NON-DUAL EVOLUTION - AN INTEGRAL WORLDVIEW
José Díez Faixat
Subject: This book includes in the first chapter the essay Beyond Darwin in which a hidden spiral pattern is revealed in the evolutionary process. The next two chapters focus on the spiritual and philosophical implications that emerge from this research, drawing an integral worldview that is clearly in tune with the great non-dual traditions of wisdom. Perhaps, in the end, we can discover experientially that reality, our own reality, is much more fascinating than we could ever have imagined.
THE HIDDEN RHYTHM OF EVOLUTION
PIERRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN
Abstract
This article surprisingly reveals the existence
of a very precise spiral rhythm in the emergence of the evolutionary leaps that
mark the history of the universe.
The proposed hypothesis is very simple: just as
in any musical instrument successive second harmonics (1/3 of the vibrating
unit) progressively generate new sounds; these same second harmonics generate
all the major evolutionary novelties in universal dynamics as a whole. It is
truly surprising that such a simple proposal is found to be precise and
categorical when cross-checked against historical data. Let us see.
Fitting our ‘periodic table’ of rhythms to the
date of the appearance of matter –the Big Bang– and of organic life, we see
that every single instant of the emergence of successive taxonomic degrees of
human phylogeny is marked out with utter precision: Kingdom: animal, Phylum: chordata, Class: mammal, Order: primate, Superfamily: hominoid, Family: hominid and Genus: homo! The same then occurs with
all the stages of maturation of our primitive ancestors: H. habilis, H. erectus, archaic H. sapiens, H. sapiens and H. sapiens sapiens! Once more, the
precision of our hypothesis is repeated in the successive transformations that
humanity has experienced in its more recent history: the Neolithic, Antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Modern Age and the
emergent Postmodern Age! If, as we
see it, all these stages resoundingly fit the provisions of the ‘periodic
table’ of rhythms that we have proposed, it is more than likely that our
hypothesis may also provide the key to glimpse the successive phases yet to be
deployed in the years to come in an ever-accelerating process that will
eventually lead to a moment of infinite creativity –Omega– within a couple of
centuries.
All this is, indeed, unexpected and surprising,
but is now almost certain when we verify that the same hypothesis that has
behaved with utter precision when applied to the process of global evolution,
also does so when cross-checked against the process of development of the
individual human being! Within the same time frame, with the same pattern of
folding and unfolding, and passing through the same stages, our ‘periodic
table’ of rhythms periodically marks out –step by step– the successive phases
embryologists, developmental psychologists and spiritual teachers talk of, thus
confirming the old idea of phylogenetic-ontogenetic parallelism and pointing
very specifically to an astonishing fractal and holographic universe.
It is impossible, absolutely impossible, that
all this accumulation of linked “coincidences” –in both the field of overall
development and that of individual human development– highlighted in this paper
is the product of mere chance. The conclusions that emerge from all this clash
head on with many assumptions of predominant materialistic science. Our
proposal, which provides a better fit to the presented data, points to the
non-duality of energy and consciousness, as posed by many traditions of wisdom.
From these pages, we invite all our readers to participate in this emerging
experiential and theoretical research in which dazzling prospects can be
glimpsed.
Keywords: Crisis darwinism, integral paradigm, alternative hypothesis, divergent-convergent spiral evolution, accelerated rhythm, teleology, singularity, omega point, syntropy, musical harmonics, stationary waves, quantum leaps, evolutive discontinuity, fractal time, holographic universe, big history, macrocosmos (paleontology, anthropology, history), microcosmos (embriology, psychology), ontogeny-philogeny, spectrum energy-consciousness, spiral dynamics, chakras, perennial philosophy, non-duality.
CONTENTS
A NEW UNIVERSE
THE CRISIS OF DARWINISM
ORIENTED EVOLUTION
A HARMONIOUS SOLUTION
HYPOTHESIS APPROACH
VERIFICATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS IN THE MACROCOSM
REGARDING THE CHAKRAS
REGARDING PHYLOGENETIC-ONTOGENETIC PARALLELISM
VERIFICATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS IN THE MICROCOSM
SOME FINAL OBSERVATIONS
ADDENDUM 1: COINCIDENT RESEARCH
ADDENDUM 2: FURTHER COINCIDENT RESEARCH
ADDENDUM 3: INTEGRAL EVOLUTION
ADDENDUM 4: INNER EVOLUTION
ADDENDUM 5: FURTHER COINCIDENCES (DAVID J. LEPOIRE)
ADDENDUM 6: TOROIDAL EVOLUTION
Hi
everyone!
For many years, I have been intrigued by the
fascinating creativity of the universe, in its material, biological and mental
aspects. More than forty years ago, I tried to find an answer to the surprising
evolutionary phenomenon, passionately investigating within the diverse branches
of Western science and simultaneously in the rich existential research of the
Eastern traditions of wisdom. Suddenly, unexpectedly, all that research
crystallized in January 1981 in a very precise hypothesis about the rate of the
evolution.
On collating this hypothesis –which in
principle seemed to be a simple, ingenious and daring insight that had fall out
of the blue– with empirical data from different spheres of reality
(paleontological, anthropological, historical, embryological, psychological,
etc.) and verifying its surprising validity and precision, over the years it
has been become a solid scientific (falsifiable) proposal that shows an unexpected
periodic pattern in the emergence of evolutionary novelties and that hence
clashes head-on with the still prevailing view of how the world works.
As this paper has been written single-handedly
during this time, with no other company than hundreds of books, and given the
breadth and scope of the proposal, it seems advisable to open this hypothesis
regarding “the hidden rate of evolution” to public criticism so that those
interested can carry out their own inquiries with a view to testing its validity
and, if need be, make any adjustments they deem necessary. You are cordially
invited to do so!”
To start off, to set the scene, I will outline the
general scenario within which we will develop our proposal. Things are
changing.
A new universe
During recent decades, the apparently solid view
of the mechanistic and materialistic world has started to show alarming cracks.
Approaches that a century ago were taken as rigorous and almost irrefutable are
starting to be seriously questioned.
These approaches postulated that the universe
is moved by a simple game of chance, in progressive degradation and inexorably
tending toward thermal death. In major contrast with these dark auguries, new
science views –beset with surprise– a fascinating creativity in all spheres of
reality. An unstoppable evolutionary current runs through entire history of the
cosmos, one that generates all types of novelties. The supposed universal
machine, virtually condemned to the scrapyard, is now revealed as a rare living
being animated by a self-creative permanent force. It seems that Nature starts
to reveal the secrets of its holistic inner tendency, one which drives it to
climb the ladder of organized complexity. This ascending drive has been
creating progressively differentiated, integrated and inclusive units step by
step.
Mechanistic Science harbored the reductionist
dream of explaining the functioning of complex structures starting out, exclusively,
from its most basic components. New science has forsaken that dream on
verifying repeatedly and in diverse levels of reality that the whole is greater
than the sum of the parts. The flow of evolution engenders novelties which, though
logically compatible with precedent structures, cannot however be explained by
them. There is thus a dynamic, hierarchical schema of the world in which
emerging levels are integrated with previous ones, thereby generating more
complex, inclusive organisms with increasing awareness. Elemental particles form
part of atoms, atoms part of molecules, molecules part of cells, cells part of organisms
and so on. The universe thus reveals itself as a hierarchy that extends
unlimitedly upward and downwards throughout the course of evolution.
On the other hand, each one of these levels of
universal reality is structured by an infinite reciprocal interplay among
individuals and communities. Some and many are involved like reflections in a grid
of mirrors facing one another. An individual devoid of an environment is not
possible, neither is a group without the individuals that compose it. We cannot
separate off isolated unities in these universal networks of interrelationships
and interconnections. As Quantum Physics has demonstrated, the scope of these
complex webs of relations goes beyond what is humanly conceivable, even
transcending our time and space schemata. There are no actually separated “parts”
in any level of the evolutionary scale. On the contrary, as in a holographic
plate, each “fragment” of the world is no more than a concrete expression of
the same, unique totality. The universe starts to reveal itself to the eyes of
new science as a unified field that is dynamically reflected in each and every corner
of itself.
Attempts were made to build the world upon the
solid and strong foundations of matter, but this myth has not stood up to empirical
testing. Subatomic analysis has literally taken the floor away from under our
feet. Our supposedly indestructible material basis has dissolved in pure forms,
patterns, orders and relationships in a fabric that is no longer substantial,
but purely abstract instead. We are supported by evanescent forms that vertiginously
emerge and disappear in an intangible void. Within the scientific community, it
has even been asserted that the universe is beginning to look more like a great
thought than a great machine.
The materialistic focus of classical science
also aimed to describe the world “objectively”, placing the “subject” making
the description on the sidelines. However, the emergent postmodern perspective
has once more revealed the complete ingenuity of this project. The observing
mind is inevitably part of the observed universe. There is not object without subject, no
outside without inside, no reality without consciousness. Both terms are
definitively interrelated and therefore any attempt to comprehend the
phenomenal world integrally must necessarily include both facets. The dynamics of
evolution is thus perceived as a generator of entities, not only progressively
more organized and complex in their external appearance, but also, at the same
time, of greater inner awareness. We cannot limit our vision solely to the
surface of things, because, although we try to ignore them, the depths of
lucidity will finally become patent to us over and over again.
The universe that surprisingly begins to reveal
itself before our gaze has little to do with that blind, insensitive artifact, that
mechanical and inert world in which the human being imagining it, did not even
have a place in it. The new approaches that study reality no longer consider us
aberrant creatures in a world without sense, but rather as redolent expressions
of the creative flow of totality, authentic microcosms that reflect with increasing
clarity, the infinite richness of a fascinating macrocosm.
Our research on the rhythm of evolution falls within
this new perspective of a universe that is self-creating—a generator of progressively
more complex and organized novelties,—, hierarchical —in which each new level
transcends and becomes integrated with all previous levels—, holographic —in
which each part reflects the totality—, impermanent —in a continuous dance of
creation and destruction—, lucid —capable of knowing itself—, and void —without
a basic substance that supports it.
In this new emerging outlook, our daring proposal
that a harmonious pattern that governs the rhythm of evolution exists no longer
sounds so shocking. Let us see.
The crisis of Darwinism
Nowadays science agrees that evolution is a
core feature of the universe. There is a complete consensus regarding the
dynamic and creative features of phenomenal reality in all fields of human
knowledge —astrophysics, biology, psychology, sociology, and others—.
Nevertheless, there are discrepancies in the interpretation of the facts.
Darwin’s theory of evolution was primarily
based on random mutations and the “survival of the fittest”. The “synthetic
theory” extended these formulations in the late 1930s and early 40s with the
contributions of Mendelian genetics and population-based genetics, maintaining
as explanatory basic elements the aforementioned random mutation and natural
selection. This synthetic theory enjoyed almost unanimous acceptance for two or
three decades, but gave rise to a great wave of dissent from 1970 on. The idea
that the synthetic theory is wrong is beginning to take shape for many paleontologists,
geneticists, embryologists and taxonomists, who refute the random factor as the
sole principle governing the evolutionary process. They disagree that natural
selection explains the emergence of new species. They affirm that fossil records
do not fit Darwinian gradualism and denounce that the theory does not reflect
the phenomenon of increasing complexity.
Biologists find it very difficult to understand
how a fundamentally random search among an extremely high number of
possibilities could result in the emergence of living beings with their evident
level of complexity. As we understand it today, evolution cannot be conceived as
having random variations as its sole material. Organisms vary as a whole; huge
numbers of mutations would hence be required to occur simultaneously, in the appropriate
way, when their “need” arose and with a close links among them… How could all
this be fulfilled by chance? The same could be said of the formation of any of
the complex organs, for example, the internal ear or the brain. A classic
problem has been the difficulty in explaining intermediate forms in the
development of complex adaptations, as in the case of the eyes. Darwin himself
confessed that it was absurd to imagine that the eye could have evolved by
natural selection.
Darwin’s original idea about new species
emerging gradually at the initiative of natural selection along the course of
time is currently being questioned. The simple principle of natural selection
seems inadequate to understand and predict all evolutionary processes.
Spontaneous mutations may explain variations within a certain species, but not
the subsequent variations among them.
Long before Mendel’s laws were known, many
varieties of plants and breeds of domestic animals were already being developed
by means of selective breeding. There is no reason to doubt that a similar
development of breeds and varieties may arise in Nature under the influence of
natural selection instead of artificial selection. The mechanisms of
microevolution —small evolutionary changes consisting in minor disturbances in
genetic proportions, the number of chromosomes or chromosomal abnormalities—
may be explained by the Neodarwinian theory as a function of random mutations ,
Mendelian genetics and natural selection. However, this mechanistic scheme, which
may be valid at a small scale —in a given species—, encounters countless
problems when trying to explain the origin of new species —known as
“speciation”— and even greater difficulties when faced with the emergence of genus,
families or higher taxonomic divisions. Macroevolution or typogenesis —the
evolution of these higher-order taxonomic categories— show far too pronounced differences
among divisions to have arisen from gradual transformations. The conclusion
seems to be that the laws that govern large-scale processes —such as the origin
of new types or the extinction of species— are different to those ruling the
simple processes of adaptation to the environmental. Thus, the reductionist expectations
of “macro” scale processes being immediately inferable from the “micro” scale
are fully refuted. In the words of C.H. Waddington: “one of the most
fundamental problems of the Theory of Evolution is that of understanding how
the evident discontinuities found among the main taxonomic ranks: phylum,
family, species, et cetera, have emerged”.
The growing sensation prevails that is no
longer possible to explain speciation simply by natural selection. Some have even asserted that natural
selection does not in fact have anything to do with the emergence of new
species. In recent years, the gradualist conception of evolution has been seen to
be responsible for only a small part of evolutionary change. Furthermore,
deepest changes in the biological evolution have been seen to take place in
specific moments of the history of groups, occurring in a very rapid manner and
giving rise to stable species that suffer very few subsequent variations.
Fossil records mainly consist in thick layers
of earth in which some species are evenly distributed, separated by thin
surfaces through which species suddenly change in a process of multiple
speciation. Many paleontologists think that this intermittent history shown by
fossils should not be attributed to simple gaps in the record, but that it
basically demonstrates the rhythm with which life has evolved. Therefore, many of them have started to dispute
the classical conception of the tempo of evolution. The Darwinian
version of a slow, continuous and gradual process has given way to the
interpretation characterized by discontinuous, sudden leaps and changes. There
is hence an evident renaissance of the idea of vigorous, sudden and energetic speciation,
versus calm gradation, strongly giving rise to the perception that fossil
records contain much more information than what might be imagined via natural
selection alone. This is due to the emergence of non-predictable patterns thanks
to our present knowledge about small-scale populations and processes.
In 1972, S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge published
a seminal paper in which they demonstrated that nature progresses by sudden leaps
and profound transformations and not through small adaptations. According to
the theory of punctuated equilibria, evolutionary leaps are relatively sudden
processes; speciation stops for long periods in which existing species persist
without fundamental variations and without creating new species (stasis). While
a species persists, it remains relatively invariable; its legacy of genetic
information is transmitted without major changes to the following generations. At some point, however, this stasis is suddenly
broken and an evolutionary leap forward takes place. As Gould puts it, “the
history of any one part of the earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of
long periods of boredom and short periods of terror”.
However, synthetic theory has difficulties in explaining
not only the sudden changes in species, but also the long periods of stasis. Therefore, some researchers have begun to seek
possible explanations for the sudden emergences of new species —analyzing
changes in the rhythm of embryonic processes that may produce major effects in
adult organisms— as well as the surprising stages of stasis —studying the
possibility that the genetic or biological development of organisms may permit no
more than the monitoring of certain morphological routes. In that case, once
the species has found a good solution to environmental problems, it will adhere
to it by means of numerous changes and secondary genetic disturbances, not
changing again until it has achieved a suitable stable solution for the
future.
Specialists in macroevolution make other
provocative observations about fossil records that are difficult to explain
from simple Neodarwinian postulates. For example, the fact that the simpler an
organism is, the longer its period of permanence period, or the fact that complete
diversity seems to be closer to a stationary state (or stasis), i.e. the tree
of life has stopped sprouting branches and has reached a certain equilibrium, or
the ever present puzzle that practically all of the animal phyla—types of
animals— have emerged precisely among the earliest remains of the Cambric
explosion, 530 million years ago, or the evident growth in complexity of
organisms throughout evolution.
Oriented evolution
Classical science tried to explain the novel events
of evolution as mere products of whimsical chance, happenstances that go against
the tide in an absurd universe fatally doomed to total chaos. It was said that
the emergence of life and mind was only a virtually impossible, odd anecdote in
a world of inert and inanimate material.
It is also curious how a theory such as that of
natural selection, which aims to clarify the origin of the species, offers no
explanation —as Darwin himself admitted on several occasions— for the phenomena
of the increase in complexity, which is the essential feature of evolution. According to J. Maynard Smith —one of the
main theorists of Evolutionism—: “There is nothing in Neodarwinism which
enables us to predict a long-term increase in complexity”. In other words,
natural selection does not imply any directionality in time. Moreover, observing
the overall picture of evolution, we can perceive a characteristic arrow in the
process with pristine clarity: over time, living beings have mostly proceeded from
a simple structure to a more complex one, their psyche and their autonomy
increasing in parallel to this process. Paleontological documents clearly
reveal the major currents of increasing complexity in structures and relational
functions, as well as the simultaneous advancement of the capacity of such
organisms to capture and process information from the environment. All this has
led many researchers to propose alternative or complementary theories that attempt
to explain the observed phenomena.
As previously stated, science is starting to
understand that, simultaneous to the process of growth in homogeneity and
positive entropy—chaos— perceived in the universe, the reverse phenomena occurs
with the same naturalness, i.e. the progressive increase in heterogeneity and
negative entropy. The latter is a mathematical counterpart of the concept of
information which may be considered as a new measure for order and
organization. Contrary to classic thermodynamics, which aimed to reduce the
processes of self-organization to mere accidental events, to simple
insignificant anecdotes, today’s thermodynamics of disequilibrium allows us to
understand the progressive and accelerated evolution of living beings and our
own human history as something more than mere strange accidents in cosmic evolution.
Up until the 1970s, researches tended to hold
the conception —presented in the most expressive way by Jacques Monod— that evolution
acts mainly due to causal factors. In the 1980s, however, many scientists
started to be convinced that evolution is not an accident, but a necessary
event that occurs when certain parametrical conditions are fulfilled.
Laboratory experiments and quantitative formulations confirm the non-accidental
character of the evolutionary processes. It is beginning to be evident that the
continuous deployment of the organized complexity of the universe, its intrinsic
sporadic capacity for sporadic self-organization constitutes a fundamental and profoundly
mysterious property of reality. A new and fascinating paradigm is beginning to
emerge, that of a creative universe, one that recognizes the surprisingly
innovative and progressive nature of universal dynamics. There is much talk of the
crazy organizing frenzy of matter, of the animated evolutionary ghost that
starts to appear in our worldview, of the strange self-organizing capacity of nature,
of its mysterious tendency to ascend the steps of complexity, those of the
autopoietic dynamics —self-creation— of the whole universe.
The new sciences of evolution thus perceive a
new harmonious and natural coherence throughout the creative universal process
from the mere originating instant. They deny that the random factor is the only
explicative argument of novel phenomena and they claim that the old theory does
not explain the surprising emergence of increasing complexity at all. On the
contrary, they advocate the non-accidental character of evolutionary processes
and provide numerous proofs that all dynamical systems, at different levels of
reality, develop similar creative patterns. The new approaches show how any
dynamic system far from a state of equilibrium may leave its permanent state
when some of its environmental parameters change. In these situations, systems
may spontaneously reach new states of equilibrium of greater complexity
subsequent to a chaotic and indeterminate phase. The overall course of evolution
thus looks like stairs in which horizontal steps alternate, almost without
changes, with abrupt leaps in level.
Both within theoretical or empirical works and
in hard or soft sciences, the aim is to understand the innate creative tendency
of nature; the surprising patterns of organization in which the game of chance is
channeled. We hear about: dynamic attractors, morphogenetic fields, archetypal
channels, implied orders, fractal structures —self-similar—, and also
stratified stabilities. It now seems evident that creativity cannot be reduced
to a mere random product, but rather to the holistic intervention of unified
fields that may explain both the overall totality of creative phenomena and
their quality of instantaneity. The implacable integrity of these fields would
also explain their capacity to organize diverse and independent elements in a
harmonious way by means of a unique momentum.
Our hypothesis about the rhythm of evolution
contributes novel features to this research and may also offer a line of work
full of pleasant surprises.
A harmonious solution
We were saying that the supposed solidity of matter,
upon which the world was supposedly raised, has faded away before the gaze of
New Science into pure forms and relationships within an abstract, insubstantial
fabric. Thus, the ancient dispute between several Greeks schools arises once again
in our time. While for Ionic philosophers the most important issue consisted in
discovering the corporeal substance of the world, for the Platonic and
Pythagorean schools the key was to be found in patterns and orders. The science
of today essentially moves along this second line of thought.
The most fundamental statement of the
Pythagoreans was that numbers constitute the unmovable principle of the world;
the very essence of reality. When they discovered that the proportions among
musical harmonics could be expressed in a simple and exact form, they
considered that the cosmos itself was a harmonious system of numerical
reasoning: all reality could be expressed by means of relationships among
numbers. According to the Pythagorean’s, the inherent numerical order of sounds
was directly related with the very organization of the universe. For them,
music was therefore nothing other than the expression of the inner
relationships of the cosmos. They even affirmed that all material manifestation
was the result of the concert of universal vibrations.
At the beginning of 20th century, physicists
were confused on discovering that, far from presenting itself as predicted as a
continuous flow, the energy emitted or absorbed by atoms presents itself in a
quantifiable way, in very precise packages,. For several decades, they tried to
explain this strange phenomenon by seeking a sound new mathematical theory for
the atom that would generate these quantum numbers in a natural way. The
solution arrived with the proposition of the similarity between the world of
electrons and that of musical harmonics —standing waves—, thereby happily
giving rise to the surprisingly precise wave equation as the fundamental piece
of revolutionary Quantum Physics. It thus seems that we are literally made of
music, that we are pure abstract relationships in an unsubstantial reality, the
acoustic appearance of the quantum void, the silent music and the sonorous solitude
that amazed our mystics so much.
Standing waves are known by anyone that has
played a musical instrument. The main feature of these waves is that they divide
the vibrating element –string, tube or hoop– into completely equal sections. A
guitar string, for example, cannot vibrate randomly –due to the fact that it
has fixed ends and therefore has to vibrate in such a way that its ends remain
motionless. This is what limits its possible variations and introduces whole numbers.
The string can undulate as a whole (see Fig. 1-A), in two parts (see Fig. 1-B,),
in three (see Fig. 1-C), in four, or in some other whole number of equal parts,
but it cannot vibrate, for example, in three and a half parts or in five and a
quarter.
In music theory, these successive standing
waves are called “harmonic sounds” or “harmonics”. The unlimited series of
these harmonics, originating from the “fundamental sound” of the complete
original unity, define the varying degrees of the sonorous vibrations very
precisely, i.e. the entire hierarchy of the levels of stability of the flow of music.
We thus see that both in the microscopic world
of Quantum Physics and in the macroscopic reality of musical instruments, the “energies”
—vibrations— do not occur continuously, but in a quantified way according to a
hierarchy of standing waves. At any level of reality, a vibrating element
—atoms or guitar strings— intrinsically possesses very precise potential levels
within which the flows of energy are stabilized.
We stated previously that the new science
considers the universe in a holistic way; in other words, that it perceives nature
as an integrated wholeness, as a non–fragmented, undivided overall movement. We
have also seen how the evolutionary dynamics of this unified universe
displays its novelties in a discontinuous manner; just as the deepest
transformations of evolution come about suddenly and abruptly. This generates a
progressively more complex and more inclusive hierarchy of organization
levels. We find, once again, a vibrating element —the evolving
universe— that channels its energy flow in a highly defined series of levels
of stability. Like atoms. Like musical instruments.
Both in the world of atomic physics as in the
world of music, the secret of their sudden leaps and discontinuities in sound was
revealed thanks to standing waves and musical harmonics. Could not the same occur
in the field of evolution? Does it not sound very coherent that this unified
universe that we are starting to discover generates similar creative patterns at
its different levels of organization? Does it not therefore sound appealing
that the sudden evolutionary changes in the history of the universe respond
precisely to these same standing waves that are the explanatory key of both the
subatomic and musical world? This has been the basic intuition that has given rise
to our hypothesis regarding the rhythm of evolution which we will now summarize
below.
Hypothesis approach.
A new theory has recently been posited regarding
a unique process that explains hierarchically ordered diversity without any
recourse to reductionism. This theory suggests, as a general cosmologic
principle, the concept of the “stratified stability of potential levels” as the
key to understanding the evolution of systems in disequilibrium. It basically
suggests the existence of specific levels of stability around which energy
streams gather and are organized, thereby permitting the subsequent and sudden upward
leaps toward new layers or levels of progressively greater complexity. Our
hypothesis constitutes a very precise specification in this appealing approach.
Let us examine it in greater detail.
Taking the example once again of the guitar
string, let us imagine that the guitar is tuned to C —the fundamental
sound. If we make half of its length vibrate —the first harmonic—, we will obtain
the same original note in a higher octave. If we induce the vibration in a
third of the string —the second harmonic— we will get a different note, which
in this case will be G. This means that a tonal novelty emerges with the
second harmonic. Taking the new note as a fundamental sound, we can likewise iterate
the experience as many times as we wish and we will always obtain successive
scaled sound novelties with each second harmonic. Thus, when we induce the
vibration of a third of the length of the string, a creative leap will appear
and with a third of the third, another one, and with a third of the third of
the third, another new one, and so on.
This simple fact provides the key to our
hypothesis. The proposal is very simple: considering the totality of time as a
vibratory element —see Figs. 2—, the consecutive linked second harmonics, i.e.
the successive thirds of the duration, will mark the emergence of evolutionary
novelties. In other words, the second harmonics will define the “potential
levels of stratified stability” through which nature’s creativity channels
itself or the steps in the ladder of evolution through which the energy streams
flow in their ascending process of creation of progressively more complex and
conscious organisms.
Figs. 2 show the overall process in graphic
form. If we take the entire course of time—from the “origin” to the “end”— as
the fundamental sound, we have sketched the consecutive leaps in level in both
directions: in Fig. 2-B, the section from the origin to the second node “P” of
exteriorization, called the “exit” or “outwards” section; and in Fig. 2-A, the
section from that same second node until the end —the “return” or “inwards”
section. Fig. 2-C shows the joint trajectory, the overall ladder of evolution.
Summarizing our approach, we could say that,
just like when a musical instrument emits a specific note, a wide range of its
harmonics sound simultaneously, the universe as a whole likewise has, from its
first original vibratory instant, a complete potential hierarchy of standing
waves through which its creative flows can ascend. According to our scheme, starting
out from the precise vibration that gave rise to the origin to the universe,
the universal process commenced with a vertiginous explosion of creativity and leaps
in level, gradually slowing down its rhythm on its ascending path toward a specific
layer of the spectrum —“the fundamental sound”—, and from there on starts to
progressively accelerate the rhythm of its leaps in novelty once again. And so
on along the ascending path towards an unstoppable one-time vibration bringing
infinite creativity to an end. Later on, we shall consider the profound meaning
of these surprising poles: origin and end —Alpha & Omega—, as it is
precisely there where we shall find the key to many of our questions.
Finally, in order to provide a coherent and
ordered framework for our musical proposal of evolutionary rhythms, we shall
now present another observation.
As stated earlier, if we tune a guitar string to
C, its second harmonic —1/3 of its length— will be a G. Similarly,
the second harmonic of this G will be a D. And that of this D will
be an A. If we repeat the same operation indefinitely, over and over
again, we will obtain a chain of sounds —C, G, D, A, E, B, F#, C#, G#...—, that
exactly reproduce the order of the “sharp tones”. If we consider each note in this
chain to constitute the characteristic sound of a determined “cycle”, we will
thus obtain, with each 1/3 of the duration, a completely new sound and
therefore a “leap in cycle”. Figure 3-A presents the successive fundamental
sounds with their corresponding harmonics, while Fig. 3-B shows the order in
which these sounds emerge, without taking in account the scale at which they
appear. As we can see, after every seven cycles, the same series of notes is
repeated in a higher semi-tone. We shall therefore use the term “series” to refer to each one of the subsequent groups of
seven cycles that keep on appearing, and “series leap” to refer to the transitions
between them.
Our entire hypothesis of evolutionary rhythms can
be reduced to what we have just presented. Just that. As simple as that: a
“cyclic leap” appears with each third of the duration, and after seven cyclic leaps
a “series leap” appears. It is truly amazing for such a simple scheme to
provide such adjustment good fit to the all the key steps of evolution, both in
the global macrocosm —paleontological, anthropological and historical— as in
the human microcosm —embryological and psychological. I am certain, dear
reader, that after examining the test of the hypothesis that we are about to carry
out below, you will be convinced that there is, in fact, some hidden secret and
you will be even more surprised that no one has recognized this evident,
clamorous scheduled rhythm of events. One cannot see the woods for the trees.
Get ready!
After having introduced our theoretical framework
of rhythms of “cycles” and “series”, we shall now test whether such a “periodic
table” fits the data that science presently offers.
Before starting, we would like to point out
that the graphs we shall be using are of two types: rectilinear —Fig. 4-A—, in
which you will see the evolutionary ladder corresponding to each series; and
circular —Fig. 4-B—, in which each cycle is detailed independently. This will
enable us to observe the multiple correspondences among the two. However, let us not forget that they are
simply two different ways of expressing the same data.
Each
cycle begins with the emergence of an evolutionary novelty —the
"seed"— that transcends the model of the previous cycle. This seed
begins to develop on the way to the first node of the cycle, fundamentally in
the final stretch —which covers approximately 10% of the total duration of the
cycle—, in which a first "sketch" appears. This sketch, in turn, displays
its potential on the way to the second node, fundamentally in the final section
—which also covers approximately another 10% of the total duration—, in which
the characteristic model of the cycle reaches "maturity". It is
precisely at this summit of the second node that an evolutionary novelty
emerges that transcends this model and gives rise to a new cycle.
For enthusiasts of the new evolutionary
sciences, we would say that these second nodes of each cycle correspond to moments
of the “chaos”, “creative unbalance” (I. Prigogine) or “beneficial
catastrophes” (R. Thom), in which leaps in level or “bifurcations” occur. At
these points, the “attractors” defining the previously expressed pattern
disappear and those that define a new state subsequently appear “out of the
blue”. Abruptly, the fundamental sound changes to its second harmonic.
Knowing that each cycle has a duration of 1/3 with
respect to the previous one and that each series of seven cycles is therefore 37
times shorter than the previous one, it suffices to know the dates of
some key events in the history of evolution to start “focusing” our theoretical
framework on actual facts.
We know that the Big Bang, the seed of the
universe, started some 13,500 million years ago, that following the formation
of the Earth organic macromolecules, the seed of life, appeared more than 4.500
million years ago (1/3 of the duration of the universe) and that the emergence
of the first human being —Homo habilis—, the seed of self-awareness, occurred
little more than 2 million years ago (a period in time 37 (=2.187) times shorter than that of
all life).
Placing the Big Bang, then, as the origin of
the overall course of evolution and the formation of the Earth as the second
node of this course, we shall call — as in Fig. 2-C— the path travelled between
both points —from the potential energy of the original void to the formation of
complex material— the “exit” process and the entire evolutionary unfolding of
all life from then on the “return” process.
We shall now examine precisely this “return”
section in greater detail. However, before doing so, we would like to remember the
reader that one of the fundamental problems of the classic theory of evolution consists
in explaining the marked discontinuities observed between the main taxonomic
groups. Our scheme of rhythms, on the other hand, specifically marks the
emerging moments of the subsequent taxonomical degrees of the phylogenetic
process of human beings with extreme accuracy: Kingdom: Animal, in the
first cycle, Phylum: Chordate, in the second cycle, Class: Mammal,
in the third cycle, Order: Primate, in the fourth cycle, (Superfamily:
Hominoid, in the fifth cycle), Family: Hominid in the sixth cycle; and
finally Genus: Homo, in the seventh cycle!!! Let us look into this in detail step by step.
I suggest that the reader switches between looking at Figs. 5 & 6 and
reading the text.
The first cycle (A-1) of the return
evolutionary process begins in the precise moment of the emergence of organic
macromolecules, after the formation of the Earth and the rest of our solar
system. In the course of evolution approached the first node (approx. 3.000
million years ago), prokaryotic cells —cells without a nucleus— began to form,
the same occurring with eukaryotic cells —cells with nucleus— on approaching
the second node (approx. 1.500 million years ago). It is precisely then when
the first of the aforementioned major taxonomic bifurcations takes place, between
the Plant and Animal Kingdoms, with the emergence of differentiation between
autotrophic eukaryotic cells with cellulosic cell walls, many of which
contained chlorophyll —plants—, and heterotrophic eukaryotic cells with
only a fine plasmatic membrane never containing chlorophyll—animals—. There is
then a leap in cycle.
The second cycle (A-2) then starts with the
formation of eukaryotic cells. The first multi-cellular organisms begin to
emerge around the first node (approx. 1,000 million years ago), developing
their integration at the beginning of the Primary Era with the rapid expansion
of marine invertebrates, giving rise to the first vertebrates —fish— when
reaching the second node (approx. 500 million years ago). t is exactly in the ascent towards this
second node —as foreseen by our scheme of evolutionary rhythms— when the
explosive and surprising appearance of all the animal Fila —types—takes
place, with our chordate ancestors last of all, giving rise to the first
vertebrate fish. New change in cycle.
We would like to point out here that classical
paleontologists, when analyzing the fossil remains in the consecutive layers of
sedimentary rocks, found some clearly delineated borders in which there existed
a sudden change in the nature of the actual fossils. Based on such findings,
they established the major Eras in Earth’s History: the Primary Era or
Paleozoic; the Secondary or Mesozoic; and the Tertiary or Cenozoic. Progressive
oxygenation of Earth’s atmosphere during the Precambrian period led to the
death of many organisms. At the same time, however, it enabled others to use
this new energy source to develop suddenly, in novel and diversified ways at
the beginning of the Primary Era, during the so-called “Cambrian explosion” or
“zoological Big Bang”. This Primary Era ended with the massive extinction of
the Permian period, in which almost 95% of all existing species were annihilated.
This fact facilitated the major expansion of reptiles and the emergence of
primitive mammals at the beginning of the Secondary Era. This Secondary Era
also ended with the major extinction of the Cretaceous Period, which led to the
disappearance of dinosaurs and permitted the great expansion of the modern placentals
at the start of the Tertiary Era. These three expansive processes, with which
the three major Eras of Earth history begin, occur —of course!— as the course
of evolution approaches the second nodes in cycles A-2, A-3, A-4, respectively.
Let us continue.
Referring back to the description of these cycles,
we will say that the third (A-3) starts, as we saw previously, with the
formation of the first vertebrate fish. On the path toward the first node
(approx. 330 million year ago), we find that amphibians start to conquer dry land,
an undertaking which, with the beginning of the Secondary Era, was finally
completed by reptiles in their peak of development as the course of evolution
approached the second node (approx. 165 million years ago). During the same
period, primitive mammals started to emerge which —precisely!— constitute the
third basic taxonomic bifurcation —Class— of human phylogeny. Change in cycle.
The fourth cycle (A-4), which starts with the
appearance of mammals, has its first node (approx. 110 million years ago) at the
moment when primitive placentals—insectivorous— appeared, which developed in a radiant
and explosive way at the start of the Tertiary Era with the modern placentals
—pro-simians— on approaching the second node (approx. 54 million years ago). It
is —once more!— during the ascent towards the second node when the appearance of
the primate Order takes place, defining a new basic level in our
phylogenic journey. Leap in cycle.
The fifth cycle (A-5), which commences with the
deployment of modern placental mammals, has its first node (36 million years
ago) when actual monkeys— aegyptopithecus— appear. These were to develop when evolution
approached the second node (18 million years ago) with the emergence of
hominoids, which constitute the Superfamily of
human phylogeny. Yet another change in cycle.
The
sixth cycle (A-6) starts with hominoids, has its first node (12 million years
ago) when the common ancestor of all the great apes —Hominidae— developed, and
its second node (6 million years ago) when our ancestors separated from the
chimpanzees, our last relatives of the Family
of hominids, the new basic level of our phylogeny.
The seventh cycle (A-7) thus begins with the
appearance of hominids. In the approach to its first node (4 million years
ago), we find Australopithecus anamensis, which already showed biped
locomotion, while on the ascent toward the second node (2 million years ago) Homo
habilis comes into play, who starts to make rustic stone tools and
inaugurates the category of Genus —homo— in our own phylogeny.
We have now travelled through the course of the
first series (A) of our pattern of rhythms, and as stated, with the arrival of
the second nodes in each cycle — seven in all— the totality of all the basic
taxonomic levels of our species have appeared one after the other. That is, we
have discovered that the major successive somatic transformations that our
ancestors experienced. However, evolution continues unfolding and we shall now
present a new series (B), which will reveal step-by-step the different stages
that human beings have already covered in their way to modernity. Moreover, starting out from the generally accepted system in international archaeology proposed by Grahame Clark, we shall see how the successive lithic industries developed by our ancestors display the rhythm of our cycles precisely. Thus, “technical mode 1” (Oldowan) and its very long transition to mature Acheulean are developed in our cycle B-1; “technical mode 2” (full Acheulean), in our cycle B-2; “technical mode 3” (Mousterian), in our cycle B-3; “technical mode 4” (upper Palaeolithic), in our cycle B-4; and “technical mode 5” (Mesolithic), in our cycle B-5. As can be seen, the avalanche of linked “coincidences” continues!
We wish to make a brief parenthesis here to recognize that the accelerated pattern we observe in the generation of successive lithic modes was highlighted some time ago by French geologist André de Cayeux. In an article entitled Quelle courbe suit l’Humanite?, he drew a graph that clearly revealed the “rapid acceleration” of the evolutionary process of human beings. The stages he proposed were precisely “initial lithic culture”, “Acheulean”, “Mousterian”, “Aurignacian”, “Mesolithic”, “Age of Metals”, “Age of Machinism” and “Atomic Age”, in almost complete harmony with the cycles of our hypothesis.
Returning now to the testing of our hypothesis, we began the second series with the first cycle (B-1) which starts, as stated, with the presence of Homo habilis. According to the traditional approach, we could say that as we approach the first node (1.3 million years ago), we would encounter the emergence of Homo erectus, who would be the sole leading figure in this cycle with its expansion and development toward the second node (0.6 million years ago). A more recent approach seems to point in another direction as regards our line of ancestors. Homo ergaster —one of the first specimens of African Homo erectus—, would actually be the one that was to evolve toward Homo antecessor in the ascent towards the second node in this cycle.
The second cycle (B-2) would hence start with
the presence of Homo antecessor, who on the ascent towards the first
node (0.45 million years ago) was to derive in Europe towards Homo
Heidelbergensis and in Africa towards Homo Rhodesiensis, both considered in traditional terminology
as archaic Homo sapiens. They were to develop on the path to the second
node (0.22 million years ago) in their own respective areas. Change in cycle.
The third cycle (B-3), would then commence with
the presence of the two branches of archaic Homo sapiens. In Europe, Homo
Heidelbergensis was to evolve towards Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis on
approaching the first node (around 150,000 years ago), while in Africa, Homo
Rhodesiensis was to evolve towards Homo sapiens idaltu, sometimes known
as “protomodern” man because it already has all the characteristics of our
species. Both branches were developing a type of lithic industry very
similar to the one in Mode 3 —Mousterian— on the path towards the second node
(around 75,000 years ago). Leap in
cycle.
The fourth cycle (B-4) thus commences with the
presence of the two branches of Homo sapiens living independently.
However, as the course of evolution approaches the first node (around 50,000
years ago), the African species was to migrate toward Europe and, after a
period of coexistence, Neanderthal man would end up disappearing, while Homo
sapiens sapiens or Cro-Magnon would keep on developing, creating a Mode 4 —Aurignacian— technology on the path toward the second node (around 25,000 years
ago), a point at which it was now the only species of the genus Homo on Earth.
Change in cycle.
We shall make a pause here in our description
of the cycles of this series B in order to explain that, from this time on, evolution
will not be expressed biologically, that is to say via anatomic and
physiological transformations, but rather that the cyclic leaps will basically be
expressed through psychological and socio-cultural changes. In order to leave it
very clear that the leaps we shall discuss below fit perfectly en bloc to
historical data, we reproduce a few paragraphs from Ervin Laszlo’s book Evolution:
The Grand Synthesis:
“In
the span encompassed by Paleolithic societies on the one end and modern
information-based societies on the other, an entire succession of societal
forms has unfolded. The nomadic tribes of the Paleolithic transformed into the
settled villages of the Neolithic; these in turn gave way to archaic empires
and to local kingdoms and city-states. The classical empires were followed by
medieval princedoms, and these yielded to the rise of nation-states, some with
vast colonies. Today the colonies have disappeared, and modern nation-states
have spread to the four corners of the world.
With
attention to both the technological and the social factors we can perceive a
series of dynamic transformations in the development of societies. Nomadic
hunting-gathering tribes domesticate plants and animals and transform into
settled agrarian-pastoral societies; agrarian-pastoral societies evolve such
technologies as irrigation and crop rotation and transform into agricultural
ones; agricultural societies develop handicrafts and simple manufacturing
technologies and thus transform into industrial societies; and industrial
societies, under the impact of new, mainly information- and
communication-oriented technologies, evolve into postindustrial societies.
History's
arrow of time does not fly smoothly. Although the historical record is always
complex and frequently obscure, it gives good reasons to believe that
societies, the same as biological species, do not change at all times and in
small increments. Rather, the mode of change appears saltatory and
intermittent...”
I suggest, dear reader, that you be prepared
for new surprises, because all of these stages proposed by Erwin Lazlo —which match
the traditional classification of: Upper
Paleolithic, Neolithic, Ancient Times, Middle Ages, Modern Age and Postmodern Age (in which we
are really entering nowadays)— do fit, with utter precision, to each and
every one of the anticipated cycles of our hypothesis of evolutionary rhythms! Let us verify this.
Remember that we had left our test in the fourth
cycle (B-4) of the second series, with the development of Cro-Magnon, a cycle
that corresponds to the stage of nomadic tribes of the Upper Paleolithic as
well as hunting-gatherer societies.
During the fifth cycle (B-5), which commences
with Cro-Magnon, we find near the first node (just over 16,000 years ago) an
increase in gathering and the expansion of humanity. This was to lead, close to
the second node (just over 8,000 years ago), to a generalization of Neolithic life, with the aforementioned
settlements and agro-pastoral mode. A new cycle then commences (around 6,000 years
BC).
The sixth cycle (B-6) starts with this
Neolithic man. Around the first node (more or less 3,300 years BC), copper
metallurgy arose, writing appeared —History per
se. As we approach the second node (550 BC), the so-called “axial age” of the
astounding 6th century BC arose. This was the time of pre-Socratic
philosophers, Israel’s prophets, Buddha, Mahavira, the rishis of the Upanishads,
Confucius, Lao Tse and Zaratustra, among others. Between both nodes,
archaic empires, kingdoms and state cities developed. In other words, the mode
of agricultural life or what is known as the Ancient Times. Change in cycle
The seventh cycle (B-7) of this second series
starts with the emergence of philosophic man around 550 BC, who places the
mythical thinking of the previous cycle in doubt. As the course of evolution
approaches the first node (around the 370 AD), we see the appearance of
Patristic philosophy in the Western tradition. This philosophy was fully
developed as the second node approached (around the 1295 AD) with Scholastic
philosophy. This cycle is the one that has been called the Middle Ages,
with all its special features: princedoms and pre-industrial modes of life.
With the appearance of Nominalism and the pre-Renaissance, still in this same
second node, the abstract and metaphysical rationality of the medieval world was
transformed into concrete and empirical rationality of the Modern world. And
with the crisis, a new cycle appears. A new series: C.
The first cycle (C-1) of this new series thus
commences with the nominalist-scholastic crisis that was to be the seed that germinated
autonomously in Western culture, but was eventually to end up transforming the
life of all human beings on the planet. Close to the first node (around the
year 1600), mechanistic empiricism started to appear, developing to its fullest
as the course of evolution approached the second node (around the year 1910)
when Positivist Science was at its peak. The features of this cycle coincide
with those of the Modern Age, the forming
of states and the industrial way of life. At this point, the same crisis of the
previous paradigm arose; on this occasion, the theories of relativity and
quantum mechanics were the ones that were to stick the knife in the limitations
of the mechanistic viewpoint. Change in cycle.
The second cycle (C-2) thus commences with
Planck and Einstein and is not to have its first node until 2012. The new Postmodern,
environmental, relativistic and pluralistic paradigm is thus in course. You are
invited to take part!
If all of the basic steps of Evolution, from
the formation of the Earth up to now, have fitted the projected rhythm in our
“periodic table” with utter precision, we may presume that it will keep on
doing so in the future. If this is so, an accelerated process of
transformations will be experienced over the next two centuries that will
dramatically conclude around 2217, in a moment of infinite creativity. Tell
your great-great-grandchildren to start getting ready.
Before continuing, we would like to state that the hypothesis being
presented here regarding a spiral evolution the rate of which accelerates on
the way towards a final pole of attraction was initially inspired by the
pioneering proposals of Teilhard de Chardin —on “the convergence towards
Omega”— and Aurobindo Ghose —on “the ascent towards Supermind”—, which in their
time were considered completely preposterous by the world of official science. In
recent decades, however, increasingly more research has been carried out in
diverse fields and from different approaches, highlighting evolutionary
acceleration and its orientation towards a singularity, findings with which our
hypothesis obviously has many points of coincidence.
Let us mention here,
for example, among the scholars of “Big History”, Akop P. Nazaretyan, Alexander
D. Panov and Graeme D. Snooks and their “Snooks-Panov Vertical” theory, as our
hypothesis coincides almost completely with the stages proposed by Panov, as
well as with the rate of acceleration of 1/3 proposed by Snooks. We also
coincide to a great extent with: the work by Luigi Fontappiè’s on the law of
“Syntropy”, developed by Ulisse di Corpo and Antonella Vannini; the
“Neo-orthogenesis” raised by my recently deceased fellow countryman Juan Luis
Doménech Quesada; Carter Vincent Smith’s proposal regarding the “Accelerating
Evolution of Integral Consciousness”; the “White Hole in Time” described by
Peter Russell; John Stewart’s “Evolution's Arrow”; Ken Wilber’s “Evolutionary
Holoarchy”; Steve McIntosh’s “Evolution's Purpose”; the “Spiral Dynamics”
posited by Clare W. Graves, Don E. Beck and Chris Cowan; the studies by
François Meyer and André de Cayeux on the “vertiginous acceleration of
evolution and history”;
the proposal by Jean
Chaline, Laurent Nottale and Pierre Grou regarding “the fractal structure of
the tree of life”; Richard L. Coren’s “Theory of Cybernetic Evolution”; John M.
Smart’s “Acceleration Watch”; the “Singularity” of which Ray Kurzweil and the
transhumanists speak. Terence McKenna’s “Timewave Zero”; and so on… It is clear
that the paradigm is shifting, as Carter Phipps summarizes in his book on
“Evolutionaries”. Let us continue investigating this.
Up to this point, we have presented our own
verification of the hypothesis, basically with the data provided by Western
science, which, for four centuries, has painstakingly studied the world of “outer”
forms. It may be useful, however, to also take in account the observations that
Eastern traditions have made which, for close to three millennia of the world
of “inner” forms. Because evolution, as we stated at first, does not only keep
on generating progressively more complex, more organized structures of energy
and matter, but also keeps on unfolding deeper and more lucid levels of
consciousness, simultaneously.
In this regard, the three series of cycles that
we have been analyzing so far could be approached as follows. With the
emergence of life in cycle A-1, consciousness, which up to this cycle was
absorbed in matter, takes an inward leap, being identified with an incipient
living organism —with a “subject”— that, on perceiving its environment full of
“objects”, can act upon it and manipulate it in its own benefit. All of the
first A series can be understood as a steady maturation of its capacity to act
and perceive. With the emergence of the
first human individual, in cycle B-1 of the second series, the conscious
subject that already perceived the environment with great precision, takes a
new inward leap and starts to perceive itself as an individual separated from
the environment. This is the surprising phenomenon of self-awareness, the
“original sin” of the biblical story, the expulsion of human beings from the
“paradise” of non-awareness. The entire
second series concludes with the emergence of rationality in the “axial age”
with a new leap toward consciousness, thus enabling the mind to think about itself
and the discovery of the magic of self-reflexivity. The new series —C—, that then commences will lead
—according to our hypothesis— toward a major evolutionary peak in the year
2217, in which humanity in general will reach the state of “transpersonal
witness”. In this state, there will only remain a subtle form of dualism
between the observer and that which is observed; a dualism that will finally
disintegrate on discovering that both —the observer and the observed— are in fact
one and the same thing and that they had never actually been separate.
As we stated previously, the Eastern mystic
traditions have painstakingly delved into these deeper areas of consciousness,
and have described their findings in great detail. Thus, the millenary Psychophysiology of the Hindus
and in most especially, the Tantric tradition, has conscientiously studied the
energy structures within human being and the universe. They claim that the flow of energy —prana—
circulates through channels —nadis— and accumulates in vortices —chakras—
constituting veritable storage batteries, transformers and distributors of this
energy. Each one of these chakras is related to a nervous plexus and an
endocrine gland. They therefore act as contact points between the physical body
and the subtle structures, having specific psychological and spiritual
functions. They claim that there are seven chakras distributed between the
base of the spinal column and the top of the head and that they differ according
to their different sound vibrations and characteristic activities: Muladhara (matter), Svadhistana
(life and sex), Manipura (power and desire), Anahata (love), Vishuddha
(expression), Ajna (intelligence-mind) and Sahasrara
(soul-spirit).
As we can see, Hindu Psychophysiology presents
a wide spectrum of seven levels of energy stabilization that manifest in at
least three different wrappings:
biological, psychological and spiritual.
As this evidently sounds very similar to what we have described in our scheme
of rhythms —seven cycles in three subsequent series—, we shall now investigate whether
the characteristics that define each of the chakras have any
correspondence with the evolutionary cycles that we have previously described. Should
there be considerable points in common between both approaches, we may find
that not only the “rhythm” of evolutionary cycles is defined from the beginning,
but also the characteristic content —the “sound”— of each one of them! Who mentioned chance?
At the top of Fig. 6, we have noted the
complete series of the seven chakras in parallel with series A, B and C
of the seven cycles of our hypothesis.
In the case of our suspicion of correspondence between both
approaches—that of the chakras and that of evolutionary stages— being
correct, all of the correlative cycles of the different series —for example
cycles A-5, B-5 and C-5—, should develop a common theme. Let us see.
The first chakra, Muladhara, is
the basic center and sustainer of life, representing the domain of simple
sensations and perceptions that belong to the material and physical world. It is related to the instincts of individual safety
and survival, without which no life could exist. Its most characteristic behavior
pattern is the simple stimulus and response.
All of this perfectly matches unicellular life in our first cycle (A-1),
which, let us recall, spans the appearance of organic macromolecules after the
formation of the Earth right up to the emergence of eukaryote cells.
The second chakra, Svadhistana, is
related to sexuality, the conservation of the species and the propagation of
life; relationships between organs now take on significant importance. All of this is evidently in tune
with our second cycle (A-2), which commenced with eukaryote cells, generated
the first multi-cellular organisms, gave rise to sexual reproduction and
deployed all its vital potential following the Cambric explosion –the
“zoological Big Bang”.
The third chakra, Manipura, is
associated with power, will, desire and intentionality; the basic theme of this
center is the fight for power, competing, ambition and domination. The third cycle (A-3) of this first series,
let us recall, ended with the dominating expansion of the dinosaurs, in utter
consonance with this chakra.
The fourth chakra, Anahata, is
linked to love, compassion, affection and commitment; here rivalry gives way to
cooperation and unconditional service. It is the center of the heart, the
motherly instinct. All of this fully
links to our A-4 cycle, which commenced with the emergence of primitive mammals
and birds —of which it has been said that, because they are the only organisms
that take care of their offspring, they are the “inventors” of love and
affectivity— and ended with the radiant and explosive emergence of modern
placental animals, opening the “age of the mammals”.
The fifth chakra, Vishuddha, is
the effective center of communication, that of expression and self-projection
and creative inspiration. It would match
our A-5 cycle, which, let us recall, started with the emergence of the pro-simians,
saw the development of the great apes and ended with the anthropoids, which, as
is well known, possess a great variety and complexity of the modes of
expression —language of gestures, sounds, attitudes, movements, facial mimic,
and so on—, in clear consonance with this fifth chakra.
The sixth chakra, Ajna, the center
of intelligence, of knowledge, of wisdom, corresponds to cycle A-6, which, let
us recall, encompasses the anthropoids right
up to the emergence of the first hominids.
As is widely known, besides human beings, all currently living species
that still have the same basic features of that evolutionary stage are the
animals with the highest intelligence on the planet, in clear consonance with
the chakra we are talking now discussing.
The opening of the seventh and last chakra,
Sahasrara, means the full flourishing of spiritual potential. It corresponds to the peak cycle, A-7, of the
first series, which started with the emergence of hominids and ended with the
appearance of Homo habilis, the first member of our human race, now entering
the new area of self-awareness and evidently corresponding to this chakra
of the “thousand petals”.
We have thus covered the entire chain of the
seven chakras, from Muladhara —sustaining the material base— to Sahasrara
—deploying spiritual energy— in total the consonance with our series of cycles,
from the organic matter of A-1 up to the self-consciousness of A-7! Could it be
that chance does not constitute, by any means, the ultimate criterion for understanding
the creative dynamics of the evolutionary process? Let us continue with our
investigation.
Within the first cycles of the second series,
those relating to the most primitive humans, instead of only “checking” the
connections with their correlative chakras, we shall simply “suggest”
this correspondence. Later on, when
applying our hypothesis of rhythms to the human microcosm and on observing the
phylogenetic-ontogenetic parallelisms, we shall have more arguments with which
to confirm these correspondences.
It is to be expected that in the first cycle
(B-1) of the second series, physical self-awareness would gradually deploy
—first with Homo habilis and later with Homo erectus (or Homo
ergaster)—, subsequently emerging from merely unconscious fusion with
the natural environment. These first human beings would thus have started to
perceive their physical body, distinguished from the surrounding environment,
and therefore would have been able to act consciously upon it, manipulating it to
their own benefit —tools, mastery of fire, and so on. All this is in consonance
with the features of the first chakra, which, as we stated, represents
control over the most basic sensations and perceptions pertaining to the
material and physical world.
In the second cycle (B-2), archaic Homo
sapiens started to become aware of their vital and pranic drives and their
motivations would basically revolve around pain-pleasure principles. In that case, this stage would clearly match
the “vital” feature of the second chakra.
In the third cycle (B-3), the first H. sapiens will have deployed the
“intentional mind” with the emergence of the wide-ranging capacity to create images,
which allows the experiencing of prolonged emotions such as anguish and desire. This would be in consonance with the third chakra,
which, let us recall, is associated with power, will, desire and
intentionality.
The fourth chakra, as we said, is linked
to love, compassion, affectivity and commitment. Our fourth cycle (B-4) in this second series spanned
the period during which the Neanderthals first and Cro-Magnons later took center
stage on the European continent. It is then when the nuclear family was given a
boost and human beings start to worry about treating their sicknesses and the
future of their dead. It is perhaps in this
time when language started to develop, allowing the broadening and
intensification of human relationships as well as the appearance of the “group mind”.
All of this is clearly in agreement with the “affective” features of the Anahata
chakra.
The fifth chakra is associated with
communication, psychological expression and creative inspiration, which is fully
in consonance with what happened in our cycle B-5, in which modern man —Homo
sapiens sapiens, deployed all his artistic potential. Poorly developed up until then, Culture
exploded in a multitude of facets: in the world of language, in the dazzling
and surprising rock art of Altamira and Lascaux, in sculptures such as the
Willendorf Venus, in reliefs, in horn and ivory works and so on.
The sixth chakra, as we have already stated, is
the center of knowledge, intelligence and wisdom. Our sixth cycle (B-6), let us recall, starts
with the appearance of Neolithic culture —in which human beings started to
understand natural processes and by doing so were able to control and transform
them (taming animals, planting seeds and so on)—, and via the development of civilizations,
the discovery of the alphabet and the progressive use of metals, reaches the
“axial age”, with the emergence of the first philosophers. Its consonance with the Ajna chakra is
clearly evident.
The opening of the seventh chakra, as
already mentioned, means the full flourishing of spiritual potential. Our cycle B-7, as we have just seen, starts
with the crisis of mythic thinking, as well as with the sudden emergence of the
rational thinking in the “axial age”. In
Western culture, this process spans Greek philosophy, through Patristic philosophy
and up to the Scholastic philosophy at the end of the 13th century. The way of thinking developed in this period
was mainly abstract, spiritualized and metaphysical, clearly matching the Sahasrara
chakra. Simultaneously, this was also the time of the great sages and humanity’s
non-dualistic mystics: Buddha, the rishis of the Upanishads, Lao
Tse, Chuang-Tse, Jesus de Nazareth, Nagarjuna, Plotinus, Asanga, Bodhidharma,
Hui Neng, Shankara, Huang-Po, Padmasambhava, Al-Hallaj, Ibn-Arabi, Dogen, Rumi,
Meister Eckhart and the like. None of them “thought” about an external Divinity,
but “knew by their own embodiment” that their truthful identity was in fact that
Divinity. That is why we believe that,
although they were in tune with the Sahasrara
chakra, they better resonated with its expression in the following series
—with cycle C-7—, in which humanity in general will discover, like all these
sages had done before, that matter and spirit, energy and consciousness, object
and subject are in fact non-dual polarized expressions of the unique absolute
reality: the simple, ever-present Self-evidence. We shall return to this point later.
We have now concluded the second series, and
the correspondence with the chain of the chakras
has been very clear, from the mere physical awareness of Homo habilis through
to the metaphysical rationality of the Scholastic philosopher. We shall therefore continue, testing now our
third series —C—, at least in the cycle and peak that we have already covered.
The first cycle (C-1) of the third series
started with the emergence of Nominalistic philosophy, which, due to placing
emphasis on the specific, led to a crisis in the metaphysical thinking of the Scholastics.
It then continued with all the deployment of empirical science and reached a
peak with the materialistic Positivism of the 19th century. All this
corresponds fully with the characteristics of the first chakra, which
represents the physical and material world, as we have seen in previous series.
Allow us now to clarify what we have just been
discussing. From the traditional
perspective, the materialistic approach is rejected because it is believed to
be a step back in relation to metaphysical thinking. However, according to our scheme, modern
materialistic empiricism paradoxically represents a step forward in the
spiritual process in relation to medieval religious “beliefs”. This is so because while the latter occupied
the highest stage in the second series —B—, modern empiricism is situated at
the beginning of the third series —C—, which, as it has greater depth and
lucidity, is hence more “spiritual”, although its contents may have been only
physical so far. In the long term,
according to our pattern of rhythms this path will lead not to the “belief” in
the world of the Absolute, but rather to “empirical” evidence of our own identity
with the Absolute Itself.
As we have just stated, the second cycle (C-2)
started with the first years of the 20th century, when the apparently solid
mechanistic and materialistic paradigm of the Modern Age started to fracture with
the emergence of the Theories of Relativity and Quantum Physics. As opposed to the
cold inflexibility, dogmatism and linear logic of the previous cycle, the new
approach introduces reticular logic, perspectivism, environmental awareness,
indetermination, pluralistic relativism, multiculturalism, respect and care for
mother Earth, Gaia and life itself. The
Postmodern Age that is starting is clearly in consonance with the second chakra,
the focus of which, let us recall, is the conservation and promotion of life.
Summing up: the pattern of rhythms we have
proposed fully matches both in rhythm and content, the empirical data from the
sciences of Evolution and History. The first sixteen cycles of our “Evolutionary
periodic table” coincide with utter precision with the totality of the
stages that have occurred so far. It is
obvious that the five remaining cycles of this third series —C—, will also mark
the pattern of the accelerating process that will lead humanity towards the
great evolutionary Peak in a couple of centuries, around the year 2217. The cycle of “ecological” content in which we
are immersed right now, C-2, will reach its zenith within a century, around the
year 2114. The following cycle, C-3, the
focus of which will be the “desire for realization” will span the period up to
2183. Next, cycle C-4, whose central theme will be “universal love”, will reach
its peak at the beginning of the 23rd century, around the year 2205. Cycle C-5, the focus of which will be
“creative expression”, will develop through to the year 2213. The “integral wisdom” of cycle C-6 will reach
its apogee in the year 2215. Finally, humanity’s “spiritual realization” will
take place around 2217.
Regarding phylogenetic-ontogenetic parallelism
We start out from the classical idea, present in
very different cultures, that the human organism encapsulates everything; it
constitutes an individual concentration of the world, a unity that reflects, as
in a mirror, the totality of the universe. According to this approach, human
development is a rapid recapitulation and integration of all the levels gradually
deployed within the evolutionary process of the universe throughout its slow,
drawn-out paleontological development.
Haeckel’s major contribution to the theory of evolution
is what he called “the law of fundamental Biogenetics”, i.e., the parallelism
between the growth of the individual embryo and the development of the species
to which it belongs: “ontogeny, that is,
the growth of an individual, is a short and fast repetition (a recapitulation)
of the phylogeny or evolution of the lineage to which the individual
belongs”. This means that during the
course of individual development, the organism recapitulates its own
evolutionary lineage so that the diverse forms which the embryo passes through
represent the predecessors of such an organism.
Note, however, that this is not a repetition of adult forms of these predecessors;
it is their embryonic and developmental stages that are reproduced. This is why
organisms which are close in the evolutionary scale —those that had a common
descent until very recent periods— have similar embryos in their initial phases
of gestation. It is only during the latter stages when differences become
evident. In other words, because ontogeny reproduces phylogeny, the embryonic
development of historically related animals passes through similar
transformative processes which are longer lasting, the closer the degree of kinship. Darwin himself wrote in his Origin of the
Species “community in embryonic structure reveals community of descent”.
In 1828, Karl von Baer, the major embryologist
of his time, exclaimed, “I have two small embryos both kept in alcohol and I
forgot to label them. Now I’m not able to distinguish their genus. They could
be lizards, small birds or even mammals”. This is because all embryos from the
chordate phylum —fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals— are
almost identical during early developmental stages: zygote, blastula, gastrula, etc. Only subsequently
do the special characteristic of class, order, family, genus and species start
to appear successively.
Given that embryonic development reveals the ancestry
of a species, within classic taxonomy —in the classification of living beings—,
the most reliable criterion for affirming that two species had an immediate
common ancestor above and beyond anatomical similarities was the similarity of
their ontogenetic pathway. It is for this reason that phylogenic taxonomy
—already defined in the 19th century by Haeckel and Sachs— states that the systematic
ordering of biological groups represents a schematization of evolutionary
stages achieved over the course of time and, indicates the order of appearance
of the different organisms that emerged upon the Earth.
It is becoming increasingly clear that
evolutionary leaps essentially occur via branching within embryological
processes: new pathways of embryonic and larval development separate at some
point from the pre-existing ancestral pathways.
The innovations responsible for the appearance of new species will thus
occur, not only via simple mutation in a small segment of DNA, but through
modifications introduced in the process of individual development, i.e.,
through “heterochronies” or discrepancies in the rhythm of ontogenetic
processes. Of special interest within
these heterochronies are the processes of “pedomorphosis”—the conservation of ancestral
juvenile traits by the following ontogenetic stages of offspring — and also
“neotenia” —pedomorphosis produced by retardation of somatic development—. Many
of these cases of evolution by means of neotenia are well known, ranging from
vertebrates —considered as tunicated neotenic larvae— through to human beings
themselves, as proposed by Stephen Jay Gould on observing the clear similarity
between the human adult and the young chimpanzee. Thus, the mechanisms of evolution may be due
not only to the gradual selection of individual traits, but by these changes in
rhythm given rise to profound anatomic modifications while opening up novel ecological
possibilities. These sudden changes would also explain the absence of many
“intermediate forms” in the fossil registry as these forms would never actually
have existed.
In 1922, Grandjean corrected Haeckel’s claim
that “ontogeny reproduces phylogeny” and proposed a complementary formulation:
“ontogeny does not reproduce phylogeny, it creates it”, thereby suggesting that
these branches in the ontogenetic pathway are precisely the ones that generate
the novel leaps in phylogenetic pathways.
These same approaches from the world of Biology are similarly repeated
in the socio-cultural sphere when addressing the issue of whether anthropological
development precedes the evolution of institutions, is a consequence of it, or
both.
In line with the theory of “internal logic” in
historical development, history is conceived as a self-deployment of inherent
categories of humanity from the outset. All organicist approaches defend this approach
and understand history as the “history of human life”, based on the parallelism
between phylogeny and ontogeny. Thus,
according to Vico, culture passes through the same phases as the individuals
that compose it. Or according to Habermas, the internal logic of the cognitive
development of a child serves as an analogy for the self-understanding of
communicative rationality throughout human history. Even Marx was also occasionally inclined to work
with the theory of internal logic. In the Paris manuscripts, he holds that
human beings may only develop the fundamental constitutive elements of the
human essence and that progress is thus the unfolding of this essence.
According to our hypothesis, both the
phylogenetic, historic or macrocosmic process and the ontogenetic, individual
or microcosmic process are both overall or specific expressions of one and the
same unique archetype of rhythms that define the dynamics of exit and return in
the manifestation of the universe in time. Thus, both individuals and societies
are constrained to progressively updating the successive levels of potential stability
of the original matrix.
Returning to the embryologic issue we were
discussing and focusing now on human beings, we have to say that, like other
animals, human beings pass through the consecutive embryonic stages characteristic
of their phylogeny before developing the physiological traits that verify their
condition as humans. Their ontogenetic
process then becomes much more similar to that of other species; the more so,
the closer they are to their evolutionary scale. In the words of evolutionary
scholar Francisco J. Ayala, “the human body is built following the same general
scheme as other animal bodies, being more similar to anthropoids, primates,
mammals and vertebrates in this descending order”. As we have seen previously, these
stages correspond exactly to the four successive cycles of our hypothesis: A-5, A-4, A-3 and A-2.
Similar to the embryological process, the
psychological development of human beings seems to recapitulate the successive perspectives
displayed by their ancestors. John C. Eccles states that it may be postulated
that all the transitions that are produced ontogenetically when passing from
the baby to the child and then to the adult are situated precisely within the phylogenic
process of human evolution, “the progressive development from the consciousness
of the baby to the self-consciousness in the child provides a good model for the
emergent evolution of self-consciousness in the hominids”. Likewise, the
psychologist Jean Piaget states that the development of thinking in the child
shows an intimate conformity with the evolution of consciousness in our
species.
Along these same lines, Jung, after recalling
Nietzsche words, “in sleeping and dreaming we once again work through the lessons
of earlier humanity”, and added, “The supposition is therefore justified that
ontogenesis corresponds in psychology to phylogenesis”. Ken Wilber equally states, “the same force that
produced human beings from ameobas produces adults from infants. That is, a person’s growth, from infancy to
adulthood, is simply a microscopic version of cosmic evolution”. He likewise affirms, “Very like the
geological formation of the earth, psychological development proceeds, stratum
by stratum, level by level, stage by stage, with each successive level
superimposed upon its predecessor in such a way that it includes but transcends
it.” Ken Wilber also states, “… there is
an increasing reacceptance, among developmental structuralists, of the notion
of phylogenetic/ontogenetic parallel: Primitive-paleolithic
magic is similar in deep structure (not surface structure) to infantile-early
childhood preoperational thinking; classic religio-mythic expressions are similar in deep structure to late
childhood pre-operational thinking and beginning concrete operative thinking;
and modern rational science is top of the hierarchy with adolescent-to-adult
formal operative and hypothetico-deductive reasoning.”
According to Wilber, the overall process of
psychological evolution —that is the manner in which cosmic evolution operates
in human beings— occurs in a most significant and coherent way. In each stage,
there is a higher-level structure —one that is more complex and therefore more
unified— which emerges by means of differentiation from the lower-order level that
precedes it. This higher-order structure is introduced into consciousness and
the self ends up identifying with this emergent structure. As it has differentiated from the preceding structure,
the self transcends it and can thus operate on this lower structure using the
instruments that the new emerging structure offers.
Ken Wilber denotes by “deep structure” the
characteristic manner of any given level —a form that materializes all
possibilities and limitations— and by “surface structure”, the specific manifestation
of deep structure. All deep structures are undifferentiated, folded or enveloped
in the unconscious field. The
unconscious substratum is almost completely void of surface structures. This is something similar to Jung’s idea of
the archetypes as “forms without content”.
In Jung’s words, an archetype (deep structure) “is determined as to its
content (surface structure) only when it has become conscious and is therefore
filled with the material of conscious experience”. We all inherit the same essential
deep structures, but each of us learns our own individual surface structures.
According to Ken Wilber, the fetus has fundamental
ground unconscious, “In essence, it is all the deep structures existing as potentials
ready to emerge, via remembrance, a some future point.” All deep structures are included or related
to ground unconscious: the “archaic unconsciousness” is the past of humanity
and the “emerging unconsciousness” is the future. Given that the higher
structures embrace the lower ones, the higher ones have to be the last ones in
developing. The transpersonal cannot be realized while the personal has not yet
been formed. Development —or evolution— consist in a series of hierarchical
deployments of deep structures parting from ground unconsciousness, starting
from the lowest —matter— and ending with the highest —consciousness. When —and
if— the totality of ground unconscious has emerged, then there will only be consciousness;
all is consciousness as the Whole. As Aristotle put it, when the potential has
been actualized, the only result is God.
Having previously verified the validity of our scheme
of rhythms in the evolutionary dynamics of the universe —the macrocosm—, we shall
now see whether this same scheme is also reflected in the developmental process
of individual beings —the microcosm.
Assuming that human beings are in tune with the
rhythms of the evolutionary cycles we have previously analyzed, and in the knowledge
that, according to the study by Richard M. Bucke, the spontaneous emergence of
what he called “cosmic consciousness” takes place around 34 years of age, we shall
take cycle C-4, which has a duration of 34.17 years, as the base cycle to
proceed with the verification of our hypothesis in the individual development
of a fully realized human being.
Applying our overall scheme of rhythms—previously
presented in Fig. 2-C— we obtain a first approximation to our proposal about
this cycle of 34.17 years of duration as shown in Fig. 7-B. This figure shows the full course of a life, which,
starting from the moment of engendering, deploys in a progressively drawn-out
way to the “exit” section —or “outward arc” toward the pole of the “ego”,
situated around 22 years of age —matching Wilber’s affirmation that the return
process or “inward arc” does not generally start before 21 years of age— and initiates
this section of “return”, in a progressively accelerated way now towards the
final pole of illumination. In accordance to this scheme, in the “exit” section
toward the maturation of “ego” a human being traverses both the complete series
A —life— and B —mind— of our evolutionary periodic table and undertakes the
return section through the C series —soul— and the following series in order to
achieve full illumination around 34.17 years of age.
Comparing figures 7-A and 7-B, note how the overall
macrocosmic and microcosmic patterns of development have identical structures.
The only difference between them lies in the level at which pole P is
positioned; that is, the pole toward which the “exit” section is oriented in
each one of these patterns. In the macrocosm, it is situated at the “series
leap” between “matter” and “life” —the appearance of organic macromolecules
after the formation of the Earth—; while in the microcosm, it is situated at
the “series leap” between the “mind” and the “soul” —the formation of the mature
ego.
Attention! Take note of what we are proposing
so as to enjoy the “magic” revealed in the following paragraphs. Pay special
attention to the extreme simplicity of our proposal. We take, as such, the
duration (34.17 years) of cycle C-4. We simply apply to this our overall
pattern of rhythms. Then, setting the characteristic of a single point –the
“mature ego” at pole P (21.92 years)–, the complete course of a human life is
automatically delineated in full, in terms of both the rate of displaying the
successive stages it goes through and the specific content of each of these
stages. Pure “magic”! If our proposal is correct –which we shall soon test–,
our life will be revealed as a fascinating dance to the beat of the music of
the universe. Or, in other words, we will be nothing less than a radiant,
condensed expression of the great cosmic symphony.
We shall now verify whether our forecasts fit
the data provided by embryologists—for the intrauterine phase— and
developmental psychologists —for the postnatal phase. We recommend
simultaneously consulting Figs. 8 and 9 while reading the text.
We start by verifying the unicellular living
phase, which in the macrocosm we called A-1, and which coincided with the
emergence of prokaryotes first and then eukaryotes. The 28 days of women’s
menstrual cycle is governed by a complex mechanism involving diverse organs and
substances. During the first part of this 14-day cycle, the follicular
maturation takes places, stimulated by the pituitary anterior lobe or
gonadotrophic hormones, mainly the FSH. The primordial follicle contains a
central cell —ovogonia— that first becomes a first-order ovocyte
with a more robust nucleus and later—after being excreted during ovulation—
transforms into a second-order ovocyte —with the corresponding chromatin
depletion—, rendering it apt for fecundation. The A-1 cycle of our hypothesis, i.e.
the one that deploys the unicellular stage in the macrocosm, according to our
microcosmic scheme has a duration of precisely 14 days, which coincides exactly
with half of the menstrual cycle of follicular maturation until fecundation.
After being fecundated, the ovule starts a
period of rapid mitotic divisions in which the zygote passes through stages of 2,
4, 8, etc. cells or blastomeres. The cells continue dividing, first forming
a solid ball – morula—, which subsequently becomes hollow —blastula.
The three germinative layers then start to differentiate —endoderm, ectoderm
and mesoderm— and the cavity of the body or coeloma is soon formed.
The dorsal nervous cord begins as a longitudinal depression that becomes
progressively deeper until finally its edges join together, transforming into a
tubular nerve cord. A sustaining cordoned-off formation is produced directly
below, derived from the mesoderm, called the notochord —backbone— that
is common to the chordate phylum as a whole, and from which it receives its
name. The entire process takes place from the fecundation of the egg cell
through to the third week of pregnancy.
As we have already seen, the characteristic
stage of A-2 in the macrocosm is the one that displays multi-cellular organisms
through to the formation of the diverse types —phyla— of animals, such as chordates.
In our scheme for the microcosm, this cycle spans from a little more than three
weeks from fecundation, which once again matches the embryologic data fully,
not only in content, but also in duration.
The human embryo, as it nears the end of the
first month, develops some muscular segments, called miosomas, at each
side of the neural tube, which represent the origin of the skeletal muscle
system, typical of all vertebrates. From the fourth week on, limbs—upper and
lower— also start to be formed. At first, they are only small protuberances or mamelons.
However, they soon start to grow and, during the sixth week, already constitute
small, paddle-shaped expansions that will evolve into hands and feet. Fingers
finally develop during the seventh and eight week. During that time, the amnios, which during
the first weeks of gestation was a very small vesicle, starts to increase in
volume and progressively cover the embryo completely.
Cycle A-3 of our hypothesis started, in the
macrocosm, with the first marine vertebrates —fish— and embraced the
progressive conquest of dry land, first with the appearance of limbs in the tetrapods
—amphibians— and then with the invention of that smooth, transparent membrane —the
amnios— which protects reptile and mammal embryos. In our scheme for the
microcosm, this cycle spans from the fourth week to the eighth, once again
totally matching embryological data.
At the start of the third month of gestation, the
embryo begins to be called the fetus —until the end of its intrauterine
life— and the placenta begins to be formed. The hormonal functions of the ovary
are progressively reduced until being replaced by this organ that acts exclusively
from the fourth month onward. Thus, from this moment onward, the oxygen and all
the other nutrients that the fetus needs will be absorbed from the mother’s
blood through the umbilical cord and the placenta, which will maintain the same
general structure until the end of the pregnancy. It is also during this time
when the typical hair of mammals starts to grow.
As we have seen in the study of the macrocosm, cycle
A-4 of our hypothesis embraces the whole development of placental mammals, from
the primitive insectivores through to modern primates. According to our scheme
of the macrocosm, this cycle deploys itself from the eighth week of pregnancy
to the middle of the fourth month. Preciseness is once more present in terms of
both content and rhythm.
From the fifth month of gestation on, the
processes of the human fetus and those of the pongids continue with similar
characteristics; for example, in chimpanzee, the form and size of the head,
weight of the brain, position of the fontanelle, hair distribution and so on.
As we have already stated, all these traits led S. J. Gould to propose that the
appearance of hominids is due to a case of neoteny in our anthropoid
ancestors.
The prediction in our scheme of the microcosm
is that cycle A-5 displays itself from the middle of the fourth month of
pregnancy to the end of the sixth month thus appears more than acceptable. Let
us recall that apes developed first in this cycle in the macrocosm, followed by
hominoids.
Cycle A-6 would then be the one that develops
the specific characteristics of the hominid family. Although there is no longer
any other species of this family but Homo sapiens sapiens —and therefore
we cannot verify the similarities that we propose—, there are some indications
that point in the right direction. That is, the similarities would be even greater
than with the pongids. The key to explaining the gradual differentiation
of human beings with respect to our anthropoid relatives lies mainly in the
progressive slowing-down of our development, exactly as predicted in the overall
pattern we propose. Therefore, although human beings and chimpanzees have more
than 99% of structural genes in common and a strong resemblance in our fetal
forms, there are small alterations in regulatory genes —those controlling the
time of activation and deactivation of structural genes—, altering the rhythms
in body growth processes and producing relatively major differences in adult
forms —brain, hands, legs and so on— as well as in behavior. Retarded
development and growth have allowed an astounding development of
cerebralization in human beings, by prolonging the rapid cerebral growth
typical of the fetus until later life. Or, likewise, the lower limbs in human
beings, which are similar to those of the great apes at birth —it has been said
that “babies are primates with short legs”—, in our case keep on growing for a
long time, while those of our simian relatives, in comparison, remain
underdeveloped.
It thus seems that due to this slowing-down of
development, the similarities between human neonates and primitive hominoids
would be even greater than with respect to simians. Suffice is to state the
following: while chimpanzees reach 45% of their cranial capacity at birth and
human beings, only the 23%, the australopitecines are in between, around
30%. The duration of this A-6 cycle, according to our scheme of rhythms,
extends from the end of the sixth month of gestation until shortly after the
ninth month, practically concurring with the time of birth. Or, in other words,
when the cycle in which self-consciousness is about to flourish commences, the one
that led to the expulsion of hominids from the “paradise” of animal integration
with mother nature, the human creature is also expelled from the mother’s
womb.
After birth, the human baby continues the
slowing down of the developmental process, so much so, that it is been said
that we spend our first year as an extra-uterine fetus. In fact, we are the
only animal that grows more slowly and there is no other animal in which full
development takes so long to achieve after birth. Orangutan, gorillas and
chimpanzees grow until 11 years of age, while human beings keep on developing
until they are 20 years old. This delayed growth is expressed through late
maturation and extended infancy. As S. J. Gould states in his book Ontogeny
and Phylogeny, this delay has reacted synergically with another two distinctive
human traits: intelligence —as the brain increases in size due to the
prolongation of the trends of fetal growth, as well as providing a longer
period of childhood learning— and socialization —as family units consolidate by
means of increasing care from parents towards children that develop so slowly.
We shall digress briefly so as to make a few comments on the evolution and development of the nervous system.
A few decades ago, the American physician Paul MacLean proposed a thought-provoking model, known as the “triunic brain” or “triune brain”. This model aimed to explain the function of existing traces of evolution in the structure of the human brain. MacLean argued that our skull actually contains three brains: the reptilian, the limbic system and the neocortex, each of which represents a different evolutionary state. They are formed one after another in an overlapping manner, from the inside out, ontogenetically during embryonic and foetal development and phylogenetically during the course of evolution from the first fish to modern man. These three brains are connected to one another, like “three interconnected biological computers”, though each retains its own distinct characteristics.
The R-complex (or reptilian brain), which comprises the brainstem and cerebellum, began to form evolutionarily about 500 million years ago and developed throughout our cycle A-3, after the formation of the nerve cord in the previous cycle. It is basically responsible for the primary vital functions, i.e. basic survival instincts. It is an action-oriented brain, responsible for automatic impulsive behaviour, i.e. fight-or-flight, reacting to direct stimuli, without involving any emotional process.
The limbic system (or paleomammalian brain), which includes the hypothalamus, hippocampus and amygdala, originated over 150 million years ago and evolved throughout our cycle A-4. As a whole, it is the seat of emotions and affective memory. This ability to bring the past into the present encourages learning and facilitates relationships, as evidenced by the evolution of mammals.
The neocortex (or neomammalian brain), formed by the neuronal layer covering the outer area of the brain, began to develop some 60 million years ago and gradually increased in size during in our cycle A-5 and the following. There is a direct relationship between this development of the cerebral cortex and social development: the more complex and organized societies are, the greater the size of the neocortex of its members. The neocortical system is responsible for the higher intellectual processes and is the source of the increasing cognitive abilities of higher primates.
This same evolutionary sequence: brainstem, R-complex, limbic system and neocortex, develops approximately from the inside out, during the embryonic and foetal development of every human being. As already stated, the neural tube begins to form in the 3rd week of gestation and, after it has closed completely, the cephalic end begins to expand substantially past the 4th week, giving rise to the three primary vesicles, from which the entire brain originates. Or, for example, the medulla oblongata (R-complex component), which emerges at the end of the 8th week from the myelencephalon –one of the five secondary vesicles–, achieves its definitive form around the 20th week of gestation. Or the hippocampus (limbic system component), which has a similar appearance in all mammals, begins to unfold from the 13th week onwards, acquiring the adult form a month and a half later. The cerebral cortex (neocortex) develops later, mainly from the 5th month of pregnancy onward, when the surface of the hemispheres, which until then is almost completely smooth, begins to generate grooves and convolutions during the 6th and 7th months. These features dramatically enhance the surface area of the brain and facilitate the number of connections between neurons.
This parallelism between the phylogenetic and ontogenetic sequences of the development of the nervous system continues even after birth. For instance, there are some neurons known as fusiform neurons –responsible for connecting different regions of the brain– that are only found in humans and some great apes. It seems that the number of these neurons increased rapidly and dramatically with the emergence of Homo sapiens. Their most thought-provoking aspect, however, is that these cells currently do not exist in new-born babies, but begin to appear within a few months after birth. They then increase significantly in number between one and three years of age, coinciding precisely with our forecasts for the correlative stage for the emergence of H. sapiens in our individual development, as we shall see below.
We close this digression on the evolution of the nervous system here and now continue with the testing of our proposal. We had left off at the movement of birth, after our cycle A-6. From this point on, we shall take as our reference framework the hierarchy of psychological levels so thoroughly presented by Ken Wilber throughout his body of work. Let us see the first of these levels, which, according to our pattern of rhythms should correspond to the transition from cycle A-7 to cycle B-1, as the former involves gestation and is the latter, deployment.
Uroboric-axial body. Shortly after birth, the child’s perception
begins to float in what is known as the pre-personal “uroboric” kingdom. The uroboros
is still collective, archaic and primordially oceanic, but it already possesses
some type of self-limitation. When the sensation of the infant self begins its
evolution from the pre-personal uroboros to the individual organism, we
see the emergence and creation of the organic and bodily self. By the term “axial
body”, we are mainly referring to the fact of feeling the physical body as
something that differs from the environment. The baby has a physical body at
birth, but it does not recognize the axial body until the fourth or sixth month
of age. As the self-awareness of the
child self begins to be centered and distinguish its individual organism, it
also assimilates an ambiguous, yet still undefined threat of extinction.
Therefore, simple, brief survival becomes a priority in this stage. Aurobindo
calls this level, the “physical” level.
This stage corresponds with cycle A-7 (and
B-1), which roughly spans from birth to the middle of the first year and leads
to the emergence of the Mulahara chakra, whose main feature is “physical
consciousness”. It is also related to the simplest sensations and perceptions
of the material world, along with the survival instinct. In the macrocosm, this
phase corresponds with the appearance of self-awareness in Homo habilis.
The precise correspondence is therefore complete in terms of both rhythm and
content.
Pranic body. Given that a specific organic self begins to
emerge, the typical emotions of this self likewise emerge. This basic emotional
behavior is called the “pranic level” or “pranic body”. Although emotions are
still relatively simple and primitive in this stage, the incipient ego has a
certain consciousness of the qualities of pleasure and pain and therefore the search
for pleasure and the avoidance of suffering become a strong psychological force
in this period. This level is also characterized for being full of an overall,
still undifferentiated sexuality. Aurobindo calls this phase “vital
consciousness”.
In our hypothesis, this phase corresponds with
cycle B-1 (and B-2), which develops between 5.7 months and 1.1 years of age and
leads to the emergence of the Svadhistana chakra, whose core feature is “vital and sexual consciousness”. The correspondence
is once again absolutely clear. In the macrocosm, this stage corresponds to Homo
erectus.
Imaginal body. The emergence of the infant’s ability to
extensively create images marks a decisive point in the development process.
When babies are about to reach the age of two, they are able to imagine objects
that are not present with great accuracy. This enables an enormous burgeoning of
their emotional life, as images are capable of evoking the same types of
emotions and feelings as the actual object or person. Moreover, for the first
time, the child may experience prolonged emotions, both of anguish —which is none
other thing than imagined and hence maintained fear — and desire —which is none
other than imagined pleasure. The image leads to the satisfying of desires and
the lessening of anguish.
In our table of rhythms, this stage corresponds
to cycle B-2 (and B-3), which develop between 1.1 and 2.1 years of age and leads
towards the emergence of the Manipura chakra, whose main theme has to do
with desire and the intentional mind. The accuracy of our scheme is therefore
complete.
Social cognition (Symbolic pre-operational
mind). Between two
and four years of age, the child starts to awaken to symbolic representation. A
symbol goes beyond a simple image, because while images represent objects
pictorially, symbols do not represent them figuratively, but verbally. The
emergence and acquisition of language is, by all odds, the most significant
period of the “exit” section in the vital cycle of the individual. Language and
emergent abstract thought functions greatly expand the affective and
kinesthetic world of the child. Through language, one may anticipate the
future, make projects and channel the actions of today towards the future. This
enables the onset of the sublimation of emotive-sexual energy, transforming it
into more subtle, more complex, fully developed activities. As it moves forward
toward cognition and social consciousness, the system of self is faced with the
need to belong —and love— a social group that is greater than the individual
bodily self.
This phase corresponds with cycle B-3 (and B-4)
of our hypothesis, which develops between 2.1 and 3.6 years of age and leads to
the emergence of the Anahata chakra, whose characteristic feature revolves
around “affective life”. The correspondence can once more be seen to be very
clear, in terms of both the temporal rhythm and content.
Early ego/personic stage. (Conceptual
pre-operational mind). The child starts to transfer its central identity to verbal and mental realms.
Usually, between 4 and 7 years of age, the child starts to discover the world
and its conceptual representations. A concept is a symbol that not only
represents the object or an action, but also a class of objects or actions. Although
children still cannot operate or coordinate upon these conceptual
representations in this phase, they already have a fairly coherent mental ego which
differs from the body, transcends the simple biological world and can hence
operate to a certain extent in said biological world as well as in the previous
physical world, using the instrument of the simple representative mind. It is
the level that Piaget calls “preoperational intuitive”.
In our hypothesis, this stage is equivalent to
cycle B-4 (and B-5), which develops between 3.6 and 6 years and leads to the
emergence of the Vishudha chakra, whose characteristic theme is “psychological
expression”. The correspondence is yet again much more than acceptable.
Mid egoic/personic stage. (Concrete operational
mind). The trend
pointed out in the previous cycle is consolidated as a whole with the emergence
—generally from the age of 7 years onwards— of what Piaget calls “concrete
operational thinking”. That is, the conviction of being able to operate in both
the concrete and bodily world by means of concepts. This mental level, which dominates
the ego/person mid stage, is not capable of imagining possible or hypothetical
relationships, and still cannot operate upon itself. Nevertheless, unlike its
predecessor —the representative mind—, the concrete operative mind can start to
assume the place or role of others. It is also the first structure that
can really start to develop regulated operations, such as multiplications,
divisions, classifications, the capacity to create hierarchies and so on.
This phase corresponds to cycle B-5 (and B-6)
of our table of rhythms, which develops between 5.9 and 9.3 years of age and
leads to the emergence of the Ajna chakra, whose central feature is
“intellectual life”. The matching is once again very clear.
Advanced ego/personic stage (Formal operational
mind). Within the period
of adolescence, later ego/person stage, another extraordinary differentiation
starts to take place. Basically, the self simply begins to diversify from the
concrete thinking process. On doing so, the self can, to a certain extent,
transcend this process and thus operate in it. It is not surprising, therefore,
that Piaget calls this stage the “formal operational stage”, as it enables one
to operate upon one’s own concrete thinking —to think about thoughts—, or, in
other words, to work with formal or linguistic objects as well as with physical
or concrete objects. It is the first clearly introspective and self-reflective level,
which is able deal with the subjective mind and is capable of imagining
possibilities that are not present, at the same time as carrying out
hypothetical-deductive or propositional reasoning. Among other things, this enables
the individual to adopt different points of view which are plural and universal.
This stage starts to emerge around 12 or 13 years of age.
In his book Up from Eden, Ken Wilber divides
this “advanced egoic/person” period we are discussing here into three phases: lower
(that spans from Old Age to 500 BC), middle (from 500 years BC to
1500 AD) and upper from 1500 to the XX century), all three of which
exactly correspond to cycles B-6, B7 and C-1 of our hypothesis.
The lower phase of this stage of “formal
operational thinking” corresponds, as we have just stated, in our hypothesis of
rhythms to cycles B-6 (and B-7), which develop between 9.3 and 14.3 years of
age —exactly coinciding with the emergence of this modality of thinking in the
adolescence— bringing with it, the emergence of the Sahasrara chakra, whose main feature revolves around
“spiritual energy”, which appeared in the “axial age”, in clear consonance with
the self-reflective, introspective and subjective capacities of this
level. Correspondence is once again very
clear.
The middle phase of this stage of “formal
operative thinking”, as stated, corresponds
in our pattern of rhythms with cycle B-7 (and C-1), which develops between 14.3
and 21.9 years of age and leads to the emergence of the Muladhara chakra,
whose central theme is related to the achievement of material objectives in a
primordially materialistic world. All this perfectly matches the transition from
“idealism”, typical of youth, to “pragmatism”, typical of incipient maturity.
It is here when —in line with Wilber’s opinion—the “return” route commences.
The upper phase of this stage of “formal operative
thinking” —which Wilber refers to as the “mature ego”—, corresponds, as mentioned,
to cycle C-1 (and C-2), which develops between 21.9 and 29.5 years of age and
leads to the emergence of the Svadhistana chakra, whose main characteristic is
the conservation and spreading of life. All of this is clearly in consonance
with the growing ecological sensitivity of this stage of life.
In cycle C-2, between the age of 29.5 and 32,
the individual develops what is called the “pluralist mind”, which places
emphasis on relationships, dialogue, networking, diversity, multiculturalism, the
revitalizing of values relativity, respect and care for life, all of which
define, in general, the emerging ecological paradigm. We are thus entering a higher
cognitive structure to formal operative thinking. This new level, which has
been called “integrative”, “creative synthetic” or “vision-logic”, is not limited
to establishing linear relationships, but organizes networks of relationships.
This means that, just as the formal operative mind “operates with” the concrete
operative mind, the vision-logic mind “operates with” the formal operative
mind. The panoramic vision-logic level thus apprehends a massive network of
ideas, in addition to its mutual ideas and interrelationships. This structure
constitutes the onset of a higher capacity to synthesize, establish
connections, establish relationships between truths, coordinate ideas and integrate
concepts.
According to our hypothesis, this new cognitive
structure will deploy collectively in cycle C-3, which will start to emerge in
a century’s time, and in individual human beings may flourish around 32 years
of age. Verification of all this, as well as the forecasts of successive cycles
will have to await future generations. What can be deduced from our periodic
table is that around 2217, human beings around the age of 33 —like Buddha and
Christ— will be able to attain full spiritual realization at the peak of evolution.
At the end of the road, definitive Reality will be revealed, which, far from
simply being yet another stage, will surprisingly be revealed to be the very substance
of all the transited stage. That is to say, there will not be a new level, but
we will perceive that in fact we have never left this total Reality that is,
and always has been, our ultimate Identity.
Having tested our hypothesis of developmental
and evolutionary rhythms’ with both the data referring to the macrocosm
–—paleontological, anthropological and historical— and with the microcosm
—embryologic and psychological—, and having verified the utter precision of
the forecasts, both in terms of the chronology of the cycles and their content
—matching the hierarchy of the chakras—, it is obvious that we cannot
talk of “fortuity”. It does not have anything to do with chance, and we can categorically
state that there is something fishy going on in Evolution.
From the materialistic paradigm, all of this
seems inconceivable. It does not coincide at all with many of the core dogmas
of official science. However, the facts are there and it is not possible to ignore
the evidence. From this platform, I invite anyone that wishes to do so to seek
an explanation to this massive avalanche of closely coordinated chained
“coincidences” in diverse fields.
Let us now telegraphically outline our
“philosophical” proposal so as to understand the ultimate significance of all
that we have discussed so far.
All manifested reality appears, inextricably,
in the form of dualities. No form of expression is possible outside this play of
the opposites. We cannot find sound without silence, subject without object,
inside without outside, and so on. All opposites are mutually dependent and
therefore we can understand them as polar manifestations of a reality that
transcends them and that is “prior” to this duality itself.
In the various graphs that we have used, for
example Fig. 7-A and 7-B, we can see how the course of evolution starts at a pole
of maximum energy (and practically no consciousness at all) and ends at another
pole of maximum consciousness (and practically null energy). Physicists talk
about an infinite potential energy amidst the original quantum void, while sages
talk about a clear infinite consciousness in the final mystical void. We
propose that these two voids are the same and unique Void, perceived by physicists
objectively and by contemplative people subjectively, which in itself, is neither
objective nor subjective, but “prior” to that dual perspective. And the most fascinating thing of all is that
this Void is not a distant metaphysical reality, but the simple and pure
Self-evidence of each and every present moment.
As there is no separation between subject and
object in this Self-evidence, it is not possible see it, because there
is not “anything” that could be seen by “someone”, but neither is it “nothing”,
because in fact all things in the universe —both objective and subjective— are
mere partial and relative forms of this Self-evidence. And although it is,
therefore, unutterable, unexplainable, we may point to It, talking about the
empty, self-luminous plenitude.
In order to be able to “see” Self-Evidence, it
needs to polarize Itself, at least apparently in subject and object, the same as
0 may become dual in +1 and -1 without changing, other than formally, its
absolute value. We say this because our ultimate proposal is that, in order for
Self-Evidence to contemplate Itself, it apparently splits in two poles: the original
(basically, energy) and the final (basically, consciousness), generating an
illusory distance among them which, on vibrating —like the guitar string in our
hypothesis— gives rise to a whole scale of harmonics, which are precisely the
levels of stability that create the evolutionary cycles that we have discussed
here which span the entire range, from the most basic —of enormous energy and
little consciousness—to the highest —of little energy and enormous consciousness—,
that harmoniously channel the so-called game of chance. (Note the parallelism
between the hypothesis we are proposing here and “superstring theory”, although
the scope of application in our case is not simply reduced to the world of
microphysics, but embraces the entire spectrum of reality).
If we see the things from this perspective, the
entire avalanche of “coincidences” that we have revealed here, which are
totally unacceptable for the materialistic worldview, are shown to be natural
manifestations of That-Which-Is. Or the teleological character of evolution, so
denigrated by official science, is understood here as the logical expression of
the fundamental structure of what is Real. Or the progressive emergence of
consciousness, which is often completely forgotten in many branches of
sciences, is presented in our non-dualistic approach as a simple appearance of
the infinite lucidity of the ever-present Self-Evidence. Is it not time already
to change the paradigm?
Fondest regards to all,
José
P.S. A first approach of the hypothesis presented
here was published in 1993 by the journal of general evolution World Futures
Vol. 36, pp. 31-56, edited by Ervin Lazlo under the title A hypothesis
on the Rhythm of Becoming.
Three years later, Ed. Kairós edited and
published a new corrected and expanded version of the same hypothesis under the
title Entre la evolución y la eternidad (Between Evolution and Eternity)
in which it emphasized its inclusion in the new sciences of Evolution.
In 2008, Ed. Dilema published another paper entitled
Siendo nada, soy todo (Not being anything, I am everything) in which I attempted
to study the ultimate implications of the hypothesis from the viewpoint of perennial
philosophy and the non-dualistic mystics.
I have recently made some adjustments to the
periodic table of our hypothesis that have generated new confirmations of its
validity, and therefore we think that it is convenient to offer it to the
general public. And here it is… Beyond
Darwin.
Addendum 1: Coincident research
Some readers of the present
article have raised doubts as to whether the sequence of evolutionary and
historical cycles we have presented here may not have been somewhat forced to
make it coincide with the forecasts of our hypothesis. On our part, we
think that the series of selected milestones, grouped together in the form of
blocks (Palaeontology –Kingdom: animal, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammals, Order: Primates,
Superfamily: Hominoids, Family: Hominids, and Genus: Homo–, Palaeoanthropology –H. habilis, H. erectus, Archaic H. sapiens,
H. sapiens and H. sapiens sapiens– and History –Neolithic, Ancient
Age, Middle Ages, Modern Age and Postmodern Age–), is solid and coherent enough
for there to be no kind of trick or manipulation involved. Nonetheless, in
order to clarify any doubts, we shall now attempt to confirm our proposal by
presenting some key points in the work of three researchers who have analyzed
the phenomenon of evolutionary acceleration independently and from different
perspectives –Russian astrophysicist Alexander D. Panov, French palaeontologist
Jean Chaline and American computer scientist Carter V. Smith–, whose proposals
are fully in tune with the pattern of rhythms we have outlined in this article.
Let us see.
Alexander D. Panov repeatedly treats the subject in a number
of studies. The information we shall contribute here is specifically taken
from a couple of articles of his that can be consulted on the Internet. One
is entitled: “¿Punto de bifurcación
evolutivo?” (Evolutionary Bifurcation Point?) (published in
Spanish by LeonAlado.org), and the other: “Scaling Law of the Biological Evolution and the Hypothesis of the
Self-Consistent Galaxy Origin of Life”.
Panov holds that the evolution of
the Earth’s biosphere has passed through a series of stages with phase transitions between them, which he
calls biosphere revolutions. He
lists a sequence of 19 such revolutions, indicating their approximate dates and
their main features. (At each stage, we in turn will indicate the
correspondence of each one of these with our pattern of cycles). Let us
see the complete list:
0. 3,800 million years ago. Emergence of life on Earth /
Prokaryotes. [Period leading up to the 1st node of cycle A-1]
1. 1,500 million years ago. Oxygen crisis / Aerobic lifeforms
/ Eukaryotes / Neoproterozoic revolution. [Period leading up to the 2nd
node of cycle A-1]
2. 590/510 million years ago. Palaeozoic Era begins / Cambrian
explosion / Vertebrates. [Period leading up to the 2nd node of cycle A-2]
3. 235 million years ago. Mesozoic begins / Revolution of
reptiles. [Period leading up to the 2nd node of cycle A-3]
4. 66 million years ago. Cenozoic Era begins / Revolution of
mammals and birds. [Period leading up to the 2nd node of cycle A-4]
5. 25/20 million years ago. The Neogene period begins /
Hominoid revolution. [Period leading up to the 2nd node of cycle A-5]
6. 5/4 million years ago. The Anthropogene period begins /
Quaternary era / First hominids appear. [Around the 2nd node of cycle A-6]
7. 2/1.6 million years ago. Olduvai / Homo habilis / Palaeolithic revolution. [Around
the 2nd node of cycle A-7]
8. 0.7/0.6 million years ago. Shell / Homo erectus / Settlement of Europe
and Asia. [Around the 2nd node of cycle B-1]
9. 0.4/0.22 million years ago. Achel / Archaic Homo sapiens. [Stage between the nodes of cycle
B-2]
10. 150/100 thousand years ago. Mustie / Homo sapiens / Cultural revolution
of the Neanderthals. [Stage between the nodes of cycle B-3]
11. 40 thousand years ago. Revolution of the Upper
Palaeolithic / Homo sapiens sapiens /
Cultural revolution of the Cro-Magnons. [Stage between the nodes of cycle
B-4]
12. 12/9 thousand years ago. Neolithic revolution. [Period
leading up to the 2nd node of cycle B-5]
13. 4000/3000 BC. Revolution of cities / Ancient Age begins. [Around
the 1st node of cycle B-6]
14. 800/500 BC. Revolution of the axial era / Iron Age / Age
of Empires. [Around the 2nd node of cycle B-6]15. 400/600 AD. The
Middle Ages begin. [Around the 1st node of cycle B-7]
16. 1450/1550 AD. First Industrial Revolution / Modern Age
begins. [Period leading up to the 1st node of cycle C-1]
17. 1830/1840 AD. Second Industrial Revolution / Steam engine
and electricity. [Period leading up to the 2nd node of cycle C-1]
18. 1950 AD. Computer science revolution / Post-Industrial Age
begins. [Period leading up to the 1st node of cycle C-2]
We thus see that of the 19
biosphere and historical revolutions posited by Panov, 13 coincide fully with
the rhythm of the cycles of our hypothesis, while the remaining 6 revolutions
fully fit in with the pairs of nodes of 3 of our other cycles [“prokaryotic -
eukaryotic” in cycle A-1, “urban revolution - axial revolution” (Ancient Age)
in cycle B-6 and “first industrial revolution - second industrial revolution”
(Modern Age) in cycle C -1], which Panov considered separately. We can
therefore say that the coincidence is almost complete and, therefore, given
that the research was carried out completely independently, we believe the
circumstance to be truly significant and decisive.
Jean Chaline, in the paper entitled “L’arbre de la vie a-t-il une structure fractale?” (jointly authored
by Laurent Nottale and Pierre Grou and also freely available on the Internet),
studies the time sequences of the great evolutionary leaps in the global tree
of life. In Table I (and Figure 1), he summarizes the list of dates and
features of these leaps up until the appearance of primates, while, in Table IV
(and Figure 6), he goes on to list the major transformations that have occurred
throughout the process of humanization of primates. The combined series
would thus be something like as follows:
1. 3,500 ± 400 million years ago. Emergence of life /
First prokaryotic cells. [Period leading up to the 1st node of cycle A-1]
2. 1,750 ± 250 million years ago. First eukaryotic cells. [Period
leading up to the 2nd node of cycle A-1]
3. 1000 ± 100 million years ago. Multicellularity. [Period
leading up to the 1st node of cycle A-2]
4. 570 ± 30 million years ago. Exo-skeletons. [Period
leading up to the 2nd node of cycle A-2]
5. 380 ± 30 million years ago. Tetrapods / First tetrapod with
lungs. [Period leading up to the 1st node of cycle A-3]
6. 220 ± 20 million years ago. Homeothermy / First mammals. [Period
leading up to the 2nd node of cycle A-3]
7. 120 ± 20 million years ago. Viviparity / First marsupials
and placentals. [Period leading up to the 1st node of cycle A-4]
8. 65 ± 5 million years ago. First primate / Prosimians. [Period
leading up to the 2nd node of cycle A-4]
9. 40 ± 5 million years ago. First anthropoid ancestor /
Simians. [Period leading up to the 1st node of cycle A-5]
10. 20 ± 2 million years ago. Proconsul / Apes. [Period
leading up to the 2nd node of cycle A-5]
11. 10 ± 1.5 million years ago. Common ancestor P/G/H. [Around
the 1st node of cycle A-6]
12. 5 ± 1 million years ago. Australopithecus. [Around
the 2nd node of cycle A-6 or around the 1st node of cycle A-7]
13. 2 ± 0.3 million years ago. First Homo. [Around
the 2nd node of cycle A-7]
14. 0.18 ± 0.02 million years ago. Modern man / Homo sapiens. [Period leading up to
the 1st node of cycle B-3]
We thus see that the first 13
evolutionary leaps that appear in this list correspond accurately, one by one,
with all the nodes in our series A, except for number 12, which includes the
2nd node of cycle A-6 and the 1st node of cycle A-7. We can therefore
affirm that the coincidence is once again practically complete. It is
therefore not surprising that when the Chaline calculates the ratio between the
durations of successive stages, he obtains an average value which, as he
himself states –in his article “La
relativité d’echelle dans la morphogenèse du vivant: fractal, déterminisme
et hasard”–, seems to be, both generally and comprehensively, near to
the square root of 3 (1.736 ± 0.013), which is completely in tune with our
proposal, since, given that each one of our cycles has two nodes, applying this
number (√3) twice, we obtain: √3 x √3 = 3, which, as we recall, is
precisely and exactly the ratio between the durations of the successive cycles
in our hypothesis! Can anyone believe that all this is coincidence?
Carter V. Smith has comprehensively studied the phenomenon of
evolutionary acceleration on his two web pages: “Twelve Stage Vision” and “Acceleration
Evolution”. From an integral perspective, he outlines a model of 12
grouped stages, three by three, in four eras –Body, Emotion, Mind and Spirit–,
which reveals the exponential acceleration of human evolutionary development. We
shall now summarize the entire series, which includes the approximate duration
of each stage, in powers of 10, its main feature and the respective correlation
with the cycles of our hypothesis:
S1. Since the origin of the universe to 5,000 million years
ago. Matter / Big Bang → organic matter. [From the Big Bang to
the origin of cycle A-1]
S2. From 5,000 to 500 million years ago. Cells / Organic
matter → vertebrates. [From the origin of cycle A-1 to the origin of
cycle A-3]
S3. From 500 to 50 million years ago. Animals / Vertebrates → simians. [From
the origin of cycle A-3 to the origin of cycle A-5]
S4. From 50 to 5 million years ago. Mammals / Prosimians → Australopithecus. [From
the origin of cycle A-5 to around the origin of cycle A-7]
S5. From 5 to 0.5 million years ago. Hominids /
Australopithecus → Homo erectus. [From
around the origin of cycle A-7 to around the 1st node of cycle B-2]
S6. From 500,000 to 50,000 years ago. Archaic man / Homo erectus → Homo sapiens sapiens. [From around
the 1st node of cycle B-2 to around the 1st node of cycle B-4]
S7. From 50.000 to 5.000 years ago. Magic / Homo sapiens sapiens → Ancient
Age. [From around the 1st node of cycle B-4 to around the 1st node of
cycle B-6]
S8. From 5.000 to 500 years ago. Mythical / Middle Ages →
Modern Age. [From around the 1st node of cycle B-6 to around the 1st node
of cycle C-1]
S9a. From 500 years ago. Rational-individualistic.
S9b. Currently emerging. Rational-pluralistic.
S9c. In the near future. Rational-integral.
S10. Integral-spiritual, S11. Subtle-spiritual
and S12. Causal-spiritual
will unfold in an accelerated way during the next century and a half.
We thus
see that each of the stages that Smith proposes includes, time and time again
and in all cases, two complete cycles of our pattern of time. For that
reason, as the duration of each cycle in our hypothesis is exactly one third of
that of the previous one, if we consider stages that comprise a couple of these
cycles –as Smith does–, the ratio between their durations will be: 3 x 3 =
9, which is obviously very close to 10, the value this American researcher uses
in an approximate way, in his evolutionary scheme. Once again, therefore,
there is practically complete coincidence between the evolutionary path
outlined in “Twelve Stage Vision” and
our hypothesis, and it is no wonder Smith situates the end stop –Omega– of the
evolutionary spiral around the year 2150, not very far from our 2217.
In conclusion, given the enormous
coincidences between the investigations of Panov, Chaline, Smith and my own,
all carried out independently and from very different approaches, it seems
evident that we have unexpectedly discovered a very precise evolutionary
pattern within the apparently random dynamics of the universe. It is
obvious, therefore, that, given the scope and profound implications of this
discovery, a host of novel perspectives now open up. So from here, as we
stated in the Introduction, all readers are invited to investigate the
suggestive paths that are beginning to appear. We may thus possibly
discover that the reality is much more fascinating than we could ever have
imagined.
When I started to develop this evolutionary
hypothesis back in the early 1980s, it was truly upsetting to realize the utter
solitude in which I found myself. I felt I had discovered something truly
valuable and yet could not find others with whom to share the discovery and
compare opinions. There were times when I was even tempted to throw in the
towel. Repeatedly, however, the intuition that what I had found was worth the
effort gave me strength to keep working on it.
In recent years, though, the picture has
changed completely thanks to the enormous possibilities offered by the
Internet. It has been a wonderful surprise and great joy for me to repeatedly
find references to numerous authors who, from very different perspectives, put
forward very similar ideas to those I had been proposing for many years.
To highlight these obvious similarities between
research carried out from very different fields, we shall next present a chart
(Fig. 10) which aims to summarize the proposals of a significant number of
authors who have studied this clamorous phenomenon of evolutionary
acceleration, in line with our own work.
This chart will naturally include the three
researchers cited in the previous Addendum –Alexander Panov, Jean
Chaline and Carter Smith–, as
well as the other two –André de Cayeux
and Ervin Laszlo– cited in our
article. We shall also include the proposals by the Greek physicist and
futurist Theodore Modis, author of
the article entitled Forecasting the
Growth of Complexity and Change; the North American electrical engineer Richard L. Coren, author of The Evolutionary Trajectory; the
American engineer, inventor and futurist Ray
Kurzweil, author of The Singularity
is Near; the Swedish software engineer Nick
Hoggard, author of Evolution and the
Feigenbaum Number; and that of the Spanish biologist Miguel García Casas, author of Teoría
de la vida embarazada y la
reproevolución [Theory of Pregnant Life and Reproevolution].
It is truly wonderful to see the myriad
similarities between the lists of the major evolutionary milestones proposed in
all these works, to the degree that the charts that represent them –whether
linear or logarithmical– are virtually identical in all cases. There is just a
very slight difference –of only one or two centuries– regarding the date of the
final pole towards which the trajectories lead. Yet what are a hundred or two
hundred years after a journey of more than 13,500 million years?
Clear differences of opinion do exist among
these authors, however, concerning the valuation of this final pole of infinite
evolutionary acceleration. From our point of view, it is a “singularity” of the
same calibre as that of the initial instant of the Big Bang. If this original pole
basically consisted in an explosion
in the field of “energy”, the final pole towards which we are precipitously
heading will essentially consist in an implosion
in the field of “consciousness”. Note, however, as stated in the last paragraph
of this article, both aspects –“energy” and “consciousness”– are not two
different realities, but polar aspects of one and the same unique Emptiness,
the objective and subjective aspects of ever-present, simple and full
Self-evidence. Thus, from our point of view, the “trick” of evolution and of
history will be definitively revealed at this forthcoming final instant. That
is, the entire trajectory from the Big Bang to today has occurred in this
eternal Now that we in fact are. It will thus be made manifest that our life
has not been a mere fleeting fragment in the midst of an endless process, but
that we have, in fact, always been the pure, timeless Self-evidence in
which all worlds have happened, happen and will happen. There has been no
“before”. There will be no “after”. There is only Now. Is it not self-evident?
Attention, though! Of course, that final moment
will not be a mere subjective experience achieved by some enlightened
individuals. As we have seen, there is truly no subjectivity without
objectivity, nor individuals truly separated from their universal environment.
Therefore, the final experience will be simultaneously interior and exterior,
both individual and collective. As it is now. As it has always been. (The
following Addendum 3 will outline the evolutionary scenario from this integral
approach).
Throughout this article, we have analyzed the
evolutionary rhythm of both the global “macrocosm” –the human phylogeny– and
the individual “microcosm” –our own ontogeny– in their respective and similar
trajectories, from the original pole, basically energetic –exterior–, until the
final pole, basically conscious –interior–. These four aspects
–individual/collective, interior/exterior– have been present in each stage of
the evolutionary path, as they all imply one another. None of them could take
place without the presence of all the others. Unfortunately, this evidence has
not been demonstrated until very recently, while bias and sectarianism have
produced a great deal of incomprehension and suffering throughout history.
The great integral thinker Ken Wilber has
condensed virtually all of human knowledge in a simple chart that summarizes
the entire history of evolution in its four aspects –individual, collective,
exterior and interior– of an all-englobing and consistent way. It comprises a
simple diagram with four quadrants, in which “individual” aspects are located
at the top, “collective” aspects at the bottom, “exterior” aspects on the right
and “interior” aspects on the left. Thus, the upper-left quadrant describes the
interior-individual process (the conscious self); the upper-right quadrant, the
exterior-individual process (the energy organism); the lower-left quadrant, the
interior-collective process (the cultural perspective); and the lower right
quadrant, the exterior-collective process (the social system).
All the evolutionary levels displayed
throughout the history of the universe –the entire energy-consciousness
spectrum– are reflected in each of the quadrants according to their specific
aspects. In almost all his work, Wilber has placed greater emphasis on the
exhaustive study of the interior (psychological and spiritual) spheres. On the
other hand, the authors mentioned in the previous Addenda have found it easier
to resort to exterior forms when investigating the rhythm of evolution based on
paleontological and anthropological data. It seems clear that the integration
of both bodies of work can be extremely fruitful for all. We shall thus attempt
to express the results of our research in a diagram (Fig. 11) similar to that
of Wilber’s four quadrants. We believe that, in this way, we can provide
greater precision in the definition of the levels of the energy-consciousness
spectrum.
Addendum 4: Inner evolution
In Addenda 1 and 2, we have seen the great similarities between our hypothesis regarding the rhythm of evolution and the research of other authors who have also independently studied the surprising phenomenon of evolutionary acceleration from different perspectives. Almost all of these researchers have taken their data from the “objective” or “external” world.
In Addendum 3, we insisted that, in the phenomenal world, “objects” cannot exist without “subjects” or “outside” without “inside”, as both aspects are mutually dependent. Inexorably so.
Therefore, in this Addendum 4 we shall refer specifically to a number of authors who have methodically studied “inner” dynamics, mainly in the field of developmental psychology. This scientific discipline chiefly studies the regularities that occur in the process of psychological development of human beings throughout their life cycle. The specific areas of study can be highly diverse –cognitive, moral, emotional, etc.–, yet in all cases, a detailed description is given of a number of very specific stages which humans sequentially pass through from birth to death given the appropriate circumstances. The existence of these successive stages is not at all mere speculation, but is based on data provided by a major body of research.
We would like to point out here that, as the field of research of developmental psychologists chiefly focuses on the process of human life from birth onward, the spectrum of reality these studies cover is hence restricted to only the last stages of evolution. In principle, it could be thought that this limitation might hinder our attempt to test the hypothesis that we are developing. However, the truth is that the abundance and accuracy of the data we have found has enabled us to carry out the test very easily with very positive results.
To describe the different “lines” or “currents” of development which are the subject of research in this field of psychology, Ken Wilber uses the analogy of a mountain which can be climbed via a number of routes. (We postulate that it is a stratified mountain, like Plank’s “quanta”, Gould and Eldrege’s “punctuated equilibrium” or Mandelbrot’s “fractals”). The landscapes spotted from each of these routes may be very diverse, but in all cases, the paths taken must inexorably pass through successive levels (in our words, strata) to access the summit. That is to say, all the lines or currents of development, each with its specific characteristics, advance along the same altitude gradient, defined by the degree of consciousness, in such a way that the higher the degree of consciousness, the higher the development of a particular line will be.
Wilber posits a graph –a “psychograph”– with the colours of the expanded visible electromagnetic spectrum –from infrared to ultraviolet and beyond– to define the different levels of development. He uses the same psychograph for all lines or currents, since, as already stated all progress through the same altitude gradient. Note, however, that altitude is simply a measure or a marker of something, yet, in itself, lacks any particular content. Similarly, consciousness, in itself, is not a concrete phenomenon, but the vacuum within which all phenomena emerge. Nor is it a specific line of development among many others, but rather the opening in which all the lines of development unfold. Thus, the degree of consciousness allows us to determine the height at which each of these lines passes at any given time.
As already stated, after analyzing the work of countless researchers of psychological development, Wilber has designed an integral chromatic altimeter that precisely defines the successive general levels through which the different lines pass. For instance, we may speak of orange cognition, an orange sense of identity, an orange vision of the world, etc. Thus, the “chromatic altimeter” shows the general similarities between the different lines or currents of development.
Dear reader, if you have followed what we have been explaining in this article so far, you may have noticed that our basic hypothesis is ultimately no other than a “sound altimeter” of overall evolution and individual development. As you will recall, we stated that, starting from the vibrating unity of original energy-consciousness –the dual appearance of ever-present Self-evidence–, the successive second harmonics generated the entire spectrum of “potential levels of stratified stability” which, as we have shown, channel the entire process of evolution and development. Amazingly, our “sound altimeter” exactly coincides with Ken Wilber’s “chromatic altimeter” in its totality, level by level!!! Wilber’s
infrared corresponds to our
B-4,
magenta to
B-5,
red to
B-6,
amber to
B-7,
orange to
C-1,
green to
C-2,
teal to
C-3,
turquoise to
C-4,
indigo to
C-5,
violet to
C-6,
ultraviolet to
C-7 and
clear light to
beyond series C, i.e. beyond the transpersonal witness. All twelve levels!!! Full house!!!
In Figure 12, we have attempted to show the full correspondence between the stages in human life observed by developmental psychologists and the evolutionary levels proposed in our hypothesis. We have placed our “sound altimeter” on the left side of the chart, Wilber’s “chromatic altimeter” on the right, and the names and areas of study of 15 of the most renowned researchers in human psychological development along the top:
Jean Piaget,
Michael L. Commons and
Francis A. Richards (cognitive),
Jean Gebser and
Ken Wilber (worldviews),
Abraham Maslow (needs),
Clare W.
Graves and
Jenny Wade (values),
Don E. Beck and
Chris Cowan (spiral dynamics),
Jane Loevinger and
Susanne Cook-Greuter (self-identity),
Lawrence Kohlberg (morals),
James Fowler (stages of faith) and
Robert Kegan (orders of consciousness). The solidity of the resulting plot is almost complete. Fundamentally, in the section most investigated by these psychologists (between our steps B-4 and C-3), the coincidence between the stages posited by each of these authors and the levels indicated in the two reference altimeters (sound and chromatic) is overwhelming. It thus seems that our hypothesis passes (how could it not!) the test of “inner development” with honours. We insist: Can anyone honestly think that this is pure coincidence?
To illustrate the rapid emergence of these psychological stages along the course of the evolutionary and historical process, we had intended to use Wilber’s chromatic altimeter. We have encountered, however, the problem of the lack of contrast between the colours representing the successive cycles –magenta, red, amber. etc.–, which makes it difficult to perceive successive phases and interfaces. So, finally, we have chosen to use the colours suggested in Spiral Dynamics, as in this case, cool tones alternate with warm, so the graph presents greater contrast and is therefore more expressive and clarifying. Obviously, the drawing is also applicable to any other line of development ... but without colours.
Let us then first outline a basic understanding of this transdisciplinary (bio-psycho-social-cultural) model of Spiral Dynamics, which has major similarities with our proposal. Subsequently, as already stated, we shall graphically express these correlations in Figure 13. Finally, we shall draw a very suggestive conclusion from all this.
Spiral Dynamics is rooted in the long-standing and thorough research of professor of psychology Clare W. Graves into the evolution of individuals and societies. Analyzing the different ways of thinking and ways of being of human beings, he identified a number of common patterns or basic value systems and integrated them into a multi-layered model of progressively complex levels. Graves held that the nature of human beings is an open system in constant evolution which advances by quantum leaps from a stationary state to another through a hierarchy of ordered, relatively stable systems, which unfurl spirally over the entire historical process of humankind from its beginnings to the present. He posited that these emergent stages are not rigid steps, but rather flowing, overlapping and interrelated waves, leading to the expansive spiral dynamics of individual and collective development, driven by their own internal dynamics and changing conditions of life. As it possesses a broader perspective and a more complex capacity for organization, each emergent wave “transcends and includes” –as Wilber puts it– all previous waves, acquires the maximum importance for a period of time and ultimately ends up being “transcended by and included in” a new, broader-ranging and more complex wave.
After Graves’ death, his co-workers Don E. Beck and Chris Cowan continued to develop and corroborate their mentor’s theoretical model and used it as the basis for their book Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change. These authors call the successive paradigms that define each of the eight basic levels of the spectrum “value memes” or “vMemes”. As can be seen in Fig. 12, the eight levels of Spiral Dynamics exactly coincide, one by one, with all the cycles of our hypothesis between B-4 and C-4. It occurred to Beck and Cowan to identify each of these levels with a certain colour, thus facilitating the understanding and dissemination of their intelligent and effective model. The basic characteristics of these levels or colours are as follows:
Beige: Survival Instinct. Satisfaction of physiological needs. Impulsiveness. Biological automatism. Immediate action. [Nomadic hordes. “Savagery”.]
Purple: Kin Spirits. Loyalty to the chief, the clan, tradition. Ethnocentric culture. Safety. Magic-animistic thinking. Superstitions. Taboos. Rituals to appease ancestral spirits. [Tribal settlements. “Barbarism”.]
Red: Power Gods. Egocentric. The grandiose, impulsive, omnipotent Self. Triumph of the strong. Myths of heroes. Fighting. Conquest. Domination. Exploitation. Tyranny. [Ancient empires. “Enslavement”.]
Blue: Truth Force. Absolutist thinking. Certainty. Existence ordered via a divine code. Regulations. Rules. Traditions. Obedience. Discipline. Guilt. Self-sacrifice. Deferred reward. Order. Stability. Conformism. Socio-centric culture. [Medieval kingdoms. “Feudalism”.]
Orange: Strive Drive. Effort. Pragmatism. Empiricism. Positivism. Scientism. Strategy. Competition. Dynamism. Growth. Success. Results. Achievements. Free market. Material goods. Consumerism. Individualism. Autonomy. Control. [National states. “Capitalism”.]
Green: Human Bond. Community Collaboration. Solidarity. Associative movements. Building of consensus. Relativism. Pluralism. Multiculturalism. The sensitive Self. Emotional communication. Feelings. Equality. Sense of injustice. Human rights. Feminism. Environmental awareness. Sustainability. Ecology.
Yellow: Flex Flow. Process integration. Systemic thinking. Complexity. Interdependence. Collaborative networks. Multiple realities. Open systems. Acceptance of uncertainty. Questioning mentality. Curiosity. Inquiry. Flexibility. Utility. Functionality. Spontaneity.
Turquoise: Global View. Global synthesis. Chaordic (chaotic-ordered) world. Fractal reality. Life as an unfolding of holoarchies. Spiral dynamics. Multiple levels interwoven into one conscious system. Communion with the whole. Understanding of universal harmony. Collective consciousness. Holographic connections. Transpersonal mentality. Cosmic spirituality.
Fig. 13 shows the successive vMemes (colours), both individually and collectively, illustrating the historical periods in which each began to emerge (increasing gradation of colour), the stages during which they dominated the collective panorama (continuous colour) and the phases during which their predominance waned (decreasing gradation of colour). The conclusions to be drawn from the graph are evident. On the one hand, we have said that spiral dynamics is expansive and therefore with each twist –transcending and integrating all previous stages–, its level of consciousness and ability to embrace greater complexity increases. On the other hand, we have found that the duration of the successive stages decreases, one after another, at a dizzying rate, and that within a couple of centuries a moment of infinite creativity will thus be reached. At that moment, in that Singularity, consciousness will have transcended and included the entire spectrum of reality and will thus become manifest in the world of forms, the ever-present truth in the timeless Emptiness or Void: the non-duality if energy and consciousness, of object and subject, of origin and end.
Ray Kurzweil, one of the most prestigious researchers of technological acceleration, locates the moment of Singularity in 2045. He states that the non-biological intelligence created in that year will be a thousand million times more powerful than all human intelligence today. However, that does not seem to really be the true evolutionary summit, because, subsequently, in his book The Singularity Is Near, he states that our civilization will expand outward, turning all the dumb matter and energy that we comprise into highly intelligent (and transcendent) matter and energy. So, in a sense, we can say that the Singularity will eventually imbibe the universe with its spirit. Kurzweil specifies that we will manage to saturate the universe with our intelligence before the end of 22nd century and states “Once we saturate the matter and energy of the universe with intelligence, it will ‘wake up’, be conscious, and sublimely intelligent. That’s about as close to God as I can imagine.” Accordingly, it thus seems that the real evolutionary summit will not take place in 2045, but will occur in the late 22nd century, when all the energy and intelligence of the universe will be experienced in a unified way.
Seen in this way, the coincidence with my proposal seems quite clear, in terms of both date and content. As we have posited in this article, at the
beginning of the 23rd century –around the year 2217–
energy and
consciousness will reveal their ultimate non-duality. According to Ray Kurzweil, at the
end of 22nd century, all the
energy of the universe will be saturated with
intelligence and the Singularity will eventually imbibe this universe with its spirit. Doesn’t that all sound very similar?
I have been fortunate to find recently some articles
by American software engineer David J. LePoire, in which he investigates the
global pattern of evolution, fundamentally in the fields of energy, the environment
and technology. Although his starting point and final forecasts differ from my
proposal, the coincidences between our respective analyses of the evolutionary
process are truly surprising. Therefore, I do not wish to miss the opportunity
to include in these pages at least a reference to these suggestive coincidences
with LePoire’s work.
In the initial abstract of his article Potential nested accelerating returns
logistic growth in Big History, Dave states the following:
“The discussions
about the trends in rates of change, especially in technology, have led to a
range of interpretative models including accelerating rates of change and
logistic progress. These models are reviewed and a new model is constructed
that can be used to interpret Big History. This interpretation includes the
increasing rates of the evolutionary events and phases of life, humans, and
civilization. These three phases, previously identified by others, have
different information processing mechanisms (genes, brains, and writing). The
accelerating returns aspect of the new model replicates the exponential part of
the progress as the transitions in these three phases started roughly 5
billion, 5 million, and 5,000 years ago. Each of these three phases might be
composed of a further level of about six nested transitions with each
transition proceeding faster by a factor of about three with corresponding
changes in free energy flow and organization to handle the increased generation
rate of entropy from the system. Nested logistic transitions have been observed
before, for example in the ongoing exploration of fundamental physics, where
the progress so far suggests that the complete transition will include about 7
nested transitions (sets of subfields). The reason for this number of nested
transitions within a larger transition is not known, although it may be related
to the initial step of understanding a fraction of the full problem.”
In Table 1, LePoire describes, one by one, the
different evolutionary stages, defined by the successive changes in energy
flows [I indicate in brackets the correspondence with our evolutionary cycles]:
Gravitational [Big Bang], Planet/Life [Formation of the Earth], Complex Cells [A-1],
Cambrian [A-2], Mammals [A-3], Primates [A-4], Hominids [A-6], Humans [A-7],
Speech [B-1], Fire [B-2], Ecoadaptation [B-3], Modern Humans [B-4], Agriculture
[B-5], Civilization [B-6], Commercial Revolution [B-7], Scientific/Exploration,
Industrial [C-1], Information [C-2]. The parallelism is practically total!
Coinciding with our hypothesis, Dave proposes a
temporal contraction factor between the successive evolutionary cycles of 3. He
states, “A time
contraction factor of about 3 is similar to time and energy contraction factors
found by Snooks (2005) and Bejan and Zane (2012). […] Note that just one time
contraction factor was realized from the Big Bang to the beginning of life on
Earth.” He then adds, “Alexander Panov
(2011) also organized evolutionary history with 19 evolutionary crisis
transitions with decreasing duration (by about a factor of 3). This is called
the scaling law of evolution.”
In the article Interpreting
Big History as Complex Adaptive System Dynamics with Nested Logistic
Transitions in Energy Flow and Organization,
LePoire represents the global dynamics of evolution by means of the following
figure:
In the text he states, “The overall
logistic of the Big History might be viewed as consisting of three spirals on
one side of a double cone representing the evolution of life, mind and human civilization [see Figure]. Each spiral
would consist of six to seven nested
smaller logistic growth phases with time
durations decreasing by about a third. The astronomical period before life began (i.e. 13.8 billion to 5
billion years ago) is a factor of three
times the duration represented in
the cone. This period was driven by gravitation and expansion as the
universe’s temperature dropped, at first quickly but then slowing down. This
can be represented by a cone pointed in the opposite direction. After the
inflection point, a reflection in the duration of phases might occur.” The bold lettering is mine].
As can be appreciated, our descriptions of the overall pattern of evolution
coincide practically totally. Dave talks about THREE spirals that represent the
evolution of life, mind and civilization (recall our three series: “life”,
“mind” and “intellect”), with SEVEN stages of smaller logistic growth nested in
each one (recall the seven cycles that each of our series encompasses), the
temporal duration of each stage being a THIRD of the preceding one (recall the
length of 1/3 of our successive second harmonics). Moreover, the astronomical
period is THREE times the duration represented by the three turns of the cone
(as we have observed in our research). It is fascinating to see how the
aforementioned paragraph by Dave is a perfect summary of the hypothesis we are
proposing!
Nonetheless, it would also be appropriate here to add that LePoire’s
interpretation of the direction of the vertex of the evolutionary spiral
differs from the one we are proposing in this book. Instead of foreseeing a
final singularity of infinite creativity, as we have done, Dave predicts a
simple inflection point in the evolutionary pattern, at which the accelerated
process of evolution reverses its direction, thus initiating a gradual slowdown
in the rhythm of transformations.
In the article An Exploration of Historical Transitions with Simple
System Dynamics Models, Dave focuses his research on the six main social and technological
transitions of human evolution, i.e. between hunter-gatherers [B-4], agricultural
societies [B-5], early civilizations [B-6], market development [B-7],
industrialization [C-1] and sustainable societies [C-2]. We have included in
brackets the correspondences with our cycles, because, as can be seen, they
coincide completely]. He states, “The
more recent periods arrive after shorter durations about 1/3 the time between
the transitions. This factor of 3 is also an approximation for changes in
accelerating periods for both natural biological evolution and cultural human
evolution as well as this human historical revolution heavily influenced by
technology”.
LePoire interprets the whole series of evolutionary stages as a chain of
nested logistic curves (S), and points out, in each one of them, an “inflection
point” –or change of curvature– at which the stage begins its decline at the
moment of greatest creativity. These “inflection points” coincide precisely
with the “second nodes” in each of our cycles, in which, as we have explained,
the old paradigm reaches its peak and then starts to decline as the seed of a
new model arises. To visualize these coincidences, we will indicate LePoire’s
proposals below in three specific cases that he cites in his article An Exploration of Historical Transitions:
In the section on “agricultural
societies”, he states in the text: “The inflection point was about 9,000 years ago”
and Figure 9 clearly illustrates this change of curvature. (Recall that the
“second node” of our cycle B-5 took place approximately 8,300 years ago).
In the section on “early
civilizations”, he states in the text, “The inflection point of this process occurred at about
600 BCE which is known as the Axial Age”,
the corresponding figure clearly illustrating this change of curvature. (Recall
that the “second node” of our cycle B-6 took place approximately in the year
550 BCE).
In the section on “industrialization”,
he states in the text, “Analysis
of a different set of data show the peak in innovation per capita at around
1900” and the corresponding figure clearly
illustrates this change of curvature. (Recall that the
“second node” of our cycle C-1 took place approximately in the year 1910 AD).
It is truly fascinating that the coincidences between
our separate investigations not only refer to the overall list of cycles of
evolution and history, but also include minor details such as the specific
dates of the “inflection points” between these cycles. It is even more
fascinating bearing in mind the different perspectives from which our work has
been proposed. We are sure that the reader will be aware of the profound
implications of these coincidences.
Addendum
6: Toroidal evolution
Everything
written so far has basically focused on unraveling the overall
pattern of the evolution of life in the universe, in general, and the
human being, in particular. As we have seen, the result of this
integral research clashes head on with the predictions of the
materialist paradigm of classical science. Surprisingly, however,
ground-breaking lines of research have started to appear in recent
years in different branches of science —physics, chemistry,
biology, neurology, among others— that are clearly in tune with the
world view that emerges from our evolutionary research and can hence
provide key data capable of explaining this unexpected universal
pattern that we are revealing here.
To
show this suggestive harmony between different cutting-edge research
in distinct fields of science, we will begin this addendum by
outlining the fundamental characteristics of the universal dynamics
that emerge from our inquiry into the rhythm of evolution. To this
end, let us start out from the flat images represented in Figures 7-A
and 7-B. These, we recall, summarized the overall pattern of
universal evolution and the individual development of the human being
from pole A (original energy) to pole Ω
(final consciousness).
On
the vertical axis of these graphs, we represented the entire spectrum
of energy-consciousness, from the base —with a maximum of energy
and a minimum of consciousness— to the summit —with a minimum of
energy and a maximum of consciousness—, with all the range of
possible intermediate equilibria between these two fundamental facets
of manifested reality, traditionally known as “the great chain of
Being” and which can be summarized as the
“matter-life-mind-soul-spirit” series. The horizontal axis of
these graphs simply reflected the overall temporal scale, both of the
universe and of the human being, from the origin (A) to the end (Ω).
Let
us recall at this point a couple of ideas that we have discussed
previously. We stated that all manifested reality inexorably appears
in the form of dualities —there can be no object without subject,
no energy without consciousness— and that, as all opposites are
mutually dependent, these can be understood as polar manifestations
of a reality that transcends them and is “prior” to this
dualization. We then argued that the original quantum vacuum posed by
physicists and the final mystical void experienced by contemplatives
are the same and unique Void, perceived by physicists objectively and
by contemplatives in a subjective way, but which, in itself, is
neither objective nor subjective, but rather “prior” to this dual
perspective. We finally explained that this Void does not allude to a
distant metaphysical reality, but to the simple and pure
Self-evidence of each present moment, which encompasses in itself all
the manifestations of energy and consciousness that are observed in
the spatiotemporal universe.
The
other idea that we wish to recall here refers to our statement that,
as there is no separation between subject and object in the
aforementioned Self-evidence and therefore it is not “something”
that can be seen by “someone”, in order to manifest itself
relatively, it needs to polarize in appearance as subject and object,
just as 0 can dualize in +1 and -1 without changing —other than
formally— its absolute value. We thus proposed that, in its attempt
to see itself, this Self-evidence apparently dualizes as an original
pole (basically of energy) and a final pole (basically of
consciousness), thus generating an illusory distance between the two,
which, on vibrating —like the guitar string of our hypothesis—gives
rise to a whole range of harmonics, which are precisely the levels of
stability that the cycles of evolution that we have studied run
through. We insist, however, that the presumed temporal distance
between both poles is completely illusory, as in fact everything
happens in the timeless Now of the ever present Self-evidence.
If
we wish to graphically reflect these two ideas in the aforementioned
Figures 7-A and 7-B —which, as we have seen, summarize the overall
patterns of universal evolution and the individual development of the
human being from the A pole of original energy to the Ω pole of
final consciousness— we need to perform a couple of maneouvers on
the flat surface on which we have represented both graphs (see Fig.
14-A).
First,
having proposed that energy and consciousness are not two different
realities, but rather the objective and subjective aspects of the
same and ever present Self-evidence, we should unify the horizontal
lines at the bottom and the top of the graph. As we have stated,
these respectively represent the levels of maximum energy and maximum
consciousness that are one and the same in fundamental reality. To do
so, it will suffice to fold the flat surface of the drawing in on
itself, aligning the upper line with the lower one, thus obtaining a
cylinder (see Fig. 14-B).
Then,
having affirmed that the temporal distance between the original
moment (A) and the final moment (Ω) is illusory —as everything
happens in the timeless Now— we should also unify the vertical
lines on the left and the right of the graph. As already stated,
these respectively represent the original and final moments of all
evolutionary and developmental processes. To do so, once again we
will fold our cylinder over onto itself, until the extreme vertical
lines coincide, thus obtaining a figure similar to a “doughnut”
in which the central hole is reduced to a point without dimensions.
It is what is called in geometry a “horn torus” (see Fig. 14-C).
Bearing
in mind what we have just explained —taking the guidelines that
have been revealed in our research to their ultimate consequences—,
everything points towards a fascinating toroidal dynamic of
energy-consciousness, both instantaneous and eternal, as the key
element for integral comprehension of the universe. According to this
scheme, the flows start out from a Center without dimensions —in
its facet A—, follow a spiral path —divergent vortex—, reach
the external surface of the torus, and return to the same Center —in
its facet Ω— via another spiral —convergent vortex—, to
subsequently restart its endless process from there. Next, we will
try to outline the fundamental aspects of this dynamic that is
beginning to be glimpsed, as we are possibly on the verge of solving
many of the enigmas and blind alleys in which official science and
its obsolete materialistic paradigm are trapped.
From
the outset, it is crucial to understand the ultimate meaning of the
central point of the “horn torus” that we are proposing, as it is
where the germ of everything else lies. As we have seen, this center
is deduced, on the one hand, from the unified understanding of the
infinite potential energy of the quantum vacuum and the unlimited
pure consciousness of the mystical void, and, on the other, from the
perception of the illusory character of time and hence of the
absolute simultaneity of the original pole (A)
and
the final pole (Ω) of all processes. The center of this toroidal
dynamic, which manifests itself as the spatiotemporal universe as a
whole and as each and every one of the structures that compose it, is
hence the same and unique non-dual Self-evidence, without form,
unlimited, timeless, ineffable, both empty and full, the source and
goal of all worlds, absolute potentiality. Let us insist once more,
this non-dual center is one and the same in everything and in all,
its true nature, its ultimate identity.
Accordingly,
for this faceless, pure Self-evidence to contemplate itself, it needs
to dualize —at least apparently— in the roles of eye and mirror,
subject and object, because this allows it to update its infinite
potential in the world of finite forms. In this way, as we have seen,
the non-dual center, without ceasing to be so, manifests itself in
polar form as the original source of energy and the final attractor
of consciousness, generating an illusory temporal distance between
both facets. Let us take a good look at this idea, because within it
may lie the solution to many of the enigmas that science is
encountering. The absolute Void, in which there is no trace of
separateness, manifests itself dually in the world of forms, so that
the presumed spatiotemporal distances that the “subjects” observe
among the “objects” are, ultimately, purely illusory.
Previously
we proposed that the vibration of the illusory “string” of
energy-consciousness that is created between the A and Ω poles,
generated, from the very same original moment, a particular
fundamental sound and a whole range of harmonics, which constituted
the entire spectrum of potential archetypal levels, which, as we have
seen, are updated, step by step, throughout evolution and history. We
must now apply this very same multilevel energy-consciousness scheme
that we proposed in the “string” of our hypothesis to the vibrant
“torus” that, as we have proposed, generates the entire universal
process. We will thus have a toroidal dynamic deeply nested in a
myriad of levels —like a “matryoshka” or nested dolls—, from
the tiny scale of Planck to the cosmic totality, thus reflecting the
radical fractal structure of the universe (see Fig. 14-D). The
fundamental characteristic of this fascinating nested torus lies in
the fact that the center is common and identical in all its levels.
Thus, all the universal flows, whatever the height of the
energy-consciousness spectrum through which these unfold, start out
from and end in this ineffable non-dual center that unites in itself
the facets of both source —A— and receptacle —Ω— of all the
worlds.
This
fractal, toroidal structure of reality greatly facilitates the
understanding of the evolutionary process. Thus, starting out from
the idea that, in the final analysis, the sole protagonist of all the
processes is the same and unique Self-evidence, we will now describe
how the dynamics of evolution unfolds, step by step.
We
stated earlier that the non-manifest Void apparently polarizes as
subject and object to perceive itself subjectively-objectively in
infinite ways. Via this artifice, Self-evidence can delve into the
furthest corners of its own infinity —illusively and fleetingly
identifying its absolute Here-Now with any relative point-instant of
pixelated space-time and, from there, contemplate itself from a
certain perspective —at any level of the energy-consciousness
spectrum of the nested torus—, returning instantaneously to its
original fullness. Given that, as we have stated, the temporal
dimension is purely imaginary, everything in fact occurs from instant
to instant. This exit and return, moment-by-moment, between the
non-dual foundation and its finite and fleeting manifestation in
space-time allows us to update in the relative world of forms the
potential levels of stability of the energy-consciousness spectrum,
i.e. the entire hierarchy of “harmonics” generated at the same
original moment.
This
recursive dynamic between the infinite Void and all its
spatiotemporal forms is intrinsically creative and is facilitated by
the unified field of memory that is gestating, step by step, at a
fundamental level. All the information gathered at any point-instant
of the manifested world is immediately introjected into this basic
field of collective memory, whose potential is logically increased
moment by moment. Thus, any entity, whatever the level of the
spectrum in which it develops, has deep down in itself free access to
the entirety of this unified field of memory, although it only
connects with certain aspects of this field depending on its
characteristics specific. The toroidal dynamic thus possesses a
holographic structure, in the sense that each “part” of itself
has information of the “totality”, and is, in fact, a particular
reflection of that totality.
From
the perspective that we are proposing here, the evolutionary process
can be understood as a natural expression of a toroidal, integral,
non-dual, fractal and holographic dynamic of fundamental
energy-consciousness. Via this recursive dynamic, the ever present
Self-evidence is focused, moment after moment, on the successive
levels of the “harmonic” spectrum, beginning with the most basic
ones —primarily energy— and ending at the highest levels
—primarily consciousness—. On each plane, it updates the specific
potential of that level, integrating it with the aspects that have
already emerged in previous levels. In each turn, starting from the
resources available in the unified field of memory, it is projected
in each concrete situation of space-time, it perceives that
determined situation according to the possibilities of its structure,
and, immediately, introjects that information into the field of
collective memory of the fundament. When a specific entity has
unfolded the full potential of the stratum in which it basically
develops and has integrated it with everything that has emerged in
the preceding stages, once it has reached a specific level of
complexity, it can resonate with the next “harmonic” of the
energy-consciousness spectrum, and thus ascend to a new rung of the
long ladder of evolution. And so on.
This
toroidal, non-dual, fractal, holographic dynamic of the fundamental
energy-consciousness that we are proposing has clear affinities with
ancient intuitions of the wisdom traditions —the yin-yang of
Taoism, the Celtic triskelion, the Egyptian seed of life, the Greek
caduceus, the Hindu kundalini... even the symbol of ∞ is no other
than the cross section of a horn torus!—. However, as we have
stated, it is practically unacceptable for the materialist paradigm
of classical science. In the wake of the emergence of quantum physics
and relativistic theory, the landscape has changed drastically, with
numerous innovative proposals emerging throughout the past century
that, in these first decades of the new millennium, have begun to
crystallize into a ground-breaking unified theory of fields that, in
many aspects, is in tune with the toroidal evolution we are proposing
here. Below, we provide a brief recap of some of the work, carried
out in very different fields, that has shone new light on the
landscape of science.
First,
it is important to recall the pioneering proposals on toroidal
dynamics by Walter Russell
—The Universal One—,
R. Buckminster Fuller
—Synergetics—,
Arthur M. Young
—The Reflexive Universe—
and Itzhak Bentov
—A Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness:
A Cosmic Book on the Mechanics of Creation—.
Concerning the creative trend of universal dynamics, it is necessary
to mention Jan C. Smuts’
“holism” —Holism and Evolution—,
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s
“Omega Point” —Le Phénomène
Humain—, the notion of “syntropy”
proposed by Luigi Fantappiè
—Principle of a unitary theory of the
physical and biological world— and
John A. Wheeler’s
“participatory anthropic principle”. As to the nested character
of the world, reference should be made to the concept of “holon”
put forward by Arthur Koestler
—The Ghost in the Machine—,
that of “fractal geometry” proposed by Benoît
Mandelbrot —Fractal
geometry of nature—, and Ken
Wilber’s “holoarchical evolution”
—Sex, ecology, spirituality—.
With respect to the holographic principle, it is essential to recall
David J. Bohm
—Wholeness and the Implicate Order—
and his theory of the “holomovement” between deep reality or
“implicate order” and superficial reality or “explicate order”,
the “holographic brain” proposed by Karl
H. Pribram —Languages
of the Brain—,
Rupert Sheldrake’s “morphogenetic
fields” —A New Science of Life—,
the “Akashic field” of information proposed by Ervin
Laszlo —The
Akasha Paradigm: Revolution in Science, Evolution in Consciousness—,
and the work of Gerard 't Hooft
—The Holographic Principle—,
improved by Leonard Susskind.
Regarding the relationship between the micro and macro scales, it is
worth recalling the work in quantum neuro-bio-physics by Stuart
R. Hameroff and Roger
Penrose —Consciousness
in the universe: A review of the 'Orch OR' theory—,
and that by Dirk K.F. Meijer
and Hans J.H. Geesink
—Consciousness in the Universe is
Scale Invariant and Implies an Event Horizon of the Human Brain—.
We will finish this rapid list of research on the cutting edge of
science that are in tune with some key points of our proposal, making
special mention of the ground-breaking work by Nassim
Haramein and his collaborators William
D. Brown and Amira
Val Baker —The
Unified Spacememory Network : from Cosmogenesis to Consciousness
[ https://holofractal.org/spacememory.pdf
]—, as their “Holofractographic Theory of the Unified Field”
brilliantly integrates the fractal, holographic and toroidal
approaches that define our hypothesis.
(There
are currently numerous pages on the internet that echo this emerging
perspective of a toroidal, holographic and fractal universe. Readers
who are interested in this topic are recommended to consult the
following websites: “The Fractal-Holographic Universe”, by
Andreas Bjerve
[ http://holofractal.net/
] and “Cosmometry”, by Marshall
Lefferts [ http://cosmometry.net/
]).
Following one of his surprising mathematical discoveries, Carl F. Gauss stated: “Now that I have the solution, I just need to find the logical process that leads to it.” In the present investigation, we find ourselves in a situation similar to that of Gauss. Throughout these pages, we have shown that, far from being a mere product of chance and meaningless, evolution follows a very precise rhythm of unfolding and folding between an original pole, basically of energy, and a final pole, basically of consciousness. How is this possible? What mechanism causes things to happen this way? So far, we have mainly limited ourselves to recounting some facts and to revealing the surprising pattern that links them. In this addendum, we will try to provide the key to explaining this mysterious behaviour of the evolutionary universe. As we will soon see, the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics will provide us with the final clue.
Let us first delve a little into history to grasp the profound implications of the matter at hand. In the 1850s, the physicist and mathematician Rudolf Clausius established the concept of a thermodynamic system and postulated the thesis that in any energy transformation process, a small amount of energy is gradually dissipated across the system boundary. Energy thus gradually and irreversibly passes from a state of high potential and availability to a state of low potential and unavailability. Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the physical magnitude that measures that amount of energy that is not reusable to do work and which is inexorably lost in the environment. The universe as a whole —which is an isolated system— tends to progressively distribute energy uniformly, increase its degree of homogeneity and disorder, and maximize entropy, and is therefore condemned to thermal death when it finally reaches the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. In this respect, the physicist Arthur Eddington affirmed that “entropy is the arrow of time”, as it forces physical events to move in a certain temporal direction, the one that is familiar to us, i.e. from the past to the future.
At the same time as Clausius was developing the science of thermodynamics, Charles Darwin was expounding the theory of evolution. Controversy was served! While according to the second law of thermodynamics the processes of energy transformation inevitably tend towards dissipation, uniformity, disorder and homogeneity, it turns out that, at the same time, the processes of biological evolution move in exactly the opposite direction, i.e. towards order, differentiation, complexity and organization. Could it be that evolution does not follow the principles of thermodynamics? The response from the currently dominant scientific paradigm is limited to clarifying that the second law is only applicable to closed and isolated systems, that complex systems are open —that is, they exchange matter and energy with their environments—, and that, although they decrease the entropy in their interior —generating order among their components—, they do so at the cost of increasing it around them., Note that this answer only indicates that there is no contradiction between the second law of thermodynamics and the appearance of complex systems, but it does not explain this appearance at all, nor does it explain their subsequent maintenance without degradation, and even less so, their progressive development towards higher levels of complexity and organization. Not to mention, of course, the harmonic rhythm in which this surprising display of creativity takes place, as we have seen in our research.
Given that classical thermodynamics has not been able to explain the creative dynamics of life, there have been numerous authors over the course of more than a century who have attempted to provide an answer, from very different perspectives, to the dilemma thus posed. Let us recall, for instance, the “élan vital” of the French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1941), the “entelechy” of the German biologist Hans Driesch (1867-1941), the “synchronicity” of the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung (1875-1961), the “Omega point” of the French palaeontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), the “negative entropy” of the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961), the “negentropy” of the French physicist Léon Brillouin (1889-1969), the “general plan” of the Hungarian physicist-chemist Michael Polanyi (1891-1976), the “principle of syntropy” of the Hungarian physiologist Albert Szent-Györgyi (1893-1986), the “syntropy” of the American architect Richard Buckminster Fuller (1895 -1983), the “higher laws” of the Hungarian physicist Eugene Wigner (1902-1955), the “biotonic laws” of the German physicist Walter Elsässer (1904-1991), the “chreode” of the British biologist Conrad Waddington (1905-1975), the “stratified stability” of the Polish mathematician Jacob Bronowski (1908-1974), the “retrocausality” of the physicist French Olivier Costa de Beauregard (1911-2007), the “holomovement” of the American physicist David Bohm (1917-1992), the “dissipative structures” of the Russian chemist Ilya Prigogine (1917-2003), the “attractor” of the American mathematician Edward Lorenz (1917-2008), the “theory of catastrophes” of the French mathematician René Thom (1923-2002), the “fractal geometry” of the Polish mathematician Benoît Mandelbrot (1924-2010), the “Akashic field” of the Hungarian systems theorist Ervin Laszlo (1932), the “anthropic principle” of the Australian physicist Brandon Carter (1942), the “morphogenetic fields” of the British biochemist Rupert Sheldrake (1942), the “Feigenbaum numbers” of the American mathematician Mitchell Feigenbaum (1944-2019), the “self-organized criticality” of the Danish physicist Per Bak (1948-2002), the “Eros” of the American integral philosopher Ken Wilber (1949) and so on. Yes; it would seem that there really is something more than entropy in this evolutionary universe.
Our research is clearly in tune with many of the proposals mentioned above, some of which are even very close to solving the issue raised at the beginning of this addendum. Let us recap the question: What mechanism in nature is capable of causing evolution, in counterbalance to the second principle of thermodynamics, to follow a very precise divergent-convergent spiral pattern between an original pole of energy and a final pole of consciousness? As we have stated, the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics may provide us with the long-awaited answer. Let us now look at some approaches that point in this direction.
In 1940, the Italian mathematician Luigi Fantappiè (1901-1956) sought to find a unified theory of the physical and biological world that would explain the emergence of complex and organized forms in a universe dominated by entropy. He thought that the solution to this enigma had to be found in the fundamental principles of physics, in the very structure of the equations that combine quantum mechanics and special relativity. A key equation in this field is the d’Alembert operator, which, in the relativistic Klein-Gordon generalization of the Schrödinger wave equation, admits two types of solutions: divergent waves, described by the so-called “retarded potentials”, that branch from the original emitting source, and convergent waves, described by the “advanced potentials”, that converge at a future point that acts as an absorber or attractor. On analyzing the mathematical properties of these two solutions, Fantappiè found that, while the positive solution moves forward in time and tends towards dissipation, disorder and homogeneity, the negative solution moves backward in time and tends towards concentration, order and complexity. He thus understood that the first solution actually follows the law of entropy —from the Greek en = divergent, and tropos = tendency— while the second obeys a symmetric law that he called syntropy —from the Greek syn = convergent, and tropos = tendency—. Observing that the properties of the law of syntropy were exactly those characteristics of living beings, Fantappiè concluded that the increase in complexity in the evolutionary process is a consequence of the advanced —retrocausal— waves that emanate from attractors located in the future and go backwards in time. That is why, he stated, “advanced waves are the essence of life itself”. Life is caused by the future.
We insist that, far from being a mere product of speculation, these retrocausal waves appear in a rigorous mathematical way when the fundamental equations of special relativity and quantum mechanics are studied jointly. What is truly surprising is that the researchers who made their theoretical discoveries later refused to accept their real existence, not for scientific reasons, but simply because of the preconception that the final causes were impossible. However, Luigi Fantappiè refused to eliminate half of the solutions of the fundamental equations of the universe and consistently argued that life is subject to a double causality: efficient causality and final causality. He thus proposed replacing the mechanistic and deterministic model of the universe with a new, entropic-syntropic model, in which the expansive forces (entropy) and the cohesive forces (syntropy) worked together, so that the unfolding of phenomena was not only a function of the initial conditions, but also depended on a final attractor.
One of Fantappiè’s main students, the physicist Giuseppe Arcidiacono (1927-1998), together with his twin brother Salvatore (1927-1998), a chemist by profession, re-examined the unitary theory of the physical and biological world of their mentor in order to clarify the separation established between entropic and syntropic phenomena. They proposed a new version of the theory in which they argued that there are actually no “pure” entropic or syntropic events, but that there exist both entropic and syntropic components acting together, in all phenomena, whether physical or biological. The result is an entropic-syntropic model of the universe with a “cybernetic structure” that makes it possible to establish a link between Fantappiè’s unitary theory and the most recent research on systems theory, chaos and complexity.
Without knowledge of Fantappiè’s work, the Italian experimental psychologist Ulisse Di Corpo (1959) independently formulated the theory of syntropy in 1977 from a slightly different starting point. Instead of starting from the d’Alembert operator of the wave equation of quantum mechanics, as Fantappiè had done, he began by working with the original and complete energy-momentum-mass equation of Einstein’s special relativity: E² = p² c² + m² c⁴, where E is energy, p is momentum, m is mass, and c is the constant for the speed of light. As this is a second-degree equation, it always has two solutions: one positive and one negative. The positive solution describes energy that diverges forward in time from a past source, while the negative solution describes energy that diverges backward in time from a future source. At the time, this second solution was considered unacceptable because it implied retrocausality, i.e. the effect took place before its cause. Einstein managed to solve this problem by considering that momentum, p, is practically equal to zero, because the speed of physical bodies is extremely small compared to the speed of light. In this way, the complex Einstein equation of energy-momentum-mass was simplified into the now famous equation E = m c², which has only one positive solution.
However, in 1924, the Austrian theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli discovered the spin of electrons. Spin is an angular momentum, a rotation of the electron on itself at a speed close to the speed of light. Thus, in this case, momentum, p, cannot be considered equal to zero and therefore the energy-momentum-mass formula must be used in its full version. For this reason, in 1928, when combining Einstein’s special relativity with quantum mechanics, the British theoretical physicist Paul Dirac applied the complete energy-momentum-mass equation to the study of electrons and once again encountered the unwanted dual solution —positive and negative— in the form of electrons and their antiparticles. The Dirac equation thus leads to a universe made of matter moving forward in time and antimatter moving backward in time. The antiparticle of the electron, predicted theoretically by Dirac, was observed experimentally in 1932 by the American physicist Carl Anderson —by photographing the traces of cosmic rays in a cloud chamber— and was given the name positron. Anderson thereby became the first person to empirically prove the existence of the negative energy solution and waves that propagate backward in time, from the future to the past. The negative solution was thus no longer an impossible mathematical absurdity, but became empirical evidence. We now know that each subatomic particle has a corresponding antiparticle that flows in the opposite direction of time, from the future to the past: antielectrons, antiprotons, antineutrons and so on.
The meeting between Ulisse Di Corpo and the cognitive psychologist Antonella Vannini, in 2001, relaunched research on the entropic-syntropic theory. [Some of the information contained in this addendum is taken from the Syntropy Journal digital publication —
http://www.sintropia.it/journal/index.htm— edited by Ulisse and Antonella since 2005]. At the time, Fantappiè was not able to devise a way to reveal the existence of future causes in the laboratory. In recent decades, however, a growing number of studies —by Dean Radin, Dick Bierman, James Spottiswoode, Patrizio Tressoldi, among others— have demonstrated the existence of prior reactions to stimuli in the parameters of skin conductance or cardiac frequency. For her part, in her doctoral work, Vannini managed to carry out four experiments using heart rate measurements to study Fantappiè’s proposal regarding retrocausality and António Damasio’s learning effect. The hypothesis on which she worked was very simple: if life is supported by syntropy, the parameters of the vital systems that support life, such as the autonomic nervous system, should show retrocausal activations. Her thesis provided ingenious methodologies and positive experimental results that succeeded in turning syntropy studies from a mere hypothesis into a sound scientific theory supported by rigorous mathematics and abundant experimental evidence.
Around 1940, the American theoretical physicists John A. Wheeler (1911-2008) and Richard Feynman (1918-1988) proposed what is known as “absorber theory”, which is an interpretation of electrodynamics that derives from the assumption that the solutions of the electromagnetic field equations must be invariant under time inversion symmetry. It is hence a symmetric theory in time. In general, Maxwell’s equations and the equations of electromagnetic waves have two possible solutions: a retarded solution —moving forward in time— and an advanced solution —moving backward in time—. In principle, there is no apparent reason for the breaking of time reversal symmetry, pointing to a preferential direction of time. Nonetheless, advanced solutions are normally ruled out in the interpretation of electromagnetic waves. In absorber theory, however, charged particles are considered both as emitters and absorbers, and the emission process is related to the absorption process in the following way: both the retarded waves that travel from the emitter to the absorber and the advanced waves that travel from the absorber to the emitter are taken into consideration; the sum of the two, however, results in causal waves, although retrocausal solutions are not ruled out a priori.
From the start, the traditional interpretation of quantum mechanics —the Copenhagen interpretation— has shown a fierce reluctance to accept negative solutions as actually existing, i.e. those that move backwards in time, which naturally follow on from the fundamental equations. Diverse research over the last century has shown, over and over again, the major difficulties of this standard interpretation in assuming certain empirically contrasted phenomena, such as non-locality, entanglement and retrocausality. This led the American physicist John G. Cramer (1934) to propose an alternative interpretation in 1986, which he called the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (TIQM). Inspired by Wheeler and Feynman’s “absorber theory”, the transactional interpretation describes quantum interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by interference between retarded (forward in time) and advanced (backward in time) waves. It is a “pure” interpretation of quantum mechanics, in the sense that it does not add anything ad hoc, but simply provides a physical referent for a part of the mathematical formalism used in standard textbooks —advanced waves— that the traditional interpretation has repeatedly eliminated. Its predictions are therefore the same as those of the Copenhagen interpretation, but nevertheless it avoids many of its problems and solves, in a simple and elegant way, all the great quantum mysteries, such as the EPR paradox, Schrödinger’s cat, Wigner’s friend, Wheeler’s retarded solution, etc. This model thus provides a clear visual picture that explains, without any artifice, the puzzling experimental results that appear daily in quantum physics laboratories around the world. According to the astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin, Cramer’s interpretation of quantum mechanics “provides the best complete picture of how the world works at the quantum level”, and, “hopefully, it will replace the Copenhagen interpretation as the standard way of thinking about quantum physics for the next generation of scientists”.
This transactional model may be summarized as follows. The emitter produces a retarded wave of “offer”, forward in time, which travels towards the absorber, causing the absorber to produce an advanced wave of “confirmation”, backward in time, which travels back to the emitter. The interaction is repeated cyclically until the net exchange of energy, momentum, angular momentum and other conserved quantities satisfies the quantum boundary conditions of the system, at which point the transaction is definitively completed and the real quantum event, the “collapse of the wave function”, occurs. Of course, the “pseudo-temporal” sequence in this account is only a semantic convenience to describe a process that is actually timeless, given that, according to the laws of relativity, time does not pass at all from the point of view of waves, because, as they travel at the speed of light, their moment of departure and their moment of arrival are one and the same moment. An observer unaware of these internal mechanisms of nature would perceive only the completed transaction, which could be reinterpreted as the passage of a single retarded photon —i.e. positive energy— traveling at the speed of light from an emitter to an absorber. In a more simplified version, we could say that the emitter produces an “offer” wave that travels to the absorber, that the absorber then returns a “confirmation” wave to the emitter, and that the transaction is finally completed with a “handshake” —a standing wave— through space-time, via which a bidirectional contract is sealed between past and future. As Cramer states “This universe (...) advances in time at the quantum level through a chain of handshakes between the past and the future (...) The future goes back to make an accommodation with the past that allows a quantum event to happen, to become reality. Each quantum event emerges into reality as a result of a feedback loop between the past and the future. These are allowed time-shaped loops that give rise to the universe”.
Extending the work of John Cramer, the American physicist and philosopher of science Ruth E. Kastner (1955) has developed a new Transactional Interpretation, called Relativist Transactional Interpretation (RTI) or Possibilist Transactional Interpretation (PTI), which holds that quantum wave functions do not move in the physical universe, but exist as “possibilities” in Hilbert’s multidimensional space, from which transactions emerge in the “real” universe. Kastner proposes considering the outgoing offer waves and the many incoming confirmation waves as “possible” transactions, existing outside of space-time, of which only one becomes empirically “real”. She suggests defining them with the term “potentia” —with which Aristotle called the ability to be something in the future—, in tune with the statement by the German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg: “Elementary atoms or particles are not real in themselves; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities, and not so much a world of things or of facts or data”. In this sense, Kastner states that offer and confirmation waves are sub-empirical and pre-space-time “possibilities”, i.e. they have not yet appeared in space-time, and therefore calls them “incipient transactions”.
Kastner calls for a new metaphysical category to describe those “not quite real possibilities” which, far from being mere abstractions, constitute a higher-dimensional world whose structure is described by the mathematics of quantum theory. She raises the need to consider such “possibilities” as part of a reality that encompasses much more than what is contained in space-time. In fact, space-time events, the events of the concrete world that we experience around us with our five senses, are products that emerge from the transaction processes —timeless and non-local— that take place in the quantum realm. The “iceberg” metaphor used by Freud to describe the human subconscious can equally be applied to Kastner’s “ontological realm of possibility” or “quantumland”. “Quantumland” refers to the mass of the iceberg that exists beyond our sight, while the tip, the space-time appearance, is only a small part of everything that is the physical universe. Although they take place outside of space-time, quantum processes constitute a fundamental part of that universe.
At the beginning of this addendum, we wondered how it was possible for evolution to follow such a precise unfolding and folding rhythm between the original and final poles, as has been shown throughout this research. And we asked the question: Is there some natural mechanism capable of causing things to happen in such an unexpected way? We thus suggest that we may find the long-awaited answer in the so-called Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. For this reason, in the previous paragraphs we have summarized the basic points of Luigi Fantappiè’s entropic-syntropic theory, on the one hand, and of John Cramer’s transactional interpretation, on the other. Next, we shall recall some fundamental ideas of our “non-dual evolution” to then consider how Fantappiè and Cramer’s proposals provide us with the definitive key to explaining the mysterious evolutionary pattern.
As we have previously seen, all manifested reality inexorably appears in the form of dualities —there is no object without a subject, no energy without consciousness, or outside without inside— and, as all opposites are mutually dependent, we can understand them as polar manifestations of a reality that transcends them and that is “prior” to said dualization. We hence proposed that the original quantum void posed by physicists and the final mystical void experienced by contemplatives are no other than one and the same Void, perceived by physicists objectively and by contemplatives subjectively, but which, in itself, is neither objective nor subjective, but “prior” to this dual perspective. Finally, we clarified that this Emptiness does not refer to a distant metaphysical reality, but to the simple and pure Self-evidence of each present instant, which encompasses in itself all the manifestations of energy and consciousness that are observed in the space-time universe. According to this perspective, ultimate reality is hence not solely energy, as the materialists claim, nor solely consciousness, as the spiritualists claim, but the ineffable non-duality of these two apparent facets. The universe, dear reader, is made up of the simple and evident Presence that you are in this precise timeless moment that is Now and always Now.
We have also stated that, as there is no separation between subject and object in this absolute Self-evidence, and therefore it is not “something” that can be seen by “someone”, in order to manifest itself relatively before itself it needs to be polarized in appearance as subject and object, in the same way that 0 can dualize into +1 and –1 without changing its intrinsic value. For this reason, we proposed that, in its attempt to see itself, Self-evidence apparently dualizes as an original pole (basically of energy) and a final pole (basically of consciousness), thus generating, in the same primordial moment, an illusory distance between the two, which, on vibrating —like the guitar string in our hypothesis— gives rise to a whole range of harmonics, which are precisely the “potential levels of stratified stability” (Bronowski) that will be successively updated through the cycles of the evolution that we have studied, covering the entire spectrum of reality from the most basic strata —of enormous energy and little consciousness— to the highest —of little energy and enormous consciousness—.
It is also important to understand that everything happens in the absolute Now and that time is simply an imaginary construction with which our minds order the emergence of successive relative instants. For this reason, when we use the terms “past” or “future”, we are not talking about distant situations, but are only referring to partial aspects of the immutable timeless Now that contains in itself the totality of “time”. We stated a moment ago that the unmanifested Emptiness is apparently polarized as subject and object so as to perceive itself subject-objectively in infinite ways. Via this ploy, Self-evidence can delve into the furthermost corners of its own infinity —fleetingly identifying its absolute Here-Now with any relative point-instant of pixelated space-time—, in order to contemplate itself from a certain perspective from there —at any level of the spectrum of energy-consciousness—, immediately returning to its original fullness. The time dimension is thus purely imaginary. Everything actually happens from moment to moment. This departure and return instant after instant between the non-dual foundation and its finite and fleeting manifestation in space-time allows the potential levels of stability of the energy-consciousness spectrum to be actualized in the relative world of forms, i.e. the entire hierarchy of standing waves —musical harmonics— generated at the same original instant. For an integral understanding of the universe, we will thus have to refer to three different, although dynamically interrelated, facets: non-dual absolute reality —the simple and timeless Self-evidence without form—, potential relative reality —the potential spectrum of energy-consciousness generated in the original polarization— and space-time relative reality —the actualization moment after moment of the successive potential levels of stratified stability—.
In Figure 15 we have once again represented the complete pattern of the unfolding-folding process between the original pole of energy —A— and the final pole of consciousness —Ω—, as it manifests itself in global evolution and in the individual development of the human being. Let us recall that this trajectory can locate its “fundamental sound” at any level of the energy-consciousness spectrum, as we stated previously in figure 7. Precisely, in this graph we see that the inflection point —P— of the trajectory takes place on the border between the “material” and the “vital” levels in the case of human phylogeny, and between the “mental” and the “soul” levels in the case of our ontogeny. As we have stated in the previous paragraph, given that each point-instant of the relative world is born and returns, moment after moment, from and towards its timeless foundation, we can also affirm that this complete unfolding-folding trajectory similarly reflects the whole life of each moment —what Ken Wilber calls microgeny—, which can be focused on any level of the energy-consciousness spectrum, from the most physical to the most spiritual planes.
At the bottom of Fig. 15, we highlight the resonance between our evolutionary scheme —the unfolding-folding fractal pattern between pole A and pole Ω— and the proposals of Fantappiè —regarding the entropic-syntropic (divergent-convergent) dynamics between the original source and the final attractor— and Cramer —regarding the “handshakes” of retarded “offer” waves and advanced “confirmation” waves between emitters and absorbers. Herein lies the answer to the question we posed at the beginning of this addendum as to what natural mechanism can cause the evolutionary pattern to unfold in such an unexpected way. The entropic-syntropic theory and the transactional interpretation make it clear to us that all the events of the space-time universe arise, moment after moment, via the simultaneous and coordinated action of flows from the actualized “past” and the potential “future”, and, ultimately, from the original emitter and final absorber. In this sense, we could complement Einstein’s phrase about “God does not play dice with the universe”, stating that he does, but that he only counts the winning moves. That is, of all the potential offer waves from the past, only those that are in resonance with the confirmation waves from the future are updated in space-time. This, in turn, brings to mind Teilhard de Chardin’s idea about “the preferential utilization of chance”.
This approach greatly clarifies the so-called “anthropic principle”, which suggests that we live in a carefully adjusted universe, i.e. in a universe that seems to have been meticulously arranged to allow the existence of life and mind, because, if any of the basic physical constants had been different, the appearance of life as we know it would not have been possible. If, as we see here, all the events of the universe arise from the interaction and consensus between the past and the future, it is completely natural that, without having to resort to any external designer, the first events of the universal process were already fully coordinated and adjusted to future events. How could it be otherwise! In the same way, with respect to our divergent-convergent pattern, we must state that all the successive levels of the evolutionary ladder —which, as we saw in our research, unfold at the rate set by the second harmonic— are defined, like all quantum interactions, by standing waves formed by interference between retarded (forward in time) and advanced (backward in time) waves, which is precisely the core of Cramer and Kastner’s transactional interpretation!
From the perspective of the mechanistic paradigm, our proposal regarding a fractal pattern of unfolding-folding between the original and final poles in the evolutionary process is complete nonsense. However, as we have just seen, from the syntropic and transactional perspective, this pattern is precisely the most natural, coherent expression with respect to the intrinsic simultaneously causal and retrocausal mechanism of the universe. Materialism has tried to understand the world by dispensing with half of it and has failed in its attempt to explain life, mind or consciousness. It has sufficed to take reality in its entirety in order to shine light on all areas of the panorama. Isn’t it time to change the paradigm?
"Time is a moving image of eternity that
progresses in a circle" (Plato)
"The now that passes produces time, the now
that remains produces eternity" (Boethius)
In this addendum we are going to recapitulate and
develop some of the fundamental points that have been appearing throughout
these pages. We trust that, by presenting them in a unified way, we will be
able, in the end, to outline a truly comprehensive panorama of the creative
dynamics of reality, capable of clarifying, with simplicity and without
artifice, many of the great questions that humanity has asked itself since
always and to which materialistic science has not been able to respond.
In a previous addendum we have stated that, in order
to achieve a truly integral understanding of everything exposed throughout our research,
it is absolutely necessary to refer to at least three different facets of the
All-One: A) non-dual absolute reality, B) potential relative reality
and C) spatiotemporal relative reality. Next, we will try to specify the
meaning of each of these expressions.
A) Non-dual absolute reality
All manifested reality appears,
inexorably, in the form of dualities. It is not possible to find subject
without object, inside without outside, origin without end... Nor vice versa.
Therefore, since all opposites are mutually dependent, we can understand them
as polar manifestations of a reality that transcends them and that is "prior"
to that dualization.
Physicists speak of infinite
potential energy in the original quantum void, and sages speak of infinite
transparent consciousness in the final mystical void. Our proposal —in tune
with the great non-dual wisdom traditions— is that these two voids are the same
and unique Emptiness, perceived objectively by physicists and subjectively by
contemplatives, but which, in itself, is not neither objective nor subjective,
but "prior" to that dual perspective. Since in that Emptiness there
is no separation between subject and object, it is not possible to see it in
any way, because it is not "something" that can be seen by
"someone", but, obviously, it is not "nothing" either,
because, in fact, all the entities of the universe —objective or subjective—
are nothing other than partial and relative forms of that non-dual Void.
Although, strictly speaking, it is therefore not possible to make any statement
about essential Emptiness, as an approximation we will suggest that it is, in
an undifferentiated way, potential energy and pure consciousness, that is,
non-dual lucid-light or luminous-lucidity.
Positivist science will never be able
to access this intrinsically ineffable Void, since the mere attempt to describe
it objectively places the researcher "outside" of its non-dual scope.
However, paradoxically, the Void we are talking about, far from being a
distant, mysterious or unknown reality, is the closest, most intimate and
obvious experience of our existence. Is there something more unquestionable
than the Certainty-of-Being itself?... Is it that, dear reader, do you
doubt for a single moment of your own reality?... Well, it turns out that this
simple and pure ever present Self-Evidence that you are in your essence
—prior to the slightest identification with any concrete form— is, precisely,
the non-dual Emptiness that constitutes and comprehends all worlds. That simple
Self-Evidence is the only substance of the universe as a whole and of each and
every one of the entities that compose it!
The universe is not made only of
energy —as the materialist monists claim—, nor just of consciousness —as the idealist
monists claim—, but of the “prior” non-dual Emptiness that includes and
transcends both facets. This statement clearly coincides with Baruch Spinoza's
idea that the entire universe is made of a single substance —which he called
“God” or “Nature”— which appears under two attributes: extension (matter) and
thought (mind). Or, in the same way, with Friedrich Schelling's approach that
the supreme principle must be an absolute that is at the same time object and
subject, nature and spirit, that is, the unity, identity or indifference of
both aspects. Perspectives similar to these are currently beginning to be
suggested with increasing insistence, in many different fields of research,
under the names of "dual-aspect monism" and "neutral
monism." Thus, in the words of the German physicist Harald Atmanspacher:
"dual aspect approaches consider the mental and physical domains of
reality as aspects, or manifestations, of an underlying undivided reality in
which the mental and the physical do not exist as separate domains. In such
framework, the distinction between mind and matter results from an epistemic
split that separates aspects of underlying reality.”
We propose, therefore, that the
non-dual Emptiness, devoid in itself of any particular qualification or determination,
is, at the same time, the ultimate essence of all existence, the pure,
undifferentiated and formless matrix that sustains all worlds. There is no
specific characteristic, concrete appearance or distinctive feature in it, but
it is not a mere absence or absolute negation, but rather a state of unlimited,
omnipresent and indestructible openness that "makes" the entire
universe of finitude. A diaphanous, lucid and luminous realm that generates,
sustains and embraces the entire universe of particularities. An infinite and
limitless spaciousness, eternally self-evident, from which all the phenomena
that take place in space-time arise, are in and return to.
The ultimate Void is a non-state in
which nothing concrete can be perceived, but which is pregnant with everything
that exists. Its absolute simplicity is infinite potentiality of all things.
Where there is nothing, there is a place for everything. It is not, therefore,
an impotent nothingness, but rather, on the contrary, it can make everything
out of itself, remaining in its intimate bosom as eternal Emptiness. All things
come from it, are in it, and return to it, but behind these fleeting forms, it
remains immutable in its timeless stillness, now, in the beginning, and
forever. Beyond the change. Beyond birth and death. Ever present in his
infinite game of dual appearances. Eternally empty and clear. Timelessly
self-evident.
B) Potential relative reality
Since non-dual Self-Evidence is
completely devoid of the slightest separation between subject and object, it
cannot formally perceive itself in any way. Therefore, if it wants to
contemplate itself, it has no choice but to dualize... at least in appearance.
The artifice is simple. Just as 0 can unfold as + 1 and – 1 without changing
its value at all, fundamental Emptiness can unfold as object —an original pole,
basically of energy— and subject —a final pole, basically of consciousness—,
fully maintaining its empty essence. Between both poles, in this way, a wide
spectrum of balances is generated between both polar facets, which covers the
entire range from the most basic states —of enormous energy and little
consciousness— to the highest —of little energy and enormous consciousness.
When this illusory distance of energy-consciousness generated between both
poles enters into vibration —like a guitar string— a characteristic fundamental
sound and all its unlimited range of harmonic sounds (standing waves) are instantly
produced. This means that, let's take a good look, from the very originary
moment the entire spectrum of energy-consciousness is already fully present in
an intertwined and resonant way.
As we have seen throughout our
research, the successive second harmonics that arise with the vibration of the
original "string" of energy-consciousness —the successive notes of
the Pythagorean circle (spiral) of fifths— are precisely the potential levels
of stratified stability that will be actualized, one after the other, along the
successive evolutionary rungs that we have analyzed, and that will unfold
rhythmically the complete spectrum of manifestation, from the most basic levels
—of enormous energy and little consciousness— to the most high —of little
energy and enormous consciousness. (It is suggestive to point out the
parallelism between the hypothesis that we are exposing and the "string
theory" currently proposed in theoretical physics, although in our case
the field of application is not simply reduced to the world of microphysics,
but rather covers the entire spectrum of reality. It is difficult to try to
elaborate a "theory of everything" if practically the entire
manifested evolutionary reality is
marginalized!).
We would like to highlight here the
hypothesis raised by the pharmacologist Dirk Meijer and the researcher Hans
Geesink about a mathematical algorithm for coherent quantum frequencies that
generate stability in both animated and non-animated systems. In their own
words: "Interestingly, we found that the origin of the particular
biological algorithm can be mathematically approached by a selected “tempered
Pythagorean” reference acoustic scale. The algorithm expresses one-dimensional
wave equations known for vibrating strings. The origin of the biological
algorithm was condensed in a mathematical expression, in which all frequencies
have ratios of 1:2 and closely approach ratios of 2:3." This 2:3 ratio is
precisely the “second harmonic” that, as we have seen in our research,
generates the evolutionary stability levels!
Returning to our discourse, when
fundamental Emptiness unfolds as an objective pole (basically of energy) and a
subjective pole (basically of consciousness), a bidirectional tension is
automatically produced between both extremes: an expansive and entropic current
coming from the initial pole of "energy-(consciousness)” and a
contractive and syntropic current coming from the final pole of “consciousness-(energy)”.
Both flows travel, in opposite directions, the entire spectrum of potential
levels of stability —standing waves— in which both polar facets are balanced in
different proportions. Moment after moment, these ascending and descending
flows resonate with each other at a certain level —standing wave— of the
energy-consciousness spectrum, “collapsing”, thus, in a concrete event.
(Readers interested in this point can
consult the suggestive works on the "participatory anthropic
principle" by John Wheeler, on "creative evolution" by Amit
Goswami, or on "biocentrism" by Robert Lanza, and thus verify the
similarities and the differences between these interpretations of quantum
mechanics and what we are exposing here).
The proposal that we are developing
is clearly in tune, obviously, with the syntropic theory of the mathematician
Luigi Fantappiè. This theory affirms that the increase in complexity in the
evolutionary process is a consequence of advanced waves that emanate from
attractors located in the future and that go backwards in time. Thus, he
proposes going from a mechanistic and deterministic model of the universe to a
new model, entropic-syntropic, in which the expansive forces (entropy) and the
cohesive forces (syntropy) work together, so that the unfolding of the
phenomena is no longer only a function of the initial conditions, but also
depends on a final attractor. This theory was later updated by the physicist
Giuseppe Arcidiacono and by his twin brother Salvatore, a chemist by
profession, developing an entropic-syntropic model of the universe with a
"cybernetic structure", which makes it possible to establish a link
between Fantappiè's unitary theory and the latest research on systems theory,
chaos, and complexity. Currently, psychologists Ulisse Di Corpo and Antonella
Vannini have relaunched research on entropic-syntropic theory, carrying out
laboratory experiments with convincing results and thus managing to convert the
syntropy hypothesis into a solid scientific theory supported by rigorous
mathematics and abundant experimental evidence.
In clear resonance with all this, our
approach is likewise very similar to the Transactional Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics —proposed by John Cramer and inspired by the “absorber
theory” by John Wheeler and Richard Feynman—, which describes the quantum
interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by the interference between
retarded (forward in time) and advanced (backward in time) waves. We can
summarize this transactional model as follows: The emitter produces a retarded
"offer" wave, forward in time, which travels towards the absorber,
which causes the absorber to produce an advanced "confirmation" wave,
backwards in time, which travels back to the emitter. The interaction is
repeated cyclically until, finally, the transaction is completed with a
"handshake" —a standing wave— through space-time, sealing a two-way
contract between the past and the future, and produces the actual quantum
event, the “collapse of the wave function”. The “pseudo-temporal” sequence of
this story is, of course, just a semantic convenience to describe a process
that is, in truth, timeless. We will return to this matter later.
Physicist and philosopher Ruth
Kastner, extending the work of John Cramer, has developed a new Transactional
Interpretation, called Relativistic (RTI) or Possibilistic (PTI), which holds that
quantum wave functions do not move so much in the physical universe, but rather
that they exist as “possibilities” in the multidimensional Hilbert space, from
which transactions in the “real” universe emerge. Kastner proposes to regard
the outgoing supply waves and the many incoming confirmation waves as
"possible" transactions, existing outside space-time, only one of
which becomes empirically "real". He suggests defining them with the
term “potentia” —with which Aristotle called the ability to be something in the
future—, in line with the statement of the German theoretical physicist Werner
Heisenberg: “Atoms or elementary particles are not real in themselves; they
form a world of potentialities or possibilities, and not so much a world of
things or facts or data”. In this sense, she Kastner says that the waves of
offer and confirmation are sub-empirical and pre-spatio-temporal
"possibilities" —that is, they have not yet appeared in space-time—
and, therefore, she calls them "incipient transactions".
Kastner calls for a new metaphysical
category to describe those "not quite real possibilities", which, far
from being mere abstractions, constitute a world of higher dimensions whose
structure is described by the mathematics of quantum theory. She raises the
need to consider such "possibilities" as part of a reality that
encompasses much more than what is contained in space-time. In fact,
spatiotemporal events are products that emerge from the transaction
processes—timeless and non-local—that take place in the quantum realm. The
metaphor of the “iceberg” used by Freud to describe the human subconscious can
be equally applied to the “ontological realm of possibilities” or “quantum
earth” that Kastner posits. The "quantumland" refers to the mass of
the iceberg that exists below our sight, while the tip, the space-time
appearance, is only a small part of all that is the physical universe. Quantum
processes, even if they take place outside of space-time, are a fundamental
part of that universe.
Kastner's approach to an
"ontological realm of possibilities" from which the concrete
spatiotemporal world emerges fully coincides with our proposal of a potential
relative reality of harmonic sounds that is rhythmically actualized along the
successive steps of the evolutionary ladder. In the same way, there is a clear
resonance between this idea and the postulate of the physicist David Bohm about
a fundamental reality —the “implicate order”—, in which matter and spirit are
unified, which unfolds, instant after instant, like the manifested universe
—the “explicate order”—.
Starting from the surprising data of
quantum physics, Bohm proposes the existence, at a very deep level, of an
intrinsic order that, beyond space and time, involves the entire cosmic reality
of relationships. This intrinsic order would be projected at each instant into
the manifest order, which, in turn, would be injected or introjected again, at
each instant, into the intrinsic order. Bohm calls this continuous unfolding
and folding between the implicate order and the explicate order “holomovement”,
which constitutes the basic dynamic phenomenon from which all events of
manifested reality in space-time emanate. There is no "thing" in the
universe. Everything is "process". What we call things, objects or
entities are mere abstractions of what is relatively stable in the processes of
movement and transformation. In the implicate order, reality is ordered
according to a hierarchy in which each particular level of time has its level
of eternity. What is fundamental in the implicate order is the simultaneous
presence of a sequence of many degrees of involvement, while, on the contrary,
in the explicate order all these degrees are present in an extended and
manifest way.
Concepts such as "non-local
reality", "entanglement" or "non-separability", so
frequent among scholars of the quantum world, point in the same direction. From
the mental experiment proposed by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan
Rosen in 1935 —the so-called “EPR paradox”—, from the theorem proposed by John
Bell in 1964 —the so-called “Bell inequalities”— and from the real experiment
carried out by Alain Aspect in 1982 —and many others in later years— it became
evident, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the existence of events that violated
the “locality principle” —the assumption that two objects far apart cannot
influence each other each other instantly— confirming, thus, the dreaded
"spooky action at a distance" that Einstein feared. From then on,
quantum mechanics rejects the locality principle due to the so-called “quantum
entanglement”. Entanglement is a phenomenon in which the quantum states of two
or more objects must be described by a single state that involves all objects
in the system, even when the objects are spatially separated. A set of
entangled particles cannot be defined as if they were separate individual
particles, but must be defined as a single wave function for the entire system.
Since the entire cosmos was fully united at the time of the Big Bang, it could
well be defined by a single wave function in which the entire range of
possibilities would already be present in an overlapping manner from its
origin. At a quantum level, therefore, a unified vision of universal reality
begins to emerge, in which, beyond space and time, all possibilities
—potentialities— are present from the very initial moment. The spatio-temporal
universe, from this perspective, would be nothing more than the gradual
actualizing, instant after instant, of those original potentialities in a
broken down manner.
This approach to a unified potential
reality, beyond space and time, has not only been developed by researchers in
the objective world of energy, but also by researchers in the subjective world
of consciousness. Thus, for example, the psychiatrist Carl Jung took up the
medieval expression “unus mundus” —one world— to suggest the existence
of a unified underlying reality from which everything emerges and to which
everything returns. He asserted that it was extraordinarily likely that mind
and matter were but two different and complementary aspects of that
transcendental unus mundus. Jung, together with the physicist Wolfgang
Pauli, revealed that the concepts of "archetype" and
"synchronicity" reinforced precisely the existence of that underlying
unit.
Jung observed that the deeper layers
of the psyche lose their individuality —become more collective— and that in
this "collective unconscious" there are primordial dynamic patterns,
which he called "archetypes." These archetypes are, in themselves,
empty elements, virtualities, ideas in the Platonic sense, innate tendencies,
models devoid of content from which individual variations are formed. An
archetype possesses, in principle, an invariable significant nucleus that
determines its mode of manifestation, but the way in which it is expressed in
each case does not depend only on it, but also on the material of the
phenomenal world with which it counts to make itself visible. The archetypes
are not properly psychic elements, nor are they material, but rather
psychophysical realities belonging to the field of the "psychoid",
prior to an eventual separation into those two domains that we perceive to be
divided in our daily reality. The archetypes would form part of that unus
mundus which, according to scholastic philosophy, potentially contained
matter and spirit and, therefore, could be understood as a kingdom of
“spiritual matter” or “material spirit”.
The existence of this fundamental
psychophysical reality can also be demonstrated through the phenomena of
"synchronicity", in which coincidences or concordances appear —beyond
mere chance— between a psychic event and another physical one without there
being a causal relationship between them. These surprising phenomena would be
easily explainable if both the observer and the concurrent event proceeded,
ultimately, from the same source, from an underlying unity common to both, from
the fundamental unus mundus. The simultaneous expressions in the domains
of the psyche and matter that take place in synchronicities suggest the
existence of a single psychophysical whole that we observe through two
different pathways. This whole appears as material, if it is observed from the
outside, and as psychic, if it is observed from the inside, but in itself it is
neither psychic nor material, but entirely transcendent. The hypothesis of a
deep potential matrix, beyond any type of division in these two domains that we
perceive as separated in everyday reality, thus builds a bridge between the
physical world and the mental world. Synchronistic phenomena are understood,
then, as double and spontaneous manifestations of that unknown foundation that
is the basis of matter and mind, of energy and consciousness.
Resonating with the idea that we have
raised to equate our "potential relative reality" with Bohm's
"implicate order", with Kastner's "quantumland" or with
Jung's "unus mundus", the psychologist Marie-Louise von Franz
affirmed that it was possible to apply Bohm's terminology to Jung's ideas in
such a way that archetypes could be seen as dynamic and unobservable structures
of the implicate or infolded order. Or, in the same vein, the psychiatrist
Stanislav Grof has proposed that "in an extended version of the holonomic
theory, archetypes could be understood as sui generis phenomena, as
cosmic principles intertwined with the fabric of the implicate order."
Starting from these suggestive
parallels, and considering synchronicity phenomena as double and spontaneous
manifestations —material and psychic— of a unified underlying reality, one
might suspect that archetypes could play a key role in the process of evolution,
since it is characterized —as the paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
stated— by the tendency of matter over time to acquire more complex forms of
organization and, simultaneously, by the increase in the level of consciousness
in those organisms. Jung himself, glimpsing this possibility, affirmed: “One
cannot imagine how much chance and how many risks were necessary during
thousands of years to make a man out of a lemur. In the midst of this random
chaos, there were probably synchronistic phenomena in action, which, in the
face of the known laws of nature and with their help, allowed us to build, in
archetypal moments, syntheses that appear to us as extraordinary."
For Jung, synchronistic events appear
when some archetypes are deeply involved in a lived situation. These archetypes
are then constellated in the psyche, while very strong affective and emotional
dynamics are unleashed. This circumstance can be observed, above all, in very
serious crisis situations, and is well known by psychotherapists. In the words
of the biologist Hansueli Etter: “If we transpose these observations
analogically to the level of phylogeny, we can say that archetypal situations
are effectively constellated when a collective and biological crisis imminently
threatens a given species or several species. At those particular moments,
synchronistic events must be very numerous (that is, mutations or gene
redistributions must take place within populations), so that they offer the
species the possibility of superior development. It seems to me that in those
events considered until now as fortuitous, we must see synchronistic
phenomena."
C) Spatio-temporal relative
reality
In a previous addendum we have
outlined the basic characteristics of toroidal dynamics through which the
potential reality of the unmanifested foundation is actualized and unfolds in
the world of forms. This process is very similar to the “holomovement” proposed
by Bohm between the “implicate order” and the “explicate order”. The departure
and return, instant after instant, from and towards the non-dual foundation,
through its finite and fleeting manifestation in space-time, allows to
actualize, one after another, the successive potential levels of stability of
the spectrum of energy-consciousness —that is, the entire hierarchy of
“harmonics” generated at the same original moment—, starting with the most
basic ones —prioritarily energy— and ending with the highest ones —prioritarily
consciousness—. At each turn, the particular potential of a certain level of
the spectrum is projected at a specific point-instant of pixelated space-time,
it integrates with the aspects that have already emerged in previous heights,
and immediately, that specific information is introjected into the field of
collective memory that is generated in the foundation. When this entity has
deployed the full potential of the stratum in which it basically operates and
has integrated it with everything that has emerged in the preceding stages,
having reached a specific level of complexity, it can resonate with the next
"harmonic" of the spectrum of energy-consciousness, and thus ascend
to a new rung of the long ladder of evolution. And so on.
This intrinsically creative recursive
dynamic between the “potential reality” and the “actualized reality” is
mediated by that unified field of memory that, step by step, is gestating at
fundamental level. All the information collected at any point-instant of the
manifested world is immediately introjected into the basic field of collective
memory, which, in this way, increases, moment by moment, its potential.
According to our approach, with the original polarization of the fundamental
non-dual Emptiness, as an objective pole —basically of energy— and a subjective
pole —basically of consciousness—, a vast spectrum of balances of
energy-consciousness is automatically generated between both polar facets,
which runs the gamut from the most basic states —of enormous energy and little
consciousness— to the highest —of little energy and enormous consciousness.
"Before" the emergence of the manifested universe, this potential
spectrum had a basically archetypal character —in our research we have talked
about the chromatic range, the pythagorean circle (spiral) of fifths, the
series of chakras...—, but from the moment the original Big Bang singularity
occurs, the toroidal dance between potential reality and manifested reality
begins —between the implicate order and the explicate order—, in which the game
of projections and introjections that we have just discussed. It is precisely
this toroidal game that, instant after instant, converts the original
archetypal levels of the spectrum of energy-consciousness into fields of
collective memory that are more and more solidified with each turn of the
dance. This is the reason why, at present, the behavior of the most basic
levels of the spectrum of energy-consciousness in the manifested universe —the
material levels— is very predictable, and why, consequently, we can describe
the physical laws of nature quite accurately. On the contrary, the highest
levels of the potential spectrum have not yet been barely actualized in
space-time and, therefore, today they still maintain their character of
archetypal lightness and are difficult to describe.
Before continuing with our
exposition, we would like to refer at this point to the work of other
researchers who also propose the existence of a field of collective memory at
the foundation of reality, with great similarities to the one we are proposing
here.
For example, systems philosopher
Ervin Laszlo postulates the idea of an information field as the substance of
the cosmos. Using the Sanskrit term Akasha —with which the Hindu
tradition designated the foundation that underlies all things and becomes all
things— Laszlo calls this field of information the "akashic field".
The Akasha —he affirms— is a dimension in the universe that not only
underlies all the things that exist in it, but also generates and interconnects
them, conserving the information they have generated. It is the matrix of
reality, the network of the world, the memory of the cosmos. Akashic cosmology
conceives of the universe as an integral system that evolves in the interaction
of two dimensions: a hidden or akashic dimension and an observable or manifest
dimension. According to this model, the hidden dimension “in-forms” the
manifest dimension, and this, in turn, “de-forms” the hidden dimension,
modifying its information potential. This two-way interaction between the two
dimensions constitutes a continuous loop of action and reaction, creating
progressive coherence in the manifest dimension, and accumulating increasing
information potential in the hidden dimension, all of which, according to
Laszlo, may explain why our universe, against all odds, is well configured to
form galaxies and sentient life forms, and why evolution is an informed, not a
random, process.
For his part, the biochemist Rupert
Shedrake proposes a dynamic similar to Bohm's holomovement in which implicated
and non-local morphogenetic fields channel the collective memory of forms and
behaviors to subsequent generations. Sheldrake places special emphasis on the
idea that the explained order, in a way, enriches the implicate —time
enriches eternity—, because the finite
contributes to the global order by re-injecting its contributions back into the
whole. Each moment is a projection of the whole, but that moment is introjected
back into the whole. The next moment implies, in part, a re-projection of that
introjection, and so on. In this way, as each instant contains a projection of
the re-injection of the previous instants —which constitutes a certain form of
memory—, it resembles its predecessors, but it is also different from them.
According to this concept of projection and introjection, all of the entities
in the universe are contributing to the deepest intrinsic nature, because we
participate in the introjection of the manifest order into the implicate order,
thus creating a higher order that, instant after instant, shapes evolutionary
dynamics.
Similarly, the theoretical physicist
Nassim Haramein posits a fundamental domain of information from which
everything arises and to which everything returns. Non-local
intercommunication, beyond any frame of space and time, is possible thanks to
the unified spatial memory network formed by microwormholes of the basic
holographic information field on the Planck scale. Memory and the recursive
processes of feedback and feedforward information from the quantum vacuum —or
holofield— enable learning and evolutionary behavior. The flow of dynamic
information to and from that field can be the generative source of organized
matter, of self-organizing biological systems, and ultimately of self-aware
entities. Haramein asserts, in summary, that we live in a highly intertwined
and interconnected universe where a fundamental field of information, shared
across all scales, drives evolutionary mechanisms in which the environment
influences the individual and the individual influences the environment, into a
non-local interconnected whole: a universe that is ultimately One.
Returning to the exposition of our
proposal, we are going to try to describe, below, the mechanism through which
the potential reality is actualized in and as the manifested reality, which
will give us the essential clues to outline the nature of this manifestation.
As we have explained, with the original dualization of non-dual Emptiness in
the form of an objective pole (basically of energy) and a subjective pole
(basically of consciousness), an integral, simultaneous and entangled spectrum
of energy-consciousness automatically appears between the two extremes in
different balances, which constitutes the potential relative reality or
basic archetype that, later, will manifest as actualized relative reality
or evolutionary universe. The tension generated between both extremes after the
original polarization creates an expansive and entropic current coming from the
pole of energy and a contractive and syntropic current coming from the pole of
consciousness, which travel, in opposite directions, the entire spectrum of
potential levels of stability, standing waves or musical harmonics that we have
talked about. The initial instant of the universal manifestation —Big Bang—
took place when the ascending and descending flows resonated with each other at
the most basic level of the energy-consciousness spectrum and, with this
“handshake” between them, the "collapse of the wave function” of the first
potential archetype —or musical harmonic— was produced in the world of forms.
Since then, the toroidal game of projections and introjections, instant after
instant, has gradually unfolded in the explicate order the successive potential
levels of stratified stability of the implicate order in which the ascending
and descending flows have been resonating. This iterative dynamic, as we have
seen, has been converting the original archetypal levels of the
energy-consciousness spectrum into morphogenetic fields of collective memory
that are more and more solidified with each turn of the dance, beginning with
the most basic rungs of the evolutionary ladder. The highest rungs still
maintain their primeval archetypal lightness.
It is important to remark, here, that
the fertile interaction between the primary poles of energy and consciousness,
through the ascending —entropic— and descending —syntropic— flows, does not
take place in the manifest world, but in the underlying potential reality, more
beyond space and time. It's an instant interaction. Not temporary. Sometimes,
when describing this bidirectional dynamic, one speaks incorrectly of a flow
that advances in time and a flow that goes back in time, but it would be more
accurate to think, rather, of a transaction between different depths of a
single eternal Now, which encompasses in itself the totality of “time”.
When this transaction "collapses" in a fleeting now, the
memory of past moments and the expectation of future moments makes us conceive
the image of a time line. But it's just an image. The manifested universe
arises and disappears, instant after instant, from and to the underlying,
entangled and unified potential reality, which is always Now. Given that the
toroidal game of projections and introjections between the potential and
manifested realms of reality unfolds, gradually, more and more complex forms
each time —due to the fact that they integrate a greater number of levels of
the stratified field of collective memory that is developing—, we can glimpse
in the universal process a clear “arrow of time” that is oriented, precisely,
towards the creation of progressively complex organisms and with increasing
levels of consciousness. But that does not mean that there really is a real
time line, only that this is our imaginary way of ordering the partial data
—the frames of the world film— that we successively capture. Well, as the
physicist Erwin Schrödinger affirmed: “the fact that something propagates in
space or that something happens in a well-defined time of 'before and after' is
not a quality of the world that we perceive, but belongs to the perceiving mind
that (somehow in his current situation) he finds himself unable to register
anything that is offered to him if it is not according to this spatio-temporal
scheme.”
It seems that the world that we are
beginning to glimpse lacks the solidity that we naively assumed, and that, in
reality, it is more like a surprising and gigantic evolutionary hologram. Let's
see. A hologram is a type of three-dimensional representation that is produced
when a laser ray splits into two distinct rays. One of them is
bounced off the object to be photographed, and then the second ray,
coming directly from the source, is allowed to collide with the
reflected light from the first, producing an interference pattern that is
recorded on a plate. When a light passes through this plate, a
three-dimensional image of the original object automatically emerges that lacks
the slightest substance. It is pure appearance. Another surprising fact is
that, unlike what happens with normal photographs, each part of a
holographic plate contains the complete information of the whole. Thus, if
a holographic plate is broken into pieces, each piece, no matter how small, can
be used to reconstruct the complete image of the photographed object, with
greater or lesser definition. Each part contains the whole!
According to our approach, the
gestation process of the universal manifestation begins with the original
bifurcation of the non-dual Lucid-Light —“a laser ray is divided into two
different rays”— into an objective pole (basically of energy) and a pole
subjective (basically of consciousness), with the consequent interaction
between the ascending and descending flows that are generated between them. Let
us remember that, due to the toroidal dynamics of projections and
introjections, the most basic levels have developed very solid morphogenetic
memory fields, while the highest levels still maintain their original
archetypal lightness. For this reason, the upward flow crosses very defined
morphogenetic fields —“one of them is bounced against the object to be
photographed”—, while the downward flow comes directly from the subjective
pole —“the second ray comes directly from the font"—. When both
flows resonate and interact with each other, the transaction is sealed with a
handshake or standing wave —“the second ray (...) is allowed to collide with
the reflected light of the first, producing an interference pattern that is
recorded on a plate”—, and the potential collective memory collapses into a
specific, punctual and fleeting formal image —“a three-dimensional image of
the original object automatically arises that lacks the slightest
substantiality”.
Our research has revealed the
complete parallelism between the phylogenetic and ontogenetic processes of the
human being. Both global evolution and individual development take place in the
same time frame, with an identical pattern of unfolding and folding between the
original and final poles, and going through exactly the same stages or levels
of stability. Each individual life recapitulates, then, the entire global
trajectory traveled by their ancestors —“each part of a holographic plate
contains the complete information of the totality”—. Everything seems to
suggest that the universal manifestation has holographic characteristics and
that the "whole" and the "parts" are mere reflections of a
common underlying foundation. Bearing in mind that a characteristic of
holograms is that the smaller the size of the piece of plate used, the blurrier
the reconstructed image is —definition is lost, but the integrity of the image
is maintained—, we could well propose that the more complex is a given organism
—the more levels of manifestation it has integrated— the greater the degree of
clarity and definition of the total original image. If this approach is valid,
an atom, a molecule, a cell, a mammal, a primate, or a human being, each one of
them possesses, in its innermost depths, free access to the totality of the unified
field of collective memory of the cosmos, although, depending on their specific
characteristics —depending on their respective capacities to capture and
express that plenitude that underlies and surrounds them—, it only connects
with certain facets of that field.
According to everything exposed up to
here, the exclusive protagonist of the creative dance of the universe is the
simple non-dual Self-Evidence always present, the ultimate identity of
everything and everyone, the only unquestionable reality of existence. This
pure Certainty-of-Being, obvious but invisible, needs to unfold polarly as
subject and object in order to be able to see itself, partially, in infinite
ways. As we have explained, the fertile interaction between the bidirectional
flows that are generated between both poles is reflected —collapses— in an
endless number of subject-objective, finite and fleeting holographic images,
with which Self-Evidence identifies, instant after instant, being able, in this
way, to contemplate with progressive clarity in the world of forms his own
original invisible face.
The non-dual absolute Reality
—Self-Evidence— is timeless. Potential relative reality —the implicate order, the archetypal unus
mundus—, that is, the entirety of the polar, entangled and unitary spectrum
of energy-consciousness occurs in an eternal Now, encompassing the entirety of
“time.” The manifested relative reality, the space-time holographic image, is
born and dies every moment. The entirety of the world of appearances is being created
now... and now... and now... In summary, the timeless Self-Evidence is
projected through the integral Here-Now of the potential archetype, identifies
with each and every one of the point-instant of pixelated space-time, it
contemplates itself from a certain perspective, and immediately returns to its
original plenitude... from which, in truth, it had never left.
There are no independent objects.
There are no separate subjects. Everything in the manifest world is
subject-objective. Ultimately, everything is an expression of the basic
interaction between the original poles of energy and consciousness in which the
ever-present fundamental Self-Evidence bifurcates. The universe has no
particular shape. Everything is relational. The presumed objective perceived
world is just an image generated by identification with a particular subjective
form. There are colors because there are eyes. There are sounds because there
are ears. Everything that you are perceiving, dear reader, in yourself and in
your environment at this moment, is just a spontaneous and fleeting image that
arises from the interaction between the Subject pole —in “you”— and the Object
pole —in “everything your environment”—, in which the Self-Evidence that you
truly are branches off, from instant to instant, to contemplate Itself in
infinite ways. Everything is happening by itself. Eternally. You can relax.
Enjoy the dance!
Before finishing this addendum, we
would like to underline that this non-dual worldview that we are proposing
—which, needless to say, clashes head-on with the materialist paradigm still in
force— is capable of resolving, simply and without artifice, some of the
essential enigmas to which conventional science has not been able to give a
convincing answer. Let's briefly review some of them.
—The hard problem of consciousness.
The cognitive philosopher David Chalmers introduced the concept of the "hard
problem" of consciousness to refer to the great difficulty of explaining,
from materialistic parameters, how it is possible that an —objective— physical
brain, which only processes electrical or chemical signals, can give rise to qualia
or conscious subjective experiences. From the non-dual perspective from which
we are developing our research, on the contrary, the "hard problem"
does not even arise, since, far from assuming that the objective world produces
subjective experiences —as materialist monism does— or that subjective
experiences give rise to the objective world —as idealistic monism does—, we
defend that both energy and consciousness are nothing more than the polar
expression of the same and unique underlying reality in which both facets are
eternally undifferentiated.
—The mind-body problem.
Closely related to the hard problem of consciousness, the mind-body problem
refers to the difficulty of explaining the interaction between
"inner" mental states and "outer" bodily states. How can
the mind act on the brain, as evidenced, for example, in the so-called
"placebo effect"? From the scheme that we are proposing, there is no
such problem, since, ultimately, the "external" world and the
"internal" world —energy and consciousness— are non-dual. All levels
of the spectrum of manifested reality are nothing more than different balances
between these two polar facets of a single fundamental reality, and therefore
any interaction between them is nothing more than mere movements between
different densities of the same substance.
—The problem of downward causality.
Materialist reductionism has sought to explain complex organisms from their
simplest component elements —that is, through “ascending causation”— and, for
this reason, “descending causation” —exercised by the emergent properties of
wholes on the properties of their lower-level constituents—, that researchers
of complex systems have revealed in numerous realms of reality, has been
accused of conceptual and metaphysical incoherence. According to our approach,
far from there being incompatibility between both types of causality, all
manifested reality arises precisely from the interaction and resonance between
ascending entropic flows and descending syntropic flows, thereby simultaneously
transcending the partial perspectives of reductionism and holism, integrating
them into an all-encompassing non-dual vision.
—The problem of fine-tuned
universe. This problem, like that of the anthropic principle, has arisen
when it has been verified that the universe seems to have been meticulously
adjusted to allow the existence of life and mind, since, if any of the basic
physical constants had been slightly different, the appearance of life as we
know it would not have been possible. According to the materialist perspective,
therefore, we inhabit an extremely improbable universe. From our perspective,
on the contrary, since all events in the universe arise from the interaction
and consensus between the flows coming from the original pole of energy —from
the “past”— and from the final pole of consciousness —from the “future”—, it is
completely natural that, without having to resort to any external designer,
already the first events of the universal process were fully coordinated and
adjusted to future events. How could it be otherwise!
—The problem of parapsychological
experiences. Parapsychology studies different paranormal psychic phenomena
that do not seem to have a scientific explanation, nor do they fit within the
framework of currently accepted physical laws, such as telepathy, precognition,
clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, out-of-body experiences, near-death
experiences or synchronicity phenomena. All this, obviously, as it is difficult
to fit within the narrow framework of the current materialist paradigm, is
rejected outright by a large part of the scientific community, which considers
parapsychology as a mere pseudoscience. On the contrary, since the framework of
our proposal is much broader, it is very likely that some of these phenomena
can be easily located within it. Specifically, in the field of what we have
called “potential relative reality” —Kastner's quantumland, Bohm's implicate
order, Jung's archetypal world, Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields, Laszlo's
akashic field or Haramein's unified spatial memory network— perhaps easy
explanations can be found for many of the parapsychological experiences
discussed.
—The root problem of science
without consciousness. Materialistic science has usually flatly rejected
the claims of spiritual traditions in the name of reason. Perhaps, in
principle, this attitude made a lot of sense, within the pretense of finding
natural explanations for the phenomena of the world, without resorting to
magical divine interventions. But, in fact, this rejection led to the
unfortunate and impoverishing marginalization of an immense field of deep and
rigorous investigations into the inner world, developed over many centuries in
many different cultures. It is surprising to verify the enormous coherence of
these experiential investigations, as has been revealed in the so-called
“perennial philosophy”. We would like to highlight here, in a very special way,
the non-dual schools that are present in all the great wisdom traditions: in
philosophical Taoism, in Hinduism —Advaita Vedānta, Kashmiri Shaivism—, in
Mahāyāna Buddhism —chan, zen—, in vajrayāna Buddhism —mahāmudrā, dzogchen—, in
Judaism —kabbalah—, in Christianity —Rhenish and Castilian mysticism—, in Islam
—sufism—… In all these schools we can find abundant and luminous references
about of the fundamental realm that we have called “absolute non-dual reality”.
It seems that the time has come to break the narrow limits of the materialist
paradigm and begin to propose larger worldviews, capable of integrating,
without prejudice, all the facets —interior and exterior, individual and
collective— in which the unfathomable Emptiness unfolds. Perhaps, in the end,
we will discover that reality—our true reality—is much more fascinating than we
could ever have imagined.
(Note: The English version of this
Addendum 8 is made using Google translate)
Addendum 9: Holographic evolution
In this addendum we are going to present an intriguing
coincidence that has arisen unexpectedly in the course of the present research
about the pattern of evolution. From the outset, this enigmatic coincidence raised
the question of whether it was simply a mere chance or whether, on the
contrary, the matter had truly profound and revolutionary implications. The
question has been hanging around for quite a few years until, recently,
surprising investigations carried out in theoretical physics on the holographic
principle have opened up the possibility of a fascinating solution to that
intriguing synchrony that appeared fortuitously in our work.
To focus the issue a bit, we are going to briefly
recall a central point of the previously developed research. If the reader has
taken a look at the original text of the article Beyond Darwin: The hidden
rhythm of evolution, they will have been able to see how a very precise
harmonic-spiral-fractal pattern is revealed in the deployment process of the
successive evolutionary levels of the integral spectrum of energy-consciousness
that punctuates both human phylogeny and ontogeny. All trajectories start at a
breakneck rhythm at their origin (A), slow down progressively as they move
toward a certain level of the spectrum, and then speed up again until they
reach breakneck speeds again when they start approaching the final moment (Ω). In Figures 7-A and 7-B we have schematized this
idea:
Recently, two Big History scholars, Leonid Grinin and
Andrey Korotayev, have edited a book entitled Evolution: Trajectories of
Social Evolution, which has been published in Russia by “Uchitel”. In one
of its chapters, entitled Non-Dual Singularity, we have been able to
outline the core of our research and its ultimate implications: https://www.sociostudies.org/upload/sociostudies.org/book/evol_8_en/08_Faixat.pdf . Next, we
reproduce the Abstract that heads this chapter:
“The Universe emerged in a violent Singularity
—basically of energy— generating vertiginous transformations. Later, due to
cooling, the emergence of novelties slowed down gradually. After the formation
of the solar system and the subsequent emergence of life on our planet, the
rhythm of creative transformations began to increase progressively, first
through biological evolution and, later, through human development and
expansion of civilizations. Currently, the emergence of novelties is again
dizzying and everything seems to indicate that we are fast approaching another
imminent Singularity —basically of consciousness— of infinite creativity.
In this paper we propose that both Singularities —A
and Ω— are nothing but the polar expression of the fundamental Void always
present, ‘prior’ to its apparent dualization as energy and consciousness. The
initial and final Singularities would not be, in this way, but the points of
exit from and entry to this eternally self-evident non-dual Emptiness that,
instant after instant, manifests itself in and as the world of forms.”
This same evolutionary deceleration-acceleration
scheme is clearly reflected on the cover of a book entitled Futuro No Lineal
—Nonlinear Future— written precisely by another Russian researcher
of Big History, Akop Nazaretyan, published in Spanish by the Argentine
publisher Suma Qamaña:
Without apparent relation to all this, the American
astrophysicists Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt and Adam G. Riess received
the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011 for providing evidence in favor of the
acceleration in the expansion of the universe through observations of distant
supernovae. This discovery was completely unexpected, since until then it was
thought that, although the universe was certainly expanding since its origin,
the rhythm had been decreasing due to the mutual gravitational attraction
between distant galaxies, albeit slowly due to the low density of matter-energy
present in the universe. Evidence from Perlmutter, Schmidt, and Riess
conclusively demonstrated that about 4.5 billion years ago —about 9 billion years
after the Big Bang— the slowing rhythm of expansion reversed, and from then the
universe began to expand at an ever-increasing speed, starting an era dominated
by an alleged and mysterious "dark energy" that causes the
"accelerated expansion of the universe". In the framework of general
relativity, an accelerating expansion can be explained by a positive value of
the cosmological constant, usually denoted by the capital Greek letter lambda (Λ). While possible alternative explanations exist, the
description assuming dark energy (positive Λ) is used in the current standard model of cosmology,
which also includes cold dark matter (CDM) and is known as the Λ-CDM model. In relation to the subject we are dealing
with, we would like to point out here that, precisely, in the Wikipedia article
on the "cosmological constant", the text that appears at the bottom
of the initial graph is, literally, the following: "Sketch of the
timeline of the Universe in the ΛCDM model. The accelerated expansion in the last
third of the timeline represents the dark-energy dominated era.” (The bolds are mine.) Next, we include an image,
also taken from Wikipedia, which clearly expresses the slowdown and
acceleration phases in the expansion of the universe:
It is enough to observe the shape and chronology of
the global trajectory resulting from the recently discovered expansion of the
universe, to realize its complete parallelism with the shape and chronology of
the global trajectory of the evolutionary process of the "macrocosm"
revealed in our research. The inflection point between the deceleration and
acceleration phases in the expansion process of the universe —at the beginning
of “the last third of the timeline”— exactly coincides with the
inflection point between the deceleration and acceleration phases of the
process of emergence of the successive evolutionary levels that we have
analyzed in this paper, since, as we can remember, it takes place in the second
node of the standing wave corresponding to the second harmonic, that is,
precisely at the beginning of the third third of the global trajectory.
Was all this a mere coincidence or did the matter have
a deeper meaning?... At first glance, it did not appear that the expansion of
the universe had anything to do with the evolutionary process of matter, life,
mind and spirit, through which progressively complex and conscious organisms
develop, but…
Recently, reading the beautiful book Cosmometry
by the American researcher Marshall Lefferts —from Nassim Haramein's team— I
found the following text on page 120: “Both Haramein and the cosmologist
Jude Currivan propose that there is an informational aspect of universal
expansion, wherein the total information content of the universe is constantly
increasing, thus requiring a growing volume of pixelated spacetime within which
to accommodate this informational evolution." And, at the bottom of
that same page, I was also able to read: “In a personal conversation with
me, Currivan elaborated that in every Planck-scale moment the universe adds
another set of information that is encoded into the expanding field of
spacetime, and that the expansion of space and flow of time is
evolution, without which there would be no evolutionary experience of
consciousness." Eureka! At that moment I had the feeling that,
finally!, the long-awaited explanation of the "mysterious"
parallelism found between the accelerated expansion of the universe and the
accelerated deployment of the evolution of consciousness, began to be within
reach.
This new understanding of the universe that has begun
to be considered in recent decades revolves around what is known as the
"holographic principle", in which some of the most eminent theoretical
physicists of our time are involved, such as Leonard Susskind, Gerard 't Hooft,
Jacob Bekenstein, Tom Banks, Ted Jacobson, Juan Martín Maldacena or Raphael
Bousso. There is now a broad consensus among physicists working on string
theory and loop quantum gravity that the most fundamental scientific concept we
have in physics is the holographic principle. In fact, this principle is
probably the best guide we have at this time to achieve the long-sought
unification of relativity theory with quantum theory.
The history of this approach dates back to the early
1970s, when Wheeler and Bekenstein tried to understand what happens to an
object's encoded information when that object falls into a black hole. In the
mid-1990s, 't Hooft and Susskind relaunched this research by framing black hole
event horizons in terms of Planck area-sized pixels, each of which encodes a
single quantized bit of information. They called this idea the holographic
principle. Its basic postulate could be summarized by saying that all the information
contained in a certain volume of a concrete space can be known from the
codifiable information on the border of said region. In its broadest sense, the
theory suggests that all the information that makes up our space-time universe
would be contained in a two-dimensional surface located on the
observer-dependent cosmological horizon, in such a way that the
three-dimensional world we believe inhabit would ultimately be basically
illusory, like a holographic image projected from the far reaches of space.
American science writer Amanda Gefter —author of the
award-winning book Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn— has laid out with
great clarity the startling logical implications of the holographic principle
in the context of the discovery of dark energy and the accelerating expansion
of the universe. She claims that if we want to move towards a true theory of quantum
gravity —capable of unifying the general theory of relativity with quantum
mechanics— perhaps we should abandon the notion that we all share the same
universe and instead posit that each observer has his own universe, a complete
and singular reality. Next, we are going to summarize some basic ideas that
Gefter develops in her article Cosmic Solipsism.
According to the theory of relativity, no information
can escape from a black hole, however, according to quantum theory, it
inevitably has to. How to explain this inconsistency? In a flat space-time of a
world without gravity all observers would agree on the definition of the
objects contemplated, but when an event horizon is introduced, the
(accelerated) observers outside that horizon and the (inertial) observers that
who fall through it will perceive incommensurable realities among themselves.
The accelerated observer will see the information radiating from the event
horizon, while the inertial observer will see the information falling into it.
That is, according to the accelerated observer the horizon produces particles,
and according to the inertial observer, the horizon does not even exist and
does not perceive any radiation in the process. Faced with this tangled
crossroads, the holographic principle found a way to solve it by stating that
no observer can see the inside and outside of a black hole at the same time, so
that when it comes to horizons, we can talk about the world of the accelerated
observer or the world of the inertial observer, but never of both
simultaneously. We must, therefore, restrict ourselves to a single local point
of view, because, in case of not doing so, we would be violating the laws of
physics. This radical limitation in our description of reality has been called
“horizon complementarity”.
If horizon complementarity applied only to black holes
it could be considered a simple curiosity, but the fact is that its field of
application is actually much broader. Einstein's equivalence principle put
gravity and acceleration on an equal footing: the effects of the force of
gravity are completely identical to the effects of accelerated motion. Thus, if
gravity can form an event horizon —as it does in black holes— acceleration can
under any other circumstances as well. So, when it is space-time itself that is
expanding rapidly driven by the negative pressure of dark energy —as we have
seen at the beginning of this addendum—, any observer within that space-time
will find themselves surrounded by an event horizon. Given, then, that the location
of the horizon is always relative to the location of the observer, everything
seems to indicate that quantum gravity, ultimately, does not allow a unique,
objective and complete description of the universe and, therefore, it will be
necessary to formulate its laws with reference to a specific observer, not more
than one at a time. If we respect the complementarity of the horizon in an
rapidly expanding space-time, we will have to replace an incoherent global
description of reality with a local description accessible to a single
observer. The existence of dark energy makes each frame of reference a universe
unto itself, the end and all of reality. In other words, we may have to accept
the notion that there is my universe and your universe, but there
is no such thing as the universe.
In this same line of thought, the American theoretical
physicist and neurologist James P. Kowall has delved into the holographic
principle to its ultimate implications —without letting himself be carried away
by the materialistic prejudices that grip many researchers—, finally reaching a
revolutionary understanding of the reality that, unexpectedly, is completely in
tune with the central message of all the great non-dual wisdom traditions.
Next, we are going to summarize some of the ideas that Kowall exposes in the
numerous and clarifying articles of his. [The reader interested in knowing the
more technical details of his approach can consult the Science and
Nonduality page: https://scienceandnonduality.wordpress.com/ ].
The holographic principle is a radical idea that
things do not actually exist in three-dimensional space, but that the
appearance of things in any region of space is a holographic projection from
that region's two-dimensional bounding surface to the point of view of a
central off-screen observer. The observer's horizon thus acts as a holographic
screen that encodes the entangled qubits —quantum bits— of information about
all the things the observer can see in that bounded region of space. The
expression of dark energy allows the universe to expand and cool as entropy
increases, the cosmological constant changes to a lower value, and the
observer's cosmic horizon increases in radius. This is how more information
qubits are encoded for the universe as the observer's cosmic horizon increases
its surface area.
The bounding surface of space arises naturally as an
event horizon every time the observer enters an accelerating frame of
reference, like a cosmic horizon that arises every time dark energy is spent
and space appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate from the point of
view of the observer located at the center of the singularity. The nature of
observation is thus reduced to three components: the bounding surface of
space, which arises in the observer's frame of reference and acts as a
holographic screen, the observer's consciousness at the central point of
view of that limited region of space, and the holographic projection of
the images of all things that the observer can contemplate. These things,
therefore, do not really exist in three-dimensional space, but arise from the
configuration states of the information encoded on the observer's holographic
screen and are therefore nothing more than mere virtual images projected from
that screen. The observer, ultimately, is only the perceptive consciousness
present at the central point of view, that is, a single point of consciousness.
The whole process of observing can only start when the
energy is spent and the observer enters an accelerated frame of
reference. If this does not happen, there is no observation of anything. There
can be no creation without perception. Creation and perception are simultaneous
events. The state in which no energy is expended is the state of a freely
falling observer, in which there is no acceleration and no boundary surface of
space, and therefore in which nothing is observed. In fact, modern cosmology
reveals that the total energy of the observable universe is exactly zero. This
is possible because the negative potential energy of gravitational attraction
can cancel all forms of positive energy such as dark energy, mass energy, or
kinetic energy. Ultimately, therefore, nothing really exists. The apparent
existence of everything is simply an illusory manifestation of nothingness. The
space-time totality is, finally, this holographic disguise of nothingness
appearing as something.
There are three big questions: where does the
observer's consciousness come from?, where does the energy
inherent in the observer's accelerated frame of reference come from?, and where
does the information encoded on the observer's holographic screen come from?
The perceiving consciousness of the observer, viewing his own
holographic world from that world's central vantage point, and the expression
of dark energy, placing the observer in an accelerated frame of
reference that creates that holographic world, arise together, simultaneously,
from the true vacuum state. The emptiness of nothingness or the true state of
emptiness that gives rise to the creation of the physical universe, is
also the primordial nature of the perceiving consciousness of the
observer who contemplates his world. Emptiness is not only the potentiality to
create all things, but also the potentiality to perceive all things.
The observer's consciousness cannot arise in a brain within a body, since a
body is simply another perceptible thing in that world, no more real than a
holographic image projected from a screen to the observer's central point of
view. The source of the observer's perceiving consciousness must be the
same void of nothingness that gives rise to the creation of the observer's perceptible
world. This void of nothingness is limitless and, for lack of a better
description, we could call it limitless consciousness. Somehow, this
nothingness is also infinite unity, undifferentiated and formless. Emptiness is
the primordial or ultimate nature of existence.
Correctly interpreted, the holographic principle tells
us that the physical world is only an expression of the potentiality of the
void. Through its geometric mechanisms, the void has the potential to create
a world for itself and to observe that world from its central vantage
point. The observer and the holographic world of him always arise together in a
subject-object relationship of perception. There is no objective physical world
out there, but everything emerges in a subject-object relationship that occurs
when the observer enters an accelerated frame of reference and their event
horizon emerges, acting as a holographic screen when encoding qubits of
information. Whatever the observer beholds is both an objective reality and a
subjective reality. There is no way to remove the subjective observer from the
observation. Everything that can be perceived in the world, which quantum
theory refers to as an observation or measurement of the world, occurs in a
subject-object relationship. By its very nature, the quantum state of potentiality
is an unobserved state until it is observed, at which point it is reduced to an
observed state of actuality. It just doesn't make sense to talk about
the quantum state as an objective physical reality. The quantum state is just a
state of potentiality. It describes what can probably be observed, not what is
actually observed. When the observer focuses their attention on their own
holographic world, the observer's consciousness becomes focused on one point of
view and the observer's holographic world appears to come into being. The
observer's holographic world can only appear to come into existence when the
observer focuses their attention on that world. The observer must be present as
a presence of consciousness at the center of his own world for that world to
appear to exist.
Unifying quantum theory with relativity theory is the
problem of making sense of the observer in both theories. Relativity speaks of
the observer observing or measuring the relativistic properties of their
objects in an accelerated frame of reference, whereas quantum theory speaks of
the observer observing or measuring the quantized properties of their objects
as those properties arise from a quantum state of potentiality. The key point
is that these observations always occur in the subject-object perception
relationship. Neither quantum theory nor relativity theory really has anything
significant to say about the nature of the observer, other than that the
observer sees some property of an object in a subject-object relationship. The
problem that physicists seem unwilling to face is that everything perceptible
arises in a subject-object relationship when the subject perceives some
observable property in an object. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn
from all this is that not only the perceptible object arises from the
void state as an excitation of energy and information, but the perceiving
subject also arises from the void state. This tells us fundamentally that
the vacuum state is not only the source of all the energy and information
inherent in objects, but also the source of the consciousness that perceives
the properties of all those objects. The triad of energy, information and
perception of consciousness have to arise together in a subject-object
relationship of perception, and they do so simultaneously from the state of
emptiness.
The origin of universal manifestation occurs when the
void is projected as the perceiving consciousness of all observers present at
the central point of view of their own holographic worlds. The only reason
different observers view different worlds is because each observer is located
in its own coordinate system that moves relative to other coordinate systems.
In any case, the perceiving consciousness in each and every one of the
determined points of view is the same and unique consciousness, only that,
being located in different points of view, it contemplates different universes.
Each observer has his own bubble and is at the center of his own world. The
various observers do not exist within the same world, but each have their own
world defined on their own viewing screen. How, then, can one explain a
consensual reality shared by many observers, each present at the central point
of view of their own holographic world? The answer lies in the fact that when
their holographic screens overlap, they can share information. Information
encoded on one display screen is correlated with information encoded on another
screen due to quantum entanglement. Each display screen defines an information
state that includes all the possible ways that information can be encoded in
all the different pixels. What seems to happen in any one bubble is connected
to what seems to happen in the other bubbles as bits of information in those
different states of information interact with each other, align, and share
their content. Holography demonstrates that consensus reality is made up of
multiple interlocking worlds, each defined on its own viewing screen and each
viewed from its own point of view. Consensus reality is not a single objective
reality, but many intertwined worlds that share information with each other.
The quantum state of potentiality of the universe is a sum of all the bubbles
in the vacuum.
Every time an observer makes an observation of
something in your holographic world, the tangled information encoded on your
holographic screen is disentangled and the quantum state of potentiality is
reduced to an actual observed state. Until observed, everything in that
holographic world only exists at the level of entangled qubits of information
encoded on the observer's own holographic screen. Each observation is thus a
perceptible holistic event in which the entangled quantum state of that
holographic world is disentangled, and thus the observation of anything in that
world affects the observation of everything else. The coherent organization of
the form develops naturally because all the information qubits encoded on the
observer's holographic screen are entangled and those entangled information
qubits tend to align. The coherent organization of information allows the
development of observable forms of information, which self-replicate over a sequence
of events. In the sense of quantum theory, each event is a decision point where
the quantum state of that world bifurcates, due to the different ways that bits
of information can be encoded across all the pixels on the display screen. The
observed events of that world are not predetermined, but rather encoded in a
quantum state of potentiality, best understood as the sum of all possible
paths.
For an integral understanding of the holographic
world, it is essential to highlight the distinction between unlimited
consciousness —which is the nature of the undifferentiated void that has the
inexhaustible potential to create endless finite worlds of forms— and limited
consciousness —which is the nature of an individual observer and his observed
world—. This limited consciousness arises from the illusory self-identification
of the unlimited consciousness with the central character of a given movie.
This is a peculiar aspect of existence in a holographic world. The fact that
the observer places the focus of attention on the life of his character is what
creates the hypnotic spell of self-identification. With personal
self-identification, there is the mistaken assumption that the source of the
observer's consciousness is that central character appearing in the perceived
holographic virtual reality world, which is logically impossible. The
observer's body is just one more form of information that appears in his
holographic world. When the observer emotionally identifies with a body and
takes himself as such, it is as if that body were the subject in the
subject-object perception relationship. The observer's body is taken as the
perceiving subject, and all other objects that appear in the observer's
holographic world are considered as objects of perception. In reality, the
observer himself is the subject, and his body is just another object of
perception that appears in his holographic world among all other objects of
perception. Behind all this illusory game of self-identifications, the ultimate
reality is that there is only one consciousness in everyone, but there are many
different points of view within that consciousness, each perceiving their own
mind and their own world on their own screen. As we have said, the observer
must be present so that the quantum state of potentiality can be actualized,
from instant to instant, as a concrete state of the manifested world. Thus,
when the observer is no longer present, his world and his mind disappear from
apparent existence and his limited consciousness returns to the undifferentiation
of unlimited consciousness. As Nisargadatta Maharaj stated: “All limited
existence is imaginary. Even space and time are imaginary. The pure being,
which fills everything and beyond everything, is not limited. Only the
limitless is real."
Having outlined so far the basic characteristics of
the holographic principle, as well as its solipsistic implications, exposed by
Amanda Gefter, and its non-dual implications, revealed by Jim Kowall, we
believe that we already have the necessary tools to clarify the intriguing
parallelism found between the accelerated expansion of the universe and the
accelerated unfolding of the evolution of life, which we have raised at the
beginning of this addendum. To focus the issue, then, we are going to summarize
below some basic points that we have developed in previous addenda or in the
initial article.
In order to reach a truly integral understanding of
the subject we are dealing with, it is completely necessary to refer to at
least three different facets in the All-One: non-dual absolute reality,
potential relative reality, and spatiotemporal relative reality.
—Non-dual absolute reality: Since all
manifested reality inexorably appears in the form of interdependent dualities
—subject/object, inside/outside, origin/end—, we can understand them as polar
manifestations of a reality that transcends them and that it is “prior” to that
dualization. Physicists speak of infinite potential energy in the original
quantum void, and sages speak of infinite transparent consciousness in the
final mystical void. Our proposal is that these two voids are the same and
unique absolute Emptiness, perceived objectively by physicists and subjectively
by contemplatives, but which, in itself, is neither objective nor subjective,
but unity, identity or indifference of both facets simultaneously.
—Potential relative reality: Since non-dual
Emptiness is completely devoid of the slightest separation between subject and
object, it cannot be perceived in any way. For this reason, if it wants to
contemplate itself, it has no choice but to unfold as an original objective
pole —basically of energy— and a final subjective pole —basically of
consciousness—, fully maintaining its empty essence. Between both poles a wide
spectrum of balances is generated between both polar facets, which covers the
entire range from the most basic states —of enormous energy and little
consciousness— to the highest —of little energy and enormous consciousness—.
When this illusory distance of energy-consciousness generated between both
poles enters into vibration —like a guitar string— a characteristic fundamental
sound and all its unlimited range of harmonic sounds (standing waves) are
instantly produced. This means that, let's look closely, from the very
originary moment the entire archetypal spectrum of energy-consciousness is
already fully present in an entangled and resonant way. The successive second
harmonics that arise with the vibration of the original "string" of
energy-consciousness are, precisely, the potential levels of stratified
stability that will be updated, one after the other, along the successive steps
of universal evolution.
—The spatiotemporal relative reality: In a
previous addendum we have outlined the basic characteristics of the nested
toroidal dynamics through which the potential reality of the archetypal
foundation is actualized and unfolds in the illusory holographic world of space-time
forms. The departure and return, instant after instant, from and towards that
foundation, through its finite and fleeting manifestation in and as the
holographic space-time, allows one to actualize, one after another, the
successive potential levels of stability of the spectrum of
energy-consciousness. This intrinsically creative recursive dynamic between
“potential reality” and “actualized reality” is mediated by the unified field
of memory that, step by step, is gestating at a fundamental level. All the
information collected at any point-instant of the manifested world is
immediately introjected into the basic field of collective memory, which, in
this way, increases, moment by moment, its creative potential. The ultimate
claim of the universal evolutionary manifestation consists in reproducing in a
broken down and integrated way, in the world of finite appearances, the
non-duality of undifferentiated energy-consciousness, characteristic of
fundamental Emptiness. It is, finally, the inexhaustible attempt of Nothingness
to contemplate its invisible face in infinite ways.
In non-dual absolute reality the object and the
subject —energy and consciousness— are undifferentiated, in potential
relative reality the object and subject are differentiated but entangled,
and in spatiotemporal relative reality the object and subject they are
differentiated and (apparently) separated. We can exemplify these three
possibilities by representing non-dual absolute reality with 0, potential
relative reality with a qubit (unit of quantum information) —which not only has
the basic states of 0 and 1, but can be found in a state of quantum
superposition, with the simultaneous combination of both states—, and to the
relative reality manifested with a classical bit —which can represent one of
those two values: 0 or 1, like, for example, in the case of a light bulb, which
can be in one of these two states: either on or off. That is, a bit can contain
a value (0 or 1), a qubit simultaneously contains both values (0 and
1), and absolute 0 lacks any type of information... or, rather, it includes
everything in an undifferentiated way. The passage of potential relative
reality —Kastner's “quantumland”, Bohm's “implicate order”, Jung's
archetypal “unus mundus”, Sheldrake's “morphogenetic field”, Laszlo's
“akashic field” or the Haramein's "unified spatial memory network"—to
the actualized relative reality —the holographic spatiotemporal universe that
we believe we inhabit— can be schematized, as we will see below, through the
interactive dynamics between the objective (energy) and subjective
(consciousness) poles in which the non-dual Emptiness unfolds —the simple
absolute Presence, the mere Consciousness-of-Being, the pure Self-Evidence
without form, the diaphanous ultimate Identity of everything and everyone—.
What so far we have called potential relative reality
bears a suggestive similarity to what students of the holographic principle
know as the holographic plate. In both cases, we are talking about a potential
field of entangled information that is holographically projected to the eyes of
a determined observer as a space-time universe. That is to say, the holographic
plate (or potential relative reality) is not located in any particular place or
moment in space-time, but, on the contrary, it is the entirety of space-time
that is potentially located in the holographic plate. As we have seen above,
potential relative reality is the common archetype of all possible world lines
unfolding in holographic space-time. All these lines of the world —the
different modes of vibration of the “string” of energy-consciousness that runs
through the illusory distance between the objective and subjective poles, which
we have posited at the heart of our evolutionary hypothesis— start from the
same original pole —basically of energy— and are oriented towards the same
final pole —basically of consciousness—, but their trajectory can be
"tuned" in many different ways, at any of the levels of the
energy-consciousness spectrum, from the most basic or material to the highest
or spiritual. In the addendum on entropic-syntropic evolution we have explained
how potential retarded waves (starting from the original energy pole and
flowing forward in time) and potential advanced waves (starting from the final
consciousness pole and flowing backward in time) resonate with each other at a
certain level of the spectrum —standing wave or musical harmonic—, which acts
as a fundamental sound, and with this "handshake" between both flows
the transaction is completed —wave function collapse— that manifests itself in
a concrete event in space-time. Put another way, “every time an observer makes
an observation of something in his holographic world, the entangled information
encoded on his holographic screen is disentangled and the quantum state of
potentiality is reduced to an actual observed state.”
As we have suggested a moment ago, the passage from
potential relative reality —the holographic plate— to actualized relative
reality —the holographic space-time universe— can be unraveled through
understanding the mutual dynamics between the objective pole (energy) and
subjective pole (consciousness) in which the non-dual Emptiness is apparently
dualized. The key is to understand that the separation process between both
poles can be interpreted in two different ways. In one, the object moves away
from the subject. In the other, the subject moves away from the object. Let's
see each one of them.
From the perspective of the holographic principle,
there is no objective physical world out there, but rather everything emerges
in a subject-object relationship that occurs when the observer enters an
accelerated reference frame and their event horizon acts as a screen
holographic when it encodes qubits of information. This accelerated movement is
usually interpreted as referring to the expansion of the universal bubble in
the eyes of the observer located in its center. What is absolutely amazing
about the observer's consciousness is that relativity theory tells us that the
observer's central point of view is exactly the singularity of the Big Bang
event. So, each observer has their own Big Bang event that creates their own
holographic world. That is to say, all the observers of the universe are in the
immovable center of the cosmic expansion and have remained there since the
beginning of time. At the time of the Big Bang, the universe had a diameter of
about one Planck length (10-33 cm), and space has been expanding
outward at an exponential rhythm ever since. Each observer contemplates this
accelerating expansion of the universe relative to his own point of view at the
center of the universe. What we call the universe is actually an observer's own
holographic world. As we have said, the expression of dark energy allows the
universe to expand and cool as entropy increases, the cosmological constant
changes to a lower value, and the observer's cosmic horizon increases in
radius. This is how more and more qubits of information for the universe are
gradually being encoded as the observer's cosmic horizon increases in surface
area. In this sense, as we have commented, Haramein and Currivan explain that
there is an informational aspect of universal expansion, since the fact that
the total information content of the universe constantly increases requires a
growing volume of pixelated space-time within which to accommodate this
informational evolution.
Next to this perspective in which it is stated that
the objective universe is rapidly moving away —outwards— from the observing
subject, we can make another reading in which it is the observing subject that
is rapidly moving away —inwards— from the objective material universe. Instead
of speaking, then, of a progressive expansion of the objective universe,
we will speak of a progressive internalization in the realm of
subjective consciousness. To expose this alternative approach, we are going to
recall here, briefly, an idea that we have exposed in our article. We can
summarize the entire evolutionary process stating that in the original moment
and during the first stages of development of matter, the facet of
consciousness was absorbed in the facet of energy. With the emergence of life,
the facet of consciousness jumps inwards, separates itself from mere matter,
perceives it, and thus can act on it. With the emergence of the human mind,
the facet of consciousness jumps inwards again, self-consciousness appears,
which is separated from the simple subconscious life, thus increasing the
capacity for action on the natural world. With the emergence of the rational intellect,
the facet of consciousness jumps inwards again, which allows us to think about
thought and, in this way, the understanding of how things work and, therefore,
the ability to intervene increases exponentially about them. All this process
is possible due to the presence, from the very originary moment, of pure
consciousness ―the “witness” of which the Hindu tradition speaks― as the final
pole of the process. Therefore, it should be clarified that this final pole of
pure consciousness does not evolve at all —because it remains full and
immutable at all times—, but its reflection and identification with the
different entities and organisms that develop throughout the process —atoms ,
molecules, cells, multicellular organisms, vertebrates, mammals, primates,
apes, humans...— it does evolve in terms of its ability to actualize that full
consciousness, which allows progressively increasing the ability of organisms
to capture, store, process and respond to information from the environment.
This accelerated evolutionary process has been described by the British
theoretical physicist and experimental psychologist Peter Russell as a spiral
movement through a "white hole in time", which, displaying
increasing levels of complexity, connectivity and consciousness, is heading
towards a next final Omega Point.
We have said before that the observer and his
holographic world always arise together in a subject-object relationship of
perception. For this reason, we propose that the two interpretations of the
universal dynamics that we have just exposed —the accelerated expansion of the
external world and the accelerated evolution of the internal world—, far from
representing two independent realities, are, on the contrary, two complementary
descriptions of a same and unique process. When, at the beginning of this
addendum, we highlighted the surprising synchrony between the process of
expansion of the universe and the process of evolution of life, we suggested
that, at first sight, the two phenomena did not seem to have anything to do
with each other. But, once the fundamental characteristics of the holographic
principle have been exposed, we have understood that these two processes are
not only closely related, but that they are, even more, two perspectives on the
same and unique reality. The increase in the number of information qubits as
the observer's cosmic horizon expands is nothing but the objective expression
of the growth in the capacity to actualize subjective consciousness in the
successive organisms that unfold throughout evolution. Viewed in this way, the
total formal and chronological similarity —described in the first paragraphs of
this addendum— between the global expansion trajectory of the universe and the
global evolutionary deployment trajectory, far from being a mere coincidence,
is the expression logical and natural from the fact that both processes are
only two partial perspectives of the same and unique subject-object process. So,
we can say, indistinctly, that the universe expands because life evolves or
that life evolves because the universe expands. Ultimately, subject and object
are not two, but the simple illusory appearance through which the non-dual
Emptiness tries to contemplate its eternally invisible face.
(Note: The English version of this
Addendum 9 is made using Google translate)
Bibliography
AGUDELO, G. and AGUDELO, J. S.: El universo sensible. IIEH. México, 2002.
ALCÁZAR, J. and BAYO, E.: El hombre fósil. Penthalon Ed. Madrid, 1985.
ARCIDIACONO, GIUSEPPE and SALVATORE: Sintropia, entropia, informazione. Di Renzo Editore. Roma, 1991.
ARCIDIACONO, SALVATORE: L'evoluzione dopo Darwin. La teoria sintropica dell'evoluzione. Di Renzo Editore. Roma, 1992.
ASSAGIOLI, ROBERTO: Ser transpersonal. [Lo sviluppo transpersonale]. Gaia Ed. Madrid, 1993.
AUROBINDO, SRI: Isha Upanishad. Ed. Kier. Buenos Aires, 1971.
AUROBINDO, SRI: La vida divina (3 volumes). [The Life Divine]. Ed. Kier. Buenos Aires, 1971.
AUROBINDO, SRI: L’Idéal de l’Unité Humaine. Ashram Press. Pondicherry, 1971.
AUROBINDO, SRI: Le Cycle Humain. Ashram Press. Pondicherry, 1972.
AUROBINDO, SRI: Síntesis del yoga (3 volumes). [The Synthesis of Yoga]. Ed. Kier. Buenos Aires, 1972.
AUROBINDO, SRI: Guía del yoga integral. Plaza & Janés Ed. Barcelona, 1977.
AUROBINDO, SRI: Heráclito y Oriente. [Heráclite et Orient]. Ed. Leviatán. Buenos Aires, 1982.
AYALA, FRANCISCO J.: Origen y evolución del hombre. Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1980.
BATESON, GREGORY: Espíritu y Naturaleza. [Mind and Nature]. Amorrortu Ed. Buenos Aires, 1990.
BECK, D. and COWAN, C.: Spiral Dynamics. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford, 2006.
BENTOV, ITZHAK: A Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness: A Cosmic Book on the Mechanics of Creation. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. Rochester, 2000.
BERGSON, HENRI: La evolución creadora. [L’évolution créatrice]. Ed. Espasa-Calpe. Madrid, 1973.
BERTALANFFY, LUDWIG VON: Teoría general de los sistemas. [General System Theory]. Fondo de Cultura Económica. México, 1976.
BOHM, DAVID: La totalidad y el orden implicado. [Wholeness and the Implicate Order]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1988.
BOHM, D. and PEAT, F. D.: Ciencia, orden y creatividad. [Science, Order and Creativity]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1988.
BOUCHART D’ORVAL, JEAN: La plenitud del vacío. [La plenitude du vide]. Edicomunicación. Barcelona, 1991.
BRESLAUER, SAM: Nothingness, Fractal of Self & the Evolution of Embodied Pure Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. Volume 10, 2019.
BRESLAUER, SAM: Nothingness & the Fractal of Self: A Non-Dual Philosophical Theory & Scientific Model of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. Volume 10, 2019.
BRESLAUER, SAM: Comparisons of Fractal of Self Model of Consciousness with Other Models. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. Volume 11, 2020.
BROSSE, THÉRÊSE: Conciencia-energía. [La “Conscience-Énergie”, structure de l’homme et de l’univers]. Taurus Ed. Madrid, 1981.
BRIGGS, J. and PEAT, F. D.: Espejo y reflejo: del caos al orden. [Turbulent Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science of Wholeness]. Gedisa Ed. Barcelona, 1994.
BRIGGS, J. and PEAT, F. D.: A través del maravilloso espejo del universo. [Looking Glass Universe]. Gedisa Ed. Barcelona, 1996.
BRONOWSKI, JACOB: New Concepts in the Evolution of Complexity. Stratified Stability and Unbounded Plans. In Zygon, 5 (1970).
BRUNO, GIORDANO: Mundo, magia, memoria. Taurus Ed. Madrid, 1982.
BRUTEAU, BÉATRICE: Evolución hacia la divinidad. [Evolution Toward Divinity]. Ed. Diana. México D. F., 1977.
BUCKE, RICHARD: Cosmic consciousness. Dover Publications. Mineola, New York, 2009.
BURLANDO, BRUNO: The fractal dimension of taxonomic systems. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 146 (1) - 1990.
CALLEMAN, CARL J.: El calendario Maya y la transformación de la consciencia. [The Mayan Calendar and the Transformation of Consciousness]. Inner Traditions. Rochester, Vermont, 2007.
CAPRA, FRITJOF: El Tao de la física. [The Tao of Physics]. Luis Cárcamo Ed. Madrid, 1984.
CAPRA, FRITJOF: El punto crucial. [The Turning Point]. Integral Ed. Barcelona, 1985.
CAPRA, FRITJOF: La trama de la vida. [The Web of Life]. Ed. Anagrama. Barcelona, 1998.
CAVALLÉ, MÓNICA: La sabiduría recobrada. Oberón. Madrid, 2002.
CAVALLÉ, MÓNICA: La sabiduría de la no-dualidad. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2008.
CHALINE, J., NOTTALE, L. and GROU, P.: L’arbre de la vie a-t-il une structure fractale? Académie des sciences / Elsevier, Paris. Paléontologie / 1999.
CHALINE, JEAN: La relativité d’échelle dans la morphogenèse du vivant: fractal, déterminisme et hasard. Paper in Annales de Chirugie Plastique Esthétique, 2012.
CHAUDHURI, HARIDAS: Yoga integral. [Integral Yoga]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1991.
CHOPRA, D. and KAFATOS, M.: Tú eres el universo. [You Are the Universe]. Gaia Ed. Madrid, 2018.
COHEN, ANDREW: Iluminación evolutiva. [Evolutionary Enlightenment]. Ed. Obelisco. Barcelona, 2012.
COMBS, ALLAN: Radiance of Being: Understanding the Grand Integral Vision; Living the Integral Life. Paragon House. St. Paul, Minnesota, 2002.
COMBS, A. and KRIPPNER, S.: Spiritual growth and the evolution of consciousness: Complexity, evolution, and the farther reaches of human nature. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 18(1). (1999).
COMMONS, M. L. and RICHARDS, F. A.: A general model of stage theory. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards & C. Armon (eds.): Beyond formal operations, late adolescent and adult cognitive development. Praeger. New York, 1984.
COOK-GREUTER, SUSANNE: Ego Development: Nine Levels of Increasing Embrace. S. Cook-Greuter. Wayland, 1985.
COOMARASWAMY, ANANDA: El tiempo y la eternidad. [Time and Eternity]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1999.
COREN, RICHARD L.: The Evolutionary Trajectory. CRC Press, 1998.
COSTA DE BEAUREGARD, OLIVIER: Irreversibilità, entropia, informazione. Di Renzo Editore. Roma, 1994.
COVENEY, P. and HIGHFIELD, R.: La flecha del tiempo. [The Arrow of Time]. Plaza & Janés Ed. Barcelona, 1992.
CRAMER, JOHN G.: The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 58: 647-688, 1986.
CRAMER, JOHN G.: The Quantum Handshake - Entanglement, Nonlocality, and Transactions. Springer, 2016.
CUSA, NICOLÁS: La docta ignorancia. [De docta ignorantia]. Aguilar. Buenos Aires, 1957.
DAVIES, PAUL: Proyecto cósmico. [The Cosmic Blueprint]. Ed. Pirámide. Madrid, 1989.
DAVIES, PAUL: La mente de Dios. [The Mind of God]. Mc Graw-Hill. Madrid, 1993.
DE CAYEUX, ANDRÉ: ¿Qué curva sigue la humanidad? [Quelle courbe suit l’humanité?]. Revista 3er. milenio, nº 23. Barcelona, 1995.
DESHIMARU, TAISEN: El Sutra de la Gran Sabiduría. [Maka Hannya Haramita Shingyo]. Miraguano Ed. Madrid, 1987.
D’ESPAGNAT, BERNARD: En busca de lo real. [A la recherche du réel]. Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1983.
DÍEZ FAIXAT, JOSÉ: A Hypothesis on the Rhythm of Becoming. World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution. Volume 36. Number 1. 1993.
DÍEZ FAIXAT, JOSÉ: Entre la evolución y la eternidad. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1996.
DÍEZ FAIXAT, JOSÉ: Siendo nada, soy todo. Ed. Dilema. Madrid, 2007.
DOSSEY, LARRY: Tiempo, espacio y medicina. [Space, Time and Medicine]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1986.
DOWD, MICHAEL: Thank God for Evolution. New World Library. Novato, California, 1998.
EKSTIG, BÖRGE: Superexponentially Accelerating Evolution. World Futures: The Journal of New Paradigm Research. Volume 68, 2012 – Issue 1.
ELDREDGE, N. and GOULD, S. J.: Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phylogenetic Gradualism. In Schopf, Thomas J. M. (ed.): Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper. San Francisco, 1972.
ELIADE, MIRCEA: El mito del eterno retorno. [Le mythe de l’eternel retour]. Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1989.
ENOMIYA-LASSALLE, HUGO: ¿A dónde va el hombre? [Wohin geht der Mensch?]. Ed. Zendo Betania. Brihuega, 2011.
FANTAPPIÈ, LUIGI: Sull’interpretazione dei potenziali anticipati della meccanica ondulatoria e su un Principio di finalità che ne discende, Rend. Acc. d’ltalia, serie 7.a, vol. 4°, fasc. 1–5, 1942.
FANTAPPIÈ, LUIGI (1942): Principi di una teoria unitaria del mondo fisico e biológico. Di Renzo Editore. Roma, 1993.
FANTAPPIÈ, LUIGI: Conferenze scelte. Di Renzo Editore. Roma, 1993.
FERGUSON, MARILYN: La conspiración de Acuario. [The Aquarian Conspiracy]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1985.
FERRER, JORGE N.: Espiritualidad creativa. [Revisioning Transpersonal Theory]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2003.
FOWLER, JAMES: Stages of Faith. Harper & Row. San Francisco, 1981.
FREGTMAN, CARLOS: Música transpersonal. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1990.
FULLER, R. BUCKMINSTER: Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking (1 and 2). Macmillan Pub Co. London, 1982, 1983.
GARCÍA CASAS, MIGUEL: Teoría de la vida embarazada y la reproevolución.
GEBSER, JEAN: Origen y presente. [Ursprung und Gegenwart]. Ed. Atalanta. Vilaür (Girona), 2011.
GLEICK, JAMES: Caos. [Chaos – Making a New Science]. Ed. Seix Barral. Barcelona, 1988.
GODWIN, ROBERT W.: One Cosmos under God. Paragon House. St. Paul, Minnesota, 2004.
GONZÁLEZ GARZA, ANA Mª: Colisión de paradigmas. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2005.
GOSWAMI, AMIT: Evolución creativa. [Creative Evolution]. La esfera de los libros. Madrid, 2008.
GOULD, STEPHEN J.: La flecha del tiempo. [Time’s Arrow. Time’s Cycle]. Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1992.
GOULD, STEPHEN J.: Ontogenia y filogenia. [Ontogeny and Phylogeny]. Ed. Crítica. Barcelona, 2010.
GRASSÉ, PIERRE: El hombre, ese Dios en miniatura. [Toi, ce petit dieu]. Ed. Orbis. Barcelona, 1986.
GRAVES, CLARE: The Never Ending Quest. ECLET. Santa Barbara, 2005.
GREENE, BRIAN: El universo elegante. [The Elegant Universe]. Drakontos. Barcelona, 2010.
GRIBBIN, JOHN: Schrödinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality. Back Bay Books, 1996.
GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM, JACOBO: La teoría sintérgica. INPEC. México, 1991.
GROF, STANISLAV: Psicología transpersonal. [Beyond the Brain]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1988.
GROF, STANISLAV: El juego cósmico. [The Cosmic Game]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1999.
GROF, STANISLAV (ed.): Sabiduría antigua y ciencia moderna. [Ancient Wisdom and Modern Science]. Cuatro Vientos Ed. Santiago de Chile, 1991.
GROF, STANISLAV (ed.): La evolución de la conciencia. [Human Survival & Consciousness Evolution]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1994.
GUITTON, JEAN: Dios y la ciencia. [Dieu et la science]. Ed. Debate. Madrid, 1992.
HALPERN, PAUL: El tiempo imperfecto. [Time Journeys]. Mc Graw-Hill. Madrid, 1992.
HAMEROFF, S. and PENROSE, R.: Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory. Physics of Life Reviews,11(1), 39-78. (2014).
HARAMEIN, N., BROWN W. D. and VAL BAKER, A.: The Unified Spacememory Network: from Cosmogenesis to Consciousness. NeuroQuantology, Volume 14, Issue 4, (2016). [
https://holofractal.org/spacememory.pdf ]
HEISENBERG, WERNER: La imagen de la naturaleza en la física actual. [Das Naturbild der heutigen Physik]. Ed. Orbis. Barcelona, 1988.
HEISENBERG, SCHRÖDINGER, EINSTEIN and others: Cuestiones cuánticas. [Quantum Questions]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1987.
HERÁCLITO: Fragmentos. Aguilar. Buenos Aires, 1959.
HOGGARD, NICK: SuperEvolution. (Unpublished book).
HOOFT, GERARD ‘T: The holographic principle. Basics and Highlights in Fundamental Physics; 37: 72-100. (2001).
HUXLEY, ALDOUS: La filosofía perenne. [The Perennial Philosophy]. Edhasa. Barcelona, 1977.
JÄGER, WILLIGIS: En busca del sentido de la vida. [Suche nach dem Sinn des Lebens]. Narcea Ed. Madrid, 1995.
JASPERS, KARL: Origen y meta de la historia. [Vom Ursprung und Ziel des Geschichte]. Ed. Revista de Occidente. Madrid, 1968.
JANTSCH, ERICH: The Self-Organizing Universe. Pergamon Press. Oxford, 1980.
JUNG, CARL G.: Sincronicidad. [Synchronicity]. Ed. Sirio. Málaga, 1990.
JUNG, CARL G.: Arquetipos e inconsciente colectivo. [Von den Wurzeln des Bewusstseins]. Ed. Paidós. Barcelona, 1991.
KAUFFMAN, STUART: Reinventing the Sacred. Basic Books. New York, 2008.
KASTNER, RUTH E.: The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 2012.
KASTNER, RUTH E.: Understanding Our Unseen Reality: Solving Quantum Riddles. Imperial College Press, 2015.
KASTNER, RUTH E.: Adventures in Quantumland: Exploring Our Unseen Reality. World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd., 2019.
KEGAN, ROBERT: In Over Our Heads. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, 1994.
KELLY, SEAN M.: Coming Home: The Birth and Transformation of the Planetary Era. Lindisfarne Books. Aurora, CO, 2010.
KOESTLER, ARTHUR: The Ghost in the Machine. Last Century Media, 1982.
KOESTLER, ARTHUR: Las raíces del azar. [The Roots of Coincidence]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1974.
KOHLBERG, LAWRENCE: The Philosophy of Moral Development. Harper & Row. San Francisco, 1981.
KURZWEIL, RAY: La Singularidad está cerca. [The Singularity is Near]. Lola Books. Berlín, 2012.
LALOUX, FREDERIC: Reinventar las organizaciones. [Reinventing Organizations]. Arpa Ed. Barcelona, 2016.
LANZA, R. and BERMAN, B.: Biocentrismo. [Biocentrism]. Ed. Sirio. Málaga, 2012.
LANZA, R. and BERMAN, B.: Más allá del biocentrismo. [Beyond Biocentrism]. Ed. Sirio. Málaga, 2018.
LASZLO, ERVIN: Evolución: la gran síntesis. [Evolution: The Grand Synthesis]. Ed. Espasa-Calpe. Madrid, 1988.
LASZLO, ERVIN: La gran bifurcación. [The Great Bifurcation]. Ed. Gedisa. Barcelona, 1990.
LASZLO, ERVIN: El cosmos creativo. [The Creative Cosmos]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1997.
LASZLO, ERVIN: La ciencia y el campo akásico. [Science and the Akashic Field]. Ed. Nowtilus. Madrid, 2003.
LASZLO, ERVIN: El universo in-formado. [Science and the Akashic Field. The Enlarged Definitive Edition]. Ed. Nowtilus. Madrid, 2007.
LASZLO, ERVIN: El cambio cuántico. [Quantum Shift in the Global Brain]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2009.
LASZLO, ERVIN: El paradigma akáshico. [The Akasha Paradigm]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2013.
LASZLO, ERVIN: La naturaleza de la realidad. [What is Reality?]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2017.
LEFFERTS, MARSHALL: Cosmometry. Cosmometria Publishing. 2019.
LEITH, BRIAN: El legado de Darwin. [Descent of Darwin]. Salvat Ed. Barcelona, 1988.
LEONARD, GEORGE: El pulso silencioso. [The Silent Pulse]. Edaf. Madrid, 1979.
LEPOIRE, DAVID J.: An Exploration of Historical Transitions with Simple System Dynamics Models. First International Big History Conference, Grand Rapids MI, Aug 2-5, 2012.
LEPOIRE, DAVID J.: Potential nested accelerating returns logistic growth in Big History. In Evolution: From Big Bang to Nanorobots. Edited by: Leonid Grinin and Andrey Korotayev. Volgograd: ‘Uchitel’ Publishing House, 2015.
LEPOIRE, DAVID J.: Interpreting Big History as Complex Adaptive System Dynamics with Nested Logistic Transitions in Energy Flow and Organization. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, accepted 3/28/2015.
LOEVINGER, JANE: Ego Development. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, 1976.
LORIMER, DAVID (ed.): El espíritu de la ciencia. [The Spirit of Science]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2000.
LOVEJOY, ARTHUR O.: The Great Chain of Being. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, 1976.
LOVELOCK, JAMES: Gaia, una nueva visión de la vida sobre la tierra. [Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth]. Ed. Orbis. Barcelona, 1985.
LOY, DAVID: No-dualidad. [Nonduality]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2000.
LUPASCO, STEPHANE: Energía y materia psíquica. [L’énergie et la matière vivante]. Fundación Cánovas del Castillo. Madrid, 1983.
MC INTOSH, STEVE: Integral Consciousness and the Future of Evolution. Paragon House. St. Paul, Minnesota, 2007.
MC INTOSH, STEVE: Evolution’s Purpose. Select Books. New York, 2012.
MC KENNA, TERENCE: Invisible Landscape. Kuperand. London, 1994.
MAC LEAN, PAUL: The Triune Brain in Evolution. Plenum. New York, 1990.
MANDELBROT, BENOÎT: La geometría fractal de la naturaleza [The Fractal Geometry of Nature] Tusquets Editores. Barcelona, 1997.
MARTÍNEZ LOZANO, ENRIQUE: Otro modo de ver. Otro modo de vivir. Ed. Desclée de Brouwer. Bilbao, 2014.
MARTÍNEZ MIGUÉLEZ, MIGUEL: El paradigma emergente. Ed. Gedisa. Barcelona, 1993.
MASLOW, ABRAHAM: El hombre autorrealizado. [Towards a Psychology of Being]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1972.
MATURANA, HUMBERTO: La realidad: ¿objetiva o construida? Ed. Anthropos. Barcelona, 1995.
MATURANA, H. and VARELA, F.: El árbol del conocimiento. [Tree of Knowledge]. Ed. Debate. Madrid, 1990.
MAXWELL, GRANT: The Dynamics of Transformation. Persistent Press. Nashville, 2016.
MEIJER D. K. F. and GEESINK H. J. H.: Consciousness in the Universe is Scale Invariant and Implies an Event Horizon of the Human Brain. NeuroQuantology, Volume 15, Issue 3, 41-79. (2017).
MERLO, VICENTE: Las enseñanzas de Sri Aurobindo. Ed. Kairós, 1998.
MEYER, FRANÇOIS: L’accélération evolutive. Essai sur le rythme évolutif et son interprétation quantique. Librairie des Sciences et des Arts. Paris, 1947.
MORIN, EDGAR: El paradigma perdido. [Le paradigme perdu]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1974.
MORIN, EDGAR: Ciencia con consciencia. [Science avec conscience]. Ed. Anthropos. Barcelona, 1984.
MORRIS, SIMON CONWAY: Life’s Solution. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
NAGEL, THOMAS: La mente y el cosmos. [Mind and Cosmos]. Editorial Biblioteca Nueva. Madrid, 2014.
NAZARETYAN, AKOP: Futuro no-lineal. [Nonlinear Futures]. Ed. Suma Qamaña. Buenos Aires, 2014.
NISKER, WES: Naturaleza de Buda. El Tao de la evolución. [Buddha’s Nature]. La liebre de marzo. Barcelona, 2002.
PANDA, NRUSINGH C.: Ciencia y Vedanta. [Maya in Physics]. Ed. Etnos. Madrid, 2011.
PÁNIKER, SALVADOR: Aproximación al origen. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1982.
PANIKKAR, RAIMON: La intuición cosmoteándrica. Ed. Trotta. Madrid, 1999.
PANOV, ALEXANDER: Scaling law of the biological evolution and the hypothesis of the self-consistent Galaxy origin of life. Advances in Space Research, 36 (2005).
PANOV, ALEXANDER: ¿Punto de bifurcación evolutivo?
LeonAlado.org.
PANOV, ALEXANDER: Crisis sistémica de la civilización como singularidad de la historia y posible rol del programa SETI en el desarrollo post-crisis.
LeonAlado.org PEAT, F. DAVID: Sincronicidad. [Synchronicity]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1988.
PHIPPS, CARTER: Evolucionarios. [Evolutionaries]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2013.
PIAGET, JEAN and INHELDER, BÄRBEL: The Psychology of the Child. Basic Books. New York, 1969.
PIGEM, JORDI (coord.): Nueva conciencia. Integral monográfico 22. Integral Ed. Barcelona, 1991.
PRIBRAM, KARL H.: Languages of the brain. Brandon House, 1971.
PRIBRAM, K. and MARTÍN, J.: Cerebro, mente y holograma. Ed. Alhambra. Madrid, 1980.
PRIGOGINE, I. and STENGERS, I.: La nueva alianza. [La nouvelle alliance]. Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1990.
RACIONERO, L. and MEDINA, L.: El nuevo paradigma. P.P.U. Barcelona, 1990.
REES, PHILIPPA: Involution: An Odyssey Reconciling Science to God. Kindle Edition. CollaborArt Books, 2013.
REEVES, ETTER, VON FRANZ and others: La sincronicidad. [La syncronicité, l’aime et la science]. Gedisa Ed. Barcelona, 1993.
RICARD, M. and THUAN, T. X.: El infinito en la palma de la mano. [L’infini dans la paume de la main]. Ed. Urano. Barcelona, 2001.
RUELLE, DAVID: Azar y caos. [Hasard et chaos]. Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1993.
RUSSELL, PETER: La tierra inteligente. [The Awakening Earth]. Gaia Ed. Madrid, 1993.
RUSSELL, PETER: El agujero blanco en el tiempo. [The White Hole in Time]. Gaia Ed. Madrid, 1994.
RUSSELL, PETER: Ciencia, conciencia y luz. [From Science to God]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2001.
RUSSELL, WALTER: The Universal One. The University of Science & Philosophy. Waynesboro, 1927.
RUYER, RAYMOND: La gnosis de Princeton. [La gnose de Princeton]. Ed. Eyras. Madrid, 1985.
SAGAN, CARL: Los dragones del Edén. [The Dragons of Eden]. Ed. Grijalbo. Barcelona, 1979.
SANDÍN, M., AGUDELO, G. and ALCALÁ, J. G.: Evolución: un nuevo paradigma. Ed. IIEH. Madrid, 2003.
SATPREM: Sri Aurobindo o la aventura de la conciencia. [Sri Aurobindo ou l’aventure de la conscience]. Ed. Obelisco. Barcelona, 1984.
SCHRÖDINGER, ERWIN: Mente y materia. [Mind and Matter]. Tusquets Ed. Barcelona, 1983.
SCHRÖDINGER, ERWIN: ¿Qué es la vida? [What Is Life?].Tusquets Ed. Barcelona, 1983.
SCHRÖDINGER, ERWIN: Mi concepción del mundo. [Meine Weltansicht. Mein Leben]. Tusquets Ed. Barcelona, 1988.
SHELDRAKE, RUPERT: Una nueva ciencia de la vida. [A New Science of Life]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1989.
SHELDRAKE, RUPERT: La presencia del pasado. [The Presence of the Past]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1990.
SHELDRAKE, R., MC KENNA, T. and ABRAHAM, R.: Chaos, Creativity and Cosmic Consciousness. Inner Traditions, 2001.
SITHAMPARANATHAN, J.: La filosofía de la existencia en Ramana Maharshi y la ciencia moderna. [Ramana Maharshi’s Philosophy of Existence and Modern Science]. Ed. Gulaab. Madrid, 2008.
SMITH, CARTER VINCENT: Twelve Stage Vision. [
SMUTS, JAN C.: Holism and Evolution. Macmillan. New York, 1927.
SNOOKS, GRAEME D.: The Dynamic Society. Routledge. London, 1996.
STEWART, IAN: ¿Juega Dios a los dados? [Does God Play Dice?]. Ed. Crítica. Barcelona, 1991.
STEWART, JOHN: Evolution’s Arrow: the direction of evolution and the future of humanity. The Chapman Press. Canberra, 2000.
SWIMME, BRIAN: El corazón secreto del cosmos. [The Hidden Heart of the Cosmos]. Ed. San Pablo. Buenos Aires, 1997.
SZENT-GYORGYI, ALBERT: Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself. Synthesis 1, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 14-26, 1977.
TAYLOR, STEVE: El salto. [The Leap]. Gaia Ed. Madrid, 2018.
TAYLOR, STEVE: Por una ciencia espiritual. [Spiritual Science]. Koan Libros. Badalona, 2019.
TALBOT, MICHAEL: Misticismo y física moderna. [Mysticism and the New Physics]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1986.
TALBOT, MICHAEL: Más allá de la teoría cuántica. [Beyond the Quantum]. Ed. Gedisa. Barcelona, 1988.
TALBOT, MICHAEL: El universo holográfico. [The Holographic Universe]. La esfera de los libros. Madrid, 2007.
TART, CHARLES: Psicologías transpersonales (2 volumes). [Transpersonal Psychologies]. Ed. Paidós. Buenos Aires, 1979.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, PIERRE: El fenómeno humano. [Le Phénomène humain]. Taurus Ed. Madrid, 1959.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, PIERRE: El medio divino. [Le Milieu divin]. Taurus-Alianza. Madrid, 1960.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, PIERRE: El futuro del hombre. [L’Avenir de l’homme]. Taurus Ed. Madrid, 1964.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, PIERRE: La activación de la energía. [L’Activation de l’energie]. Taurus Ed. Madrid, 1965.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, PIERRE: Himno del universo. [Hymne de l’Univers]. Ed Trotta. Madrid, 2004.
THOM, RENÉ: Estabilidad estructural y morfogénesis. [Stabilité structurelle et morphogénèse]. Gedisa Ed. Barcelona, 1987.
THOMPSON, WILLIAM I. (ed.): Gaia: implicaciones de la nueva biología. [Gaia: A Way of Knowing]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1989.
TORRENT, RAQUEL (ed.): Evolución integral. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2009.
VARELA, THOMPSON and ROSCH: De cuerpo presente. [The Embodied Mind]. Gedisa Ed. Barcelona, 1997.
VAUGHAN, FRANCES: El arco interno. [The Inward Arc]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1991.
VINGE, VERNOR: The Coming Technological Singularity. In NASA. Lewis Research Center, Vision 21, 1993.
VISSER, FRANK: Ken Wilber. [Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2004.
WADDINGTON, BOHM, THOM and others: Hacia una biología teórica. [Towards a Theoretical Biology]. Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1976.
WADE, JENNY: Changes of Mind. State University of New York. Albany, 1996.
WALKER, KENNETH: Enseñanza y sistema de Gurdjieff. [A Study of Gurdjieff’s Teaching]. Ed. Dédalo. Buenos Aires, 1976.
WALLACE, B. ALAN: La ciencia de la mente. [Embracing Mind]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2009.
WALSH, VAUGHAN (ed.): Más allá del ego. [Beyond Ego]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1982.
WALSH, VAUGHAN (ed.): Trascender el ego. [Paths Beyond Ego]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1994.
WARTELLA, MELVYN: Ego, evolución e iluminación. [Ego, Evolution and Enlightenment]. Ed. Sirio. Málaga, 2005.
WASHBURN, MICHAEL: El ego y el Fundamento Dinámico. [The Ego and the Dynamic Ground]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1997.
WATTS, ALAN: El libro del tabú. [The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1972.
WEBER, RENÉE: Diálogos con científicos y sabios. [Dialogues with Scientists and Sages]. Los libros de la liebre de marzo. Barcelona, 1990.
WEIL, PIERRE: Los límites del ser humano. [L’homme sans frontieres]. La liebre de marzo. Barcelona, 1997.
WHEELER, JOHN A. y FEYNMAN, ROBERT P.: Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation. Review of Modern Physics; 17: 157-161, 1945.
WHEELER, JOHN A. y FEYNMAN, ROBERT P.: Classical Electrodynamics in Terms of Direct Interparticle Action. Reviews of Modern Physics 21 (July): 425-433, 1949.
WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH: Process and Reality. Corrected edition by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. The Free Press. New York, 1985.
WILBER, KEN: El espectro de la conciencia. [The Spectrum of Consciousness]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1990.
WILBER, KEN: La conciencia sin fronteras. [No Boundary]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1984.
WILBER, KEN: El proyecto Atman. [The Atman Project]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1989.
WILBER, KEN: Después del Edén. [Up from Eden]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1995.
WILBER, KEN: Los tres ojos del conocimiento. [Eye to Eye]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1991.
WILBER, KEN: Sexo, ecología, espiritualidad [Sex, Ecology, Spirituality]. (2 volumes). Gaia Ed. Madrid, 1996-1997.
WILBER, KEN: Breve historia de todas las cosas. [A Brief History of Everything]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1997.
WILBER, KEN: Ciencia y religión. [The Marriage of Sense and Soul]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1998.
WILBER, KEN: El ojo del espíritu. [The Eye of Spirit]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1998.
WILBER, KEN: Diario. [One Taste]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2000.
WILBER, KEN: Una visión integral de la psicología. [Integral Psychology]. Alamah. México D. F., 2000.
WILBER, KEN: Una teoría de todo. [A Theory of Everything]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2001.
WILBER, KEN: Espiritualidad integral. [Integral Spirituality]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2007.
WILBER, KEN: El cuarto giro. [The Fourth Turning]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2016.
WILBER, KEN: La meditación integral. [Integral Meditation]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2016.
WILBER, KEN: La religión del futuro. [The Religion of Tomorrow]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2018.
WILBER, BOHM, PRIBRAM and others: El paradigma holográfico. [Holographic Paradigm]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1987.
WOODHOUSE, MARK: Más allá del dualismo y del materialismo. [Beyond Dualism and Materialism]. In Doore, Gary (ed.): ¿Vida después de la muerte? [What Survives?]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1993.
WOODHOUSE, MARK: La conciencia y el monismo de la energía. [Consciousness and Energy Monism]. In Lorimer, David (ed.): Más allá del cerebro. [Thinking Beyond the Brain]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2003.
WRIGHT, ROBERT: Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. Vintage. New York, 2001.
XIRINACS, LLUIS M.: Sujeto. Ed. Claret. Barcelona, 1975.
YOUNG, ARTHUR M.: The Reflexive Universe. Delacorte Press. New York, 1976.
ZDENEK III, CARL CHRISTOPHER: The Fractal Nature of Consciousness, The Evolution of the “Global Human”, and The Driving Forces of History.
ZUKAV, GARY: La Danza de los Maestros. [The Dancing Wu Li Masters]. Ed. Argos Vergara. Barcelona, 1981.
4 comentarios:
This is very descriptive article about english,..i like it,.
"http://teflgermany.com"
This is so useful and I like your style of writing.The text is easy to understand and clearly helpful for me. Keep sharing like that!
www.miguelribeiro.net
I would highly recommend Mr, Benjamin services to any person in need financial help and they will keep you on top of high directories for any further needs. Once again I commend yourself and your staff for extraordinary service and customer service, as this is a great asset to your company and a pleasant experience to customers such as myself. Wishing you all the best for the future.Mr, Benjamin is best way to get an easy loan,here is there email.. / 247officedept@gmail.com Or talk to Mr Benjamin On WhatsApp Via_+1-989-394-3740 Thank You for helping me with loan once again in my sincerely heart I'm forever grateful.
Vey nice work. Thank you Jose.
Publicar un comentario