Work in progress – Josie Gregory. February 2019

The Evolution of the Structures of Consciousness:
Notes from The Ever-Present Origin. By Jean Gebser. (1984 – English

Authorized Translation by Noel Barstad with Algis Mickunas. Pub. Ohio University Press,
Athens, Ohio. ISBN: 0-8214-0769-4pbk Notes also taken from other authors and


The ouroboros is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent that devours itself, implicating non-differentiation 1 – a feature of archaic consciousness.
Originating in ancient Egyptian iconography, the ouroboros entered western tradition via the Greek magical tradition and was adopted as a symbol in Gnosticism and
Hermeticism, and most notably in Alchemy. Via medieval alchemical tradition, the symbol entered Renaissance magic and modern symbolism, often taken to symbolize introspection, the eternal return or cyclicality, especially in the sense of something constantly re-creating itself. It also represents the infinite cycle of nature’s endless
creation and destruction, life and death.
The above diagram is placed here to demonstrate that all the mutations of consciousness are integrated into the whole of consciousness – which is Unitive 2.


My intention in sharing these notes is to begin to place consciousness in its evolutionary roots. Over the last 20 years or so the term consciousness’ has become a popular term, in particular conscious leadership, conscious awareness and many other terms to signify the emergence of a new mutation of consciousness. Yet the evolution of the structures of consciousness are seldom mentioned. It is difficult, if not impossible to understand the functioning and manifestations of consciousness until we have some understanding of its structures.

The theoretical content of these notes relies extensively on brilliant scholars who are referenced here, starting with likely one of the greatest thinkers of the last century – Jean Gebser who states:

Origin is ever present. It is not a beginning, since all beginning is bound to time, and the present is not the mere ‘now’, today, or the moment. It is not a time division, rather an achievement of wholeness, and this always original. Whoever is able to bring to effectiveness and reality, the wholeness of origin and the present, to make it concrete (as opposed to it remaining abstract), he overcomes beginning and end and the mere current time”. 3

Two guiding principles in Gebser’s thinking and writings are:

Latency – what is concealed – it is the demonstrable presence of the future. It includes everything that is not yet manifest, as well as everything which has again returned to latency.

Transparency – which is interdependent with the first principle. Transparency (diaphaneity) is the form of manifestation (epiphany) of the spiritual. The aim is to render transparent everything latent “behind” and “before” the world – to render transparent our origin, our entire human past, as well as the present, which already contains the future. We are shaped and determined not only by today, and yesterday, but by tomorrow as well. 4

The Nature of Consciousness and Reality.

Gebser viewed consciousness as “wakeful presence”, which excludes as a contradiction any kind of future-oriented finality.5 Consciousness is not identical with intelligence or rational acuity. The unfolding of consciousness should be understood not in terms of an expansion but of an intensification of consciousness, that is, a growth in wakefulness.

He goes on to say: “the unfolding of consciousness appears to represent both progress’ – insofar as there is an accrual of new capacities or modes of responsiveness and progression away’ from the simplicity or origin. The whole. There is a mutual and even interdependent relationship of consciousness to the spatio-temporal world. 6 (Belonging to both space and time or to space–time.)

This indicates that consciousness is not just “wakeful presence”, but wakeful presence that structures its experienced universe.

That is, consciousness is intentional, in the phenomenological sense. There is a context which one might call, a psychic environment. The main feature of which is the brightness or dimness of consciousness, not that consciousness in its own ground can be brighter or dimmer rather, the simpler the psychic environment, the dimmer the consciousness. Gebser identifies four main contexts or environments which he calls structures’, or frequencies’, and mutations’ (of consciousness), with a fifth emerging. These are the archaic, magical, mythical and the mental-rational modes (or structures) of consciousness. A fifth structure -the arational-integral consciousness – is in the process of emergence.

Gebser: “The role of consciousness in this process is evident: consciousness makes it possible to retract the projection7 that once took place….the reintegration of the projection is itself an act of the awakening consciousness. Thus, consciousness always has a reintegrative capability because it can reveal a lesser-dimensional structure whose events can be realised in us only through the directive ability gained from an additional dimension. Consciousness is therefore a function which reacts to the visible course of events in reality. These events are able to manifest themselves within the world of dimensions which correspond to the particular consciousness structure (as experienced by the individual) and are thus accessible to our perceptions”.8

Consciousness is not the content of knowledge, whether present, historical or moral knowledge often called moral consciousness. Consciousness is more than mere knowledge, (formal or reflective knowledge) recognition, or cognitive faculty.9 Nor is it limited to awareness of the ego.

Rather, its illuminative function is definitely not restricted to spatialization and temporalization. It is not a mere counterpart to objects and appearances; rather, it is an observant onlooker and an active agent with regulatory functions.10

Consciousness is the intensity capable of integrating the mutations in their entirety in man. Gebser’s structures of consciousness are briefly summarized as follows:

• Archaic –It is antecedent to any awareness of time and space and prior to magic consciousness and inhabits a zero-dimensional world. It is spiritually embedded in nature;
• Magic – It corresponds to deep sleep, does not know of time and space, and has its domain in a one-dimensional world. It is vegetative, instinctual and vitalistic in nature;
• Mythical –It corresponds to dream states, knows time but not space, and inhabits a two- dimensional world. It is psychic in nature; • Mental – It corresponds to wakefulness, to life in time and space in a three dimensional world. It is essentially rational in nature;
• Integral – It corresponds to aperspectival consciousness, comprising a world of four- dimensions (p. 84). It is essentially spiritual in nature. Elsewhere (Gebser, 1949/1985) notes “This space-time freedom . . . is spiritual; and in this sense the fourth dimension in all its plenitude is the initial expression of a concretion of the spiritual” (p.387). (Concretion means the originary coalesce with consciousness. That is to say, the spiritual presence, or the everpresent origin, is not only intuited, felt, or conceptualised, but also concretely perceived (as the “uncreated light”)11 Closely if not directly analogous to Objective Consciousness in The Work by Gurdjieff.12

More indepth description of the structures of consciousness.

Taken from parts of an article at: References can be found at end of article. 13

The Archaic structure of consciousness The Archaic structure of consciousness is perhaps the most difficult to understand, for it is the one most removed from our present-day way of thinking. Stated succinctly, it can be likened to zero-dimensional mentation, a world devoid of any perspectivity at all. It is a state in which the holder of consciousness is perhaps only minimally aware of himself or his relationship to the world around him. According to Gebser, this structure denotes “a consciousness of maximum latency and minimum transparency.”14 A time where the soul is yet dormant. A time of complete non-differentiation of man and the universe.15

The term “archaic” as used here is derived from the Greek arce, meaning inception, or origin. Origin (or Ursprung, in the original German) is the source from which all springs, but it is that which springs forth itself. It is the essence which is behind, and which underlies consciousness. As Gebser understands the term, “consciousness is neither knowledge nor conscience but must be understood for the time being in the broadest sense as wakeful presence.” This presence, or being present, excludes two further overpowering by the past (past-orientation) or any future-oriented finality. He writes:

“It is our task to presentiate the past in ourselves, not to lose the present to the transient power of the past. This we can achieve by recognizing the balancing power of the latent “future” with its character of the present, which is to say, its potentiality for consciousness. 16

At the origin, there is not past to overwhelm, and the future is complete potentiality. Consequently, that which we understand to intuit consciousness to be is qualitatively different from this original structure. What hampers any investigation into it is the fact that we have no records, no written testimony, regarding it. It is a state that is swallowed by the primal shadows of a far-distant past. It is referred to in myths and legends, but these references are of a much later time. About all we can say in this regard is that within the Archaic structure the consciousness is quite undifferentiated; it is just there, and things just happen. Man is still unquestionably part of the whole of the universe in which he finds himself. The process of individuation of consciousness, in any sense of the word, has not taken place. This type of consciousness “can be likened to a dimly lit mist devoid of shadows.”[Mahood, p8] This is not consciousness in any sense that we understand it today. Instead, it can be likened to a state of deep sleep; one that eludes the specification of particularity or uniqueness.

On a personal note, the excruciating pain of longing to return to Source, to dissolve into undifferentiation to the womb of the creative forses springs from archaic consciousness.

The Magic structure of consciousness
Around some unspecified time far back in our past, a change took place. Man entered into a second phase of development and gained a new structure of consciousness, the Magical structure. This structure is characterized by five primary characteristics: (1) its egolessness, (2) its spacelessness and timelessness, (3) its point-like-unitary world, (4) its interweaving with nature, and (5) its magical reaction to the world. A rudimentary self- sense was emerging, and language is the real product of this change. Words as vehicles of power are typical of this time and structure; incantations as precursors to prayer emerged. Consciousness, in this phase, is characterized by man’s intimate association with nature.

This is perhaps the most notable characteristic regarding this structure. Man, at this time, does not really distinguish himself apart from nature. He is a part of all that surrounds him; in the earliest stages it is hard to conceive that he views himself apart from his environment. The plants, animals and other elements of his surroundings share the same fate as he does; they experience in a similar manner. Latency is still dominant; little is transparent. Magic, we can define in agreement with Gustav Meyrink, as doing without knowing, and it is magic man who is engaged in this activity in all aspects of his existence. The hunting and gathering, the quest for survival are all activities that spiritual consume most of his waking hours. But in the quiet of the evening around the fire; there is time for reflection of sorts. The activities of the day were codified (in speech – not language as we know it now) and recounted. Memory was collective, tribal, and all things were shared and experienced by all. The “I” is not a factor; the “we” is dominant.

Emotional expression is dominate in this consciousness. This is a one-dimensional, pre-perspectival, point-like existence that occurs in a dreamlike state. Unlike the dreamlessness of the previous structure, a recognition is developing in man that he is something different from that around him. Not fully awake to who he is or what his role in the world is, man is recognizing his self as an entity. The forms of expression for this structure can be found in the art and other artefacts that have been recovered from this time. Graven images and idols are what first come to mind. However, ritual should also be considered here, for it is in the specific and directed execution of certain actions and gestures that conveys much about this consciousness structure. Feuerstein 17 feels that this structure persisted till around 40,000 BC and the advent of the Cro-Magnons.

Another feature of this structure that we should bring to mind is its spacelessness and timelessness. The idea that space and time are illusions derives from this stage in our development as human beings. The fact that this is one of the first lessons one learns when embarking upon the esoteric path is further evidence of this idea. To Magic Man, closely linked as he is with others of like mind, space and time need not concern him. In fact, I am not convinced that he would understand them anyway, for there is no need for him to do so. Magic, however, is very much alive today, and it comes as no surprise that there is such a strong interest in magic today. It seems that the fast-growing branches of occult study seen to be Wicca (overlaid as it is with feminism) and similar earth magic(k) studies). What is more, it is the most vital and emotional of all structures. We live in very decisive times, potentially catastrophic times. This is a time when emotion rises near the surface of our consciousness and it is here that magic manifests itself. The proliferation of stories and films dealing with Voodoo and similar matters (e.g. The Serpent and the Rainbow) further substantiate our claim. Yet, this is not the only structure that seems to be making a comeback these days.

The Mythical structure of consciousness
With the advent of the Cro-Magnons, man became a tool-making individual, also one who formed into larger social structures. As Feuerstein points out, it is clear from the archaeological finds that the Cro-Magnons had evolved a symbolic universe that was religious and shamanistic. Part of this appears to have been a keen interest in calendric reckoning, and with it we may presume the existence of a fairly complex mythology.
This structure can be considered two-dimensional since it is characterized by fundamental polarities. Word was the reflector of inner silence; myth was the reflector of the soul. Religion appears as the interaction between memory and feeling. Man is
beginning to recognize himself as opposed to others. The next 30,000 odd years were spent developing these various mythologies. Language is becoming ever more important, it will be noted, and not only receptive, but active, language at that. Not the ear, but the mouth is important in making transparent what is involved in being and life. The mouth now becomes the spiritual organ. Group chanting evolved at this time. We witness, as well, the initial concretization of the “I” of man.

Many myths deal explicitly with man’s (unperspectival) separation from nature.
Witness the story of the Fall in Genesis (and its admonition to go forth and dominate nature); and the myth of Prometheus and the giving of fire to man. These both indicate a strong awareness of man’s differentness from nature. Man is coming into his own, although he is anything but independent of it. One could characterize this as a two dimensional understanding of the world. Within the circle of believers is where the important acts of life take place. The mere forces of nature have a beingness, often anthropomorphized, but a beingness nevertheless. Myth, then, or the mythologeme is the primary form of expression of this period. Subsets of this basic form would be the gods, symbols and mysteries. These figures provide the emerging consciousness with imaginative images around which to centre man’s knowledge and understanding of the world. If the Magic structure of consciousness is the emotional aspect, then the Mythical structure is the imaginative one (as psychic structures). It is this fact that makes mythology so difficult for us as moderns to deal with. The plethora of images (gods) and the seeming inconsistent pantheons of deities brings the rational mind quickly to confusion. Who can keep track of all these figures, their meanings, their correspondences and their associations. This is the time of the dream.

This consciousness relates well with Corbin’s (1971) mundus Imaginalis (sometimes called the imaginal realm).

Up until this time, that is, in the magical structure of consciousness, souls and afterlives were not of great importance (at least we do not find a lot of evidence thereof). Yet in the fully developed mythical consciousness, this is important. The entire civilization of Egypt, as we know it, revolved around this very issue. When we are told, then, in certain Rosicrucian documents that we must descend into Egypt, we are being told that we must regain, not revert to, our mythical heritage.

Mouths begin to play a more important role. Not only is the shaman and wise person of the tribe a repository of wisdom, others, the poets, such as Homer, begin to play a more important role in the culture. This does not really begin to happen until the mythical structure of consciousness, however. The “I” of man is not yet fully developed, to be sure, but it has developed to that point that it recognizes and demands a separation from nature, from its environment. We can take this as evidence of an increasing crystallization of the ego. We are on the way to selfhood.

Of course, mythology is very much alive today. This explains the popularity of Joseph Campbell and his work on myth. It explains the appeal that Robert Bly and his “Gathering of Men” workshops have. What both Campbell and Bly do is tell stories: imaginative, intuitively understood stories that reveal to us things that our current rational mode of thinking prohibits us from knowing. We have much to learn from myth and should be ever aware of its influences.

The Mental structure of consciousness

The next shift in consciousness began to unfold between 10,000 B.C. and 500 B.C. This was the transition to the Mental-rational structure of consciousness. It was at this time that man, to use Gebser’s image, stepped out of the mythical circle (two-dimensional) into three- dimensional space. Mythology had become so deficient (and it should be noted that each structure has its “efficient” as well as “deficient” form), that man needed a clean break with the past. The plethora of gods and contradictory stories of creation, formation of institutions, and so on threatened to overwhelm the consciousness of man; he practically stood on the verge of drowning in a deluge of mythological mentation. In reaction to this, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and of course, Pythagoras stepped forth to counteract this trend. The mental structure was inaugurated, and this coincides with the “discovery” of “causality,” Abstraction becomes a key word to describe mental activity and we find man using his mind to overcome and “master” the world around him. With abstraction comes philosophizing, hence the philosopheme is the primary form of expression. Monotheism almost universally replaces the plethora of gods of bygone days; dogma, in both allegory and creed, replaces the symbols of previous times; method replaces the mysteries as man develops an ever-increasing desire to penetrate, and, of course, master nature. This has given rise to the idea of science as the dominant religion of today. Also, at this time, time itself was conceptualized (spatialized) as an “arrow” that points from the past to the future by way of the present.

About the time of the Renaissance, man came into his own and really mastered space. It was at this time that perspective was actually introduced into art. Since that time, perspective has come to be a major part and aspect of our mental functioning. Perspective is the life blood of reasoning and the rational structure of consciousness, which Gebser considers to be only a deficient form of the Mental structure. What we have is the full development of the ego and its related centeredness. We conceive things, events and phenomena in terms of our own perspectives, often at the expense of others. The eye, it will be seen (and the last of the openings in the head), becomes the spiritual organ representative of this structure. Our language, our entire imagery and dominant metaphor takes on visual, spatial character. Space is finally overcome, in the true sense of the word. With the supercession of space, man finally accomplishes his egoistic, individual separation from nature. In this concretization of the “I,” we become very aware of our existence, of our beingness, of our individuality. And so it should be. But in a deficient mode, the outcomes, of course, are loneliness, isolation, and alienation, which are so characteristic of our own Western culture18. In fact, our current materialistic approach to understanding reality is perhaps the final stage of this structure. There is also much everyday evidence to indicate that we are moving through a great change at this time.

We should remember, however, that this is also the time of philosophy. The mental ordering and systematization of thought becomes the real dominant mode of expression. The myths have lost their vibrancy and existential connection to reality. Greek thought followed later by the Scholastics and finally the Enlightenment are all periods in which this particular structure of consciousness flourishes and strongly manifests. It is not without its opposition, of course, since any change will bring about the requisite opposition to its own development. By the time of the Renaissance, though, this structure had firmly established itself and was prepared to move into the next phase of its development. At this time, as was pointed out earlier, a very profound and significant event occurred: man incorporated space into his thought. We cannot underestimate, or overstate, the importance of this development. It is literally at this time that the world begins to shrink. The seeds of our one world community are planted at this time. The ripples begun during the magical structure are widening significantly: first spirit, then soul, now space have become constituents of man’s consciousness.

Three dimensions have been established and we are prepared for the next significant step we are taking now.

The Integral Structure of Consciousness 19

As can be guessed, then, Gebser feels that we are on the threshold of a new structure of consciousness, namely the Integral. For Gebser, this structure integrates those which have come before and enable the human mind to transcend the limitations of three dimensionality. A fourth dimension, time, if you will, is added. This integration is not simply a union of seemingly disparate opposites, rather it is the “irruption of qualitative time into our consciousness.” The supercession of time is a theme that will play an extremely important role in this structure. In fact, the ideas of arationality (as opposed to the rationality of the current structure), aperspectivity (as opposed to the perspective, spatially determined mentation of the current structure), and diaphaneity (the transparent recognition of the whole, not just parts) are significant characteristics of this new structure. Stated differently, the tensions and relations between things are more important, at times, than the things themselves; how the relationships develop over time takes precedence to the mere fact that a relationship exists. It will be this structure of consciousness that will enable us to overcome the dualism of the mental structure and actually participate in the transparency of self and life. This structure toward which we are moving is one of minimum latency and maximum transparency; diaphaneity is one of its hallmarks. Transparency is not a “not seeing” as one does not see the pane of glass though which one looks out of a window, rather one sees through things and perceives their true nature. Statements about truth are superseded by statements as truth. Verition not description is what we experience and know.
Philosophy is replaced by etiology; that is, the eteon, or being-in-truth.

This structure is difficult to describe since it depends a great deal on experience, not just that we have them, but on how intense they are and what we glean from them for now and the future. Intensity is a key characteristic of this mode of consciousness. By intensity, I do not mean simply an emotional relationship to experience or the feeling or deepening of emotion itself. This would be a magical response not an integral one.

Reflections on the different structures of consciousness.

The archaic structure is “closest to and presumably originally identified with origin” (p43)20. Closer to origin, I take to mean closer to Source. It is called deep sleep in that it is not differentiated from Source, while still not Source per se. There is maximum latency and minimal transparency. Structures of consciousness are a replication of what has already been co-present in originary existence. One needs to try to penetrate the archaic consciousness to understand it. This is possible through unio mystica (Mystical Union)

Henosis is the word for mystical “oneness”, “union”, or “unity” in classical Greek. In Platonism and especially Neoplatonism, the goal of henosis is union with what is fundamental in reality: the One, the Source, or Monad.

As is specified in the writings of Plotinus on Henology, one can reach a state of tabula rasa, a blank state where the individual may grasp or merge with The One. This absolute simplicity means that the nous (nous meaning faculty of the human mind or psyche) or the person is then dissolved, completely absorbed back into the Monad (meaning The One). All division is reconciled in the one, the final stage before reaching singularity, all duality (dyad), is completely reconciled in the One. Nous as being, being and perception (intellect) manifest what is called soul.

This state of dissolving into or `Falling back’ into the One is my heart’s desire since childhood, which became very intense between the ages of 18 years and 23 years, and again from 2000 onwards (Josie).

The dimness of the archaic structure reminds me of the Void. While some understand the void to be emptiness, it is not the case. The void is full but can only be experienced as full by higher vibrational consciousness.

Comments on Gebser’s Final Views a few weeks before his death.
“In the end everything is simple”. This astonishing statement by someone who had spent years in developing and communicating complex ideas, including the 615 pages of EPO (Ever-Present Origin), shows that at his life’s end, Gebser had achieved clarity, transparency and the desire to express this to his listeners. He says;

“Of course, to say this appears foolish”. At the end of one’s life, our fears and inhibitions about appearing foolish and going against the ideas of the majority, drop away. Many great men have held back their innermost convictions, because to voice them would cause problems affecting their livelihood, status and in extreme cases like Galileo Galilei (1564– 1642), even their life. A good example is the physicist Nobel Laureate Erwin Schroedinger (1887–1961), who in 1925 wrote a private personal account entitled ‘My World View’, subscribing to the philosophy of Vedanta, but not completing this account for publication till just before his death. He wrote:

“Now I shall not keep free of metaphysics, nor even of mysticism, they play a role in all that follows. In brief, the meaning of Vedanta is that we living beings all belong to one another, that we are actually members or aspects of a single being, which we may in Western terminology call God, while in the Upanishads it is called Brahman”.

Gebser was similarly very hesitant to clearly and simply express his deepest convictions in the circumstances and environment in which he lived. There must have been many people who criticised his views. His lack of academic qualifications was an obstacle; his status as an authority and professor was not acknowledged till he was made an honorary professor for Comparative Culture Studies at the University of Salzburg in 1967, by which time he was too ill to take up the position.

“Because we sit in a self–constructed cage… our complicated cage–thinking.., cage– security.., the bars of the compulsive images etc.” Now it is clear; the cage we construct is the particular structure of consciousness which is prevalent in our culture, that is, the mental-rational. ‘Cage’ is another word for ‘structure’. Twenty years after the publication of Part 2 of EPO, Gebser is able to survey his own life’s work and summarise it.

“Origin and the present . . . are equal . . .the whole.” The simple is in us, it is participation”. This is the integral (whole) view. When we can see that our complex theories and concepts such as space, time, causality, the ‘I’, the world, are self– made cages, forms of awareness, then they become transparent and cease to be cages, giving us freedom from our own images and we live in the ever—present. Participation means that we are part of these concepts and images, we are not observers standing on the outside, but we need to look for clarity at and into ourselves.

It is quite astonishing how similar the metaphor of the cage is to the message of another teacher, Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895–1986). He taught that words and thought were the bars of the prison into which we have imprisoned ourselves, and freedom can only be obtained when we transcend this knowledge. In the July 1994/Volume 2 Number 1 issue of Integrative Explorations Journal (p. 36–44), William Miller gives a very useful comparison of Gebser’s and Krishnamurti’s views under the title ‘A Krishnamurti Perspective on Integral Consciousness “A tiny seed in us . . . containing the transparent world . . . moving aside the bars of the cage”. Un–illuminated and in the cage, the prospect of transparency appears like a tiny seed, but if we allow it to grow, then it becomes the completely encompassing whole, leading to freedom and happiness.

At the end, it is the present origin, rather than the historical structures of consciousness, which Gebser wishes to emphasise. Let me quote from the contents of the book ‘Decline and Participation’, to which this foreword was Gebser’s last pronouncement. I have added a few explanatory words in brackets. “The realisation/awaring of the origin is only possible if, when we look backwards and into ourselves, neither the darkness of the magical, the twilight of the mythical or the current daylight of the mental–rational are obstacles (cage bars). Compared to the structure of simultaneity (the ever presence of the past and future in the present), darkness, twilight and daylight are impenetrable and non–transparent walls; where however the three grades of darkness and light of the consciousness structures have become transparent, there also the walls become illusory; a more powerful consciousness, the integral, with life and spirit supporting, transcends and is not overwhelmed by all previous consciousness structures, makes it possible to become aware of the origin, through darkness, twilight and perhaps dazzle, to see the original consciousness, or to use Sri Aurobindo’s term, the universal consciousness. Where this happens, due to its partaking of the origin, our consciousness changes into the integral consciousness and gives up its bar– like compulsive images.” (From the chapter entitled ‘The Invisible Origin’, v5/2 p113–114)

We can compare this with Gebser’s mysterious opening statement made 24 years earlier in 1949 in the Preface to Part One of EPO (Ever Present Origin), and see how much clearer he was able to express himself later in his life: “Origin is ever present. It is not a beginning, since all beginning is bound to time, and the present is not the mere ‘now’, today, or the moment. It is not a time division, rather an achievement of wholeness, and this always original. Whoever is able to bring to effectiveness and reality, the wholeness of origin and the present, to make it concrete (as opposed to it remaining abstract), he overcomes beginning and end and the mere current time”. (English EPO p xxvii)

1 Johnson, J. (2019, page 83 ) Seeing Through the World: Jean Gebser and Integral Consciousness. Revelore Press, Seattle, USA 2 Paul L. Gavrilyuk, Plotinus on Divine Simplicity, Work in pro Work in progress – Josie Gregory. February 20193 The Ever-Present Origin. By Jean Gebser. (1984 –
4 Gebser, J. (1985) The Ever-Present Origin. Athens: Ohio University Press.
5 Ibid. p42
6 Ibid. p1377 For Gebser each structure coincides with a particular reading of reality. He understands these different
readings as projections. Since the arational-integral consciousness renders all other structures of
consciousness transparent, we must assume that it also retracts all kinds of projections or single-choice
interpretations of, and exclusive modes of participation in, reality (Feuerstein, G. 1987 p.47. Structures of
Consciousness. The Genius of Jean Gebser -An Introduction and Critique.
8 Gebser, J. Ever-Present Origin (1985. p203)
9 Ibid. p203-4
10 Ibid. p205
11 Feuerstein, G. (1987, p213)
12 Gurdjieff. G.I (1992) Beelzebub’s Tales to his Grandson, Viking Arcana, 1992.
13 Mahood, Ed. Jr (the primordial leap and the present: the ever-present origin – an overview of the work of Jean Gebser
14 Gebser, J. (1984) 15 Jeremy Johnson (2019 p82) 16 Mahood, jr. p7
15 Jeremy Johnson (2019 p82)
16 Mahood, jr. p7
17 Feuerstein, G. (1987
18 (Feuerstein, G. (1987).

Corbin, H. (1964) Mundus Imaginalis Or The Imaginary And The Imaginal. Conference.
Feuerstein, G. (1987) Structures of Consciousness. The Genius of Jean Gebser -An
Introduction and Critique. Integral Publishing -California.
Gebser, J. (1984) The Ever-Present Origin. (N. Barstad Translation), Athens, Ohio: Ohio
University Press. (Original work published in 1949)
Mahood, E. jr. (1996) The Primordial Leap And The Present: The Ever-Present Origin –
An Overview Of The Work Of Jean Gebser. Synairetic
Research. PO Box 111504. Campbell, CA 95011-1504. email:
Plotinus. The Enneads (translated by Stephen MacKenna), London, Medici Society, 1917–