Spiritual_Wellness_Holistic_Health_and_the_Practic

The Holistic Philosophy 37
Williams ’ (1942), who also viewed the universe from an evolutionary premise.
Williams identified a hierarchy of evolutionary phases based upon the observations of
anthropology. These phases are (1) primordial mud, (2) flat worm, (3) quadrupeds, (4) apes,
(5) man.
Williams ’ phases of evolution roughly correspond to Smuts ’ phases. He presented
his phases of evolution based upon his observation of Homo sapiens ’ ancestral heritage.
Williams did not elaborate on the details or transitions from one phase to another.
Williams ’ phases are specific and can be categorized under Smuts ’ phases but not vice
versa. For example, Williams ’ phase flat worm is encompassed by Smuts ’ phase organism,
but not all organisms are flat worms.
The difference between Smuts ’ and Williams ’ perspective on the universe is in
detail of explanation. Fundamentally, they agree on the premise that the universe has
evolved through progressive phases, culminating in the evolution of human beings.
Hoyman ’ s (1974) perspective on the nature of the universe is consistent with
Smuts ’ holistic view that the universe has evolved. Hoyman ’ s perspective, based on
his ecological model, incorporates the influence of the environment and the reciprocal
relationship between living things as fundamental aspects to the nature of the universe.
Smuts (1926) supported the science of ecology and recognized that “ the
environment has a silent, assimilative, transformative influence of a very profound
and enduring character on all organic life ” (p. 218). The science of ecology was
young at the time when Smuts published his work in 1926. In this regard, Hoyman ’s
ecologic model is an expansion upon Smuts ’ perspective. Smuts ’ holistic perspective
and Hoyman ’ s ecologic model are complementary to one another regarding the
evolutionary nature of the universe. In addition, from Hoyman ’ s perspective, the
universe is dynamic, not static. He considered that we live in a universe in which the
earth and humans are still evolving. Smuts reached this same conclusion after rejecting
the mechanistic interpretations of the laws of conservation and least action and
the creation and metaphysical explanations of the universe. These views were based
on a static universe, an unfolding of what was implicitly given. Smuts ’ holistic perspective
considered that creative evolution included the mind. This view is supported
by Hoyman, who also considered that the evolving universe included the
“ no ö sphere (sphere of mind). ”
There is consensus between Smuts and Hoyman about the nature of the universe.
They both acknowledged the role of ecology as a science to understand the effect of
environment on organic life. Both Smuts and Hoyman viewed the universe as dynamic
and still evolving; in this view, they included the sphere of mind. The difference
between Smuts ’ and Hoyman ’ s perspective on the universe is in what each chose to
emphasize. Smuts ’ holistic perspective focuses on the holistic principle in the universe
responsible for the progressive evolution of matter, life, mind, and personality. Hoyman ’s
ecological model focuses upon human beings and their relationship to other life forms,
the environment, and the potential for an ecological crisis resulting from failure to
adapt to the environment.