hmmm. I appreciate your perspective. not sure that I am in agreement about some ideas/concepts though.
I agree that ‘wholeness’ is an illusory concept, and of course, we can conceptually ‘perceive’ of it as well, but we cannot truly experience it. (like God, we can have an experience that is divine in nature, but that is NOT the divine itself).
Tibetan chods, Ayhuasca journeys, and other ritual practices can provide experiences that contribute to a conceptual understanding of wholeness, but is this an actual experience or perception of the other half of a living/not living whole? I am not certain that it is.
I suppose this entire issue is dependent upon what one means by ‘perception,’ a topic much too complex to discuss in this format really.
Wholeness implies a completion, a state of perfection or ending, a concretization and fixed ‘something’ that has nothing left to be done or finished; something no longer incomplete, lacking, or still “coming into being” because ‘what is,’ and ‘what is arriving’ are at the same already ‘whole’ in and of themselves.
So, as Gebser states, Time either fulfills itself in us (time ends/we end) or we fulfill ourselves in time (times extends out beyond us and we utilize the time we have fruitfully doing the things that actually matter~ we stop wasting time and recognize our mortality…).
I am thinking specifically of Feuersteins work on Gebser as he speaks of ‘transcendence’ verses ‘wholeness.’ transcendence here refers to a consciousness that can expand above and beyond an inability to actually ever conceptually or otherwise reach that mythical state of wholeness~ (the polarity paradox (being/not-being) is always inherent in consciousness and Wholeness proper. )
I do not believe that Wholeness (except as a ‘conceptual understanding’ ) is possible while embodied in this realm of existence. We are always in a state of becoming, and the ever-present origin is the ground of this becoming. it is also the ground (matrix or field) that we return to (as the ancestors), and it is the realm of the sacred dead~ sometimes waiting to be reborn, and sometimes not, (depending upon the tradition) in death as well.
My understanding of Gebser’s aperspectival diaphanity (transparency) is that each human being must come to an understanding of their OWN dominant and repressed structures of consciousness, how each of these structures functions (or doesn’t) within each “individual” consciousness.
THAT is Gebser’s transparency… it has nothing to do with some state of collective consciousness except as it is experienced deeply by each individual, and in this way, the collective experience of it increases. (100th monkey idea).
When we become aware of the truth of our experience as mortal beings (who are going to die someday), we simultaneously become aware of the cults of immortality (beauty) that drive the majority of our beliefs to begin with.
We have a never ending desire for immortality, our desire to remain young and drink the elixir of eternal life from the fountain of youth, is to deny death, particularly in the West (where ancestor cults aren’t really understood or practiced, as these belong more to the archaic, the magical, and the mythical structures of consciousness).
A culture that embodies an integral consciousness would include an awareness of the role that the sacred dead play in the creation of the sacred cosmos (the future), and there would be no distinction between what we do and what our ancestors did for us. (they would represent the same goals and objectives).
Wholeness INCLUDES the archaic origin, the realm of the sacred dead, the realm of non-being that gives rise to being and takes being back into itself, but wholeness also includes every other structure in consciousness (including the mental /rational as well).
“Wholeness, in other-words, is the unconscious archaic origin that gives rise to all other structures and is, according to Gebser, brought to consciousness in the Integral structure as aperspectival transparency.”
Yes. exactly my understanding of it too, except that as an integral consciousness, it is no longer ourobouric, but individuated… (closest to Jung’s idea of Individuation).
Integral consciousness utilizes ALL of the structures available to it in their absolute effective phases in the individual, and eventually in the collective. This transformation of individual consciousness through the process of individuation is the transformation of consciousness that eventually takes place in the collective as well… that is, if we don’t annihilate ourselves first.
At least this is my understanding of Gebser’s ideas.