ATTRACTION
AND
THE COSMIC PROCESS
By
Brian
COWAN 
Introduction: Plausibility
A question we may wish to ask ourselves is whether
or not it is plausible [1] to regard the Absolute, God, the Divinity, or
as Teilhard sometimes puts it, 'the transcendent aspect of Omega' [2],
or the 'Omega Point' [3], as exercising a pull of attraction on the cosmic
process.
We must bear in mind, of course, that what is
claimed as plausible need not be supported by ironclad proofs yielding
indubitable certainty. As I see it, plausibility aims at probability and
not certitude. From my perspective, a plausible argument is one which is
coherent, that is to say, free of internal contradictions, which accounts
for the known facts in a fashion perceived as not only possible but as
also probable, and which is open-ended in the sense of allowing for self-correction
and self-development.
If I am not mistaken, Teilhard de Chardin's approach
to truth, at the ordinary human level, has about it the earmarks of a plausibility
approach. He writes:
' ... the essential criterion of truth,
its specific mark, is its power of developing indefinitely -- not only
without ever producing internal contradiction, but also in such a way as
to form a positively constructed whole in which the parts support and complement
one another more effectively.' [4]
We may wish to note that the foregoing approach to
truth lacks any reference to irrefutable proof or complete certainty in
the same that the route of plausibility omits dependence of rigorous demonstration
and total certitude. Thesis
In this essay I would like to argue (supported
by the Teilhardian outlook) in favour of the position that, to all appearances,
the
cosmic process behaves as though it is drawn to, attracted to, pulled toward
an aspect of the Absolute. The aspect I have in mind is that of unity.
Having, hopefully, established the viability of my conceptual position,
I will then suggest that if the universe acts as though it is attracted
to an absolute Unity, then, perhaps, it is quite plausible to also suggest
that it may be, in fact, drawn to such a Unity.
One could, of course, choose other aspects of
the Divinity, besides unity, to which the cosmic process might be drawn,
for example, personality or intelligence. But in this essay I'll limit
myself to the single facet of unity.
Unification / Integration / Convergence
How would a process involving initial multiplicity
and attracted to the absolute unity of God behave? Well, might not such
a process aim at reproducing in itself, to the best of its ability, something
of the unity of the Godhead which, in the opinion of Plotinus, enjoys such
supreme integration as to be 'without parts' [5]? A process attracted to
union, to unification, it seems to me, would be a process that would tend
to converge, moving, in so far as its powers allow, from multiplicity to
unity.
As we contemplate the history of our tiny segment
of the universe, that is to say, of our planet, it does seem that a trend
away from the multiple towards the unitary presents itself to our consciousness.
One example of such a trend, given by Teilhard himself, relates to the
self-unification of a staggering number of atoms involved in the eventuation
of an average adult human body. He writes:
'No one, so far as I know, has yet risked
a calculation of the atoms contained in the simplest animal cell. Let us,
to be on the modest side, put the figure at rather more than a thousand
millions (1010). Since a man is formed
of approximately a thousand billion cells (1012), the number
of atoms grouped to form our bodies becomes something like 1022'
[6]
Elsewhere, alluding to the self-unification of vast
numbers of living cells on planet earth, the French Jesuit remarks that
'from the unicellular protozoon up to man (man with the million million
cells of his body and the thirty thousand million cells of his brain) the
sheer figures become astronomical'. [7] I believe that, in some sense, it can be said
of the atoms and cells just discussed that, through their very acts of
self-unification, their preferential approach to union with one another,
they behave as though they were drawn to, attracted to unity.
We can claim with confidence, I believe, that
for Teilhard, the cosmic process is one in which convergence, that is to
say, a drift and apparent inclination to unity occupies a place of honour.
In this connection does he not write the following? 'From one extreme to
the other of evolution, as we have defined it, everything in the universe
moves in the direction of unification'. [8] Even human thought, as he sees
it, has a uniate tendency. In this regard the Auvergnian paleontologist
remarks on 'the instinctive tenacity by which man's thought tries to reduce
the world to unity'. [9] So, from the French Jesuit's perspective, both
reality, and human thought about reality, point to what he terms 'a realistic
ultraphysics of union', a sort of advanced and deduced physics of convergence
'which can be checked in the phenomenal field' [10], in the real world
of actual experience.
For my part I would find it difficult to credibly
deny that humanity has been drawn to self-unification, granted, for a very
long time unconsciously and then, of recent centuries, more and more consciously.
Very early on, indeed, probably from their first beginnings, humans found
themselves united in hunter-gatherer bands. Then came tribes, and later
still, city-states, nation-states, and empires. The twentieth century saw
the formation of such unifying political organizations as the League of
Nations and the United Nations. Today the disparate segments of thinking
life on planet earth, under the tutelage of bodies such as the United Nations,
may well be gradually moving, sometimes, admittedly, after the fashion
of three steps forward and two back, towards a single planetary civilization,
a unified noosphere. And might distant (or, perhaps, not so distant) tomorrows
bring our terrestrial noosphere into contact with other noospheres leading
to an eventual pan-cosmic confederation / commonwealth of noospheres? I,
for one, would not wish to rule out the possibility of a future pan-cosmic,
noospheric union of this sort. Further, like not a few others, I find the
possible prospect of such a union to be an attractive one, and this very
feeling of attraction may constitute an example of a felt and conscious
pull or draw to unity which can be experienced by thinking beings.
Père Teilhard has no hesitation about proclaiming
loudly and clearly his own outlook to the effect that humanity is self-unifying
itself and that this self-unification has speeded itself up and presented
itself more and more distinctly to terrestrial thinking consciousness during
the past two centuries or so. He writes:
'In less than two centuries ... (that
is, since the simultaneous birth of science, industry and research), it
has become clear ... that the process of social consolidation, slowly set
in motion in the course of several thousands of years, is suddenly beginning
to come into the open in its full vigour and to enter its phase of rapid
acceleration. One would have to be blind today not to notice this.' [20]
A Universal Apprehension Teilhard makes the following interesting comment:
'In itself, the idea that the universe is moving towards some form of final
unity has haunted the minds of all the philosophers; and there is nothing
new in the idea.' [11] What he is saying here, I believe has merit. Three
thousand years ago, and more, the Hindu sages were preoccupied with
the effort to reduce all things to some kind of unity. Do we not read in
one of the French Jesuit's own essays that 'the incomparable greatness
of the religions of the East lies in their having been second to none in
vibrating with the passion for unity'? [12] The Hebrew religious
thinkers of old promulgated monotheism. And it cannot be denied that Greek
philosophy accorded a place of high esteem to unity. Does not Plotinus tell us 'that all must be brought back to a unity', to a unity that is
'purely One, essentially a unity untouched by the multiple' ? [13] The
Auvergnian paleontologist mentions, by name, five prominent Western thinkers
who have applied themselves to the problem of trying to conceptually unify
reality. Thus he speaks of 'the efforts hazarded' in the direction of reducing
the cosmos to a unity 'by the greatest philosophers one after another (Aristotle,
Spinoza, Leibniz, Hegel, Spencer)'. [14] Finally, we may note that
a sort of feeling, or sense, or experience of unity is what Teilhard perceives
as being at the core of mysticism. In this regard he says:
'The mystical sense is essentially a
feeling for, a presentiment of, the total and final unity of the world,
beyond its present sensibly apprehended multiplicity, it is a cosmic sense
of "oneness".' [15]
The Attracting Pole With all of the foregoing considerations in mind
I think we do have grounds for supposing that the cosmic process is one
which behaves as it were drawn to some form of unity, perhaps even
to a divine, absolute Unity. The process of the universe appears to be
a development in connection with which the attraction to unity, to self-unification,
is so strong that every chance for an in-coiling self-convergence is seized
upon and made the most of by that development. In this regard Père
Teilhard remarks on how, in his opinion, 'the stuff of the world, by the
preferential use of chance, twists and coils upon itself ever more tightly
in more complex and fully centred assemblies.' [16]
To be sure, what seems to be the case may not
always represent the actual prevailing situation, and so we cannot enjoy
any ironclad guarantees that what seems to be an attraction to unity, even
to absolute Unity, really is such. Perhaps, at the pre-human levels of
the cosmic process, attraction has no role to play in the unification that
takes place there. Maybe the pull towards a Principle of unity felt by
thinkers, mystics and others resembles more the deceptive lure of cheap
baubles of coloured glass and less the veritable draw of genuine gem stones
of high value.
But in arguing plausibly, as I see it, we are
not setting out to employ rigorous proofs that eliminate conclusively every
possible doubt. No, in my opinion, the plausibility bar, which we mentally
have to jump over, is set significantly lower than the certainty bar. We
can legitimately say, I believe, that if something appears plausible in
a coherent, non-contradictory way, then it is appropriate to go along with
it in a tentative, provisional fashion as being the most probable hypothesis
we can come up with at the moment. A plausible point of view, in my estimation,
is a kind of mental approximation of how things really are. Here I tend
to agree with Teilhard whose view is that, in our thinking, we humans grope
'our way forward, one approximation following upon another.' [17]
So, on the basis of the cosmic process appearing
to be attracted to a Principle of unity, and on the basis of serious thinkers,
mystics and others actually experiencing an attraction to what appears
to be ultimately uniate, I am inclined to think that it may not be implausible
to regard such a Principle and such an attraction as probably real. In
other words, the attraction may well be an actual force and that force
may well emanate from an absolute One.
Does Teilhard think there is an Absolute, a sort
of ultimate magnetic pole drawing the cosmic process to itself and grounding
human thought's tendency to unification as well as the human mystic sense
of oneness? Yes, beyond a doubt, he does, I would say. Consider, for example,
the following passage.
'The multiple rises, attracted and incorporated
by the "Already One". In the first phase -- before man -- the attraction
was vitally but blindly felt by the world. Since man, it is awakened (at
least partially) in reflective liberty which sustains religion.' [18]
And elsewhere, envisaging, before his mind's eye,
a mental picture of the entire cosmic process, the French Jesuit writes: 'Governing the whole picture in the first
place, the absolute necessity of a divine principle is evident, since it
is that existence alone which can provide the universe, outside time and
space, with a transcendent point of attraction, of convergence, and of
irreversible consolidation: God, the prime psychic mover ahead.' [19]
From my perspective it does not appear at all implausible
to suggest and to suppose that the human attraction to unification and
convergence may be an instance of a general inclination to, and over-all
pull towards, an Absolute, a First Being, who is also a One. Teilhard,
too, sees God as a 'First Being', an 'Omega Point' who acts as an 'initial
and final centre' of everything and who lives as a solitary, transcendent
Unity 'in its splendid isolation'. [21] To be sure, in conformity with
what he regards as a '"revealed datum' the divine Unity, for the French
Jesuit, is also a divine Trinity in possession of a 'triune nature'. [22] In my opinion, the divine Unity may well be a
plausible philosophical conclusion. I, personally, tend toward this theological
outlook. From my perspective, though, the doctrine of the divine Trinity
(at least in its traditional form of one divine Nature enveloping three
co-equal Persons, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) stands on somewhat
shaky ground. Why? Well, it is a doctrine that rests entirely on scripture
with no extra-scriptural support. And a troubling question that arises
at this juncture is: Can we feel reasonably assured, apropos of the Trinity,
that scripture is not mistaken here as it is on not a few of its other
pronouncements? I do not think we can enjoy some reasonable measure of
such assurance, and so I am rather sceptical about the existence of a triune
Divinity. On this point of the Trinity, then, I do, respectfully, diverge
from Teilhard's outlook. So, I do tend to agree with the French Jesuit
on God's unity, and to disagree with him that the said unity is of a triune
nature.
Summary
As this essay draws to its close, let me try to
sum up the main points which I have touched upon. The cosmic process, at
all its levels, appears to be a process involving unification. The universe
behaves as though it were attracted to an ultimate Principle of unity,
to an absolute One. At the level of thinking life there can even emerge
a conscious attraction to unification and convergence. Given the appearance
of attraction to unification in the cosmic process, as well as the conscious
feeling of attraction to unity experienced by some humans, it does not
seem implausible to suggest that such attraction may be a genuine fact
of reality. Further, if that attraction is real, it may not be implausible
to suggest the existence of an Absolute from which such attraction emanates
as a kind of force drawing the cosmic process to itself as a sort of 'centre
... of universal convergence' [23], as Teilhard de Chardin puts it.
Plausibility, of course, involves no indubitable
proof and no irrefutable certitude. A plausible notion is one that betokens
possibility because it is free of internal contradictions. Further, a plausible
account finds a place for all currently known facts relating to whatever
is being accounted for. An explication for a set of phenomena is plausible
if it presents itself as the most probable explication as well as one that
is open-ended, disposed to self-correction if, and when, new facts come
to light necessitating such correction.
I began this article with the question as to whether
or not it is plausible to regard the Absolute as exercising a pull of attraction
on the cosmic process. My personal reply to this question is: Yes, I think
this is plausible. And, of course, my outlook here is, I believe, similar,
in many ways to Teilhard's outlook.
Comments [Kris Roose]
I'm not sure there is really an
attraction, although I recognise all the tendencies you describe. I think
that the fact of forming a higher level system ("uniting", "converging")
is just a (successful) attempt of nature to "appease" or "fulfill" the
needs of the "lower" systems. Just to give one typical example: atoms "need"
to have a complete outer shell ("octet structure"), but just adding or
ejecting electrons (and making ions) doesn't really resolve the problem,
because this solution isn't stable because the electric load is disturbed.
But just combining atoms with "too much" electrons in the outer shell with
atoms with "not enough" electrons yields a very stable situation. But at
the same time the atoms "created" the molecular level! Of course, defining the laws of nature so that,
at a certain moment, atoms start combining into molecules to optimally
comply with these "laws", is a kind of design that eventually yields the
same effect as if there would be a sort of attraction. But I think, this
is only an image, not a reality.
I think that Kris is right to suggest that it is
difficult for us to get our minds around the notion that it is a true attraction
(as opposed a sort of imaged or metaphorical attraction) to unity which
brings, say, an atom of sodium into union with an atom of chlorine to form
a molecule of sodium chloride. By habit and tradition we may well be a lot more
comfortable seeing the formation of the sodium chloride molecule (or any
other molecule) in simple mechanical terms involving such purely physical
adjustments as the stabilizing of the outer electron shells of the atoms
converging into the molecule.
It may well be that by age-old custom we are inclined
to look upon true attraction as a phenomenon only associated with conscious
beings. We might agree that, in some sense, ants and bees prefer, are attracted
to, living within the unity of the ant hill colony or the bee hive
colony as opposed to living on their own. It may make sense to talk about
antelopes and zebras liking, being attracted to, being within the unity
of their herds and disliking being separated from the said herds. It would
be difficult to deny that chimpanzees and gorillas are attracted to social
life within their groups.Humans too, are attracted to social unities in
the form of hunter-gatherer bands, tribes, city states, nation states,
empires, federations and world-wide groupings such as the United Nations.
Lovers are drawn to unite with each other. Many people love their work.
Scientists are drawn to their fields of study. Mystics have a passion (i.
e. a strong attraction) for whatever they regard as the Absolute.
Perhaps we would be willing to concede that all
of the examples mentioned in the above paragraph are instances of true
attraction involving unification of some sort. And, if we are so willing,
maybe one of our reasons for doing so lies in the fact that in all these
instances conscious beings are involved.
But can we really talk meaningfully of true attraction
between things like sodium atoms and chlorine atoms? Well, it does seem
to me that, if we are willing to accept Teilhard's theory of a conscious
within pervading the cosmos, just maybe we can. My reason for saying this
is that if we accede to an all pervading within that is conscious, then,
in some rudimentary and minimal sense, things like sodium atoms and chlorine
atoms enjoy a very attenuated form of consciousness. I, personally, am
open to the French paleontologist's theory of the within, a theory which
puts forward the notion that there exists, as part and parcel of the cosmos,
'a conscious inner face that everywhere duplicates the "material" external
face' (24) of the universe. So, just conceivably, if things like sodium
and chlorine are minimally conscious, then, perhaps they might, in some
extremely attenuated sense of the term, be attracted to one another.
Teilhard is quite clear, it seems to me, that,
from his perspective, the cosmos is pervaded by a conscious within. He
agrees, of course, that, on planet earth, 'consciousness is completely
evident only in man', but he goes on to say also that 'it has a cosmic
extension, and as such is surrounded by an aura of indefinite spatial and
temporal extensions.' (25) He also gives it as his opinion that 'co-extensive
with their Without, there is a Within to things.' (26) The French Jesuit
further spells out for us, in the following passage, something of the nature
of the ubiquitous within which he is proposing.
'The "within" is used here ... to denote the "psychic"
face of that portion of the stuff of the cosmos enclosed from the beginning
of time within the narrow scope of the juvenile earth. In that fragment
of sidereal matter which has been isolated, as in every other part of the
universe, the exterior world must inevitably be lined at every point with
an interior one.' (27)
As Teilhard sees it, 'the psychic temperature
of the earth' (28) is at its highest point in humankind. This temperature
gradually lowers as we move backward down the line of the non-human primates,
the mammals, the birds, the reptiles, the insects, the amphibians, the
fishes, the lower animal forms, the plants, the single celled creatures
and the viruses But that temperature never reaches absolute psychic zero,
in his opinion, not even when we reach the level of pre-life. He does concede
that at the level of pre-life, the within, consciousness, constitutes 'a
"biological" layer that is attenuated to the uttermost' (29), but there
is a layer there, in place, nonetheless, and this keeps the psychic temperature
above absolute zero.
So, for the French paleontologist, no matter how
far down the scale leading from the complex to the simple we go, and no
matter how far back in time we cast our thoughts, we never come to a non-conscious,
dead universe. No, from his perspective, the within is always there imperceptibly
conscious and what may seem dead 'is in fact "imperceptibly alive".' (30)
So, getting back to our friends the sodium and
chlorine atoms, as Teilhard sees it, not only are they conscious in an
extremely minimal way, but they are also alive in an extremely minimal
way. And so, if we agree with the French Jesuit, just conceivably, we might
feel we have grounds for supposing that in some very attenuated fashion,
sodium and chlorine atoms, like other living, conscious beings may be capable
of experiencing something like a very faint degree of attraction for union
with one another with this attraction being a contributing factor to their
forming molecular sodium chloride.
We are not used to thinking in the manner suggested
by the foregoing paragraph. Such thinking feels strange to us. But it may
be that Teilhard is suggesting, by way of his theory of an all pervading,
conscious within, that we really ought to try doing so.
The following comment by Père Teilhard
is an interesting one.
'In the world, nothing could ever burst forth
as final across the different thresholds successively traversed by evolution
(however critical they be) which has not already existed in an obscure
and primordial way.' (31)
If the French paleontologist is right here, his
remark may present us with a question to ponder. And this question is:
If attraction, in some exceedingly primitive, obscure and primordial form,
had not existed way back at the time of the formation of the first molecules
(and even earlier), would the more advanced forms of attraction, which
we know today, ever have eventuated?
Teilhard was very much a pioneer in introducing
into scientific thought his concept of a conscious within perceived as
co-extenxive with all time and all space. As he readily admits it is 'the
"material" external face' of phenomena 'which alone is commonly considered
by science.' (32) But as I think is suggested by the following passage
he is optimistic that in the future science will take more account of the
within, a within that a phenomenological approach to reality seems to disclose
to us. He writes:
'In the eyes of the physicist, nothing exists
legitimately, at least up to now, except the without of things. The same
intellectual attitude is still permissible in the bacteriologist, whose
cultures (apart from some substantial difficulties) are treated as laboratory
reagents. But it is already more difficult in the realm of plants. It tends
to become a gamble in the case of a biologist studying the behaviour of
insects or coelenterates. It seems merely futile with regard to the vertebrates.
Finally, it breaks down completely with man, in whom the existence of a
within can no longer be evaded, because it is the object of a direct intuition
and the ubstance of all knowledge.' (33)
For Teilhard, if I have understood him correctly,
humanity and the higher life forms constitute a sort of phenomenological
window in the cosmos though which can be seen the within writ large, so
to speak. This window discloses the within in concentrated form with the
said concentration being a function of organic complexification. The greater
the organic complexification the more luminously shines the within. He
then deduces, I believe, that what gets concentrated originates in what
is diffuse. How could complexification, he seems to be asking, concentrate
consciousness if consciousness were not spread out thinly, diffusely in
that which gets complexified? I think this may be, at least in part, why
he says (as we have already noted) that "nothing [for example, consciousness]
could ever burst forth as final across the different thresholds successively
traversed by evolution ... which has not already existed in an obscure
and primordial way.' (31)
Notes:
Notes:
[1] To use a term that Kris Roose
has introduced into our e-group discussions.
If I have understood Kris correctly, for him, a plausible account is one
that is coherent and takes into consideration all known facts, but it is
also an account that does not make any claim to the last word on the subject
being accounted for. A plausible explication, from his standpoint, is amenable
to change should new facts arise which justify an altered point of view;
a plausible explanation, in other words is an explanation that is open
ended. My usage of the word "plausible" in this submission is, I believe,
similar to that employed by Kris.
[2] 'Outline of a Dialectic of
Spirit' in 'Activation of Energy' [Harvest Book, 1970], p. 146.
[3] 'My Fundamental Vision', in
'Towards the Future' [Harvest Book, 1975], p. 185.
[4] 'My Fundamental Vision', in
'Towards', p. 165.
[5] Plotinus, 'The Enneads', VI,
7, 18.
[6] 'Man's Place in the Universe
et. al.', in 'The Vision of the Past' [Collins, 1966], p. 223.
[7] 'Universalization and Union,
An Attempt at Clarification', in 'Activation', p. 87.
[8] 'Centrology, An Essay in a
Dialectic of Union', in 'Activation', p. 115.
[9] 'Centrology, An Essay in a
Dialectic of Union', in 'Activation', p. 99.
[10] 'Centrology, An Essay in a
Dialectic of Union', in 'Activation', p. 99.
[11] 'Centrology, An Essay in a
Dialectic of Union', in 'Activation', p. 111.
[12] 'Let Me Explain' (Harper &
Row, 1970), p. 90. (Original Source: Science and Christ)
[13] Plotinus, 'The Enneads', V,
5, 4.
[14] 'Centrology, An Essay in a
Dialectic of Union', in 'Activation', p. 99.
[15] 'Some Notes on the Mystical
Sense: An Attempt at Clarification', in 'Toward', p. 209.
[16] 'The Convergence of the Universe',
in 'Activation', p. 290.
[17] 'The Evolution of Chastity',
in 'Toward', p. 60.
[18] 'The Spirit of Earth', in
'Building the Earth' (Dimension Books, 1965), pp. 62-63.
[19] 'The Spiritual Contribution
of the Far East et. al.', in 'Toward' p. 142.
[20] 'The Mechanism of Evolution
et. al.', in 'Activation', p. 306.
[21] 'My Fundamental Vision', in
'Toward', p. 193-194.
[22] 'My Fundamental Vision', in
'Toward', p. 194.
[23] 'The Atomism of Spirit', in
'Activation', p. 45.
[24] 'The Phenomenon
of Man' (Fountain Books, 1977), p. 63.
[25] 'Phenomenon',
p. 61.
[26] 'Phenomenon',
p. 61.
[27] 'Phenomenon',
p. 78.
[28] 'On the Probable
Existence Ahead of Us of an
"Ultra-Human"', in 'The Future of Man' (Harper & Row,
1969), p. 289.
[29] 'Phenomenon',
p. 62.
[30] 'The Planetisation
of Mankind et. al.', in 'Future', p. 135.
[31] 'Phenomenon',
p. 77.
[32] 'Phenomenon',
p. 63.
[33] 'Phenomenon',
p. 60.
Posted on 4 Dec 2002, on the Teilhard eList, by Brian
Cowan
