Since a long time, I’ve been working on a subject that has taken form as the years went by, until now where I feel that finally it has enough coherence and clarity to possibly make tumble many of the central “dogmas” of the materialistic science.
What, at first, seemed only an innocent and bold intuition about the rhythm of the universe, has become a real formal proposal after the corresponding subsequent and surprising testing in different scopes of reality (paleontological, anthropological, historical, embryological, psychological…). It has become an unexpected “periodic table of evolution” that smashes against the ongoing vision about how the world works.
As the subject is extremely ample and is too much for me alone, I’ve thought in sending it out to the Net as a hypothesis about the “hidden rhythm of evolution”. In this way anyone that could be interested in such matters could access to read it along to draw its own conclusions and researches. I’m convinced that from many different perspectives, the conclusions we can get are much richer than the ones I could have reached by myself alone. You’re invited.
From the start, and to enter already in the subject itself, I am going to draw the general scene in which we will develop our proposal. Things are changing.
A new universe
During the last decades, the apparently solid vision of the mechanistic and materialistic world has started to show alarming cracks. Approaches that a century ago were taken as rigorous and almost irrefutable start to be seriously call into question.
Previously it was said that the universe is moved by a simple game of chance in progressive degradation and relentlessly oriented toward a thermic death. Beyond this dark omen the new science contemplates with surprise a fascinating creativity in all spheres of reality. An unstoppable evolutionary current runs through all the cosmic history, generating all types of novelties. The supposed universal machine, almost damned to scrap, unveils now like a living being animated by a self-creative permanent force. It seems that Nature starts to reveal the secrets of its holistic inner tendency that pushes toward climbing the ladder of organized complexity. Such ascending impulse has been creating progressively, differentiated, inclusive and integrated units.
The Mechanistic Science had the reductionist dream of explaining the functioning of complex structures exclusively using its more basic components. The new science has broken such a dream when testing over and over and in diverse levels of reality that the whole is bigger than the sum of the parts. The evolution flow engenders novelties that although logically compatible with precedent structures cannot however be explained by them. There is thus a dynamic and hierarchical scheme of the world in which emerging levels are integrated with the previous ones, therefore generating more complex, inclusive and broad organisms. Elemental particles are part of the atoms, atoms form molecules, molecules cells, cells organism, etcetera. Thus, the universe is shown as a hierarchy that extends unlimitedly up and down and throughout all of the evolutionary course.
On the other hand, everyone of the levels of universal reality is structured by an infinite reciprocal game among individuals and communities. One and many are faced as reflections in a net of mirrors. It is not possible to find an individual without its environment, not a collectivity without the individuals who make it. We cannot separate isolated unities in these universal networks of interrelationships and interconnections. As Quantum Physics has demonstrated the scope of these complex webs of relations go beyond what we could humanly conceive, even transcending our time and space schemes. There are no “parts” really separated in any level of the evolution scale. On the contrary, as in a holographic plate each “fragment” of the world is not any other thing than a concrete expression of the same and unique totality. The universe starts to show itself to the eyes of new science as a unified field that reflects dynamically in every corner of itself.
We pretended to build the world upon the solid and strong basis of the matter but this myth has not either resisted the empirical testing. Subatomic analysis has literally made that the floor disappears under our feet. Our supposedly indestructible material base has dissolved in pure forms, patterns, orders and relationships in a fabric that is not substantial anymore but merely and purely abstract. We are supported by evanescent forms that frantically emerge and disappear in an intangible void. Scientists even say that the universe starts to look more like a thought than like a machine.
The materialistic focus of classical science also aimed to describe the world “objectively”, marginalizing the situation to the “subject” that was making the description. Nevertheless the emergent postmodern perspective has, once more, set forth the complete ingenuity of this project. Inevitably the observation mind is part of the observed universe. There is not object without subject, there is not outside without inside, neither reality without consciousness. Both terms are definitively interrelated and therefore any intent of integral comprehension of the phenomenal world must necessarily include both facets. Evolution dynamics is therefore perceived as a generator of entities, not only progressively more organized and complex in its external aspect but also, at the same time, deeper and more conscious in its internal scope. We cannot limit our vision only to the surface of things because although we pretend to ignore them over and over the depths of lucidity will finally present themselves to us.
The universe that starts to display itself before our wondering gaze has little to do with that blind insensitive artifact, mechanical and inert world in which the human being that was imagining it, didn’t even have a place. The new perspectives that study reality, do not consider us any more as the aberrant creatures in a world without sense, but on the contrary, as appealing expressions of the creative flow of totality; authentic microcosms that reflect with evolving clarity, the infinite richness of a fascinating macrocosm.
Our research about the rhythm of evolution is framed inside of this new perspective of a self-creative universe —generator of novelties, progressively complex and organized—, hierarchical —in which every new level transcends and integrate all the previous—, holographic —in which every part reflects the totality—, impermanent —in a continuous dance of creation and destruction—, lucid —capable of knowing itself—, and void —without a basic substance that supports it.
In this new emerging scene, our risky proposal that it exists a harmonious pattern that governs the rhythm of Evolution, does not sound so odd now. We shall see.
The crisis of Darwinism
Nowadays science agrees on Evolution as the central characteristic of the universe. There is a complete consensus about the dynamic and creative features of phenomenal reality in all fields of human knowledge —astrophysics, biology, psychology, sociology, and others. Nevertheless, there are discrepancies in the interpretations of the facts.
Darwin’s theory of evolution was primarily based in random mutations and in the “survival of the fittest”. The “synthetic theory” widened these formulations on the late 30’s and beginning of the 40’s during the last century, with the contribution of Mendelian genetics and population-based genetic studies, maintaining as explanatory basic elements the said random mutation and the natural selection. This synthetic theory enjoyed a remarkable acceptance during two or three decades, but since 1970 loads of controversy and disputes have arisen. The idea that the synthetic theory is wrong is starting to take shape for many palentologists, genetists, embriologists and taxonomists: they deny the random factor to be the only principle that governs the evolutionary process. They reject that natural selection is the overall explanation for the emergence of new species. They affirm that the fossil record does not match the Darwinian gradualism and denounce that the theory doesn’t reflect the phenomenon of increasing complexity.
Biologists find very difficult to understand how a primarily random search among an extremely high number of possibilities could have as a consequence the emergence of life with its evident level of complexity. Evolution, as we understand it today, cannot be conceived by random variations as the unique material. Organisms vary as a block, for what would be required is that mutations would also occur in giant numbers, simultaneously, in the proper manner, when the “need” would arise and with a close connection among them… How could all this be fulfilled by chance? We could say the same thing about the formation of any of the complex organs, for example the internal ear or the brain. A classical problem has been the difficulty to explain the intermediate forms in the development of complex adaptations, like in the case of the eyes. Darwin himself confessed that it was absurd to imagine that the eye could have evolved by natural selection.
The former idea of Darwin about the new species emerging gradually by the initiative of natural selection along the current of time is actually being questioned. The simple principle of natural selection seems inadequate in understanding and predicting all the evolutionary processes. Spontaneous mutations may explain variations within a certain specie but not the subsequent variations among them.
Long before Mendel laws were known, many varieties of domestic animals and plants were already being developed by means of selective breeding. There is not any reason to doubt that Nature may produce a similar development of races and varieties under the leverage of natural selection instead of artificial selection. The mechanisms of the microevolution —small evolutionary changes consisting in minor disturbances on the genetic proportions, number of chromosomes or chromosomal abnormalities— may be explained by the Neodarwinian theory as per the random mutations , the Mendel’s genetics and natural selection. But this mechanistic scheme, that may be valid at small scale —in a given specie—, encounters lots of problems when trying to explain the origin of new species —the so called “speciation”— and even bigger difficulties when faced with the emergence of gender, families of superior taxonomic divisions. Macroevolution or typogenesis —the evolution of these taxonomic categories of superior order— show far too great differences among divisions in case of gradual transformations’ emergence. The conclusion seems to be that the laws that govern the big scale processes —as the origin of new types or the extinction of species— are different than the ones that rule the simple adaptation to the environmental process. Thus the reductionist hope goes down the drain when talking about “macro” scale processes being immediately deductible from the “micro” scale. In the words of C.H. Waddington: “one of the most fundamental problems of the Theory of Evolution is to understand how the evident discontinuities found among the main taxonomic groups have emerged: filum, family, specie, etcetera”.
The ongoing sensation prevails that is not possible anymore to explain speciation simply by natural selection. Some have even asserted that natural selection does not in fact have anything to do with the emergence of new species. Over the past few years the gradualist conception of evolution has shown to be responsible only for a small part of the evolutionary change and also that the deepest changes in the biological evolution take place in specific moments of the groups’ history, in a very rapid manner and giving birth to stable species that suffer very little subsequent variations.
The fossils’ record mainly consist in thick layers of earth mass in which some species are evenly distributed, separated by thin surfaces through which species suddenly change in a process of multiple speciation. Many paleontologists think that this intermittent history shown by fossils must not be attributed to simple gaps in the record but that it basically demonstrate the rhythm in which life has evolved. Therefore, many of them have started to face the classical conception about the tempo of the evolution. The Darwinian version of a slow continuous and gradual process has given way to the interpretation characterized by discontinuous, jumping and sudden changes. There is so, an evident renaissance of the idea of the vigorous, sudden and rapid speciation, against the calm gradation, strongly giving rise to the perception that in the fossils’ record there is much more information than what we could imagine with just the natural selection. That is because of the emergence of non predictable patterns with our present knowledge about populations and processes in small scale.
In 1972, S. J. Gould and N. Eldredge published a productive study in which they demonstrated that Nature progresses by sudden jumps and deep transformations and not through small adaptations. According to the Theory of the intermittent equilibria, evolutionary jumps are relatively sudden processes; the speciation stops during long periods in which existing species persist without fundamental variations and without creating new species. Meanwhile the specie persists, it is relatively invariable; its legacy of genetic information is transmitted without main changes to the next generations. But at some point, suddenly, this inertia is broken and an evolutionary leap forward takes place. As Gould says “the history of any part of the Earth, as such of a soldier, is made of long periods of boredom and short lapses of terror”.
However, the synthetic theory has difficulties to explain not only the sudden changes of the species but also the long periods of stability. Therefore, some researchers have started to search possible explanations for those sudden emergences of new species —analyzing changes in the rhythm of the embryonic processes that may produce big effects in adult organisms— as well as those surprising stability stages —studying the possibility that the organisms genetic or biological development would not permit but the monitoring of certain morphological routes; in that case, once the specie would have found a good solution to the environmental problems it would stick to it by means of numerous changes and secondary genetic disturbances not changing again until there would have a suitable stable solution for the future.
Specialists in macroevolution make other provocative observations about the fossils’ record that are difficult to explain from the simple Neodarwinian principles. For example, the fact that the more simple an organism is, the longer is its permanence period or the fact that total diversity seems to be closer to a stationary state, that is, that the tree of life has stopped to sprout branches having reached certain balance or the always present puzzle that practically all of the animals Fila —types— have emerged precisely among the first leftovers of the cambric explosion, 530 million years ago, or the evident growth of complexity of the organisms throughout evolution itself.
Classical science tried to explain the new events of evolution as mere moody random products, coincidences against the tide in an absurd universe fatally doomed to total chaos. It was said that the emergence of life and mind was only an almost impossible strange anecdote in a world of inert and inanimate material.
It is also curious how a theory as the natural selection one, that pretends to clarify the origin of the species may offer no explanation —as Darwin himself admitted in several occasions— for the phenomena of the increase in complexity, that is the essential feature of Evolution. According to J. Maynard Smith —one of the main theorists of the Evolucionism—: “we do not have anything in the Neodarwinian theory that permit us predict in the long run an augmentation of complexity”. In other words, natural selection doesn’t imply no directionality in time. However, observing the whole picture of evolution we can perceive with pristine clarity a characteristic arrow in the process: along time, living beings have gone for the most part from a simple structure to a more complex one and at the same time they have raised their psyche and their autonomy. Paleontological documents are a clear sample of such increasing currents of structural and relationship functioning complexity as well as the simultaneous advancement of the capacity of such organisms to capture and process information from the environment. All this has pushed many researches to propose alternative or complementary theories that try to explain the observed phenomena.
As we have previously said, science is starting to understand that, simultaneously with the process of homogeneity and positive entropy development —chaos— perceived in the universe, occurs with the same naturalness as the reverse phenomena, that is, the progressive increase of the heterogeneity and the negative entropy. This latter is a mathematical counterpart concept of information that may be considered as a new measurement for order and organization. Opposite to the classic thermodynamics that pretended to reduce the processes of self-organization to mere accidental events, simple insignificant anecdotes, the thermodynamic of imbalance of today enables the understanding about the progressive and accelerated evolution of living beings and our own human history as something more than mere strange accidents in the cosmic advent.
Up until the 70’s of the last century, researches were inclined by the conception, presented in the most expressive manner by Jacques Monod: Evolution acts mainly due to causal factors. But in the decade of 1980, many scientists started to be convinced that Evolution is not an accident but a necessary event that occurs when certain parametrical conditions take place. Laboratory experiments and quantitative formulations are confirming the non accidental character of the evolutionary processes. It is starting to be evident that the continuous deployment of the organized complexity of the universe, its sporadic inner self-organizing capacity constitutes a fundamental and deeply mysterious property of reality. A new and fascinating paradigm is beginning to emerge. The paradigm of the creative universe that recognizes the surprisingly innovative and progressive nature of universal dynamics. There’s a great deal of talk about the crazy organizing frenzy of the material, about the animated evolutionary ghost that starts to appear in our vision of the world, about the strange self-organize capacity of Nature, about its mysterious tendency to ascend the steps of complexity and those of the autopoietic dynamics —self-creation— of the whole universe.
The new sciences of Evolution perceive a new harmonious and natural coherence throughout the creative universal process from the mere originating instant. They deny that the random factor may be the only explicative argument of novelty phenomena and they denounce that the old theory doesn’t explain at all the surprising emergence of increasing complexity. On the contrary, they support the non accidental character of the evolutionary processes and they share many tests that all dynamical systems, at different levels of reality, develop similar creative patterns.The new approaches demonstrate how any dynamic system far from balance may leave its permanent state when some environmental parameters change. In these situations, and after a chaotic and indeterminate phase, systems may spontaneously reach new balance states of bigger complexity. The global evolutionary trajectory looks, therefore, like stairs in which horizontal steps alternate, almost without changes, with abrupt jumps of level.
Both within theoretical or empirical works and in hard or soft sciences, they aim to understand the innate creative tendency of Nature; the surprising patterns of organization where the random game is channeled. We hear things like: dynamic attractors, morphogenetic fields, archetypal channels, implicate order, fractal structures —self-similar—, and also, stratified stabilities. It seems already evident that creativity cannot be reduced to a mere random product but to the holistic intervention of unified fields that may explain both, the totality feature of creative phenomena and their instantaneity quality. The indomitable integrity of these fields would also explain their capacity to organize in a harmonious manner and by means of a unique impulse as diverse and independent elements.
Our hypothesis about the rhythm of Evolution contributes with some new features to this investigation and may also offer a line of work, full of nice surprises.
A harmonious solution
We were saying that the supposed solidity of the material, upon which we were trying to build the world, has evaporated before the eyes of the New Science, into pure forms and relationships made of an abstract and insubstantial fabric. Thus, the ancient debate among several Greeks schools arises again in our time. While for Ionic philosophers the most important matter was to find the corporeal substance of the world for the Platonic and Pythagorean the key was found in the patterns and orders. The Science of today moves, basically, in this second line.
The most fundamental affirmation of the Pythagorean was that numbers constitute the unmovable principle of the world; the very essence of reality. When they discovered that the proportions among musical harmonics could be expressed in a simple and exact form, they considered that the Cosmos itself was a harmonious system of numerical reasoning: all reality could be expressed by means of relationships among numbers. According to them the inherited numerical order of sounds was directly related with the self organization of the universe, and therefore music, for them, was not any other thing but the expression of cosmic inner relationships. They even affirmed that all material manifestation was the result of united universal vibrations.
At the beginning of XX century, physicists were confused when recognizing how the energy presents itself in very precise packages when emitted or absorbed by atoms, far from previsions and expected presentation as a continuous flow. During several decades they tried to explain this strange phenomena looking for a good new mathematical theory for the atom that would generate those quantum number in a natural manner. The solution arrived when proposing the similarity among the world of electrons and that of musical harmonic —standing waves—, emerging then, the happy wave equation with surprising precision, as the fundamental piece of the revolutionary Quantum Physics. It seems that we are literally made of music, that we are pure abstract relationships in an insignificant reality, the acoustic appearance of the quantum void, the silent music and the sounding solitude, that amazed our mystics so much.
Standing waves are known by anyone that has played a musical instrument. The main feature of these waves is that divide the vibrant element –string, tube or rim- in completely equal sections. A guitar string, for example, cannot vibrate randomly –due to the fact that it has fixed ends and therefore has to do it in such a way that its ends remain motionless.This is what limits its possible variations and introduces entire numbers. The string can ondulate 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 ones, or in some other entire number of equal parts, but it can not vibrate, for example, in three and a half parts or in five and a quarter.
In the theory of the music these successive standing waves are called “harmonic sounds”. The unlimited series of these harmonics, originated from the “fundamental sound” of the complete original unity, define in a very precise manner the diverse degrees of the sounding vibrations, that is, the whole hierarchy of stability levels of musical flow.
We then see, that both in the microscopic world of Quantum Physics and in the microscopic reality of our musical instruments, the energy —vibrations— do not occur in a continuous mode but in a quantified manner according to a hierarchy of standing waves. In any level of reality, a vibrant element —atoms or guitar strings— have very precise potential levels within in which energy flow is stabilized.
We have said before that the new science considers the universe in a holistic mode, in other words, that perceives Nature as an integrated wholeness, a not fragmented or divided global movement. We have also seen how the evolutionary dynamic of this unified universe display its novelties in a discontinuous manner, exactly the same as the deeper transformation of evolution take place suddenly and abruptly. This generates a hierarchy of organization levels progressively more complex and inclusive. We find, again, avibrant energy —an evolutionary universe— that channels its energy flow in a very defined series of stability levels. Like the atoms. Like the musical instruments.
Both in the world of Atomic Physics as well as in the musical world, they arrived to unveil the secret of their sudden jumps and its sound discontinuities thanks to the standing waves and the musical harmonics. Could not it happen the same thing with Evolution? Doesn’t it sound very coherent that this unified universe that we are starting to discover would generate similar creative patterns in its different organization levels? Doesn’t sound then appealing that the sudden evolutionary changes in the universe history respond, precisely, to these same standing waves that are the explanatory key of both the subatomic and music world? This has been the basic intuition that has given ground to our evolutionary rhythm hypothesis and that we’re going to summarize hereafter.
A new theory has recently been approached about a special unique process that explains without any reductionism the hierarchically ordered diversity. This theory suggests , as a general cosmologic principle, the concept of “stratified stability of potential levels” as the key to understand the evolution of unbalanced systems. Basically suggests the existence of specific levels of stability around which energy streams would gathered and organize. This would permit the subsequent and sudden emergence toward new layers or levels of progressive complexity. Our hypothesis constitutes a very precise specification in this attractive approach. Let us examine this with greater detail.
Taking the example, again, of the guitar string, let’s imagine that the guitar is tuned in C note —the fundamental sound. If we make vibrate half of its length —first harmonic—, we would obtain the same original note in a higher octave. If we induce the vibration of the third part —second harmonic— we’ll get a different note, that in our case, would be the Gnote. That means that with the second harmonic a tonal novelty emerges. Taking the new note as a fundamental sound, we can iterate the experience as many times as we want and we will always obtain with each second harmonic, subsequent staggered sounding novelties. Thus, when we induce the vibration of a third of the length of a note, there will appear a creative jump and with one third of the third, another one and with one third of the one third of the third, another new one, and so on.
This simple fact clarifies the key of our hypothesis. The proposal is very simple: considering the temporary or timely totality as a vibration unit —see Figs. 2—, the consecutive second chained harmonics, that is the subsequent thirds of the duration, will mark the emergence of evolutionary novelties. In other words, the second harmonics will define those “potential levels of stratified stability” through which Nature’s creativity channels itself or those steps in the ladder of Evolution through which the energy streams flow in their ascending process of creation of more and more complex and conscious organisms.
In Figs. 2, we could graphically see the global process. If we take the complete temporary course —from the “origin” to the “end”— as the fundamental sound, we have drawn the consecutive level jumps in both directions: in Fig. 2-B the section that goes from the origin to the second node “P” of exteriorization, what is called the “exit” section or “outwards”, and in Fig. 2-A the section that ranges from that same second node up to the end —the section of “return” or “inwards”. In Fig. 2-C, we show the joint trajectory, the global ladder of Evolution.
Summarizing our approach, we could say that as when playing a specific tone in a musical instrument, it, simultaneously, sounds a wide range of its harmonics. To the same extent, the universe as a whole shows, from its first original sound, a complete potential hierarchy of standing waves by which through its creative streams might ascend. According to our scheme and coming from the origin punctual vibration, the universal process starts with a rapid explosion of creativity and level jumps that gradually slows down its rhythm in its ascending path toward a specific layer of the spectrum —“the fundamental sound”—, and from there on starts again, a progressive speeding process in its novelty jumps rhythms. All this will happen along the upwards section oriented to the unstoppable punctual vibration which is the end of infinite creativity. Later on we will consider the profound meaning of these surprising poles: origin and end —Alpha & Omega—, as we will precisely find there the key to respond many of our questions.
In order to finally frame, in a coherent and ordered manner our evolutionary rhythms’ musical proposal, we’re going to approach another observation.
As indicated earlier, if we tune a guitar string in the C note, its second harmonic —1/3 of its length— would be a G, At the same time the second harmonic of this G, will be a D.And the one of this D will be an A. If we do indefinitely repeat the same operation, over and over again, we would obtain a chain of sounds —C, G, D, A, E, B, F#, C#, G#…—,that exactly reproduce the order of the “sharp tones”. If we consider that each note of this chain constitutes the characteristic sound of a determined “cycle”, we would then obtain, with each 1/3 of the duration, a complete new sound and therefore a “cycle jump”. In figure 3-A, the successive fundamental sounds with its corresponding harmonics are shown and in Fig. 3-B, the order in which these sounds emerge is thoroughly indicated, without having in account the scale in which they appear. As we can see, after each seven cycles, the same series of notes is repeated in a higher semi-tone. We will term as “series” then each one of the subsequent groups of seven cycles that keep on appearing, and “series jump” the transitions among them.
All our hypothesis of evolutionary rhythms is reduced to what we have just presented. Just that. As simple as that: with each third of the duration a “cycle jump” appears, and after seven cycle jumps appears a “series jump”. It’s very surprising that such a simple scheme has such fine adjustment to the all the key steps of Evolution, both in the global macrocosm —paleontological, anthropological and historical— like in the human microcosm —embryological and psychological. I am certain, dear reader, that after looking at the hypothesis testing that we are about to embark hereafter, you will be convinced that, in reality, there is some hidden secret and even more you will be surprise that no one has recognize this evident and clamorous scheduled rhythm of events. One cannot see the woods for the trees. Get ready.
Verification of the hypothesis in the macrocosm
After having introduced our theoretical rhythms woof of “cycles” and “series”, we are going to verify hereunder the reality of such a “periodic table” that so closely adjusts to the data that science presently offers.
Before starting, we want to clarify that the graphics that we are going to use will be of two types: rectilinear —Fig. 4-A—, in which you would see the evolutionary ladder corresponding to each series and another ones circular —Fig. 4-B—, in which each cycle is detailed independently. These will be able to observe the multiple correspondences among them. But let us not forget that there are simply two different ways of expressing the same data.
According to our proposal, at the origin of each cycle emerges the seed of its own characteristic “sound”, around the first node it starts to be drawn and close to the second node it completely manifests, occurring then a cycle jump.
For the fans of the new evolutionary sciences, we would say that these second nodes of each cycle correspond with the moments of the “chaos”; of “creative unbalance” (I. Prigogine), of “beneficial catastrophes” (R. Thom), in which level jumps or “bifurcations” take place. At these points “atractors” that define the previously expressed pattern disappear and emerge afterwards “coming from heaven” defining a new state. Suddenly the fundamental sound changes for its second harmonic.
Knowing that each cycle has a duration of 1/3, in respect to the previous one, and that each series of seven cycles is, therefore, 37 times shorter than the previous one, it would be enough to know the dates of some key events of history of Evolution, to start “focusing” our theoretical woof about the reality of the facts.
We know that the Big Bang, the seed of the universe, started some 13,200 millions of years ago, that the appearance of the organic macromolecules, seed of life, after the formation of the Earth, happened more than 4.400 million years ago (1/3 of the duration of the universe) and that the emergence of the first human being —Homo habilis— , seed of self consciousness , happened little more than 2 million years ago (a period in time 37times shorter than life).
Placing the Big Bang, then, as the origin of the evolutionary global trajectory and the formation of the Earth as the second node of this trajectory, we could name — remembering Fig. 2-C— “exit” process the itinerary travelled among both points —from the potential energy of the origin emptiness to the formation of complex material—, and “return” process to all evolutionary unfolding of all life from then on.
We are going to go in great detail, precisely in this “return” section. But before, we would like to remember that one of the fundamental problems of the classic evolutionary theory is related to the explanation of the clear discontinuities observed among the main taxonomic groups. Nevertheless in the other hand our scheme of rhythms marks with extreme accuracy, precisely the emerging moments of the subsequent taxonomical degrees of the phylogenetic process of human beings ¡¡¡Kingdom: Animal, in the first cycle, Filum: Chordate, in the second cycle, Class: Mammal, in the third cycle, Order: Primate, in the forth cycle, (Superfamily: Hominiod, in the fifth cycle), Family: hominid in the sixth cycle; and finally Gender: homo, in the seventh cycle!!!. Let’s look at it step by step. I recommend switching between looking at Fig. 5 & 6 and reading the text.
The first cycle (A-1) of the return evolutionary process begins in that precise moment of the emergence of organic macromolecules, after the formation of the Earth and the rest of our solar system. In the approximation journey to the first node (approx. 3.000 million years ago), prokaryotic cells —cells without a nucleus— and when approaching the second node (approx. 1.500 million years ago) eukaryotic cells —cells with nucleus— started to form. It is precisely then when the first of the biggest, above expressed, taxonomic bifurcations takes place, among the Vegetal and Animal Kingdom, when emerging the differentiation among autotrophic eukaryotic with cellular walls of cellulosic type and many of them with chlorophyll —vegetables— , and heterotrophic eukaryotic with only a fine plasmatic membrane and without chlorophyll ever —animals. There is then a jump in a cycle.
The second cycle (A-2) starts, with the formation of the eukaryotic cells. Around the first node (approx.1.000 million years ago) the first multi-cellular organisms begin to emerge, developing their integration at the beginning of the Primary Era with the rapid expansion of marine invertebrates, giving birth to the first vertebrates —fish— when reaching the second node (approx. 500 million years ago). It is exactly in the ascension to this second node —as it is foreseen in our rhythms’ scheme—, when the explosive and surprising appearance of all the Fila —types— animals take place, with our chordate ancestors in the last place, giving way to the first vertebrate fish. New change of cycle.
We would like to point out that the classic paleontologists, when analyzing the fossil remains in the consecutive layers of sedimentary rocks, found some borders clearly drawn in which there existed a sudden change in the nature of the actual fossils. Based in such findings they established the big Eras of Earth’s History: the Primary Era or Paleozoic; the Secondary or Mesozoic and the Tertiary or Cenozoic. The progressive Earth’s atmosphere oxygenation during the Precambrian period, promoted the death of many organisms but, at the same time, permitted that others would use this new energy source to suddenly develop, in new and diversified form at the beginning of the Primary Era, during the so called “Cambrian explosion” or “zoological Big Bang”. This Primary era ended up with the big massive extinction of the Permian period in which almost the 95% of all existing species were annihilated. This fact facilitated the big expansion of the reptile and the emergence of the primitive mammals at the beginning of the Secondary Era. This Secondary Era also ended with the great extinction of the Cretaceous, that provoked the disappearance of the dinosaurs and permitted the great expansion of the modern placented at the start of the Tertiary Era. These three expansive processes, with which the three big Eras of Earth history begin, naturally occur within the three approximation section toward the second nodes of our cycles A-2, A-3, A-4 respectively. Let us continue.
Referring back to the cycle description, we will say that the third (A-3) start, as we saw before with the formation of the first vertebrate fish. In the path toward the first node (approx. 330 million year ago), we find that the amphibious start to conquer the land, a task that with the entrance of the Secondary Era was finally completed by reptiles when getting close to the second node (approx. 165 million years ago) in its peak stage. During the same period, the primitive mammals started to emerge that precisely constitute the third base taxonomic bifurcation —Class— of human phylogeny. Change of cycle.
The fourth cycle (A-4), that starts with the appearance of mammals, has its first node (approx. 110 million years ago) in the moment when the primitive placented appeared —insectivorous—, that were developed in radiant and explosive manner at the start of the Tertiary Era with the modern placented ones —pro-simians— when approaching the second node (approx. 54 million years ago). It is, once more!, during the ascension to the second node when the appearance of the primates Order takes place, defining a new basic level in our phylogenic journey. Jump of cycle.
The fifth cycle (A-5), that starts with the deployment of the modern placented mammals, has its first node (36 million years ago) when monkeys themselves — aegyptopithecus—that would develop when close to the second node (18 million years ago) with the emergence of hominoids —dryopithecus—, that constitute the Superfamily of human phylogeny. Another change of cycle.
The sixth cycle (A-6) starts with the hominoids, having its first node (12 million years ago) when the pre-hominids appear —ramapithecus— and its second node (6 million years ago) when hominids emerge —ardipithecus ramidus. It is, precisely in this ascension period toward the second node when a new basic level of our phylogeny is created —theFamily of the hominids—, that separate us from our closest relatives, the Pongids.
The seventh cycle (A-7) begins, therefore, with the appearance of the hominid. In the approximation towards its first node (4 million years ago), we find the australopithecus anamensis, that already had biped locomotion and in the ascension toward the second node (2 million years ago) come into play the Homo habilis, that starts to make rustic stone tools and inaugurates the category of Gender —homo— of our own phylogeny.
Throughout all the routes of the first series (A) of our weft of rhythms have we travelled so far, and as we announced, with the arrival of the second nodes of each cycle —in all seven— the totality of all basic taxonomic levels of our specie have appeared one after the other. That means, that we have found ourselves with the main consecutive somatic transformations that our ancestors have experienced. But the Evolution keeps on unfolding and now we are going to present a new series (B), that will deploy step by step through the different stages that the human being has already covered in its way to modernity. We will be able to observe how the subsequent stone age industries that our ancestors developed and that the paleoanthropologists know as mode 1 (Olduvaienian) , mode 2 (Achelense), mode 3 (Mousterian) and mode 4 (Magdalenian), do deploy to same rhythms than our cycles B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4.
We embark, then, in this second series with the first cycle (B-1) that starts, as we said with the presence of the Homo habilis. According to traditional approach, we could say that when getting close to the first node (1,3 million years ago), we would encounter the emergence of the Homo erectus, that would be the unique main actor of this cycle with its expansion and deployment toward the second node (0,6 million years ago). A most recent approach seems to point in another direction in relation to our line of ancestors. It would better be the Homo ergaster —of the first specimens of the African Homo erectus—, the one that would evolve toward the Homo antecessor in the climbing section of the second node of this cycle.
The second cycle (B-2) would therefore start with the presence of the Homo antecessor,that when accessing to the first node (0,45 million years ago) would derived from Europe toward the Homo Heidelbergensis and in Africa towards the Homo Rhodesiensis-both considered in the traditional language as archaic Homo sapiens. They will develop in the journey toward the second node (0,22 million years ago) in their own respective areas. Change of cycle.
The third cycle (B-3), would then start with the presence of the two branches of archaic Homo sapiens. In Europe the Homo Heidelbergensis would evolve to the Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis when approaching the first node (around 150.000 years ago), while in Africa, the Homo Rhodesiensis would evolve towards the Homo sapiens idaltu, some times called: “protomodern” because it already has all the characteristics of our species. Both branches were developing a type of lithic industry very similar to the one in mode 3 —Mousterian— in the journey toward the second node (around 75.000 years ago). Jump of cycle.
The fourth cycle (B-4) starts like this, with the presence of the two branches of Homo sapiens living independently, but when getting close to the first node (around 50.000 years ago) the African species emigrated toward Europe and after some time of coexistence the Neanderthal man would end up disappearing, while the Homo sapiens sapiens or Cro-Magnon would keep on developing, creating a mode 4 technology — Magdalenian— in route toward the second node (around 25.000 years ago), special moment in which it already was the unique species of the human gender upon the Earth. Change of Cycle.
We are going to make a pause in our description of the cycles of this series B, in order to explain that from this time on, Evolution will not manifest biologically, that is with anatomic and physiological transformations, but with the cycle jumps that would basically express through psychological and socio-cultural manner. In order to leave very clear that the jumps, from which we will talk hereunder, do perfectly adjust as a block to the historical data, we are going to copy one of the paragraphs from the book Evolution: the grand synthesis from Ervin Laszlo:
In the specific span of Paleolithic societies and by the modern societies based in information, a whole new series of society forms. The nomad tribes of the Paleolithic were transformed in the Neolithic settlements that led to the archaic empires as well as kingdoms and state-cities. After the classic empires, the medieval Principalities developed that finally yield toward the states, some of them with vast colonies. As they have disappear today, the modern states have spread out throughout the four corners of the Earth.
“Having in mind technical factors as social ones, we can recognize a series of dynamic transformations in the evolution of societies. Hunting-gatherer nomad tribes tamed plants and animals transforming themselves in established agro-pastoral societies. They created techniques as irrigation and crop rotation, forming then agricultural societies; these ones, after developing simple industrial techniques and craftsmanship turn into industrial societies, which later on and mainly with the techniques oriented to information and communication, evolve to postindustrial societies.
The evolutionary conception sees how the history arrow flies along the line of time: agro-gatherer society > agro-pastoral society > agricultural > preindustrial > industrial > postindustrial. “Historical time’s arrow does not fly in a uniform way (…) the societies, similarly than the biological species do not change at all times neither in short measurements. On the contrary, the mode of change appears to be by means of jumps and intermittences”.
I suggest you, dear reader, that you get prepared for new surprises, because ¡all of these stages, proposed by Erwin Lazlo —that match the traditional classification of: Upper Paleolithic, Neolithic, Ancient Age, Middle Ages, Modern Age and Postmodern Age(in which we are really entering nowadays)— do adjust, with absolute precision, to each and every one of the anticipated cycles of our hypothesis of the rhythms! Let’s verify this.
Remember that we have left our test in the forth cycle (B-4) of the second series, with the development of Cro-Magnon; cycle that corresponds to the stage of nomad tribes from the Upper Paleolithic as well as the hunting-gatherer societies.
During the fifth cycle (B-5) that starts with the Cro-Magnon, we encounter in the environment of the first node (it does something more than 16.000 years) with an increase in the gathering and an expansion of humanity, that was going to push, when close to the second node (more than 8.000 years ago), toward a generalization of the Neolithic life, with settlements and agro-pastoral modes that we have previously indicated. A new cycle starts then (around 6.000 before Christ).
The sixth cycle (B-6) starts with this Neolithic man. Around the first node (more or less 3.300 years before Christ) copper metallurgy started, writing appears as well as History itself. When getting close to the second node (550 before Christ) the so called “axial age” from the surprising VI century before Christ was building up; it is the time of pre-socratic philosophers, Israel prophets, Budha, Mahavira, rishis of the Upanishads, Confucius, Lao Tse and Zaratustra, among others. Between both nodes, archaic empires, kingdoms and state cities are developing. In other words, the mode of agricultural life or what we know as the Ancient Age. Change of Cycle
The seventh cycle (B-7) of this second series, starts with the emergence of that philosophic man around 550 before Christ, that places the mythical previous cycle in an ideological crisis. When getting close to the first node (around the 370 after Christ) and centering ourselves in the western tradition, these ideas have to do with the Patristic philosophy , that fully developed when closer to the second node (around the 1295 after Christ) with the Scholastic. This cycle is the one that has been called the Middle Ages, with all its special features: principalities and pre-industrial modes of life. With the appearance of the Nominalism and the pre-renaissance, and in this same second node, the abstract and metaphysical rationality of the medieval world is transformed when in contact with the concrete and empiric mode of the modern world. And with the crisis, a new cycle appears. A new series: the C.
The first cycle (C-1) of this new series starts with the nominalist-scholastic crisis becoming the origin of its autonomous dissemination in the western culture although at the end it would end up transforming the life of all human beings in the planet. Close to the first node (around the year 1.600 years ago), the mechanistic empiricism started to appear, developing to the fullest when arriving to the second node (around the year 1910) when the Positivist Science was in its peak. The features of this cycle coincide with those one of the Modern Age, formation of states and industrial style of life. At this point, the same crisis of the previous paradigm takes place, and, in this occasion, the relativist and quantum mechanics theories are the ones that put the finger in the sore spots of the limitation of the mechanistic vision. Change of cycle.
The second cycle (C-2) then, begins with Planck and Einstein and will not have its first node until 2012. Therefore, a new paradigm is underway; that is the Postmodern, environmental, relativistic and pluralistic paradigm. You’re invited to participate.
If all of the basic steps of Evolution, from the formation of the Earth up to now, have adjusted with absolute precision to the anticipated rhythm in our “periodic table”, we could suspect that it will keep on doing it in the future. If this is so, an accelerated process of transformations will be experienced over the next two centuries that will dramatically conclude around 2217, in a moment of infinite creativity. Tell your great great grand children to start preparing themselves.
About the chakras
We have presented up to here, our own verification of the hypothesis, basically with the given data by the western science that since four centuries ago thoroughly searches the world of “exterior” forms. It may be helpful to also take in account the observations made by the eastern traditions that during close to three millennia have been scanning the world of the “interior” forms. Because Evolution, as we said at first, it doesn’t only keeps on generating more and more complex and organized structures of energy and matter, but also keeps on unfolding deeper and more lucid levels of consciousness, simultaneously.
In this regard, the three series of cycles that we have been analyzing so far, could be approached as follows. With the emergence of life in cycle A-1 consciousness that up to such cycle was absorbed in the matter, takes a leap toward the inside, been identified with an incipient living organism —with a “subject”— that, when perceiving its environment full of “objects”, can act upon it and manipulate it in its own benefit. All of the first A series can be understood as a steady maturation of its capacity of action and perception. With the emergence of the first human individual, in the cycle B-1 of the second series, the conscious subject that already perceived the environment with great precision, takes a new leap toward the interior and starts to perceive itself as an individual separated from the environment. It is the surprising phenomenon of the self-consciousness, the “original sin” of the biblical story, the expulsion of human beings from the “paradise” of unconsciousness. All the second series finishes with the emergence of rationality at the “axial age” with a new jump toward consciousness. This fact enacts the mind to think about himself and therefore favors the discovery of the magic self-reflexivity. The new series —the C—, that, therefore opens ups, will drive —as derived from our hypothesis—, toward a great evolutionary peak in the year 2217, in which humanity in a generalized manner would reach the state of “transpersonal witness”, where there will only remain a subtle form of dualism between the observer and that which is observed that will finally disintegrate when accepting that both —observer and the observed— are in reality the same thing and moreover that they were never separated.
As we were previously saying, the eastern mystic traditions have thoroughly researched within these deeper areas of consciousness, and have described in great detail their discoveries. Thus, the millenary Hindu Psychophysiology and in a very special manner, the Tantric tradition, has conscientiously study the energetic structures of the universe and the human beings. They claim that the flow of energy —prana— circulates through channels —nadis—, that accumulates in vortex forms —chakras— constituting real storage batteries, transformers and distributors of such an energy. Each one of these chakras is related to a nervous plexus and an endocrine gland and therefore act as contact points between the physical body and the subtle structures, playing specific psychological and spiritual functions. They say, that there are seven chakras distributed over the base of the backbone and the peak of the head and they differ by its different sound vibrations and its characteristic activities: Muladhara (matter), Svadhistana (life and sex), Manipura (power and desire), Anahata (love), Vishuddha (expression), Ajna(intelligence-mind) y Sahasrara (soul-spirit).
As we can see, Hindu Psychophysiology presents a wide spectrum of seven levels of energy stabilization that manifest, at least, in three different wrappings: biological, psychological and spiritual. As this sounds, evidently, very similar to what we have described in our rhythms’ scheme —seven cycles in three subsequent series—, we are going to investigate further on if the characteristics that define each one of the chakrashave any correspondence with the evolution cycles that we have previously broken down. Because in the case that there are considerable commonalities between both approaches we may find that ¡not only the “rhythm” of evolutionary cycles is defined from the beginning but also their characteristic actual content —the “sound”— of each one of them!. Who talked about chance?
In the upper part of Fig. 6, we have written the complete series of the seven chakras in parallel to the series A, B and C of the seven cycles of our hypothesis. In the case of correspondence between both approaches being true —the one of the chakras and that one of the evolutionary stages— all of the correlative cycles of the different series —for example cycles A-5, B-5 and C-5—, would develop a common theme. Let us see this.
The first chakra, the Muladhara, is the basic centre and the sustainer of life, representing the proficiency of simple sensations and perceptions that belong to the material and physical world. It is related with the instincts of individual security and survival, without which no life could exist; its most characteristic behavior pattern is the simple stimulus and response. All of this perfectly matches with unicellular life in our first cycle (A-1), that let’s remember, it covered from the appearance of organic macromolecules after the formation of the Earth, up to the emergence of the eukaryote cells.
The second chakra, Svadhistana, is related to sexuality, the conservation of the specie and the dissemination of life; relationships among organs take on significant importance. All of this is in tune with the clear form of our second cycle (A-2), that started with the eukaryote cells, generating the first multi-cellular organisms, deploying all its vital potential after the Cambric explosion —the “zoological Big Bang”.
The third chakra, Manipura, is associated with power, the will, the desire and the intentionality; the basic theme of this centre is fighting for power, compete, ambition and domination. The third cycle (A-3) of this first series, let’s remember, was ending with the dominating expansion of the dinosaurs, in complete tune with this chakra.
The fourth chakra, Anahata, is linked to love, compassion, affection and commitment; here the rivalry gives way to cooperation and unconditional service; is the centre of the heart, the motherly instinct. All of this totally connects with our cycle A-4 that started with the emergence of primitive mammals and birds —from which it’s been said that because of being the only organisms that take care of their offspring, they are the “inventors” of love and affectivity— and ended with the radiant and explosive emergence of modern placented animals, opening the “mammals’ era”.
The fifth chakra, Vishuddha, is the effective centre of communication, that of expression and self-projection and creative inspiration. It would match our cycle A-5, that let’s remember started with the emergence of the pro-simians, saw great apes developed and ended with the anthropoids, that as it is well known have a great variety and complexity in the modes of expression —language of gestures, sounds, attitudes, movements, facial mimic…—, in clear tune with this fifth chakra.
The sixth chakra, Ajna, the centre of intelligence, of knowledge, of wisdom. It corresponds with the cycle A-6, that let’s remember went from anthropoids to the emergence of the first hominids. As it widely known, all currently living species that still have the same basic features of that evolutionary stage are, apart from human beings, the animals with the highest intelligence over the planet, in clear tune with the chakra that we’re talking about now.
The openning of the seventh and last chakra, the Sahasrara, means the full flourishing of the spiritual potential. It corresponds with the peak cycle, A-7, of the first series, that started with the emergence of the hominid and ended with the appearance of the Homo habilis, the first subject of our human race, entering already in the new area of self-consciousness and in the correspondent evidence with this chakra of the “thousand petals”.
We have traversed the entire chain of the seven chakras, from the Muladhara —sustaining the material base— until the Sahasrara —deploying the spiritual energy— , as well as the tune with our cycles’ series, from the organic matter of A-1 up to self-consciousness of A-7. ¡It’s been awesome! Could it be that chance does not constitute, by any means, the last criteria to understand the creative dynamics of the evolutionary process? Let us keep on with our investigation.
Within the first cycles of the second series, those ones concerning the most primitive humans, instead of only “check” the connections with its correlative chakras, we are going to simply “suggest” this tune. Later on we will have more arguments with which confirm those correspondences, when applying our hypothesis of rhythms to the human microcosm and observing the phylogenetic-ontogenetic parallelisms.
It should be expected that in the first cycle (B-1) of the second series, physical self consciousness would gradually deploy —firstly with the Homo habilis and later with theerectus (or ergaster)— emerging then from the mere unconscious fusion with the natural environment. These first human beings would have started to perceive their physical body differing from the surrounding environment, and therefore be able to act consciously upon it, manipulating it for their own profit —tools, fire control… All of the above said is in tune with the features of the first chakra, that as we said represent the control over the most basic sensations and perceptions pertaining to the material and physical world.
In the second cycle (B-2), the archaic Homo sapiens started to be conscious of their vital pranic and vital drives and their motivations were turning around pain-pleasure principles. In that case, this stage would be clearly adjusting to the “vital” feature of the secondchakra.
In the third cycle (B-3), the first sapiens deployed the “intentional mind” with the emergence of the images creation abilities that permits to experience prolonged emotions, both of anguish and of crave. This is in tune with the third chakra that let us remember is associated with power, will power, desire and intentionality.
The fourth chakra, as we said is linked with love, compassion, affectivity and commitment. Our fourth cycle (B-4) of this second series comprised from the period of the Neanderthal firstly to the Cromagnon later, being the actors of life on the European continent. It is then when family ties are propelled and human beings start to be occupied in treating their sicknesses and in the future of their dead. It is may be in that time when language starts to develop, what permits the widening and intensification of human relationships as well as the appearance of the “communal mind”. All of this is clearly adapted to the “affective” features of the chakra Anahata.
The fifth chakra is associated to the communication, the psychological expression and the creative inspiration, what it is totally in tune with what happened in our cycle B-5, in which the modern man —Homo sapiens sapiens, deploys all its artistic potential. Culture, that had been so far very poorly developed explodes in multitude of facets: in the world of language, in the dazzling and surprising Altamira or Lascaux rock art, in sculptures as the one of the Willendorf Venus, in reliefs, horn and ivory works…
The sixth chakra, we have already said that it is the centre of knowledge, intelligence and wisdom. Our sixth cycle (B-6), let us remember, starts with the appearance of the Neolithic culture —in which human beings start to understand natural processes and by doing so can control them and transform them (taming animals, planting seeds and so on)—, and through the civilizations’ development, the discovery of the alphabet and the progressive use of metals, arrives up to the “axial age” with the emergence of the first philosophers. The tuning with the Ajna chakra is then evident.
The opening of the seventh chakra, we were saying before, it means the total flourishing of the spiritual potential. Our cycle B-7, as we have just seen, starts with the crisis of the mythic thinking as well as with the sudden emergence of rational thoughts at the “axial age”. In our western culture this process takes from the Greek philosophers, traversing the Patristic up to the Scholastic at the end of the XIII century. The way of thinking then, was mainly abstract, spiritualized and metaphysical, clearly matching the Sahasrara chakra. Simultaneously, this was also the time of the great sages and the non-dualistic mystics of humanity: Buda, the rishis of the Upanishads, Lao TsÃ©, Chuang-TsÃ©, JesÃºs de Nazaret, Nagarjuna, Plotino, Asanga, Bodhidharma, Hui Neng, Shankara, Huang-Po, Padmasambhava, Al-Hallaj, Ibn-Arabi, Dogen, Rumi, Meister Eckhart and so on. All of them did not “think” about an alien Divinity but they “knew by their own embodiment” that their truthful identity was really that Divinity. That is why, we think that although they were in tuned with the Sahasrara chakra, they better resonated with their own expression of the following series —with cycle C-7—, where humanity, in a general mode, would discover, like all these sages had done before, that matter and spirit, energy and consciousness, object and subject are really non-dual, polarized expressions of the unique absolute reality: the simple Self-evidence always present. We will come back over this later on.
We have concluded the second series, and the tuning with the chain of the chakra has been very clear, from the mere physical consciousness of the Homo habilis until the metaphysical rationality of the scholastic philosopher. We are, therefore, going to continue, with our own confirmation of the third series —the C—, at least in the cycle and some more that we have already covered.
The first cycle (C-1) of the third series, started with the emergence of Nominalistic philosophy —that because of putting the emphasis on the specific, the metaphysical thinking of Scholastics dropped to the pits—, then it continued with all the deployment of the empiric science and arrived to the peak with the materialistic Positivism of the XIX century. All of it totally agrees with the characteristics of the first chakra, which represents the physical and material world as we’ve seen in previous series.
Allow us now to make a digression regarding what we have just said. From the tradition perspective, the materialistic regard is rejected because it is believed to be a step back in relation to the metaphysical thinking. Nevertheless, according to our scheme, the modern materialistic empiricism paradoxically represents a step forward in the spiritual process in relation to the medieval religious “beliefs”. And this is so, because while these were settled in the upper step of the second series —the B—, the modern empiricism is situated at the beginning of the third —the C—, that as it has a bigger depth and a expanded lucidity, it is therefore more “spiritual”, although its contents may have been so far only physical. In the long run and according to our rhythms’ woof this path would take us, not to the “belief” itself in the Absolute world, but to the “empirical” evidence of our own identity with the Absolute Itself.
The second cycle (C-2) as we have just said, started with the first years of the XX century, when the apparently solid mechanistic and materialistic paradigm of the modern Age started to crack with the emergence of the Relativity and Quantum Physic Theories. Before the cold rigidity, the dogmatism and the linear logic of the previous cycle, the new approach introduces the reticular logic, the perspectivism, the environmental awareness, indetermination, pluralistic relativism, multiculturalism, the respect and care for mother Earth, Gaia, the life itself. The Postmodern Age that starts is clearly in tune to the secondchakra that, let us remember, is interested in conservation and life promotion.
Summarizing: the rhythms’ woof that we have proposed it fully adjusts, not only to the rhythm but to the content, to the empirical data from the sciences of Evolution and History. The first sixteen cycles of our “Evolution periodic table” coincide with absolute precision with the totality of the so far passed stages. It is obvious that the five resting cycles of this third series —C—, also will mark the speeding process trend that will push humanity toward the great evolutionary peak in a couple of centuries, around the 2217. Thus, the cycle of “ecological” content in which we are in right now, the C-2, will reach its zenith within in a century, around the year 2114. The following cycle, the C-3, centered in the “desire of realization” will deploy until 2183. Followed up by cycle C-4, whose central theme will be “universal love” and it will reach its peak at the beginning of the XXIII century, around the year 2205. Cycle C-5, whose center will be “creative expression”, will be developed until the year 2213. “Integral wisdom” from the cycle C-6, will reach its apogee in the year 2215. Lastly, humanity’s “spiritual realization” will take place around 2217.
It’s interesting that the date that its drawn from our hypothesis for the evolutionary process peak, fully corresponds to that one proposed by Sri Aurobindo during the first decades of XX century, about the possible moment of the authentic descending of the supra-mental being. Satprem, his disciple, writes, “Sri Aurobindo said that we would need three centuries —and he had a clear vision about that— before a complete supra-mental being may arise, brilliant, light, etcetera”. Or, at the same time, Peter Russell in his book “The white hole in time”, when talking about the spiral evolution, affirming that some researchers put the near future as the rallying-point and others send it to a century or two beyond. May the coincidences be herewith already pointed out.
About phylogenetic-ontogenetic parallelism
We will start from the classical idea from very different cultures that the human organism encapsulates everything; an individual concentration of the world, a unity that reflects, as in a mirror, the totality of the universe. According to this approach, human development is a rapid review and integration of all gradually deployed levels within the universal evolutionary process along its long and slow paleontological build up.
The main contribution from Haeckel to the theory of Evolution is what he called “the law of fundamental Biogenetics”, that is, the parallelism between the growth of the individual embryo and the development of the specie to which it belongs: “the Ontogenesis, consequently the growth of an individual, is a short and fast repetition (a real review) of the Phylogenesis or evolution of the lineage to which the individual belongs”. This means, that during the course of an individual’s development, the organism reviews its own evolutionary lineage so that the diverse forms which the embryo goes through represent the predecessors of such organism. Seeing this closely, there is not a repetition of predecessors’ adult form but their embryonic and developmental stages being reproduced. This is why, organisms which are close in the evolutionary scale —those that had a common descent until very recent periods— have similar embryos in its initial gestation phases. It is only during the last stages when differences become evident. In other words, due to the fact that Ontogeny reproduces Phylogeny, the historically related embryonic animal development pass through similar transformative processes which are more lasting the closer the kinship. Darwin himself wrote in his Origin of the Species: “the vicinity of embryonic structures reveals the vicinity of its origin”.
In 1828, Karl von Baer, the main embryologist of its time, exclaimed: “I have two small embryos both kept in alcohol and I forgot to label them. Now I’m not able to distinguish the gender. They could be lizards, small birds or even mammals”. This is because all embryos from the chordate filum —fish, amphibious, reptiles, birds or mammals— are almost identical during the first developmental stages: zygote, blastula, gastrula… Only later on, special characteristic of the class, order, family, gender and species start to successively appear.
Given that, within classic taxonomy, the embryonic development reveals the descend of a specie, the most reliable judgment, furthermore than anatomic similarities, is the ontogenetic itinerary homology between the two species when classifying living beings and when affirming that they had an immediate common ancestor. It is for this reason that the phylogeny taxonomy —already defined in the XIX century by Haeckel and Sachs— declare that the systematic ordination of the biological groups represent a schematization of evolutionary stages, reached overtime, indicating the appearance order of the different organisms that emerged upon the Earth.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the evolutionary leaps are fundamentally given by means of branching within the embryological processes: new paths of embryonic and larval development are separated in some point of the pre-existing tracks. Responsible innovations in the appearance of new species would then occur, not only by means of a simple mutation in a small segment of the DNA, but through modifications introduced in the developmental process of individuals, that is, through “heterochronies” or discrepancies in the ontogenetic processes’ rhythm. Inside of these heterochronies, it is worth noticing the ”pedomorphosis” processes —conservation of young ancestral features by the following ontogenetic descend stages— and also “neotenia” — pedomorphosis produced by retardation of somatic development. Many of these cases of evolution by means of neotenia are well known, from vertebrate —considered as tunicated neotenic larvae— up to human beings, as proposed by Stephen Jay Gould when observing the clear similarity between the human adult and the young chimpanzee. Therefore, the mechanisms of Evolution, may be caused, not by the gradual selection of individual features, but by these changes in rhythm during some of the embryonic development phases that would have originated deep anatomic modifications while opening new ecological possibilities. These sudden changes would also explain the absence of many “intermediate forms” in the fossil registry as, in reality, these forms would have ever existed.
Grandjean, in 1922, corrected Haeckel’s affirmation by which “Ontogeny reproduces Phylogeny” and proposes a complementary formulation; “Ontogeny does not reproduce Phylogeny, it creates it”, suggesting those branches in the ontogenetic trajectory to be, precisely, the ones that generate the novelty leaps in the phylogenetic course. These same approaches of the world of Biology are similarly repeated in the socio-cultural sphere when discussing if the anthropological development precedes institutions’ progress or it is a consequence of it, or both.
Following the theory of “internal logic” in history development, history is conceived as a self-deployment of humanity inherent categories from the beginning. All organicist approaches defend this perspective and understand history as the “history of human life”, based on the parallelism between Phylogenesis and Ontogenesis. Thus, according to Vico, culture passes through the same phases than the individuals that make it up. Or following Habermas, the internal logic of the child cognitive development serves as an analogy for the self-understanding of the communicative rationality throughout the human history. Or even Marx, who also was, occasionally inclined to operate with the theory of the internal logic and in the Paris manuscripts maintains that human beings may only develop fundamental constitutive elements of the human essence and therefore supports that progress is the unfolding of such essence.
Based on our hypothesis, the phylogenetic process, historic or macrocosmic and the ontogenetic process, individual or microcosmic, are both global or punctual expressions of the same and unique archetype of rhythms that define the exit and return dynamics in the temporary manifestation of the universe and therefore both the individuals and the societies don’t do other thing than progressively actualize the potential subsequent steadiness of the original matrix.
Returning to the embryologic issue and becoming centered now in human beings, we have to say that as the rest of animal, human beings pass through the consecutive embryonic stages which are typical of its Phylogeny, before developing those physiological features that verify its human condition. Its ontogenetic process becomes then much more similar to other species as closer they are to their evolutionary scale. In the same words as the developmental specialist Francisco J. Ayala; “the human body is made following the same general plan than other animal bodies, being more similar to anthropoids, primates, mammals and vertebrates in this same descending order”; stages that, as we have previously seen, exactly correspond with the four successive cycles of our hypothesis: A-5, A-4, A-3 and A-2.
Similarly to the embryology process, the psychological development of human beings seems to recapitulate the subsequent perspectives displayed by its ancestors. Thus, John C. Eccles propose us to guess that the ontogenetically generated transitions, are exactly situated within the course of human evolution phylogeny process, when passing from baby to child and then to adult: “the progressive development of baby’s consciousness toward that of the child elucidate the evolution of self consciousness in the hominids”. Likewise, the psychologist Jean Piaget affirms that the development of thinking in the child shows an intimate conformity with consciousness evolution in our species.
Along the lines, Jung, after remembering Nietzsche words: “when sleeping and dreaming we reproduce, once more, the works of the humanity that precede us”, and he added “the hypothesis according to which also in Psychology, the ontogenesis corresponds to the phylogenesis is therefore justified”. Ken Wilber equally affirms “the same strength that forged a human being from the ameba, shapes the adult child. That is, the growth of a person from infancy to adulthood is a simple miniaturized vision of cosmic evolution”. Or also: “In the same manner than the Earth geological formations, the psychological development comes level to level, stage after stage, layer by layer and each new level superpose the previous one including it and transcending it”. Ken Wilber comments: there is an increasing re-acceptance of development structuralism, the notion of phylogenetic-ontogenetic parallel: the primitive-Paleolithic magic is similar in its deep structure (not in its superficial structure) to the pre-operational thinking in early childhood; the classic religious mythic expressions are similar in its deep structure to the pre-operational thinking of the last phase of infancy as well as to the start of the concrete operative thinking and we see the modern rational science occupies the highest level in the hierarchy with the formal operative thinking and the hypothetical deductive reasoning in the transition from adolescence to adulthood”.
According to Wilber, the total process of psychic evolution —that is the manner in which cosmic evolution operates in human beings— occurs in the more significant and coherent way. In each stage there is a higher level structure —more complex and therefore, more unified— that emerges by means of differentiation from the level of inferior order than the preceding one. This structure of higher order is introduced into consciousness and the self end up identifying with such an emergent structure. As it has differentiated from the previous structure, the self transcends, and in this fashion, can operate upon this inferior structure using the instruments that the new emerging structure offers.
Ken Wilber calls “deep structure” the characteristic manner of a given level —a form that materializes all possibilities and limitations— and “superficial structure” that concrete manifestation of deep structure. All deep structures are undifferentiated, folded or wrapped in the unconscious field. The unconscious substratum is almost completely empty of superficial structures. This is something similar to the Jung’s idea of the archetypes as “empty content forms”. In Jung’s words an archetype (deep structure) “only acquires a defined content (superficial structure) when arrives to consciousness and then it is charged with material that comes from the conscious experience”. We all inherit the same deep essential structures, but each of us learns its own superficial individual structures.
According to Ken Wilber, the fetus “has” the fundamental unconscious, that in the essential, are all the deep existing structures as being ready to emerge potentialities, through the path of remembrance, in some future moment. All deep structures are included or related to the fundamental unconscious: the “archaic unconsciousness” is the past of humanity and the “emerging unconsciousness” is the future. As the higher structures embrace the lower ones, the superior ones have to be the last ones in developing. The transpersonal cannot be realized until the personal is not yet formed. The development —or the Evolution— consist in a series of hierarchical deployments of deep structures parting from the fundamental unconsciousness, starting from the lowest —matter—, to end with the highest —consciousness. When —and if— the totality of the fundamental unconscious has already emerged, then there is only consciousness; all is consciousness like the Whole. As Aristotle proposed, when the potential has been actualized, the only result is God.
Verification of the hypothesis in the microcosm
Having previously verify the validity of our rhythms’ scheme in the universal evolutionary dynamic —the macrocosm—, we are going to see now, if this same scheme is also reflected in the development process of individual beings —the microcosm.
On the assumption that human beings are tuned with the evolutionary cycles’ rhythm that we have previously analyzed, and knowing that according to the study of Richard M. Bucke, spontaneous emergence of what he named “cosmic consciousness” takes place around the 34 years of age, we are going to take cycle C-4 that has a duration of 34,17 years, as the base cycle to proceed with the verification of our hypothesis in the individual development of a fully realized human being.
Applying then our global rhythms’ scheme —that we previously presented in fig. 2-C— we would obtain a first approach to our proposal in Fig. 7-B about this cycle of 34, 17 years of duration. There, we can see the full course of a life, that starting from the time of engendering, deploys in a progressively slowing down manner the “exit” section —or “outward arc” toward the pole of the “ego”, situated around the 22 years —matching Wilber’s affirmation that the return process or “inward arc” does not generally start before the 21 years of age— and starts this section of “return”, in a progressively accelerated form now towards the final bright pole. In accordance to this scheme, a human being traverse in the “exit” section toward the “ego” maturation the complete series A —life— and B —mind— of our Evolutionary periodic table and makes the return section through the C series —soul— and the following in order to arrive to the full illumination around the 34,17 years of age.
Observe, comparing the graphics 7-A and 7-B, how the global macrocosm and microcosm patterns of development are identical in its structure. The unique difference between them lays in the level in which pole P is positioned toward which the “exit” section is oriented in each one of them: in the macrocosm is situated at the “series leap” between “matter” and “life” —the appearance of organic macromolecules after Earth’s formation—, and in the microcosm is situated at the “series leap” between the “mind” and the “soul” —the mature ego formation.
We are going to verify if our previsions adjust to the data that embryologists offer —for the intrauterine phase— and developmental psychologists —for the postnatal phase. We recommend keeping simultaneously observing Fig. 8 and 9 while reading the text.
We start verifying the unicellular living phase, that in the microcosm we called A-1, and was firstly in accordance with prokaryote emergence and eukaryote afterwards. The 28 days of women’s menstrual cycle is governed by a complex mechanism in which diverse organs and substances are involved. During the first part of these14 days’ cycle, the follicular maturation takes places, stimulated by the pituitary anterior lobe or gonadotrophic hormones, mainly the FSH. The primordial follicle has a central cell —ovogonia— that firstly becomes a first order ovocyte with a more robust nucleus and later one —after being excreted during ovulation—, transforms in a second order ovocyte—with the corresponding chromatin depletion—, rendering apt for conception. The A-1 cycle of our hypothesis, the one that deploys the unicellular stage in the macrocosm, precisely has, according to our microcosm scheme a duration of 14 days that exactly coincide with half of the menstrual cycle of follicular maturation until conception.
After being fecundated, the ovule starts a period of rapid mitotic divisions in which the zygote passes through stages 2, 4, 8 and so on of the cells or blastomeres. Cells continue their division, forming first a solid ball – morula—, that afterwards loosens itself —blastula. Then the three germinative layers start to differentiate —endoderm, ectodermand mesoderm— and soon the cavity of the body or coeloma is formed. The dorsal nervous cord begins as a longitudinal depression that makes itself deeper and deeper until finally joining its edges, transforming in a tubular nerve cord. A sustaining cordoned off formation is produced directly below, derived from the mesoderm, called notocordio —back cord— that is common to all the filum of chordate, from where they receive their name. All this process takes place from the egg fecundation until the third week of pregnancy.
The A-2 characteristic stage of the macrocosm is, as we have already seen, the one that displays the multi-cellular organisms until the formation of the diverse animal types —fila—, e.g.: chordate. In our scheme for the microcosm this cycle spans from a little more than three weeks from fecundation, what again intimately matches the embryologic data, not only in content but in duration.
The human embryo, when getting near the end of the first month, develops some muscular segments, called miosomas, at each side of the neural tube what it represents the origin of the skeletal muscle system, typical of all vertebrate. From the fourth week on, limbs start to also be formed —upper and lower. At the beginning they are only small protuberances or mamelons, but soon they start to enlarge, and during the sixth week they already constitute small expansions with palette form that will evolve into the hands and feet. Fingers finally develop during the seventh and eight week. During that time theamnios, that during the first weeks was showing to be as a very small vesicle, starts to augment to progressively cover the embryo.
Cycle A-3 of our hypothesis started, in the macrocosm, with the first marine vertebrate —fish— and embraced the progressive conquer of firm land, firstly with the appearance of the limbs in the tetrapods —amphibious— and afterwards with the fantastic appearance of this smooth and transparent vesicle —the amnios— that protects the reptilians and mammal’s embryos. In our scheme for the microcosm, this cycle spans from the fourth week to the eight, again totally matching the embryological data.
At the start of the third gestation month, embryo begins to be named fetus —until the end of its intrauterine life— and the placenta initiates its constitution. Ovary hormone functioning reduces progressively until being replaced by this organ who acts by itself from the fourth month. In this manner and from that moment ahead, the oxygen and all other nutrients that the fetus needs will be absorbed from the mother’s blood trough the umbilical cord and the placenta which until the end of the pregnancy will maintain the same general structure. It is also in this time when the typical hair of mammals starts to grow.
As we have seen in the macrocosm study, A-4 cycle of our hypothesis embraces all the placented mammal development, from the primitive insectivorous until the modern primates. As per our macrocosm scheme this cycle deploys itself from the eight week of pregnancy to the half of the fourth month. Preciseness, again, is present in content and rhythm.
From the fifth month of gestation, human fetus processes and those of the pongids continue with their similar characteristics, for example with the chimpanzee, the form and size of the head, weight of the brain, position of the fontanelle, hair distribution and so on. As we have said, all these features pushed S. J. Gould to propose the appearance of hominids what it must be a neoteny case in our anthropoid ancestors.
Our scheme’s foresight for microcosm is that cycle A-5 displays itself from half of the fourth month of pregnancy to the end of the sixth month. Let us remember that in the macrocosm it is firstly developed by monkeys and further on by hominoids -. This prevision seems acceptable.
Cycle A-6 would then be the one that develops the specific characteristics of the hominid family, and although now there is no other species of this family but the Homo sapiens sapiens —and therefore we cannot verify the similarities that we propose—, there are some indications that point the good direction, what it means that similarities would be even bigger than with the pongids. The key that explains the gradual distinction of the human being in regard to our anthropoid relatives, mainly lays in the progressive slowing-down of our development, exactly like it is foreseen in the global pattern that we propose. Therefore, although human beings and chimpanzees have more than 99% of structural genes in common and a strong resemblance in our fetal forms, there are small alterations in regulatory genes —those ones that control the time of activation and deactivation of structural genes—, altering the rhythms in body growth processes and produce relative big differences in the adult forms —brain, hands, legs and so on— and also in the behavior. Thus, for example, the retarded development and growth have elicited a humongous development of cerebralization in the human beings, by prolonging until late life the rapid cerebral growth which is typical of the fetus. Or to the same extent, lower limbs in human beings, that at birth are similar to the great simians —it is a saying that babies are primates with short legs—, in our case keep on enlarging during a long time, while in comparison the ones of our simian relatives remain underdeveloped.
Thus, it seems that due to this slowing-down of the development, the similarities among human neonates and the primitive hominoids would be even bigger than with respect to simians. Suffice is to say the following: while chimpanzees reach at birth the 45% of their cranial capacity, and the human beings only the 23%, the australopitecines show a medium rate, around the 30%. The duration of this cycle A-6, according to our rhythms’ scheme, extends from the end of the sixth month’s gestation until little after the ninth month, concurring almost with the time of deliverance. We could also say, when the cycle in which self-consciousness is about to flourish starts, that one that caused the Paradise deportation of hominids from their animal integration with Mother Nature, it also deports the human creature from the mother’s womb.
After birth, the human baby continues with the slowing down of the development process, so much so, that it is been said that we spend our first year as extra-uterine fetus. In fact, we are the only animal that grows so slowly and there is not any other animal in which the complete development, after birth, takes so long to achieve. Thus, the orangutan, the gorilla and the chimpanzee grow until the 11th year while the human being keeps on developing until 20 years of age. This delayed growth is expressed through late maturation and extended infancy. As S. J. Gould says in its book Ontogeny and Philogeny,this delay has reacted in a synergic manner with another two human distinctive seals: intelligence —when the brain enlarged by means of the tendencies of fetal growth, as well as offering a longer period of child learning— and socialization —when consolidating family nits by means of growing care from the parents toward the children that so slowly develop.So, from this moment on, we are going to verify of our proposal both in this cycle and in all of the following, taking as a reference the hierarchy of psychological levels so thoroughly presented by Ken Wilber in his works. Let us see the first of these levels that, according to our rhythm weave should correspond to the passing from A-7 cycle to the B-1, because in the first one is formed and in the following is displayed.
Little time after birth, the perception of the child starts to float in the so called pre-personal “uroboric” kingdom. The uroboros is still collective, archaic and primordially oceanic, but it already has some type of nourishment. When the sensation of the infantile self begins its evolution from the pre-personal uroboros to the individual organism, we see the emergence and creation of the organic and body self. When talking about “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 months of age. To the extent that self consciousness of the self starts to be centered and distinguishes its individual organism, it also assimilates an ambiguous thread, still undefined about extinction. Therefore, simple and brief survival acquires a prioritary value in this stage. Aurobindo calls this level, the “physical” level.
This stage corresponds with our cycle A-7 (and B-1), that approximately spans from birth to the half of the first year and drive us to the emergence of the Mulahara chakra, whose main feature is “physical consciousness” and is also related with the most simple sensations and perceptions of the material world together with the survival instinct. In the macrocosm, this phase is correlative with the appearance of the Homo habilis self-consciousness. The precision is therefore complete in rhythm and in content.
Because an organic determined self begins to emerge, also the typical emotions of this self emerge. This basic emotional behavior receives the name of “pranic level” or “pranic body”. Although in this stage, emotions are still too simple and primitive, the incipient ego has a certain consciousness of the qualities of pleasure and pain and therefore the look for pleasure and the avoidance of suffering become a strong psychological strength in this period. This level is also characterized for being full of a global sexuality, still undifferentiated. Aurobindo nominates this phase “vital consciousness”.
In our hypothesis this phase corresponds with cycle B-1 (and B-2) that is developed among 5,7 months and 1,1 years and drives to the emergence of Svadhistana chakrawhose main central feature is “vital and sexual consciousness”. Correspondence is again absolutely clear. In the macrocosm this stage is correlative with the Homo erectus.
The emergence of the infantile ability to extensively create images mark a decisive point in the development process. When the baby is going to have two years of age is able to imagine non present objects with a great accuracy, what it permits him/her to widen up enormously his emotional life as images are capable of evoking the same type of emotions and feelings that the proper object and person. Moreover, for the first time, the child may experience prolonged emotions, both of anguish —which is not other thing than imagined fear and therefore maintained— as desire —that is not other thing than imagined pleasure. The image elicits the desires’ satisfaction and the reduction of anguish.
In our table of rhythms, this stage corresponds to cycle B-2 (and B-3) that develop between 1,1 and 2,1 years of age and take us towards the emergence of the Manipura chakra, whose main them has to do with desire and intentional mind. Accuracy is therefore complete.
Social cognition (Symbolic pre-operational mind)
Between two and four years of age, the child starts to awake to symbolic representation. A symbol goes beyond a simple image, because while images stand as drawings of objects, symbols do no represent them in a figurative manner but verbal. The emergence and acquisition of language is, by all odds, the most significant period of the “exit” section in the vital cycle of the individual. Language and emergent abstract thought functions greatly expand the affective and kinesthetic world of the child. Through language, someone may anticipate the future, make projects and channel the actions of today towards the future. This enables the start of emotive-sexual energy sublimation, transforming it in more subtle activities, more complex and fully developed. The self system as it moves forward toward cognition and social consciousness, it is faced with the need of belonging —and love— a social group, bigger than the individual body self.
This phase corresponds with cycle B-3 (and B-4) of our hypothesis, that develops between 2,1 and 3,6 years of age and that leads to the emergence of Anahata chakrawhose characteristic revolves around the “affective life”. The correspondence, again, shows to be very clear, both in temporary rhythm and in content.
Early egoic/personal. (Conceptual pre-operational mind).
The child starts to transfer its central identity to verbal and mental realms. Usually, between 4 and 7 years of age, the child starts to discover the world and its concept representations. A concept is a symbol that not only represents the object or an action, but a class of objects or acts. The child, although in this phase cannot still operate or coordinate upon these conceptual representation, already has a fairly coherent mental ego, that it differs from the body, transcends the simple biological world and, therefore, can operate to some extent in that biological world as well as in the previous physical world, using the instrument of the simple representative mind. It is the level that Piaget named “preoperational intuitive”.
In our hypothesis, this stage is equivalent to cycle B-4 (and B-5) that develops between 3,6 and 6 years and leads to the emergence of the Vishudha Chakra whose characteristic theme is the “psychological expression”. The correspondence is, again, much more than acceptable.
Medium egoic/person. (Concrete operational mind).
The combo of the pointed tendency in previous cycle is consolidated with the emergence —generally from the age of 7 years on— of what Piaget calls “concrete operational thinking”, what it means, the conviction of being able to operate in the world of concreteness and also in the body by means of concepts. This mental level, that dominates the medium stage ego/person it is not capable of imagining possible or hypothetical relationships, and cannot still operate upon itself. Nevertheless, unlike its predecessor —the representative mind— the concrete operative mind can start to take up the place or role of others. It also has to do with the first structure that can really start to develop regulated operations, such as multiplications, divisions, classifications, capacity to make hierarchies and so on.
This phase corresponds to cycle B-5 (and B-6) of our rhythm’s table that develops between 5,9 and 9,3 years of age and that leads to the emergence of the Ajna chakra, whose central feature is the “intellectual life”. Matching is, again, very clear.
Advanced egoic/person. (Formal operational mind).
Within the adolescence period, later ego/person stage, another extraordinary differentiation starts to take place. In essence, the self begins to simply diversify from the concrete thinking process and when doing so, the self can, to a certain extent, transcend it and, therefore operate in it. It is not surprising, then, that Piaget calls this stage “formal operational stage”, as it enables oneself to operate upon its own concrete thinking —to think about the thoughts—, or what is the same, to work with the formal or linguistic objects as well as with the physical or concrete. It is the first level clearly introspective and self-reflective that can deal with the subjective mind and that is capable at the same time of imagining possibilities that are not present, that is to be creative, and also make hypothetical-deductive or propositional reasoning. This permits to accept different points of view which are more plural and universal. This stage starts to emerge around 12 or 13 years of age.
Ken Wilber in his book, Up from Eden, divides this period “advanced egoic/person” that we are talking about in three phases: lower (that goes from Old Age to year 500 B.C), medium (from 500 years B.C. to year 1.500 A.C.) and the upper (from year 1.500 to the XX century), and that exactly correspond with our B-6, B7 and C-1 cycles.
The lower phase of this stage of “formal operational thinking”, corresponds, as we have just said, in our rhythms hypothesis, to B-6 (and B-7) cycles that are developed between 9,3 and 14,3 years of age —exactly coinciding with the emergence of this modality of thinking in the adolescence— bringing with it, the emergence of the Sahasrara chakrawhose main feature revolves around the “spiritual energy” appeared in the “axial age” in clear tune with self-reflective, introspective and subjective capacities of this level. Correspondence is again very clear.
Medium phase of this stage of “formal operative thinking”, that as we have said corresponds in our weave of rhythms with cycle B-7 (and C-1), that develops between 14,3 and 21,9 years of age and takes us to the emergence of Muladhara chakra whose central theme is related to the achievement of material objectives in a primordially materialistic world. All of the said perfectly matches with the passage from “idealism”, typical of the youth and the “pragmatism” typical of the incipient maturity. It is here when —aligned with Wilber’s opinion— we start the “return” route.
Upper phase of this stage of “formal operative thinking” —to which Wilber refers as the “mature ego”—, corresponds, as we have said, to our cycle C-1 (and C-2) that develops between 21,9 and 29,5 and leads to the emergence of chakra Svadhistana whose main characteristic is the conservation and spread of life. All of this beautifully tunes up with the growing ecological sensitivity in this stage of life.
In cycle C-2 between the age of 29,5 and 32, the individual develops the so called “pluralist mind” that puts the emphasis in relationships, in dialogue, in networking, in diversity, in the multiculturalism, in values relativity, in the respect and care for life; and this is what defines, in general, , the ecological emerging paradigm. We are then, entering in a cognitive structure, superior to the formal operative thinking. This new level which has been named “integrative”, “creative synthetic” or “vision-logic”, does not limit itself to establish linear relationships but organizes relationships’ networking. This means, the same than the formal operative mind “operates with” the concrete operative mind, the vision-logic mind “operates with” the formal operative mind. In that way the panoramic vision-logic level apprehends a massive network of ideas, and its ideas and mutual interrelationships. This structure constitutes, then, the beginning of a new higher capacity of synthesize, establish connections, truthful association, ideas coordination and concept integration.
This new cognitive structure, according to our hypothesis will deploy in a collective manner in cycle C-3, that will start to emerge in a century’s time, and in individual human beings may flourish around 32 years of age. Verification of all this, as well as the previsions of successive cycles will have to wait for future generations. What distills from our periodic table is that around 2217, human beings around the age of 33 —as Buda, as Christ— will be able to achieve the plentiful spiritual realization at the Evolution’s peak. At the end of the road, final Reality, will be surprisingly the mere substance of all transited stage —beyond being a simple stage more. This has to do with the fact that there won’t be a new upper level but we will perceive that in fact we have never gone out of this Total Reality that is, and always has been, our ultimate Identity.
Some final observations
Having contrasted our developmental and evolutionary rhythms’ hypothesis with both the data referring to the macrocosm –—paleontological, anthropological and historical— as well as with the microcosm —embryologic and psychological—, and having verified the complete precision of the predicted both in what it has to do with cycle chronology as well as what is related to its content —tuning with the chakras hierarchy— it is obvious that we cannot talk of “fortuity”. It does not have anything to do with chance, and categorically, we can say: there is something fishy in Evolution.
From the materialistic paradigm all of this seems unthinkable. It does absolutely not match with many of the central dogmas of official science. But the facts are there. And there is not the time to look aside. From this platform I invite anyone that wants to look for an explanation to this massive avalanche of chained “coincidences” in diverse scopes and so intimately coordinated.
Let us now telegraphically outline our “philosophical” proposal to understand the utmost meaning of all that we have seen up to here.
All manifested reality appears, inextricably, in form of duality. There is not possible any expression outside this game of the opposites. We cannot find sounds without silence, subject without object, inside without outside and so on. All reverse are mutually dependent and therefore we can understand them as polarity manifestations of a reality that transcend them and that is “previous” to this duality itself.
In various graphics that we have used, for example Fig. 7-A and 7-B, we can see how the evolutionary trajectory starts in a maximum energy pole (and practically no consciousness at all) and ends up in another pole of maximum consciousness (and practically null energy). The physicians talk about a infinite potential energy amidst the original quantum void, and sages talk about a clear infinite consciousness in the final mystical void. We propose that these two voids are the same and unique Vacuity or Emptiness, perceived by the physicians as objective form and by the contemplative people like a subjective form, that is not objective or subjective but “prior” to that dual perspective. And the most fascinating is that such an Emptiness is not a far away metaphysical reality but the simple and pure Self-evidence of each and every present moment.
As in such Self-evidence there is no separation between subject and object, it is not possible see it, because there is not “anything” that could be seen by “someone” and at the same time is not “nothing”, because in fact all things in the universe —objective and subjective— are mere partial and relative forms of this Self-evidence. And although it is, therefore, unutterable, unexplainable, we could tend toward It, talking about plentiful and self-luminous void.
In order to be able to “see” the Self-Evidence it needs to polarize Itself, at least apparently in subject and object, the same than 0 may become dual in +1 and -1 without changing, only formally, its absolute value. We say this, because our ultimate proposal is that the Self-Evidence in order to contemplate Itself, splits in two poles: original (basically, energy) and final (basically, consciousness) generating an illusory distance among them that when vibrating —as the guitar cord of our hypothesis— enacts a whole scale of harmonic, that are precisely the levels of stability that create the Evolution cycles that we have already studied and that go over all the range from the most basic —of big energy and little consciousness— up to the highest —of little energy and big consciousness—, that would channel the so called game of chance in a harmonic form.
If we see the things from this perspective, all the avalanch of “coincidences” that we have been exposing, that for the materialistic view are totally unacceptable, here show to be natural manifestations of That-What-Is. Or the teleological character of Evolution so denigrated by official science, here is understood as the logic expression of the fundamental structure of the Real. Or the progressive emergence of consciousness that in multiple occasions is completely forgotten in many branches of sciences, in our non-dual approach is presented as a simple appearance of the infinite lucidity of the ever present Self-Evidence. ¿Wouldn’t it be already the time to change the paradigm?
As we said already, we repeat: ¡bye-bye, Darwin!
PS. A first approach of the herewith presented hypothesis was published in 1993 by the journal of general evolution World Futures Vol. 36, pp. 31-56, edited by Ervin Lazlo with the title A hypothesis on the rhythm of becoming.
Three years later, Ed. KairÃ³s edited and published a new version of the same hypothesis corrected and expanded with the title Entre la evoluciÃ³n y la eternidad (Between evolution and eternity) in which emphatized its inclusion in the new sciences of Evolution.
In 2008, Ed. Dilema published another work entitled Siendo nada, soy todo (Not being anything, I am everything) in which I was trying to study the ultimate implications of the hypothesis from the perennial philosophy and the non-dualistic mystics.
I have recently made some adjustments to the periodic table of our hypothesis what it has generated new confirmations of its validity, and therefore we have thought that it was convenient to open it up to the general public. And here it is: ¡Bye–bye, Darwin!
GOULD, STEPHEN JAY: Ontogenia y filogenia. (Ontogeny and philogeny). Ed. CrÃtica.Barcelona, 2010.
LASZLO, ERVIN: EvoluciÃ³n: la gran sÃntesis. (Evolution: the grand synthesis). Ed. Espasa-Calpe. Madrid, 1988.
RUSSELL, PETER: El agujero blanco en el tiempo. (The white hole in time). Ed. Gaia. Madrid, 1992.
SATPREM: Sri Aurobindo o la aventura de la consciencia. Ed. Obelisco. Barcelona, 1984.
WILBER; KEN: El proyecto Atman. (The Atman Project). Ed. KairÃ³s. Barcelona, 1989.
WILBER, KEN: DespuÃ©s del EdÃ©n. (Up from Eden). Ed. KairÃ³s. Barcelona, 1995.