The concept of stages has lost traction though, not so much because of empirical data (that are open to various interpretations), but mainly because of two concerns: determinism and inequality. So, we should address them first.

Determinism – until the early 20^th century, social determinism was popular among both idealists (e.g. Hegel) and materialists (e.g. Marx). Later on, however, the idea that there is a particular trajectory of social development was largely abandoned (with the notable exception of Teilhard de Chardin). One reason for this was a teleological overtone of those theories that was a mismatch for the dominant zeitgeist. The other more important reason was that social determinism didn’t go very well with human freedom. If global social processes were determined, this could mean that historical events and even individuals themselves are also determined – not leaving much room for choice and free will (the basis of political and legal systems in most of the world). This concern is not warranted though. Recognising that there is a particular trajectory of social development (at least up to a point, which will be clarified below) does not imply inevitability of any social event and can be compatible with individual choices. It only means that a society and humankind as a whole may sooner or later, in one way or another, reach a certain stage of development (that is, if that society or humankind does not perish beforehand). To repeat the above analogy, the fact that every person (who lives long enough) goes

Quantitative social development refers to an increase or improvement of similar competences and capacities that typify this kind of personal development, although different examples naturally apply:

• Dynamism (mobility, cultural exchanges)
• Complexity (of social organisation)
• Differentiation (e.g. specialisation) and social integration
• Pattern recognition (of social processes)
• Creativity (e.g. technological and other innovations, art production);
• Refinement (of social practices)
• Focus regulation (e.g. an ability to narrow the focus on one social issue, but also to expand it to include other societies, the environment, etc.)
• Diversity and versatility (e.g. multicultural coexistence and cooperation)
• Internal control (e.g. autonomy, self-governance)
• Efficiency (in utilising natural and other resources)
• Stability and flexibility (an ability of a society to adapt to changes)
• Perspective (e.g. taking into account long term consequences)
• The scope of moral sense (e.g. equality before the law).

These capacities are manifested through social practices that affect all three dimensions of development:

The interaction with others contributes to development and harmonisation at all stages of personal development:

• At the physical stage, others contribute to physiological homeostasis (through providing food, shelter and protection) as well as psychological (through hugs, cuddles, and other forms of physical connection). This is essential, particularly in infancy. Others also play a role in early development through encouraging and supporting bodily self-regulation (e.g. toilet training, learning to walk), as well as through exposure to a variety of stimuli, which incentivises learning and experience.
• At the conventional stage, others contribute to development through enabling language acquisition, and through the induction to various cultural mores (including art, religion, narratives, customs and so on). They contribute to harmonisation too, through the process of socialisation and role assignments. This enforces a sense of belonging and affirms newly formed constructs of the world and oneself.
• At the individual stage, others also play a role, albeit a more subtle one. Young people start developing individuality through bouncing their own ideas and choices against others – some resistance is needed to move on (we can walk only if the ground we walk on provides sufficient resistance – psychology is not very different). At the same time, others are used as a mirror, to confirm one’s existence and study the quite unstable and fragile newly-formed ego. So paradoxically, individuality often ends up in conformity to a group – albeit a group of one’s own choice.

The Method

All four methods described in the first part (phenomenological, inductive-deductive, transpersonal and reasoning) can contribute to this topic:

• Relevant materials from various traditions (e.g. The Tibetan Book of the Dead) can be a valuable source. However, they are inevitably embedded in their particular cultural frameworks, so the phenomenological method is used to draw out that what can be of a more general significance. This can be assisted by discerning commonalities from different backgrounds. We should be aware though that some commonalities may be a result of cross-cultural fertilisation, rather than being arrived at independently.
• Research on Near Death Experiences (NDE) can also make an invaluable contribution, but it too has some limitations: it can account only for the first stages of life after death and relies on untrained subjects (although some aspects of their reports can be verified).
• Transpersonal experiences can provide some valuable insights in this area, but they can be easily misinterpreted (i.e. they may relate to something else rather than life after death).
• Reasoning is limited in its generating role, but it can help putting things together and exclude elements that are inconsistent, incongruent with the available facts, and superfluous.

Each of these methods is clearly insufficient on its own, so what follows is an attempt to combine them to various degrees.

In the diagram below, these dimensions are represented by lines and the stages by dots:

Each dimension has four dots, signifying the four stages: (1) physical, (2) conventional, (3) individual and (4) transcendent[1]. This is, of course, an idealised schema – there are transition periods of various length between them as well as huge variations within them. Also, they are not inevitable; the rate of change and the final stage reached differ widely from person to person. However, despite individual differences, some commonalities can be discerned for each stage in all three dimensions. Before we do that though, we need to make some general observations.

One important point is that the subsequent stages may modify but they don’t replace the previous ones. The other is that quantitative development (developing various capacities) within each stage can continue throughout one’s life. This implies that a person on a further stage of development is not necessarily better or superior to those who are not yet there

Here are some examples of competences we have in mind (this list may not be exhaustive and not all of them are always present):

• Dynamism (e.g. curiosity, interest, exposure to experiences)
• Complexity (of skills, knowledge or experience)
• Differentiation and integration (analytic and synthetic abilities)
• Pattern recognition
• Creativity, a capacity to generate something new (e.g. a new sentence)
• Sensitivity (to nuances, details or subtle points)
• Focus regulation (an ability to narrow or widen the focus)
• Diversity and versatility (of skills, knowledge and experiences)
• Internal locus of control
• Efficiency (in utilising one’s potentials and energy)
• Persistence and flexibility
• Perspective (e.g. taking into account long term consequences)
• The scope of the moral sense (its inclusiveness)

The development of particular skills always involves some of the above. For example, the better we are at playing the violin, the more complex and diverse pieces of music we are able to play. But this is not all. These capacities

Those who believe in a God of chance may still maintain that given enough time, anything can happen by chance. The so-called ‘Infinite Monkey Theorem’[1] is frequently invoked in support of such a claim. However, this theorem hinges on the assumption of true randomness, meaning that the monkey does not repeat the same sequences. And yet, it is perfectly plausible that it can keep typing letters g and p, for example, or any other more complex pattern for ever, and never come around to accidentally complete the work of Shakespeare – in fact, the probability that it will end up in one of such loops is far greater than getting to write something meaningful. Lasting true randomness is a hard call in the physical world. Besides, the time available on this planet has been huge but not infinite. Considering these limitations, the challenge is to provide an interpretation that would give the evolutionary process a fair chance, rather than an astronomically small one.

We don’t think though that falling back onto a God the Watchmaker is a viable option. Let’s just bring here one reason among many for that. As already discussed, evolution does not happen gradually, but in leaps (rapid transformations) followed by long periods of relative equilibrium. If this has been God’s job, rather than creating for six days and resting for one, it seems that God has created for one day, and rested for six – or even longer. This is rather inefficient for an omnipotent entity. If an intelligence is involved at every evolutionary step, one would expect a steady progress – there would have been no need for the long periods of stagnation. So, what else?

However, Creationist and other literal interpretations of the scriptures are hard to reconcile with facts. The Old Testament account contains a number of incongruent and inconsistent statements. For instance, according to Genesis, fruit-bearing trees were created on the third day, while fish and other marine creatures were created two days later. Whatever ‘day’ is supposed to mean, the fossil record shows clearly that fish pre-dated trees by hundreds of millions of years. The existence of redundant organs and other imperfections (e.g. the position of optic nerves in the human eye) is another reason why the creation of species by an outside agency is extremely implausible. An omnipotent designer should do better. The offshoot of Creationism, Intelligent Design, is good in picking shortcomings of evolutionary theory, but it falls short in offering a plausible alternative.

There have been many theologians (notably from the Jesuit breed) who have not interpreted the Bible literally and have attempted to incorporate the theory of evolution within a religious framework. A prominent, relatively recent example is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who took evolution as a central tenet of his theology. His essentially Hegelian vision (see p.69-70), but extended beyond historical time, is far removed though from conventional religious views. The other, more traditional position that can be traced back to St Augustine emphasises God’s transcendence, insisting that God only sets the starting parameters, after which nature