Postformal-Integral-Planetary Consciousness

Discussion

Jennifer Gidley on the Emergence of Reintegration:

"Let us call what shines forth in the soul as eternal, the consciousness soul. . . . The kernel of human consciousness, that is, the soul within the soul . . . is then distinguished from the intellectual soul, which is still entangled in the sensation, impulses and passions. . . . Only that truth is permanent, however, that has freed itself from all flavor of such sympathy and antipathy of feeling. . . . That part of the soul in which this truth lives will be called consciousness soul. (Steiner, 1904/1971e, pp. 24-25) Transparency (diaphaneity) is the form of manifestation of the spiritual.

. . . Integral reality is the world’s transparency, a perceiving of the world as truth: a mutual perceiving and imparting of truth of the world and of man and all that transluces both.” (Gebser,1949/1985, p. 7)As vision-logic begins to emerge, postconventional awareness deepens into fully universal, existential concerns: life and death, authenticity, full body-mind integration, self-actualization, global awareness, holistic embrace . . . In the archaeological journey to the Self, the personal realm’s exclusive reign is coming to an end, starting to be peeled off a radiant Spirit, and that universal radiance begins increasingly to shine through, rendering the self more and more transparent. (Wilber, 2000b, p. 105)

Context for Emergence of Postformal-Integral-Planetary Consciousness

Steiner, Gebser, and to a lesser extent Wilber—as discussed previously—refer to the first glimmerings of the emergence of a new movement of consciousness in the cultural phenomena of 15th to 16th century western Europe. For Steiner, the early 15th century marks the beginning of what he calls the fifth [post-glacial] cultural period. Tarnas (2006) agrees that the European Renaissance ushered in a new era. He pinpoints “the time span of a single generation surrounding the year 1500,” beginning with Pico della Mirandola’s Oration on the Dignity of Man in 1486, as the context for the birth of the modern self, and the birth of the modern cosmos (p. 4). In an earlier work, Tarnas (1991) noted that during this period, when translations of the original Greek philosophical works became available for the first time humanist philosophical syncretism also began. What arose was a revisiting of the “ancient Greek balance and tension between Aristotle and Plato, between reason and imagination, immanence and transcendence, nature and spirit, external world and interior psyche” (p. 219). Apart from a sprinkling of individual contributions, the next major flourishing of the new integrative spirit was expressed through German idealism and Romanticism in the late 18th century. This arose most notably via Goethe, Schiller, Hegel, and the young poet-philosophers of the Jena Romantic School: Schelling, Novalis, the Schlegel brothers, Holderlin. Wilber claims that although the idealists were accessing forms of consciousness beyond the formal-operational, rational-mental mode, they did not offer injunctions for others to develop such consciousness, and have thus been dismissed as “mere metaphysics” (Wilber, 2000d, p. 537). This latter assertion needs to be contested, based on a recent study by Schellingian scholar, Jason Wirth, reviewed by Michael Schwartz (2005).

This also raises the whole question of whether Wilber’s claim in this regard is valid for any of the German idealists or Romantics. There was a strong influence of both Hermeticism and Christianity, particularly in its esoteric form through Rosicricianism in Goethe and many of the German philosopher-poets of this period. More scholarship is needed in this under researched issue. What is clear, however, is that although they pointed to the notion of anew stage, structure or movement of consciousness they did not formalize it.

This apparently had to wait until the 20th century, for the contributions of Steiner, Sri Aurobindo and Gebser— subsequently pursued by Wilber and the additional research discussed below. It is difficult to do justice to the new consciousness in the space available here, since its emergent nature places it in a unique situation compared with the major movements of consciousness that have already arisen and become consolidated (archaic, magic, mythical and mental). This presents several challenges in academic contextualization. Firstly, signs of its emergence can be perceived within various disciplines, most notably adult developmental psychology, postformal educational approaches, the new sciences, postmodern philosophy and spirituality, postmodern poetry-music-film—and also between disciplines, through the holistic, integral and transdisciplinary urge to integrate knowledge. A major challenge in cohering and theorizing this new consciousness is the diversity of conceptualization between the different disciplines. For example, although research from adult developmental psychology make scientific claims to have firmly established four stages of development beyond formal operations (Commons, Trudeau, Stein, Richards, & Krause, 1998), postmodern philosophers who are evidently enacting some of these higher stages did not conceptualize it in such ways. Recent research has made significant inroads into building conceptual bridges in this area (G. Hampson,2007). My addition to Hampson’s seminal philosophical contribution to bridging integral and postmodern conceptualizations is to contextualize the adult development research on postformal thinking, integral theory, the critical planetary discourse and postmodern philosophy—and many other discourses—within the broader movement of consciousness that I am theorizing here. I propose a theoretical bifurcation between contemporary research that actually identifies new stage(s) of consciousness development—either individual or socio-cultural—and research that enacts new stages of consciousness without necessarily conceptualizing it as such.

Contemporary Research that Identifies New Stage(s) of Consciousness

• Adult developmental psychology research that identifies several stages of postformal psychological development (Arlin, 1999; Campbell, 2006; Cartwright, 2001;Commons et al., 1990; Commons, Trudeau, Stein, Richards, & Krause, 1998; Cook-Greuter, 2000; Kegan, 1994; Kohlberg, 1990; Kramer, 1983; Labouvie-Vief, 1990;Riegel, 1973; Sinnott, 1998; Yan & Arlin, 1995);

• Research from a range of disciplines that identifies an emergent stage in socio-cultural evolution, often referred to as integral or planetary (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Combs, 2002;Cowan & Todorovic, 2005; Earley, 1997; Elgin, 1997; Feuerstein, 1987; Gangadean,2006a; Gebser, 1970/2005; Goerner, 2004; Montuori, 1999; Morin & Kern, 1999;Murphy, 1992; Neville, 2006; Nicolescu, 2002; Ornstein & Ehrlich, 1991; Ray, 1996;Russell, 2000; Scott, 2000; Swimme & Tucker, 2006; Thompson, 1991; Wilber, 2000b).One of the gaps I have discerned in the literature is that—in spite of rhetoric about integrality and inclusion—much of this research operates within disciplinary boundaries without reference to the research undertaken in parallel disciplines. Wilber’s work is clearly an exception to this and this is one of his significant contributions to the contemporary literature. Part of my endeavor in proposing this bifurcation is to increase understanding of the relationship between these contributions as two faces of the one evolution of consciousness.

Contemporary Research that Enacts New Stage(s) of Consciousness

• Philosophical developments, including critical theory, global reason, hermeneutics, integral theory, phenomenology, postmodernism, poststructuralism and process philosophy (Benedikter, 2005; Deleuze & Millett, 1997; Derrida, 1995; Foucault, 2005;Gangadean, 1998, 2006b; Gare, 2002; Habermas, 1992; Hampson, 2007; Keller & Daniell, 2002; Kristeva, 1986; Lyotard, 2004; McDermott, 2001b; McDermott, 2004;Morin, 2005a; Ricoeur, 1986);

• Scientific developments such as quantum physics, Einstein’s theory of relativity, chaos and complexity sciences, and emergentism in evolution (Combs, 2002; Deacon, 2003;Goodenough & Deacon, 2006; László, 2007; Russell, 2000, 2002; Swimme, 1999;Thompson, 1991; Zajonc, 2004);

• Postmodern approaches to spirituality and religion (Benedikter, 2005; Boadella, 1998;Clayton, 2006; Esbjörn-Hargens & Wilber, 2006; Scott, 2007; Tacey, 2003; Wilber,2006);

• Postformal educational approaches, such as critical, futures, holistic and integral(Esbjörn-Hargens, 2005; Ferrer, Romero, & Albareda, 2005; Freire, 1970; Gidley, 2005b,2007; Giroux, 1992, 2005; Hart, 2001; Kessler, 2000; Kincheloe, Steinberg, & Hinchey,1999; MacLure, 2006b; Marshak, 1997; McDermott, 2005; Miller, J. P., 2000; Miller,2005, 2006; Milojevic, 2005a; Montuori, 2006; Morin, 2001a; Neville, 2000; Noddings,2005; Palmer, 2007; Slaughter, 2002; St. Pierre, 2004; Subbiondo, 2005; Thompson,2001);

• The manifestation of integrality through the arts of music; architecture; painting; literature; film; and new forms of movement (Cobusson, 2002; Deleuze & Conley, 1992;Derrida, 2001; Gebser, 1949/1985; Gidley, 2001e; Kristeva, 1982; Lawlor, 1982;Montuori, 2003; Rose & Kincheloe, 2003);

• The implications of the information age, particularly the world wide web (Gidley, 2004c;Grossman, Degaetano, & Grossman, 1999; Healy, 1998; Pearce, 1992; Steinberg &Kincheloe, 2004; Thompson, 1998);

• Creation of knowledge-bridges through, for example, Wilber’s “methodological pluralism” (Wilber, 2006); interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary and trandisciplinary research (Grigg, Johnston, & Milson, 2003; Nicolescu, 2002; PaulRicoeur, 1997; van den Besselaar & Heimeriks, 2001; Volckmann, 2007); including new fields such as cultural studies, futures studies and integral studies."

(https://www.academia.edu/197841/The_Evolution_of_Consciousness_as_a_Planetary_Imperative_An_Integration_of_Integral_Views)