STRUCTURES OF CONSCIOUSNESS: WILBER, GEBSER, THOMPSON
I will examine the ways in which three different theorists of the history of consciousness have dealt with some of the key issues that have occupied integral theorists. The particular challenges that I have selected are the ways to present one’s vision of the higher reaches of consciousness, the balancing of big pictures and specific events, abstractions and concrete descriptions, and the nature of the relation of the different structures of consciousness to each other, in particular, the relation between myth, reason, and the transpersonal. My focus will be on the theories of Ken Wilber, Jean Gebser, and William Irwin Thompson, whom I consider to be the most relevant integral or transpersonal thinkers for our time. The contrasts in their approaches are instructive and so the comparison of their philosophies serves as a good introduction to the overall integral understanding of the history of consciousness.
Wilber and Gebser on Knowledge
For Wilber, vision logic is the cognitive dimension of the integral structure of consciousness. It is the product of a new interiority that transcends and includes the empirical ego, the objective self. Vision logic is also the capacity to go beyond rationality and can be viewed as the maturing of rationality. Although rationality is global and worldcentric, vision logic completes and extends rationality. Wilber claims that this kind of “superlogic” takes all the possible rational perspectives and brings them together as a whole. What’s more, it embraces contradictions and unifies opposites, since it is dialectical and does not proceed in linear fashion. As a result, it can incorporate and integrate what appear to be incompatible ideas into a larger and higher unity. Finally, vision logic will make possible a truly planetary culture. Rational thought is the expression of people who are limited to taking a particular perspective. This way of knowing fits an era in which people are citizens of a nation-state, whereas vision logic is suitable for world citizens who do not identify with any state or nation.
We can fruitfully compare Wilber’s vision logic with Gebser’s attempts to create new ways of thinking and expression, suitable for an integral age. Wilber has greatly appreciated the rich manner in which Gebser fleshes out of the archaic, magical, mythical, mental, and integral eras. He equates Gebser’s integral and aperspectival mind with vision logic, since it privileges no particular perspective. Yet, Gebser went further than Wilber in his attempts to break out of the rational straitjacket.
Because Gebser sees consciousness as the mediator between the ego and the transpersonal realm, he must re-examine his own perspective and maintain vigilance despite the impossibility of fully escaping the trap of rational thought. In Robin Brown’s “Beyond the Evolutionary Paradigm in Consciousness Studies,” Gebser’s dilemma is addressed head-on. Brown writes, “Since the mental structure is reflected in perspectival/linear thinking, Gebser is loath to take the historical record too seriously, and is particularly averse to speak of a ‘‘progression’’ or ‘‘evolution’’ of consciousness. This aversion seems to contradict the entire thrust of his project, yet it appears necessary if his theory is not to defeat itself by way of a less conscious contradiction: either Gebser willingly recognizes the limits of his own method and seeks to take self-contradictory measures to enact this knowingly, or in the very act of theorizing he falls head first into the problem his own theory is so much concerned with explicating. By ‘sacrificing’ itself, Gebser’s work seems to enact its own egoic defeat in the cause of the emergence of something that lies just beyond its grasp, rather than capitulate to rationalistic hubris and become internally inconsistent as a consequence of its own lack of self-reflexivity.”
I am not the first to point out that Wilber’s presentation of his ideas has a strong modernist flavor. Modernism, in this context, is the orientation that privileges the narratives of reason and progress. It is the characteristic outlook or worldview of the mental/rational structure of consciousness. As Wilber often insists, a more advanced structure of consciousness must transcend and include the structure that it supersedes and which precedes it. Wilber characterizes his own idea framework as vision logic, the cognitive style of the integral structure that succeeds the mental/rational one.
A major difference between Wilber’s vision logic and Gebser’s integral thinking is that it doesn’t incorporate the earlier magic and the mythical structures and give them equal status with mental/rational consciousness. Instead, Wilber transcends and includes these earlier structures within the stage of the rational ego, which, in turn, is transcended and included by the integral stage in the transition from the first tier of consciousness to the second one. And then the mental structure is transcended and included as consciousness rises to the third tier, the spiritual or transpersonal domain.
What is the relationship for Wilber between the integral stage and spiritual or transpersonal one? In Wilber’s theory, the integral stage is characterized at the cognitive level by the reliance on vision logic, whereas the first transpersonal stage, the psychic realm, is based on contemplation. Wilber relies on the mental realm, that is, vision logic to describe what lies in the contemplative domain without trying to find a new method of thinking in which all the structures of consciousness are present. But he does see vision logic as being at the edge of the transmental, moving away from the mind and going beyond form al reason. As a result, it is better able to integrate body and mind. Nevertheless, he agrees that it may be only when there is enlightenment that full integration of body and mind takes place.
I want to emphasize that this is where Wilber and Gebser part company. Wilber acknowledges that vision logic is of the mental structure and not an expression of the psychic dimension, but he says that it can tell us what exists in the psychic dimension and we can use knowledge of this experience to mentally point to what lies beyond the mind itself. He is not denying the validity of contemplative experience, the knowledge accessed in the arena of the psychic. Unlike Gebser, though, he does not try to find a new way to do philosophy that does not rely on the methods developed by those operating within the mental structure. For him, building a system in the manner of modernist thinkers is not a demerit; his system of systems, the multiperspectival approach of vision logic, is not inadequate to his task.
Gebser mentions that integral thinking replaces conceptualization and is characterized by emergent transparency; rather than building a system of thought, it reaches for the whole. At the integral level, the whole is consciously perceived as transparent and exists in the present moment free from time. In such perception where the ego is put aside, the previous consciousness structures are integrated rather than renounced. For Gebser, the essence of the magical structure is unity and oneness, and it is characterized by interwovenness and fusion. Its emphasis is on nature and emotion and it manifests through spellcasting and witchcraft. The major sense is that of hearing, and thinking is carried out through empathy and identification. It is pre-rational, pre-causal, and analogical. In the succeeding structure, that of myth, the world is experienced in terms of polarities. The emphasis is on the soul or psyche, and the imagination is the primary vehicle of understanding. Myths are expressed poetically, and they reveal psychic processes through imagery.
As I have pointed out, Wilber does not give equal status to the magical, mythic, and mental structures in the manner of Gebser. For him, there is a progression from earlier to later stages. His vision logic does not integrate the emotional (magical) and imaginative (mythic) modes of encountering the world with the rational. When he constructs systems of ideas, he stands squarely within the mental structure and defends his maps through rational argument. Wilber’s accomplishment is to coordinate the good, the true, and the beautiful, which he calls the “faces of spirit,” and to invite people to have the direct experience of spirit through engaging in spiritual practice.
In contrast, Gebser strives to make the origin transparent in the present moment, to go beyond representation, to transcend the dualism of subject and object, and to express the world as “pure statement.” His preferred style of writing is poetic, even though he often relied on the mental structure to communicate his vision to the Western intellectuals of his time. This preference for poetic discourse is clear from Gebser’s first book Rilke in Spain which takes us to the poetic roots of his own philosophy.
Thompson on Gebser and Wilber
In his comparison of the thinking styles of Wilber and Gebser, Thompson has located some key differences. In his view, Gebser was a brilliant intellectual of intuitive gifts with a profound appreciation of poetry and art. In contrast with the American Wilber who relies on psychology and psychotherapy for upliftment from the psychic depths, Gebser nourished his mind and heart with European high culture. Thompson’s gloss on Wilber is that he is a manipulator of abstractions who came up with a grand system that accounts for all the other systems. In his view, what is missing in Wilber is what Gebser excels at: a taste and appreciation for individual works of art and culture. Gebser’s focus on particular and concrete forms of cultural expression complements his general insights, whereas in Wilber’s work such balance is lacking.
Wilber presents what he regards as the consensus of expert opinion on the ways and means by which culture has evolved. He is not for the most part giving his own interpretation of cultural phenomena; rather, he is presenting the views of leading philosophers, anthropologists, psychologists, scholars of myth, etc. It takes great critical acumen to sift through the ideas of so many eminent thinkers, but, unlike Gebser, Wilber does not often interpret particular works of art and literature as vehicles for understanding particular structures of consciousness. He is mostly engaged in presenting what he calls “orienting generalizations,” based on dissections of different theoretical positions that are arranged in terms of the level of consciousness that they reflect.
It is not fair, however, to dismiss Wilber as a “manipulator of abstractions.” He does occasionally focus on a specific work of art to illustrate a more general point. When Wilber evaluates Heidegger’s assertion that an understanding of form can convey the meaning of a work of art, he examines a painting of Van Gogh’s, that of a worn-out pair of shoes, in the context of the painter’s life and provides a transpersonal interpretation that is moving and deep. In addition, his comments on the nature of beauty reveal someone who is comfortable outside the domain of abstractions. He understands art’s power and knows how it feels to experience it.
But Gebser takes us much further into the events to which his abstract concepts refer. For example, he uses one of Petrarch’s letters to illuminate the shift from the mythic to the mental structure of consciousness. As Petrarch climbed a mountain, he perceived space not as the whole of nature but as a reality that could be separated from the entirety of nature. In other words, he saw a landscape, the first European to do so. This experience of Petrarch ushers in a new mental and realistic view of nature from the perspective of the individual. Gebser enriches his account by showing us Petrarch’s struggles as he was caught between two worlds. He describes the shock Petrarch experienced from his new perception of the expanse of space that then led him back to the interior realm of the soul for refuge.
Gebser also explains the cultural context by focusing on the region of France in which Petrarch discovered landscape, a region of Gnostic influence that emphasized the study of the external world and relied on knowledge more than belief. And his discussion of the ways in which Petrarch’s perception of landscape reflected an enormous shift in attitude toward the world is highly insightful. Petrarch’s treatment of space has much in common with painters such as Giotto who were moving toward a more perspectival view.
Thompson and Wilber on Interpreting Myth
Thompson’s work contrasts with Wilber’s system building. In terms of viewing the particular structures of consciousness, the greatest difference is that Thompson highlights the positive and uplifting aspects of the world of myth and gives myth a prominent place in his intellectual repertoire. Wilber, on the other hand, often clarifies why the mythic worldview should not be confused with transpersonal and mystical consciousness. However, he does state that the mythological structure should be recognized for its contributions to making us who we are today, because it is an important part of our roots.
For Wilber, the premodern or mythic worldview is based on the creation of miraculous sources of power outside the individual such as gods and goddesses. This enables social cohesion to be established through hierarchies that extend beyond the family. It is the world of empire and dominator hierarchies where there is no separation of church and state and fundamentalist-type religion prevails. Thompson sees myth quite differently. For him, myth contains many levels. At the highest level, it is the language of the gods and reflects the state of the great mystics in which the transcendence of ego opens up the vast dimensions of the soul. At the next highest level, it is an answer to the great questions of existence: it tells us who we are, where we come from, and where we are going. As a way of knowing that goes beyond conventional science, it addresses the ultimate realities and leads us to the sacred.
In Wilber’s view, mythopoeic thinkers like Joseph Campbell, and Carl Jung are confusing the transpersonal realms with the prepersonal ones. Wilber states that the mythic age relies on images and symbols because it lacks reason on the one hand and spiritual awareness on the other. It is only when people are liberated and released by reason from myth that they become capable of further elevation to the spiritual and transpersonal realms. Consequently, a worldview based on obedience to a mythic God must be replaced by one which relies on the rational mind. Only then is it possible to further advance to a worldview in which the divine is experienced within and religion is no longer governed by dominator hierarchies.
Wilber is not saying that there is no access to the sacred in magical and mythic times. Of course, great sages founded world religions during those times, but he maintains that their transpersonal message was understood by very few people. So it was not surprising that institutionalized religion became a means of social cohesion and social control rather than a genuine gateway to the sacred. Wilber says advocates of mythic worldviews like Campbell and Jung believe we must return to the past in order to rediscover the spiritual dimension. But he believes this position is romantic and regressive rather than evolutionary and progressive. In Wilber’s evolutionary theory, the spiritual stages come after, rather than before the rational phase. It is the cultural acceptance of rationality that prepares the way for spirituality and the integral and transpersonal structures which transcend and include rationality.
As I have mentioned, both Wilber and Thompson accept Gebser’s categorization of the five structures of consciousness. They both adhere to the notion that consciousness will eventually reach a stage that resembles that of the great mystics and sages . So how do we account for the highly different approaches to mythology that Wilber and Thompson have taken?
The reason for their divergent evaluations of mythology can be traced to the fact that Wilber and Thompson are not talking about the same thing. Thompson sees the mythic mentality externalized in the stage of history he calls “civilization,” and he characterizes civilization (which lasts from approximately 6500 B.C.E. to 1500 C.E.) in much the same terms as Wilber. There are urban cultures with males in control and society is based on religious faith; the written doctrines are defined by literate priesthoods whom the ordinary people must obey. It is a militaristic and hierarchical society. Clearly then, Thompson agrees with Wilber that genuine spirituality was practiced by only a small minority during the period when the mythic worldview prevailed. When Thompson says that mythology is the history of the soul, he is not talking about mythology that merely facilitates social solidarity and hierarchical control. So Thompson and Wilber are not really at odds on this point.
On what issues then do they actually disagree? Thompson believes the mythopoeic imagination accesses the esoteric spirituality that has been lost during modern times. For Wilber, though, the transcendence and inclusion of the mythical structure by the rational structure represents an evolutionary advance. Here we need to backtrack a little. According to Wilber, a structure of consciousness is transcended and included within the structure that follows it and represents a higher stage of evolution. He defines structures of consciousness in terms of their level of cognitive development. The mythic structure is characterized by concrete operational thinking in which identity shifts from a body identity to a role identity and the capacity to take the role of the other person develops. Then, at the rational level, formal operational thinking opens up a world of far greater possibilities as the mind with its capacity for increased abstraction soars beyond what is obvious, conventional, and mundane. Formal operational thinking incorporates and includes concrete operational thinking while going beyond its limitations.
For Wilber, since people with mythic consciousness are incapable of the formal operational thinking of the rational structure, they can never achieve integral and spiritual knowing. The evolutionary process requires a progression from the mythic to the rational and then to the integral and transpersonal structures. In mythic consciousness, the average person has not yet developed the cognitive capacity to access the transpersonal and mystical realms.
What about the saints and mystics who experienced the transpersonal realms and unity consciousness? Thompson, like Campbell, would say that these great beings experienced mythic consciousness at its highest level. From Wilber’s perspective, though, the great mystics were not using myth as an avenue to the transpersonal realms; rather, they experienced spiritual consciousness by transcending and including the mythic, rational, and integral levels. Concrete operational thinking can never be the path to the highest states of consciousness. Reason and formal operational thinking release people from their submersion in the group and from conventional modes of thought and action. A space is then opened up where people are relatively free from social hierarchies and are able to think in unconventional ways. These are preconditions for attaining integral and spiritual consciousness.
Thompson’s idea that myth at its highest level of meaning performs the unity consciousness achieved by mystics is alluring. He is telling us that the road to the truth passes through the imagination rather than reason. It is the domain of myth and art rather than of conventional science and philosophy. Thompson also implies that the rational structure of consciousness does not represent an advance over the mythic one. In fact, Thompson believes that higher-level interpretations of myth and the new scientific paradigm are similar in outlook. What’s more, he asserts that since the 1970s, the thinking of mystics and scientists has been converging.
This stance contradicts Wilber’s evolutionary approach to consciousness. If the mythic imagination is the primary vehicle for accessing the mystical realms, then rational awareness relying on facts and logic can hardly be considered a more advanced stage of thinking and knowing than mythic consciousness. If going back to the earlier stage of mythic knowledge is required, then we must abandon the evolutionary view of consciousness.
Thompson’s Mind Jazz and Wilber’s Theory of Everything
Moving on to the application side, Thompson’s intuitive and aesthetic presentation of cultural evolution is vastly different from Wilber’s methodology. Thompson celebrates spontaneity of form and creative imagination, visual thinking, and the use of metaphor as the key avenues to knowledge. His preferred mode of exploring ideas is that of mind jazz, which involves not only describing what exists but performing what he is attempting to describe. The artist/scholar produces what is itself part of the culture rather than objectively describes an external reality. This means expressing the patterns which contain the performance of the artist/scholar due to its being situated in a particular historical and cultural milieu. As Thompson presents the normally hidden dimensions of the soul through the forms and images of our three-dimensional world, he creates myth. His performance of myth expresses the history of the soul.
We can go further with this contrast between mind jazz and the creation of a theory of everything. Whereas Wilber’s modernist orientation is visible from his attempt to represent the big picture in all its intricacy and complexity, Thompson’s affinity with postmodernism is revealed in his more relaxed attitude toward truth. This is where aesthetics comes in. Instead of seeking to discover correspondences with reality, Thompson performs acts of creative imagination. He is not worried about ascertaining whether every part of his performance is rationally defensible. This doesn’t mean that the vision he sets forward is an arbitrary one, but it is the vision and not the logic that occupies center stage. For the audience, it is primarily a matter of getting the vision, seeing the pattern, and tuning in. Since Thompson is an amazingly erudite thinker, his mind jazz requires a high level of intellectual culture from his readers and listeners. Therefore, he is by no means anti-intellectual but his appeal is to the imagination as much as the intellect.
Thompson’s mode of expression may be more appropriate to the present electronic culture. McLuhan, who greatly influenced Thompson, noted that in the electronic age great amounts of information are conveyed almost instantaneously to many parts of the globe. The rational analysis of data in order to determine its truth content just doesn’t cut it, since the only way to get a handle on all this information moving so quickly is to recognize patterns and to intuitively grasp the whole. In accord with McLuhan, we can also understand the transition from the print age to the electronic age as a movement from left-hemisphere analytical thinking to right- hemisphere holistic thinking. Holistic thinking is Thompson’s forte, while Wilber’s method seems like a holdover from the print era with its slow and laborious procedure of determining truth content through rational analysis. In this sense, Wilber is modern and Thompson is postmodern.
