WHAT IS AN EVOLUTIONARY?

by carter phipps

It is as if man had been suddenly appointed managing director of the biggest business of all, the business of evolution—appointed without being asked if he wanted it, and without proper warning and preparation. What is more, he can’t refuse the job. Whether he wants to or not, whether he is conscious of what he is doing or not, he is in point of fact determining the future direction of evolution on this earth. That is his inescapable destiny, and the sooner he realizes it and starts believing in it, the better for all concerned. . . .

—Julian Huxley, “Transhumanism”

“If you wish to converse with me,” the French philosopher Voltaire is said to have remarked, “define your terms.” Voltaire’s wisdom applies doubly when introducing what is essentially a new term like “Evolutionary” into a discourse. And so I would like to take a moment to explain and expand on what I mean by this term, which is beginning to be used by greater numbers across our culture today. Perhaps the closest word to “Evolutionary” in today’s parlance is the term “evolutionist,” a word commonly associated with evolutionary theory in academic circles. “Evolutionist” is defined in dictionaries as a person who is an “adherent to the theory of evolution.” As suggested by that distinction, it is a term that has traditionally been associated with a person who strongly believes in and is influenced by the scientific theory of evolution. It is a term often contrasted with “creationist” or “biblical literalist” or other various Darwinian dissenters who proliferate on the reactionary edges of modernity.

Clearly there is much overlap between Evolutionaries and evolutionists. But I intend for Evolutionary to mean more than that. Evolutionary is a play on the word “revolutionary,” and I mean it to convey something of the revolutionary nature of evolution as an idea. Evolutionaries are revolutionaries, with all the personal and philosophical commitment that word implies. They are not merely curious bystanders to the evolutionary process, passive believers in the established sciences of evolution, though all certainly value those insights. They are committed activists and advocates—often passionate ones—for the importance of evolution at a cultural level. They are positive agents of change who subscribe to the underappreciated truth that evolution, comprehensively understood, implicates the individual. Indeed, an Evolutionary is someone who has internalized evolution, who appreciates it not only intellectually but also viscerally. Evolutionaries recognize the vast process we are embedded within but also the urgent need for our own culture to evolve and for each of us to play a positive role in that outcome.

With that in mind, I would like to outline three critical characteristics common to Evolutionaries. This is hardly an exhaustive list, but I hope it manages to capture the essential spirit of this designation. First, Evolutionaries are cross-disciplinary generalists. Second, Evolutionaries are developing the capacity to cognize the vast timescales of our evolutionary history. Third, Evolutionaries embody a new spirit of optimism. I will explore each of these characteristics and their significance in the pages that follow.

IN DEFENSE OF THE GENERALIST

This is not a world built for generalists. It is a world built for specialists. What’s valued intellectually is specialty knowledge—expertise on the mechanics of eukaryotic cells or the chemistry of black holes or the life cycles of ant colonies. Even within individual disciplines, the drumbeat of specialization takes precedence over broader systems of knowledge. It’s not enough to be a physicist; one is a particle physicist or a quantum-loop theorist or a string theorist. It’s not enough to be a historian; one is an expert on Renaissance social customs or South Asian political dynamics in the eighteenth century. Indeed, the degree of specialization in our collective knowledge base is both stunning in its depth and detail and frightening in its increasing fragmentation.

“Most educated people at the beginning of the twenty-first century consider themselves to be specialists,” writes Craig Eisendrath. “Yet what is needed for the task of understanding our culture’s evolution, and of framing a new cultural paradigm, is the generalist’s capacity to look at culture’s many dimensions and to put together ideas from disparate sources.”[1] Evolutionaries are generalists for this very reason. Readers will notice that the critical insights that populate these pages are a result of thinking as a generalist must think—with a passionate but broad curiosity that fans out across culture and sees connections, patterns, transitions, and trends where others only see discrete facts and details. An Evolutionary must be able to look at the movements of nature, culture, and cosmos as a whole, yet without denying the infinite detail that surrounds us.

If one reads the books written by many of today’s evolutionary thinkers, this is one characteristic that immediately stands out. Whatever their fields of expertise, most are incredibly well- informed generalists. They move from one field to another with ease and sometimes brilliance. They are unafraid to risk the wrath of the specialists and take research from one field and apply it to another. They are interpreters par excellence—synthesizers, holistically inclined pattern-recognizers. They mine today’s incredible knowledge base for insights and help make sense of the enormous confusion that the information revolution hath wrought. In doing so, they serve a great function. They help explain our place in the scheme of things.

Of course, there are times when such thinking can go very wrong—for example, when well-intentioned but ill-informed people take difficult concepts from a complex field such as quantum physics and draw overly facile conclusions about how they apply to spirituality and life. Bookstores are filled with such ill-conceived problem children of the science-and-spirit relationship. But that should not deter us from appreciating the importance of this missing function.

In recent decades there has been a growing sense that the critical role that a generalist plays in society is being forgotten, with dangerous consequences for our culture. In discipline after discipline, experts have raised concerns that our knowledge base has privileged depth and detail over breadth and context. As Eisendrath points out, one result of this increasing fragmentation of knowledge is that there is no one left “to speak for the culture as a whole.”[2]

So who is responsible for this overwhelming fecundity of fragmentation? Scapegoats abound, but the person most frequently cited is a six-hundred-year-old philosopher—René Descartes. Truth be told, Descartes is guilty only of articulating an important breakthrough that characterized the changes occurring in his own time period. It was Descartes who announced the radical split between subject and object that the world has been struggling to come to terms with ever since. He placed the thinking, rational self, the subjective self, in a position distinctly separate from the rest of the universe—the objective world. I think, therefore I am, he famously declared—Cogito ergo sum. It was the foundation of the Cartesian revolution. In that one great statement, human beings announced a further extrication of their own consciousness from its primordial embeddedness in the natural world. And not just the natural world. Our consciousness was also becoming free of its immersion in the social life of the group or collective, a process Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor called the “great disembedding.”[3] In Descartes’s declaration, the modern self, we might say, found its liberation and autonomy. Obviously, the statement itself did not catalyze this change, but Descartes’s words and subsequent philosophy helped establish a new and powerful way of thinking that empowered the changes that were occurring in consciousness and culture of the day. The “I” was becoming free of the “it” and of the “we.” Human beings could begin to see objectively as never before, allowing us to gaze with new eyes upon nature as an external object of curiosity and fascination, viewed from the dispassionate stance of the separate observer.

The result was a cultural revolution that led to the European Enlightenment. Out of that great split of man from nature came the modern world and all of its many wonders, the first and foremost of which was the modern individual, newly autonomous and free to define him- or herself on his or her own terms.

In a sense, we could say that Descartes broke the world in two, metaphysically cleaved it down the center, and the reverberations are still felt today. Indeed, it was as if that fracturing, once under way, had a momentum of its own, and in the wake of that one great split came a thousand smaller cracks. Whole systems of knowledge began to separate out from one another, finding their own freedom and relevance, released at last from the unifying strictures of a once-dominant religious worldview. Our religions, with their antiquated belief systems and values, could no longer contain or make sense of this multidimensional, diverse world that was bursting the boundaries of a premodern intellectual edifice. Science and philosophy broke away from religion, fracturing into their own separate domains, which allowed them to develop free of the superstitions of the medieval church.

With this development, the reign of religion as the grand unifier and dominator of culture thankfully was over. New fields of study began to arise as the human spirit was liberated to investigate the natural world as never before. Like unstable particles unable to cohere, the sciences subdivided and subdivided into the mass of compartmentalized specializations that mystify unwary college applicants today.

And so the task in our time has changed. We have gained all the power of specialization, recognized the necessity of reductionism, practiced the art of slicing and dicing reality into smaller and smaller revelations, but now we must set a new course. We have so much information but so little context. We have so much knowledge but somehow lack a larger framework in which to understand it. We are data rich and meaning poor. It takes me all of ten seconds on Google to find the infant mortality rate of Chad in 2003, and yet we have seemingly no clue as to how and why some cultures evolve in healthy ways and others descend into anarchy. We have mapped the marvelous complexity of the human genome and yet stand by helpless as kids wander our streets as dropouts and junkies, undeveloped throwaways of the wealthiest culture in history. We may be on the verge of unlocking the very secrets of life and longevity, and yet millions of people have so despaired at our capacity to positively influence the evolution of culture that they have decided the only way forward is for the Earth to suffer a near apocalypse or, as some believe, undergo a miraculous global awakening. Evolutionaries sense that the world is fragmented, and that we must embrace our role in jump-starting the process of reintegration.

Evolution, by its very nature, helps us to integrate our thinking. It transcends the neat structures of disciplines mapped out on the university campus and encourages us to lift our eyes to patterns and trends that break the boundaries of compartmentalization. It compels us to think in bigger ways about life, time, and history, until finally we find ourselves staring at contexts so fundamental that they can temporarily break the hold of the mind’s incessant fascination with particulates of experience and reveal completely new perspectives on existence. Perhaps that is why Hegel, one of the original evolutionary philosophers, when asked “What is truth?” replied with the slightly flippant but no less profound answer: “Nothing in particular.”[4]

Arguably, the sciences have been most responsive to this need for more integrative thinking. For example, the renowned Santa Fe Institute was formed in the late 1980s to facilitate a new kind of cross-disciplinary dialogue. One of the original associates of the Institute, the Nobel laureate physicist Murray Gell-Mann, noted that while the process of specialization was necessary and even desirable, “[T]here is also a growing need for specialization to be supplemented by integration. The reason is that no complex, nonlinear system can be adequately described by dividing it up into subsystems or into various aspects, defined beforehand. If those subsystems or those aspects, all in strong interaction with one another, are studied separately, even with great care, the results, when put together, do not give a useful picture of the whole. In that sense, there is profound truth in the old adage, “The whole is more than the sum of its parts.”[5]

This study of complex systems that Gell-Mann is referring to is usually called complexity theory or systems science. As it turns out, the principles that govern the behavior of complex systems transcend any particular discipline. The same principles that govern the functioning of the stock market might also help shed light on the behavior of a hive of honeybees or the growth patterns of a megacity. These principles cannot be contained by the neat human-created categories that separate the physics department from the sociology department down the hall. They apply generally. The evolutionary principles explored in this book are similar. They cannot be confined to biology or sociology or theology. Specialists risk a kind of myopic tunnel vision. They often cannot see cross-disciplinary evolutionary principles, much less apply them.

This approach reverses centuries-old predilections in scientific disciplines that argue that truth is best found by breaking wholes down into parts and those parts further into their respective parts, and so on. There is nothing inherently wrong with this kind of scientific approach. In fact, the fruits of such thinking are all around us—from increasingly powerful smart phones to life-extending medical breakthroughs. And yet we have come to recognize that there is so much more to reality than can be captured by this approach. “Reductionism alone is not adequate,” writes Stuart Kauffman, “either as a way of doing science or as a way of understanding reality.”[6] Even many of the most committed so-called reductionists recognize that such a perspective, adhered to religiously, slices off whole segments of reality. Amid the proliferation of the parts, we so easily lose the whole. We may know the physical makeup of the puzzle, and how every last piece is shaped, but until we put them together, we can have no true sense of the actual picture.

Science is hardly alone in its attempts to reach beyond fragmentation and specialization toward a more unified approach to knowledge. Philosophy also has managed to leap forward toward a more “integral reality,” largely through the work of individuals like philosopher Ken Wilber. And religion, likewise, has a growing number of believers in a less siloed approach to matters of spirit.

But despite these initiatives and many more like them, integration is still a road less traveled. The generalist remains a rare breed, and the evolutionary generalist even more so. There are few who have the capacity or inclination to speak for “culture as a whole.” Yet there is little question that our future lies in this direction. As author James N. Gardner writes, in what I think is one of the most salient and inspiring descriptions of precisely this kind of integrative attitude toward knowledge: “The overlapping domains of science, religion, and philosophy should be regarded as virtual rain forests of cross-pollinating ideas—precious reserves of endlessly fecund memes that are the raw ingredients of consciousness itself in all its diverse manifestations. The messy science/religion/philosophy interface should be treasured as an incredibly fruitful cornucopia of creative ideas—a constantly coevolving cultural triple helix of interacting ideas and beliefs that is, by far, the most precious of all the manifold treasures yielded by our history of cultural evolution on Earth.”[7]

Being an evolutionary generalist is more than simply being a pluralist—one who makes space for multiple perspectives and points of view. In fact, there is evidence, coming from a variety of sources, that integrative, cross-disciplinary thinking may not just be the latest and greatest idea of the cognoscenti but an actual higher mental function that represents a further step in the evolution of conscious- ness itself. In other words, it may be an evolutionary adaptation to the challenges presented by our globalizing, ever-complexifying society. At least, that is the testimony of individuals like twentieth-century German philosopher Jean Gebser. He was convinced that a new consciousness was dawning in human life, one that he distinguished from the “mental/ rational” consciousness that had characterized the modern era. He called this new consciousness “integral,” and wrote that it was characterized by what he called an “aperspectival” quality, meaning that it contained a way of seeing reality that transcended the segmentation and fragmentation of the mental/rational world-view. “Our concern is with integrality and ultimately with the whole,”[8] he wrote.

One person whom Gebser pointed to as an example of this new integral consciousness was the great twentieth-century Indian philosopher-sage Sri Aurobindo. In his masterpiece, The Life Divine, Aurobindo outlined in remarkable detail the gradual ascension by which human cognition moves from one stage of mind to the next higher stage. The level he called “higher mind” he describes as the capacity to take in knowledge by intuitively perceiving it as an integral whole, an all-at-once perception of multiple ideas grasped simultaneously as a unified truth. The best analogy I can think of would be an orchestra. We experience great music as a coherent whole but remain aware of the extraordinary melodies and wonderfully complex harmonies that contribute separately to that singular delight.

Such descriptions also call to mind another early twentieth-century icon, James Joyce, who used the term “epiphanies” in his stories to describe the same sort of revelation. Joyce’s characters would undergo what he called a “simple sudden synthesis” of insight and understanding that contained the qualities of wholeness and integrity.[9] And in our own time, Ken Wilber has preferred the term “vision-logic” to describe this curious mixture of visionary revelation combined with conceptual and logical analysis that seems characteristic of this new mental, yet transmental, capacity referred to by each of these figures.

We can see, even in these brief examples, that for some theorists, evolution is not just happening in the external world. The very faculties we use to perceive the world are themselves caught up in the evolutionary process. These theorists suggest that the relatively limited capacities of Homo sapiens sapiens in the twenty-first century represent not some final end state of development or a completed picture of human possibility but merely one more stage in a cosmic drama that has taken us from energy to matter to life to mind and now seeks higher and higher potentials. They suggest that the immense challenges of our globalizing world are themselves catalyzing and calling forth evolutionary potentials in human consciousness, which will allow us to begin to make deeper sense of the immense complexities of our wonderfully diverse but painfully fragmented age. No, they aren’t teaching this in Kansas schoolrooms or creationist colleges, but neither is it common at Harvard. However, if we are to form a more perfect union of our fragmented world in the days to come, it is a perspective worth considering.

DEEP THOUGHTS IN DEEP TIME

If there is a complementary trend in evolutionary thinking to the return of the generalists, with their integrated approach to knowledge, it is the impulse to look at reality through the lens of what I call evolutionary time. It is not dissimilar to the way evolutionary biologists must look at the species they study. Biologists understand that the limited time frame in which they see any given species is too small to reveal the true extent of the evolutionary changes that all species are undergoing. Except in rare cases, we cannot “see evolution” in our time scale. Dramatic and important evolutionary changes happen outside of our frame of reference, and therefore we must break the spell of “local time” upon our consciousness and lift our attention to much longer, more expansive time frames in order to envision the truth of evolutionary change and development.

After Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, this challenge of understanding the time scales was one of the greatest obstacles to the acceptance of his theory of natural selection. People just couldn’t get their minds around the amount of time required to make the process work. They had to infer. The same is true when thinking about evolutionary change in any context. We must think in evolutionary time. We must think with that unique kind of historical context.

Teilhard de Chardin suggested that the capacity to see in deep time is an emergent potential in the species. We are learning to perceive the vast epochs involved in the evolutionary dynamics that make up our bodies, and even our minds. And Teilhard used a fascinating analogy: There is a certain point in a child’s development when he or she gains depth perception for the first time. Up until that point, everything in the baby’s perceptual space is all organized on a flat plane, but at a certain point, the visual context deepens and objects begin to spread out in three dimensions. Teilhard compared our own emerging recognition of evolutionary time at this moment in history to a baby getting depth perception for the first time. We are just beginning to cognitively grasp the time context of our evolutionary emergence, just beginning to see in a new dimension. Time has been called the fourth dimension, so perhaps we’re just beginning to develop the capacity to “see” in four dimensions.

“Just as we separate in space, we fix in time,” wrote Henri Bergson, echoing precisely this point. “The intellect is not made to think evolution.”[10] Indeed, evolution has not yet equipped our brains to naturally think in such a way that we are able to deeply perceive the historical context of our own emergence. And yet miraculously, in a flash, we do see. The blinders of local time are removed and we suddenly grasp the extraordinary truth that we are ancient—related to all of life and connected to the history of the cosmos itself. We are not entities observing, as if from a distance the ongoing flow of time. No, we are windows into deep history itself, momentary formations of individuality composed not just of matter but of vast and primeval rivers of time.

It is almost as if a new form of spiritual intuition is dawning upon those with the inner eyesight to perceive it. Evolutionaries often report that this internal evolutionary timescape, while sometimes expressed powerfully in the written word, film, or other media, can also arise suddenly in consciousness, analogous to the flash of insight characteristic of a spiritual awakening. In fact, almost all of the individuals I interviewed for this book have had such an evolutionary awakening, though it has taken different forms. In many respects it is similar to what we think of as a spiritual or mystical experience. But while the experience may be filled with great meaning and spiritual significance, the content is less focused on Spirit or God, in a traditional sense, and more on evolution, process, and change. Awakening to a felt sense of the past and the future as much vaster than ever considered before, the individual feels connected to the developmental, in-process, unfolding nature of his or her own consciousness, of culture, of life, and even of the cosmos itself. The spell of solidity is broken deep in the recesses of the psyche and a new vision of an evolving world pours forth, an epiphany not just of unity and oneness but of movement and temporality.

THE RETURN OF OPTIMISM

A number of years ago, I began to notice that almost all of the Evolutionaries I encountered, all of the individuals who were inspired by the potential of using evolution as a context for understanding life and culture, had a third quality in common that made them stand out from their cultural milieu. In addition to being cross-disciplinary generalists and being able to think across evolutionary time, they also demonstrated a profound faith in and commitment to the future. They radiated a powerful optimism, one that stood out even more for being so counter to the overwhelming mood of the moment. Indeed, Evolutionaries are deep optimists. I’m not talking about a naïve optimism, a forced optimism, a superficial optimism, or even a hopeful optimism but an informed confidence in the knowledge that evolution is at work in the processes of consciousness and culture, and that we can place our own hands on the levers of those processes and make a positive impact. It is a subtle but powerful current of conviction that lifts the sails of the psyche and propels it forward into the future. Evolutionaries don’t just believe that the future can be better than the past; somehow they know it—like a great leader knows that she can make a difference; like a great athlete knows that he can compete and win.

I would suggest that the unique flavor of this evolutionary optimism cannot be attributed to a mere personal feeling, inspiration, or belief. It runs deeper than that. Evolutionaries evince a confidence that is different from the brashness and bluster that flows out of the personal ego. It carries with it a conviction that reaches beyond any quality found only within the boundaries of the personality. And they transmit that confidence to others. We tend to transmit to others how we feel about life at a fundamental level. When one spends time with a great mystic or saint, there is a quality to the personality that is recognizable, whatever the particular tradition of that individual or belief system—a quality of ease, of deep peace, and of transcendent being that we experience in the company of those whose source of confidence lies far deeper than the individual psyche. The same is true of this evolutionary optimism. It arises from a direct perception of the possibility of evolutionary development and connects us to drives and impulses that are neither personal nor cultural, drives that some feel are connected to creative forces at work in the evolving universe. It is as if the essence of the process itself—its creativity, dynamism, and forward movement—comes alive in the personality of those who have embraced an evolutionary worldview.

It is important to note here that the evolutionary optimism I am speaking about does not equate to a conviction in an inevitable positive outcome, or a belief in a miraculous “shift” that is just about to happen. We see this kind of thinking all too often in spiritual-but-not-religious circles—whether it be a Mayan prophecy, the Harmonic Convergence, or some sort of “Earth Change” that will pave the way to the future. Such ideas are often held by individuals with the best of motives, who look out at a world of climate change, terrorism, corruption, overpopulation, and financial disaster, where billions live in poverty, and conclude that things are not getting better at all. Or if they are, they aren’t improving fast enough. And then they pray, hope, meditate—for some event; some change of consciousness; some immanent convergence, emergence, or resurgence of love, light, peace, and compassion to deliver us from the darkness and ignorance that has a hold on our collective soul. And too often, they invoke the term “evolution” to describe this shift in consciousness.

Such thinking has nothing to do with evolution as I understand it. In fact, I would suggest that it is not a faith in evolution that leads one to embrace such naïve or exaggerated hopes but, in fact, a lack of faith. It is an insufficient appreciation of the power of evolution and a failure to understand how it works, at a cultural level, that leads some to start reaching for super-historical forces to emerge and save the day. When we begin to appreciate the true dimensions of the vast evolutionary process that we are a part of, our optimism becomes grounded in the slow but demonstrable reality of actual development.

When I was a boy, I would watch the great tennis players of my era, Björn Borg and John McEnroe, vie for the Grand Slam titles. And I would imagine what it might be like to be able to play like that and compete at such a high level. That vision I held in my mind was important to my development as a player. But ultimately, what was more inspiring and invigorating was to experience myself learning actual new skills, however far they may have been from those of my heroes—to see the reality of self-development and build confidence in the fact that I could transform myself into a better player through my own efforts. Such an experience temporarily breaks the spell of solidity, at least in relationship to our personal capacities. When we remove the illusion of immobility, it’s like breaking a dam in our consciousness. We start to see the world around us in new ways, experience new and liberating possibilities, and see more directly the underlying momentum that is part of the process of human nature and human culture. We start to see how we can actually choose to develop and mature, individually and collectively—whether it’s on the tennis court or in much more important areas of human society. That is the source of evolutionary optimism.

There is nothing wrong with great visions of possibility. We need them, as long as they’re not crazy and unrealistic. They inspire us and give us direction and focus. But what truly uplifts and invigorates us is to participate in actual development, and in doing so to appreciate how this development is connected to the larger historical flow of evolution since the beginning of human culture. When our eyes open up to the reality of evolution and we can look back and see not merely thousands and thousands of years of survival and endurance but centuries and centuries of hard-won progress, we will stop hoping for miracles. We will embrace a deeply optimistic vision of the future, one that empowers us to embrace the challenging but ultimately much more rewarding work of contributing to a process that transcends our own lives and that, miraculously, we can affect with our own actions.

Indeed, the grounded optimism and positivity that lights up the hearts and minds of Evolutionaries makes quite a statement in our cynical, meaning-starved culture. I hope you will recognize it in the pages ahead, and perhaps begin to feel it yourself as we dance across disciplines and plumb the depths of cultural and cosmic time. It is a conviction not only in the fact of evolution but in the wholesomeness of the evolutionary process, despite the suffering, conflict, and chaos it inevitably entails. In the hearts of these Evolutionaries, the future is already bright.

An excerpt from Evolutionaries: Unlocking the Spiritual and Cultural Potential of Science’s Greatest Idea (Harper Perennial, 2012)

Carter Phipps is an author, speaker, and thought leader who works at the intersection of business, personal development, and culture. His books include the Wall Street Journal bestseller Conscious Leadership: Elevating Humanity Through Business (Portfolio, 2020), coauthored with Whole Foods Market CEO John Mackey and Steve McIntosh, and Evolutionaries: Unlocking the Spiritual and Cultural Potential of Science’s Greatest Idea (Harper Perennial, 2012). Carter hosts the Thinking Ahead podcast, and is cofounder and Senior Fellow of the Institute for Cultural Evolution, a social policy think-tank. He lives in Denver, Colorado. Find out more at www.carterphipps.com

[1] Eisendrath, Craig, At War With Time (New York: Allworth Press, 2003), 106.

[2] Eisendrath, At War With Time, 107.

[3] Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 146–158.

[4] Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, in Solomon, Robert C., In the Spirit of Hegel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 338.

[5] Gell-Mann, Murray, in Christian, David, Big History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 3–4.

[6] Kauffman, Stuart, Reinventing the Sacred (New York: Basic Books, 2008), 3.

[7] Gardner, James N., Biocosm (Makawao, Hawaii: Inner Ocean Publishing, 2003), 226.

[8] Gebser, Jean, The Ever-Present Origin (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1986), 3.

[9] Joyce, James, Stephen Hero (New York: New Directions, 1963), 212.

[10] Bergson, Henri, Creative Evolution (Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications, 1998), 163.