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.

Teilhard’s Four 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 humanity 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 as 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.

Confucius seems to be the first to recognize this with his assertion that

“To enlarge ourselves we must enlarge others, and to enlarge others we must enlarge ourselves.”

   Karen Anderson expands this evolutive insight in her book, “The Axial Age”

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

   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”.

   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, result 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’.

   How can the energy of evolution be seen in its conscious facet?

Today’s Post

Last week we looked at the facet of evolution which leads to increased complexity in ‘the stuff of the universe’, particularly as it manifests itself in ‘matter’.

This week we will look at the more mysterious facet commonly referred to as ‘consciousness’.

The Conscious Spiral of Evolution

Having seen how evolution proceeds through ‘discontinuities’ in which new and unprecedented structures and functionalities appear at key steps in the evolution of matter, how can they be seen to continue in human evolution?  In the human person, these new functionalities not only show themselves in their greater potential for union, but also in increased facilities such as influence over (and cooperation with) the environment, mobility, vitality and potential for further increase in complexity through future unions.

While the material manifestations of evolution occur in scientifically verifiable steps, each of them represents a highly discontinuous step from the preceding plateau of evolution.  On an evolutionary time scale, the transition to each new state of complexity can be seen to occur at an increasingly rapid pace.  One aspect of this rise in the complexity of living things can be seen in the characteristic of increasing ‘consciousness’.  The increasing convergence of Teilhard’s spiral can be clearly seen as entities have now emerged that are not only conscious, but aware of their consciousness (humans).

Recognizing that Teilhard makes no sharp distinction between the ‘pre-life’ realm of evolution and that of ‘life’, we can nevertheless see how this rise of evolution through discontinuous steps spills over from one to the other and continues its rise into the ‘realm of consciousness’.

While the earliest days of humanity are only vaguely understood, it is possible to roughly track this convergence of the spiral of evolution as it is active in human history (all dates approximate):

• Very early humans began to employ ‘intuitive’ modes of thinking, based on instincts and clan relationships some 200,000 years ago. These modes are expressed in ‘religious’ terms.
• The evolution of primitive ‘laws’ of society begin to evolve from clan norms about 15,000 years ago
• During the ‘Axial Age’, concepts of person and society emerge from primitive concepts into ‘philosophies’ based on ‘right brain’ (intuitional) modes of thinking 3,500 years ago
• ‘Left brain’ (empirical) modes of thinking arise in Greece some 3,000 years ago.
• Merging of left and right ‘modes’ of neocortex functions begins with the assimilation of the so-called ‘left brain’ thinking into the legacy ‘right brained’ mode as Jewish-inspired Christianity becomes influenced by Greek thinking 2,000 years ago
• Scientific/empirical thinking emerges from the Christian right-left merge 1,400 years ago
• The ‘Enlightenment’ emerges from prevalent right-brained, post-Medievalism at the same time as establishment of the personal as locus for the juridical (Thomas Jefferson) three hundred years ago
• An abrupt increase in human welfare, as documented by Johan Norberg, “Progress”, begins one hundred fifty years ago. (We will address Norberg in more detail in detail in later posts).

In each of these ‘discontinuous bursts’ we can see Teilhard’s three ‘vectors of increasing complexity’ at work in the human species:

• Human societies are all initially similar to the groupings of the less complex prehuman hominids which preceded them
• They each in turn reflect an increase in both the vitality and potential for union from those that preceded them
• Each new step required new and more complex cultural norms for the conduct of human relationships, increasing personal differentiation, and leading to increased vitality and power to unite.

It’s also important to note the timeline: each discontinuity in the above list took less time to effect its step of increase in complexity than the preceding one.

Next Week

This week we saw how Teilhard’s ‘energy of evolution’ can be seen at work as the ‘axis of evolution’ raises the manifestation of complexity from the ‘material’ to the ‘conscious’ state as found in the human person.

Next week we will continue to track these modes as they lead to ever newer manifestations of complexity, such as the ‘awareness’ that can be seen in the human accumulation of evolutionary energy.

   How can Teilhard’s ‘lens’ be focused to see the energy which 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 his insights into the action of evolution as it raises the complexity of the universe.  Last week we looked at his recognition of the agency of this process as an ‘energy’, manifested in three fundamental ‘vectors’.

This week we will take a closer look at how these three vectors work together.

The Convergent Spiral of Universal Evolution

Teilhard uses the graphic of a convergent spiral to show how these three vectors cooperate in raising the complexity of the universe in all phases of universal evolution.  This figure shows this spiral with the three vectors mapped into it.

The Convergent Spiral of Evolution

The first vector, A, maps the ‘forward’ direction of an evolving particle, as the result of the unification among its components which result in a new particle.  In our example of the atom last week, three relatively simple components, neutrons, electrons, and protons, unite into a new, unique, and more complex component, the ‘atom’.   In this step, three simpler particles reconfigure themselves into approximately one hundred eighty new and more complex entities, as found in the atomic table.

The second vector, B, is a measure of the ‘upward’ direction: the increase in complexity which results from this unification.  As we have seen, the atom, as a unique entity, enjoys hundreds of thousands of modes of interactions with other atoms in their reconfigurations into molecules.

The third vector, C, represents the resultant component’s ’inward’ potential for further unification and ‘complexification’, and is inversely proportional to the distance from the vertical ‘axis’ of the spiral.

This third vector causes the spiral to ‘converge’.  Its ‘convergence’ suggests that as a product increases its complexity, it becomes increasingly responsive to the energy which draws it forward and upward.  Its increased ‘instruction set’ (Davies’ ‘software’) endows it with an increase in both modes of activity and modes of interaction.

Teilhard simply takes note that such a triad of energies, which he refers to as “tangential’ (A), ‘vertical’ (B) and ‘radial’ (C) can be seen to be active in every step of evolution from the ‘Big Bang’ to the human person.  As he explains in the “Phenomenon”

“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.”

   The third vertical vector, ‘upwards’ is assumed in the aspect of ‘greater complexity’.

The seven characteristics of complexity which he identifies are manifestations of the many ways in which this complexity can be seen to increase.  The three ‘vectors’ identify the modes of energy by which they do so.

A very simple example of this tri-vectored evolutionary activity can be seen in the Standard Model of Physics.  We have seen how electrons, protons, and neutrons can unite to become atoms, which are clearly more complex, and therefore higher on Teilhard’s axis than their constituents.  The few (three) types of ‘the stuff of the universe’ represented by electrons, protons and neutrons become the many (approximately 180) types found in atoms, reflecting the increase in possible configurations of atomic connections over those of their few subatomic components.  The increased complexity of atoms can be seen not only in their increased structural complexity, but more importantly in their increased potential for future connectivity (‘information’).

Further, this potential in turn enables the emergence of a still larger set of products which are not only more complex but whose potential for increased interconnection is increased: molecules. Thus, three subatomic particles become hundreds of atoms resulting in hundreds of thousands of molecules.

In such successive ‘trips around the spiral’ we can see the incredibly simple components of electron, proton and neutron eventually reorganizing into atoms, then into an infinitude of molecules which reorganize themselves into even higher levels of complexity.  An example of the result of such ‘complexification’ can be seen in the DNA molecule, the main building block of the even more complex cell.

The cell, without doubt, presents an evolutionary component astronomically more complex than its critical DNA molecule.  DNA itself, even by today’s standards, offers an example of complexity which science is still in the process of understanding.

How can the human person, itself yet another bewildering product of evolution, be seen by this same ‘lens?

Next Week

This week we saw how Teilhard fits his insight of an ‘energy of evolution’ into three components which recur throughout the evolution of the universe, playing the same roles with different but ever more complex modes of causality.

Next week we will continue to track these modes as they lead to ever newer manifestations of complexity, such as can be found in the ‘consciousness’ of the human person.

   What causes complexity to increase in evolution?

Today’s Post

For the past several weeks we have been employing Teilhard’s ‘lens of evolution’ to see how he uses it to examine the process of increased complexity which is 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

To get a better look at how the phenomenon of complexity is active in the human species, we need to first understand how it is active in the universe.  Since, as Teilhard asserts, the human is simply the latest product of evolution (at least on this planet), the roots of humanity must be in some way common with the roots of everything.

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 which emerge in quantum theory.

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

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 such a process, the universe would have remained at its initial undifferentiated 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 ‘products’ 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 a new ‘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, one 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 measures 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 its 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’.

   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 can 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 are active 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: science’s 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 stage (‘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 processes 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 the Darwinian 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?  How can Teilhard’s seven levels of ‘complexification’ be applied to this third phase of evolution, ‘thought’?

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’.

  How are his aspects of ‘complexification’ active in the evolution of consciousness?

Today’s Post

Last week we began to see how Teilhard articulates his ‘metric of complexification’ into discrete facets which can be seen in each stage of evolution as it unfolds in the universe.  We began by seeing how this upward force can be seen in such things as a ‘thrust forward in spontaneity’ and a ‘luxuriant unleashing of fanciful creations’ that can be seen as products of evolution unfold from one stage to the next in each step of evolution.

This week we will address Teilhard’s other five facets that can be observed in this process:

• unbridled expansion
• a 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

With this last characteristic of ‘complexification’ we can begin to see how increase in complexity leads to the emergence of ‘consciousness’, and hence to the threshold of the evolutionary phase of ‘thought’.

Teilhard’s Facets of ‘Complexification’, Continued

Unbridled expansion

As can be seen in the increasing numbers associated with stages of evolution in the first metric mentioned last week, ‘spontaneity’, there seems to be no upper limit to the potential of organization of biological products of evolution.  While the physical nature of this planet surely imposes such a limit, the process of evolution thus far seems unaware of it.

With the explosion of human ideas, quantified in the form of the zigabytes of data on the internet, there seems to be no upper limit.

Leap into the improbable

While clearly anachronistic, how could one stand at the universal stage of pre-atomic dispersal of matter at the birth of the universe, made up of particles no more complex than electrons, and predict that these bits of ‘the stuff of the universe’ would eventually self-assemble into ever more complex arrangements with ever increasing potential for further growth?  Such a prediction would seem even more improbable as evolution continues into the realm of DNA molecules instructing RNA in the fabrication of proteins that would specify how cells would develop their amazing range of functionality.  Seen thusly, not only is the future ever more ‘fanciful’ but seems also increasingly ‘improbable’.

Essentially new type of corpuscular grouping

All this new functional complexity by necessity comes layered upon structural complexity.  The increase in the atom’s functional potential to arrange themselves into molecules, for example, is clearly accompanied by an increase in structure.  The groupings of proteins seen in the intricate windings of DNA could not have achieved the potential eventually realized in the cell without finding a way to enclose themselves into self-contained, skin-enclosed and ‘centered’ configurations.

Teilhard mentions many times that matter is the enclosure for the agency of increased complexity.  As we will see later, this simple but undeniable observation is essential to understanding such slippery subjects as ‘consciousness’ and ‘spirituality’.

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

Again, in Teilhard’s example of the cell, we can see yet another characteristic of ‘complexification’.  In the cell,

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

   For the molecule, already achieving an unprecedented level of complexity with its spiral of interconnected amino acids which find ways to replicate themselves, we can see in the cell a ‘packaging’ in which these spirals can fold in upon themselves and form a ‘vehicle’ which is now able to not only replicate, but to ramify and therefore explore all available avenues for further increases in complexity.  The complexity of this ‘packaging’ also provides something not found in the precedent molecule: a center.   And, as can be seen in the study of biological evolution, those products that are more ‘centered’ are more ‘supple’ and hence evolve their ‘complexity’ more quickly.

Internal onset of a new type of conscious activity and determination

This last of Teilhard’s quantifications of ‘complexity’ opens the door to addressing the slippery concept of ‘consciousness’.  Much of science has addressed it, from psychology to neurology, without coming to a consensus on either its ontology or its mechanisms.

Teilhard correctly recognizes that the locus of consciousness in is better situated within the phenomenon of complexity.  Simply stated: “the more complex a product of evolution is, the more consciousness it contains”.  From his perspective, ‘consciousness’ does not appear only in the ‘higher’ orders of living things, such as brain-centered animals, but is present to some degree in each element of matter everywhere in the cosmos.  That it only manifests itself to the eyes of science in its more advanced form is a limitation of the instruments we use to detect it and not evidence of absence.

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

Next Week

This week we looked at the remaining five of Teilhard’s facets of ‘complexification’ as they can be seen to be active in the process of evolution as it continues in the cosmos.  In the fifth facet we begin to see how the phenomenon of consciousness is not ‘layered onto’ an inanimate universe but instead rises slowly as it unfolds through all its stages.

Next week we will look at this phenomenon as it breaks through into the third of Teilhard’s evolutionary phases, “thought”.

   How does Teilhard’s ‘lens’ show how complexity manifests itself in the evolution of the universe?

Today’s Post

Last week we saw Teilhard’s first step toward understanding evolution as the recognition 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 multitudes 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 predecessor.

– 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 one of these can be seen as active in 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 complex molecular evolutionary products (DNA, RNA, proteins) 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’.

This step 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 electrons to atoms to molecules to proteins, and cells to neutrons to brains, 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 many 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 which leads to ever more complex arrangements. The increased complexity of the cell endows it with the ability to more fully exploit its environment.  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’.

   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’, evidence for 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 proposes such a succinct and universal metric in his suggestion that the process of evolution in all stages and at all times of the universe can be seen in the increase of complexity of the elements of matter over time.

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 which he uses to address his insights into the organization and processes of the universe.  He simply notes that when addressing the process of evolution we can see that

“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 in the way that science has discovered.  For example, if atoms remained at the elemental organization of their component 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 to increase as the universe evolves.

“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 characteristic that quantifies the universe’s unfolding into what we see today.  He uses the cell as a specific example of how the increase in complexity can be unequivocally seen in a critical step along the way.

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.