Systasis & Synairesis

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.

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" (EPO, p310), "a process whereby partials merge or are merged with the whole" (EPO, p292). 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 (EPO, p310).

Or as Feuerstein phrases it, "Systasis, in contrast to systematization, deals with the proper 'arrangement' of intensities (rather than quantified 'extensities')" (Feuerstein, 1987, p194)

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" (Feuerstein, 1987, pp194-195). 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" (Menge & Güthling, 1910, p542). 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 (EPO, p312, Note 5).

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 (EPO, p311).

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" (Feuerstein, 1987, p192). 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' (Feuerstein, 1987, p195).

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. (EPO, p334) [1]

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" (Feuerstein, 1987, p198) 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. (EPO, p99)

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" (EPO, p312, Note 4).

Notes
[1] It is also interesting to note that Arthur Young develops his Geometry of Meaning on an increase of dimensionality as well. Although approaching the matter from quite different perspectives, their conclusions are remarkably similar in many regards. The notion of dimensionality, therefore, may be more fundamental than we generally suppose.

References
Feuerstein, G. (1987) Structures of Consciousness: The Genius of Jean Gebser - An Introduction and Critique, Lower Lake/CA, Integral Publishing.

Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)

Menge, H. & O. Güthling (1910) Menge-Güthling, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, 28th edn, Berlin, Langenscheidt.

Young, A. (1976) Geometry of Meaning, Mill Valley/CA, Richard Briggs, Associates.

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" (Feuerstein, 1987, p130). 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 (EPO, p309)

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.

References
Feuerstein, G. (1987) Structures of consciousness: The genius of Jean Gebser - An introduction and critique, Lower Lake/CA, Integral Publishing.

Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)

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 humans, 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 humankind 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 the individual; 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 humanity 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 (Feuerstein, 1987, p98).

About the time of the Renaissance, humanity came into its 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, the person finally accomplishes his/her 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.

References
Feuerstein, G. (1987) Structures of consciousness: The genius of Jean Gebser - An introduction and critique, Lower Lake/CA, Integral Publishing.

Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)

The Mythical structure of consciousness

With the advent of the Cro-Magnons, the human became a tool-making individual, also one who formed into larger social structures. As Feuerstein (1987) 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 calendric reckoning, and with it we may presume the existence of a fairly complex mythology (p75). 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 (Feuerstein, p79). Religion appears as the interaction between memory and feeling (Feuerstein, p87f). The person is beginning to recognize himself as distinct from 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", a kind of proto-individual.

Many myths deal explicitly with humanity'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 humans. These both indicate a strong awareness of the human's differentness from nature. Humanity is coming into its own, although it is anything but independent of nature. 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 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. And this does not really begin to happen until the mythical structure of consciousness. The "I" 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 selfhood.

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 Bly 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.

References
Feuerstein, G. (1987) Structures of consciousness: The genius of Jean Gebser - An introduction and critique, Lower Lake/CA, Integral Publishing.

Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)

The Magic structure of consciousness

Continuing our survey of Gebser's structures of consciousness, we start into that stage of which we do have some evidence. From now on, it should be easier to find support for the claims Gebser makes.

At some unspecified time far back in our past, a change took place. Humanity 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 pointlike-unitary world,
4. its interweaving with nature, and
5. its magical reaction to the world. (Feuerstein, 1987, p61) 

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. Humans, at this time, do not really distinguish themselves apart from nature. Theye are a part of all that surrounds them; in the earliest stages it is hard to conceive that they views themselves apart from their environment. The plants, animals and other elements of his surroundings share the same fate as they do; 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 (p426), 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 humanity's 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 humanity that they are something different from that around them. Not fully awake to who they is or what their role in the world is, the individual is beginning to recognize 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 (overlayed 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.

Old and new mix together in this structure quite easily, be it "spelling" in English, or suduko, or the World Cup, just to name a couple things that immediately spring to mind. As was said before, and will certainly come up again, each and all of the structures of consciousness that Gebser describes are an integral part of who we are. Some of these are more fully in our awareness at times, whereas we most often see the world mental/rationally (which we will come to later). The next time, however, we'll move a step closer and consider the Mythical structure of consciousness

References
Feuerstein, G. (1987) Structures of consciousness: The genius of Jean Gebser - An introduction and critique, Lower Lake/CA, Integral Publishing.

Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)

Meyrink, G. (n.d.) Der Engel vom westlichen Fenster, Bremen, Schuenemann, p. 426, as quoted in EPO, p60

The Archaic structure of consciousness

The last time I gave an overview of Gebser's approach to the unfoldment of consciousness. This time around, I would like to focus on the first of the five structures of consciousnes that Gebser identifies, namely the Archaic structure of consciousness. This will undoubtedly be the shortest summary as it is certainly the most challenging to describe.

The Archaic structure of consciousness is perhaps the most difficult to understand, for it is the one most removed from our present-day mode of awareness. Stated succinctly, it can be likened to zero-dimensional mentation, a world devoid of any perspectivity at all. It is a state in which the holder of consciousness is perhaps only minimally aware of himself or his relationship to the world around him. Even speaking of "consciousness" in this context is a courageous act. According to Feuerstein, this structure denotes "a consciousness of maximum latency and minimum transparency" (Feuerstein, 1987, p51). The term "archaic" as used here is derived from the Greek arche, meaning inception, or origin. Origin (or Ursprung, in the original German) is the most fundamental, primal source from which all springs (as the literal translation of the German term implies), but it is also that which springs forth itself. This is the essence which is behind and which underlies all 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" (EPO, p42). This presence, or being present, excludes as well an overpowering by the past (past-orientation) or any future-oriented finality. He writes:

It is our task to presentiate 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 (EPO, p43).

At the Origin, there is no past to overwhelm and the future is utter 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, no artifacts regarding it. It is a state of being that is swallowed by the primal shadows of a far-distant past. It is referred to in myths and legends, but these references date to a much later time. As ancient as they are to us, they in turn refer to an age that as good as precedes the memory of humanity. About all we can say in this regard is that, within the Archaic structure, consciousness is quite undifferentiated; it is just there, and things just happen. Humanity is still unquestionably part of the whole of the universe in which it finds itself. 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" (Feuerstein, 1987, p57). 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.

In this structure of consciousness, we humans are inextricably enmeshed in all of creation. Any distinction or differentiation is more potential than real. The next time, however, we will take a brief look at the second great leap, one of which we are aware but nevertheless from our vantage point of today still requires great effort to come to terms with, namely the Magical structure of consciousness.

References
Feuerstein, G. (1987) Structures of consciousness: The genius of Jean Gebser - An introduction and critique, Lower Lake/CA, Integral Publishing.

Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)

Structures of consciousness

It's time for a review, time to get down to the real nitty-gritty, so to speak. Why? Because we need to get one fundamental fact clear: we perceive and understand the world around us by means of our consciousness. This, in turn, is affected by a number of other factors, but these are external to consciousness itself. A lot seems to be happening these days and it is easy to get the impression that quite a few people are having a difficult time coming to terms with all of it. 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. For that reason, it seemed reasonable to get back down to basics again.

Certain support for this notion of earth-shattering change can be found in the works of Jean Gebser. 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, linguistics, psychology, anthropology, ethnology, and science, Gebser brings a unique combination of talents to bear upon what we may call the unfoldment 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.

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 evolutional surges, of consciousness that have occurred in the history of humanity. 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 perceiving, experiencing and comprehending 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 may be 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 notions: latency and transparency. The former deals with what is concealed; as Gebser describes it, latency is the demonstrable presence of the future (EPO, 6). In this manner the seeds of all subsequent phases of unfoldment are contained in the current one. It is on the basis of this aspect that integration takes place. The latter deals with what is revealed. According to Gebser, transparency (diaphaneity) is the form of manifestation (epiphany) of the spiritual (EPO, 6). 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 approach, rather it is the ever more apparent manifestation of the spiritual that underlies and supports the notion of unfoldment 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 first appears 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 seems 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.

So, now that we've got a little background, in the next five postings, I'll take a closer, albeit brief, look at each of the structures of consciousness that Gebser describes. After that, we'll look at the real core of his approach to see if it might not help us with some of the crises we seem to be overwhelmed with these days.

References
Gebser, J. (1986) The Ever-present Origin, Authorized translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mikunas, Athens/OH, Ohio University Press [originally published 1949]. (EPO)

The context of educational action

Recently, while working on a paper dealing with learners and technology, I was wrestling with the suggested notion that a sound understanding of the benefits and limitations of the technology along with a clear understanding of design would lead to more effective technology-enhanced instruction. The more I wrestled, the weaker my opponent got. The specific factor under consideration was teacher and student choice. What kinds of choices can and do teachers make when designing learning scenarios? What kind of choices can and do students make when dealing with those scenarios? It struck me that an very important aspect of the scenarios was missing.

Though I'm not the biggest teleologist going, much of what we as humans do is meaningful and purposeful activity (or at least I hope it is). Learning, at least in formal learning situations, should be purposeful. It should get us somewhere or should at least help us to get somewhere where we think we need to go. A long time ago, these goals of learning were simply called objectives, and these described behavioral changes that teachers wanted to effect in their students by the time the unit of learning was over. Over the years, such simplistic goals were deemed inadequate and competences became all the rage, so we have now broadened our horizons and speak primarily of learning outcomes. But how do we know what should come out of learning?

It occurred to me that students are one thing, learners are another. They are two different roles that an individual can take when engaging in the formal learning process. On the other side (of the desk) we have teachers, but given the increase in attention to and implementation of technology to support learning, those that design the learning may or may not be the teachers. In other words, although there are two corresponding roles the teacher can take: teacher or designer, these can actually be different individuals, not just roles.

There was still something missing. Learners are supposed learn particular things in specified situations (and sometimes they do, but sometimes they don't or sometimes they learn things other than those that were planned). Designers are supposed to construct specified situations so that learners have the opportunity to learn those particular things. Ah, ha! It came to be: the interaction of the roles is dependent on the context. That is, the situation itself, the scenario in which learning is supposed to take place also affects the choices that the players in that scenario can make.

The materials I was working with started at the activity level: teachers task learners to do things and they do them as they see fit. But, this task/activity doesn't occur in a vacuum. It's part of something larger, like a lesson. A lesson in turn is part of a block or a unit, which is part of a course, which part of a program, and suddenly I found myself in the center of a matryoshka doll of my own making. These contexts were embedded in one context after another, and as far as formal learning is concerned, up to the educational system (usually of a country) itself. Each layer, if you will places constraints and restrictions on every layer inside itself. To help myself make sense of this, I came up with the following diagram, that I like to call my Model of Eduational Action:

Let me explain a bit about what it all means.

Teachers have a certain amount of freedom regarding which institutions they would like to work at and which programs they would like to participate in. Naturally these are limited by a number of factors, but these choices have little direct impact on learners. Similarly, students can also -- at least to a certain extent -- choose which institutions they want to study at and what programs of study they would like to pursue. In most places these days, they also have a fairly wide range of choices when it comes to individual courses as well. Whole curricula are not generally prescribed from above. To a certain extent, then, students have a bit more freedom here than teachers.

In the other roles, however, things look just a bit different. Teachers can be asked (or assigned) to course teams, that is, those who are responsible for designing and developing the course itself. As noted above, this may or may not be the teacher, rather it could be a designer or educational technologist who gathers input from the teacher and gives it form and structure. (That's the reason the roles on the bottom are in different shades of blue.) Once involved in this part of the context, though, the designer has a lot to say about what is done and how, or at least about what is supposed to be done and generally how the learner may go about doing it. All of these choices precede those made by the learners, of course, and as such place another layer of constraint on the context. The learner shows up only after a lot of decisions have been made about just what s/he should be doing with him- or herself.

The role of the learner and the choices s/he can make are pretty well restricted by the overall context of the learning scenario and the choices that have been made prior to his/her arrival. Depending on their own learning styles, interests, motivations, inclinations, goals, aspirations, and so on, they can decide how to deal with the three innermost layers of our context model: the unit, lesson, and activity. The unit level will most likely be influenced by the learner's strategic goals (what do I want out of this course as part of my obtaining, say, a qualification). The range of choice at the lesson level is affected by the strategy and the learner's own operational requirements. In the end, then, the learner may be able to make certain tactical choices about how they deal with any given activity.

What this little exercise has done for me is make me rethink the notion of learner-centered instruction. I'm beginning to wonder just how feasible the concept is and what role the concept should be playing in the general educational context. All the preceding decisions and layers of context ultimately limit the learner's choice. Given the right set of circumstances, even this last opportunity to choose could be taken away as well, for while all choices may be educationally relevant, they may not all be learning relevant.

This certainly needs more thought, but here in the quiet darkness inside the dolls, one has little else to do, but think.

The student voice

That's been the focus of my attention for the past couple of days. It's an interesting sentiment, but I'm not sure how accurate it is.

One of the claims that was made was that all education is in effect learner-centered because it is all about getting students through the system in a meaningful way. This is to my mind a bit of a stretch. It makes too many assumptions, the most pernicious being that we (whoever that is) know in no uncertain terms what is best for the future. Unfortunately, the history of the world reveals to us we have precious little clue. No, this is system-centered instruction, at best.

Another assertion of learner-centeredness masquerades as technology-enhanced instruction. The use of technology, especially social-networking tools, promotes interaction amongst learners and helps them learn better. One group participating in this discussion maintains that all interaction promotes learning, another group claims that the technology itself is driving and promoting this. Unfortunately, this is technology-centered instruction, nothing more.

Another strain of thought (which tried my patience) is that giving the students themselves more say makes for learner-centered instruction. Given that I can remember how much I knew when I was 18 compared to how little I know today, I'd say this is little more than a cop-out. My experience has been that most young people rightfully want a lot, but don't really know what they really want, for you need a bit more (sometimes painful) experience to figure that all out. This is more a notion of self-centered instruction than anything else.

In my mind, learner-centered teaching/instruction/... must truly start with the learner, that is, the individual who wants to/must/should/will learn. This means, by default, that we must have a clear idea of what we understand learning to be. It's not clear to me that there is general agreement on what this is. My reading and experience has shown me that regardless of whether it is acquisition of knowledge, skill development, effective ordering of thought, problem-solving or even all of these, learning has one significant and outstanding characteristic: it is individual. No two people learn alike. No two individuals in any given learning situation will learn exactly the same thing. In other words, learner-centered instruction must, by nature, be individualized instruction.

Teachers and learners

The second triangle -- teacher-student-material -- continued to occupy my attention this week. Actually, the material wasn't the focal point. In fact, I wasn't thinking much of it at all, but the other two legs of this triangle, the teachers and students, were very present. Tangentially, of course, the notions of the last triangle from the last time -- types of learning -- were present as well.

What struck me, particularly while reading Price, et al. (2007) and Richardson (2005, 2009) was the degree to which attitudes play such an important role in the process. While the teachers' attitudes are relevant, the real key is the students' attitudes toward their learning. This, though it was not the focus of the articles themselves, appears to be more important than we often think. I remember finding out while working on a paper on reading and reading comprehension that the key factor in children learning to read is not so much the method (e.g. phonetic vs. whole-word) involved, but rather the students' relationship to the teacher. That's what makes the real difference.

In certain regards, this is a point that Brown, et al. (1989) makes when they write of "learning and enculturation". What takes in this apprenticeship-like situation is not merely a transfer of knowledge, rather it is an object lesson and gathering of experience in relation to the attitudes of the tutor/teacher in regarding the work being done. It is a highly affective situation, and this affective dimension is playing a much greater role than our cognitive, objective theories of learning account for.

My own experience in the classroom has shown me that whoever does not want to learn will not learn, regardless of what you as teacher/tutor do. The best you can do, the best you can hope for is to change the potential learner's attitude toward learning, and one of the more effective ways of doing this is by setting a good learning example.

Of course, these thoughts lead us immediately to reflections upon surface and deep learning, subject that Richardson (2005) in particular raises. Things may not be as simple as he suspects, but that's a topic for another time.

References
[1] Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, Paul (1989) "Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning", Educational Researcher, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1989), pp. 32-42.

[2] Price, L., Richardson, J.T.E. and Jelfs, A. (2007) "Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in distance education", Studies in Higher Education, vol.32, pp.1–20.

[3] Richardson, J.T.E. (2005) "Students' approaches to learning and teachers' approaches to teaching in higher education", Educational Psychology, vol.25, pp.673–80.

[4] Richardson, J.T.E. (2009) "Face-to-face versus online tutoring support in humanities courses in distance education", Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, vol.8, no.1, pp.69–85.

Coming down out of the threes

Came across an interesting notion: the "iron triangle" ... a play off of the Iron Curtain of old, that is, a barrier that you really can't do too much about. The iron triangle, when it comes to elearning, of course, has to do with accessibility, quality, and cost [1]. Making adjustments on any single leg of the triangle will have an impact on the other two, and as Daniel et al. (2006) put it, this has been "a straitjacket on the expansion of education throughout history" [1]. I suppose the best we can do is strive for balance, but is that just another dead end?

That's one triangle, but it turns out there are more. While wading through Richardson (2005) on teachers' and students' perceptions of teaching and learning, it occurred to me -- again -- that there are three fundamental elements to every formal learning scenario: the teacher, the learner, and whatever it is that is being learned (the "stuff", if you will). For the longest time, the teacher was the center of attention. In some cultures, like Germany, the "stuff" was. More recently there has been a (n alleged) shift toward the learner. Isn't this triangle, just as iron as the one above?

That, in turn, got me thinking about what is supposed to come out of all this. In other words, the latest educational buzzword came to mind: learning outcomes. I couldn't help but thinking of cyclicity of things, since my old friend Bloom (1956) who really wanted to address not only the cognitive aspects of the learner, but also their affective and psychomotor aspects as well (another threesome). You can't talk about learning outcomes these days without Bloom getting into the action, and though only one of the dimensions of the person is usually addressed, or at least emphasized, aren't they all equally important?

But, I can't think of Bloom without being reminded of Pestalozzi [4] who emphasized the tripartite nature of the learner as well, though his language was more direct and natural than Bloom's. Dear Pestalozzi, in his simplicity, only spoke of "heart, head, and hands". This works very well in practice, too, as my eight years of experience at the Hermann Lietz-Schule demonstrated, for we, too, took him as our starting point. So, with all respect to Bloom, his ideas were not that original, but they were reformulated for modern times. This is certainly no reason to reject them, but is it a signal to accept them as blindly as we seem to?

And there is one final triangle that ties into all of this as well, and it deals with the heart of the entire matter, namely learning itself. The discussion of learning outcomes, at least as seen through the eyes of vocational education, involves three different types of learning as well: formal learning (what we supposed to be learning), non-formal learning (what we learning instead of what we're supposed to be learning), and informal learning (what we do practically every minute of our lives). This is another triangle that needs be thrown into the mix, is it not?

I know we moderns like to focus on the details, but this is often at the expense of the big picture. When considering education today -- online or off, present or distant, or in any other mode -- it would do us good not to forget that there is more involved than we may first perceive. This means, too, that when we're looking for solutions to educational problems, making an adjustment on one leg of a triangle may not get us the results we seek, but all of these triangle are in fact interrelated. We may always be unadjusting much more than we think we are fine-tuning.

References
[1] Daniel, J., West, P. and Mackintosh, W. (2006) "Exploring the role of ICTs in addressing educational needs: identifying the myths and the miracles", NADEOSA 10th Anniversary Conference, Pretoria, South Africa, 23 August 2006; also available online at http://www.col.org/resources/speeches/2006presentations/Pages/2006-08-23.aspx (accessed 2010-05-05).

[2] Richardson, J.T.E. (2005) "Students' Approaches to Learning and Teachers' Approaches to Teaching in Higher Education", Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 6, December, pp. 673-680.

[3] Bloom, B.S. (ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, Chicago, Susan Fauer Company, Inc.

[4] Pestalozzi, J.H. (1979) "Über die Idee der Elementarbildung (Lenzburger Rede) und 5 Schriften um 1810", in E. Dejung (ed.) Sämtliche Werke, Kritische Ausgabe, Band 22, Zürich, Orell Füssli.

[5] Cedefop (2008) The Shift to Learning Outcomes: Conceptual, Political and Practical Developments in Europe, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Technology in education

Back in October 2007, the Economist held a "debate" on whether technology contributed to the quality of education. Even my own course at the Open University was almost named "Technology-enabled education" instead of "Technology-enhanced education" as it was in the end. Why? Because the word "enhanced" apparently convey positive connotations about technology's role in education, and this could give potential students the wrong impression.

I think this caution was warranted. Over the past few years (actually), I've been looking far and wide for a serious critical voice on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Ludite, but one has to wonder about the pervasive, unbridled enthusiasm for digital technology in all areas, but particularly in education. All this talk of "progress" and "revolutions" and "new paradigms" is getting to me, primarily because I don't know exactly what all these fans (a word derived from the term "fanatic", interestingly enough) are all so excited. I wonder sometimes what they are seeing that I'm not.

Technology in education is one of those "debates" that really isn't one. Too often the issues are phrased in such a way as to be against them is somehow denying a brighter future to our offspring. All the technology in the world can't make it brighter if the power goes out, and I'm wondering how many people there are left who can think without being wired, connected, tuned in, or networked? In other words, I'm much more interested in the healthy -- not hyped -- relationship between (digital) technology and learning.

If no one else wants to tell the Emperor he has exhibitionist tendencies, then I guess I'll have to. And if there is no pole of attraction for the doubters and critical observers, then I guess it's up to me to put one up.

A further call

Well, I didn't really figure out a good solution to my problem. In the end, I simply left the vocational issue open, for it is becoming increasingly clear that the lines are blurring between professional and vocational, at least as far as the world of work is concerned. Unfortunately, that world of work is starting to get the upper hand.

That sounds like I'm about to start shirking responsibility, but that's not it at all. My point is that too much of what we do in life is centered around work, as if making a living (regardless of whether in a professional, service, crafts or trade manner) is the most important thing about our existence. Sure, we all have to eat, and we would like something meaningful to do during daylight (or nighttime - for your night owls) hours, but it seems sad to me that we would define who we are through what it is we do for a living, regardless of whether we spent a lot of time preparing for it or not.

No, what bothers me about the focus on work is the notion of economic utility that underlies it. Of course, this isn't my own brain child, rather I read further in Postman and he describes this as one of the least clearly defined, yet surely impacting, narratives of our times. It would seem that we've made it into the supreme measure of all things, and this is what is so problematic. It is tightly linked to the other "gods" (as Postman phrases it) that we serve, namely consumerism and technology. While he sees consumerism as the ultimate false idol, I think economic utility is much more perfidious.

Economic utility reduces everything to money, including knowledge and people. It's not what we know that matters, it's how much it is worth (in money terms) to others and whether we can sell it or not. This thought is, if pursued to its end, the quintessential instrumentalizing of whatever it touches. If what we learn and what we know and what we hold to be good, and true, and right is subject to the measure of dollars (or euros or ... ) and cents, it means that truth goes to the highest bidder and those of us for whom no economic value can be determined are expendable. Postman points this out quite cogently in relation to modern education, and I believe that he hit the nail square on the head. The recent financial crisis cost the little people billions in cash and future rewards, yet not a single person was held accountable for the roles they played in what happened. Why? According to the narrative of economic utility, no wrongs were committed. Unfortunately, both the responsible and the newly liable know that this is not true.

As I pointed out last time, education is about making a life, and life and lives are worth more than can be translated into monetary value. Education, especially higher education, should enable the student to function in the world of work, to be sure, but we should not expect for a moment that this solely means that what is learnt is directly marketable in the workplace. Thinking critically, making informed decisions, knowing how to sort fact from opinion, and many other skills are particularly necessary in today's world, and their lack - from Enron to Iraq - have cost a lot of people a lot of money, but an even higher cost in loss of life.

Maybe it's time we started thinking about what is really valuable and what it is worth to us as a whole, not just individually. And maybe there should be a closer tie-in between what we profess and that to which we feel called.

Vocations and Professions

My initial reaction is that vocations have to do with being called; professions do the calling. Catchy, I suppose, but not very helpful.

I've been given a small but difficult task in a project in which I'm taking part: make clear the difference between vocational training and academic-based education in 25 lines or less. Seems to be a lot like an old contest from a cereal box. It isn't. European educational policy hangs in the balance. OK, not in the balance, but over my shoulder.

There are two fundamental oppositional pairs that I'm wrestling with: (1) training vs. education and (2) vocational vs. ???. The problem's pretty obvious: I'm missing the second element of the second pair. At the moment, I've classified it as a language problem.

Grow (1991) makes a sensible and simple distinction between training and education: the former, he contends, is "learning to do something well"; the latter, "becoming prepared for an uncertain life". It's a start. Granted, there are certain professions, like lawyers, doctors, teachers, and others, which are heavily engaged in training, and this training is to prepare the learner for functioning on the job. So, there is certainly an occupational component, at any rate. My hesitancy arises in placing profession opposite vocational, because I think this sends the wrong signal, especially in terms of the task I need to perform.

Leafing through Postman (1995), however, has provided me with a potential exit out of my dilemma. Though differentiating between schooling and education, he raises an interesting distinction that appears helpful to me: training, learning to do something well, enable us to make a living. Education, on the other hand, in preparing one for uncertainty, helps us to make a life for ourselves. The difference is simple, yet profound.

To participate in a professional field, of course, one starts with a basis in education, and then adds the training on top. Vocational training, for the most part, starts with the fundamentals (3 Rs, basic general knowledge, etc.) and then focuses primarily on the training part. Of course, highly skilled tradespeople are capable of functioning well in an uncertain world, but the focus of their skill development is not the uncertainty, but certainty: doing their trade well. Higher education, though, is supposed to prepare us for greater levels of uncertainty?

Perhaps. This is the thought I'll have to pursue. I'm still missing a word in for my pairs. Vocational/Professional is too sharp. Vocational/Academic seems too bookish. Vocational/Occupational is not sharp enough. The search continues.

----------
Grow, G. (1991) "Teaching Learners to be Self-Directed." Adult Education Quarterly, 41, 125-149

Postman, N. (1995) The End of Education, NY, Vintage Books