Zayin Neumann, M.A.

Jean Gebser and Dane Rudhyar.doc

Jean Gebser and Dane Rudhyar

    In this short essay I will account for what looks like evolution when viewed from the Mental epoch of human history, and what looks like devolution when viewed from the Mythical epoch . By way of beginning our discussion I will assume that a movement towards freedom and novelty are inherent to the world. Alfred North Whitehead calls this foundational abstraction Creativity and defines it as the process whereby the many become one and are increased by one (1978, p. 21).  After some careful comparison I have come to see Dane Rudhyar's process-oriented triptych model of consciousness as a description of a similar, if not identical, process.  Rudhyar tells us that novelty is introduced and embodied in the world by a triptych process of involution, devolution, and evolution.  His definition and use of these terms can bring a considerable amount of clarity to Gebser's mutations of consciousness.  Before clarifying this point, I will spend some time defining these terms.  I will rely heavily on Whitehead's own terminology to do this .  I will also assume that the reader has a working knowledge of these terms, so as not to have to define each of them as I go.

Definitions:  Involution, Devolution, and Evolution

    For Rudhyar, what is possible (eternal objects) becomes actual (actual occasion) via involution.  Involution, the process of becoming actual, is one of embodiment, with an emphasis on activity and what he calls the life pole (physical pole for Whitehead).  He goes on to tell us that involution is a largely unconscious process.  I would accentuate this point by suggesting that involution is a mostly conformal act of concrescence.  We might turn to the image of a seed to help us approximate a better understanding of this process.  There is a point before the seed exists, or to put it another way, a process whereby a seed comes into existence.  This is not an involutionary process, but rather an evolutionary process.  Involution begins once the “seed” has evolved (become relevant) and has been planted in the ground.  An oak tree exists as a possibility, and through a process of involution it will become embodied in the actual.  The eternal object “oak tree” becomes relevant in the seed.  If there is no seed, no ground, no water, or no sun, the oak tree is simply not relevant to any actual reality.  The seed is the possibility of an oak tree becoming relevant, being planted, and then involving itself in actuality.  In effect, the potential tree involves itself in concrete actuality by embodying itself as a very real physical oak tree.  During this process of embodiment, there is an emphasis on activity and the physical pole of our involving tree.  It is as if the work of creating the blueprint for the tree has been completed, allowing the mind (mental pole) to take a rest, and the body (physical pole) to take over.  Involution requires relatively little mental intensity, as this stage places an emphasis on physical activity.  Once the seed has been planted, what has previously become actual exerts efficient causality in order to involve the becoming tree.  The wind, the earth, the water, the sun, they all begin the work of taking on the shape of an oak tree.  They are not necessarily conscious of this process, though as more and more freedom is introduced into actuality, greater self-awareness of embodiment is introduced.  This is a very important point, and can be easily skipped over or misunderstood.  During the period of involution, emphasis is placed on the physical pole.  This suggests that what Whitehead calls efficient causality is primarily at play.  It is as if the incredible power of our habituated past is given a new avenue to push its way towards actualization.  There is less of a need for formal causality during this process.  Formal causality comes more into play in the evolutionary stage of the triptych process.  I would also like to point out, that because so much emphasis is placed on efficient causality at this stage, involution relates most closely to what Whitehead terms a conformal concrescence, wherein the emphasis is placed on physical prehensions, and what is objectified, what has come before, plays the greatest role in the process of involving.
    Once again returning to Rudhyar, when what is actual (actual occasions) expresses itself fully it becomes decadent and begins a process of disintegration or devolution.  During this stage of devolution a shift of emphasis occurs from the physical pole to the mental pole of the actual occasion, which in our case is an oak tree.  To use Whitehead's terminology, the actual occasion has made a decision, enjoys its brief moment of actuality, and then gives itself over as an object for future actual occasions.  The seed (tree) plants itself; the tree reaches its fullest expression, and then begins to decay.  The structures that have been built up begin to expire and fall apart.  It is this expression that lives on in objective immortality for Whitehead.  What is actual has expressed itself, and now becomes an objective datum for further concrescences.
    For Rudhyar, there is a parallel stage to devolution, which he calls evolution.  These two stages are parallel because with both there is a shift of emphasis from the physical pole, what Rudhyar calls life, to the mental pole, what Rudhyar terms mind.  As life devolves, he tells us, mind evolves.  The actual occasion, the oak tree, operates consciously toward the fulfillment of a purpose or a subjective aim.  This is the stage at which novelty is introduced.  Here the decision to culminate becomes an object within the same actual occasion.  It is within this stage of evolution that consciousness, the beginnings of self-awareness, enters into our process for Rudhyar.  This is also true of Whitehead and Gebser, and I will come back to this point in my discussion of Whitehead's propositions as it is an important point to consider for further discussions.  I bring it here to point out that Rudhyar's triptych model is one in which our world is moving towards an increasingly embodied self-awareness.  The entirety of the process is aimed at bringing more and more physical/life force into relationship with the mental or mind pole, while also bringing more and more self-awareness or mental into relationship with the physical or life pole. 
    Evolution, for Rudhyar, is the bringing of consciousness into the physical, while involution is the bringing of the physical force into relationship with the mental potential.  If we return to our seed and our oak, evolution is an intensification of the mental pole, whereby some novel and relevant possibility is noticed.  This possibility, or eternal object, has not been actualized or embodied.  The potential for embodiment is dawns in awareness and is then brought back to the physical pole in the form of a seed (both metaphorically and literally in this case).  In continuing with our example of an oak tree, it might not at first be obvious how greater self-awareness is becoming embodied.  We might look at it like this: 1) the mental idea of the tree is literally given life by becoming embodied or actual.  2) The physical force of life is literally given greater freedom of expression as a new avenue of expression, one that is more complex and unique opens up 3) we see the dance of the physical and the mental  as self-awareness becomes embodied, or as life becomes self-aware.  This then is the process of evolution, but it cannot be understood outside of some fuller understanding with regard to the complexity of such a process, and Rudhyar's triptych model provides us with just such an understanding.
    It may be helpful at this point to consider a more in depth comparison of Rudhyar's three stages, before moving on to a consideration of Gebser in light of Rudhyar's thought.  I do not have the space to go into great depth with such a comparison of involution, devolution, and evolution.  In lieu of such a comparison, I am including a table that may be of some help.  I would ask the reader to consider it at some length before moving on to our consideration of Gebser.

Chart missing online, but available in downloaded version

Rudhyar and the Mutations of Consciousness

    As we begin to consider Gebser's mutations in light of Rudhyar's triptych model, I would like to bring the reader back to Whitehead's definition of Creativity.  He tells us that the Kosmos, the entirety of what is, is differentiated as the many.  There is a process whereby the many are organized as the objective reality of a subject, effectively combining the many into one experience.  This concrescing occasion considers this one experience in light of relevant possibilities and makes a decision as to what to become.  The Kosmos is subsequently increased by one.  Some novelty has been introduced into actuality.  This, Whitehead tells us, is the fundamental character of the world.  We can relate Creativity back to Rudhyar's triptych model, where we see an emphasis on life and the physical pole of reality beginning to shift emphasis towards the mental pole of reality.  These are the stages he calls devolution and evolution.  As the emphasis on the mental intensifies, the many become one, and as the one's purpose is fulfilled, something new becomes possible.  The many become one, and are increased by one.  This plus one then begins a process of embodiment, a shift back to life and the physical pole.
    My intention here is to relate Rudhyar's triptych model to Gebser's mutations of consciousness.  What I mean to suggest is that as the Archaic epoch fulfills its purpose, there is an increasing intensification of the mental pole, through the Magic, the Mythic, and the Mental mutations of consciousness.  I intend to liken this process of intensification and movement from the Magic to the Mental to the movement/emphasis on evolution discussed by Rudhyar.  As that which has fulfilled its purpose, the Archaic, devolves, a stage of evolution begins whereby something novel is realized as relevant to the world.  This novel plus one is for Gebser the Integral mutation of consciousness.  Once the devolution of the Archaic is finished, and the evolution of a new seed (the Magic - Mythic - Mental evolutionary stage towards the Integral) is realized, then the new Integral seed can begin to embody itself in actuality through a shift back to the physical pole.  We can begin to see how each of Gebser's mutations relates to a particular stage in Rudhyar's triptych model. 
    In order to clarify this point, I will go into some detail as to how each of Gebser's epochs can be related to Rudhyar's three stages of becoming.  For the purposes of this comparison I will be referring directly to the synoptic table that is provided at the back of Gebser's book, The Ever Present Origin.  For Gebser the Archaic epoch is Unconscious Spirit.  It's properties, he tells us, are Integral, include a kind of latency of potential, and are zero-dimensional.  Rudhyar (see table above) tells us that the process of involution is one in which everything that might be expressed exists as potentiality.  He tells us there is a strong influence of the physical pole during this stage, and emphasis on conformal maintenance of this physical pole.  He also tells us that this involutionary part of the process is largely unconscious.  The emphasis is on life action rather than mental awareness.  It seems clear that we can make a case, given these similarities, that the Archaic, as described by Gebser, can be seen as an emphasis on the involutionary stage of his triptych model.  If we can assume this to be true, it naturally follows that as the Archaic fulfills its embodiment, it will begin to devolve, and as it does so a process of evolution will begin.  Rudhyar emphasizes the shift of emphasis from the physical to mental poles in the evolutionary process, with an increasing emphasis on a subject, whereby the subject realizes its subjective aim.  We can see in the move from Magic to Mental an increased emphasis on the mental pole. Gebser tells us that inherent in this transition is a move from spaceless to spatial, from Unity to Duality, from pre-rational to rational.  We can clearly see the shift of emphasis towards the mental within these dichotomies.  Rudhyar does not break down evolution in a way that is immediately comparable to the specifics of each of Gebser's three epochs we are considering here. We will consider each of these mutations in greater detail, with regard to their relation to the evolutionary stage, when we begin to work more closely with Whitehead. What Rudhyar does offer us is a general understanding of the evolutionary stage, and how it can be related in general to the movement from Magic to Mental mutations.
    We have suggested that the Archaic, after fully embodying itself, has begun to devolve.  We have also suggested the move from Magic to Mental is akin to Rudhyar's evolutionary stage, and has proceeded parallel to the devolution of the Archaic epoch.  This is all incredibly hypothetical, but it offers us some guidance as we attempt to steer a course towards something new.  It allows us a clearer understanding of how something new could evolve, or be introduced as a possibility, while paralleling a process in which human consciousness has moved further and further away from a concrete experience of actuality, away from the physical pole of life.  If our assumptions are valid, then something new is not only possible, but ready to become actual.  As the process of evolution culminates in a distinct subject-object duality, the ground is laid for a new self-awareness to embody or seed itself in actuality.  The Integral, as described by Gebser, is Conscious Spirit, includes a diaphaneity (transparency of previous structures) alongside an expression of verition (being-in-truth).  Notice here that an increased self-awareness has been realized through diaphaneity.  This increased self-awareness does not continue to emphasize the mental pole, but rather shifts its emphasis to the physical pole with its expression of verition.  Verition, for Gebser, is not a mental process, but rather a process of action.  He tells us that [t]his [Integral] integration cannot be effected by mere thinking or contemplation, but requires another capacity which we shall call “verition”…  the parts must be heard or experienced… only concretized parts can be integrated; the abstract, and especially the absolute, always remain separate parts (Gebser, 1985, pp. 261-268).  We can clearly discern a move from the mental, back to the physical pole of action.  This is a movement towards embodiment.  If we follow this line of thought, we can now suggest that the Integral epoch can be reasonably associated with what Rudhyar terms involution. In the Integral epoch we begin a return to the physical pole, the Ever-Present Origin.  What has been realized as possible is now embodied, involved as the Integral epoch of consciousness.
    Rudhyar has allowed us to clarify Gebser's insistence that the Magic, Mythic, and Mental mutations of consciousness are at once an introduction of greater self-awareness, while also including a move away from a concrete experience of Ever-Present Origin.  He cryptically asserts that the Archaic is a concrete experience of Ever-Present Origin, and that the Integral epoch is as well.  Through considering Rudhyar's process-oriented triptych model we can shed more light on Gebser's assertions, while including the wisdom held within the tension of the Mythic-Mental Conversation.
    We can also see how Gebser's efficient modes of being closely relate to the involutionary stage as described by Rudhyar.  During this stage, there is an increased satisfaction of possibility, at the end of which the epoch (for our purposes here) has fully realized its potential and enjoys the expression of this potential.  When Gebser speaks of the deficient mode of each epoch, he is referring to the stage Rudhyar calls devolution.  For both authors, emphasis is placed on the disintegration of structures, and a move away from a concrete experience of the physical pole of life.  Gebser speaks of spiritual evolution as the means by which new mutations come into existence, but there are grey areas around his understanding, that can be made clear by placing his thoughts on evolution within the simple structure provided by Rudhyar.  When Gebser speaks of evolution, he speaks of the need for old structures to decay in order for a new seed to become a possibility, but he does not put these pieces together in an easily understandable framework.  My hope is that I have been able to do this here by placing Gebser's mutations within Rudhyar's triptych model.  For the next part of this paper I will take up the notion of Rudhyar's evolutionary stage in more detail.  By looking to Whitehead and his understanding of propositions, we can begin to clarify another piece that remains grey for Gebser.  He tells us that evolution happens by leaps or mutations, but he is not clear in regard to the actual mechanism whereby this occurs.