From:
http://www.gaiamind.org/Gebser.html
THE
PRIMORDIAL LEAP AND THE PRESENT: THE EVER-PRESENT ORIGIN - AN
OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF JEAN GEBSER
by
Ed Mahood, Jr.
Opening
remarks
The German author Jean
Paul Richter once wrote, "What has puzzled us before seem
less mysterious, and the crooked paths look straighter as we
approach the end." This seems a fitting motto for our
investigations into one of the least understood areas of human
knowledge: consciousness. There has been a great wave of
interest in this area in recent years, but it is clear that as
much as has been accomplished all the more there is yet to
do.
Before anything else, we need to come terms with
the word itself, not in any final sense, but as a first
approach to the matter. What is consciousness? Is it our
emotions, our intelligence? Is is equivalent to the term
'mind' or 'spirit' or 'gnosis'? Does it have anything in
common with these terms? Is it a separate and distinct
phenomenon or is it embedded in nature and experience
(whatever these may be)? When we discover what it is, will we
really recognize it? The choice of starting point will
seriously impact where we arrive in the end.
Our
purpose here is to become acquainted with Jean Gebser's
seminal work, The Ever- Present Origin [1]. To this
end, it would be helpful at the onset to gain a little
background on Gebser's life and work, which, in turn, should
help us overcome the intellectual inertia present is such a
task. This brief paper, then, is comprised of several parts:
first, a quick biographical sketch of the author; second, a
summary introduction to the work, focusing on Gebser's
approach, third a closer look at each of the structures in
exemplary detail; fourth the introduction of two key notions
for understanding Gebser's work, systasis and synairesis;
then, finally, a brief summary.
Biographical
background
Jean Gebser was born
August 20, 1905 in the Prussian town of Poznan (which is now a
part of Poland). His lineage dates back through an old
Franconian family that had been domiciled in Thuringa since
1236. His uncle was the German Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg
and on his mother's side he was a descendent of Luther's
friend Melanchthon. He came into this world at an auspicious
time to be sure. Five years earlier, Freud had published his
groundbreaking work, The Interpretation of Dreams, that
was to form the foundations of psychoanalysis and change the
course of the study of psychology. In the very year of his
birth, Albert Einstein published his special theory of
relativity that was to have a significant impact on Gebser's
thinking as well as on the world of science as a whole. Max
Planck, the great German physicist was promulgating his
quantum theory; and Edmund Husserl, a then unknown Austrian
philosopher, published his Logical Investigations which
were to become the foundation of one of the most influential
schools of philosophic thought in the 20th century, namely
phenomenology. This was also a time of a great occult revival
as well, for the primary Rosicrucian organizations that are
still operating in the United States, for example, were
incorporated around this time as well.
Gebser's father
was a lawyer of some renown; his mother a whimsical,
self-seeking beauty many years younger than her husband. He
grew up, then, in an educated and cultured environment.
Difficulties between his parents drove him inward and he
instinctively turned toward literature as his medium of
discovery; this was especially true after his father's death
in 1922. Being forced to interrupt his studies upon his
father's death, he spent two years in an apprenticeship in a
bank, a task that he disliked severely. A year after beginning
this training, however, he and a friend started at literary
magazine called the Fischzug, where his first poems
were published. In Berlin at the time, and at least a
part-time student, he listened to many of the renowned faculty
teaching at the university there. Among these was the Catholic
philosopher Romano Guardini whose depth of knowledge and
spirituality left an indelible impression upon Gebser. During
this time he also discovered the poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke
which had a tremendous impact on his thinking. It was during
his Berlin years, however, that he first confronted suicidal
despair and the realization that he must venture out into the
world in order to find himself. The appearance of the first
Brown Shirts in Munich provided him with the reason he needed
to leave Germany.
The first stop on his journey was
Florence, where he worked for a while in a second-hand
bookstore. It was here that he came to the realization that
all the books he read had never taught him how to live, hence
he began a more active quest toward fulfillment. He tried
Germany again, but bade it a final farewell in the Spring of
1931, first going to Paris and then on to Southern France. It
was here that he changed his German first name "Hans"
to the French "Jean." Following the footsteps of
Rilke, Gebser moved to Spain. He managed to learn the language
and obtain a position in the Ministry of Education, in fact,
and made friends with many prominent Spaniards, among them
Federico Garcia Lorca. Gebser also published a volume of
translations of some of these newer Spanish poets. It was in
Spain that Gebser first conceived of the ideas that would
later take form in his works, Decline and Participation
and, of course, The Ever-Present Origin. Shortly before
his home in Madrid was bombed in 1936, he managed to flee from
Spain. Gebser settled in Paris and made the acquaintances of
many of the notable French artists and intelligentsia of the
day, including Pablo Picasso. He was involved in writing and
literature for the most part, translating Hölderlin's
poetry into Spanish and some of his Spanish friends' political
essays into German; he also produced some of his more minor
works. Two hours before the Germans sealed off the borders to
France, Gebser again managed to flee, this time to
Switzerland, where he would reside from then on. These years
were the most productive for Gebser, although life still was
not easy for him. He supported himself by freelance writing
for the most part, but it was in Basel that he befriended Carl
Gustav Jung, at whose institute he also taught for many years.
In 1949/1950, his efforts culminated in the publishing of The
Ever-Present Origin, his most profound statement regarding
the unfolding of consciousness in man. Throughout all of
Gebser's writings we find him wrestling with this subject,
trying to find real answers to the important questions in
life, such as "Who am I?," "Where do I come
from?" and "Where am I going?" This work is an
answer to all these questions on behalf of us all. During the
remainder of his life, Gebser taught, traveled, wrote and
lectured. Each subsequent publication elucidated and
illuminated various aspects of his most fundamental theme, the
evolution of consciousness. He had come into his own and
enjoyed a certain, yet modest, renown for his work. On May 14,
1973, Jean Gebser passed through transition, as Feuerstein
describes it, "as his death mask bears witness, with a
soft and knowing smile."[2]
The approach
Ancient mythology
informs us that the destruction of worlds is accompanied by
catastrophic circumstances. Wherever we look today we see
evidence of impending catastrophe. Would it be wise to deduce
quickly then that our world is coming to an end? Maybe, maybe
not. We definitely know that something significant is
impending. Many of us feel it, we intuit it; and we are
seeking confirmation for this working hypothesis. But where
can we find it? Certain support for this notion of
earth-shattering change can be found in the works of Jean
Gebser, so it is here that I should like to devote our
attention in this presentation. Gebser is not a psychologist,
economist, or scientist, in a more narrow sense, but is
perhaps best characterized by the concept of Kulturphilosoph,
a German term that literally means "cultural
philosopher." A student of literature, poetry, psychology
and science, Gebser brings a unique combination of talents to
bear upon the subject of his investigation: the unfolding of
consciousness. By better understanding the forces that are at
work and our own role in this process, we can better hope to
rise to the challenges that confront us so that our world
truly becomes "the best of all possible worlds." The
fundamental premise of Gebser's work is that we are on the
threshold of a new structure of consciousness. Overall, Gebser
describes four mutations, or evolutionary surges, of
consciousness that have occurred in the history of man. These
mutations are not just changes of perspective, they are not
simple paradigm shifts (although the word simple may seem
inappropriate at this point); rather they are fundamentally
different ways of experiencing reality. These four mutations
reflect five separate eras of development that are not
distinct and isolated from one another but are, instead,
interconnected such that all previous stages are found in
subsequent ones. Each of these stages is associated with a
dimensionality, beginning with the geometric origin of zero
and progressing to the fourth, the transition which we are
experiencing at this time. Gebser identifies these five phases
as the Archaic, Magical, Mythical, Mental, and Integral stages
respectively.
Another key element of Gebser's theory
encompasses two fundamental concepts: latency and
transparency. The former deals with what is concealed; as
Gebser describes it, latency is the demonstrable presence of
the future.[3] In this manner the seeds of all subsequent
phases of evolution are contained in the current one. It is on
the basis of this aspect that integration takes place. The
second term transparency deals with what is revealed.
According to Gebser, transparency (diaphaneity) is the form of
manifestation (epiphany) of the spiritual.[4] This is perhaps
the most important statement he makes. The origin, the source
from which all springs, is a spiritual one, and all phases of
consciousness evolution are a testimony to the ever less
latent and ever more transparent spirituality that is inherent
in all that is. Without a recognition of this fundamental and
pivotal idea, Gebser cannot be understood and we will not be
able to understand ourselves. It is not just an intellectual
development that is being described in his theory, rather it
is the ever more apparent manifestation of the spiritual that
underlies and supports the concept of evolution itself. And
finally, one further element must be mentioned. The
manifestation of these structures occurs in a quantum-like,
discontinuous leap, not in a slowly developing and changing
framework as is postulated for Darwinian evolutionary theory,
for example. There are overlaps in these structures in as far
as different peoples and cultures may be manifesting different
structures at the same time, but a clear development can be
recognized and it is to be expected that all cultures will
eventually go through the same process.
It would seem,
then, that we are dealing with a kind of historical
description of a linearly unfolding schema, but this would be
a grave misinterpretation of his thesis and it does injustice
to his approach. At first blush it would appear that Gebser is
approaching his subject as we would expect any historian to
proceed, but it must be emphasized that Gebser's approach is
quite deductive. We are presented at the very beginning with
the model; later we are taken step-by-step through the
'evidence' which he believes supports the claim. Consequently,
we find a number of historical, archaeological, and
philological arguments presented that are not necessarily in
keeping with generally agreed-upon theories in these
disciplines. At times, these appear quite creative but this is
most often a result of reading Gebser in a strictly
intellectual and analytical manner. This is not to say that he
should be approached uncritically, for he should be, yet the
text itself is not a logical argumentation as one would expect
to find, let us say, in a philosophical treatise. In
accordance with his own model, he attempts to make of his book
an example of the type of thinking one would encounter in the
Integral structure of consciousness. It is not reasoned in a
linear manner; in fact, the book would probably have been
better suited to a hypertextual presentation. It would be some
years, however, before this form of document would be
developed so we are forced to deal with a non-traditional
approach to a broader than usual subject that has been forced
into a well-known and familiar medium: the book. Failure to
recognize this idiosyncrasy can cause the reader untold
difficulties from the beginning.
The
consequences: A closer look
We should refine this
general presentation, of course, and take a closer look, now
at each of these structures, in turn. In this way we can
perhaps come closer to an understanding of consciousness in
general, but of Gebser's approach in particular.
The
Archaic structure of consciousness
The Archaic structure of
consciousness is perhaps the most difficult to understand, for
it is the one most removed from our present-day way of
thinking. Stated succinctly, it can be likened to zero
dimensional mentation, a world devoid of any perspectivity at
all. It is a stated in which the holder of consciousness is
perhaps only minimally aware of himself or his relationship to
the world around him. According to Feuerstein, this structure
denotes "a consciousness of maximum latency and minimum
transparency."[5] The term "archaic" as used
here is derived from the Greek arce, meaning inception,
or origin. Origin (or Ursprung, in the original German)
is the source from which all springs, but it is that which
springs forth itself. It is the essence which is behind and
which underlies consciousness. As Gebser understands the term,
"conscious is neither knowledge nor conscience but must
be understood for the time being in the broadest sense as
wakeful presence."[6] This presence, or being present,
excludes two further overpowering by the past
(past-orientation) or any future-oriented finality. He
writes:
<Q>It is our task to present the past in
ourselves, not to lose the present to the transient power of
the past. This we can achieve by recognizing the balancing
power of the latent "future" with its character of
the present, which is to say, its potentiality for
consciousness.[7]
At the origin, there is not past to
overwhelm and the future is complete potentiality.
Consequently, that which we understand to intuit consciousness
to be is qualitatively different from this original structure.
What hampers any investigation into it is the fact that we
have no records, no written testimony, regarding it. It is a
state that is swallowed by the primal shadows of a far-distant
past. It is referred to in myths and legends, but these
references are of a much later time. About all we can say in
this regard is that within the Archaic structure the
consciousness is quite undifferentiated; it is just there, and
things just happen. Man is still unquestionably part of the
whole of the universe in which he finds himself. The process
of individuation of consciousness, in any sense of the word,
has not taken place. This type of consciousness "can be
likened to a dimly lit mist devoid of shadows."[8] This
is not consciousness in any sense that we understand it today.
Instead, it can be likened to a state of deep sleep; one that
eludes the specification of particularity or uniqueness.
The
Magic structure of consciousness
Around some unspecified
time far back in our past, a change took place. Man entered
into a second phase of development and gained a new structure
of consciousness, the Magical structure. This structure is
characterized by five primary characteristics: (1) its
egolessness, (2) its spacelessness and timelessness, (3) its
point-like-unitary world, (4) its interweaving with nature,
and (5) its magical reaction to the world.[9] A rudimentary
self- sense was emerging and language is the real product of
this change. Words as vehicles of power are typical of this
time and structure; incantations as precursors to prayer
emerged. Consciousness, in this phase, is characterized by
man's intimate association with nature.
This is
perhaps the most notable characteristic regarding this
structure. Man, at this time, does not really distinguish
himself apart from nature. He is a part of all that surrounds
him; in the earliest stages it is hard to conceive that he
views himself apart from his environment. The plants, animals
and other elements of his surroundings share the same fate as
he does; they experience in a similar manner. Latency is still
dominant; little is transparent. Magic we can define in
agreement with Gustav Meyrink as doing without knowing,[10]
and it is magic man who is engaged in this activity in all
aspects of his existence. The hunting and gathering, the quest
for survival are all activities that consume most of his
waking hours. But in the quiet of the evening around the fire;
there is time for reflection of sorts. The activities of the
day were codified (in speech) and recounted. Memory was
collective, tribal, and all things were shared and experienced
by all. The "I" is not a factor; the "we"
is dominant.
This is a one-dimensional,
pre-perspectival point-like existence that occurs in a dream-
like state. Unlike the dreamlessness of the previous
structure, a recognition is developing in man that he is
something different from that around him. Not fully awake to
who he is or what his role in the world is, man is recognizing
his self as an entity. The forms of expression for this
structure can be found in the art and other artifacts that
have been recovered from this time. Graven images and idols
are what first come to mind. However, ritual should also be
considered here, for it is in the specific and directed
execution of certain actions and gestures that conveys much
about this consciousness structure. Feuerstein feels that this
structure persisted till around 40,000 BC and the advent of
the Cro-Magnons.
Another feature of this structure
that we should bring to mind is its spacelessness and
timelessness. The idea that space and time are illusions
derives from this stage in our development as human beings.
The fact that this is one of the first lessons one learns when
embarking upon the esoteric path is further evidence of this
idea. To Magic Man, closely linked as he is with others of
like mind, space and time need not concern him. In fact, I am
not convinced that he would understand them anyway, for there
is no need that he do so. Magic, however, is very much alive
today, and it comes as no surprise (nor should it be) that
there is such a strong interest in magic today. It seems that
the fast growing branches of occult study seem to be Wicca
(overlaid as it is with feminism) and similar earth magic(k)
studies. What is more, it is the most vital and emotional of
all structures. We live in very decisive times, potentially
catastrophic times. This is a time when emotion rises near the
surface of our consciousness and it is here that magic
manifests itself. The proliferation of stories and films
dealing with Voodoo and similar matters (e.g. The Serpent
and the Rainbow) further substantiate our claim. Yet, this
is not the only structure that seems to be making a comeback
these days.
The
Mythical structure of consciousness
With the advent of the
Cro-Magnons, man became a tool-making individual, also one who
formed into larger social structures. As Feuerstein points
out, it is clear from the archaeological finds that the
Cro-Magnons had evolved a symbolic universe that was religious
and shamanistic. Part of this appears to have been a keen
interest in calender reckoning, and with it we may presume the
existence of a fairly complex mythology.[11] This structure
can be considered two-dimensional since it is characterized by
fundamental polarities. Word was the reflector of inner
silence; myth was the reflector of the soul.[12] Religion
appears as the interaction between memory and feeling.[13] Man
is beginning to recognize himself as opposed to others. The
next 30,000 odd years or so spent developing these various
mythologies. Language is becoming ever more important, it will
be noted, and not only receptive, but active, language at
that. Not the ear, but the mouth is important in making
transparent what is involved in being and life. The mouth now
becomes the spiritual organ. We witness, as well, the initial
concretization of the "I" of man.
Many myths
deal explicitly with man's (unperspectival) separation from
nature. Witness the story of the Fall in Genesis (and its
admonition to go forth and dominate nature); and the myth of
Prometheus and the giving of fire to man. These both indicate
a strong awareness of man's differentness from nature. Man is
coming into his own, although he is anything but independent
of it. One could characterize this as a two-dimensional
understanding of the world. Within the circle of believers is
where the important acts of life take place. The mere forces
of nature have a beingness, often anthropomorphized, but a
beingness nevertheless. Myth, then, or the mythologeme is the
primary form of expression of this period. Subsets of this
basic form would be the gods, symbols and mysteries. These
figures provide the emerging consciousness with imaginative
images around which to center man's knowledge and
understanding of the world. If the Magic structure of
consciousness is the emotional aspect, then the Mythical
structure is the imaginative one. It is this fact that makes
mythology so difficult for us as moderns to deal with. The
plethora of images (gods) and the seeming inconsistent
pantheons of deities brings the rational mind quickly to
confusion. Who can keep track of all these figures, their
meanings, their correspondences and their associations. This
is the time of the dream.
Up until this time, that is
in the magical structure of consciousness, souls and
afterlives were not of great importance (at least we do not
find a lot of evidence thereof). Yet in the fully developed
mythical consciousness, this is important. The entire
civilization of Egypt, as we know it, revolved around this
very issue. When we are told, then, in certain Rosicrucian
documents that we must descend into Egypt, we are being told
that we must regain, not revert to, our mythical heritage.
Mouths begin to play a more important role. Not only
is the shaman and wise person of the tribe a repository of
wisdom, others, the poets, such as Homer, begin to play a more
important role in the culture. This does not really begin to
happen until the mythical structure of consciousness, however.
The "I" of man is not yet fully developed, to be
sure, but it has developed to that point that it recognizes
and demands a separation from nature, from its environment. We
can take this as evidence of an increasing crystallization of
the ego. We are on the way to self-hood
Of course,
mythology is very much alive today. This explains the
popularity of Joseph Campbell and his work on myth. It
explains the appeal that Robert Sly and his "Gathering of
Men" workshops have. What both Campbell and Bly do is
tell stories: imaginative, intuitively understood stories that
reveal to us things that our current rational mode of thinking
prohibits us from knowing. We have much to learn from myth,
however, and should be ever aware of its influences.
The
Mental structure of consciousness
The next shift in
consciousness took place between 10,000 B.C. and 500 B.C. This
was the transition to the Mental structure of consciousness.
It was at this time that man, to use Gebser's image, stepped
out of the mythical circle (two-dimensional) into three-
dimensional space. Mythology had become so deficient (and it
should be noted that each structure has its "efficient"
as well as "deficient" form), that man needed a
clean break with the past. The plethora of gods and
contradictory stories of creation, formation of institutions,
and so on threatened to overwhelm the consciousness of man; he
practically stood on the verge of drowning in a deluge of
mythological mentation. In reaction to this, Socrates, Plato,
Aristotle, and of course, Pythagoras stepped forth to
counteract this trend. The mental structure was inaugurated
and this coincides with the "discovery" of
"causality," Abstraction becomes a key word to
describe mental activity and we find man using his mind to
overcome and "master" the world around him. With
abstraction comes philosophizing, hence the philosopheme is
the primary form of expression. Monotheism almost universally
replaces the plethora of gods of bygone days; dogma, in both
allegory and creed, replaces the symbols of previous times;
method replaces the mysteries as man develops an
ever-increasing desire to penetrate, and, of course, master
nature. This has given rise to the idea of science as the
dominant religion of today. Also at this time, time itself was
conceptualized (spatialized) as an "arrow" that
points from the past to the future by way of the
present.[14]
About the time of the Renaissance, man
came into his own and really mastered space. It was at this
time that perspective was actually introduced into art. Since
that time, perspective has come to be a major part and aspect
of our mental functioning. Perspective is the life blood of
reasoning and the Rational structure of consciousness, which
Gebser considers to be only a deficient form of the Mental
structure. What we have is the full development of the ego and
its related centeredness. We conceive things, events and
phenomena in terms of our own perspectives, often at the
expense of others. The eye, it will be seen (and the last of
the openings in the head), becomes the spiritual organ
representative of this structure. Our language, our entire
imagery and dominant metaphor takes on visual, spatial
character. Space is finally overcome, in the true sense of the
word. With the supercession of space, man finally accomplishes
his egoistic, individual separation from nature. In this
concretization of the "I," we become very aware of
our existence, of our beingness, of our individuality. And so
it should be. But in a deficient mode, the outcomes, of
course, are loneliness, isolation, and alienation, which are
so characteristic of our own American culture. In fact, our
current materialistic approach to understanding reality is
perhaps the final stage of this structure. There is also much
everyday evidence to indicate that we are moving through a
great change at this time.
We should remember,
however, that this is also the time of philosophy. The mental
ordering and systematization of thought becomes the real
dominant mode of expression. The myths have lost their
vibrancy and existential connection to reality. Greek thought
followed later by the Scholastics and finally the
Enlightenment are all periods in which this particular
structure of consciousness flourishes and strongly manifests.
It is not without its opposition, of course, since any change
will bring about the requisite opposition to its own
development. By the time of the Renaissance, though, this
structure had firmly established itself and was prepared to
move into the next phase of its development. At this time, as
was pointed out earlier, a very profound and significant event
occurred: man incorporated space into his thought. We cannot
underestimate, or overstate, the importance of this
development. It is literally at this time that the world
begins to shrink. The seeds of our one world community are
planted at this time. The ripples begun during the magical
structure are widening significantly: first spirit, then soul,
now space have become constituents of man's consciousness.
Three dimensions have been established and we are prepared for
the next significant step we are taking now.
The
Integral Structure of Consciousness
As can be guessed, then,
Gebser feels that we are on the threshold of a new structure
of consciousness, namely the Integral. For Gebser, this
structure integrates those which have come before and enable
the human mind to transcend the limitations of three-
dimensionality. A fourth dimension, time, if you will, is
added. This integration is not simply a union of seemingly
disparate opposites, rather it is the "irruption of
qualitative time into our consciousness."[15] The
supercession of time is a theme that will play an extremely
important role in this structure. In fact, the ideas of
arationality (as opposed to the rationality of the current
structure), aperspectivity (as opposed to the perspective,
spatially determined mentation of the current structure), and
diaphaneity (the transparent recognition of the whole, not
just parts) are significant characteristics of this new
structure. Stated differently, the tensions and relations
between things are more important, at times, than the things
themselves; how the relationships develop over time takes
precedence to the mere fact that a relationship exists. It
will be this structure of consciousness that will enable us to
overcome the dualism of the mental structure and actually
participate in the transparency of self and life. This fourth
structure toward which we are moving is one of minimum latency
and maximum transparency; diaphaneity is one of its hallmarks.
Transparency is not a "not seeing" as one does not
see the pane of glass though which one looks out a window,
rather one sees through things and perceives their true
nature. Statements about truth are superseded by statements as
truth. Verition not description is what we experience and
know. Philosophy is replaced by eteology; that is, the eteon,
or being-in-truth.[16]
This structure is difficult to
describe since it depends to a great deal on experience, not
just that we have them, but on how intense they are and what
we glean from them for now and the future. Intensity is a key
characteristic of this mode of consciousness. By intensity, I
do not mean simply an emotional relationship to experience or
the feeling or deepening of emotion itself. This would be a
magical response not an integral one. Perhaps it would be best
to review a few examples of what is meant by fourth
dimensionality, arationality and aperspectivity.
Let
us start with intensity and use the analogy of love. Love is
the energy (yet it has only recently been referred to as such)
or the driving force behind true spirituality and spiritual
growth. We learn early as mystics and students of the other
arts, that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. This is,
in fact, one of the two great commandments given us by the
Christ and the theme of Love is one that was very strongly
developed by the great apostle, Saint Paul, as well. However,
it is easy to love those who are our neighbors (even though at
times they are exasperating) because they are so much like us.
We recognize ourselves in them and so we love them. The
affinity of interests, locale, or any other of myriad
possibilities makes loving those who are like us a joy. We
fulfill our spirituality by adhering to this commandment; it
is a yoke that we gladly bear. Nevertheless, this love is a
three-dimensional love at best. We love those who fit neatly
into our perspectives of being and life. We choose who they
are and when and how often we extend that love to them. An
integral love, a fourth dimensional love, though, would go
beyond that. The Christ also informed us of what that love is
when he admonished us to love our enemies and pray for those
who persecute us. It is this love that is intense for it is
required without asking our opinion (our point of view, our
perspective) of it. This is the love of Judas. This is a
demanding love that not many are willing to offer.
Gebser's
Eteology
Each structure has had its
"method" even if it was not characterized as such.
Magic and the ritualistic invocation of other powers is a
method, whether we recognize it as such or not. Visualization
and mystical contemplation is also a method of knowledge
acquisition and it served a useful and valuable purpose at one
point in our development. In the transition from Mythical to
Mental, however, a rejection of previous method arose,
particularly in our now deficient, Rational structure. This
was part of a natural process, I believe, for the rational
cannot tolerate anything other than itself. This in no way
negates the value of the mental approach for the scientific
method has proven to be a very useful, albeit limited, way to
garner knowledge. But, just as the scientific method became
the predominant means of acquiring and evaluating knowledge in
the Mental structure of consciousness, a new structure demands
a new method. This is the dynamic aspect, then, of Gebser's
approach. Two notions characterize this methodology and both
are newly coined terms: systasis and synairesis, and it is
upon these that we will focus our attention in this section.
Systasis and
Synairesis
It is difficult to separate
these concepts for they are intimately related to one another.
What is more, such an artificial separation is indicative of a
mental-rational approach, to which we are trying not to fall
prey. It should be remembered that the analytical separation
demanded of this approach ultimately ends in death, and it is
life, the birth of a new method, that we seek. The method
which Gebser describes is predicated on the idea of the
eteologeme which was introduced earlier. It is this
"being-in-truth" which lies at the heart of his
approach. Up until now, particularly within the scientific
community, the necessary, sometimes forceful, separation of
subject and object has been required. It is this dualism that
must be transcended if we are to arrive at a more
comprehensive, intensive understanding of the world around us
and ourselves. Consequently, Gebser's approach should not be
considered the building of a system in our current
understanding of the term, for such would also be a product of
a three-dimensional mentality.
But, the question
arises, "What lies beyond system?" And to answer
this particular question, Gebser coins a neologism to describe
his approach, namely systasis, which he defines as, if you
will, "the conjoining or fitting together of parts into
integrality,"[17] "a process whereby partials merge
or are merged with the whole."[18] This is a subtle and
difficult concept to understand completely and in all its
ramifications. It has in common with system building that the
end result is a greater or better comprehension than at the
outset of the process. System, however, deals always with
parts, not with the whole. Also, system deals primarily with
the product rather than the process. Gebser goes on:
[Systasis']
acategorical element is the integrating dimension by which the
three- dimensional spatial world, which is always a world of
parts, is integrated into a whole in such a way that it can be
stated. This already implies that it is not an ordering schema
paralleling that of system. We must especially avoid the error
of considering systasis -- which is both process and effect --
as that which is effected, for if we do we reduce it to a
causal system. We must be aware that systasis has an effective
character within every system. Systasis is not a mental
concept, nor is it a mythical image (say) in the sense of
Heraclitus' panta rei ("all things are in flux"),
nor is it a magic postulation of the interconnection of
everything to and with everything else. And finally, it is not
integral, but integrating.[19]
Or
as Feuerstein phrases it, "Systasis, in contrast to
systematization, deals with the proper 'arrangement' of
intensities (rather than quantified 'extensities')."[20]
What, then (to express it in mental rational terms),
is the aim of this method. We have spoken of increased
understanding, of more complete comprehension, but these are
only approximations. It is here that Gebser introduces the
second of this important pair of notions, namely synairesis
"which is an integral understanding, or perception, of
reality."[21] More specifically, Gebser notes,
Synairesis
comes from synaireo, meaning "to synthesize, collect,"
notably in the sense of "everything being seized or
grasped on all sides, particularly by the mind or spirit."[22]
Whereas synthesis is a logical-causal conclusion, a mental
(trinitary) unification of thesis and antithesis (and falls
apart because it becomes itself a thesis as a result of the
dividing, perspectival perception), synairesis is an integral
act of completion "encompassing all sides" and
perceiving aperspectivally.[23]
And
again:
The
synairesis which systasis makes possible integrates phenomena,
freeing us in the diaphany of "a-waring" or
perceiving truth from space and time.[24]
This
freedom from space and time is an important notion in Gebser's
entire approach, not just in his method. It will be remembered
that one of the key features of this approach is its
incorporation of the notions of latency and transparency. What
has passed is not dropped and forgotten (although this is what
the mental-rational structure of consciousness tempts us to
do), rather it is incorporated into our mentation as effective
elements thereof. As Feuerstein has pointed out, "it is
this insight into the continuing presence and efficacy of the
past that distinguishes Gebser's model of the unfolding of
human consciousness from other similar attempts."[25] I
would hasten to add that it is the equal efficacy of the
future that rounds out and completes Gebser's poignant
insight. Feuerstein writes,
And
that [synairetic] perception, or "verition," occurs
on the basis of the integration of archaic presentiment,
magical attunement (or what Gebser calls "symbiosis"),
mythical symbolization, and mental-rational systematization in
the integrative act of arational systasis. Here it is
important to remember that all structures are co-present (and
co- active) in us and hence need not be invoked through
historical imagination.[26]
Not
being bound by merely past or future is a theme that has
permeated much of our discussion of Gebser thus far. This
time- and space-free approach introduces a further dimension
to our ability to perceive and state:
By
introducing systasis into simple methodology, we are able to
evince a new "method" which is not longer
three-dimensional. This new method is four-dimensional
diaphany; in this what is merely conceivable and
comprehensible becomes transparent. Diaphany is based on
synairesis, on the eteological completion of systasis and
system to an integral whole, for integrality is only possible
where "temporal" elements and spatial magnitudes are
brought together synairetically. The concept which makes
possible the "comprehension" or, more exactly, the
perception of the "temporal elements" is that of
systasis. If we also take into account the systatic concepts,
the mere methodology of systems is intensified to synairetic
diaphany; and this must be achieved unless we are to remain
caught in the three-dimensional scheme of thought.[27]
In
its supercession of three-dimensionality, Gebser's method
firmly entrenches the observer in the process of perception
and "waring." This grounding, if you will, is
described by Gebser through the term "concretion,"
"the integrative act by which otherwise merely abstract
proposition are anchored in actual life." Consequently,
this approach is immanently practical, yet does not fall prey
to the weaknesses of pragmatism, namely its relativism and
short-term expediency. It demands that the observer be as
aware of his own role in the process as being aware of the
process, and its results themselves.
The integrator,
then, is compelled to have not only concretized the
appearances, be they material or mental, but also to have been
able to concretize his own structure. This means that the
various structures that constitute him must have become
transparent and conscious to him; it also means that he has
perceived their effect on his life and destiny, and mastered
the deficient components by his insight so that they acquire
the degree of maturity and equilibrium necessary for any
concretion. Only those components that are in this way
themselves balanced, matured, and mastered concretions can
effect an integration.[29]
The means of knowing and
knowledge itself become integral aspects of Gebser's
methodological approach. The mere illumination of what was not
previously known and understood, that is philosophy, must then
yield to eteology, or being-in-truth. "The Greek word
eteos means 'true, real'; as an adverb, eteon means 'in accord
with truth, truly, really' and comes from the root se:es,
meaning "to be."[30]
Eteology
It is the
comprehensiveness of this term that has brought us to choose
it as the prime means of describing Gebser's approach. The new
structure of consciousness to which we are transitioning
demands new means, new processes, and new methods. It should
be repeated that this ushering in of the new in no way
indicates or dictates a discarding of what has come before,
far from it. We must keep in mind that it is the activity and
presence of the past that distinguishes Gebser's approach from
others. Supercession does not mean invalidating; replacement
in this context intimates an intensification rather than a
nullification. Nevertheless, the inevitability of this
transition should be recognized as well. This particular term
best illustrates this new way of understanding. Eteology is
then a new form of statement. But it should be noted: We
are speaking advisedly of "forms of statement" here
and not of forms of representation. Only our concept of "time"
is a representational form, bound -- like all forms of
representation -- to space. The search for a new form of
representation would give rise to the error of establishing a
new philosopheme at the very moment that philosophy of an
individual stamp is over. What is necessary today to turn the
tide of our situation are not new philosophemes like the
phenomenological, ontological, or existential, but
eteologemes. Eteology
must replace philosophy just as philosophy once replaced the
myths. In the eteologemes, the eteon or being-in-truth comes
to veracity or statement of truth, and the "wares"
or guards verity and conveys the "verition" which
arises from the a-waring and imparting of truth. Eteology,
then, is neither a mere ontology, that is, theory of being,
nor is it a theory of existence. The dualistic question of
being versus non-being which is commensurate only with the
mental structure is superseded by eteology, together with the
secularized question as to being, whose content -- or more
exactly whose vacuity -- is nothing more than existence. Every
eteologeme is a "verition," and as such is valid
only when it allows origin to become transparent in the
present. To do this it must be formulated in such a way as to
be free of ego, and this means not just free of subject but
also free of object; only then does it sustain the verity of
the whole. This has nothing to do with representation; only
in philosophical thought can the world be represented; for the
integral perception of truth, the world is pure statement, and
thus "verition."[31]
We
can see, then, that this approach places great demands upon us
all. It is not sufficient to merely describe or approximate,
rather we are required to show what is in its fullest essence.
This has, I believe, far-reaching ramifications for science
and its allocation of recognition and funding. The actual
contribution of knowledge, its freedom from the constraints
imposed upon the researcher due to fiscal, economic, academic
or political reasons must all be let go in favor of a direct,
revelation of truth. This will not be an easy task for many,
especially those who are bound to what is "right" as
opposed to what is "true." We see this reflected in
all aspects of our societal lives. Eteology is an approach of
liberation.
It will be noted that we have not attempted
a systematization of criteria and measures that are to be used
in our subsequent evaluations. This would be out of step with
the free-form nature of the approach described thus far. Yet
Gebser does not leave us without assistance in this regard. He
provides a list of key terms that will assist in identifying
the themes and motifs of the aperspectival world, and these
are:
The
whole, integrity, transparency (diaphaneity), the
spiritual (the diaphainon), the supercession of the
ego, the realization of timelessness, the realization of
temporicity, the realization of the concept of time, the
realization of time-freedom (the achronon), the disruption
of the merely systematic, the incursion of dynamics, the
recognition of energy, the mastery of movement, the
fourth dimension, the supercession of patriarchy, the
renunciation of dominance and power, the acquisition of
intensity, clarity (instead of mere wakefulness), and
the transformation of the creative inceptual basis.[32]
Summary
The focus here has been
Gebser's approach to understanding the unfoldment of human
consciousness. The first part dealt exclusively with the model
examining each of Gebser's structures of consciousness in
turn: the Archaic, Magical, Mythical, Mental, and Integral. We
saw the Archaic structure could best be described as a zero-
dimensional, non-perspectival world which could be likened to
a state of deep sleep. It was characterized by
non-differentiation and the total absence of any sense of
separation from the environment. This was a world of identity
between self and surroundings; not a world in which we could
speak of consciousness in any terms that would be meaningful
to our modern understanding of the term. By contrast, the
Magical structure was characterized by a certain separateness,
but not a total separation by any means. Dimensionally this
could be described as one-dimensional; a pre-perspectival
state of timelessness and spacelessness. It was likened to a
state of sleep. Magic man was much a part of his environment,
to be sure, and felt secure only within his group, his tribe
or clan. It was the transition from the Archaic to Magic
structure of consciousness that has probably been
mythologically captured in the story of the "Fall of
Man." The clothing of knowledge in myth is what
characterized the transition to the Mythical structure of
consciousness, the two-dimensional, unperspectival state of
consciousness that can best be likened to a dream. Imagination
and attunement with natural rhythms became important factors
in man's life. The separation begun in the Magic structure
reaches a tensional climax in the Mythical. This structure is
superseded by the Mental structure, whose appearance coincides
with the rise of Greek civilization. In this regard, it can be
seen that modern thought disregards a good deal of mankind's
history, for it is to the Greeks that we most often trace our
intellectual roots. By comparison, the Mental structure of
consciousness is a three-dimensional, perspectival world that
we described with the term wakefulness. The polar tensions of
mythology are replaced by the analytical separation of duality
and opposition. Thinking is primary, and in its latter phase
rational thinking is primary. But this structure, too, is
yielding to a final mutation which Gebser identifies as the
Integral structure of consciousness. This is described as a
four-dimensional, aperspectival world of transparency. This is
a time-free, space-free, subject- and object-free world of
verition.
Finally, we examined the methodological
aspects of Gebser's approach. Here, three fundamental notions
were involved: systasis, synairesis, and eteology. The first
term, systasis, best describes Gebser's approach. It was seen
that systasis goes beyond mere synthesis, which is a
mental-rational concept, to achieve a total integration of all
parts simultaneously. Synairesis was the means of achieving
the end just described. It emphasized the how of such total
grasping, namely by the mind or spirit. It is synairesis that
enables us to achieve the transparency that is indicative of
the Integral structure of consciousness. Finally, eteology
replaces philosophy as the way of knowing and acquiring
knowledge. Eteology becomes the statement of truth in lieu of
the philosophical statement about truth. We saw that this
approach goes beyond the limitations of space- and
time-perception to a complete and liberating understanding of
the whole. It should be noted that this transition is in
process; it is not yet a completed act.
Endnotes
[1] Jean Gebser, The
Ever-present origin (Authorized translation by Noel
Barstad with Algis Mikunas. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press,
1986). [2] Georg Feuerstein, Structures of
consciousness: The genius of Jean Gebser p; An
introduction and critique. (Lower Lake, CA: Integral
Publishing, 1987), p. 32. [3] Gebser, Ever-present
origin, p. 6. [4] Gebser, Ever-present origin,
p. 6. [5] Feuerstein, Structures of consciousness,
p. 51. [6] Gebser, Ever-present origin, p. 42. [7]
Gebser, Ever-present origin, p. 43. [8] Feuerstein,
Structures of consciousness, p. 57. [9] Feuerstein,
Structures of consciousness, p. 61. [10] Gustav
Meyrink, Der Engel vom westlichen Fenster(Bremen:
Schuenemann, n.d.), p. 426, as quoted in Gebser,
Ever-present origin, p. 60. [11] Feuerstein,
Structures of consciousness, p. 75. [12] Feuerstein,
Structures of consciousness, p. 79. [13] Feuerstein,
Structures of consciousness, pp. 87f. [14]
Feuerstein, Structures of consciousness, p. 98. [15]
Feuerstein, Structures of consciousness, p. 130. [16]
Gebser, Ever-present origin, p. 309. [17] Gebser,
Ever-present origin, p. 310. [18] Gebser,
Ever-present origin, p. 292, Note 4; see also
Feuerstein, <i>Structures of Consciousness, p.
194. [19] Gebser, Ever-present origin, p. 310. [20]
Feuerstein, Structures of consciousness, p. 194. [21]
Feuerstein, Structures of consciousness, pp.
194-195. [22] Menge-Güthling, Griechisch-deutsches
Wörterbuch(Berlin: Langenscheidt, 281910), p.
542. [23] Gebser, Ever-present origin, p. 312, Note
5. [24] Gebser, Ever-present origin, p. 311. [25]
Feuerstein, Structures of consciousness, p. 192. [26]
Feuerstein, Structures of consciousness, p. 195. [27]
Gebser, Ever-present origin, p. 334. It is also
interesting to note that Arthur Young develops his
Geometry of meaning (Mill Valley, CA: Richard Briggs,
Associates, 1976) on an increase of dimensionality as
well. Although approaching the matter from quite different
perspectives, their conclusions are remarkably similary in
many regards. The notion of dimensionality, therefore, may
be more fundamental than we generally suppose. [28]
Feuerstein, Structures of consciousness, p. 198. [29]
Gebser, Ever-present origin, p. 99. [30] Gebser,
Ever-present origin, p. 312, Note 4. [31] Gebser,
Ever-present origin, p. 309. [32] Gebser,
Ever-present origin, pp. 361-362.
Copyright
© 1996 by Ed Mahood, jr. All rights reserved.
Ed Mahood, jr., PhD,
MBA Synairetic Research PO Box 111504 Campbell, CA
95011-1504 email: bookworm@slip.net germaniac@juno.com
|