2.5 The three key components of all evolutionary and transition processes

In studying the evolution of species and by identifying natural selection as an indicator that determines first and last forms, Charles Darwin did not intend to demonstrate the progressive or teleological nature of the mechanisms of natural evolution. Just like other thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries, he simply sought to understand how the various life forms he studied had evolved. His approach had no normative intentions, no mention of a sacred determinism. For Charles Darwin, it was purely an attempt to objectively and scientifically understand phenomena that were considered to be natural and external to any human or divine will.

Since then, our knowledge of evolutionary processes has widened. However, the fundamental intention behind these processes, which is to objectively and scientifically understand them, is still key. This Manifesto intends to respect the need to think about the current transition as it relates to a stance that goes above and beyond a unilinear trajectory in order to subscribe to a complex view of space and time (Appadurai¹, 2012). As far as we know, this stance tells us that three components act as “interrelated driving forces” on evolution. They are :

determinism as it pertains to “natural laws”: associated with the fundamental forces of the universe and with minor forces of phenomena like natural or cultural selection ;
the trinomial “probability, chance, contingency” where probability expresses orders of possibility, chance accounts for the occurrence or non-occurrence of phenomena, and where contingency explains phenomena based on a probability that has been actualized or that will inevitably occur if nothing is done ;
clinamen and freedom to act, which have crept into mechanical determinism, giving it an expression of indeterminacy and giving relativism a glimpse of the flowery expressions of mechanical fatalism. Determinism found in nature is particular ; as it relies on clinamen and freedom to act, – in everything from atoms to social movements – the perspective shifts to continuously renewed probabilities. In the big picture, this margin of error evokes an evolutionary environment where many possible positive happenstances manifest out of necessity. We can therefore reconcile chance and necessity with freedom to be, to act and to think.

From this perspective, all evolutionary processes are fundamentally transient which brings to light the intersectionality of these three components. This reminds us of the importance of accounting for determinism, the “probability-chance-contingency” trinomial and free will in all action-based processes that are otherwise centered around living well together. It also reminds us that this dynamic will bring about certain arrangements, the effects of which cannot be predicted with certainty. Thus follows the need to be reflexive in real time when it comes to the praxeological approaches put forth in the Awakening’s civilizational environment. We must be able to quickly detect its undesirable and unexpected effects and to grasp their deeper meaning so as to mitigate the impact it has on how we live well collectively.

While these three components constitute the driving force of all evolutionary and transitional processes, we might wonder about the global framework that bears the weight of these forces.

For reference, and for simplicity’s sake, the real can be summed up with three sets of concepts or notions.

On the broadest scale, it can be represented with notions of the universe (in its simplest expression) and of the pluriverse (in its broadest vision).
At a smaller scale, that of an astronomical object, the smallest homogeneous unit of a celestial object [solar system, nebulae, star cluster, galaxy…], it is represented by the concepts of Nature (in its most objective form) and of Gaïa (in its subjective form).
Nature and Gaïa, which can themselves be broken down into more easily observable singular empirical entities : so-called natural ecosystems which themselves open up cognitive space to a wide variety of realities.

The ethical and ecological perspective of an ecology must include the “going concern” (identified in the work of Commons) while considering the situation of “collective being/becoming of the Real” as an ethical and aesthetic reference to human actionalism, to the practice of living together that inhabits us and upon which we build from day to day through cooperation and adversity.

According to the ecological pragmatist perspective of early American philosophers (Peirce, James, Dewey and Adams), this collective being/becoming of the Real asks us to accept that we exist in alterity (opposite that which is external, and therefore different than the self) all while reminding us that the self, our substance in the Spinozan sense of the word, from quantum space to Newtonian space, is itself made up of alterities organized as an ecosystem that generates totalities, themselves participant in other selves and larger totalities…

What follows is an ethical and aesthetic perspective stemming from alterity and relationships that generates the extensiveness of Nature, the Universe and the Pluriverse. Everything depends on a principle of rectitude and inherent rights. This principle creates conditions of equilibrium in the Real world, which are essential to the creative movement of the extensions of Nature, the Universe or the Pluriverse. Re-exploring the ethical and aesthetic dynamics of the Real to then apply those principles to our own evolution and futurity is a key to thinking more naturally about living together in civilization. Thus, culture cannot be built as a regulating power disconnected from the “ethism” and aestheticism in the service of the Real.

As Aldo Leopold^[2]² (1966, p. 262) informs us, “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

Respecting this relationship with Nature, which is itself a component of our reality and of the Real, means taking note and being aware of the pluralism of our rights and responsibilities that encase us in something bigger than itself, bigger than ourselves. As Catherine Larrère³ (2006, p. 33) reminds us,

The choice is not between humans and nature, but rather between a uniform world, modeled only by economic interests, and a diverse world that leaves as much room for the plurality of human aspiration as for the plurality of the living. A uniform, anthropocentric world is not sure to be humanist. By measuring everything in terms of humans, we risk measuring only a small part of humanity.

Next section : Twelve challenges for transitioning to the Awakening

Notes

1
Appadurai, A. (2012). Thinking beyond trajectorism. Futures of Modernity. Bielefeld, Heinlein, M. et al. (Eds).
2
Leopold, A. (1970). A Sand County Almanac, Random House Publishing Group.
3
Larrère, C. (2006), “Questions d’éthique environnementale,” Les grands dossiers des sciences humaines, 3, n° 2, p. 33.