Introduction This article will
be mainly about Teilhard's concept of creation as it involves God and Christ.
Much less will be said about the sort of creation in which human beings
engage when they originate something new.
Within his discussion
of creation, Teilhard uses a couple of technical terms which may be familiar
to those acquainted with Thomistic theology and philosophy. These terms
are: the Ens a se, and Participated being. [1] What, we may
ask, are the meanings the French Jesuit assigns to these terms? Let's look
at them a little more closely.
Two
forms of being
"Ens a se" is, of course, Latin for "Being from itself". And Being from itself,
as Teilhard understands it, is Being that exists from, or by, its own power,
that is to say, it is Being that is unengendered. The Ens a se is
the Supreme Being, the uncreated Absolute, God.
Participated being is engendered being; it is being which, unlike the Ens a se, is
not the source of its own act of existence. Participated being is
being the existence of which is upheld, sustained by a power from outside
itself, which power participates in the engendered being; and this
power is that of the Ens a se, of God. The Divinity, the unengendered Source
of all that was, is, or will be, by way of its divine power, first engenders
or creates, from nothing, participated being, and then participates in, upholds and sustains, in existence, that same participated being. For
Teilhard, then, participated being consists of being that is engendred
or created, from nothing, by God, and in which God's power subsequently
participates
to
keep that being from simply collapsing back into the nothingness from which
it was drawn. As the French Jesuit puts it, 'participated being'
is being that 'God...sustains and animates and holds together' and, in
connection with which, God 'is at the birth, and the growth, and the final
term'. [2]
For its emergence
out of nothingness and for its continuance in existence, participated being,
from the Teilhardian perspective, is totally dependent on, completely contingent
upon, the Ens a se, the Absolute, God. The French Jesuit sees the
Ens
a se and participated being as forming a kind of 'ontologically inseparable'
[3] pair of metaphysical entities with one term of the pair (the Ens
a se), being completely self-sustaining, and the other term of the
pair (participated being), depending totally for its existence on
the Ens a se. And speaking of ontological / metaphysical pairs,
Teilhard refers to the 'Ens a se and participated being'
as 'the most mysterious of all those pairs'. [4]
The
first Phase of Evolution
Creation, for Teilhard,
seems, at its outset, to involve God, in some sense, pulling up, out of
nothingness, participated being or "nature". For the Auvergnian Jesuit,
one of God's effects 'on nature' is that of initially 'causing it to emerge
from "non-being"'. [5] Once participated being, with divine help,
has vanquished nothingness, it finds itself, again with divine help, put
on the path of convergence, of union. With convergence in mind, Teilhard
tells us that 'God creates by uniting'. [6] The pulling up of participated
being from non-existence is only the very beginning of the divine creative
enterprise. There is still much to be done in terms of convergence and
unification, or as the French Jesuit puts it, in terms of 'creative union'.
[7] Lets take a closer look at creative union.
The work of creative
union, of ongoing convergence is co-extensive with time, in Teilhard's
opinion. In this regard, he tells us that 'creation never comes to a halt.'
[8] Creative union, then, is a creative process that is in progress through
all time and by means of which greater and greater levels of unification,
integration and convergence are attained. Creation, in the eyes of the
French Jesuit, seems to be principally the animation of the cosmos in the
direction of convergence for as long as time lasts.
At this point, it
may occur to us ask just what it was that, in Teilhard's opinion, was in
place at the first dawn of creation. In the view of the French Jesuit,
what God pulls up out of nothingness, at the very beginning of time, seems
to be little more than 'a positive entitative principle' which is 'defined
as that which can be united'. [9] In its most inchoate from, the primary
stuff of the cosmos, for Teilhard, seems to be a "pure unitable"'. [10]
Earliest matter, matter at its most concrete, he tells us, appears 'in
the form of the supremely dispersed'. [11] So, for the French Jesuit, 'the
initial state of the cosmos is (...) by virtue of its materiality, that
of an immense multiple, of an extreme diffusion and distension.' [12]
From Teilhard's perspective,
pinpointing the precise commencement of the earliest 'concrete matter'
may be pretty well impossible because, for him, it 'has no precise beginning'.
[13] Early matter, he tells us:
'emerges
from an abyss of increasing dissociation; in some way it condenses, starting
from an external, shadowy sphere of infinite plurality, whose limitless
and formless immensity represents the lower pole of being.' [14]
If I have understood
him correctly, the French Jesuit, seems to be suggesting that, in the very
first phase of creation, God pulls this "lower pole of being" up out of
nothingness into a state of participated being. And, henceforth, while
sustaining and holding together this participated being, God's main concern
is to animate it always in the direction of greater and greater convergence
or union. As we have already noted, Teilhard definitely gives priority
to the unifying aspect of creation. In this connection, we can call to
mind the following assertion of his: 'In a system of convergent cosmogenesis,
to create is for God to unite.' [15] So, under the rubric
of creation by unification, not only is participated being sustained and
held together by the Divinity, but it is also animated by the Divinity.
And this animation is one that produces ever greater convergence, integration
and union. Animation, in fact, is a process involving creative union. Right
from the very beginning of creation, says the French Jesuit:
'an infinite
number of collective movements begin to assert themselves; they mark off
(segment) the multiple into so many currents (anastomosed or interlocked)
along which the mass of primitive monads is drawn, following a variety
of routes towards the Centre of all unions.' [16]
Driving
Mechamisms At this point we
may ask if there are, for Teilhard, any special mechanisms or agencies
utilized by the Ens a se in this creative, unifying work of cosmic
animation. I think there are at least two: the Within and the Cosmic Christ.
1.
The Within
Let's look at the
Within first. For Teilhard there are two fundamental aspects of the participated
being that constitutes our universe: the Within and the Without.
a. The Without is matter which we have already considered and which appears, in its earliest
stages, as "an immense multiple (...) an extreme diffusion and distension".
Energy is inseparably connected to matter, and so some energy will inevitably
belong to the domain of the Without -- that energy which does not draw
matter forward to greater complexification and awareness, and which Teilhard
calls 'tangential energy'. [17] Matter, representing the Without, is visible
(given a sufficient quantity of it) and concrete.
b. The Within is invisible and psychic, and is co-extensive with matter. As Teilhard
puts it: 'co-extensive with their Without there is a Within to things.'
[18] The Within, for him, is 'a conscious inner face that everywhere duplicates
the "material" external face' [19] of the cosmos. This inner face, 'this
second face [remains] for the most part entirely hidden' [20] except when
it manifests itself by its activity in the case of instinctual and reflective
life.
c. The function of the Within
It appears to be
the case that Teilhard perceives the Within at the interior of early concrete
matter as a 'sort of great, inchoate, vague soul'. [21] And, for him, the
task of this Within or inchoate soul, of long ago, with respect to the
"immense multitude" of ancient matter, was to attend to 'the integration'
of that matter's dispersed parts into 'a rudimentary whole', into a 'single
universal matter'. [22]
And how did the Within,
during the early eons of our cosmos, promote the advance of "supremely
dispersed" matter in the direction of convergence? In a similar way, I
think Teilhard would agree, to the way in which the Within promoted the
advance of life, that is to say, by the purposeful selection of "strokes
of chance". For the French Jesuit, patterns tend to repeat themselves,
in amplified fashion, as cosmic evolution advances from stage to stage
of complexity-consciousness. (Teilhard has a term for what he perceives
as the repetition, in the course of cosmogenesis, of patterns that become
more amplified or pronounced with each repetition, at higher and higher
levels of evolution, and this term is 'the general law of recurrence'.
[23]). So, I do not believe we will be straying from the viewpoint of the
French Jesuit if we assert that during the early eons of our cosmos, the
Within, as it was to do later, in more sophisticated fashion, in the case
of life, promoted the advance of dispersed matter toward convergence by
utilising, for purposes of unification those 'strokes of chance' which
the Within 'recognised and grasped -- that is to say psychically selected.'
[24] In the eyes of the French Jesuit, the Within is like a kind of 'flame
of organic development which has been running through the world (in the
sense of "the universe") since the beginning of time'. [25]
2.
The Cosmic Christ
a. Definition
Of course, from Teilhard's
perspective, behind both the Within and the Without, and, indeed, permeating
them through all time, is the cosmic Christ. Let's now turn our
attention to the some features of the French Jesuit's outlook on the role
of the cosmic Christ in creation.
For Teilhard, the
cosmic Christ is the Logos, the fully developed soul [26] of the
universe, the organic 'prime mover and controller, the "soul" of evolution.'
[27] This is opposed to the developing soul or Within, which seems
to occupy a subordinate status, in the scheme of things, to the Christic
Logos. From the Teilhardian standpoint there seems to be two cosmic souls,
an upper soul (that of Christ) who is fully actualized right from
the beginning of time, and a lower soul (the Within) which becomes more
and more actualised with the passage of time.
b. The 'task'
of the Cosmic Christ
In the view of the
French Jesuit, it is Christ who animates the cosmos, who ultimately has
the 'control and leadership of what we now call evolution.' [28] And, while
in the eyes of the French Jesuit, Christ, the Christic Logos, is certainly
divine, there is more to Christ than divinity alone. In fact, Teilhard
alludes to 'the total Christ' who is more, not only than God, but more,
even, 'than man and God'. [29] From the perspective of the Auvergnian Jesuit,
besides being 'theandric', made up of a divine nature and a human nature,
Christ also possesses a 'third "nature"', a 'cosmic' nature. [30]
And just as Christians hold that wherever God is, there too is the Trinity,
so I believe that Teilhard's maintains that wherever Christ is, there too
is the total Christ, the Christ in possession three natures, that is to
say, of a divine, a human, and a cosmic nature. I think it is safe to claim
that, for the French Jesuit, the presence and influence of the cosmic Christ
invariably involves the presence and influence of the total Christ.
So, it seems to be
the case that from the Teilhardian standpoint, the cosmic Christ who is
seamlessly unified with the total, tri-natured Christ, constitutes the
all pervading Logos of the cosmos. Further this Christic Logos is the driving
force behind creation by unification. Also, it seems that it is in
virtue of Christ permeating the cosmos, though all space and all time,
that justification is found for referring to him as cosmic.
As Teilhard sees
it, the cosmic Christ is in charge of creation by way of unification
and convergence throughout all time and all space. Alluding to Christ's
unifying role in the cosmos, by way of a Christic incarnation, the French
Jesuit writes: 'The essence of Christianity is neither more nor less than
a belief in the unification of the world in God (via the divine nature
of Christ]) by the Incarnation.' [31] I believe that Teilhard uses the
term "world" here in the sense of "cosmos". The pan-temporal and
pan-spatial reign of Christ in the universe is strongly suggested in the
following passage.
'To be the
alpha and omega, Christ must, without losing his precise humanity (i. e.
his human nature), become co-extensive with the physical expanse of time
and space (i. e. must acquire a cosmic nature). In order to reign on earth,
He must "super-animate" the world. In Him henceforth, by the whole logic
of Christianity, personality (or soul) expands (or rather centres itself)
till it becomes universal.' [32]
The context does suggest
here that by the phrases "reign on earth" and "super-animate the world"
the French Jesuit means, respectively, "reign in the universe" and "super-animate
the universe". And as we noted earlier,
for Teilhard, "creation never comes to a halt" so long as time perdures.
Provided there is a future ahead, the creative, unifying process, with
Christ at the helm, is never over and done with, in the eyes of the French
Jesuit. Rather, does that process move on from stage to stage, with each
stage more converged, more integrated than the last. And each advancing
stage or level of evolutionary development involves parts of the cosmos
attaining to ever growing levels of complexity-consciousness. Not surprisingly,
Teilhard considers that Christ is the 'prime mover of the evolutive
movement of complexity-consciousness' [33] which forms an important aspect
of convergence and unification.
c. Christogenesis
From Teilhard's standpoint,
cosmogenesis, or ongoing creation through unification, discloses itself,
'first as biogenesis and then noogenesis, and finally culminates in the
Christogenesis which every Christian venerates.' [34] Indeed, the French
Jesuit goes so far as to view Christogenesis as a sort of "veritable universal
transubstantiation', a kind of transformation of an ordinary universe into
a 'Christified universe'. [35]
Is Teilhard
considering Chritogenesis as a phase beyond noogenesis, or simultaneous
to it? [Kris Roose] I think
that Teilhard does view biogenesis and noogenesis as simultaneous with
Christogenesis and, indeed, as phases or aspects of Christogenesis. However,
what he seems to be suggesting in the above quotation, if I have understood
him correctly, is that Christogenesis first discloses or reveals itself
as a biogenesis and then afterwards as a noogenesis, and later still as
a Christogenesis. It has been a Christogenesis all along, of course, but
it has taken time for us to get, in its regard, from the concept of biogenesis
to the concept of noogenesis and finally to the concept of Christogenesis.
In Teilhard's eyes, it seems that we first conceive of cosmogenesis as
biogenesis, and then as noogenesis and finally as Christogenesis. Cosmogenesis
has been Christogenesis all along, in his opinion, but it took us a while
to get to see this. A rough analogy to
the sort of gradual disclosure we are discussing here might be found in
the unfolding of the plot in a murder-mystery novel. At first a death discloses
itself to the detective-protagonist as a suicide. Further detecting by
our gumshoe reveals the death is really a murder. And still further digging
into all of the circumstances surrounding this murder discloses to the
detective (and to us who are reading the novel) that this killing is connected
to previous murders that gave the appearance of being accidental deaths.
So what we have here is a situation that, for some time, has been one involving
a series of felonious killings, but which first disclosed itself as a suicide,
then later as a murder and then, later still, as a series of murders. This
situation of serious criminality existed all along, over a period of duration,
but only disclosed itself, a step at a time, over that duration.
So it does seem to
be the case that a situation can exist as a reality from a point of commencement,
with our only becoming fully aware of that situation, in increments, at
lengths of time after that point of commencement.
Conclusion Humanity, the human
noosphere (and, indeed, any other noosphere that may exist) has, for Teilhard,
a unique role to play in process of creation. Why? Because
the members of a noosphere are endowed with such powers as those of thought,
inventiveness, a considerable degree of foresight, and some freedom of
choice. The ability to think, to invent, to plan ahead are of great value,
to us humans, in building, developing, creating the future. And, in the
eyes of the French Jesuit, 'our first duty is to develop the world'.
[36] But, due to freedom of choice, a human being can refuse that duty.
Further, such a refusal, from the Teilhardian standpoint, can have something
of a negative effect on the future. As the French Jesuit puts it, with
reference to modern man become conscious of evolution:
'...he finds
in his heart the fearful task of conserving, increasing, and transmitting
the fortunes of a whole world. His life, in a true sense, has ceased to
be private to him. Body and soul, he is the product of a huge creative
work with which the totality of things has collaborated from the beginning;
if he refuses the task assigned to him, some part of that effort will be
lost for ever and lacking throughout the whole future.' [37]
Notes:
[1]
Cf: 'My Fundamental Vision', in 'Toward the Future' (Harvest Book, 1975),
p. 208.
[2]
'Cosmic Life' (at the conclusion of 'The End of the Species'), in 'The
Future of Man' (Harper & Row, 1969), p. 318.
[3]
'My Fundamental Vision', in 'Toward', 207.
[4]
'My Fundamental Vision', in 'Toward', 208.
[5]
'From Cosmos to Cosmogenesis', in 'Activation of Energy' [Harvest Book,
1970], p. 263 (In footnote # 4).
[6]
'The Names of Matter', in 'The Heart of Matter' [Harvest Book, 1978], p.
226.
[7]
'The Names of Matter', in 'Heart', p. 226.
[8]
'Two Wedding Addresses', in 'Heart', p. 138.
[9]
'The Names of Matter', in 'Heart', p. 227.
[10]
'The Names of Matter', in 'Heart', p. 227.
[11]
'The Names of Matter', in 'Heart', p. 227.
[12]
'The Names of Matter', in 'Heart', p. 227.
[13]
'The Names of Matter', in 'Heart', p. 227.
[14]
'The Names of Matter', in 'Heart', pp. 227-228.
[15]
'From Cosmos to Cosmogenesis', in 'Activation', pp. 262-263.
[16]
'The Names of Matter', in 'Heart', p. 228.
[17]
Cf. 'The Phenomenon Man' (Fountain Books, 1977), pp. 70-72.
[18]
'Phenomenon', p. 61.
[19]
'Phenomenon', p. 63.
[20]
'Phenomenon', p. 63.
[21]
'The Names of Matter', in 'Heart', p. 228.
[22]
'The Names of Matter', in 'Heart', p. 228.
[23]
Cf. 'The Planetisation of Mankind et. al.' in 'The Future of Man' (Harper
& Row, 1969), pp. 136-137.
[24]
'Phenomenon', p. 165 (In footnote # 1).
[25]
'Two Wedding Addresses', in 'Heart', p. 138.
[27]
'Suggestions for a new Theology et. al', in 'Christianity and Evolution'
(Harvest Book, 1974), p. 180.
[28]
'Phenomenon', p. 322.
[29]
'The Christic', in 'Heart', p. 93.
[30]
'The Christic', in 'Heart', p. 93.
[31]
'Sketch of a Personalistic Universe', in 'Human Energy' [Collins, 1969],
p. 91.
[32]
'Sketch of a Personalistic Universe', in 'Human', p. 91.
[33]
'The Christic', in 'Heart', p. 94.
[34]
'The Christic', in 'Heart', p. 94.
[35]
'The Christic', in 'Heart', p. 95.
[36]
'The Sense of Man', in 'Toward', p. 32.
[37]
'The Basis and Foundations of the Idea of Evolution', in 'The Vision of
the Past' (Collins, 1966), p. 137.
