Tag Archives: Reinterpretation of Religion

September 15, 2022 – How Does the Data on Food Substantiate Teilhard’s Perspective?

How can Teilhard’s optimistic insights be seen in the human evolution of food?

Today’s Post

Last week we looked at the phenomena of ‘food’ from Norberg’s perspective, charting the recursive process of innovation, invention and incorporation that underlies the increase of human welfare that he documents.

This week, we will relook at this data to see how it offers an example of the ‘cogent experimental grounds’ that Teilhard suggests is necessary to increase our confidence in the future.

From Teilhard’s Perspective

As we did last week, we can look at these statistics in the light of Teilhard’s eight insights into human evolution to see how well they correlate.

Human Invention As we saw last week, history shows humans as capable of inventing what they need to forestall extinction. Without increasing crop yield, for example, Malthus’ predictions would have been borne out by now. With the population growth that has occurred, we would have by now required nearly all arable land to feed ourselves.

Dissemination Growing enough food would not suffice if it couldn’t be put in the mouths of the populace. As Norberg points out, innovation is most active in countries where the human person has the freedom to exercise his or her creativity and least active in countries where such activity is undermined by excessive state control. The effect of globalization appears as the transfer of innovation to other countries where ineffective government is being replaced by democratic institutions. In general, as Teilhard notes, this is nearly always has occurred in a West-to-East direction.

Psychisms Innovations and inventions such as automations and fertilizer would not have been possible without the information amassed by globalization and the expertise harvested from the many ‘psychisms’ (human groups free to innovate) which came together to perform the many complex studies and tests required to produce them.

Speed. It’s not just that solutions to the problems were found; note that most of them seen in the above abbreviated set of statistics happened in the past hundred years. In the estimated eight thousand generations which have emerged in the two hundred or so thousand years of human existence, the many innovations that Norberg observes have just emerged in the past three. Due to Teilhard’s ‘compression of the noosphere’, these innovations are spreading to the East more quickly than they came to initial fruition in the West. For example, the change in height of Western humans occurred at 1 cm per year over 100 years in the West, but in the East, it is proceeding today at twice this rate.

Failures in Forecasting As we saw last week, Malthus’ projections of the ‘end of times’ did not occur. While population did increase (but not at his anticipated rate), food production increased exponentially. Even today, there are still those today who predict that we will run out of resources in the next fifty years or so.

Changes of State As Teilhard noted, evolution proceeds in a highly nonlinear fashion, with profound leaps in complexity over short periods of time. The phenomenon associated with this insight is clearly still in play with the innovations we have seen this week.

Timeliness As we saw in our example of data, each new innovation seems to arrive in time to prevent a critical point after which human evolution would begin to ebb. With enough malnutrition and famine, the amount of human energy need to deal with problems would wane past the point that it could develop a tactic to do so.

Risk Each of these innovations has occurred in the face of political, religious, and philosophical resistance. In the yearning for an imagined but attractive past can undermine the practices of invention and globalism. The very fact that a strong majority of well-off Westerners can still consider the future to be dire is an indication of how little faith (well-justified faith, if Norberg’s statistics and Teilhard’s insights are to be believed) is manifested in today’s ‘conventional wisdom’. In 2015, a poll cited by Norberg showed that a whopping 71% of Britons thought “The world was getting worse” and a miniscule 3% thought it was getting better.

Many politicians today sow the seeds of pessimism to reap the crop of fear thought to insure their election. As Teilhard notes in several places, in a future in which we do not believe, we will not be able to exist.

The Next Post

Having seen the first of Norberg’s evolutionary metrics, that of ‘Food’, we saw this week how Teilhard’s eight evolutionary insights can be shown to be found in them.

Next week we’ll move on to the second Norberg topic, that of ‘Life Expectancy’ to see some statistics along the same line of improvements in human welfare. As we will see, they will show the same resonance with Teilhard’s evolutionary insights that we saw this week.

August 25, 2022 – How Can We Tell We’re Evolving?

2 Replies

Are there “cogent experimental grounds’ which support Teilhard’s optimistic vision of evolution?

Today’s Post

Over the past several weeks we have been looking into Teilhard’s optimistic assessment of the future of human evolution. We have also seen how conventional wisdom, well harvested from the weedy fields of daily news, suggests a much more dystopian human future.

As we have applied Teilhard’s ‘lens of evolution’ to human history, despite writing in a time at which our future was anything but rosy, he managed a world view which was quite opposite from that prevalent at the time. Having seen how his audaciously optimistic (and counter-intuitive) conclusions have been formed, we can now use the astonishing volumes of data available today to look into how they are being playing out in human evolution.

Last week we boiled down Teilhard’s observations and projections of the noosphere, into six characteristics that constitute the ‘structure of the noosphere’.

This week we will begin a survey of this noosphere as it appears today to see how contemporary objective data, Teilhard’s ‘cogent experimental grounds’, can be brought to bear on his insights. As we will see, quantifiable data from reliable sources not only strongly substantiates his case for optimism it does so stronger today than at any time in the whole of human history.

Human Evolution Metrics

How do we go about quantifying human evolution? One very relevant approach can be found in “Progress”, a book by Johan Norberg, which seeks to show:

“..the amazing accomplishments that resulted from the slow, steady, spontaneous development of millions of people who were given the freedom to improve their own lives, and in doing so improved the world.”

In doing so he alludes to a causality quite consistent with Teilhard’s ‘energy of evolution’:

“It is a kind of progress that no leader or institution or government can impose from the top down.”

Norberg doesn’t reference Teilhard or cite religious beliefs. Instead, he refers to findings from public surveys, government data, international media and global institutions such as the World Health Organization, UNICEF, World Bank, UNESCO, OECD, and UNAIDS.

His approach is to parse the ‘metrics of human evolution’ into nine categories. They are:

Food Sanitation

Life Expectancy Poverty

Violence The Environment

Literacy Freedom

Equality

For each of these categories he provides, as the international news magazine The Economist notes, “a tornado of evidence” for the “slow, steady, spontaneous development” of the human species. He compares these statistics across the planet, from Western societies, to near- and mid- Eastern Asia, to China and India, and to super-and sub-Saharan Africa. And, to the extent possible, he extends trends from antiquity to the current day.

Norberg is well aware that his findings, all showing improvements in the areas of human life listed above, are profoundly contrary to conventional wisdom, and he acknowledges the human tendency toward pessimism. He quotes Franklin Pierce Adams on one source of this skepticism:

“Nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.”

His prodigious statistics clearly, and to considerable depth, offer a look quite different from the nostalgic, sepia-tinged memories the ‘good old days’.

As Jeanette Walworth wrote:

“My grandpa notes the world’s worn cogs
And says we are going to the dogs!
…

The cave man in his queer skin togs
Said things were going to the dogs.
But this is what I wish to state
The dogs have had an awful wait.”

Seeing The Data Through Teilhard’s ‘Lens’

Over the next few weeks, we will address three of Norberg’s nine categories, summarize his key statistics, and show how they provide the ‘cogent experimental grounds’ that Teilhard saw as needed for us

“..to be quite certain ..that the sort of temporo-spatial dome into which (our) destiny is leading is not a blind alley where the earth’s life flow will shatter and stifle itself.”

This objective and verifiable historical data will serve to put Teilhard’s highly optimistic vision of the future to the test. Does the data show that we humans are continuing to evolve? If so, in what ways, how quickly, and is the trend positive or negative?

This week we will take a simple example, one not listed by Norberg but simple enough to illustrate our process: that of ‘fuel’

The Next Post

This week we began to address Teilhard’s need for ‘cogent experimental grounds’ that would support our recognition that human evolution is proceeding in human life. We identified the statistics that Johan Norberg has assembled on the increase in human welfare as examples of these grounds.

Beginning next week we will provide examples of how such data can be seen to support Teilhard’s optimistic projections.

June 30, 2022 – How does Teilhard See The Increase of Complexity In Human Evolution?

Leave a reply

How can the energy of evolution spill over from the ‘material’ to the ‘conscious’ level?

Today’s Post

In the last two weeks, we have seen how Teilhard parses the increasing complexity of human evolution into its ‘material’ and ‘conscious’ appearances.

This week we will look into how this evolution not only occurs in the individual person itself, but is interwoven in human collective enterprises.

The Levels of Human Evolution

Teilhard’s insights into universal evolution clearly show the increase in complexity which occurs as granules of matter unite in such a way as to become increasingly capable of future unity. Seen through his ‘lens of evolution’, this phenomenon not only continues to increase in the human species but does so at a more rapid rate.

Richard Dawkins recognizes this ‘new’ (compared to biological natural selection) mode when he says

“I think that a new kind of replicator has recently emerged on this very planet. It is still in its infancy, drifting around in its primordial soup, but is already achieving evolutionary change at a rate that leaves the old gene panting far behind. The new soup is the soup of human culture” …and the new replicator “conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission”.

Such an increase can be seen once the new facets of the human are put into context.

Dawkins’ ‘replicator’ emerges into the milieu of reflective consciousness by way of ‘cultural transmission’ and does so by way of four distinct levels of human evolution which are identified by Teilhard.

The first level can be seen in the ‘monad’, the individual of the species that reflects the unique manifestation of the ‘person’. As Teilhard asserts, in each trip around the convergent spiral of evolution (June 2, 2022 – Mapping Teilhard’s ‘Energy of Complexity’ | Science, Religion and Reality (lloydmattlandry.com) the three key vectors of the force of evolution are active in the human person. With the two hemispheres of the unique human neocortex brain, resting on the foundation of two pre-human brains (the ‘reptilian’ at the base and the ‘limbic’ above it), the human person is endowed with a brain capacity which has been significantly increased over his predecessors.

The first of Teilhard’s ‘vectors’, ‘connectivity’ comes into play as the multiplicity of brain activities is brought into a collaborative enterprise to permit an integrated response to the stimuli of an increasingly multifaceted and complex reality. As Teilhard sees it

“the history of the living world can be summarised as the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes within a cosmos in which there is always something more to be seen”.

The second vector is that which emerges from such successful integration: the increased clarity by which this complex reality can be understood. This increased clarity can result in the evolutionary value of a more successful interaction with it.

His third vector can be seen in the increased integration and improved comprehension provided by the first two: a human ‘complexification’ step by which the first two results (unity and clarity) are further enriched.

Thus, at the ‘monad’ level of human evolution, the underlying potential for personal evolution is thus activated. Karen Armstrong sees this insight emerging in human history during the ‘Axial Age’.

“By disciplined introspection, the sages of the Axial Age were awakening to the vast reaches of selfhood that lay beneath the surface of their minds. They were becoming fully “self- conscious”.

The second level can be seen in the ‘dyad’, the case of close relationships between ‘monads’. No matter what skill we develop in understanding ourselves, further enrichment is always possible from a closer relationship with another person. Our culture abounds with lore which contrasts the danger of isolated, subjective thought with the richness that a close relationship can bring. Teilhard, succinctly describes this as

“closer union from fuller being, and fuller being from closer union”.

He goes a little further when he addresses the ‘personization’ resulting from such unions:

“True union differentiates”.

Karen Anderson when she notes this evolutive insights of Confucius

“..You needed other people to elicit your full humanity; self-cultivation was a reciprocal process.”

The third level can be seen in what Teilhard refers to as the ‘psychism’, where a group of individuals is united by a common cause, and thus has two outcomes clearly related to human evolution. The first outcome is the easiest to envision, and which can be seen in the product sought by the group endeavor, such as a design, a vaccine or the underlying meaning that lies beneath the diverse data found in a large database. For such a product to emerge, the talents of each member of such a small group are required.

These talents, applied in collaboration, results in a second outcome: each individual is enriched as the strength of the collaboration is increased. This is another example of how Teilhard’s concept of the dyadic phenomenon of ‘fuller being/closer union’ is active when raised to the level of a group.
The emergence of a new level of consciousness from ‘psychsms’ of course can be found in nearly all religious and philosophical thinking. The motto of the United States recognizes this.

“E Pluribus Unum” (From many, one)

The roots of the evolution of the human species can be seen in these three levels. The blossoming of this energy can be seen as Dawkins’ intuition of ‘cultural transmission’ is present in Teilhard’s fourth level.

Next Week

This week we saw how Teilhard, through his ‘lens of evolution’, guides us through three of the four ‘levels’ of human evolution, leading up to that seen by Richard Dawkins as the level of ‘cultural transmission’

Next week we will address the fourth of Teilhard’s level, into what he refers to as the ‘noosphere’.

May 26, 2022 – Teilhard’s ‘Energy of Complexity’

Leave a reply

What causes complexity to increase in evolution?

Today’s Post

For the past several weeks we have been employing Teilhard’s ‘lens of evolution’ by seeing how he uses it to examine the process of increased complexity at work in the evolution of the universe, even as it spills over into human life on this planet.
This week we will refocus this ‘lens’ onto the aspect of how it does so, by recognizing it as ‘energy’.

Human Evolution in a Universal Context

In his book, “The Phenomenon of Man”, Teilhard shows how evolution can be seen to always follow the same pattern everywhere in the universe as it rises from the simplicity of the first manifestation of featureless energy at the Big Bang to the complexity which can be seen today across its broad expanse. In addition to the other ‘energies’ discovered by science, he adds one which is required for this ‘complexification’ to occur. He maps this underlying energy into three different ‘vectors’.

First, he notes a component of this energy by which the granules of the ‘stuff of the universe’, even in their undifferentiated state at the ‘Big Bang’, have the potential of connecting with each other to form new granules. Science is still discovering the ‘laws’ which govern how these interconnections take place, and as its scope of the universe expands, these laws expand with it.

Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” was one of the first attempts to articulate these laws. Later, Einstein’s expansion of them into the realm or ‘relativity’ recognized Newton’s laws as ‘subsets’ of a much larger realm of mathematics. Today, science struggles with how Einstein’s relativistic perspectives can be seen to square with the new insights enabled by quantum theory.

Secondly, he notes that thus far, none of these laws delve into the scientifically uncovered phenomena of complexification. While the Standard Model of Physics addresses the forces by which subatomic particles come together to effect the configurations seen in atoms, it does not address the source of the atom’s increased potential for future reconfiguration into more complex entities.

Science’s ability to understand the energies at work in the assembly of components from subcomponents increases daily. Since it does not acknowledge that this assembly is accompanied by the potential for increased complexity, this force that Teilhard recognizes has been simply, up until now, ‘off the table’. As a result, the absence of the most important process in the universe, that of complexification, renders the Standard Model of physics as ‘incomplete’. Without it, the universe would have remained at its initial simple state.

This potential has only recently begun to creep back onto the table with the new approach seen in ‘Information Theory’. This new branch of inquiry sees the ‘information’ contained in a particle of matter as the ‘instructions’ which define the potential of the particle to connect with other particles of the same order to result in a new particle (such as protons, neutrons and electrons uniting to become atoms). Paul Davies in his book, “The 5th Miracle”, suggests the analogy of such information as the ‘software’ contained in the ‘hardware’ of matter. In our example, the three components of the atom utilize this ‘software’ as ‘instructions’ for their unification from discrete components into unified products.

Davies is referring to the fact that the enriched ‘information’ or ‘software’ of such new ‘product’ of evolution endows the new product with increased potential for not only new structure and functionality, but for the eventual production of even more complex products (such as atoms grouping into molecules). Thus, not only does the structure of the product become more complex, but so does its information.

Teilhard addresses this novel phenomenon, this new and enriched component of ‘information’ by which such union not only produces an ‘offspring’, but one whose complexity has been increased from that of its ‘parent’. In terms of Information Theory, the ‘complexity quotient’ of this new product can be seen in the increase in information resulting from the connections of the precedent components, such as the increased ‘information’ seen in the DNA molecule resulting from the combining of simpler molecules of amino acids.

Thirdly Teilhard identifies the characteristic of this higher degree of information by which the new components are not only more complex themselves, but more capable of future unifications which result in still further increases in complexity. In the example above, the DNA molecule is not only more complex in structure than its amino acid components, but this increased complexity also allows it an unprecedented power: to guide the RNA molecule in the production of proteins which provide energy to, and define the functionality of, future products: ‘cells’. DNA therefore can be seen as an example of matter’s capability of ‘instructing itself to make itself’, a stunning step up the ladder of increasing complexity and evidence of the presence of Teilhard’s ‘energy of evolution’.

Thus, Teilhard recognizes a unique type of energy which powers this creative enterprise as the universe evolves: unification, complexification, and increased potential for further unification. With the addition of this energy to the Standard Model of physics, the universe’s undoubted evolutionary increase in complexity becomes clearer.

Next Week

This week we moved from seeing how Teilhard’s seven attributes of increasing complexity can be observed as active in the human species, to addressing the unique ‘energy of complexification’ by which it occurs. We also saw that, although it has been ‘ground ruled’ from the ‘lens of physics’, Teilhard’s addition permits science to expand their field of view to address the entire universe.

Next week we will look a little more closely at how Teilhard’s recognition of the ‘energy of complexification’ can be distinguished among the clutter of science’s ‘energy of matter’.

May 19, 2022 – How Are Teilhard’s Facets of Complexity Active in Human Evolution?

Leave a reply

How does Teilhard understand ‘complexity’ as underlying human evolution?

Today’s Post

Last week we took a closer look at how, through the ‘lens of evolution’, Teilhard’s ‘complexification’ can be seen to continue in the third of his three stages of universal evolution, at least on this planet (matter, life and thought). Following Richard Dawkins’ recognition of human culture as the ‘vehicle’ of the transmission of ‘memes’ (“units of cultural imitation and replication”, AKA, ‘ideas’), human evolution can be expanded from the simple Darwinist “survival of the fittest” into a new and unique ‘re-instantiation’ of the cosmic principles which have guided ‘the stuff of the universe’ through its first fourteen billion years of evolution via ‘complexification’.

This week we will apply Teilhard’s seven facets of this ‘complexification’ to what we can see happening as the universe continues its evolution in the human species.

A Common Metric

In Richard Dawkins’ identification of a ‘causality’ for the third phase of evolution, ‘thought’, he addresses the question raised last week:

“What remains in charting the rise of ‘complexity’ through the evolution of the universe is to understand how such a thing as ‘human consciousness’ can be seen as a new ‘vehicle’ which can continue the fourteen billion rise of evolution into the future. How can this ‘new vehicle’ be understood?”

And in providing insight into evolution as it continues into this third phase of ‘thought’, Teilhard’s concept of ‘complexification’ as the common denominator in universal evolution is complete (at least thus far on this planet).

For those who know how to look, Teilhard’s seven characteristics of universal complexity can be seen as alive and well in the continuing drama of human evolution.

An underlying characteristic of nearly every cultural and social mode of organization can be seen in the unleashing of fanciful creations. The ‘Natural Selection’ of biology, as Dawkins sees it, manifests itself in a new form as the human species continually explores new ways to not only maintain itself, but to increase its success in furthering itself.
Both society and human activity, when fostered, burst forward in waves of spontaneity. Those branches of human organization which foster the ability of its constituents to exercise their potential for ‘spontaneity’ are always rewarded with increased potential for action.
The expansion of the human species across the globe is unprecedented. And the unrest that accompanies the waves of human expansion as they collide are offset by the emergence of new insights on coexistence.
Human social experiments are exceedingly improbable. These new insights are not always obvious, and do not occur spontaneously. The idea of democracy, for example, required a long history which culminated in placing a risky trust in government in the hands of collective wisdom.
Humans find ever new and innovative ways to organize, tap into, and assure the continuation of their collective wisdom. The social norms and civic mandates (laws) that emerge over time are constantly evolving.
Governments, at least in the West, have developed more supple and better centered organization and use of their resources. Those governments that put a priority on in the importance of the human person (as seen in the fostering of their spontaneity) and on the necessity for ensuring their relationships have evolved cultural norms which have led to a measurable global increase in human welfare. We will later address the many ways that this increase can be seen, as well as its dependence on the values of human personal freedom and insurance of human relationships.
Historically, each new cycle has been accompanied by an onset of a new type of conscious activity and determination. In the rise and fall of great societies in the spiral of humanity as it evolves, a continuation of insights can be traced.

We will see later how the wheat of human evolution can be distinguished among the many elements of chaff when we later address specific objectively-derived examples of these seven characteristics.

Next Week

This week we not only saw how Teilhard’s seven characteristics of complexity are active in human evolution, but how the human person and his culture serve as the ‘vehicle’ for Dawkins’ ‘meme’ as it replaces the cell as the essential building block of evolution

Next week we will look a little more closely at how this phenomenon of ‘complexification’ can be seen as the essential activity active in the universe as it unfolds into the state that can be seen today.

May 12, 2022 – How Does Teilhard’s Concept of Complexity Show up in Human Evolution?

Leave a reply

How does universal evolution continue in human life?

Today’s Post

For the past several weeks we have been exploring Teilhard’s ‘lens of evolution’ as a tool which would help us see the whole of existence in a single context so that we could better understand ourselves and how we fit in. Starting with Teilhard’s unique insights into evolution itself, we have gone on to see how he saw the phenomenon of ‘increasing complexity’ as the underlying characteristic of this evolution, and how he quantifies it.

In the last two weeks we saw how Teilhard’s seven characteristics of ‘complexification’ can be seen in each stage of the evolution of the universe, leading to the essential characteristic of ‘consciousness’. As a necessary step to understanding evolution holistically, we saw how these characteristics appear in each new step as the universe evolves to each new stage.

This week we will return to the second, ‘biological’, stage of universal evolution (at least on this planet) to take a closer look at what can be seen in the action of ‘biological complexification’ as it increases the ‘coefficient of consciousness’ to that level which distinguishes the human from its ancestors.

Complexity in Living Things

After addressing the nine billion or so years during which the basic elements of the cosmos continuously structured and restructured themselves into the complex architecture of DNA, in the ‘Phenomenon’ Teilhard turns his insights into the ‘complexification’ of living matter as it increases from the cell to the human.

“The stages of this still unfinished march of nature (can be seen in the) unification or synthesis of the ever-increasing products of living reproduction:

– At the bottom, we find the simple aggregate, as in bacteria and the lower fungi

– One stage higher comes the colony of attached cells, not yet centralized, though distinct specialization has begun, as with the higher vegetable forms and the bryozoa,

-Higher still is the metazoan cell of cells, in which by a prodigious critical transformation and autonomous center is established (as though by excessive shrinking) over the organized group of living particles.

– And still further on, to round off the list, at the present limit of our experience and of life’s experiments, comes society- that mysterious association of free metazoans in which (with varying success) the formation of hyper-complex units by ‘mega synthesis’ seems to being attempted.

This last and highest form of aggregation is the self-organizing effort of matter culminating perhaps in society as capable of self-reflection.”

Evolution: A Rose By Any Other Name…

Most evolutionary scientists ignore the ongoing development of human society, or at least avoid the term ‘evolution’ in dealing with it. This same curious avoidance can be seen in the ‘Standard Model’ of Physics: sciences’ understanding of the development of matter during the ‘pre life’ era.

While the Standard Model maps the phenomenon of universal ‘becoming’, the reference to it as ‘evolution’ seems to be strongly avoided. To most biologists, the term “evolution” must be restricted to living things, and even then, only to their ‘morphology’, the physio-chemical combinations of cells that produce various classes of life.

To some extent, the emerging science of ‘molecular biology’, even though it falls under the first evolutionary stage of evolution (‘matter’), falls close to the second category (life). This is due to the ability of very complex (but so far still inanimate) molecules to self-organize and replicate. The existence of viruses, non-cellular but also containing DNA, also falls into the category of ‘inanimate matter’ but one capable of evolving via Natural Selection. However, the perspective taken by most biologists is that all other process by which pre-living things ‘become’ fall outside of the label of ‘evolution’.

That aside, the question of whether, and if so how, evolution continues in the third stage (‘thought’) remains. Human societies are without the DNA seemingly required by Natural Selection, so how can their development be considered as ‘evolution’?

It seems clear that to the extent that human evolution occurs, it does so in ways quite differently from Darwin’s process of Natural Selection. The state of human society, and the personal acumen both required for and fostered by it, have both evolved today from a degree understood just a few hundred years ago. But by what process has this happened? If humans evolve via their society, what is the human counterpart of the ‘genes’ required by Natural Selection?

The evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, addressed this question in his book, “The Selfish Gene”, by proposing that human society evolves via “transmission of units of cultural imitation and replication”. His name for the ‘unit of transmission’ was ‘meme’. The lack of a consistent, rigorous, and precise understanding of what typically makes up a ‘meme’ makes treatment by science somewhat problematic, but he recognizes that the concept is sufficient to identify a third aspect of evolution: how it can be seen to proceed ‘non-morphologically’ in the human species. As he distinguishes it from Darwinist evolution, human culture

“… “evolves in historical time in a way that looks like highly speeded up genetic evolution. but has nothing to do with genetic evolution.”

Thus, with ‘memitic evolution’, we are provided an example of the last of the three phases of the process of evolution in the cosmos:

via the increasing organization of matter in the first, pre-life stage (‘matter’)
followed by the process of Natural Selection through genetic changes in biologic entities during the second stage (‘life’)
and finally, via the transmission of ideas in human culture in a third stage (‘thought’)

Science, in its ‘Standard Model’ shows a strong belief in the underlying unity of the cosmos but thus far has failed to quantify it as it broadens its view to these three distinct manifestations of universal evolution.

Are these, as many claim, three different processes, or can they be somehow seen, as Teilhard suggests, as three manifestations of a common, underlying thread?

Next Week

This week we took a closer look at what can be seen in the second stage of universal evolution, ‘life’, as the ‘coefficient of consciousness’ increases to that level which distinguishes the human from its ancestors.

Next week we will apply Teilhard’s seven levels of ‘complexification’ to this third phase of evolution, ‘thought’.

April 28, 2022 – How Does Teilhard Articulate Complexity?

Leave a reply

How does complexity manifest itself in the evolution of the universe?

Today’s Post

Last week we saw Teilhard’s first step toward understanding evolution as recognizing that its common denominator in every phase of the unfolding of the universe is ‘increase in complexity’. We saw how he sees the appearance of the cell as a specific instance of a ‘step of complexification’. As he put it, the cell is just one example of

“… the stuff of the universe reappearing once again with all its characteristics- only this time it has reached a higher rung of complexity”.

Given that the cell illustrates one step of the billions needed to grow the universe to its current complex state over fourteen billion years, how can the characteristics of complexity be seen as active in each of the steps?

This week we will review two of seven of Teilhard’s insights into how complexity can be objectively observed as a general phenomenon present in every stage of evolution.

The Cell as a Specific Example of Universal Complexification

In the ‘Phenomenon’, Teilhard lists seven characteristics of the cell that can be seen as ‘new’ when compared to its molecular ancestor.

– Thrust forward in spontaneity

– Luxuriant unleashing of fanciful creations

– Unbridled expansion

– Leap into the improbable

– Essentially new type of corpuscular grouping

– More supple and better centered organization of an unlimited number of substances

– Internal onset of a new type of conscious activity and determination

Having recognized these characteristics, we can go on to see how each can be seen as active in each and every step of universal evolution from the quark to the human person.

Thrust forward in spontaneity

The cell clearly shows an increase in spontaneity when compared to the molecular ‘replication’ process from which it emerged. With its greater potential for connectivity, the cell is now able to carry the simple molecular activity of ‘replication’ into the biological activity of ‘ramification’.

It requires the repackaging of DNA into a configuration with more potential for branching into ever more complex forms. As Richard Dawkins explains, DNA itself cannot evolve. It can only provide instructions to RNA to manufacture proteins. However, these ‘instructions’ are susceptible to occasional failures, such as seen in tissue growths induced by x-rays. The cell provides a vehicle for the modified DNA to prove its worth as it is exposed to the environment by the increased mobility of the cell.

Each new step of evolution, from the formation of atoms from electrons, proteins, and neutrons to the formation of brains from neurons, is accompanied by such an increase of functionality as well as potential for more complexity. A simple metric which illustrates this phenomenon can be seen in the increasing number of ‘new’ products that result from groupings of their fewer number of precedents. Examples include the hundred eighty types of atoms that result from groupings of their four constituent components, or the thousands of types of molecules that result from these hundred eighty atoms. The hundred million neurons in the human brain also provides quantification of this phenomenon.

Luxuriant unleashing of fanciful creations

In capitalizing on the ‘replication’ potential of DNA, the cell offers another example of complexification. Teilhard uses the word ‘fanciful’ to denote the ‘branching’ (or ‘ramification’) of biological products into ever more complex arrangements. With the increased complexity of the cell, the environment becomes radically more open to its activity. Many attempts have been made to show the staggering proliferation of biological configurations (the ‘tree of life’) that science believes to have emerged from the one or two original cellular prototypes that emerged some three or so billion years ago on this planet. Again, this can be seen to a lesser extent in ‘pre biological’ evolution (as in fabricating proteins from amino acids) and becomes even more so with the ramification seen at the other end of the biological scale: in human culture.

Next Week

This week we began a look into how Teilhard understood the action of ‘complexification’ which is active in all stages of evolution as it unfolds in the universe.

Next week we will expand this list of ‘complexification’ actions on the way to seeing them as active in the current phase of evolution, ‘thought’.

April 21, 2022 – Complexity as the Fundamental Axis of Universal Evolution

Leave a reply

What does Teilhard see as the single underlying phenomenon in cosmic evolution?

Today’s Post

Last week we began to see how Teilhard’s insight into evolution departs significantly from that of traditional science and religion. From science, it broadens the scope of evolution from the biological era to the whole era of existence of the known universe. For religion, it adverts to a process by which the underlying agency of this evolution can be seen as active in each human person, and if acknowledged, can lead us on to, as Karen Armstrong suggests, “a greater possession of ourselves’.

But such a vision requires some sort of ‘metric’, a tangible activity which is active in all stages of the uplifting of the universe. This week we will begin to address Teilhard’s insights into such a metric.

‘Complexification’ as the Essence of Evolution

Teilhard understood the process of evolution in all stages, at all times of the universe to be captured in the increase of complexity of the elements of matter.

The term can be a little slippery. We live in a ‘complicated world’, one in which the complexity of our environment continually invades our calm even while it is adding to our comfort. Who among us does not long for ‘simpler times’? Using the term ‘complexity’ to suggest some sort of improvement in our lot over time can seem somewhat contradictory.

Teilhard uses the term rigorously, as he does with all those he uses to address his insights into the organization and processes of the universe. He simply notes that in the process of evolution

“In each particular element energy is divided into two distinct components: a tangential energy which links the element with all others of the same order (that is to say, of the same complexity and the same centricity) as itself; and a radial energy which draws it towards ever greater complexity and centricity- in other words: forwards.”

He takes note of the scientific concept of evolution that new things come from the connectivity of precedent things, but adds the missing agency: the new things can be more complex than their individual precedents. This should be obvious: if the new things remained at the same level of their precedents, the universe would not evolve. For example, if atoms remained at the elemental organization of their precedent neutrons, protons and electrons, there would be no stars, planets, molecules, cells, or brains in the universe.

He goes on to say

“In its own way, matter has obeyed from the beginning that great law .. to which we shall have to recur time and time again, the law of ‘complexification”.

Explaining Complexity

If we are to differentiate between ‘complicated’ and ‘complex’, a little more description will help. Teilhard’s definition goes well beyond the simple addition of structure, and addresses how complexification can be seen in the universe.

“In every domain, when anything exceeds a certain measurement, it suddenly changes its aspect, condition or nature. The curve doubles back, the surface contracts to a point, the solid disintegrates, the liquid boils, the germ cell divides, intuition suddenly bursts on the piled-up facts…Critical points have been reached, rungs on the ladder, involving a change of state-jumps of all sorts in the course of development. This is the only way in which science can speak of a ‘first instant’.”

In ‘The Phenomenon of Man’ he uses the cell to describe a specific example of ‘complexification’ in the evolution process. With the cell,

“We find a triumph of multiplicity originally organically contained within a minimum of space.”

As Richard Dawkins explains it in his book, “The Selfish Gene”, matter has reached a ‘rung of complexity’ seen in the complex arrangements of amino acids into such products as proteins, DNA and RNA. This arrangement of matter has itself evolved to the point that not only can its components unite in ways which increase their complexity, they can also replicate it.

Dawkins notes that the next step, that seen in the further encasing of this complex molecular machine into a ‘sheath’ of skin which encloses it and increases its sphere of activity. is not such a great step as science has thought. He would seem in agreement with Teilhard, who saw it this way:

“In this cell…what we have is really the stuff of the universe reappearing once again with all its characteristics- only this time it has reached a higher rung of complexity and thus, by the same stroke…advanced still further in interiority, ie in consciousness.”

Next Week

This week we began a look at Teilhard’s groundbreaking concept of ‘complexity’ as the underlying metric that allows the universe’s unfolding into what we are discovering today. He uses the cell as a specific example of how the increase in complexity can be unequivocally seen in the appearance of the cell.

Next week we will expand this example into a more general look at Teilhard’s ‘complexification’ process to see how occurs not only in biological evolution but in our personal and cultural evolution as well.

April 14, 2022 – What’s Different About Teilhard’s View of E volution

1 Reply

How does Teilhard see ‘evolution’ differently from traditional science and religion?

Today’s Post

Last week we saw that Teilhard considered his ‘lens of evolution’ to offer a way to clarify the reality in which we are enmeshed. The concept of ‘evolution’, however, especially as Teilhard understood it, itself needs to be clarified.

This week we will look at how his insight is quite different from traditional perspectives, and move to the integrated and wholistic perspective that Teilhard developed.

The Evolution of Evolution

Nearly all scientists and many religious thinkers (at least from the liturgical Christian expressions) recognize that the things we see around us emerged as part of a process generally referred to as ‘evolution’. Simply stated, this term refers to the assertion that all things come to be from things which preceded them. This simple assertion is the starting point for Teilhard’s insight that evolution offers a lens to understand reality:

“Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true.”

That said, there is a decidedly wide spectrum of understanding how this action of ‘coming from’ can be seen to occur. At one end of the spectrum, strongly held in the conservative religious camp, a supernatural being simply created, ‘from nothing’, everything that exists. To conform to the scientific fossil record, it all didn’t occur instantaneously but was sequentially created to give the appearance of doing so. At the other end, strongly held by the more materialist scientists, the process by which things come to be what they are is understood as governed by pure chance, combined with ‘Natural Selection’ in which those random combinations of cells which survive will engender offspring and those that don’t will not.

Another issue which separates these two poles is the question of time span. In the former, God can create what he wants in any order, beginning with the finest grains of ‘the stuff of the universe’, in as little as six thousand years. To the scientist, this ‘stuff’ must somehow get to a very high degree of organization before Natural Selection can kick in, and this requires billions of years. For example, it is necessary for evolution to first effect very complex inorganic molecules, such as amino acids, proteins and DNA before the emergence of the very first, most simple cells can begin.

The concept of evolution is so common today that it is difficult to realize just how recently it has risen in our collective consciousness. It was only a little over a hundred years ago that Darwin published his thesis on biological evolution, an evolutionary ‘blink of the eye’, and this thesis, albeit with many variations, still stands as the most accepted scientific approach to understanding the origin of living things.

Within fifty years after Darwin, however, Science began to extend its inquiry into the nature of entire cosmos. With thinkers such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, supplemented by advanced instruments and computational systems unimaginable in Darwin’s time, Science has begun to grasp the true immensity of the universe, not only in space but in time as well.

This new awareness of the seemingly infinite duration of time that it took the universe to organize into the configuration we see today also opened the question of “how did this happen?” The discipline of Physics has continued the task of expanding our understanding of this organization with its ‘Standard Model’. The Standard Model of the late twentieth century identifies the basic building blocks of matter, the order of their appearance and their energies of interaction, although with several gaps still to be filled. Many of its basic assumptions have been independently tested and verified, thus offering our best and most comprehensive understanding of matter in a universal context. Its underlying assumption is that the universe becomes what it is via the processes identified in the Standard Model; from such minute granules as quarks, through increasingly intricate components such as electrons, atoms and molecules into those which are capable of supporting the functions that we refer to as ‘living’.

Science’s monumental expansion of insight into cosmic reality, however, still possesses a gaping hole. While the evolution of living things is somewhat explained by Natural Selection, there is no underlying concept for how the elemental granules identified by the Standard Model came to be configured into complex entities, such as DNA, which are necessary for the emergence of the cell. The passage of time alone cannot alone account for the rungs of complexity mounted by the elemental ‘stuff of the universe’ as it precipitated sequentially from a featureless quantum of energy into such increasingly complex entities as electrons, atoms and molecules.

There’s a third stage of evolution to be considered in addition to the material and biological, that of ‘thought’. The theory of Natural Selection works well in explaining the evolution of living things, but less so in explaining the rise in biological complexity leading up to the human, seen in such phenomena as ‘consciousness’ and ‘culture’. Further still, the principles of biological Natural Selection would seem to apply poorly to the explanation for the subsequent evolution of the individual human person in the context of society. The phenomenon of consciousness and an understanding of how it plays out in human culture therefore continues to be at the edge of the grasp of biology. It is common for biologists to simply ignore human evolution at the level of consciousness, other than in the biological sense of random genetic mutation of human ‘morphology’. That humans continue to evolve, however, cannot be denied even if the underlying principles of their evolution remain obscure.

Thus, we can see that while the term, ‘evolution’ is quite commonly used, the actual process to which it refers is much more comprehensive than can be seen at first glance.

Next Week

This week we took a first step into seeing Teilhard’s ‘lens of evolution’ by recognizing that the term, “evolution” does not have a common meaning

Next week we will use Teilhard’s lens of evolution to see how this ‘phenomenon’ is the essential activity in the universe as it unfolds into its current state.

March 30, 2022 – Teilhard’s ‘Lens of Evolution’

Leave a reply

How does Teilhard see universal evolution as a hermeneutic for understanding reality?

Today’s Post

We have been looking at how the human person and the society in which we live can be seen by Teilhard in a distinctively optimistic light. We have also seen that Johan Norberg’s statistics shine this light even brighter but, how there seems to be a headwind of pessimism that inhibits a general positive view of the direction of evolution in the human species. We also saw how Steven Pinker identifies several examples how this headwind is evident in contemporary society today.

These ‘headwinds of pessimism’ that we addressed in the past two weeks are indeed real and impossible to ignore. They did not appear recently, but depend on the existence of a dystopia that has been prevalent in human society since its beginnings, and will continue as long as a narrow perspective of human existence persists.

Teilhard proposes a widening of this perspective as an antidote to such headwinds. If, he suggests, we can see ourselves in a context of reality which is evolving in the direction of ‘fuller being’, we will be able to

“..spread our sails in the right way to the winds of the earth and always find ourselves borne by a current towards the open seas.”

This “spreading of sails” involves the recognition of a reliable causality in each of us that is always at work in our lives to bring us to an ever-fuller degree of ‘being’. He asserts that such recognition will awaken us to our potential as human persons, and provide the stimulus for our personal and collective fullness. As he put it (and please forgive my overuse of this quote):

“.. I doubt that whether there is a more decisive moment for a thinking being than when the scales fall from his eyes and he discovers that the is not an isolated unit lost in the cosmic solitudes and realizes that a universal will to live converges and is hominized in him.”

In saying this, he is stating a belief that when we, individually and collectively, see ourselves as the current manifestation of the same energy that has breathed the universe into existence over the past fourteen billion years, the emerging confidence in this energy within us will enable us to overcome all obstacles to becoming more what it is possible for us to be. As he puts it in more poetic terms, the insight that the universe is ‘on our side’ allows us to perceive ourselves as being held in God’s hands.

“..the one which holds us so firmly that it is merged, in us, with the sources of life, and the other whose embrace is so wide that, at its slightest pressure, all the spheres of the universe respond harmoniously together.”

To experience one’s self as being held in the hands of God can truly count as a significantly ‘decisive moment’. A person who feels that, as Maurice Blondel put it,

“The ground of being is on our side”

will experience life quite differently than one who feels adrift.

But the act of experiencing is somewhat dependent upon understanding. Considering the way that understanding contributes to belief, and hence the importance of such understanding, Teilhard develops a way of seeing that can contribute to this skill of sailing. This mode of seeing is based on his grasp of all reality as it exists in a flux of a universal ‘becoming’. It is his ‘lens of evolution’.

Next Week

This week we introduced Teilhard’s fundamental approach to ‘making sense’ of reality and our role in it: seeing reality through the ‘lens of evolution. From this perspective, he believed that the oft confusing aspects of reality, expressed in the many ‘dualities’ of Science, Philosophy and Religion, can be used as a tool for knitting their many seemingly contradictory cosmic stories into a single fabric.

Next week we will begin to see how Teilhard’s view of evolution was unique in many ways, but how his expanded view enabled the whole of the universe, including the human person, to be understood holistically and therefore lead to a clearer understanding of our part in it.