Pre-Temporal, Temporal and Trans-Temporal Notions of Time
Discussion
Pre-temporal, Temporal and Trans-temporal Notions of Time
Jennifer Gidley:
"As demonstrated, Steiner, Gebser and Wilber all identify more than three stages in the development of human conception of time, and all agree that the notion of linear, historical time co-arose with the emergence of mental-egoic consciousness in approximately the first millennium BCE. They each make important distinctions between linear time and our notions of time prior to this. They each identify emergent postformal, integral notions of time. However, they differ in their conceptualizations and languaging of these issues.
Wilber’s Pre-Trans Fallacy as an Expression of Linear Ascent
Making use of one of his iconic phrases, the pre-trans fallacy, Wilber distinguishes between what he calls the pre-temporal or atemporal lack of time sense of the archaic-uroboric consciousness—which he identifies with Freud’s Id in developmental terms—and the transtemporal or eternal present. Wilber (1996b) associates the former with temporal ignorance, where “there is no time in it because it is too primitive—too dumb — to grasp such notions (p. 90)(emphasis added). He associates the transtemporal — using the metaphor of the fifth floor of a building—with the higher levels of development, in the transpersonal realms that he claims are accessing “mystic union” or the “primal Ground of Being” (Wilber, 1996b, p. 90). In this example, the ascended linearity of Wilber’s model is foregrounded, with its negative value judgments in relation to earlier/lower levels. However, although he categorically states there is a difference between pre- and trans-temporality—just as he does with pre- and trans-rationality— Wilber’s writing does not actually bring through the difference phenomenologically. My sense is that he is using his intuition here. He knows there is a difference but it is not discernible through his words. Both Gebser’s intensification of consciousness and Steiner’s heightening of consciousness appear to be aligned to Wilber’s notion on trans-temporal as distinct from pre-temporal.
Gebser’s Time-Freedom through Intensification of Consciousness
When Gebser (1949/1985) characterized his integral notion of atemporality — as distinct from pre-temporality — he noted several significant features.
He foregrounded the notion of time- freedom, and identified the following three characteristics as being expressions of it.
• Intensification of consciousness. “Time-freedom is the conscious form of archaic, original pre-temporality” (p. 356);
• Concretion of the three previous time-mutations. “By granting to magic timelessness, mythical temporicity, and mental-conceptual temporality their integral efficiency, and by living them in accord with the strength of their degree of consciousness, we are able to bring about this realization. . . . The conscious quintessence of all previous temporal forms” (p. 356);
• The fourth dimension. “Time-freedom is the fourth dimension because it constitutes and unlocks the four-dimensionality . . . Its conscious form . . . is an integrative dimension, or, more exactly, it is the amension and not just an expanding or destructive spatial dimension. . . . a-categorical . . .”a-waring” and transparent” (p. 356).
When Gebser speaks of what needs to be concretized in his concretion of time, he is referring to the concretion—or simultaneous consciousness of—the magical, mythical and mental structures of consciousness. In their most condensed forms Gebser (1949/1985) refers to them as “our vitality, psychicity, and mentality” (p. 300).
Steiner’s Philosophy of Freedom through Heightening of Consciousness
Steiner identified several factors related to the emergent consciousness, linking it to the development of human freedom and integration of several faculties. Although Steiner(1914/1973c) does not use the term time-free, he appears to use the terms sense-free or body-free consciousness in a similar sense, linking it to notions of heightened consciousness.
The following three points bear resemblance to Gebser’s notions.
• Sense-free consciousness. “Must not be confused with those enhanced mental conditions that are not acquired by means of characterized exercises but result from states of lower consciousness, such as unclear clairvoyance, hypnotism, etc. . . . This inner work consists in a heightening, not a lowering of the ordinary consciousness” (p. 466-467).
• Heightening of consciousness. He links this heightened consciousness with being beyond notions of temporality or even eternity.
• Condensation of feelings. Thirdly, he referred to a process of condensation of feelings, similar to Gebser’s concretion of time. Expanding on the latter point Steiner (1914/1973c) commented, Through continued practice of the soul, that is, by holding the attention on the inner activity of thinking, feeling and willing, it is possible for these “experiences” to become “condensed.” In this state of “condensation” they reveal their inner nature, which cannot be perceived in the ordinary consciousness. (p. 453)
From my hermeneutic study of their works, I interpret that Gebser’s (1949/1985) text referring to concretion of “our vitality, psychicity, and mentality” (p. 300), echoes Steiner’s notion of “condensation of thinking, feeling and willing.” I propose that Gebser’s mentality (mental mode) relates to Steiner’s thinking (intellectual soul), Gebser’s psychicity (mythical)relates to Steiner’s feeling (sentient soul), and Gebser’s vitality (magic) relates to Steiner’s willing (also related to magic, nature forces). Thus there is a close alignment between some of their key concepts.
Gebser’s Concretion, Wilber’s Paradox, and Steiner’s Progressive Recapitulation
Gebser’s Concretion of Time
Gebser focused powerfully in so many ways on his notion of concretion of time. Although it is arrived at through a linear process, in itself, it has a cyclical character. I have tried to clarify it through presenting his work from a variety of angles as it behooves us to come to terms with a notion he has tried so hard to communicate.
Wilber’s Paradox
The underlying paradox of Wilber’s temporics is related to the unclear relationship between1) his vertical multi-stepped transcendent model, where full unity with the Divine awaits the ascent through all the stages; and 2) the actual polar swing between his vertical model and his Timeless-Spirit model, where he (2000a) refers to “that which is actually your own Original face” (p. 141). Perhaps more research could ascertain whether there is a rationale for the different contexts in which one or other model is used. Overall, his work seems to weigh more heavily towards vertical, linearity.
Steiner’s Progressive Recapitulation
In addition to his apparently linear perspectives of time in relation to memory and history, Steiner (1914/1973c) also spoke in other contexts about the dialectical relationship between temporality, and notions of infinity, eternity or duration. He also emphasizes the meta-cyclical and recapitulative aspect. In summary, all three approaches involve varying degrees of complexity in relation to time, including aspects of both linear progress and cyclical return. However, Gebser consciously problematizes issues of progress, slightly favoring the cyclical return model with its emphasis on origin and spiritual immanence; Wilber aspires to a non-dual approach but appears to tacitly favor the linear model with its emphasis on spiritual ascent and transcendence; Steiner’s approach appears to comprehensively integrate both meta-cyclical recapitulation and progression suggesting its complex, progressive, recursive nature.
Conclusion
This extended temporal analysis has demonstrated that the default, modernist, linear time perspective can be historically contextualized as emerging in ancient Greece in the first millennium BCE, in parallel with the awakening of the intellectual-mental-rational consciousness structure, most notably identified with the origins of western philosophy. Gebser proposed that this default notion of linear time—as well as all previous time senses—could be integrated in the integral-aperspectival consciousness. This integral-atemporal view transcends and includes the three earlier time perspectives: magical timelessness, mythical cyclicity, and mental linearity. His view is supported by Steiner’s and Wilber’s evolutionary views on time, though in their own distinct ways. It is in this complex, integral view of time that my evolution of consciousness narrative is situated. There are many theoretical implications arising from these perspectives that could make a substantial contribution to the current state of theorizing about time.