1. In our evolutionary models, ontological and axiological density go hand in
hand, which is to recognize that sentient beings are considered more
valuable than the nonsentient and that sapient beings are considered more
valuable than the merely sentient.
Now, we know that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny; put simply, the
development of the individual reflects the development of the species.
Perhaps this is why we so often witness an unconscious hegemony where
certain forms of human engagement and/or stages of human development
are variously valued or devalued?
Take, for example, Fr. Thomas Keating's developmental model of the
spiritual journey, wherein he describes the various levels of consciousness
as uroboric, typhonic, mythic membership, mental- egoic, intuitive,
unitive, unity and ultimate. Each level and stage of the human
epistemological perspective get assimilated --- not subjugated! -- and
carried forward in development because, as alternative forms of
engagement through which people can and do come to embody the
true, the good, and the beautiful, they are all intrinsically valuable.
Neither privation nor deficiency is implied for early stages by our
developmental models, for that would entail the denial of their genuinely
human character and their absolute intrinsic worth. Humanity is enriched
by the plurality of these alternative forms of engagement; sadly, though,
this gift of diversity is too often harnessed in the service of ideologies of
domination.
A spirituality of disability perhaps bests illuminates this perspective: See Amos Yong's
Disability and the Love of Wisdom: De-forming, Re-forming, and Per-forming Philosophy of
Religion, Ars Disputandi:Volume 9 (2009) at
http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000324/article.pdf and John Hull's A
Spirituality of Disability: The Christian Heritage as both Problem and Potential, Studies in
Christian Ethics, vol.16 no. 2, 2003, pp. 21-35 at http://www.johnmhull.biz/A%
20Spirituality%20of%20Disability1.htm
1