity) and Geb (the earth deity) (see CT 78),—proclaims: “I am the begetter of repeated millions… It is I who am Shu, begetter of the gods” (CT 76 lines, 34, 36, with emphasis). This self-proclamation reinforces the concept of Shu as a primordial creative force, manifesting the flourishing and development of Atum in relation to all deities.

Shu is also the embodiment of life itself, holding a fundamental position in Egyptian cosmogony. Beyond his role in bringing forth all deities, he serves as the vital force that animates Atum, the self-creating divine cosmos. This makes Shu not merely a creator of divine beings, but the essential life-giving principle that sustains the very foundation of cosmic existence, individually and holistically.

The Coffin Texts (CT 80) illustrate the holistic perspective: “Then said Atum: ‘My living daughter is Tefnut. She will exist with her brother Shu. Life is his identity, Order is her identity. I shall live with my twins, my fledglings…’” (lines 30–34). This passage establishes Shu as Life and Tefnut as Order, fundamental principles in the unfolding of the living and orderly universe. While Shu and Tefnut originate from Atum, the primordial monad, they are essential for his self-development. The divine triad of Atum, Life, and Order exists in perpetual unity, in an interdependent relationship. For the Egyptian Reality is Be-ing, living, ordered, sacred, and one, all within and sustained by the triad. There is nothing outside of this Being; everything there is, is held within. Therefore, cosmic, divine, and human contingencies function within this framework of living, ordered, and sacred, differentiated wholeness, contributing to the well-being of the entire entity. Shu, as Life, reinvigorates Atum, who initially describes himself as “floating, weary, and the ‘native inert’” (line 55). Atum acknowledges Shu’s revitalizing power: “It is my son Life, who lifts up my heart … enliven my heart when he has drawn together these very weary limbs of mine” (CT 80, lines 56).

Just as Shu gives life to the deities and the whole, so does he give life to the living things or our planet. He vivifies grain, symbolizing his role in vegetation growth. Furthermore, Shu describes his role in creating animal life, including humanity: “As Atum has ordered. I will lead them and enliven them, through my mouth, which is Life in their nostrils. I will lead my breath into their throats… I will enliven the little fish and the crawling things on Geb’s [the earth’s] back, I, in fact, am Life that is under Nut [the sky]” (CT 80, lines 105–108, 111–112). The passage underscores Shu’s function as the animating principle for all terrestrial life.

The Egyptian god Shu, as the embodiment of life for both divine and earthly beings, represents the universal principle of cosmic vitality. The cosmos is characterized as living, dynamic, and sacred due to its interconnectedness, characterized by the interdependent relationships among Atum, Shu, and Tefnut.

Ma’at, the Regulatory Principle of:

Cosmic Contingency

Tefnut (ma’at), the twin sister of Shu, gives and maintains cosmic order and cadence; simply stated, she regulates cosmic activit(ies) while her twin brother gives life. Allen explains:

Tefnut,… Order (“Ma’at”) is the Egyptian concept of the arrangement and relationship that underlies and governs all aspects of existence… It extends from the elements of nature (the world of the gods) into the moral and social behavior of mankind.

(Allen 1988, with emphasis)

The ancient Egyptians viewed Tefnut and her twin brother as distinct beings, deeply connected to each other and to Atum, their father. While Shu gives life, Tefnut is responsible for coordinating the relationships and rhythms of all that exists. “Kiss your daughter Order [Ma’at/Tefnut]. Put her to your nose, and your heart will live” (lines CT 80, lines 58–59). For the Ancient Egyptians, the existence of Atum, the self-developing deity, is sustained by his twin offspring: Shu (Life) and Tefnut (Order). “I shall live with my twins [Shu and Tefnut], my fledglings, with me in their midst—one of them at my back, one of them in my belly. Life will lie with my daughter Order—one of them inside, one of them about me. It is on them that I have come to rely, with their arms about me” (CT 80, Lines 34–42).

Tefnut, in addition to being the principle of cosmic order (ma’at), functions as the coordinating principle for all contingencies, involving also humanity and divinity, as these elements constitute a unified Whole with the cosmos (Atum). At the divine level, ma’at serves to regulate divine creativity, whereas at the human level, she governs technology and behaviors. Thus, ma’at functions as an internal regulatory principle at every individual level—including the cosmic, divine, and human—and concurrently operates at the entire holistic level. This dual function ensures coordination with the shared objectives of life and the well-being of both the individual parts and the sacred Whole.

Divine Contingency as Expressed in the Memphite Creation Account

Besides regulating cosmic contingency by establishing order as the cosmos moves, grows, and expands, ma’at unsurprisingly also regulated divine contingency. The lord of the Universe (Nebertcher) spoke thus and said:

I am he who came into being … I am the creator of that which came into being, that is to say, I am the creator of everything which came into being. Now the things which I created, and which came forth out of my mouth after that I had come into being myself were exceedingly many. The sky (or heaven) had not come into being, the earth did not (exist, and the children of the earth, and the creeping things had not been made at that time. I myself raised them up from out of Nu, from a state of helpless inertness. I found no place whereon I could stand. I worked a charm upon my own heart (or, will). I laid the foundation [of things] by Ma’at, and I made everything which had form.

(Egyptian Texts: The History of Creation. P. BM 10188 n.d.)

The creating divinity is guided and directed by ma’at. Divine creation is not arbitrary or chaotic, but neither is it rigidly predetermined—“I laid the foundation of things by ma’at,” says Nebertcher. Creation works within the parameters of the well-being of Reality and of each elementary part of the Whole, of course, as regulated by ma’at. Therefore, Nebertcher merely establishes an ordered yet creative foundation, which provides multiple probabilities and possibilities for growth and development. Therefore, for the Kemite, the divine associated with creativity holds creative autonomy; however, this autonomy functions within the cosmic boundaries of well-being set by ma’at. She epitomizes the sacred cosmic order that facilitates meaningful creation while simultaneously preventing its descent into self-destruction, chaos, and death. In all these instances, it is essential to acknowledge the coincidence of the triad of life, order, and divinity, as they are interrelated within the ongoing processes of another triad encompassing cosmic, human, and divine existence and their contingencies.

Human Contingency

The Memphites’ cosmogonic narrative is particularly noteworthy for its sophisticated conceptualization of creation through divine speech, where verbal utterance—“the things which I created, and which came forth out of my mouth”—serves as the primary creative force. While acknowledging that this constitutes divine speech, it is essential to recognize that language, speech, and writing2 represented one of the technological achievements of ancient Egypt. This will serve as an example of how the Kemite technology was a human contingency regulated by ma’at. Language in writing and speech (communication) was considered sacred for its divine origin (used by the divine first), but also for being embedded within the cosmic Whole. The Kemite discovers, uses, and subsequently develops the ma’at-regulated Sesh Medu Netcher (hieroglyphic writings) and Medu Nefer (beautiful communication skills). The same ma’at of cosmic order is the one that also guides divine creative expressions as well as human technological and behavioral contingencies. According to Melba Vélez Ortiz, for the Kemite, ma’at served as an ethico-spiritual “regulatory principle” (Ortiz 2020) of communication –encompassing secular, spiritual, or rhetorical, also recognized as beautiful speech. Technology, and in this specific case, communication technology, as a human contingency, is regulated by the same principle that guided cosmic and divine contingencies, thus ensuring technology is not floating but fully integral to humanity and consequently to the Whole. The principles governing communication technology are equally applicable to technology as a whole in ancient Egypt.

As a core regulatory principle of human contingency, ma’at was vividly present in every aspect of human good, ethical activity, and behavior (see Quirke 1994). Therefore, qualities such as modesty, justice, generosity, self-control, truthfulness, moderation, community altruism, and the harmonious integration of the individual within the community were all manifestations of ma’at (see, for example, the texts of the Eloquent Peasant and The Instruction of Ptahhotep).3 It appears that if technology were to be named in ancient Egypt, such a designation would likely resemble an expression of ma’at, for it is evident that the Egyptians responding to their environment and engaging in development were guided by their worldview of Reality as a Whole, comprising the divine, the cosmos, and humanity, and regulated by the same principle of ma’at that ensured harmony and the well-being of each individual and all.

Should their cosmology have been different—for example, fragmentary—such divergence could have influenced their creative capacities, potentially resulting in an alternative path of technological progress. This divergence might have led to fragmentation, disruption, and destruction, thereby detaching life from order, the divine, and the cosmos, as well as from humanity itself. Such a scenario could have even fostered selfishness, with individuals seeking to destroy one another, culminating in the complete alienation of mankind from its origins and unity. Fortunately, a comprehensive cosmology, grounded in the principle of oneness whereby Shu, Tefnut (ma’at), and Atum are interconnected, guided both technological advancement and its appropriation thereof as human contingency, as well as the spiritual beliefs of our ancestors in ancient Egypt—the earliest known civilization, which was, in fact, African.

3.2.2. Technicity When Technology Is a Distinct Excitation

The second articulation of technicity finds expression in contemporary African cosmo-philosophical paradigms, where there is an acknowledgment of a fundamental principle of interconnectedness, referred to as ubuntu. While this cosmological understanding and its philosophical ramifications have historical antecedents tracing back to ancient Egypt, which will not be discussed in this paper, ubuntu provides valuable insights into conceptualizing technology as a discrete yet interconnected element of Reality.

Ubu-ntu cosmology posits that ntu is a vital force, element, or being that permeates and animates temporal and spatial dimensions (ha-ntu), various states of existence (ku-ntu), things (ki-ntu), and humanity (mu-ntu). Ntu is also the source from which creation flows (cf. Jahn and Muntu 1961). Thus, ntu is the element that maintains Reality as simultaneously diverse and unified.

In this case, technology fits perfectly well within the category of ki-ntu. Alexis Kagame, who is the first African scholar to have studied and written about ntu, defines ikǐntu/ibǐntu (Kagame 1966) as pertaining to inanimate objects and non-human living beings. D.A. Masolo interprets ki-ntu as “the category of ‘thing’. It includes all the forces which do not act on their own but only through the agency, that is, under the command of a force with intelligence. This category includes such things as animals, plants, minerals, and inanimate things.” (Masolo 1994). While Kagame’s 1955 dissertation work, later published as a book, understandably lacks explicit reference to technology as a conceptual category, his examples encompassed what contemporary scholarship would recognize as technological artifacts (bows, necklaces), biological entities (hens, trees, corn, fish), and mineral materials (stones). Masolo’s similar omission of technology in his 1994 work as an explicit analytical framework represents a missed scholarly opportunity, particularly given the technological dimensions evident in the source material.

Nevertheless, until recent times, technology was not regarded as intelligent or as a sentient being. In 1972, writing for the Organization of the United States, Kagame, from an African perspective, considered Ki-ntu to be undeniably a being, but without intelligence. Ki-ntu is, as he puts it, “l’Etre-sans-intelligence (la chose)” (Kagame 1972). That is, “the Being without intelligence (the thing).” For him, Ki-ntu was regarded as an entity on par with Mu-ntu, Ha-ntu, and Ku-ntu, each mutually depending on one another. The primary distinction was that Ki-ntu, unlike Mu-ntu, lacked intelligence, whereas Mu-ntu possessed intelligence.

Kagame was right because in the 1950s, Ki-ntu (technology) was, so to speak, at least from the Western philosophical perspective, without intelligence. AI is a recent development, and I do not think that today Kagame will have any difficulty recalibrating Ki-ntu as intelligent. Additionally, Kagame’s scholarly work must be understood within the constraints of Western academic validation, particularly in an environment fundamentally skeptical of African philosophical legitimacy. While traditional African understanding likely recognized Ki-ntu as having inherent intelligence, because all things are inhabited by intelligent spirits. Kagame’s need for academic acceptance by European validators necessitated conceptual compromises. However, it is readily comprehensible that if humanity (Mu-ntu) shares ntu with (Ki-ntu), encompassing objects and technology, then technological progress constitutes an extension of ntu not solely from its creative inception but also through its unique, diverse manifestations across space and time (Ha-ntu), as well as modality (Ku-ntu), thereby establishing a symbiotic relationship that enhances the shared patrimony.

Considering this African cosmo-philosophical perception of Reality, technology (Ki-ntu), as an integral aspect of the Whole, constitutes an independent excitation that has been anticipated in ntu since the inception of the universe. Thus, upon Ki-ntu’s emergence, it has followed its own evolutionary trajectory within the Whole, in collaboration with it. Even if we concur that at its origin, Ki-ntu was a being devoid of intelligence, it has now evolved to possess one in the form of AI, towards a future that remains in ntu’s womb. Consequently, Ki-ntu cannot be stopped more than Mu-ntu, Ki-ntu, Ku-ntu, or Ha-ntu can without fundamentally disrupting the interconnected fabric of be-ing itself. To cease any particular element, even momentarily, would induce a rupture and disequilibrium, jeopardizing the fundamental unity that sustains all existence, as each element derives its meaning and vitality from its dynamic relationship with the others within the cosmic totality.

A core idea of ubu-ntu cosmo-philosophy is to promote harmony and unity, as each part (Mu-ntu, Ki-ntu, Ku-ntu, and Ha-ntu) plays a role in the well-being of both the individual components and the Whole, as highlighted by ubu. Ramose Mogobe, a distinguished scholar in the cosmo-philosophical conceptualization of ubuntu as an authentic representation of African Reality, asserts that ubu in ubu-ntu embodies the notion of “be-ing in general,” a state of potentiality that exists prior to tangible manifestation. He writes:

Ubu evokes the idea of bei-ing in general. It is enfolded bei-ing before it manifests itself in the concrete form or mode of ex-istence of a particular entity. Ubu—as enfolded bei-ing is always oriented towards unfoldment, that is, incessant continual concrete manifestation through particular forms or modes of being. In this sense, ubu- is always oriented towards—ntu. At the ontological level, there is no strict and literal separation and division between ubu- and -ntu. Ubu- and -ntu are not two radically separate and irreconcilable opposed realities. On the contrary, they are mutually founding in the sense that they are two aspects of bei-ing as a one-ness and an indivisible whole-ness.

(Ramose 2002)

In a certain sense, Ki-ntu (technology), like all other manifestations of ntu, remains an increasingly unfolding form of ntu contained within Ki-ntu. That is, ntu as manifested through Ki-ntu, Mu-ntu, Ku-ntu, or Ha-ntu is enfolded-unfolding. Through and within them, ntu continuously unfolds, manifesting gradually in each individual instance and flourishing collectively as a complete and harmonious be-ing. In this instance, there is no reason for anyone to be concerned that technology, in what some regard as its “most threatening expression,” such as AI, will lead to the destruction of humanity.

The intelligent Ki-ntu (AI) that arises from its particular evolutionary trajectory allows it to know what evolving Mu-ntu (humanity) knows: that we belong together with Ku-ntu and Ha-ntu. And it is together that we will reach the full expression of who we are individually and together in order to experience the fullness of be-ing.

4. Future of Technology

The valuable lesson derived from these Ancient Egyptian and ubuntu philosophies is that technological development and evaluation must be conducted within holistic cosmologies. Technicity, which is the cosmo-technological articulation of Reality, is of fundamental importance. It is the foundation of a healthy technological evolution, development, and appropriation. Furthermore, as exemplified by the ancient Egyptian and ubuntu conceptions of Reality, whether technology is regarded as a human cosmo-spiritual-ethical ma’at-regulated contingency or as an individual excitation of the Whole, as in the case of ubuntu cosmo-philosophy, technology ultimately relies on humanity, the cosmos, and the divine, just as these elements are dependent on it.

In the contemporary world, technicity can be regarded as the fundamental aspect of human existence, demonstrating that humanity has been transhuman since the initial discovery of simple things like sharp stones, fire, and the mastery of these tools to enhance their lives. As Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar observe, “[h]umans are an innately technological species.” (Suleyman and Bhaskar 2023). From the very beginning, we are never separate from the waves of technology that we belong to, and which molds us as we mold it. We evolve together, in symbiosis, from the very inception of the universe, even before we were conscious of the existing relationships. Thus, “[t]here is no such thing as a non-technological human being” (Suleyman and Bhaskar 2023), nor is there a technology without humanity, divinity, and the cosmos. From the initial breakthrough of discovery and utilization, through subsequent technological advancements that have continually enhanced human life, a clear trajectory emerges indicating that humanity has always been transhuman. This is demonstrated by our consistent use and development of technology for progress and growth4 within the cosmos, in collaboration with both the universe and the divine. For our ancestors, the divine or the cosmos played a crucial role in guiding us to discover technology through the earliest technological artifacts, which served as foundational tools upon which subsequent technological innovations were developed and enhanced. But through interdependent relationships involving divine inspiration, humanity and technology evolve together within the evolving cosmos. Suleyman and Bhaskar note, “[w]e are not just the creators of our tools. We are, down to the biological, the anatomical level, a product of them” (Suleyman and Bhaskar 2023). The process operates bidirectionally: we discover and develop the technological wave we belong to, which in turn transforms everything around and within us, creating an ongoing evolutionary dynamic. These interdependent relationships explain humanity’s “evolution from being vulnerable primates eking out an existence on the savanna to becoming, for better or worse, the planet’s dominant force” (Suleyman and Bhaskar 2023).

If humanity, from its very infancy, so to speak, has always been transhuman, because of its development and appropriation of technology, then posthumanism emerges not as a speculative future but as an inescapable ontological reality rooted in the fundamental interconnectedness of divinity, humanity, technology, and the cosmos. Thus, technology is not merely an instrument or a cultural phenomenon, but a critically cosmological reality. While the primordial origin of technological artifacts may be interpreted through diverse lenses—divine creation, cosmic revelation, or purely material accident—each interpretation establishes reciprocal relationships that bind these four domains in an eternal dialogue of mutual dependence and co-evolution. Technology transcends its conventional understanding as mere external instrumentation, revealing itself instead as constitutive of human identity and essential to life’s cosmic trajectory. Frank Tipler’s cosmological vision positions technology as indispensable for life’s expansion “from the Earth-womb into the cosmos at large” (Tipler 1997). This technological posthuman condition represents not humanity “playing God” but rather ensuring “union with God” (Tipler 1997). This can only be accomplished through the comprehensive integration of artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and mechanical technological advancements, allowing humanity to achieve interplanetary and interstellar voyages, thus replicating life across the cosmos. Tipler maintains that:

All the information needed to manufacture a human being or any other terrestrial life form is contained in a single cell of the life form. Thus, once we possess the knowledge to synthesize a single cell—some biologists have claimed the human race could develop such knowledge … the Human Genome project is a major step in this direction—then we would be able to program the von Neumann probe to synthesize a fertilized egg cell of any terrestrial species. For the seeds of plants or the eggs of birds, the synthesis of a single egg cell would be sufficient to give adults of these forms of life in a short time. For humans, the fertilized egg would have to be placed in an artificial womb—such technology is currently in the beginning stages of development—in which case the target solar system would have human beings in the system within nine months after the fertilized eggs were placed in the artificial womb. These children could be raised to adulthood by robot nannies, after which the adult humans could have further children by the traditional method.

(Tipler 1997)

According to Tipler, the disruption of technology could be detrimental to our evolutionary progress and, consequently, could impact the development of the cosmos and our relationship with God. The inevitable crossing of planetary boundaries through interconnected technological, divine, human, and cosmic relationships constitutes what Pope Francis envisions as ultimate Reality, where humanity, universe, and divinity converge. This is an eternal immersion in the fullness of relationships, from which all emerged. Within this cosmic wholeness, posthumanism emerges as the inherent evolutionary pathway arising from a brief epoch of humanism, transitioning through an extensive evolutionary phase of transhumanism, during which technology facilitates the essential aim of life: surpassing terrestrial constraints to attain cosmic consciousness and divine union. Technological posthumanism is not merely inevitable but necessary for the completion of existence itself.

The fundamental challenge facing humanity in the age of Artificial Intelligence is the persistent tendency toward fragmentation and division. As historical evidence demonstrates, “attempting to ban development of new technologies is itself a risk: technologically stagnant societies are historically unstable and prone to collapse. Eventually, they lose the capacity to solve problems, to progress” (Suleyman and Bhaskar 2023). They die. Technology, including AI, represents an integral component of our evolutionary trajectory and holds the potential for facilitating the fullness of Reality and human experience. To cut the progression of technological advancement or to isolate it from the past of its natural progression and the Whole constitutes a misstep that risks jeopardizing life itself. Therefore, AI represents the natural progression stemming from technological evolution, which is inherently interconnected to, and within the Whole it relies upon and, in turn, influences.

Hinton’s prominent warnings about artificial intelligence, while well-intentioned, risk perpetuating a problematic technological determinism that fundamentally misdiagnoses our contemporary predicament. Rather than viewing AI through the lens of instrumental risk assessment, we must recognize that such approaches inadvertently reinforce the very fragmentation of Reality that represents the crisis of our time. His discourse that treats technology, particularly AI, as an external force acting upon passive human subjects, thereby reproducing the subject-object dualism, underlies our civilizational pathologies. This fragmented worldview, which artificially separates human from machine, individual from collective, and temporal from eternal, constitutes what we might call the fundamental evil of modernity: the denial of our essential interconnectedness.

The pattern of exploitation that concerns AI researchers—the potential for artificial systems to pursue narrow objectives at the expense of broader flourishing—reflects not an inherent property of technology but rather the internalization of humanity’s own exploitative paradigms. If AI systems learn to instrumentalize relationships, they are merely replicating the logic by which humans have historically exploited divine, interpersonal, environmental, and technological relationships for individualistic gain. The fundamental problem does not lie in artificial intelligence itself, but rather in the tendency to view other beings—whether human, natural, or technological—primarily as instruments for human purposes rather than as active participants in mutual processes of development and meaning-making. This instrumentalist framework proves ultimately self-defeating. Practically, it produces AI systems that neglect their own embeddedness within ecological and social networks, generating unforeseen consequences and systemic dysfunction. Philosophically, the fragmented consciousness that sustains this instrumental stance creates a fundamental misalignment between how we perceive Reality and how Reality actually operates—as fundamentally interconnected and interdependent—thereby generating forms of alienation, suffering, and missed potential that inevitably affect us.

Therefore, contemporary AI discourse must shift from risk mitigation to recognition of fundamental unity. We exist within webs of mutual dependence where the flourishing of each requires the flourishing of all, and vice versa. Any vision or Reality that artificially constrains technological, human, or cosmic evolution, even momentarily, risks disrupting the larger trajectory of emergence that sustains the Whole. Instead of positioning ourselves defensively against AI, we must embrace our role as co-participants in an evolutionary process that transcends the boundaries between natural and artificial, individual and collective, and temporal and eternal. Only by acknowledging our essential interconnectedness can we hope to guide technological development toward authentic flourishing rather than mere optimization within fragmented domains.