Neither the future nor the past is what it used to be

During Lent, for the most part out of habit (but not one that I would rather not think about), I tend to think (or wonder) about others. Fasting, even its mildest forms, can do that to you. (You really should try it sometime ... you might surprise yourself at what you find.)

Yes, I have friends who think that technology, the internet, social networks, digitalization (, whatever) are going to "save us" (whatever that means). They're deluded. By the same token, I have friends who deeply -- and I mean deeply -- long for the way it was, some (merely perceived) Golden Age of the Past when everything was as it should be. In between these extremes, I have friends who think that an adjustment here, some fine-tuning there, and a bit of elbow grease will get things back on track. And, I have friends who believe that no matter what we do where to what or how, we're heading down the tubes: the end may not be here, but it's fast approaching (and there's not a damn thing we can do about it). And, yes, in between those two interim extremes, I have friends who think we're just exaggerating everything: things have always been suboptimal and they always will be.

If Life were a multiple-choice test (as in America, where there is only one "right" answer), I'd have to write in (as I have done in the past) "e) none of the above". Sometimes all the "given" answers are just, well, wrong, or inappropriate, or irrelevant, or whatever. That's what I love about almost all my friends: they think there is a fixed set of possible answers and somehow, if we knew enough or were smart enough or, even, lucky enough, we could pick the right one. I hate to be the one to break it to them (and maybe to you): there is no one right answer to Life.

Oh, that's not to say that there aren't things we want to hold on to, irrespective of the cost: guns, freedom, individuality, rights, commonsense, discipline ... the list literally goes on forever. But, in all seriousness, how can you reduce the world you experience, the world you have to face day in and day out to one, and only one, issue or concept or rule or guideline or religious precept or ... whatever. But, I have to say, that's how most of my friends are: if everyone would only think like they do, the world would be damn near paradise that they so deeply long for. Turns out: reality is rather messy.

Most of you are thinking, I'm sure, I'm not talking to or about you, but I am. Just look at the latest primaries crap that the Americans are wading through, look at the crap about refugees and trade agreements that the Europeans are wading through, look at the crap the anything-but-the-dollar tactics that certain currently frisky nation-states are wading through, look at the crap the poverty and starvation that a third of the world is wading through. We're all in it, and we're all doing a poor job of dealing with it.

We have a terrible past behind us and we have little, if any, idea of how to deal with the future because, in a word, we just don't know what we're doing. We're so blinded by our petty, individual and national interests that we can't see the forest for all the trees. Oh ... yes ... I'm sorry ... we're (literally) cutting those (and real) trees down faster than any forest can grow. But, what the hell ... there's money to be made.

Yeah, the reason I sleep so well at night is because I know there are so many people out there who have it all figured out.

So how was the first month for you?

Well, here we are, the first month of the new year has passed. Technically, it's not the new year anymore, it's been demoted to just "this year" now. And I'm sure that all your resolutions, hopes and yearnings are shaping up just fine. Or not.

So, what have we got to show for ourselves thus far: increased tensions between the factions of the Syrian conflict and no signs of easing (still a lot of grunting going on around the oil hole, but this or that innocent bystander its being offed just so the other guys know we're serious); the stream of migrants and asylum seekers hasn't slowed, but we've got a new scapegoat, Greece, so we're good for distraction for some time to come (give a country an forced, impossible and unalterable economic program to fulfill then compain that they're not spending money on the right things apparently doesn't count); the circus called the primary election run-up in Fantasyland is getting downer an dirtier (and less amusing for those of us who will only feel the effects of the insanity); financial markets are reeling the world over (but that capitalism thing is still being touted as a sure bet); the climate's getting worse (even if most folks still don't know the difference between climate and weather, and yes, they'll vote in the same yokels next time around to take care of the problem); the snackless, clueless American rebels in Oregon have managed to get someone killed (but as always, he was too little a pawn to become a martyr); and we've got a new epidemic spreading against which we have absolutely no defense; and, if I had to pick the most-heard phrase for the month, it would either be "I'm afraid ..." or "You know what scares me ...". Looks to me like we're probably a bit worse off than when we all took a break for the end-of-the-year holidays.

As the observant reader of the last few posts will have noted, we've got a lot going on in our minds, but hardly any of it has anything to do with thinking, in the generally accepted understanding of the term. We've got our bones and rattles out, we're doing our haka thing, and we're churning out propaganda at an all-time high, but notne of it appears to be helping. Of course, none of it can help because none of it has anything to do with what actually needs to be done, which is to get a clear idea of what needs to be done, then do it. No, that would mean getting off the couch or taking your offspring along on some activist endeavor instead of showcasing them for your friends at the next little-league event or taking a stand in public and not only in the livingroom, and it would mean that you'd actually have to think about what you are doing and why, and have an understanding of time that goes beyond next weekend.

Yes, as painful as it is for me to say it and as painful as it is for you to have to read it: maybe, just maybe, it's time for all of us to use more of our brains and less of our brawn to address some of the things that have to be done.

A touch of magic

We love to think that we live in a rational world, one governed by reason, rules and good old common sense. Sometimes we do. Most of the time we don't. Over the millennia of human existence, there are some things that have changed very little.

I was reminded of this recently by a very banal, and, for me, uninteresting event which got more attention than I thought it deserved on my Facebook page. Apparently, a good number of people were very upset by the fact that a Cincinnati Bengals linebacker took a cheap and dangerous shot at a Steelers receiver. I watched the video, of course, the hit was unnecessary and excessive, and many fans were calling for punishment for the alleged offender. [Disclaimer: The reactions showed up on my timeline because I'm originally from Steeler country, so many of friends are still there or still root for the old home team. I'll admit: I don't, I don't care, and at this point in my life, even though I played it myself in my youth (practically a necessity for acceptance), I think American football is way past its prime and should be retired, but that's another story.] And, what I have to say has little to do with this particular sport -- it is truly just the catalyst -- but rather with who we are as human beings.

For all our crying out for freedom and individuality, we're still social creatures: we want to belong, somewhere, to some kind of group, either well-constituted, like a family, or even more amorphous like sports-clubs' fans. It's easiest to see in the US where sports have become an actual fetish. Sporting events are always clothed in drama, in excitement, from marching bands (everybody in lockstep) with lots of brass (battle horns) and drums (oh yeah, lots of drums), the teams' colors, painted faces (warpaint?), slogans, hymns, and symbols (the Steelers' "Terrible Towel" springs immediately to mind). There's lot of yelling, screaming, cheering, booing, singing, and wailing. It's for good reason that the word "fan" is merely a shortened form of the word "fanatic".

The marketing of these events, gladitorial in nature, in which winning is not nearly enough ... you have to defeat, stomp, crush, slaughter, obliterate, or annihilate your opponent. "Prepare for war" was one of the viral memes for the very game that became the focus of attention. And if all's fair in (love and) war, why would there be any concern for someone pushing the rules? Politically, it's acceptable, for example, as politics are often run very much like sporting events: we rally to the colors, sing the songs and hymns, blow the horns, beat the drums and set off to do the same to our enemies; it's funny how sports are considered harmless, even though they aren't, and the wars are known to be harmful, but they're treated as if they aren't.

In either case, there's a touch of magic about being in the stadium and going with the flow and the crowd, but when something bad happens, are we then individually no longer responsible. We fired our team on, we distort and disfigure ourselves to belong to the group, but then? From ancient cultures through the great empires and down to the present day, some things just haven't changed very much. We get caught up in the feeling of the moment, the rush of excitement, and we lose sight of the fact that what was once a haven for us isolated souls has become a hell for those who are not us.

Yes, it can happen anywhere.

It's all about perspective, or is it?

One of the most insightful, sometimes biting, and, unfortunately, too short-lived TV series ever produced was Father Ted. Those of you on the left shore of the Atlantic may not have ever heard of it, but it was, one of the few TV shows I have been willing to sit down and watch. I don't mention this because I want to plug the show, but because there was a scene in one of them that smacked me upside the head the first time I saw it and which has left a ringing in my ears ever since. Yes, sometimes, in the least likely of places, you can find just the key you need to open the door to a new world. And, thanks to the wonders of the internet, of course, I can share it with you (... and the important part comes after the tea kettle).

It's all about perspective, isn't it? But the real question that comes to my mind is, "How many of us are Dougals (that would be the young priest in the scene)?

You can scoff. Go right ahead. You can think I couldn't possibly be talking to you, but just how sure are you? After all, we love perspectives as postmodern denizens of Spaceship Earth. We live from perspectives. We thrive on perspectives. We live and move and find our being in perspective. Am I exaggerating? I don't think so.

Just what is "perspective"? Well, it's a way of looking at things, it's a particular way of looking at something, it's looking at something from a particular point of view; that is, it's a way of looking at something that depends rather essentially on the person doing the looking and the particular point from which the looking is taking place. If I'm looking at an elephant, let us say, from the front, then one of the most striking features I see is its trunk. If you are looking at the same elephant from the rear, well, then you have to decide whether it is the tail, what it hides, or whatever that is most prominent in your view of things. Having a particular take on a particular view that is particular to you has very much in common with what we call "opinions". And therein lies the rub, as Billy Quiverlance would say. When you get right down to it, perspectives are pretty much just opinions.

Now, for all of you who think I'm equating your way of looking at the world with looking at an elephant's butt, let me add that there is nothing wrong with opinions in and of themselves; not any more that there's anything wrong with looking at an elephant from the back or any other point of view. Opinions should be the result of thought, not a substitute for thought, but I do think you'll agree that there are far too many opinions that we are exposed to these days that have more in common with Dougal's comprehension of the world than Father Ted's. Yes, Bill, you are quite correct, the rub is beginning to chafe.

What most of us don't know, however, is that having a particular view of (any)thing(s) and knowing that it's our particular view is a rather new phenomenon in the evolution of the world. Oh sure, we all take it for granted, but it's really only something that we humans have been wrestling with for about the last 500 years. In geological or evolutional or even historical terms, that's not long ago at all.

It doesn't surprise me that Dougal hasn't fully come to terms with what perspective means. By the same token, it doesn't surprise me at all that most people don't deal with perspectives, and certainly not with opinions, very well. My problem is that in contrast to the show, where Dougal is rather quiet and reserved, today's Dougals are the ones making the most noise.

Isolation and massification

We're such big stuff, we Westerners, we highly-advanced, technologically-savvy, possession-addicted want-it-alls. Yeah, there's nothing that we don't think we deserve, well anything pleasurable, luxurious, flashy and envy-instilling, that is. Nah, there's not a resource so precious, not a landmass so pristine, not an environment so enlivening that we wouldn't sacrifice it to satisfy our greed, our need for more, our own personal satisfaction.

Oh, you can go to church on Sunday and pray all week that you don't get on the wrong side of G-d's wrath. You can believe for a whole monthful of Sundays that the witness you bore is some kind of get-out-of-hell free card. You can have undying faith that science is on your side or you're on science's and don't need any of that superstitious bunk. You can strut and parade and peacock your way all over town and through the mall, but in the end, I mean at the end of the day, when the sun goes down, when the cold dark of night engulfs you, you're still just another spoiled, overfed, frightened and lonely child, regardless whether your team crushed its weakly opponents or not. And when you drag your sad eyes open tomorrow morning, you'll only have the certainty that you're another cog in the wheel, a number in the system. Just when was it that you lost touch with everything that mattered?

Welcome to life in the postmodern world. Our world, t-h-e world, the only world we'll probably ever know, and it's a world of our own making. A world in which lifeless, soulless, imaginary (juridicial) entities, corporations, are people, and real people, people like you and me and our jerk of a neighbor are no longer even human. We're customers, consumers, clients who nobody listens to nor cares about once our wallets are empty. A world in which money, the love of which is the root of all evil, is free speech, and the more of it you have, the louder you can be. A world in which machines are programmed to make cookies all a bit different so that you get the feeling, have the illusion, that when you pull it out of the package, it was made just for you. A world in which we can individually customize any product or service to be delivered by a machine. A world in which machines are smarter, quicker, faster, more capable, and in the majority opinion more valuable than any single one of us.

Oh sure, you're you. You're your own person. You're in charge of your own life, but not in the least. From morning till night you're told what to wear, what to eat, how to dress, how to smell, how to talk, to be cool, to be noticed, to be twittered, if you're lucky, into your 15 seconds of fame. Sorry Andy, but we don't have minutes left for anyone anymore.

Yes, we're all our own selves, but selves disconnect from anyone who doesn't walk, talk, think, act, or like the same things we do. We're just lonely little selves. But you'll wave your home team's colors, or your school's or your company's or your country's, so that everyone can see that you belong, that you're one of whomever, but there your lonely self is merely an anonymous member/fan/alumni/citizen in the crowd.

Such is our postmodern world, and we all know, but few of us want to admit, that, well, things just can't go on like they are. Something has got to give. And it will, I can assure you. But the real question is, are you ready for it?

“You can’t crush ideas by suppressing them. You can only crush them by ignoring them. By refusing to think, refusing to change.”
― Le Guin, The Dispossessed

There's a Grand Scheme of Things

We moderns, as I said before, like to think that life started with us, but it didn't. We like to think we're the smartest version of the species yet to appear, but I certainly have my doubts. I'm not saying the Ancients were smarter or cleverer (though they did figure out that fire and wheel thing, and whether we've really improved on either is open to debate), rather they were, in their own way, every bit as intelligent and insightful as we are today. The Ancients weren't errant, trial-and-error-driven, superstitious, child-like, simpletons. They were highly evolved, curious, interested and adventurous people. They didn't figure everything out, and neither have we, and if we took them half-seriously and were not so condescending in our attitude, there could be a thing or two we could learn from them.

Some archaeologists, for example, are convinced the Sphinx is much older than the Great Pyramids. It is obvious that the Sphinx has a lion's body, and it's just as obvious that the head has been resculpted. How old could it be? Well, if the body has anything to tell us, I'd start thinking perhaps as much as 12,000 years old. That's long before most archaeologists believe humans were capable of such constructions, but there's hardly a day that goes by that new evidence does not appear that humans have been acting like humans much farther back in history than expected, at least based on what we "know". And, to come back to my Creationist friends, could it be that the world being only 6,000 years old has something to do with the beginning of recorded history? It was the so-called People of the Book who first introduced the notion. Could it be that not t-h-e world, but a, or their particular world (understood as a way of accepting reality ... much like was say today that some people "live in their own world") came into being then?

Off track? Maybe, but maybe not. One of the hallmarks of modernity is its insistence on facts and factual knowledge (even if lots of folks prefer to ignore the same if these facts don't fit into their own little "world", like climate-change deniers, etc.). One of the hallmarks of our ancient ancestors is that to them, the story was more important, for it was the story that communicated meaning and made sense of their lives and the world in which they found themselves. Our incessant appetite for facts kills meaning. Facts are like sugar calories: they're fine every now and again, but you can't live off sugar, you need other nutrients to keep yourself alive and healthy. Myth -- true myth -- provides a rich variety of intellectual and psychological nutrients that help us find meaning in this otherwise hunger-producing world in which we live.

Hardline science wants us to believe that we live in a coincidentally and accidentally, created, formed and evolved world, that we ourselves are the product of blind chance, that there is no meaning to be found and when we think we have found some, it turns out we only made it up to placate our own fears. Why we have fears and why we can make things up to placate them doesn't matter to hardline science for that is outside the purview of their interests. This is why the state of science today, the state of our knowledge, is in such bad shape. If nothing else, our ancient forebears were trying, and it would appear to me, making some progress in understanding their (read: our) relationship to all that surrounds us. Sculpting a bull because it links us to observed natural, astronomical phenomena hardly seems like a random act to me, especially when I think it could take years to finish that sculpture.

For me, given the choice, between haphazard, meaningless chance and a meaningful relationship to the world around me ... I'll opt for the latter every single time. I think we owe at least that much to those who came before us.

There's a Grand Scheme of Things?

If you recall from last time, we were standing outside looking at the eastern horizon at the vernal equinox. We notice the constellation that is there. If we did that every year of our normal lives (which we found out several posts ago was "threescore and ten" or 70 years, that constellation that we would observe would appear to move about 1 degree to the West over the course of our life. That's not very fast, but if you passed this habit onto your children and they to their children and so on and so on, at some point, someone in your family would notice that the original constellation had passed and a new constellation had taken its place. This is what is known as the Precession of the Equinoxes.

So what, you may be asking. Well, this is why I find it so interesting. I had to explain this phenomenon to you because we don't care and hence don't know. This was, however, for a very long time a very big deal. Plato, and the Ancient Greeks knew about it, the Egyptians certainly knew about it, the Ancient Babylonians and Assyrians knew about it. And, if my simple example shows, how many observations would have to be made to see the parade of constellations go through several changes?

As I told you last time, it takes about 26,000 years to go through all twelve constellations. Analogous to our own solar year of 12 months, the precession was referred to as the Great Year, each "month" thereof spanning just over 2,100 years. Since we already use the word "month" to refer to our own time reckoning, these "Great Months" are referred to as "ages" and are given the name of the constellation that serves as backdrop for that given period.

Almost everyone has heard of the "Age of Aquarius" (Aquarius is the Water Bearer), and it's to this precession that it refers. The one preceding it is/was known as the Age of Pisces (the Fish), before that it was the Age of Ares (the Ram), and before that the Age of Taurus (the Bull). And if we do the math, Fish - Ram - Bull = 3 x 2,100 or about 6,000 years ago. An interesting number in this particular context, I would think, because don't the Creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Is there anything to this?

Did you ever ask yourself why the Bull plays such a major role in some cultures and why there are so many very old stories involving bulls? One only has to think about Crete and the Minotaur (man with the head of a bull) to whom sacrifice had to be brought and Ariadne's thread. Or why as part of his labors, Hercules was required to capture the Cretan Bull? Have you ever asked yourself why you find pictures of Moses, for example, bringing down the 10 Commandments from Mt. Sinai, depicted with small ram's horns. And why was Moses so upset with his people that he smashed the original tablets on ... yes ... the Golden Calf (a young bull)? Or why in Ancient Egypt there were actual boulevards leading up to certain temples that were lined with statues of rams? Or why is it that Jason was off looking for a Golden Fleece? And, do you really think that it's a mere coincidence that a couple of thousand years later when a young rabbi got hung on a cross that he was known for wanting to make his disciples "Fishers of Men", or that his followers recognized each other by the sign of the fish?

Yes, I know this is all just oddly coincidental. That these animals played such a significant role in the myths, legends and tales is simply a matter of accident. I don't know about you, but for me that's all just a little too much coincidence.

A Grand Scheme of Things?

Gebser's model, which has underlain the last several posts, is one way of looking at ourselves over the not-so-long span of our existence. We moderns tend to discard the past, especially the distant past, because we have been taught to believe that our eldest forebears were, well, more or less childlike and naive, not particularly bright (like we are today), and rather helpless in the face of the big, bad world into which they were thrown. This is, of course, a self-aggrandizing, egotistical, and arrogant belief. Maybe that's why we take to it and hold on to it so dearly. What I like most about Gebser's model is his insistence on (and documented support for) the fact that humans have always been intelligent (though there have always been geniuses and idiots among us) and whatever it is that we humans figured out is still of value to us today. In other words, we can learn from them, if we're only willing to take them seriously and take a serious look at all they did.

Gebser's ideas are also not new. He's not the first person to come up with the idea that change may be "built into the system", in a manner of speaking. He links his model to what he sees to be as evidence of changes in human mentation. Eons before he came up with this approach, however, the topic of cosmic change, let us say, a Grand Scheme of Things, was a highly developed science (using the word in its most fundamental sense: "a way of knowing"). Have you ever heard of the Precession of the Equinoxes? Most haven't, so let me explain it briefly, for it forms the basis of one of humankind's oldest models of change, one that might even qualify as that elusive Grand Scheme of Things.

Up front, a few basic facts and tidbits of knowledge that are necessary to understand the concept. The earth rotates on its axis, once every 24 hours (or one day). The earth revolves around the sun once every 365.25 days (or one year). The earth's axis is tilted at about 23 degrees; that is, it does sit perfectly vertically and the path of revolution around the sun is elliptical. When viewed from outside, the earth would appear to "wobble" and it is sometimes closer to the sun and sometimes actually vertical in relation to the suns's axis, and this is what causes the seasons, which are experienced most clearly in what are called the temperate climate zones. Now, this "wobble" isn't a shaky kind of wobble and if we could push a stick through the earth (like through an apple) from north to south and we observed the point of the stick from a great distance, we would see that it inscribes a circle. The fact worth noting is that it takes about 26,000 years to complete that circle.

The moon revolves around the earth, the earth around the sun, the sun around the center of the Milky Way (our galaxy) and so on. Everything out there in space is moving. We, of course, don't have the sensation that we're moving, so if we go out, say, every night at the same time and look up at the stars, we would notice that they don't always appear in the same place. They appear to be moving, albeit slowly, but moving nevertheless, but it takes a very long time to recognize that they are.

OK, so, if we went out at night on the first day of spring (March 21, the so-called vernal equinox) and looked due east, we would see a certain set of stars on the horizon. As it turns out, there are several sets of these stars, called constellations, which are familiar to us from astrology (hence the hapless pick-up line, "What's your star sign?" As most of you know, there are twelve of these signs, one for every month of the year, even though we count our months from 1 to 28, 30 or 31 days, and the astrological months always start around the 20th to the 22nd of each calendar month.

Well, you may be wondering where all of this is leading, but you'll have to come back next time for me to tell you.

Who's calling the tune?

Far be it from me to want to sound condescending. I know much of what I'm saying can come across like that, but it's not my intent. I can assure you of that. What I've been going on about over the last several posts is, at least in my mind, a pretty big deal. We may think that life is merely business as usual, we may want to believe things really aren't any different from how they've always been, and we may even wish that we weren't involved. But it's not, they are and we are. Once you take a step back and get a glimpse of the big picture, you realize that while a lot of the details are very similar, their context has shifted and that makes all the difference in the world.

We can also continue to believe that small, individual, often petty, decisions can get things going in a different direction, but we missed that opportunity. Things are, whether we like or not, coming to a head. As I never tire of pointing out, just about all that we have set up for ourselves, all the systems that we simply take for granted -- social institutions, schools, our economic and banking system, politics, religion, nations, you name it -- are broken. All of them are causing way more problems than they are producing benefits, and the various varieties of each are at odds with or in confrontation with the others. So, do we just let things take their course?

That is one option, no doubt about it. It's not my preferred one, but it's an option nevertheless. We can also decide that each of us will keep his or her own and try to overwhelm, overcome, or outright defeat the others. This the active side of simply letting things take their course. It will, in my estimation, merely accelerate the decline we're experiencing. Another option, of course, is to place the responsibility in the hands of our elected leaders and representatives. We all know they are devoted civil servants keen on making sure that we the people are well provided for. Or, we can take matters into our own hands and see to it that we each get ours and everyone else can fend for themselves. It is these latter two options that seem to be taking on most form in the West. Truth be told, a moment's serious reflection will reveal that both of them are naive and dangerous. Is this all we can do?

Not really. I believe our best option is to simply wake up. We've been gliding along in our fat, dumb and happy lives for much too long. We've lost sight of what's important in the grander, not the individual, scheme of things. It's time for us to become aware of ourselves, our decisions, and the consequences of our actions. In other words, we need to get smart about what else can be done other than business as usual. And it is long overdue that we finally become worthy of the name "human being": not acting towards others like we wouldn't want them acting toward us; recognizing that all of us, regardless of skin color, beliefs or culture all desire the same things and are entitled to the same things as everyone else, like peace, security, enough to eat, a modicum of happiness, and a bit of meaning in our lives; accepting that differences are not better or worse, they're only different and maybe there is something we can learn from that; standing up for what we know is right because it's right for everyone, without exception, and not for a privileged few.

It's not a long list, to be sure, but we can call the tune ourselves or pay the piper. It's up to us. It's up to each and every one of us.

Second verse, same as the first

Now, back to our previously scheduled program ...

We left off wondering whether the efficiency and deficiency of the apparent shift to the next structure of consciousness is being presented as an immediate choice. I know that there are a number of you who simply can't believe that we could be changing the fundamental way we think and interact with the world. It's not an easy notion to accept. All you have to do is turn on your TV or radio, or simply leave the house to run a few errands and you are likely to be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of stupidity you encounter. The ridiculousness of so much that we have to endure doesn't immediately indicate that something totally different is on the way. I understand that, believe me, but at the same time I'm here to tell you that this is an exceedingly narrow view of life and of humanity.

I will be the first to admit and acknowledge that we, as a species, are slow learners. It takes us forever to really get something, and when we do, we tend to forget it rather quickly. We keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again. The way we express our difficulties in coping have changed throughout the span of our existence, but a lot of the fundamental problems still remain. So, yes, I'm aware that there are many of you who simply believe that we humans are simply bad at best, or rotten to the core at worst, but this too is a too narrow view.

Exceptions confirm the rule. As bad as we can be as a species, we also know that we are capable of wonderful, if not wondrous, things, that we can rise to glorious heights of accomplishment as well. In other words, we have it in us, but it's just that most of us have managed to bury it so deeply that we have trouble finding it. We too often think we need to be hard, cold, and decisive because the state of the world forces us to be that way. But all of the truly great human beings were above average in the same down-and-dirty world in which the rest of us live. The truly great among us are great not because of the world, but in spite of it. That's something none of us should ever forget.

This is why I believe we do have a choice. In fact, I firmly believe that we always have had a choice, we just weren't aware of that fact. We have thought that the world is as it is, mostly because that's the way it is, and because most everyone around us told us that that's the way the world is and there's not a lot we can do about it. It wasn't true. It isn't true. It's a mere misperception of how things really are.

So, once again, we're faced with a choice, but this time around -- and this is where this shift differs greatly from those that came before -- we can win the big one, or we can turn out the lights. All of our genius and technological "progress" has provided us with a number of luxuries, that's for sure, but they've also given us the ability to completely destroy ourselves, to wipe our and many other species of life off the face of the earth. While some people are worried that one country (Iran) might get a (that is, one) nuclear bomb, there are already enough of such devices on "active duty" that if used would essentially force this planet to start all over again. And it took us about 15,000,000,000 years to get here this time around.

We humans have always been a particularly destructive species, but we could overdo it this time. We have a choice, but we have to want to make it, and we have to be aware of the consequences of our choice. A lot hangs in the balance. Are we up to the challenge?

Upsides, downsides, and time-compression

One of the features of the transition of consciousness that we are experiencing that interests me in particular is the rate of change. When looked at historically, we find that the efficient and deficient modes of each structure of consciousness has been shorter ... much shorter ... than the one that preceded it. I don't know why that is, but it appears that it is that way.

If you recall, I already outlined what I believe the time spans of the different structures of consciousness to be, and if we consider that our latest deficient phase is a mere 500 years in the making, well, I think you can agree that things seem to be speeding up. Could they be speeding up to the point where the emergence of the efficient as well as the deficient modes could be simultaneous? Could it be that right up front, we have to decide whether we want the efficient or deficient mode? I know that's a difficult thought to get one's head around, so I won't pursue it further. If you're so inclined, though, I invite you to think about just that "at your leisure".

This is, of course, only one way to understand the notion of time-compression. I mean, we all think that life is passing us by more quickly than we've ever experienced it before, and this applies to everyone, not just to us older folks. My children complain about "not having enough time" to get things done that need to be done, and everyone wants to know where their days went and why is my 20th reunion already being planned, and why there just aren't enough hours in a day.

Another way to think about time-compression, however ... and it's my preferred way (after all, the one just described merely depresses me at my age, and at my age, the last thing I need is depression) ... is that what we once thought over, dead, and long-forgotten turns out to be more up-to-date, current, and "now" than we ever imagined. Think about it.

More and more discoveries are being made to show that "humans" (however you may define the term) have been around, doing "human things", for much longer than we suspected. We've had to revise our "accepted anthropological wisdom". The advances made in understanding the human genome and consciousness are forcing us to rethink both biology and physics. What is surprising, however, is the fact that very ancient and long-forgotten "knowledge" is making a come-back. It could just be that the Ancient Egyptians knew more than we give them credit for. It could be that historical linguistics needs to be revised. We are becoming ever more aware of the availability of information and we are being challenged more than ever to deal with this information in a sensible and meaningful way ... and we're having a hard time doing that. Why? Because the things we are finding out are at odds with the things that we thought we knew, with what we have been made to believe is true. In other words, the very foundation of who we are is being called into question. This is a hard nut to crack, and it is one that most people will resist. Nevertheless, our future, our entire existence depends on the decisions we make now. No pressure. But if you don't know, you need to get smart fast.

So, for those of you who are so inclined, and for those of you who would like to think more, let me suggest a couple of sources: in physics, Penrose, Goswami, Greene, and Bleicher aren't a bad place to start; in biology, try Sheldrake; in philosophy, I recommend Midgley; for language and linguistics, Stan Tenen and the work of the Meru Foundation; as far as Ancient Wisdom is concerned, the best place to start is with René Schwaller de Lubicz; as far as mythology is concerned, try Hamlet's Mill by Santillana & Dechand. There's more. Much, much more, of course, but you have to start somewhere.

Start somewhere.

Upsides, downsides, and rolling downhill

We should keep in mind that Gebser postulates both an efficient (an upswing, uptake, positive surge) and a deficient (downswing, negative surge) phase of each structure of consciousness. Magic, for example, becomes deficient when it no longer supports our interaction with the world but degenerates, say, into the mere casting of spells or the yearning for power. (It should be remembered that Anglo-speakers "spell", that is, specify the letters that constitute a word; in olden times, knowing (and being able to write) the runes that constituted someone's name gave the writer power over that other person. Think about the implications we carry around with us even today.) The very rise of what we in the West like to think of as "civilization", with the Greeks, was a reaction against the mythologies that had become so diffuse and confusing that they no longer supported our interaction with the world.

Our own shift toward the deficient aspect of the Mental structure of consciousness can be clearly identified, and Gebser places in squarely in the Renaissance and the "discovery" of perspective. Leonardo da Vinci wrote one of the first treatises on the subject, and if you look at painting prior to that time, you will notice a very big difference in how the world was (could be) graphically represented. Granted, perspective opens up a whole new way of seeing things (and the pun is intended), but at the same time, it is exceedingly limiting for it focuses only on an aspect of the whole and it almost always differs from the point-of-view that even similarly minded people may have of a given subject. We have got to the point where it is almost impossible for most people to even consider seeing the world from a point-of-view different from their own. What's happening in Washington is obvious anyone who is even slightly aware of what Gebser is trying to tell us.

But, as the first two examples, the Magical and Mythical, have illustrated, the shift comes when the chaos finally becomes intolerable. When we "lose the plot", to put it in modern terms, things go downhill, and even the slowest and least observant among us realize that we're accelerating in our degeneracy. Yes, when things start going downhill, things start falling apart very fast.

And let's face it, we're right in the thick of things. There's not one of our "systems" these days that is not on the verge of collapse. First, we have the "little" systems, as I like to call them, things like social services, healthcare, social security, and the like. But the "big" systems are imploding too. Science is in a crisis due to its inability and unwillingness to address issues like "consciousness" seriously, or because it refuses to acknowledge new discoveries that not only challenge our "accepted wisdom", but turn it on its head. Politics have become impossible, and I don't care in which country or under which system you have to live. Economics has failed us miserably: if it all worked as planned, why aren't we all rich and living a life luxury? Religion? Even the Pope has taken a new tack and has shook up the traditional Church Establishment. In psychology, the behaviorist model has not only been discredited, it has been exposed for what it is: a mere method of manipulation; the latest "crisis" is trying to find a way to come to terms with the increasing degree of ephemeralization (doing ever more with ever less) and virtualization (the over-abstraction of reality). Even our sociology is being challenged as social networks reveal the impossible dichotomy of "human interaction" and access to unlimited amounts of information, much of which we never even knew existed. The Chinese believe one should be blessed to live in exciting times, well, they are getting their wish as far as I'm concerned.

Truth be told, we have no idea what to do. Most of us are simply lost, confused, frustrated, and overwhelmed. We have every reason to be, but we have to come to terms with the fact that things ... hell, nothing ... is as it used to be. What we also have to come to terms with is the fact that they never will that way again.

What humankind has done in every consciousness shift prior to this one is to hold fast to what they thought they "knew". It hasn't worked yet, and I can assure you, it's not going to work this time around. We need to get with it, to ride the wave, to go with the flow ... there are lots of ways to say it, but they all boil down to the same thing: it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Integration not regression

It's not like we have never been confronted with such significant changes before. We humans, as a species, have experienced a number of what we would probably describe these days as "traumatic" shifts. It doesn't happen all that often, and what makes so much of a difference this time around is that we possess the wherewithal to obliterate ourselves and everything else on the planet. I'm sure that no one deep down truly wants that to happen, but the possibility exists because of choices we have made. A lot of things started out with good intentions, but it is so, so easy to show examples where good intentions have ended very, very badly.

Whether you know (or believe) it or not, in each and every great transition throughout our history (written or not) the change that allowed us to remain alive and vibrant on this planet was not a technological one, it wasn't a social one or a political one either. It was a change of mind, a deep, far-reaching change, not only in the way we think, but in the way we perceive and experience reality. I know that's a difficult idea to come to terms with, but that's what it's going to take this time, too. The question is how much time do we have to prepare? Or, perhaps better, are we even up to the challenge?

If the Swiss-German cultural philosopher Jean (Hans) Gebser is right (and I believe he's got as reasonable, and better documented, theory as any), then we're looking at the fourth such major shift (though Gebser himself calls them "mutations"). When humans appeared on earth is something of a hotly debated issue. Whether it was a million or two million years ago is, for our purposes, irrelevant. What life was like for these early ancestors of ours is hard to determine, but it could have very well been more unconscious and dreamlike than anything else, it would have been what Gebser called Archaic.We also know, from archaeological evidence that around 300,000 years ago, humankind started making tools and conquered fire and everything changed. Yes the world was not well understood, and we very erroneously look down on these folks as undeveloped and primitive, but they were sophisticated in their own ways, even though the core of their consciousness was Magical. Around 40,000 years ago, we started codifying what we experienced and thought in paintings and stories; that is, our consciousness became Mythical. Then, as we all learned in school, out of nowhere, practically, and for no apparent reason at all, about two-and-a-half millennia ago, the Ancient Greeks appeared on the scene and set the stage for how we've been viewing the world ever since (well, more or less, but I'll get into more detail here the next time), that is as an almost exclusive Mental construct.

In each and every case (thus far), when we've transitioned from one type of mentation (if you will) it was because we managed, for better or for worse, to bring the best of what we had/knew/conceived and had made part of ourselves into the next phase or stage, so to speak. It is obvious that things cannot continue as they are. Too much of what we thought we knew and thought to be true is simply dysfunctional, if not outright broken. I'm not saying that the next shift will be painless, for it won't be, but even though it's coming faster and with less run-up than those that came before, we have the advantage that we can already get an idea of what is happening and what might need to be done. In other words, we have a chance, as well, to integrate what is of value from what's come before and let the rest go. This is the challenge we are faced with now.

Where to go, what to do?

Though there is still, and will long be, plenty of grey areas in the world and how we see it, we are, nevertheless, standing at a metaphorical fork in the road. We're faced, believe it or not, with an essential and existential choice.

If we simply follow what appears to be the main road that we're on, we're doomed. You can call me a pessimist, a cynic, a nay-sayer, a doom-and-gloomer ... it doesn't matter what ... but we'll be out of here soon. It's no joke that we're destroying the environment; it is an established fact that we are contributing significantly to global warming; it is inevitable that sea levels will rise another meter in the next 100 years, driving hundreds of millions of people further inland; we have definitive proof that fracking and transporting sludgy sand across thousands of miles of farmland and aquifers is going to poison our water; we know that the casino capitalism we are practicing is not sustainable and another, even worse, financial disaster is inevitable and imminent; we can see that growing income inequality will have drastic, most likely violent, consequences. There are so many things that we know and that are clear and so many things that too many are too willing to do too little about. In other words, our current social, economic, technological and political trajectory is toward disintegration. We have it within our power to commit collective suicide or to allow ourselves to be murdered by the irrational believers in post-modern ideals.

When we stop to reflect on what we're confronted with, it becomes very apparent very quickly that these are not just decisive, dividing issues, they are inherently divisive: take the earth apart for its oil and minerals; divide crops into specialized areas and regions in order to industrialize; industrialization is the breaking down of a whole process into its lowest manageable units; poisoning the ground water cuts us off from one primary essential for life; capitalism is founded upon the idea of taking more than one needs even, or especially, at the cost of others. In other words, these are all rational activities and approaches, but in the end, they are destructive and deadly. The ultimate division, course, is the separation of life from the body, which we call death.

On the other hand, we can change. Though time is running out, it is not gone. There is still hope that something, that a wide variety of things, can be done to avoid catastrophe. The clock is ticking though, so we really don't have a lot of time to just sit back and think about it. We must act, and each and every one of us -- as I have been repeatedly emphasizing -- is required to take part, to get involved.

One option has been taken from us: the option to do nothing at all. In not acting, or in choosing not to act, we, by default, will be moved along the destructive path we are on. To choose is to choose to act, to do whatever is within your power, the scope of your creativity, the breadth of your knowledge. And here's the important point: it doesn't matter what it is. As long as you include in your action the benefit of at least one other human being, you will, in all probability, be on the other fork in the road.

If you don't believe me, try it, and find out.

The rational reduction

Growing up, the TV was black-and-white and full of Westerns. It was easy to tell who was who, for the good guys wore white hats and bad guys black ones. It has taken me years to get over it.

As we saw last time, with the introduction of perspective, points-of-view became the way to see and understand the world. More than one is possible, of course, so the question immediately arises as to which perspective, which point-of-view is the right one. We quickly moved from a simple what-is to what-is-right. A reasonable person will tell you that it depends: when seen one way, thus-and-so is right; when seen another way, something else is right. Our sensibilities regarding right and wrong, however, don't like to deal with more than one "right". Something is right, or it is not. In other words, we developed a whole way of thinking based on what is right. The good guys, in the white hats were right; the guys in the black hats were wrong, and a whole lot of effort was put into making sure we youngsters understood the message. Like I said, it's taken me years to get over it.

The competition between competing points-of-view leads rather quickly to relativity. Everything becomes relative, it depends on how you look at it, and in the end, it means that any point-of-view is as good as any other point-of-view, one opinion is as good as any other. But this is intellectually and emotionally unsatisfactory, we feel deeply uncomforatble. We long for clarity, for surety, for certainty.

And here came the cavalry or the posse to the rescue. It was all very clear: the good guys were right because they could draw faster and shoot straighter; they were stronger and better fighters; they overwhelmed the dark forces with strength, intelligence and, well, violence. Might made right. Apart from all the possible color associations that one can spin off of this, it was by power and sheer force that right was established. And in all this sorting of the wheat from the chaff, of the good from the bad, of the right from the wrong, we added an even more insidious degree of certainty ... at least those of us who were still in doubt. It was not simply a matter of either/or, either you're right or you're wrong, no, it became a matter of you're either with us or you're against us.

Not only was this thinking approach taken to an insane degree in recent American political history, what we find quite prevalent this days is the thinking that if you don't agree with the right point-of-view, you automatically subscribe to its opposite: if you are for the Palestinians, you are against the Israelis; if you are for gun control, you are against guns; if you are against the death penalty, you are for allowing violent criminals to roam the streets; if you are against GMO foods, you are an organic tree-hugger; if you are against casino capitalism, you must be a communist. Yes, it has come to this. And this type of thinking, this type of argumentation, which is way too prevalent these days, is dangerous, for it carries within itself its own seeds of destruction; it is by nature destructive thinking. It is this allegedly "rational" thinking that allows for the clearly irrational behavior we witness all around us: the destruction of the environment in the name of profit; the perpetuation of war and oppression in the name of freedom; the ... well, I'm sure by now you get the picture.

Our rationality is at an end. The rational reduction that I have experienced throughout my own lifetime has become, well, irrational.

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

Putting one's mental house in order

As anyone who has ever encountered mythology, say, in school, knows, it's impossible to keep all those gods and goddesses sorted out: who's responsible for what, who did what to whom, how does all of it fit together? This was the case two-and-a-half thousand years ago, as well, and the first people to try and do something about it were the Greeks. Thales, Pythagoras, Euclid, Democritus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many others set about putting our mental house in order. Fact, reason, logic, argument, demonstration, proof became the hallmarks of a clear mind and an acute understanding of the world around us. It was at this time, more or less, when the mutation to what Gebser calls the Mental structure of consciousness occurred.

For a millennium or more, humanity experienced, literally, heady times. Great systems of thought were attempted. Everything that could be measured was and things were described, categorized, classified, systematized, defined and ordered. The foundations of modern science were laid. With the fall of Rome, of course, we entered the Dark Ages; that is, a time during which we took a long break from all this, but we slowly but surely recovered. Around the first millennium AD, we really moved into high gear and in many ways made up for lost time. Universities and other institutions of higher learning were founded; study became more systematic, and thinking became more secular. And then a small shift occurred.

This is best experienced by looking a paintings and illustrations from the Middle Ages, for example, and comparing them to visual art produced around and after the Renaissance. What do we find? Perspective. Yes, the perceiving of something from a particular, identifiable vantage point, a point of view, if you will, and the rise of point-of-view thinking, which we all more or less take for granted these days, has brought about significant and far-reaching changes in our minds and how we understand the world.

In a manner of speaking, the world was mentally, conceptually divided into pieces. What was once a whole, which is how the Ancient Greeks saw the world, became a conglomerate of competing viewpoints. Where once reason dominated, rational argumentation dominated. We should recall that the very word "rational" is derived from the ratio, which is, among other things, a division problem.

Just why this is problematic will be the subject or my next post.

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

Different strokes ...

There was a time when the world was full of magic. There were nymphs and sprites, gnomes and dwarves, wizards and witches, and an array of both positive and negative forces that determined much of our lives. Almost all of us experience the world this way when we are children, for our environment is full of wonder and terror and protection and amazement.

Because of the association with childhood, this way of thinking is most often belittled by us moderns, but unjustifiably so. My favorite example of it, however, is in the film, "The Gods Must Be Crazy". While flying over the Kalahari, a pilot simply throws his Coke bottle out the window of his plane and it is found by Xi, a local bushman. Like everything else around them, the tribe first believes it to be another gift from the gods. It is the hardest things they have ever experienced, and it brings an unhappy, even destructive, dynamic into their lives. They agree that the gods must have made a mistake and the "evil thing", as they have come to call it, must go, so Xi declares he will take it to the end of the world and throw it off. The rest of the movie depicts all of his experiences with the modern world along the way. While the decision and the solution may appear child-like, Xi is anything but a child. He is a respected member of the tribe; he provides and cares for his family; he is willing to travel into the unknown to protect everyone from the evil influences of this "thing"; and, as is seen throughout the rest of the movie, he is a clever, resourceful, highly-skilled problem-solver. No, this is a loving, caring, responsible adult who just happens to understand the world very differently than those he encounters along the way.

The gods in Xi's world are capable of carelessness. They aren't particularly powerful even if they are caring for the tribe. Over time, however, the powers attributed to the gods increase in strength and become more formalized and find new expressions. These may be seen in the exquisite paintings found in the Lascaux Caves in Southern France, dating back some 40,000 years, or in the highly refined and intricately developed cosmology of the Ancient Egyptians. The pantheon of gods expands, and each god is in command of a particular force or power or controls some clearly defined aspect of life and nature. Whereas art and writing are unknown in Xi's Magical world, both of these methods of expression become dominant factors in the Mythical world. Of course, we moderns like to belittle this type of thinking as well. We find it these days in the adolescent love of superheroes, sports legends, our reverence for our "alma mater", be it high school or college (though in these latter instances it is not only tolerated but encouraged, oddly enough).

Two points are worth noting here. First, neither of these modes are childish ways of thinking. Xi demonstrates this clearly for the Magical structure, and the great empires of the past -- the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans -- were all products of the Mythical structure of consciousness. Second, in both cases, we can find examples of such consciousness in our everyday, modern lives. They are not dead and forgotten, they have not be discarded, rather they have been maintained, cultivated and adapted to play important roles in our lives.

Our modern problem is, to a great extent, that we fail to recognize them and put them off, but, as I believe, much to our own peril.

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

Eteology

It is the comprehensiveness of this term that has brought us to choose it as the prime means of describing Gebser's approach. The new structure of consciousness to which we are transitioning demands new means, new processes, and new methods. It should be repeated that this ushering in of the new in no way indicates or dictates a discarding of what has come before, far from it. We must keep in mind that it is the activity and presence of the past that distinguishes Gebser's approach from others. Supercession does not mean invalidating; replacement in this context intimates an intensification rather than a nullification. Nevertheless, the inevitability of this transition should be recognized as well. This particular term best illustrates this new way of understanding. Eteology is then a new form of statement. But it should be noted:

We are speaking advisedly of "forms of statement" here and not of forms of representation. Only our concept of "time" is a representational form, bound -- like all forms of representation -- to space. The search for a new form of representation would give rise to the error of establishing a new philosopheme at the very moment that philosophy of an individual stamp is over. What is necessary today to turn the tide of our situation are not new philosophemes like the phenomenological, ontological, or existential, but eteologemes.

Eteology must replace philosophy just as philosophy once replaced the myths. In the eteologemes, the eteon or being-in-truth comes to veracity or statement of truth, and the "wares" or guards verity and conveys the "verition" which arises from the a-waring and imparting of truth. Eteology, then, is neither a mere ontology, that is, theory of being, nor is it a theory of existence. The dualistic question of being versus non-being which is commensurate only with the mental structure is superseded by eteology, together with the secularized question as to being, whose content -- or more exactly whose vacuity -- is nothing more than existence. Every eteologeme is a "verition," and as such is valid only when it allows origin to become transparent in the present. To do this it must be formulated in such a way as to be free of ego, and this means not just free of subject but also free of object; only then does it sustain the verity of the whole. This has nothing to do with representation; only in philosophical thought can the world be represented; for the integral perception of truth, the world is pure statement, and thus "verition." (EPO, p309)

We can see, then, that this approach places great demands upon us all. It is not sufficient to merely describe or approximate, rather we are required to show what is in its fullest essence. This has, I believe, far-reaching ramifications for science and its allocation of recognition and funding. The actual contribution of knowledge, its freedom from the constraints imposed upon the researcher due to fiscal, economic, academic or political reasons must all be let go in favor of a direct, revelation of truth. This will not be an easy task for many, especially those who are bound to what is "right" as opposed to what is "true." We see this reflected in all aspects of our societal lives. Eteology is an approach of liberation.

It will be noted that we have not attempted a systematization of criteria and measures that are to be used in our subsequent evaluations. This would be out of step with the free-form nature of the approach described thus far. Yet Gebser does not leave us without assistance in this regard. He provides a list of key terms that will assist in identifying the themes and motifs of the aperspectival world, and these are:

The whole,
integrity,
transparency (diaphaneity),
the spiritual (the diaphainon),
the supercession of the ego,
the realization of timelessness,
the realization of temporicity,
the realization of the concept of time,
the realization of time-freedom (the achronon),
the disruption of the merely systematic,
the incursion of dynamics,
the recognition of energy,
the mastery of movement,
the fourth dimension,
the supercession of patriarchy,
the renunciation of dominance and power,
the acquisition of intensity,
clarity (instead of mere wakefulness),
and the transformation of the creative inceptual basis. (EPO, pp361-362)

The focus here has been Gebser's approach to understanding the unfoldment of human consciousness. The first part dealt exclusively with the model examining each of Gebser's structures of consciousness in turn: the Archaic, Magical, Mythical, Mental, and Integral. We saw the Archaic structure could best be described as a zero- dimensional, non-perspectival world which could be likened to a state of deep sleep. It was characterized by non-differentiation and the total absence of any sense of separation from the environment. This was a world of identity between self and surroundings; not a world in which we could speak of consciousness in any terms that would be meaningful to our modern understanding of the term. By contrast, the Magical structure was characterized by a certain separateness, but not a total separation by any means. Dimensionally this could be described as one-dimensional; a pre-perspectival state of timelessness and spacelessness. It was likened to a state of sleep. Magic man was much a part of his environment, to be sure, and felt secure only within his group, his tribe or clan. It was the transition from the Archaic to Magic structure of consciousness that has probably been mythologically captured in the story of the "Fall of Man." The clothing of knowledge in myth is what characterized the transition to the Mythical structure of consciousness, the two-dimensional, unperspectival state of consciousness that can best be likened to a dream. Imagination and attunement with natural rhythms became important factors in man's life. The separation begun in the Magic structure reaches a tensional climax in the Mythical. This structure is superseded by the Mental structure, whose appearance coincides with the rise of Greek civilization. In this regard, it can be seen that modern thought disregards a good deal of mankind's history, for it is to the Greeks that we most often trace our intellectual roots. By comparison, the Mental structure of consciousness is a three-dimensional, perspectival world that we described with the term wakefulness. The polar tensions of mythology are replaced by the analytical separation of duality and opposition. Thinking is primary, and in its latter phase rational thinking is primary. But this structure, too, is yielding to a final mutation which Gebser identifies as the Integral structure of consciousness. This is described as a four-dimensional, aperspectival world of transparency. This is a time-free, space-free, subject- and object-free world of verition.

Finally, we examined the methodological aspects of Gebser's approach. Here, three fundamental notions were involved: systasis, synairesis, and eteology. The first term, systasis, best describes Gebser's approach. It was seen that systasis goes beyond mere synthesis, which is a mental-rational concept, to achieve a total integration of all parts simultaneously. Synairesis was the means of achieving the end just described. It emphasized the how of such total grasping, namely by the mind or spirit. It is synairesis that enables us to achieve the transparency that is indicative of the Integral structure of consciousness. Finally, eteology replaces philosophy as the way of knowing and acquiring knowledge. Eteology becomes the statement of truth in lieu of the philosophical statement about truth. We saw that this approach goes beyond the limitations of space- and time-perception to a complete and liberating understanding of the whole. It should be noted that this transition is in process; it is not yet a completed act.

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)

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)