A blast from the past

Allow me to shift gears, ever so slightly.

There is one aspect of blogging that simply fascinates me: what gets read the most. In my own humble case, it is a post from just over four years ago about -- are you ready? -- "The Archaic structure of consciousness". Yes, you read that correctly ... how obscure is that? Not only is this the most viewed entry at Diaphainon, it has been viewed twice as often as the next closest entry. It's not only at the top of the list, it is far, far ahead of the pack. I can't help but wonder why.

The post is a brief summary of (Jean) Gebser's (1986) description of the earliest consciousness structure in his model of consciousness unfoldment (cf. EPO). Put most succinctly, what goes on in our human heads hasn't always been the same. At different points in our history, major shifts in how we perceive, see, and comprehend the world around us have occurred (Gebser calls them "mutations" to emphasize the differentness from one structure to the next.) Archaic consciousness is hardly consciousness at all. Feuerstein (1987) describes it as "a dimly lit mist devoid of shadows" (p57). In this structure, it was this dawning of awareness that put us on the path to becoming human. Yes, this is a tough notion to grasp, I agree. And you will probably agree as well that this isn't the first topic that would be on most people's what's-that-all-about agendas.

Personally, I like to think that this high number of page views is due to college professors touching upon Gebser's model and throwing their classes into confusion, whereupon they go home and google the subject to see if they can find out more. If my guess is correct, I sincerely hope they find my brief summary helpful.

Irrespective of the reason for this post's popularity, it is worthwhile to remember, to recognize, that what goes on in our modern heads is not what has always gone on inside people's heads. What has gone on and how significant these changes have been over time cannot be overemphasized. The difference that obligates, of which I've written in the last three posts, can be traced back directly to the emergence of this rather obscure, hard-to-grasp structure of consciousness.

In the next post or two, I will try to make clearer what this means.

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 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)