This is part 2 of 3.

As Teilhard sees it, human socialization is 'strongly linked to the
power of reflection' [6], a power which accelerates the
socialization process. And it is not difficult to see why. Reflection
is inventive, and one of its inventions has been symbolic
language. Once language is in place it becomes easy for
reflective beings to communicate among themselves, to
achieve what the Jesuit scientist calls 'psychic
interpenetrability'. [7] Such communication, we cannot gainsay,
facilitates and accelerates organized and cooperative
undertakings.

During the Upper Paleolithic (or Late Stone) age, the Jesuit
paleontologist tells us, the highest level of human association
seems not to have exceeded that of tribal aggregations
consisting of 'somewhat loose groups of wandering hunters.' [8]
The Neolithic age, on the other hand, brought with it a start-up
of the unification (or fusion) of the tribal assemblages --- a
unification that was destined to continue indefinitely. He writes:

'It is only at the Neolithic that the great
fusion begins to happen between
human elements, a fusion that is
never to end.' [9]

Due to a paucity of available data, prehistorians and historians
have sometimes failed to delve all that deeply into the Neolithic
age. Nonetheless, in his opinion, this age was one of critical
importance. Why? Well, because it was the 'the age of the birth
of civilization.' [10] And is not a key ingredient in civilization the
organized convergence or unification of large numbers of
people?

At this juncture the French Jesuit, with reference to the birth of
civilization asks: 'How did this birth come about?' [11] What
was it, he inquires, that caused civilization, the organized
convergence of a multitude of people, to emerge? Certainly
there are gaps in our knowledge of humankind's passage from
the Upper Paleolithic age to the Neolithic age, and so we
quite naturally encounter difficulties when we try to assign the
precise proximate causes standing behind the start-up of
civilization. Teilhard does, however, propose a number of
possible factors which alone, or in some degree of
combination, may have come into play. Let us take a quick
look at these possible initiating factors as he outlines them.

-------------------------

FIRST POSSIBLE INITIATING FACTOR

Perhaps an 'interplay of migrations' [12] may have contributed to
the rise of civilization. Maybe what is being envisioned here is a
scenario in which a number of tribes, over a relatively brief interval
(say, a few hundred years), all migrated into a single
geographical locality and there found themselves inter-tribally
exchanging ideas and techniques. Exchanges of this sort could
have served to encourage the process of socialization.

------------------------

SECOND POSSIBLE INITIATING FACTOR

The second factor which Teilhard proposes for our consideration
is what he calls 'an effect of contagion'. [13] What he seems to
be suggesting, at this juncture, is the idea of one group of human
beings coming into contact, for the first time, with another group
of human beings. But more than mere contact may have taken
place under this scenario. Perhaps each group beneficially
"infected" the other group with novel notions and skills which
ended up augmenting the levels of awareness and expertise
of both groups. A kind of salubrious, mutual contagion
appears to be contemplated here, a contagion which
stimulated the mental life of each group and possibly brought
them closer to the level of socialization which we associate
with civilization.

-------------------------

This concludes part 2. Please proceed to part 3.

Notes:

[6] 'Phenomenon' Part III, Chapter II, Section 4, p. 140.

[7] 'Phenomenon' Part IV, Chapter I, Section 1, Subsection A,
Item (a), p. 168.

[8] 'Phenomenon' Part III, Chapter II, Section 4, p. 140.

[9] 'Phenomenon' Part III, Chapter II, Section 4, p. 140.

[10] 'Phenomenon' Part III, Chapter II, Section 4, p. 140.

[11] 'Phenomenon' Part III, Chapter II, Section 4, p. 140.

[12] 'Phenomenon' Part III, Chapter II, Section 4, p. 140.

[13] 'Phenomenon' Part III, Chapter II, Section 4, p. 140.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]