The Integration Website
        Co-Developing the Noosphere


Printer-friendly version


Texts Menu

Main Menu

The Integrative Style

What's New?

The Art Galleries


Teleological Mechanisms
as factors leading to integrating evolution

[With comments by Brian COWAN]

Neomorphic Universe by Paulo Rodrigues


If you count the estimated number of seconds since the universe began, then count them all over again, then multiply the result by the estimated number of particles in the universe, and then multiply that result by a million million million - you still have not reached the estimated possible number of moves in a game of chess.

Yet the game of chess is laughably simple in its potential number of moves compared to the game of life. A game of chess starts with 32 pieces on a board of 64 squares. Each piece has a limited range of moves - the most limited being the pawn, the least limited being the queen.

From the perspective of knowing, the whole body, of some 75,000,000,000,000 cells, may be considered the "piece." It is silly to separate the brain from the body; the body may be considered as both the expression and the "expressor" of the mind, as indivisible from it. The 25,000,000,000-odd cells that are part of the brain are the most highly sophisticated of any kind of cell known. There are estimated to be about twenty times more molecules in your brain than there are stars in the universe; if all the molecules in your whole body were separated by the distance between your toes and the top of your head, you would, if such were possible, be bigger than the whole universe.
Mike McDermott [17]


Teleology (from Greek telos, goal) is the knowledge or the study of the phenomenon by which certain systems in nature seem to aim at a certain end, without being conscious about that, nor being guided by someone. It is as if an inborn principle guided them blindly. Some philosophical approaches use this as evidence of purpose or design in the universe, and especially that this proves the existence of a designer. It also suggests that certain phenomena are best explained in terms of purpose rather than cause or mechanical laws.

The most impressive fact is that the innumerable systems and beings in universe, apparently without aiming at a constructive, integrative endpoint, eventually end up in such a result.

Also Teilhard is in favour of 'recognizing and admitting a directed cosmogenesis'. [2]

From top to bottom of the series of beings [in the universe], everything is in motion, everything is raising itself, organizing itself in a single direction, which is that of the greatest consciousness.[3]

Darwin's vision on the mechanism of evolution [Comment by A. Kelly, 19]

In the evolutionary process Darwinian theory places the major emphasis on natural selection. This is despite the fact that selection can only operate on that which is presented for selection by mutation. Darwinians have tended to regard whatever is presented for selection as the product of chance. A problem with this approach is that ontologically, there is no such thing as chance. Chance is an epistemological concept. It is a label that is applied to circumstances due to a lack of knowledge of the chain of cause and effect that gave rise to a "chance" phenomenon. 

Ontologically, there is no such thing as chance. The principle of sufficient reason affirms that nothing occurs in the world that does not have its origin in something else. As Hartmann states: "nothing in the world exists by chance in the ontic sense. Everything depends on conditions and occurs only where these are fulfilled. If, however, all conditions are fulfilled, they form a sufficient reason, and the event is bound to occur". [20]

Teilhard's vision of the Within and Directed Chance

From Teilhard's perspective, if I have understood him correctly, the within, the conscious interiority at the core of everything, since the commencement of the cosmos, has been groping its way towards centring and concentrating itself within the material matrix that envelopes it, with the aim if increasing its conscious power. The Within is always gropingly striving, this way and that way, to more efficiently complexify its material Without with the goal of enhancing its own clarity of vision and comprehension. Over the eons, 'try-out follows try-out' [9] as this groping towards ever greater awareness pursues its course. 

One of the reasons I believe it is fair to say that trial and error groping is a fundamental teleological mechanism in the eyes of the French Jesuit is that, for him, it appears to be a mechanism that was in operation from the very first moment that there was a Within and a Without. That this mechanism has been in place from the very beginning of things is, in my opinion, pretty well what Teilhard is saying when he writes: 'Right up to its reflective zones we have seen the world proceeding by means of groping and chance.' [10] Another reason why I regard the mechanism of trial and error groping as teleologically fundamental for the Auvergnian Jesuit rests on the fact that he more or less situates it as such when he speaks of 'the fundamental technique of groping'. [11]

In Teilhard's opinion, evolution, by no means, moves in the direction of enhanced consciousness by way of chance only, but rather by way of directed chance which is what groping is all about. In fact, he comes right out and says plainly: 'Groping is directed chance.' [12] We will shortly look at directed chance in a little more detail. But, before we do so, it might be a good idea to clarify what the French Jesuit means by the term "chance". As I understand it, he utilizes the word in its ordinary, everyday usage of "apparently random happenstance", or "out of the ordinary occurrence", or "unexpected eventuation".

Now let's return to the subject of directed chance. Through groping, the within, during the course of evolutionary development, takes advantage of 'strokes of chance which are recognised and grasped -- that is to say, psychically selected' [13], by the Within. From Teilhard's perspective, the Within, even at its most attenuated, is able to, and, in fact does, engage in a 'groping utilisation of favourable cases' [14], that is to say, of favourable instances of strokes of chance. "Favourable" and "unfavourable" in the present context, I take to mean, respectively, "conducive to the advance of consciousness" and "not conducive to the advance of consciousness". The within, no matter how thinly spread it is, "knows" to make use of favourable cases, happeninstances, occurrences or eventuations and to reject or ignore cases, happenstances, occurrences or eventuations that are unfavourable.

[This teleologically guided evolution occurs] under the cover of the determinisms analysed by biological science and by way of an infinite fumbling and perpetual discovery[15].


The teleological phenomenon is a process that we suppose to be present in the evolution and activities of non-conscious natural systems, because what we observe seems not explicable from environmental or internal causes. It is a hypothesis that tries to explain the fact that these processes deviate from our statistical predictions and expectations.

A process is a series of changes with some unifying principle. A random series of changes does not constitute a process. A random series of changes will not appear to be coordinated, or related in any way. The existence of a unifying principle differentiates a process from a random series of changes. A series of changes continuing over an extended period, which are obviously related to one another, indicates the operation of a process. [19]
I'll try to propose here a number of mechanisms in evolution, that could explain this phenomenon without needing a "magical" classical teleological principle. I'll discuss first some interpretational factors, that may blur our perception of probability, and then some strategies, used in nature, to enhance the probability that things occur.

a) Interpretational Aspects

Observational Restrictions

A first possible explanation of intriguing phenomena is that our observation is too limited, or that we are not thinking far enough.

Every time I left my house with my car, the next traffic lights were on red. I had very paranoid interpretations after a while, because I expected a more fair 50% chance.
Incredibly, but it took several months before I realized that I could only leave my house and cross the road when the flow of cars had ended, and these cars, of course, were the ones that had waited for the lights to become green. When I arrived, the moment had come for the lights to switch to red...

The same way professionals expect other things than outsiders. Pre-scientific explanations of natural facts, invoking the intervention of god(s), gradually were and are replaced by rational, scientific explanations.

The Anthropomorphic Principle

Our brain perceives gestalts, i.e. complete images, rather than details that have to be summed up. We internally already see a complete image, by just observing some minor details. This is an enormous gain of time and safety, but it is, of course, also a source of possible misinterpretations. Neuropsychology is the science that studies such phenomena, and a disorder as dyslexia, where the wrong words are read, is a typical complication of that faculty of instant interpretation. Also optical illusions and some styles of art (e.g. Escher's) apply to this phenomenon.

Futhermore, we have the inborn tendency to see persons or even animals in objects, and even persons in animals. All kind of art works, especially the non-figurative, often leads us to see objects, animals, faces etc. in the abstract lines and figures. We call this phenomenon anthropomorphism if we see human faces and figures, zoomorphism if we see animals in objects. Art, ancient and modern, often uses animal and human shapes for simple objects.

Clay vase from Naxos (2700-2300 BC)

When we are excited or angry, this tendency even increases and sometimes we feel attacked by inanimate objects that frustate us, and as a reaction we kick them or throw them away.

But this same inborn tendency probably suggests us that some inexplicable phenomena, as moving objects, robots, dark shapes are probably animated. In a primitive age or culture, where physical science is not very evolved, this tendency was of course much stronger.

Anyway, where I'm pointing to is the fact that we, confronted with intriguing phenomena, probably see a certain will or conscious purpose in it, rather than a pure coincidence or an unexplained mechanism.

The False Unlikelyhood Principle

If we think more or less statistically, and education in general promotes this way of thinking, we can be struck by the enormous quantity of  "unlikely" phenomena the universe is filled with. If we start dwelling on that scant, highly unprobable chance that life emerged on a planet, just big enough to attract an atmosphere, just far enough from a star to keep most of our water between 0 - 50 ºC, etc., then erverything in our existence seems so unlikely, that we just feel unable to explain it, and a notion as "natural" becomes highly arrogant.

Although this attitude is a good start for aesthetic, existential or even religious emotions, and may inspire us towards a little more respect for life and its frail opportunities, the exceptionality of our daily experiences loses its meaning, because all other possibilities just didn't materialize. The exceptionality of our reality becomes a certainty. How exceptional it be, the fact we are here and now, and muse about it, is a proof that it (eventually?) succeeded. A statistical approach is no longer justified. Our "probability" is 100 %. If the chance of dying in a traffic accident is 1%, the day you die you don't die for 1%. You're 100% dead!

Of course, probably not every planet where life started will eventually evolve to this 9th layer of complexification. And even we are not yet sure that things will turn out positively, with a triumphant Omega Point, to use just one way of putting it. Although the quantitative precautions nature takes to preserve posterity (fishes have thousands of litlle fish, humans only one child on average) gradually decrease, as if the probability of hitting the goal increases, it should be exceptional that all living planets, which arrived at stage 9, reach Omega. Terrestrian humanity could be one of Nature's missed attempts...

What I tried to demonstrate, is that the probability approach can be misleading. The fact Earth succeeded up to now in its impressive evolution doesn't imply a teleological principle. All cases that have failed, simply don't exist.

b) Natural Methods of Probability Enhancement

According to Teilhard's vision, the gradual increase in complexity (even more complex integrations) is paralleled by a gradual increase in consciousness

'On earth we perceive a constant increase in psyche throughout time. May not this great law be the most general expression we can arrive at of universal evolution?' [4]

We must not forget, of course, that the French Jesuit perceives the evolutionary progression of consciousness as correlated with, as a function of, ever more increasing material involution, organization and complexification, which involution, organization and complexification tends to centre and concentrate consciousness. In this connection he speaks with approval of 'the idea of a universe that is moving, principally and specifically, towards states of super-organization which can be measured, in terms of absolute value, by an increase of psychic interiorization and centration'. [5]

Teilhard's starting point, apropos of the teleological mechanism of groping, is very much related to consciousness. It is his opinion that consciousness, which he also calls the within, permeates all things. Thus he tells us that 'co-extensive with their Without there is a Within to things.' [6] And, in a similar vein, he writes:

 'Absolutely inert and totally brute matter does not exist. Every element contains, at least to an infinitesimal degree, some germ of inwardness and spontaneity, that is to say of consciousness. In extremely simple and extremely numerous corpuscles [which only manifest themselves by their statistical effects] this property remains imperceptible to us, as if it did not exist.' [7] 

For the Auvergnian Jesuit, the Within is, in effect, a kind of conscious 'spiritual energy' that 'represents the inner lining' of everything in the cosmos. [8]

Three mechanisms for probability enhancement, to "direct" the Universe towards integration, by climbing up an hierarchy of even more complex sysyems, are used by nature: structural arrangement during lithophase, biological scripts during Biophase, and conscious control during Noophase.

Structural and External Arrangement

From biophase on, starting with proteins, nature uses a kind of genetical coding to steer its reproduction and evolution. Before this point, during the lithophase of "dead" matter, no internal organization is observable, although Pierre Teilhard de Chardin hypothesized a progressively developping consciousness that already started in pre-human beings/systems, and hence some theorists presuppose a kind of primitive consciousness, yet to discover in dead matter, or residing in a paranormal, psychic dimension.

But even the absence of such a principle in dead matter doesn't automatically mean that everything occurs by accident. The very structure of primitive systems like atoms and molecules most probably isn't accidental, but is a strong factor which enables further complexification, i.e. progress on the ladder of evolution. To take just the example of atoms in general: by "coincidence" the outer layer presents an incomplete octet structure, and not another, more inner layer. This creates a high probability that other atoms, passing "nearby", aggregate to create a complete outer layer for each of them and, by doing so, molecules are formed. The same way we can assume that structures, at all levels of the evolutionary ladder, have one or more built-in properties that make them more likely for further structuration and evolution towards more complex systems. One could say that a certain kind of "intelligence", or "consciousness" is revealed by this "coincidence": nature, by the structures it uses, keeps a memory of certain successful achievements and repeats those structures that are most successful, i.e. that offer most chances to continue the evolution. It is, again, not a teleological principle.

The same way, external factors promote evolutionary steps. Primitive cosmic matter, that originally tended to disperse equably, creating a uniform but inactive cosmos, very soon tended to aggregate into heaps that started revolving heavily, thus provoking high temperatures, chemical and nuclear reactions, resulting in stars and planets. In fact, most evolved structures in the universe are intensely concentrated, dramatically enhancing the probability to develop further evolutionary steps. This phenomenon still exists at the social level: social organization and human culture really starts in places where social concentration, induced by the fertility of the region, safety considerations and migrations, was highest. Teilhard often describes this factor of conglomeration as one of the most important inductors of evolutionary progress, at all levels. Socialization has also a quantitative connotation.

Of course, both aspects --structural and external arrangement-- interact with each other, and should be considered as two elements of one process.

Biological scripts

Although the aforementioned factors continue to sort effect, nature adds some important new factors to enhance probability.

Chromosomes. Starting with Nucleid Acids, incorporating DNA into genes and later into chromosomes, nature keeps trace of the successful steps it made of the road to complexification. Moreover, nature adopts a repetitive mode of creating its objects, allowing swifter corrections and additions than if existing structures had to be partially replaced by new ones. Nature also opted for a simple kind of program: a cumulative addition of genetic information. It would probably have been unfeasible to restart each time from scratch, even if, theoretically, more efficient systems could have been designed. It also explains why, in embryology, the new being quickly passes through most of prior phylogenetic stages, from the individual cell on. It enables us also to retrieve genetic genealogies of living beings.

The mechanism of the genetic encoding of new features remains largely unexplained, although a natural selection of random variations (partly induced by radio-active radiation from outer space?), enhanced by an enriching exchange of information and "new tricks" during fertilization seems essential. Moreover, this encoding probably is not blind or onesided: a constant interaction with stimuli and conditions inside the uterus is supposed to be essential, so even at this complex level of metazoics we can observe "external arrangement".

Instincts and primitive reflexes. Gradually, genetic information is extended with instincts for sensoric interpretation and behaviour, as the animals start observing, moving and doing things. Furthermore, many instincts are provided with direct and intense satisfaction nerves, to make sure the subject will execute the programmed task: tasting food is already a great satifaction, long before the sugar and the proteins are inside the organism to sustain its biochemical processes. Copulating is much more satisfying than the abstract idea that this particular animal sort is preserved.

At this level, a fundamental mechanism in evolutionary processes emerges, although I presume it was already present at lower levels. Let's start with two examples:

A toad doesn't catch flies, but its tongue shoots out towards objects that move along a particular path. The toad even tries to catch a lighting point moved with a particular zigzag by the experimenter. The young ducklings don't run after their mother, but after the first big moving being they observe after coming out off their egg. Should this be experimenter Lorenz, than they anxiously flee and seek protection from him when their mother arrives.
These examples illustrate very well a fundamental characteristic of natural programming: not the goal itself is aimed at, but something with an isolated and sometimes very strange characteristic that, in "normal" circumstances, is typical for the goal. I don't know if there is a biological name for this mechanism, but I tend to call this the Tip Principle. This cunning stratagem (1) allows nature to reduce dramatically the amount of information needed to guide living systems, and perhaps partly explains why so uncredibly complex achievements are possible with such an extremely concise "manual". (2) But it makes organisms often dangerously dependent from environmental conditions, and this is particularly the case when this environment quickly changes or contains more and more artificial conditions. Most animals are trapped, also by other animals, by using their misguiding instinct. (3) But the most impressive aspect of the Tip Principle is it's teleological capacity, that will be discussed later in this article when we speak about the Involuntary Integration Principle.

The presence of instincts, needs and satisfying instinctive nervous circuits, explain why animals play: the play is an "irreal" activity (irreal in the sense of not directly useful, because the underlying needs, e.g. feeding, where the instinct is intended for, is not really fulfilled). And, apart from the fact that play situations are good for training some reflexes for the moment they really will be needed, the phenomenon playing clearly illustrates the Tip Principle. But playing is very realistic for the subject, because it provides much more satisfaction than the often more difficult and dangerous reality.

Conscious control

With man, and partially already with the higher mammalia, nature adds a conscious control device to guide its observations and its activities. Thanks to the faculty of abstraction and recombination, residing in man's prefrontal cerebral area, he is able to construct an internal image of external reality. This image, of course, has to develop and gradually becomes more congruous with objective reality. It is within this partial, not yet realistic reality image that the Tip Principle finds numerous applications, from playing to neurotic behaviour, from aggresiveness to self-destruction. Let's consider some aspects of the development of conscious control.

Egotism. The first stage of behavioural control, most important in young children and primitive cultures, is the tendency to only think for themselves, if need be even detrimental for others. Their behaviour is guided by impulses, the manifestations of activated needs. Animals and children have no sympathy, no pity, no compassion, although some other instincts often counteract this, including anxiety when the parent seems anxious or depressed, or the instinct to avoid little animals (as horses do so remarkably) and animals that display an attitude of submission, typical for apes and dogs.

More developed humans can temporarily regress to more primitive behavioural patterns, including destructive aggression.

Short term profit. Where egotism can be coinsidered as a very short term vision of reality, because one just takes one's immediate needs into account, conscious control may intervene to a certain degree. Daily experience and upbringing makes it clear that impulse control in many situations can lead to a greater satisfaction.

Phantasms. The faculty that allows humans, and higher mammalia probably as well, to interpret and to direct their own interpretations and behaviour using an image, a model of reality, that surpasses a mere collection of observations, also enables them to construct images of themselves, partly subscious, which are, subjectively, very important but, objectively, often incorrect to an important degree. Freud started using the name phantasms for these images and stressed that they determined our observations, emotional interpretations and behaviour, more than reality did. Reality, along psychoanalysts, is pratically unimportant, because even "objective" sensations as heavy pain and the prospect of suicide can be overturned and endowed with a positive meaning or perspective. The very existence of phantasms explains why "objective", non-concerned observers often don't understand how and why people, e.g. in a conflict, neurosis or psychosis, present a behaviour "which every other person should immediately recognise as abnormal and nocive for the person himself". The dimensions of reality of course tend to become more apparent to the subject, as experiences are more frequent and prolonged. This tendency of phantasms to become more real in time, is called the Reality Principle by Freud. Adult development is supposed to gradually lead to a congruency between objective and long term effect with subjective phantasmatic value.

In their development, phantasms are strongly influenced by emotional experiences, frustrations and, to a lesser degree, pleasure. As the need for appreciation is very fundamental in each of us, most of the phantasms are related to the image (we think) others have about us. In fact, the development of man as a social being starts with some fundamental often troublesome experiences concerning narcissism and oedipal rivalry.

The potentiality of phantasms to be incongruous with reality opens the door for all kinds of neuroses, and even psychoses. This is not the place to discuss them in detail. Suffice it to state that, from a psychoanalytical point of view, most of so-called "normal" persons and behaviour can be considered as mildly neurotic. Moreover, most often the negative consequences of one neurotic trait (e.g. being aggressive against one's partner, making everybody unhappy and oneself ridiculous in the eyes of an objective observer) are compensated by other neurotic traits (e.g. projecting the "cause" of one's aggressive behaviour into the "unacceptable" behaviour of one's partner, and some proudness because one resisted manipulation), or by the fact "everyone does it", creating an illusion of normality, e.g. in war, collective rejection or even lynching of somebody.

From an evolutionary and systemic point of view, phantasmatic behaviour most often is unappropriate, because it makes it impossible to realize an integration of the needs of all concerned. Often the most powerful impose some much less agreeable experiences upon the less powerful, just to satisfy their own egotistic and phantasmatic needs.

Sooner or later this use of power will provoke defensive and counter-aggressive reactions by the weaker and oppressed, which eventually find, e.g. by collective reactions, a tool to stop or to limit this disagreeable situation and, if possible, take a phantasmatic revenge, what makes that the former oppressor now comes into a situation of frustration.

This swinging interaction is masterly described by Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri in their neo-Marxistic social analysis Empire[18].

Also humans play, for the same reasons animals do. Their play is equally "natural" as animal play, even if it often uses technical devices, and is organized with a set of sometimes complicated rules. In humans, however, not only instincts explain this behaviour, but also the strong phantasmatic needs, leading often to a complicate elaboration of rules and tools. Teilhard, on many places in his books, insists on the "naturality" of human artefacts. He advocates not to consider the human as artifical against the "natural animal"

In their essence, and provided they keep their vital connection with the current that wells up from the depths of the past, are not the artificial, the moral and the juridical simply the hominized versions of the natural, the physical and the organic? [16]
He considers human play as equally natural as animal play, and sees in this parallelism another argument for the naturality of human functioning.

Full consciousness. If the personal and/or social development is given enough time and opportunities, then it may be expected that phantasmatic and ego-directed behaviour leading to an inequality of satisfaction will be replaced by a conscious pursuit of an integration of all concerned paties and their needs. Although by trial and error such a balance can be reached (e.g. in a small, undisturbed community where everyone finds his satisfying role), the most appropriate way to realize such an integration is, of course, open and constructive communication.

[This factor could also be described as] a voluntary integration principle, whereby people, knowingly and willingly, promote social stability, satisfaction and integration. This kind of voluntary promotion of human integration, by human beings themselves, is the sort of thing that Teilhard would look upon as a form of 'seizing the tiller of the world' [1] by the human inhabitants of that world.
Why this evident solution is so seldom realized, is discussed elsewhere.

The Involuntary Integration Principle

This Principle, which is perhaps the best "explanation" of the intriguing teleological phenomenon, tries to indicate that and why active systems, without being internally guided nor consciously aiming towards an integrative situation, where the electrical, biochemical, physical and psychological needs of all concerned systems should be satisfied, on the long run may end up by reaching such an integrative situation. Provided there is enough room and time for experimenting, acting and reacting, and transformation processes, the system will end up with integration, because it is the most stable and satisfying situation for everyone.

For the dominant person/system/group, the situation will longer last if the subjects are relatively happy with it, and the happier they are, the longer the situation can last. Moreover, if cooperation is enthousiatic, the probability is greater the subjects will observe and communicate signals of dangers and propose suggestions for improvement.

For the subjects, if frustration is taken away, the resisting force that provokes depression, demotivation, flight and agression is absent. If a feeling of frustration (or, for more simple systems, an uncompensated electrical or chemical need) subsists, energy remains available for destabilizing reactions at the first occasion.

Of course, if all concerned are equally satisfied, there is no longer need to speak about dominant and subjected elements.


The teleological principle of Involuntary Integration could comfort us to a certain degree in that it seems to promise a good outcome for our world, even if not all concerned parties consciously pursue the search for an integration in which all members of the group would feel satisfied. But it can only be advocated that, at all levels of social functioning, from an intimate relationship to professional and political organization, all concerned parties should be "fully conscious" of the effects on short and long term of their behaviour, but also of the spectacular material and emotional savings that can be made by trying to make direct intregrations. Of course, such a process doesn't occur automatically, and requires some demanding psychological skills, including communication and the ability to grow and to control oneself.

The described teleological mechanisms seem not to conflict with Teilhard's concepts.
I'm not sure we put the same accents. As I understood this great integrative philosopher, and this is confirmed by your readings, he seems to suggest that, in one way or another, there is somewhere a little bit of "psychicality", " a thinly spread Within", a kind of divine imbuement to guide its volutionary steps. What I am proposing in my article, is that the teleological processes rather occur because each volving element "looks" for "satisfying" its " needs" -i.e. a rather short-sighted, egotistic guiding principle- and at each level this "appeasement" happens to be an integration, a step towards convergence.
Here you have clarified a difference between your take on teleology and that of the Auvergnian Jesuit.
Well, this is precisely my point. In fact, I'm convinced there is no difference. The only thing I'm trying to do is to explain some mechanisms Teilhards left rather vague, at least for my feeling. It's also my opinion that, due to this vagueness, many faithful interpret this passages (and the like) as a reference to a kind of soul or other divine intervention to guide evolution, while non-christians do find here a pretext to refute Teilhard as unscientific. I'm trying to indicate that this teleological process is very natural, in fact a bit of system theory, and this, on the other hand, doesn't diminish the greatness of a Designer, because He didn't need any corrective intervention: the system is so well structured that, in spite of the absence of any "guiding psychism", evolution, while respecting our freedom, inevitably conducts into a grandiose integration.
This seems like a perfectly viable approach to me.

[1] 'The Phenomenon of Man' [Fountain Books, 1977], p. 275.
[2] 'Reflections on an Ultra-Human et. al.', in 'Activation of Energy' [Harvest Book, 1970], p. 273. 
[3] 'Hominization', in 'The Vision of the Past' [Collins, 1966], p. 72.
[4] 'How I Beleve', in 'Christianity and Evolution' [Harvest Book, 1974], p. 107.
[5] 'Reflections on an Ultra-Human et. al.', in 'Activation', p. 275.
[6] 'Phenomenon', p. 61.
[7] 'Man's Place in the Universe', in Vision', p. 225.
[8] 'Phenomenon', p. 79.
[9] 'Phenomenon', p. 129.
[10] 'Phenomenon', pp. 339-340.
[11] 'Phenomenon', p. 121.
[12] 'Phenomenon', p. 121.
[13] 'Phenomenon', p. 165 [In footnote # 1].
[14] 'Phenomenon', p. 336.
[15] 'Hominization', in ' Vision ', p. 72.
[16] The Phenomenon of Man. Fountain Books, 1977, p. 245

[17] Michael McDERMOTT, Knowledge and the Knower: Complexity and the Self. Chapter One: It's a complex, complex, complex, complex world!
[18] Michael HARDT & Antonio NEGRI, Empire, Harvard University press, Cambridge, Mass., USA, 2000
[19] Anthony KELLY, communication in an eList about Teilhard de Chardin, 16/8/02.
[20] HARTMANN: New Ways of Ontology, 1953, 68

Created 9/8/02 - Comments by Brian Cowan and Anthony KELLY on 16/8/02