Toward a More Integral and Coherent Model of Space and Time

This is a work in progress.  Everything is subject to change so please check back from time to time. 

Zorak's Helpful Hints: If you've already read this post before, please scroll down to "comments" where I will be posting announcements from time to time to update Linda or whoever else is reading this as to exact location of this post (by section, now numbered for ease of reference) where I have gone back to make an alteration from a previous edition.  I will confine my comment alerts to only significant or substantive changes made to the post; not when a frivolous change is made for grammatical or stylistic purposes.   Of course, you are also free to re-read the entire post with each new revision as many times as you like; this announcement is only for the benefit of those who have already read the post in full and do not wish to take another full-length journey through all of the conflicting or parallel paradigms of dimensions and space-time each time with each new revision.

--brbrb.

1.  Contradictory or Parallel Models of Space and Time

 Over the past several days, I have become preoccupied with Gebser's theory of space-time dimensions and its relationship to the structures of consciousness.  It actually began several years ago when I made the discovery that "perspective" as we know it is largely contingent upon our realization of space and time and that the current three-dimensional conceptions of perspective, space, and time are relatively new and have their origins in the European Renaissance.  I have expressed my interests with members on the Integral Life community who have referred me to a couple of sources or members who are also interested in exploring a similar theme.  Thus far, they have not responded back.  The following is my summary of my thoughts and my difficulties encountered in trying to read their competing and/or parallel theories on space and time to consciousness.  It was not my intent to put other theories down; but only to find a common frame of reference so as to integrate all competing or contradictory themes into a coherent wholeness for the purpose of integrality.  However, upon taking a closer second "look" at competing or parallel theories on time and reflecting further into the alogical consequences and wisdom of spatializing time into space via attempting to "locate" or "compartmentalize" time on a conceptual map, let us hope that we do not someday create an integral map to plot these various theories on space, time, and their relationships to the structures of consciousness according to their quadrants, levels, lines, zones, or other categorical systems, compartments, sectors, or systematizations due to the inability to "represent" time on a conceptual map without spatializing time into "space" and thereby totally falsifying time into a spatial quantity.  I'm therefore no longer interested in attempting to "integrate" contradictory theories or approaches to time what with none of them offering anything of value to contribute to an overall map or model of space and time and what with ultimately no way to "map" time as a quality or in all of its forms and manifestations except only quantitatively and then spatialized and falsified into space; and we remain entirely unconvinced that any of them besides Gebser have adequately addressed the issue of space and time and their relationships to the structures of consciousness.

 Update 2/1/2010:

A major problem that I have encountered in every major contemporary developmental or integral theory or model is an under-appreciation for the contributions of Jean Gebser to developmental theory: which is ultimately not the "five different stages of development" which we were misled to believe was his major contribution prior to reading him but rather, his unique approach to the space and time constitution of the structures.  According to Gebser, time in all of its forms and manifestations is the theme of the newest mutation.  Very little treatment do we ever see in any of these contemporary theories to the time element.

I grew up as a student of Ken Wilber and continued to be for some time or else I wouldn't been here for so long.   It was actually Ken Wilber who initially turned me on to the work of Jean Gebser many years ago in one of his books.  I found that KW's "Four Quadrants" model in particular to be of indispensible value as a holistic tool in helping me initially to orient my autistic focus from a prior all-consuming self-absorbed obsession with only one special topic of "interest" at a time to "touch all bases" concerning the interior-exterior and individual-collective realms (indeed...so impressed was I by the "Four Quadrants" model that I tried to "copy" it for myself by adapting it to Gebser--who in turn had intentionally avoided the compulsive mapping and systematization of his theory).  I would even go further to acknowledge the important contributions made by the "all quadrants, all zones, all types...," and so on approach to integral or rather holistic theory but would stop short of calling these approaches or any other contemporary developmental theory "all-inclusive" without the time element (which, according to Gebser--is the theme of the newest mutation, after all: the concretion of time in all of its forms).  And this is as true and as timely today as it was 50 years ago when his work was first published.

When I attempted to apply the Four Quadrant model to Gebser's theory, I encountered a problem.

To illustrate:

First, the time:

Unlike "space," time is ultimately a systatic and acategorical element and with the exception of only one form of time--the three-dimensional form of time, abstract temporality ("clock divided time")--time exists only as a quality.  In a certain very limited sense one can say (rather foolishly--with blinders on) that time exists in all quadrants if looking at the quadrants from the standpoint of "I/we/it/its" stages of development: yet even then (while overlooking the dualistic and quantitative approach to the Four Quadrant model) it is "wrong" for unlike "space," time cannot be represented on a three-dimensional grid or coordinate system such as above (trust me...I "tried"... it wouldn't work).  For these reasons, we find that the Four Quadrants fails miserably in its goals of being an "all-inclusive theory" or model for its inability to be inclusive of acategorical or systatic elements of nature such as time.  Even when combined with AQAL--time is excluded entirely resulting in all of these systems or meta-systems breaking down entirely once the time element is introduced into these meta-systems and perhaps the reason why KW avoids altogether treating time as a quality or as a "reality" in his form of integral altogether in his meta-systemic holistic meta-theory: which when accepted all together on faith without consulting with other integral theories or considering the role of time to consciousness-formation can furthermore fool a reader into having a false and inflated sense that he or she is integrated while remaining temporically-frozen in three-dimensional space.  Time is the newest theme of the newest mutation.  Everything here looks like an emphasis on I, space, and objects so looks stuck to the mental-rational structure posing fraudulently as "integral." 

 

As shown above, Ken Wilber's Four Quadrant model attempts to systematically arrange and locate all of the manifest world or Kosmos into four main categorical systems or "quadrants."  These quadrants can be broadly defined as the interior:exterior realms concerning subject:object dualities between "I/we:it/its" of self:other manifestation (located horizontally from left-to-right) intersected by their corresponding individual:collective units of organization(s) or containments or rather, units of quantities, located on the upper and lower quadrants, respectively.  What results is a reality that is divided into compartments of subject(s):object(s) dualities and into units of quantity between singular:collective and hence a three-dimensional spatial approach to integral theory or, if you will, four different quadrants by which to three-dimensionally and meta-systematically classify the temporically-frozen manifest world of space, which are listed (beginning clockwise from the upper-left quadrant) as Interior-Individual ("Intentional"), Exterior-Individual ("Behavioral"), Exterior-Collective ("Social"), and Interior-Collective ("Cultural").  

These four quadrants may in turn be defined as forms of "perspectives" so long as "perspective" in Wilberian terminology is clearly differentiated from forms of perspectivity (Gebser).  In Gebserian language, "perspective" (whether singular or multiple perspectives ultimately makes no difference) has a more nuanced meaning and is but one form of "perspectivity" that is exclusively confined to the mental-rational structure of consciousness and refers to personal identity in the form of a fully-individuated I-ego subject who is capable of thinking for himself without becoming hopelessly immersed in collective group-think of two-dimensional mythical "we" and is therefore capable of standing in opposition to object(s) in three-dimensional space (whether conscious or no) to measure and quantify space.  "Perspective" is therefore only one "form of perspectivity" confined to the three-dimensional mental-rational structure with no applicability to any other structure.  It is furthermore to be contrasted with Gebser's "forms of perspectivity" which refers not merely to the fully individuated ego-self of the perspectival or multi-perspectival worlds in third- or fourth-person perspectives nor even to the so-called "transpersonal" realms of "higher Self" as defined by fifth-person, sixth-person, or even "higher"(n)th-person multiple perspectives in three-dimensional space referring to capital "I" of "Integral" in an envelopment of transcendance and inclusion; but to also impersonal or apersonal forms of perspectivity of the "aperspectival world" which is conscious, but is a supra-individuated anonymity that is exclusive to the newest structure of consciousness referred to as "the Itself."

Ultimately, the question of whether "perspective" is in reference to pre-personal or personal forms, to singular or multiple forms, or to "trans" or "non-trans" forms is ultimately irrelevant should "perspectives" in II-Integral theory be a form of perspectivity confined strictly to "personhood" or more specifically--to the "I-ego self" cloaked in a variety of transpersonal, pre-personal, or personal forms of fake identities, expressions, and perceptions from a variety of different structures but all assembled and "mapped out" three-dimensionally on a conceptual map concerning quantities and self:other dualities and posing as integral or transpersonal but is really I-ego self "in drag": all of which--if looking at the Four Quadrants from the standpoint of "I/we/it/its"--are ultimately partial to "personhood" and to self:object and singular:pluralistic dualities at the exclusion of impersonal aperspectival consciousness of "the Itself" that is currently irrupting into consciousness as a perception of the whole via access to Time in all forms and manifestations.  Thus, unlike "perspectives"--which refer to various "personal viewpoints" based on an outmoded mental-rational perspectival system of "first-person, second-person, third-person, fourth-person perspective and beyond" (which, in turn, are terms that can be perceived very dimly as "structures" by perspectival thinking on a four-quadrant map and thereby neatly re-classified into "structures" or "stages of development" on the same grid due to I-Integral's perspectival immersion in space and lack of perception of time as a fundamental aspect of consciousness-formation resulting in its leaving out time in its "equation" and consequent thinking that all stages or structures of development are "perspectival" in their orientation) so as to offer a sense of wholeness and inclusion of "integration" of "all viewpoints from all stages or structures" on an inclusive three-dimensional grid-like dual oppositional Four Quadrant system or map whose coherency is maintained only by applying its own rigidified three-dimensional autistic rules concerning self:other and singular:pluralistic dual oppositionals systematically to every one throughout all stages of development from the pre-personal stages to the personal and to the so-called "transpersonal stages" irrespective of whether quantitative values or dual oppositions apply in any other "stages of development"below or beyond the "personal" I-ego mental-rational structure  ("quantitative values" and "dualities" being so very essential and necessary on a three-dimensional coordinate map or system in order to maintain its overall integrity (that is, its "coherence": not 'integrality')), "forms of perspectivity" refer to a a given form of realization or perception that is exclusive to a specific structure of consciousness as a consequence of its relation to space and time.  "Perspectivity" can exist in one of four possible forms: pre-perspectival (magical), unperspectival (mythical), perspectival and multi-perspectival (mental-rational), and aperspectival (integral): which includes not only "personal" (perspectival or multi-perspectival) so-called "transpersonal" (aperspectival) or "pre-personal" (pre-perspectival, unperspectival) forms of identity or perceptions but is also inclusive of the "impersonal" and anonymous forces of consciousness  that are currently mutating and manifesting in the aperspectival-integral world of lower-case "i" of integral-aperspectival as "the Itself."

 

"Aperspectival," moreover, does not result in a partiality toward its own form of "impersonal" or "anonymous" form of supra-individuated anonymous aperspectivity at the exclusion or negation of personalized forms of identity or self-expression as is found to be persistently the case in "perspectival thinking," which we find results invariably in a partiality toward the "person" or "self" at the exclusion and utter dis-regard and contempt for "the Itself" (which the perspectival thinker thoroughly omits and ignores as nonexistent).  In contrast, aperspectival is a form of perspectivity that includes the whole (including persons) but is free of both subject and object and hence, free of ego; and therefore free of dualities to freely access the plenitude of "the whole" without being spatially-constricted to one or more "perspectival vanishing points" in space so as to effect the world with potency via access to Time as quality to make an impartation of truth in whatever form as a reward-in-the-Itself: which, unlike the perspectivally-bound I-I, is no longer selfishly-bound and motivated by a need for "personal power" in the form of magical might (magic), buy or by rewards of "personal salvation" in the afterlife (mythic), nor by agendas concerned with "personal progress, self-validation, self-acceptance, personal wealth, personal possessions, personal glory or fame, or personal self-development or success" (the mental-rational) as a "reward" for its deeds or services but is motivated purely by a need to positively effectuate the world so to engage the world creatively. 

"The Itself" lies both behind and beyond the personal self-identity, whether "relative" self or Absolute Self; and those who are capable of aperspectivally activating the Itself in themselves are themselves no longer strictly bound to the constraints and limitations imposed by duality, time, space, causality, material things, perspectival-thinking, or personal egoic demands.  One is thereby free to access the plenitude of pre-temporal archaic origin and wholeness of the Universe to make provisions during times of scarcity and feeling of disconnect from the whole of human race and from the whole rather than be fated to suffer the vacuity of empty space out of losing and getting nothing (strike that: reverse it) from the vacuity of physical space by making what was then-thought to be an insensible and futile request for a computer and sent to the physical universe as a joke out of utter hopelessness expecting nothing to come of it whatsoever but having nothing to lose and then getting one from the Universe.

 

 

This video, "YOU GET NOTHING! yOU LOSE! (Strike that: Reverse it) came out enlarge.  My theory on that is:a while back I posted a version of this video with no reversed-playback on it, it made me feel that I was being "jinxed" by Willy Wonka who kept saying, "You get nothing! You Lose!" over and over to Charlie Buckett interspersed occasionally with, "You win!" and confusing me resulting in my having to cast a spell of "STRIKE THAT: REVERSE IT."

I do not of course expect anything to come of it; but at any rate do not care what happens to me any more nor what others think of me and feel somewhat of a fraud I do admit and like I am wasting my time.  Least of all would I expect the Universe to make provisions during times of scarcity and feeling of disconnect from the whole of human race and from the whole rather than be fated to suffer the vacuity of empty space out of losing and getting nothing for it seeming to be a random occurrence to me at the time.  But returning to the above, one time when I requested what I then-thought to be an insensible and futile request for a computer and sent it to the physical universe as a joke out of utter hopelessness (expecting nothing to come of it whatsoever but having nothing to lose, and nowhere to turn), I got one.  Not that anything like that would happen again; just trying to move on.

 The verity of which is confirmed via blogged letter of request to the universe for a computer and sent anonymously to the Universe by me approximately one and 1/2 years ago in a blog post to Myspace.  At the time of post, it was written in a state of hopelessness for anything but only meant to be a "cosmic joke" for entertainment purposes about a deplorable situation of having no money and no-where to turn but to the physical universe for a computer; which in hindsight was a cosmic-joked that was played out by the Itself or universe upon "me" with the unexpected fulfillment of this request approximately i forgot maybe a year ago with the arrival of a brand new computer sent anonymously and unexpectedly to my home by a benevolent donor who never came across my request on Myspace but offered to send me one out of the blue because he "liked to help young people with their projects," after reading my complaint that I could not see any videos on my computer (not posted to try to get people to feel sorry for me to offer me a new computer; but only as matter-of-factly out of frustration).  At the time of request we were, in fact, referring to "the whole" of some kind but failed to make a connection between Gebser's concept of the plenitude of wholeness or origin nor "the Itself" with our references to "the universe" which we went on to describe purely in third-person as an it-object yet do find in hindsight that addressing "the Itself" in third-person anonymous and somewhat generic and nonpersonal "it" language only can be of value perhaps.  

Given my good fortune of a computer and the plenitude of the Itself, e.g., "the universe" to consciously provide it, however, there may still be those who would object to the use of third-person and nonpersonal "it" object-language to refer to conscious spirit--whatever it is--and perceive it as a form of disrespect and rudeness to the "personhood" of consciousness, God, or Ultimate Ground of Being:  I do admit to obnoxiously berate the universe by complaining that "the universe" is "mostly unconscious and empty" space which is only sparsely (hence only partially) occupied by partially conscious (but "mostly lifeless") entities existing in the vacuity of the physical universe (which itself is a thing, not a person: so itself so doesn't even "know" what to "do" with such a request at any rate, so I reasoned; and reasoned further that neither the physical universe (which is by and large unconscious) nor the people who are "in it" (who are by and large more "conscious" than a "thing," if only partially) exist partially conscious but only as faceless and anonymous entities out there in cyberspace, who themselves are the masses who occupy space and are into voyeur so may read my request by the numbers, but cannot themselves be expected to act responsibly as individual or collective persons in a spirit of kindness or benevolence on behalf of this random individual due to "Stockholm Syndrome" and other forms of magical reversions into blindness and irresponsibility created by mass hysteria or hypnosis: effectively reactivating deficient magic which itself is "blind" (whether efficient or deficient) and therefore, highly "irresponsible" due to its blindness and lack of any sense of value: hence the masses cannot be expected to act responsibly as individual ego-subjects or "people" out of benevolence or kindness who would likely see my request by the thousands but would be paralyzed to act individually or independently when gathered in large numbers as anonymous entities in cyberspace and stricken with Stockholm Syndrome to assist me with provision for a computer.  Thus, I concluded that most likely that this request will be ignored whether it is read or unread; I reasoned and concluded in defeat; and quickly forgot it.  

 

Given the unusual and outrageous nature of this seemingly unreasonable request to "the universe" made a year ago and posted frivolously to Myspace for the sake of a joke (which I found to be amusing but quickly dismissed and forgot), I find that the unexpected and somewhat random fulfillment of this request in the form of an anonymous donor of a brand new computer four months ago (a donor who was and is, moreover, a virtual stranger to me who didn't come across my blog to know of my then-long forgotten request for a computer from January 2008) is significant.  Combined with other coincidences--such as the fact that the only request in turn asked by the generous donor was that s/he not be "identified" by "name" so as to remain anonymous), in addition to the seemingly trivial but odd coincidence that the person who suddenly triggered my memory to finally realize any connection of this forgotten request for a computer to a miraculous fulfillment via provision of one by the universe was referred to ironically, of all names as "i forgot:name" (because at the time, "i forgot" the name of this individual who helped me to remember).  The combination of these events along with countless other patterns emerging independently over time and revealed atemporally indicates that a certain clarity of truth must be imparted to the world aperspectivally, arationally and alogically--and that such seemingly logically-unrelated events dismissed by the vast majority of people as "trivial" or coincidental do indeed have significance whenever they are accessed aperspectivally.  They must therefore be brought to the whole of consciousness (and consequently, to the consciousnesses of  "others") so as to a-ware (make perceptible and visible) the reality of new mutation by those who are capable of this task of wholeness and integrality for the purpose of verity or validation of these truths which are imparted aperspectivally.  I would go further and say that it is a moral imperative to attend to this mostly thankless task (but thanks, MANN! for your thanks and your singular support of thanks!  I really appreciate it, MANN!!) should one have access to aperspectival perceptions and is capable of imparting these truths: without which its significance would otherwise remain invisible and hidden from view given that such perceptions are perceived aperspectivally (and hence, perceived "transparently" in clarity and wholeness: meaning that these perceptions will remain invisible and inaccessible to most  who are bound to perspectival thinking, yet nonetheless can and must be made perceptible and visible in those who are open to "transparency" and are also striving to activate this mutation of wholeness and integrality in themselves but are free of the egoic demands for personal reward or validation, as it is largely a thankless and unrewarding and very often--pointless or meaningless "task" from a personal standpoint. Gebser wrotes that the mere presence and act of accessing "wholeness" to bring to present and make origin and previous modes of realizations visible in others that which is ever-present but is ultimately "transparent" and hence, invisible from "view"( unless perceived and imparted in clarity and wholeness) is sufficient in and of itself to activate the newest mutation in others who are ready and capable of rising to this challenge.   With this in mind, I offer a few more examples so as to better illustrate how this transparency "operates."  This may be necessary to offer better clarity in the meaning of truths that are imparted "transparently" from the standpoint of wholeness and integrality: which cannot be accessed solely via conceptual maps conceptually which were posited as "theory" by Integral or integral theories which in and of themselves cannot offer any verity if such truth-claims are only posited  by others but cannot be experienced vitally as "lived experience" (efficient magic) and also endured psychically via "undergone experience" (visionary myth, e.g. with eyes closed, mouth shut, and via inner contemplation of the psyche or soul): neither of which (whether magic or myth) can be "visually seen" via mapping nor by conceptualization via posited theory but only "felt," "lived" or "undergone" by each and every individual who takes on the task of integrality and wholeness for themselves.  And let us not forget: wholeness refers not solely to conceptual knowledge of perspectival or multi-perspectival thinking (which is "represented" and hence, visually-oriented upon self or object(s) for the sake of "representation" so as to "understand" perspectivally and/or to "have empathy" for these lowered-consciousness structures for the purpose of acquiring greater knowledge and acees to "multiple perspectives" (while simultaneously regarding oneself as being "above" them and thereby never truly internalizing these lower structures into the core of one's own being so as to find any affinity or identity with lower forms whatsoever other than a patronizing form of "understanding" or nod and "tolerance" for all stages of development for the goal of attainment of higher personal development).   Arationality, after all--is not "beyond" rational at of negation of pre-rational or irrational elements but is the integration of them all including the rational.  Far too often, I notice that the magic structure of Gebser (which corresponds roughly to the first three stages of first stage tier) is perceived only negatively by Integralists as "Power Gods," violence, "islamic red terrorists, Green/Red narcissim or as the center of gravity for pre-operational children and thus a personal threat to many to their own stage or intelligence and wish to have no associations with "Red."  Whle in some respects this negativity of Integralists toward Red or below this is true, it is only a partial truth and therefore not "integrated" if Integral theory fails to offer any positive references to efficient forms of magic of red or below or associates it with Green--when Orange is equally if not more guilty of activating deficient forms of magic which threaten our world.  The mental-rational structure of perspectival and multiperspectival thinking inevitably leads to a re-activation of a deficient form of magic which is not only narcissistic or violent but also negative and destructive, since both magic and mental structures are externally-related (the former to the "natural world"; the latter to "space").  What results in the deficient phase of the mental-rational structure (whether "Orange" or "Green") is re-submersion into deficient magic in the form of technology and machines for the purpose acquisition, power, and personal possession and ownership of space to validate the security of the ego-self.  This egoic need for ownership and possession of space for self-validation and security leads ultimately to demonic possession by space via enslavement to Time in an effort to acquire more "space" for selfish needs and personal security, resulting in a situation of "possession" by space in the form of unconscious objects (and remember: this is occurring in the mental-rational but is also an expression of deficient and negative magic.  And magic is cloaked in the darkness and mystery of "somnolence" and as such is always blind, whether "positive and effectual" (efficient) or "negative, ineffectual, and destructive" (deficient magic) until the irruption into aperspectival, which is no longer blind but is clarity.  As such the reversion into blind magic without the clarity of consciousness leads to abandonment of personal responsibility once it is surrendered completely and left to the hands or devices of unconscious (yet highly sophisticated and powerful) technology and machines, whose powers of might and magic were gained only at the cost of giving up and surrendering those powers that had once existed innately and naturally within humans themselves in the form of positive and efficient forms of magical power: and what exists in nature or technology externally in space is ultimately a projection of what was once innately available and internal within humans naturally as magic power.  These powers still exist in latent forms within humans via "potentiality" but do not have any potency in any manner that is beneficial or effectual for the world unless they are activated by the wholeness and clarity of aperspectival-integral, which is no longer blind.  Otherwise, these potentialities remain latent and dormant so are largely ineffectual and useless when not brought to fruition, and/or are alternatively externalized into space via projection of these innately human magical powers into technology and machines by the mental-rational structure: thereby activating neither ineffectual or impotent witchcraft but nor efficient, beneficial, positive, or potent magical power but rather, a demonic and unconscious element that is unleashed blindly upon the world that is negative and self-destructive.  These aspects refer to negative and deficient magic via activation and projection of magical powers into mechanistic thinking and machine.  As a side note, Gebser notes that in a variety of languages from Sanskrit to English, "magic," machine," and "mechanistic" are connected etymologically via primal word or sound of one-dimensional magic.  And language can and does have magical potency so long as  they are not over-utilized into irrelevancy or expressed purely by perspectival thinking, yet can be released negatively and destructively by these forms to the masses slogans or buzz-words if used by these means irresponsibly.  These pre-rational and irrational elements can never be conceptualized perspectivally as they fall below the threshold of conscious thinking and awareness.  For this  and other reasons, they are largely "invisible." The aperspectival world of integrality is no longer confined strictly to perspectival thinking (which is predominantly oriented upon vision and thinking) but includes all present and prior structures of development.  As such "verity" must be provided by way of truths brought to concretion via all modes of perception as rational, irrational, and pre-rational modes of realization and perception. Returning to "examples" to offer clarity in the meaning of making visible what is otherwise invisible and transparent: we have a history of re-publishing or uploading copyrighted material to blog or to copycat fake music sites without permission and without regard to copyright laws.  This is neither "good" nor "right" but is true.  Combined with previous remarks concerning anonymity, personhood, and Gebser's references to "the Itself" and our propensity to address various "persons" (whether self or others) in third-person or as "its," we find that this pattern is significant but is ultimately a transparency that is made concrete and visible via the fulfillment by the universe in the form of an anonymous donor whose only request was that s/he not be "identified" by "name."  These patterns are only perceptible when perceived aperspectivally.  Only by becoming transparent to the whole via access to the whole are they are recognized as truths which must be imparted via presentiation.  Most of which were made possible via recognition of events executed more or less "unconsciously" without my active involvement; so I as a person cannot take "personal" credit for these truths as they were initiated atemporally by a supra-individuated and anonymous "the Itself." Unlike perspectival knowledge, access to the aperspectival and to the Itself does not lead to partiality toward "impersonal anonymity" at the negation of self or ego as it is also conscious access to "the whole" Itself--which lies behind and beyond the personal "self" or "Self" in a somewhat anonymous and impersonal form but yet is a form of consciousness nonetheless.  By accessing the wholeness of the Itself, we have access to the pre/non perspectival world of archaic origin of foreboding, pre-sentience, and creativity of zero-person undifferentiated nonperspective of "it" except now in differentiated and conscious form of origin resulting in a capitalized form of "It-consciousness" in "the Itself" of aperspectival.  "The Itself" and aperspectival is thus a supra-individuated and anonymous (and/or possibly not-only "supra-individuated" but-also a "supra-collective" due to its anonymity) form of consciousness which brings to present archaic origin, pre-temporality, and the source of creativity.  Access to wholeness or pretemporal origin consequently results in access to all forms of time and space from previous structures via atemporality and thereby to a disruption of the causal nexus between mechanical "causes" and "effects" of physicality.  In addition, mutation into integral can result in a disruption of sequential ordering of events in temporal time concerning levels of complexity and the stages of development as required by the mental-rational rule of "not vice-versa" due to its being bound and limited to the constraints of temporality.  Not to say that previously or even up to very recently that this was not the case; but only to say that integral is no longer bound to sequential or linear time of temporality. Returning to "perspectival" and "aperspectival," aperspectival is wholeness in that it is conscious access to the pre/non perspectival  "it" and/or "he/she" androgyny of archaic origin.  The conscious access to pre-temporal origin activates all forms of perspectivity via access to "the Itself," a conscious form of he/she androgyny of zero-person pre/non-perspectival originary presence.  However, this is not to say that "the Itself" manifests only impersonally as an "it" or as androgyny of "he/she" as it is also manifested in the pre.perspectival world of the pre.egoic "me.we" of one.dimensional.magic (amd we.me can alternatively exchange the spelling via pars pro toto "me.we" or to simply "mewe" via magical exchange. ("Me.we" is a primal word sound that may have initially been expressed or uttered simply as oneword or onesound of "mewe" as in the group, "Hellogoobye," which has a magical.accentuation due to its music, which is acoustics based around sounds and hearing over that of spoken words or speech with any meaning; although a proto-language had emerged in the form of primal words or sounds such as "Hellogoodbye" which are spelled together as one word but make no sense to us to spell that way today.  At any rate, magic originated out of muteness as in speechless which then developed at best only to a proto-language in the form of primal words as in two unrelated or opposite words spelled together into oneword or sounds so is naturally more inclined toward receptivity in the form of hearkening and hearing as in acoustics than to speaking or to meaning.  At some forgotten point in the remote past of the magic structure, however, these primal words of two words being uttered nonsensically or spelled together as one word fell out of practice as the need for language arose resulting in a division of what was once a primal word or sound into two different words or sounds.  At any time consciousness becomes more awake to self, a fracture and separation occurs in wholeness of archaic origin as consciousness of self begins to awaken to realize that it has dis-intentified from the wholeness and complete identity of undifferentiated unconscious archaic origin.  Such disturbances to further fragment the whole of origin with increasing awakening of consciousness and awareness of self, resulting in fragmentation in what was once "wholeness" and "complete identity" with unconscious spirit of archaic origin.  "Complete identity" can only be achieved via resubmersion into unconscious spirit of archaic undifferentiated origin; but integrality and wholeness can be achieved to return to pre-temporal origin which is conscious spirit that is no longer undifferentiated due to its clarity of consciousness, but does exist in the plenitude of wholeness of origin which is differentiated, yet whole.   Reconciliation is a natural primordial unconscious pull of archaic origin in each of the structures to achieve some form of wholeness via integration to return to a pre-temporal identity of origin and wholeness. In the one-dimensional magic structure, for example, this attempt at integration is magical unity in an unconscious effort to restore some semblance of wholeness to return to primordial origin in what is perceived unconsciously as fragmentation as a consequence of increasing consciousness and increasing self-awareness and separate-self sense.  The symbol for one.dimensional magic is thus felt to be expressed with a dot (.) in between to represent the separation and unity of two different words which were once whole and spelled together as a primal word or sound until they were separated into two different words, but now unified via dot (.) of one.dimensional magical unity.  Furthermore, one.dimensional magic is a point.like unity but is capable of connecting two separate things into a magical unity via line or dash (-).  The line or dash (-), however, was already apprehended in previous days to be reserved for the ambiguity-ambivalence of two-dimensional mythical for its ambiguity-ambivalence than for one.dimensional magic, although the reasons will remain unclear until we get to that particular secton of the page by sequential time to examine consciously what was revealed atemporally by the Itself a few days back as a premonition for this schematic arrangement of symbols to separate words to connote their dimensions). This particular scheme of using various symbols such as dots, lines, or dashes between words was uttered unconsciously as a premonition a few days ago but now is recognized to be derived from the future in our current dilemma of having to choose between two different words, "me" according to Wilber and "we" according to Gebser, to represent the one.dimensional world of magic on the upper.left quadrant of first.person perspective. The two words unified via magical unity is now recognized as a comprimise that I had not previously expected nor encountered until today when I noticed that a solution must be found between Ken Wilbers' and others' references to first.person perspective on the upper.left quadrant as being narcissistic and pre.egoic "me" that manifests in first.person perspective.  Gebser refers to both one- dimensional magic (U.L) and two-dimensional mythic (L.L) as valuing a sense of belongingness of "we" more so than what is described in developmental psychology as a pre-egoic "me."  We perceive both me and we to be truth, but "me" was deliberately chosen against the "I" to represent this "perspective" of the U.L quadrant of first.person perspective which cannot be truthfully be regarded as "I" if first.person perspective on the U.L is the first.perspective to irrupt into consciousness.  Thus, access to a first.person perspective on the UL in and of itself without access to second-person perspective on the LL quadrant nor to third:person perspective of objectivity on the UR is pre-personal and isn't capable of "perspective" in any sense until the irruption into a fully individuated ego:self or subject known as "I" via discovery of "space."  This discovery of "space" is what made possible the irruption of unperspectival mythical into mental-rational perspectival thinking and resulted in a shift of group-identity of mythical "we" to individuated I of ego-self.  This ego-subject is made possibly by standing in opposition to objects in three:dimensionality to measure, locate, and acquire objects in space, which is a third:person perspective of "I:it" duality in the mental-rational structure.  The "capital" I can only get its sustenance from perpetual attachment to objects in space.  Objects cannot be released as dual:oppositional to subjects because of the ego-self's fear of insecurity of loss of self with loss of it-object to oppose and belittle for its own security.  As such, The UL quadrant of first.person perspective which broke forth into consciousness during pre-personal stage, cannot be in reference "I" but can be defined alternatively as pre.egoic "me."  This "me" is furthermore confirmed by the fact that "me" rhymes with "we" and does not rhyme as "I"--which is perceived as falsehood for "positioning itself" there on the upper.left when its true dimension or quadrant is upper.right quadrant to be perpetually in opposition to objects in space so as to measure and stand in dual oppositional to it to assure its its own sense of capital "I." As previously noted we could express the word as "mewe" or "weme" instead (without the dot (.) in between the two words to denote it as a primal word or sound) in firstperson perspective, which refers to muteness, receptivity, and the point.like unity in the magic.structure.  The un-perspectival world of ambivalence and polarity of the non-egoic is "we-we" and reflectional of each other in the second-person language and group-identity of the mythic-structure, which is more poetic to the ear in sound than rational, but not quite rational to justify "we-we" as reflectional or polar-complimentarities rather than as duplicates that are completely the same and identical. The symbol for "perspectival:multiperspectival" is two dots placed vertically like the following: (:).  Have no clue why I should insist on these two vertical dots to separate the words in the mental:rational (other than to express duality) if meaning is not known for this symbol is not perceived as a a colon such as (:) but is used instead as a  separator for two opposing words.  The symbol of choice for dual:oppositional of mental:rational "multi:perspectival" and trans:multi-personal perspectival:impersonal anonymous aperspectival world of the Itself.  In this case, however, the capital "I" must be reduced to lower-case to emphasize the Itself of the aperspectival structure"It(s)/i."  I typed a right-leaning slash by mistake (/) rather than a colon (:) so am wondering if the mistake should be a sign to change the colon (:) to a forward/slash for mental expressions and emphasis on the right.of mentality:rationality and dualistic:oppositional thinking of self:objects in the duality of third:person, fourth:person, fifth:person or as yet uncharted realms of higher self which perpetually excludes of consciousness in the nonpersonal form of the super-individuated anonymity of the Itself.  

"Perspectives"--whether singular, multiple or trans--refers to the mental-rational structure.  As such it is a deficient and negative term that is over-utilized and no longer has the potency to effectuate the newest muation into aperspectival "the Itself."  It is partial toward "I" and personhood at the exclusion of conscious forms of "the Itself" of aperspectival and nonpersonal which it does not even acknowledge as "conscious."  I must be shown to be a subject:objects(s) duality expressed as "I:it(s)" to denote the the form of perspectivity as merely perspectival "I" vs. "it." and the exclusion of the Itself of aperspectival nonpersonal.  At any rate, "I"

 cannot be expressed without its oppositional unconscious "it(s)" so must be placed in opposition to 

 Whereas the Itself is not exclusive of "I"--"I" ignores the reality of a conscious form of the Itself due to its antagonism and opposition toward unconscious it-objects that I measures in an effort to assure its own self-security of ego.  I must therefore be re-assigned to its appropritate quadrant which is the right-hand quadrants and be expressed as oppositional to "its." 

 

The mental-rational structure of perspectival thinking (whether personal or "transpersonal" matters not, should "perspective" be confined to mentality or thinking exclusively in a perpetual grasping for self-validation and importance by asserting that personhood or self or I-I alone is "conscious" at the exlusion of nonpersonal  aperspectival the Itself which is a more intensified form of consciousness than "I").   "Perspective" as it is currently in use in Wilberian theory is clearly in reference to personhood and to object(s) of self-awareness based on first-person, second-person, and third- or fourth-person identities (or even higher "transpersonal" realms of fifth-person or sixth-person "perspectives" and beyond): all of which are ultimately in reference to forms of "personhood" and thus to perspectival awareness confined to self and objects, which leads to partiality and thus confined to metnal-rational thinking).  Aperspectival is the form of perspectivity that is capable of accessing the whole of consciousness and thus to all forms of perspectivity whether perspectivally or from the nonpersonal, aperspectival anonymity of the "Itself."  "Aperspectival" should be the form of perspectivity of the newest mutation into integral.  "Perspective" became the mode of perception 500 years ago with the discovery of space and "multi-perspectival" is Green or higher but not yet integrated; only partial.

Perspective is over-utilized as a term  and cannot offer any potency as a magical sound to reflect the newest consciousness; and it is furthermore confused by those who seek to use it for the sake of integrality when all "perspectives" can do is reinforce the mental-rational.

The following paragraph typed must now be revised in light of newest realizations:

Going this time counter-clockwise from the upper-left quadrant, first-person ("I") perspective on the upper-right (UR) quadrant, second-person ("We") is perspective on the LL quadrant, third-person ("its":plural) perspective on the LR quadrant, and to third-person ("it": singular) perspective on the UR quadrant.

Furthermore, within each quadrant we also find 13 different levels or stages by which any given phenomena (say--a "person") may manifest and evolve.  These levels or stages refer to levels of complexity or development as they unfold chronologically over sequential time, whereby each higher stage transcends and includes all of its previous stages in a spiritual envelopment or unfolding within a Great Chain of Being. Thus, a person at stage 11 may be defined as a being whose center of gravity operates intentionally according to "rules" (of conformity), behaviorally at "SP1," socially at the stage of "agrarian:early empire-state" and culturally at the level of "mythic."  On a less conscious or perceptible level, however, the previous stages contiue to be operative and active, but fall below the threshold of stage 11 consciousness which only perceives the world at its highest stage of stage 11 but is unaware of stages nor the fact that it is also a composite being operating not merely at "stage 11," but is also operating more or less unconsciously on "automatic pilot" (so to speak) based on previous constructions, versions, or operating systems from stages 1-10 as well.

Based on Wilberian theory, this unfolding of transcendance and inclusion can only manifest temporally by order of units of complexity over sequential or abstract time such that each higher level of complexity transcends and includes all of its previous stages but not vice-versa.  That is to say, a unit of complexity at the stage 2 or 3 level of molecule or cell transcends and includes "level 1: atom" but not vice-versa for the obvious fact that an atom at "stage 1" is more fundamental as a stage, unit, or level of complexity than that of higher units of complexity which are built upon them, such as a molecule or cell.  As such the "atom: stage 1" is foundational for the higher stages and is transcended and included into the being of a stage 2 or 3 molecule or cell, but not vice-versa.  And it is this "not vice-versa," according to Wilber, which establishes this temporal order of sequential unfolding or development over temporal time.

Additionally, one can be at the "highest" level of development at worldcentric listed above as "stage 13:centauric, planetary/informational, etc." yet still be at a center of gravity that is not yet "integrated" or "Integral" in Wilberian theory due to a lack of cognizance of development as defined above.  This is where "AQAL" comes in, which is an elaborated model that includes not only the four quadrants above but also "all lines, all states, and all types"

 It is the attainment of the highest "level" and the capacity to become fully cognizant to the four quadrants above in addition to AQAL ("all quadrants, all levels, all lines," etc.)  which defines the Integral structure in Wilberian theory.  Cognition refers to mentality and to thinking.  Becoming "fully cognizant" of development appears to be the methodology prescribed in Integral theory but is not adequate to effect mutation into integral, but becoming transparent to the plenitude of the whole of consciousness of the Itself is sufficient (Gebser)
 

Whereas "space" refers ultimately to "depth-space" of the third dimension and therefore to objective reality concerning numeric quantity, mass and measure, and physical extension into space-time (all of which can be neatly and systematically categorized and located on the right-hand quadrants of the Four Quadrant Model), "time" cannot be represented on such a map for the fact that it manifests in every single quadrant objectively, subjectively, interobjectively, and intersubjectively but cannot ultimately be confined to either the left- or right-hand quadrants as can three-dimensionality of space.  In Gebser's work (as well as in theoretical physics and string theory), time refers to the fourth dimension and to all higher dimensions.  However, unlike Einstein's Relativity Theory (which refers to the curvature of space by temporal time and hence, is a spatialization of time that is ultimately in reference to space so can be located on the right-hand quadrants), it is not possible to represent time on a three-dimensional coordinate system such as above.  And those who would attempt to place "time" on the left-hand quadrant to be in dual opposition or polar complimentary to "space" on the right-hand are equally fallacious for the fact that clock time, relativity theory, and geometric forms of time refer to objective reality on the right-hand quadrants.  However, these forms of time on the right-hand quadrants refer ultimately to what Gebser  refers to as a "spatialization of time."  It is therefore a falsification of time (which if a "reality," must have some quality or aspect that is unique to time alone apart  from "space"), The falsification of time does not mean that clock time of measurement of three-dimensionality are "unreal," but refers instead to the denial of mental-rational to permit time to exist as a reality other than as spatialized time in the form of "clock-time" or space-time due to over-emphasis on "space" for the sake of object-acquisition for the security and validation of I-self.  This emphasis on I results in an attachment to space and to temporally-limited conceptions of time which are spatialized into quantities.  

As such, I is not a "rugged individualist" but is utterly dependent on the security and sense of "purpose" provided by the objects it seeks to acquire and possess so exists in a subject:object duality. The perpetual emphasis on I and space results in a negation of time. Time as a quantity--that is, the spatialized form of time referring to temporality or clock time is a falsification of time--but is the only form of time that "I" is concerned with here in three-dimensional "space."

Thus, by "time," I'm not merely referring to the development of consciousness over time, to historical time, to ordinary temporal "clock" time, or to the state of timelessness as encountered by meditation and other non-ordinary states of consciousness: but to those time-forms in addition to time in all of its manifestations including time as an intensity, a quality, a movement, an energy, motoricity, periodicity, a dynamic, geometric time, conceptual time, a rhythm, music, colour, art, poetry, a vital element, a psychic element, and so on.  The  task of the newest mutation is to concretize all of these forms of time to manifest a conscious form of archaic pre-temporality (wholeness).  For brief outline of these various forms of time as they exist in the structures, please go here.

 

That being said, you will find that the rest of the post has been left "as is" when I referred to Gebser's treatment of time as ultimately a LL-quadrant treatment of time.  This is not meant to confuse or negate what I've just written above in my update but was based on my reading of Ken Wilber's analysis of Gebser's work in general.  Thus, for clarification, I am now writing a disclaimer to say that Gebser's treatment of the space and time constitution of the structures of consciousness is not confined to the LL quadrant as reported below as it ultimately deals with every quadrant and cannot be confined to any quadrant.  Although it may well be the case that compared to other theorists, Gebser's developmental theory in general (excluding his treatment of space and time) focuses more on the LL quadrant than do other developmental theorists.  In addition, I think that I may have erroneously reported that Gebser's magic structure referred to the LL quadrant.  This is not necessarily strictly the case as the magic man or woman can also refer to the UL quadrant as well and refers to perhaps the first three stages of SD or AQAL; so is a very broad term.

The following is a brief list of other treatments to time which I also found to be inadequate for various reasons:

The following is a snippet from the "Triple Loop Awareness" essay under "Theory of Time":

One of the basic ideas of the three-dimensional theory of time-experiencing is that we are ordinarily 0-dimensional time beings, altogether time-oblivious (e.g. when engaged in a repetitive task, when driving and daydreaming, when enthralled by what we are reading, or when asleep). In addition, we are episodically 1-dimensional time beings, aware of linear chronological time (e.g. when waiting impatiently for someone who’s late, or when rushing to meet a deadline). These may be named zero-dimensional time-awareness and one-dimensional time-awareness.

 Here are a few more snippets:

The second dimension of time can be imagined geometrically as orthogonal to linear durational time from the past to the future, passing through the present. From the point of view of our ordinary (zero or one-dimensional) temporal awareness, the present is a vanishingly small instant that can never be grasped because it is past by the time that its sensations, thoughts and feelings register within us. Is there a different quality of awareness that permits a timeless, conscious experiencing of the present – a quality of awareness that permits us to live nowhere but the present…

 

A third dimension of time can again be imagined as orthogonal (the Z axis) to the plane defined by chronological time (X axis) and eternity (Y axis). The three-dimensional “volume” of time can be imagined as holding all possibilities, all the potentialities of the future and the still-hidden meanings of the past, some of which emerge into the present (become act-ualized) and then pass into linear, historical time, through a translation process that quantum physics now describes as a “quantum collapse” (Ho, 2001; Malin, 2001).

 

Call it my 'autistic side' coming out, but I am very irked by the unscientific treatment of time and dimensions that I've encountered in "Triple Loop Awareness" under "Theory of Time" (see above or scroll to section below the horizontal bar for a fuller excerpt) which utilizes an entirely different system of dimensions and "loops" from the system that I've grown accustomed to.  I've bent over backwards to be flexible or accomodating to "Triple Loop Awareness" (whatever that means), but am thrown into a cognitive dissonance or loop each and every time.  Whenever the essay mentions "one dimensional," for instance, what instantly pops into my mind  is "spaceless and timeless" (Gebser) and/or a "line segment" or "height" (as in geometry).  My reaction to "dimensionals" is presto (like magic!) without ever 'thinking,' each and every time.  When, in fact, they're referring to none of these things in my mind but to something different, "linear chronological time."  Now compare the above to an alternative theory, the one that I'm accustomed to, Jean Gebser's "Space and Time Relationship to the Structures" (from The Ever-Present Origin).

Gebser's Space and Time Relationship to the Structures   

As shown in the table above, 1-dimensional "ordinary temporal time" or "linear chronological time" as described in "Triple-Loop Awareness" in the snippets above has nothing to do with Gebser's one dimensional magical timelessness or with geometrical conceptions of dimensions.  As Gebser notes in "Space and Time Relationships to the Structures" (and repeatedly throughout his book), "ordinary temporal time" or "linear chronological time" refers to "clock time" which is abstractly temporal and three dimensional: not "one dimensional" as argued in the "Triple-Loop Awareness" essay under "Theory of Time."   

One reason for this discrepancy is that the Triple Loop Awareness essay's theory of time evidently fails to account for the spatial component or dimensioning that occurs in conjunction with the dimensioning of time.  In physics, this "conjunction" is known as the "space-time continuum" or "spacetime," which combines three-dimensional space with a fourth dimension, time, within a single construct or coordinate system.  From an all-quadrant integral model of space and time (which must, in addition to the sciences on the right-hand quadrants, account for the role of  consciousness in the left-hand quadrants to spacetime as observed in physics on the LR quadrant), "dimensions" as discussed in "Triple-Loop Awareness" fails the test of integrality for its inability to integrate with physics on the LR quadrant to perceive both space and time as ultimately two different aspects or sides of the same coin of consciousness. 

2. Gebser's LL Quadrant Aproach to Space and Time and Their Right-Hand Correlates.

"For that matter," one might reasonably inquire: What, exactly, does Gebser's one dimensional magical space-timelessness have to do with the one-dimensional height or line segment as discussed in geometry or in the space-time continuum of physics?

Gebser's one dimensional magical structure is nonlocated on the four squadrant of Ken Wilber's all-quadrant model or map and refers to the one dimensional space-timelessness within a pre-perspectival "space" of "we."  As such the "spacelessness and timelessness" that Gebser refers to has no correlate in the four-quadrant model and, with respect to "spacelessness and timelessness"  refers more specifically to a form of realization of space and time, which in interiority exists in the form of "spacelessness and timelessness."  This is not to be confused with the exterior "space and time" as it is known in geometry or string theory on the right-hand quadrants but refers instead to an intersubjective "pointlike" consciousness with no sensorium for space and time as we know it today.  This "point-like" consciousness of the one dimensional world refers therefore to the diffuse and considerably lowered consciousness of magic man (and woman), whose sleep-like awareness alternates fitfully between that of somnolence and dream, and whose dimly-aware consciousness is capable of making out only the basic contours or outlines of nature in which he or she is still enmeshed and intertwined--all of which stream out at magic man confusedly in a more diffuse and point-like form. 

In the one dimensional magical structure, the "ego" is dispersed throughout all of nature but as yet does not exist in any concentrated form within a human, thereby making telepathy and magical pars pro toto possible whereby one object or point--be it real, symbolic, or artistically rendered via drawing, sound, spell, incantation, or by any other means (say, a "voodoo doll")--can "represent" and effect another object by analogy and thus be magically interconnected and exchanged with any other point or "dot" in space (say, a "human") to effectuate the desired end sought by the magic man or magic woman.  Pars pro toto, which is a Latin term (I think) that literally means "one for one," isn't necessarily confined to a singular transference of energy between one point and another point but is also variously translated to mean "one for some," "some for one," "one for all," "all for one," or "all for all" and so on to apply to one or more targets simultaneously via magical interweaving and interconnection, all of which are bound together in a magical unity and enmeshed in an egoless "we" (made possible by virtue of  the fact that in one dimensional, the "ego" is not yet consolidated in "man" but is still dispersed throughout all of nature).  Making possible the magical transference of properties between any representative point (say, stabbing the voodoo doll) and the target point(s) or victim(s) who is succumbing to the spell (say, human or animals suddenly collapsing and stabbing over in pain).  None of which as yet are conscious enough as ego-consciousnesses to withstand or negate the power of the spell. 

Those attuned to the magical structure exist in a spaceless and timeless realm whereby events and causality effectively by-pass these higher dimensions of space and time and, hence, the mechanical-causal (and temporal) laws that we normally encounter in the higher dimensions.  Thus, events in the one dimensional magical structure are effectuated via magical pars pro toto and "meaningful coincidence" which is a vital, not causal, nexus, and operates according to its own "rules" which cannot be explained by rationality, logic, or mechanical causation.  One dimensional magic, Gebser writes, is essentially "doing without knowing."  To effectuate magic, one must essentially disengage from conscious awareness and enter a trance-like state as the shamans and the mediums do.  As such, magical pars pro toto has validity only within the respective consciousness structure that is attuned to one dimensional spacelessness and timelessness, which itself is a structure that is oblivious to rationality, causality, or logic.  It is furthermore a structure that is neither cognizant nor bound to the constraints of temporicity as it exists in two-dimensionality nor by the spatiality and the abstract temporality as imposed by three dimensionality.  On the whole, however, it is regarded as inferior and deficient structure compared to higher structures because magic is a lower form of consciousness and therefore, chaotic, with unpredictable results.

Gebser's dimensioning of structures on the LL quadrant have their exterior correlates on the LR quadrant.  We can discern for example that the space-timelessness, point-like nature, and relative unconsciousness of one dimensional magic is expressed geometrically in the one-dimensional line of geometry or physics.  This one-dimensional line (see the 10th Dimensional Universe video below) is first formed by connecting two zero dimensional points or dots, which are of indeterminate location and size because they do not exist within any given coordinate system.  Two "dots" or points can be connected, however, to form a one dimensional line, which is likewise of indeterminate location or size and without a coordinate system.  This "indeterminancy," which in physics refers to something that is "unknown" or "unknowable," can be likened to the lack of sensorium for space and time in one dimensionality of Gebser's magical structure of consciousness.  

When two ends of a one-dimensional line meet to form a two-dimensional circle, what we have is a "disk" or a surface-plane: it is not yet a "space" as described in geometry or physics as it lacks the third dimension, that is, "depth-space."  It is therefore, like the first dimension, "spaceless."  It does, however, create a flat surface plane or disk whose center point is used as an imaginary center or reference point which is used by the two dimensional mythical beings inhabiting this plane or disk, who take delight in traversing merrily around this point or pole in a circular fashion endlessly; and who see a correspondence or reflection between this center point on their surface plane to a certain star aligned directly above, say, the North Star, whose point is perceived not as a three-dimensional object but as a light that pierces down from the heavens through a tiny hole in the canopy sky above.  These recognitions were possible as a consequence of a mutation in consciousness from a one to two-dimensional structure, which differs from one-dimensional trance-like somnolence in that the two-dimensional is dreamlike instead and hence, focused on the soul or psyche, which is a mirror-reflection to the deities above.  The ego-once diffused across all of nature indiscriminately--distances itself from the natural world as it consolidates and collects within the collective consciousness of a chosen people, who as yet do not possess individuality but instead, belong to a group-ego.

The canopy sky above is actually dotted with many holes and perceived by these two-dimensional beings not as "space" but as a black veil that hovers their two-dimensional world and mirrors the two-dimensional surface plane on which they inhabit.  It is actually the sages and astrologers of these mythical people who first make note of the circularity in movement of these various celestial bodies travelling around the North Star, whose rotary movement is tracked carefully by these learned men and women and whose careful record-keeping permits consciousness to recognize "time" for the first time in the form of a natural cosmic temporicity: which is not "linear" or "sequential" time (as in a clock or a metronome, which is quantified time) but is natural temporicity which is rhythmic and circular in movement and follows a natural periodicity.  As shown in Gebser's table above, the two-dimensional structure is likewise defined as "natural temporicity" and spaceless, which is the form of realization of time and space in the two-dimensional mythical structure of consciousness.  "Linear time" does not break forth into consciousness until the recognition of "depth space" or three-dimensionality, which cannot occur until ego has further concentrated from a collective "group-ego" to an individual ego, who is capable of extricating himself or herself from the collective "we" of one or two dimensionality to stand in opposition to space to thereby measure and quantify it.  This quantification of space, in turn, leads to the quantification of time and linear time as we know it today.  This form of time, called "abstractly temporal," is a falsification of time because it is an attempt to quantify, abstract, and spatialize time into "space."  Hence, time in the three-dimensional structure is experienced as a quantity; not as a quality.  It is actually not until the irruption of the integral four dimensional structure of consciousness that time in all of its forms--pre-temporal archaic, magical timelessness, mythical temporicity, and abstractly temporal--is recognized in all of its forms and brought to "concretion."  And likewise in physics, just as spatiality refers to three-dimensional space, time--which is ever-present in a variety of forms as has always been the case--does not actually enter the equation in science until its discovery in physics as the fourth dimension.

As we can see, Gebser's research on forms of realization of space and time are not self-identical to the phenomena on the right-hand quadrant but are instead the left-hand correlates of empirical phenomena on the right-hand side, which necessarily utilize other methodologies such as physics or geometry for understanding these dimensions.  Yet the correlations between Gebser's theories of space and time relationship to the structures to phenomena on the right-hand quadrants are unmistakable.

As we shall see later, even Tarthang Tulku's comparatively more Buddhist, less sophisticated, and arguably less scientific approach to time (yet another alternative model of time that we will examine) can at least intuit the inextricable relationships between the roles of space, time, and consciousness to an overall theory in his Time, Space, and Knowledge (TSK).  There are different reasons, however, why I have a problem with Tulku's  theory (scroll past horizontal bar for full fragements and/or excerpt of TSK).  

3.  The collapse of previous structures into a single point, line, level, dimension: is it integral?

 

Interestingly, in both the Triple-Loop Awareness essay or in Tarthang Tulku's writings, there is no question that the authors are coming from a highly advanced perspective by calling to our attention the many deficiencies inherent in the mental-rational structure's treatment of time (not identified as such).  In both models, a variety of time-forms (and our realizations of these forms) are offered as examples and then ranked by dimensionality, loop, or level, suggesting that both of these theories subscribe to some form of developmental theory in their theories of time.  However, because development or evolution is never mentioned explicitly by these authors, it is difficult to determine whether their dimensions, loops, or levels are in reference to structural-stages as in evolution or to stage-states as in meditative practice.

But let's put that question aside for now and assume that these levels or dimensions are in reference to "conceptions" of time according to structures of consciousness rather than states of consciousness.  In which case, we could reasonably argue that Tarthang Tulku's TSK's system of "levels" of, say, "Time" by levels 1, 2, and 3 have correspondences with first, second, or third tier "conceptions" of time. ("Conception" is is actually an inappropriate word when used in this context; because conceptualization is a mental-rational three dimensional approach to the "understanding" of time.  As such, having a "conception" or "concept of time" means having an abstraction of time so is a form of realization that is quantified and linear, and unique to the mental-rational three-dimensional structure of consciousness; but I digress). 

This is the basic problem that I have with such an approach.  Even if this were Tulku's intent (and not intended instead to refer to the "tripartite nature of the soul/time"), very few people would have a grasp of level two let alone level three.  At any rate, only a very few people, as I understand it--not even the majority of those who are at integral stages--are at "third tier consciousness."  Making such a system highly impractical for a vast majority of people.  In addition, all structures--based on his system of levels--possess a conception of abstract or linear time which is placed at "Level One" which suggests that all structures start out at the mental-rational structure of consciousness.  Either that, or "Level One" is a catch-all phrase or level to refer generically to all prior structures of consciousness from archaic to mental-rational; thereby essentially collapsing the first four dimensions of Gebser's structures from archaic to mental to one single dimension or level. 

Since all of these structures are co-constituents of our being and are always ever-present, I would be highly skeptical of such an approach that collapses the entire history and prehistory of humanity to a single point or level.  I already sense an uncomfortable trend in integral to downgrade or collapse previous structures in a mad dash to move forward and "advance" or evolve to 2nd and 3rd tier consciousness.  This of course is not to say that there aren't people who exist on the 3rd tier; of course there are.  But I personally do not think that most of us are there yet and that many in the Integral community are excessively focused on advancement or forward progress to the exclusion of integrality and wholeness. 

The vast majority of human history or prehistory has been spent in 1st tier.  The vast portion of our consciousness and collective experience is from previous structures of consciousness.  For example:

Let's say that the anatomically-modern human being emerged 130,000 years Before Present (BP):

Homo Sapiens Sapiens, 130,000 yrs. BP to Present

Time of Irruption	Structure/Early Phase	Structure/Later Phase	Period/Mode of food production, notes
~130,000 yrs. BP-Present	late archaic/magenta (deficient phase) early magic/red (efficient phase)	magical/red	lower-mid-upper Paleolithic foraging/nomadic
~50,000 yrs. BP-Present	late magic/red (deficient phase) early mythic/amber (efficient phase)	mythical/amber	upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic foraging/nomadic-horticultural
~10,000 BP-Present	mythic/amber	late mythic/amber (deficient phase)	Neolithic/Epipaleolithic agricultural revolution early civilizations (antiquity) Historical Period (written records begin)
~2,500 BP- Present	mental/orange (efficient phase), but predominantly late mythic/amber (deficient phase)	resume late mythic/amber (deficient phase)	Axial Age 800 BCE-200 BCE kingdoms, early empires/nation states mentality, directed thinking (first worldcentric irruptions) agricultural
~500 BP-Present	mental/orange (secondary efficient phase)	mental-rational/orange (deficient phase)	Modernity European Rennaissance Late empire/nation-states rationality scientific revolution industrial revolution
~50-80 yrs.  BP- Present	mental-rational/green (deficient phase)	mental-rational/green (exhausted phase)	Postmodernity globalization, late empire/nation-states Information Age; mass communication/media multiculturalism Internet Revolution; technological age
~10-15 yrs. BP-Present	mental-rational/green (exhausted phase), integral/teal, turquoise, etc. (efficient phase)	?	?
Present + 25 yrs.	?	?	?

 

These are only in reference to the leading edge of consciousness, of course; just some rough estimates.

Based on above, about 99% of human history and prehistory and thus, 99% of the contents of our consciousness are from previous structures of consciousness prior to the mental structure (actually, from the Paleolithic or from the archaic-magical structure).  Because of that, I have a problem with collapsing archaic-green to one level or tier (should this be his intent).  The task of integration and evolution is to discover and to integrate the present with all prior structures of consciousness so as to return to origin and wholeness fully conscious.  If everyone is too fixated upon higher stages, levels, or tiers--they won't be concerned with the lower nor with the Ever-Present Origin.  What are your thoughts.

Maybe other people do not have an issue with this but I do. 

4.  The Concretion of Time in the Integral Age

 

"The concretion of time

is one of the preconditions
for the integral structure;
only the concrete can be integrated,
never the merely abstract."
 

--Jean Gebser, The Ever-present Origin, p.99

 

And what, exactly, is the precondition to bring time from mere abstraction to concretion in the integral structure?  Primarily, it is in knowing how to differentiate these various time-forms by way of not only meditative practice, a new paradigm, or by maintaining a presence of awareness but more importantly by developmental structures or evolution.  Only then can we become transparent to time's presence and intensity and effects upon our reality.  These various time-forms mutate from structure to structure to take on a new "form" while simultaneously leaving previous forms in our midst to permit the variety of time-forms to co-exist simultaneously from origin to present.  Thus, out of pre-temporal origin the achronon mutates to magical timelessness.  Out of magic timelessness it mutates to mythical temporicity.  Out of mythic temporicity it mutates to mental-rational abstract temporality.  Out of mental-rational abstract temporality it mutates to integral space-free, time-free achronon and beyond.  All of these time-forms have a space-form counterpart so must be addressed in conjunction with space.  Neither time nor space can ever be realized without consciousness so must always be addressed in conjuntion with consciousness.  All of which irrupt out of origin, co-evolving and mutating with each new dimensioning of consciousness (structures).  Perception of these newer, present, and previous forms of space and time is therefore largely dependent on one's structural development.  Thus, depending on degree of consciousness or structure, we all have access to certain time-form realizations which remain ever-present in every form within us.  We must therefore become transparent to these forms of time and space to presentiate the new and to differentiate the new from the old.  Only then is time concretized.

Ken Wilber writes that Jean Gebser's structural model of archaic, magic, mythic, mental, and integral isn't nearly as sophisticated or as adequate as previous or current models but that it nonetheless had a very strong impact because it was so simplistically-conceived.  Actually, after reading his work, we discovered that Wilber was incorrect in his assessment and wonder how he could not understand  that Gebser's primary contribution to integral theory has all to do with his genius in correlating these mutations of structures with collective realizations of space and time over the course of many epochs over human evolution.  Given the limitations that are inherent in Gebser's chosen methodology--that of dividing the major epochs of human evolution along the lines of dimensionalities of space and time (considering that the bulk of his research was completed in the 1950s)--it should come as little surprise that Gebser's own model would necessarily be confined to the four-dimensional spatio-temporal world of his day; which he accordingly divided into in five different structures of consciousness (which, when including "origin" as a structure or dimension in and of itself, that is, archaic zero dimensional as a structure or dimension, there are five instead of four structures or dimensions).  This of course is not to suggest that Gebser's entire theory of consciousness rested upon the findings of the physics of his day but only to underscore the importance of the space and time relationship to his overall theory of the structures.  

I should also point out that Gebser's particular area of strength is not so much his expertise on current or future trends in the sciences, arts, pop culture, or evolution as much as it is his impressive grasp of early human evolution in previous structures.  This is especially true with regard to his capacity to correlate these dimensional aspects of space and time to the previous structures in a manner that is thoroughly convincing, integral, and deserving our attention.  It is, after all, these previous structures which comprise the vast percentage of human history and prehistory and contain the bulk of our consciousness.  Moreover, these structures are ever-present and will continue to effectuate our lives in various degrees of potency whether we are conscious to their effects or not.  The key to being an integrated person is to therefore develop a clarity of these present and prior structures so as to activate the positive forms of all structures while negating their more destructive and negative effects.  Needless to say, becoming cognizant of prior structures cannot be achieved by perpetually looking "forward" toward the future with the goal of attaining higher consciousness on the 2nd or 3rd tier (which, at any rate, is a sign of someone who is caught in the mental-rational conception of time, which is purely future-oriented) any more than it can be done by perpetually looking backwards in time to the nostalgic past (the mythical, two-dimensional approach).  Only by maintaining clarity of the present and transparency of the whole which includes not only the moment of "now" but all of origin, do we become more integral.  

Incidentally, Gebser identifies the four dimensional integral structure as the first structure to be oriented on the "Present."

Zero-dimensional archaic "origin" is an undifferentiated form of origin or wholeness that is prior to consciousness (and thus prior to differentiation into structures) which is ever-present and is the source of creativity.  Each new dimensioning or mutation of consciousness out of origin results therefore in increased consciousness and individuality but in further distancing or separation from origin, the source of creativity.  Three dimensional mental-rational structure is the most remote structure from origin and is consequently the most "brilliant" in consciousness or illumination.  This brilliance or illumination is not to be confused with "integral," which is actually a structure that possesses a greater intensity of consciousness than the mental-rational.  This intensification of consciousness in fourth dimensional results not in further illumination or "brilliance" (which can have the blinding and destructive effect of burning holes right "through" "origin" if directed and/or concentrated to a partition of space indiscriminately, i.e. global warming, nuclear explosion)--but results in clarity and transparency of consciousness instead..  Which differs from the diurnal brightness of mentality in that clarity, not brilliance, is what is needed to penetrate and access the deep sleep structure of archaic, the somnolence of magic, the dream-like structure of myth and the wakefulness of mentality without breaking or negating them.  Also in integral access to the whole means conscious access to the archaic structure and therfore to creativity.  Otherwise, whenever we do not have conscious access to archaic origin or creativity, "it just happens" to us more or less unconsciously.  This may help to explain how musicians and artists--who naturally possess a higher degree of creativity (and who consequently have better access to the magic (acoustic) and mythic (imagistic) structures of consciousness, respectively)--exhibit a higher degree of creativity because they are either closer to origin by virtue of their proximity or lowered consciousness or are otherwise more integrated in a higher structure on one or more lines of development.  The same may also apply to writers and poets, who on the whole tend to gravitate toward the mythical structure.

"Lost In Time and Space" (music video, by Euromotion)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-C5wFUOnYI

 

 

Svendel, my computer mouse, is no doubt a psychization or mythologization of a common object with a magic-acoustic beat.  I haven't even thought about this song for about two years until about two days ago, when my computer mouse quit "clicking" links for two days in a row.  

 

With that in mind--Gebser's theory is confined to four dimensions (or five, if counting undifferentiated origin--that is, archaic zero-dimensional).  However, insofar as the upper limits of "structures" or "dimensionality" is concerned, string theory holds that we live in a 10-dimensional universe containing all possibilities of all spatio-temporal events in all mutiple universes.  Beyond the 10th there is nothing--so the theory goes.  Yet allowing for the possibility of building on Gebser's original work which consisted of only four dimensions. 

Incidentally, in geometry and/or in a non-euclidean geometry or physics, "height" occupies the first dimension whereas "width" occupies the second.  "depth," e.g. depth-space or spatiality, occupies the third.  This explains how the three dimensional mental-rational structure is oriented upon spatiality at the exclusion of time except in abstract or degraded form of linear or clock time, which is quantified and spatialized time so is not experienced as a quality.  The fourth dimension adds the dimension of time.  Beyond the fourth dimension are further dimensionings of time, not space.  I only add this portion for those who may be interested in investigating dimensionality beyond the fourth by connecting time to ever higher stages or structures.  Gebser himself preferred to leave his unfinished work "open-ended" at the fourth dimension to allow for all past, present, and future contributors to address and to further elaborate on his model as new developments, structures, or dimensions irrupt. 

To my knowledge, no other integral theorist to date has adequately addressed the issue of space and time in developmental theory.  His approach to space-time relationships to the structures, primarily via ethnomethodology and hermeneutics (on the LL quadrant) is basically the foundation of his developmental theory.  But not only is it another developmental theory or model on the LL quadrant but an integral model whose space and time dimensions can be confirmed in all four quadrants of KW's all-quadrant theory and at all structures of development.  This, to me, differs dramatically from "dimensions" in Triple Loop Awareness (for example), which, as I understand it, utilizes "dimensions" in a way that suggests that these "dimensions" are meant to merely serve as a conceptual device for ease of reference or as a visual aide (and thus, in a manner perhaps similar to AQAL colour theory, whose colours are not meant to be taken "literally" but merely provide a conceptual framework for an overall theory of development).  Whereas I can justify the need for AQAL--which in spite of being a conceptual model, is far more intuitive than any developmental model than I've seen and is therefore beneficial for the "real world"--the dimensions as explained in the Triple-Loop article do not appear to conform to current theories in space-time dimensions, do not have correlates in other quadrants, do not account for structures adequately, and are therefore presumed to be conceptual models of time but nothing more.

By contrast, Gebser's use of dimensionality and approaches to the study of space and time have correlates in all four quadrants and can be furthermore explained by structural development.  By these standards, Gebser's model of space, time, and dimensions possesses a certain concreteness beyond the mere abstractness of a conceptual model of time.  And remember: only the concrete can become "real" or transparent to consciousness. We achieve this concretion of time is by making by not more "abstract," but more "concrete," instead.

Gebser remarks that the birth of the aperspectival consciousness, that is, space-free, time-free integrality--began with the irruption of time into our consciousness, not as an analytical system of measurable relationships, but recognized as a quality and an intensity.  Thus, the problem I've encountered with these other theoriests below is that while they seem to possess a sophisticated language in describing these various "forms" of time, they do not appear to be able to identify these various time-forms as mutations that have irrupted and co-evolved with increasing dimensioning of structures or consciousness.  They do not appear cognizant of "development," in other words.

 I'm sure that "a place" can be found for all of these seemingly contradictory or competing theories on time within an integral model or framework of time.  And I'm trying sincerely to find a common frame of reference for dialogue.  Yet find it altogether confusing when the terminology that is used in Triple Loop Awareness or in Tulku sound exactly the same as Gebser's terminologies of structures and to physics or geometry, but mean something entirely different from what I'm thinking.  Should anyone care to take these concepts of Triple Loop and Tulku and translate them into Geserian dimensionality and language, I would greatly appreciate it.   

Gebser's Time and Space Relationship to Consciousness and Dimensions

 

 

5.  Imagining the 10th Dimension [FULL CLIP], a new way of imagining space and time

 

Imagining the Tenth Dimension: A New Way of Thinking about Time and Space

http://www.tenthdimension.com

by Rob Bryanton

Reality, today's physicists tell us, is created by the vibrations of exquisitely tiny superstrings in ten spatial dimensions. Ten dimensions? Most of us have barely gotten used to the idea that there are four. Using simple geometry and an easygoing writing style, author Rob Bryanton starts with the lower dimensions that we are all familiar with, then uses those concepts to build one layer upon another, ultimately arriving at a way of imagining the tenth dimension. Part scientific exploration, part philosophy, this unique book touches upon such diverse topics as dark matter, Feynman's "sum over paths," the quantum observer, and the soul. It is aimed at anyone interested in leading-edge theories about cosmology and the nature of reality, but it is not about mainstream physics. Rather, Imagining the Tenth Dimension is a mind-expanding exercise that could change the way you view this incredible universe in which we live.
 

Those who might object to a right-hand discussion of Gebser's dimensions: why use superstring theory--the super micro-world--to explain the super macro-world of consciousness or structures when other theories such as Newtonian physics apply to larger spatio-temporal events?  1.  Obviously, we are not interested in making literal interpretations of the findings from superstring theory or any sciences to explain the whole of interiority (whether as a singular consciousness or collectively).  Yet it is still interesting to take aspects from various quadrant-perspectives of dimensions and compare them to Gebser's research on the dimensions or structures on (primarily) the LL quadrant.  

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvgwR9ERCBo

Why stop at 10 dimensions?  Discussions about infinity.  Gebser's definiton of infinity: A large segment of mythical Kronos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbz-CefzT-g

---

 

6.  Competing and/or Parallel Theories on Space, Time, and Structures

Below are some brief excerpts from alternative or parallel theories on time or space in italics.  My comments, if any, will be followed in normal text (non-italicized) below the excerpts. Gebser's term for the shift in consciousness from three dimensional conceptual time to a concern for time in all of its forms is called temporics, which is a manifestation of the four dimensional integral structure.  There is definitely a feeling of temporics in all of these writings, especially the first.  Beyond the basic concern for time, however--I do not see much in the way of time or space that these theories can offer with respect to evolution or structures. 

b.

INTEGRAL REVIEW 1, 2005,   Interweaving a Theory of Time with a Theory of Developing Awareness of Time, Star & Torbert:[from Triple-Loop Awareness Essay]
 

In recent work (Chandler & Torbert, 2003; Torbert, 1991; Torbert & Associates, 2004), a group of our colleagues have been highlighting a three-dimensional theory of time (and this theory is also either implicit or explicit in a number of other works related to quantum physics and consciousness research [e.g. Priestley, 1964; Malin, 2001; Purser & Petranker, 2003; Senge et al, 2004]). As we will see below, developmental theory traces the path by which people can come 1) to interweave single-, double-, and triple-loop awareness; 2) to experience the three dimensions of time (or the six dimensions of space/time; and 3) to engage in powerful, vulnerable, transforming, and timely leadership action. One of the basic ideas of the three-dimensional theory of time-experiencing is that we are ordinarily 0-dimensional time beings, altogether time-oblivious (e.g. when engaged in a repetitive task, when driving and daydreaming, when enthralled by what we are reading, or when asleep). In addition, we are episodically 1-dimensional time beings, aware of linear chronological time (e.g. when waiting impatiently for someone who’s late, or when rushing to meet a deadline). These may be named zero-dimensional time-awareness and one-dimensional time-awareness.

In its most sophisticated forms, one-dimensional time-awareness can be cultivated into an awareness of psychological and historical patterns that inform current actions (this type of sophistication is found also in the historical theories of evolution and development that have characterized both the social and natural sciences during the 20th century).
One-dimensional time awareness of sequential passing time permits us potentially to act, then identify a gap between act and intended outcome, then adjust one’s action, and achieve one’s goal (maybe), thus doing single-loop learning. Developmental theory and research (see Table 1) suggest that only a minority of managers and executives develop to the Achiever action-logic where they are capable of reliable single-loop learning in the midst of ongoing action (Torbert & Associates, 2004; Rooke & Torbert, (2005). An even smaller percentage of adult professionals are measured as Strategists who reliably engage in double-loop learning and reliably generate successful developmental transformation (Rooke & Torbert, 1998). And only 1% transform to the Alchemist action-logic that is devoted to sustainable moment-to-moment triple-loop learning and awareness. Double- and triple-loop awareness introduce us to the second and third dimensions of time, which are hidden within durational or passing time.

The second dimension of time can be imagined geometrically as orthogonal to linear durational time from the past to the future, passing through the present. From the point of view of our ordinary (zero or one-dimensional) temporal awareness, the present is a vanishingly small instant that can never be grasped because it is past by the time that its sensations, thoughts and feelings register within us. Is there a different quality of awareness that permits a timeless, conscious experiencing of the present – a quality of awareness that permits us to live nowhere but the present… inhabiting the eternal present in all of its unfolding fullness… experiencing a sense of our own presence and of other presences around us even while remembering something, or focusing on a particular task, or imagining a possible future? When smelling a flower, or facing a sunset, or embracing (and being embraced by) a beloved, many of us are occasionally graced by contemplative moments of harmony and communion… a conscious experiencing of presence-sensitivity-receptivity in what feels like an “eternal now” (in Latin this was called the “Nunc Stans,” the “Standing Now”). Similarly, we may experience vivid moments of disharmony as when we “see” that our practice contradicts our own espoused principle. But, paradoxically, these eternal moments of “time out of time” usually soon fade.
A third dimension of time can again be imagined as orthogonal (the Z axis) to the plane defined by chronological time (X axis) and eternity (Y axis). The three-dimensional “volume” of time can be imagined as holding all possibilities, all the potentialities of the future and the still-hidden meanings of the past, some of which emerge into the present (become act-ualized) and then pass into linear, historical time, through a translation process that quantum physics now describes as a “quantum collapse” (Ho, 2001; Malin, 2001).

What is actual… consists of both objects and subjects in a dance, or flow. Each new subject is constituted in part by antecedent actualities, but each new moment of experience, in addition to its physical constituents, is also a creative subject which exercises its freedom and creativity to unify in the moment its constituent completed moments of experience. Each object is an expired experience…; and then these objects provide the raw material for subsequent subjects… And so the cycle proceeds from subject to object to subject to object (de Quincey, 1999, 99).. . . . .

My comments: while the authors above may very well be in agreement with Gebser and quantum theory, their unorthodox use of dimensions and time threw me for a cognitive loop.  I will have to look up their sources on quantum physics that they've cited as a source because their understanding of qm is foreign to me.  On the whole it strikes me as not an evolutionary or developmental theory of time in any sense, but as a guide or prescriptive for behavior modification and/or time management or awareness based around states, not stages of consciousness concerning time.  Therefore, on an integral model, I would possibly place it on the UL quadrant.

Tarthang Tulku's Three Different Levels of Time, Space, and Knowledge

From http://www.tska.info/levels.html:

"In expressing this vision in ordinary language, it has been necessary to use familiar terms in new ways. For example, 'space', 'time', and 'knowledge' refer to a special range of insights and to subtle facets of appearance. Our ordinary space and time are familiar aspects of a more fundamental 'space' and 'time' that are in effect; these terms also refer to particular levels of 'space' and 'time' as being appreciated by a particular 'knowledge'--a 'knowledge' that 'encompasses' all aspects of experience. Although we ordinarily 'take up residence' within a certain level, the opportunity remains for us to explore others if we wish. Furthermore, the possibility of altogether transcending particular 'spaces', 'times', and restrictive 'knowledge' is presented by what may be called Great Space, Great Time, and Great Knowledge." (p. xxxii, TSK)

"This vision pivots around the terms Space, Time, Knowledge (and Being). The discussions related to each of these terms often find echoes in the ideas of various modern disciplines and theories. However, when such parallels occur to you, it might be helpful to reread and investigate the discussions and exercises all the more closely, in order to determine the differences (as well as the similarities) in insight, context, and application between the ideas presented here and those presented elsewhere. In this way, premature interpretations can be avoided, and this vision's more unique applications, values, and effects can be seen and applied." (p. xxxiii, TSK)

Following are links to descriptions and definitions of time, space, and knowledge at three levels of insight ("rereadings will . . . reveal three main levels of insight" (p. xxxiii, TSK)). All material is quoted from the six works (abbreviated TSK, LOK, KTS, VOK, DTS, and DOT) listed in the bibliography.

• Time, level 1
• Space, level 1
• Knowledge, level 1
• Time, level 2
• Space, level 2
• Knowledge, level 2
• Time, level 3
• Space, level 3
• Knowledge, level 3

 I don't really know what to make of Tarthang Tulku, either.  His terminology is very vague and obscure and appears to be a curious mix of modern and premodern concepts of time, space, and knowledge.  As I had noted on another post, his writing seems very like Dzogchen or like the fragments of Heraclitus.