The gradual transition from the fourth/tenth to the fifth/eleventh stage is marked by several developments which express an awakening of a new freedom: the humanistic Renaissance, the Reformation of Luther and Calvin, the rise of the middle class along with the gradual replacement of the feudal economy with capitalism, and the original developments of modern science—chiefly, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and Bacon. According to Jean Gebser, where "archaic and magical humanity lacked all spatial consciousness, simply because it lacked a defined self-sense" (Feuerstein, p.112), it was at the time of the Renaissance when the 'mental structure'—with roots, like any emergent structure, reaching back into history—decisively emerged, taking shape through the discovery of spatial perspective (rooted in Greek art and sculpture). Prior to the Renaissance, fourth principle interiority had not yet emerged and tenth principle physical space was correspondingly still 'flat', as in medieval art and in ancient conceptions of celestial space, such as the geocentric spheres of Aristotle and Ptolemy prior to the Copernican heleocentric revolution.
The generally acknowledged systematizer of the laws of perspective was, of course, Leonardo da Vinci who applied these principles from which a new perspectival world would result—a new exploration of tenth principle physical space.1 But the tenth principle still held hegemonic sway over the fourth principle, not only politically but also epistemologically, as expressed in Georg Feuerstein's lament: "Alas, Renaissance humanity was fascinated with asserting itself in objectified space [10th]...rather than with the stillness of the inner space of the psyche [4th]. It could not have known that any one-sided development of the spatially-transfixed self-sense leads only to the disconnection and ultimately to the disintegration of the psyche." (p.115) From this excessive exteriorization of an "emerging socio-political and economic order", Feuerstein refers to the sweep of reason (Gebser's ratio, which he held to be the lesser mode of intellect), a "naturalist-secularist torrent" that would lead inevitably to the positivism and materialism of the nineteenth century.
Nevertheless, as the Capricornian tenth principle denotes the concrete world of space, it is natural that such new developments proceed from a new concept of physical space. And it is very much the emergence of fourth principle individuality arising through the Renaissance and Reformation concomitant with the active explorations of this new three dimensional space, that comprises the developmental step from the fourth/tenth to the fifth/eleventh stage to be most decisively realized in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The emphasis on the fourth 'collective' quadrant was of course driven by the newly emergent yet still relatively unconscious second quadrant reflected in these words of Feuerstein: "Crucial to perspectivity is the 'vanishing point' at the horizon of one's field of vision. Yet that vanishing point is only the opposite to the point of origin, which is the eye of the spatially conscious subject—the ego. [4th principle] With the Renaissance, the ego, in its full fledge form, entered the limelight of human history. And that ego increasingly demanded freedom from tradition, convention, and the millstone of the past." (p.114) Such spatial perspectivalism gives rise to what would be the dominant paradigm of the eleventh principle, namely, the idea of objective truth possible only through the detached and distinct observer (Leo, 5th).
Simultaneously, yet distinct from the cultural and humanistic developmental stream of the Rennaissance, changes occuring in the tenth principle religious structures resulting from Protestant challenges to the thoroughly collectivist Catholic sacerdotal order laid the ground for capitalist economics with its worldly drive and individual enterprise. The turn-of-the-century sociologist, Max Weber, argued that it was the religious and ethical values and practices of Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Puritanism forged at this time (the transition at the end of the tenth phase), each with its own unique expression, that would constitute the very soil in which capitalism could and would grow. According to Weber, capitalism is not grounded in a sensual love of things (2nd principle) but in an 'innerworldly asceticism', in "a feeling of unprecedented inner loneliness of the single individual" (the 4th principle cut free from mother church along with an affirmation of individual self control at point N) and in a Puritanical rejection of all traditional, 'magical', salvational, and ceremonial elements present in Catholicism—a general process of 'disenchantment'. He writes:
[T]he religious valuation of restless, continuous, systematic work in a worldly calling, as the highest means to asceticism...must have been the most powerful conceivable lever for the expansion of that attitude toward life which we have here called the spirit of capitalism. When the limitation of consumption is combined with this release of acquisitive activity, the inevitable practical result is obvious: accumulation of capital through ascetic compulsion to save. (p.104, 172)
Both the Reformation and the Renaissance are expressions of a new birth of freedom, yet a "peculiar paradox of the Reformation was its essentially ambiguous character, for it was at once a conservative religious reaction and a radically libertarian revolution" writes Richard Tarnas (1991, p.237). Relevant to this distinction, James Hillman (1992) contrasts the return to Hellenic multiplicity of the Italian Rennaisance with the monotheistic spirit of Hebrewism present in the Reformation: "Hebrewism reconfirms the monotheism of ego-consciousness...the Hebrewism of the Reformation, despite its tolerance for protest, variety, and splittings, is archetypally inspired by the fantasy of unified heroic strength." (p28). By the eighteenth century, certain foundational differences between these movements would lead to a deep and radical separation between the sphere of Religion and the sphere of Reason significant among them being "the radically different attitude of humanism and the Reformation toward the problem of original sin" (Cassirer 1951, p.139) and the autonomy of the human will. The Reformation, unlike the Renaissance, "while giving expression to a new freedom, at the same time constituted an escape from the burden of freedom" (Fromm p.68). As the fourth principle awakens in a relational and differentiated tension with the tenth principle, we see a particular kind of frenetic worldly activity emerging, essentially a means to fill the inner void opening up as fourth principle self-consciousness—precisely Fromm's "escape from the burden of freedom". Marking the transition from the fourth/tenth stage to the fifth/eleventh stage, this activity took the form of the rise of the middle class—the hard-won claims of the 'common man' in tension with the aristocracy (meritocracy in tension with inherited privilege). In a widening and complexifying eleventh principle (Aquarian) social order, a social building activity affirmed the value of ordinary life and the democratic freedom of the individual which would be eventually codified through the American and French revolutions, while at the same time pointing toward inevitable industrialization and urbanization which would increasingly tax the capacities of optimistic eleventh principle efforts toward social planning and control.
As modern science continued to develop beyond the Renaissance, it was Descartes with his 'cogito ergo sum' who would articulate and establish the fundamental duality of the modern age, the duality of mind and matter (res cogitans and res extensa) and a more radical notion of fourth principle subjective interiority upon which the prevailing world view, psycho-social structures and cultural forms of the fifth/eleventh axis would stand. Actually, Augustine had clearly anticipated Descartes as evidenced in his dialogue with Evodius: "I will first ask you whether you yourself exist. Or do you perhaps fear that you might be mistaken even about that? Yet you could certainly not be mistaken unless you existed." (Bk 2, p.33) According to Taylor (1989), Descartes' 'cogito' ('I think'), his subjective interiority, has its direct roots in Augustine's turn to the interior as the certain ground of one's own existence. But a significant shift from ancient to modern had occurred; instead of lying as some eternal ninth principle order waiting to be apprehended through the inward turn, the moral sources themselves had become internalized. As Taylor, puts it, "the order of ideas ceases to be something we find and becomes something we build." (p144) Whereas, according to Taylor, with Augustine we turn within to accede the power of healing to God, with Descartes the power is ours. No longer was there the cosmic order embodying the Ideas: in fact teleological thinking was replaced by mechanistic thinking where third principle knowledge and ninth principle morality had become entirely separate. In the words of Taylor:
This very different view of knowledge and the cosmos means that Descartes's dualism of soul and body will be strikingly different from Plato's. For Plato, I realize my true nature as a supersensible soul when I turn towards supersensible, eternal, immutable things....For Descartes, in contrast, there is no such order of ideas to turn to, and understanding physical reality in terms of such is precisely a paradigm example of the confusion between the soul and the material we must free ourselves from. Coming to a full realization of one's being as immaterial involves perceiving distinctly the ontological cleft between the two [our distinction between N and M], and this involves grasping the material world as mere extension. (p.145)
Thus, the second hemisphere is further disenchanted and its ontological richness severely reduced, while the ontological primacy of the first hemisphere is affirmed. But over against a now strictly material second hemisphere, the 'solid' and 'certain' ground of the mental subject will later be reduced to the bodily first quadrant by reductive materialist views ranging from Hobbes and d'Holbach in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to the 'eliminative materialism', ‘socio-biology’, ‘cognitive science’, ‘neuroscience’ and ‘artificial intelligence’ of our day. The break with the third quadrant (even with the Greek philosophical ninth principle) had become decisive as a demystified self/world ontology came to form the infrastructure of stage II. A significant change had occurred in the nature of the fundamental mind/body dualism from the Greeks to the moderns. Taylor:
In one way, the Cartesian dualism seems more austere and severe than Plato's, since it no longer admits that the bodily can be a sort of medium in which the spiritual can appear. Yet in another way, Cartesian dualism needs the bodily as the Platonic did not....Where the Platonic soul realizes its eternal nature by becoming absorbed in the supersensible, the Cartesian discovers and affirms his immaterial nature by objectifying the body. (p.146)
From the second quadrant perspective, the first quadrant body-self has now become objectified, but the foundational emphasis is clearly on the first quadrant rather than on the third quadrant as in Plato. Maintaining the universalist perspective of the ninth principle, the transcendent formative principles of the second hemisphere give way to a disenchanted system of universal mechanical laws describing a material cosmos and a societal structure created by, supporting, and containing rational freely self-determining individuals. The nature of the self (4th & 5th) and its relationship to the modernist cosmos (10th) and to the rationally ordered society (11th)—exemplified in the 'social contract' theory of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau—as well as the manner in which it arises from the fourth principle internalization, is aptly expressed by Taylor:
If rational control is a matter of mind dominating a disenchanted world of matter, then the sense of the superiority of the good life, and the inspiration to attain it, must come from the agent's sense of his own diginity as a rational being. I believe that this modern theme of the dignity of the human person, which has such a considerable place in modern ethical and political thought, arises out of the internalization I have been describing. It will become an explicit central theme with Kant more than a century later. But Descartes's ethical theory is already moving in its orbit. We can see this in the great emphasis he places on the satisfactions of self-esteem in describing the rewards of the good life. And it comes out even more clearly in the central place he gives to generosite, this crowning virtue of the honour ethic of the seventeenth century, now transposed into the crucial motivational basis of the ethic of self control....The ethic of rational control, finding its sources in a sense of dignity and self-esteem, transposes inward something of the spirit of the honour ethic. No longer are we winning fame in public space; we act to maintain our sense of worth in our own eyes. (p.152)
How more Leonine (fifth principle) can we get!
With Descartes we see the paradigmatic articulation of the fourth/tenth deep structure, giving rise to the modernist fifth principle mental-ego. The mathematically ordered cosmos and the rationally ordered society as it was to be articulated by the Enlightenment thinkers after Descartes is clearly signified by the eleventh Aquarian principle. Moving beyond the medieval church, family, and role defined individual (4th), a fifth principle humanistic, rationalist and exalted egoic individual is seemingly harmoniously related to an increasingly democratic and participatory eleventh principle social structure. Contrary to the commonly held view that the development of the mental-ego represents an increasing division or duality, our model clearly shows that stage II (Q2/Q4) is not, archetypally speaking, a predominantly separative dynamic, not an increasing dualism. Rather, the telos of this stage is that of integration. By 'integration' is meant, not the dominance of the synthesizing and collectivizing Night force replacing the differentiating Day force, but a moving together into a new balance of the Day and Night forces within and across the quadrants—part and whole, individual and collective. The ebbing Day force through the second quadrant corresponding to the ebbing Night force through the fourth quadrant constitutes a different dialectic to that of stage I as has been articulated in previous chapters. The optimal overarching archetypal movement is toward a new balance; a symmetric interweaving of the Day and the Night forces.
But as we have already seen, at this patriarchal/modernist level there manifests an emergent and waxing Day force through the fourth quadrant, yet still some repression of the emergent Night force through the second quadrant. The waxing Day force through the fourth quadrant denotes an intellectually rich breaking down of the monolithic authoritative inclusiveness of the maximized Night force, a freedom of thought and exploration, a diversification of social power and viewpoints, a new collective diversity in that the scientific community now thrived along with and in tension with the religious community. Nevertheless, this process was not concurrent with an equal freeing of the capacity for individual expressivity or an equal valuing of the feminine principle and of women in particular (i.e. the waxing Night force through the second quadrant). To allow the emergence of the Night force into the second quadrant's individualized structures would mean opening to the dimensions of inner experience, depth and connectedness which does not happen in the modern period prior to the 20th century except in the more mature forms of Romanticism and early feminism.
But the freely expressive individualism of the fifth principle and the liberal, secular, democratic humanism of the eleventh principle optimally represent an essentially friendly interconnection and mutual interpenetration of the second and fourth quadrants. This relative concordance of the fifth and eleventh principles is a human creation of reason and mental culture; yet it is an 'integration' at a big price, the marginalization of the transcendent, the divine and soul which would emerge again through Romanticism. But unfortunately, the movement toward such a relative harmony is built on divided and repressive ground. Even the achievement of such an integration will not reconcile the fundamental dualism upon which this egoic and mental/cultural structure is based. However, with the advent of the modernist Newtonian mechanistic universe and the Deist God (the affirmation of a universalist natural religion prior to the social constructions of institutional religion) there was for a moment, an optimistic illusion of ideal integration informed by the archetypal movement of the Day and Night forces 'back' toward a higher level equilibrium, namely, the Enlightenment faith in Reason. As this happened, the classical spirit of transcendent synthesis (9th principle—Plato) was refuted in the name of a reborn individualist, empiricist, immanent, and particular-based epistemology (2nd & 3rd principles). This fifth/eleventh process happened gradually for it is not until the eighteenth century that the break with the classical ninth principle perspective is decisive (the Night force is still strong at the beginning of the eleventh phase). Even in the seventeenth century the rationalist belief in innate ideas and the purely metaphysical quest to arrive at an understanding of the cosmos by deductive reason based on the certainty of mathematics (Descartes, Malebranch, Spinoza, Leibniz) betrayed its continued connection with the ancient ninth principle perspective. It was in the eighteenth century that doctrine of innate ideas and purely deductive metaphysics was rejected in favour of a more radical empiricism where deductive reason was replaced with observation and analysis (Locke, Berkeley, Hume). As Cassirer (1951) describes:
[T]he facts cannot simply be coerced into a system; such form must arise from the facts themeselves. The principles, which are to be sought everywhere, and without which no sound knowledge is possible in any field, are not arbitrarily chosen points of departure in thinking, applied by force to conrete experience which is so altered as to suit them; they are rather the general conditions to which a complete analysis of the given facts themselves must lead. The path of thought...leads from the particular to the general; but not even this progression would be possible unless every particular as such were already subordinated to a universal rule...The concept of the "principle" in itself excludes that absolute character which it asserted in the great metaphysical systems of the seventeenth century...it now pretends only to mark a provisional farthest point at which the progress of thought has arrived. (p21,22)
Shaped by the projections of a now dominant second and third principle consciousness,
the ninth synthesizing principle was transmuted into a system of universal mathematical 'laws' expressing the order of an immanent and material universe, Since this human-created order rested upon a foundational dualism which it could never reconcile, the implicit dualisms of the modernist perspective would propel development toward the multidimensional uncertainty of our contemporary situation.
Through Stage II, the concrete individualizing principle of the first quadrant would gradually gain in force as the original scientific pole of the Greek mind would now take form as the rational/empirical atomistic Baconian/Cartesian world view. Through Stage II (the Q2/Q4 dialectic), the primary second and third principles have integrated to form the foundational rational-empiricism of modern science harking back to its origin in the Greek naturalistic tradition of Thales et al. Whereas the distinction between Aristotelian empiricism and Platonic rationalism may be modeled in the Greek context by the polar tension between the first and third quadrants (2nd/3rd and 8th/9th), the empiricist/rationalist dichotomy embodied in Bacon and Descartes is decisively second and third principle. It is with the advent of the Reformation and scientific modernism—Copernicus, Descartes, Newton—that we see a revival and further development of the first quadrant heroic individualizing force grounded in the logical/empirical and concrete world of the second and third principles. Here is the source of power which accompanies the male separative agency of the first quadrant which receives its ultimate articulation in the androcentric aggression and misogyny of Bacon which as Evelyn Fox Keller describes, shaped the objectifying and distinctly male character of modern science. Whereas, in the Symposium Plato tied knowledge to eros and love—third quadrant connectedness—"Bacon envisions science, not as a sublime love affair with the 'essential nature of things,' but as 'a chaste and lawful marriage between Mind and Nature'“ (3rd & 2nd principles) (p31)—"a conjunction that remains forever disjunctive." (p95) The nature and direction of modern science has become, according to Keller, shaped by such a "static autonomy" and " static objectivity" rather than by a "dynamic objectivity" and "dynamic autonomy". Dynamic objectivity, "premised on continuity...recognizes difference between self and other as an opportunity for a deeper and more articulated kinship" (p117). "Dynamic autonomy reflects a sense of self...as both differentiated from and related to others." (p99) "Autonomy too rigidly and too statically conceived precludes the creative ambiguity without which neither love nor play, nor even certain kinds of knowledge, can survive." (p98) But such a dynamic autonomy and objectivity freed of entrenched gender distinctions (drawing on the third rather than on the first quadrant) that would come to reshape the paradigmatic structure of the scientific enterprise specifically, would have to await stage 6/12.
The reconciliation of Earth and Heaven, the terrestrial and celestial spheres, was gained by modern science at the expense of 'soul' and its concomitant functions—imagination, intuition, feeling, relationship, faith. The purely naturalistic and even mechanistic world was an epistemological creation of the rational mind associated as it is with the first quadrant male individualizing heroic principle to be fulfilled in the fifth principle. The universal soul (anima mundi) which had been projected onto the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic celestial sphere at the concrete/mythic level had to be retracted when the nature of the heavens, rather than being quintessent as in Aristotle's vision, turned out to be of the same substance as the terrestrial sphere—a discovery that the stars were now suns scattered through infinite space (the agony of Pascal) and our heretofore special earth was just one material planet among endless material worlds. The Divine nature of the tenth principle was refuted and its Capricornian earthy, political, mechanistic and scientific nature was exclusively established.
The Creator gone, or severely marginalized, 'man' stood as the crown of creation, the privileged discoverer (5th principle) of the universe within an increasingly reason-dominant, diverse and secular societal structure in a rationally ordered cosmos (11th principle). In fully Aquarian fashion, our future evolution was now entirely up to us—at first an exciting thought, for our creaturely Darwinian origins had not yet dawned upon us. This early sense of such a reconciliation—the confidence of the Enlightenment in the capacity of science and reason to disclose truth and follow the 'guiding thread ' in a continuing ethical and social progress—was of course temporary and was challenged by later developments: postKantian idealists, the Romantics, the Darwinists, the existentialists, the postmodernists and the failures of socialist economics and an endless series of social and environmental disasters attesting to the social and moral ineffectuality and shadow of science and reason. Approaching the sixth principle, a new notion of the human being as 'creator'—epistemically, not ontologically speaking—emerged through the Kantian concept, namely, the notion that the nature of the world as disclosed to science and ordinary experience is a construction of the human perceptual apparatus beyond which the world as it is 'in itself' lies forever unknown. Of course, in terms of such a constructivism we remain locked within our own epistemological subjectivity before an unknowable 'noumenal' world (a veiled and forever ungraspable domain symbolized, but not denoted by the 12th principle). The archetypal dialectic of Stage II, through both its completions and its deeply unsatisfied hungers, will ultimately propel development into the transpersonal levels.
The decisive disenchantment of the world, the maximum suppression of the feminine by the masculine, did not occur until the fifth/eleventh stage, the era of modern science and Cartesian radical logocentrism (it is significant that the 5th/11th axis is in challenging square to the mythic/magical 2nd/8th axis). Yet while expunging the world soul, the later Aquarian eleventh principle, specifically through its emancipatory spirit, would give rise to the liberation of the underclasses and of women. But the second quadrant interiorization and personalization of 'soul' was in large part obscured by the overwhelming force of first quadrant heroics because of science's refutation of scriptural cosmology and the closely allied successes of technology's dominance over the natural world. Such an obscuring would result in an inflated fifth principle egoic self, ripe for a new fall. Consequently, rather than laying the foundations for a genuine connectivity through a more balanced and gradual incorporation of the Night force into the egoic structures (this would become possible only later on through depth psychology and feminism), there has been a continued repression of the Night force through the second quadrant from Bacon and Descartes onward. 2
Fueled by the heroic force of first quadrant selfhood, an inflated fifth principle manifests on the psychological level as persona rather than as a more authentic self expression and on the collective level as an inordinate mythologizing veneration of the Olympian individual. An aggressive first quadrant Day force historically manifested as the absolute dominance of the scientific view through the modernist era. A lesser and more limited dialectic would now play itself out, namely, the dialectic of rationalism and empiricism—an intrafamilial argument as to whether reason or experience is epistemologically primary. Coupled with the objectifying and instrumentalized thinking of the detached agent, there is a lack of depth which grows out of a radical reflexivity which Taylor (1989) refers to as the 'punctual self', a development attributed chiefly to Locke following on Descartes.
Disengagement involves our going outside the first-person stance and taking on board some theory, or at least some supposition, about how things work...Once we disengage and no longer live in our experience, then some supposition has to be invoked to take up the interpretive slack...For Descartes and his empiricist successors, the suppositions are (naturally) mechanistic....Radical reflexivity is essential to this stance, because we have to focus on first-person experience in order to transpose it. The point of the whole operation is to gain a kind of control....To wrest control from "our appetites and preceptors," we have to practise a kind of radical reflexivity. We fix experience in order to deprive it of its power, a source of bewitchment and error. (p.163)
Locke takes such a disengagement to the extreme with his 'atomism of the mind' (Taylor. p.166). The self becomes little more than a point of observation of the objective world and almost disappears altogether in later materialist and behaviourist doctrines: "The agent, thin as needle, appears in the quick flash of the choosing will." (Murdoch, p.343.) As Taylor aptly sums up the inherent contradiction within this situation:
Here we see the origin of one of the great paradoxes of modern philosophy. The philosophy of disengagement and objectification has helped to create a picture of the human being, at its most extreme in certain forms of materialism, from which the last vestiges of subjectivity seem to have been expelled. It is a picture of the human being from a completely third person perspective. The paradox is that this severe outlook is connected with, indeed based on, according a central place to the first-person stance. (my italics) Radical objectivity is only intelligible and accessible through radical subjectivity. (p.176)
Self knowledge for self control is a particularly instrumental mode of thinking ultimately leading to a narrowly hedonic and utilitarian ethic. But within the subjective and individualist paradigm traceable back to the 'Augustinian inward turn', there is an approach to subjective experience—a deeper manifestation of second quadrant selfhood—which is entirely different from that of Cartesian disengagement. "Rather than objectifying our own nature and hence classing it as irrelevant to our identity, it consists in exploring what we are in order to establish this identity." (p.178) Taylor chooses Montaigne as the representative figure who originally looked within from the traditional motive of "recovering contact with the permanent, stable, unchanging core of being in each of us," but found instead, "a terrifying inner instability." (p.178) "Montaigne strives to come to a certain equilibrium even within the ever-changing by identifying and coming to terms with the patterns which represent his own particular way of living in flux." (p.179) This implies coming to know and accept one's personal limits and giving up universal, presumptuous and superhuman aspirations.
We seek self-knowledge, but this can no longer mean impersonal lore about human nature, as it could for Plato. Each of us has to discover his or her own form. We are not looking for the universal nature; we each look for our own being. Montaigne therefore inaugurates a new kind of reflection which is intensely individual, a self-explanation, the aim of which is to reach self knowledge by coming to see through the screens of self-delusion which passion or spiritual pride have erected. It is entirely a first-person study, receiving little help from the deliverances of third-person observation, and none from "science". The contrast with Descartes is striking, just because Montaigne is at the point of origin of another kind of modern individualism, that of self discovery, which differs from the Cartesian both in aim and method. Its aim is to identify the individual in his or her unrepeatable difference, where Cartesianism gives us a science of the subject in its general essence...What it ends up with is an understanding of my own demands, aspirations, desires, in their originality, however much these may lie athwart the expectations of society and my immediate inclinations. (pp.181,182)
Encountering the grand Newtonian 'interlocking order' of the Enlightenment, the emotionally dissociated Cartesian rational individual or the Lockean 'punctual self' is thus aimed toward the objective world and what is universally true—the world of the eleventh principle (middle period). But it is the Montaignian and later Romantic stand from the richly individual fifth which expresses a truly higher development of the second quadrant individual.
Enlightenment Rationalism versus Romanticism
Comprising the broadly modernist counterpoint to the prevailing fourth/tenth monolithic order, we discern a powerful dialectic of two central mentalities, two fundamental modes of engaging the world—the rational/scientific and the romantic/idealist. On the one hand, the rational Enlightenment perspective places supreme value and ontological primacy on objectivity, scientific consensus, and universal laws which explain or subsume individual differences and stand above individual experiences while at the same time affirming the moral responsibility of the autonomous individual and upholding the political freedom of the individual against the state. On the other hand, Romanticism values the individual's unique experience in all its complexity, ambiguity and open-endedness over objective consensus, and rationally derived conclusions, principles and laws. Where the former values reason, objectivity, freedom from passion, and a disengaged perspective, always weighing the truth value of experience against the objectively arrived-at consensus, the latter places supreme value on the free explorations of the depths and breadths of inner experience and a deeply and immediately felt interactive connectedness to nature and to others. After stressing the foundational commonalities of both perspectives—a shared humanism, nature seen as the setting of the human drama, both inspired by classical sources, both uncovering the nature of human consciousness, and both Promethean in their quest for human freedom and in their rebellion against oppressive traditional structures—Richard Tarnas (1991) gives an eloquent and incisive account of their contrasting and defining characteristics:
[T]he Romantic vision perceived the world as a unitary organism rather than an atomistic machine, exalted the ineffability of inspiration rather than the enlightenment of reason, and affirmed the inexhaustible drama of human life rather than the calm predictability of static abstractions. Whereas the Enlightenment temperament's high valuation of man rested on his unequaled rational intellect and its power to comprehend and exploit the laws of nature, the Romantic valued man rather for his imaginative and spiritual aspirations, his emotional depths, his artistic creativity and powers of individual self-expression and self-creation....Whereas for the Enlightenment-scientific mind, nature was an object for observation and experiment, theoretical explanation and technological manipulation, for the Romantic, by contrast, nature was a live vessel of spirit, a translucent source of mystery and revelation....While the scientist sought truth that was testable and concretely effective, the Romantic sought truth that was inwardly transfiguring and sublime. (pp. 366,367)
As second quadrant individual expressivity (centered in 5th principle Leo), Romanticism actually presupposes the original dualistic split that brought forth the distinct inward space of the mental-ego. The Romantic mind is painfully aware of this dualistic split—the Fall—and in its earliest idealization of nature as source is nostalgic for the original connection to nature but does not clearly recognize the necessity of the N/M duality as the basis for an opening up of the interior depths, an opening without which the highest art and deepest relational intimacy would not have been possible. Challenging the dominant current of thought, the Romantic spirit arose as a protest against the dehumanizing of the individual by a narrow obsession with analytical reason. Mourning the disenchantment of the once living and unified cosmos, the severance of the organic unity of self and world which the ancients had known, the Romantics saw humankind's highest value and fulfillment in the holistic expression of the living current arising from the 'source of all things,' calling on feeling, inspiration, intuition and imagination. In this way, humans would once more establish a communion with nature, rather than disenchanting nature through self-interested reason—dissecting, abstracting and objectifying. But the ever developing cultural stream we call Romanticism cannot be reduced simply to an idealizing nostalgia, a desire to reunite with nature flying in the face of the Enlightenment's gains in freedom and autonomy. In contrast with more naively optimistic forms of Romanticism, a 'spiral' view of history arose with the Romantics, Schiller, Schelling and Holderlin, a view which recognized an inevitable loss of original seamless communion with nature accompanying the rise of self-reflexive reason, a necessary separation allowing and leading to a reconciliation and unity at a higher level. Such a view is central to the transpersonal Jungian orientation and, in turn, to the model we are articulating here.
Romanticism arises from the press of the Night force emerging from the inner depths of the second quadrant self. Emerging from the unconscious of the individual is nature as 'the live vessel of spirit' in contrast to the objective and measurable nature of the scientific Enlightenment. Here are the two natures, or rather, the two ways that Nature appears when engaged alternately by the Enlightenment and Romantic ways of knowing—nature as encountered and constructed through the first and third quadrants, then 'taken up into' the fourth and second quadrants respectively through the gender reversal of polarities. The gradually emerging Night force through the second quadrant expresses itself through art and through creative and authentic living within a fourth quadrant social matrix, a largely secular humanistic socio-cultural framework that facilitates diverse individual expressions. This gradual emerging of the Night force through the second quadrant structures is expressed as inspiration and epiphany and also as a protest, a protest against the continued hegemony of the rational/empirical fourth quadrant (specifically, the 11th and the scientifically reconstituted 10th principles), a protest which arises within the soul of the second quadrant individual against this original act of repression of nature by reason, of body by mind, of female by male, of art by science.
Such a protest is grounded upon a strong individualistic defiance of collective tyranny, a defiance of the excessive rationalist collectivity of the patriarchal fourth quadrant. Rather than being a simple continuation of the first quadrant separative and masculine dominant heroic project, this protest arises from a second quadrant individual structure which is allowing the emergence of the feminine within its structures. In this sense, the fifth principle comes to embody the truly creative act of the rational/egoic individual who is actually engaged in bringing forth the experience of heart. The rationalist and objectivist consensus world of the fourth quadrant stands in relation to a second quadrant self which is largely a continuation of the essential mode of the first quadrant with its instrumental, conceptual, heroic, assertive, and separative stance toward the outside world (i.e. the sense in which, despite its gradual diminishment, the Day force continues to be dominant through the second quadrant). Historically, the Romantic way of engagement has come through the heroism of the predominantly male artist as the conduit for the emergence of the repressed feminine, for the masculine and the feminine could not be properly reunited until the feminine was first allowed to emerge from within the male. (As Leo/5th romance reaches toward Libra/7th partnership, the patriarchally-informed Romantic sought the embrace of the feminine.) Romanticism reaches its quintessential expression through the transformation of life into art—the essence of the fifth principle. As a manifestation of the emerging feminine, Romanticism has been the primary historical expression of a vibrant second quadrant.
Arthur O. Lovejoy identifies two contraries in the eighteenth century mind; the move toward increasing universalization beyond diverse particulars which he calls, uniformitarianism, and that of the Romantic impulse to celebrate the creative diversity of things he calls diversitarianism. We can recognize these principles as broadly corresponding, in terms of the Night and Day forces, to our second and first hemispheres respectively. But by the fifth/eleventh stage arises an admixture of these principles. In fact, the eleventh principle (including the Uranian) archetype informs two impulses: on the one hand, the rational universalizing urge to uncover the samenesses within a sea of fragmenting diversity and, on the other, the creative play of difference and uniqueness. To integrate these contraries is still our contemporary challenge where, through reason along with art and morality, we may come to realize a higher unity. The differentiating and even diremptive quality of the eleventh principle manifests as the Kantian duality (the phenomenon and the noumenon), as the interplay of critical reason and Romanticism, and as the political struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors, and as the logical interplay of universal and particular (incorporating the 3/9 duality) as applied to the moral and political sphere.
Standing in opposition to Enlightenment naturalism, both Romanticism and Idealism would continue to be marginalized from the dominant culture. Attempting to reconcile the fundamental dualities which plagued the modern mind, Schelling and Hegel looked back to a grand metaphysical idealist ninth principle perspective, "temporalizing the Great Chain of Being" in Lovejoy's terms, by incorporating the modernist evolutionary or progressive viewpoint of the eleventh principle. But in an attempt to integrate the grand opposites, Hegel would offer a somewhat different account from the Romantics in terms of a more linear, yet dialectical historical process of development. But, according to Taylor, the underlying motive of both Hegel and the Romantics was the "ambition of combining the fullest rational autonomy with the greatest expressive unity" (p.12); but unlike the Romantics, Hegel sought to do this through reason rather than by means of art, intuition and imagination. According to Taylor, Hegel saw that Romanticism with its intuitive way of 'knowing' nature would actually allow only a return to an original unity prior to the necessary separation from nature, rather than accomplishing a genuinely higher synthesis to which the spiral is being called to ascend. A dialectical and developmental logic pointed to a synthesis of the third and ninth principles conceived in an historically developmental overarching view anticipating later models such as that of Ken Wilber. In the cultural and theoretical domain, such an effort to re-establish a transcendent universalized ground was seen at the time by Kierkegaard—who embodied an individual and subjective viewpoint, romantic and existential rather than modernist—as another tyranny over the individual, a false identification of the rational and the existential ‘real’. In this, Kierkegaard was correct in that Hegel could not actually synthesize the second and fourth quadrants. In our terms, he did not and could not embrace the second quadrant's emerging Night force (that was left for the Romantics to begin to do) especially in light of his strong advocacy of the dangerous idea of the supremacy of the State over the individual (10th over 4th).
In proto-existential fashion, Kierkegaard held the individual to stand higher than the universal, thus affirming the primacy of the second quadrant over against the abstracting, objectifying, and universalizing fourth quadrant. In one sense, the horizontal tension between Hegel’s emphasis on the universal and Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the particular can be seen as historically presaging the more mature and nuanced understandings of the individual/collective relations in stage 6/12. But the ultimate ontological issues which concerned both Hegel, in terms of theory, and Kierkegaard, in terms of practice, refer more deeply to the vertical relationship of the immanent and the transcendent—the relationship of our stage-levels I & II and stage-levels III & IV. In this regard Kierkegaard has something to offer us in the way of our understanding the kind of individuality required to make the transition from Level II to Level III. Rather than attaining a neat and integrated rational understanding, the individual at the end of stage-level II, an individual constituted not solely by reason but by action, choice and commitment, encounters a radical uncertainty (see chapter 15), an uncertainty which is precisely that force which will propel the individual onto the Return arc:
The truth is precisely the venture which chooses an objective uncertainty with the passion of the infinite. I contemplate the order of nature in the hope of finding God, and I see omnipotence and wisdom; but I also see much else that disturbes my mind and excites anxiety. The sum of all this is an objective uncertainty. But it is for this very reason that the inwardness becomes as intense as it is, for it embraces this objective uncertainty with the entire passion of the infinite….Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual’s inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. (Kierkegaard 1941, 182)
Our stage-level II more or less corresponds to the ‘ethical’ stage of Kierkegaard’s three stages of development or “spheres of existence”: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. While the aesthetic stage is the ‘immediate’ life of the pleasure principle, of impulse and emotion, corresponding more or less to our level I, the ‘religious’ stage refers to the transcendent, the eternal—our level III. A dialectical tension expressing the paradoxical intersection of the finite and the infinite, “a synthesis of the temporal and the eternal” emerges into consciousness in the ethical stage, as a primal ‘anxiety’ or ‘dread’ compelling a ‘leap of faith’ into an ongoing and perpetually renewable relationship with the eternal Thou of divinity. Kierkegaard (1985) writes that at the ethical stage “it is the individual’s task to divest himself of the determinant of interiority and give it an expression in the exterior. Whenever the individual shrinks from doing so, whenever he wants to stay inside, or slip back into, the inner determinant of feeling, mood, etc., he commits an offence, he is in a state of temptation.” (p.97) Here expressed is the movement from 4/10 to 5/11 occurring through the superego’s identification with the fourth quadrant. But beyond this original fourth principle ‘interiority’, the tension between the ethical and the religious compels a “teleological suspension of the ethical” through which arises (what we may now call) a more authentic interiority—precisely the balanced emergence of the Night force through quadrant II. “The paradox of faith is this, that there is an interiority that is incommensurable with the exterior, an interiority which, it should be stressed, is not identical with the first [that of the child], but is a new interiority….the single individual determines his relation to the universal through his relation to the absolute, not his relation to the absolute [9/3 level III] through his relation to the universal” (i.e. as in Hegel). (pp. 97, 98). Here is that deeper interiority and post-conventional relative autonomy of the mature second quadrant individual, a larger interiority than fourth principle interiority per se .
We have seen that, although vast and integrative in the spirit of the third quadrant Night force, the Platonic and Neoplatonic synthesis could not reach across the division; could not adequately synthesize heaven and earth, but instead rose above the body, the individual self. Stage II is founded on this dualism. As said, beginning from a polar balance prior to conscious emergence, Stage I led to a profound bi-furcation which was precisely that which produced consciousness; that is, self consciousness which is true awareness. Unlike stage I, the stage II mental-ego begins with duality and is driven by the need to overcome that duality and achieve integration. But this supposed integration between the first and second hemispheres is gained at a cost, thus producing another more complex dualism.
The dialectic is no longer simply between the first and second hemispheres; it is not expressible as quadrant two versus quadrant four; rather, it is a dialectic between two ways of integrating quadrant two and quadrant four. It is a dualism between two fundamentally contrary ways of interpreting and establishing Q2/Q4 world views or paradigms. Neither is inferior to the other, neither more nor less correct than the other. Both are limited world views; both remain to be reconciled and transcended through a more adequate deep structure of consciousness yet to unfold. Both dimensions—Enlightenment rationalism and Romanticism—fall across Q2 and Q4 and are intertwined, but each places central value in one quadrant while rooted in the other. This particular fracture lies along rather than across the H1/H2 axis. And as with all either/or dualities on the 'Outward arc', one pole remains dominant; historically, the dominant mode has been the Enlightenment rational/empirical dimension, notwithstanding that much of the world—even industrial and postindustrial countries—remains entrenched in premodern, mythic and religious fundamentalist paradigms largely reactive to both scientific and Romantic streams. As it upholds the objective and consensus world of the fourth quadrant as the ultimately 'Real', the Enlightenment is rooted in the instrumentalized individual of the second quadrant and the atomistic particular (first hemispheric Day force). From the celebration of a free and individually expressive spirituality as the supreme value (5th principle), the Romantic is rooted in a quadrant four (11th principle) rebellion against organized religion and in an affirmation of individual freedom within an enlightened society.
As we approached the twentieth century, the mounting alienation was not between a rational/disengaged technology-embracing self and a purely material scientifically disclosed cosmos. Neither was it between a Romantic expressive artistic self and a secular, humanistic, emancipated and tolerant society. Both views, have at their best, offered some sort of integrative unity between the individual and the collective, the particular and the universal, the Day force and the Night force (Q4 and Q2). This is the higher level unity which Wilber has in mind when he protests against those who see the mental-ego as primarily separative and alienating. But Wilber's model fails to map this 'split along the seam'. The integrative unity they have both offered is inevitably partial. The primal level I separation upon which all consciousness is necessarily based cannot be put back together at this stage—not until the transpersonal level. Romanticism itself cannot access the dimension of the trans-egoic any more than can reason.
It is the agentic Scientific/Enlightenment's claim to ontological priority that has maintained these views as contraries. In the postmodern era, this claim as to the priority of reason and science is being profoundly challenged as we witness the historical movement from axis 5/11 to 6/12, a movement which has undermined the optimistic, progressive yet still hubristic elements in both orientations. When the so-called objective world is seen as a particular set of agreements, a consensus, rather than as an independent objective reality, and the creative expressions of the individual are seen as meaningful in terms of certain universal principles and social practices, then there may be a possibility of attaining a genuine reconciliation. When the subjective is no longer seen as merely subjective, and Romanticism ends its defensive reaction to rational/empiricism's dogmatic claim by putting subjectivity ontologically above objective consensus, then rather than presenting as logical contraries the two can express their complementary archetypal polarity. No longer are art, depth psychology, culture, values, the humanities and religion, the merely subjective, condemned to play second fiddle to science's 'genuinely' objective 'truth'.
During the middle modern period, the objectification of nature gave rise to the view of a grand interlocking order constructed by a deist God (who would eventually drop out of the picture as a non-essential hypothesis). Such a rational order was held as knowable by human reason; an instrumental reason employed by an independent subject engaging and controlling nature in the pursuit of its own interests. Such a view would eventually lead to the objectification of the self as well, as the scientific methods which had worked so well in the study of nature were turned toward the understanding and control of interiority. But it is not only Romanticism that would decry this objectification of human nature. In the later Enlightenment, developments within the rational-empirical tradition itself, would come to emphasize the freedom and autonomy of the self (notwithstanding Hume’s radical deconstruction of the self), a self which was not simply another object in nature. Receiving its quintessential expression in the philosophy of Kant, this view broke with the dominant utilitarian ethic which was grounded on hedonic self interest. The humanistic quest of the Enlightenment toward individual freedom and autonomy reached its apogee in the Kantian moral will. But the highest possibility of individual freedom and the moral will, namely self-determining autonomy (5th/6th), was possible for Kant only by operating completely independently of heteronomous factors from an absolute rationality attuned to the purely formal, universal and a priori 'categorical imperative'. Such a moral freedom implied a necessary separation from nature, a rising above natural and instinctual inclinations in response to a moral law that transcends the cause-effect systems of the natural order. The Enlightenment and Romantic streams began to merge around this issue of human freedom and subjectivity. The problem remained, though, as to how to unite the radical freedom which implied a separation from nature with the need for an expressive unity and communion with nature. The 'answer' would tend to lie in the two understandings of nature, or the two 'natures' which are encountered through human experience and which will be reconciled in the first levels of the transpersonal.
Historically, the dynamic and irreconcilable interplay of the Enlightenment and Romantic elements has led inevitably to the doubt and uncertainty of the contemporary period aptly symbolized by the sixth/twelfth (Virgo/Pisces) axis. Moving beyond the ego-based (5th, Leo) projection of the rationally ordered and universalist world of the Enlightenment (11th, Aquarius), the ground gradually began to give way revealing that the rational self was not the master. As interpreted psychologically, the sixth principle symbolizes self improvement through a therapeutic criticism of the particular qualities of the fifth principle ego. But as a symbol of the contemporary period, the sixth examines and criticizes the inadequacies and limitations of the single, proud, confident, cosmocentric ego itself, while the limitations and inadequacies of society—any society— and its cultural institutions and practices show up in the form of the twelfth principle. To a great extent, the approaches of depth psychology, hermeneutics, phenomenology, and existentialism have significantly challenged the assumption of the unity and irreducibility of the ego, giving rise to a richer, more multidimensional, in-depth view of the psyche (Jung, Hillman, Assagioli). Such a view challenges the modernist form of the fifth/eleventh axis; namely, the proud self/world cosmology of the Enlightenment where an integrated, rational, and heroic ego (5th) engages a rational, scientific, and progressive social order (11th).
But the first steps which challenged the supremacy and primacy of the rational self as master took place through the nineteenth century. The sources of the rational self were gradually found to arise from unknown, hidden and nonrational depths; the world as an irrational and unconscious universal Will (Schopenhauer); natural evolution and the survival instinct (Darwin); the will to power and heroic self-transcendence (Nietzsche); sexuality and the phylogenetic unconscious (Freud); the collective and archetypal unconscious (Jung)—all gradually shifted the prevailing Weltanschauung of the age from the rational Aquarian eleventh to the indeterminate and ultimately unknowable Piscean twelfth principle.
Charles Taylor identifies both Schopenhauer and Baudelaire as centrally embodying a significant nineteenth century negative reaction to the optimistic naivete and emotional expressivism of the Romantic movement (but one might add, not only a reaction to romantic optimism but also to the optimism of the Enlightenment as in Leibniz’s ‘best of all possible worlds’.) Contrary to Romanticism's idealization of nature, for Schopenhauer the universal "source from which all reality flows as expression is poisoned. It is not the source of the good, but of insatiable desire, of an imprisonment in evil, which makes us miserable, exhausts us, and degrades us." (Taylor, p.442) While not in ultimate metaphysical agreement, yet sharing the concept of a foundational and universal unconscious from which the rational and conscious individual lately emerges, no less a profound thinker than Carl Jung (1965), from his perspective within the darkening twentieth century, spoke less critically of Schopenhauer as having "the courage to see that all was not for the best in the fundaments of the universe"; to be the first "to speak of the suffering of the world, which visibly and glaringly surrounds us, and of confusion, passion, evil—all those things which...others hardly seemed to notice and always tried to resolve into all-embracing harmony and comprehensibility." (p.69)
As a post-Kantian transition figure—the earliest to step upon the eleventh/twelfth principle threshold—Schopenhauer, in his undermining of eleventh principle structures, advocated in true twelfth principle Piscean fashion that the inevitable suffering of life could be overcome only by a willing and radical surrender of the self, of the will to life. Within the same evolving 'romantic' line and in reaction to such a willing leap into the twelfth principle abyss, the harbinger of postmodernism and iconoclast Nietzsche affirms a counter view. The Nietschean protest marks the last heroic stand of fifth principle Leonine will in defiance of a looming twelfth principle nihilism that seems, from the radically individualistic perspective of the fifth, to inevitably follow the loss of the tenth and eleventh principle collective ground. It was Nietzsche who, as God lay dying, was the voice of the terrifying transition from 5/11 to 6/12; Nietzsche, the sacrificial canary, his life-line tightly bound to the individualistic sphere—the autonomous, proud and stubborn Leonine fifth.
The eleventh principle cultural maturation through the nineteenth century is marked by an ever keener sense of the historical nature of human consciousness that gives rise to the concept of evolution from its idealist forms in the philosophy of Hegel to ever more concrete and material forms in Marx and Darwin. Along with the whole explosion of industrial technology, capitalism, and Western colonialism, liberal humanism begins to lose ground to utilitarian and concrete interests. At the same time, rooted in the dialectic of eighteenth century reason and Romanticism, the transcendentalist stream continues in various forms, a complex process symbolized partly by the interplay of the utilitarian sixth and the transcendentalist twelfth principles, yet at the same time still rooted in the more mentally idealistic, visionary, communitarian and utopian sentiments of the Aquarian eleventh principle. But it was, in a diversity of ways, the increasing emphasis upon the nature of subjectivity and its relation to the world—as Romantic expressivism, as the concept of human freedom and rational moral autonomy, as developments in depth psychology—which would become the central thread binding the modern and postmodern eras.
1. Perspective in art actually reaches back to Giotto, Brunelleschi and others but according to Gebser "It is only after Leonardo that the unperspectival world finally passes out of its dream-like state, and the perspectival world definitely enters awareness." (p.20).
2. Examples of such repressions are the witch burnings (see Malleus Malificarum), misogynistic statements of Bacon, vivisection, racism, slavery and continued class oppression.