See this Gebser piece for reference. The
first quote reminds me of a Gidley quote I posted earlier in another thread,
that integral is not hyper-complexity, which is deficient rational.
"The
uniqueness of the Integral consciousness lies in the fact that it is in
no way based upon the increase of intellectual knowledge, which may be
misunderstood or misapplied. The new consciousness has nothing to do
with such knowledge; its character is derived from spiritual, not from
purely intellectual, values."
In
this quote he discusses a more specific application of complimentarity.
This was more broadly explored in various Ning IPS threads on a
different type of complexity, e.g. Morin, which is different from the
more typical transcend and include kind Wilber uses from Commons and
company, i.e., deficient rational.
"It
is precisely because Asia and the Occident are not mutually exclusive
opposites, but are mutually complementary poles (which may very well one
day rediscover their common roots), that it is important for this
consciousness to be coherently and fully explored."
In
the next, he discusses the development of ego. It was quite useful for a
time but has gone over into self-obsession in late-stage capitalism
leading to the following:
"The
threat arises from the fact that excessive ego-centricity, which is
associated with unbridled possessiveness and lust for power, results in a
corrosive materialism and a ruthless disregard for the essential
quality of human life."
Again
though Gebser stresses that we should not just aim for egolessness but
complimentarity with ego in the integral. So this one reminds me of how
Eisler discusses actualization hierarchies as a partnership between
compliments, rather than their dichotomy. The former leads to something
more akin to the Commons and not at all like capitalism/materialism.
"If
we succeed in overcoming both egolessness and egoness by consciously
integrating them, our mental, ego-centered waking consciousness is
transformed into an Integral, fully awake consciousness, free from time
and ego. By this means we overcome the fatal danger that threatens our
culture today—the danger that we may perish of ego-hardening and the
fall into complete materialism."
In
this one he shows how the emergence of the integral is not by linear
progression, that it arises spontaneously via transparency. This
requires acceptance and use of the previous stages but does not fall
prey to any one of them exclusively, including the rational. It's not
exactly transcend and include, since the so-called higher level of
rationality, for example, does not supersede the other orders. It's more
like they are autonomous parts that nonetheless work together via
structural coupling, which I noted elsehwere in discussing Luhmann, Varela and
Thompson.
"The
idea that the younger generation is born into the climate of a new
structure of consciousness is difficult to accept unless we think of the
concept of cultural evolution in somewhat different terms, for it
requires acceptance of the fact that the new consciousness manifests
itself of its own accord, that is, arises naturally and spontaneously in
man, in the world and in time, by becoming “transparent” in them. So
long as we are unable to free ourselves from the conventional routines
of thought which have now become anachronistic and therefore erroneous,
we will think of cultural evolution as a process that urges us toward a
goal in a linear progression. So long as we attribute exclusive validity
to a pragmatically narrow definition of progress by accretion, the
assumption that a generation can be “born into” a new consciousness is
impossible."
The
next reiterates some of the previous points but also discusses how the
process is both involution-evolution. Which of course reminds me of my
thread on the fold.
"The
manifestation of the new consciousness is not a milestone on the path
to a so-called higher development; it is rather, on the one hand, an
enrichment and intensification of the human consciousness and, on the
other, our conscious response to the Integral Structure of the world,
which through us becomes transparent. This invisible process activates
in us the new consciousness that has always been latent in us.
Evolution, from this point of view, is the evolving (e = from, volvere =
proceeding, forming) of man’s hitherto latent possibilities of
consciousness, which are released by a corresponding supplementary
“involution” of the Integral component of the world-consciousness: that
involution (in = inward) in the terrestrial sphere is answered by its
other pole, awakening—our readiness at a given time for the Integral and
time-free consciousness; to evolve from within us."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.