FROLIO – Formalizable Relationship-Oriented Language-Insensitive Ontology

© Roger M Tagg 2015

Welcome to FROLIO – a new attempt to merge philosophy and the "semantic web" . This website is under continuing development.

Related mini-essay: After Teilhard: How Evolution can point to a future for the Spirit of the Human Race

In 1938-40, Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a French anthropologist, palaeontologist and also a Jesuit Priest, wrote a book 'The Phenomenon of Man", which has triggered much discussion among both religious people and scientists.

In this book he takes the view that we should make Evolution (a la Darwin) central to our thinking about the world. He extends the concept of evolution of species (the biosphere) forward to evolution of the noosphere, by which he means all the ideas that the human race, seen as a whole, has. His proposal is that just as physical evolution moves living things into more complex but more capable forms, so the world of ideas will tend to move in a similar direction.

As a Christian, he deduces that as this evolution of ideas proceeds, the human race will approach a 'unity of mind' which will ultimately coincide with his idea of God, to which he gives the name 'Omega' - the last Greek letter.

However as many readers of the book have pointed out, his arguments depend on a number of hypotheses, many of which seem unacceptable both to the majority of scientists and to those laymen like myself who struggle to follow his arguments.

While I can see many things in the book which, I think, 'won't wash' in today's currents of thinking, I feel Teilhard has hit upon some valuable themes. Having criticized the book myself in my Highlights, I feel I ought to try to offer my best suggestions on what he should have said, or rather what he might say in today's climate of globalization, the internet, multiculturalism, pluralism and creeping secularism.

Where I agree with Teilhard

I totally agree with him that we should regard Evolution - in its broadest sense - as central to our thinking. I think it is right that we should be more interested in the world's processes of 'becoming' than in the state of things at any proverbial 'point in time'. I don't believe in 'once-off revelation', the idea that 'what is written' is ever the end of the matter. I don't like the quotation "As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end" - and I suspect Teilhard didn't like it either.

Do I have any justification for my stance, or am I just saying that such a view is more 'useful' to us in coping with life's ups and downs? Well, what I like to think is that if there is a 'spirit' in the human race - rather like 'team spirit' in a football team, it is drawing us in the direction of 'improvement', and this is the same direction as evolution points. Of course we can choose to go with this spirit, or ignore it and follow our animal instincts. 'Improvement' can mean better for each of us as individuals, better for the groups we belong to, better for all living humankind, better for all living things and better for the planet we live on.

Below I have itemized some particular things that Teilhard says in connection with evolution that I agree with - although sometimes with reservations.

1. We can talk about evolution at at least 4 levels:
• of material particles, molecules, substances, geological units etc
• of life forms
• of artificial products and machines
• of thought forms
• of societies
However I think the mechanisms by which changes happen at each level are different
2. Evolution happens in fits and starts, not at an even pace - and sometimes it may experience setbacks
3. Things usually evolve in the direction of increasing complexity
4. Life started by means of increasingly complex polymerization (of compound molecules)
5. Evolution 'steps' are usually triggered by different things (living or otherwise) coming into contact, or 'colliding'
6. Later life forms succeed earlier ones because they compete better for the resources they need
7. 'All-rounders' often have evolutionary advantage over narrow specialists
8. The 'tree of life' in the Darwinian sense shows a high degree of structural unity
9. There was a sudden change in prehistoric cave paintings to art showing "power of observation, a love of fantasy and a joy in creation", marking a big step in the evolution of human thought forms
10. In human competition, however brutal the conquest, some assimilation follows, and there is genetic mixing - leading to some convergence rather than divergence within the species
11. Civilizations, like some fossil species, can stagnate and drop behind
12. In thought and societies, evil can grow alongside good
13. Human inventions and interventions reduce to some extent the "play of chance" in the world
14. It is an interesting question as to whether life could ever again evolve from complex polymers, either naturally or in a laboratory. And could there be an alternative structure [e.g. with Silicon instead of Carbon]?

There are 4 other areas where I find much to agree with Teilhard:

1. Reflection:
• It makes some sense to talk about a "threshold of reflection", a point in evolution where humans could reflect on where they stood in relation to their environment - including other humans [however this threshold does not seem clear-cut to me, and it may be wrong to assume some animals do not have reflection]
• [Rightly or wrongly] "we perceive a 'within' in ourselves", and we infer it in other humans and some animals
• Whatever we think, say or write is coloured by an "aura of subjective interpretation"
2. The individual human 'mind'
• "That what is free, even in man, can be broken down into determinisms, is no proof that the world is not based on freedom"
• A distinction can be made between 'individuality' and 'personality', if the former means considering oneself as a totally separate agent - a 'lone ranger' - and the latter means regarding oneself as part of one or more networks of 'others' (usually humans, maybe animals or the whole environment)
3. Science and religion
(these are really Julian Huxley's points in his foreword)
• Science and religion cannot - and should not - remain in thought-tight compartments
• Science and religion can converge, but still not merge; their different viewpoints have value
4. Human progress and improvement
• Individuals may experience disquiet due to not being sure 'where it's all going'; we are easier if we can see some hope or chance of things getting better soon
• The course of human progress accelerated suddenly with the Renaissance, the Reformation and Revolutions (Agricultural, Industrial and Political)
• Progress and improvement is not gained by individuals withdrawing like hermits or monks, nor by 'keeping oneself to oneself', nor by tribalism (exclusivity of races, nationalities or religions)
• We have to entertain thinking that is 'out of the box' - we ignore at our peril ideas that don't fit with our current 'plateau' of thinking
• In any significant progress or improvement, there are bound to be a few '"influencers", a sort of "elite"
• We should not stop striving for improvement because things go backwards from time to time, and because there may be some pain
• People often get trapped in currents of fashion - Teilhard calls these "obscure seethings of the human mass" - and society may stagnate
• 'Collectivity' (here meaning too much structure or strict organization - as with 'micromanagement') kills love, initiative, spontaneity, development and consciousness
• We may be moving into an era where 'to know' is more valuable than 'to possess'
• Future unity of the human race is often threatened by divergence of minds
• How humans get on with each other has become very important for the future of the world
• "Death of the materially exhausted planet" is a danger we should not ignore

Where I disagree

1. Teilhard's pseudo-scientific hypotheses:
• Teilhard's arguments depend heavily on contrasting a 'within' (internal soul) which complements a 'without' (observable effects and properties), not just for living things, but for 'pre-life', rocks, molecules atoms as well. Even for humans, the idea of 'mind' as separate from 'body' (sometimes called Cartesian dualism) is very much out of favour, and with philosophers as well as scientists. See for example Gilbert Ryle's 'The Concept of Mind' - written not long after Teilhard, but published earlier.
• His idea of "elemental consciousness originally imprisoned in the matter of the earth."
• His distinction between "Tangential" and "Radial" energy, both of which, he says, are "psychic".
2. Evolution
   • Evolution being triggered because of "curves doubling back"
   • Natural variations in genes, described as "groping", a term which Teilhard classifies as "directed chance". Directed by what? Not all variations were beneficial.
   • Life started with "writhing creatures" - I'm sure stromatolites are older than any writhing creatures
   • Teilhard wants to bring back Lamarckism (the passing on of acquired characteristics - i.e. the genes 'learn' from what we do in our lives), primarily for 'mind'. He may have justification when talking about evolution of shared ideas or societies, but not, I think, with individual brains.
3. Human progress and improvement
• Primacy of a separated 'soul' for humans
• Human affection stopping at a certain radius - surely it declines more gradually
• 'Convergence of the spirit' which Teilhard regards as a 'given'
• We are "haunted by the fear of unemployment" - suggesting we can't handle leisure. Sure, it takes some learning
• Totalitarianism "is just a distortion of something magnificent". Presumably like Vatican rule of the world, or 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?
• Some form of eugenics is indispensable
• A blend of reason and mysticism is desirable. Does he want any old sort of mysticism, or just the Vatican-sanctioned sort? Fantasy maybe, as long as one doesn't apply the fantasy to the decision of what to do for real.
4. Christianity
• "Christianity is the unique current of thought with which to lay hold of the world"
• "The Christian faith is destined to take the place of evolution".
5. The end of the world
• The world will end with "total unity". This seems a very oriental concept
• Teilhard's implication that hypotheses about the end of the world matter. He thinks that if we don't have a good vision of where it is all going, we will 'go on strike', and not bother about trying to make things better
• There will be some point where "the loose ends have been tied up, and the noosphere tends to constitute a single closed system", and "we all feel desire and suffer the same things simultaneously with all others".

Where I am coming from

I have been wrestling with how to reconcile science, philosophy and religion since the late 1950s. Since retirement in 2009 I have been busy reading and re-reading on this subject, occasionally posting my ideas on the internet. However it was only this year (2015) that I read Teilhard's 'Phenomenon of Man', and I have posted my 'highlights' of my experience when reading it.

My background is like Teilhard's, a Christian one, although I have lived in an Islamic country and visited many countries where various Christian, Islamic and other views are held by the majority. My personal stance has been shaped by authors such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John A.T. Robinson, John Shelby Spong, Loyal Rue and some of the contributors to D.Z. Phillips's 'Religion and Understanding'. I might describe myself as a 'Holy Spirit Unitarian'.

The main areas of my personal interest in relation to the evolution of the human spirit are listed and briefly explained below.

1. Intelligence in individual humans
   • Not all intelligence lies in the brain - we build up our 'multiple-use circuits', learned reflexes etc, which involve getting parts of the body (including speech organs) to move.
   • Intelligence as we can observe it is by no means all innate - most comes from learning, training and practice
   • A lot of what we call intelligence in individual humans comes from our ability and keenness (or otherwise) to plug into the shared experiences of others - whether through 'stories', science (just another story, but one that updates itself when it proves unreliable), books or the internet.
   • As we learn more and more, our minds - and possibly our overall philosophies - can change
   • Better individual intelligence doesn't necessarily lead to better outcomes - it may just lead to more 'chatter'
   • Human motivation to act in a certain way seems very complex and poorly understood.
2. Trends in the evolution of intelligence of the human race as a whole:
• Advances in communication, ranging from simple everyday language to electronic digital networks, have made bigger and faster changes to the noosphere than any bodily evolution of human brains. Maybe the noosphere is alive and well today, and largely equivalent to the internet.
•  The distribution of individual intelligence within a population, and its gradient (between the eggheads and the dumbos) has changed enormously over the last couple of centuries. A much larger proportion is able to think for itself, and make its own judgment on the stories and myths (political, advertising or religious) that are presented to us. It is not a case of a small elite 'intelligentsia' and the unlearned 'rest'. Compulsory education has been one of the factors contributing to this.
• At the 'egghead' end of the distribution, intelligence has become much more specialized
• Opinions and 'standpoints' can just as easily diverge (e.g. between researchers and out-of-the-box thinkers on one side and both doctrinaire 'followers' and 'headbangers' on the other) as converge (e.g. between those coming from different viewpoints who want to discuss and look towards a consensus - or at least a 'convivencia')
• General intelligence of the human race would improve if more people had a better understanding of probability
• Several authors (e.g. Daniel Dennett) have hinted that there is convergence between 'carbon intelligence' (as in the brain's neural networks, synapses, learned reflexes, and even in DNA) and 'silicon intelligence' as in computer systems.
3. The significance of stories, myths, 'models' and doctrines
   • Stories - including narrative of any sort - are relatively simple presentations of history or fantasy which provide a good means by which humans can share experience. But they sometimes get stretched too far, or fantasy gets confused with probability, or leads to contradiction. They may or may not be good guides to deciding 'what should I do next?'
   • Whether we like it or not, we are on shaky ground if we claim "our story is true, and that of other people is wrong or inferior", without some justification such as "theirs leads to poor outcomes, or has inherent contradictions"
   • Stories which purport to 'explain things' are always likely to be superseded by better ones - the 'truth' evolves
   • We may be lured by our liking for a story into giving it priority over wider reflection
   • Consensus as to what is the 'best story' is never perfect, but consensus is usually better than a story that is adhered to by partisans on only one side
   • Sticking with one set of unalterable stories created at some point in the past is not usually the best policy for addressing the future.
4. Criteria - or 'dimensions' - that all ought to be considered when making decisions
   • Logic - does our reading of the situation make sense, is it free from contradictions, does it accord with evidence, or what we can observe?
   • Is it inspirational? Does it carry the 'Spirit of the Good'? Does it bring improvement, or better value, to all involved?
   • Will other people be motivated to cooperate, or to at least go along with it?
   • Do we have the resources, or are they available if we need to get hold of them?
   • Will it work? Are the changes involved 'manageable'? Does it take account of the bargaining positions of those other people involved or affected?
5. Human tendencies that we have to recognize - even if some people have them much more intensely than others
   • Instinct to survive and support our next generations
   • Basic mating urge
   • Preparedness to take risks
   • Making light of things, even unhappy ones, and making jokes
   • Urge not to be out of place in the groups in which one finds oneself
   • Instinct to compete, to do better than the next guy, or at least not fall way behind him/her
   • Impatience with complexity; wanting simple stories of cause and effect
   • Tendency to hate
   • Tendency to disclaim personal responsibility
   • Mass hysteria, getting caught up in crazes, fashions
   • Inclination to fantasize
   • Disposition to 'believe' a story, especially a good one rather than a bad one, including good news over bad news
   • Tendency to regard ones emotions as a 'given' and not be prepared to educate them
   • Confuse hope and 'what you wish for' with the probable range of outcomes
   • Sympathy for others that we see suffering.
6. Comparison between cultures
   • We should not regard all cultures and 'isms' as having equal value. There may not be 'right' and 'wrong', but there is certainly 'better' or 'worse'. How we judge better and worse may require us to work for a consensus
   • 'Secularism' and 'pluralism' should not be regarded as dirty words
   • Concepts like 'sin', 'heresy' and 'apostasy' have all been hi-jacked for totalitarian ends and put into the same class as 'treason'
   • Any culture that can't offer a good story about 'evil' is lacking an important element.

The hurdles I think we need to overcome if we want to do better at 'going in the right direction'

Rather than use the resulting blend (of Teilhard's good points, my objections to some of his other points, and my own views) to predict a path to the end of the world or to make the case for the primacy of one religious stance, I see the future as just trying to keep making things better. With that in mind, my first thought is to identify "what is stopping us making more improvement now?" I see the answer to this question in terms of a number of hurdles which I think we ought to try to reach some consensus on, and try to eliminate them or at least lower their obstructing height. Here is my list

1. Death for apostasy
2. Making fables like 'you go either to heaven or hell in the afterlife' or 'you will be reincarnated as a higher or lower form in your next life' into compulsory beliefs
3. The 'Sin Industry' - being used as the 'engine' of religious totalitarianism
4. Cultural relativism - not entertaining the idea that some practices are 'better' and some 'worse'
5. Exclusivity - we are 'in', and the rest of you are 'out'; we must 'win the world' to our way of thinking
6. Scapegoating - picking on a victim (or group) we can all agree to blame and hate
7. The 'once-off revelation fallacy' - believing that one set of books holds the absolute truth for all time
8. Separating a 'sacred' category from practical concerns
9. The 'greed is good' philosophy.

I have a few more minor obstacles I would mention, although these are mostly in my list of 'human tendencies', and I think might take more time to improve on.

1. Scoring one over the other fellow
2. Over-simplification of cause and effect
3. Lack of understanding of probability
4. Preference for delightful fantasy over 'up-and-down' reality
5. Excuse engineering - finding rationalizations for one's own failings which try to point blame anywhere but where it belongs
6. 'Sacred cows' - meaning theological 'sticking points', rather than the Hindu sort
7. The idea that anyone is 'infallible'.

Is there any chance we can make any progress in removing hurdles?

We may as a race be still immature, but we have already made it over a number of hurdles in the past. We have hopefully seen the back of human sacrifice, cannibalism, Sati, thuggery, burning witches and heretics, and crucifixion. We are still wrestling with female genital mutilation, honour killings, amputation for stealing, forced conversions, torture and family violence.

It may be that only a 'higher authority' - that imposes itself on the cultures where these things go on - will have any effect. The British Raj in India did its best to stop Sati and thuggery (the sort that was in the name of an Indian goddess of destruction). Maybe we need a 'UN Cultural and Religious Consensus Organization' - 'UNCARSO'.

If we want to make a start somewhere on the list, how about this slogan - 'Amnesty for Apostates'. Surely no-one should be killed for changing their mind, or making up their mind after a forced conversion. Maybe 'free speech' is too much to expect in some regimes, but surely apostates should be offered the choice to keep quiet or emigrate?

Links

Index to more of these diatribes

FROLIO home page

Some of these links may be under construction – or re-construction.

This version updated on 18^th October 2015

If you have constructive suggestions or comments, please contact the author rogertag@tpg.com.au .