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: