Time Conceptions of Gebser, Steiner and Wilber
Discussion
Gebser’s Temporics in Relation to Evolution of Consciousness
Jennifer Gidley:
"Temporics is an expression of . . . endeavors to bring to consciousness the abundance and freedom concealed “behind” the concept of time as they relate to all structures and all areas of our entire reality. (Gebser, 1949/1985, p. 359)Diverse notions of time, and their relationship to structures of consciousness form a major theme in Gebser’s seminal work— The Ever-Present Origin. Because of his in-depth focus on the significance of this relationship, I am using his temporics to provide the overarching conceptual structure for my analysis of Steiner’s and Wilber’s notions of time. This analysis should assist in uncovering any tacit assumptions about time in the interwoven narratives comprising the main body of this paper, thus increasing their transparency. In the next section, I will primarily illustrate with brief quotes from Gebser’s own text to retain the nuanced flavor of his conceptualizations.
Archaic Pre-Temporality
Gebser says very little about this earliest structure of consciousness. He refers to it as “a ‘non-dimensional’ structure ‘behind’ the physical and biological data and phenomena of the different structures, a structure which is pre-magic, pre-temporal, and pre-conscious” (p. 388). This original pre-temporality (p. 356) of the archaic deep-sleep consciousness, is the structure from which a gradual awareness of time exfoliates through the three subsequent structures of consciousness—magic, mythic and mental.
Magic Timelessness
Gebser primarily uses the phrase magic timelessness (pp. 289, 358) when referring to the notions of time in this second consciousness structure. He illustrates this sense with the following quote. “[The] . . . timeless phenomena . . . arise from the vegetative intertwining of all living things and are realities in the egoless magic sphere of every human being” (p. 49). He relates the magic structure with the auditory experiencing of tone, noting that timelessness can be integrally re-awakened through music.
Mythical Temporicity
In relation to mythical consciousness, Gebser primarily speaks of “mythical temporicity” (p.358), and “rhythmic time” (p. 176). He describes a gradual transition from the remote magic timelessness, to a more tangible sense of periodicity, particularly in relation to the seasonal rhythms of nature. He again points to some of the important cultural sites that have been discussed in the main paper, in relation to the transition between magic and mythical consciousness. Whenever we encounter seasonal rituals in the later periods of the magic structure, and particularly in astronomical deliberations and various forms of the calendar, as for example among the Babylonians and later Egyptians and Mexican civilization, we find anticipations of the mythical structure. (p. 61)Gebser also notes that in mythic consciousness there is a reciprocal interplay between the internalization of memory, as recollection, and the externalization of utterance, particularly through poetry (p. 192). This is consistent with Steiner’s characterization of the shift from localized memory to rhythmic memory (see below).
Mental-Conceptual Temporality
According to Gebser, the birth of linear time occurred with Parmenides’ (b. 540 BCE)tripartition of time into past, present and future (p. 178). He claimed that mental-conceptual time first arose in Greece with notions of measurement, quantity and partitioning of space. He regards the purpose of linear time as facilitating the shift from mythical to mental consciousness. “Time, that is, our mentally oriented conception of time, the divider of mythical movement and the partitioner of the circle, severs its two-dimensionality and thereby creates the possibility of three-dimensional space” (p. 177). Gebser expressed concern about the problems arising from the deficient mental notions of time as illustrated in contemporary time anxiety and addiction to time. He believed this arose from the overextension of the dividing function, which has reduced time to a spatial function.
Dividing time, which is itself a divider leads to atomization . . . Here we would only note once again that the phenomenon of “lack of time” is characteristic of our material, spatially accentuated world: How is anyone to have time if he tears it apart? (p. 180)However, he also indicates that this predictable, mechanical, conception of time began to change especially with the elaboration of Einstein’s theory of special relativity in 1905 (p. 341).Referring to his notion of concretion of time, Gebser notes. Wherever time is able to become “the present,” it is able to render transparent “simultaneously” the timelessness of magic, the temporicity of myth, and the temporality of mind. There are already signs of this inceptual mutation that can be demonstrated. (p.181)
Integral-Atemporal Time-Freedom
Time-freedom as the quintessence of time. (p. 356)
This brief quote from Gebser encapsulates the inherently paradoxical nature of his integral-atemporal notion. He uses several different expressions to attempt to communicate what he sees as a central aspect of the emergent integral-aperspectival consciousness. It is as if he is trying to “describe the elephant” from all sides to enter into the complexity of concepts that represent his notion. The terms he primarily uses are: “arational,” “time-freedom,” “open time,” “achronon”(pp. 289, 358); “concretion of time,” “temporic concretion” (p. 26); “fourth dimension” (p. 340).Expanding on his frequent use of concretion of time he linked it with two other terms, presentiation, and latency, distilling how the new consciousness experiences a simultaneous sense of past, present and future. Presentiation is “more” than a tie to the past; it is also an incorporation of the future. (p.271)Latency—what is concealed—is the demonstrable presence of the future. (p. 299)Gebser’s nuanced concretion of time does not represent a linear developmental endpoint like that of the modernity project, nor is it endlessly recursive in non-directional cyclical space as in Eliade’s “myth of the eternal return” (Eliade, 1954/1989). Integral consciousness as understood by Gebser does not place mythic and modern constructions of time in opposition to each other, as both modern and traditional approaches tend to do. Alternatively, Gebser’s temporic concretion is an intensification of consciousness that enables re-integration of previous structures of consciousness — with their different time senses—honoring them all. It opens to new understanding through atemporal translucence whereby all times are present to the intensified consciousness in the same fully conscious moment.
In Summary
Gebser proposed that the intellectual realization that time was more than mere clock time began with Einstein’s theory of relativity. “Time first irrupted into our consciousness as a reality or world constituent with Einstein’s formulation of the four-dimensional space time continuum”(p. 286). Gebser also noted the implications of this for philosophical notions of time. He discussed the gradual displacement of fixed concepts of linear time, particularly through the philosophies of Bergson, Heidegger, Husserl and Whitehead (p. 402-410)."
Wilber’s Temporics in Relation to Evolution of Consciousness
Jennifer Gidley:
- "Each successively higher mode of self represents an expansion and extension of consciousness, and thus each higher mode of self can grasp increasingly extended temporal modes . . . until time vanishes back into its Source and disappears as a necessary but intermediate ladder of transcendence. (Wilber, 1996c, p. 65) What indications are there that Wilber is aware of, or enacting, the nuanced complexities of Gebser’s concretion of time?"
Wilber’s integral framework clearly contains a temporal dimension, in that he conceptualizes comprehensive transpersonal models for both cultural evolution(phylogenesis) and individual development (ontogenesis). However, in the overall scheme of his writing, discussions of time are not emphasized—several of his key books do not index the term time at all (Wilber, 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2001a). I suggest that, for Wilber, time could be regarded as one of many features within an overall spatially oriented model. Frequently referred to as a map or a framework, not the least by Wilber himself, his framework is divided and partitioned in multi-faceted ways. This may indicate that he is primarily operating in a conceptually spatial , rather than a conceptually temporal mode. The significance of this in relation to Gebser’s approach may become clearer as our analysis proceeds. It is worth noting that Gebser equates the dividing and partitioning of knowledge—the ratio part of rational —as marking the beginning of the deficient phase of the mental, rational mode (Gebser, 1949/1985, p.93). Could this imply that Wilber’s framework is a type of meta- or hyper-rational model? When Wilber does refer to time he appears to emphasize one or other of two extremes.
• A strong linear perspective—where he frequently uses the phrase “time’s arrow” (Wilber,2000d, p. 19);
• A timeless spiritual present—where he frequently uses the phrase “always already”(Wilber, 2001a, p. 50).These two notions will now be discussed briefly in an attempt to uncover how Wilber reconciles this contradiction.
Time’s Arrow — A Strong Linear Perspective
In what I understand to be Wilber’s (1996c) most developed documentation of his linear-time perspective, his terminology lies close to Gebser’s, yet it appears that his meanings may differ. Although he borrows Gebser’s term exfoliation, his emphasis indicates a more linear template.
For example, it is arguable whether Gebser’s “pre-conscious” equates with an attribution of “ignorance” (See point (1) below.)
Wilber (1996) summarizes his temporics as follows. There are different structures, or different types, of time that exfoliate from the Timeless.
In ascending, expanding, and evolving order, corresponding with the levels of the Great Chain, we have:
(1) The pretemporal ignorance of the pleroma-uroboros;
(2) The simple passing present of the typhon;
(3) The cyclic, seasonal time of mythic-membership;
(4) The linear and historical time of the mental-age;
(5-6) The archetypal, aeonic, or transcendental time of the soul;
(7-8) The perfectly Timeless eternity of Spirit-Atman. (p. 65)
The numbers in parentheses relate to Wilber’s individual developmental stages—also linked to similar temporal stages—as set out in The Atman Project (Wilber, 1996b, p. 44-46).Wilber (2000d) characterizes his notion of
time’s arrow as the “irreversible direction through time” postulated by evolutionary theorists from Heraclitus and Aristotle, through Leibniz, Schelling and Hegel to Darwin. In these theories, “evolution proceeds irreversibly in the direction of increasing differentiation/integration, increasing structural organization, and increasing complexity” (p. 19). Wilber (2000d) links this to his notion of spiritual ascent with its linear trajectory from lower to higher. Darwinists could always be seen . . . as simply supplying empirical evidence for a scheme already known and accepted, namely, evolution as God-in-the-making, Eros not simply seeking Spirit but expressing Spirit all along via a series of ever-higher ascents” (pp. 537-538). While this proposition may well have been accepted by several of the German idealists, Teilhard de Chardin, Sri Aurobindo and others, it is implied by Wilber that the relationship between biological evolution and spiritual ascent is universally accepted. From my research, this is far from the case in conventional evolutionary theory today.
=== Always Already — A Timeless Spiritual Present ===
At first glance the above quotes seem to suggest an overarching, linear, developmental emphasis in his approach to understanding time sense, however, he then follows it, in the next paragraph with the statement: “until time itself vanishes back into its Source, and disappears as a necessary but intermediate ladder of transcendence” (p. 65). This appears to link to an earlier section in this book where he includes a diagram showing these eight developmental stages—ashe conceptualized them at this time—held within a circular model, beginning and ending with the “ground unconscious” (Wilber, 1996c, p. 12).
The Origin vs. Archaic Controversy
There is an apparent contradiction between some of Wilber’s statements that reflect the Timeless Spiritual Presence, “we were once consciously one with the very Divine itself”(Wilber, 2001a, p. 50) and some of his more linear statements, referring to the “pretemporal ignorance of the pleroma-uroboros” (Wilber, 1996c, p. 65). It is unclear whether Wilber also sees an even earlier, conscious stage prior to the uroboros. This is a complex issue that is beyond the scope of this appendix to engage with fully. For further reading there has been extensive discussion between Feuerstein (1997) and Wilber in regard to convergences and divergences between Wilber’s and Gebser’s views of the nature of the archaic structure of consciousness in relation to origin.
Gebser’s Integral vs. Wilber’s Transpersonal Levels
While Gebser sees integral time concretion as the point where consciousness folds back on itself and integrates the whole, Wilber (1996c) sees this as inadequate as a theory of spiritual development, going as far as making the following major critique of Gebser. What Gebser and Habermas both lacked was a genuinely spiritual dimension. Gebser vigorously attempted to include the spiritual domain in his work, but it soon became obvious that he simply wasn’t aware of—or did not deeply understand—the contemplative traditions that alone penetrate to the core of the Divine. As I said, beyond Gebser’s integral-aperspectival there are actually several stages of transpersonal or spiritual development, which Gebser clumsily collapses into his integral stage. (p. ix)My research on Gebser demonstrates that this is far from the truth. I am wondering if Wilber had in fact read Gebser’s seminal work when he made this comment in 1996, or was deducing this opinion from a secondary source. His reasoning is that Gebser’s highest stage is integral-aperspectival—equivalent to his centauric-existential, whereas his own model (at that time)claimed several other higher stages—“psychic, subtle, causal and nondual occasions” (p. ix).My own interpretation of the matter is, firstly, that the situation is a lot more complex than the either/or that Wilber is suggesting between his and Gebser’s models but a full analysis would require far more space. I would like, however, to provide some of Gebser’s actual words that appear to me to indicate that Gebser’s work does indeed have “a genuinely spiritual dimension,” in contrast with Wilber’s claim. Gebser states, A new possibility for perceptual consciousness of the spiritual for the whole of mankind one day had to shine forth. Previously the spiritual was realizable only approximately in the emotional darkness of the magical, in the twilight of imagination of the mythical, and in the brightness of abstraction in the mental. The mode of realization now manifesting itself assures that in accordance with its particular nature, the spiritual is not only given emotionally, imaginatively, abstractly, or conceptually. It also ensures that in accordance with our new capacity it is also perceptible concretely as it begins to coalesce with our consciousness. . . . The shining through (diaphaneity or transparency) is the form of appearance (epiphany) of the spiritual. (p. 542)Wilber’s vertical transcendent model where full unity with the Divine awaits the ascent through all the stages seems to weigh his whole approach towards vertical linearity. Gebser‘s approach clearly tilts more towards an expression of spiritual immanence than Wilber’s, yet Gebser is clearly describing an authentic spiritual dimension. Wilber’s later work in Integral Spirituality does attempt to address issues of spirituality at all stages of development through his Wilber-Combs matrix, but to address this in detail would move beyond our focus here on temporics (Wilber, 2006).
In Summary
Wilber tends to swing between a primarily linear developmental model—albeit one that includes higher stages beyond the formal, mental mode—and the spiritual Timelessness of the non-dual. Sometimes, he brings both voices through in the same piece of writing, as indicated above. However, it is unclear whether Wilber sees Timelessness as being synchronous with Gebser’s origin. It appears likely that for Wilber this is an endpoint to be strived for rather than something that can be experienced as a concretion of all the temporicities."
Steiner’s Temporics in Relation to Evolution of Consciousness
Jennifer Gidley:
- "Out of the womb of time there is born for us human beings that which is beyond time. . . .For as far as human work is concerned, Eternity is the birth of that which has matured in Time. (Steiner, 1922/1940)What indications are there that Steiner is aware of the nuanced complexities of Gebser’s concretion of time."
There are several aspects of Steiner’s work where one might look to respond to this question. Firstly, it could be noted that many of Steiner’s books and lecture series are related to notions of time, history, mythology or relationships between time and consciousness(Steiner, 1926/1966b, 1950, 1904/1959, 1971a, 1971b, 1971c, 1971d, 1982c). This is by no means a complete list but rather a representative selection. This is also not intended to suggest that he overly emphasized time or did not problematize the terms
time or history — time is just one of the themes he researched in depth. A unique feature of Steiner’s approach is that he does not isolate time from other factors. His writing on time is very complex, and in itself integral-aperspectival, in my view, in that he consciously presents views from a number of perspectives. The themes he discussed in relation to
time include human memory, history, astro-geological cycles and progressive recapitulation. These are all complexly interwoven within his writings.
Time and Memory
Like Gebser, Steiner pointed to the relationship between human memory and the gradually evolving sense of time. Steiner (1950) described a three-stage development of memory that he called localized , rhythmic and temporal memory. Steiner (1904/1959) also referred elsewhere to cosmic memory..
Localized Memory
Steiner (1950) claimed that in very early times—which from the context of his text appear to be Upper Paleolithic—memory was not yet internalized within the human psyche, but was connected with place, with the Earth, requiring signs and prompts such as “memorial tablets and memorial stones” (p. 16). This appears to link to Gebser’s magic consciousness.
Rhythmic Memory
Following this, during the transition from the magic to the mythical—related to his Indian cultural period — Steiner (1950) claimed that memory began to become internalized and we learned to remember by rhythm and repetition, through which “the whole ancient art of verse developed” (P. 17). He referred to ancient Asia as a central location . . . citing the Bhagavad-Gita and the Vedas as later codified examples of this rhythmic memory (p. 18).
Learning by heart is a vestige of this type of memory and Steiner mentions the importance of this in children’s education.
Temporal Memory
Steiner (1950) characterized the temporal memory that “we take for granted today” (p. 17) as beginning in the Greco-Roman cultural period emerging around 800 BCE with the classical Greece of formal history. This of course coincides with the emergence of intellectual-mental-rational consciousness as we have seen in the main paper. Wilber (1996c), drawing on Whyte and Bergson, also refers to the emergence of memory—apparently referring to what Steiner calls “temporal memory” — in association with the mental-egoic consciousness (p. 206).
Steiner (1904/1959) also proposed that through
conscious spiritual development we may go beyond the ordinary, everyday temporal sense and attain access to our
cosmic memory — the deep collective past—and, in some instances, the future. He referred to the field where this information is stored as the Akasha Chronicle or Akashic Record (p. 39). Laszlo—from a scientific perspective — has also recently proposed the term Akashic field , or In-formation field for the field that stores cosmic memory (László, 2007). Gebser’s (1949/1985) notion of “atemporality” or remembering the future is similar—he cites Rilke’s poetic line: “wishes are recollections coming from the future” (p. 504). This future-time-sense is at the core of the contemporary futures studies literature (Slaughter, 1999).
Time and History
Steiner (1924/1973a) also held a very large, meta-historical perspective that he characterized as having three stages: cosmic or heavenly history, mythical or mythological history and earthly history.
He also refers elsewhere to non-transitory history (Steiner, 1904/1959, p. 39), which being beyond linear time, may resemble Gebser’s “time freedom.” I will primarily illustrate with brief quotes from Steiner’s own text, to retain the nuanced flavor of his conceptualizations.
Cosmic/Heavenly History
“Earlier peoples still had this ‘heavenly History’ in their consciousness, and were indeed farmore aware of it than of the Earthly . . . The man of that age, when he came to speak of ‘origins,’ did not relate earthly events but cosmic” (Steiner, 1924/1973a, p. 143). This appears to relate to Gebser’s magical timelessness.
Mythical History
“This . . . was followed by the mythical History . . . [which] combines heavenly events with earthly. ‘Heroes,’ for instance . . . appear on the scene” (p. 144). This is clearly linked with Gebser’s mythical structure. Steiner (1924/1973a) considered these heroes to be more highly evolved beings who worked through the initiates and leaders of the time in various places. Wilber’s (1996c) two parallel strands of evolution—the evolution of the average mode of consciousness and the evolution of the most advanced mode of consciousness—concurs with this(p. 339).
Earthly History
The origins of formal history as-we-know-it, has been present “since the unfolding of the Intellectual or Mind-soul [in ancient Greece]. Nevertheless for a long time [people] continued to ‘think’ in the sense of what had been before [that is, mythically]” (Steiner, 1924/1973a, p. 145-146). This reflects Gebser’s mental time conception. Wilber (1996c) claimed that history began a few hundred years earlier, c. 1,300 BCE, with the Assyrian rulers (p. 213).
Non-Transitory History
Steiner (1909/1959) proposed that freedom from the limitations of linear time could be developed through the new consciousness from the beginnings of the 15th century and increasingly in our times. He also pointed to a new self-reflective period where we would be aware of our actions in linear history and also be able to pay attention to our own historicity. This insight seems to foreshadow contemporary attention to historicity, arising from postmodern philosophy and hermeneutics. Gebser also spoke of divesting history of “its mere temporality and sequential nature” (p. 192).
Steiner’s Progressive Recapitulation as Complex Recursion
The many aspects of RE involve simultaneously: a reactivation of the ancestral past, a production and reproduction of present existence, and arrangements for the future. RE always includes a return to the past that resuscitates it in the present. By this movement, RE catapults the past towards the future. (Morin, 2005a, p. 261)Morin’s notion of RE — representing complex recursion—appears to align with Gebser’s concretion of time and Steiner’s progressive recapitulation theory. Steiner (1910/1939) claims that in each new stage of evolution, there is a “recapitulation” of the previous stage in a way that “is something like a repetition of . . . evolution [that] takes place on a higher level” (p. 155). He considers this process to be operating at every level of existence, including the previous stages of cosmic existence of the earth (cosmogony), socio-cultural evolution (phylogeny), and individual development (ontogeny). Morin (2005a) furthers this perspective. “ Innovation is Inscribed in the Return that it Transforms . . . Evolution is at once a break from repetition, through the upwelling of the new, and the reconstitution of repetition through the integration of the new” (p. 264).Laszlo (2006) observes a similar process in the evolution of societies. “The nonlinear but on the whole progressive evolution of societies is driven by innovations that perturb and eventually destabilize previously stable systems” (p. 105). (See also Deleuze’s (1994) notion of repetition and difference).
One way to investigate evolution’s complex recursivity is to explore relationships between astronomical cycles and anthropo-socio-cultural cycles. While both ancient hermetic science and modern astronomy have investigated such relationships, the potential influence of cosmic/astronomical cycles on the anthropo-social sphere has been largely ignored by modern and postmodern social scientists—in spite of having been already postulated as early as ancient Greece. We will now briefly explore the state of research in this area.
Solar Precessions and the Deep-Time-Cycles of the World
The orientation of the Earth’s rotational axis in relation to the stars and clusters of stars is not fixed, but varies slowly, over time, because of the gravitational influence of the Sun and the Moon on the swelling of the Earth’s equator. If we extend the earth’s axis to the imaginary sphere of the fixed stars, the point of intersection describes a circle of approximately 26,000 years. (Bocchi & Ceruti, 2002, p. 4)Steiner was the first post-Enlightenment scholar, as far as I have been able to ascertain, to substantially research and document the relationship between astronomical cycles such as the precession of the equinoxes and anthropo-socio-cultural evolution. The notion of the precession of the equinoxes, is thought to have been known to the civilizations of Mesopotamia and the Nile valley as early as 3,000 BCE, but only fairly recently formalized by modern astronomy. The complete precession cycle is a period of approximately 25,700 years—the so called great Platonic year—during which time the equinox regresses over a full circle of 360°. While paleo=climatologists have begun to recognize the contribution of this process to cycles of climate change such as ice ages, there is little mention of it in the evolution of consciousness discourse. Although Steiner pointed to these links a century ago, neither Gebser, nor Wilber, have indicated any possible macrocosmic influence on the cycles of change in human culture and consciousness. More recently, a humble resurgence of interest is dawning in this under-researched area of human concern from philosophers (Bocchi & Ceruti, 2002; McDermott, 1984;Tarnas, 2006; Ulansey, 1994), and evolutionary psychologists (Sedikedes, Skowronski, &Dunbar, 2006). Philosopher of science Gianluca Bocchi and genetic epistemologist Mauro Ceruti, using a transdisciplinary narrative approach, draw on the notion of the precession of the equinoxes to illuminate the myths of many cultures that refer to a previous Golden Age (Bocchi & Ceruti, 2002).Steiner made a unique potential contribution to the evolution of consciousness discourse inthis area. He explored in some detail, across numerous books and lectures, the 2,160-year periods of the sun’s precession and the relationship of this to the evolution of culture and consciousness. According to Steiner (1971a), in his first post-glacial cultural period—the ancient Indian — the sun at the vernal equinox was moving into the constellation associated with Cancer (p. 52). He claimed that it then continued to move every 2,160 years, transitioning through Gemini in thePersian period, Taurus in the Egypto-Babylonian period, Aries in the Greco-Roman period(Steiner, 1971b), and so on. Historian of religion, David Ulansey, has undertaken and published substantial research into the notion of the precession of the equinoxes in relation to the ancient Roman Mithraic religion and their astrological mythologemes related to Taurean metaphors (Ulansey, 1991, 1994). Such research if extended to other cultural periods could be very fruitful. Philosopher, Richard Tarnas, has recently published the results of decades of research on the influence of astronomical events on human culture and consciousness (Tarnas, 2006). His work, however, primarily concerns shorter planetary cycles and not the large macro-cycles being referred to here.
In Summary
Steiner’s writing demonstrates a complex dialectic between progressive development and cyclical recursion. Like Gebser’s writing, it points to a new stage of consciousness that is capable of beginning the integration of all aspects of human nature. And like Wilber’s writing it also foreshadows the potential of further future stages."
More information
More discussions: