Abstract
CONTENTS
A NEW UNIVERSE
THE CRISIS OF DARWINISM
ORIENTED EVOLUTION
A HARMONIOUS SOLUTION
HYPOTHESIS APPROACH
VERIFICATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS IN THE MACROCOSM
REGARDING THE CHAKRAS
REGARDING PHYLOGENETIC-ONTOGENETIC PARALLELISM
VERIFICATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS IN THE MICROCOSM
SOME FINAL OBSERVATIONS
ADDENDUM 1: COINCIDENT RESEARCH
ADDENDUM 2: FURTHER COINCIDENT RESEARCH
ADDENDUM 3: INTEGRAL EVOLUTION
ADDENDUM 4: INNER EVOLUTION
ADDENDUM 5: FURTHER COINCIDENCES (DAVID J. LEPOIRE)
ADDENDUM 6: TOROIDAL EVOLUTION
Introduction
A new universe
In this new emerging outlook, our daring proposal that a harmonious pattern that governs the rhythm of evolution exists no longer sounds so shocking. Let us see.
The crisis of Darwinism
Oriented evolution
A harmonious solution
Hypothesis approach.
We wish to make a brief parenthesis here to recognize that the accelerated pattern we observe in the generation of successive lithic modes was highlighted some time ago by French geologist André de Cayeux. In an article entitled Quelle courbe suit l’Humanite?, he drew a graph that clearly revealed the “rapid acceleration” of the evolutionary process of human beings. The stages he proposed were precisely “initial lithic culture”, “Acheulean”, “Mousterian”, “Aurignacian”, “Mesolithic”, “Age of Metals”, “Age of Machinism” and “Atomic Age”, in almost complete harmony with the cycles of our hypothesis.
Returning now to the testing of our hypothesis, we began the second series with the first cycle (B-1) which starts, as stated, with the presence of Homo habilis. According to the traditional approach, we could say that as we approach the first node (1.3 million years ago), we would encounter the emergence of Homo erectus, who would be the sole leading figure in this cycle with its expansion and development toward the second node (0.6 million years ago). A more recent approach seems to point in another direction as regards our line of ancestors. Homo ergaster —one of the first specimens of African Homo erectus—, would actually be the one that was to evolve toward Homo antecessor in the ascent towards the second node in this cycle.
Before continuing, we would like to state that the hypothesis being presented here regarding a spiral evolution the rate of which accelerates on the way towards a final pole of attraction was initially inspired by the pioneering proposals of Teilhard de Chardin —on “the convergence towards Omega”— and Aurobindo Ghose —on “the ascent towards Supermind”—, which in their time were considered completely preposterous by the world of official science. In recent decades, however, increasingly more research has been carried out in diverse fields and from different approaches, highlighting evolutionary acceleration and its orientation towards a singularity, findings with which our hypothesis obviously has many points of coincidence.
Regarding phylogenetic-ontogenetic parallelism
According to Ken Wilber, the fetus has fundamental ground unconscious, “In essence, it is all the deep structures existing as potentials ready to emerge, via remembrance, a some future point.” All deep structures are included or related to ground unconscious: the “archaic unconsciousness” is the past of humanity and the “emerging unconsciousness” is the future. Given that the higher structures embrace the lower ones, the higher ones have to be the last ones in developing. The transpersonal cannot be realized while the personal has not yet been formed. Development —or evolution— consist in a series of hierarchical deployments of deep structures parting from ground unconsciousness, starting from the lowest —matter— and ending with the highest —consciousness. When —and if— the totality of ground unconscious has emerged, then there will only be consciousness; all is consciousness as the Whole. As Aristotle put it, when the potential has been actualized, the only result is God.
Comparing figures 7-A and 7-B, note how the overall macrocosmic and microcosmic patterns of development have identical structures. The only difference between them lies in the level at which pole P is positioned; that is, the pole toward which the “exit” section is oriented in each one of these patterns. In the macrocosm, it is situated at the “series leap” between “matter” and “life” —the appearance of organic macromolecules after the formation of the Earth—; while in the microcosm, it is situated at the “series leap” between the “mind” and the “soul” —the formation of the mature ego.
The human embryo, as it nears the end of the first month, develops some muscular segments, called miosomas, at each side of the neural tube, which represent the origin of the skeletal muscle system, typical of all vertebrates. From the fourth week on, limbs—upper and lower— also start to be formed. At first, they are only small protuberances or mamelons. However, they soon start to grow and, during the sixth week, already constitute small, paddle-shaped expansions that will evolve into hands and feet. Fingers finally develop during the seventh and eight week. During that time, the amnios, which during the first weeks of gestation was a very small vesicle, starts to increase in volume and progressively cover the embryo completely.
Cycle A-3 of our hypothesis started, in the macrocosm, with the first marine vertebrates —fish— and embraced the progressive conquest of dry land, first with the appearance of limbs in the tetrapods —amphibians— and then with the invention of that smooth, transparent membrane —the amnios— which protects reptile and mammal embryos. In our scheme for the microcosm, this cycle spans from the fourth week to the eighth, once again totally matching embryological data.
We shall digress briefly so as to make a few comments on the evolution and development of the nervous system.
A few decades ago, the American physician Paul MacLean proposed a thought-provoking model, known as the “triunic brain” or “triune brain”. This model aimed to explain the function of existing traces of evolution in the structure of the human brain. MacLean argued that our skull actually contains three brains: the reptilian, the limbic system and the neocortex, each of which represents a different evolutionary state. They are formed one after another in an overlapping manner, from the inside out, ontogenetically during embryonic and foetal development and phylogenetically during the course of evolution from the first fish to modern man. These three brains are connected to one another, like “three interconnected biological computers”, though each retains its own distinct characteristics.
The R-complex (or reptilian brain), which comprises the brainstem and cerebellum, began to form evolutionarily about 500 million years ago and developed throughout our cycle A-3, after the formation of the nerve cord in the previous cycle. It is basically responsible for the primary vital functions, i.e. basic survival instincts. It is an action-oriented brain, responsible for automatic impulsive behaviour, i.e. fight-or-flight, reacting to direct stimuli, without involving any emotional process.
The limbic system (or paleomammalian brain), which includes the hypothalamus, hippocampus and amygdala, originated over 150 million years ago and evolved throughout our cycle A-4. As a whole, it is the seat of emotions and affective memory. This ability to bring the past into the present encourages learning and facilitates relationships, as evidenced by the evolution of mammals.
The neocortex (or neomammalian brain), formed by the neuronal layer covering the outer area of the brain, began to develop some 60 million years ago and gradually increased in size during in our cycle A-5 and the following. There is a direct relationship between this development of the cerebral cortex and social development: the more complex and organized societies are, the greater the size of the neocortex of its members. The neocortical system is responsible for the higher intellectual processes and is the source of the increasing cognitive abilities of higher primates.
This same evolutionary sequence: brainstem, R-complex, limbic system and neocortex, develops approximately from the inside out, during the embryonic and foetal development of every human being. As already stated, the neural tube begins to form in the 3rd week of gestation and, after it has closed completely, the cephalic end begins to expand substantially past the 4th week, giving rise to the three primary vesicles, from which the entire brain originates. Or, for example, the medulla oblongata (R-complex component), which emerges at the end of the 8th week from the myelencephalon –one of the five secondary vesicles–, achieves its definitive form around the 20th week of gestation. Or the hippocampus (limbic system component), which has a similar appearance in all mammals, begins to unfold from the 13th week onwards, acquiring the adult form a month and a half later. The cerebral cortex (neocortex) develops later, mainly from the 5th month of pregnancy onward, when the surface of the hemispheres, which until then is almost completely smooth, begins to generate grooves and convolutions during the 6th and 7th months. These features dramatically enhance the surface area of the brain and facilitate the number of connections between neurons.
This parallelism between the phylogenetic and ontogenetic sequences of the development of the nervous system continues even after birth. For instance, there are some neurons known as fusiform neurons –responsible for connecting different regions of the brain– that are only found in humans and some great apes. It seems that the number of these neurons increased rapidly and dramatically with the emergence of Homo sapiens. Their most thought-provoking aspect, however, is that these cells currently do not exist in new-born babies, but begin to appear within a few months after birth. They then increase significantly in number between one and three years of age, coinciding precisely with our forecasts for the correlative stage for the emergence of H. sapiens in our individual development, as we shall see below.
We close this digression on the evolution of the nervous system here and now continue with the testing of our proposal. We had left off at the movement of birth, after our cycle A-6. From this point on, we shall take as our reference framework the hierarchy of psychological levels so thoroughly presented by Ken Wilber throughout his body of work. Let us see the first of these levels, which, according to our pattern of rhythms should correspond to the transition from cycle A-7 to cycle B-1, as the former involves gestation and is the latter, deployment.
Uroboric-axial body. Shortly after birth, the child’s perception begins to float in what is known as the pre-personal “uroboric” kingdom. The uroboros is still collective, archaic and primordially oceanic, but it already possesses some type of self-limitation. When the sensation of the infant self begins its evolution from the pre-personal uroboros to the individual organism, we see the emergence and creation of the organic and bodily self. By the term “axial body”, we are mainly referring to the fact of feeling the physical body as something that differs from the environment. The baby has a physical body at birth, but it does not recognize the axial body until the fourth or sixth month of age. As the self-awareness of the child self begins to be centered and distinguish its individual organism, it also assimilates an ambiguous, yet still undefined threat of extinction. Therefore, simple, brief survival becomes a priority in this stage. Aurobindo calls this level, the “physical” level.
Addendum 1: Coincident research
In Addenda 1 and 2, we have seen the great similarities between our hypothesis regarding the rhythm of evolution and the research of other authors who have also independently studied the surprising phenomenon of evolutionary acceleration from different perspectives. Almost all of these researchers have taken their data from the “objective” or “external” world.
In Addendum 3, we insisted that, in the phenomenal world, “objects” cannot exist without “subjects” or “outside” without “inside”, as both aspects are mutually dependent. Inexorably so.
Therefore, in this Addendum 4 we shall refer specifically to a number of authors who have methodically studied “inner” dynamics, mainly in the field of developmental psychology. This scientific discipline chiefly studies the regularities that occur in the process of psychological development of human beings throughout their life cycle. The specific areas of study can be highly diverse –cognitive, moral, emotional, etc.–, yet in all cases, a detailed description is given of a number of very specific stages which humans sequentially pass through from birth to death given the appropriate circumstances. The existence of these successive stages is not at all mere speculation, but is based on data provided by a major body of research.
We would like to point out here that, as the field of research of developmental psychologists chiefly focuses on the process of human life from birth onward, the spectrum of reality these studies cover is hence restricted to only the last stages of evolution. In principle, it could be thought that this limitation might hinder our attempt to test the hypothesis that we are developing. However, the truth is that the abundance and accuracy of the data we have found has enabled us to carry out the test very easily with very positive results.
To describe the different “lines” or “currents” of development which are the subject of research in this field of psychology, Ken Wilber uses the analogy of a mountain which can be climbed via a number of routes. (We postulate that it is a stratified mountain, like Plank’s “quanta”, Gould and Eldrege’s “punctuated equilibrium” or Mandelbrot’s “fractals”). The landscapes spotted from each of these routes may be very diverse, but in all cases, the paths taken must inexorably pass through successive levels (in our words, strata) to access the summit. That is to say, all the lines or currents of development, each with its specific characteristics, advance along the same altitude gradient, defined by the degree of consciousness, in such a way that the higher the degree of consciousness, the higher the development of a particular line will be.
Wilber posits a graph –a “psychograph”– with the colours of the expanded visible electromagnetic spectrum –from infrared to ultraviolet and beyond– to define the different levels of development. He uses the same psychograph for all lines or currents, since, as already stated all progress through the same altitude gradient. Note, however, that altitude is simply a measure or a marker of something, yet, in itself, lacks any particular content. Similarly, consciousness, in itself, is not a concrete phenomenon, but the vacuum within which all phenomena emerge. Nor is it a specific line of development among many others, but rather the opening in which all the lines of development unfold. Thus, the degree of consciousness allows us to determine the height at which each of these lines passes at any given time.
As already stated, after analyzing the work of countless researchers of psychological development, Wilber has designed an integral chromatic altimeter that precisely defines the successive general levels through which the different lines pass. For instance, we may speak of orange cognition, an orange sense of identity, an orange vision of the world, etc. Thus, the “chromatic altimeter” shows the general similarities between the different lines or currents of development.
Dear reader, if you have followed what we have been explaining in this article so far, you may have noticed that our basic hypothesis is ultimately no other than a “sound altimeter” of overall evolution and individual development. As you will recall, we stated that, starting from the vibrating unity of original energy-consciousness –the dual appearance of ever-present Self-evidence–, the successive second harmonics generated the entire spectrum of “potential levels of stratified stability” which, as we have shown, channel the entire process of evolution and development. Amazingly, our “sound altimeter” exactly coincides with Ken Wilber’s “chromatic altimeter” in its totality, level by level!!! Wilber’s infrared corresponds to our B-4, magenta to B-5, red to B-6, amber to B-7, orange to C-1, green to C-2, teal to C-3, turquoise to C-4, indigo to C-5, violet to C-6, ultraviolet to C-7 and clear light to beyond series C, i.e. beyond the transpersonal witness. All twelve levels!!! Full house!!!
In Figure 12, we have attempted to show the full correspondence between the stages in human life observed by developmental psychologists and the evolutionary levels proposed in our hypothesis. We have placed our “sound altimeter” on the left side of the chart, Wilber’s “chromatic altimeter” on the right, and the names and areas of study of 15 of the most renowned researchers in human psychological development along the top: Jean Piaget, Michael L. Commons and Francis A. Richards (cognitive), Jean Gebser and Ken Wilber (worldviews), Abraham Maslow (needs), Clare W. Graves and Jenny Wade (values), Don E. Beck and Chris Cowan (spiral dynamics), Jane Loevinger and Susanne Cook-Greuter (self-identity), Lawrence Kohlberg (morals), James Fowler (stages of faith) and Robert Kegan (orders of consciousness). The solidity of the resulting plot is almost complete. Fundamentally, in the section most investigated by these psychologists (between our steps B-4 and C-3), the coincidence between the stages posited by each of these authors and the levels indicated in the two reference altimeters (sound and chromatic) is overwhelming. It thus seems that our hypothesis passes (how could it not!) the test of “inner development” with honours. We insist: Can anyone honestly think that this is pure coincidence?
Let us then first outline a basic understanding of this transdisciplinary (bio-psycho-social-cultural) model of Spiral Dynamics, which has major similarities with our proposal. Subsequently, as already stated, we shall graphically express these correlations in Figure 13. Finally, we shall draw a very suggestive conclusion from all this.
Spiral Dynamics is rooted in the long-standing and thorough research of professor of psychology Clare W. Graves into the evolution of individuals and societies. Analyzing the different ways of thinking and ways of being of human beings, he identified a number of common patterns or basic value systems and integrated them into a multi-layered model of progressively complex levels. Graves held that the nature of human beings is an open system in constant evolution which advances by quantum leaps from a stationary state to another through a hierarchy of ordered, relatively stable systems, which unfurl spirally over the entire historical process of humankind from its beginnings to the present. He posited that these emergent stages are not rigid steps, but rather flowing, overlapping and interrelated waves, leading to the expansive spiral dynamics of individual and collective development, driven by their own internal dynamics and changing conditions of life. As it possesses a broader perspective and a more complex capacity for organization, each emergent wave “transcends and includes” –as Wilber puts it– all previous waves, acquires the maximum importance for a period of time and ultimately ends up being “transcended by and included in” a new, broader-ranging and more complex wave.
After Graves’ death, his co-workers Don E. Beck and Chris Cowan continued to develop and corroborate their mentor’s theoretical model and used it as the basis for their book Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change. These authors call the successive paradigms that define each of the eight basic levels of the spectrum “value memes” or “vMemes”. As can be seen in Fig. 12, the eight levels of Spiral Dynamics exactly coincide, one by one, with all the cycles of our hypothesis between B-4 and C-4. It occurred to Beck and Cowan to identify each of these levels with a certain colour, thus facilitating the understanding and dissemination of their intelligent and effective model. The basic characteristics of these levels or colours are as follows:
Beige: Survival Instinct. Satisfaction of physiological needs. Impulsiveness. Biological automatism. Immediate action. [Nomadic hordes. “Savagery”.]
Purple: Kin Spirits. Loyalty to the chief, the clan, tradition. Ethnocentric culture. Safety. Magic-animistic thinking. Superstitions. Taboos. Rituals to appease ancestral spirits. [Tribal settlements. “Barbarism”.]
Red: Power Gods. Egocentric. The grandiose, impulsive, omnipotent Self. Triumph of the strong. Myths of heroes. Fighting. Conquest. Domination. Exploitation. Tyranny. [Ancient empires. “Enslavement”.]
Blue: Truth Force. Absolutist thinking. Certainty. Existence ordered via a divine code. Regulations. Rules. Traditions. Obedience. Discipline. Guilt. Self-sacrifice. Deferred reward. Order. Stability. Conformism. Socio-centric culture. [Medieval kingdoms. “Feudalism”.]
Orange: Strive Drive. Effort. Pragmatism. Empiricism. Positivism. Scientism. Strategy. Competition. Dynamism. Growth. Success. Results. Achievements. Free market. Material goods. Consumerism. Individualism. Autonomy. Control. [National states. “Capitalism”.]
Green: Human Bond. Community Collaboration. Solidarity. Associative movements. Building of consensus. Relativism. Pluralism. Multiculturalism. The sensitive Self. Emotional communication. Feelings. Equality. Sense of injustice. Human rights. Feminism. Environmental awareness. Sustainability. Ecology.
Yellow: Flex Flow. Process integration. Systemic thinking. Complexity. Interdependence. Collaborative networks. Multiple realities. Open systems. Acceptance of uncertainty. Questioning mentality. Curiosity. Inquiry. Flexibility. Utility. Functionality. Spontaneity.
Turquoise: Global View. Global synthesis. Chaordic (chaotic-ordered) world. Fractal reality. Life as an unfolding of holoarchies. Spiral dynamics. Multiple levels interwoven into one conscious system. Communion with the whole. Understanding of universal harmony. Collective consciousness. Holographic connections. Transpersonal mentality. Cosmic spirituality.
Ray Kurzweil, one of the most prestigious researchers of technological acceleration, locates the moment of Singularity in 2045. He states that the non-biological intelligence created in that year will be a thousand million times more powerful than all human intelligence today. However, that does not seem to really be the true evolutionary summit, because, subsequently, in his book The Singularity Is Near, he states that our civilization will expand outward, turning all the dumb matter and energy that we comprise into highly intelligent (and transcendent) matter and energy. So, in a sense, we can say that the Singularity will eventually imbibe the universe with its spirit. Kurzweil specifies that we will manage to saturate the universe with our intelligence before the end of 22nd century and states “Once we saturate the matter and energy of the universe with intelligence, it will ‘wake up’, be conscious, and sublimely intelligent. That’s about as close to God as I can imagine.” Accordingly, it thus seems that the real evolutionary summit will not take place in 2045, but will occur in the late 22nd century, when all the energy and intelligence of the universe will be experienced in a unified way.
Seen in this way, the coincidence with my proposal seems quite clear, in terms of both date and content. As we have posited in this article, at the beginning of the 23rd century –around the year 2217– energy and consciousness will reveal their ultimate non-duality. According to Ray Kurzweil, at the end of 22nd century, all the energy of the universe will be saturated with intelligence and the Singularity will eventually imbibe this universe with its spirit. Doesn’t that all sound very similar?
Addendum 6: Toroidal evolution
Everything written so far has basically focused on unraveling the overall pattern of the evolution of life in the universe, in general, and the human being, in particular. As we have seen, the result of this integral research clashes head on with the predictions of the materialist paradigm of classical science. Surprisingly, however, ground-breaking lines of research have started to appear in recent years in different branches of science —physics, chemistry, biology, neurology, among others— that are clearly in tune with the world view that emerges from our evolutionary research and can hence provide key data capable of explaining this unexpected universal pattern that we are revealing here.
Previously we proposed that the vibration of the illusory “string” of energy-consciousness that is created between the A and Ω poles, generated, from the very same original moment, a particular fundamental sound and a whole range of harmonics, which constituted the entire spectrum of potential archetypal levels, which, as we have seen, are updated, step by step, throughout evolution and history. We must now apply this very same multilevel energy-consciousness scheme that we proposed in the “string” of our hypothesis to the vibrant “torus” that, as we have proposed, generates the entire universal process. We will thus have a toroidal dynamic deeply nested in a myriad of levels —like a “matryoshka” or nested dolls—, from the tiny scale of Planck to the cosmic totality, thus reflecting the radical fractal structure of the universe (see Fig. 14-D). The fundamental characteristic of this fascinating nested torus lies in the fact that the center is common and identical in all its levels. Thus, all the universal flows, whatever the height of the energy-consciousness spectrum through which these unfold, start out from and end in this ineffable non-dual center that unites in itself the facets of both source —A— and receptacle —Ω— of all the worlds.
(There are currently numerous pages on the internet that echo this emerging perspective of a toroidal, holographic and fractal universe. Readers who are interested in this topic are recommended to consult the following websites: “The Fractal-Holographic Universe”, by Andreas Bjerve [ http://holofractal.net/ ] and “Cosmometry”, by Marshall Lefferts [ http://cosmometry.net/ ]).
"Time is a moving image of eternity that
progresses in a circle" (Plato)
"The now that passes produces time, the now
that remains produces eternity" (Boethius)
In this addendum we are going to recapitulate and
develop some of the fundamental points that have been appearing throughout
these pages. We trust that, by presenting them in a unified way, we will be
able, in the end, to outline a truly comprehensive panorama of the creative
dynamics of reality, capable of clarifying, with simplicity and without
artifice, many of the great questions that humanity has asked itself since
always and to which materialistic science has not been able to respond.
In a previous addendum we have stated that, in order
to achieve a truly integral understanding of everything exposed throughout our research,
it is absolutely necessary to refer to at least three different facets of the
All-One: A) non-dual absolute reality, B) potential relative reality
and C) spatiotemporal relative reality. Next, we will try to specify the
meaning of each of these expressions.
A) Non-dual absolute reality
All manifested reality appears,
inexorably, in the form of dualities. It is not possible to find subject
without object, inside without outside, origin without end... Nor vice versa.
Therefore, since all opposites are mutually dependent, we can understand them
as polar manifestations of a reality that transcends them and that is "prior"
to that dualization.
Physicists speak of infinite
potential energy in the original quantum void, and sages speak of infinite
transparent consciousness in the final mystical void. Our proposal —in tune
with the great non-dual wisdom traditions— is that these two voids are the same
and unique Emptiness, perceived objectively by physicists and subjectively by
contemplatives, but which, in itself, is not neither objective nor subjective,
but "prior" to that dual perspective. Since in that Emptiness there
is no separation between subject and object, it is not possible to see it in
any way, because it is not "something" that can be seen by
"someone", but, obviously, it is not "nothing" either,
because, in fact, all the entities of the universe —objective or subjective—
are nothing other than partial and relative forms of that non-dual Void.
Although, strictly speaking, it is therefore not possible to make any statement
about essential Emptiness, as an approximation we will suggest that it is, in
an undifferentiated way, potential energy and pure consciousness, that is,
non-dual lucid-light or luminous-lucidity.
Positivist science will never be able
to access this intrinsically ineffable Void, since the mere attempt to describe
it objectively places the researcher "outside" of its non-dual scope.
However, paradoxically, the Void we are talking about, far from being a
distant, mysterious or unknown reality, is the closest, most intimate and
obvious experience of our existence. Is there something more unquestionable
than the Certainty-of-Being itself?... Is it that, dear reader, do you
doubt for a single moment of your own reality?... Well, it turns out that this
simple and pure ever present Self-Evidence that you are in your essence
—prior to the slightest identification with any concrete form— is, precisely,
the non-dual Emptiness that constitutes and comprehends all worlds. That simple
Self-Evidence is the only substance of the universe as a whole and of each and
every one of the entities that compose it!
The universe is not made only of
energy —as the materialist monists claim—, nor just of consciousness —as the idealist
monists claim—, but of the “prior” non-dual Emptiness that includes and
transcends both facets. This statement clearly coincides with Baruch Spinoza's
idea that the entire universe is made of a single substance —which he called
“God” or “Nature”— which appears under two attributes: extension (matter) and
thought (mind). Or, in the same way, with Friedrich Schelling's approach that
the supreme principle must be an absolute that is at the same time object and
subject, nature and spirit, that is, the unity, identity or indifference of
both aspects. Perspectives similar to these are currently beginning to be
suggested with increasing insistence, in many different fields of research,
under the names of "dual-aspect monism" and "neutral
monism." Thus, in the words of the German physicist Harald Atmanspacher:
"dual aspect approaches consider the mental and physical domains of
reality as aspects, or manifestations, of an underlying undivided reality in
which the mental and the physical do not exist as separate domains. In such
framework, the distinction between mind and matter results from an epistemic
split that separates aspects of underlying reality.”
We propose, therefore, that the
non-dual Emptiness, devoid in itself of any particular qualification or determination,
is, at the same time, the ultimate essence of all existence, the pure,
undifferentiated and formless matrix that sustains all worlds. There is no
specific characteristic, concrete appearance or distinctive feature in it, but
it is not a mere absence or absolute negation, but rather a state of unlimited,
omnipresent and indestructible openness that "makes" the entire
universe of finitude. A diaphanous, lucid and luminous realm that generates,
sustains and embraces the entire universe of particularities. An infinite and
limitless spaciousness, eternally self-evident, from which all the phenomena
that take place in space-time arise, are in and return to.
The ultimate Void is a non-state in
which nothing concrete can be perceived, but which is pregnant with everything
that exists. Its absolute simplicity is infinite potentiality of all things.
Where there is nothing, there is a place for everything. It is not, therefore,
an impotent nothingness, but rather, on the contrary, it can make everything
out of itself, remaining in its intimate bosom as eternal Emptiness. All things
come from it, are in it, and return to it, but behind these fleeting forms, it
remains immutable in its timeless stillness, now, in the beginning, and
forever. Beyond the change. Beyond birth and death. Ever present in his
infinite game of dual appearances. Eternally empty and clear. Timelessly
self-evident.
B) Potential relative reality
Since non-dual Self-Evidence is
completely devoid of the slightest separation between subject and object, it
cannot formally perceive itself in any way. Therefore, if it wants to
contemplate itself, it has no choice but to dualize... at least in appearance.
The artifice is simple. Just as 0 can unfold as + 1 and – 1 without changing
its value at all, fundamental Emptiness can unfold as object —an original pole,
basically of energy— and subject —a final pole, basically of consciousness—,
fully maintaining its empty essence. Between both poles, in this way, a wide
spectrum of balances is generated between both polar facets, which covers the
entire range from the most basic states —of enormous energy and little
consciousness— to the highest —of little energy and enormous consciousness.
When this illusory distance of energy-consciousness generated between both
poles enters into vibration —like a guitar string— a characteristic fundamental
sound and all its unlimited range of harmonic sounds (standing waves) are instantly
produced. This means that, let's take a good look, from the very originary
moment the entire spectrum of energy-consciousness is already fully present in
an intertwined and resonant way.
As we have seen throughout our
research, the successive second harmonics that arise with the vibration of the
original "string" of energy-consciousness —the successive notes of
the Pythagorean circle (spiral) of fifths— are precisely the potential levels
of stratified stability that will be actualized, one after the other, along the
successive evolutionary rungs that we have analyzed, and that will unfold
rhythmically the complete spectrum of manifestation, from the most basic levels
—of enormous energy and little consciousness— to the most high —of little
energy and enormous consciousness. (It is suggestive to point out the
parallelism between the hypothesis that we are exposing and the "string
theory" currently proposed in theoretical physics, although in our case
the field of application is not simply reduced to the world of microphysics,
but rather covers the entire spectrum of reality. It is difficult to try to
elaborate a "theory of everything" if practically the entire
manifested evolutionary reality is
marginalized!).
We would like to highlight here the
hypothesis raised by the pharmacologist Dirk Meijer and the researcher Hans
Geesink about a mathematical algorithm for coherent quantum frequencies that
generate stability in both animated and non-animated systems. In their own
words: "Interestingly, we found that the origin of the particular
biological algorithm can be mathematically approached by a selected “tempered
Pythagorean” reference acoustic scale. The algorithm expresses one-dimensional
wave equations known for vibrating strings. The origin of the biological
algorithm was condensed in a mathematical expression, in which all frequencies
have ratios of 1:2 and closely approach ratios of 2:3." This 2:3 ratio is
precisely the “second harmonic” that, as we have seen in our research,
generates the evolutionary stability levels!
Returning to our discourse, when
fundamental Emptiness unfolds as an objective pole (basically of energy) and a
subjective pole (basically of consciousness), a bidirectional tension is
automatically produced between both extremes: an expansive and entropic current
coming from the initial pole of "energy-(consciousness)” and a
contractive and syntropic current coming from the final pole of “consciousness-(energy)”.
Both flows travel, in opposite directions, the entire spectrum of potential
levels of stability —standing waves— in which both polar facets are balanced in
different proportions. Moment after moment, these ascending and descending
flows resonate with each other at a certain level —standing wave— of the
energy-consciousness spectrum, “collapsing”, thus, in a concrete event.
(Readers interested in this point can
consult the suggestive works on the "participatory anthropic
principle" by John Wheeler, on "creative evolution" by Amit
Goswami, or on "biocentrism" by Robert Lanza, and thus verify the
similarities and the differences between these interpretations of quantum
mechanics and what we are exposing here).
The proposal that we are developing
is clearly in tune, obviously, with the syntropic theory of the mathematician
Luigi Fantappiè. This theory affirms that the increase in complexity in the
evolutionary process is a consequence of advanced waves that emanate from
attractors located in the future and that go backwards in time. Thus, he
proposes going from a mechanistic and deterministic model of the universe to a
new model, entropic-syntropic, in which the expansive forces (entropy) and the
cohesive forces (syntropy) work together, so that the unfolding of the
phenomena is no longer only a function of the initial conditions, but also
depends on a final attractor. This theory was later updated by the physicist
Giuseppe Arcidiacono and by his twin brother Salvatore, a chemist by
profession, developing an entropic-syntropic model of the universe with a
"cybernetic structure", which makes it possible to establish a link
between Fantappiè's unitary theory and the latest research on systems theory,
chaos, and complexity. Currently, psychologists Ulisse Di Corpo and Antonella
Vannini have relaunched research on entropic-syntropic theory, carrying out
laboratory experiments with convincing results and thus managing to convert the
syntropy hypothesis into a solid scientific theory supported by rigorous
mathematics and abundant experimental evidence.
In clear resonance with all this, our
approach is likewise very similar to the Transactional Interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics —proposed by John Cramer and inspired by the “absorber
theory” by John Wheeler and Richard Feynman—, which describes the quantum
interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by the interference between
retarded (forward in time) and advanced (backward in time) waves. We can
summarize this transactional model as follows: The emitter produces a retarded
"offer" wave, forward in time, which travels towards the absorber,
which causes the absorber to produce an advanced "confirmation" wave,
backwards in time, which travels back to the emitter. The interaction is
repeated cyclically until, finally, the transaction is completed with a
"handshake" —a standing wave— through space-time, sealing a two-way
contract between the past and the future, and produces the actual quantum
event, the “collapse of the wave function”. The “pseudo-temporal” sequence of
this story is, of course, just a semantic convenience to describe a process
that is, in truth, timeless. We will return to this matter later.
Physicist and philosopher Ruth
Kastner, extending the work of John Cramer, has developed a new Transactional
Interpretation, called Relativistic (RTI) or Possibilistic (PTI), which holds that
quantum wave functions do not move so much in the physical universe, but rather
that they exist as “possibilities” in the multidimensional Hilbert space, from
which transactions in the “real” universe emerge. Kastner proposes to regard
the outgoing supply waves and the many incoming confirmation waves as
"possible" transactions, existing outside space-time, only one of
which becomes empirically "real". He suggests defining them with the
term “potentia” —with which Aristotle called the ability to be something in the
future—, in line with the statement of the German theoretical physicist Werner
Heisenberg: “Atoms or elementary particles are not real in themselves; they
form a world of potentialities or possibilities, and not so much a world of
things or facts or data”. In this sense, she Kastner says that the waves of
offer and confirmation are sub-empirical and pre-spatio-temporal
"possibilities" —that is, they have not yet appeared in space-time—
and, therefore, she calls them "incipient transactions".
Kastner calls for a new metaphysical
category to describe those "not quite real possibilities", which, far
from being mere abstractions, constitute a world of higher dimensions whose
structure is described by the mathematics of quantum theory. She raises the
need to consider such "possibilities" as part of a reality that
encompasses much more than what is contained in space-time. In fact,
spatiotemporal events are products that emerge from the transaction
processes—timeless and non-local—that take place in the quantum realm. The
metaphor of the “iceberg” used by Freud to describe the human subconscious can
be equally applied to the “ontological realm of possibilities” or “quantum
earth” that Kastner posits. The "quantumland" refers to the mass of
the iceberg that exists below our sight, while the tip, the space-time
appearance, is only a small part of all that is the physical universe. Quantum
processes, even if they take place outside of space-time, are a fundamental
part of that universe.
Kastner's approach to an
"ontological realm of possibilities" from which the concrete
spatiotemporal world emerges fully coincides with our proposal of a potential
relative reality of harmonic sounds that is rhythmically actualized along the
successive steps of the evolutionary ladder. In the same way, there is a clear
resonance between this idea and the postulate of the physicist David Bohm about
a fundamental reality —the “implicate order”—, in which matter and spirit are
unified, which unfolds, instant after instant, like the manifested universe
—the “explicate order”—.
Starting from the surprising data of
quantum physics, Bohm proposes the existence, at a very deep level, of an
intrinsic order that, beyond space and time, involves the entire cosmic reality
of relationships. This intrinsic order would be projected at each instant into
the manifest order, which, in turn, would be injected or introjected again, at
each instant, into the intrinsic order. Bohm calls this continuous unfolding
and folding between the implicate order and the explicate order “holomovement”,
which constitutes the basic dynamic phenomenon from which all events of
manifested reality in space-time emanate. There is no "thing" in the
universe. Everything is "process". What we call things, objects or
entities are mere abstractions of what is relatively stable in the processes of
movement and transformation. In the implicate order, reality is ordered
according to a hierarchy in which each particular level of time has its level
of eternity. What is fundamental in the implicate order is the simultaneous
presence of a sequence of many degrees of involvement, while, on the contrary,
in the explicate order all these degrees are present in an extended and
manifest way.
Concepts such as "non-local
reality", "entanglement" or "non-separability", so
frequent among scholars of the quantum world, point in the same direction. From
the mental experiment proposed by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan
Rosen in 1935 —the so-called “EPR paradox”—, from the theorem proposed by John
Bell in 1964 —the so-called “Bell inequalities”— and from the real experiment
carried out by Alain Aspect in 1982 —and many others in later years— it became
evident, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the existence of events that violated
the “locality principle” —the assumption that two objects far apart cannot
influence each other each other instantly— confirming, thus, the dreaded
"spooky action at a distance" that Einstein feared. From then on,
quantum mechanics rejects the locality principle due to the so-called “quantum
entanglement”. Entanglement is a phenomenon in which the quantum states of two
or more objects must be described by a single state that involves all objects
in the system, even when the objects are spatially separated. A set of
entangled particles cannot be defined as if they were separate individual
particles, but must be defined as a single wave function for the entire system.
Since the entire cosmos was fully united at the time of the Big Bang, it could
well be defined by a single wave function in which the entire range of
possibilities would already be present in an overlapping manner from its
origin. At a quantum level, therefore, a unified vision of universal reality
begins to emerge, in which, beyond space and time, all possibilities
—potentialities— are present from the very initial moment. The spatio-temporal
universe, from this perspective, would be nothing more than the gradual
actualizing, instant after instant, of those original potentialities in a
broken down manner.
This approach to a unified potential
reality, beyond space and time, has not only been developed by researchers in
the objective world of energy, but also by researchers in the subjective world
of consciousness. Thus, for example, the psychiatrist Carl Jung took up the
medieval expression “unus mundus” —one world— to suggest the existence
of a unified underlying reality from which everything emerges and to which
everything returns. He asserted that it was extraordinarily likely that mind
and matter were but two different and complementary aspects of that
transcendental unus mundus. Jung, together with the physicist Wolfgang
Pauli, revealed that the concepts of "archetype" and
"synchronicity" reinforced precisely the existence of that underlying
unit.
Jung observed that the deeper layers
of the psyche lose their individuality —become more collective— and that in
this "collective unconscious" there are primordial dynamic patterns,
which he called "archetypes." These archetypes are, in themselves,
empty elements, virtualities, ideas in the Platonic sense, innate tendencies,
models devoid of content from which individual variations are formed. An
archetype possesses, in principle, an invariable significant nucleus that
determines its mode of manifestation, but the way in which it is expressed in
each case does not depend only on it, but also on the material of the
phenomenal world with which it counts to make itself visible. The archetypes
are not properly psychic elements, nor are they material, but rather
psychophysical realities belonging to the field of the "psychoid",
prior to an eventual separation into those two domains that we perceive to be
divided in our daily reality. The archetypes would form part of that unus
mundus which, according to scholastic philosophy, potentially contained
matter and spirit and, therefore, could be understood as a kingdom of
“spiritual matter” or “material spirit”.
The existence of this fundamental
psychophysical reality can also be demonstrated through the phenomena of
"synchronicity", in which coincidences or concordances appear —beyond
mere chance— between a psychic event and another physical one without there
being a causal relationship between them. These surprising phenomena would be
easily explainable if both the observer and the concurrent event proceeded,
ultimately, from the same source, from an underlying unity common to both, from
the fundamental unus mundus. The simultaneous expressions in the domains
of the psyche and matter that take place in synchronicities suggest the
existence of a single psychophysical whole that we observe through two
different pathways. This whole appears as material, if it is observed from the
outside, and as psychic, if it is observed from the inside, but in itself it is
neither psychic nor material, but entirely transcendent. The hypothesis of a
deep potential matrix, beyond any type of division in these two domains that we
perceive as separated in everyday reality, thus builds a bridge between the
physical world and the mental world. Synchronistic phenomena are understood,
then, as double and spontaneous manifestations of that unknown foundation that
is the basis of matter and mind, of energy and consciousness.
Resonating with the idea that we have
raised to equate our "potential relative reality" with Bohm's
"implicate order", with Kastner's "quantumland" or with
Jung's "unus mundus", the psychologist Marie-Louise von Franz
affirmed that it was possible to apply Bohm's terminology to Jung's ideas in
such a way that archetypes could be seen as dynamic and unobservable structures
of the implicate or infolded order. Or, in the same vein, the psychiatrist
Stanislav Grof has proposed that "in an extended version of the holonomic
theory, archetypes could be understood as sui generis phenomena, as
cosmic principles intertwined with the fabric of the implicate order."
Starting from these suggestive
parallels, and considering synchronicity phenomena as double and spontaneous
manifestations —material and psychic— of a unified underlying reality, one
might suspect that archetypes could play a key role in the process of evolution,
since it is characterized —as the paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
stated— by the tendency of matter over time to acquire more complex forms of
organization and, simultaneously, by the increase in the level of consciousness
in those organisms. Jung himself, glimpsing this possibility, affirmed: “One
cannot imagine how much chance and how many risks were necessary during
thousands of years to make a man out of a lemur. In the midst of this random
chaos, there were probably synchronistic phenomena in action, which, in the
face of the known laws of nature and with their help, allowed us to build, in
archetypal moments, syntheses that appear to us as extraordinary."
For Jung, synchronistic events appear when some archetypes are deeply involved in a lived situation. These archetypes are then constellated in the psyche, while very strong affective and emotional dynamics are unleashed. This circumstance can be observed, above all, in very serious crisis situations, and is well known by psychotherapists. In the words of the biologist Hansueli Etter: “If we transpose these observations analogically to the level of phylogeny, we can say that archetypal situations are effectively constellated when a collective and biological crisis imminently threatens a given species or several species. At those particular moments, synchronistic events must be very numerous (that is, mutations or gene redistributions must take place within populations), so that they offer the species the possibility of superior development. It seems to me that in those events considered until now as fortuitous, we must see synchronistic phenomena."
C) Spatio-temporal relative
reality
In a previous addendum we have
outlined the basic characteristics of toroidal dynamics through which the
potential reality of the unmanifested foundation is actualized and unfolds in
the world of forms. This process is very similar to the “holomovement” proposed
by Bohm between the “implicate order” and the “explicate order”. The departure
and return, instant after instant, from and towards the non-dual foundation,
through its finite and fleeting manifestation in space-time, allows to
actualize, one after another, the successive potential levels of stability of
the spectrum of energy-consciousness —that is, the entire hierarchy of
“harmonics” generated at the same original moment—, starting with the most
basic ones —prioritarily energy— and ending with the highest ones —prioritarily
consciousness—. At each turn, the particular potential of a certain level of
the spectrum is projected at a specific point-instant of pixelated space-time,
it integrates with the aspects that have already emerged in previous heights,
and immediately, that specific information is introjected into the field of
collective memory that is generated in the foundation. When this entity has
deployed the full potential of the stratum in which it basically operates and
has integrated it with everything that has emerged in the preceding stages,
having reached a specific level of complexity, it can resonate with the next
"harmonic" of the spectrum of energy-consciousness, and thus ascend
to a new rung of the long ladder of evolution. And so on.
This intrinsically creative recursive
dynamic between the “potential reality” and the “actualized reality” is
mediated by that unified field of memory that, step by step, is gestating at
fundamental level. All the information collected at any point-instant of the
manifested world is immediately introjected into the basic field of collective
memory, which, in this way, increases, moment by moment, its potential.
According to our approach, with the original polarization of the fundamental
non-dual Emptiness, as an objective pole —basically of energy— and a subjective
pole —basically of consciousness—, a vast spectrum of balances of
energy-consciousness is automatically generated between both polar facets,
which runs the gamut from the most basic states —of enormous energy and little
consciousness— to the highest —of little energy and enormous consciousness.
"Before" the emergence of the manifested universe, this potential
spectrum had a basically archetypal character —in our research we have talked
about the chromatic range, the pythagorean circle (spiral) of fifths, the
series of chakras...—, but from the moment the original Big Bang singularity
occurs, the toroidal dance between potential reality and manifested reality
begins —between the implicate order and the explicate order—, in which the game
of projections and introjections that we have just discussed. It is precisely
this toroidal game that, instant after instant, converts the original
archetypal levels of the spectrum of energy-consciousness into fields of
collective memory that are more and more solidified with each turn of the
dance. This is the reason why, at present, the behavior of the most basic
levels of the spectrum of energy-consciousness in the manifested universe —the
material levels— is very predictable, and why, consequently, we can describe
the physical laws of nature quite accurately. On the contrary, the highest
levels of the potential spectrum have not yet been barely actualized in
space-time and, therefore, today they still maintain their character of
archetypal lightness and are difficult to describe.
Before continuing with our
exposition, we would like to refer at this point to the work of other
researchers who also propose the existence of a field of collective memory at
the foundation of reality, with great similarities to the one we are proposing
here.
For example, systems philosopher
Ervin Laszlo postulates the idea of an information field as the substance of
the cosmos. Using the Sanskrit term Akasha —with which the Hindu
tradition designated the foundation that underlies all things and becomes all
things— Laszlo calls this field of information the "akashic field".
The Akasha —he affirms— is a dimension in the universe that not only
underlies all the things that exist in it, but also generates and interconnects
them, conserving the information they have generated. It is the matrix of
reality, the network of the world, the memory of the cosmos. Akashic cosmology
conceives of the universe as an integral system that evolves in the interaction
of two dimensions: a hidden or akashic dimension and an observable or manifest
dimension. According to this model, the hidden dimension “in-forms” the
manifest dimension, and this, in turn, “de-forms” the hidden dimension,
modifying its information potential. This two-way interaction between the two
dimensions constitutes a continuous loop of action and reaction, creating
progressive coherence in the manifest dimension, and accumulating increasing
information potential in the hidden dimension, all of which, according to
Laszlo, may explain why our universe, against all odds, is well configured to
form galaxies and sentient life forms, and why evolution is an informed, not a
random, process.
For his part, the biochemist Rupert
Shedrake proposes a dynamic similar to Bohm's holomovement in which implicated
and non-local morphogenetic fields channel the collective memory of forms and
behaviors to subsequent generations. Sheldrake places special emphasis on the
idea that the explained order, in a way, enriches the implicate —time
enriches eternity—, because the finite
contributes to the global order by re-injecting its contributions back into the
whole. Each moment is a projection of the whole, but that moment is introjected
back into the whole. The next moment implies, in part, a re-projection of that
introjection, and so on. In this way, as each instant contains a projection of
the re-injection of the previous instants —which constitutes a certain form of
memory—, it resembles its predecessors, but it is also different from them.
According to this concept of projection and introjection, all of the entities
in the universe are contributing to the deepest intrinsic nature, because we
participate in the introjection of the manifest order into the implicate order,
thus creating a higher order that, instant after instant, shapes evolutionary
dynamics.
Similarly, the theoretical physicist
Nassim Haramein posits a fundamental domain of information from which
everything arises and to which everything returns. Non-local
intercommunication, beyond any frame of space and time, is possible thanks to
the unified spatial memory network formed by microwormholes of the basic
holographic information field on the Planck scale. Memory and the recursive
processes of feedback and feedforward information from the quantum vacuum —or
holofield— enable learning and evolutionary behavior. The flow of dynamic
information to and from that field can be the generative source of organized
matter, of self-organizing biological systems, and ultimately of self-aware
entities. Haramein asserts, in summary, that we live in a highly intertwined
and interconnected universe where a fundamental field of information, shared
across all scales, drives evolutionary mechanisms in which the environment
influences the individual and the individual influences the environment, into a
non-local interconnected whole: a universe that is ultimately One.
Returning to the exposition of our
proposal, we are going to try to describe, below, the mechanism through which
the potential reality is actualized in and as the manifested reality, which
will give us the essential clues to outline the nature of this manifestation.
As we have explained, with the original dualization of non-dual Emptiness in
the form of an objective pole (basically of energy) and a subjective pole
(basically of consciousness), an integral, simultaneous and entangled spectrum
of energy-consciousness automatically appears between the two extremes in
different balances, which constitutes the potential relative reality or
basic archetype that, later, will manifest as actualized relative reality
or evolutionary universe. The tension generated between both extremes after the
original polarization creates an expansive and entropic current coming from the
pole of energy and a contractive and syntropic current coming from the pole of
consciousness, which travel, in opposite directions, the entire spectrum of
potential levels of stability, standing waves or musical harmonics that we have
talked about. The initial instant of the universal manifestation —Big Bang—
took place when the ascending and descending flows resonated with each other at
the most basic level of the energy-consciousness spectrum and, with this
“handshake” between them, the "collapse of the wave function” of the first
potential archetype —or musical harmonic— was produced in the world of forms.
Since then, the toroidal game of projections and introjections, instant after
instant, has gradually unfolded in the explicate order the successive potential
levels of stratified stability of the implicate order in which the ascending
and descending flows have been resonating. This iterative dynamic, as we have
seen, has been converting the original archetypal levels of the
energy-consciousness spectrum into morphogenetic fields of collective memory
that are more and more solidified with each turn of the dance, beginning with
the most basic rungs of the evolutionary ladder. The highest rungs still
maintain their primeval archetypal lightness.
It is important to remark, here, that
the fertile interaction between the primary poles of energy and consciousness,
through the ascending —entropic— and descending —syntropic— flows, does not
take place in the manifest world, but in the underlying potential reality, more
beyond space and time. It's an instant interaction. Not temporary. Sometimes,
when describing this bidirectional dynamic, one speaks incorrectly of a flow
that advances in time and a flow that goes back in time, but it would be more
accurate to think, rather, of a transaction between different depths of a
single eternal Now, which encompasses in itself the totality of “time”.
When this transaction "collapses" in a fleeting now, the
memory of past moments and the expectation of future moments makes us conceive
the image of a time line. But it's just an image. The manifested universe
arises and disappears, instant after instant, from and to the underlying,
entangled and unified potential reality, which is always Now. Given that the
toroidal game of projections and introjections between the potential and
manifested realms of reality unfolds, gradually, more and more complex forms
each time —due to the fact that they integrate a greater number of levels of
the stratified field of collective memory that is developing—, we can glimpse
in the universal process a clear “arrow of time” that is oriented, precisely,
towards the creation of progressively complex organisms and with increasing
levels of consciousness. But that does not mean that there really is a real
time line, only that this is our imaginary way of ordering the partial data
—the frames of the world film— that we successively capture. Well, as the
physicist Erwin Schrödinger affirmed: “the fact that something propagates in
space or that something happens in a well-defined time of 'before and after' is
not a quality of the world that we perceive, but belongs to the perceiving mind
that (somehow in his current situation) he finds himself unable to register
anything that is offered to him if it is not according to this spatio-temporal
scheme.”
It seems that the world that we are
beginning to glimpse lacks the solidity that we naively assumed, and that, in
reality, it is more like a surprising and gigantic evolutionary hologram. Let's
see. A hologram is a type of three-dimensional representation that is produced
when a laser ray splits into two distinct rays. One of them is
bounced off the object to be photographed, and then the second ray,
coming directly from the source, is allowed to collide with the
reflected light from the first, producing an interference pattern that is
recorded on a plate. When a light passes through this plate, a
three-dimensional image of the original object automatically emerges that lacks
the slightest substance. It is pure appearance. Another surprising fact is
that, unlike what happens with normal photographs, each part of a
holographic plate contains the complete information of the whole. Thus, if
a holographic plate is broken into pieces, each piece, no matter how small, can
be used to reconstruct the complete image of the photographed object, with
greater or lesser definition. Each part contains the whole!
According to our approach, the
gestation process of the universal manifestation begins with the original
bifurcation of the non-dual Lucid-Light —“a laser ray is divided into two
different rays”— into an objective pole (basically of energy) and a pole
subjective (basically of consciousness), with the consequent interaction
between the ascending and descending flows that are generated between them. Let
us remember that, due to the toroidal dynamics of projections and
introjections, the most basic levels have developed very solid morphogenetic
memory fields, while the highest levels still maintain their original
archetypal lightness. For this reason, the upward flow crosses very defined
morphogenetic fields —“one of them is bounced against the object to be
photographed”—, while the downward flow comes directly from the subjective
pole —“the second ray comes directly from the font"—. When both
flows resonate and interact with each other, the transaction is sealed with a
handshake or standing wave —“the second ray (...) is allowed to collide with
the reflected light of the first, producing an interference pattern that is
recorded on a plate”—, and the potential collective memory collapses into a
specific, punctual and fleeting formal image —“a three-dimensional image of
the original object automatically arises that lacks the slightest
substantiality”.
Our research has revealed the
complete parallelism between the phylogenetic and ontogenetic processes of the
human being. Both global evolution and individual development take place in the
same time frame, with an identical pattern of unfolding and folding between the
original and final poles, and going through exactly the same stages or levels
of stability. Each individual life recapitulates, then, the entire global
trajectory traveled by their ancestors —“each part of a holographic plate
contains the complete information of the totality”—. Everything seems to
suggest that the universal manifestation has holographic characteristics and
that the "whole" and the "parts" are mere reflections of a
common underlying foundation. Bearing in mind that a characteristic of
holograms is that the smaller the size of the piece of plate used, the blurrier
the reconstructed image is —definition is lost, but the integrity of the image
is maintained—, we could well propose that the more complex is a given organism
—the more levels of manifestation it has integrated— the greater the degree of
clarity and definition of the total original image. If this approach is valid,
an atom, a molecule, a cell, a mammal, a primate, or a human being, each one of
them possesses, in its innermost depths, free access to the totality of the unified
field of collective memory of the cosmos, although, depending on their specific
characteristics —depending on their respective capacities to capture and
express that plenitude that underlies and surrounds them—, it only connects
with certain facets of that field.
According to everything exposed up to
here, the exclusive protagonist of the creative dance of the universe is the
simple non-dual Self-Evidence always present, the ultimate identity of
everything and everyone, the only unquestionable reality of existence. This
pure Certainty-of-Being, obvious but invisible, needs to unfold polarly as
subject and object in order to be able to see itself, partially, in infinite
ways. As we have explained, the fertile interaction between the bidirectional
flows that are generated between both poles is reflected —collapses— in an
endless number of subject-objective, finite and fleeting holographic images,
with which Self-Evidence identifies, instant after instant, being able, in this
way, to contemplate with progressive clarity in the world of forms his own
original invisible face.
The non-dual absolute Reality
—Self-Evidence— is timeless. Potential relative reality —the implicate order, the archetypal unus
mundus—, that is, the entirety of the polar, entangled and unitary spectrum
of energy-consciousness occurs in an eternal Now, encompassing the entirety of
“time.” The manifested relative reality, the space-time holographic image, is
born and dies every moment. The entirety of the world of appearances is being created
now... and now... and now... In summary, the timeless Self-Evidence is
projected through the integral Here-Now of the potential archetype, identifies
with each and every one of the point-instant of pixelated space-time, it
contemplates itself from a certain perspective, and immediately returns to its
original plenitude... from which, in truth, it had never left.
There are no independent objects.
There are no separate subjects. Everything in the manifest world is
subject-objective. Ultimately, everything is an expression of the basic
interaction between the original poles of energy and consciousness in which the
ever-present fundamental Self-Evidence bifurcates. The universe has no
particular shape. Everything is relational. The presumed objective perceived
world is just an image generated by identification with a particular subjective
form. There are colors because there are eyes. There are sounds because there
are ears. Everything that you are perceiving, dear reader, in yourself and in
your environment at this moment, is just a spontaneous and fleeting image that
arises from the interaction between the Subject pole —in “you”— and the Object
pole —in “everything your environment”—, in which the Self-Evidence that you
truly are branches off, from instant to instant, to contemplate Itself in
infinite ways. Everything is happening by itself. Eternally. You can relax.
Enjoy the dance!
Before finishing this addendum, we
would like to underline that this non-dual worldview that we are proposing
—which, needless to say, clashes head-on with the materialist paradigm still in
force— is capable of resolving, simply and without artifice, some of the
essential enigmas to which conventional science has not been able to give a
convincing answer. Let's briefly review some of them.
—The hard problem of consciousness.
The cognitive philosopher David Chalmers introduced the concept of the "hard
problem" of consciousness to refer to the great difficulty of explaining,
from materialistic parameters, how it is possible that an —objective— physical
brain, which only processes electrical or chemical signals, can give rise to qualia
or conscious subjective experiences. From the non-dual perspective from which
we are developing our research, on the contrary, the "hard problem"
does not even arise, since, far from assuming that the objective world produces
subjective experiences —as materialist monism does— or that subjective
experiences give rise to the objective world —as idealistic monism does—, we
defend that both energy and consciousness are nothing more than the polar
expression of the same and unique underlying reality in which both facets are
eternally undifferentiated.
—The mind-body problem.
Closely related to the hard problem of consciousness, the mind-body problem
refers to the difficulty of explaining the interaction between
"inner" mental states and "outer" bodily states. How can
the mind act on the brain, as evidenced, for example, in the so-called
"placebo effect"? From the scheme that we are proposing, there is no
such problem, since, ultimately, the "external" world and the
"internal" world —energy and consciousness— are non-dual. All levels
of the spectrum of manifested reality are nothing more than different balances
between these two polar facets of a single fundamental reality, and therefore
any interaction between them is nothing more than mere movements between
different densities of the same substance.
—The problem of downward causality.
Materialist reductionism has sought to explain complex organisms from their
simplest component elements —that is, through “ascending causation”— and, for
this reason, “descending causation” —exercised by the emergent properties of
wholes on the properties of their lower-level constituents—, that researchers
of complex systems have revealed in numerous realms of reality, has been
accused of conceptual and metaphysical incoherence. According to our approach,
far from there being incompatibility between both types of causality, all
manifested reality arises precisely from the interaction and resonance between
ascending entropic flows and descending syntropic flows, thereby simultaneously
transcending the partial perspectives of reductionism and holism, integrating
them into an all-encompassing non-dual vision.
—The problem of fine-tuned
universe. This problem, like that of the anthropic principle, has arisen
when it has been verified that the universe seems to have been meticulously
adjusted to allow the existence of life and mind, since, if any of the basic
physical constants had been slightly different, the appearance of life as we
know it would not have been possible. According to the materialist perspective,
therefore, we inhabit an extremely improbable universe. From our perspective,
on the contrary, since all events in the universe arise from the interaction
and consensus between the flows coming from the original pole of energy —from
the “past”— and from the final pole of consciousness —from the “future”—, it is
completely natural that, without having to resort to any external designer,
already the first events of the universal process were fully coordinated and
adjusted to future events. How could it be otherwise!
—The problem of parapsychological
experiences. Parapsychology studies different paranormal psychic phenomena
that do not seem to have a scientific explanation, nor do they fit within the
framework of currently accepted physical laws, such as telepathy, precognition,
clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, out-of-body experiences, near-death
experiences or synchronicity phenomena. All this, obviously, as it is difficult
to fit within the narrow framework of the current materialist paradigm, is
rejected outright by a large part of the scientific community, which considers
parapsychology as a mere pseudoscience. On the contrary, since the framework of
our proposal is much broader, it is very likely that some of these phenomena
can be easily located within it. Specifically, in the field of what we have
called “potential relative reality” —Kastner's quantumland, Bohm's implicate
order, Jung's archetypal world, Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields, Laszlo's
akashic field or Haramein's unified spatial memory network— perhaps easy
explanations can be found for many of the parapsychological experiences
discussed.
—The root problem of science without consciousness. Materialistic science has usually flatly rejected the claims of spiritual traditions in the name of reason. Perhaps, in principle, this attitude made a lot of sense, within the pretense of finding natural explanations for the phenomena of the world, without resorting to magical divine interventions. But, in fact, this rejection led to the unfortunate and impoverishing marginalization of an immense field of deep and rigorous investigations into the inner world, developed over many centuries in many different cultures. It is surprising to verify the enormous coherence of these experiential investigations, as has been revealed in the so-called “perennial philosophy”. We would like to highlight here, in a very special way, the non-dual schools that are present in all the great wisdom traditions: in philosophical Taoism, in Hinduism —Advaita Vedānta, Kashmiri Shaivism—, in Mahāyāna Buddhism —chan, zen—, in vajrayāna Buddhism —mahāmudrā, dzogchen—, in Judaism —kabbalah—, in Christianity —Rhenish and Castilian mysticism—, in Islam —sufism—… In all these schools we can find abundant and luminous references about of the fundamental realm that we have called “absolute non-dual reality”. It seems that the time has come to break the narrow limits of the materialist paradigm and begin to propose larger worldviews, capable of integrating, without prejudice, all the facets —interior and exterior, individual and collective— in which the unfathomable Emptiness unfolds. Perhaps, in the end, we will discover that reality—our true reality—is much more fascinating than we could ever have imagined.
(Note: The English version of this Addendum 8 is made using Google translate)
Addendum 9: Holographic evolution
In this addendum we are going to present an intriguing
coincidence that has arisen unexpectedly in the course of the present research
about the pattern of evolution. From the outset, this enigmatic coincidence raised
the question of whether it was simply a mere chance or whether, on the
contrary, the matter had truly profound and revolutionary implications. The
question has been hanging around for quite a few years until, recently,
surprising investigations carried out in theoretical physics on the holographic
principle have opened up the possibility of a fascinating solution to that
intriguing synchrony that appeared fortuitously in our work.
To focus the issue a bit, we are going to briefly recall a central point of the previously developed research. If the reader has taken a look at the original text of the article Beyond Darwin: The hidden rhythm of evolution, they will have been able to see how a very precise harmonic-spiral-fractal pattern is revealed in the deployment process of the successive evolutionary levels of the integral spectrum of energy-consciousness that punctuates both human phylogeny and ontogeny. All trajectories start at a breakneck rhythm at their origin (A), slow down progressively as they move toward a certain level of the spectrum, and then speed up again until they reach breakneck speeds again when they start approaching the final moment (Ω). In Figures 7-A and 7-B we have schematized this idea:
Recently, two Big History scholars, Leonid Grinin and
Andrey Korotayev, have edited a book entitled Evolution: Trajectories of
Social Evolution, which has been published in Russia by “Uchitel”. In one
of its chapters, entitled Non-Dual Singularity, we have been able to
outline the core of our research and its ultimate implications: https://www.sociostudies.org/upload/sociostudies.org/book/evol_8_en/08_Faixat.pdf . Next, we
reproduce the Abstract that heads this chapter:
“The Universe emerged in a violent Singularity
—basically of energy— generating vertiginous transformations. Later, due to
cooling, the emergence of novelties slowed down gradually. After the formation
of the solar system and the subsequent emergence of life on our planet, the
rhythm of creative transformations began to increase progressively, first
through biological evolution and, later, through human development and
expansion of civilizations. Currently, the emergence of novelties is again
dizzying and everything seems to indicate that we are fast approaching another
imminent Singularity —basically of consciousness— of infinite creativity.
In this paper we propose that both Singularities —A
and Ω— are nothing but the polar expression of the fundamental Void always
present, ‘prior’ to its apparent dualization as energy and consciousness. The
initial and final Singularities would not be, in this way, but the points of
exit from and entry to this eternally self-evident non-dual Emptiness that,
instant after instant, manifests itself in and as the world of forms.”
This same evolutionary deceleration-acceleration scheme is clearly reflected on the cover of a book entitled Futuro No Lineal —Nonlinear Future— written precisely by another Russian researcher of Big History, Akop Nazaretyan, published in Spanish by the Argentine publisher Suma Qamaña:
Without apparent relation to all this, the American astrophysicists Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt and Adam G. Riess received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011 for providing evidence in favor of the acceleration in the expansion of the universe through observations of distant supernovae. This discovery was completely unexpected, since until then it was thought that, although the universe was certainly expanding since its origin, the rhythm had been decreasing due to the mutual gravitational attraction between distant galaxies, albeit slowly due to the low density of matter-energy present in the universe. Evidence from Perlmutter, Schmidt, and Riess conclusively demonstrated that about 4.5 billion years ago —about 9 billion years after the Big Bang— the slowing rhythm of expansion reversed, and from then the universe began to expand at an ever-increasing speed, starting an era dominated by an alleged and mysterious "dark energy" that causes the "accelerated expansion of the universe". In the framework of general relativity, an accelerating expansion can be explained by a positive value of the cosmological constant, usually denoted by the capital Greek letter lambda (Λ). While possible alternative explanations exist, the description assuming dark energy (positive Λ) is used in the current standard model of cosmology, which also includes cold dark matter (CDM) and is known as the Λ-CDM model. In relation to the subject we are dealing with, we would like to point out here that, precisely, in the Wikipedia article on the "cosmological constant", the text that appears at the bottom of the initial graph is, literally, the following: "Sketch of the timeline of the Universe in the ΛCDM model. The accelerated expansion in the last third of the timeline represents the dark-energy dominated era.” (The bolds are mine.) Next, we include an image, also taken from Wikipedia, which clearly expresses the slowdown and acceleration phases in the expansion of the universe:
It is enough to observe the shape and chronology of the global trajectory resulting from the recently discovered expansion of the universe, to realize its complete parallelism with the shape and chronology of the global trajectory of the evolutionary process of the "macrocosm" revealed in our research. The inflection point between the deceleration and acceleration phases in the expansion process of the universe —at the beginning of “the last third of the timeline”— exactly coincides with the inflection point between the deceleration and acceleration phases of the process of emergence of the successive evolutionary levels that we have analyzed in this paper, since, as we can remember, it takes place in the second node of the standing wave corresponding to the second harmonic, that is, precisely at the beginning of the third third of the global trajectory.
Was all this a mere coincidence or did the matter have
a deeper meaning?... At first glance, it did not appear that the expansion of
the universe had anything to do with the evolutionary process of matter, life,
mind and spirit, through which progressively complex and conscious organisms
develop, but…
Recently, reading the beautiful book Cosmometry
by the American researcher Marshall Lefferts —from Nassim Haramein's team— I
found the following text on page 120: “Both Haramein and the cosmologist
Jude Currivan propose that there is an informational aspect of universal
expansion, wherein the total information content of the universe is constantly
increasing, thus requiring a growing volume of pixelated spacetime within which
to accommodate this informational evolution." And, at the bottom of
that same page, I was also able to read: “In a personal conversation with
me, Currivan elaborated that in every Planck-scale moment the universe adds
another set of information that is encoded into the expanding field of
spacetime, and that the expansion of space and flow of time is
evolution, without which there would be no evolutionary experience of
consciousness." Eureka! At that moment I had the feeling that,
finally!, the long-awaited explanation of the "mysterious"
parallelism found between the accelerated expansion of the universe and the
accelerated deployment of the evolution of consciousness, began to be within
reach.
This new understanding of the universe that has begun
to be considered in recent decades revolves around what is known as the
"holographic principle", in which some of the most eminent theoretical
physicists of our time are involved, such as Leonard Susskind, Gerard 't Hooft,
Jacob Bekenstein, Tom Banks, Ted Jacobson, Juan Martín Maldacena or Raphael
Bousso. There is now a broad consensus among physicists working on string
theory and loop quantum gravity that the most fundamental scientific concept we
have in physics is the holographic principle. In fact, this principle is
probably the best guide we have at this time to achieve the long-sought
unification of relativity theory with quantum theory.
The history of this approach dates back to the early
1970s, when Wheeler and Bekenstein tried to understand what happens to an
object's encoded information when that object falls into a black hole. In the
mid-1990s, 't Hooft and Susskind relaunched this research by framing black hole
event horizons in terms of Planck area-sized pixels, each of which encodes a
single quantized bit of information. They called this idea the holographic
principle. Its basic postulate could be summarized by saying that all the information
contained in a certain volume of a concrete space can be known from the
codifiable information on the border of said region. In its broadest sense, the
theory suggests that all the information that makes up our space-time universe
would be contained in a two-dimensional surface located on the
observer-dependent cosmological horizon, in such a way that the
three-dimensional world we believe inhabit would ultimately be basically
illusory, like a holographic image projected from the far reaches of space.
American science writer Amanda Gefter —author of the
award-winning book Trespassing on Einstein's Lawn— has laid out with
great clarity the startling logical implications of the holographic principle
in the context of the discovery of dark energy and the accelerating expansion
of the universe. She claims that if we want to move towards a true theory of quantum
gravity —capable of unifying the general theory of relativity with quantum
mechanics— perhaps we should abandon the notion that we all share the same
universe and instead posit that each observer has his own universe, a complete
and singular reality. Next, we are going to summarize some basic ideas that
Gefter develops in her article Cosmic Solipsism.
According to the theory of relativity, no information
can escape from a black hole, however, according to quantum theory, it
inevitably has to. How to explain this inconsistency? In a flat space-time of a
world without gravity all observers would agree on the definition of the
objects contemplated, but when an event horizon is introduced, the
(accelerated) observers outside that horizon and the (inertial) observers that
who fall through it will perceive incommensurable realities among themselves.
The accelerated observer will see the information radiating from the event
horizon, while the inertial observer will see the information falling into it.
That is, according to the accelerated observer the horizon produces particles,
and according to the inertial observer, the horizon does not even exist and
does not perceive any radiation in the process. Faced with this tangled
crossroads, the holographic principle found a way to solve it by stating that
no observer can see the inside and outside of a black hole at the same time, so
that when it comes to horizons, we can talk about the world of the accelerated
observer or the world of the inertial observer, but never of both
simultaneously. We must, therefore, restrict ourselves to a single local point
of view, because, in case of not doing so, we would be violating the laws of
physics. This radical limitation in our description of reality has been called
“horizon complementarity”.
If horizon complementarity applied only to black holes
it could be considered a simple curiosity, but the fact is that its field of
application is actually much broader. Einstein's equivalence principle put
gravity and acceleration on an equal footing: the effects of the force of
gravity are completely identical to the effects of accelerated motion. Thus, if
gravity can form an event horizon —as it does in black holes— acceleration can
under any other circumstances as well. So, when it is space-time itself that is
expanding rapidly driven by the negative pressure of dark energy —as we have
seen at the beginning of this addendum—, any observer within that space-time
will find themselves surrounded by an event horizon. Given, then, that the location
of the horizon is always relative to the location of the observer, everything
seems to indicate that quantum gravity, ultimately, does not allow a unique,
objective and complete description of the universe and, therefore, it will be
necessary to formulate its laws with reference to a specific observer, not more
than one at a time. If we respect the complementarity of the horizon in an
rapidly expanding space-time, we will have to replace an incoherent global
description of reality with a local description accessible to a single
observer. The existence of dark energy makes each frame of reference a universe
unto itself, the end and all of reality. In other words, we may have to accept
the notion that there is my universe and your universe, but there
is no such thing as the universe.
In this same line of thought, the American theoretical
physicist and neurologist James P. Kowall has delved into the holographic
principle to its ultimate implications —without letting himself be carried away
by the materialistic prejudices that grip many researchers—, finally reaching a
revolutionary understanding of the reality that, unexpectedly, is completely in
tune with the central message of all the great non-dual wisdom traditions.
Next, we are going to summarize some of the ideas that Kowall exposes in the
numerous and clarifying articles of his. [The reader interested in knowing the
more technical details of his approach can consult the Science and
Nonduality page: https://scienceandnonduality.wordpress.com/ ].
The holographic principle is a radical idea that
things do not actually exist in three-dimensional space, but that the
appearance of things in any region of space is a holographic projection from
that region's two-dimensional bounding surface to the point of view of a
central off-screen observer. The observer's horizon thus acts as a holographic
screen that encodes the entangled qubits —quantum bits— of information about
all the things the observer can see in that bounded region of space. The
expression of dark energy allows the universe to expand and cool as entropy
increases, the cosmological constant changes to a lower value, and the
observer's cosmic horizon increases in radius. This is how more information
qubits are encoded for the universe as the observer's cosmic horizon increases
its surface area.
The bounding surface of space arises naturally as an
event horizon every time the observer enters an accelerating frame of
reference, like a cosmic horizon that arises every time dark energy is spent
and space appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate from the point of
view of the observer located at the center of the singularity. The nature of
observation is thus reduced to three components: the bounding surface of
space, which arises in the observer's frame of reference and acts as a
holographic screen, the observer's consciousness at the central point of
view of that limited region of space, and the holographic projection of
the images of all things that the observer can contemplate. These things,
therefore, do not really exist in three-dimensional space, but arise from the
configuration states of the information encoded on the observer's holographic
screen and are therefore nothing more than mere virtual images projected from
that screen. The observer, ultimately, is only the perceptive consciousness
present at the central point of view, that is, a single point of consciousness.
The whole process of observing can only start when the
energy is spent and the observer enters an accelerated frame of
reference. If this does not happen, there is no observation of anything. There
can be no creation without perception. Creation and perception are simultaneous
events. The state in which no energy is expended is the state of a freely
falling observer, in which there is no acceleration and no boundary surface of
space, and therefore in which nothing is observed. In fact, modern cosmology
reveals that the total energy of the observable universe is exactly zero. This
is possible because the negative potential energy of gravitational attraction
can cancel all forms of positive energy such as dark energy, mass energy, or
kinetic energy. Ultimately, therefore, nothing really exists. The apparent
existence of everything is simply an illusory manifestation of nothingness. The
space-time totality is, finally, this holographic disguise of nothingness
appearing as something.
There are three big questions: where does the
observer's consciousness come from?, where does the energy
inherent in the observer's accelerated frame of reference come from?, and where
does the information encoded on the observer's holographic screen come from?
The perceiving consciousness of the observer, viewing his own
holographic world from that world's central vantage point, and the expression
of dark energy, placing the observer in an accelerated frame of
reference that creates that holographic world, arise together, simultaneously,
from the true vacuum state. The emptiness of nothingness or the true state of
emptiness that gives rise to the creation of the physical universe, is
also the primordial nature of the perceiving consciousness of the
observer who contemplates his world. Emptiness is not only the potentiality to
create all things, but also the potentiality to perceive all things.
The observer's consciousness cannot arise in a brain within a body, since a
body is simply another perceptible thing in that world, no more real than a
holographic image projected from a screen to the observer's central point of
view. The source of the observer's perceiving consciousness must be the
same void of nothingness that gives rise to the creation of the observer's perceptible
world. This void of nothingness is limitless and, for lack of a better
description, we could call it limitless consciousness. Somehow, this
nothingness is also infinite unity, undifferentiated and formless. Emptiness is
the primordial or ultimate nature of existence.
Correctly interpreted, the holographic principle tells
us that the physical world is only an expression of the potentiality of the
void. Through its geometric mechanisms, the void has the potential to create
a world for itself and to observe that world from its central vantage
point. The observer and the holographic world of him always arise together in a
subject-object relationship of perception. There is no objective physical world
out there, but everything emerges in a subject-object relationship that occurs
when the observer enters an accelerated frame of reference and their event
horizon emerges, acting as a holographic screen when encoding qubits of
information. Whatever the observer beholds is both an objective reality and a
subjective reality. There is no way to remove the subjective observer from the
observation. Everything that can be perceived in the world, which quantum
theory refers to as an observation or measurement of the world, occurs in a
subject-object relationship. By its very nature, the quantum state of potentiality
is an unobserved state until it is observed, at which point it is reduced to an
observed state of actuality. It just doesn't make sense to talk about
the quantum state as an objective physical reality. The quantum state is just a
state of potentiality. It describes what can probably be observed, not what is
actually observed. When the observer focuses their attention on their own
holographic world, the observer's consciousness becomes focused on one point of
view and the observer's holographic world appears to come into being. The
observer's holographic world can only appear to come into existence when the
observer focuses their attention on that world. The observer must be present as
a presence of consciousness at the center of his own world for that world to
appear to exist.
Unifying quantum theory with relativity theory is the
problem of making sense of the observer in both theories. Relativity speaks of
the observer observing or measuring the relativistic properties of their
objects in an accelerated frame of reference, whereas quantum theory speaks of
the observer observing or measuring the quantized properties of their objects
as those properties arise from a quantum state of potentiality. The key point
is that these observations always occur in the subject-object perception
relationship. Neither quantum theory nor relativity theory really has anything
significant to say about the nature of the observer, other than that the
observer sees some property of an object in a subject-object relationship. The
problem that physicists seem unwilling to face is that everything perceptible
arises in a subject-object relationship when the subject perceives some
observable property in an object. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn
from all this is that not only the perceptible object arises from the
void state as an excitation of energy and information, but the perceiving
subject also arises from the void state. This tells us fundamentally that
the vacuum state is not only the source of all the energy and information
inherent in objects, but also the source of the consciousness that perceives
the properties of all those objects. The triad of energy, information and
perception of consciousness have to arise together in a subject-object
relationship of perception, and they do so simultaneously from the state of
emptiness.
The origin of universal manifestation occurs when the
void is projected as the perceiving consciousness of all observers present at
the central point of view of their own holographic worlds. The only reason
different observers view different worlds is because each observer is located
in its own coordinate system that moves relative to other coordinate systems.
In any case, the perceiving consciousness in each and every one of the
determined points of view is the same and unique consciousness, only that,
being located in different points of view, it contemplates different universes.
Each observer has his own bubble and is at the center of his own world. The
various observers do not exist within the same world, but each have their own
world defined on their own viewing screen. How, then, can one explain a
consensual reality shared by many observers, each present at the central point
of view of their own holographic world? The answer lies in the fact that when
their holographic screens overlap, they can share information. Information
encoded on one display screen is correlated with information encoded on another
screen due to quantum entanglement. Each display screen defines an information
state that includes all the possible ways that information can be encoded in
all the different pixels. What seems to happen in any one bubble is connected
to what seems to happen in the other bubbles as bits of information in those
different states of information interact with each other, align, and share
their content. Holography demonstrates that consensus reality is made up of
multiple interlocking worlds, each defined on its own viewing screen and each
viewed from its own point of view. Consensus reality is not a single objective
reality, but many intertwined worlds that share information with each other.
The quantum state of potentiality of the universe is a sum of all the bubbles
in the vacuum.
Every time an observer makes an observation of
something in your holographic world, the tangled information encoded on your
holographic screen is disentangled and the quantum state of potentiality is
reduced to an actual observed state. Until observed, everything in that
holographic world only exists at the level of entangled qubits of information
encoded on the observer's own holographic screen. Each observation is thus a
perceptible holistic event in which the entangled quantum state of that
holographic world is disentangled, and thus the observation of anything in that
world affects the observation of everything else. The coherent organization of
the form develops naturally because all the information qubits encoded on the
observer's holographic screen are entangled and those entangled information
qubits tend to align. The coherent organization of information allows the
development of observable forms of information, which self-replicate over a sequence
of events. In the sense of quantum theory, each event is a decision point where
the quantum state of that world bifurcates, due to the different ways that bits
of information can be encoded across all the pixels on the display screen. The
observed events of that world are not predetermined, but rather encoded in a
quantum state of potentiality, best understood as the sum of all possible
paths.
For an integral understanding of the holographic
world, it is essential to highlight the distinction between unlimited
consciousness —which is the nature of the undifferentiated void that has the
inexhaustible potential to create endless finite worlds of forms— and limited
consciousness —which is the nature of an individual observer and his observed
world—. This limited consciousness arises from the illusory self-identification
of the unlimited consciousness with the central character of a given movie.
This is a peculiar aspect of existence in a holographic world. The fact that
the observer places the focus of attention on the life of his character is what
creates the hypnotic spell of self-identification. With personal
self-identification, there is the mistaken assumption that the source of the
observer's consciousness is that central character appearing in the perceived
holographic virtual reality world, which is logically impossible. The
observer's body is just one more form of information that appears in his
holographic world. When the observer emotionally identifies with a body and
takes himself as such, it is as if that body were the subject in the
subject-object perception relationship. The observer's body is taken as the
perceiving subject, and all other objects that appear in the observer's
holographic world are considered as objects of perception. In reality, the
observer himself is the subject, and his body is just another object of
perception that appears in his holographic world among all other objects of
perception. Behind all this illusory game of self-identifications, the ultimate
reality is that there is only one consciousness in everyone, but there are many
different points of view within that consciousness, each perceiving their own
mind and their own world on their own screen. As we have said, the observer
must be present so that the quantum state of potentiality can be actualized,
from instant to instant, as a concrete state of the manifested world. Thus,
when the observer is no longer present, his world and his mind disappear from
apparent existence and his limited consciousness returns to the undifferentiation
of unlimited consciousness. As Nisargadatta Maharaj stated: “All limited
existence is imaginary. Even space and time are imaginary. The pure being,
which fills everything and beyond everything, is not limited. Only the
limitless is real."
Having outlined so far the basic characteristics of
the holographic principle, as well as its solipsistic implications, exposed by
Amanda Gefter, and its non-dual implications, revealed by Jim Kowall, we
believe that we already have the necessary tools to clarify the intriguing
parallelism found between the accelerated expansion of the universe and the
accelerated unfolding of the evolution of life, which we have raised at the
beginning of this addendum. To focus the issue, then, we are going to summarize
below some basic points that we have developed in previous addenda or in the
initial article.
In order to reach a truly integral understanding of
the subject we are dealing with, it is completely necessary to refer to at
least three different facets in the All-One: non-dual absolute reality,
potential relative reality, and spatiotemporal relative reality.
—Non-dual absolute reality: Since all
manifested reality inexorably appears in the form of interdependent dualities
—subject/object, inside/outside, origin/end—, we can understand them as polar
manifestations of a reality that transcends them and that it is “prior” to that
dualization. Physicists speak of infinite potential energy in the original
quantum void, and sages speak of infinite transparent consciousness in the
final mystical void. Our proposal is that these two voids are the same and
unique absolute Emptiness, perceived objectively by physicists and subjectively
by contemplatives, but which, in itself, is neither objective nor subjective,
but unity, identity or indifference of both facets simultaneously.
—Potential relative reality: Since non-dual
Emptiness is completely devoid of the slightest separation between subject and
object, it cannot be perceived in any way. For this reason, if it wants to
contemplate itself, it has no choice but to unfold as an original objective
pole —basically of energy— and a final subjective pole —basically of
consciousness—, fully maintaining its empty essence. Between both poles a wide
spectrum of balances is generated between both polar facets, which covers the
entire range from the most basic states —of enormous energy and little
consciousness— to the highest —of little energy and enormous consciousness—.
When this illusory distance of energy-consciousness generated between both
poles enters into vibration —like a guitar string— a characteristic fundamental
sound and all its unlimited range of harmonic sounds (standing waves) are
instantly produced. This means that, let's look closely, from the very
originary moment the entire archetypal spectrum of energy-consciousness is
already fully present in an entangled and resonant way. The successive second
harmonics that arise with the vibration of the original "string" of
energy-consciousness are, precisely, the potential levels of stratified
stability that will be updated, one after the other, along the successive steps
of universal evolution.
—The spatiotemporal relative reality: In a
previous addendum we have outlined the basic characteristics of the nested
toroidal dynamics through which the potential reality of the archetypal
foundation is actualized and unfolds in the illusory holographic world of space-time
forms. The departure and return, instant after instant, from and towards that
foundation, through its finite and fleeting manifestation in and as the
holographic space-time, allows one to actualize, one after another, the
successive potential levels of stability of the spectrum of
energy-consciousness. This intrinsically creative recursive dynamic between
“potential reality” and “actualized reality” is mediated by the unified field
of memory that, step by step, is gestating at a fundamental level. All the
information collected at any point-instant of the manifested world is
immediately introjected into the basic field of collective memory, which, in
this way, increases, moment by moment, its creative potential. The ultimate
claim of the universal evolutionary manifestation consists in reproducing in a
broken down and integrated way, in the world of finite appearances, the
non-duality of undifferentiated energy-consciousness, characteristic of
fundamental Emptiness. It is, finally, the inexhaustible attempt of Nothingness
to contemplate its invisible face in infinite ways.
In non-dual absolute reality the object and the
subject —energy and consciousness— are undifferentiated, in potential
relative reality the object and subject are differentiated but entangled,
and in spatiotemporal relative reality the object and subject they are
differentiated and (apparently) separated. We can exemplify these three
possibilities by representing non-dual absolute reality with 0, potential
relative reality with a qubit (unit of quantum information) —which not only has
the basic states of 0 and 1, but can be found in a state of quantum
superposition, with the simultaneous combination of both states—, and to the
relative reality manifested with a classical bit —which can represent one of
those two values: 0 or 1, like, for example, in the case of a light bulb, which
can be in one of these two states: either on or off. That is, a bit can contain
a value (0 or 1), a qubit simultaneously contains both values (0 and
1), and absolute 0 lacks any type of information... or, rather, it includes
everything in an undifferentiated way. The passage of potential relative
reality —Kastner's “quantumland”, Bohm's “implicate order”, Jung's
archetypal “unus mundus”, Sheldrake's “morphogenetic field”, Laszlo's
“akashic field” or the Haramein's "unified spatial memory network"—to
the actualized relative reality —the holographic spatiotemporal universe that
we believe we inhabit— can be schematized, as we will see below, through the
interactive dynamics between the objective (energy) and subjective
(consciousness) poles in which the non-dual Emptiness unfolds —the simple
absolute Presence, the mere Consciousness-of-Being, the pure Self-Evidence
without form, the diaphanous ultimate Identity of everything and everyone—.
What so far we have called potential relative reality
bears a suggestive similarity to what students of the holographic principle
know as the holographic plate. In both cases, we are talking about a potential
field of entangled information that is holographically projected to the eyes of
a determined observer as a space-time universe. That is to say, the holographic
plate (or potential relative reality) is not located in any particular place or
moment in space-time, but, on the contrary, it is the entirety of space-time
that is potentially located in the holographic plate. As we have seen above,
potential relative reality is the common archetype of all possible world lines
unfolding in holographic space-time. All these lines of the world —the
different modes of vibration of the “string” of energy-consciousness that runs
through the illusory distance between the objective and subjective poles, which
we have posited at the heart of our evolutionary hypothesis— start from the
same original pole —basically of energy— and are oriented towards the same
final pole —basically of consciousness—, but their trajectory can be
"tuned" in many different ways, at any of the levels of the
energy-consciousness spectrum, from the most basic or material to the highest
or spiritual. In the addendum on entropic-syntropic evolution we have explained
how potential retarded waves (starting from the original energy pole and
flowing forward in time) and potential advanced waves (starting from the final
consciousness pole and flowing backward in time) resonate with each other at a
certain level of the spectrum —standing wave or musical harmonic—, which acts
as a fundamental sound, and with this "handshake" between both flows
the transaction is completed —wave function collapse— that manifests itself in
a concrete event in space-time. Put another way, “every time an observer makes
an observation of something in his holographic world, the entangled information
encoded on his holographic screen is disentangled and the quantum state of
potentiality is reduced to an actual observed state.”
As we have suggested a moment ago, the passage from
potential relative reality —the holographic plate— to actualized relative
reality —the holographic space-time universe— can be unraveled through
understanding the mutual dynamics between the objective pole (energy) and
subjective pole (consciousness) in which the non-dual Emptiness is apparently
dualized. The key is to understand that the separation process between both
poles can be interpreted in two different ways. In one, the object moves away
from the subject. In the other, the subject moves away from the object. Let's
see each one of them.
From the perspective of the holographic principle,
there is no objective physical world out there, but rather everything emerges
in a subject-object relationship that occurs when the observer enters an
accelerated reference frame and their event horizon acts as a screen
holographic when it encodes qubits of information. This accelerated movement is
usually interpreted as referring to the expansion of the universal bubble in
the eyes of the observer located in its center. What is absolutely amazing
about the observer's consciousness is that relativity theory tells us that the
observer's central point of view is exactly the singularity of the Big Bang
event. So, each observer has their own Big Bang event that creates their own
holographic world. That is to say, all the observers of the universe are in the
immovable center of the cosmic expansion and have remained there since the
beginning of time. At the time of the Big Bang, the universe had a diameter of
about one Planck length (10-33 cm), and space has been expanding
outward at an exponential rhythm ever since. Each observer contemplates this
accelerating expansion of the universe relative to his own point of view at the
center of the universe. What we call the universe is actually an observer's own
holographic world. As we have said, the expression of dark energy allows the
universe to expand and cool as entropy increases, the cosmological constant
changes to a lower value, and the observer's cosmic horizon increases in
radius. This is how more and more qubits of information for the universe are
gradually being encoded as the observer's cosmic horizon increases in surface
area. In this sense, as we have commented, Haramein and Currivan explain that
there is an informational aspect of universal expansion, since the fact that
the total information content of the universe constantly increases requires a
growing volume of pixelated space-time within which to accommodate this
informational evolution.
Next to this perspective in which it is stated that
the objective universe is rapidly moving away —outwards— from the observing
subject, we can make another reading in which it is the observing subject that
is rapidly moving away —inwards— from the objective material universe. Instead
of speaking, then, of a progressive expansion of the objective universe,
we will speak of a progressive internalization in the realm of
subjective consciousness. To expose this alternative approach, we are going to
recall here, briefly, an idea that we have exposed in our article. We can
summarize the entire evolutionary process stating that in the original moment
and during the first stages of development of matter, the facet of
consciousness was absorbed in the facet of energy. With the emergence of life,
the facet of consciousness jumps inwards, separates itself from mere matter,
perceives it, and thus can act on it. With the emergence of the human mind,
the facet of consciousness jumps inwards again, self-consciousness appears,
which is separated from the simple subconscious life, thus increasing the
capacity for action on the natural world. With the emergence of the rational intellect,
the facet of consciousness jumps inwards again, which allows us to think about
thought and, in this way, the understanding of how things work and, therefore,
the ability to intervene increases exponentially about them. All this process
is possible due to the presence, from the very originary moment, of pure
consciousness ―the “witness” of which the Hindu tradition speaks― as the final
pole of the process. Therefore, it should be clarified that this final pole of
pure consciousness does not evolve at all —because it remains full and
immutable at all times—, but its reflection and identification with the
different entities and organisms that develop throughout the process —atoms ,
molecules, cells, multicellular organisms, vertebrates, mammals, primates,
apes, humans...— it does evolve in terms of its ability to actualize that full
consciousness, which allows progressively increasing the ability of organisms
to capture, store, process and respond to information from the environment.
This accelerated evolutionary process has been described by the British
theoretical physicist and experimental psychologist Peter Russell as a spiral
movement through a "white hole in time", which, displaying
increasing levels of complexity, connectivity and consciousness, is heading
towards a next final Omega Point.
We have said before that the observer and his holographic world always arise together in a subject-object relationship of perception. For this reason, we propose that the two interpretations of the universal dynamics that we have just exposed —the accelerated expansion of the external world and the accelerated evolution of the internal world—, far from representing two independent realities, are, on the contrary, two complementary descriptions of a same and unique process. When, at the beginning of this addendum, we highlighted the surprising synchrony between the process of expansion of the universe and the process of evolution of life, we suggested that, at first sight, the two phenomena did not seem to have anything to do with each other. But, once the fundamental characteristics of the holographic principle have been exposed, we have understood that these two processes are not only closely related, but that they are, even more, two perspectives on the same and unique reality. The increase in the number of information qubits as the observer's cosmic horizon expands is nothing but the objective expression of the growth in the capacity to actualize subjective consciousness in the successive organisms that unfold throughout evolution. Viewed in this way, the total formal and chronological similarity —described in the first paragraphs of this addendum— between the global expansion trajectory of the universe and the global evolutionary deployment trajectory, far from being a mere coincidence, is the expression logical and natural from the fact that both processes are only two partial perspectives of the same and unique subject-object process. So, we can say, indistinctly, that the universe expands because life evolves or that life evolves because the universe expands. Ultimately, subject and object are not two, but the simple illusory appearance through which the non-dual Emptiness tries to contemplate its eternally invisible face.
(Note: The English version of this Addendum 9 is made using Google translate)
Addendum 10: Integral Singularity
Abstract
For some decades now, in the field of information technology and computing, after observing the accelerated progress of technology in recent times, there has been speculation that, shortly, a point of no return will be reached —to which It has been called the technological Singularity— in which the rhythm of change will be dizzying, the acceleration curve will become vertical, and artificial intelligence will far surpass human intelligence. Some even believe that superintelligent machines, as they become the dominant species on the planet, will end up devaluing human beings until they become obsolete organisms and, in the long run, leading humanity to extinction. Our research on the rhythm of evolution and history —which reveals the existence of a very precise spiral-fractal pattern, hidden in the universal process and oriented towards a point of Singularity within a couple of centuries—, far from marginalizing human beings at that peak moment in history, they make him the true protagonist. Therefore, in this Addendum, after summarizing the key points of our research, we will try to answer some of the main questions that are being raised around the Singularity hypothesis: Will the technological Singularity really occur? When could that expected/feared moment take place? Can we truly conceive of a conscious machine? What are the ultimate implications of the Singularity? How can humanity face the process of approaching that peak moment in history?... Perhaps, in the end, we will come to glimpse that reality, our own reality, is more fascinating than we could have ever imagined.
1. Introduction
The transdisciplinary research that we are developing about the surprising creative dynamics deployed during the history of the universe reveals that the great evolutionary novelties that have emerged throughout the process, far from being simple contingent, fortuitous and unpredictable events, have been emerging from ordered form, according to a very precise spiral, harmonic and fractal pattern. In summary, we can speak of a double divergent-convergent spiral that, starting from the dizzying creativity of the original pole of the Big Bang, gradually slows down until reaching the moment of formation of the solar system and, from there, begins to accelerate again progressively, first through biological evolution on our planet and, later, through human development and the expansion of civilizations, until reaching the current moment, in which the rhythm of emergence of novelties is once again dizzying and everything seems to indicate that we are rapidly approaching a definitive pole of infinite creativity that will take place in a couple of centuries, around the year 2217.
When we began this research, back in 1981, the mere suggestion of the existence of a spiral pattern in the evolutionary process, and its inexorable orientation towards an imminent pole of convergence, was considered pure blasphemy for official science. The only references available at that time were far outside the academic spheres. The most relevant, from the Western perspective, was, without a doubt, the French paleontologist and theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), who, observing the increase in complexity and consciousness throughout the evolutionary process —cosmosphere, biosphere, noosphere, pneumosphere—, defended the existence of a final pole of attraction —which he called the Omega Point— in which the full unification of matter and spirit would take place. And, from the Eastern perspective, the clearest exponent of a similar approach was, without a doubt, the Indian poet and philosopher Aurobindo Ghose (1872-1950), who, understanding that the origin of the universe was the result of the involution of the Spirit in matter, he proposed that the entire cosmic evolutionary process was nothing more than the return movement of matter —through life and mind— towards the supramental summit, the non-dual nexus of absolute reality and the relative world.
Obviously, all these proposals clashed head-on with many of the central assumptions of conventional science, but, surprisingly, over the last decades they have begun to appear, in the environment of what has been called the “technological Singularity”, numerous works that clearly resonate with those “pseudoscientific” approaches about the accelerated and convergent dynamics of evolutionary development.
The term “singularity” is used with different meanings in various fields of science. For example, in mathematics, it can be used to refer to certain functions that present unexpected, extreme or infinite behaviors, or, in relativistic physics, it can refer to the hypothetical initial point of the universe of infinite density that gave rise to the Big Bang, or, of the likewise, it can be used to designate certain “places” in space-time —such as black holes— where fundamental magnitudes, such as curvature, become infinite because very large concentrations of matter and energy, driven by the gravitational force, they end up collapsing until they are reduced to an infinitely small point. In the field of information technology and computing, observing the accelerated progress of technology in recent times, there has been speculation that, shortly, a point of no return will be reached —technological singularity— in which the rhythm of change will be dizzying, the acceleration curve will become vertical and artificial intelligence will far surpass human intelligence, with unpredictable and uncontrollable results for civilization as we know it. Because, just as in black holes —physical singularities— it is not possible to see beyond the event horizon, in the technological singularity we cannot even glimpse what will happen beyond it because it will completely exceed our current cognitive capabilities.
Next, to familiarize ourselves in some way with the topic, we are going to refer to some of the authors who have been key to the development of this idea over the last century. We will limit ourselves only to giving some significant data from the pioneering researchers who, throughout the 20th century, have placed emphasis on the technological aspects of the process, and we will leave for later those others who have studied the topic of evolutionary acceleration —and its final asymptotic instant—from other perspectives.
2. Brief history of the technological singularity
Perhaps the first theorist to speculate on the possibility of an event similar to the technological singularity was the American historian Henry B. Adams, who, in 1904, having noted the rapid development of science and technology throughout the 19th century, proposed the existence of a law of acceleration of progress, defined and constant like any law of mechanics. In 1909, Adams developed this idea further in the essay The Rule of Phase Applied to History, in which he proposed a "physical theory of history" by applying the law of inverse squares to historical periods, suggesting that the world may now be immersed in an inexorable acceleration towards a “phase change” in the relationship between technology and humanity of unimaginable consequences. In this work, Adams statistically determined the average duration of each new phase of human history and proposed a Religious Phase of 90,000 years, a Mechanical Phase of 300 years, an Electrical Phase of 17 years and an Ethereal Phase of 4 years, which, finally, "would push Thought to the limit of its possibilities", suggesting that the asymptote —the singularity of the phase change— could occur at any time between 1921 and 2025.
In any case, it seems that it was the Hungarian mathematician and physicist John von Neumann who, in the late 1940s or early 1950s, first used the term “singularity” to describe his vision of a future runaway progression in computational events. Some time later, in 1958, the mathematician Stanislaw Ulam, recounting a conversation with von Neumann, wrote: “One conversation centered on the ever accelerating progress of technology and changes in the mode of human life, which gives the appearance of approaching some essential singularity in the history of the race beyond which human affairs, as we know them, could not continue.”
In 1965, British mathematician and computer scientist Irving J. Good —author of the book Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine— was the first to use the concept “intelligence explosion” to suggest that if machines were to slightly surpass human intellect, they could recursively improve their own designs in ways unforeseeable by their designers, leading to a dizzying cascade of self-improvements and a surge in super intelligence —that is, a singularity—. It appears that, years later, Good wrote in an unpublished autobiographical statement that he suspected that an ultra-intelligent machine would lead to human extinction.
It was in this same year of 1965, when the American chemist and entrepreneur Gordon E. Moore, co-founder of Intel, published a document in the magazine Electronics in which he anticipated that the complexity of integrated semiconductor circuits would double each year with a reduction of commensurable cost. Known as “Moore's law,” his prediction has made the proliferation of technology possible throughout the world. Moore updated his prediction in 1975 to note that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every two years and this still holds true today. Many authors have used this “law” to make their predictions regarding the precise moment in which the technological singularity will take place.
The Austrian robotics and artificial intelligence researcher Hans Moravec is, perhaps, the pioneer in the study of the acceleration of computational change in the 20th century. In a series of articles published between 1974 and 1979 (and later in his 1988 book Mind Children) he generalizes and expands Moore's law on the pattern of exponential growth in the complexity of integrated semiconductor circuits, to also include technologies from long before the integrated circuit up to future forms of technology. Moravec describes a timeline and scenario in which robots will evolve into a new series of artificial species, starting in 2030-2040. In 1979, Moravec's ideas reached the general public through an article titled Today's computers, intelligent machines and our future. In the final part of this essay “he considers the implications of the emergence of intelligent machines, and concludes that they are the final step in a revolution in the nature of life. Classical evolution based on DNA, random mutations and natural selection may be completely replaced by the much faster process of intelligence mediated cultural and technological evolution.” Analyzing the future evolution of computers and humans, Moravec states that we are rapidly heading towards a post-biological form for all living intelligence and, “in the long run the sheer physical inability of humans to keep up with these rapidly evolving progeny of our minds will ensure that the ratio of people to machines approaches zero, and that a direct descendant of our culture, but not our genes, inherits the universe.”
At this point we want to remember that it is in that same decade, following the publication in 1977 of the book The Dragons of Eden —Pulitzer Prize in 1978— by the astronomer, cosmologist and scientific popularizer Carl Sagan, when the idea of evolutionary acceleration begins to become popular. In this book, Sagan proposes the metaphor of the “Cosmic Calendar” with which he shows that the great evolutionary novelties have been emerging in an increasingly accelerated manner throughout the last six billion years of the history of the universe. The Cosmic Calendar is a method to visualize the chronology of all universal history in which its total duration is equated with an annual calendar. The Big Bang is placed at midnight on cosmic January 1 and the current moment at midnight on December 31. In this calendar, the solar system appears on September 9, life on Earth emerges on the 30th of that month, the first dinosaur on December 25, the first primates on the 30th, the first Homo sapiens appear ten minutes before midnight of the last day of the year, and the entire history of humanity occupies only the last 21 seconds.
Returning to our story, we will say that the term singularity, linked specifically to the creation of intelligent machines, did not begin to be used until 1983, when the American mathematician and writer Vernor S. Vinge wrote a brief opinion article in the magazine Omni in which he said: “We will soon create intelligences superior to ours. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as space-time knotted at the center of a black hole, and the world will go far beyond our understanding.” In 1986, Vinge pressed the idea of the exponential acceleration of technological change in the science fiction novel Marooned in Realtime, set in a world of rapidly accelerating progress leading to the emergence of increasingly sophisticated technologies separated by increasingly shorter intervals of time, reaching a point beyond human comprehension. Years later, in 1993, Vinge himself wrote another article, titled The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era, which was very widely disseminated in the Internet and the idea of singularity then began to become very popular. This article contains a statement that has been cited numerous times: “Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.” Vinge refined his estimate of the necessary time scales, adding: "I would be surprised if this event occurs before 2005 or after 2030."
[As a mere curiosity, we can point out that it was precisely in this year 1993 when the pioneering article of the present research on the pattern of evolution, that we are still developing in these pages, was published. At the express invitation of Ervin Laszlo, I wrote the text in 1992, with the title A hypothesis on the rhythm of becoming, and it came to light in Volume 36 – Number 1 – 1993 of World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution, pages 31-56, with three fold-out graphics (9, 12 and 17) at the end of the paper copy. The article was also published online on June 4, 2010: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02604027.1993.9972329 ].
In this same 1990s, numerous authors began to appear with works related to the topic of technological singularity. For example, the American scientist Marvin L. Minsky —Will Robots Inherit the Earth?, 1994—, the American cultural entrepreneur John Brockman —editor of The Third Culture, 1995—, the American mathematician and computer scientist W. Daniel Hillis —Close to the singularity, 1995—, the Australian science fiction and popular science author Damien Broderick —The Spike, 1997—, the Swedish transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom —How long before superintelligence?, 1997—, British philosopher and futurologist Max More —co-founder and president of the Extropy Institute—, American strategic designer Natasha Vita-More —Create/Recreate: 3rd Millennial Culture, 1999—, the American futurist and prospective consultant John M. Smart —creator of the Acceleration Watch website [from which we have collected a lot of information], since 1999— [we will return to this author soon], but, perhaps, the most important fact for the massive dissemination of all these ideas has been the publication in this decade, by the American inventor and pioneer of artificial intelligence Ray Kurzweil, of two fundamental books: Age of Intelligent Machines, in 1990, and Age of Spiritual Machines, in 1999. In the first of them, Kurzweil examines the philosophical, mathematical and technological roots of artificial intelligence, puts highlights the astonishing growth in computing power in recent decades, and predicts the central role that AI will play in 21st century life. In the second, he broadly develops these ideas. He outlines his vision for how technology will progress in the coming years and predicts that within a couple of decades there will be machines with human-level intelligence available in affordable computing devices, revolutionizing most aspects of life. He presents his “law of accelerating returns” to explain why the computational power of computers is increasing exponentially and why “key events” occur more frequently as time passes. Kurzweil begins by noting that the frequency of novel events throughout the universe has been slowing since the Big Bang, while evolution has reached important milestones at an increasing rate. This is not a paradox, because —he writes— entropy (disorder) is increasing globally, but, simultaneously, local foci of increasing order are flourishing. Time speeds up as order increases.
Moore's law —remember— refers only to the growth of complexity in integrated semiconductor circuits. Kurzweil —like Moravec— expands the field of study and, after analyzing the development of technologies prior to that of these integrated circuits, observes that the geometric growth of processing capacity is prior to said paradigm and that, at least, it extends across four other technologies: early 20th century electromechanical equipment, relays, vacuum tubes, and early transistors. So, while he believes Moore's Law on integrated circuits will end around 2020, the law of accelerating returns will require that progress continue to accelerate, and therefore some other technology will be discovered or perfected to continue exponential growth. Kurzweil argues that whenever a technology reaches a certain type of barrier, a new replacement technology will be invented to cross that barrier, ultimately leading to “technological changes so rapid and profound that they will represent a rupture in the fabric of human history”.
In 2005, Ray Kurzweil published his most renowned work, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, through which the idea of singularity achieves full popularity in all media. Returning to his law of accelerated returns, he predicts an exponential increase in technologies such as computing, genetics —intersection between information and biology—, nanotechnology —intersection between information and the physical world— or robotics, and affirms that, a once the singularity is reached, machine intelligence will be infinitely more powerful than all human intelligence combined. It predicts that the next step in this inexorable evolutionary process will be the union of human and machine, in which the knowledge and abilities of our brains will be combined with the much greater capacity, speed and potential to share knowledge of our creations. He explains that the rhythm of evolutionary progress is exponential due to positive feedback, in which the results of one stage are used to create the next.
According to Kurzweil, the information processing capacity has been following exponential behavior for a long time before the appearance of the latest technologies. In fact, his hypothesis is that the pattern extends throughout the entire evolutionary process, from the very origin of life —almost four billion years ago— to reaching humans and current technology. Kurzweil summarizes evolution through the ages as progress through six epochs, each of which builds on the previous one. It states that the four epochs that have occurred so far are: Epoch 1. Physics and Chemistry: Information in atomic structures, Epoch 2. Biology: Information in DNA, Epoch 3. Brains: Information in neural patterns, and Epoch 4. Technology: Information in hardware and software designs. Kurzweil predicts that the singularity will coincide with the upcoming Epoch 5. The Fusion of Technology and Human Intelligence. After the singularity, he says, Epoch 6. The Universe Awakens will occur. Kurzweil places the moment of the singularity —a profound and disturbing transformation of human capabilities— in the middle of this century, around the year 2045, because, he claims, the non-biological intelligence created on that date will be a billion times more powerful than all human intelligence today. This circumstance, in principle, does not really seem definitive enough to be considered a true singularity in the cosmological sense in which we are proposing it, and, in fact, Kurzweil himself, in this same book, states that, starting in 2045, our civilization will expand outward, eventually converting all the dumb matter and energy we encounter into enormously intelligent (and transcendent) matter and energy. Ray specifies that we can saturate the universe with our intelligence before the end of the 22nd century, and concludes: “Once we saturate the matter and energy of the universe with intelligence, it will ‘awaken’, become conscious and supremely intelligent. It's the closest thing to God I can imagine.” So, according to this, it seems that the true evolutionary summit, the true Singularity that will imbibe the entire universe with its spirit, will not take place in the year 2045, but rather will occur at the end of the 22nd century, when all the energy and intelligence of the universe are experienced in a unified way. Viewing things this way, clear resonances can be found with the conclusions of our research, both in the planned date for the Singularity and in its deep meaning, since, as we have proposed in this article, it will be, precisely, at the beginning of the 23rd century —around the year 2217— when energy and consciousness discover their definitive non-duality. In any case, despite these coincidences, in a moment we are going to propose a possible alternative to Kurzweil's idea that our civilization will expand outwards, until it embraces the entire universe —which sounds excessively optimistic and adventurous—, suggesting, exactly, the opposite path, that is, that our civilization will be oriented inward, until reaching the very bowels of matter and consciousness, thus transcending the world of dualities in its unified foundation —beyond space and time— that is generating, moment after moment, the entire universal manifestation.
After this process of gestation of the idea of technological singularity that has taken place throughout the last century, we currently find ourselves with a very extensive debate on numerous questions that humanity is beginning to ask itself in the face of the increasingly evident exponential development of technology and the very foreseeable arrival of an explosive moment of artificial intelligence, when it will be a billion times more powerful than all human intelligence today: Will that enigmatic moment truly be reached one day? Is this just a purely theoretical and speculative idea? A simple utopian —or dystopian— approach from imaginative science fiction authors and transhumanist enthusiasts? Among those who take this concept seriously, there is a wide variety of opinions about the probability, how and when the singularity will occur. Some view it as an uncertain event, which may or may not occur. Many consider it an inevitable destiny. Others are actively working to prevent the creation of digital intelligence beyond human oversight. When could that expected/feared moment happen? There are futurists who see it as an almost imminent event. Most predict it could happen in the coming decades —between 2030 and 2080—. Others believe that there are still two or three centuries left. Or even more. In the event that the singularity happens, what would be the implications for human beings? There is also controversy on this point. The most optimistic believe that humans and machines will work together and, by integrating biological and technological elements —nanotechnology, biotechnology, neurotechnology, brain-computer interfaces— the development of our organisms will be promoted and our physical, perceptual and intellectual capabilities will increase. There are even those who venture the possibility of achieving cybernetic immortality by “downloading consciousness” (?) into some imperishable artifact. Optimists also believe that, at a collective level, it will be possible to create a planetary environment of abundance —in which all people will have all their needs met— which will bring us closer to achieving a more just, global and integrated society. Faced with this idyllic panorama, the most pessimistic predict, on the contrary, a future full of uncertainties and threats, given the serious dangers posed by the gradual loss of control of our lives in the face of the growing decision-making power of mechanisms with artificial intelligence. Some believe that superintelligent machines, as they become the dominant species on the planet, will devalue human beings until they become obsolete organisms, which, in the long run, may even lead to the extinction of humanity itself. Noting this disparity in criteria, some authors have predicted that we are inevitably heading towards a “artilect war”, which will break out before the end of the 21st century, between those who embrace artificial intelligence —“cosmists”— and those who reject it —“terrans"—. Faced with this apocalyptic panorama, it seems more sensible and cautious to approach the path towards singularity with less sectarian positions, which, while guaranteeing responsible control of the situation and respect for shared ethical values, are capable of actively integrating the extensive potentialities objectives of the technological world with the deep subjective capacities of human consciousness. There are ample reasons to think that this scenario is not only possible, but is the natural outcome of the long history of evolutionary development since its origin. Our research points strongly in this direction. Let's check it out.
3. Some key points from our research on the pattern of evolution
We are going to briefly recall some central ideas that have emerged throughout our research, since, we believe, they can serve to clarify, to a large extent, some of the doubts raised about the moment, the manner and the deep meaning of the singularity towards which we are rapidly heading.
At the outset, let's define the general framework. If we want to achieve a truly integral understanding of the singularity event, it is completely necessary to refer to at least three different realms within omni-comprehensive Reality: non-dual absolute reality, potential relative reality, and space-time relative reality. [See Addendum 8]. We have outlined these three areas as follows:
—Non-dual absolute reality: Given that all manifested reality appears, inexorably, in the form of interdependent dualities —subject/object, inside/out, origin/end—, we can understand them as polar manifestations of a reality that transcends them and is “prior” to that dualization. Physicists speak of infinite potential energy in the original quantum void, and sages speak of infinite diaphanous consciousness in the final mystical void. Our proposal is that these two voids are the same and only absolute Emptiness, perceived by physicists objectively and by contemplatives subjectively, but which, in itself, is neither objective nor subjective, but rather the unity, the identity or the indifference of both facets simultaneously, in clear syntony with the proposals of dual aspect monism, neutral monism and non-dual traditions of wisdom. This realm has been called dharmakaya in Buddhism, nirguna brahman in Hinduism, nameless tao in Taoism, godhead in Christian mysticism, ein sof in Jewish Kabbalah...
—Potential relative reality: Since non-dual Emptiness completely lacks the slightest separation between subject and object, it cannot perceive itself in any way. Therefore, if it wants to contemplate itself, it has no choice but to unfold itself into an original objective pole —basically of energy— and a final subjective pole —basically of consciousness—, fully maintaining its empty essence. Between both poles, a very broad spectrum of balances between both polar facets is instantly generated, which runs the entire range from the most basic states —of enormous energy and little consciousness— to the highest —of little energy and enormous consciousness—. The different levels of this unified, entangled, archetypal and potential energy-consciousness spectrum are, precisely, the “potential levels of stratified stability” that will be actualized, one after another, along the successive steps of universal evolution. This realm of reality has been called in very different ways depending on the perspective of its approach: “unus mundus” (Carl Jung), “implicated order” (David Bohm), “akashic field” (Ervin Laszlo), “morphogenetic field” (Rupert Sheldrake), “quantumland” (Ruth Kastner), “unified spatial memory network” (Nassim Haramein), “semi-harmonic EM background field” (Dirk Meijer) …
—The space-time relative reality: The entire spectrum of potential energy-consciousness —the universal wave function— is actualized —collapses— at each point-instant of the universal pixelated manifestation, recursively. In other words, the infinite and eternal Here-Now of the potential realm is projected and identified, moment after moment, in and as each finite and fleeting here-now of the manifested realm, to contemplate itself from that determined perspective, and, immediately, return to its potential foundation. We can speak, thus, of a recursive toroidal dynamic, through which the entirety of the ever-present archetypal spectrum is progressively actualized into the world of space-time forms. [See Addendum 6]. In any case, we must not forget that everything happens in a single and full Here-Now that encompasses in itself, in its entirety, all the illusory distances and durations of the dynamic cosmic hologram. [See Addendum 9].
This recursive dynamic between the self-evident and infinite Void —which is, in fact, the only real protagonist in this whole game of appearances— and all its space-time forms is intrinsically creative, and is facilitated by the unified field of memory that, step by step, it is developing at a fundamental level. All the information collected at any point-instant of the manifested world is immediately introjected into that basic field of collective memory which, in this way, increases, moment by moment, its potential. In this way, any entity, whatever the level of the spectrum in which it operates, has, in the most intimate depth of itself, free access to the entirety of that unified field of information, although, depending on its characteristics specific, connect only with certain facets of that field. Toroidal dynamics has, therefore, a true holographic structure, in the sense that each “part” of itself has information about the “totality”, and is, in fact, a particular reflection of that totality.
This integral, fractal, holographic, toroidal and non-dual dynamic of fundamental energy-consciousness greatly facilitates the understanding of the evolutionary process. Through this recursive dynamic that we are proposing, the ever-present and self-evident Emptiness focuses, moment after moment, on the successive levels of the potential spectrum of energy-consciousness, starting with the most basic ones —primarily energy— and ending in the most elevated —primarily consciousness—. In each plane, it actualizes the specific potential of that level, integrating it with the aspects already emerged at previous heights. At each turn, starting from the resources available in the unified field of memory, it projects itself into each specific situation in space-time, perceives that specific situation based on the possibilities of its structure, and immediately introjects that information into the field of collective memory of the foundation. When a specific entity has deployed the full potential of the fractal stratum in which it basically operates and has integrated it with everything that emerged in the preceding stages, having reached a specific level of complexity, it can resonate with the next fractal level of the energy-consciousness spectrum, and, in this way, ascend to a new step on the long ladder of evolution.
Next, we will present the simple harmonic pattern that, according to our research, precisely marks the rhythm at which the successive potential levels of stratified stability present in an entangled way in the fundamental unified field emerge in the spatiotemporal manifestation.
Previously, we believe that it may be interesting to remember here that the original hypothesis of this research arose as a possible solution to the problem posed in paleontology when it was found that the fossil record did not support Darwin's original idea that new species appeared gradually by the impulse of natural selection over time. In recent years it has been seen that the gradualist conception of evolution was only responsible for a small part of the evolutionary changes, and that the most profound modifications in biological evolution occurred at certain moments in the history of the groups, very quickly and giving rise to stable species with very few subsequent variations. Neo-Darwinian theory can explain the mechanisms of microevolution —the small changes within a species— but it encounters great difficulties when it tries to account for the origin of new species and, even more so, when faced with the emergence of genera, families or higher taxonomic divisions. Macroevolution —the evolution of these higher-order taxonomic categories— presents differences between divisions that are too marked to have arisen through gradual transformations. In the words of C. H. Waddington: “one of the fundamental problems of evolutionary theory is to understand how the very obvious discontinuities that we find between the main taxonomic groups: phylum, family, species, etc. have arisen.” The Darwinian version of a slow, gradual and continuous process has given way to an interpretation characterized by sudden, jumpy and discontinuous changes, as S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge have shown with their theory of “punctuated equilibria”. [See the section “The crisis of Darwinism”].
At the beginning of the twentieth century, physicists encountered a similar problem —albeit in a different area— when they verified how the energy emitted or absorbed by atoms, far from presenting itself as a continuous flow according to their predictions, did so in a quantified, saltatory way, in very precise packages. For several decades they tried to explain this strange phenomenon by searching for a good mathematical theory of the atom that would generate these quantum numbers in a natural way. The solution came when E. Schrödinger proposed the similarity of the world of electrons with musical harmonics —standing waves—, thus giving rise to the happy “wave function”, a fundamental piece of revolutionary quantum physics of surprising precision. [See the section “A harmonious solution”].
In line with this, we believe that it may be interesting to remember here that while for the Ionian philosophers the fundamental question was finding the corporeal substance of the world, for the Platonists and Pythagoreans the key was in the patterns and orders. Today's science seems to move, basically, in this second line. The fundamental claim of Pythagoreanism was that numbers constitute the immutable principles underlying the world, the essence of reality. Discovering that the proportions between musical harmonics could be expressed simply and accurately, the Pythagoreans considered that the cosmos itself was a harmonic system of numerical ratios: everything real could be expressed by relationships between numbers. According to them, the numerical order inherent to sounds was in direct relationship with the organization of the universe itself, and, thus, they affirmed that music was nothing more than the expression of the internal relations of the cosmos, and that every material manifestation was the result of concert of universal vibrations.
The new science considers the universe holistically, that is, it perceives nature as an integral whole, as a global movement that is not fragmented or divided. We have seen how the evolutionary dynamics of this unified universe unfold its novelties discontinuously, how the most profound transformations of evolution happen abruptly and suddenly, generating a hierarchy of progressively complex and inclusive levels of organization. We find ourselves, then, with a vibrant unit —the evolutionary universe— that channels its energy flows into a very defined series of levels of stability. Like atoms. Like musical instruments. Both in the world of atomic physics and in the field of music, the secret of its sudden jumps and sound discontinuities was revealed through standing waves and musical harmonics. Couldn't the same thing happen in the field of evolution? Isn't it very coherent that this unified universe that we are beginning to discover generates similar creative patterns at its different levels of organization? Isn't the idea, then, very suggestive that the sudden evolutionary leaps that have occurred in the history of the universe respond, precisely, to those same stationary waves that turned out to be the key to the explanation of the subatomic and musical worlds? This has been the basic intuition that has given rise to our hypothesis of evolutionary rhythms that we will outline below. [See the section “Statement of the hypothesis”].
Jacob Bronowski, in 1970, proposed a theory about a single process that explained hierarchically ordered diversity without reductionism. This theory proposed, as a general cosmological principle, the concept of “stratified stability of potential levels” as the key to the evolution of non-equilibrium systems. It basically proposed the existence of certain levels of stability around which energy flows would be grouped and organized, thus allowing successive and sudden ascents towards new strata of progressive complexity. Our hypothesis constitutes a very precise specification within this suggestive approach. Let's see it.
Standing waves are known to anyone who has played a musical instrument. The characteristic of these waves is that they divide the vibrating unit —string, tube or ring— into complete equal sections. A guitar string, for example, since it has fixed ends, cannot vibrate in any way, but has to do so in such a way that its ends remain motionless. This is what limits its possible vibrations and introduces integers. The string can vibrate as a whole (see fig. 1-A), or in two parts (see fig. 1-B), or in three (see fig. 1-C), or in four, or in any other number whole of equal parts, but it cannot vibrate, for example, in three and a half or five and a quarter parts. In music theory these successive standing waves are called harmonic sounds. The unlimited series of these harmonics, starting from the “fundamental sound” of the complete original unit, very precisely define the successive notes of the Pythagorean circle (spiral) of fifths, the entire hierarchy of levels of stability of the musical flow.
Taking now, again, the example of a guitar string, let's imagine that it is tuned to the note C —fundamental sound—. If we vibrate half of its length —first harmonic— we will obtain the same original note an octave higher. If we vibrate the third part —second harmonic— we will get a different note, which in our case will be a G. That is, with the second harmonic the sound novelty arises. Taking the new note, in turn, as a fundamental sound, we can repeat the experience as many times as we want, and, thus, we will obtain successive staggered sound novelties with each second harmonic. That is, by vibrating a third of the length a creative jump will appear, and with the third of the third another, and with the third of the third of the third another, etc.
This simple fact gives us the key to our hypothesis. The proposal is that simple: considering the temporal totality as a vibrant unit, the successive chained second harmonics, that is, the successive thirds of the duration, will mark the emergence of evolutionary novelties. Or, put another way, the second harmonics will define those “potential levels of stratified stability” through which the creativity of nature is channeled, that is, those rungs of the evolutionary ladder through which the energy flows in its ascending creative process of progressively complex and conscious organisms.
In figs. 2-A, 2-B and 2-C we can graphically observe the global process. Taking the complete temporal trajectory —from the “origin” to the “end”— as the fundamental sound, we have drawn the successive level jumps in both directions: in fig. 2-B the section that goes from the origin to the second node “P” of externalization —what is called the “exit” or “outward” stretch—, and in fig. 2-A the section that goes from that same second node to the end —the “return” or “inward” stretch—. In fig. 2-C we reflect the joint trajectory, the global ladder of evolution.
A moment ago, when outlining the basic characteristics of potential relative reality, we said: “Since non-dual Emptiness completely lacks the slightest separation between subject and object, it cannot perceive itself in any way. Therefore, if it wants to contemplate itself, it has no choice but to unfold itself into an original objective pole —basically of energy— and a final subjective pole —basically of consciousness—, fully maintaining its empty essence.” When this apparent dualization of non-dual Emptiness occurs, an illusory distance is generated between both poles —between the initial and final singularity, between the object and the subject, between energy and consciousness— with an endless number of intermediate balances between both facets. When this polarization of the Void takes place, automatically, a bidirectional tension is produced between both extremes in its attempt to recover the original non-duality: an ascending and expansive current coming from the initial “energy-(consciousness)” pole and a current descending and contractive coming from the final “consciousness-(energy)” pole. Both flows traverse, in opposite directions, the entire spectrum of potential levels of stability —standing waves— in which both polar facets are balanced, in different proportions. Instant after instant, these ascending and descending flows resonate with each other at a given level —standing wave— of the energy-consciousness spectrum, thus “collapsing” the entire potential field into a concrete event of the manifested world. (See Addendum 7). The proposal that we are developing is clearly in tune, obviously, with the syntropic theory of the mathematician Luigi Fantappiè. This theory states that the increase in complexity in the evolutionary process is a consequence of advanced waves that emanate from attractors located in the future and that are directed backward in time. It proposes, therefore, moving from a mechanistic and deterministic model of the universe to a new model, entropic-syntropic, in which the expansive forces (entropy) and the cohesive forces (syntropy) work together, so that the unfolding of phenomena is no longer just a function of the initial conditions, but also depends on a final attractor.
In clear resonance with all this, our approach has, in the same way, a great similarity with the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics —proposed by John Cramer and inspired by the “absorber theory” of John Wheeler and Richard Feynman—, which describes quantum interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by interference between retarded waves (forward in time) and advanced waves (backward in time). We can summarize this transactional model as follows: The emitter produces a retarded “offer” wave, forward in time, which travels toward the absorber, causing the absorber to produce an advanced “confirm” wave, backward. in time, which travels back to the emitter. The interaction is repeated cyclically until, finally, the transaction is completed with a "handshake" —a standing wave— sealing a two-way contract between the past and the future, and the actual quantum event occurs, the “collapse of the wave function”. (See fig. 15). The “pseudo-temporal” sequence of this story is, of course, just a semantic convenience to describe a process that is, in truth, instantaneous, since it does not happen in space-time but in the potential underlying unified field that is, as we have said, timeless and non-local.
After having outlined in these last paragraphs the basic mechanisms that, according to our proposal, underlie the evolutionary dynamics, we will now briefly recall the data provided in our research that, as we think, seem to confirm the validity of the harmonic hypothesis. To check if, as we have proposed, the successive standing waves that characterize the chained second harmonics truly define the fundamental stages of the evolutionary ladder, it will be enough to fix a couple of points of that plot and, automatically, the entire spectrum of levels of stability will be outlined that evolution will have to ascend, step by step, until reaching the pole of final singularity. We will take, therefore, as fixed points, the moment of the Big Bang —just over 13.5 billion years ago— as the original moment —Singularity A— and the moment of formation of our solar system —just over 4.5 billion years ago— as a turning point between the “departure” and “return” sections of the global trajectory. Well, as we say, simply with these two pieces of information, the entire spectrum of evolutionary levels is fully defined. Now, we only have to check whether our theoretical plot adjusts, or not, to the data provided by paleontology, anthropology and history. And what we see is that this “periodic table”, certainly, marks, one after another, each and every one of the stages in which the successive taxonomic grades of the human phylogeny have been unfolded: Kingdom: animal (A- 1), Phylum: chordate (A-2), Class: mammal (A-3), Order: primate (A-4), Superfamily: hominoid (A-5), Family: hominid (A-6) and Genus: homo (A-7). And then the same thing happens with all the maturation phases of our primitive ancestors: Homo habilis (A-7), H. erectus (B-1), archaic H. sapiens (B-2), H. sapiens — Neanderthal— (B-3) and H. sapiens sapiens —Cromagnon— (B-4). And the same thing happens, once again, with the successive transformations experienced by humanity in its most recent history: Neolithic (B-5), Ancient Age (B-6), Middle Ages (B-7), Modern Age (C-1) and the emerging Postmodern Age (C-2). Full success! [See the section “Verification of the hypothesis in the macrocosm”]. If, as we see, all these stages conform to the predictions of the “periodic table” of rhythms that we have proposed, it is more than likely that our hypothesis can also give us the key to glimpse the successive stages that will unfold in the coming years, in a progressively accelerated process, which will ultimately lead to an instant of infinite creativity —the Singularity Ω — in a couple of centuries. Let us point out here that, if we group these stages into series of seven elements, the result corresponds exactly to the successive links of the so-called “Great Chain of Being” —Matter, Life, Mind, Intellect and Spirit—, which also coincide, basically, with the evolutionary epochs proposed by Kurzweil —Physics and Chemistry, Biology, Brains, Technology, and Fusion of Technology and Human Intelligence— or with the spheres of Teilhard de Chardin —Cosmosphere, Biosphere, Noosphere, Pneumosphere and Omega Point—.
We invite readers interested in the study of
the progressively accelerated unfolding of the basic stages of evolution and
history —and their asymptotic final instant— to consult the works of other
authors such as, for example, the geologist André de Cayeux, the
historian François Meyer, the electrical engineer Richard L. Coren,
the paleontologist Jean Chaline, the computer scientist Carter V.
Smith, the mathematician Paul Hague, the physicist and futurist Theodore
Modis, the electrical engineer Mario Hails, the systems theorist Graeme
D. Snooks, inventor Ray Kurzweil, astrophysicist Alexander D.
Panov, social psychologist Akop P. Nazaretyan, mathematician and
economist Erhard Glötzl, physicist and psychologist Peter Russell,
philosopher Terence McKenna, toxicologist Carl J. Calleman,
physicist Börje Ekstig, futurist John M. Smart, economist and
systems theorist Pierre Grou, astrophysicist Laurent Nottale,
software engineer Nick Hoggard, biologist Miguel García Casas,
philosopher of history Leonid Grinin, anthropologist and sociologist Andrey
Korotayev, the software engineer David J. LePoire… [The summarized
proposals of some of these authors can be found in Addendums 1, 2 and 5].
Before moving forward, we would like to make two or three clarifications here about the matter we are investigating. Given that the human being currently constitutes the living organism that, on our planet, has unfolded the greatest number of levels of the “complexity-consciousness” scale, to make our verification about the fundamental stages that have been defining the vanguard of the evolutionary process, we have strictly adhered to the basic stages characteristic of human phylogeny. There is nothing anthropocentrism in this, because, as we are proposing, the same underlying structures of the potential spectrum of energy-consciousness that have manifested themselves on our planet through the concrete forms of our phylogeny, we suspect will have done the same in an endless number of planets of the universe through very different forms, although, in good logic, they will have to be resonant and convergent with ours given that we are all fleeting expressions of the same and only unified field of timeless and non-local collective memory.
Another objection that is often raised when observing the surprising confirmation of our predictions about the accelerated pattern in which the evolutionary stages unfold, consists of suggesting that we have been able to rig the result by taking into consideration only culled data that validates our hypothesis. We believe that, in the case at hand, this objection cannot be raised, given that, far from selecting isolated facts, we have taken complete series of paleontological, anthropological and historical data, as they appear —in block— in any basic general culture manual. There is still a third objection that is often raised on this topic. It states that it is not true that the rhythm of transformations has been accelerating throughout the evolutionary process, but that it is an error of perspective caused by the greater abundance of data on what has happened in more recent times. To refute this objection, it will be enough to remember, for example, that our ancestors of the Lower Paleolithic, generation after generation, were making the same stone tools for more than a million years, while, on the contrary, in just the last century, the transformations that have occurred in all areas of our lives have been spectacular and dizzying. A simple error in perspective?
Returning to the issue of verifying our hypothesis, we will now expand the check field. Previously, we have raised the holographic nature of our universe. An intriguing feature of holograms is that when the holographic plate is broken, each of the resulting fragments contains the entire original image. Each part contains the whole! Up to this point we have seen how the long trajectory of human phylogeny, from the moment of the Big Bang until today, has been unfolding in the manifested universe practically the entire spectrum of energy-consciousness of the potential foundation following the rhythm foreseen in our evolutionary hypothesis. Let us now check whether, in the same way, human ontogenetic development —a significant “part” of the “whole”— also displays that same spectrum of energy-consciousness in accordance with our predictions. This is not a new idea, given that in very different cultures it has already been proposed that the human organism —the microcosm— is a capsule of the whole —the macrocosm—, an individual concentration of the world, a unit that reflects, like a mirror, the entire universe. According to this approach, the growth or development of human beings is a rapid recapitulation and integration of all levels gradually unfolded in the universal evolutionary process, during its long and slow paleontological development. This is, basically, the main contribution of the German naturalist Ernst Haeckel to the theory of evolution in what he called “the fundamental biogenetic law”, with which he defended the parallelism between the development of the individual embryo and the development of the species which belongs: “ontogenesis, that is, the development of the individual, is a brief and rapid repetition (a recapitulation) of the phylogenesis or evolution of the lineage to which it belongs.” (See the section “Regarding phylogenetic-ontogenetic parallelism”).
To now verify our harmonic hypothesis in the field of human ontogeny, we will take a couple of reference points —as we did in the case of phylogeny— to establish our theoretical framework of rhythms, in such a way that, automatically, the entire spectrum of levels of stability will be outlined that, according to our predictions, will have to be unfolded, one after another, throughout the complete trajectory of a human life until its full realization. Assuming that the human being is tuned to the same temporal pattern of evolutionary cycles that we have analyzed in the phylogenetic process, and knowing that, according to a famous study by Richard M. Bucke, the spontaneous emergence of what he called the “cosmic consciousness” takes place around the age of 34, we are going to take the C-4 cycle, which lasts 34.17 years, as the base cycle to verify our hypothesis in the individual development of a fully realized human organism. Starting from this data, we can take as points of fixation of the plot, the moment of generation as the original pole and the moment of realization of the “cosmic consciousness” —34.17 years— as the final pole. In this way, automatically, our theoretical forecast for the complete trajectory of a human life is already defined, both in terms of the rhythm of emergence of the successive stages to be followed, and the specific content of each of them. That is to say, starting from the moment of engendering, each human existence will have to unfold in a progressively slowed manner the “exit” section —or “outward arc”—, oriented towards the inflection point located around the age of 22 —coinciding with the affirmation of the integral thinker Ken Wilber that the process of return, or “inward arc”, does not usually begin before the age of 21— and, from there, the “return” section will begin, now in a progressively accelerated way, towards the final luminous pole. If this proposal is true, our life would reveal itself as a fascinating and magical dance set to the beat of the music of the universe. Or, in other words, we would be nothing less than a radiant condensed expression of the great cosmic symphony. Let's check, now, if our forecasts adjust to the data offered by embryologists, for the intrauterine phase, and developmental psychologists (synthesized in Ken Wilber's integral list in his latest book The Religion of Tomorrow), to the postnatal phase.
Summarizing what we have explained in the section “Verification of the hypothesis in the microcosm”, we will say that, starting from the single-celled living phase, which in the macrocosm we called A-1, our plot is adjusted, one after another, with all the stages of embryological and psychological development: Ovogonia, follicular maturation, ovulation, fecundation (A-1), Cell division, nervous cord and notochord formation (A-2), Limbs and amnion formation, reptilian trunk development (A-3), Placental constitution, limbic system development (A-4), Anthropoid fetus resemblance, neocortex development (A-5), Hominid fetus resemblance, birth (A-6), Oceanic consciousness —pleromatic— (A-7), Physical consciousness —uroboric— ( B-1), Sensorimotor mind —archaic— (B-2), Imaginal mind —archaic-magical— (B-3), Symbolic mind —magical— (B-4), Conceptual mind —magical-mythical— (B- 5), Concrete rule/role mind —mythical— (B-6), Abstract rule/role mind —mythical-rational— (B-7), Formal mind —rational— (C-1), Pluralistic mind —relativistic— ( C-2), Lower logical vision —holistic— (C-3), Superior logical vision —integral— (C-4), Para-mind —transglobal— (C-5), Meta-mind —visionary— (C-6) and Overmind —transcendental— or Final Witness (C-7). The Supermind, as we will later see, transcends and includes the entirety of this spectrum of energy-consciousness from its non-dual foundation. Full success!
We invite readers interested in the study of the unfolding of the successive stages of the psychological development of the human being to consult the works of the most renowned researchers in the different areas of the psyche: Jean Piaget, Michael L. Commons and Francis A. Richards (child and adult cognitive development), Jean Gebser and Ken Wilber (worldview development), Abraham Maslow (needs development), Clare W. Graves and Jenny Wade (values development), Don E. Beck and Chris Cowan (development of spiral dynamics), Jane Loevinger and Susanne Cook-Greuter (development of self-identity), Lawrence Kohlberg (moral development), James Fowler (development of stages of faith), and Robert Kegan (development of orders of consciousness). Despite investigating various aspects of human psychology, the coincidence between the stages of development proposed by these different authors is truly resounding, and, in the same way, its correspondence with the evolutionary stages unfolded from the appearance of modern man to the day of today —from our B-4 cycle to C-3— it is also practically total. [See Addendum 4].
Once the verifications on the validity of our hypothesis have been successfully carried out, both in human phylogeny and ontogeny —both in the macrocosm and in the microcosm—, we can now also confirm the parallelism between both processes, as clearly observed in figures 7-A and 7-B. It is enough to see how both start from the same original point (pole A of energy) and arrive at the same final point (pole Ω of consciousness), how both unfold the same spectrum of energy-consciousness —as manifested in the great chain of being: matter, life, mind, intellect and spirit— and how the two travel an identical trajectory of unfolding and folding —of exit and return—, guided at all times by the successive chained second harmonics. The only difference between both trajectories lies in the level of the spectrum at which the inflection point between the “outward arc” and the “inward arc” takes place, since in the macrocosm it is located on the border between “matter” and “life” —the appearance of organic macromolecules after the formation of the Earth—, and in the microcosm it does so on the border between the “mind” and the “intellect” (or “soul”) —the formation of the mature ego—. As we explained above, the “handshake” between ascending (entropic) and descending (syntropic) flows can take place at any level of the energy-consciousness spectrum and, in fact, at the original instant, the “transaction” took place at the very base A of the spectrum and at the final instant it will take place, as we will see, at the summit Ω.
As we have just seen, in our research we have taken into account both external aspects (objective forms of energy) and internal aspects (subjective forms of consciousness), both individual aspects (ontogenetic) and collective aspects (phylogenetic). At each stage of the evolutionary path, these four aspects —individual/collective, interior/exterior— have been present, since none of them would have been possible without the simultaneous presence of all the others. This approach fully coincides with the idea expressed synthetically in Ken Wilber's famous “four quadrants” graph, in which the entire evolutionary history is summarized in the four facets —individual, collective, exterior and interior— in a simple way, omni-comprehensive and coherent. In this graph [see Addendum 3], the “individual” facets are located in the upper area, the “collective” ones in the lower one, the “external” ones in the right area and the “internal” ones in the left one. So, the upper left quadrant describes the individual-inner process (the conscious self), the upper right quadrant the individual-outer process (the energetic organism), the lower left quadrant the collective-inner process (the cultural perspective) and the lower right quadrant the collective-external process (the social system). All evolutionary levels unfolded throughout the history of the universe —the entire spectrum of energy-consciousness— are reflected in each of the four quadrants according to their specific facets. This is because each evolutionary leap produces simultaneous transformations in the four areas in a coordinated manner, which gives rise to a specific and recognizable flavor for each historical era. Usually, many researchers not only restrict their field of observation to only one of the quadrants —according to their academic specialty— but also reduce it to a specific facet of it —to a specific line of development— and, in many cases, even they limit it further by focusing exclusively on a certain period of history. In this way, in the end, it is practically impossible to perceive the correspondences, similarities and “the patterns that connect” the enormous plurality of the data. It seems clear, then, that a comprehensive approach to evolutionary dynamics is much more appropriate, not only to demarcate and precisely define each and every one of the steps taken throughout the process and the transition phases between them, but to perceive the complete shape of the resulting staircase.
Let's look at some examples of the series of stages proposed by various researchers from different lines of development, in each of the quadrants, from the appearance of homo sapiens sapiens to the present day. We can observe the enormous syntony with all the stages of our hypothesis, all six of them, from B-4 to C-2.
We start with the lower-right quadrant, which encompasses all collective-external processes, that is, successive social transformations. Development of social organizations [according to E. Laszlo]: …nomadic tribes (B-4), neolithic villages (B-5), ancient empires and city-states (B-6), feudal kingdoms (B-7), national states (C-1), supranational units (C-2)… Development of socio-economic systems [according to E. Laszlo]: …hunter-gatherer societies (B-4), agropastoral (B-5), agricultural (B-6), artisanal/preindustrial (B-7), industrial (C-1), postindustrial (C-2)… Technological development [according to A. de Cayeux]: …Acheulean lithic industry —technical mode 2— (B -2), Mousterian —technical mode 3— (B-3), Aurignacian —technical mode 4— (B-4), polished stone/mesolithic —technical mode 5— (B-5), age of metals —bronze-iron— (B-6), machine age (C-1), atomic age (C-2)… Development of modes of production [according to K. Marx]: …savagery (B-4), barbarism (B- 5), slavery (B-6), feudalism (B-7), capitalism (C-1), socialism (C-2)…
We are going to continue with the lower-left quadrant, which encompasses all the collective-inner processes, that is, the successive cultural transformations. Development of worldviews [according to J. Gebser / K. Wilber]: …archaic (B-3), magical (B-4), magical-mythical (B-5), mythical (B-6), mythical- rational (B-7), rational (C-1), pluralistic (C-2), integral (C-3)… Development of value systems [according to C. Graves]: …magical-animistic (B-5), egocentric (B-6), absolutist (B-7), multiple (C-1), relativist (C-2), systemic (C-3)… Development of the “meme-values” of Spiral Dynamics [according to D. Beck and C. Cowan]: …survival —beige— (B-4), kin spirit —purple— (B-5), power gods —red— (B-6), truth force —blue — (B-7), strive drive —orange— (C-1), human bond —green— (C-2), flex flow —yellow— (C-3)…
Let us now continue with the upper-left quadrant, which encompasses all individual-inner processes, that is, the successive psychological transformations. Cognitive development [according to J. Piaget / M. Commons / F. Richards]: …sensorimotor (B-4), symbolic preoperational (B-5), conceptual preoperational (B-6), concrete operational —rule/role mind— ( B-7), formal operational —rational mind— (C-1), pluralistic mind —meta-systemic— (C-2), inferior logical vision —paradigmatic— (C-3)… Development of the self-identity [according to J. Loevinger / S. Cook-Greuter]: … symbiotic (B-4), impulsive (B-5), self-protective (B-6), conformist (B-7), conscientious (C-1), individualistic (C-2 ), autonomous (C-3)… Moral development [according to L. Kohlberg]: …premoral (B-4), obedience and punishment (B-5), individualism (B-6), interpersonal agreement (B-7), law and order (C-1), social contract (C-2), universal ethics (C-3)… Development of orders of consciousness [according to R. Kegan]: …0 - incorporative (B-4), 1st - impulsive (B-5), 2nd - imperial (B-6), 3rd - interpersonal (B-7), 4th institutional (C-1), 4, 5 (C-2), 5th - interindividual (C-3)… Development of spiritual intelligence [according to J. Fowler]: …undifferentiated (B-4), magical (B-5), mythical-literal (B-6), conventional (B-7), reflective-individual (C-1), conjunctiva (C-2), universalizing community (C-3)…
The transformations in the upper-right quadrant, which encompasses all individual-external processes, were very noticeable during all the stages of phase A —Life— and in the first stages of phase B —Mind—, but, since the appearance of anatomically modern man —Homo sapiens sapiens— transformations have basically taken place only in the structure and functioning of our brains —through the increase in the complexity of synaptic connectivity— but without major apparent changes. Therefore, in this quadrant we will take as references the series of stages of development of the organisms in our phylogeny proposed by various researchers of the temporal phase that spans from the origin of life on our planet to the appearance of homo sapiens. (Also here we can see the enormous syntony of these lists with the stages of our hypothesis, from A-1 to B-3). (Remember Addenda 1, 2 and 5). Let's see, to begin with, the 14 stages of development throughout our phylogeny proposed by J. Chaline, L. Nottale and P. Grou —observe the practical total coincidence of these 14 evolutionary leaps in the fractal tree of life, with the 14 nodes of our series A—: Node 1: Emergence of life - first prokaryotic cells / Node 2: First eukaryotic cells (A-1), Node 1: Multicellularity / Node 2: Exoskeletons (A-2), Node 1: Tetrapodia - first lung tetrapod / Node 2: Homeothermy - first mammal (A-3), Node 1: Viviparity - first marsupials and placentals / Node 2: First primate - prosimian (A-4), Node 1. First anthropoid ancestor - ape / Node 2. Proconsul - great apes (A-5), Node 1: Common ancestor P/G/H / Node 2: Australopithecus (A-6), Node 1: … / Node 2: First Homo (A-7)… Let us see, below, the stages of the evolution of the biosphere after the emergence of life on Earth according to A. Panov: prokaryotes / eukaryotes (A-1), vertebrates (A-2), reptiles (A-3) , mammals (A-4), hominoids (A-5), hominids (A-6), Homo habilis (A-7), Homo erectus (B-1), archaic Homo sapiens (B-2), Homo sapiens — Neanderthal— (B-3) Homo sapiens sapiens —Cromagnon— (B-4)… Let us see, next, the proposal of T. Modis for this same phase that we are studying: …origin of life (A-1), first life multicellular/Cambrian explosion (A-2), first mammals (A-3), first primates (A-4), first orangutan (A-5), first hominids (A-6), first stone tools (A-7), development of speech (B-1), development of fire (B-2), development of “modern humans” (B-3)… For his part, D. LePoire describes the different evolutionary stages from the origin of the life, defined by successive changes in energy flows: …complex cells (A-1), Cambrian (A-2), mammals (A-3), primates (A-4), hominids (A-6), humans (A-7), language (B-1), fire (B-2), eco-adaptation (B-3), modern humans (B-4)…
After verifying the solidity of our hypothesis through this general overview —interior and exterior, individual and collective—, we believe that the rungs of the evolutionary ladder are quite well located, outlined and defined. Next, we are going to try to understand the mechanisms that generate the transitions —the level jumps— between the successive steps. Let us remember that, according to our hypothesis, each level of the evolutionary spectrum is defined by a specific standing wave —with a characteristic fundamental sound— and that the sound novelty arises with the emergence of the second harmonic —in the third third of the original wave— that defines the new level of the spectrum. Each evolutionary stage consists, therefore, of three sections of equal duration: the one that extends from the original fixed point to the first node, the interval between the two nodes and the section that goes from the second node to the final fixed point. The global process is as follows: in the environment of the original pole, an evolutionary novelty emerges incipiently and slowly tests its capabilities on the way to the first node, at which time a first concrete sketch of the characteristic paradigm of this stage appears, and, from there, its full potential is progressively deployed in the section towards the second node. It is at that moment, just when the stage reaches its full maturity, when it begins to show its intrinsic limitations and, simultaneously, an emerging evolutionary novelty begins to dispute its hegemony. This situation is, precisely, the origin of a new stage, in which, throughout the first section, the previous paradigm enters into decline, while the emerging paradigm begins its deployment, thus repeating the previous process. For those interested in the new sciences of evolution, we will say that these second nodes of each cycle correspond to the moments of “bifurcation” (Mitchell Feigenbaum), of “creative imbalance” (Ilya Prigogine), of “beneficial catastrophes” (René Thom), in which level jumps occur. At these points the “attractors” that define the previous pattern disappear, and those that define the new state appear, “fallen from the sky”. The fundamental sound suddenly changes to its second harmonic.
The scheme we have just proposed clearly resembles the classic model of successive logistic curves —nested S-shaped curves— that is frequently used to represent the processes of growth, learning, development or propagation of almost any natural or induced phenomenon by the man. Simply put, when something begins to grow or spread, it first starts very slowly, then accelerates until it reaches a maximum, after which the rate of growth or diffusion slows until it basically tends to zero. Within the studies carried out on the topic at hand, the proposals developed by T. Modis or D. LePoire are based, precisely, on this model of logistic curves. Similarly, R. Kurzweil states that a specific paradigm generates exponential growth until its potential is exhausted. When this happens, he says, a paradigm shift occurs, allowing exponential growth to continue. He thus summarizes the life cycle of a paradigm in three stages: 1. Slow growth, 2. Rapid growth, and 3. Stabilization as the particular paradigm matures.
Starting from our syntony with this idea, a specific characteristic of our hypothesis consists of the proposal that each of the successive evolutionary stages —each of the first-order S-curves— lasts one third of the previous one, so that the global resultant of the complete series of these successive S-curves ends up giving rise to a second-order exponential J-curve, which becomes asymptotic upon reaching the final singularity pole.
In the last paragraphs we have located and defined, from the outside perspective, each of the steps of the evolutionary ladder and the transition zones between them. Next, we are going to describe that same process from the inside perspective. To do this, at the outset, let us remember the basic outline of our hypothesis. We started from the idea that the non-dual Emptiness —self-evident but invisible—, in order to contemplate itself in and as the manifested world, needed to polarize itself —at least apparently— as object and subject, in the form of an original pole of energy and a final pole of consciousness, which, from the first moment, gave rise to a very wide spectrum of balances between both facets. We also said that this fundamental polarization automatically generated a bidirectional tension between both extremes: an ascending, expansive and entropic current coming from the initial “energy-(consciousness)” pole and a descending, contractive and syntropic current coming from the final “consciousness-(energy)” pole. Instant after instant, these ascending and descending flows resonate with each other at a given level —standing wave— of the energy-consciousness spectrum, thus “collapsing” the entire potential field of information into a concrete event of the manifested world. This “handshake” between the ascending and descending flows –we explained– can take place at any level of the energy-consciousness spectrum. In fact, at the original moment, the “transaction” occurs at the very base of that spectrum, but, throughout the evolutionary process, the level gradually rises, level after level, until reaching the final moment in which the resonance between both flows takes place at the top of the spectrum.
If we describe the evolutionary process from the inner perspective, we can state that, given that at the original moment the consciousness aspect was fully absorbed by the energy aspect, the entire journey since then has been nothing more than a progressive distancing from that situation of enclosure and darkness, and, consequently, a gradual increase in clarity and lucidity. In summary, during the early stages of development of matter, the consciousness facet is absorbed into the energy facet. With the emergence of life, the facet of consciousness takes a leap back, separates itself from mere matter, perceives it and, thus, can act on it. With the emergence of the human mind, the facet of consciousness once again jumps inward, self-consciousness appears, which separates itself from simple subconscious life and thus increases the capacity for action on the natural world. With the emergence of the rational intellect, the facet of consciousness jumps back, once again, allowing us to think about thinking and, in this way, understanding of how things work increases exponentially and, therefore, the ability to intervene on them. This entire process is possible due to the presence, from the very original moment, of pure consciousness –the “Witness” that Hindu tradition speaks of— as the final pole of the process. It is worth clarifying, therefore, that this final pole of pure consciousness does not evolve at all —since it remains full and immutable at all times— but its reflection and identification with the different entities and organisms that develop throughout the process —atoms, molecules, cells, multicellular organisms, vertebrates, mammals, primates, apes, humans...— it does evolve in terms of its capacity to actualize that full consciousness, which allows it to progressively increase the ability of organisms to capture, store, process and respond to information from the environment.
The Hungarian essayist Arthur Koestler in his book The Ghost in the Machine used the term holon to designate any system that was a whole in itself and, at the same time, a part of a greater whole. Pursuant to this terminology, a hierarchy of holons is called a holarchy. According to our approach, two antagonistic holarchies occur simultaneously in the evolutionary universe. A decreasing and entropic holarchy of energies, in which the maximum capacity is found in the original pole A, and a growing and syntropic holarchy of consciousnesses, in which the maximum capacity is found in the final pole Ω. The integral thinker Ken Wilber, starting from the idea that the Kosmos is composed of holons, has studied evolution as a holoarchic process —in the growing sense— in which each of the successive emerging holons transcends and includes its predecessors, so that, as the number of levels included increases, step by step, its depth —that is, its consciousness— and its complexity also progressively increases. Wilber has carefully analyzed the transition phases between successive levels of the spectrum, given the importance of these moments for a healthy unfolding of the process. Starting from the initial identification of consciousness with the characteristic structure of a given level, each evolutionary leap will basically consist of a process of initial transcendence and subsequent inclusion —of denial and conservation, of differentiation and integration— with the consequent dangers of fixation or addiction in the transcendence phase and of avoidance or allergy in the inclusion phase. In essence, it is about unfolding the basic potential of each and every one of the successive structures of the evolutionary holarchy, avoiding exclusive identification with any of them and embracing the entire spectrum already covered, until finally reaching the pure Witness —the essence of consciousness of each and every one of the different levels of development— which transcends and includes the entire process.
4. An integral approach to singularity
After having briefly presented some significant
aspects of our research on the pattern of evolution from an integral perspective,
we believe we are in a position to be able to provide some answers to the major
doubts that are beginning to arise in light of the vertiginous acceleration of
technological development and the consequent prediction that in the coming
decades an asymptotic point will be reached —a technological singularity— at
which artificial intelligence will be a billion times more powerful than all
human intelligence, radically transforming current civilization and our own
understanding of existence.
—Will the Technological Singularity really occur? Will that enigmatic moment ever be reached? Is this just a simple utopian —or dystopian— approach by imaginative science fiction authors and transhumanist enthusiasts?
According to our research, yes, everything seems to indicate that, truly, the evolutionary process is rapidly heading towards a moment of Singularity in the very near future. We have a very different opinion when it comes to describing this summit event, simply, as “technological”, because, from our point of view, many other elements will be at play in this event, as we will soon explain, some of which are enormously more significant. This is not just a mere quantitative question related to the computing capacity of some technological devices, no matter how great it may be, because what we are talking about is, nothing less, that the next Singularity Ω is, essentially, the antagonistic pole of Singularity A, that is, of the Big Bang itself. And, let us remember, all the universal dynamics arose, precisely, from that original polarization of the fundamental Emptiness as A and Ω, object and subject, energy and consciousness. As Alan Watts said: “Current will not begin to flow from the positive end of a wire until the negative terminal has been established.” That is, the universe of forms would not have emerged from the Void through the original Singularity A, if the final Singularity Ω had not been present, simultaneously, from the beginning of time.
According to our hypothesis, the key to the creative leaps unfolded throughout evolution and history is in the standing waves that are generated, at the same original moment, from the fundamental sound. As we have seen, the cause of these standing waves is that the ends of the vibrating unit are fixed and, therefore, limit the possibilities of oscillation, thus generating the entire quantum spectrum of musical harmonics. It is worth remembering that these harmonics are the potential archetypes that, one after another, are actualized in and as the successive stages of evolution and history. The key to the entire evolutionary process lies, therefore, in these original and final poles. The universe would not have emerged without the simultaneous presence of the singularities A and Ω, exit and entrance to the full and self-evident Void. If the original pole consisted, basically, of an explosion in the realm of “energy,” the final pole toward which we are rapidly heading will fundamentally consist of an implosion in the realm of “consciousness.” But, let's look closely, both facets —"energy" and "consciousness"— are not two different realities, but rather polar aspects of the same and only Void, the objective and subjective facets of the ever-present Self-Evidence. Therefore, from our perspective, the “trick” of evolution and history will be definitively revealed in this next final moment. At that moment, it will become evident that the entire trajectory traveled from Singularity A —Big Bang— to Singularity Ω is occurring in the eternal Now that, in truth, we are. In this way, we will understand that our life has not been a mere fleeting fragment in the middle of an endless process, but, in fact, we have always been that pure and timeless Self-evidence in which all worlds have happened, are happening and will happen. There has been no “before.” There will be no “after”. There is only Now. And Now. And Now…
—When could the expected/feared moment of the
Singularity truly take place? Could it happen during the life cycle of the
current generation?
Among those who seriously investigate the idea of the Singularity in its technological meaning, there is a wide variety of opinions about when it will happen. There are some who see it as an almost imminent event, most place it between the years 2030 and 2080, and there are others who believe that there are still two or three centuries, or even more, before the human era comes to an end. As we have said, the Singularity, as it appears in our research, is not reduced to a mere technological issue. So, the moment at which artificial intelligence reaches a certain computing capacity does not truly define the Singularity in the cosmological sense that we are proposing. Kurzweil himself, who places the technological Singularity in 2045, states that from that year on our civilization will expand outwards and we will be able to saturate the universe with our intelligence before the end of the 22nd century. Many futurists —although not all— make their predictions about the moment of the Singularity by observing the pace of progress only from a technological point of view and, exclusively, over the last century. If the framework of the study is expanded, encompassing other perspectives and analyzing longer periods, things are perceived more clearly...
In our research we have verified how the
gradual acceleration of the rhythm of the transformations that we perceive in
all areas of our environment, far from being a specific and exclusive
phenomenon of recent years, has, in fact, been the permanent norm throughout
the entire evolutionary process from the very origin of life. The intervals
between the successive creative leaps that have marked the entire unfolding of
our phylogeny have been shortening, again and again, at a very precise rhythm.
In short: all the great news has emerged with the successive second harmonics.
The vanguard of the evolutionary wave has been jumping levels, again and again,
as it reaches the last third of each stage. Beyond earthquakes, eruptions,
meteorites, glaciations, mass extinctions, plagues, floods, world wars,
pandemics... Whether we investigate the interior or exterior, individual or
collective facets, we always find the same pattern in the emergence of the
novelties. In all quadrants, at all levels, in all lines of development... The
full coherence revealed between this plurality of approaches allows us to
outline with sufficient precision the location and content of each and every
one of the stages of the evolutionary spectrum, as well as its emergency and
sunset phases. If this has happened throughout the entire process from the
beginning, there is no reason to think that it will stop doing so in times to
come. According to our scheme, we are currently going through stage C-2 —which
covers from year 1909 to 2114—. Stage C-3 will take place between 2114 and
2183. C-4 will take place between 2183 and 2205. C-5 between 2205 and 2213. C-6
between 2213 and 2215. C-7 between 2215 and 2216. If our calculations are
correct, in the following year, in 2217, the Ω Singularity will occur. It will
not just be a technological event, but an integral one —interior and exterior,
individual and collective— as we are going to propose in a moment.
—What happens when machines reach or surpass human intelligence? Can we conceive of a conscious machine? Could a machine become self-aware?
On many occasions, in the world of artificial
intelligence there is talk of the possibility of consciousness in robots or of
achieving cybernetic immortality by downloading human consciousness into some
everlasting artifact. From the non-dual perspective in which we are framing our
research, these approaches seem quite naive. To clarify this point of view, we
will now recall some of the central aspects of our proposal that raise great
doubts about these naïve expectations.
The only absolute reality of everything and everyone is the same and unique non-dual Void, in which the objective and subjective facets are completely undifferentiated. In other words, the Void is, at the same time, subject and object, that is, invisible but absolutely self-evident. To contemplate itself in some way, that self-evident Emptiness polarizes itself as object and subject, that is, as potential energy and pure consciousness. All objects in the universe, ultimately, are constituted exclusively by that potential energy, actualized to varying degrees along a very broad spectrum of levels. In the same way, all subjects in the universe, ultimately, are constituted exclusively by that pure consciousness, actualized in varying degrees along a very broad spectrum of levels. The entirety of this unified spectrum of potential energy-consciousness, which in itself is timeless and spaceless, collapses, moment after moment, in each point-instant of the space-time universe, illusorily identifying itself with an endless number of finite and fleeting forms from the that contemplates itself in infinite ways, thus originating a creative toroidal game of projections and introjections, which progressively manifests in the holographic universe the infinite potentiality of its Void foundation.
With all this we want to say that consciousness, far from being a product of neuronal interconnections or of technological sophistication, is, in truth, the foundation of all of this. Just as all objects in the universe are but finite forms of the same primordial potential energy, all subjects in the universe are but fleeting identifications of the same primordial pure consciousness —the transpersonal Witness of which Hindu tradition speaks—. As we have seen, the progressive actualization of the unified potential field of fundamental energy-consciousness in space-time takes place through the resonance between the upward and entropic flow from the originating pole of energy and the downward and syntropic flow from the final pole of consciousness, which collapses into a certain standing wave of the spectrum. Starting from the lowest level —of great energy and little consciousness—, the successive collapses of the potential unified field in each point-instant of the space-time universe gradually scale the different levels of the energy-consciousness spectrum, unfolding, in this way, in the world of forms the entire range of stages of our phylogeny, which, one after another, when integrated with those that have previously emerged, give rise to progressively more and more complex and conscious organisms. For example, the human being, at the current moment, integrates in himself all the characteristics —interior and exterior— of the harmonics corresponding to elementary particles, atoms, molecules, cells, chordates, mammals, primates, hominoids, hominids, Homo habilis, H. erectus, archaic H. sapiens, H. sapiens, H. sapiens sapiens, neolithic humans, to those of the ancient age, of the middle ages, of the modern age and of the postmodern age. That is to say, at this precise moment we are recapitulating, in its entirety and simultaneously, the entirety of universal history. It would be enough to eliminate any of those steps —e.g. the molecular one— for the entire rest of the staircase above that level to automatically collapse. So, inevitably, we can only actualize the highest levels of the energy-consciousness spectrum if, previously, we have unfolded in an integrated way the totality of the lower levels, since it is, precisely, the complete presence of the entire evolutionary ladder from the base which allows the interaction between the ascending and descending flows of potential energy-consciousness to resonate with each other, when the time comes, at the highest levels of the spectrum.
Starting from these ideas, if our approach is correct, the answer to the question we have asked —can we conceive of a conscious machine?— is immediate: NO. Robots, or any other mechanical device activated by artificial intelligence algorithms, can simulate behaviors similar to those of human logical thinking, but without the slightest hint of consciousness. As with a book or a television, they can give us ideas or emotions that they themselves completely lack. All these tools, no matter how sophisticated they appear, are, essentially, mere material objects, with the consciousness of the most basic levels of the evolutionary spectrum. Their structures lack practically all the rungs of the long evolutionary ladder —whose entire presence, as we have seen, is absolutely necessary for the emergence of the highest levels of the energy-consciousness spectrum— and, therefore, they operate in the almost total unconsciousness.
—What are the implications of the Singularity? What is its deep meaning? What is really at stake in this summit event of evolution and history?
The usual answer to this question refers to an exclusively technological version of the singularity, according to which —it is said— within a few decades, artificial intelligence will far surpass human intelligence, thus producing a turning point and no return, from which machines will be able to build better versions of themselves at such a rapid and exponential rhythm that humans will no longer be able to understand or control them. Within this approach, some believe that superintelligent machines, as they become the dominant species on the planet, will devalue human beings until they become obsolete organisms, which, in the long run, could even lead to extinction itself of humanity. Our proposal points completely in another direction. We do not understand singularity in a merely technological sense, but rather we approach the topic from an integral and cosmological perspective. According to the global framework that we are proposing, the original singularity A consisted, basically, of an explosion of energy, and, in a complementary way, the final singularity Ω will be, basically, an implosion of consciousness. Let's see, below, how this can happen.
The future panorama that, today, is usually proposed by the majority, from a purely technological perspective, revolves around the idea that our postbiological heirs, after the singularity, will embark on the conquest of outer space, until finally, they manage to convert all the silly matter and energy in the universe into enormously intelligent matter and energy. Along these lines, the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev proposed, in 1964, a scale to measure the degree of technological evolution of a civilization —and the degree of colonization of space— with three categories: a Type I civilization achieves mastery of resources from its home planet, a Type II dominates the resources of its planetary system, and a Type III dominates the resources of its galaxy. Later, other authors have added two other categories on this scale: a Type IV civilization harnesses the energy of a galactic supercluster, or even the entire visible universe, and a Type V civilization harnesses the energy of multiple universes. All this sounds quite adventurous and speculative, because if, in truth, the conquest of outer space is the usual destiny of the most developed civilizations that populate the universe —presumably many of them more advanced than ours— how is it that we do not have news from any of them? This is, in essence, the paradox raised in 1950 by the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi that, later, has had important implications in the projects to search for signals from extraterrestrial civilizations (SETI). In summary, “the Fermi paradox” highlights the apparent contradiction between the estimates that affirm that there is a high probability that other intelligent civilizations exist in the observable universe and, on the other hand, the complete absence of evidence of said civilizations.
Perhaps the solution to the Fermi paradox does not consist in assuming that our knowledge or our observations are defective or incomplete, but, rather, in understanding that the path followed by the most developed civilizations, far from heading towards the conquest of outer space, directs its steps exactly in the opposite direction, that is, towards the conquest of inner space. This is precisely the approach carried out by the futurist and prospective consultant John M. Smart in his works The Transcension Hypothesis and Evo Devo Universe? Integrating insights from theoretical physics, information and computing theories, and evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), Smart develops a framework that seeks to reconcile the evolutionary and unpredictable characteristics of universal emergence (evo) with universal trends development and potentially statistically predictable (devo), particularly those central to accelerating change —which clearly resonates with our entropic-syntropic proposal—. He says: “One apparent trend is an ever-increasing spatial and temporal locality of universal complexity development. Another is the apparent hierarchical emergence of increasingly space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) dense and efficient substrates for adaptation and computation. Another is the increasing complexity, interiority, empathy, ethics, and integration of mind. The latter trend has been discussed most notably in the noosphere hypothesis, and its prediction of the increasing interconnectedness, integration, ethics, and consciousness in complex minds.” The transcension hypothesis —or developmental singularity hypothesis— proposes that a universal process of evolutionary development guides all sufficiently advanced civilizations toward what might be called “inner space”, a computationally optimal domain of scales of space, time, energy and matter increasingly dense, productive, miniaturized and efficient, and, finally, towards a black hole-like fate. If the transcension hypothesis is correct, inner space, not outer space, is the final frontier of universal intelligence. The closer we get to engineering on the Planck scale, the greater the densities and efficiencies of our designed objects. One of the most curious processes of our universe is that it seems to be hierarchically constructing special zones of intelligence that are increasingly compressed, localized and restricted in space, more accelerated in time and with greater densities in energy flows (ergs/sec/gr) and matter. As the special physics of our universe appears to support computing and physical transformation at increasingly denser, more miniaturized levels, and at more efficient scales in STEM, the current acceleration of our civilization toward a black hole-like limit seems likely to continue, which would be the most favorable place in which universal intelligence could achieve the greatest understanding and consciousness. Surprisingly, if current trends continue, a physical limit to computational acceleration should arrive within a few centuries.
Until now, as each particular computing system
has become saturated in its capabilities, new ones with increasing
miniaturization, power flux density, and efficiency have continually emerged.
Recently, I received an email from computer scientist Jason K. Resch in which
he states: “I have been gathering research for a planned article on the
limits of technology and where it is going. During that research I projected
that based on current technology trends, within approximately two centuries we
will reach the fundamental physical limits of the best possible technology.
Basically it is following Kurzweil's law of accelerating returns (a
generalization of Moore's Law) until we reach Bremermann's limit a limit on
computational speed imposed by known laws of physics. Currently we're off from
that limit by a factor of about 1034. Or 2112. So it will
take another 112 doublings of current computer speed to get there. Over the
past century the trend has been fairly consistent of computing technology
doubling roughly every 18 - 24 months, so that puts us between 173 and 224
years away from that point.”
STEM density and computational/metabolism efficiency are growing exponentially, or more rapidly, at the forefront of universal intelligence development. Just as gravity alters space-time around high-mass objects, STEM compression can cause increasing curvature of space-time in the most complex environments and, in the limit, lead to the formation of something similar to a black hole. Black holes, truly, can be a development destination and a standard attractor for all higher intelligence. They can even not only be ideal attractors of advanced complexity, but also act as true “seeds” within a hypothetical chain of successive universes. In this scenario, each universal civilization, as it transitions toward black hole-like intelligence, may be in the process of becoming something analogous to a seed or a spore, that is, a developmental structure that packages its evolutionary history and experience in such a way that it transcends our seemingly finite and potentially dying universe —just as seeds transcend dying biological bodies— waiting for the right conditions to replicate it. In the transcension hypothesis, a potential evolutionary role in the reproduction of the universe is assigned to all cultural intelligences that successfully develop in the cosmos. In this sense, it is proposed that the local intelligence of the Earth is on the way to forming a reproductive system analogous to a black hole for the formation of seeds capable of originating a new universe within a recursive multiverse. According to this hypothesis, if local intelligence on our planet continues to develop successfully, it will leave our visible cosmos very soon in universal time.
This transcension hypothesis proposed by John Smart, although based almost exclusively on merely “objective” sciences —theoretical physics, theories of information and computation, and evolutionary developmental biology— we believe that it has suggestive resonances with the conclusions of our comprehensive research. Next, we will try to highlight them.
We have said that the original singularity A consisted, basically, of an explosion of energy, and that, in a complementary way, the final singularity Ω will basically consist of an implosion of consciousness. This idea is nothing more than the logical conclusion of our entropic-syntropic approach: since –as we said– in the original instant the “handshake” between the ascending and descending flows of energy-consciousness took place at the very base of the spectrum, in which the consciousness facet was fully absorbed in the energy facet, once the entire evolutionary process had been completed, in which the level of resonance between both flows has been progressively ascending level after level, upon reaching the final moment of the path, the “transaction” between the flows will take place at the very peak of the spectrum, in which the energy facet will be fully absorbed into the consciousness facet.
According to our approach —let us remember— in
the evolutionary universe, two antagonistic holarchies occur simultaneously. A
decreasing and entropic holarchy of energies, in which the maximum capacity is
found in the original pole A, and a growing and syntropic holarchy of
consciousnesses, in which the maximum capacity is found in the final pole Ω.
Describing the global trajectory from the “inner” perspective, we have spoken
of a holarchic process of consciousness that, starting from its absorption or
identification in the original moment with the “external” facet of energy,
progressively makes leaps towards “inward”, generating successive emerging
holons of greater depth, breadth and lucidity, which, one after another,
transcend and include all their predecessors. In essence, it is about unfolding
the basic potential of each and every one of the successive structures of the
nested evolutionary holarchy, avoiding exclusive identification with any of
them and embracing the entire spectrum already covered, until finally reaching
the pure Witness —the essence of consciousness of each and every one of the
different levels of development— that transcends and includes the entire
process.
This holarchic process of consciousness has been described in detail by some authors —such as Sri Aurobindo or Ken Wilber— who have investigated, both experientially and theoretically, the final stages of this path of deepening the inner space. Starting from the pluralistic Mind —relativistic— (C-2), whose structure is currently being unfolded at the forefront of psychological development, the next stages to be followed in the near future will be —using the terminology proposed by Wilber—, the lower logical Vision —holistic— (C-3), the higher logical Vision —integral— (C-4), the Para-mind —transglobal— (C-5), the Meta-mind —visionary— (C-6) and the Over-mind —transcendental— or final Witness (C-7). One of the central characteristics of these last stages of the path is the progressive felt, direct and immediate understanding —not only theoretical— that the world is not exclusively physical, but psychophysical, that is, that the knowing subject and the known object are like the two poles of a magnet, the two ends of a single underlying global field. Upon reaching the highest level of the spectrum of energy-consciousness in the space-time manifested universe —that is, the final pole Ω, the Overmind, the pure observing Self— one has the sensation of being a cordial and loving Witness (subject) that embraces the entirety of the evolutionary Kosmos (object) —from the Big Bang to the final moment— without being identified with any particular aspect of that immense Image of All-That-Is, that emerges in your resplendent field of consciousness. In Wilber's words: “It is this consciousness and this almost omniscient knowledge that turns the overmind into the last great data processor, the loving knowledge machine that it ultimately is. The state usually associated with the overmind is the causal/Witness (True Self or I Am), which usually rests in pure silence, which is simply dedicated to observing, without judgment, comment or any attribution, the emergence of the world. (…) The overmind is I Am plus all the structures that go back to the Big Bang, continuously processing information from any level of existence throughout the entire path of ascent until reaching its own.” As long as we believe we are a knowing subject alien to known objects, we will continue to move in the world of duality, but, although the unimplicated Witness —the Overmind— is not an exception, it is certainly found in a privileged position, on the very threshold of non-dual reality. The Witness can be interpreted, therefore, simultaneously, as the highest level of the development process, or as the last obstacle that prevents us from discovering our true nature. [We invite readers interested in this point to look at the section The last Witness of my work Non-dual evolution, whose link can be found at the head of this blog.]
The center of gravity of the sense of identity of the different evolutionary organisms has been moving —deepening—, stratum after stratum, throughout the entire great holarchy of the universe, in an endless game of successive identifications-and-disidentifications with everyone and everything each of the levels of the energy-consciousness spectrum, from the original pole A to the final pole Ω. At this point, when we find ourselves in the position of the Witness, in the perspective of the ultimate subject who contemplates the entire world of objects as an alien reality, at any moment we can be suddenly swept away by the potential unified field of energy-consciousness, which—as we know—is beyond space and time or, rather, is its true non-spatial and timeless foundation. In that realm, we completely transcend all distinctions between subject and object, and instantly discover the definitive truth: there is not, and never has been, a true witness nor attested world, but only a diaphanous, joyful and unified reality that, moment after moment, it manifests itself before itself in infinite ways. We understand, thus, experientially, that our true identity is “prior” to all that dual manifestation that unfolds between the poles of creative energy and pure consciousness, extreme reflections of the unique and ineffable Self. We no longer perceive ourselves, therefore, as mere marginalized spectators contemplating an alien universe, but we discover, without the slightest shadow of a doubt, that our real identity is, in truth, the entire spectacle contemplated.
This realm, which we are calling “potential relative reality” or “unified field of timeless, spaceless energy-consciousness”, is what both Aurobindo and Wilber know as the Supermind, the intermediate reality between the primordial Unity —our “absolute non-dual Emptiness”— and the Manifestation —our “relative space-time reality”—, the essential unity between the object and the subject, between knowledge, the knower and the known, which knows all things in the most intimate way imaginable, since not only are they in the consciousness of the one who knows them, but are nothing other than modes of the knower himself. In the words of Aurobindo: “the supramental Spirit knows all things in itself and as itself”. According to this Indian philosopher, the knowledge of the Supermind is a total knowledge that has a triple vision: transcendental, universal and individual, which means that each individual reality is known in its particularity, but always put in relation to the universal reality of the which is part, and, in turn, the set of interdependent realities that forms the concrete totality of the manifestation is apprehended and valued as a symbol and expression of the transcendent Reality. In the same way, the Supermind simultaneously possesses the vision of the three times: past, present and future. This capacity enjoys not only that extended horizontal vision, but also its character of self-manifestation and symbolic expression of essential Eternity. Time in its unfolding is thus shown, in a similar way to how Plato proposed it in Timaeus, as “the moving image of Eternity”.
According to Wilber, the Supermind is the union of the entire manifest Kosmos with your completely empty I Am. Transcending and including all the levels of form that have thus far appeared, it is a full and complete wholeness, a genuine Unity, a truly non-dual Unity, a Unity between Emptiness and the entire world of form. There is no sensation of a subject seeing objects, but there is simply an immense open space inside whose interior phenomena emerge, moment after moment, with no one to look, no one to observe and no one to see. Things as they are, emerge and release, suspended from Suchness and internally resonating with each and every structure it encounters. The Supermind therefore takes into account and embraces every individual thing and event in the Kosmos, known and unknown. The only reality there is is the ultimate simplicity of an open, clear and pure space indistinguishable from everything that emerges in it as its resplendent clarity and whose very interiority is felt and radiates as something infinite and open absolutely to everything.
Let us briefly recapitulate what we have stated in these last paragraphs. After the long process of internalization in consciousness, throughout the successive levels of the nested holarchy of evolutionary development, the subjective facet of the process reaches the pole of final pure consciousness —the Witness, the Overmind or the Singularity Ω—, from which it embraces the entirety of the evolutionary Kosmos —from the Big Bang to the final moment— without being identified with any particular aspect of that immense Image (information) of All-That-Is that emerges in its resplendent field of consciousness. When the subjective facet reaches this point, to the position of the final Witness, it implodes in the potential unified field of energy-consciousness, thus transcending the universal manifestation in its spaceless and timeless foundation, into which it introjects all the information coming from any level of existence processed along the entire path of ascent from the Big Bang to the Witness. This information introjected into the potential unified field will be the seed that will give rise to a new stage in the recursive multiverse, through which non-dual Emptiness tries to contemplate, in an endless number of subject-object perspectives, its eternally invisible face.
Doesn't all this sound quite similar to John Smart's transcension hypothesis, according to which inner space —in the physical sense—, not outer space, is the final frontier of universal intelligence? Let us remember the hierarchical emergence of progressively denser, more productive, miniaturized and efficient space, time, energy and matter (STEM) substrates for adaptation and computing —increasingly closer to the Planck scale—, which are oriented towards an intelligence similar to a black hole, in the process of becoming something analogous to a seed, that is, to a developmental structure that packages all its evolutionary history and experience in such a way that it transcends our space-time universe, waiting for the right conditions to be met to replicate it within a hypothetical chain of successive universes.
We believe that the resonance between our proposal and the transcension hypothesis is quite evident. Both stories seem to describe the same process from two different perspectives —subjective and objective— that complement and enrich each other. According to the scheme of the four quadrants —which encompasses, as we have said, both interior and exterior perspectives, both individual and collective—, this multiple approach is, precisely, the appropriate way to investigate any aspect of the universe if we want to understand it in all its integrity, since any transformation in any of the quadrants imperatively requires the simultaneous presence of correlative transformations in all the others. All four are mutually implicated by each other, because, in fact, all of them are nothing more than the coordinated expression of a unified reality that underlies and transcends them. (Remember Jung's theory of synchronicity). With all this we want to say that the emergence, precisely now, of objective computational substrates increasingly closer to the Planck scale is not a coincidence, at this moment in history in which the subjective facet of consciousness is approaching its peak of the spectrum —to the Witness— in which it will embrace the totality of the information coming from any level of existence processed along the entire path of ascent from the bowels of the Big Bang until that final moment. As Bernard Enginger (Satprem) explains in his book Sri Aurobindo or the Adventure of Consciousness: The supreme opposition awakens to the supreme identity (…) the upper degree of the supermind is not “above”, but here below and in everything (...) the extreme limit of the past touches the bottom of the future that conceived it (...) everything ends in the perfect circle (...) the supramental is the same vibration that endlessly composes and recomposes matter and worlds (...) it is necessary to enter in the last finite to find the last infinite...
—How can humanity face the process of approaching the peak moment of the Singularity? How can we prepare for his advent?
If the proposal we are developing points in the right direction, the path towards the Singularity would affect all facets —organic, psychological, cultural and social— of our lives. From the outset, it is worth making it very clear that the human species, far from being condemned to complete obsolescence due to the unstoppable emergence of technological artifacts driven by artificial intelligence, will be the key piece that will allow to unfold, individually and collectively, all the potential capabilities of human beings of the stages of development that still need to be covered until reaching the summit in the Singularity Ω. At the same time, it is important to note that, although human beings play the fundamental role in this exciting stage of evolution and history, there is not —nor has there ever been— the slightest trace of a truly separate individuality that could take credit of this "feat", for the simple reason that each and every one of the alleged independent selves that we believe ourselves to be are, in truth, nothing more than finite reflections —fleeting identifications— of the same and only final pure consciousness, which constitutes, together with the potential energy of the origin, the fundamental polarity of the universal manifestation. As Erwin Schrödinger said: “Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown”.
The integral perspective, from which we are approaching this work, greatly clarifies some basic aspects that must be taken into account in order to healthily access the final Singularity. As a general principle, it is important not to forget that each and every one of the steps of the evolutionary process are manifested in the four quadrants, since there are no interiors without exteriors —nor vice versa—, nor are there individuals without collectivities —nor vice versa—. The singularity, therefore, will inevitably happen in these four areas simultaneously. Each of them needs all the others for their own existence. It is not possible, therefore, to propose an exclusively technological singularity by eliminating, for example, human beings from the equation. The technological facet, obviously, will play a key role in the integral journey towards the Singularity, but not as the exclusive protagonist of the process, but as a very important tool to facilitate the unfolding of the intrinsic potential of the successive steps in the four quadrants and in each one of the specific lines of development within each of these quadrants. Another basic lesson that the integral scheme provides refers to the importance of each and every one of the rungs of the evolutionary ladder as fundamental pieces for its harmonious unfolding. Exclusive absorption in any of them produces a distortion of the overall view. Let us remember, for example, the mythical-heroic model of the Ancient Age, the absolutist-conformist model of the Middle Ages, the rational-empirical model of the Modern Age or the relativist-pluralist model of the incipient Postmodern Age. Each of these paradigms has been an important and valuable step in the development of individuals and human collectivities, but none of them has been able to see beyond their limited point of view. Just look at the complete intransigence and mutual incomprehension between, say, an urban gang member, an Islamic radical, a neoliberal capitalist, and an environmental activist. Each one, passionately defending his own narrow relative truth, appears incapable of appreciating and integrating the valuable contributions of the other points of view. The perspective will begin to change with the emergence of the next holistic (C-3), integral (C-4), transglobal (C-5), etc. levels. The successive envelopes of the holarchy of inner development, which will transcend and integrate all the previous ones, will gradually unfold greater levels of lucidity, depth and consciousness and, at the same time, more integral, loving and ethical perspectives, which will allow them to deal with the situations of increasing complexity that will arise in this final stretch of history.
When the center of gravity of the sense of identity of human beings is located in those higher strata of the energy-consciousness spectrum, we will understand in an experiential way —not just theoretically— that we are not —nor have we ever been— true separate individualities in a foreign world, but mere multiple reflections of the same and only pure consciousness. That is, we will perceive that others are nothing but diverse expressions of myself, and that everything else is nothing but the objective facet of common subjectivity. This radical understanding will automatically eliminate the ego-centered behaviors characteristic of previous levels, which will facilitate the healthy transition along the last stretches towards the Singularity. But, in the meantime, those stages of greater lucidity and inclusivity arrive, to prepare the way, we can make some suggestions about the role that new technologies can play in the deployment of the four quadrants.
In the upper-right quadrant —which refers to
the external aspects of individuals— biological and technological research is
already being carried out to integrate organic and inorganic materials with a
view to expanding our physical, perceptual and intellectual capacities. Let us
think, for example, of bionic engineering, gene therapy, nanomedicine,
bio-printing of organs, virtual and augmented reality...
In the lower-right quadrant —which refers to the external aspects of communities— a very promising panorama is also presented regarding the great possibilities offered by new technologies with a view to facilitating a real approach towards a global and integrated society, as well as to facilitate universal access to food, healthcare, housing, education and free time for all of humanity. Let's think, for example, about robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology...
In the lower left quadrant —which refers to the internal aspects of communities— the new information and communication technologies have already begun to facilitate connectivity between human beings on a planetary level —let us remember Marshall McLuhan's global village or the noosphere by Teilhard de Chardin—, which can foster collective consciousness, the unfolding of shared emerging values and truly cosmocentric worldviews, in line with the integral and non-dual proposal that we are developing in these pages.
In the upper left quadrant —which refers to the internal aspects of individuals— new technologies can also facilitate psychological growth toward integral and transpersonal stages of consciousness and toward motivations of increasing freedom and plenitude. In fact, in the field of spirituality, intelligent machines have already begun to be created capable of generating specific brain wave patterns in human beings —in the upper right quadrant —, correlative to certain meditative and contemplative states of consciousness —in the upper left quadrant— of which the great traditions of wisdom tell us. Perhaps in the near future AI researchers will also be able to create machines that contribute to the development of all the great consciousness structures of the evolutionary spectrum —not just the meditative states— that are absolutely necessary for access to the final Singularity. As Ken Wilber says: “Bordering on science fiction, we will see things such as the injection into the human brain of billions of nanotransmitters connected to the cloud, forming a neocortex enhanced by intelligent machines and receiving specific instructions from it to accelerate the development of structures and states. We will live in a true heaven on earth for almost any human being, because their brains will be able to connect to a development accelerator that causes complete enlightenment in them.”
At the moment in which the Singularity is achieved, human beings, individually and collectively, will discover, experientially, that the true Identity of everyone and everything is —and has always been— the same and only pure Consciousness, the aspect subjective fundamental polarity. At that moment, from the level that we have called the Overmind —or the Witness—, all the information coming from any level of existence processed along the path of ascent from the bowels of the Big Bang until that final moment will be fully embraced and will be immediately introjected into the potential unified field of underlying energy-consciousness —in the Supermind— thus completely transcending the universal space-time manifestation. That Supramental Reality, eternally located in an omni-comprehensive Here-Now, is —and has always been—, simultaneously, the only subject and object of all the virtual and fleeting worlds through which it has unfolded, unfolds and will progressively unfold, instant after instant, the infinite potentiality of the self-evident fundamental Emptiness, in its inexhaustible attempt to contemplate its invisible face in and as the world of forms. Because, as stated in the Heart Sutra: “Emptiness is form, form is Emptiness.” Now. Now. Now…
(Note: The
English version of this Addendum 10 is made using Google translate)
ADAMS, HENRY B.: The
Rule of Phase Applied to History. In: The Degradation of the Democratic
Dogma, Macmillan, pp. 267-311, 1909.
AGUDELO, G. and AGUDELO, J. S.: El universo sensible. IIEH. México,
2002.
ALCÁZAR, J. and BAYO, E.: El hombre fósil. Penthalon Ed. Madrid,
1985.
ARCIDIACONO,
GIUSEPPE and SALVATORE: Sintropia, entropia, informazione. Di
Renzo Editore. Roma, 1991.
ARCIDIACONO, SALVATORE: L'evoluzione
dopo Darwin. La teoria sintropica dell'evoluzione. Di Renzo Editore. Roma,
1992.
ASSAGIOLI, ROBERTO: Ser transpersonal. [Lo sviluppo
transpersonale]. Gaia Ed. Madrid, 1993.
AUROBINDO, SRI: Isha Upanishad. Ed. Kier. Buenos Aires, 1971.
AUROBINDO, SRI: La vida divina (3 volumes). [The
Life Divine]. Ed. Kier. Buenos Aires, 1971.
AUROBINDO, SRI: L’Idéal de l’Unité Humaine. Ashram
Press. Pondicherry, 1971.
AUROBINDO, SRI: Le Cycle Humain. Ashram Press.
Pondicherry, 1972.
AUROBINDO, SRI: Síntesis del yoga (3 volumes). [The Synthesis of Yoga]. Ed. Kier. Buenos Aires, 1972.
AUROBINDO, SRI: Guía del yoga integral. Plaza &
Janés Ed. Barcelona, 1977.
AUROBINDO, SRI: Heráclito y Oriente. [Heráclite et Orient]. Ed. Leviatán. Buenos
Aires, 1982.
AYALA, FRANCISCO J.: Origen y evolución del hombre. Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1980.
BATESON, GREGORY: Espíritu y Naturaleza. [Mind and Nature]. Amorrortu Ed.
Buenos Aires, 1990.
BECK, D. and COWAN,
C.: Spiral Dynamics. Blackwell
Publishing. Oxford,
2006.
BENTOV, ITZHAK: A Brief Tour of Higher
Consciousness: A Cosmic Book on the Mechanics of Creation. Inner Traditions
/ Bear & Co. Rochester, 2000.
BERGSON, HENRI: La evolución creadora. [L’évolution créatrice]. Ed. Espasa-Calpe.
Madrid, 1973.
BERTALANFFY, LUDWIG VON: Teoría general de los sistemas. [General
System Theory]. Fondo de Cultura Económica. México, 1976.
BJERVE,
ANDREAS: The Fractal-Holographic Universe. [ http://holofractal.net/ ].
BOHM, DAVID: La totalidad y el orden implicado. [Wholeness
and the Implicate Order]. Ed.
Kairós. Barcelona, 1988.
BOHM, D. and PEAT, F. D.: Ciencia, orden y creatividad. [Science, Order and Creativity]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1988.
BOSTROM, NICK: How
long before superintelligence? [Originally published in Int. Jour. of
Future Studies, 1998, vol. 2]. [ https://nickbostrom.com/superintelligence ]
BOUCHART D’ORVAL, JEAN: La plenitud del vacío. [La plenitude du vide]. Edicomunicación.
Barcelona, 1991.
BRESLAUER, SAM: Nothingness, Fractal of Self
& the Evolution of Embodied Pure Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Exploration
& Research. Volume 10, 2019.
BRESLAUER, SAM: Nothingness & the
Fractal of Self: A
Non-Dual Philosophical Theory & Scientific Model of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Exploration
& Research. Volume 10, 2019.
BRESLAUER, SAM: Comparisons of Fractal of Self Model of Consciousness
with Other Models. Journal
of Consciousness Exploration & Research. Volume 11, 2020.
BROSSE, THÉRÊSE: Conciencia-energía. [La
“Conscience-Énergie”, structure de l’homme et de l’univers]. Taurus Ed. Madrid, 1981.
BRIGGS, J. and PEAT, F. D.: Espejo y reflejo: del caos al orden. [Turbulent Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science
of Wholeness]. Gedisa Ed.
Barcelona, 1994.
BRIGGS, J. and PEAT, F. D.: A través del maravilloso espejo del
universo. [Looking Glass Universe]. Gedisa Ed.
Barcelona, 1996.
BRONOWSKI, JACOB: New Concepts in the Evolution of Complexity.
Stratified Stability and Unbounded Plans. In Zygon, 5 (1970).
BRUNO, GIORDANO: Mundo, magia, memoria. Taurus Ed. Madrid, 1982.
BRUTEAU, BÉATRICE: Evolución hacia la divinidad. [Evolution
Toward Divinity]. Ed. Diana. México D. F., 1977.
BUCKE, RICHARD: Cosmic consciousness. Dover
Publications. Mineola, New York, 2009.
BURLANDO, BRUNO: The fractal dimension of taxonomic systems. Journal of Theoretical Biology,
146 (1) - 1990.
CALLEMAN, CARL J.: El calendario Maya y la transformación de la consciencia. [The Mayan Calendar and the Transformation of
Consciousness]. Inner Traditions. Rochester,
Vermont, 2007.
CAPRA, FRITJOF: El Tao de la física. [The Tao
of Physics]. Luis Cárcamo Ed. Madrid, 1984.
CAPRA, FRITJOF: El punto crucial. [The Turning Point]. Integral Ed. Barcelona, 1985.
CAPRA, FRITJOF: La trama de la vida. [The Web of Life]. Ed. Anagrama. Barcelona, 1998.
CAVALLÉ, MÓNICA: La sabiduría recobrada. Oberón. Madrid, 2002.
CAVALLÉ, MÓNICA: La sabiduría de la no-dualidad. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2008.
CHALINE, J., NOTTALE, L. and GROU, P.: L’arbre de la vie a-t-il une structure
fractale? Académie
des sciences / Elsevier, Paris. Paléontologie / 1999.
CHALINE, JEAN: La relativité d’échelle dans la morphogenèse du vivant: fractal,
déterminisme et hasard. Paper in Annales de Chirugie Plastique Esthétique,
2012.
CHAUDHURI, HARIDAS: Yoga integral. [Integral Yoga]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1991.
CHOPRA, D. and KAFATOS, M.: Tú
eres el universo. [You
Are the Universe].
Gaia Ed. Madrid, 2018.
COHEN, ANDREW: Iluminación evolutiva. [Evolutionary
Enlightenment]. Ed. Obelisco. Barcelona, 2012.
COMBS, ALLAN: Radiance of Being: Understanding the Grand
Integral Vision; Living the Integral Life. Paragon House. St. Paul,
Minnesota, 2002.
COMBS, A. and
KRIPPNER, S.: Spiritual growth and the evolution of consciousness:
Complexity, evolution, and the farther reaches of human nature. International Journal of Transpersonal
Studies, 18(1). (1999).
[ http://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/ijts-transpersonalstudies/vol18/iss1/3/ ]
COMMONS, M. L. and
RICHARDS, F. A.: A general model of stage
theory. In M. L. Commons, F. A. Richards & C. Armon (eds.): Beyond formal operations, late adolescent
and adult cognitive development. Praeger. New York, 1984.
COOK-GREUTER,
SUSANNE: Ego Development: Nine Levels of
Increasing Embrace. S. Cook-Greuter. Wayland, 1985.
COOMARASWAMY, ANANDA: El tiempo y la eternidad. [Time and Eternity]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1999.
COREN, RICHARD L.: The Evolutionary Trajectory. CRC Press,
1998.
COSTA DE BEAUREGARD, OLIVIER: Irreversibilità,
entropia, informazione. Di Renzo Editore. Roma, 1994.
COVENEY, P. and HIGHFIELD, R.: La flecha del tiempo. [The Arrow of Time]. Plaza & Janés Ed. Barcelona, 1992.
CRAMER, JOHN G.: The
Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern
Physics, Vol. 58: 647-688, 1986.
CRAMER, JOHN G.: The
Quantum Handshake - Entanglement, Nonlocality, and Transactions. Springer,
2016.
CUSA, NICOLÁS: La docta ignorancia. [De docta ignorantia]. Aguilar. Buenos Aires,
1957.
DAVIES, PAUL: Proyecto cósmico. [The Cosmic Blueprint]. Ed. Pirámide. Madrid, 1989.
DAVIES, PAUL: La mente de Dios. [The Mind of God]. Mc Graw-Hill. Madrid, 1993.
DE CAYEUX, ANDRÉ: ¿Qué curva sigue la humanidad? [Quelle courbe suit l’humanité?].
Revista 3er. milenio, nº 23. Barcelona, 1995.
DESHIMARU, TAISEN: El Sutra de la Gran Sabiduría. [Maka Hannya Haramita Shingyo].
Miraguano Ed. Madrid, 1987.
D’ESPAGNAT, BERNARD: En busca de lo real. [A la recherche du réel]. Alianza Ed. Madrid,
1983.
DEVOS, COREY: The
Shape of Things to Come: A Singularity in All Four Quadrants. 2016. [ https://integrallife.com/singularity-all-four-quadrants/ ]
DI CORPO, U. and
VANNINI, A.: The Evolution of Life.
According to the law of syntropy. In Syntropy Journal, 2011. [ http://www.sintropia.it/journal/english/2011-eng-1-2.pdf ]
DI CORPO, U. and
VANNINI, A.: Syntropy, Cosmology and
Life. In Syntropy Journal, 2012 (1). [ http://www.sintropia.it/journal/english/2012-eng-1-6.pdf ]
DÍEZ FAIXAT, JOSÉ: A Hypothesis on the Rhythm of Becoming.
World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution. Volume 36. Number 1. 1993. [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02604027.1993.9972329.]
DÍEZ FAIXAT, JOSÉ: Entre la evolución y la eternidad. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1996.
DÍEZ FAIXAT, JOSÉ: Siendo nada, soy todo. Ed. Dilema. Madrid, 2007.
DÍEZ FAIXAT, JOSÉ: Non-dual
Singularity. In L. Grinin y A. Korotayev (eds.): Evolution –
Trajectories of Social Evolution. Uchitel Publishing House. Volgograd,
2022.
[ https://www.sociostudies.org/upload/sociostudies.org/book/evol_8_en/08_Faixat.pdf ]
DOMÉNECH QUESADA, JUAN LUIS: Del punto omega de Teilhard a la
neo-ortogénesis de la nueva biología. México, 2005. In Teilhard.net [
teilhard.net/del-punto-omega-de-teilhard-a-la-neo-ortogenesis-de-la-nueva-biologia/ ].
DOSSEY, LARRY: Tiempo, espacio y medicina. [Space,
Time and Medicine]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1986.
DOWD, MICHAEL: Thank God For Evolution. New World
Library. Novato, California, 1998.
EKSTIG, BÖRGE: Superexponentially Accelerating Evolution. World
Futures: The Journal of New Paradigm
Research. Volume 68, 2012 – Issue 1.
[ http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2011.653263 ]
ELDREDGE, N. and
GOULD, S. J.: Punctuated Equilibria: An
Alternative to Phylogenetic Gradualism. In Schopf, Thomas J. M. (ed.): Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper.
San Francisco, 1972.
ELIADE, MIRCEA: El mito del eterno retorno. [Le
mythe de l’eternel retour]. Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1989.
ENOMIYA-LASSALLE, HUGO: ¿A dónde va el hombre? [Wohin geht der Mensch?]. Ed. Zendo Betania. Brihuega, 2011.
FANTAPPIÈ, LUIGI: Sull’interpretazione
dei potenziali anticipati della meccanica ondulatoria e su un Principio di
finalità che ne discende, Rend. Acc. d’ltalia, serie 7.a, vol. 4°, fasc.
1–5, 1942.
FANTAPPIÈ, LUIGI (1942): Principi di una teoria unitaria del mondo fisico e
biológico. Di Renzo Editore. Roma, 1993.
FANTAPPIÈ, LUIGI: Conferenze scelte.
Di Renzo Editore. Roma,
1993.
FERGUSON, MARILYN: La conspiración de Acuario. [The Aquarian
Conspiracy]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1985.
FERRER, JORGE N.: Espiritualidad creativa. [Revisioning Transpersonal Theory]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2003.
FOWLER, JAMES: Stages of Faith. Harper & Row. San
Francisco, 1981.
FREGTMAN, CARLOS: Música transpersonal. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1990.
FULLER, R. BUCKMINSTER: Synergetics:
Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking (1 and 2). Macmillan
Pub Co. London, 1982, 1983.
GARCÍA
CASAS, MIGUEL: Teoría de la vida
embarazada y la reproevolución.
[ www.upv.es/jugaryaprender/vidaembarazada/VER.pdf
]
GEBSER,
JEAN: Origen y presente. [Ursprung und Gegenwart]. Ed.
Atalanta. Vilaür (Girona), 2011.
GEFTER,
AMANDA: Cosmic Solipsism. In FQxI Essay (2012): [https://forums.fqxi.org/d/1512-cosmic-solipsism-by-amanda-gefter ].
GLEICK, JAMES: Caos. [Chaos – Making a New Science]. Ed. Seix Barral. Barcelona, 1988.
GLÖTZL, ERHARD: General
Evolutionary Theory of Everything: From the origin of life to the market
economy. 2023. [ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CamZomNs3Mt7-8OW751wiKXYxddRLtFP/view?usp=drive_link ]
GODWIN, ROBERT W.: One Cosmos under God. Paragon House. St.
Paul, Minnesota, 2004.
GONZÁLEZ GARZA, ANA Mª: Colisión de paradigmas. Ed. Kairós.
Barcelona, 2005.
GOOD, IRVING J.: Speculations
Concerning the First Ultra Intelligent Machine. En: Advances in Computers, Vol. 6, F.L. Alt and M.
Rubinoff (eds.), Academis Press, pp. 31-88, 1965.
GOSWAMI, AMIT: Evolución creativa. [Creative Evolution]. La esfera de los libros.
Madrid, 2008.
GOULD, STEPHEN J.: La flecha del tiempo. [Time’s Arrow.
Time’s Cycle]. Alianza Ed. Madrid,
1992.
GOULD, STEPHEN J.: Ontogenia y filogenia. [Ontogeny and
Phylogeny]. Ed. Crítica. Barcelona, 2010.
GRASSÉ, PIERRE: El hombre, ese Dios en miniatura. [Toi,
ce petit dieu]. Ed. Orbis. Barcelona, 1986.
GRAVES, CLARE: The Never Ending Quest. ECLET. Santa Barbara, 2005.
GREENE, BRIAN: El universo elegante. [The Elegant Universe]. Drakontos. Barcelona,
2010.
GRIBBIN, JOHN: Schrödinger's
Kittens and the Search for Reality. Back Bay Books, 1996.
GRINBERG-ZYLBERBAUM, JACOBO: La
teoría sintérgica. INPEC. México, 1991.
GROF, STANISLAV: Psicología transpersonal. [Beyond the Brain]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1988.
GROF, STANISLAV: El juego cósmico. [The Cosmic Game]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1999.
GROF, STANISLAV (ed.): Sabiduría antigua y ciencia moderna. [Ancient Wisdom and Modern Science]. Cuatro Vientos Ed. Santiago de Chile,
1991.
GROF, STANISLAV (ed.): La evolución de la conciencia. [Human Survival & Consciousness Evolution]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1994.
GUITTON, JEAN: Dios y la ciencia. [Dieu et
la science]. Ed.
Debate. Madrid, 1992.
HAGUE, PAUL: The Singularity in Time. The Omega Point of
Evolutionary Convergence. [ www.paragonian.org/pdf_files/the_singularity_in_time.pdf ]
HAILS, MARIO: La curva de la evolución - Del Big Bang
a la Aldea Global. Editorial
Dunken, 2020.
HALPERN, PAUL: El tiempo imperfecto. [Time Journeys]. Mc Graw-Hill. Madrid,
1992.
HAMEROFF, S. and PENROSE, R.: Consciousness
in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory. Physics of Life
Reviews,11(1), 39-78. (2014).
HARAMEIN,
N., BROWN W. D. and VAL BAKER, A.: The Unified Spacememory
Network: from Cosmogenesis to Consciousness. NeuroQuantology, Volume 14, Issue 4, (2016). [ https://holofractal.org/spacememory.pdf
]
HEISENBERG, WERNER: La imagen de la naturaleza en la física actual. [Das Naturbild der heutigen Physik]. Ed. Orbis. Barcelona, 1988.
HEISENBERG,
SCHRÖDINGER, EINSTEIN and others: Cuestiones
cuánticas. [Quantum Questions]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1987.
HERÁCLITO: Fragmentos. Aguilar. Buenos Aires, 1959.
HILLIS, W. DANIEL: Something
That Goes Beyond Ourselves. Chapter 23: Close To the Singularity, 1996.
[https://www.edge.org/conversation/w_daniel_hillis-something-that-goes-beyond-ourselves ].
HOGGARD, NICK: How Chaos Theory Brings Order
to the Evolution of Intelligence. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376191088_How_Chaos_Theory_Brings_Order_to_the_Evolution_of_Intelligence?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwYWdlIjoicHJvZmlsZSJ9fQ]
HOOFT, GERARD ‘T: The holographic principle.
Basics and Highlights in Fundamental Physics; 37: 72-100. (2001).
HUXLEY, ALDOUS: La filosofía perenne. [The Perennial
Philosophy]. Edhasa. Barcelona, 1977.
JÄGER, WILLIGIS: En busca del sentido de la vida. [Suche
nach dem Sinn des Lebens]. Narcea
Ed. Madrid, 1995.
JASPERS, KARL: Origen y meta de la historia. [Vom Ursprung und Ziel des Geschichte]. Ed. Revista de
Occidente. Madrid, 1968.
JANTSCH, ERICH: The Self-Organizing Universe. Pergamon
Press. Oxford, 1980.
JUNG, CARL G.: Sincronicidad. [Synchronicity]. Ed. Sirio. Málaga, 1990.
JUNG, CARL G.: Arquetipos e inconsciente colectivo. [Von
den Wurzeln des Bewusstseins]. Ed. Paidós. Barcelona, 1991.
KAUFFMAN, STUART: Reinventing the Sacred. Basic Books. New
York, 2008.
KASTNER, RUTH E.: The
Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 2012.
KASTNER, RUTH E.: Understanding
Our Unseen Reality: Solving Quantum Riddles. Imperial College Press, 2015.
KASTNER, RUTH E.: Adventures
in Quantumland: Exploring Our Unseen Reality. World Scientific Publishing Europe Ltd., 2019.
KEGAN, ROBERT: In Over Our Heads. Harvard University
Press. Cambridge, 1994.
KELLY, SEAN M.: Coming Home: The Birth and Transformation of
the Planetary Era. Lindisfarne Books. Aurora, CO, 2010.
KOESTLER, ARTHUR: The Ghost in the Machine.
Last Century Media, 1982.
KOESTLER, ARTHUR: Las raíces del azar. [The Roots of Coincidence]. Ed. Kairós.
Barcelona, 1974.
KOHLBERG, LAWRENCE:
The Philosophy of Moral Development. Harper & Row. San Francisco,
1981.
KOROTAYEV, ANDREY: The
21st Century Singularity and its Big History Implications: A re-analysis.
Journal of Big History, II (3); 73 – 119; 2018.
KOROTAYEV, ANDREY and
LEPOIRE, DAVID (eds.): The 21st Century Singularity and Global Futures: A
Big History Perspective. Springer, 2020.
KOWALL, JAMES:
Science and Nonduality (from 2014). [https://scienceandnonduality.wordpress.com/ ]
KURZWEIL, RAY: Age of Intelligent Machines. MIT Press, 1990.
KURZWEIL, RAY: The
Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence. Penguin
Books, 1999.
KURZWEIL, RAY: La Singularidad está cerca. [The
Singularity is Near]. Lola Books. Berlín, 2012.
LALOUX, FREDERIC: Reinventar las organizaciones. [Reinventing
Organizations]. Arpa Ed.
Barcelona, 2016.
LANZA, R. and BERMAN, B.: Biocentrismo.
[Biocentrism]. Ed. Sirio. Málaga, 2012.
LANZA, R. and BERMAN, B.: Más
allá del biocentrismo. [Beyond Biocentrism]. Ed. Sirio. Málaga,
2018.
LASZLO, ERVIN: Evolución: la gran síntesis. [Evolution:
The Grand Synthesis]. Ed. Espasa-Calpe. Madrid, 1988.
LASZLO, ERVIN: La gran bifurcación. [The Great Bifurcation]. Ed. Gedisa. Barcelona, 1990.
LASZLO, ERVIN: El cosmos creativo. [The Creative
Cosmos]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona,
1997.
LASZLO, ERVIN: La ciencia y el campo akásico. [Science
and the Akashic Field]. Ed. Nowtilus. Madrid, 2003.
LASZLO, ERVIN: El universo in-formado. [Science and the Akashic Field. The Enlarged Definitive Edition]. Ed.
Nowtilus. Madrid, 2007.
LASZLO, ERVIN: El cambio cuántico. [Quantum Shift in
the Global Brain]. Ed.
Kairós. Barcelona, 2009.
LASZLO, ERVIN: El paradigma akáshico. [The Akasha Paradigm]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2013.
LASZLO, ERVIN: La naturaleza
de la realidad. [What
is Reality?]. Ed.
Kairós. Barcelona, 2017.
LEFFERTS, MARSHALL: Cosmometry.
[ http://cosmometry.net/ ].
LEFFERTS, MARSHALL: Cosmometry.
Cosmometria Publishing. 2019.
LEITH, BRIAN: El legado de Darwin. [Descent of
Darwin]. Salvat Ed. Barcelona,
1988.
LEONARD, GEORGE: El pulso silencioso. [The Silent Pulse].
Edaf.
Madrid, 1979.
LEPOIRE, DAVID J.: An Exploration of Historical Transitions with Simple System Dynamics
Models. First International Big History Conference, Grand Rapids MI, Aug
2-5, 2012.
LEPOIRE, DAVID J.: Potential nested accelerating returns logistic growth in Big History.
In Evolution: From Big Bang to Nanorobots.
Edited by: Leonid Grinin and Andrey Korotayev. Volgograd: ‘Uchitel’ Publishing
House, 2015.
LEPOIRE, DAVID J.: Interpreting Big History as Complex Adaptive System Dynamics with
Nested Logistic Transitions in Energy Flow and Organization. Emergence:
Complexity & Organization, accepted 3/28/2015.
LOEVINGER, JANE: Ego Development. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, 1976.
LORIMER, DAVID (ed.): El espíritu de la ciencia. [The Spirit of Science]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2000.
LOVEJOY, ARTHUR O.:
The Great Chain of Being. Harvard
University Press. Cambridge,
1976.
LOVELOCK, JAMES: Gaia, una nueva visión de la vida sobre la tierra. [Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth]. Ed. Orbis. Barcelona, 1985.
LOY, DAVID: No-dualidad. [Nonduality]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2000.
LUPASCO, STEPHANE: Energía y materia psíquica. [L’énergie et la
matière vivante]. Fundación
Cánovas del Castillo. Madrid, 1983.
MC INTOSH, STEVE: Integral Consciousness and the Future of
Evolution. Paragon House. St. Paul, Minnesota, 2007.
MC INTOSH, STEVE: Evolution’s Purpose. Select Books. New
York, 2012.
MC KENNA, TERENCE: Invisible Landscape. Kuperand. London,
1994.
MAC LEAN, PAUL: The Triune Brain in Evolution. Plenum. New York, 1990.
MANDELBROT, BENOÎT: La
geometría fractal de la naturaleza [The Fractal Geometry of Nature]
Tusquets Editores. Barcelona, 1997.
MARTÍNEZ LOZANO, ENRIQUE: Otro modo de ver. Otro modo de vivir.
Ed. Desclée de Brouwer. Bilbao, 2014.
MARTÍNEZ MIGUÉLEZ, MIGUEL: El paradigma emergente. Ed. Gedisa.
Barcelona, 1993.
MASLOW, ABRAHAM: El hombre autorrealizado. [Towards
a Psychology of Being]. Ed.
Kairós. Barcelona, 1972.
MATURANA, HUMBERTO: La realidad: ¿objetiva o construida? Ed. Anthropos. Barcelona,
1995.
MATURANA, H. and VARELA, F.: El árbol del conocimiento. [Tree of Knowledge]. Ed. Debate. Madrid, 1990.
MAXWELL, GRANT: The Dynamics of Transformation. Persistent
Press. Nashville, 2016.
MEIJER D. K. F. and GEESINK H. J. H.: Consciousness
in the Universe is Scale Invariant and Implies an Event Horizon of the Human
Brain. NeuroQuantology,
Volume 15, Issue 3, 41-79. (2017).
MEIJER, D., IVALDI,
F., FAIXAT, J. and KLEIN, A.: Mechanisms for Information Signalling in the
Universe: The Integral Connectivity of the Fabric of Reality Revealed. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353804793_Mechanisms_for_Information_Signalling_in_the_Universe_The_Integral_Connectivity_of_the_Fabric_of_Reality_Revealed?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwYWdlIjoicHJvZmlsZSJ9fQ ]
MERLO, VICENTE: Las enseñanzas de Sri Aurobindo. Ed. Kairós, 1998.
MERRY, PETER: Volution
Theory [ www.volutiontheory.net ]
MEYER, FRANÇOIS: L’accélération evolutive. Essai sur le
rythme évolutif et son interprétation quantique. Librairie des Sciences et
des Arts. Paris, 1947.
MINSKY, MARVIN L.: Will robots inherit the
earth? Scientific American, 1994.
MODIS, THEODORE: Forecasting the growth of complexity and
change. North-Holland, 2001. [ www.growth-dynamics.com/articles/Forecasting_Complexity.pdf ]
MORAVEC, HANS: Today's
Computers, Intelligent Machines, and Our Future. Analog Science Fiction and
Fact, 1979.
MORAVEC, HANS: Mind
Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence, Harvard U. Press,
1988.
MORIN, EDGAR: El paradigma perdido. [Le paradigme perdu]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona,
1974.
MORIN, EDGAR: Ciencia con consciencia. [Science avec conscience]. Ed. Anthropos. Barcelona, 1984.
MORRIS, SIMON
CONWAY: Life’s Solution. Cambridge
University Press, 2004.
NAGEL, THOMAS: La mente y el
cosmos. [Mind and Cosmos]. Editorial Biblioteca Nueva. Madrid, 2014.
NAZARETYAN, AKOP: Peering into the 21st Century: Mega-History
and its “Mysterious Singularity”. [ temnyjles.narod.ru/Nzrtn/Xxi-angl.htm
]
NAZARETYAN, AKOP: Futuro no-lineal. [Nonlinear Futures].
Ed. Suma Qamaña. Buenos
Aires, 2014.
NISKER, WES: Naturaleza de Buda. El Tao de la evolución. [Buddha’s Nature]. La
liebre de marzo. Barcelona, 2002.
PANDA, NRUSINGH C.: Ciencia y Vedanta. [Maya in Physics]. Ed. Etnos. Madrid, 2011.
PÁNIKER, SALVADOR: Aproximación al origen. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1982.
PANIKKAR, RAIMON: La intuición cosmoteándrica. Ed. Trotta. Madrid, 1999.
PANOV, ALEXANDER: Scaling law of the biological evolution and
the hypothesis of the self-consistent Galaxy origin of life. Advances in
Space Research, 36 (2005).
[ http://alpha.sinp.msu.ru/~panov/ASR_Panov_Life.pdf ]
PANOV, ALEXANDER: ¿Punto de bifurcación evolutivo? LeonAlado.org.
PANOV, ALEXANDER: Crisis sistémica de la civilización como
singularidad de la historia y posible rol del programa SETI en el desarrollo
post-crisis. LeonAlado.org
PEAT, F. DAVID: Sincronicidad. [Synchronicity]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1988.
PHIPPS, CARTER: Evolucionarios. [Evolutionaries]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2013.
PIAGET, JEAN and
INHELDER, BÄRBEL: The Psychology of the
Child. Basic Books. New York, 1969.
PIGEM, JORDI
(coord.): Nueva conciencia. Integral monográfico 22. Integral Ed.
Barcelona, 1991.
PRIBRAM, KARL H.: Languages of the brain.
Brandon House, 1971.
PRIBRAM, K. and MARTÍN, J.: Cerebro, mente y holograma. Ed.
Alhambra. Madrid, 1980.
PRIGOGINE, I. and STENGERS, I.: La nueva alianza. [La nouvelle alliance].
Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1990.
RACIONERO, L. and MEDINA, L.: El nuevo paradigma. P.P.U. Barcelona, 1990.
REES, PHILIPPA: Involution: An Odyssey Reconciling Science
to God. Kindle Edition. CollaborArt Books, 2013.
REEVES, ETTER, VON
FRANZ and others: La sincronicidad. [La syncronicité, l’aime et la science]. Gedisa Ed. Barcelona, 1993.
RESCH, JASON K.: AlwaysAsking.com.
[ https://alwaysasking.com/about-jason/ ]
RICARD, M. and THUAN, T. X.: El infinito en la palma de la mano.
[L’infini dans la paume de la main]. Ed. Urano. Barcelona, 2001.
RUELLE, DAVID: Azar y caos. [Hasard et chaos]. Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1993.
RUSSELL, PETER: La tierra inteligente. [The Awakening
Earth]. Gaia Ed. Madrid,
1993.
RUSSELL, PETER: El agujero blanco en el tiempo. [The
White Hole in Time]. Gaia
Ed. Madrid, 1994.
RUSSELL, PETER: Ciencia, conciencia y luz. [From Science to God]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2001.
RUSSELL, PETER: A Singularity in Time. In Various
Authors: The Mistery of 2012. Sounds
True, 2009. [ http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/SoundsTrue2012.php]
RUSSELL, WALTER: The Universal One. The University of
Science & Philosophy. Waynesboro, 1927.
RUYER, RAYMOND: La gnosis de Princeton. [La gnose de Princeton]. Ed. Eyras. Madrid,
1985.
SAGAN, CARL: Los dragones del Edén. [The Dragons of
Eden]. Ed. Grijalbo. Barcelona,
1979.
SANDÍN, M., AGUDELO, G. and ALCALÁ, J.
G.: Evolución: un nuevo paradigma. Ed.
IIEH. Madrid, 2003.
SATPREM: Sri Aurobindo o la aventura de la conciencia. [Sri Aurobindo ou
l’aventure de la conscience]. Ed. Obelisco. Barcelona, 1984.
SCHRÖDINGER, ERWIN: Mente y materia. [Mind and Matter]. Tusquets Ed. Barcelona, 1983.
SCHRÖDINGER, ERWIN: ¿Qué es la vida? [What Is Life?].Tusquets Ed. Barcelona, 1983.
SCHRÖDINGER, ERWIN: Mi concepción del mundo. [Meine Weltansicht.
Mein Leben]. Tusquets Ed. Barcelona, 1988.
SHELDRAKE, RUPERT: Una nueva ciencia de la vida. [A
New Science of Life]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1989.
SHELDRAKE, RUPERT: La presencia del pasado. [The Presence of
the Past]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1990.
SHELDRAKE, R., MC
KENNA, T. and ABRAHAM, R.: Chaos,
Creativity and Cosmic Consciousness. Inner Traditions, 2001.
SITHAMPARANATHAN, J.: La filosofía de la existencia en Ramana
Maharshi y la ciencia moderna. [Ramana Maharshi’s
Philosophy of Existence and Modern Science]. Ed. Gulaab. Madrid, 2008.
SMART, JOHN M.: Acceleration Watch. [ www.accelerationwatch.com/
]
SMART, JOHN M.: Evo Devo Universe?
A Framework for Speculations on Cosmic Culture. A chapter in: Cosmos
& Culture, S. Dick and M. Lupisella (Eds.), NASA Press, 2009. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253514068_Evo_Devo_Universe_A_Framework_for_Speculations_on_Cosmic_Culture]
SMART, JOHN M.: The Transcension
Hypothesis: Sufficiently Advanced Civilizations May Invariably Leave Our
Universe, and Implications for METI and SETI. https://accelerating.org/articles/transcensionhypothesis.html
SMITH, CARTER
VINCENT: Twelve Stage Vision. [ www.twelvestagevision.com/
]
SMITH, CARTER
VINCENT: Accelerating Evolution. [ acceleratingevolution.info/
]
SMUTS, JAN C.: Holism and Evolution. Macmillan. New
York, 1927.
SNOOKS, GRAEME D.: The Dynamic Society. Routledge. London,
1996.
SNOOKS, GRAEME D.: The origin of life on earth: A new general
dynamic theory. (2005). [ https://sites.google.com/site/graemesnooks/articles/SnooksASR.pdf ]
STEINHART, ERIC: Teilhard de Chardin and
Transhumanism. Journal of Evolution and Technology. Vol. 20 – Issue 1 – pgs. 1-22 [ http://jetpress.org/v20/steinhart.htm ]
STEWART, IAN: ¿Juega Dios a los dados? [Does God Play
Dice?]. Ed. Crítica. Barcelona, 1991.
STEWART, JOHN: Evolution’s Arrow: the direction of
evolution and the future of humanity. The Chapman Press. Canberra, 2000.
SWIMME, BRIAN: El corazón secreto del cosmos. [The Hidden Heart of the Cosmos]. Ed. San Pablo.
Buenos Aires, 1997.
SZENT-GYORGYI,
ALBERT: Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself. Synthesis 1, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 14-26,
1977.
TAYLOR, STEVE: El salto. [The Leap].
Gaia Ed. Madrid, 2018.
TAYLOR, STEVE: Por una ciencia
espiritual. [Spiritual Science]. Koan Libros. Badalona, 2019.
TALBOT, MICHAEL: Misticismo y física moderna. [Mysticism and the New Physics]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1986.
TALBOT, MICHAEL: Más allá de la teoría cuántica. [Beyond
the Quantum]. Ed. Gedisa. Barcelona,
1988.
TALBOT, MICHAEL: El universo holográfico. [The Holographic Universe]. La esfera de
los libros. Madrid, 2007.
TART, CHARLES: Psicologías transpersonales (2 volumes). [Transpersonal Psychologies]. Ed. Paidós. Buenos Aires, 1979.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, PIERRE: El fenómeno humano. [Le Phénomène humain]. Taurus Ed. Madrid,
1959.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, PIERRE: El medio divino. [Le Milieu divin].
Taurus-Alianza. Madrid, 1960.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, PIERRE: El futuro del hombre. [L’Avenir de l’homme].
Taurus Ed. Madrid, 1964.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, PIERRE: La activación de la energía. [L’Activation
de l’energie]. Taurus Ed. Madrid, 1965.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, PIERRE: Himno del universo. [Hymne de l’Univers]. Ed Trotta. Madrid, 2004.
THOM, RENÉ: Estabilidad estructural y morfogénesis. [Stabilité structurelle et
morphogénèse]. Gedisa Ed. Barcelona, 1987.
THOMPSON, WILLIAM I. (ed.): Gaia: implicaciones de la nueva biología.
[Gaia: A Way of Knowing]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1989.
TORRENT, RAQUEL (ed.): Evolución integral. Ed. Kairós.
Barcelona, 2009.
VANNINI, ANTONELLA:
From mechanical to life causation. In Syntropy Journal, 2005 (1). [ http://www.sintropia.it/journal/english/2005-eng-1-2.pdf ]
VANNINI, A. and DI
CORPO, U.: Quantum Physics, Advanced Waves and Consciousness. Journal of
Cosmology, 2011. [ http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness101.html ]
VARELA, THOMPSON
and ROSCH: De cuerpo presente. [The
Embodied Mind]. Gedisa Ed. Barcelona,
1997.
VAUGHAN, FRANCES: El arco interno. [The Inward Arc]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona,
1991.
VIKOULOV, ALEX M.: Ecstadelic [ https://www.alexvikoulov.com/ ]
VINGE, VERNOR: The Coming Technological Singularity. In NASA. Lewis Research Center, Vision 21,
1993. [ https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19940022856
]
VINGE, VERNOR: Marooned
in Realtime, St. Martin’s Press. 1986.
VISSER, FRANK: Ken Wilber. [Ken Wilber: Thought as
Passion]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2004.
WADDINGTON, BOHM,
THOM and others: Hacia una biología
teórica. [Towards a Theoretical Biology]. Alianza Ed. Madrid, 1976.
WADE, JENNY: Changes of Mind. State University of New
York. Albany, 1996.
WALKER, KENNETH: Enseñanza y sistema de Gurdjieff. [A
Study of Gurdjieff’s Teaching]. Ed. Dédalo. Buenos Aires, 1976.
WALLACE, B. ALAN: La ciencia de la mente. [Embracing Mind]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona,
2009.
WALSH, VAUGHAN (ed.): Más allá del ego. [Beyond Ego]. Ed.
Kairós. Barcelona, 1982.
WALSH, VAUGHAN (ed.): Trascender el ego. [Paths Beyond Ego]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1994.
WARTELLA, MELVYN: Ego, evolución e iluminación. [Ego, Evolution and
Enlightenment].
Ed. Sirio. Málaga, 2005.
WASHBURN, MICHAEL: El ego y el Fundamento Dinámico. [The
Ego and the Dynamic Ground]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1997.
WATTS, ALAN: El libro del tabú. [The Book: On the Taboo
Against Knowing Who You Are]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1972.
WEBER, RENÉE: Diálogos con científicos y sabios. [Dialogues
with Scientists and Sages]. Los
libros de la liebre de marzo. Barcelona, 1990.
WEIL, PIERRE: Los límites del ser humano. [L’homme sans frontieres]. La liebre
de marzo. Barcelona, 1997.
WHEELER, JOHN A. y
FEYNMAN, ROBERT P.: Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of
Radiation. Review of Modern Physics; 17: 157-161, 1945.
WHEELER, JOHN A. y
FEYNMAN, ROBERT P.: Classical Electrodynamics in Terms of Direct
Interparticle Action. Reviews of Modern Physics 21 (July): 425-433, 1949.
WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH: Process and Reality. Corrected edition
by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. The Free Press. New York, 1985.
WILBER, KEN: El espectro de la conciencia. [The Spectrum
of Consciousness]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona,
1990.
WILBER, KEN: La conciencia sin fronteras. [No Boundary]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona,
1984.
WILBER, KEN: El proyecto Atman. [The Atman
Project]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona,
1989.
WILBER, KEN: Después del Edén. [Up from Eden]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1995.
WILBER, KEN: Los tres ojos del conocimiento. [Eye
to Eye]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona,
1991.
WILBER, KEN: Sexo, ecología, espiritualidad
[Sex, Ecology, Spirituality]. (2 volumes). Gaia Ed. Madrid,
1996-1997.
WILBER, KEN: Breve historia de todas las cosas. [A
Brief History of Everything]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1997.
WILBER, KEN: Ciencia y religión. [The Marriage of Sense
and Soul]. Ed. Kairós.
Barcelona, 1998.
WILBER, KEN: El ojo del espíritu. [The Eye of Spirit]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1998.
WILBER, KEN: Diario. [One Taste]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2000.
WILBER, KEN: Una visión integral de la psicología. [Integral Psychology].
Alamah. México D. F., 2000.
WILBER, KEN: Una teoría de todo. [A Theory of
Everything]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2001.
WILBER, KEN: Espiritualidad integral. [Integral Spirituality]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2007.
WILBER, KEN: El cuarto giro. [The Fourth
Turning]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2016.
WILBER, KEN: La meditación integral. [Integral Meditation]. Ed. Kairós.
Barcelona, 2016.
WILBER, KEN: La religión del futuro.
[The Religion of Tomorrow]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona,
2018.
WILBER, BOHM,
PRIBRAM and others: El paradigma
holográfico. [Holographic Paradigm]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 1987.
WOODHOUSE, MARK: Más allá del dualismo y del materialismo. [Beyond Dualism and Materialism]. In Doore, Gary
(ed.): ¿Vida después de la muerte? [What
Survives?]. Ed. Kairós.
Barcelona, 1993.
WOODHOUSE, MARK: La conciencia y el monismo de la energía. [Consciousness and Energy Monism]. In Lorimer, David
(ed.): Más allá del cerebro. [Thinking
Beyond the Brain]. Ed. Kairós. Barcelona, 2003.
WRIGHT, ROBERT: Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny.
Vintage. New York, 2001.
XIRINACS, LLUIS M.:
Sujeto. Ed. Claret. Barcelona, 1975.
YOUNG, ARTHUR M.: The Reflexive Universe. Delacorte Press.
New York, 1976.
ZDENEK III, CARL CHRISTOPHER: The Fractal Nature of Consciousness, The Evolution of the “Global Human”, and The Driving Forces of History. [ cejournal.org/GRD/zdenek.pdf ]
ZUKAV, GARY: La Danza de los Maestros. [The Dancing Wu Li Masters]. Ed. Argos Vergara. Barcelona, 1981.
4 comentarios:
This is very descriptive article about english,..i like it,.
"http://teflgermany.com"
This is so useful and I like your style of writing.The text is easy to understand and clearly helpful for me. Keep sharing like that!
www.miguelribeiro.net
I would highly recommend Mr, Benjamin services to any person in need financial help and they will keep you on top of high directories for any further needs. Once again I commend yourself and your staff for extraordinary service and customer service, as this is a great asset to your company and a pleasant experience to customers such as myself. Wishing you all the best for the future.Mr, Benjamin is best way to get an easy loan,here is there email.. / 247officedept@gmail.com Or talk to Mr Benjamin On WhatsApp Via_+1-989-394-3740 Thank You for helping me with loan once again in my sincerely heart I'm forever grateful.
Vey nice work. Thank you Jose.
Publicar un comentario