Notes

  1. . See, e.g., F. Russo, S. J., and R. T. Roth, S. J., The Meaning of Teilhard de Chardin (New York: America Press, 1964); RobertJ.O'Connell, S. J., “Teilhard at Fordham: 1963–1964,” Dialogue  3 (1965):382–84; R. J. O'Connell, S.J., ed., Teilhard Conference Proceedings (New York: Fordham University Press, 1964); M. H. Murray, The Thought of Teilhard de Chardin: An Introduction (New York: Seabury Press, 1966); George A.Riggan, “Testing the Teilhardian Foundations,” Zygon  3 (1968):259–322 (including an extensive bibliography); B. Delfaauw, Evolution: The Theory of Teilhard de Chardin (London: Collins Sons & Co., 1969). For some French works on Teilhard, see Claude Cuenot, Teilhard de Chardin: Les grandes etapes de son evolution (Paris: Plon, 1958); C. Cuenot, Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Edition du Seuil, 1962); L. Bayou, S.J., and P. Leroy, S.J., La carrière scientifique de Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Monaco: Editions du Rocher, 1964); L. Barral, Elèments du bǎti scientifique Teilhardien (Monaco: Edition du Rocher, 1964); H. de Lubac, Teilhard et notre temps (Paris: Editions Aubier Montaigne, 1969); A. Lanoux et al., Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1969); Mgr. A. Combes, Teilhard de Chardin (Paris: Editions Seghers, 1969). In 1969 at least eight new books were printed in France by or about Teilhard, and at least three more were scheduled to appear before 1970. In Great Britain, Collins alone has published eighteen books by or about Teilhard, three of them during 1969.
  2. Sir Julian Huxley, “Introduction” to The Phenomenon of Man by P. Teilhard de Chardin (New York: Harper & Bros., 1959), pp. 11–28; Theodosius Dobzhansky, Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1962), p. 347; Th. Dobzhansky, The Biology of Ultimate Concern (New York: New American Library, 1967), pp. 108 ff.; Th.Dobzhansky, “Teilhard de Chardin and the Orientation of Evolution,” Zygon  3 (1968):242–58.
  3. . P. B.Medawar, “Critical Notice: The Phenomenon of Man,” Mind  70 (1961): 99–106.
  4. . J. E. Page, S. J., “The Phenomenon of Urbanization and Teilhard,” in Teilhard Conference Proceedings  , pp. 71–75 ; W.Stark, “Teilhard and the Problem of Human Autonomy,” in Teilhard Conference Proceedings  , pp. 77–93. For a typical Marxist treatment of Teilhard's social implications, see N.Tertulian, “Marxismul si gǐndiero lui Teilhard de Chardin,” Viata Romaneasca  18, no. 12 (1965): 182–93; Roger Garaudy, From Anathema to Dialogue: A Marxist Challenge to the Christian Churches, trans. Luke O'Neill (New York: Herder & Herder, 1966), pp. 48–54.
  5. . Sir Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 31–39.
  6. . See, e.g., M. Stein and A. Vidich, eds., Sociology on Trial (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice‐Hall, Inc., 1963), esp. pp. 96–126; M.Csikszentmihalyi, “Marx: A Socio‐psychological Evaluation,” Modern Age  11 (1967):273–82;S.Jonas, “Talcott Parsons ou le roi nu,” L'Homme et la societè1  (1966):53–65;T.Bottomore, “The Strange Case of Talcott Parsons,” New York Review of Books  13, no. 8 (1969): 34–39.
  7. . There is excellent reason for refraining from a general evaluation of Teilhard's ideas since this has been done before in the pages of Zygon (see Riggan, “Testing the Teilhardian Foundations” Dobzhansky, “Teilhard and the Orientation of Evolution”Van R.Potter, “Teilhard de Chardin and the Concept of Purpose,” Zygon  3 [1968]:367–76;AlfredP. Stiernotte, “An Interpretation of Teilhard as Reflected in Recent Literature,” Zygon  3 [1968]:377–425;FranciscoJ. Ayala, “A Note on Evolution and Religion in the Light of Teilhard's Divine Milieu,” Zygon  3 [1968]:426–31).
  8. . Among the more recent discussions see A. Maslow, The Psychology of Science (Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1969); D. F. Horrobin, Science Is God (Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire: Medical ft Technical Publishing Co., 1969); A. Maslow and P. Sorokin, eds., New Knowledge of Human Values (Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1970); T. Roszak, The Making of a Counter Culture (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1969); H.Etzkowitz and G. M.Schaflander, “A Manifesto for Sociologists,” Social Problems  15 (1968):399–407;H.Blumet al., “Developments of a New Consciousness and Social Order,” Interdiscipline  4, no. 2 (1967): 105–16; or witness the last few national professional conventions in any of the social sciences.
  9. . Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man, p. 220.
  10. . Popper, Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 61; Horrobin, Science Is God, p. 83.
  11. . Karl R. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (New York: Harper 8e Row, 1964).
  12. . See, e.g., Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), esp. pp. 248 ft.; Maslow, Psychology of Science; Roszak, Making of a Counter Culture; Horrobin, Science Is God.
  13. . One of the best examples of how “special consensus” can validate reality is in Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don Juan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968).
  14. . Benedetto Croce, History as the Story of Liberty (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1962).
  15. . Nicolai Berdyaev, The Beginning and the End (London: Geoffrey Bles Ltd 1952).
  16. . Pitirim A. Sorokin, The Ways and Power of Love (Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1967).
  17. . Popper, Poverty of Historicism, pp. 105 ff.
  18. . This is not Teilhard's own position, however. He held on steadfastly to the belief that complexification was a scientifically accurate description of evolution.
  19. . Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man, pp. 48 ff.
  20. . It is perhaps unfortunate that the term “energy,” with its precise connotation preempted by the physical sciences, should be used here as a rather vague, non‐operational construct. The phenomenon that Teilhard describes as “tangential energy” presents no problems, since this is the kind of energy familiar to all followers of deterministic science. “Radial energy,” on the other hand, is something utterly controversial. By this term Teilhard defines (at the human level of evolution) such phenomena as love, brotherhood, etc., which, though they originate in tangential forces, are not reducible to them. belief that complexification was a scientifically accurate description of evolution.
  21. . Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man, pp. 63 ff.
  22. . E.g., H. C. Carey, Principles of Social Science, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1867), 3:466 ff.; Eugene de Roberty, Sociologie de I'action (Paris: F. Alcan, 1908); 6. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1947); K. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1957).
  23. . R. Redfield, The Primitive World and I t s Transformations (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1953); see also R. Redfield, ed., Levels of Integration in Biological and Social Systems (Lancaster, Pa.: J. Catell Press, 1942). and R. Red‐field, “Levels of Integration in Biological and Social Systems,” in Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist, ed. W. Buckley (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1968).
  24. . Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man, pp. 165, 262 ff.
  25. . A. Bavelas, “Communication Patterns in Task‐oriented Groups,” in Group Dynamics, ed. D. Cartwright and A. Zander (Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson & Co., 1953), pp. 493–506; H. Leavitt, “Some Effects of Certain Communication Patterns on Group Performance,” in Communication and Culture, ed. A. G. Smith (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966), pp. 222–43; M. E. Shaw, G. A. Rothschild, and R. F. Strickland, “Decision Processes in Communication Nets,” in Communication and Culture, pp. 253–58.
  26. . M. Csikszentmihalyi, “A Cross‐cultural Comparison of Some Structural Characteristics of Group Drinking,” Human Deuelopment 11 (1968):201–16.
  27. . Claude Lkvi‐Straws, Les structures tlementaires de la parentk (Paris: P. U. F., 1949), p. 31; see also Yvan Simonis, Claude Lhi‐Straws ou la “passion de l'inceste” (Paris: Editions Aubier Montaigne, 1968), esp. chap. 2, pp. 33–81.
  28. . Lkvi‐Straws, Les structures Plementaires, p. 596.
  29. . Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man, p. 262 (see also nn. 22 and 23 above).
  30. . This is, of course, the reason for the systematic attempts made to eliminate the family as a strong unit, along with other institutions, whenever a new social order is established, as in the case of Soviet Russia, China, or the Israeli kibbutzim. See also Luigi Barzini's interesting analysis of the failure of Italian civic structures (The Italians [New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1964]), which he attributes to the exclusive loyalty Italians devote to their kinship obligations.
  31. . Talcott Parsons, “The Incest Taboo in Relation to Social Structure and the Socialization of the Child,'' British Journal of Sociology 5 (1954): 101–17.
  32. . See Teilhard's discussion on how civilization proceeds by incorporating “artificial” structures until they become “natural” and release energy for building new “artificial” structures of a higher complexity (Phenomenon of Man, pp. 221 ff.).
  33. . Ibid., pp. 255 ff.
  34. . Karl Jaspers, Nietzsche (Chicago: H. Regnery Co., 1969), pp. 127–28.