Omega Point - Part I

What’s the objective of all that we see, unfolding before our very eyes?

It’s quite simple, really. We’re moving towards the Omega Point, and there are very few technical challenges stopping us from going there.

I have frequently spoken of the 4 theorists, Karl Marx, Paul Carus, Alexander Bogdanov and Vladimir Vernadsky, but a further three should really be mentioned in the same breath - Erich Jantsch, Plotinus and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. But before we start diving into detailed relating to who, and why, there are two fundamental concepts we need to familiarise ourselves with.

• Monism¹ is the philosophical stance that all of reality is composed of a single substance or principle. In the context of materialism, this means that everything in the universe, including thoughts, consciousness, and social structures, is ultimately derived from and reducible to matter.

• Dialectics² is a method of understanding and explaining change and development through the interaction of opposing forces or contradictions. It posits that progress occurs through the resolution of these contradictions, leading to a synthesis that incorporates elements of both opposing forces.

And in terms of the latter, probably the most famous dialectic was coined by this chap

Karl Marx³ is known as a principal author of the Communist Manifesto⁴. However, what is less commonly known is that he and Engels were commissioned by the Communist League, a group that had evolved from the League of the Just⁵, to write it. This means that the creation of the manifesto wasn’t entirely as organic as history might otherwise suggest. Marx’s work was influenced by earlier thinkers, including the prolific anarchist writer Proudhon⁶, whose ideas pivoting around the concept of a classless society⁷ informed some aspects of Marx’s theoretical framework. However, Marx evolved his approach through the incorporation of the concept of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’⁸, presented as a ‘temporary’ phase intended to lead to said classless society. Yet, should you read his and Engels’s writings, you’ll find presciously little relating to how this ‘temporary’ arrangement would dissolve itself. The obvious conclusion, of course, is that it might not - by design.

But Marx is also well-known for his work on historical materialism⁹, a theory that emphasizes the primacy of material conditions in shaping history; a framework which further gave rise to concepts such as intergenerational justice¹⁰. Additionally, his efforts in developing dialectical materialism¹¹, describing societal change as driven by the conflict between societal classes, suggest that such conflicts would inevitably lead to a communist revolution and the realisation of social justice.

In the context of materialism, the concepts of dialectics and monism can be understood as follows:

• Materialistic Monism: This asserts that only matter exists and that all phenomena can be explained through physical processes alone.

• Dialectical Materialism: This theory accepts the premise of materialistic monism but applies it specifically to understand and analyze societal and historical changes through dialectical processes - thesis, antithesis, and synthesis - focusing particularly on the role of class conflicts as the driving force behind these changes.

This fundamentally renders materialistic monism incompatible with Catholicism, as it denies the existence of a spiritual realm, a personal God, an immortal soul, and an afterlife - all of which are core tenets of Catholicism. While monism asserts that all aspects of existence can be explained through one substance, Catholicism embraces a dualistic view that acknowledges both material and spiritual realities, with God being the distinct and transcendent creator.

Paul Carus¹² is most widely known for his work as a philosopher, editor, and author, notably of The Gospel of Buddha¹³ (1894), which presented Buddhist teachings in a format accessible to Western audiences, and The Religion of Science¹⁴ (1893), where he sought to synthesize science and religion through a shared ethical framework.

Carus also played a significant role as the chair of the 1893 Parliament of the World's Religions¹⁵, an event often recognized as the official birthplace of the modern Interfaith Movement¹⁶. Although the Catholic Church participated in the event, it largely remained on the periphery of the Interfaith Movement for many years afterward, particularly as it had only recently begun to address social issues with the 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum¹⁷, which steered the Church in a somewhat more… socialist direction.

Carus’s collaboration with D.T. Suzuki¹⁸ further expanded the reach of Eastern philosophies in the West, particularly Zen Buddhism, significantly influencing Western understanding of these traditions. As the editor of The Monist¹⁹, Carus promoted ‘scientific monism‘, a philosophical stance advocating for a materialistic understanding of the universe grounded in scientific principles. His broader vision was to unify all knowledge - scientific, philosophical, and religious - under a single, rational framework, making an - at the time - significant contribution to intellectual discourse.

And to that extent, Zen Buddhism²⁰ occupies a somewhat unique position within non-dualism, emphasizing that through meditation, one comprehends the unity of all things. Rather than explicitly becoming one with a distinct God, it reveals the interconnected nature of reality, making it appear akin to a switchable-state form of non-dual awareness, thus providing a conceptual integration with aspects of monism.

In 1903, Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdanov²¹ co-founded Russia’s Bolshevik Party²². However, by 1909, Lenin had consolidated control, with Bogdanov ultimately being given the boot²³. Their primary difference related to their differing visions, on how the transition to Communism should be facilitated.

While Lenin lined up behind Marx’s belief that a violent revolution was inevitable, Bogdanov instead advocated a slow, gradual, systemic process, rendering the violent transition unnecessary²⁴. This was to come through the principles of Tektology²⁵ - Universal Scientific Organisation - a conceptual extention of Marxist ideology which emphasized the integration of automation and organizational efficiency into society.

Bogdanov's approach represented an evolution of monistic thought, which he developed into what might be best described as Organizational Scientific Materialistic Monism, reflecting his belief in the scientific organization of society as a path to socialism.

Finally, we have the Russian scientist, Vladimir Vernadsky, best known for his pioneering work on the concepts of the biosphere and the noosphere²⁶. The former describes the global ecological system integrating all living beings and their relationships with the atmosphere and hydrosphere. And as for the latter, Vernadsky introduced the noosphere, describing the sphere of collective human thought and its influence on the biosphere. The noosphere represents the next stage of Earth’s evolution, where human activity - guided by reason and scientific understanding - would shape the future of the planet.

Vernadsky’s ideas can be seen as an early form of systems thinking, where he emphasized the interconnectedness of life, matter, and thought within the Earth system. His vision eventually aligned with what might be considered Observational Organizational Scientific Materialistic Monism, meaning scientific observations integrated through a monistic view, focusing on organizational principles of life and thought as material forces, shaping the planet - highlighting the role of human consciousness in the ongoing evolution of the Earth system.

-

Consequently, this evolution of monism within the context of materialism can be traced through Marx, Carus, Bogdanov, and Vernadsky, displaying a cotinuous specialization in its application.

• Karl Marx introduced materialistic monism, centered on the material conditions of society, where economic forces and class struggle drive historical change. This approach places reality in the material world, rejecting spiritual dualism in favor of a unified, material-based understanding of even social dynamics.

• Paul Carus expanded upon this to integrate science and ethics, advocating for ‘Scientific Materialistic Monism‘. He sought to unify religious and scientific perspectives under materialistic principles, using ethics as a bridge - while remaining rooted in materialism.

• Alexander Bogdanov specialized further through his concept of Tektology, or ‘Organizational Scientific Materialistic Monism‘. This applied materialistic principles to the organization of society, proposing a systematic, non-violent transition to scientific socialism through organization, emphasizing the material structures of society.

• Vladimir Vernadsky extended this to the Earth sciences through his concepts of the biosphere and noosphere. His conceptual Observational Organizational Scientific Materialistic Monism focused on material forces of life and thought as they shape the Earth, emphasizing the material interconnections between nature and human consciousness.

But this conceptual progression still had to be structured, and that took place in 1970.

Because that was the year in which Erich Jantsch created a trans-disciplinary university structure²⁷ set on a materialistic understanding of the universe, consisting of 4 levels aligned with Systems Theory. And these four levels relate to the purposive, normative, pragmatic, and empirical:

1. Purposive: Represents the overarching goals or intentions, framed in terms of purpose and direction.

2. Normative: Reflects the ethical and value-based structures that guide behavior, focusing on social and cultural norms.

3. Pragmatic: Corresponds to the practical application of knowledge and techniques, where systemic organization and functionality are emphasized.

4. Empirical: Focuses on observable, measurable phenomena in the material world, grounding the framework in the physical and empirical reality.

But beyond these four, Jantsch also described the overlapping interactions. Thus, when you see, ie, Ervin Laszlo²⁸ commonly described as a ‘systems designer’, it’s because he operates between the levels of purposive and normative.

But Jantsch is a fascinating individual, not least because he also penned the output document from an 1968 OECD meet at Rockefeller’s Bellagio, leading to the output document ‘Perspectives of Planning’²⁹. And this report served a major inspiration, not least to Freeman, who in 1984 released ‘Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach‘³⁰. The figure on the bottom right below suggests a conceptual similarity in public and private governance structures, ultimately being integrated through Tony Blair’s Third Way in the late 90s.

The Third Way.

Consequently, using Jantsch’s four levels grounded in materialism, we observe -

• Vernadsky relates to the observational, ie, Jantsch’s empirical.

• Bogdanov brings the organisational; Jantsch’s pragmatic.

• Carus relates to science-based rationality; Jantsch’s normative.

• Marx relates to materialism; Jantsch’s purposive.

And observational organisational scientific materialistic monism was what their combined effects ultimately reached, with Karl Marx providing the foundational base.

Scientific socialism, through ethics, organisation, and observation.

But this doesn’t stop quite there. Because what Jantsch actually did was take Plotinus’ 4-level framework, known as the ‘Great Chain of Being‘³¹ or the ‘Hierarchy of Being‘, and apply within a materialistic realm. Plotinus’s framework describes the structure of metaphysical reality in a hierarchical manner, from the most transcendent to the most immanent levels. The four levels in Plotinus's framework are:

1. The One (The Good): The ultimate source of all existence, the most transcendent and unified principle. It is beyond all categories, including being and non-being, and is the source of all reality.

2. Nous (Divine Intellect): The realm of perfect forms or ideas, where all things exist in their most perfect and eternal state. It is the realm of pure intellect and contemplation, the first emanation from the One.

3. Psyche (World Soul): The level of the soul, which mediates between the higher intellectual realm and the physical world. It is the principle of life and movement, animating the material world and individual souls.

4. Physis (Nature): The physical world, where the forms manifest in material existence. This is the lowest level of the hierarchy, where change and multiplicity are most apparent.

And this hierarchical structure is central to Plotinus's Neoplatonism³², where each level emanates from the one above it, with the material world being the most distant from the pure unity of the One. The goal of spiritual practice in Neoplatonism is to ascend through these levels, ultimately seeking unity with the One. And that’s where Teilhard enters the stage.

Plotinus’s framework thus extends through the metaphysical, and with Jantsch applying this in the aspect of materialism, leave it to none other but Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to frame it in the spiritual. Teilhard’s vision also echoes Plotinus by structuring reality in a progressive, hierarchical way but from a spiritual perspective (and in reverse order) -

1. Cosmogenesis: This stage represents the origin and unfolding of the cosmos, much like the empirical level in Jantsch’s framework and Physis in Plotinus’s, but understood as the divine creation and evolution of the universe. It’s the physical foundation on which everything else builds, imbued with spiritual significance.

2. Biogenesis: Corresponding to the pragmatic or Psyche level, biogenesis represents the emergence and development of life. In Teilhard’s view, this is where life begins to organize itself, reflecting the divine intention and the evolutionary drive toward complexity and consciousness.

3. Noogenesis: This stage mirrors the normative or Nous level, where human thought and consciousness evolve. Teilhard coined the term noosphere to describe this stage, where human reflection, culture, and ethics develop, guiding humanity’s spiritual evolution and connecting it with the divine purpose.

4. Christogenesis: Analogous to the purposive or One level, Christogenesis is the final stage in Teilhard’s spiritual framework, where the culmination of evolution leads to the Omega Point, a state of ultimate unity with Christ and the divine. It represents the fulfillment of spiritual evolution, where all creation converges in a unified, transcendent reality.

Teilhard penned a number of books, all released post-humously due to the controversiality of the matters. And these books include:

• The Divine Milieu - A spiritual reflection which seeks to integrate Christian spirituality with Teilhard’s understanding of evolution and the material world. This book can be compared to Carus's ethical synthesis of science and religion, as both works seek to harmonize spirituality with the scientific understanding of the universe. But while Carus began with a scientific foundation and moved towards religion, Teilhard’s journey took him the opposite direction.

• The Phenomenon of Man - In this, Teilhard presents his grand vision of evolution, culminating in the concept of the noosphere and ultimately - the Omega Point. This can be compared to Bogdanov’s ‘Tektology’, as both provide a comprehensive framework that synthesizes various aspects of knowledge and reality, albeit from different perspectives (spiritual for Teilhard and material for Bogdanov).

• The Future of Man - While ‘The Phenomenon of Man’ lays out the theoretical groundwork for the concept of the noosphere, this title is more explicitly concerned with the practical and future implications of this concept. This work explores how humanity might consciously shape its future evolution within the noosphere, making it a spiritual parallel to Vernadsky’s materialistic interpretation of the noosphere concept.

Thus, what Teilhard progressively conceptualised was observational organisational scientific spiritualistic monism.

And with all of that in mind, let’s place all of these in a table.

What the above describes is how the spiritual and the material are bridged, through the combined synthesis of Marx/Carus/Bogdanov/Vernadsky on the materialistic side, and Teilhard de Chardin on the spiritual.

And this synthesis takes place through Neoplatonism, primarily influenced by Plotinus, but later adapted in a materialistic context by Erich Jantsch. The key focus is how these domains - materialism and spiritualism - are bridged. And that’s where Carus and Teilhard’s efforts become pivotal:

• Paul Carus synthesised Religion, Science, and Philosophy through Ethics, which he considered the foundational element which - if harnessed - could harmonise and integrate these differing domains.

• Teilhard de Chardin, on the other hand, synthesized these realms through the lens of evolution. He suggested that humanity has a moral responsibility to ethically guide evolution, thereby merging spiritual and material progress into a unified vision.

While both Carus and Teilhard worked to bridge the spiritual and material, they did so through different, yet complementary pathways: Carus through ethics and Teilhard through a morally guided evolutionary process. And this synthesis creates a comprehensive framework, connecting materialistic and spiritual perspectives, allowing for a more integrated understanding of the universe

And that means ethics takes center stage in this combined synthesis, serving as the crucial element that binds the spiritual and material realms together in a coherent and unified vision.

A Global Ethic

Part 2 will focus on the practical side of affairs.

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monism

2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dialectic

3. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Marx

4. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

5. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/index.htm

6. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pierre-Joseph-Proudhon

7. https://isaiah-berlin.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Bib.65%28a%29%20-%20review%20of%20Woodcock%2C%20Pierre-Joseph%20Proudhon.pdf

8. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/sep/x02.htm

9. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/index.htm

10. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/page/publications/fenp_a_225082_o.pdf

11. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

12. https://parliamentofreligions.org/1893-chicago/paul-carus-the-religion-of-science-the-science-of-religion/

13. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35895/35895-h/35895-h.htm

14. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.201244

15. https://web.archive.org/web/20170222110318/http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82015679/1893-11-07/ed-1/seq-6.pdf

16. https://parliamentofreligions.org/parliament/1893-chicago/

17. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

18. https://theosophy.wiki/en/Paul_Carus

19. https://themonist.com/

20. https://anmolmehta.com/understanding-hinduism-buddhism-non-duality/

21. https://monoskop.org/Alexander_Bogdanov

22. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/lenin-versus-the-god-builders/

23. https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/learning-from-bogdanov/

24. https://bogdanovlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/bogdanovs-tektology-a-science-of-construction.pdf

25. https://monoskop.org/images/5/51/Bogdanov_Alexander_Essays_in_Tektology.pdf

26. https://monoskop.org/images/5/59/Vernadsky_WI_1945_The_Biosphere_and_the_Noosphere.pdf

27. https://www.sci-hub.ru/10.1007/bf00145222

28. https://www.evolutionaryleaders.net/leaders/elaszlo

29. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED044791

30. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Strategic-Management-R-Freeman/dp/0521151740

31. https://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Great-Chain-of-Being.pdf

32. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism