I said in the QM thread that its not an unlikely truth, of  historical and biological evolution, that there has not been a fossil out of place in billions of years. Though my intent was to emphasize  that the fallacy is to give consciousness the  kind of credence  it gets  (and consequently evolution) – for instance in the way that profound significance is attached to them , probably to make sense out of the bewildering monotony of evolution.

Say if it takes fifteen billion years to get somewhere, would be a sort of a problem right? Or if takes any time at all to figure what or who Iam, it would be heartless to say it is developmentally inept to be pissed off. But perspectives that come in the way seem to be inextricable from the process of evolution (Maybe there is a point to it, but that’s another issue) so this is the problem I think, which cannot be dealt with by ascribing depth to a skeletal process, but by giving credence to the problem instead and deconstructing it .

To deal with the stuff that comes in the way, all tools and processes need to be deconstructive. Whether its QM or meditation or critical realism – whatever. Fundamentally all mechanisms are reversal kinds, there are no formative/creative mechanisms, as there is an inherent contradiction in the term.  One thing that comes through as vital is that instantaneity and acausality, besides its creative potential, is an equally dynamic potential for absence. Not just emptiness, but for the notion of anything ever having been there  at all.  There isn’t the stretch of effort or the need to account for anything  - which is the only sustainable premise for eternity (non linear anything) or problems of that order. As the two cannot be mutually exclusive. Instantaneity is a process which at the same time, is creation and destruction.

The other interesting thing about keeping the biological and historical view of evolution is that, this polarity between instantaneity and the outrageous lengthiness of evolution is that it seems to mimic the polarity between destruction and creation. But not quite since the latter cannot be differentialted. And instead these two processes wind up being the ultimate polarity considering space and time. In an uncanny way you have a referral to otherness in space and time, by being as  other as it gets. talk about a need for reification, or a no holds bar assertion of existence. Not surprising since that can never be, existence can never be unassailable. So I have a contrary view to Derrida, its not otheness that never arrives, its existence that never arrives. Once there is existence otherness has an obsessive thing to spill over ^..^

So you have deconstruction as the only viable process  at all levels - biological, psychological, existential etc

Well, this is work in progress.  what do ya'll think?


Views: 281

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Hi Tom, mind bends time bends, it’s a threshold. I need to strip the abstract from acausality :) How, is the wrong question, what about when and where? I could ask better questions….

Is it incidental you wrote glass empty to glass full ? whole state -1 to whole state -2. Again this comes up – that the whole is synchronous with emptiness. No movement as in, its every movement. the whole remains seamless inclusive of all whole states ?

The discontinuous jumps makes me think of event as unity. If theres a break in serial events (as in time and space) then this isolation accesses all events  through the jumps. If there is continuity of course it’s a linear trap and you don’t have direct access to any event let alone sequences of events

To extend the view . I am reading whole state  as event as unity. Whole state one = event as unity = reality one . numbers in reality feels like you think thats how it should be , haha . Anyways I get discontinuous jumps between realities, whole state is beyond reality . fair to say that?



Thanks Tom , when I have the time I'll look into more of QM, before I pick up on this.

this just crossed my mind picking up on your phrase when deconstruction deconstructs itself, is where the dimensional aspect comes through....


On the counter aspect of the whole, and of things, that came up above, I find it clarifies the realm of consciousness, and the subjective range it has been granted as a stretch.  I am using the term unconscious now in a direct way without any prior context. And as different from subconscious. Though this has been an area of contention between Jung and Gebser and transpersonal psychologists etc. By unconscious I mean a state of awareness not reduced by consciousness. As literally a prerequisite for awareness .  unmediated if you like by the sheer momentum of memory or habit or the old.


a relevant  paper I found, uncovering the unconscious - towards an integral psychology . I have to go through yet, but at a glance, some excerpts


Gebser suggests that the concept of the unconscious may still be used to describe the relationship between a structure of consciousness one dimension less than the incremented structure above it, but rejects entirely the dualistic framework, wherein consciousness is opposed to an unconscious. Jung himself rarely if ever collapsed the psychic terrain into so neat a dichotomy, but Gebser’s phenomenology of consciousness[4] in terms of a potentially ever-present, and yet also historically unfolding series of structures assures that such a rationalistic reduction is avoided.

I am suggesting a neat dichotomy (not opposed to, a duet maybe rather than a duel), simply as a process of being aware of a potentially ever present and yet also a historically unfolding series of structures to use Gebsers reference. and as a referential issue, since in a colloquial sense (which the term is tagged to) its almost as if to say I would then be conscious of the unfolding and structures. beside of course the nature of its content as literally content :)


Excerpts from Gebser and Gidley are from the Real and false reason and Bill Torbert threads, thanks to Edwards posts

I want to consider two aspects of mutation or intensification – of the past, future and present, and the linear and the orthogonal  - and two aspects of the concretization of time  - Gebser’s temporic concretion, an intensification of consciousness that enables re-integration of previous structures of consciousness—with their different time senses—honoring them all,  and as in embedded structures, seeing the organism as a structure of consciousness

Gebser’s concretion - opens to new understanding through atemporal translucence whereby all times are present to the intensified consciousness in the same fully conscious moment.

This intensification , effects a change in the linear structure, in the organism. Weather in a gradual evolutionary sense or in an arational mutation. This is an interesting pointer to how things are, or the way things are subject to the nature of observation. For one thing, the structures of consciousness exist independently. Given a linear context the scientific reading stays true within that frame, it need not account for the intensifier. In other words the span of time taken for a mutation is one thing during a mutation and another in the linear frame. But the result is the same. This dual validity suggests simultaneous existence of the two events . a sort of quantum discontinuity. Gebser's discontinuity is between past, present and future - suggesting linear patterns or transcending linearity altogether. no jumps or simultaneity

I was saying in the quantum thread there is no sense of interiors to perspectives in his atemporal, but this from Gebser indicates there is a consideration  -  “In characterizing the emergent consciousness as arational (as opposed to irrational) and aperspectival, Gebser sought to indicate that it transcended the dualistic, black-or-white categories of the rational orientation to life. Rationalism, for him, was by no means the pinnacle of human existence, but, on the contrary, an evolutionary digression with fatal consequences

And he differentiates between expanded consciousness and intensified consciousness, For Gebser, integral-aperspectival consciousness is not experienced through expanded consciousness, more systematic conceptualizations, or greater quantities of perspectives. In his view, such approaches largely represent over-extended, rational characteristics .The problem I have is that consciousness is perspectival, I can see intensified consciousness as a movement away from perspectives though. At this point I have to ask, how does this intensity come about, this activity is not available to consciousness in itself (considering, Gebsers own approach as well, arational and aperspectival). aperspectivalism points to the interiors of emergent consciousness and structures of consciousness. Emergent consciousness is not in itself aperspectival. (Iam reminded of Hagglunds reading of Derrida on the unconditional)

I guess I’ll come back to this when I get a chance to read ‘the mutation of the structures of consciousness’



Reply to Discussion


What paths lie ahead for religion and spirituality in the 21st Century? How might the insights of modernity and post-modernity impact and inform humanity's ancient wisdom traditions? How are we to enact, together, new spiritual visions – independently, or within our respective traditions – that can respond adequately to the challenges of our times?

This group is for anyone interested in exploring these questions and tracing out the horizons of an integral post-metaphysical spirituality.

Notice to Visitors

At the moment, this site is at full membership capacity and we are not admitting new members.  We are still getting new membership applications, however, so I am considering upgrading to the next level, which will allow for more members to join.  In the meantime, all discussions are open for viewing and we hope you will read and enjoy the content here.

© 2023   Created by Balder.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service