How does Teilhard’s ‘lens’ help us put human evolution into the context of universal evolution?

This Week

   Over the past few weeks, we have looked at human history from Teilhard’s four ‘levels’ of human evolution:  The ‘monad’, the ‘dyad’, the ‘psychism’, and finally, the ‘noosphere’.  At each of these levels the march of universal evolution can be seen to continue in the ‘complexification’ of the human person and society.

This week, we will step back and review this drama of universal unfolding from a broader perspective.

The Continuity Beneath the Discontinuity

While Teilhard recognizes an ‘axis of evolution’ in the rise of universal ‘complexity’’, he also notes that this rise is highly discontinuous.  He cites the many ‘jumps’ in evolution that science has uncovered, such as the sudden appearance of mass, the new ability of molecules to fabricate themselves, the astounding appearance of the cell, and the unprecedented arrival of the human person, marked by a consciousness that is aware of itself.   These ‘jumps’ would seem to contradict the idea of a steady undercurrent in which such discontinuities are simply brief surface eddies.

While Teilhard acknowledges the occurrence of discontinuity in evolution, he also shows how an underlying fundamental activity flows beneath these discontinues, a continuous current which powers the ‘axis of evolution’.  He notes that at each such step, the evolved element of ‘the stuff of the universe’ (atoms, molecules, cells, neurons, humans) rises not only in its complexity, but in its uniqueness.  Each new product of evolution, while initially retaining its similarity to its parent, eventually becomes more distinct and sharply distinguishable from the other products. This applies to evolution at every phase, from the Big Bang to the present.

This characteristic is very important to the recognition that human evolution occurs in the same way that all such steps have occurred in universal evolution.

Thus, an important step in seeing human evolution through Teilhard’s ‘lens’ is to recognize that human life is powered by a cosmic agent by which, to the extent that we can recognize and cooperate with it, we will be lifted toward ‘fuller being’.  In Teilhard’s words:

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

   Understanding this essential current in human life helps us to recognize how we fit naturally and fundamentally into the fourteen-billion-year process which has raised the universe, as Richard Dawkins observes, “into its present complex state”.   So, if we are to understand ourselves as Teilhard suggests, we need the ‘scales to fall from our eyes’ so that we can not only take in the breadth and scope of the universe, but recognize that we fit into it naturally, as a child to a loving parent.

However, our history has shown that such a ‘descaling’ exercise is difficult to undertake.  How can a look into human history show any movement toward it?

Next Week

This week we began a look at human history in which Teilhard’s assertion that seeing ourselves through his ‘evolutionary lens’ will aid us in a ‘descaling’ exercise by which we uncover the rise of evolutionary evolution in both our lives and that of our species.

Next week we will refocus our look at human evolution through Teilhard’s ‘lens’.

How do Teilhard’s projections for the future help us to gain a correct perspective on our lot today?

This Week

Today I’m departing from Teilhard’s insights into the phenomenon of universal evolution to focus on one a little closer to home.  How can we read today’s events in the context of his universal perspective?  In short, is there any way that we can see the world today as ‘the best time to be alive”?  We will see next month a long list of statistics from Johan Norberg (“Progress”) which substantiate Teilhard’s optimism (and today’s data), but after reading Nicholas Kristoff’s article in today’s New York Times, I’m jumping the gun in presenting Norberg’s thoughts on this subject.

Kristoff begins his article with a sentiment that I regularly receive from readers of this blog.  As he puts it, such optimism

“..sees it as disrespectful of all the tragedies around us.”

   He lists such tragedies as:

• The suffering of children in Gaza
• The atrocities in Sudan
• The wildfires in Los Angeles

And finally, one particularly tragic to a liberal such as himself:

• An unstable threat to Democracy moving into the White House

So how to put such grim news in perspective?   He begins with what he considers the worse thing that can happen: “the loss of a child”.  He follows this with an unexpected statistic that seems highly orthogonal to conventional wisdom.

“2024 seems to have been the year in which the smallest percentage of children died since the dawn of humanity.”

   As we will see later from Norberg in more detail, Kristof offers a timeline:

150 years ago: over 50% of global newborns died

70 years ago: 25% of global newborns died

Today: 3.8% of global newborns died (All United Nations statistics)

   Another way to look at this is that since 2000, eighty million children’s lives have been saved.

A second way to put today’s news in Kristoff’s perspective: reduction in global extreme poverty.  We will look at Norberg’s more extensive data later, but Kristoff points out that last year this figure has plummeted to 8.5%.  Another way of looking at this is

“Every day over the past couple of years, roughly 30,000 people moved out of extreme poverty.”

Still another perspective is in the areas of education and literacy, “the greatest forces empowering human beings, yet when I was  a child, the majority of human beings had been  illiterate.”  He sees a distinct contrast in today’s literacy rate.  “Now we’re approaching 90% literacy worldwide, and the number of literate people is rising by more than 12 million people each year.  Every three seconds, a person becomes more literate”.

Summarizing a few other topics:

• • While AI is evolving rapidly, with its perceived threats, so is its applicant to new medical breakthroughs.
  • While threats to the environment continue to mount, for the first time in history paths to the decarbonization of the glove are emerging.

Kristoff suggests that we take a deep breath and make a New Year’s resolution to look at the data and recognize that

   “For all the challenges we face, there is no better time to be alive.”

   Happy New Year!

How is the noosphere an active agent in human evolution?

 This Week

Last week we saw how Teilhard and others recognize the influence of  ‘accumulated cultural wisdom’ on our evolution as humans.

This week we will look at human history to see how this ‘noosphere’ contributes to our continued evolution even as we contribute to its development.

The Noosphere in Human History

In antiquity, societies which were rising certainly contributed to their noosphere, which in turn empowered their rise.  History is rife with examples. Early on, once these early isolated bubbles of ’rise’ popped, adjacent societies had few means of continuing their fragile body of practices, ideas, and insights they had built.  It wasn’t until general modern times before the ‘fruits of the noosphere’ of a successful culture, such as those contributed by religion, could begin to take root in adjacent rising cultures.  It was not that other ‘bubbles’ did not emerge in history outside of the West, such as can be seen in the great cultures of Sumeria, Egypt, Phoenicia, and China, or that their contributions to the noosphere had less value.  But it was only in the relatively recent West that the bubbles rose less in isolation than in congregation.  By recent times, the state of the globe had reached an unprecedented level of stability in which books were no longer burned by invaders or by inquisitors, enabling the survival of insights so necessary to an ‘opening’ process.

As Lord Action saw it in his “The History of Freedom”, an early indication of this shift can be seen as Europe emerged from its ‘Dark Ages”.

“”Western Europe lay under the grasp of masters, the ablest of whom could not write their own names.  The faculty of reasoning, of accurate observation, became extinct for 500 years, and even the sciences most useful for society, medicine and geometry, fell into decay, until the teachers of the West went to school at the feet of Arabian masters.”

   In the reconquering of Spain in the 15^th century, intellectually impoverished Europe began to uncover the riches that the world of Islam had recovered from a ‘fallen’ West and continued their enrichment.  As Johan Norberg puts it

“No treasure in conquered Spain meant more for medieval Europe that all the manuscripts by Arab, Jewish, Greek, Persian and Indian authors that lined the shelves of Muslim libraries.  European scholars marveled at the breadth of the intellectual heritage and scientific findings they discovered.”

   He goes on to see this as pivotal to the eventual rise of Europe.

“This was in effect the Renaissance foot in the medieval door, since it supplied reason and empirical research with its own domain and gave latitude to curious philosophers and scientists to explore the world empirically.”

   As Norberg relates the general rise of collective wisdom seen in the evolution of European thought from the Renaissance to the arrival of the age of ‘Enlightenment’, it offers an example of not only such continuation, but of the subsequent rise of human welfare that resulted from it.

 “We humans innovate, and we imitate, rinse and repeat, until we create something special.  Enlightenment ideas in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries tore down barriers to intellectual and economic open-ness, which supercharged innovation and brought unprecedented prosperity.  In the last two hundred years, life expectancy has increased from less than thirty years to more than seventy, and extreme poverty has been reduced from around 90 percent of the world’s population to 9 percent today.”

   We will go on to later see objective and empirical evidence of this rise, but this example of ‘rise and fall’ in human history exemplifies one of the earliest effects of Teilhard’s fourth level of evolution’s convergent spiral, the ‘noosphere’.

Unlike earlier ‘rinse and repeat’ historical cycles, some manifestation of the ‘noosphere’ managed to survive from the ‘fall’ of Europe into the ‘rise’ of Islam and returned, elaborated and enriched, to Europe to precipitate the Renaissance.

Without a doubt, this was not without the resistance of dogmatists and had to survive their attacks on the now-threatening ideas first promulgated by pagans such as Aristotle.  As late as 1231, for example, Aristotle’s books were banned by Pope Gregory until they had been examined and ‘purged of errors’.

Even with this, books, and more importantly their seemingly seditious ideas, survived as the noosphere became more robust as the overall rise of social order fermented in the West began to spill over across the face of the planet.

Thus, in Teilhard’s concept of the ‘noosphere’, we can see an insight later elaborated by Richard Dawkins’ concept of ‘cultural evolution’ and substantiated by Johan Norberg’s statistics.  Teilhard’s ‘noosphere’ is exactly the ‘vehicle’ that Dawkins proposed as the ‘transporter’ of human ‘memes’ which carry us to the future.  Norberg’s statistics offer copious examples of how it is doing so today.

Next Week

This week we saw examples of how Teilhard’s ‘noosphere’ serves as the new ‘vehicle’ for expanding universal evolution into the milieu of human life.

Next week we will refocus our look at evolution through Teilhard’s ‘lens’.

How can the ‘noosphere’ be seen to play a role in human evolution?

This Week

Last week we introduced Teilhard’s fourth ‘level’ of human evolution in his concept of the ‘noosphere’, which acts not only as the retention of evolutionary ‘information’, but as an agency in its own right which acts to stimulate our personal and collective evolution.

This week we will look more closely at how this ontological relationship between humans and their collective cultural information trove can be seen to play out in history.

Recognizing the Noosphere in Human Evolution

There are fewer compelling images in human history than that of the recurring ‘rise and fall’ of civilizations.  Johan Norberg, in his book, “Open”, goes to great lengths to show how human history proceeds by way of recurring cycles of growth and decay in human society.  In a nutshell, he outlines the ever-recurring path taken by a society which ‘rises’ as its ‘psychisms’ flourish by way of cultural norms which value the independent and unique nature of individual thought.  He then shows how such societies begin to ‘fall’ as the value of human freedom and independent thought become replaced by the seeming security provided by the structural rigidity of increased dogmatism.

He charts these recurring cycles of human society in terms of rising ‘openness’ followed by increasing ‘closedness’, and hence from ‘growth’ to ‘decay’.  In his view, once a society begins to ‘close’, the ‘safety’ of the walls that are erected to protect orthodoxy undermines the ‘vitality’ required for continued growth.  He also emphasizes how the ossified characteristic of religious dogmatism contributes to the ‘decay’ side of the curve, with particular attention to the example of Rome and the Christian Church.

In the case of Rome and Christianity, Norberg documents how Christianity’s increasing drive for orthodoxy eventually contributed to the ‘closing’ of Rome.  He does not address the other side of the coin.  In its infancy, Christianity offered a novel and highly ‘open’ approach to religion which allowed Constantine to leverage it in Rome’s expansion into the less civilized North.  As Bart Ehrman addresses in his book, “How Jesus Became God”, this approach proved highly successful in ensuring the continuation of social stability as Rome expanded into uncharted territory.

Christianity’s fundamental belief in the value of the human person and the necessity for productive relationships, while rising and falling in the endless historical cycles of growth and decay, can be seen to show a slow increase from cycle to cycle when history is seen from a wider perspective.  Glimmers of this belief can be first seen in the Axial Age, with Confucius’ assertion that humans are enhanced by their relationships, thus bringing the value of the person and his relationships to the fore for the first time.  Strands of this thread can be seen to be entwined in nearly all religious expressions but stand out most clearly in the early writings of Christianity.   These can be seen to tie the human and the ‘ground of being’ together in a totally new way with the writings of John.

While Norberg clearly documents the growth/decay cycle as it recurs through World history, he focuses on the negative influence of Christianity’s increasing dogmatism in the West.  In an unintentional reference to the ‘noosphere’, he documents the damage that structural Catholicism did to the accumulated wisdom of the West (its ‘noosphere’) with its attempt to cement its quest for orthodoxy by burning huge libraries not only found in Islam but those in the West itself.

But underneath the growth/decay cycles, he does not acknowledge the underlying phenomenon which feeds the slow increase of those cultural norms that seek to protect the value of human person by building legal structures that enhance his relationships.  As Friedrich Hyek references this incorporation in his book, “Law, Legislation and Liberty”,

“Civilization rests on the fact that we all benefit from knowledge that we do not possess”.

Thus, the more of this knowledge that is retained from cycle to cycle, the more the next cycle will build a more advanced form of society.  From this perspective, Teilhard’s third vector of his evolutionary spiral, the ‘rise’, can be seen to take place beneath the seemingly endless cycles of ‘open’ and ‘close’ that Norberg painstakingly documents.

This vector announces itself not only in the elaboration, but more significantly in the increasing robustness of the ‘noosphere’.

Next Week

This week we saw how Teilhard, and others, recognize the presence of an accumulated storehouse of accumulated cultural wisdom is at play in the advance of human evolution despite its ‘rise and fall’ cycles.

Next week we will look more closely at this phenomenon to see how it does so.

   If the transmission of cultural values is necessary for human evolution, how can Teilhard’s ‘lens’ clarify it?

This Week

Last week we saw how Teilhard’s three ‘levels’ of universal evolution (monads, dyads and psychisms) play out in human evolution, but that both he and Richard Dawkins suggest that the phenomenon of ‘culture’, a product of human interaction, plays a large part.

This week we will take a closer look at this fourth of Teilhard’s ‘levels’ as we address his concept of the ‘noosphere’.

The Agency of Human Cultural Transmission

Karen Armstrong addresses one of the new insights of the Axial Age in the recognition of Teilhard’s third level of human evolution (psychisms) that we addressed in Chapter 3.

“When they (group rituals) were perfectly executed, something magical occurred within the participants that gave them intimations of divine harmony”.

Thus, we are introduced to Teilhard’s fourth level of human evolution.  The first two levels, the monad and the dyad apply as equally to the vitality of subatomic matter as it does to that of the human person.  The appearance of the third level, Teilhard’s psychism, captured in the United States’ motto of “E pluribus unum”, can be faintly seen in the ‘higher’ mammals.  But the fourth level, which can be seen as encompassing the ‘monistic’, ‘dualistic’ and ‘psychism’ phenomena, is unique to human evolution.  At this level the result of the activities of the first three levels, the products of their respective unifications, are accumulated into what Teilhard refers to as the ‘noosphere’. While traces of these three phenomena can be found in our immediate pre-human ancestors, they take a significant leap in the human not only in the degree of complexity of the products, but more importantly in the retention and interaction of them as well.

Our prehuman ancestors relied on their evolutionary instincts, with stirrings of group ‘culture’ in the latter hominids, as guides to life.  With the human ability to accumulate objective cultural insights, as oral traditions are supplemented by written materials and formal education, the results of the progress made by monads, dyads and psychisms become increasingly available to their offspring as fuel for further development.

This ‘noosphere’ is unique to the human species but is much more than a simple bank of ideas, as valuable as this can be seen to be.  As Teilhard points out, human evolution not only contributes to the noosphere, but it also draws on it as a catalyst for further evolution.  Thus, as the vectors of human evolution can be seen at work in monads, dyads and psychisms, the recursive nature of the convergent spiral can be seen in the interaction between the human person and the noosphere.

The very nature of the noosphere leads to new methods of articulation, such as book printing and formal education.  These inventions themselves are further elaborated and intensified by expanded communication, which provides an increase in both the volume and the accessibility of information.  The amount of information not only increases but at the same time becomes more intimate and ultimately inextricably woven into the texture of human culture.

A parallel can be drawn with the increase of ‘information’ in the universe.  As Paul Davies sees it in “The 5^th Miracle”, universal evolution occurs because each grain of matter possesses some small quanta of ‘information’ by which it can be ushered into a connection with other grains.  He notes that the entity which results from such connection not only possesses the aggregated ‘information’ provided by its predecessors, but a new facet of information also emerges by which the next interconnection can result in an even more complex product.  This application of Teilhard’s convergent spiral can be seen in the appearance of complex molecules from amino acids, resulting in compounds such as DNA, which instructs RNA in the production of proteins, necessary for cellular function.

Thus, the noosphere can be understood as a latter manifestation of such subcellular activity.  It can be envisioned as the collection of all the ‘information’ that it has been possible for humans to assemble to date.  It is no longer necessary for each product of evolution itself to contain the increased information by which it has evolved.  With the noosphere, each product now can benefit from the accumulation of other products as well.

Such information as can be seen in this manifestation does not consist of just factual data, but also the insights, and therefore the meaning of the data which permits its valuable function as catalyst to future human evolutionary steps.  This information is not only accumulated but assimilated as humans become more adept at navigating their evolution.  In doing so, it is recursive as it is fed back into us as fuel for our continuing journey.

Next Week

This week we introduced the fourth level of Teilhard’s human steps of evolution, the ‘noosphere’, and explored its recursive contribution to human evolution.

Next week we will take a closer look at how the noosphere is active in human evolution.

   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.

November 28, 2024 – Mapping Teilhard’s ‘Energy of Complexity’

   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’.