Hi Karen. This may well be a bit rushed (appologies!!) but it may contain some ideas that are of use to you. I have something to offer on the ‘what” and the “why”. I am of the view that progress to complexity is not the only valid narrative that applies to Big History. It is of course a very obvious narrative but it may actually be contained in - and possibly a consequence of - another narrative .I would argue that the fundamental narrative of the cosmos as it has unfolded to date is the one that has led from the big bang to us, the humans. We may list the phases of this narrative as follows; the pre-atomic, the atomic, the molecular; within the living, the single celled and the multi-celled. In turn within the multi-celled, the non human and the human. There are different dynamics associated with these phases and what we may come to know as the classical evolutionary (Darwinian) dynamic may not be the ultimate one. It seems to me to be very obvious that in the human realm, if we progress, we do not choose to do so by classical evolutionary dynamics alone (if at all!)
We certainly see a progress towards increasing complexity within the narrative that gave rise to us but if we apply a collective term to all the entities that stock the narrative, and the term that I like to apply is the term “priunit” we see another - possibly relevant - narrative at work. To begin with, all the entities that stock the narrative can be called priunits, so atoms are priunits, as are molecules as are all living things. The simplest thing we can say about priunits is that as the cosmos progresses the total number of priunits is decreasing. We see this very clearly at the atomic level. As the cosmos unfolds the total number of atoms in it is inclined to decrease. As hydrogen becomes helium, the number of atoms halves and so on. It is not as obvious when we get to the molecular level, there may actually be a proliferation of molecules, but if you take the atoms and molecules together, the total number of atoms and molecules is decreasing and so on. What looks life a proliferation of living things is actually part of an overall decrease in the total number of priunits (Since the Big Bang 4.7× 1027 hydrogens have made their way into my body!!) While a progress to complexity is obviously happening, this is also happening. Is it of any relevance??
What seems to guide this narrative is a measure of fidelity to presentations and conceptions and in turn realisations of unity. It has produced in us, the humans, a phenomenon that is actually capable of realising unity and in turn naming it. The human is an embodied realisation of “the one”!! This has a religious ring to it which is not altogether out of place here, but up front here, i intend it in the purely mathematical sense. It may help to explain what seems like a departure from the strict dictates of classical evolutionary (Darwinian) dynamics in the human realm. We see classical evolutionary dynamics at work in the cosmos, recognise that they have produced us but look to improve upon them (as is our wont) with respect to service to the broader narrative (of priunits). This gives rise to many codes of law and morality and general considerations of human behaviour which could be seen to exist to ensure that the total priunit count, as expressed in living things, stays low and gets lower. We strive to undertake to ensure that as many humans (and by some codes, living things) stay alive and thrive for as long as possible. While we are (at this point any way) unavoidably genetic phenomena, we intervene in the dictates of the gene and the classical evolutionary dynamics that proceed from it to ensure that as many living things survive and thrive for as long as possible.
Many argue that there is no “why” in the cosmos. This was true of course up to the emergence of the human, but the cosmos has produced in us a phenomenon that can firstly, use words and secondly use that word. In all kinds of ways we can act in service to that word. We look to an “evolution” within it (and beyond it!!). We may well evolve beyond the general phenomenon of the word, leaving all words, even the word "why" behind!! What will “we” be then??
One of the most interesting things about the idea of a cosmic narrative that has given rise to us is that we can chose to act in service to a continuation of that narrative, unless of course we have reasons to believe that the narrative has come to a conclusion in us and our experience. Why would we do that? We could also choose to avoid service to the narrative without any reason. On the grounds of what understanding of the narrative would we do any of these things, if any? If the narrative of priunits has validity then we would choose to take actions which would see us lending ourselves as entities in other units which contain us, ceding in turn a sense of prior unity to the emerging entity. At our best as humans, we make ourselves available to this kind of dynamic all the time. The concept of “unity” holds a central place in all the best aspects of the human project. Things come about in the cosmos by way of two fundamental dynamics, the reproductive and the assemblative. In the human realm we serve both.
Karren, I have been developing these ideas over a period of about ten to fifteen years now and was amazed, having joined the IBHA over a year ago, to read a comment that you wrote here around that time. It was something to the effect that to our cells, we must be like gods!! Project this simple mathematical idea forward and where does it bring you..........
Read more at www.priunit.ie