According to the here presented thesis, mutation is not a chance-variation through random change in an element of the genetic material, but anamorphosis: an organism's exercise of its potentialities of evolution to create an improved or a new form of life, due to - or rather driven by - its own intellect-pressure, where survival - while a sine qua non - is not the prime mover, and where diversity and not multiplicity is the dominating tendency.
A further proposition of fundamental importance is that neither the single cell - as a unicellular element, or as an integral part of a multi-cellular organism - nor the multi-cellular organisms as such have reached their peak or their dead end in evolution; and that their evolutionary criterion lies not in the comparison to the highest evolutionary forms, but in the efficiency with which they fill their respective ecology-niches as subjects, instruments and originators of Creation; a criterion that defines their universal life value.
F I G U R E 1 4 - 1 EVOLUTIONARY DIAGRAM
Figure 14-1 shows the biological classifications and the simplified direct line of evolution of Homo sapiens, with two question-marks into the future - that the present thesis also attempts to answer -, according to the apparent evolutionary rules. There are several facts - empirically obtained - to be added to the above diagram, and others that can be red from it.
In the history of evolution, once the subdivisions have established themselves within a certain division (e.g. classes within a phylum, orders within a class etc.), no more subdivisions have developed within that division. The very same 21 phyla existing today, existed already at the beginning of the Palaeozoic era, 600 million years ago. Within the phylum Chordata all classes were established 250 million years back. All the Mammalian orders - between them the Primates - have existed for the last 100 million years. The last Primate family, the Anthropoidae, were established 25 million years ago. The timing for further subdivisions is uncertain, while species and sub-species are still in differentiation, and so might be, or rather is - following the universal rules - Homo sapiens.
Another remarkable fact is that major advances were made linearly, progressing through the subdivisions without crossing, meaning that the most advanced species came from the most advanced genus of the most advanced family of the most advanced order of the most advanced class of the most advanced phylum. The same applies right through the system. This points to the fundamental truth that differentiation, i.e. evolution of new sub-types does not come about by random chance, but by intelligent self-design, where the more evolved type has the better means for further development: his brains. The process, being self-reinforcing, is exponential. It also means that intraspecific differentiation starts with the differentiation of individual mental faculties within the species.
Figure 14-1 shows the differentiations along the most advanced evolutionary process on this planet. This, however, most emphatically does not mean that the 'others' have reached a dead end, stagnation, or extinction. To believe that only Homo sapiens evolves, means laying Daisy once more on her back. (Coming to think of it, poor Daisy never has the chance to get up.) Neither, just as emphatically, does it mean that these 'others' become naturally subordinated to the 'leader' - who becomes a ruler - and serve as 'free game' for his pleasure and abuse. These 'others' also evolve, but at variously slower rates, and fill their respective niches as indispensable symbionts in a balanced ecology, an act the all mighty 'leader' apparently fails to do, forgetting that "noblesse oblige".
There is a proverb that knowledge is power; no!: knowledge is obligation. Obligation towards a whole, evolving Universe, but not towards some unfit, life-incompetent elements or groups of one's own species, who parasitically claim their self-fabricated rights on Creation.
The process of intraspecific differentiation can be illustrated with the results of some experiments in heredity with laboratory animals, where random groups were tested for intelligence, divided into a 'dull' and 'bright' group, which were then interbred separately, and compared at every generation. Figure 14-2 shows the Gaussic distribution curves indicating the results, projected unto a three-dimensional graph, the x, y and z axes representing intelligence quotient, time (generations) and frequency respectively.
F I G U R E 1 4 - 2 PROCESS OF INTRASPECIFIC DIFFERENTIATION
After the seventh generation there were no noteworthy alterations in either group. The IQ calibration is arbitrarily chosen for comparative analysis, the mean of the original group taken as 100. The distribution or standard deviation curve is constructed according to the general statistical rule of human intelligence distribution, where the central third of the range is occupied by 68,26% of the group, the bordering 1/6th on each side by 13,58% each, and the extreme 1/6th by 2,14% each, leaving 0,14% below and above the range. The point of inflexion that marks the greatest frequency variation is at the quarter points. The central parts of the range (from -1,5SD to +1,5SD) contains 86,1% of the group, the lower and upper extremes 6,95% each.
Intelligence, while no doubt transmitted genetically (organic transmission), is increased only through the active use of this potential. It cannot be learned. The environmental influence comes only in the form of a challenge, to which the self-generated and self-activated reaction means the exercise - and consequent increase - of the intellectual faculties. This is an individual achievement producing the corresponding inner satisfaction, and stimulating the further use of these individual intellectual faculties, and the acting according to them. Follows that intelligence and achievement (achievement, and not social or financial success!) are inseparable. In opposition to this are the socially and educationally conditioned automatic reactions, the resorting to which are intellect-dulling, and produce the feeling of lack of achievement, frustration and even lethargy (and very probably consequent social and financial success).
The drive to exercise the intellect - that has its motive and end in itself, and which I have called intellect pressure - has various names in psychology, like 'stimulus need', 'variability need', 'psycho-logical need', and is found even in the lowest organisms. The drive, the exercise and the intellect are interrelated, which is why the bright gets brighter and the dull duller. There is still another factor that is a function of the intellect: the stimulus complexity. To every intellect level belongs a corresponding spectrum of complexities, below which the mind is disinterested, above which confused. Towards the upper limits of the spectrum are the spacer stimuli, providing the challenge, that, once mastered, cause the spectrum move towards higher complexities. This complexity spectrum defines the intellect-level of the individual, while the spacer-stimuli, that represent his intellect-pressure, are acting on his most vital functions, those which produce his syntropy.
When the base-group (mean IQ100) was separated into two, the 'dull' and 'bright' groups had mean IQ-s of 89 and 111 respectively. By the seventh generation the 'dull' group regressed to 81, while the 'bright' one progressed to 143. The relationship being logarithmic, the bright group's final mean was four times superior. Only the top 6,5% of the 'dull' group was brighter than the dullest of the 'bright' group, and 6,5% of the 'bright' group duller than the brightest of the 'dull' group. So, by the seventh generation the intellectual differentiation was - from any practical point of view - complete. It is noteworthy, however, that 15% of the first generation of the 'bright group was below the original mean (IQ100, which was the lowest selected parent), diminishing to zero by the seventh, while 35% of the 'dull' group was above this figure, as against the final 6,5%. As all this cannot be due to genetic transmission, it points to the spacer stimuli being situated at both ends of the complexity spectrum, and influenced by the general intelligence level and tendency of the group, thus clustering and separating peak values, and accounting for the arrival of the fittest on one end, and the departure of the unfit on the other.
The selection and the conditions that brought about the above results were artificial. That a cataclysmic occurrence can split a species geographically is imaginable, that this separation happens into dull and bright groups, is not. Neither is evolution being forced out by natural or unnatural catastrophes, in spite of the popular theory that it is the result of passive - or even chance - adaptation to an at random changing environment. The theory that intraspecific differentiation happens on intellectual level, has its foundation on the previous chapter, and shall be elaborated as this one progresses.
There is no doubt that some species variations occur as adjustments to environmental changes - be this climatic, biological or ecological - and that their mechanism works on the trial and error principle. The trials are, however, not chance or random occurrences unfolding within a maze, but are conscious and intelligent reactions, dynamically readjusted during the process (chess game as against the 'put the tail on the donkey'). Other mechanisms for species improvement and diversification are the processes of life cycles; birth and death and with it reincarnation, boosted by sexual reproduction and the related, by the species evolved selective mating rituals - decisions by proving superior relevant abilities -, and the unfit progeny's culling by the parents, falling to predators, or general incompetence to survive, where the parents' aim is not towards creating a 'better future' for a whatever progeny, but a better progeny to be able to face a whatever future. Random mutation coupled with subsequent selection is not an originative agent, and evolution is not its product. Neither is survival an end in itself, but the means for growing.
As most of the life-manifestations and attributes, like self-preservation, feeding, reproduction, acquisitiveness and even leadership and constructiveness are ascribed to some extraneously implanted pre-programming, called 'instinct', let us indulge in a closer scrutiny of that concept.
INSTINCT is one of the labels with as many meanings as there are users, to interpret animal behaviour, including that of Homo sapiens. Until recently even prominent scientists believed (some maybe still do) that animals - this time excluding man - are biological machines, without consciousness, intellect, or any thinking and reasoning capacity, functioning only according to their 'instincts'. Neither the meaning of this word nor the origin of the concept was important as long as it has served for a label that requires no further explanation. It became the cause of innumerable effects, without itself having a cause. The machine-theory has ceased - the fogging not.
Dictionaries define the word 'instinct' as "innate propensity to certain seemingly rational acts performed without conscious design"; "innate impulse"; "unconscious skill"; "unlearned complex adaptive response"; "the original sense"; "congenital impulse plus specific emotional excitement". Unless accepting the edict that order derives from chaos thorough random action, "without conscious design", none of the above definitions make any sense: they are labels without substance. One should wonder at the coincidence that 'unconscious nest-building skill' has happened to birds and not to elephants; or maybe it has happened to both, the latter 'instinctively' rejecting it for not having 'survival value'. Or maybe those who are still labouring on the chronological order of egg and hen, are just simply not asking the right questions.
Rejecting acausality in the case of a fundamental cause of many life-manifestations, I will follow the appearance and development of instinct as an integral part of the appearance and development of life itself.
While it would be possible to go further back, a more understandable point of beginning is at the unicellular organisms, the protozoa. All cells have the potentiality for movement at will. Not all move. Those that do, had to learn it step by step, by trial and error, until co-ordinated movement was achieved, and, through repetition, changed from consciously directed action to motor action, to be called up as one unconscious unit - routine - by one stimulus, in this case the will. The will to move was conscious, the twitching co-ordinated into movement became instinctive. Forward, backward, left, right up and down, each had its own program pack (software), to be triggered into action by the correct stimulus (code).
Sensing food or danger, the cells willed their movement in the appropriate direction, learning to respond correctly. These actions became routines through repetition, automatic actions, triggered off directly by a sense-stimulus. 'Approach' and 'withdrawal' had the capacity to decide on the strategy, and select and activate the correct movement.
The cell had now two new programs for reaction, both using the already existing movement sub-routines, which remained nevertheless still accessible to the conscious will. Delegating routine work to a sub-system - to what is generally called an "unconscious motor action" - the cell became free to evolve ways of further development. The programs recorded on the chromosomes joined the sets of informations which guide the physiological activities of the organism. When dividing, the acquired behaviour patterns were transferred, became innate in both parts.
Based on the foregoing, instinct can be defined as fixed pattern of mental or physical behaviour, innate or acquired, in living organisms, triggered off by specific, simple stimuli.
As is explicit in the above study, instinct, or rather the acquisition of them, even in the simplest manifestations of life, are preceded by a conscious cognitive process (programming) expressed by the thinking of aspects, qualities and relations, exercising comparison, generalization, abstraction and reasoning.
Instincts are also characterized by their fixation, which depends on two factors:
Firstly, how far are they removed in the hierarchic order of mentation, how deep they are in the program memory, to what extent did they remain directly accessible to conscious will.
Secondly, how powerful was the original motivation, and what is the frequency of its use.
To be able to erase, modify or reorganize a fixed behaviour pattern, its origin has to be found by regression, recognized in its whole run, and attended to step by step with the same force and motivation, as the original input had. There is an inverse relationship between the intensity of the drive to instinctive behaviour, and the level of creative intellect of the individual. The same relationship exists between the innate/acquired factor of instinct and the same level.
I have to emphasize that behaviour, rational or instinctive, irrational or random, can happen on the individual level only. While a collective average of racial characteristics can be spoken of, collective intellect or collective instinct never. Herd-conduct, tribalism and nationalism are the mass-expressions of elementary units of conditioned behaviour, and are not to be confused with the self-orchestrated rational behaviour of heterogeneous elements in natural social conduct directed towards the symbiotic development of an integrated organism; an individual of higher complexity and identity, the evolution of which is integral part of the universal evolution. Such behaviour aggregated macromolecules into organelles, organized them functionally into cells, differentiated the cells into specialized elements, and produced, through movement, cohesion and co-ordination, the plant and animal organisms, and joined them finally into major ecological communities.
Insects and lower vertebrates, with some exception, do not know their parents, neither do they grow up in a community of various age-groups, consequently are born with a ready mechanism serving for every manifestation of their life. Their mental activities consist of making decisions according to their fears, needs and desires, and activate corresponding programs with fixed rules and flexible strategies. These animals are born free: independent; they do not depend on anybody, only their own brain and strength for survival. Innate instincts being rigid, the evolution of the species through its individuals is slow, if not stagnant, although the physiological intelligence of some insects, making adaptations to before never encountered variations in the environment, which are then genetically transmitted to their progenies, is more than amazing.
The variety in the animal kingdom is enormous. Most birds are as helpless when born as primates are; totally dependent. Flying and obtaining food is taught to them by their parents. If hatched in captivity they will acquire both as autodidacts, but their capacity to survive will be much inferior. Paring rituals and nest-building techniques are instinctive in the sense that they are oriented by innate knowledge.
Anybody who is watching with the eyes of a participant, the first wing-probes of young birds, and not only sees but feels emanating the fears and desires to fly, the loving, strategic encouragement and impatient disapproval, the anxieties and the pride, could never consider this scene as 'biological mechanisms' being watched by a superior creature. This prejudice, born of ignorance and supported by arrogance, is also a conditioned response, where the above mentioned instinct/intellect relationship applies.
The hoofed mammals, when born, can move freely, but depend for food and protection on their mother. The co-ordinated body-movement is certainly inborn; if their general pattern of behaviour, typical to the species, is governed by instinctive-innate or instinctive-learned forces, or by the mixture of the two - which is the most likely - will not be known with absolute certainty until we can tune in on their communication system. Until then we'll have to be content with in the introduction mentioned waste material passed out of the alimentary canal of Waddington's cow - at best -, or of that of her male partner - at worst.
One of the animal behaviours, or rather behaviour complexes I have always most admired, is the aptitude test and its follow up in connection with mating and procreation. This probe of courage, ability, strength and endurance - not an angry fight! - decides which one male will be the leader responsible for the well-being of a herd of twenty to forty females, who will also be the one and only inseminator for that year, and for each year he can maintain his position by proving his aptitude. The implication of this is stupendous, and not only in the assurance of healthy progenies. To accept a 'man to man' test, adhere to its rules, and accept its decisions, indicate a moral standard that is reminiscent of the knights of the round table, or of the golden age - Aurea - which "sponte sua sine lege fidem rectumque colebat". There is no ganging up by the losers, no cloak and dagger, no calling for some cock-eyed 'justice' to share and share alike. The moral strength of each looser is greater than its sex-drive, its self-assertion tendencies, its want to dominate.
Should your answer be that these "unfortunate creatures" have an "irresistible inner force compelling the performance of this act, without, or even against the will of the individual performing it", consider that at one stage in the evolution of this animal, every instinct was a consciously unfolding act, which became mechanical by choice and repetition. No behaviour pattern could have evolved if it was not self-generated in the interest of the individual who lives in physical and mental communion with the whole.
Should your answer be based on the purely religious belief that "God has placed this behaviour into the animals", I will agree in the sense that He has evolved it from within, which is exactly what I am trying to convey in this book.
That nothing walks with aimless feet,
That not one life shall be destroyed
Or cast as Rubbish to the void
When God hath made the pile complete.
The carnivores of the dry land are born blind and are fully dependent. They live in families or in family groups, where the young are individually or collectively taught both their behaviour and their hunting habits.
Two thoughts appear to me interesting in their relation:
Lions, and - I imagine - other cats and dogs in the wild, do not procreate if a bad year (e.g. drought) is in coming. This foresight cannot be instinctive - pre-programmed -, only intuitive - psychically perceived -, and throws light onto another intelligent, healthy animal reaction: procreate only if the progeny has good chances for a normal, healthy life. In other words: they create no misery!
Connected to this fact is the second observation: predators keep their numbers constant, adjusted to the number of the herbivores whose old, weak and sick they feed on, thus keeping also their numbers unaltered, and the herd healthy and strong. Thinking as humans do, they could multiply themselves - as there is enough food for two or three generations to come, until the herbivores disappear and 'après moi le deluge'. Or they could at least continue reproducing in the first case, as they are only indirectly influenced by the drought. They do neither.
The reason cannot be the favourite reply: instinct, which is destined to fit every occasion but explains none. The race could not have pre-programmed itself for an 'automatic reaction' to be triggered off by a psychic perception in the first case, or at every mating season by the result of the counting of the respective numbers, in the second. For this not only the foresight of the coming season, but of the repercussions of the present action on the life of two generations ahead, would have been necessary, a feat to which humanity most certainly is not capable. It is more likely that they answer positively to the co-ordinating plan of the ecological community which they form part of and are in conscious harmony with.
Highest on the list are the primates, whose progenies are completely dependent on their parents not only for a short period after their birth, but for the first 15 to 20% of their life-spans. From the co-ordinated action of their muscles to reach for food, to social behaviour and skill to survive, every step, every action has to be acquired. This opens tremendous possibilities for evolution, and tremendous dangers for abuse, depending on the quality of the immediate environment. The dependent infant - being also highly impressionable - becomes the product of the group-life, society; his personality and its formation, and his social attitudes, are formed by those of the group, communications, interpersonal relations, crowd and mass behaviour and social movements.
With animals in their natural habitat everything is directed towards survival and evolutionary progress. All instincts are natural and are created in this spirit. Aberrations simply do not survive.
Man has created his own environment, removed it further and further from what would be a natural habitat, and has made mental adjustments to his unnatural surroundings. Instead of producing natural instincts by creative, intelligent reasoning process, acquires habits, prejudices, preconceptions, complexes, inhibitions born of ignorance, conditioning, indoctrination and general brain-washing, these feeding on their own products by making continuous loops.
"Where instinct predominates - says C.G. Jung - psychoid processes set in which pertain to the sphere of the unconscious as elements incapable of consciousness." I am adapting this statement to the terms of this text: "When lower systems override the higher ones psychoid processes set in, the control of which pertains to the sphere of the lower systems incapable to be reached by the individual's consciousness and will."
Now back to the evolutionary split.
While the mechanisms discussed are created by intellect pressure, they produce only constant low energy evolutionary progress, and do not account for splits and the creation of radically new species. We have to look for the causes and the mechanisms of the so-called "evolutionary jumps" and new breakthroughs elsewhere.
Rejecting most energetically the nonsensical Freudian edict that evolution is the derivative of continuously frustrated regression towards protoplasmic existence, or - another negative approach - that new breakthroughs are desperate escapes forced out by extinction-menacing dead ends (one of our early ancestors, the sea-cucumber, is still there - without nervous system and all - and probably with a better chance for biological survival than its latest descendant, Homo sapiens), I search further with a positive approach.
Koestler and Garstang come to aid, not with their developed theories on the subject to build on (gerontogenesis), but with the young, mobile, flexible stages of their seminal ideas (paedogenesis).
Analysing it, a jump has three physical stages: (1) undoing the existing - relaxed and balanced - state of rest or uniform motion by drawing back, taking position, flexing muscles, etc. This is a disequilibrated state, which has already nothing common with the original state of rest, and where the emphasis is not on the drawing back, but on the undoing of stabilizing conditions. (2) the jump proper, the efficiency and results of which depend very much on the extent and efficiency of the undoing and flexing - energy-build-up - of the first stage. (3) regaining equilibrium and consolidating a new state of rest or uniform motion.
There is a mental process that precedes and accompanies the action, which consists of perceiving the actual situation, analysing and considering it, defining new aims, studying possible alternatives of the courses of action and their probable consequences, making a logical choice, and willing it into execution. These are functions of the individuals' intellect, and so is the action of the jump.
In this form the analogy can be applied to evolution, where the proper jump represents the evolutionary jump of one fraction of a species, with the radical alteration of their mental and biological habits with the corresponding morphological and physiological changes, and the alterations in their relative environment. All this happens within a comparatively short time, resulting in increased evolutionary gradient, and requiring high energy-output, exhausting the system, which, needing rest and the regaining of equilibrium, enters into the third stage, where the achievements are stabilized, consolidated, concretized and perpetuated through the procreative mechanism, and through conditioning during the time of infancy. This is a period during which the previously described low gradient evolutionary movements - with rules adjusted to the new life-style - continue, and during which, finally, the psychological environment for the next split is germinated.
Obviously, a stabilized and consolidated internal and external condition does not invite an evolutionary split producing a new species. Stability and consolidated conditions are undone either by differential individual mental development within a particular species population or by altered conditions within the major ecological community they form part of, or both, which, evolution representing a dynamic interaction, is most likely the case. This produces a disequilibrated but flexible, potential- and energy-rich condition, suited to make a new evolutionary break-through. The condition for this exists in all organisms during the period of their development, i.e. foetal and infantile stages, and in those who keep that condition into their mature stage. These are the ones who make the changes in their mental and biological habits to create thus the new species. The rest stay with their inertial force, representing their old species. Their conditions is altered, however, by the fact, that the reduction of their medium IQ level reduces also the level of their relative environment and make individual survival take another direction, and more difficult.
Thinking as a child with the tools of logical structuring given by mental maturity is creative thinking; it is the mental process necessary for taking part in an evolutionary jump, and for the consolidation of the desired and acquired new characteristics.
Being flexible also means organismic adaptation to the altered mental and biological habits through corresponding morphological and physiological changes, also marked on the genetic blue-print (chromosomes), and brought to expression during foetal or infantile development. Nota bene: mental progress is followed by physical reconstruction; the progress is mental, the physical tool is adapted, restructured consequently, to be able to bring that progress to expression.
Sexual maturity defines - in this context - not the fitness to copulate with a member of the opposite sex (or, following the present fad, of the proper one), but the fitness to transmit - through the pro-creative mechanism - real and representative psycho-physical characteristics, and thus consolidate the new characteristics in the split-off species. Evidently, the new situation or ecological niche demands higher mental faculties, and throw-backs will fail and fall out according to the already described species improvement mechanisms, causing the fast extinction of the connecting population. This is why 'missing links' are so hard to find between the species of higher development.
I want to emphasize that 'dead-end' is a relative concept and a subjective definition of a state of being. I will not enter into an argument with the see-cucumber which one of us is better off as far as survival is concerned, and who is more in a cul-de-sac at the moment. He is satisfied, for his milliard years of state matches his milliard years stagnant intellect. (The trouble would start if the cucumbers would 'claim' - like cabbages do - their 'rights to car and comfort' on account of being relatives.) It is doubtful that after the innumerable splits into more and more species in evolutionary history, the 'others' who had 'stayed behind' have ever felt jealous, deceived or unhappy, or even inferior. They have stayed in their familiar, accustomed-to ecology niches, corresponding to their level of intellect, and can see no 'dead-end' in it. The process is always more difficult and painful for the ones who jump.
Neither do I agree with the idea that dead-ends tick off automatically new break-throughs. A dead-end, accordingly, would be characterized by some chemical, thermal, atmospheric and radiant energy conditions, producing certain types of protein molecules, which would catalyse some chemical reactions - not anywhere, mind you, but inside the nucleus of the zygote, the fertilized egg of the organism in dead-end-trouble - which, in turn, would produce a random mutation in the spirit of 'stick the tail on the donkey'. - Hoopla - wrong place! After unimaginable amount of hoopla-s, and probably as many laughs, the tail happens unto the right spot, and off rides the new species - or at least one specimen of it - and evolution is once more saved from the cruel fate of dead-end-itis (but not from the cruel hands of the scientific Zeitgeist).
Inspired by the great many half-baked theories of that scientific Zeitgeist, I propose a question that forever puzzled me: who and why - for these double negativists, random variationists, chance mutationists, statistical transformationists, general ad-hoc-ists and mechano-biologists - is being frustrated in its intension to regress towards protoplasmic existence by whom? who finds himself in a blind alley, and tries aimlessly to escape it, and why? who and why has programmed instinctive behaviour? who is that personified nature who has constructed that whom so, and why? who devised the mechanism for survival for whom? who and for what purpose wants to perpetuate himself and his species, or wants to evolve? and - above all - who and why wants to survive anyway, if there is no consciousness, intelligent mind and logical reason within each of those who-s, and behind the whole? And if there is, what are all the cock-eyed theories of mindless chance-happenings to unconscious chance-occurrences about? Instead of standing in awe and admiration before the wonder of it all and trying to understand!
According to the spirit of my thesis - and while we are talking in metaphors -: evolution is not the escape from blind alleys, but the answer to the call of the open spaces, of the wide horizons.
Figure 14-3 shows Garstang's representation of his theory on the progress of evolution by paedogenesis. In it Z to Z9 is the progression of the fertilized eggs (zygotes), and A to A9 the resulting corresponding adult forms. The lines Zx to Ax are the ontogenic lines - the transformation of eggs into adults -, A to A9 the phylogenic one - the evolution to higher forms. This latter represents, however, not a direct evolutionary progress, which would mean gerontogenesis, the development from fully adult structures. Evolution, in Garstang's theory, branches off at an early developmental (embryonic) stage from the ontogenic lines, and "retreat" back to the next zygote, and to a new departure. The result is a zigzag pattern (emphasized on the diagram), a forward-backward movement that Koestler characterized as "reculer pour mieux sauter" - "drawing back to leap better".
F I G U R E 1 4 - 3 GARSTANG'S DIAGRAM
Applying my previously exposed theory on Garstang's diagram, I find several disagreements. Garstang represents ontogenic development (which includes growth and consolidation) as a straight line (Zx to Ax), always starting from a new zygote (Zx), and ending in an adult form (Ax), that means simultaneously a dead end. It jumps the phylogenic ladder (towards higher forms) in the form of retreats from embryonic stages into higher zygotes. The jump is in fact a draw-back from where recommences a new, constant, linear development towards a new dead end, from which it is saved in time by an ad hoc genetic mutation causing changes as from the embryonic stage.
The most misleading - or rather wrongly conceived - are the expressions "draw back", "retrace steps", "reverse" and especially "regress", used in connection with reaching from the third stage to the first of the new jump, for this comes after and above the third stage of the previous one, and because consolidation is, most definitely, not a progressive stage over development.
An organism cannot regress from consolidation into development, as man cannot regress from senescence into youth. He can stay young, however, which is the function of the mind; where young means flexible, dynamic, developable and developing (but emphatically not more primitive). This is paedomorphosis, the process in evolution whereby adult forms retain young characteristics. Retain and not regress to it.
The diagram implies that the zygote, the fertilized egg - that is actually an unicellular organism, genetically complete, capable to reproduce itself by cleavage, and produce, through further divisions, and according to the genetic blue-print (chromosomes) contained in its nucleus, a complete multi cellular organism (animal) - is radically different at each rang of the evolutionary ladder, and that the life-cycle of each member of a group runs from Zx to Ax until the jump (or rather the retreat) comes, from which time on it will run from Zx+1 to A x+1. To analyse this proposition a further study is in order.
The cell - the basic building stone of all organic life-manifestation - had terminated its major development in two different - but not very different, and not without intermediate - forms: plant-cell and animal-cell, about one milliard years ago. This means that its general conception was complete, but it still could improve the technologies of its metabolic processes according to its particular functions, and raise its general economy and efficiency. It has not reached the peak or the dead end of its evolution; on the contrary: due to the cell's creative intellect exercised on its own level are the developmental potentials of multi-cellular organisms essentially unlimited. There is a very high degree of order and logic in cellular structures and functions, that reflect on and apply to all biological systems. In fact, function and structure are interdependent and inseparable, function defining structure which is its organ of expression (a statement that has brought me innumerable arguments in architecture and engineering). The evolutionary jump itself means a functional change that requires consequent structural adaptations. All technological changes, from the development of sexual reproduction, the four-chamber heart and the three-cortical brain, to the development of the microscope, telescope, the automobile the aeroplane and the computer, are structural adaptations and extensions to serve functional requirements, these in turn being dependent on mental development.
How many jumps it took for the cell to form, I do not know; the important fact to know, however, in this context is that very complex macro-molecules (carbohydrates, lipids, proteins and also RNA and DNA), constructed mostly of amino-acids, are aggregated into specific and dynamic clusters, called organelles, which are structured into cells. Cells, as individual organisms, are ubiquitous and form the phylum of protozoa.
A further step in the development is to stay attached division after division, the thus increased mass and co-ordinated movement being advantageous to each autonomous individual. Specialization on cellular level turns this non-specialized aggregation into a cell-colony, where differentiated groups of cells - tissues - perform specific functions, and thus create a co-operative society. It has to be remembered that all members are the outcome of the cleavage of one zygote, and that any of them can detach itself and start a new society, that will then grow into an identically differentiated and constituted society like the original one. These specialized cell-colonies are called parazoa, and the sponges are well-known examples of them.
Further differentiation and integration results in a new biological concept: the multi-cellular organisms - the metazoa - where the cell can no longer separate itself and live outside of it, but neither is the organism a whole without each cell, for there is some special contribution, which this and no other can make most effectively to the life of a rational organism. The relationship and differentiated consciousness on every stratum was exhaustively discussed when talking about holons.
The first step in the metazoan development was the formation of a food-cavity in the shape of a cup, consisting of an inner layer of cells - the endoderm - developed by and out of the original ectoderm, to be concerned with the alimentation of the system, while the ectoderm can, as before, be concerned with the environment, and the development of the system. The phylum Coelenterata - e.g. jellyfish - has this type of construction.
The next move established the third germinal layer between the ectoderm and the endoderm: the mesoderm, and with it some primitive structural organs, where organ-formation involves differential cell-migration, differential mitotic rates, pattern formation and sub-cellular changes. These are the Platyhelminthes, the flat-worms.
A further step improved the organs and developed the digestive tube and a vascular system with a cardiac tube, both very primitive, creating the phylum Nematoda, the round-worms.
Each of these steps has opened up possibilities to ever greater diversifications, characterized by increasing grade of organization, efficiency and complexity.
The line of evolution - towards Homo sapiens - took the steps through the phylum Echinoderma (e.g. sea-cucumber), into the phylum Chordata, the early Vertebrates, Lungfish, Amphibians, Mammals, Primates, Anthropoids, Homo, and actually, but not finally, Homo sapiens.
The animal zygote is a monocell structured as above, differing from the protozoa and from each other only by the genetic material (Chromosomes) contained in their nuclei. In the embryonic development it goes first through seven cleavage divisions (128 cells) forming a cell colony called blastula, then comes a multi-cellular organism by forming the ectoderm and endoderm, creating a primitive food-cavity (blastulation), followed by the third germinal layer (mesoderm), and the subsequent organ formation through histological changes. The endoderm turns into the elaborate digestive system, the visceral organs, the ectoderm transforms into skin, sense organs, and the nervous system, and the mesoderm into the skeleton, muscles and vascular system. The unfolding follows the evolutionary development of each singular organ. The heart, for instance, is first a cardiac tube, which changes, following all intermediate steps, into the four-chambered complex. The human embryo looks at 18 days like the amphibian one, and at 27 exhibits bronchial bars reminiscent of the lung-fish ancestor. The transformation of these gill-arches involves a most remarkable rearrangement of skeletal elements, muscles, blood-vessels and nerves, characteristic to amphibian metamorphosis. The muscles are first laid down in a regular segmental arrangement as are in the adult forms of the primitive vertebrates, and subsequently rearranged to form the characteristic arrangement of a human adult. A tail is developed, then withdrawn; an example of the transitory traces of abandoned structural elements.
The development of the embryonic body is remarkably alike in all classes of vertebrates, resulting in a common structural pattern. The internal anatomy and embryonic development of the anthropoid apes are in very close agreement to those of Homo sapiens, as are their menstrual cycle, period of gestation, placental formation, blood, chemical similarity, the only differences being morphological and in the size of the brain, representing a genetic deviation of one per cent.
All life has a common origin, the basic physiological processes are characteristic to all living organisms, all animals are related by descent, the differences arising through splitting, branching off, i.e. part of the species making an evolutionary jump, while the rest maintain the status quo. The branching off has created the evolutionary stages, and its particular history is written in the ontogeny of every organism. This is expressed in Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law, that states that "Ontogeny, the development of an individual animal is a shortened recapitulation of phylogeny, the evolutionary history of the species to which it belongs."
Based on the above exposed evolutionary process I propose a different diagrammatic representation (see figure 14-4), commencing with the formation of the simplest biological systems. While it involves several steps, I denominate it as origin, and follow directly with the previously referred-to macro-molecules, of which the RNA and DNA are the ones forming the chromosomes, the genetic material of the cell, but which exist also in isolation as viruses.
The diagram shows the gradational series of the evolutionary jumps in direct line from the origin to Homo sapiens. Above the line are marked, where applicable, the biological and embryological definitions of the corresponding stages, and also, where known or suspected, the connecting links, the ones who jumped. Below the line are the biological classifications of those groups which contain the immediate others who stayed behind. The inclined lines represent their consolidation and conservation. Their slight forward inclination indicates a continuous, low-intensity evolution. The adult forms find themselves on these lines, their distance from the break indicating their grade of consolidation. The arrow points towards further consolidation, but does not represent a dead end; however, as evolution increases from left to right, the state of consolidation increases from the top downwards, and the further down a species finds itself on that line, the higher will be its relative persistence versus change, its racial inertia against evolution.
Each animal's - or rather each and every living organism's - ontogeny starts at the origin, and shares the evolutionary straight until it reaches the point of the branching off characteristic to its species, from where it continues quasi vertically, repeating its own remaining evolutionary path until its (and its species') particular point of evolutionary stage and consolidation, thus following its phylogenic line. Other species could also be included into the diagram to demonstrate relative evolutionary tendencies. These would branch off at their specific point, with the evolutionary gradients of the jump inclined in proportion to their relation to maximum achievement, but would never cross the consolidation vector of the next higher order, accommodating themselves between the limits of their evolutionary potentials defined by their own moves and those of the others.
F I G U R E 1 4 - 4 EVOLUTIONARY DIAGRAM
The consolidated developmental state is suitable for the condition for which it was fashioned. However, this condition is being changed constantly by two factors: the jump that has produced the new species, and the reaction of the others to it. The altered circumstances, and also the intellect pressure of part of the individuals forming the species, instigate to a new jump according to the intellectual level of this species, or rather of the group undertaking the jump, which then graduate from a sub-specific to a specific status (for the 'others' always stay behind and follow a lesser trajectory). The split, the reaction of the others to it, the consequent alterations in the conditions, the new horizons and the new split are accumulative, and are the functions and tracer stimuli of the intellect. Evidently, intellectual differentiation is followed by a racial split, and by accelerated and decelerated evolutionary tendencies. (That some reptiles could develop cerebral cortex, and open the way for further extensive evolution as mammals, a group of them had proven back in the Triassic age, some 200 million years ago; that the 'ones who have stayed behind' haven't got the stuff for it, they are proving ever since.)
From a biological point of view two main factors are the causes and the consequences of relatively higher evolutionary gradients: a higher degree of cephalization, and a generalized structure that confers a greater degree of functional plasticity. Both are tools and imply an elastic-dynamic, non-mechanical and non-calcified state, typical to the embryonic and pre-sexual (infantile) stages of development. These are, however, also the stages in which the 'mechanizing and calcifying processes are the most active both on organismic and environmental levels. These processes would have the effect that by the time the individual reaches maturity, all its manifestations are hardened into mechanical actions - should this be nest-building, or social, philosophical and religious behaviour - which it will transmit to further generations through genetic (sexual reproduction) and social (conditioning) channels; all relatively degenerating, because stability, which is always stagnant, equals relative regression, for the rest is in movement and passes by. The necessity to move in order to keep up with the general evolution is called the "red queen effect", after the Queen of Hearts telling Alice (of Wonderland fame), that in her kingdom everyone must run as fast as can, just to stay in one place.
In biology, neoteny is the retention of embryonic or pre-sexual conditions in some organs, although the animal became otherwise sexually mature. The emphasis should be, however, not on sexual but on mental maturity: the stage of development when the individual has both the conditions and the intellectual capacity to use the potentialities that embryonic and pre-sexual conditions offer - physical and mental elasticity and plasticity -, and remould itself accordingly. The change marked unto the chromosomes is genetically transmitted, which is where the sexual maturity enters. Logically, neoteny only has value in progressive evolutionary development, if there is an agent that can make use of the given potentialities. This agent is the mind. On the other hand, adding mental to sexual maturity, neoteny becomes a condition quasi sine qua non for evolutionary progress. And here enters the peaceful Avatar into biology: "unless you will become like little children . ."; like little children: elastic, plastic and dynamic - in mind and body. This is paedogenesis, but not evolution (personified) randomly retracing its steps to an earlier, more primitive stage, and making a try for a fresh start by introducing, through a lucky chance-mutation, some also random, "useful evolutionary novelties" in the larval or embryonic stage of the ancestor.
I want to emphasize a crucial point: mental development is not the consequence of chromosomal mutation; chromosomal mutation is the consequence of mental development (first was the Logos). The first amphibians did not come out of the sea because they grew lungs by some weird genetic chance, and were forced by it to do so, or because they got stranded in a puddle and were waiting there for the same weird genetic chance to save them; they wanted to go unto the dry land because it was fascinating - "because it was there!" -, ergo they have produced the lungs and the legs, and all the morphological, histological and physiological changes necessary to serve them in that intellectual adventure. The initiative was theirs: the mental force of the being, directed towards an aim, challenged and energized its organism on every integrarchic level to respond positively to an evolutionary demand, and using what we call its physiological intelligence, develop a new physiological technology, and reconstruct itself according to the best of its actual mental abilities. But there is yet another crucial point: the amphibians - or any organism for that matter - did not adapt themselves to the physical environment that they encountered, but created for themselves a new particular mental environment incorporating the physical one the way they conceived it, and moulded their own bodily structure to it. Naturally there enters trial and error into the process, but that of the creative designer, and not that of the gambler.
The mental composition of an organism - holon - has been expressed (equation 3) and discussed earlier in this book, as has been the complex mechanism of the Integrarchic System of the Natural Order. All apply to what have been exposed above, which would need no further elaboration except for a most important fact: species do not evolve, individuals do. Individuals have concrete existence; species is a biological definition. If many individuals possess quasi identical characteristics, they are called a species. The high degree of similarity is, no doubt, the result of inter-breeding, and sharing the same functions within an ecological community, but this does not account for evolution as a species, neither does it make a biological unit out of it except as a species community occupying an ecology niche in an ecological community. Even individuals of the same species forming close social units can suffer genetic drift expressed in intellectual and character differences, and differentiate into two sub-species, first psychologically, then morphologically alienated. Finally, the splitting consists of individual actions in collective manifestation, as are the psychological and morphological adaptations to the newly created situation. Nevertheless, individual evolutionary process can only be perpetuated (or wiped out) through the interrelationship of individuals, who independently and in unity perform the actions characteristic to their life-expression, and conceptualized by their collective.
I have to interject here that there exist "non-local" connections and orchestrations on another dimension between species- and ecological communities and their evolutions, as influential in the process as are the physical ones, but not having general acceptance by far, I do not involve them in this thesis.
The process, that is the fundamental mechanism of evolutionary diversification, will be elaborated on after further developing the evolutionary model (figure 14-5), starting from the beginning of the Beginning.
When the earth has formed itself - about five milliard years Before Now - it was a whirling interstellar gas. Cooling down it liquefied, then gained a solid crust, the lithosphere, and an atmosphere. The latter consisted of hydrogen combining with carbon, with nitrogen or with oxygen, forming methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and water (H2O) respectively. With further cooling the water condensed, forming rivers and seas.
Looking at a planet with this kind of an atmosphere, we would classify it as unsuitable to support life. Yet exactly these compounds have formed themselves - absorbing solar energy - into more complex molecules, aminoacids, then carbohydrates, lipids, proteins - viruses, bacteria, cells - what we define as living organisms. Thus a biosphere has developed, involving more and more the lithosphere and the atmosphere, transforming more and more of them into itself. In this biological process the methane-ammonia atmosphere was changed into a carbondioxide-nitrogen one. A further sub-cellular development produced the process called photosynthesis, which, with an efficient use of light-energy, consumes carbondioxide to build up complex molecules, and liberates oxygen. Anaerobic respiration changed thus into the much more efficient aerobic one. It has to be pondered upon that these microscopic creatures (for no other existed), all living in the waters, have changed twice and completely the whole atmosphere of the planet - improving themselves constantly with it - before the first multi-cellular organism could ever even start to develop. They took their time, no doubt: this period lasted from three and a half to one milliard years BN.
What has evolved primarily was the Planet's Life as a whole, in a protoplasmic continuity, developing more and more complex compounds, using the basic elements of solar energy either directly (like in plant cells), expanding into innumerable varieties through stratifications, subdivisions, differentiations and refinements, increasing all the time their complexity, each fraction forming a quasi-self-contained open system - a holon - continuously elaborating its own development, while exercising its own logic and creativity; each as a symbiotic aspect in the evolving pattern of that Life, and all in accordance with a Higher Ordering Principle.
According to my thesis, the particular intellect that enters in every form of life-manifestation, organic or inorganic, as an ubiquitous constituent of the Psycho-Physical Reality, is directly proportional to the evolutionary level of an organism. This was already implied in connection with the evolutionary diagram (figure 14-4), where intellect with evolution - or evolution with intellect - grows from the origin towards the right, into the far off horizons.
As evolution has (to my knowledge) no factor, but intelligence - mind in its qualitative manifestation - has, I am using the latter to define evolutionary progress, and calibrate the horizontal co-ordinate accordingly. The progress being - as discussed earlier - exponential, the calibration is logarithmic, the Origin being marked by the unity, and the actual median intelligence factor - or evolutionary factor - of Homo sapiens by 100. This marking is arbitrary, but as the scale expresses relationships and not absolute values, it is as valid as any other figure would be.
On the vertical co-ordinate I am introducing another dimensionless property: inertia. This relative persistence includes the conservatism of from morphological elements to mental habits, and is defined as the passive resistance to change, manifested by a holon (animate or inanimate) as function of its own state of energy and stimulus-response time. It is intrinsic in the holon as it is in the Universe on all time-bound planes. Stimulus-response time refers here to rational mentation and not to automatic reflexes. Particular inertia influences and is influenced by the momentary inertial state of the Universe.
As inertia can be related to the time it takes for a certain cause to take a certain effect on a certain object, the resistance to change can be defined by the time it took for a certain development to realize itself. Phylogeny, the evolutionary history of organisms provides exactly the right scale, which, to represent the correct proportions, is once more logarithmic, and starts with the year 15.109 BN (first of January - Gregorian Calendar), that marks the Beginning of the Present Local Universal Cycle.
For obvious reasons I have tempered with the scale, defining the mark 102 as present, and reversing at this point the regress into the past to the progress into the future in the same logarithmic scale.
The diagram is based on much intuition as it is on hard facts, and, admitting that intuitions can be sometimes as erroneous as can be hard facts, it is open for discussion and improvement.
F I G U R E 1 4 - 5 EVOLUTIONARY MODEL
The maximum evolutionary gradient, marking the gradational series of the highest evolutionary jumps, connecting the highest evolutionary forms respective to the epoch, in direct line of descent ending in modern man, is inclined 45º, suggesting that the maximum exerted evolutionary force has equalled the relative persistence. It also marks the line of relative maximum achievement due to relative maximum effort. The non-achievement line - the path of least action - is vertical in the diagram, and sets the other limit to evolution. Evidently, negative gradient represents regression.
The phylogeny of a species marked by a single line would imply complete homogeneity within that species in every sense, that would ab ovo prevent diversification. More true to reality will be if the probable areas they have occupied and are occupying in the evolutionary/intellectual scale will be shown, neglecting aberrant development (except for Homo sapiens) and extinct branches, and remembering that there are no re-crossings of particular evolutionary paths after the splits have been established.
Perceiving the Universe as a dynamic process, where logic, consistency and aesthetics are basic principles, I believe that a diagram (or a mathematical equation), the closer its gets to the reality of the processes it want to represent, the more it will exhibit these elegant qualities. This would firstly mean that there can be no abrupt break at the point of a split, but a curve, to which the evolutionary gradient is a tangent at the point marking the change. Considering further that the ontogenic cycle of every organism starts with the aggregation of the basic elements - that is at the origin of organic life - its development follows the evolutionary gradient of maximum effort, until it reaches its respective point of departure, from where it will describe a trajectory, which - I suggest - is a parabola (ballistic curve, if you wish), terminating at the present evolutionary state. This trajectory - that is the path of least effort - is the function of the attitude of the evolutionary gradient and of the energy-conditions of the organism at the point of departure. As evolution has accelerated steadily during its history, the ontogenic path of an organism can be compared to that of a ball starting at the origin of the slope, gaining speed until the point of departure, then continuing according to its own inertial conditions, being deflected by the 'gravity' of relative persistence - acting in the direction of the future - and the 'atmospheric conditions' of the evolutionary environment.
Remember, the gradient is a concretum: it is the resultant of two vectors: evolutionary force (active mind) and relative persistence (inertia). The energy-conditions of the organism at the point of departure is proportional to the square of its evolutionary factor, that - this being a study of relationships - defines its relative ontogenic path.
Considering well the above presented evolutionary diagram, and also the fact that the Universe is an evolving entity, where individual and through it species evolution is the natural trend, an evolutionary split is in fact not a jump of those, who are continuing ahead on their evolutionary path, but the deflection of those who do not.
There are two alternative causes that can change the trajectory off a deflected species: re-applied evolutionary force, and acquired additional inertia. Both result in an evolutionary split. The first one produces a secondary gradient tangentially to the curved path at the point of the split, marking a new intergrading species. Evidently, the secondary evolutionary gradient will be less inclined than the primary one, and so will be lesser and lesser the gradients of later evolutionary progresses resulting in further differentiations. Thus the ontogenic path of an organism can consist of several straight paths - representing forced evolutionary progress - and several curved ones of inertial persistence, all in an unbroken continuity. It also appears to be a rule that new evolutionary efforts can only be initiated from the actual evolutionary state, and never from a preceding one, which partly accounts for the fact that evolutionary paths do not cross. The lower the order of the evolutionary gradients - the closer they get to the path of least action - the less is the evolutionary/intellect pressure, and the less is the differentiation.
The acquired additional inertia corresponds with a state where the temporary environmental conditions in the actual ecology niche of the species become so easy (e.g. by exploiting and living it up), that the majority - by not using it - loses its evolutionary potential - that is basically its intellect - and becomes relatively or absolutely regressive, its evolutionary path deflecting even more towards the path of no achievement. The rest, the ones on the upper end of the intellect spectrum of their species, look for higher evolutionary achievements and divert in the positive direction, that creates a split. Those who regress get extinct, because they fall back into another ecology niche in which they haven't got the capacity to survive. This is why I have shown on the diagram the path of least effort as the one which marks the minimum long term survival chances for the corresponding species.
The space between the co-ordinate axis of time - the vertical marked with unitary intellect - and the primary evolutionary gradient to the point of the origin of organic life, with the to this point corresponding trajectory, represents the evolution of what we call inorganic world. It marks the transformation and building up of primordial energy through mind into subatomic particles, the hydrogen atom, all the elements according to the periodic law (Mendeleyev), and their combinations into compounds of growing complexity, all in accordance with the thesis exposed in a previous chapter and expressed in equation 3.
On the primary evolutionary gradient are marked the appearances of the actually highest evolved organisms, which represent at the same time the direct lineage of ancestry of Homo sapiens. Very important to note is that - for instance - the first peaceful little mammal-like reptile - becoming warm-blooded, and starting to grow a bit of hair - appeared not when the great reptiles have got themselves into a blind alley, or faced the danger of extinction: on the contrary, at the time of their outburst, when - to use a favourite human expression - they dominated the world. The other reptiles were comfortable, well adapted and in the pink, but he took on the task to improve himself, grew the neophalium (cerebral cortex), a new extension to his existing brain, and founded on the strength of it the mammalian class. The same happened a few (about 120 million) years later, when his descendants were in full swing, and the primate order was originated by a peaceful, small tree shrew type ancestor of ours. The story repeats itself from the beginning right down to the present kind of Homo sapiens, and so it will go on further. Out of any group, those who have finally succeeded, prevailed and went on forming the superior lines, were the ones with bigger brains, and not the ones with the big bones and muscles, or with the big guts. What they all had in common on the entire line of evolution was mental over-intensity, overly fast reactions, non-aggressiveness, quietude and restraint, physical agility and youthful manner of appearance, and all were fragile, exposed and unprotected in structure (all these qualities, evidently, relative to the prevailing qualities of the respective groups). On the other hand, those who tried to solve the problem of mere survival with bones and muscles (somatic or mesodermic structures) - aggression - grew first to tremendous numbers and sizes, then suddenly got extinct. Even a line of Homo sapiens has once already tried this experience by growing to be bigger and stronger than a gorilla, and failed in the face of life.
There was and is a third type, resorting to the third alternative: his guts (endodermic structures). It is decidedly regressive. While the other two use their brains and their muscles respectively to change their environment - the first evolving, the second subduing it - the third one attaches and adjusts himself completely to it for the purpose of receiving shelter, protection and food, becoming to a lesser or higher degree, harmlessly or harmfully, parasitic. While they are found mostly between viruses (all), the protozoa and some lower metazoa, they appear at every level of evolution as an aberration within a species. Being non-aggressive and ready to adjust to any condition, their survival chances are good, but their evolutionary value zero or negative.
"The peaceful shall inherit the earth" is not a prophecy, nor a promise; it is history: they have always done so on the end. The "law of the jungle", glorifying aggression and devastation, is a human invention, not that of the jungle. It is the credo of those who can see in the symbiotic evolution of a major ecological community only its catabolic phase, that - even in this action - is not destructive, but organized and selective, promoting the evolution of each of its integrated member.
Whatever line of thought is followed, the conclusion is that evolution is a cerebral - first principle - and not a somatic or visceral process. The corresponding organs - as described earlier - have developed out of the three (there are no more) germinal layers: the ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm. This order is taken from the outside towards the inside. In evolutionary or embryological order, the ectoderm - formed by the cleavage division of the zygote (cell colony - blastula), and already possessing a primitive nervous system and general co-ordination -, is followed by the endoderm - developed by the ectoderm and delegated to digestion (coelenterata - gastrula) -, and finally, between the two layers, by the mesoderm - delegated to form the body structure (platyhelminthes - neurula). The platyhelminthes have already possessed a primitive central brain. Both the endoderm and the mesoderm, and the from these developed visceral and somatic systems were results of the courses of action taken by the mind - the first principle - through its instrument, the cerebrum, according to its perception of the demands of its environment, the correlation of impressions, the construction of systems of thought and the setting out of these courses of action. Evidently, these auxiliary systems gained autonomy through differentiated mental functions, the progress of the individual organisms depending further on the correct equilibrium between the mind in command, and the delegated brain centres in charge of the sub-systems, remembering well that in the tripartite division the mind is the primordial element, and that the delegated centres and further sub-centres are of a lower order. With increasing intellect increased also the differentiation, but the morphological tri-polarity, like the three germinal layers, and as the expression of the tonic tri-polarity of the psyche, perpetuated, only the variations became more imaginative and vivid on the theme composed of the three basic notes.
These three basic notes are - bien entendu! - psychical: the causes and not the consequences of the morphological or physiological tri-polarity.
Between all the physiological theories of personality, attempting to classify human differences into physical or psychological categories, Dr. William Sheldon's is the more comprehensive (to me). It applies also to the entire organic life-manifestation. He correlates his three basic body-types - the ectomorph, mesomorph and endomorph - with his three basic personality-types - the cerebrotonic, somatotonic and viscerotonic - respectively. (Kretschmer's body/personality types of asthenic/schisothymic, athletic/intermediate and pyknic/cyclothymic are weak forerunners to this.) These types correspond - also respectively - with those I have described and labelled - less scientifically but maybe more expressively - as brains, muscles and guts, and whose corresponding psychical characteristics I will increase with Spranger's six major types by allocating to brains the theoretical, aesthetic and spiritual ones, describing those who value the search for intellectual truth, find highest value in beauty, form and harmony, and value unity, feeling of absorption in a higher reality; to muscles the political and economic ones which includes those who desire power, dominance over people, and seek the utilitarian aspect of things; and finally to guts the social ones who place their own 'human values' highest, foster social reform and welfare work (by co-operating to provide the victims), and sympathize with misfortune (for it is much easier than to sympathize with thought).
The only great difference is in the cause-effect relation of the correlates: for me - and this reflects the often repeated basic proposition of this book - mind-intellect creates the brains, power-loving aggressiveness creates the muscles, and greed and gluttony create the guts, and not the other way around. Physical conditions reflect psychical conditions, and physical changes follow psychical ones. Obviously, a shifty character possesses shifty eyes, and not some out of the blue shifty eyes produce a shifty character. And - most emphatically - it is not because "their small guts and feeble muscles do not permit to eat or fight their way through the ordinary rough and tumble," (not by Sheldon) that the cerebrotonics are non-greedy and non-aggressive, although something similar and even more nonsensical confirmation is made by Sigmund Freud in "A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis": "The artist is an incipient introvert who is not far from being a neurotic. He is impelled by too powerful instinctive needs. He wants to achieve honour, power, riches, fame and the love of women. But he lacks the means of achieving these satisfactions." Blood-boiling this is to me, for it wants to degrade the Universe - of which the creative artist is a primary reflection - to muscles, guts and genitals. He certainly should have known, that only by introversion can one perceive the intrinsical significance of things and the mystery of their existence, and can creative works of art in prose, poetry, sounds, colours or forms be produced. And neurotic? in an inner conflict involving the thwarting of some primitive instinctive urge, like - I suppose - towards honour (as conferred from the outside), power, riches, fame and the love of women, and transferring all his libido - by being "able to attach to this representation of his unconscious fantasies so much pleasurable gratification" - to something ridiculous, unreal, bagatelle, like - for instance - fashioning a work of art, writing a symphony, a poem or a book, or contributing to scientific discoveries? - Out of a head-stand, with a quadruple salto mortale backwards, straight into the chamber-pot, Dr. Freud.
Against so much ruddy nonsense I present my stance in the words of Henry Miller, e.e.cummings and Oscar Wilde:
"But there is a class of hardy men, old-fashioned enough to have remained rugged individuals, openly contemptuous of the trend, passionately devoted to their work, impossible to bribe or seduce, working long hours, often without reward or fame, who are motivated by a common impulse - the joy of doing as they please. At some point along the way they separated from the others. The men I speak of can be detected at a glance: their countenance registers something far more vital, far more effective, than the lust for power. They do not seek to dominate, but to realize themselves. They operate from a centre which is at rest. They evolve, they grow, they give nourishment just by being what they are, . . To live beyond the pale, to work for the pleasure of working, to grow old gracefully while retaining one's faculties, one's enthusiasm, one's self-respect, one has to establish other values than those endorsed by the mob. It takes an artist to make a breach in the wall. An artist is primarily one who has faith in himself. He does not respond to the normal stimuli: he is neither a drudge nor a parasite. He lives to express himself and in so doing enriches the world." (H.M.)
no man, if men are gods; but if gods must
be men, the sometimes only man is this
(most common, for each anguish is his grief;
and, for his joy is more than joy, most rare)
a fiend, if fiends speak truth; if angels burn
by their own generous completely light,
an angel; or (as various worlds he'll spurn
rather than fail immeasurable fate)
coward, clown, traitor, idiot, dreamer, beast -
such was a poet and shall be and is
- who'll solve the depths of horror to defend
a sunbeam's architecture with his life:
and carve immortal jungles of despair
to hold a mountain's heartbeat in his hand
"These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture - in a word, the real men, the men who have realized themselves, and in whom all humanity gains a partial realization." (O.W.)
Introvert (why incipient, however?) the cerebrotonic is. Also so according to Sheldon and C.G. Jung, as against the extroverts that both the somatotonics and the cerebrotonics are. Depending, of course, what these two expressions really mean, for their various definitions in dictionaries, encyclopaedias, technical books and peoples' minds diverge far outside the limits of nuance. Introvert is generally described as one who is concerned only with himself, and does not like people; for some the word is synonymous with egoistic, selfish. On the other hand it is considered that the extrovert's interests are directed towards other people; for some he is an altruist. Alternatively, he is an individual who dislikes solitude and prefers the company of others in preference to his own. Discarding the 'egoistic' and 'altruistic' misconceptions by remembering that selfishness makes claim on others, and is expecting that other people live and act and even think as he does by uniformization; and understanding the meaning of 'concerned only within himself' as being introspective and regarding the world through that knowledge and his own mind, makes the first half of the introvert's definition correct. If 'interest' means exploitive self-interest, the extrovert also has a correct description. The 'does' or 'does not like' people is in this case a misleading expression, and should be replaced with 'needs' or 'is dependent on'; for it is the introvert cerebrotonic who does not depend primarily on people, but is an inward man with active outward ethics, from whose introspective mind's self-generated products people benefit and the world is enriched; and it is the 'need of people' of the extrovert somatotonic (political and economic) type that ends in the subjugation of these 'people', for power-hungry shadow-boxing is hardly a satisfactory pastime, and self-mastery is the pail of the cerebrotonic. And finally, it is the 'dependence on people' caused by life-incompetence, craving for affection and social support, that directs the extrovert viscerotonic towards them. The introverts are concerned with what they think about themselves, the extroverts with what others think of them. There can be no deceiving in the first case, which is the only way to self-respect. Pretentiousness and deceiving are fruits of the second. As the viscerotonics are mostly only emotional leeches, and their needs are non-aggressive, they play little active role in the general evolutionary process.
The tri-polarity exists in every individual, as do the three germinal layers exist in every animal life from the flatworms upwards. The distribution and prevalence establish the individual's type, like the distribution and prevalence of these individuals establish the momentary type and evolutionary tendency of the society they form. The thus established tendencies produce dynamic patterns due to the differential cyclic fluctuation of the intensity of the energy-potential of each pole, in harmony with the basic universal rhythm (bio-rhythm, cosmo-rhythm). While the psychic to physical correlation exists as a generality, not necessarily are the mind-centreds slim and the aggressives robust; therefore, in what follows, cerebrotonic, somatotonic and viscerotonic, and even brains, muscles and guts will refer exclusively to psychical traits and attitudes.
Evolution as an individual mental process is continuous, or at least its fluctuation is not on geological time-scale, as it appears in that of some species. Species evolution, however, is - as explained earlier - the manifestation of individual actions, the continuous process of which does not account for the evolutionary split. Besides, individuals of the same species might cluster into social groups where a community culture is developed exercising a general and constant influence - social heredity -, or might be solitary, communicating only at mating, and introducing influences only through genetic transmission - protoplasmic heredity -. Further phenomena to be accounted for are the parallel developments of geographically separated races, and the inevitability of divergence within a cluster, even without apparent alteration in the physical environment.
The first question to answer is: are splits - that is, periods of slow advance interchanged with periods of rapid change in new directions - the only modus operandi in the mechanism of the evolution of species? To this the answer is negative: much of the palaeonthologic records consist of gradual transformations and diversifications along direct courses, all of them, however, on the lower levels of the evolutionary scale. These individuals had deflected from the pioneers' gradient due to their inertia at an early stage, and the intellectual spectrum and specialization of the species consolidated through interbreeding became consequently so narrow, and the scope of individual improvement or chance so small, that only the slightest, gradual transformations and diversifications were possible, so that no particular point exists where one kind of organism ends and the other begins.
Evidently, the higher is the mean intelligence within a species, the broader is the intraspecific intellectual spectrum, and the greater are the differences between the particular psychical environments that the various individuals live in, even if the physical one seems to be the same for everyone, and - just as evidently - the greater is the psycho-physical and energetic heterogeneity of that species, resulting in a corresponding intraspecific diversity in the rate, trend, progress, complexity and the amount and nature of branching.
Due to the tendency that the bright gets brighter and the dull duller within a group, that creates differentiation in characters, a split and isolation would soon take place, followed by morphological changes on each side corresponding with the newly acquired way of living, the new psycho-physical characteristics being finally consolidated through inter-breeding and perpetuated through genetic barriers. As, however, each branch is heterogeneous ab ovo and ab split, the process would restart say every seven generations ad infinitum. Would, if there would be someone pulling the strings from the outside, and diligently separating the species into bright and dull groups every so often. Not only is there no outside force doing the honours, but neither does the heterogeneity represent a simple bi-polarity of bright and dull as functions of all good and all bad qualities respectively. This, nevertheless, does not eliminate the process or the sequence of a qualitative bifurcation, it only makes it much more involved.
One could speculate further that 'natural selection' would automatically remove the dull, the unfit, leaving the fit to interbreed and improve. So it would, would the empirical rule not apply, that the lower the organism's position on the evolutionary scale (the lower its IQ), the higher will be the number of its progeny. It tries to counter-balance its intellectual shortcomings, the low life-value or survival-value of its kind, by raising the statistical chance with numbers as against quality, as against Aesop's "unum gigno sed leonem".
Together with the intellectual differentiation, the three Sheldonian personalities provide the heterogeneity within a species, and define its evolutionary progress as such. The cerebrotonics are correlated with the highest IQ figures, the other two occupying, with a reasonable area of overlapping, the rest of the range, the somatotonics scoring higher average than the viscerotonics. Numerically the cerebrotonics are in great minority, while the viscerotonics dominate the numbers. It can be speculated that out of the species that consisted of solitary individuals, these basic characters have given rise to herbivores, carnivores and the ones who have set out on new evolutionary adventures.
Where the individuals of a species have aggregated into social groups, and carried out most of their life-functions - like obtaining food, shelter and protection - specialized or not, but together, social systems have developed, 'pecking-rights' were established through individual merits, and the leaders became responsible and took the decisions for the group. These decisions have established the ecology-niche, the relative environment and the culture in accordance with the majority's capacity (not its decision!), which majority occupied the central half of the intelligence range of the group, and represented say 86% of its numbers (see the standard deviation curve as explained in connection with figure 14-2). The 7% on the lower end (between -3 and -1,5 SD) were intellectually incapable to survive under the conditions provided by the relative environment as created by the group, and most probably have fallen out somewhere between birth and maturity, being, however, duly replaced by the over-breeding of the lower elements of the central half. On the other extreme, the greater was the deviation of an individual belonging to the upper 7%, the less he felt himself 'home' in the relative environment created by the group, and the less he conformed to its customs. By trying to create new ones for himself, he has constantly improved - by his example - the general culture. Because the by the group fashioned relative environment favoured only the central fraction (no doubt the majority), the upper 7% was intellectually as ill-suited for this environment as the lower one, with practically as little survival conditions, not for his person but for the reproduction of his own kind; however, its greater part conformed. The two extreme fractions represented the infra-marginals and the ultra-marginals of society. The numerical minority of the true cerebrotonics, and their relative one-sidedness made their branching off and forming a new environment and a new species prohibitive. A natural splitting at the mean-line is rationally unimaginable, as it is the place of least tension (frequency variation equalling zero), and only intense energy-concentration - that is not even provided at the points of inflexion - can produce a break. Conditions remaining constant, there is - except for the slight evolutionary progress along the line of least effort - no change possible. Conditions, however, never remain constant, and changes are produced, not as the consequences of external but of internal forces.
Change needs directed energy that alters dominant inertial conditions (remember Newton's first law). Intelligence contemplates the situation and defines the direction, but does not energize the action. For energy - will-power in action - applied to carry out a change, we have to look within the three personality types, from the point of their energy-conditions and individual functions on social levels.
The viscerotonic, associated with digestion, takes in food - physical, emotional or intellectual - and breaks it down into simpler substances. It is dependent on others on the obtainment of this food (hence the extroversion), and participates in collective evolution exclusively within the limits of visceral activities, which it regards as of the highest racial value, and expects to be supported as such by the others, for the viscerotonic has neither the intellectual means, nor the energy to do so. It knows no far horizons, only panem et circenses - the 'soma' pills of the Brave New World -, with which it can be completely satisfied, accepting improvement only in the direction of even more panem and even more circenses. Emotionally motivated within their visceral limits, viscerotonics can be induced into a passive stampede of uncontrolled and uncontrollable passions, which, being of chemical (endocrine) regulation, follow a rigid course with preconditioned behaviour-pattern (dominated by the autonomous nervous system). Not possessing their own motive force, they represent the inertia of the collective, the flywheel (and the spanner) in the machine.
Cerebrotonics and somatotonics represent active forces - mental and physical respectively. This, however, does not mean brains against brawn, although the situation can occur, as the 'eat or be eaten' is the exclusive credo of the brawn. Neither does it mean that somatotonics exercise their physical force without thinking, although this also happens. There are, nevertheless, two basic differences in the mental activities of the two psychological types: the cerebrotonic's mental activity is turned on itself (hence the introversion), which is the instrument of consonance with the Universe through the psychical plane (expanded consciousness - see figure 2-1), and the somatotonic's on its physical power as exercised on others (hence the extroversion), expressing its imperialistic tendencies on the physical one. The somatotonic, like the viscerotonic, is mostly chemically regulated, with preconditioned thinking and behaviour-patterns, its regulating emotions are, however, antagonism, aggressiveness (brutal cruelty in its extreme) and lust for power. On the other hand, the cerebrotonic is characterized by nervous regulation (central nervous system), this representing rationality, flexibility and fast reactions.
No animal society can exist without the three types. The proportions of the two active and the one passive forces define the quality of the relative environment, equilibrium, advance, social processes, population growth, and any shift in the proportions results in the alteration of this environment. Characterized by the main-stream, one can differentiate societies and even species - like individuals - as cerebrotonic, somatotonic or viscerotonic.
In a well balanced society, like in a well balanced individual, the cerebrum prevails as the first principle, but neither the somatic nor the visceral activities are suppressed, only maintained in equilibrium. It has to be very well remembered and emphasized once more that 'species' is a biological terminology for individuals having common characteristics, and that 'society' is a sociological terminology for the particular action of a group of these individuals in collective manifestation, but species have no substantial being as such, and societies only to the degree to which their individual members make it. The position of each and every individual is defined by the individual itself, and is the function of its potentiality, intensity and output, its life-value depending on whether it is syntropic (positive, constructive), or entropic (negative, parasitic).
The only true multi-organismic societies are the insect societies, but they can hardly serve as examples, for they are one-family societies, meaning that all their specialized members, and also the perpetuation of the species, arrive out of the one single female, the queen, who controls through this fact the equilibrium, advance, social processes and population growth of her group, eliminating ab ovo any possibility of bifurcation, or even the smallest evolutionary split. While all termites and ants are social, only 8% of the wasps and 5% of the bees form societies, the rest are solitary, but definitely not being inferior for that, possessing even superior evolutionary possibilities.
To facilitate the unrolling of further thoughts on apparent collective evolutionary splits of some species, I will epitomize the main propositions and empirical rules related to the subject.
The Universe being logical, and matter and action by the mind ordered energy, evolution is a conscious, rational, individual mental process towards higher stages of differentiation and complexity, expressed in continuously restructured abstract and concrete forms, and is happening in every sphere of the Natural Order. The higher the intellect, the more differentiated is the consciousness, and the higher is the evolutionary state and rate of progress of the individual, who, while cannot control how he is acted on, is the unique master of his own reactions, and the unique agent for his own change, these being the reflections of his individual being; and who readjusts and reorganizes himself constantly according to the external influences and his internal character.
Evolution being individual and gradual within the individuum, the causes of saltatory evolution have to be searched for in the differential rate of progress within the species.
All animal species and societies are intellectually and psychologically heterogeneous, their heterogeneity being proportional to their mean evolutionary stage.
Major evolutionary advances have never represented the collective move of the whole race but the separation of a fraction from the 'others', resulting in the creation of a new species. Nor is the quantitative division into geographical specializations, or the intergradation of different species an evolutionary step; for specialization - which is regressive - means not diversification - which is progressive - and intergradation - even if it is successful - produces mostly reproductively and intellectually sterile hybrids, but never superior races or life-forms.
To grow from a small and stupid organism into a big and stupid organism is no progress, nor is a small and stupid group into a big and stupid one. Neither sizes nor numbers are magical: quality is. Qualitative individual mental differentiation creates the necessary tension to an intraspecific split-off, resulting in a more complex and more highly organized race, and thus in the 'arrival of the fittest'.
The intra-specific split-off - like the evolutionary history of the race - is the function of the dynamic (and apparently cosmo-rhythmic) variation of the proportions and energization of the basic psychological (Sheldonian) types.
The sequence of the process is not isolation, differentiation, consolidation, but differentiation, isolation, consolidation, meaning that intellectual differentiation causes isolation, and not the other way around, and where isolation refers not to geography but to milieu. The differentiation is consolidated by inbreeding, causing the progressive disappearance of the intergrading population.
The great evolutionary splits were preceded by the extreme growth in the size or numbers in the group - the tyranny of quantity over quality -, and coincided or were closely followed by cephalization of the new sub-species turning species. It appears (rather naturally) that Sheldon's "somatotonic revolution" (about which much will be said in the third volume) applies not only to humans and to human societies, but to all phases in biological history, which revolution failing on its own accord, is followed by general cerebrotonic evolution.
Somatotonism means not being muscular but thinking muscular, and approaching evolution or solving any problem by growing more muscles either through increase in size or in numbers, or both. The consequent ecological desequilibrium is faced with more growth, ending often (e.g. dinosaurs) in extinction.
The precarious state within the species provides the breaking point and facilitates the separation of the prevailingly cerebrotonic, more evolved fraction. The split results not out of brain defeating brawn, for brain is non-aggressive, is set only to evolve and solve respective problems, and has no desire to dominate either his own kind or the rest of nature. It is brawn that defeats itself, and (remembering the closing stanzas of Shelley's Prometheus Unbound) thus liberates the way for the cerebrotonics to continue and speed their line of evolution that was always there, but was suppressed and prevented from noteworthy manifestation by the somatotonic load. The regression of one part of the species, and the liberated expansion of its evolution-vital fraction into a new one, gives the impression of an evolutionary jump.
The phenomenon reminiscent of a jump, the undoing of the stabilizing conditions and the building up of local tensions, the apparent disintegration of cohesion and order, the disorganized - disequilibrated - state that finally provokes and also puts additional energy into the split, is created by the muscles and the guts who want to take advantage of - misuse for their own ends - the products of the brains created from a higher dimension, that results in a schizophrenic civilization, in which they are unable to control their power, for they are unable to understand them.
The organism and organization that is born is not the same that disintegrates or weakens and stays behind. What breaks is the liberated eggshell that enclosed the new life the germ-cell of which generated itself when the anterior eggshell broke, and which finds itself once more on the margins as the new-born starts to consolidate, mature. The evolutionary split is a continuous genesis rhythmically bursting into wider expressions, and is not the 'renaissance' or 'reformation' of an old system.
The old system either continues on the evolutionary path of least effort, fitting into a suitable ecology-niche, or - if it is destructive to the Natural Order - follows a directed involutionary trend towards the development of a self-destructive character - lethal gene - leading to ultimate extinction. This lemming syndrome is the product of the mind, the psyche, which - as C.G. Jung has put it - "if it looses its balance, actually destroys his own creation."
The anthropomorphic question - the question of those for whom some 'outsider' has always to decide, select, cause and generally pull the strings, and be responsible for it all - arises: why must some stay behind, why cannot the whole species go ahead, and who decides who will go and who will stay? The answer is very simple: nobody must stay behind, everybody can go ahead, the decision is - as always - entirely up to the individual. The key-word here is the go, for "you cannot get there (wherever that 'there' is) on piggy-back." This natural law is elaborated on in the earlier presented Cartesian Parastatement: "No individual organism shall reach an evolutionary state - even if he possesses and enjoys all the material benefits characteristic to that state - that the others have conceived and elaborated, unless he has an intellectual talent that fits him to conceive and elaborate them, to resolve related difficulties and form solid judgements on these matters."
The new relative environment, which also represents a new ecology-niche within the ecological community, is - by the very nature of the evolutionary change - much more complex, and places much higher demands on each individual. These demands have to be met individually. The ones who fail, face the problem of no return, and the fate of the relatively unfit and incompetent. Judging by the proportions of the progressives and the others who stayed behind in evolutionary history - e.g. mammal-like reptiles against reptiles in the late Triassic, or first primates against the rest of the mammals in the early Eocene - the relative numbers of the individuals forming the new species is, in the epoch of the separation, insignificant. Looking at it from another angle, there is nothing derogatory in staying behind, as long as each individual keeps and fulfils with dignity the place in the system that corresponds with its own intellectual potentials and willingness, for that system created and filled all ecology-niches, and produced a well-balanced order called planetary life, the dynamic equilibrium of which was endangered only when some species made a somatotonic revolution, and forced their physical presence well above their mental capacity.
As the evolution of a physical organ must be contemplated in the light of how that particular evolution has promoted the evolution of the organism it forms part of, so the evolution of every fraction must be regarded as the differential evolution of the whole, forming an interrelated open system, where each is the subject, instrument and originator of Creation, that happens every time the consciousness of the fraction transcends itself.
Applying the above exposed evolutionary theory to man, his psychological and intellectual heterogeneity, actual relation to the Natural Order, and further evolutionary tendencies have to be examined. Fixing the actual average IQ of the human race as 100, its spectrum spans between 50 and 220. The lowest natural value - representing the lowest natural possibility of survival as a human with dignity - should be around 80, which is the extension of the minimum survival potential of tribal times; but even this should be applicable only to the members of these natural human tribes. The creation of urban communities (to be discussed in the third volume) has reduced the relative intelligence level of minimum survival already some thousands of years ago, that has reached - due to the charitable services of medical science and social institutions - an ever low in our times. This meant that the median intelligence level of the species started to deflect, at the time of the first human settlements, from the constant evolutionary path of least effort. The explosive population-increase within the lower intellectual strata, and decrease within the higher ones, caused finally a regressive curve even beyond the path of no achievement. On the other end of the evolutionary spectrum, the intellectual and the accompanying cultural and moral degradation of the great masses has marginalized all above IQ125, or even maybe less than that.
The mass-cacophony on the one side, and the individual harmony on the other, has energized the natural split that has started and will consummate within this or the next generation, not as smoothly, however, as it is stated in this simple sentence.
These upper marginals are the founders of the more complex, evolution-vital new species: Homo planetaris; not by defeating the old one, but by continuing to be what they always were; this time, however, with the chance to expand, under favourable environmental conditions, their own kind. The species that stays behind is not represented by the constituents of the present so-called civilization, for they are of an unsuccessful evolutionary trend, destructive to the Natural Order, that will disappear on its own accord, but by the natural human tribes who never became 'civilized', and whose contact with this 'civilization' was everything but natural.
Figure 14-5 shows the split and the apparent displacement of the median evolutionary level, indicative of an evolutionary split. The lighter coloured area shows the numerically insignificant upper marginals, who are turning into the new race.
The historical and social analysis of the split and its development are expounded in the third volume.