The Future of Mankind by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Chapter 3: The Grand Option
I. On the Threshold of Human Socialization
2. The Possible Paths
A priori (by ‘dichotomic’ analysis of the various outlets theoretically offered to our freedom of action) as well as a posteriori (by
classification of the various human attitudes in fact observable around us), three alternatives, together forming a logically connected sequence, seem to express and exhaust all the possibilities open to our assessment and choice as we contemplate the future of Mankind: a) pessimism or optimism; b) the optimism of withdrawal or the optimism of evolution;
c) evolution in terms of the many or of the unit.
Before we comment upon them, let us look separately at these
alternatives so that we may understand their value and their relation to one another.
a Pessimism or Optimism? ‘Is the state of Being good or evil? That is to say, is it better to Be than not to Be?’ Despite its abstract, metaphysical form, this is essentially a practical question representing the
fundamental dilemma upon which every man is compelled to pronounce, implicitly or explicitly, by the very fact of having been born. Without having willed it, without knowing why, we find ourselves engaged in a world which seems to be laboriously raising itself to a state of ever greater organic complexity. This universal stream on which we are borne expresses in material terms, within the field of our
experience, the preference of Nature for Being over non-Being, for life over non-life -- Being and Life manifesting and evaluating themselves through the growth of consciousness. But can this instinctive choice on the part of Nature withstand the critical activity of Thought? This question could remain at the back of our minds so long as the human task did not appear to extend beyond the need of assuring as agreeable
or tolerable an existence as possible for each of the individual elements of Mankind. But it comes to the forefront, it thrusts itself urgently upon us, directly Life shows signs, as it does today, of requiring us, by very virtue of its movement towards a state of higher Being, to sacrifice our individuality. There can be no doubt that the burden of continuing the World weighs more and more heavily on the shoulders of Mankind.
How immense it has already become, this ever-growing task of enabling the world to live and progress! We are like the ant that slaves itself to death that its fellow-slaves may live! Is not each of us therefore a dupe, a Sisyphus? For centuries a whole order of men served another,
privileged order without asking whether this state of inequality was really beyond remedy; until in the end they rebelled. Is there not reason for Man, become aware of the direction in which Life is taking him, to rebel at last; to go on strike against a blind course of evolution which may not, in any event, betoken any real progress? ‘Time, space, becoming, Me, images of the Void. Nothing is born of anything else, and nothing is necessary to the existence of any other thing,’ so wrote a contemporary philosopher (A. Consentino). It is inevitable, as the collective effort required of men costs more and more, that the dilemma, already present to clear-sighted minds, should eventually disclose itself to the mass. Is the Universe utterly pointless, or are we to accept that it has a meaning, a future, a purpose? On this fundamental question Mankind is already virtually divided into the two camps of those who deny that there is any significance or value in the state of Being, and therefore no Progress; and those, on the other hand, who believe in the possibility and the rewards of a higher state of
consciousness.
For the first only one attitude is possible: a refusal to go further;
desertion which is equivalent to turning back. For these no further problem arises, since they are lodged in incoherence and disintegration.
We may leave them there. But those in the other camp are confronted by the call of duty and the problems of a further advance. Let us follow them towards the logical end of their position.
b Optimism of Withdrawal or Optimism of Evolution. To have decided in favor of the value of Being; to have accepted that the world has a meaning and is taking us somewhere; does not necessarily imply that we must follow its apparent course further, or a fortiori to the end.
Walking through a town we often have to make a sharp turn to right or left in order to reach our destination. Centuries ago the wise men of India were struck by the enslaving and inescapable character of the
environment in which human activities are conducted. The greater our efforts to know and possess and organize the world, they observed, the more do we strengthen the material trammels that imprison us and increase the universal multiplicity from which we must free ourselves if we are to attain the blessed unity. They concluded, therefore, that there was no conceivable way of approach to the state of higher Being except by breaking the bonds that confine us. We must persuade ourselves of the non-existence of all surrounding phenomena, destroy the Grand Illusion by asceticism or by mysticism, create night and silence within ourselves; then, at the opposite extreme of appearance, we shall
penetrate to what can only be defined as a total negation -- the ineffable Reality. Such is the thinking of Oriental wisdom; and there is still an appreciable number of Christians who think on similar lines, although far less radically (since their God comprises all the determinisms in which Nirvana is lacking). Seeing that a state of total socialization awaits the human species, they ask, can we fail to recognize the eastern concept of Karma in this monstrous form? What we call civilization is weaving its web around us with a terrifying rapidity. Let us cut the threads while there is yet time. Pursuing all the paths of detachment and contemplation, not from disdain but from excessive esteem for the state of Being, let us break away from the evolutionary determinism, break the spell, withdraw.
Thus at the outset there is a cleavage in the ‘optimist’ branch of Mankind. On the one hand there are those who see our true progress only in terms of a break, as speedy as possible, with the world: as though the spirit could not exist, or at least could not henceforth fulfill itself, except in separation from matter. And there are those on the other side, the believers in some ultimate value in the tangible evolution of things. For these latter (the true optimists), the tasks and difficulties of the present day by no means signify that we have come to an impasse in our evolution. Their faith in the Universe is stronger than any
temptation to withdraw. The worst of courses, in their view, would be to retreat from the whirlpool, or alter course in order to avoid it. The way out (since this certainly exists!) can only be the way through -- forward beyond the rapids. It is in intelligent alliance with the rising tides of matter that we shall draw nearer to the Spirit.
Withdrawal, or evolution proceeding ever further? This is the second choice that human thought encounters in its search for a solution to the problem of action.
At this new point of bifurcation two attitudes are defined -- two
‘mentalities’ disclose themselves and separate. We may leave the believers in withdrawal to go their way along a road which vanishes from our sight. Let us follow the others, those who are faithful to Earth, in their effort to steer the human vessel onward through the tempests of the future. This second group may at first sight appear to be
homogeneous; but in fact it is not yet wholly one in mind or spirit. A final cleavage is necessary to separate absolutely, in a pure state, the conflicting spiritual tendencies which are confusedly intermingled in the present world, at the heart of human freedom.
c Plurality or Unity? As we have shown, the sub-division of what one may call ‘the human spiritual categories’ begins logically with faith in the state of Being, and proceeds to faith m the further progress of the material world around us -- that is to say, in the most fundamental terms, faith in the spiritual value of matter. But psychologically this dichotomic process, whereby at each point of choice something like a new spiritual species breaks away, is influenced throughout by a final orientation which qualifies or obscurely dictates each of the earlier choices: ‘In what direction and in what form are we to look for this new state of being which we expect to be born of our future development? Is the Universe, of its nature, scattering itself in sparks; or on the contrary is it tending to concentrate m a single centre of light?’ Plurality or Unity? Two possibilities determining two basic attitudes, more radical than any difference of race, nationality or even formal religion; and between them runs the true line of the spiritual division of the Earth.
Pluralism or (using the word in its purely etymological sense) monism?
This is the ultimate choice, by way of which Mankind must finally be divided, knowing its own mind.
In the view of the ‘pluralist’ the world is moving in the direction of dispersal and therefore of the growing autonomy of its separate
elements. For each individual the business, the duty and the interest of life consist in achieving, in opposition to others, his own utmost
uniqueness and personal freedom; so that perfection, beatitude, supreme greatness belong not to the whole but to the least part. By this
"dispersive" view the socialization of the human mass becomes a retrograde step and a state of monstrous servitude -- unless we can discern in it the birth of a new ‘shoot’ destined eventually to bring forth stronger individualities than our own. Only with this reservation, and within these limits, is the phenomenon to be tolerated. Collectivization in itself, no matter what form it may take, can only be a provisional
state and one of relative unimportance. Evolution culminates, by the progressive isolation of its fibers, in each separate individual and even in each moment of the individual’s life. Essentially, as the ‘pluralist’
sees it, the Universe spreads like a fan: it is divergent in structure.
But to the ‘monist’ the precise opposite is the case: nothing exists or finally matters except the Whole. For the elements of the world to become absorbed within themselves by separation from others, by isolation, is a fundamental error. The individual, if he is to fulfil and preserve himself, must strive to break down every kind of barrier that prevents separate beings from uniting. His is the exaltation, not of egotistical autonomy but of communion with all others! Seen in this light the modern totalitarian regimes, whatever their initial defects, are neither heresies nor biological regressions: they are in line with the essential trend of ‘cosmic’ movement. Pluralism, far from being the ultimate end of evolution, is merely a first outspreading whose gradual shrinkage displays the true curve of Nature’s proceedings. Essentially the Universe is narrowing to a centre, like the successive layers of a cone: it is convergent in structure.
So the question can finally be posed: fulfillment of the world by
divergence, or fulfillment of the same world by convergence? It seems that the final answer must lie in one or other of these two directions, in the sense that anything else that has to be decided can only be of lesser importance. Our analysis of the different courses open to Man on the threshold of the socialization of his species comes to an end at this last fork in the road. We have encountered three successive pairs of
alternatives offering four possibilities: to cease to act, by some form of suicide; to withdraw through a mystique of separation; to fulfil
ourselves individually by egoistically segregating ourselves from the mass; or to plunge resolutely into the stream of the whole in order to become part of it.
Faced by this apparent indeterminacy of Life in ourselves, what are we to do? Shall we try to ignore the problem and continue to live on
impulse and haphazard, without deciding anything? This we cannot do.
The beasts of the field may trust blindly to instinct, without thereby diminishing or betraying themselves, because they have not yet seen.
But for us, because our eyes have been opened, even though we seek hurriedly to close them, the question will continue to burn in the darkest corner of our thought. We cannot recapture the animal security of
instinct. Because, in becoming men, we have acquired the power of
looking to the future and assessing the value of things, we cannot do nothing, since our very refusal to decide is a decision in itself.
We cannot stand still. Four separate roads lie open to us, one back and three forward.
Which are we to choose?